Flood Mitigation on the Raritan River Final Report February 1 – March 30, 2012

Prepared for the Department of Homeland Security

FEMA Region II

by

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

April 30, 2012

Submitted by

Judy Shaw, Ph.D., PP, AICP, Principal Investigator

On behalf of:

Community Assessment Section:

Stacy Perrine, PP/AICP, E.J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy

Lizzie Browder, MCRP ‘13

Economic Modeling Section:

Joseph J. Seneca, Ph.D., E.J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy

Will Irving, E.J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy

Kate Davidoff, E.J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy

Risk Modeling Section:

Fred Roberts, Ph.D., Command, Control, and Interoperability Center for Advanced Data

Analysis (CCICADA)

Paul Kantor, Ph.D., School of Communication and Information

Qizhong Guo, Ph.D., Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering

David Robinson, Ph.D., Department of Geography

2 | P a g e

SUMMARY OF THE FINAL REPORT

This third and final report for the FEMA-Rutgers project on Flood Mitigation on the Raritan

River covers the period from February 1, 2012 through March 30, 2012. It covers the three

major task areas of Community Assessment, Economic Modeling and Risk Modeling. This

ground-breaking regional approach offers a template for replication in New Jersey, the region

and across the nation.

Task One: Community Assessment

The final work product of the Community Assessment Team includes the completed Phase 2

municipal interviews, results of two focus groups, production of innovative educational maps,

and an update to the media report for the region, and a pilot community survey on mitigation.

In all, fifty elected officials or municipal employees and volunteers participated in the

municipal surveys. The summary of those interviews was presented on March 29 to over

thirty representatives from the region. For that meeting several maps were created to better

illustrate the connection among the municipalities in the watershed.

We conducted two focus groups; the first with representatives of the seven counties in the

Raritan River region. This session was attended by engineers, planners, County Office of

Emergency Management (OEM) Coordinators and regional FEMA staff. The second focus

group was a general session sponsored by the Sustainable Raritan River Regional Engineering

Council for municipal engineers, planners and other interested parties. The report

summarizes those events

The report also includes a summary of a White Paper on Blue and Green Engineering, which

was produced as a separate outcome by the council and will be used in future dialogue on

mitigation and professional development within the engineering community.

The Media Review on local Social, Environmental and Political issues now provides guidance

on how to replicate such a system by other regions interested in tracking similar data.

The final input is a Pilot Community Survey tested with those attending the final municipal

Mitigation Session on March 29.

Task Two: Economic Modeling

This report provides an analysis of the potential public and private benefits of flood mitigation

efforts in the Raritan River watershed. It is organized as follows. Section 1 consists of an

econometric analysis of the relation between past flooding events and the extent of National

Flood Insurance Program claimed damage payouts. Section 2 provides a discussion of

additional municipal costs that should be included in a comprehensive estimation of the

relation between flood severity and damages. Section 3 examines the costs of increased risk

of premature death and injury that occur because of flooding events and how federal

3 | P a g e

regulatory agencies (e.g., USEPA) place monetary values on these risks. Section 4 discusses

how to estimate the monetary value of ecosystem services that accrue to natural capital (e.g.,

riparian buffer areas). These benefits should be included in any comprehensive assessment of

policies that restore developed property in flood plains to a natural state as a riparian buffer.

Section 5 provides a review of the extensive literature that attempts to measure the monetary

discount on home prices that is imposed by the location of the house in a flood risk area. Such

discounts are costs incurred by property owners and are additional costs to those discussed in

previous sections. Section 6 provides a summary and suggestions for additional research.

Task Three: Risk Modeling

The CCICADA component of the project has developed an integrated model that works with a

hydrological model of the Raritan basin. This model takes historical rainfall data, and has been

calibrated to describe the behavior of flood levels at one selected river gage during a

significant 2007 flooding event. In addition, published data on the effectiveness of Green

Infrastructure has been used to compute the reduction in runoff from each sub-basin and thus

the reduced flood height at the selected gage.

In a second component of the research, the team developed a non-linear, threshold-based

model that relates the cumulated or integrated amount of river activity above flood level to

the FEMA payouts using historical data on both. This model offers the ability to predict against

historical data, and can be used to relate the hydrological model directly to FEMA payout

records.

In a third component of the research, the team has developed a conceptual model of the

relation among meteorological activity, hydrological models, infrastructure intervention, and

fine grained topography. This model can serve as a conceptual foundation for informed

communication with local decision makers. Completion of this line of research is contingent on

further study of (a) the detailed topography, requiring LIDAR surveys, and (b) elicitation of

stakeholder perspectives with regard to the relative importance of several measures of impact

(loss of business; loss of personal property; development of recreation; property values; etc).

Together, these components show linking meteorology, hydrology, non-linear modeling and

sophisticated elicitation can provide a useful tool for informing and guiding discussion among

all stakeholders. The present study, yielding non-linear models for four towns, and

hydrological models linked to one of these, provides a proof of principle, and a basis for

estimating the costs of extending the model to the entire basin.

4 | P a g e

Table of Contents

COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT ON FLOODING, MITIGATION AND QUALITY OF LIFE .............................. 5

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 5

Municipal Interviews ................................................................................................................. 6

Municipal Workshop ................................................................................................................. 8

Focus Groups............................................................................................................................. 9

White Paper on Green and Blue Infrastructure 1.0 ................................................................ 12

Media Review: Social, Environmental and Political News Snapshots .................................... 12

The Pilot Survey: Local Mitigation .......................................................................................... 13

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF FLOODING EVENTS IN THE RARITAN BASIN: ............................................ 15

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 15

I. National Flood Insurance Plan Payouts and Flood Event Severity ...................................... 15

Model Results ...................................................................................................................... 16

Example Application of Econometric Equations .................................................................. 21

Potential Model Improvements ........................................................................................... 23

II. Municipal Costs Due to Flooding ........................................................................................ 23

Sources of Flood Damage Estimates .................................................................................. 25

Interview Findings and Literature Review .......................................................................... 26

References .......................................................................................................................... 29

III. Mortality and Morbidity Costs ........................................................................................... 30

IV. Ecosystem Services Benefits .............................................................................................. 31

References ......................................................................................................................... 34

V. Impact of Floods on House Prices....................................................................................... 35

Literature Review: The Effect of Floodplain Location on House Prices ............................. 38

References .......................................................................................................................... 43

RISK MODELING ........................................................................................................................... 44

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 46

Appendix A: Participants in the Municipal Surveys ................................................................ 46

Appendix B: Maps ................................................................................................................... 47

Appendix C: Our Green and Blue Infrastructure 1.0............................................................... 50

Appendix D: Social Environmental and Political News Snapshots.......................................... 72

Appendix E: Tracking Local News Articles............................................................................... 80

Appendix F: Municipal Mitigation Survey and Results ........................................................... 83

Appendix G: Thresholds Data ................................................................................................. 90

5 | P a g e

COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT ON FLOODING, MITIGATION AND QUALITY OF

LIFE IN THE RARITAN RIVER REGION Judy A Shaw, Ph.D., PP/AICP

Stacy Perrine, MCRP, PP/AICP

Lizzie Browder, MCRP ‘13

Overview

The final report on community inputs on flooding, mitigation and quality of life in the Raritan

River Region includes five areas of interest to FEMA for both regional mitigation benefits and

for application across the country. The community inputs team endeavored to understand

how much public understands about mitigation and how to improve their knowledge in order

to more effectively reduce the impacts of flooding. The report summarizes the first two

phases, highlights the progress in the third phase and recommends next steps.

During the first phase, the community inputs team surveyed existing data on the 99

municipalities in the Raritan River region to capture a ‘snapshot’ of their demographic status

and their flood histories. An initial media review provided additional insights into the

communities, highlighting their environmental, social and political issues as a means of further

understanding the dynamics of decision-making at the local level. In the second phase, we

conducted interviews, held focus groups, produced a white paper, maps and piloted a

community survey.

Municipal Interviews: The interviews were conducted with some twenty municipalities across

the region – ranging from those with extremely high flood impacts to those with relatively few

impacts. The first goal was to understand how each of these communities understood

flooding issues and mitigation. The second goal was to understand how to improve local

initiation of mitigation strategies to reduce their overall flooding risk. In all, across the twenty

communities, the team interviewed fifty elected officials or municipal employees along with

emergency management staff (both paid and volunteer). The findings of the group were

assembled and shared in briefing attended by some forty people on March 29, 2012. The

summary of the interviews and the report on the March 29 meeting are the first deliverable of

Phase 3. Appendix A, Participants in the Municipal Surveys, provides a list of the communities

and the titles of the interviewees. The maps created for the March 29 session are in Appendix

B, Maps. A video designed to illustrate the flow of water across the watershed, and how

neighboring communities are impacted, is provided as a separate deliverable.

Focus Groups: The second element of the community report is a summary of the two focus

groups that met to work on these issues. The first focus group met on March 2, 2012. This

group represented all seven counties in the Raritan River Watershed (Hunterdon, Mercer,

6 | P a g e

Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Somerset and Union). At the meeting, county engineers,

planners and Office of Emergency Management (OEM) Coordinators met with regional FEMA

staff and the community input team to respond to the same questions that were posed in the

municipal official interviews.

The second focus group was a general session sponsored by the Sustainable Raritan River

Regional Engineering Council for municipal engineers, planners and other interested parties.

That session, attended by close to 100 professionals, presented green and ‘blue’ engineering

approaches to encourage broader application of non-structural flood mitigation strategies

along with traditional engineered solutions. A second component of the Council effort was a

White Paper on Blue and Green Engineering, which is provided as Appendix C in this report.

The report includes summaries of those events and a summary of a white paper produced by

the council.

Media Review: The most recent media review presents updated information from online

reviews of local news. The report on the Media review PowerPoint is presented as a separate

deliverable, but is also summarized, along with guidance on how to replicate such a system by

other regions interested in tracking similar data.

Pilot Survey: The final input is a pilot community survey tested with those attending the final

municipal Mitigation Session on March 29.

Municipal Interviews

Municipal interviews gathered information on local perceptions of flooding, including

potential causes, mitigation strategies, and then to explore what would be needed to improve

participation in mitigation strategies and the overall political mechanism needed to promote a

regional approach to flood mitigation and stormwater management. In all, over fifty people

took part in these interviews. Since the completion of Report #2, the community assessment

team at Rutgers has interviewed Milltown Borough of Middlesex County and Englishtown

Borough and Freehold Township of Monmouth County. The municipalities interviewed are

listed below:

Bound Brook

Borough

Clinton Township

Edison Township

Englishtown

Borough

Freehold Township

Hightstown Borough

Hopewell Township

Manville Borough

Milltown Borough

Middlesex Borough

Monroe Township

Raritan Township

Scotch Plains

Township

Woodbridge

Township

Washington

Township

Watchung Borough

7 | P a g e

Findings Below are the tables from the Report #2, updated to include the entirety of towns that we

met with during the municipal interview phase. While the communities realize that there

are more frequent flooding events, they attribute the damages to sub-part infrastructure,

the absence of a stream maintenance and management program, and over- and older

development in the flood zones.

Table 1: Ranking of Flood Causes

(1 – lowest, 3 - highest)

Municipalities

Sub-par

Infrastructure/absent

stream maintenance

Development (either over

development or older

development in flood zones)

More Frequent

Flooding Events

Bound Brook 3 2 1

Clinton 3 2 1

Edison 2 3 1

Englishtown 3 1 2

Freehold 2 3 1

Hightstown 2 3 1

Hopewell 3 2 1

Manville 3 2 1

Milltown 3 2 1

Middlesex B. 2 3 1

Monroe 2 3 1

Raritan 3 2 1

Scotch Plains 2 3 1

Woodbridge 3 2 1

Washington 2 3 1

Watchung 2 3 1

Total Score 40 39 17

8 | P a g e

Report Table 2: Ranking of Preferred Mitigation Strategy (

1 – lowest, 5 - highest)

Municipalities

Regional

Stormwater

Planning

New

Engineering

Techniques

Dredging Buyout/Open

Space Education

Bound Brook 4 5 1 3 2

Clinton 5 4 2 1 3

Edison 5 3 4 1 2

Englishtown 4 3 5 1 2

Freehold 4 3 1 2 5

Hightstown 5 4 2 1 3

Hopewell 4 5 1 3 2

Manville 2 5 1 4 3

Middlesex B. 4 5 1 3 2

Milltown 4 3 5 1 2

Monroe 5 3 1 4 2

Raritan 3 5 1 2 4

Scotch Plains 5 4 3 1 3

Woodbridge 4 3 2 1 5

Washington 4 3 5 2 1

Watchung 5 2 4 3 1

Total Score 67 60 39 33 42

Municipal Workshop

The findings of the interviews formed the discussion at a dinner meeting with municipal

leaders, as well as county, state, and federal representatives. The workshop was held at the

Bloustein School on Thursday, March 29, 2012. Municipal representation included mayors,

engineers, OEM personnel, environmental commission members, and others from Bound Brook

Borough, Edison Township, Franklin Borough, Manville Borough, Milltown Borough and Monroe

Township. Various County representatives from both Middlesex and Somerset County were

also in attendance. State government was

represented by personnel from the NJ Department of

Environmental Protection, and federal level

government personnel by both the Army Corps and

the Department of Homeland Security.

New Jersey State Climatologist and Rutgers Geography

Professor Dr. David Robinson gave an overview of

9 | P a g e

notable floods in the Raritan Region, noting they flooding events are not new and climate

scenarios predict them happening more often and possibly becoming more intense in the

future.

Project mapping was also shown to display National

Flood Insurance payouts, topography and impervious

coverages in the Raritan region.

Animated maps were also produced to illustrate the

movement of the water throughout the Region and

specifically from town to town. This was a general

demonstration done to assure the local officials present

that should they want to delve deeper into this exercise

in their own mitigation planning, all of the data used is

publicly available and the University is able to assist in

the data gathering, research and mapping

demonstrations.

Full-page maps and stills from the animation can be seen

in Appendix B. These are also available online at

http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/brownfields/projects/

Focus Groups

Focus Group 1: Regional County Management

On March 2, 2012, a focus group with OEM personnel, planners and engineers from the seven

counties of the Raritan River Watershed was held at the Somerset County Government

headquarters. Representatives from the NJ Department of Environmental Protection as well as

the Department of Homeland Security/FEMA were also present. The Rutgers team shared with

the group the initial findings of municipal interviews that were taking place at the time,

including a specific cause of flooding that had been named by most of the municipalities.

Local officials believed their flooding to be caused development upstream, coupled with man-

made structures being built to aid in flooding upstream. It was the general belief that this was

now causing greater flood damage in municipalities downstream. There was disagreement

among County officials as to how great of a role the upstream flood walls actually played in

flooding that occurred downstream after Hurricane Irene, as individuals agreed that the region

had simply not before experienced that amount of rain in an already oversaturated area.

10 | P a g e

County officials also expressed an interest in learning more about FEMA’s property acquisition

program, which was not the focus of this workshop but could be the focus of a future event.

Focus Group 2: The Sustainable Raritan River Regional Engineering Council

A second variation on a focus group took place

with the municipal engineers through the

Sustainable Raritan River Regional Engineering

Council. This group, assembled from twenty six

engineering firms, many local engineers, and

several water utility engineers, discussed

policy, regulation, education (both of

professionals and public officials) and financing

of “blue infrastructure” in the region. This

group met as a body, along with other

engineers and planners in the region, on

Friday, March 16, 2012 at the Middlesex County Fire Training Academy in Sayreville, NJ.

The program covered the key elements of discussions on the need for new practices to

promote mitigation in New Jersey (see White Paper below). Presentations included an

overview of regional weather and flooding by Dr. David Robinson; Hazard Management

Planning for Municipalities by Cynthia Addonizio-Bianco, (Tretra Tech) a Low-Tech Mitigation

Solutions by Water Resources expert, Dr. Chris Obropta (Rutgers University Agricultural

Experiment Station). Andrew Bellini, PE, from USEPA Region II presented on Green

Infrastructure Strategies and Robert A. Brown, also from the regional office, presented the

pervious paving project for the USEPA Region II Labs in Edison, New Jersey.

The professional affiliation of those that attended included mostly engineers, then planners,

public works officials, flood plain managers, environmental scientists, landscape architects,

local elected officials, OEM personnel, and wastewater treatment personnel.

Workshop attendees ranked stormwater management (SWM) and flooding as high to

medium high priority when compared to other infrastructure, environmental and economic

issues in the state. One respondent answered that SWM and flooding are integral parts of

ALL environmental, infrastructure and economic issues in the state and therefore needs to

be considered when planning for all projects. Regarding how changes to policy could

enhance blue or green infrastructure mitigation measures, the number one response was a

simplification needed of the regulations and permits on stream cleaning and floodplain

11 | P a g e

restoration in the state. This was then followed by education of both the general public

and public officials on measures they can take and how what they do affects the

movement of stormwater in the entire town and the region at large.

A concept that was mentioned during the presentation portion and received positive

feedback in the surveys was promoting a program for corporate sponsorship of waterways

similar to the “adopt a highway” program.

When ranking mitigation strategies, the strategy that got the highest score was open space

and wetland restoration and creation, followed by dredging with inflow stream

management plans. Ranked third was a near tie between low tech engineering measures

and minimizing development intensities through greater land use regulation. Interesting

side notes next to the ranks included:

The mitigation community needs to make the distinction between which measures

are to manage stormwater and which are to mitigate flood hazards

Mitigation strategies should also be ranked on cost as well as effectiveness

Mitigation strategies should also be ranked on ease of planning and enforcement

with existing regulations and permitting process

Mitigation planning must be performed on a regional basis or it will be ineffective

In terms of funding, the professional world believes a State Trust Fund would be most

beneficial for funding projects. Some added that this could be done with greater impact

fees on development. It was also noted that not funding projects that don’t go beyond

already existing state SWM rules is also important to ensure that scarce grant money is

appropriated accordingly. One respondent added that our state would benefit from

holding a state-wide symposium where we would bring to the table what every other state

does in terms of flood mitigation and how they fund it.

Regarding education of the public on the issue, it was the general consensus that more

community outreach and workshops need to be held to educate not only the general

public, but also elected officials on what they would be best served in transferring to their

residents. Respondents agreed that social media would be a great outlet for this, with

online videos and workshops. These would be relatively inexpensive to make and officials

wouldn’t have to travel to attend the training.

As final comments, respondents added that they’d like to see case studies from other areas

in the state and country, pilot projects on some of the suggestions made in the

presentations as well as the discussion, and a specific focus on detention basin

maintenance, since Rutgers has faculty that are well-versed in the subject.

