LOSS AVOIDANCE ASSESSMENT HURRICANE IRMA (DR-4337)
FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 255 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Rick Scott | Governor of the State of Florida Wes Maul | Director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management Miles Anderson | State Hazard Mitigation Officer
TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...... 1 Definitions ...... 1 Introduction ...... 4 An Introduction to Hazard Mitigation ...... 4 Florida’s Hazard Mitigation Process ...... 5 Hazard Mitigation ...... 6 Process Cycle ...... 6 Evaluating Hazard Mitigation ...... 6 Management of Public Mitigation Funds ...... 6 Methodology Overview ...... 8 Event Details ...... 11 Detailed Results ...... 15 Results by Project Type ...... 16 Case Study ‐ Monroe County Wind Mitigation ...... 18 Results By County ...... 19 Integrated Results - Cumulative ROI ...... 21 Economic Impact Analysis ...... 22 Lessons Learned ...... 24 Conclusions ...... 25
FIGURES Figure 1. Damages from Hurricane Irma in coastal Northwest Florida...... 4 Figure 2. Strong winds strike Miami, Florida during the storm...... 4 Figure 3. Mitigation and enhanced building codes at work evidenced by destruction in the Florida Keys. t...... 5 Figure 4. The Hazard Mitigation Process Cycle...... 6 Figure 5. Example of successful flood mitigation strategy at work in the State of Florida...... 9 Figure 6. Track of DR-4337 Hurricane Irma...... 11 Figure 7. Flooding caused by Hurricane Irma in Jacksonville, Florida...... 11 Figure 8. Flooding caused by Hurricane Irma in Jacksonville, Florida...... 12 Figure 9. Results Summary by Project Type ...... 15 Figure 10. Mitigation Project Breakdown by Type - Projects with Results ...... 16
Figure 11. Average Losses Avoided by Building Modification Project Type ...... 17 Figure 12. Aerial view of Stock Island Detention Center Facility ...... 18 Figure 13. Total Losses Avoided by County, 2018 ...... 19 Figure 14. Cumulative Losses Avoided and Cumulative Average ROI for all analyzed events (2012-2017) ...... 21 Figure 15. Economic Benefits of Mitigation Project Implementation (2016 Dollars) ...... 2 2
TABLES Table 1. Event Data and Data Sources Utilized in LAA ...... 8 Table 2. Summary of Findings for Previous Loss Avoidance Assessments in Florida (2012-2017) ...... 10 Table 4 – Results by Project Type ...... 16 Table 3. Analysis Results by County ...... 20 Table 5. Projects Analyzed in IMPLAN by Project Type ...... 23 Table 6. Top Ten Performing Industries ...... 23
MAPS Declared Counties and Area of Impact DR-4337 Cumulative Observed Precipitation Flood and Tide Gauge Sensor Locations Flood Mitigation Project Locations DR-4337 Wind Swath Wind Retrofit Project Locations
APPENDICES Appendix A – Loss Avoidance Methodology Appendix B – Event Data Appendix C – Results by County, Project Maps and Project Performance Call Sheets Appendix D – County Reports
Figure 1. Mitigation Reconstruction successfully weathered Hurricane Irma. The mitigated structure was protected from heavy flooding experienced in Volusia County. Photo Credit: Larry Lahue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As a disaster-prone state, Florida understands the importance in building resilience to natural disasters through mitigation activities. The Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) wishes to better understand the fiscal impacts of mitigation projects. Accordingly, FDEM conducts a Loss Avoidance Assessment (LAA) after each Presidential Disaster Declaration. A LAA evaluates the effectiveness of completed mitigation projects in terms of damages avoided and economic performance. The results, in the form of a return on investment (ROI), communicate the value of mitigation projects and inform future allocation of resources for the highest and best use. Such analyses are critical to substantiate the value of mitigation and assure prudent use of public resources.
FDEM evaluated 113 mitigation projects completed as of 2017 within the counties declared under the Presidential Disaster Declaration for Hurricane Irma (DR-4337). These projects were publicly funded through state and federal hazard mitigation grants, ranging from neighborhood-scale drainage improvements to installation of hurricane shutters to protect a community fire station.
This assessment evaluated the performance of 94 flood mitigation and 19 wind mitigation projects during Hurricane Irma, utilizing event data collected during the event period. The assessment reports losses avoided, or dollars saved as a result of mitigation, and calculates a ROI by comparing project costs to the losses prevented over time. It is important to note that Hurricane Irma may have impacted mitigation projects outside of the study areas, which FDEM may assess in future events. Thus, savings likely exceed those reported in this study.
Hurricane Irma impacted 73 of the 113 projects, with a combined capital cost of $72,268,403 in 2017 dollars. Without mitigation, damages to the project sites affected by Hurricane Irma would have cost approximately $122,967,537. From this event alone, 170 percent of the investment in these mitigation projects was returned in the form of avoided damages. The aggregate ROI for Hurricane Irma the event is 224 percent with an average ROI over all projects of 178 percent.
Several of the projects analyzed in this LAA were impacted by previous Presidential Disaster Declarations and therefore analyzed in previous assessments. This analysis integrates previous results into the overall losses avoided to provide a cumulative ROI. The average cumulative ROI over the events analyzed by FDEM is 188 percent.
FDEM began conducting Loss Avoidance Assessments in 2012, since completing seven studies. This analysis demonstrates that, on average, Florida can expect an almost full ROI on mitigation projects within six years.
The Hurricane Irma LAA demonstrates the financial benefits of mitigation projects and supports sound decision making related to public funding. This assessment provides insight that FDEM and local communities can use to identify effective mitigation, improve mitigation strategies, and increase communities’ resilience to natural hazards.
DEFINITIONS
Area of Impact: Also known as the damage area, or of water from specified project areas. Examples damage swath, within which damage is expected to include: installation of new retention areas; have occurred as the result of a disaster event. The improvement or installation of culverts, drain pipes, area of impact is dependent upon the type of or pumping stations; or slope stabilization or hazard, and is defined differently for precipitation, grading to direct water away from properties. storm surge, riverine flooding, and wind. Please see Employment: All full-time equivalent jobs that are Appendix A for information on how the area of created or lost because of an economic activity. impact was determined for this analysis. Event: The incidence of a hazard that results in Building Modification Project: The term “building damaging impact to an area of the state. An event modification” has been adopted for all Loss does not always have to result in a Presidential Avoidance Assessment reports to avoid conflicting Disaster Declaration. For the purposes of this report, terms used by other state and federal agencies. For one event is assessed: Florida Hurricane Irma (DR- example, the terms, “non-structural” and “structural” 4337). are sometimes used to refer to the same projects, depending on the context. In this report, building Geographical Information Systems (GIS): A system modification refers to acquisition and demolition, designed to capture, store, manipulate, analyze, structure elevation, flood-proofing, mitigation manage, and present all types of spatial or reconstruction, and wind retrofit mitigation projects. geographic data.