12 | P a g e

White Paper on Green and Blue Infrastructure 1.0

In addition to the focus group, the Sustainable Raritan River Regional Engineering Council also

created five subcommittees to address changes needed to enhance green and blue

infrastructure improvements in New Jersey. The leaders of the subcommittees provided input

on their deliberations during the March 16 workshop. During January, February and March of

2012, those leaders convened working group conference calls to identify the critical issues in

the following five areas:

Policy

Regulation

Professional Education

Public Official Education

Financing

The outcome of those discussions are summarized in Appendix C, the Sustainable Raritan River

Regional Engineering Council White Paper on Green and Blue Infrastructure 1.0, which was

distributed for review by the whole Council and those attending the March 16 workshop in an

effort to focus attention at the state and professional level on the need to integrate built and

non-structural solutions to future mitigation efforts. Essentially, it highlights the juxtaposing

viewpoints between engineers and scientists on best approaches to stormwater management:

solutions from dredging versus restoration of natural channels and applying more non-

structural approaches. Policy and regulatory practices do not fully recognize restoration as

value-added to ecosystem services and therefore strategies that would enhance stream habitat

may not be consistent with existing regulations. The white paper will be shared with the NJDEP

in an effort to foster more dialogue on the issues raised for the benefit of mitigation

enhancement across the state.

Media Review: Social, Environmental and Political News Snapshots

The Media Review element of this research is designed to provide a snapshot of events and

activities in local communities that may impact public response to mitigation. The initial

reports provided a brief overview of social, environmental and political. The third review can

be found in Appendix D, Social, Environmental and Political News Snapshots. The final Media

Review was to describe a strategy by which anyone can track local news can be selected by

adopting one of a variety of search functions. In this case, we used Google Search and Google

Alerts. The instructions on how to use these are found in the PowerPoint: Google Alerts Quick

Guide (separate deliverable) and in Appendix E, Tracking Local News Articles.

13 | P a g e

The Pilot Survey: Local Mitigation

The mitigation survey was conducted to test knowledge of mitigation, significance to local

officials, their desire for further information about the subject, desired mode of transmission of

the information, and their willingness to become involved in the issue in their own towns.

Most of the March 29th workshop attendees were local elected officials, which was expected

since this was a follow-up to the municipal interviews held in the months of January and

February. Also in attendance were engineers, planners, OEM personnel, a flood plain manager,

a landscape architect, and others who did not classify their affiliation. The majority of meeting

attendees had lived in their respective towns for over 25 years and expressed having

experienced multiple flooding events.

Those surveyed felt their town was either a good or excellent place to live. Only one town,

Manville, rated their experience as “poor”. When asked what the status of the environment in

their town would be in the next 25 years, respondents were split on the environment being

better and it being worse. Only two people said it would likely remain the same. In terms of

flooding in their town, a majority of respondents believe that excessive rain is the culprit with

intensity of rain events getting the second largest number of votes. Most respondents believe

that the flooding in their town is critical or hazardous, as opposed to a simple nuisance.

When asked about the mitigation strategies that would work for their individual communities,

most municipalities placed the buy-out program at the low end of the list, with community

wide best management practices, such as storm water mitigation, as the highest. In terms of

what the most important benefit that flood mitigation would bring to their community,

reduction of cost absorbed by the municipal budget was ranked as the most important. An

emphasis on flooding’s impact on local budgets is most likely a vital issue because many of the

municipalities in the region are still cleaning up from Hurricane Irene and therefore still feeling

the impact in local budgets.

When asked to rank their familiarity with specific mitigation strategies, all of the respondents

were either very familiar or somewhat familiar with rain barrels and rain gardens. Stream

restoration also ranked very high. Interesting to note is that reconnecting floodplains got the

highest score in terms of respondents NOT being familiar with the strategy at all. This

illustrates a specific area where education could be offered to the community and community-

wide planning could create a system for reconnecting the floodplains in the region.

In terms of the communication mechanism to bring flood mitigation information to the

communities, most respondents agreed that good old fashion personal meetings are most

effective. A lot of respondents also felt that workshops with their OEM personnel would also

be beneficial. Web-based videos seem to be the least-desired communication mechanism.

14 | P a g e

Attendees ranked their own town as the best place to hold workshops, as less and less people

would be willing to attend as the workshops moved further from their home-base.

When asked about their willingness to implement more mitigation strategies in their own town,

most respondents expressed their willingness to attend trainings on beneficial practices,

regardless of the number of trainings available in any given amount of time. This illustrates the

importance of workshop content and local applicability, rather than monthly meetings that may

lack substantive materials.

A summary of the survey results, along with a copy of the survey itself, are provided in

Appendix F, Municipal Mitigation Survey.

15 | P a g e

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF FLOODING EVENTS IN THE RARITAN BASIN:

Framework for Development of a Damage Assessment Model

Dr. Joseph J. Seneca

Will Irving

Kate Davidoff

Introduction

This report provides an analysis of the potential public and private benefits of flood mitigation

efforts in the Raritan River watershed. It is organized as follows. Section 1 consists of an

econometric analysis of the relation between past flooding events and the extent of National

Flood Insurance Program claimed damage payouts. Section 2 provides a discussion of

additional municipal costs that should be included in a comprehensive estimation of the

relation between flood severity and damages. Section 3 examines the costs of increased risk of

premature death and injury that occur because of flooding events and how federal regulatory

agencies (e.g., USEPA) place monetary values on these risks. Section 4 discusses how to

estimate the monetary value of ecosystem services that accrue to natural capital (e.g., riparian

buffer areas).

These benefits should be included in any comprehensive assessment of policies that restore

developed property in flood plains to a natural state as a riparian buffer. Section 5 provides a

review of the extensive literature that attempts to measure the monetary discount on home

prices that is imposed by the location of the house in a flood risk area. Such discounts are costs

incurred by property owners and are additional costs to those discussed in previous sections.

Finally, Section 6 provides a summary and suggestions for additional research.

I. National Flood Insurance Plan Payouts and Flood Event Severity

This section presents the results of a linear programming model relating annual National Flood

Insurance Program (NFIP) claim payouts to flood severity for a selection of four municipalities in

the Raritan Basin: Bound Brook, Branchburg, Manville, and Middlesex. Specifically, the model

measures the annual dollar amount of claims paid by the NFIP program in each municipality (in

16 | P a g e

inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars) as a function of stream discharge at the nearest USGS U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauge site. Two measures of discharge were used in the

analysis. The first is the peak daily mean streamflow, measured in cubic feet per second, for

each municipality each year. The second measure is the peak streamflow, also measured in

cubic feet per second, for each “water year” as reported by the USGS for each relevant site.

The time period covered is 1975 to 2011.

At this stage the model does not attempt to examine all municipal or federal damage costs

incurred as a result of flood events. Rather it is intended to provide an initial framework for

development of a more detailed model that would capture a broader range of damages, and

relate them to more comprehensive measures of flood severity. In combination with a

measure of flood probability and/or risk, such a model can provide a tool for evaluating the

expected benefits – i.e., the reduction in damage costs – that may occur from various types of

flood mitigation measures. Suggested approaches to the development of a more fully specified

model are provided following the description of the results.

Model Results

For each of the four municipalities in question, NFIP payouts (in 2011 dollars) were first plotted

against both measures of streamflow: peak daily mean for each year from 1975 through 2011,

and peak streamflow for each year from 1975 through 2010.1 Graphs plotting the relationship

of payouts to each of the two streamflow measures are shown for each municipality. The first

graph for each municipality – the one using the peak daily mean flow for each year – includes a

plot for 2011, while the second graph does not. This is because the USGS had not listed a peak

flow for 2011 for each municipality at the time of this analysis. The payout level is zero for

most years, as indicated in the graphs.

Note that the payout levels for 2011 indicated in the first graph do not represent the full year’s

data, as only data through September 2011 were available at the time of the analysis. As a

result, these payout levels appear uniformly low relative to the streamflow levels. As such, this

point is included on each of the graphs for informative purposes, but cannot be considered a

reliable measure of 2011 payouts to include in the econometric estimation until the full claims

data are available.

1 Residential and non-residential NFIP claims are combined for each year. Residential claims were adjusted to 2011

price levels based on gross domestic product (GDP) price deflators for fixed residential investment. Non-

residential claims were adjusted based on GDP price deflators for non-residential fixed investment in structures.

Both series are published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

17 | P a g e

1979 1996

1999 2007

2010

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 Peak Annual Streamflow (cubic feet/second)

Bound Brook NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars) by Peak Annual Streamflow, 1975-2010

Bound Brook NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars)

1979

1996

1999 2007

2010

2011 $0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

Peak Daily Mean Streamflow (cubic feet/second)

Bound Brook NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars) by Peak Daily Mean Streamflow, 1975-2011

Bound Brook NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars)

18 | P a g e

1979

1984

1996

1999

2007 2010 2011

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Peak Daily Mean Streamflow (cubic feet/second)

Branchburg NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars) by Peak Daily Mean Streamflow, 1975-2011

Branchburg NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars)

1979

1984

1996

1999

2007 2010

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

Peak Annual Streamflow (cubic feet/second)

Branchburg NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars) by Peak Annual Streamflow, 1975-2010

Branchburg NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars)

19 | P a g e

1979

1996

1999

2007

2010

2011

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

$18,000,000

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 Peak Daily Mean Streamflow (cubic feet/second)

Manville NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars) by Peak Daily Mean Streamflow, 1975-2011

Manville NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars)

1979

1996

1999

2007

$2010

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

$18,000,000

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000

Peak Annual Streamflow (cubic feet/second)

Manville NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars) by Peak Annual Streamflow, 1975-2010

Manville NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars)

20 | P a g e

1979 1984

1996

1999

2007

2010

2011

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

Peak Daily Mean Streamflow (cubic feet/second)

Middlesex NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars) by Peak Daily Mean Streamflow, 1975-2011

Middlesex NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars)

1984

1996

1999

2007

2010

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000

Peak Annual Streamflow (cubic feet/second)

Middlesex NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars) by Peak Annual Streamflow, 1975-2010

Middlesex NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars)

21 | P a g e

In the case of all the municipalities with the exception of Branchburg, the pattern of the two

graphs is the same, with both showing an increase in payouts relative to streamflow above a

threshold level. In all cases except Branchburg, the statistical relationship between payouts and

streamflow is of relatively equal strength. In the case of Branchburg, the relationship between

payouts and peak annual discharge is much stronger, as can be seen by comparing the two

graph plots.

Based on an estimated linear programming model fitted to data graphed above for each

municipality, the sensitivity between peak annual streamflow and NFIP claims is presented in

Table 1. These findings are the result of statistical analysis of the relationships using the data in

the second graph for each municipality on the preceding pages. The Damage Threshold in each

table represents the expected streamflow level at which NFIP payable claims begin to occur for

each municipality.2 The final column in each table indicates the estimated increase in NFIP

payouts for every increase of 5,000 cubic feet per second of streamflow over the specified

threshold.3

Example Application of Econometric Equations

The estimated equations can be used to forecast insurance payouts for individual municipalities

for varying levels of flooding. Also, forecasted levels of damages can be compared to actual

damages ex post.

For example, the 2011 observations were not included in the estimated linear programming

equations for Bound Brook and Manville due to incomplete data on insurance payouts for that

year. Also, significant mitigation efforts in both municipalities have occurred over the last

2 The Damage Threshold is not necessarily a level at which past payouts have been made. Rather, in the statistical

relationship between payouts and streamflow, it is the estimated point after which the first dollar would be paid. 3 This amount is based on the estimated coefficients from the model estimation for each municipality. The

estimated equations are given for each municipality in Appendix G, Thresholds Data.

No. Municipality

USGS Stream

Gauge Site No. USGS Stream Gauge Site Name

Damage Threshold*

(Cubic Feet/Second)

Damage Increase per

5,000 Cubic

Feet/Second Increase

(2011 Dollars)

1 Bound Brook USGS 01403060 Raritan River below Calco Dam at Bound Brook NJ 29,185 $2,643,616

2 Branchburg USGS 01400000 North Branch Raritan River near Raritan NJ 17,748 $672,650

3 Manville USGS 01400500 Raritan River at Manville NJ 20,217 $1,407,661

4 Middlesex USGS 01403060 Raritan River below Calco Dam at Bound Brook NJ 26,022 $488,075

* Damage Threshold represents the estimated streamflow level at which monetary damages, measured by National Flood Insurance Program claim

payouts, begin to accrue.

Table 1

Relationship of Damage Estimates To Peak Annual Streamflow

22 | P a g e

decade including flood control infrastructure investment and buyouts. Thus, given the actual

readings of flood severity for 2011 from the river gauge data, the equations can be solved for

the expected insurance damage payouts in each municipality. These estimates can then be

compared with actual insurance payouts when all the payout data is available. The difference,

if any, between the forecasted payouts and the actual payouts could be one measure of the

estimated effect (in terms of the amount of damages avoided) that has resulted from the

mitigation efforts. Table 2 presents the 2011 payout forecasts for Bound Brook and Manville

using the linear programming model, and shows the payouts reported to date (through

September 2011). Note that because peak streamflow estimates for these locations were not

yet available for 2011, the peak daily mean flow is used. The higher peak annual flow measure

would produce a higher estimated payout level.

Table 2

Bound Brook Manville

Peak Daily Mean Streamflow 51,700 44,500

Estimated 2011 Payouts $11,904,048 $6,836,320

Payouts to Date $1,232,861 $3,299,160

Thus, if the payouts-to-date as indicated in Table 2 represented the full payouts for the

year, the implication would be that mitigation efforts - whether in the form of buyouts or

property-protection measures – had reduced the potential damages by $10.7 million in Bound

Brook and by $3.5 million in Manville. Findings such as this would present opportunities to

study the mitigation actions undertaken in municipalities with lower-than-expected damages in

order to determine the potential reductions in avoided damages associated with mitigation

actions of various scopes and costs. However, it is likely that the payout data are incomplete.

Therefore, a definitive conclusion on the 2011 payouts must wait until a complete record of

payouts for the events of that year is available.

Another approach is to examine the estimated reduction in damages that could be

achieved through a reduction in streamflow – that is, through a reduction in runoff due to

installation of green infrastructure. A preliminary estimate of the costs associated with such an

approach was generated for the Raritan River Basin at Manville using the Green Values

Calculator developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology, a non-profit advocacy group

promoting sustainable development. The estimate indicates capital costs of between $20,000

and $64,000 per acre and annual maintenance costs of between $700 and $1,400 per acre to

retain one inch of runoff, which results in a streamflow reduction of approximately 10,000

cubic feet per second. A comprehensive benefit-cost analysis would refine and apply these

estimates across the river basin around Manville, and would take into account a broadly

defined range of benefits, including damage reductions, as well as other environmental

benefits, such as water quality improvement, reduced stream bank erosion, reduced water

treatment costs, and others. These benefits and damage reductions would also likely accrue to

23 | P a g e

other municipalities downstream of Manville and the full scope of these benefits would be

incorporated into the analysis.

Potential Model Improvements

There are several ways in which the model’s predictive efficiency and effectiveness

could be improved.

Event-Level Data

Due to data constraints, this model used annual data on NFIP payouts and streamflow.

Ideally, these indicators would be measured on an event-by-event basis, in order to more

precisely relate flood severity to associated damages. Distinctions between multiple events in a

given year are not captured using annual measures of damage payouts.

Refined Flood Severity Measures

Because of time and data constraints, this demonstration model uses a single measure –

streamflow – as an indicator of flooding severity. However, this measure fails to capture other

hydrological and land features that may influence the severity of flood damage, such as

precipitation and ground saturation preceding a major storm event and time elapsed between

events. More sophisticated measures of flood event severity could capture the effects of these

conditions and other relevant flood event determinants of damages.

Functional Form

The equation modeled here represents a simple linear relationship (after a threshold

had been determined by the methodology) between damage claim payouts and flood severity.

However, a different functional form – i.e., a non-linear mathematical formulation of the

relationship after the threshold – could produce a model that more accurately predicts the

observed damages associated with given levels of flood severity.

II. Municipal Costs Due to Flooding

Given a well-developed model framework and flood severity measure, it would be

possible to estimate the potential damages avoided (i.e., benefits) of various mitigation

strategies based on historical data on the damages incurred relative to the expected damages

relative to flood severity in areas where mitigation measures have been implemented. These

avoided damages could then be compared the cost of implementing the mitigation measures,

allowing for examination in a benefit-cost framework. However, it would be necessary to

analyze the relationship of flood severity using more complete measures of costs. At the

municipal level, it would be of interest to use this framework to estimate the potential net

benefits of various mitigation strategies from a fiscal perspective. While this analysis has

examined the relationship of flooding and NFIP claim payouts, the model could be adapted to

also reflect additional monetary damages incurred by municipalities that may not be

compensated by NFIP or other FEMA or federal programs. While collection and analysis of

24 | P a g e

consistently measured cost data at the municipal level was not within the scope of the current

project, it is worth exploring these potential damage and/or cost types.

Assessing the damages to municipalities of flooding events is complex. Municipalities

incur costs before, during and after flooding events. These costs depend on factors such as the

infrastructure in place prior to the flood event, the level of preparedness, and the extent of the

flood. The taxonomy below outlines some of the activities that impose costs on municipalities

in a flood event. It can serve as a guide to help municipalities systematically classify the

components of the total cost due to flood events. The National Weather Service (NWS) defines

flood damages to include direct and indirect costs associated with flooding and both types of

costs are included below. These costs, fully accounted, could be introduced into the damage

model presented above.

Pre-Event During Event Post Event Flood Planning -Emergency Services

-Extra personnel: military, fire, police, medical service, search and rescue teams -Emergency repairs and other costs: evacuation

Public assistance-rebuild roads, bridges, utilities and other public infrastructure (Direct and Indirect Cost)

Flood Plain Mapping

Protecting and safe-guarding buildings against structural damage and contamination

Endangerment of industry and trade location, due to interruptions of transport sector

Emergency Warnings

Aid to voluntary organizations for assistance to victims including providing food and shelter, health services etc. (Direct Cost)

Long term public health impacts (Indirect Cost)

Communication with public re: local flooding efforts

Ensuring access to Food and Water: waste water and water quality

Telecommunications

Maintenance Municipal services flood control including sandbagging, pumping water, etc. (Direct Cost)

Damage to publically maintained facilities including parks and recreational facilities, public housing, schools, libraries etc. (Indirect Cost)

Real Time Monitoring (Direct Cost)

Loss of revenue from retail sales tax, business tax, reduced property tax assessment both short term and long term (Indirect Cost)

Planning, policy and infrastructure costs associated with demolition, replanning and rebuilding

25 | P a g e

Sources of Flood Damage Estimates

There are a number of sources of flood damage estimates available to municipalities. These sources cover varying geographic areas and include differing scopes for damages making it difficult to compare sources to each other. Given the lack of a comprehensive database, municipalities would have to use a combination of sources.