Current Dollars: Also known as “nominal dollars;” Indirect Effects: The impact of local industries refers to dollars current to the year in which they buying goods and services from other local were spent. industries. For example, a mitigation reconstruction project requires the disposal of building materials Depth-Damage Function (DDF): The mathematical which involves the solid waste industry. The solid relationship between the depth of flood water above waste industry receives indirect effects because they or below the first floor of a building and the amount are not one of the specific economic sectors of damage that can be attributed to the water. DDFs analyzed herein. are also known as depth damage curves. Induced Effects: The response by an economy to a Direct Effect: a series of production changes or direct effect that occurs through re-spending of expenditures made by producers/consumers income. For example, construction workers paid to because of an activity or policy. These changes are implement a mitigation project spend their income a determined to be a result of a specific economic restaurant. The restaurant sector experiences activity or policy. For example, IMPLAN analyzes a induced effects. mitigation project’s contribution to the construction and engineering economic sectors during project Labor Income: The expected combined income of implementation. employment in each industry sector generated by project expenditures. Labor income includes all Drainage Project: Also referred to as “drainage forms of employment income including wages and improvement project;” any project that reduces benefits and proprietor income. minor localized flooding or improves the shedding
Losses Avoided: Those losses (total dollar value) Project: An individual subrecipient award under that would have occurred without the mitigation which a mitigation measure has been implemented. measure being implemented. Also known as losses A single project may have multiple project sites and that would have occurred under the “Mitigation locations. For example, one acquisition grant project Absent” scenario. may acquire multiple structures in different areas.
Losses Avoided for Building Modification Project Cost: The total investment in project Projects: For the purposes of this assessment, the implementation; includes both federal and non- total of building, content, inventory, displacement, federal share at project completion. The project cost insurance, and human impact costs that would have includes expected maintenance costs, when occurred had the mitigation measure not been available. implemented. Project Site: The location at which a mitigation Losses Avoided for Drainage/Special Projects: measure is implemented. For building modification Can be calculated in two ways: 1) based on losses projects that involve multiple structures, project sites that have been recorded and documented in the are analyzed individually for losses avoided because project file for similar event return intervals in the the same disaster event may have a different impact past, normalized to present dollar amounts; and 2) on different structures. the method used for this particular assessment, Real Dollars: Dollars normalized to present day involves a modeling effort and is described in the values. Real dollars are different from “current” or Loss Avoidance Methodology Appendix. “nominal” dollars, which refer to the value of dollars Losses Avoided for Wind Projects: Similar to current to the year in which they were spent. “Losses Avoided for Drainage/Special Projects,” can Relative Share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) be captured in two ways. The first is based on Method of Cost Normalization: The cost previous losses recorded and documented. The normalization method used for this report; an second method uses modeled outcomes based on appropriate method for normalizing dollars spent on information input into FEMA’s HAZUS Multi-Hazard public expenditures because it values public Loss Estimation software. The methodology used for investment based on the size of the economy at the this assessment can be found and described in the time of the investment. This method clarifies the Loss Avoidance Methodology Appendix. value of the project at the time of investment as a Net Present Value (NPV): The sum of losses share of the total amount of money available for avoided minus dollars spent in 2017 dollars investment in the country. It answers the question, “What was the public investment’s value?” with the Normalization: The process of converting dollar question, “How much of a share of GDP was spent amounts from different years into a value that can on the public investment?” be recognized and interpreted consistently. For this report, all dollar values have been normalized to Recurrence Interval: Also referred to as return 2017 dollars. periods, defined as the inverse of the probability that the particular intensity of an event will be exceeded Occupancy Type: The use of a structure. Occupancy in any one year. For the purposes of this report, types used for this report include Agricultural, analysis was based on both flood and wind events. Commercial, Educational, Government, Hospital, As an example, a 10-year event has a 10 percent Industrial, Religious, and Residential.
chance of its intensity being exceeded in any given Return on Investment (ROI): A factor of dollars year, and a 50-year event has a 2 percent chance of saved (losses avoided) due to mitigation measures being exceeded in any given year. over the life of the investment. Losses avoided are considered an ROI because they represent money Resilient: Resilience is the ability of individuals, that is saved, as opposed to spent, due to the communities, organizations, and states to adapt to, mitigation measure. or recover from hazards, shocks, or stresses. Wind Retrofit Project: Any project that reduces the Special Project: Any project that does not fall within level of vulnerability of an existing structure to the context of drainage, building modification, or damage from wind and wind-driven rain intrusion wind retrofit projects. These projects may be highly during a high-wind event. customized to the mitigation need and typically mitigate certain types of infrastructure. Examples Wind Swath: A composite of wind ranges that include armoring coastal roadways or culvert represent the extent of hurricane, tropical storm, and retrofits. strong winds.
INTRODUCTION An Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Hazard mitigation is any action, structural or nonstructural, taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risks to life and property from natural disasters. Hazard mitigation can take many forms including but not limited to: improving building codes, hardening infrastructure and buildings, acquiring and demolishing structures, conducting drainage improvements, performing outreach and education, conducting land use planning, and implementing legislation.
Natural disaster recovery is becoming increasingly
costly, driven by the increased frequency and magnitude of disasters, as well as by growing rates of urbanization. Communities can implement pre- disaster mitigation measures to prevent or reduce losses and expedite the recovery process. Mitigation measures can result in reduced direct property damage, reduced business interruption loss, fewer environmental impacts, reduced human losses, and lower costs of emergency response, among other benefits. Such impacts can help communities become more resilient to disasters, as physical damage can be Figure 2. Damages from Hurricane Irma in coastal Northwest less and social and economic networks can experience Florida. Photo Credit: The Orlando Sentinel less disruption.
Mitigation has a proven history of providing savings and benefits to communities around the United States. A study conducted by the Multihazard Mitigation Council found that mitigation measures result in significant potential savings to the federal treasury in terms of avoided post-disaster relief costs and future increased federal tax revenues1. The report estimated that for every $1 spent on mitigation through federal mitigation grants, roughly $6 of benefits are experienced. This number was even greater for flood mitigation projects – with benefit- cost ratio of $7 to $1. Additionally, for every $1 Figure 3. Strong winds strike Miami, Florida during the storm. spent exceeding code requirements through Photo Credit: FDEM Bureau of Mitigation mitigation projects, $4 are saved. Loss Avoidance
1 Multihazard Mitigation Council (2017) Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves 2017 Interim Report: An Independent Study – Summary of Findings. Principal Investigator Porter, K.; co-Principal Investigators Scawthorn, C.; Dash, N.; Santos, J.; P. Schneider, Director, MMC. National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington.
Assessments completed by the State of Florida to date corroborate a high return on investment for mitigation projects, considering primarily the damages avoided.
In addition to reducing long-term risk, a 2012 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) study shows that implementation of mitigation measures can also provide the following benefits:
Increased property values from reducing a structure's vulnerability and, hence, insurance premiums; Reduced repair costs for damaged buildings and contents; Reduced loss of service from critical facilities such as police stations, fire stations, and other similar structures and services; Reduction in loss of economic activity across the broader community; Reduction in future loss of life as well as nonfatal injuries resulting from disaster events; Reduction in shelter costs for displaced households; and Added social benefits such as confidence for the future and ease of mind pending a disaster event.
These benefits are additionally illustrated in real world success stories of damages avoided through preparation and mitigation. In one case, after nearly 400 homes in various Broward County neighborhoods experienced flood damage in 2012, a 2015 project invested $5.4 million into drainage improvements for these communities. When Hurricane Irma struck in 2017, none of the homes in these communities experienced flood damage. Similarly, a 2009 storm saturated the west wing of the Daytona Figure 4. Mitigation and enhanced building codes at work evidenced by Beach Museum of Arts; but after being destruction in the Florida Keys. Photo Credit: The Blue Paper, Key West. elevated, was undisturbed by both Hurricanes Matthew and Irma.
Florida’s Hazard Mitigation Process The State of Florida is particularly susceptible to natural hazards, with eight of the ten costliest hurricanes in the United States impacting the state.2 To address this vulnerability, Florida has developed a robust and locally-driven process for planning and implementing mitigation initiatives. The mitigation process is codified in State Statute through the Local Mitigation Strategy planning process, a collaboratively developed hazard mitigation plan which is developed, maintained and implemented by each county in the State.
2 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Hurricane Center (2017).
The hazard mitigation process is a cycle (Figure 1), guided Figure 5. The Hazard Mitigation Process Cycle by locally-driven priorities, technical assistance, and funding available through state and federal resources. The cycle begins with the development of a vulnerability assessment to identify potential disaster risks, vulnerable areas, and local priorities. The assessment then guides the development of mitigation measures to reduce risk, which is identified collaboratively by a local working group, composed of public entity representatives within a county. Hazard Mitigation These mitigation measures are implemented, by policy or project, at the local level. As with any cycle, the Process Cycle effectiveness of these measures is evaluated to refine strategies and ensure sound and sustainable investments.
Evaluating Hazard Mitigation Loss Loss Avoidance Assessments (LAAs) are a primary tool Avoidance utilized in the evaluation phase of the hazard mitigation Assessment process. An LAA demonstrates the effectiveness of mitigation measures by showcasing the benefits of completed mitigation projects, quantifying losses avoided through these projects, and producing a return on investment. Accordingly, these evaluations can inform future decision making on issues of hazard mitigation planning, public resource allocation for mitigation, and quantifiable best practices for risk mitigation and loss reduction.
LAA studies the performance of completed mitigation projects during declared disaster events by comparing loss scenarios both with and without implementing mitigation measures. The cost effectiveness of each project is then quantified as a Return on Investment (ROI), representing the ratio of money saved to money invested in each mitigation project. Similar to a Benefit-Cost Ratio, an ROI of 1.0 or 100 percent depicts the full initial investment in a mitigation project being returned in the form of avoided damages. This report evaluates the performance of mitigation projects within Hurricane Irma’s area of impact. Losses avoided during Hurricane Irma are integrated with the results of previous loss avoidance assessments to demonstrate the cumulative ROI for the lifespan of these projects.
Management of Public Mitigation Funds The Florida Division of Emergency Management’s Bureau of Mitigation (Bureau) is the agency tasked by the Florida Legislature to manage and implement hazard mitigation in the State of Florida. The Bureau’s responsibilities range from management of state hazard mitigation planning and coordination of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), to administration of state and federal mitigation grants programs.
The challenges associated implementing mitigation measures are MITIGATION FUNDING SOURCES multidisciplinary and cross-cutting. As such, the Bureau is structured to Mitigation projects included in this manage compliance and provide technical assistance throughout the life assessment include projects funded cycle of a mitigation project. The Bureau works directly with local with state and federal resources. As jurisdictions throughout the state to educate, provide technical assistance, these programs have evolved overtime and manage projects throughout the grant cycle of grant programs such as some are no longer active or have been the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. combined with other sources. The Organizational Structure primary agencies funding these projects are FEMA and FDEM at the federal and The Bureau, led by the State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO), is organized state level, respectively. Funding sources to fulfill all responsibilities related to delivering public mitigation dollars. The include: Bureau is composed of the following units . Hazard Mitigation Grant Technical Unit- Provides support for technical, engineering, and Program (HMGP) environmental program and project requirements, including benefit- cost analysis, environmental and historic preservation reviews, final . Pre‐Disaster Mitigation inspections and engineering reviews for technical feasibility. program (PDM) Planning Unit- Reviews and assists local governments in developing, updating, adopting and implementing Local Mitigation Strategies to . Flood Mitigation Assistance fulfill state and federal mitigation planning requirements. program (FMA) Project Management Unit- Manages publicly funded mitigation . Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC)* contracts and awards through closeout. This unit works with subgrantees throughout the life of their projects, providing technical . Severe Repetitive Loss program assistance and training where necessary. (SRL)* Floodplain Management Unit- Assists local communities to implement . Residential Construction NFIP regulations and educates floodplain managers. The State Mitigation Program (RCMP) Floodplain Management Office (SFMO) staff work with communities to and ensure compliance with floodplain requirements. Fiscal Unit- Manages all financial aspects of the Bureau, including . Hurricane Loss Mitigation requests for reimbursement, project closeout, and financial reporting. Program (HLMP) This unit is also responsible for the Bureau’s quality control activities. *Program is no longer active. Contract Support Staff- Supports all aspects of Bureau Operations on an as needed basis.
WHY ARE LOSS AVOIDANCE ASSESSMENTS IMPORTANT? The Bureau is committed to performing a LAA after every Presidentially Declared Disaster. Completion of these assessments is not only required to maintain the FEMA-approved Enhanced State Hazard Mitigation Plan, but it allows Florida to receive additional 20 percent in funding through the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). LAA results are used to identify and communicate mitigation opportunities and challenges throughout the State to local, state and federal stakeholders. With substantial investments being made in mitigation, it is crucial for the State to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of mitigation measures for continued support and funding.
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
In accordance with 44 CFR 201.5(b)(2)(iv), the State of Florida developed a methodology to assess the effectiveness of each completed mitigation project within the State of Florida. FDEM has been using Florida’s Loss Avoidance System and Strategy since 2012, completing seven studies to date. The analysis process for this Study is organized into four broad categories, as summarized below. Refer to the Appendix A - Loss Avoidance Methodology for greater detail.