(source: http://www.flooddamagedata.org/flooddamagedata.pdf)

National Weather Service Data

The National Weather Service (NWS) has compiled annual flood loss estimates for each

state since 1955. However, studies have shown these estimates to often be far lower than total

costs (Downton and Peilke, 2005). NWS provides ‘loss estimates for significant flooding events’

of ‘direct damages due to flooding that results from rainfall and/or snowmelt.’ Estimates are

restricted to direct physical damages, including loss of property and crops and costs of repairing

damaged infrastructure. NWS field offices submit reports to NWS including descriptions of

storms and their impacts, number of deaths and estimated damages.

Advantages

o Relatively consistent data from 1955-present enabling the ability to compare over time.

Disadvantages

o State reports typically focus on severe floods, so generally do not include information

from relatively low flood loss (estimates of losses below $5 million are excluded).

o Data is taken from field offices that may not have training on gathering flood damage

estimates, and level of training differs from field to field.

o FEMA’s tracking costs are more accurate-include initial damage estimate, preliminary

damage assessment, damage survey report and actual costs.

Source Timespan Spatial Scale

Scope

National Weather Service flood damage data sets

1925–present

Nation State Basin

Estimates of direct physical damage from significant flooding events that result from rainfall or snowmelt

Insurance records (National Flood Insurance Program, private insurers)

1969–present

Nation Community

Personal property claims made by individuals holding flood insurance

Disaster assistance records (Federal Emergency Management Agency)

1992–present

Nation State

Federal and state outlays for public assistance, individual assistance, and temporary housing in presidentially declared disasters

State and local government records

Varies State Varies

Newspaper archives Varies Community Varies

26 | P a g e

Interview Findings and Literature Review

Office of Emergency Management Interviews

Interviews with municipalities confirm academic literature that is difficult to fully estimate the

cost for public sector due to flooding.

o Private homeowners file directly to FEMA or their own insurance company leaving OEM

officials with only broad estimates of overall costs.

o Major costs for public sector include overtime for police, firefighters and public works

personal and public infrastructure repair.

o About 75/25% recovery split between federal and local funds is the norm in disaster

relief.

Literature Review

There have been several attempts in the literature to assess public sector costs due to

flooding events

Burton and Hicks (2005) developed a model for public sector costs due to food events in the

aftermath of the damages along the Mississippi and Missouri river basin. This model has been

used several times since then to estimate damages from Hurricane Katrina (2005), flooding in

Memphis, Tennessee (2011) and the flooding of the Indus River in Pakistan (2010). The model

was created to address the limited number of empirical models of flood damages for the public

sector as a whole (2005). The authors take into account that flood damages within specific

categories are related to the economic and geographic conditions that were evident prior to the

flood (2005). The model is represented as

o Mi= f(D,E,F)

Mi=Monetary value of flood damages within the ith damage category

D=vector of the demographic variables including, but not limited to total

population, age distribution, geographic dispersion

E=vector of economic variables, including but not limited to per capital personal

income, number of commercial establishments, industrial mix, extent and value

of personal infrastructures

F= vector of variables describing the flood event(s), including but not limited to

maximum stage above flood, duration of flood, and maximum flows associated

with the flood event and the length of any period of warning, and prior flood

histories

o Advantages

Advantages to this technique is that it is general enough to be translated into

different areas

Develops damage categories including: commercial structure damages,

commercial equipment damages, residential structure damages, residential

contents damages, commercial revenues damages, electric utility damages,

highway damages, sewer system damages

This model can give a broad, quick estimate of flooding impacts immediately

after storm

27 | P a g e

o Disadvantages

Does not include emergency response costs

Does not include cost of human life or costs of injuries

Does not provide an in depth look at costs over the long run for municipalities

An alternative way of looking at the cost of flood events is provided by Brody et al (2007a,

2007b) who seek to understand the impact of the built environment on flood costs. The authors

believe that rising flood related damages may not be fully explained by inflation or population

growth but rather are due to the way we plan for and develop communities. They use the

presence or absence of wetlands, the number of impervious surfaces and the presence of dams

to understand the dramatic rise in costs due to floods. They use their model in several locations

including coastal areas in Florida and east Texas. They examine individual flood events and

regress environmental indices of wetlands, impervious surfaces and dams against flood damage

estimates. Flood damage estimates are gathered using SHELDUS database at the Hazard

Research Lab at the University of South Carolina which consists of county level inventory of

hazard types including flood damages. In their Texas study, they find that increasing amounts of

wetland alteration (decreasing wetland’s effectiveness) is a significant indicator in reported

property damage and is the strongest variable in this test.

Costs for emergency services are substantial and important for the choice of risk management

strategies. However, it is difficult to develop an accurate understanding of the costs for

municipalities during and after a flooding event. British authors Penning-Roswell and Wilson

(2006) attempt to quantify the cost of emergency response activities in Britain during 2000

when there were several floods in England and Wales. Emergency efforts include extensive

flood warnings, temporary protection of large numbers of properties and large-scale evacuation

of vulnerable populations. While this study focuses on the UK, it can guide municipalities in the

US to think about quantifying their emergency response costs in a systematic and sustained

way. The chart below taken from this article outlines the organizations responsible for

emergency response functions.

28 | P a g e

Source: Penning-Rosewall and Wilson

Chatterton et al. (2010) also examine floods in England in 2007 to determine the type, the

magnitude and, where possible and relevant, the plausible monetary value of the impacts of the

summer 2007 flood events across a range of sectors and impact categories. The authors used a

variety of methods to determine costs paid by different sectors. They examined the following:

insurance claims to property, audited accounts of local authorities and public services, surveys of

damages and extra costs incurred by businesses and companies such as utility and transport

companies, surveys of farm businesses, and costs of disruption of services to users based on

previously derived estimates of willingness to pay of services such as water and electricity supplies.

Finally, they standardized unit rates for estimating damages or losses with respect to fatalities,

health costs and travel disruption.

The authors estimated the following distribution of costs:

o Households 38%

o Business 24%

o Utilities 10%

o Communications 7%

o Public Health 9%

o Local Government infrastructure excluding roads and nonemergency services 4%

o Agriculture 2%

o Environmental Agency 1%

o Vehicles 3%

o Temporary Accommodation 3%

o Emergency Services (police, fire and rescue) <1%

29 | P a g e

The percentage of emergency services and local government costs was lower than other

sectors. However, local government costs exceeded 134 million pounds, and emergency

services 8 million pounds; a substantial figure. In this case only 45% of both the local

government and emergency services costs were insured.

Additionally, Pfurtscheller and Schwarze (n.d.)report that during Hurricane Katrina, the

approved government expenditure for emergency services amounts to more than $5 billion or

3.7% of the total economic loss4. They also cite several other studies which show a range of

emergency costs of the total economic loss from 2.2% (Freistaat Sachsen 2002) to 4.7%

(Sachsen-Anhalt 2002) and up to 10.7 % in the U.K. (Penning-Rowsell / Wilson 2006). Their

analysis primarily focuses on European cities; for example, they cite emergency costs of more

than 14.7% in Magdeburg, Germany in 2002 (Freistaat Sachsen 2002). The majority of these

studies are not available in English and it is difficult to fully assess the methodology behind these

estimates.

References

Brody, S., S. Zahran, P., Maghelal, H., Grover and W., Highfield. 2007. The Rising Costs of Floods:

Examining the Impact of Planning and Development Decisions on Property Damage in Florida.

Journal of the American Planning Association. 73:3 330-344.

Brody, S., S. Zahran, P., Maghelal, H., Grover and W., Highfield. 2007. Identifying the Impact of

the Built Environment on Flood Damage in Texas. Overseas Development Institute, Blackwell

Publishing, Oxford UK and Malden MA.

Burton M. and M. Hicks. 2005. Hurricane Katrina: Preliminary Estimates of Commercial and

Public Sector Damages. Center for Business and Economic Research. Marshall University.

Huntington WV.

Chatterton, J., C. Viviatten, J., Morris, C., Penning-Roswell and S., Tapsell. 2010. The Costs of the

Summer 2007 Floods in England. Environmental Science.

Downton, M. and R Pielke. 2005. How Accurate are Disaster Loss Data? The Case of US Flood

Damage. Natural Hazards. 35:211-228

Methods for the Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Flood Losses: 4th International Symposium on

Flood Defence: Managing Flood Risk, Reliability and Vulnerability Toronto, Ontario, Canada,

May 6-8, 2008.

4 This 3.7% of total economic loss figure was also used in a report given to the 4

th International Symposium on

Flood Defence, although the origins of the figure have not been confirmed.

30 | P a g e

Penning-Rowsell, E and Willson T. 2006. Gauging the impact of natural hazards: the pattern and

cost of emergency response during flood events. Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers. 31:2. 99-115.

Pielke, Jr., R.A., M.W. Downton, and J.Z. Barnard Miller, 2002: Flood Damage in the United

States, 1926–2000: A Reanalysis of National Weather Service Estimates. Boulder, CO: UCAR.

Pfurtscheller, and Schwarze n.d. “Estimating the Costs of Emergency Services During Flood

Events (PPT Only). Risk Management of Extreme Flood Event

III. Mortality and Morbidity Costs

In addition to direct monetary costs to municipalities, such as property damage, emergency

response, and damage to public infrastructure, flooding events can result in human injury and

death. In addition to the costs of care, lost work days, and other direct costs associated with

these losses, morbidity (sickness and injury) and mortality also represent inherent monetary

value. Such costs are not borne directly by individual municipalities but rather fall on

individuals, businesses, the broader economy, and society at large although elements of these

costs may also have fiscal impacts on municipalities. These costs are used by federal agencies

such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in weighing the economic efficiency of

various regulations and policies. As such, consideration of the monetary values of mortality and

morbidity risks are appropriate in evaluating the potential damages of flooding and the benefits

of mitigation strategies.

The monetary measure of fatal risk used by the EPA – known as the “value of a statistical life” –

does not refer to the value of any known single individual’s life. Rather, it is designed to

capture the premium that people would be willing to pay in exchange for a reduction in fatal

risk over an exposed population. The EPA website offers the following example:

Suppose each person in a sample of 100,000 people were asked how much he or

she would be willing to pay for a reduction in their individual risk of dying of 1 in

100,000, or 0.001%, over the next year. Since this reduction in risk would mean

that we would expect one fewer death among the sample of 100,000 people

over the next year on average, this is sometimes described as "one statistical life

saved.” Now suppose that the average response to this hypothetical question

was $100. Then the total dollar amount that the group would be willing to pay to

save one statistical life in a year would be $100 per person × 100,000 people, or

$10 million. This is what is meant by the "value of a statistical life.”

31 | P a g e

The EPA currently recommends a “value of a statistical life” of $7.4 million (in 2006 dollars) to

be used in regulatory impact analysis and cost-benefit analysis of EPA policies.5 Similarly,

“willingness to pay” to avoid illness or injury is also frequently cited in analyses of

environmental policies and regulations.6

A model that forecasts damages associated with a flood event could incorporate estimates of

the risk of injury or fatality, and the dollar damages associated with that risk and its mitigation.

This would result in a more complete representation of the losses associated with flood events.

It would require an estimate of the incidence of mortality and injury as a result of flood

severity. That incidence would be applied to the exposed population to get an estimate of the

expected number of premature deaths and injury expected at different levels of flood severity.

That expected number of premature deaths and injuries could be converted to a willingness to

pay estimate to obtain an estimate of the social costs of these deaths and injuries and hence

form the basis of estimates of additional costs, beyond the municipal costs previously

discussed, of flooding events. Symmetrically, these would be estimates of benefits, i.e., the

health damages avoided if mitigation strategies reduce flood severity and its associated human

health risks.

IV. Ecosystem Services Benefits

There is an extensive peer-reviewed literature in the interface of economics and ecology that

estimates the monetary value of the annual flow of ecosystem benefits that are generated by

natural capital (forests, marshes, estuaries, beaches, open fresh water, etc.). The seminal study

by Costanza, et al. (1997) ambitiously attempted global estimates of the value of such services

by land type. That pioneering study resulted in a large number of further studies that have

both extended and refined the methodology of the measurement of such benefits and applied

it to many different areas and land use issues (e.g., Freeman, 2003, and Howarth and Farber,

2002). A related and also large number of studies analyze how such benefit estimates can be

appropriately transferred and applied to other specific geographic sites (e.g., Plummer, 2009,

Navud and Ready, 2007, and Spash and Vatn, 2006).

5 “See Frequently Asked Questions on Mortality Risk Valuation” on the EPA website at

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/MortalityRiskValuation.html, the EPA’s Guidelines for

Preparing Economic Analyses, Appendix B (http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-

22.pdf/$file/EE-0568-22.pdf) and a more technical discussion of the practice at

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0563-1.pdf/$file/EE-0563-1.pdf. The federal Office of

Management and Budget circular “Economic Analysis of Federal Regulations Under Executive Order 12866”

provides further guidance in the use of these measures (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_riaguide). 6 See, for example, Dickie, Mark and Shelby Gerking, “Willingness to Pay for Reduced Morbidity,” presentation for

the workshop Economic Valuation of Health for Environmental Policy: Assessing Alternative Approaches, March 18-

19, 2002 (http://www.bus.ucf.edu/documents/economics/workingpapers/2002-07.pdf).

32 | P a g e

In the current context, flood mitigation strategies involving buyouts and the subsequent

restoration of natural flood plain acreage in the Raritan River watershed offer the likelihood

that there will be additional benefits to these investments beyond the various private and

public cost savings discussed previously. Such ecosystem service benefits are social in nature,

i.e., they would accrue to the broader society as a result of the restoration of the natural

riparian area. There are issues about whether a threshold amount of restoration (e.g., in terms

of a minimum amount of acreage) must exist before these benefits occur and there are

additional technical questions about the applicability of applying estimates done for other areas

to the Raritan River watershed. In addition, municipalities may incur some costs in maintaining

such restored areas and/or converting them for recreational or other uses. Accordingly, we

offer the following estimates as an example of applying such ecosystem service values to the

Raritan River watershed. This application of a benefit transfer technique for flood mitigation

policy is illustrative, but we believe it is worthy of further research and refinement.

Specifically, we take the estimates of ecosystem service benefits in New Jersey used by Liu, et

al. (2010) and apply them to the Raritan River watershed. The Liu et al. study is an example of

the benefits transfer approach. Liu et al. took meta-analysis estimates from the peer-reviewed

literature for specific benefit types by various land use categories and applied those estimates

to New Jersey. It also applied various discount rates to the future annual flow of ecosystem

service benefits.7 The result was a series of shadow price estimates of the annual value of

these ecosystem services by acre by 12 types of benefit (e.g., water supply, soil retention, water

regulation, nutrient regulation, waste treatment, aesthetic and recreational, etc.) and by 13

land cover types (e.g., fresh water wetland, forest, estuary, riparian buffer, etc.).

For riparian buffer acreage in New Jersey, Liu uses a value of $3,382 (in 2004 dollars) per acre as

the estimate of the annual monetary value of eco-service benefits. It consists almost entirely

of benefits attributable to water supply and aesthetic and recreation enhancements. The Liu

study applies this to an estimated 15,146 acres of riparian buffer land cover in New Jersey. The

result is an annual estimate of $51 million in ecosystem service benefits attributable to riparian

buffer land in the state in 2004 dollars. The table below reports the results from the Liu study

for all land use types and lists the annual values of estimated service flows. The total annual

value of all ecosystem service benefits in New Jersey for all land cover types is estimated at

$11.59 billion (in 2004 dollars).

7 There is an extensive and on-going debate on the appropriate social rate of discount to use in such studies where

the annual benefits of natural capital extend over multiple generations (see, e.g., the seminal article, Weitzman,

1998).

33 | P a g e

When adjusted to 2011 dollars (by the Consumer Price Index), the annual benefit per acre of

riparian buffer land is $4,028 per acre. It is this value that could be used to estimate the

additional social benefits in the form of the value of the ecosystem services from restored

riparian buffer acres in the Raritan River watershed. Additional research is warranted to

examine the robustness of this estimate and what minimal acreage requirement is needed to

apply it to relatively small parcels of reclaimed riparian buffer land attributable to buyouts and

other related flood damage mitigation policies.

Source: Liu, et al. “Valuing New Jersey’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital: A Spatially

Explicit Benefit Transfer Approach,” Environmental Management, Vol. 45, 2010.

34 | P a g e

References

Costanza, R., et al., “The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital” Nature,

Vol. 387, 1997, pp. 253-260.

Freeman, A.K. III, The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, Resources for the

Future, Washington, D.C., 2003.

Howarth, R.B. and Farber, S. “Accounting for the Value of Ecosystem Services” Ecological

Economics, Vol. 41, 2002, pp. 421-482.

Liu, Shuang et al., “Valuing New Jersey’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital: A Spatially

Explicity Benefit Transfer Approach,” Environmental Management, Vol. 45, 2010 pp. 1271-1285.

Navrud, S. and Ready, R. (eds.), Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods, Springer,

Dordecht, The Netherlands, 2007.

Plummer, M.L. “Assessing Benefit Transfer for the Valuation of Ecosystem Services” Frontiers in

Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 7, 2009, pp. 38-45.

Spash, C.L. and Vatn, A. “Transferring Environmental Value Estimates: Issues and Alternatives”

Ecological Economics, Vol. 60, 2006, pp. 379-388.

Weitzman, M.L. “Why the Far-distant Future Should Be Discounted at its Lowest Possible Rate”

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 36, 1998, pp. 335-342.

35 | P a g e

V. Impact of Floods on House Prices

Beyond the costs discussed above there are the potential costs to all homeowners (and

businesses) located in a flood plain due to the lower property values of simply being in that

location with its elevated risk of flood damages beyond those of similar properties located

outside of flood plains. This section examines the literature that has attempted to empirically

estimate the discount in property values attributable to a location in a flood plain. These are

costs that accrue to individual property owner and may have extensions to the municipalities

due to their impact on assessed values of property. Note that these costs fall on a broader

segment of the community beyond those directly damaged by flood.