1. PROJECT AND EVENT DATA COLLECTION – Project analysts collect project data needed to conduct a LAA throughout the mitigation grant life-cycle. Analysts obtain files for completed mitigation projects from FDEM and review them to extract appropriate information. The specific projects that are examined herein for Hurricane Irma are wind retrofit, drainage improvement, structure elevation, structure mitigation reconstruction, and demolition/acquisition projects. Table 1. Event Data and Data Sources Utilized in LAA DATA SOURCE DATA Hurricane Irma event data are then collected and used to Observed National Oceanic and Precipitation identify the DR-4337 area of impact. These hazard data Atmospheric
may include event precipitation, wind swath, high water Organization/National Weather Wind marks, gage height, tide sensors, and event photographs. Service (NOAA NWS) Contours
Federal Emergency Management Flood Depth 2. DATA REVIEW - Analysts review project data to Agency (FEMA) Grids ensure accuracy of project file information. Project High Water Marks location, structure information, and elevation are the Storm Tide most critical pieces of information for loss avoidance United States Geological Survey Sensor Data (USGS) assessments. River Gage Height Florida Division of Emergency 3. DATA PROCESSING AND QUALITY Project Data Management (FDEM) ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL - Analysts overlay mitigation project and disaster event data in GIS to determine which projects lie within the DR- 4337 area of impact for inclusion in the LAA. Analysts estimate impacts to the projects using event data, then confirm them through phone calls, emails, and meetings with local representatives familiar with identified mitigation measures. Florida’s Loss Avoidance Calculators quantify the effectiveness of the impacted mitigation projects. Analysts adjust the results to reflect the impacts conveyed by local representatives, as appropriate.
4. REPORTING - Analysts report LAA results, including ROI, specific to DR-4337. Projects that were included in previous LAAs receive a cumulative ROI, which integrates the DR-4337 results with those of previous disaster events.
This assessment examines the losses avoided due to state- and federally- funded projects. Mitigation projects implemented with local or private
funding are not assessed due to data and time constraints.
This assessment evaluates economic output and job creation benefits associated with implementing mitigation projects impacted by Hurricane Irma, in addition to savings in avoided disaster losses. This report builds upon previous economic impact
analyses performed by FDEM. Economic modelling software, IMPLAN, uses an input-output methodology in
Figure 6. Example of successful flood mitigation strategy at work in the combination with social accounting State of Florida. Photo Credit: FDEM Bureau of Mitigation matrices and economic multipliers, to estimate the impact of mitigation activities in a given study area. To conduct the analysis, project funds are allocated to a range of economic sectors over the performance period of each analyzed project. IMPLAN reports statewide economic effects of implementing mitigation measures in terms of sales and revenues, value added to GDP, labor income, and employment. Refer to Appendix A - Loss Avoidance Methodology for greater detail on the economic impact analysis approach.
Limitations of the Assessment There are several limitations to this analysis, some of which may lead to an underestimation of the ROI. Most notably these include:
Projects Analyzed - This assessment is limited to evaluating common mitigation projects implemented in the State. Specifically, only projects which protect structures are included for the consistency of analysis (i.e., wind retrofit, drainage improvement, structure elevation, structure mitigation reconstruction, and acquisition projects). Specialized mitigation projects undertaken by communities are not included in this analysis, such as drainage projects that protect evacuation routes from flooding.
Types of Losses - This assessment captures direct losses that would have occurred without mitigation, including building, content, inventory and displacement losses, as well as insurance costs, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and casualties avoided. This analysis does not capture losses avoided in the form of loss of function, shelter needs, emergency response measures, debris clean up, employment loss, business interruption, and other related losses.
Previous Loss Avoidance Assessments The 2017 hurricane season, including Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, is likely to have caused some of the highest collective losses from natural disasters in any single year in US history.1 Hurricane Irma is the largest storm to date that FDEM has evaluated utilizing this methodology. Previous analyses depict a positive ROI for the mitigation projects analyzed, and cumulative ROI is presented in this report for projects impacted by multiple disasters. Please see the table below for a summary of the findings from Florida’s previously conducted LAAs.
Table 2. Summary of Findings for Previous Loss Avoidance Assessments in Florida (2012-2017)
Disaster Assessed Project Costs Losses Avoided ROI Tropical Storm Fay (2008), North Florida Flood Event 50 projects cost $18.9 Approximately $21.9 million in (2009), Unnamed June Flood 16% million expected losses Event (2012), Tropical Storm Debby (2012) 5 projects cost $8.3 million Approximately $44 million in expected Hurricane Isaac (2012) 435% to protect 842 structures losses, with over $35 million avoided Severe Storms and Flooding 32 projects cost $4.2 Approximately $5.4 million in expected 29% (2013) million losses, with over $1 million avoided Florida Severe Storms, Approximately $24.1 million in 33 projects cost $18.4 Tornadoes, Straight-Line expected losses, with $5.6 million in 54% million Winds, and Flooding (2014) losses avoided 60 projects cost $9.7 Approximately $20.7 million in losses Hurricane Hermine (2017) million to protect 110 82% avoided structures 40 Projects cost $19.2 Hurricane Matthew (2017) million to protect 4,407 $81.1 million in total losses avoided 422% structures
EVENT DETAILS
On September 10, 2017, Hurricane Irma made landfall in the Florida Keys as a Category 4 Hurricane. Later that day, the storm made a second landfall in Southwest Florida, near Marco Island, as a Category 3 Hurricane. All 67 Florida counties were declared under the Major Presidential Disaster Declaration, FEMA DR-4337, on the same day.
Hurricane Irma developed from a tropical wave that departed the west coast of Africa in late August. After severely impacting several Caribbean islands, Irma struck the Middle Keys prior to moving northward along the west coast of the Florida peninsula. The storm dissipated quickly as it moved inland, weakening to a Category 2 inland of Naples and Fort Myers, FL and a Category 1 by reaching the Tampa and Orlando Metropolitan Areas.
Despite the weakening of the storm, the wind field was vast, with tropical storm force winds extending as far as 360 nautical miles from storm center. Over the course of the event, rainfall in most counties totaled 10 to 15 inches and St. Lucie County recorded a state- Figure 7. Track of DR-4337 Hurricane Irma. Photo Credit: NOAA wide rainfall maximum of 21.66 inches of rain. NHC Though the primary wind impacts occurred in Southwest Florida and Monroe County, heavy flooding occurred in most rivers in North Florida. The St. John’s River experienced record flood stages throughout Duval County, and similar flooding was recorded in Bradford County. Significant storm surge levels also impacted many coastal counties with maximum inundation levels between four and ten feet across parts of the Florida Keys, three to five feet in throughout Southwest Florida, four to six feet in Miami-Dade County and elsewhere in Southeast Florida, and one to Figure 8. Flooding caused by Hurricane Irma in Jacksonville, Florida. Photo Credit: Sean Rayford, Orlando Sentinel two feet in Florida’s Central West Coast.