There is a robust literature that has attempted to estimate the effects on property values of

being located in a flood plain. The dominant methodology is an examination of the effect of

location on house prices using hedonic models. Studies have used the hedonic pricing model

to determine the value of homes located in floodplains compared to homes of similar

characteristics not located in a floodplain. Other studies use willingness to pay models to

determine the price homebuyers are willing to pay to live within or outside a floodplain. Most

of these hedonic and willingness to pay studies use property price differentials as a way to

reflect the expected loss associated with a hazard (e.g., a flood). The price that consumers are

willing to pay is determined by examining the prices of similar homes in and out of the flood

hazard zone. Many of the studies assume that the reduction in value would be equal to the

present value of the costs of all future flood insurance premiums (Harrison et al, 2001).

Alternatively, some researchers have begun to use behavioral economics and the sociology of

risk to understand how flood prone homes affect house price. The annotated literature review

provided here offers several examples of studies using these models. Below is a brief overview

of the findings.

Most of the studies use location in a floodplain as a measure of potential damages to future

house prices. This makes it difficult to identify the price differences between location in

floodplain versus damages due to flood. In a meta-analysis done in 1998 by the US Army Corps

of Engineers of 13 academic studies, more than half (8) estimate a model where a variable of

the 100 year floodplain is used regardless of where in the floodplain the house is located. Half

of these show a price discount for location, half do not. The authors note these studies are

inconclusive and expected to be so because this model implies that the flood risk is equal across

the 100-year floodplain. In reality, flood risk will vary depending on where homes in the

floodplain are located. Four studies looked at the impact of flood insurance programs and all

found the capitalized value of flood insurance premiums is discounted from property values.

However, only about a fourth of property owners purchase flood insurance, so it cannot be

assumed that all property owners discount for primary flood damages. Three researches

studied property values in a period following a flood: none found a discount in price over the

36 | P a g e

long term, one found a drop in prices followed by a recovery with recovery being slower for

houses with more frequent flooding (Chao et al, 1998).

In general, the studies included in this literature review that use hedonic price models show

that homes located within the 100 year flood plains sell for less than equivalent homes outside

of the flood plain (Daniel et al, 2005; Dei-Tutu, 2002; Harrison et al., 2001; Fridgen and Shultz,

1999). While studies were conducted in a wide geographic range covering North Carolina,

Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota and Minnesota-all showed some decrease in home price sales

over time for homes located in the flood plain. The extent of the difference in price varies from

an average of $8,255, or 6.2% of the house sales price in a North Carolina study (Dei-Tutu,

2002), a fairly similar average of $8,990 which is approximately 81% of the price depreciation

associated with required flood insurance premiums was found in North Dakota (Fridgen and

Shults, 1999). In the North Dakota study, authors also measured house prices after extensive

flooding actions in 1997, and found homes in the 100-year floodplain were on average priced

$10,241 less than similar homes located outside the floodplain and before the 1997 flood

event. This perhaps means that more recent flooding events have had an increased impact on

house prices.

A meta-analysis of 16 studies conducted in 2005 explored the determinants of implicit price of

risk of flooding (Daniel et al, 2005). The meta-analysis showed the selling prince of a house

located in the standard 100-year floodplain is on average 2.1% lower than a similar house

located outside the zone at risk. The study also showed that when a house buyer has the

opportunity to gain new information about flood damage, the implicit price of risk gets higher.

This supports the idea that with better information, homebuyers make assess risk more

accurately (Daniel et al, 2005). Finally, a study in Florida examined the direct cost of flood plain

location on housing values while not assuming the reduction in house price would be equal to

the present value cost of future flood insurance premiums. This study looked at the 1994

National Flood Insurance Reform Act to understand if there were pricing differences before and

after the reform went into place. The authors examined the valuation of homes located within

the 100 year flood plains and found that indeed the price differential is less than the present

value of future insurance premiums. In this study, before the 1994 act properties located in

100-year flood plain were priced nearly $1,000 lower than observationally equivalent housing

units outside the zone, less than the present value cost of all future catastrophic insurance

premiums (Harrison et al., 2001). After the 1994 Act, the price differential increased to $2,000,

which may reflect the increase in house prices after 1994.

Other ways to address the effect of flood plain on house prices include methods such as spline

regression and willingness to pay models. A study in New Orleans that uses spline regression

confirms findings in earlier studies that house prices within flood plains were lower than those

outside. Much of this reduction can be attributed to mandatory flood insurance coverage.

Moreover, while unexpected flooding does increase the insurance cost capitalization, repeated

flooding does not seem to reduce property values further (Speyer et al., 1991). A study in

37 | P a g e

Louisiana developed a model to estimate consumers’ willingness to pay for a reduction in the

probability of flooding hazard in an urban area. For homes in the flood zone, the full differential

for flood zone prices equals the sum of the 1) sales price differential 2) the capitalized cost of

differential insurance premiums and 3) the difference in non-insurable costs (MacDonald et al.,

1990).

Some researchers have criticized the hedonic and other price models because they are based

on the assumptions about efficient markets and rational decision makers (Pryce et al, 2011).

These authors incorporate behavioral economics into their analysis to attempt to get a better

understanding as to why homeowners may be willing to overlook risks of living in floodplains.

These authors use myopic and amnesiac risk assessment by housing market actors to develop

an alternative theoretical explanation. Myopia refers to discounting information from

anticipated future events and amnesia means discounting information from past events. The

authors theorize that individuals will discount information regarding the future (or the risk of

future flood events) for a variety of reasons; including whether or not they have an example in

their mind of a high risk event. The lack of information about potential events may impact

individuals’ perception of future events. Additionally individuals tend to value current

information more heavily than past events, so they may not take into account prior flooding

events. The authors also warn of the non-linear dimension of myopia and amnesia, meaning

that as flood events become more frequent, there may be a ‘tipping point.’ This tipping point

would occur as the amnesia principle becomes less prevalent (people begin to think about and

remember floods) and house prices then could show more dramatic changes. While mainly

theoretical, this article offers a new perspective by which to understand how future house price

values in risky areas may respond especially when the likelihood of floods gets greater. The

repetition of flood events in the Raritan watershed over the last decade may offer a real world

experience of this tipping point concept.

Below is a taxonomy of selected empirical studies of the literature relating house prices to flood

events.

38 | P a g e

Literature Review: The Effect of Floodplain Location on House Prices

Title Author Organization/J

ournal Year Objective Main Findings Method

Area of

Study

Flood Hazards,

Insurance and

House Prices-A

Hedonic

Property Price

Analysis

Afua Dei-

Tutu

East Carolina

University,

Department of

Economics

2002 Estimates the effects of

flood hazards on

residential property

values.

The market value of a house

located within a floodplain is

significantly lower than an

equivalent house located outside

the floodplain. Price differentials

range from $5000 to $11,000 for

houses sold between $50,000-

$225,000 (average house $8,255).

An average house located in a

floodplain is discounted by 6.6

percent of property value.

Estimates hedonic property

price function using data from

floodplain mapping, property

parcel data, and Pitt County GIS.

Marginal effect for flood

variable implies that location

within floodplain lowers

property value by $8,472

representing about 6.2% of

average house sales price.

Pitt County,

North

Carolina

Flood Hazard

Pricing and

Insurance

Premium

Differentials:

Evidence From

the Housing

Market

MacDonal

d,White,

Taube,

Hauthe

Journal of Risk

and Insurance

1990 Model is developed of

the rational consumer's

willingness to pay for a

marginal reduction in

the probability of

flooding occurring in

the residential location

decision. Methodology

is developed for

estimating consumer

willingness to pay for a

reduction in the

probability of flooding

hazard in an urban area

For homes located in the flood

zone, the full differential for flood-

zone prices (adjusting for other

characteristics) equals the sum of:

(1) the sales price differential, (2)

the capitalized cost of differential

insurance premiums and (3) the

difference in noninsurable costs. If

full insurance is assumed with no

noninsurable costs then market

efficiency implies that (1) and (2)

be equivalent. The sales price

differential equaled the change in

insurance costs for three different

priced homes at a 2.47 percent to

3.78 percent discount rate in

perpetuity.

Housing characteristics and

selling prices were determined

from all properties sold between

January, 1988 and July, 1988.

Monroe,

Louisiana

39 | P a g e

Environmental

Determinants

of Housing

Prices: The

Impact of Flood

Zone Status

Harrison,

Smersh

and

Schwartz

Journal of Real

Estate

Research

2001 Examines the valuation of

homes located within 100

year flood plains

Comparable characteristic homes

located within a flood zone sell, on

average, for less than homes outside

flood zones. Price differential is less

than the present value of future flood

insurance premiums. Property tax

assessors have slightly over assessed

properties located in flood zones

relative to other areas. Properties

located in 100 year flood plain priced

nearly $1000 lower than

observationally equivalent housing

units outside zone

Database of 29,887

property transactions.

Hedonic price Model

Alachua

County

Florida

Housing Prices

and Flood Risk:

An Examination

Using Spline

Regression

Speyer

and Ragas

Journal or Real

Estate Finance

and Economics

1991 Within areas with

extensive flood insurance

coverage and recurring

actual flood risk, are

property values

significantly lower?

Second, do differences in

insurance cost explain

property value reduction

in flood-prone areas?

Finally, does recurring

urban rain runoff flooding

change the magnitude of

the adverse effect on

property values?

Confirms the finding of earlier studies

that location in a floodplain does

reduce property values. The present

study, using spline variables to adjust

for locational variation in the data and

an improved measure of insurance cost,

reveals that much of this reduction can

be attributed to mandatory flood

insurance coverage. Moreover, while

unexpected flooding does increase the

insurance cost capitalization, repeated

flooding does not seem to reduce

property values further

Time-series data base of

about 2,000 sales drawn

from the metropolitan area

with the highest flood

claims in the past decade--

New Orleans. Two

neighborhoods of differing

age and character (urban

versus suburban) were

studied.

spline variables into

regression equations which

make

it possible to isolate the

impact of flood risk from

other locational variables.

The cost of mandatory

flood insurance enters as a

rate index in the analysis to

limit the correlation

between flood insurance

premiums and house value

when trying to determine

the capitalization of

insurance cost

New

Orleans, LA

40 | P a g e

Empirical

Studies of

Effect of Flood

Risk on

Housing prices

Chao,

Floyd,

Holliday

US Army Corps

of Engineers

1998 Can empirical be found

that flood damage borne

by flood plain activities

are or are not capitalized

into the fair market value

of floodplain properties

None of the 13 studies attempted to

directly search for evidence of a

discount for primary flood damages.

Most studies attempt to detect discount

for location in floodplain. •8 studies

used model where variable of 100 yr

floodplain without regard to where in

floodplain. Half show discount for

location exists, half do not. Capitalized

value of flood insurance premiums

appears to be discounted from property

values •3 researchers studied

property values in period following a

flood. none found a discount in price

over the long term. one observed a

drop in prices followed by a recovery,

with recovery being slower for houses

with more frequent flooding.

Literature review of 13

studies

13

academic

studies and

2 case

studies in

Abilene TX

and South

Frankfort

Kentucky

Flood Damage

in the United

States, 1926-

2000 A

reanalysis of

National

Weather

Service

Estimates

Pielke,

Downton,

Miller

National

Center for

Atmospheric

Research

2002 Attempting to identify

accurate data for flood

costs and vulnerability to

estimate flood damage.

NWS data was reasonably consistent

from 1934-2000, except during 1976-

1982. Individual damage estimates(less

then $50 million) for small floods or

local jurisdictions within a larger flood

area tend to be extremely inaccurate.

Estimates are better when damage is

above $500 million. Floods causing

moderate damage are occasionally

omitted or damage underestimated.

*Better damage data are needed to

evaluate effectiveness of specific

mitigation measures designed to

reduce flood losses.

Report reanalyzes flood

damage estimates collected

by the National Weather

Service (NWS) from 1925

and 2000. NWS has

maintained long term

record of flood damage

throughout US.

41 | P a g e

Report of

Delaware River

Flood

Mitigation

New Jersey

Mitigation Task

Force

2006 Addresses inadequacies

following floods of 2004

and 2005. Prepares a

series of

recommendations for

local governments in

planning and preparing

for flooding.

Multiple recommendations for better

preparedness for municipalities and

homeowners. Recommendations

include "floodplain acquisition will be

key to state flood control efforts.

Removal of structures and restoration

of floodplain areas provides permanent

protection for participating flood

victims while at the same time

providing floodplain restoration that

provides flood control and other

environmental and quality of life

benefits to the rest of the community."

Result of task force

initiative with interviews,

economic analysis etc.

Delaware

River Flood

Basin (some

discussion

of Raritan

River) New

Jersey

Flooding in the

Red River

Basin-Lessons

from Post

Flood Activities

Simonovic

and

Carson

Natural

Hazards

2003 How does flood

management affect

economic losses after

flooding.

Develops recommendations to address

floodplain including modifying

floodplain, upgrading infrastructure,

modify structures in floodplain. (note.

No recommendation to buy out

properties.)

Economic analysis, looked

at reports by various

taskforces.

Red River

Basin,

Minnesota

and Canada

River Flooding

and Housing

Values: An

Economic

Assessment of

Environmental

Risk

Daniel,

Florax and

Rietveld

European

Regional

Science

Association

2005 Meta analysis of hedonic

price models to assess

whether the variation in

the percentage change in

the price of a house

located in a floodplain, as

compared to houses

outside the floodplain, is

merely due to sampling

variation or can be

associated with structural

differences.

Choice of explanation of variables in

hedonic price functions affects

variability between estimates, as well

as type of data. Wealthy house buyers

tend to have a lower willingness to pay

to reduce the risk o flood, level of

income protects from risk vulnerability.

Type of data (cross-section or not)

influences effect size.

Meta-analysis of 16 studies National

The Influence

of the Threat of

Flooding on

Housing Values

in

Fargo, North

Fridgen

Shultz

North Dakota

State

University

Agricultural

Economics

Report No. 417

1999 Throughout this

century, most recently in

1997, there have been

several 100+ year flood

events. For this

reason, a number of flood

Being located in the 100-year

floodplain lowered the sale price of an

average home by $8,990 and

approximately 81% of the price

depreciation was associated with

required flood insurance premiums.

The hedonic valuation

method (HVM) of 3,783

Fargo-Moorhead homes in

this study sold between

January 1995 and August

1998

Fargo,

North

Dakota and

Moorhead,

Minnesota

42 | P a g e

Dakota and

Moorhead,

Minnesota

damage control projects

are continuing to be

proposed and

implemented which

include home buyouts,

levee systems, and more

stringent floodplain

management and

regulation.

Many of the specific costs

and benefits of these

projects are not well

known, such

as how flooding or a

reduction in the threat of

flooding influences

housing values. This

uncertainty makes it

difficult to assess the cost

effectiveness of flood

control projects.

After the extensive 1997 flood, homes

in the 100-year floodplain were on

average priced

$10,241 less than similar homes located

outside the floodplain and before the

1997 flood event. The aftermath of

publicity of the 1997 flood was

specifically responsible for

average 100-year floodplain homes

being reduced by an additional $1,350.

In contrast, homes in the 500-year

floodplain on average sold for $3,100

more than similar homes not

in the floodplain.

The Impact of

Floods on

House Prices:

An Imperfect

Information

Apprach with

Myopia and

Amnesia

Price,

Chen and

Galster

Housing

Studies

2011 Alternative method to

hedonic price models,

using behavioral

economics and sociology

of risk theories.

Theoretical analyis of how myopia

(undervaluing future events) and

amnesia (undervaluing past events)

may impact home prices in relation to

floods. A non linear relationship is

possible in future house prices as

events become more frequent, and a

'tipping' point for house prices may be

possible.

Theoretical

article.

The Rising

Costs of Floods

Brody,

Zahran,

Magehelal

, Grover

and

Highfield

Journal of

American

Planning

Association

2007 Article looks at impacts of

built environment on

house prices affected by

floods. Looks at wetland

alteration, the presence

of dams and impervious

surfaces.

The built environment does affect the

impact of flooding. In this case,

alteration of naturally occurring

wetlands significantly increases the

property damage caused by floods, all

else equal.

Using data from Spatial

Hazard Event and Losses

Database to analyze 383

flood events

Florida,

1997-2001

43 | P a g e

References

Chao, P., Floyd J., and W Holliday. (1998) “Empirical Studies of Effect of Flood Risk on Housing

prices.” US Army Corps of Engineers.

Daniel, Florax and Rietveld (2005) “River Flooding and Housing Values: An Economic

Assessment of Environmental Risk.” European Regional Science Association.

Dei-Tutut, A., (2002) “Flood Hazards, Insurance and House Prices-A Hedonic Property Price

Analysis.” East Carolina University, Department of Economics.

Fridgen, P. and S. Shultz (1999)"The Influence of the Threat of Flooding on Housing Values in

Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota."North Dakota State University Agricultural

Economics Report No. 417.

Harrison, D., G. Smersh, and A. Schwartz. (2001) “Environmental Determinants of Housing

Prices: The Impact of Flood Zone Status.” Journal of Real Estate Research 21: 3-20.

MacDonald, D., H. White, P. Taube, and W. Huth. (1990) “Flood Hazard Pricing and Insurance

Premium Differentials: Evidence from the Housing Market.” Journal of Risk and Insurance 57:

654-63.

New Jersey Mitigation Task Force (2006). Report of Delaware River Flood Mitigation.

Pryce, G., Y. Chen and G. Galaster (2010). The Impact of Floods on House Prices: An Imperfect

Information Approach with Myopia and Amnesia. Housing Studies. 26:2. 259-279.

Shabman, L. and D, Damianos (1976). “Flood hazard effects on residential property values.”

Journal of the Water Resources Planning and Management Division. 151-62.

Simonovic, and Carson (2003) “Flooding in the Red River Basin-Lessons from Post Flood

Activities.” Natural Hazards. 28, 345-365.

Speyer, J. and W. R. Ragas. 1991. Housing Prices and Flood Risk: An Examination using Spline

Regression. Journal of Real Estate and Finance Economics 4: 395-407.

Turnbull G., Zahirovic-Herbert V., and Mothorpe C., (2007) “Flooding and Liquidity on the

Bayou: The Capitalization of Flood Risk into House Value and Ease-of-Sale.” University of

Central Florida. Dr. P. Phillips School of Real Estate Working Paper 1107

44 | P a g e

RISK MODELING

Note: A full Risk Modeling Report is forthcoming. The following summarizes the work to date.

The CCICADA component of the project has developed an integrated model that works with

a hydrological model of the Raritan basin. This model takes historical rainfall data, and has

been calibrated to describe the behavior of one selected river gage, during a significant 2007

flooding event. In addition, published data on the effectiveness of Green Infrastructure has

been used to compute the reduction in runoff from each sub-basin, and thus the reduced gage

height at the selected gage.

In a second component of the research, the team has developed a non-linear, threshold-

based model that relates the cumulated or integrated amount of river activity above flood

level, to the FEMA payouts, using historical data on both. This model achieves excellent

predictive behavior against historical data, and can be used to relate the hydrological model

directly to FEMA payout records.

In a third component of the research, the team has developed a conceptual model of the

relation among meteorological activity, hydrological models, infrastructure intervention, and

fine grained topography. This model can serve as a conceptual foundation for informed

communication with local decision makers. Completion of that line of research is contingent on

further study of (a) the detailed topography, requiring LIDAR surveys, and (b) elicitation of

stakeholder perspectives with regard to the relative importance of several measures of impact

(loss of business; loss of personal property; development of recreation; property values; etc).

Together, these components show that linking of meteorology, hydrology, non-linear

modeling and sophisticated elicitation can provide a very powerful tool for informing and

guiding discussion among all stakeholders. The present study, yielding non-linear models for

four towns, and hydrological models linked to one of these, provides a proof of principle,

and a basis for estimating the costs of extending the model to the entire basin.

Initial Results

The team has developed a framework for flood mitigation risk analysis through a conceptual

model of the relation among meteorological activity, hydrological models, infrastructure

intervention, fine-grained topography, and economic impact. This model can serve as a

conceptual foundation for informed communication among stakeholders and a framework for

risk analysis of alternative flood mitigation strategies. We have experimented with detailed

elaboration of several components of this model, a hydrological model that allows us to relate

flood mitigation strategies to water levels, and a nonlinear econometric model that allows us to

relate several water-level-related variables to FEMA insurance payouts.

We have developed a hydrological model that can be applied in to Raritan basin. This model

takes historical rainfall data, and has been calibrated to describe the behavior of one selected

45 | P a g e

river gage during a significant 2007 flooding event. We have chosen one example of a

mitigation strategy as a case in point to explore and develop the methodology, specifically

Green Infrastructure.

We used published data on the effectiveness of Green Infrastructure to compute the

reduction in runoff from one relevant Watershed Management Area and thus the reduced gage

height at the selected gage.

In the econometric effort, the team has developed a non-linear, threshold-based model that

relates the cumulated or integrated amount of river activity above flood level to the FEMA

payouts, using historical data on both. This model was tested for four communities, and it

achieves excellent predictive behavior against historical data, and can be used to relate the

hydrological model directly to FEMA payout records. Many possible explanatory variables were

considered, and the most effective was found to be the aggregated quantity of water above

flood level during the time directly associated to the flooding event that caused the claims and

payouts.

When these two streams of research are combined, the first is used to compute the effect of

Green Infrastructure, on the flow of water associated with an event. The second is used to

calculate the corresponding decrease in total FEMA payouts. We applied this to one community,

Manville, using data for a storm like that in 2007. Based on our models, the estimated cost

savings due to Green Infrastructure in the region affecting the Manville Gage Station is about

$6.1M, for a 68% reduction in FEMA payouts, which are estimated at $8.8M without the

mitigation. Presumably there are comparable benefits for other regions that are flooded in the

Raritan basis. However, the cost of the Green Infrastructure mitigation is estimated at between

$6B and $18B for the given region. Thus, even if our computations are off by several orders of

magnitude, this says that Green Infrastructure is not a cost-effective flood mitigation strategy in

the Raritan Basin.

Our effort has not addressed some of the detailed components needed for a complete risk

analysis, e.g., further study of the detailed topography, requiring LIDAR surveys; and ways to

include other measures of flood impact such as loss of business, loss of personal property,

development of recreation, changes in property values, and psychological impact of repeated

flooding events.

These two modeling projects are experimental and involve some significant simplifying

assumptions. Moreover, they are limited to only a part of the Raritan Basin and to a few

selected towns. However, linked into our overall proposed framework, they show that it is

feasible to use novel and sophisticated modeling tools in doing flood mitigation risk analysis.

Our effort has demonstrated that linking of meteorology, hydrology, non-linear econometric

modeling and sophisticated elicitation can provide a very powerful tool for informing and

guiding discussion among all stakeholders. The present study, yielding non-linear models for

four towns and hydrological models linked to one of these provides a proof of principle, a basis

for estimating the costs of extending the model to the entire basin, and a roadmap for doing

model-based and data-based risk analyses.

46 | P a g e

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Participants in the Municipal Surveys

Bound Brook Borough Administrator, Engineer, Supervising Technician with Engineering Firm Clinton Township Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Engineer, Office of Emergency Management (OEM) Coordinator Edison Township Mayor, Engineer, Business Administrator, OEM Specialist Englishtown Borough OEM Coordinator, Borough Clerk, Councilman Freehold Township Administrator, Township Engineer Hightstown Borough Mayor, Engineer, Borough Administrator Hopewell Township Mayor, Clerk, Chief of Police, Township Administrator Manville Borough Borough Administrator, OEM Coordinator Milltown Borough Mayor, Borough Engineer Middlesex Borough Mayor, Borough Clerk, CFO Monroe Township Engineer/OEM Coordinator Raritan Township Mayor, Engineer, Deputy OEM Coordinator, OEM Coordinator Scotch Plains Township Mayor, Township Engineer, OEM Coordinator, Assistant Engineer, Woodbridge Township Mayor, Redevelopment Agency Director, OEM Director, Intern, Principal Engineer Washington Township Mayor, OEM Coordinator, Engineer Watchung Borough Mayor, Borough Clerk, OEM Coordinator/Fire Official, Engineer

47 | P a g e

Appendix B: Maps

Map 1. Municipalities of Raritan River Regional Watershed Basin with Topography

48 | P a g e

Map 2. FEMA payouts by municipality 1978-2011 (prior to Hurricane Irene, August, 2011)

49 | P a g e

Map 3. Impervious Surfaces across the Watershed

50 | P a g e

Appendix C: Our Green and Blue Infrastructure 1.0

Our Blue and Green Infrastructure:

New Directions for Stormwater, Flood Mitigation and Management in the

Raritan River Basin: Version 1.0

The Sustainable Raritan River Engineering Council

March 16, 2012

Introduction

On October 19, 2011, Rutgers University President Richard L. McCormick invited engineers from

firms working across the state and beyond to discuss stormwater and flood mitigation and

management in the Raritan River region. The purpose of this roundtable was the development

of a regional watershed ethic, foundations for education and a united response to these issues

among professionals and officials managing within the Raritan River watershed.

Welcomed by Dr. Michael R. Greenberg, Rutgers University representation at the roundtable

include Dr. James Hughes, Dean of the E. J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Dean

Thomas N. Farris of the Rutgers School of Engineering, and Robert M. Goodman, Executive

Dean of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the School of Environmental and Biological

Sciences. Michael Moriarty, Deputy Regional Administrator, represented our sponsoring

partner, FEMA Region II. Assistant Commissioner Marilyn Lennon represented the New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection. Middlesex County Freeholder Jim Polos, a strong

advocate for a regional approach to mitigation and management of our natural resources,

represented county government.

With the support of the University President and the Federal Emergency Management Agency

of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Sustainable Raritan River Regional

Engineering Council was created and leaders from this group convened work groups to develop

a Version 1.0 of Our Blue and Green Infrastructure: New Directions for Stormwater, Flood

Mitigation and Management in the Raritan River Basin. We thank them for their leadership

and their expertise.

The purpose of this effort is to foster a dialogue among key regional stakeholder and within the

engineering, planning and public management communities – and with the New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection – to put forth constructive ideas on how to address

51 | P a g e

water quality and flood impacts in the collective rivers and streams of the Raritan River, for

New Jersey, and for the region.

The Sustainable Raritan River Engineering Council

Special thanks to Stacy Perrine for her expert management in this effort. We welcome and

encourage comments and responses. Comments may be emailed to the Council at:

blueraritan@ejb.rutgers.edu.

For additional information and proceedings from the October 19 meeting, visit

www.raritan.rutgers.edu.

Disclaimer: The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and

should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or

implied, of the US Department of Homeland Security.

Abstract

This paper includes recommendations to aid in critical areas of stormwater and flood mitigation

and management of our “blue Infrastructure” including:

Policy

Regulations

Funding

Professional Education

Public Education

For each topic, a problem statement is presented, along with proposed solutions and future

direction.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines Green Infrastructure as an approach to,

“maintain healthy waters, provide multiple environmental benefits and support sustainable

communities.” We have added “blue” to sharpen our focus on the water component and the

integration of natural and non-structural strategies to implement green infrastructure

solutions.

Blue infrastructure focuses on the idea that less intensive projects can be done in the region

that would incorporate the ecological amenities into the very projects meant to protect them,

instead of larger-scale infrastructure projects which tend to be much more costly and possibly

detrimental to the environment.

52 | P a g e

The purpose of this white paper is to encourage discussion among key audiences (the public,

professionals in the field, and government officials) on problems encountered and offer

solutions that can be embraced at the regional level to bring to bear useful blue infrastructure

projects and initiatives that are cost effective and environmentally sound for the full Raritan

River Basin.

Policy

Problem Statement

While the State of New Jersey currently has various regulations and rules that direct certain

activities on the part of permitted entities, there is no formal statewide policy on flood damage

prevention or floodplain management. Rather, the state has relied on the State Stormwater

Management Regulations of new development, which requires developers to manage

stormwater to prevent increases in peak runoff rates. More recently, the state has added

regulations requiring developers to maintain groundwater recharge and remove total

suspended solids. While these regulations address the impacts from new development, the

existing built infrastructure, which is over 95% of the state footprint, goes unaddressed. The

management practices implemented under the stormwater regulations for new development

will not reduce existing flooding or improve existing water quality conditions. The best

outcome from this policy is that existing problems will not get worse; meanwhile, communities

across the state face repetitive flooding without hope of state assistance.

The Stormwater regulations do allow for Regional Stormwater Management Plans, which could

be the basis for a stronger policy, but with neither requirements nor incentives to develop

these plans, few have been developed. Plans that have been submitted to NJDEP to date have

not been reviewed. As a result, flood damage prevention and floodplain management for

existing buildings remains voluntary and the cost of addressing the underlying causes of

exacerbated local flooding (e.g., infrastructure improvements) result in continued economic

and environmental damage.

The presence of some funding from the State Blue Acres program and the federal government

provides some support for buyouts, but the overall problems remain unaddressed and their

impacts unabated. These efforts are at best an informal policy that relies largely on federal

funds and large flood control projects, such as the Green Brook Project, which is funded by the

US Army Corps of Engineers.

Without a strong policy that goes beyond new development, the existing conditions cannot

improve even with the flow reductions that are currently mandated in the stormwater rules.

Regardless of a significant turnaround in the economy, so much of the State is built out that the

positive impact of new development will only be marginal.

53 | P a g e

The final aspect of the informal policy within the state is the existence of Flood Hazard

Mitigation Plans. They exist, but have yet to be effectively implemented. Some counties are

leading the way in certain aspects, but few efforts are being coordinated regionally to address

flooding or water quality issues. Somerset County has made considerable efforts in the area of

flood warning and flood damage prevention. Cape May County has enlisted watershed groups

to deal with stormwater issues with a primary focus on improving existing water quality.

The two regional efforts currently in place are the state’s effort to restore the Barnegat Bay and the

work of the Army Corps of Engineers with the towns along the Green Brook. Apart from these two

efforts, both of which rely on substantial state or federal investments, there are only small pockets of

groups trying to address these problems at local levels. The basis of much of the work that is going on is

from the work of the New Jersey Water Supply Authority (2002) on the Raritan Basin, which included

the D&R Canal and the Mulhockaway River restoration.

During recent storms, the lower Passaic River basin received much media and political attention

however there was significant damage in other watersheds as well. The current focus on

buyouts effectively eliminates the damage for the properties purchased, but this is both

expensive and limited in terms of regionally effective mitigation. Many of the sites that are

the subject of buyouts pre-exist current flood hazard area rules and could not be built today.

These older developments will continue to consume large amounts of resources for flood

insurance payouts, property buyouts, and exact economic costs from the municipal budgets.

Policies are needed to ensure that the lands secured through buyouts are restored to riparian

floodplains that provide storage and treat stormwater runoff.

Current stormwater mitigation plans provide some assistance, but it is also constrained. When

required stormwater management cannot be met onsite, stormwater management developers

can fix problems elsewhere to meet their obligation. Since this only occurs with new

development. Limited new development means limited opportunities. Mitigation will have a

modest impact on flooding since it will only result in the same level of stormwater management

that would take place if it could be done on the site being developed unless there are wetlands

involved, in which case the rules require a two-for-one replacement. Closer coordination with

projects to identify water quality and flooding improvements could yield net benefits. One

drawback to this type of mitigation is that it requires that a property owner be willing to take

on the responsibility for the operations and maintenance of additional stormwater controls.

Absent strong enforcement, compliance is voluntary unless the owners pay into a township

mitigation bank. This ensures a more significant level of oversight and thus compliance with

the regulations. Generally, mitigation plans can be part of the solution when plans are

developed with consideration of flooding and water quality problems. Mitigation plans can be

helpful but would be significantly enhanced if they were developed in conjunction with a

regional stormwater management plan.

54 | P a g e

Regulations and Permits

As noted above, current regulations focus on permits for new construction. Even the recent

DEP stormwater rules requiring more detailed operations and maintenance manuals for

stormwater systems have little impact on pre-existing development and do not address the

need for retrofitting as a component of overall stormwater management. Additionally, there is

a significant emphasis on engineering design in solutions. The Stormwater Management

Regulations require all new development to use nonstructural stormwater management

strategies to the maximum extent practical. This is evaluated through a checklist using

spreadsheets to quantify the value of the non-structural stormwater measures. Points are

awarded based on this assessment. It is not uncommon for projects to have engineered

solutions simply because the professionals are most familiar with the structural solutions. Local

Planning Boards and Environmental Commissions, who generally review these assessments on

behalf of their communities, are also not familiar with nonstructural management practices and

consequently have little expertise in reviewing these plans or asking questions of developers

that might result in broader application of non-structural solutions.

Regulators also need to learn more about nonstructural alternatives. The regulatory

environment requires permit applications to meet the condition of ‘no adverse impact.’ When

this cannot be sufficiently demonstrated, non-structural options can be denied. This indirectly

encourages developers to continue to rely on engineered solutions. A stronger effort is needed

to coordinate the understanding of stormwater impacts of development at three levels – local,

county and state. Despite required consistency, not all adhere to the same level of review to

ensure compliance with these standards.

While a very detailed review of stormwater is conducted at the local level, there is

inconsistency among municipalities due to various levels of knowledge, experience, and

political pressures. Some local review agencies are very focused on the impacts of stormwater

and want to ensure it is effectively managed as required by the regulations. Others are more

concerned about encouraging development at all cost and do not want stormwater

management requirements to hinder the goal of potential tax ratables for the community.

Years of this practice have inadvertently created some of the downstream flooding issues that

exist today. Very often the amount of emphasis placed on stormwater impacts is directly

related to the local municipal or planning board engineer and how much he is versed in the

issues, impacts and standards. The knowledge of the Planning Board and Environmental

Commissions on the stormwater regulations plays a role in the level of compliance. When

these groups understand the rules, they can ask the appropriate questions during the review

process, thereby encouraging the developer to make the necessary changes to their design.

55 | P a g e

At the county level, the emphasis is often merely to ensure there is no impact on the nearest

county infrastructure. This can result in widely varying levels of scrutiny even within the same

county. County reviewers need to expand their reviews to ensure consistency with all state

regulations, including Residential Site Improvement Standards.

Finally, stormwater is reviewed at the state level, however not all projects get reviewed at this

level and for most the review is redundant with lower review levels. This leads to inconsistent

outcomes. When the NJDEP issues a land use permit, stormwater is reviewed and required by

the permit. But due to the inability of the state to follow up on permits, the primary

compliance agent during construction is the local municipality. The level of expertise on these

regulations varies across municipalities. The reviews of stormwater by NJDEP level has been

negatively impacted by staff reductions, re-assignments, and a general lack of familiarity with

newer practices.

Mitigation

Stormwater and flooding mitigation are two separate issues that are necessarily related but

need to be considered separately. For the purposes of discussion, “stormwater mitigation” is

that mitigation that is envisioned by the NJDEP Stormwater Rule and local Stormwater

Management Plans. “Flood mitigation” is related to the reduction of flooding or the reduction

of flood damage.

Stormwater mitigation involves the installation of stormwater improvements on one property

within a watershed to offset the impacts of development on another. Municipal stormwater

management plans are supposed to include a discussion of mitigation and the identification of

potential mitigation projects. There are several drawbacks to this approach. The first is that in

order for mitigation to have an impact, there needs to be a significant amount of it. The slow

economy and resultant low levels of development have not created substantial opportunities

for mitigation to occur. Secondly, much of the growth that is occurring involves redevelopment

of existing properties and is concentrated in growth areas. This reduces the requirement for

stormwater improvements and therefore reduces the potential for mitigation. Finally,

identification of mitigation projects is difficult since retrofitting an existing site with additional

stormwater controls requires that the “receiving” site be willing to accept the operations and

maintenance responsibilities for the new improvements. In many cases this reduces the

receiving sites to municipal projects and the budget issues facing towns will make them

reluctant to take on more maintenance responsibilities.

Flood mitigation efforts are on a much larger scale than typical stormwater improvements.

Examples of flood mitigation include constructed levee or floodwall projects, regional flood

control reservoirs and the elevation or buyout of flood prone properties. These are all

expensive, large scale propositions that require the dedication of significant funds. Finding

56 | P a g e

sources for these funds is difficult; however FEMA anticipates mitigation as part of its disaster

relief efforts. Generally, 15% of the amount of damages associated with any presidentially

declared disaster is set aside by FEMA to fund hazard mitigation projects. The update of hazard

mitigation plans is critical and should be completed annually. County and local governments

are required up review and update their FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans every five

years, however, they are encouraged to review and update the plans annually with submission

of status reports to the state (NJOEM).However local updates are often not completed. With

current hazard mitigation plans in place, local governments are eligible to apply for Hazard

Mitigation Assistance (HMA) program grants to fund eligible mitigation projects. In general,

these grants cover 75% of project costs.