Event Impacts
While FEMA declared all 67 Florida counties under DR- 4337, primarily communities throughout peninsular Florida experienced event impacts. FEMA and FDEM analysis after the event identified widespread damages in 49 of Florida’s 67 counties. Impacts manifested as infrastructural and structural damage across the State, which not only affected private citizens’ property and lifestyles, but also the function of both public and private sector industries. In the public sector, of the 993 critical public facilities assessed throughout the State, 12 reported major damages, with two reporting Figure 9. Flooding caused by Hurricane Irma in Jacksonville, catastrophic damages. Florida. Photo Credit: Sean Rayford, Orlando Sentinel
Table 4. Summary of DR-4437 Hurricane Irma Event Impacts by County, 20173
County Impacts from Hurricane Irma Alachua Alachua County experienced an average of 9.4 cumulative inches of rainfall across the County over the duration of the event, with peak wind speeds falling between 70 and 80 miles per hour (mph). Baker Baker County experienced heavy rainfall, with an average of 10.6 cumulative inches of rainfall across the County over the duration of the event. While peak wind speeds were approximately 70 mph, the Northeast area of the State experienced extensive flooding. Bradford Bradford County experienced some of the highest cumulative rainfall across Florida, recording 11.5 cumulative inches across the duration of the event. Peak wind speeds were limited to between 70 and 80 mph. Brevard Brevard County experienced 10.1 cumulative inches of rainfall across the duration of the event, wind speeds peaked between 70 and 80 mph in most parts of the County, with coastal storm surge peaking between 1 and 3 feet. Riverine flooding was also significant. Broward Broward County recorded 8.4 inches of cumulative rainfall, peak winds between 80 and 90 mph, and between 2 and 4 feet of storm surge along the coast. Charlotte Charlotte County recorded 8.1 inches of cumulative rainfall, winds between 80 and 100 mph with higher wind speeds impacting inland areas, and storm surge between 3 and 5 feet. Citrus Citrus County experienced 6.5 cumulative inches of rainfall, peak wind speeds around 80 mph, and storm surge between 1 and 2 feet along the coast. Clay Clay County recorded some of the most significant rainfall in the State with 12.6 cumulative inches, though wind speeds remained below 70 mph. Collier Collier County recorded 9.4 cumulative inches of rainfall with peak wind speeds between 100 and 110 mph. Storm surge was also significant, approaching 10 feet along parts of Collier’s coast. Columbia Columbia County received an average of 8.4 inches of cumulative rainfall, with peak wind speeds between 70 and 80 mph. Desoto Desoto County received 10 cumulative inches of rain with peak wind speeds between 90 and 100 mph. Dixie Dixie County had a cumulative rainfall of only 2.7 inches, with peak wind speeds between 60 and 70 mph, and storm surge between 1 and 2 feet along the coast.
3 Impacts identified by analysis of NOAA NWS data available online at www.weather.gov/tae/Irma2017
Duval Rainfall and flooding were both significant in Duval County, with the St. John’s River recording record flood stages at various locations in the County, and a cumulative rainfall average of 12.3 inches. The coast of Duval County saw storm surge between 3 and 5 feet. Flagler Flagler County recorded a cumulative average of 9.6 inches of rainfall, experienced storm surge between 3 and 5 feet, and peak wind speeds were between 60 and 70 mph. Gilchrist Gilchrist County experienced a cumulative average rainfall of 6.4 inches, and peak wind speeds around 70 mph. Glades Glades County saw a County average of 8.6 cumulative inches of rain and wind speeds peaking between 100 and 110 mph. Hamilton Hamilton County experienced an average cumulative rainfall of 5.2 inches, with peak wind speeds between 60 and 70 mph. Hardee Hardee County recorded an average cumulative rainfall of 8.6 inches, with wind speeds peaking between 90 and 100 mph. Hendry Hendry County received 8.7 inches of rainfall on average across the duration of the event with wind speeds approaching 110 mph. Hernando Hernando County received 6.1 inches of rainfall across the event with wind speeds between 70 and 80 mph. Highlands Highlands County experienced 9.4 inches of rainfall on average across the County, with wind speeds peaking around 100 mph. Hillsborough Hillsborough County saw an average cumulative rainfall of 6.4 inches and wind speed peaks between 70 and 80 mph. Indian River Indian River County experienced significant rainfall with a County average of 11.1 inches, and peak winds between 70 and 80 mph. Jackson Jackson County, as with most of the panhandle, received little precipitation with only 2.2 inches of cumulative rainfall on average and winds remaining below 60 mph. Lafayette Lafayette County was similarly impacted with only 3.3 cumulative inches of rain and wind speeds between 60 and 70 mph. Lake Lake County saw significant rainfall with 9.8 inches of average cumulative rainfall, and winds peaked between 80 and 90 mph. Lee Lee County saw 6.7 inches of cumulative rainfall on County average, though experienced wind speeds between 90 and 100 mph, as well as storm surge between 3 and 5 feet. Levy Levy County fell in the lower half of counties by cumulative rainfall, receiving 4.9 inches on average, and wind speeds peaked between 70 and 80 mph. Storm surge along the coast was recorded as between 1 and 2 feet. Manatee Manatee County saw 6.3 inches of cumulative rainfall across the duration of the event, with wind speeds around 80 mph, and storm surge between 1 and 2 feet. Marion Marion County saw 8.2 inches of cumulative rainfall on average, and wind speeds peaked between 80 and 90 mph. Martin Martin County received 7.0 inches of cumulative rainfall and wind speeds peaked around 80 mph. Miami-Dade Miami-Dade saw impacts more significant than many Florida counties, with wind speeds as high as 110 mph, significant flooding, storm surge between 4 and 6 feet, and 9.0 cumulative inches of rain. Monroe Hurricane Irma made landfall on Monroe County, specifically in the Florida Keys, where wind speeds were most significant at around 120 mph. Cumulative rainfall was 8.9 inches, and storm surge ranged from 2 to 10 feet across the expansive County. Nassau Like much of the rest of Northeast Florida, Nassau County’s 11.5 inches of cumulative rainfall was significant and contributed to the record levels of riverine flooding. Wind speeds peaked around 60 mph, and storm surge ranged from 3-5 feet. Okeechobee Okeechobee County received 9.4 inches of cumulative rainfall and saw wind speeds peak around 90 mph.
Orange Orange County recorded 9.6 cumulative inches of rainfall on average with winds peaking between 80 and 90 mph. Osceola Osceola County received 9.7 inches of cumulative rainfall with wind speeds peaking between 80 and 90 mph. Palm Beach Palm Beach County say 7.2 cumulative inches of rainfall and between 80 and 90 mph winds at their peak. Pasco Pasco County received 7.5 cumulative inches of rain on average and winds peaked between 70 and 80 mph. Storm surge ranged between 1 and 2 feet along the coast. Pinellas Pinellas County received relatively insignificant rainfall at 4.3 cumulative inches, and winds peaked around 70 mph. Polk Polk County experienced 8.8 inches of cumulative rainfall, and winds peaked between 90 and 100 mph. Putnam Putnam County experienced fairly significant rainfall with an average of 11.1 inches of cumulative rainfall across the county, and winds peaked around 70 mph. Sarasota Sarasota County received 6.4 inches of cumulative rainfall and winds peaked between 80 and 90 mph. Seminole Seminole County received one of the highest cumulative rainfall averages in the State at 12.0 inches across the County. Wind speeds peaked between 70 and 80 mph. St. Johns Rainfall averages were also significant in St. Johns County, with a County average of 12.5 cumulative inches of rainfall. Wind speeds peaked between 60 and 70 mph, and like much of the rest of Northeast Florida, riverine flooding was particularly significant. Storm surge ranged between three and five feet along the coast. St. Lucie St. Lucie County recorded the single largest rainfall total at one point reaching a maximum of 21.66 inches, though their cumulative average was 11.7 inches. Wind speeds peaked around 80 mph, and storm surge was recorded between one and three feet. Sumter Sumter County received 9.4 inches of cumulative precipitation, and wind speeds peaked between 80 and 90 mph. Suwannee Suwannee County experienced 5.1 cumulative inches of rainfall, comfortably in the lower half of Counties, with winds peaking between 60 and 70 mph. Taylor Taylor County, as was the case with much of Northwestern FL, saw limited impacts with only 1.8 inches of cumulative rainfall and wind speeds under 60 mph. Union Union County experienced fairly significant rainfall with a cumulative average of 10.2 inches across the duration of the event. Wind speeds peaked around 70 mph. Volusia Volusia County received 8.7 cumulative inches of rainfall across the county throughout the event with wind speeds peaking between 70 and 80 mph. Storm surge ranged between one and three feet along the coast. Walton Walton County, as was the case with much of Florida’s panhandle, received limited impacts, with less than one inch of cumulative rainfall on average and wind speeds under 60 mph.
DETAILED RESULTS DR-4337 LOSS AVOIDANCE RESULTS SUMMARY This assessment reports the number and type of projects analyzed, losses avoided, and ROI realized during DR-4377. This report also integrates DR-4377- 113 specific results with previous Florida Loss Avoidance Assessments to demonstrate a cumulative ROI for projects that have been impacted by multiple Mitigation Projects Analyzed events. Flood mitigation projects, through drainage or structure modification measures, $72.3 M composed the majority of the analysis. In total, 94 flood mitigation projects (83 In Project Costs percent) and 19 wind mitigation projects (17 percent) were analyzed for
avoided losses (Figure 11). Approximately 80 percent of the mitigation projects sustained impacts at the project site that were great enough to calculate losses avoided. Results were substantial enough to calculate in 16 of the 67 declared $122.9 M counties. In Avoided Losses
This assessment evaluates direct physical damages and displacement costs but does not capture all avoided human impacts, such as lost productivity, for mitigated residential structures. As such, results for residential structures are 170% likely conservative. Similarly, the assessment does not account for avoided Return on Investment for business interruption impacts for commercial structures, so those results may Hurricane Irma also be conservative. Please see the Benefits Methodology in Appendix A for more details on the benefits and costs included in this analysis.
Figure 10. Results Summary by Project Type
$120,000,000 900% 770% Total Project Cost 800% $100,000,000 Total Losses Avoided 700% Average ROI $80,000,000 600%
500% $60,000,000 400%
$40,000,000 300% 208% 200% $20,000,000 34% 34% 20% 100%
$0 0% Wind Retrofit Drainage Elevation Acquisition Mitigation Reconstruction
Results by Project Type Wind projects with the greatest losses avoided occurred Figure 11. Mitigation Project Breakdown by Type - Projects with primarily in Monroe, Lee, Collier and Hendry Counties. Results These projects focused on strengthening the Acquisition structures’ capability to withstand hurricane force winds - installation of shutters and hurricane screens 26% Drainage on all structure openings was the most common 34% project type. Elevation Unlike previous LAA, wind retrofits experienced the highest ROI of any project type. As many projects were Mitigation impacted by Category 3 winds, many of the wind 16% Reconstruction retrofit projects fell within the ‘mitigation sweet spot’ 3% where ROI is highest and expected damages to the Wind Retrofit 21% structure remain low.
The highest ROI for flood projects occurred in Northeast Florida. Heavy flooding from prolonged rainfall on the Northeastern front of the storm led to extensive flooding along the St. Johns River corridor. Projects including structure elevations and acquisitions in Duval, Clay and Volusia Counties experienced high ROIs.
Table 3 – Results by Project Type
Number of Project Type Total Project Cost Total Losses Avoided Average ROI* Projects Wind Retrofit 19 $2,257,692.16 $7,061,502.81 770% Drainage 20 $49,911,420.80 $109,321,530.57 208% Elevation 20 $4,244,733.14 $1,575,244.56 34% Acquisition 31 $11,426,274.60 $4,136,670.89 34% Mitigation Reconstruction 23 $4,428,282.22 $872,588.46 20% * The average ROI represents an average of all project ROIs, while the event ROI is determined by dividing total losses avoided by total project costs.
Flood Mitigation Project Results - Building Modification Projects
Building modification projects refer to Figure 12. Average Losses Avoided by Building Modification Project Type projects that reduce flood risk by removing or elevating a structure out of the floodplain. Project types include acquisition and demolition, elevation, or mitigation reconstruction - where a structure is demolished and an elevated code- $72,715.70 compliant structure is built in its place. In total, Acquisition building modification projects accounted for $20,099,290 in flood mitigation investments and $165,466.84 experienced $6,584,504 in avoided losses from Elevation Hurricane Irma alone. The average ROI for this $105,016.30 category of projects was 29 percent over the Mitigation event, meaning that one-quarter of the initial Reconstruction mitigation investment was returned in the form of avoided losses.
The majority of projects analyzed were acquisition projects. Acquisition projects also experienced the highest average losses avoided by project (Figure 12). The losses avoided through acquisition projects can be attributed in part to the demolition and removal of the structure from the floodplain. Both Acquisition and Elevation projects yielded a 34 percent ROI whereas Mitigation Reconstruction projects had the lowest ROI of any project type at 20 percent.
Flood Mitigation Project Results - Drainage Projects Drainage mitigation projects refer to projects that help reduce the frequency and severity of stormwater flooding, as well as the long-term risk to the community. Drainage projects may be considerably beneficial to a community, where implementation is appropriate; project costs are relatively low when considering the quantity of structures benefitted and aggregate losses avoided.
A total of 20 drainage projects located throughout the State were included in this analysis. Drainage projects experienced the second highest ROI by project type, with an average of 208 percent. Initial investments in drainage projects outnumbered any other project type at approximately $49,900,000; however, this investment was returned with an estimated $109,000,000 in losses avoided from Hurricane Irma alone (Table 3).
Wind Mitigation Project Results Analysts evaluated the performance of 19 wind retrofit projects, protecting a total of 90 wind retrofitted structures, that were in Hurricane Irma’s wind swath. Irma’s high wind speeds, concentrated in the Florida Keys and Southwest Florida, yielded significant losses avoided. Event wind swaths indicate that wind retrofit projects were impacted by up to Category 3 hurricane force winds, with maximum speeds of 129 miles per hour. Previous
assessments have identified these wind speeds as a ‘mitigation sweet spot,’ or in other words, projects impacted at this level typically avoid the greatest losses.4
The 19 wind retrofit projects analyzed for this assessment generated an impressive return on investment. Totaling $2,257,692 in initial investment, the projects avoided an estimated $7,061,503 in potential losses, and generated an ROI of 770 percent. This impressive ROI was largely impacted by the inclusion of two retrofits of emergency services buildings in Monroe County, yielding particularly strong results. Please see the Monroe County Case Study for more details. With these two outliers removed, the cumulative ROI remains impressive at 96 percent.
Results indicate wind retrofit projects were the most cost effective to implement ($118,826 average project cost) and prevented a significant amount of losses (Table 3).