Proposed Solutions

In order for there to be meaningful reduction in flooding and the damages associated with

flood events, there are a number of policy changes that need to be implemented. These

require coordination at various levels of government from the local to federal level. Policy

changes need to be implemented, however “tighter” regulations are not necessarily the

answer. It is recommended that the following policies be considered:

The state needs to further educate, advocate and generally encourage development of regional

stormwater management plans. When municipalities work together, the benefits of a regional

management plan can reduce flooding damage across many communities.

Regional plans to improve and retrofit existing developed properties needs to be incentivized.

These improvements can be for water quality or water quantity or both. The retrofitting should

include the analysis of older stormwater systems to determine how well they function (or fail)

with the current design standards. For example, there are thousands of stormwater facilities

that were designed and constructed before the rainfall amount of the 100 year design storm

was increased.

Hazard mitigation plans need to be updated and incorporated into master plans. County and

regional initiatives need to be included in hazard mitigation plans to further improve flooding

and water quality conditions (for information on county hazard mitigation plans, see:

http://www.state.nj.us/njoem/about/association.html).

Buy outs may be a solution as a mitigation effort, however the project should include more

than the removal of the structure. Contiguous properties should be consolidated into restored

floodplain land that allows for storage of flood waters and water quality. These projects should

focus on the construction of new wetlands or the expansion of existing adjacent wetlands to

restore the naturally existing floodplain.

Local code officials, floodplain administrators and NJDEP staff should be provided with

additional educational opportunities that will increase their knowledge of floodplain

57 | P a g e

management. This could be done by promoting certification by the Association of State

Floodplain Managers (ASFPM).

When brownfields are redeveloped in floodplains, there should be consideration in the

permitting process when land is converted to greenfields and naturalized floodplains.

Stormwater management designs and permitting need to have greater flexibility to encourage

non-structural or qualitative information. There needs to be a process to develop qualified

reviewers/designers who remain current with the latest BMPs from across the country. The

current BMPs in New Jersey need to be revised to promote the integration of natural and non-

structural solutions with built solutions.8

In conjunction the updates to the BMPs, a NJDEP program should be considered to prioritize

projects when they are endorsed by interdisciplinary teams of engineers and natural science

professionals (biologists, naturalists and ecologists) and include assessments of impacts to the

watershed from proposed projects. To qualify for such a program, NJDEP would certify that the

project was reviewed by an interdisciplinary team. All team members would need to be

certified stormwater professionals, possibly modeled on the recent Licensed Site Remediation

Professionals (LSRP). Once such a Licensed Stormwater Management Professional (LSMP)

program is established, with specialized training and appropriately rigorous examinations, these

LSMPs could approve plans enabling them to submit to various approval agencies without the

need for further review.

Nonstructural approaches to Stormwater management need to be discussed in broad terms

and not strictly quantitatively. This requires an ability to weigh non-structural solutions. This

will require a significant change in the standard permitting process.

Land Use Permits at NJDEP should focus not only on the existing environmental conditions in

streams but also the level of environmental value added by a project. Permits for activities

such as stream cleaning should require restoration of banks to foster recovery of stream

systems and should be dependent on a demonstration of reasonable improvements to

restoring the natural carrying capacity of streams and rivers.

County and regional initiatives should be encouraged and funded to improve flooding and

water quality conditions. Similar efforts have been successful in Cape May County and the

Barnegat Bay watershed and on the Delaware & Raritan (D&R) Canal where the New Jersey

8 A current example of the effectiveness of such a strategy is the Bluebelt of Staten Island, New York. See

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/dep_projects/bluebelt_video.shtml

58 | P a g e

Water Supply Authority (NJWSA) is installing stormwater retrofits. These initiatives need to

address how to make improvements to existing conditions and not just regulate future

development.

Encourage the participation in the FEMA Community Rating System to improve public

education, conservation and floodplain management.

The final development of these policies needs to ensure oversight, streamlining and

coordinating of all NJDEP and FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs. Ideally there

should be one agency responsible for the development and integration of these policies with

the input of all appropriate stakeholders. A commissioner-level focus on flood management or

stormwater and the benefits of coordinating planning and rulemaking would go a long way to

ensure that beneficial work is accomplished while keeping a lean, responsive and versatile

regulatory environment.

Future Direction

In moving forward, it is essential to look at efforts that articulate and build on the above policy

recommendations, including Best Management Practices from other states that explore

broader strategies to more effectively address nonstructural stormwater management

alternatives. The following references are recommended reading for those interested in

furthering a dialogue on state policy:

The Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual:

http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/View/Collection-8305

ASFPM White Paper on Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Functions: Floodplain

Management—More than Flood Loss Reduction:

http://www.floods.org/PDF/WhitePaper/ASFPM_NBF%20White_Paper_%200908.pdf

FEMA report: Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning

http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=4267

The Staten Island Bluebelt: a Natural Solution to Stormwater Management

Website: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/dep_projects/bluebelt.shtml

Video: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/dep_projects/bluebelt_video.shtml

Regulations

Problem Statement

State regulations are onerous when it comes to maintenance of waterways. These Regulations

do not encourage the integration of natural systems when designing large scale flood control

projects.

59 | P a g e

Proposed Solutions

There are two recommended regulatory approaches. The first focuses on maintenance of our

waterways. The second looks at the issue on a larger scale and focuses on overall integration

with natural systems.

When the amount of water flowing through a channel exceeds its capacity there will be

flooding. While proper routine maintenance enhances the conveyance of water through a

system, it offers only a partial solution. Regulatory changes need to focus on regional corridor-

based watershed level solutions. We need to address years of neglect in stream and lake

management and then to encourage the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

to promote higher-level floodplain management through practices that ensure long-term

solutions that protect people from the volume and velocity of water resulting from current

practice. A mix of project types like stream cleaning, de-snagging, or lake dredging could be

implemented to restore lost capacity in our waterways. While volume reduction strategies can

be used on future projects to provide a reduction of peak flows and runoff volumes as well as

improving water quality. These volume reduction strategies should be included in the design of

new development related projects. A regional approach is key to the future success of the

Raritan River Basin though these longer-term solutions will require significant efforts to resolve.

Regulations involving natural resource protection in New Jersey have historically focused on

land development and with the exception of the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act have not

fostered the enhancement or restoration of the state’s natural resources. Issues such as

stormwater management and flood plain management routinely rely on engineering solutions

to manage impacts of development on our waterways and floodplains. The impacts of recent

storms show a need to move from reliance solely on engineering approaches to restore water

quality, connectivity between our streams and their floodplains and restore the ecosystem

functions in our natural systems.

This does not mean that the solutions implemented were failures but the changes to our

landscape associated with development are complex and sole reliance on engineering solutions

to offset impacts has not been sufficient to avoid stream degradation and satisfy the primary

objective of the Clean Water Act to maintain and enhance the quality of our surface waters. It

is for this reason that alternate approaches to natural resource management are essential to

maintain the ecosystem services that our rivers, wetlands and floodplains provide.

The purpose of regulatory change is to shift the focus of floodplain management away from the

conveyance of floodwaters to one that recognizes the value of riparian zones and ecosystems

as functioning floodplains; specifically the need for changes in the approach to governing

stormwater management and floodplain management and the need to refocus the objectives

of regulations to more effectively link them to the target resource and the services associated

with healthy watersheds and floodplains.

60 | P a g e

It is due to the understanding that natural areas provide functions and services that are

beneficial to the public that fostered the concept of “green infrastructure.” The US

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines Green Infrastructure as follows:

“Green Infrastructure is an approach that communities can choose to maintain healthy waters,

provide multiple environmental benefits and support sustainable communities. Unlike single-

purpose gray stormwater infrastructure, which uses pipes to dispose of rainwater, green

infrastructure uses vegetation and soil to manage rainwater where it falls. By weaving natural

processes into the built environment, green infrastructure provides not only stormwater

management, but also flood mitigation, air quality management, and much more.”

Green infrastructure is not limited to rain gardens and green roofs but extends to existing

natural resources such as floodplains and wetlands. An inherent element of a “green

infrastructure” approach is to recognize when the functions of the natural environment are

compromised or degraded and then use this information as the basis to restore important

ecosystem functions. This philosophy shifts the management of stormwater and floodplains

away from conveyance and our reliance on engineered approaches to a much broader

ecosystem or watershed based perspective. Additional types of Best Management Practices

(BMPs) need to be considered in order to better maintain the quality of our natural resources.

This also redirects our focus from individual developments to one that views the river and its

floodplain as a priority and seeks watershed based solutions to reduce flooding and improve

water quality. This conference title includes “blue infrastructure” in its title to emphasize the

importance of the river in future decision making.

The municipalities within the Raritan River watershed benefit in many ways from the river and

its aquatic resources or, in other words, its “blue infrastructure”. The Raritan River’s “blue

infrastructure” provides important aquatic habitat, and is an important element of our regional

commerce, recreation and quality of life. Similar to the need to maintain our built

infrastructure we need to proactively manage our blue infrastructure; New York City recently

adopted this approach by identifying its surrounding waters as its ‘sixth borough’ recognizing

that a healthy estuary is an essential element of sound land use.

To implement a watershed-based approach that integrates elements of both blue infrastructure

and green infrastructure requires a broad range of non-structural BMPs for New Jersey similar

to those embraced by Pennsylvania including natural resource restoration such as

wetland/floodplain enhancement, meadow establishment and reforestation. Pennsylvania also

relies on watershed based stormwater management plans to implement their stormwater

regulations. This approach enables municipalities within a specific watershed to tailor their

stormwater management approach to address the unique issues of their specific watershed.

The Stormwater Management Act (at N.J.A.C. 7:8 )has elements of both blue and green

infrastructure approaches discussed above, which could be realized if NJDEP encouraged

61 | P a g e

regional stormwater management plans. These plans provide municipalities within a

watershed the ability to tailor stormwater management to a specific watershed and the needs

of that watershed. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:8–3.1(b) “A regional stormwater management

plan shall address stormwater related water quality, groundwater recharge and/or water

quantity impacts of new and existing land uses in a regional stormwater management planning

area”. A specific element of the plan allows for the incorporation of “innovative stormwater

management measures and strategies such as nonpoint source pollutant trading, mitigation

strategies, or special protection measures.”

The role of a municipality to develop a watershed based mitigation planning strategy facilitates

the use of BMP options outside of the realm of structural engineering solutions to approaches

that enhance the functions of existing natural resources as well as improve flood storage and

water quality. While current regulations require a stormwater mitigation plan element for

every approved municipal stormwater plan (see 7:8-4.2(c) 11, few if any ordinances possess

language either defining or describing stormwater mitigation as it relates to the granting of a

variance or exemption from the design standards of the regulations.

Inclusion of a stormwater mitigation option would provide a municipality with greater flexibility

to guide an applicant to a sound stormwater management plan and allow for greater flexibility

when dealing with stormwater facilities that failed to meet their intended design objectives.

The matter of scale is critical to this approach as even with the integration of stormwater

mitigation plans into single municipal ordinances the impact would be if insufficient magnitude

to significantly address existing flooding or stormwater problems. Regulations need to

encourage regional approaches and create greater incentives for municipalities to work

together to eventually attain the necessary scale of projects to necessary to save flood prone

communities from the economic and personnel damage and the upheaval experienced by

communities still managing cleanups months after a flooding events.

As such there remains the need for larger more watershed based projects specifically targeted

to enhance the flood storage and water quality functions of the Raritan River and its tributaries.

These projects would be best identified though the implementation of watershed based

restoration or management plans. This regional based concept was inherent in the Regional

Stormwater Plans proposed under the Stormwater Management Act, NJAC 7:8.

Repackaging the plans as Watershed Restoration Plans (with the historic regulatory authority as

described in the regional Stormwater Management regulations) would foster local support and

make them eligible to receive 319 funding through the Division of Watershed Management.

The opportunity to receive funds to improve stormwater related issues within a watershed is

essential to correcting existing water quality problems. Within the Raritan River Basin there are

several approved plans: the Sourland Mountain Watershed Protection Plan, the Mulhockaway

Creek Stormwater Management and Watershed Restoration Plan, the Neshanic River

62 | P a g e

Watershed Restoration Plan, Cedar Grove Brook, D&R Canal Tributary Assessment and

Nonpoint Source Management Project Watershed Restoration and Protection Plan, the

Manalapan Brook Watershed Restoration Plan and the Sidney Brook Watershed Protection

Plan. Although many plans have been approved within the Raritan River watershed, they do

not cover most of the Raritan River and for the most part do not cover the most highly

developed sections of the watershed. Funding needs to be allocated to continue to develop

Watershed Restoration Plans for the sub-watershed of the Raritan River Basin.

It is also important to note that an inherent element of these regional plans was not simply to

protect resources but to identify opportunities where the functional value and overall condition

of a special water resource protection area or riparian zone can be enhanced. Although not

specifically stated the enhancement of protected and regulated resources is an essential

element of a green infrastructure focused watershed plan. It is with regard to the

enhancement of existing resources that the current regulations need to be more responsive

and in order to do so integrate a wider range of potential design approaches including those

focusing on the restoration of degraded natural resources.

An important component of a green infrastructure focused approach to the Raritan River is that

a more comprehensive view regarding the management of natural resources related to flooding

and water quality opens the door for more funding opportunities or even private sector derived

funding. For example, North Jersey RC& D received approximately $600,000 to restore a

segment of Walnut Creek in Hunterdon County and to create nearly three area of riparian

wetland designed to increase flood storage. In addition, Rockaway Township in Morris County

received $300,000 to restore an impounded floodplain. This is an example of an atypical

watershed focused BMP that falls outside of the realm of a typical engineering solutions or

BMP.

Proposed Solutions, NJDEP Regulatory-Specific

Some regulatory problems are with the regulations themselves while others are with the way

the regulations are implemented. The committee narrowed their focus to simplify regulations

and procedures on projects that enhance water quality and reduce flooding.

Since stream cleaning and lake dredging can provide both capacity and water quality benefits,

the focus was on permits that affect stream cleaning and lake or pond dredging. The

important element here is including a review of capacity to ensure the benefit of such an

action. The balance of the recommendations focus on those sections of the rules related to

restoration activities and routine maintenance.

The following sections identifies changes to the Flood Hazard Control Act and Stormwater

management Act that that would help foster green infrastructure oriented projects to improve

the flood storage and water quality.

63 | P a g e

Flood Hazard Area Control Act

Stream Restoration - The Act provides for stream restoration at 7:13–11.14 Requirement for

Bank Stabilization and Channel Restoration. Although this section of the regulation is well

conceived it is limited to just one possible element of stream and floodplain restoration. This

regulation would benefit from inclusion of other floodplain restoration focused BMPs such as

floodplain enhancement. This element of the Flood Hazard Control Act would also benefit from

the completion of what was identified as Section 8 - Bank Stabilization and Stream Restoration

of the Flood Hazard Area Control Act technical manual. True stream restoration routinely

incorporates re-directive and grade control structures in their design. The use of these

structures currently conflicts with the regulations since they constitute structures and fill in the

floodway. Currently, in order for the Department to approve these types of stream restoration

projects it necessitates the need for a Flood Hazard Area Control Act hardship waiver. The need

for a hardship waiver does not foster a position that these types of restoration projects are

encouraged by the Department and also tend to discourage potential applicants.

To encourage restoration projects designed to enhance ecosystem services, the stream

restoration Individual Permit (IP) should be broaden in its scope to incorporate more design

technique than those associated with bank stabilization. In order to foster these types of green

infrastructure focused restoration projects the fees should be waived in a similar manner as

done under the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act for General Permit 16.

For other types of restoration projects such as floodplain enhancement should be included in

the Flood Hazard Control Act regulations. These projects typically require the lowering of a

floodplain to increase storage or remove legacy sediments. These projects should not be

penalized for the removal of trees in the riparian zone if the project is determined to have a net

ecological uplift after being reviewed by expert natural scientists. It is imperative that we do

not simply view protected lands as being untouchable but that all lands, including public lands,

are open to stewardship opportunities in order to restore lost or degraded ecosystem services.

Riparian Zone Mitigation – Currently riparian zone mitigation is focused singularly on the

replacement of trees or the preservation of riparian zones. In many cases the riparian zone

that is being protected or enhanced is protecting a stream that is subject to serve erosion.

Although riparian zones are an essential element of a watershed in some cases stream

restoration may be more valuable to the watershed than preserving a riparian zone. As such

increased flexibility with regard to the types of mitigation that can be done to satisfy the

regulations may be an important route to enhance water quality as well as increase flood

storage.

Sediment Removal of de minimus quantity – The removal of small quantities of sediment at

stormwater outfall locations would be facilitated if this could be accomplished through permit

by rule. The removal of small quantities of sediment as part of a maintenance schedule by a

64 | P a g e

municipality of lake association would serve to not only removes nutrients from our waterways

and lakes but would reduce the need for costly maintenance dredging.

Fees – Fees for natural resources management projects should be waived in a similar manner as

done for General Permit 16 under the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act. The reduction or

elimination of fees would encourage land trusts and municipalities to consider floodplain

enhancement or restoration projects.

Stormwater Rules

Stormwater Mitigation - As described above, integration of stormwater mitigation planning into

municipal ordinances would provide local government greater flexibility in the review process

especially when a variance is needed. This will also serve as a means to address the impacts

with stormwater facilities that have failed to satisfy their design goals. Mitigation Plans are

allowed, but they are not being developed and incorporated into the local Stormwater Control

Ordinances. Development of these plans should be encouraged and they should be

incorporated into local regulations to provide more flexibility of these mitigation strategies

identified in these plans.

Stormwater Wetlands - Although this is more of an issue with the Freshwater Wetlands

Protection Act rather than the Stormwater rules the designation of stormwater wetlands as

regulated resources is the primary reason that more of these very effective facilities have not

been constructed. Since these stormwater facilities are manmade structures that require

maintenance they should be encouraged rather than regulated. As long as these features are

regulated by the Department it is unlikely that they will gain acceptance.

Soil Conservation District Certification

A certification from a Soil Conservation District is not generally required for underwater

removal of sediments and debris in steams by construction machinery or for manual removal of

obstructions and debris. However, if a stream is intermittent and the disturbance area,

including a combination of sediment removal, access ways and staging areas requiring

restoration exceed 5,000 square feet, a certification from the Soil Conservation District is

required.

The basic certification application package includes a Soil Conservation District application

form, an application fee, construction plans, four sets of soil erosion and sediment control

plans, and a hydraulic engineering report if the stream velocities are affected by the stream

cleaning. These permits are somewhat routine to file; however when they are submitted, many

other requirements are placed upon applicants, particularly regarding wetlands. In many cases

the State Reviewer determines that wetland vegetation has colonized recently deposited

sediment deposits located in lakes as well as other areas including intertidal-sub tidal shallows,

and that the designation of an area as a wetland puts an applicant in a more complicated and

65 | P a g e

costly permitting process area that can kill a project. Dredging a lake to increase flood

attenuation and water quality will have NJDEP reviewer determine a need for a full wetlands

mapping and mitigation site when it is the sediment that is creating the wetlands – municipal

clients cannot afford to proceed with these needed projects.

Future Direction

Regulations need to encourage the integration of natural systems when designing large scale

flood control projects. From the Regulatory end NJDEP needs to provide education and training

in this area for their professional staff and then authorize and encourage staff reviewers to

work with applicants to develop a project. Meeting with staff reviewers will streamline the

regulations and the way that they are implemented. The Best Management Practices (BMPs)

need to be revised to include guidance on practices that encourage floodplain and riparian

enhancement.

For some types of projects it may be better to have a County or Local Agency act as the

Administrator; but it needs to simpler to maintain waterways and lakes and to link that with

regional enhancement projects.

Certain federal regulations also impact flood related projects and while that will be a significant

endeavor, it is also part of the overall discussion.

A number of other issues were discussed that warrant further encouragement including:

1) Regulations based upon the overall enhancement of a waterway

2) Net Environmental Benefit Rule

3) Easier elimination of minor mixing dams on waterways

4) Elimination of wetland consideration if wetland was created by silting in streams and

lakes

5) Examination of groundwater recharge and headwater protection

6) Transportation and conveyance of water on roadway systems and its impact on flooding

Funding

Problem Statement

In addition to the tasks of identifying existing problem areas, assessing and designing short and

long term solutions, and working those solutions into the regulatory framework, we must have

funding mechanisms in place in order to have any reasonable expectation of success. The

engineering community and the regulatory agencies have come a long way in the last 30 years

with the assessment and design tasks. We simply need a variety of funding sources available to

put them in place.

Currently, there is no means to define past, present and near future means of funding

stormwater management and flood control problems. Also, gaps exist in the defining of target

areas, the extent of funding of loans, funding administrators, and program effectiveness.

66 | P a g e

Proposed Solutions

Barnegat Bay Initiative Model

Recently, the NJ Environmental Infrastructure Trust (NJEIT) has announced additional funds

available for the Barnegat Bay Initiative. The Barnegat Bay initiative hopes to reduce the nitrate

level in the Bay and enhance water quality. With the Barnegat Bay Initiative, State government

support and funding have been instrumental. The need to model this process in the Raritan

region is crucial. The main difference between the two initiatives is that the Barnegat Bay is

water quality focused and, while water quality is certainly of concern in the Raritan,

infrastructure and economic impacts due to flooding are also concerns.

Political and public attention must be focused on the environmental and economic importance

of the Raritan in order to garner the financing of projects. To begin, future funding

opportunities for projects in the Raritan Region can be expanded by first assessing current

funded stormwater management/flood mitigation projects within the Watershed to explain

location significance, project metrics, and anticipated completion and outcomes. Funding

agencies should clearly see the benefit of expending funds on projects in the region.

Key Stakeholders and Funding Sources

Key stakeholders identified for assistance with funding include the New Jersey Water Supply

Authority, the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers Cooperative Extension and

the Watershed Associations and non-profits, like the New York/New Jersey Baykeeper,

Lawrence Brook Watershed Partnership, Edison Wetlands Association and the Stony Brook

Millstone Watershed Association. All of these groups have worked on restoration projects in

the Raritan River Basin. Other source of funding should include NJDEP programs for

stormwater management/flood mitigation:

• NJ Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (NJ-CREP)

• Water Quality Planning Grant Program

• Non-point Source Pollution Grants

Federal Funding Programs for Stormwater Management Flood Mitigation include:

• Clean Water Act

• National Estuary Program Grants

• EPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund

In New York, the State Department of Environmental Conservation offers grants to projects

done for habitat restoration purposes. The Saw Mill River Day-Lighting Project in Yonkers, NY

received several million dollars in grants from animal protection agencies by designing

provisions for the American eel. This can serve as a model for a future funding mechanism in

New Jersey.

Other funding mechanisms to explore include:

Public Private Partnerships

67 | P a g e

Aquaculture Grant Program

Watershed Deep Harbor Estuary Program

New Jersey Water Supply Authority

Fish & Wildlife Enhancement Programs

Safe Drinking Water Act

Corporate Sponsorship

Another means of project funding could be to develop a program for corporations and entities

which would give them the opportunity to be good environmental neighbors and give them

stewardship of an area of the river. It should be a good green neighbor opportunity and the

participating corporation would receive good publicity from their sponsorship while providing

an ecological benefit. This could be modeled off of the “Adopt-a-Highway” program.

Currently, the NJ Water Supply Authority and the Stony Brook Millstone Watershed Association

have river-friendly programs that work with businesses with land in the watershed and the NJ

Department of Transportation could assist in signage, etc. for this opportunity.

Sponsorship for annual stream cleaning and for helping contribute towards volunteer groups to

do annual steam-cleaning events is also a funding mechanism that should be expanded in the

Raritan. As part of this project, the American Kayak and Canoe Association can get grants to

support one day clean-up programs.

Fishing is a highly visible recreational asset on the Raritan. Fishing shops located near the river

could offer sponsorship opportunities for contributing towards a healthy Raritan River that

would support the fishing industry.

Future Direction

Moving forward, clear funding sources focusing on stormwater and flood mitigation and

management should be available to projects with a demonstrated regional reach. While water

quality is vital, it is not a standalone goal of projects in watersheds. Greater emphasis on

stormwater and flood mitigation would benefit not only water quality but also environmental

and economic integrity throughout the Raritan region.

Professional Education

Problem Statement

“Creating a New Mindset” -- The concept of “Green/Sustainable Design” is widely used in

today’s media. The term, however, means different things to different people. The

conventional definition is that Sustainable Design embraces a blend of objectives including: 1)

economic feasibility, 2) social acceptability and 3) environmental soundness.

Proposed Solutions

68 | P a g e

Our old, and thus standard, stormwater management concepts of “collect-detain-release”,

which still applicable, can be augmented with newer concepts gleaned from Sustainable

thought. LEED credit toward Stormwater Design offers a good summary as to approach and

implementation of such concepts. If a project is being constructed on a largely undeveloped

site, the goal is to preserve stormwater flows and design the project to respond to the natural

soil conditions, habitat and rainfall characteristics. If a project is a redevelopment of a

previously developed site, the goal is to improve stormwater management in a way that

restores the natural functions of the site to the maximum extent possible.

With the recent legislation requiring continuing education for Professional Engineers, the entire

design/review community, including Architects, Engineers, Land Surveyors, Landscape

Architects, Planners and even Attorneys are now required to maintain continuing education

credits during their respective licensing periods. This affords a tremendous opportunity to

educate the entire professional design community as to the aspects of Sustainable design and

thus create a “new mindset”. Course topics may include, for example:

Regulations

Public Policy

Stormwater harvesting

Pervious paving material

Stream and floodplain restoration

High quality natural environments

Underground storage

Retention basin design and modeling

Best Management Practices

Green Roofs

Cluster development concepts

Sustainable design standards

The various professional societies; AIA, NJSPE, NJSME, etc. should all be fully aware of the

Sustainable movement and the public’s view and demand that Sustainable concepts be

implemented. Local Governments, Planning Boards and Environmental Commissions are much

more informed and aware Sustainable concepts. Sustainable New Jersey has made great

strides in educating the public. The professional societies can and should be equally active in

offering their memberships the course work and tools necessary to be leaders in the design of

sustainable projects.

Future Direction

Looking ahead, a new mind set is needed to incorporate green/blue infrastructure and design

into our stormwater and flood management projects. Having useful information readily

available to all professional groups and licensing agencies to incorporate into annual trainings

69 | P a g e

and continued education programs is critical at achieving this new mind set in the Raritan

region.

Public Official Education

Problem Statement

The general public and elected township officials must be educated on the issue of stormwater

and flood management and mitigation, but the issues and tools for improvement must be

framed differently than professionals who are either providing technical guidance on behalf of

townships or who are working for private developers.

The public sector is broken down into two subgroups: 1) the general public and 2) elected and

appointed township officials. Strategies that can be employed by homeowners are clearly

different than those that would be employed by elected township officials. A main problem is

reaching both groups and giving both the tools they need to easily employ certain mitigation

strategies.

Proposed Solutions

With an understanding of the audience, it is essential to outline some of the perceived

restrictions that must be incorporated into a public educational campaign. First, the

Sustainable Raritan River Engineering Council does not have a dedicated robust funding source

identified that can offset individual presentations and events in the various townships that

would be necessary to spread the word quickly and effectively. As a result, the educational

effort should focus on minimal investments that can yield maximum effect.

There are a number of Federal, State, and regional sources of quality educational material, in

addition to technical information that will be forthcoming from other more technical

committees within the Sustainable Raritan River Engineering Council. An opportunity exists to

create two major products, a PowerPoint-style presentation and short video that could serve as

effective introductions into the issues of water quality, flooding, and habitat damage that are

becoming chronic issues in the Raritan River. The video and presentation can then follow up

with references to more technical training opportunities and reference material for the viewer.

The goal of these two products would be very focused, to create an interest and passion for the

issue in a general way and succinctly provide references for good, technical reference

information produced by others.

The intention, once both the video and presentation are developed, would be to distribute

them to local elected officials, local environmental advisory councils, and at local environmental

fairs. As discussed, it is not fiscally feasible to provide a live presentation at each of these

venues so investing in succinct, quality visual products is an efficient alternative to achieve the

objective.

70 | P a g e

Next steps include getting quotes from video production companies to produce the video and

developing the video content with the producer, based on guidance from the public education

committee and other technical committees. The PowerPoint –style presentation can be

generated by the public education committee to be a companion piece to the video. Once

produced, the video can be widely distributed easily with an introductory cover letter to the

township officials within the Raritan River watershed.

Another important point to be made is that in instances where municipalities are experiencing

issues with excess stormwater runoff, the NJ Stormwater Management rules allow municipal

governing bodies to implement more stringent control practices and project review criteria

than are expressed in the rule. Educating officials of the powers they have to manage

stormwater and contribute to flood management in their municipalities can be an important

tool and is information that can be included in educational videos and publications. Specific

sections should be dedicated to “You have the power to… ” ensure that elected officials are

aware of all of their options.

Future Direction

Water is one of earth’s most precious resources. It can also be one of its most destructive.

Often our elected officials and the general public only become engaged in water issues at times

of crisis when water has caused damage or its use by humans is threatened. It is critical to

ensure that education about water issues doesn’t wait until these times of crisis. In order to

accomplish that, the SRREC is proposing to develop succinct educational pieces, a short video

and a brief presentation, that will encapsulate the critical issues facing the watershed and

distribute them to municipalities for viewing. Our goal is to offer a cost-effective and impactful

vehicle to explain to community leaders and stakeholders what they should be focusing on and

pointing them to the resources to continue on their critical mission. Managing stormwater and

watersheds can often be reduced to a series of buzzwords; however the SRREC aims to provide

real information about green/blue infrastructure, including what that infrastructure can mean

for the Raritan River watershed and how its communities’ leaders can affect real change.

Conclusions

The recommendations put forth in this White Paper are intended to foster a dialogue among

key regional stakeholder and within the engineering, planning and public management

communities – and with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

The White Paper puts forth constructive ideas on how to address water quality and flood

impacts in the Raritan Region. Future water quality and flood mitigation will enhance the

economy of the region, saving money for taxpayers and reducing the expense of managing our

resources through better management. The approach needs to address the findings of this

White Paper concurrently: policy, regulations, funding, professional and public education all

need to be part of a functioning change to engineering and planning practices – change that will

71 | P a g e

improve our quality as professionals and add quality benefits to the Raritan River region – and

to the state of New Jersey.

Note: This document is intended to foster discussion and will be updated periodically to reflect

changes in state policies or regulations, and in current engineering practice.

Authors

Paul W. Ferriero, PE, PP, CME, LEED AP – Ferriero Engineering, Inc., Policy Committee Chair

Joseph J. Fleming, PE, PP – PS&S, Funding Committee Chair

Mark Gallagher, VP, Princeton Hydro, Regulation Committee Co-Chair

David J. Samuel, PE, CME Associates, Regulation Committee Co-Chair

Stanley J. Schrek, PE, AIA, PP, CME, LEED AP - Van Cleef Engineering Associates, Professional

Education Chair

Gregg Woodruff, PP, AICP, LEED-AP BD+C - Langan Engineering & Environmental Services,

Public Education Chair

Produced under the advisory editorship of

Dr. Christopher Obropta, Ph.D., PE - Rutgers Cooperative Extension, Water Resources Expert

Stacy A. Perrine, PP, AICP - E.J. Bloustein School of Planning & Public Policy, Rutgers University

Dr. Judith A. Shaw, PhD, PP, AICP - E.J. Bloustein School of Planning & Public Policy, Rutgers

University

Special thanks to the following people for their contributions

Cynthia Addonizio-Bianco, CFM, LEED AP BD+C – Tetra Tech

Jeromie P. Lange, PE, PP, CME, CFM, EXW, LEED® Green Associate, Maser Consulting, P.A.

Michael Roeder, SVP - T&M Associates

Christopher Roche - Langan Engineering & Environmental Services

Nicholas Tufaro, PP, LLA, RLA - Middlesex County Planning

Arnold Vernick, PE - Nova Engineering

72 | P a g e

Appendix D: Social Environmental and Political News Snapshots9

Hunterdon Mercer Middlesex Monmouth Morris Somerset Union

RARITAN RIVER TOWN SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND POLITICAL NEWS SNAPSHOTS 10,11

Alexandria

Bedminster NJSEA Presidents To Speak At March Luncheon (3/4/2012)

Learn about foraging edible plants in Bedminster (3/24/2012)

Tebow Eyes New Jersey Luxury Rental (3/29/2012)

Berkeley Heights

Berkeley Heights Achieves Sustainable Jersey® Silver-Level Certification (4/2/2012)

Update: Water Main Break Impacts 100 Berkeley Heights Residences (4/4/2012)

Bernards N.J. DOT to rebuild bridge linking Morris and Somerset counties (3/11/2012)

Bernardsville Programs on fly fishing at NJ Audubon in Bernardsville (3/23/2012)

Bethlehem

Bound Brook Tainted dirt in Bound Brook heading to Woodbridge (3/5/2012)

Branchburg Branchburg Township Health Department alerts residents of increase in Norovirus (3/14/2012)

Noveda Technologies Joins Edison Electric Institute (3/21/2012)

Bridgewater

Monitoring agency says EPA failed to share reports of Raritan River benzene contamination near American Cyanamid Superfund site in Bridgewater (2/13/2012)

EPA considers $200M fix for polluted American Cyanamid property (2/16/2012)

Annual Middle Earth 'Run from Winter' 10K (2/20/2012)

Historic house in Bridgewater could be destroyed as part of a deal to preserve surrounding acreage (2/24/2012)

Pfizer endorses Cyanamid remediation plan (2/28/2012)

Latest Plan to Seal Off Superfund Site Divides Community (3/9/2012)

Environmentalists slam EPA plan for Bridgewater Superfund site (3/5/2012)

Public Reaction Mixed on American Cyanamid Project (3/9/2012)

Welcome Spring With Weekly Walks at Duke Island Park (3/13/2012)

EPA extends public comment period on American Cyanamid clean-up

9 Storied from December 16, 2011-May 2012

10 With assistance from Lizzie Browder, MCRP 2013

11 Stories found using Google Alerts application and Google Search Engine using search terms: Raritan River,

Raritan River & Flooding/Storm water, Raritan River & Mitigation.

73 | P a g e

proposal (3/9/2012)

Letter: EPA plan for Bridgewater Superfund site a bad move for Raritan River, central N.J. (3/30/2012)

Califon Califon OK's 10% budget decrease; Hoffman property, community garden also discussed (4/5/2012)

Carteret Company proposes soil recycling to cap vacant tract in Carteret (3/18/2012)

Chester Borough

Chester Township

Time running out for Highlands boss in Chester Township (3/15/2012)

Troubled times for Highlands Council, director fired and deputy resigns (3/16/2012)

After ousting director, N.J. Highlands Council searches for a new one (3/22/2012)

Brush Fire Conditions Spark Concerns (3/29/2012)

Clinton Township

Funding available for area farmers (3/5/2012)

Construction project to close one block of Main Street in Clinton Monday morning, March 19 (3/15/2012)

Local director will pitch 'Small Town USA' TV show with film of Clinton (3/28/2012)

Cranbury

AmeriHealth New Jersey Named One of the Best Places to Work in New Jersey (2/23/2012)

SolarCity Opens Operations Center in New Jersey (2/23/2012)

Cranberry's Gourmet Cafe: A reason to exit at 8A (3/23/2012)

Cranford Cranford Library to host screening of 'Rescuing the River: The Raritan' (1/10/2012)

Delaware Delaware Township wants to buy vacant historic house near Bulls Island state park from the state for $1 (4/3/2012)

Dunellen Home-schooling demographics change, expand (2/15/2012)

East Amwell

Sole East Amwell representative to Hunterdon Central school board resigns, applications taken for seat (3/26/2012)

Freeholder candidate from Tewksbury among those endorsed by county Democrats (3/28/2012)

East Brunswick

Central NJ retail vacancy rate falls (3/26/2012)

Warm weather, improved economy bringing out homebuyers and sellers this spring (4/1/2012)

Relief from congestion due from Route 22 project (4/3/2012)

East Windsor SciPark Aims to Make New Jersey the New Silicon Valley

N.J. must stop swiping property tax relief from locals (3/13/2012)

Edison Officials say major study needed of Raritan River pollution (3/19/2012) Middlesex Water Company to Invest $3.3 Million Upgrading Water

Distribution Infrastructure in Edison Township (4/5/2012)

Englishtown Boro

74 | P a g e

Fanwood

Far Hills Garden Photography Workshop Planned (4/4/2012)

Flemington

Garden State GreenFest Was a Great Success (3/30/2012)

Morris second healthiest county in N.J. (4/4/2012)

Flemington agent among those honored with National Award (4/4/2012)

New Jersey trout fishing starts today amid environmental concerns about waterways (4/7/2012)

Franklin

Franklin Township weighs 20-year plan to add parks (3/18/2012)

Hiking: What you should know about the Franklin Lakes Nature Preserve (3/29/2012)

Route 287 - Easton Avenue interchange plan is subject of NJDOT meeting in Franklin Township (4/3/2012)

Winslow wildfires seen and smelled in Gloucester County (4/6/2012)

Freehold Borough Agreement could be near on artificial reefs (3/29/2012)

Freehold Township

Nonprofit Looks to Freehold Raceway to Save Open Space (3/22/2012)

Open Space Pace will shine spotlight on horse racing (4/4/2012)

Route 9 to be resurfaced (4/5/2012)

The Unnamed Bicycle Column: A Cultural Shift (4/6/2012)

Glen Gardner Gov. Christie announces partnership between substance abuse center, psychiatric hospital (3/22/2012)

Green Brook

Hampton New Jersey Department of Traffic announces traffic shift in Hampton Borough (3/29/2012)

High Bridge

Oil leak contained in South Branch Raritan River (1/31/2012)

Booms set up to determine source of second spill in Raritan River's South Branch in High Bridge (2/10/2012)

'Everything back to normal' in High Bridge section of South Branch Raritan River; source of leak never identified (2/20/2012)

Highland Park Residents vowing to make Highland Park more energy-friendly (3/21/2012) A sparkling debut: Jersey Moves! festival puts dance in the spotlight

(3/22/2012)

Hightstown Pair sues Hightstown Borough, claims park lacks access for disabled (3/12/2012)

Hillsborough Left-Turn Exit Removed From Green Village Plan (3/2/2012)

Hopewell Boro

Hopewell Twp.