Case Study ‐ Monroe County Wind Mitigation Monroe County suffered a direct impact from hurricane force winds during the Hurricane Irma event period with 120 mph winds sweeping the Middle to Lower Keys. Evacuations were mandatory except for essential emergency services and response personnel who weathered the storm in shelter facilities.
The Monroe County Main Detention Center, also known as the Stock Island Detention Center, was one of the projects identified in the storm area of impact and analyzed through this report. Funded through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program after Hurricane Wilma in 2005, this project was designed to protect the entire building envelope from wind hazards through installation of a series of roll-up steel bay doors.
This analysis depicted the critical importance of this mitigation activity - without which the building likely would have suffered severe damage or even destruction. The estimated ROI for the project was 11,494 percent, having invested $18,303 in initial project costs, while avoiding $4,928,698 in losses. Though the inmates at the Stock Island Detention Center were evacuated along with all other Florida Keys residents, the facility served as an animal shelter during the event (ABC News).
Figure 13. Aerial view of Stock Island Detention Center Facility
4 Storms of greater intensity may cause catastrophic impacts unrelated to wind mitigation, such a wall collapse, that make wind mitigation activities inconsequential.
Results By County Though the majority of damages were reported in Southwest, South and North Florida, completed mitigation projects provided a ROI for counties throughout the State. Of the 16 counties with results, Monroe County avoided the most losses with an average project ROI of over 2000 percent, due to the severity of the storm coupled with the effectiveness of wind mitigation on public emergency services buildings. Several counties which implemented drainage projects experienced over a 200 percent ROI for the event due to the large number of structures protected by the mitigation measures.
Figure 14. Total Losses Avoided by County, 2018
Broward $39,340,735.26 Brevard $26,161,361.52 Miami‐Dade $11,277,650.63 Charlotte $11,205,047.01 St. Lucie $9,461,487.15 Monroe $5,373,991.81 Polk $5,219,192.34 Volusia $4,751,073.93 Duval $2,367,751.10 Martin $2,144,305.67 Seminole $1,404,793.37 Collier $1,260,790.59 Pinellas $730,952.70 Flagler $472,435.51 Clay $373,711.63 Hendry $295,062.09 Pasco $292,605.71 Lee $288,116.80 Hardee $254,814.56 Manatee $160,776.02 Orange $87,933.00 Sarasota $42,948.91
$0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 Total Losses Avoided
Table 4. Analysis Results by County
Number of Total Project Total Losses Total Net Average County Projects Cost Avoided Present Value ROI Monroe 6 $398,113.40 $5,373,991.81 $5,144,445 2171% Seminole 1 $675,381.43 $1,404,793.37 $729,412 208% Miami‐Dade 3 $5,421,947.42 $11,277,650.63 $5,855,703 208% Flagler 1 $227,132.45 $472,435.51 $245,303 208% Orange 1 $42,275.48 $87,933.00 $45,658 208% Hardee 2 $122,507.00 $254,814.56 $132,308 208% Martin 2 $1,030,916.19 $2,144,305.67 $1,113,389 208% Brevard 4 $12,473,896.34 $26,161,361.52 $13,687,465 199% Broward 3 $16,589,590.84 $39,340,735.26 $22,751,149 155% Polk 2 $3,265,265.54 $5,219,192.34 $1,953,927 133% Charlotte 2 $5,513,586.97 $11,205,047.01 $5,691,460 127% Collier 12 $1,279,521.08 $1,260,790.59 ‐$18,730 124% St. Lucie 4 $4,754,461.76 $9,461,487.15 $4,707,025 114% Lee 2 $363,863.91 $288,116.80 $36,256 73% Volusia 17 $8,053,584.51 $4,751,073.93 ‐$2,913,870 59% Duval 16 $4,275,687.02 $2,367,751.10 ‐$1,907,936 52% Clay 3 $801,122.17 $373,711.63 ‐$427,411 50% Manatee 2 $565,890.32 $160,776.02 ‐$405,114 32% Pinellas 11 $3,475,253.32 $730,952.70 ‐$2,744,301 24% Hendry 2 $839,054.08 $295,062.09 ‐$531,554 21% Pasco 16 $1,795,346.55 $292,605.71 ‐$1,502,741 16% Sarasota 1 $304,005.16 $42,948.91 ‐$261,056 14% Grand Total 113 $72,268,402.93 $122,967,537.28 $51,380,787 224%
Integrated Results - Cumulative ROI Declared disasters impacted 22 of the flood mitigation projects analyzed since 2012. Analysts integrated the losses avoided over multiple events, including Tropical Storm Debby and Hurricane Isaac, Hermine and Matthew, to calculate a cumulative ROI.
Results show the average cumulative ROI is 188 percent, meaning that the initial investment in most mitigation projects has been realized as losses avoided since 2012.
Counties which invested in wind retrofit and drainage projects prior to Hurricane Irma saw a disproportionate return on investment, with many experiencing over a full return. As building modification projects do not provide as high of a return, these projects require a longer timespan for realizing a 100 percent cumulative ROI.
Figure 15. Cumulative Losses Avoided and Cumulative Average ROI for all analyzed events (2012-2017)
$45,000,000 1630% 1800% $40,000,000 Total Losses Avoided 1600%
$35,000,000 1400% Average Cumulative ROI $30,000,000 1200%
$25,000,000 1000%
$20,000,000 800%
$15,000,000 600% 384% $10,000,000 267% 302% 400% 202% 185% 145% $5,000,000 80% 59% 33% 200% $0 0% Brevard Duval Martin Pasco Pinellas Polk Sarasota Seminole St. Lucie Volusia
Economic Impact Analysis Mitigation measures have additional economic benefits beyond losses avoided that are advantageous for communities. The implementation of mitigation actions requires interaction and interdependence with various economic industries such as technical services, construction, State employment, and office administration services. Mitigation projects can create positive downstream impacts in increased sales and revenue in these industries, which can subsequently aid in job creation across these sectors. In addition to evaluating the mitigation-related loss avoidance, considered in this report, FDEM also evaluated Hurricane Irma’s mitigation measures impacts on externalities such as economic output and job creation in related industries. Please refer to Appendix A for the Economic Impact Methodology.
IMPLAN analysis software was utilized to analyze the economic impacts of mitigation activities. IMPLAN evaluates the relationships between employment, labor income, economic output, and value added to GDP three ways:
1) Direct effects which include industries that are directly related to mitigation activities; 2) Indirect effects for industries which support those that are directly affected; and 3) Induced effects, or benefits created through employee spending.
With the 113 projects included in this analysis, a fraction of the total projects implemented throughout the State, there is an estimated economic impact of $4,290,456,019 in the form of labor income, GDP growth and economic production.
During the lifespan of the projects, a total of 7,533 full-time employees (FTEs) were created solely by the projects analyzed. Figure 16 depicts the total economic impact of all project types in labor income, value added, and economic output. The economic impact analysis reveals that mitigation activities primarily benefit the real estate, construction, and architectural/engineering and related services industries. Positive economic impacts are experienced in the form of governmental and administrative services as well.
Figure 16. Economic Benefits of Mitigation Project Implementation (2016 Dollars)
$2,500,000,000 $2,289,178,462
$2,000,000,000
$1,500,000,000 $1,223,926,212 $1,000,000,000 $777,351,345
$500,000,000
$0 Labor Income GDP Output
Table 5. Projects Analyzed in IMPLAN by Project Type Total Projects Time span Employment Direct employment within real Project Type Analyzed (years) (FTEs) estate, construction, and architectural/engineering and Elevation 20 2004 - 2016 42 related services industries made up Drainage 20 2006 - 2017 7,533 over 75% of total jobs created due to mitigation activities impacted by Mitigation Reconstruction 23 2006 - 2017 54 DR-4337. Drainage projects Acquisition 35 2005 - 2017 100 specifically caused a significant amount of estimated positive Wind retrofit 19 2006 - 2015 15 economic impact in the form of full- Grand Total 113 7,744 time employment. Most of these industries operate locally, meaning the money is infused into the very communities benefiting from the losses avoided.
Even without accounting for losses avoided due to Hurricane Irma, drainage projects contributed $34.6 million to Florida’s economy in employment and GDP growth.
Table 6. Top Ten Performing Industries
Sector # Sector Description Employment Labor Income GDP 440 Real estate 629,143 $9,299,463,000 $105,693,600,000 395 Wholesale trade 398,254 $30,554,470,000 $93,079,620,000 441 Owner‐occupied dwellings 0 $0 $85,116,680,000 482 Hospitals 291,986 $20,059,180,000 $43,989,240,000 437 Insurance carriers 78,101 $7,144,375,000 $32,735,360,000 475 Offices of physicians 225,451 $20,877,320,000 $31,828,310,000 502 Limited‐service restaurants 330,580 $6,786,402,000 $29,088,170,000 * Employment and payroll of 533 299,875 $22,888,480,000 $27,652,320,000 local govt, non‐education Management of companies 461 120,345 $12,068,900,000 $26,615,380,000 and enterprises * Employment and payroll of 534 359,263 $22,021,880,000 $26,599,440,000 local govt, education
LESSONS LEARNED
The State of Florida has highlighted a series of valuable lessons learned during the process of conducting the Hurricane Irma LAA and validating the results. The lessons garnered from these experiences may be useful for communities seeking to improve their mitigation initiatives and more effectively allocate future investments in the interest of building comprehensive and sustainable resilience to future disaster events. Learning from these experiences is even more critical as extreme weather and storm events continue to impact the lives and structures, both physical and social, of communities across the country.
Prioritizing Community Mitigation Needs - Florida’s system for hazard mitigation planning empowers communities to address risks with locally prioritized initiatives. With this responsibility comes the difficult task of balancing the risks and costs of protection against chronic stresses versus addressing acute shocks. The local risk context, available mitigation options, and community vision are all factors communities may consider when developing strategic mitigation plans and prioritizing mitigation projects based on impact and benefit.
Local officials from several impacted communities recommend a combined approach to target mitigation: address site-specific issues on a regular basis, and plan for large-scale projects that benefit a wide audience on a longer time frame. Working to address these risks in blue sky operations, through capital improvements, planning, or strong floodplain management practices should be a consideration of all communities when determining which mitigation investments to pursue, before and after a disaster.
Building Community Capacity in Mitigation - After a disaster as impactful as Hurricane Irma, both the landscape of long-term recovery needs and the availability of funding opportunities can shift rapidly. Many communities noted the increased local interest in mitigation through large grant funding opportunities such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Where some communities throughout the State are well-versed in the state- and federal- mitigation grant programs, others are still building internal capacity to take advantage of the opportunities. Many communities identified the education and technical assistance provided by the Bureau as a primary reason for success in addressing unforeseen challenges in mitigation project implementation.
As Florida communities continue to familiarize themselves with navigating the mitigation grant funding process, there is increased opportunity to maximize mitigation investments with state- and federal- dollars. Building capacity at the local level through targeted outreach and technical assistance ensures that communities are fully able to access and utilize mitigation grant funding opportunities.
Actualizing A Resilient Future - Mitigation projects are known to provide benefits in the form of avoided loss to people, structures, and institutions that increase the resiliency of the built environment and the economy. Mitigation projects present opportunities and challenges that are cross-cutting and community-wide, many times becoming multi-jurisdictional or involving several community departments.
The Local Mitigation Strategy framework provides an opportunity to enhance community-wide awareness, education and collaboration to achieve the many environmental, social and economic benefits of mitigation. As Florida communities strive to build back stronger after Hurricane Irma, hazard mitigation is a cost-effective opportunity to improve resident quality of life, spur economic investment and contribute to a community’s overall resiliency.
CONCLUSIONS
Assessing the performance of hazard mitigation measures is critical to substantiate the value of mitigation efforts as well as LAA results ensure prudent use of limited public resources. FDEM conducts a LAA after each Presidential Disaster Declaration using actual event data to validate avoided hazard impacts due to completed mitigation projects. These avoided hazard impacts are presented in terms of dollars saved from avoided losses due to the mitigation action and project ROI.
The Hurricane Irma loss avoidance analysis results reveal that out of 113 projects analyzed within the storm’s area of impact, 73 experienced impacts that would have caused damage had the community not implemented the mitigation project. Overall, the 113 projects cost $72.3 million to implement and avoided $122.9 million in potential damages. With several outliers removed, the average ROI for all mitigation projects was 83 percent, meaning that the initial investment on many of the projects was almost returned in full by avoiding losses due to Hurricane Irma alone. Drainage projects show the greatest ROI, as multiple structures benefit from one mitigation action. Wind retrofit projects also experienced a large return on investment as they protected structures from the high wind hazards caused by the event. Flood mitigation building modifications, including acquisitions, elevations and mitigation reconstruction projects, averaged a 29 percent ROI; revealing, on average, approximately one third of the initial mitigation investment was returned during the four-day event period. Analysts DR-4337 results with those of LAAs conducted since 2012 to generate an average cumulative ROI of 188 percent.
In addition to calculating ROI and losses directly avoided by implementing mitigation projects prior to the event, FDEM analysts sought to determine additional economic benefits generated from these projects through the completion of an economic impact analysis. Mitigation activities involve actors from a variety of economic industries and can thus stimulate these industries in the form of increased revenues and job creation, amongst other economic externalities. Through this analysis, analysts have identified that a $72.3 million investment in mitigation initiatives can generate over $4 billion X in economic output.
Loss Avoidance Assessments demonstrate the fiscal benefits of mitigation projects. These results support sound decision making in publicly funded mitigation initiatives.
Our cities are constantly threatened by the destructive potential of natural hazards to inflict both spontaneous damage and ongoing stress. Increasingly frequent and more intense coastal storms will affect social, economic, and environmental systems and infrastructure that communities rely on. Loss avoidance analyses provide insight that FDEM and local communities can use to better allocate public resources, promote safer and more sustainable communities, and explore strategies for a resilient future.