Jamesburg New Jersey American Water Awards Grants to 21 N.J. Volunteer Emergency Services Groups (3/28/2012)

Lawrence Only 3 N.J. towns will ask voters for tax hike above 2 percent cap (3/26/2012)

Lebanon Borough In Lebanon Twp., Gov. Christie visits Freedom House, which will help homeless veterans at new program coming to Hagedorn (3/21/2012)

75 | P a g e

Fire Warning issued for New Jersey; brush fire reported along Route 78 in Lebanon (4/4/2012)

Lebanon Township Hurricane Irene flood victims in Lebanon Township ask for officials' help (3/22/2012)

Manalapan

Manville

Manville targets flood-prone homes for buyouts (2/5/2012) Army Corps of Engineers to report on Raritan and Millville River flooding

(2/14/2012) Army Corps of Engineers get $50,000 to study Raritan-Millville River basin

flooding (2/16/2012) MANVILLE: Flooding solutions -- big and small -- are wanted River basins

commission hears update of study by Army Corps of Engineers (4/4/2012)

Marlboro Menendez deplores string of anti-Semitic attacks (2/1/2012)

Mendham Borough

Mendham Township Land in Chester Twp., Mendham Twp. to become nature preserve (4/5/2012)

Metuchen

Middlesex Borough

Millstone Millstone students pop cap on creative recycling (4/5/2012)

Milltown

Mine Hill

Monroe

How N.J. towns' countless tax appeal settlements are costing the state billions (3/28/2012)

Gloucester County seeing smoke from forest fires along the Atlantic City Expressway (4/6/2012)

Montgomery Trenton-Mercer, Princeton to share $1.3M for airport improvements (3/30/2012)

Mount Arlington N.J. DEP to take over Lake Hopatcong weed harvest (3/18/2012)

Mount Olive Frustrated Flanders homeowners await new bridge to town (1/29/2012)

Mountainside Latest Union County Means Business Networking Meeting Focuses on Small Business Funding (4/4/2012)

New Brunswick

The VUE Grand Opens to the Public with Luxury Condominium and Rental Residences (1/24/2012)

Glimpse of History: A crossing spot that spans centuries (2/12/2012) Heavyweight Rowers Brave Elements and Rutgers to Sweep Collins Cup

Regatta (3/25/2012) Financial Carrots Dangled to Spur Supermarket Development (4/3/2012)

New Providence

Trout fishing contest in New Providence (3/26/2012)

New Providence denied increased train service by NJ Transit (3/29/2012)

New Providence library spent $23,000 on Hurricane Irene repairs; renovation still incomplete (3/30/2012)

North Brunswick North Brunswick unveils plans to renovate troubled apartment complex (3/30/2012)

76 | P a g e

North Plainfield

Old Bridge Data Center Deals Showcase Strong NJ Tech Market (3/21/2012)

Peapack-Gladstone

Pennington

Perth Amboy Perth Amboy officials ask N.J. DOT to install fences on deadly bridge (2/26/2012)

‘Rescuing the River’ screening March 22 (3/15/2012)

Piscataway

Plainfield $1 million Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority payout to be probed

(3/12/2012) Plainfield (N.J.) Public Library (3/13/2012)

Plainsboro

Pohatcong Township Pohatcong Township rejects Highlands Council conformance in planning area (3/22/2012)

Princeton Borough The 'daunting' task of merging the Princetons (4/3/2012)

Princeton Township NJHA Develops Health Profiles for New Jersey's 21 Counties (3/15/2012)

Princeton Township Mayor: Municipal consolidation will pay off (3/21/2012)

Randolph Salem Street bridge over Route 10 to be closed for six months in Randolph (3/16/2012)

Raritan Boro

Raritan Township

Urbach Farm is now preserved in Raritan Township (2/6/2012)

Waterfowl find refuge at Assiscong Marsh during migration (2/22/2012)

Raritan zoning board to deliberate on unpopular Garden Solar application April 5 (3/2/2012)

Readington Readington Community Garden work days starting (3/16/2012)

Readington students focus on innovation and design (3/16/2012)

Rocky Hill Steamboat to make a 'SPLASH' along the Delaware River once again (4/2/2012)

Roosevelt Boro Roosevelt council addresses sewer issues (3/22/2012)

Roxbury

Sayreville

Scotch Plains

Somerville The Point plan moving forward, official says (1/19/2012)

County and Water Supply Authority offer rain barrel rebates (3/29/2012)

Project will provide rainy day savings (3/30/2012)

South Amboy Moving around town becomes EZ in Middlesex Co. (3/15/2012)

Mixed Signals for Builders (4/5/2012)

South Bound Brook Rain Barrel Workshop to be Held in South Bound Brook (4/3/2012)

South Brunswick

South Plainfield

South River

77 | P a g e

Spotswood Spotswood resident focuses on explosive history subject (3/29/2012)

Springfield Township Mayors Council reports promising developments for Rahway River Watershed Reservation (4/6/2012)

Summit Summit Council Adopts $500,000 Bond Ordinance to Fund Repairs to Broad Street Parking Garage; Firefighters, Recreation Personnel Cited (4/3/2012)

Tewksbury

Union (Hunterdon)

Warren

Department of Environmental Protection hosts 25th trout hatchery free open house (3/30/2012)

Conservation Reserve Program sign-up deadline approaching (4/2/2012)

Farm Service Agency offers farm loans for socially disadvantaged groups (4/7/2012)

Washington (Morris) Locally grown food, sustainable lifestyles promoted by Long Valley scientist (4/2/2012)

Robbinsville

Watchung Gardeners of Watchung Hills Sponsor Landscape Architecture Program (3/26/2012)

West Amwell Even Dairy Farming Has a 1 Percent (3/6/2012)

West Windsor West Windsor sets a summer opening for restored farmstead (3/20/2012)

Woodbridge Bound Brook's Contaminated Soil is Coming to Keasbey (3/8/2012)

RARITAN RIVER COUNTY

SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND POLITICAL NEWS SNAPSHOTS

Hunterdon Hunterdon County recruits volunteers for Community Emergency Response Team (3/23/2012)

Restaurant dining to benefit Raritan Headwaters Association (3/27/2012)

New Jersey expands Jersey Grown program (3/27/2012)

Hunterdon Democrats and Republicans file to run for freeholder, council, mayor, other posts (4/4/2012)

Mercer Delaware & Raritan Canal walk set for April 7 (3/28/2012)

Mild winter left Mercer County towns with piles of salt and cash (3/28/2012)

Middlesex Middlesex Water Company Replaces Century Old Water Main in $5.3 Million Infrastructure Investment (12/24/2011)

Local towns challenge water rate hike proposal: Middlesex Water seeks to increase rates by 17.5% (3/21/2012)

Middlesex County’s Community Notification System Helps Keep Residents Informed (3/21/2012)

Middlesex Water Company Transmission Main Project Earns Honors

78 | P a g e

from American Council of Engineering Companies (3/26/2012)

County Ranks Sixth Healthwise in NJ (4/5/2012)

Shows and Events-Middlesex Fire Academy Boat Show (4/5/2012)

Monmouth Striped bass season open in rivers, bays (3/1/2012)

Supporters fight to save Sandy Hook marine lab (3/18/2012)

Freda's Saltwater Report (3/29/2012)

Freda: Winter flounder abundant (3/30/2012)

Morris Sitting pretty on this popular bicycle tour (12/22/2011)

Somerset DEP says Raritan River dam removal in Somerset County will kick start fish spawning (1/31/2012)

With 9 pedestrian deaths over 3 years, Route 22 ranks among N.J.'s most dangerous roads (3/13/2012)

Celebrate Earth Day, preserve watershed by dining out in Somerset Hills April 19 (4/6/2012)

Union Fifteen flood-prone homes in Lincoln Park qualify for buyouts (1/23/2012)

Mayors along Raritan River set flood-control priorities (1/29/2012)

N.J. residents baffled over strange glow in sky (3/25/2012)

Recycle Unwanted Electronic Equipment in New Providence, March 31 (3/26/2012)

RARITAN RIVER Region

SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND POLITICAL NEWS SNAPSHOTS

NJ-NY Metropolitan Area

Upper Saddle River Council approves resident's application for flood relief (12/21/2011)

EPA unveils new mercury emission standards, NJ likely to benefit greatly (12/21/2011)

Plan for logging in N.J. spurs heated debate (1/3/2012)

Editorial: N.J. property tax control efforts off to good start (1/17/2012)

New Jersey American Water Installing Two New Solar Fields at its Facilities (2/8/2012)

Fighting fires with fire (3/12/2012)

Water Pipe Study: United States Needs $1 Trillion For Drinking Water Lines Over Next 25 Years (3/13/2012)

Study: Extreme flooding risk at N.J. coast has doubled (3/15/2012)

N.J. Highlands Council votes to oust director at emotional session (3/16/2012)

The Fishing Line: Politics and Fishing, Complicated (3/22/2012)

Towns look to accelerate projects after Christie threat to affordable housing funds (3/25/2012)

79 | P a g e

Stream clean-up in Hunterdon, Morris and Somerset counties (3/27/2012)

Taking Steps Toward a Cleaner Raritan River (3/28/2012)

NYT: Flooding Risk Rises Statewide (3/29/2012)

EPA details Superfund site cleanup (3/29/2012)

USA: EPA Conducts Five-Year Review of Hudson River Superfund Site (3/29/2012)

Spring Fishing off to a Good Start (3/29/2012)

Anglers prep for start of spring trout season (3/31/2012)

Bluefish showing as stripers continue biting (3/31/2012)

Unseasonably pleasant month ties for warmest March on N.J. record (4/1/2012)

New Jersey American Water to Resume Treating Water with Chlorine (4/2/2012)

Stripers turn on in the ocean (4/3/2012)

Fine Print: New Jersey, Maybe Not So Green (4/3/2012)

Complete Streets program encourages walkers, cyclists (4/4/2012)

State Forest Fire Service issues statewide fire danger alert and campfire restrictions (4/4/2012)

Huge Rooftop Farm Is Set for Brooklyn (4/5/2012)

Fitch Rates NJ Environmental Infrastructure Trust's $103.6MM Environmental Infrastructure Bonds 'AAA' (4/5/2012)

Diver shares photos of marine creatures found in NJ waters (4/5/2012)

On the Waterfront-NYT Op-ed (4/6/2012)

Be prepared for trout on Opening Day (4/6/2012)

80 | P a g e

Appendix E: Tracking Local News Articles

Google Search: To do a preliminary Internet search on a topic of interest, you can use Google Search and its Advanced Search settings to craft a search query.

1. Go to https://www.google.com 2. In the search bar, enter your topic of interest i.e. Raritan River

3. Google will populate basic search results. 4. Next, you can set Advanced Search Settings to refine the results by clicking the button that looks

like a wagon wheel, located in the top right hand corner of the page. This button has links to:

Search Settings: set language preferences, increase the safety of search results or block unwanted sites.

Advanced Search: limit search results by editing search terms, adding Boolean phrases (and, or, not) and narrowing timeframes.

Web History: personalize searches based on web history.

Search Help: very helpful page, utilize if these instructions are insufficient for your search needs.

5. Click on Advanced Search

The top half of the page “Find pages with…” is where you can modify/add search terms

The second half of the page “Then narrow results by…” allows you to specify the timeframe in the “Last Update” box as:

o Anytime o Past 24 hours

81 | P a g e

o Past week o Past month o Past year

Choose the option based on how timely you desire the search results to be.

6. Hit Advanced Search to view your new results pages.

7. You can further refine search results by selecting the types of information you would like. To do this look at the left hand side of the page, which yields the following options:

Everything: blogs, websites, news, photos, everything you could want---sometimes a bit overwhelming

Images: photos of the search terms you’ve entered

Maps: links to Google maps of the search terms you’ve entered

Videos: videos related to your search

News: articles, stories, reports about your search from news sources; also allows you to look at blogs related to your topic (link to blogs located in the middle of the left hand sidebar)

Shopping: anything you can buy related to your search terms

More: many, many more options—explore at your own risk! Google Alerts: To receive the latest information about a topic of interest, you can set up Google Alerts, which will send you an email about new information relevant to search queries you construct. Also see the PowerPoint: Google Alerts Quick Guide.

1. Go to http://www.google.com/alerts 2. Enter you Search Query

You can enter a single term such as “Raritan River”

A phrase i.e. “Raritan River Flooding

Or a Boolean search using the words or, and, not i.e. “Raritan River and Bound Brook and Flooding or Storm water”

3. Choose the desired Result Type, options include:

Everything

News

Blogs

Video

Discussions

Books 4. Choose How Often you would like to receive alerts:

As it happens

Once a day

Once a week

5. Select How Many results:

82 | P a g e

Only the best results

All results

6. Enter Your Email

No need to have a Google Gmail account, you can send these alerts to any email address.

7. Click Create Alert, and give yourself a pat on the back!

8. You can edit or delete these alerts anytime by clicking Manage Your Alerts.

83 | P a g e

Appendix F: Municipal Mitigation Survey and Results

We ask your assistance pre-testing this pilot survey. Your participation is voluntary.

Feel free to add comments anywhere along the way to help us make this a more useful survey.

Your town: ________________________________

Your position: Elected Official Engineer Planner OEM

Floodplain Manager Public Works Other: ______________________

1. Overall, how would you rate your town as a place to live:

Excellent Good Fair Poor

2. Do you think the environment in your town will be better or worse in the next 25 years?

Better Same Worse Don’t Know No Comment

3. How long have you lived in this town?

less than 1 year

2-5 years

6-10 years

10-25 years

Over 25 years

All my life

4. What is the cause of the flooding in your neighborhood? Rank with one of the following choices:

1 = most serious cause 2 = major cause 3 = minor cause 4 = not a cause

My lawn and drainage on my property

My neighbors drainage

Local stormwater treatment systems

Development in neighboring towns

Excessive rain ( amount)

Intensity of rain (time)

Changes in global climate

Other ____________________________________________

84 | P a g e

5. What is flooding like in your town? (choose one)

Light: some streets flooded, but no homes damaged

Nuisance: Some people with water in their basements, but not a lot of water

Heavy: Lots of water and lots of people getting water in their first floor

Torrential: ripped out streambanks, brought down trees, moved property

Critical and Hazardous: homes came off their foundations

Other: __________________________________________________

6. Which of the following mitigation strategies do you think apply in your community

(L – low, M – medium, H – high)

L M H Improved maintenance of stormwater systems

L M H Installation of dry-wells and cisterns to capture and slowly release water

L M H Community wide stormwater best management practices

L M H Elevation of homes and elimination of basements

L M H Buying out flood prone homes

7. How important are the following potential benefits to your community of reduced flooding?

1 = Single most important benefit 2 = Important 3 = Slightly important 4 = not important

___ Reduction of costs absorbed by the municipal budget

___ Reduction of nuisance flooding across your community

___ Potential attraction of new business because you are a ‘green’ community

___ Increased ratable value to existing homes when flood-prone areas are protected.

8. Which mitigation strategies are you familiar with?

1 = very familiar 2 = somewhat familiar 3 = not familiar

___ rain barrels ___ bio-retention basins ___ rain gardens ___ constructed wetlands ___ cisterns ___ extended detention basins ___ dry wells ___ reconnecting floodplains ___ bioswales ___ raising bridges ___ stream restoration ___ levees/floodwalls

9. What information do you want about mitigation options in order to better inform your decisions on flood planning/maintenance?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

85 | P a g e

10. How could we communicate more effectively and get better input on implementing mitigation strategies in your community?

1 = best 2 = good 3 = fair 4 = not an approach that would work here

feel free to add comments

Personal meetings with public officials and local leaders

Workshops and videos on best management practices for our public works team

Workshops for our emergency response volunteers

Workshops for municipal officials

Presentation to a community meeting

Web-based videos

Media stories

Other: ______________________________________

11. If you checked training workshops above, how close to your town do they need to be?

Within our town

Within 10 miles

Within 25 miles

New Brunswick

12. How willing are you to get involved in implementing more mitigation in your town?

Willing to serve on a working group that meets once a month

Willing to serve on a working group that meets 3-4 times a year

Willing to serve on a working group that meets twice a month

Willing to attend trainings on beneficial practices

Willing to organize this – we need it!

Comments:

THANK YOU!

86 | P a g e

Survey Results

We ask your assistance pre-testing this pilot survey. Your participation is voluntary.

Feel free to add comments anywhere along the way to help us make this a more useful survey.

Affiliation

Elected 5

Engineer 4

Planner 2

OEM 4

FPM 1

PW

Lans Arch 1

other 5

Overall, how would you rate your town as a place to live?

All said their town was excellent or good place to live except for Manville - fair to poor

Do you think the environment in your town will be better or worse in the next 25 years?

Status of env in town in next 25 years

better 7

same 2

worse 7

don’t know 1

How long have you lived in this town?

# yrs lived in town

>1

2 to 5 1

6 to 10 3

10 to 25 2

over 25 7

all my life 5

87 | P a g e

What is the cause of the flooding in your neighborhood?

1 = most serious cause 2 = major cause 3 = minor cause 4 = not a cause

flooding causes # of top

votes

lawn and drainage on property 0

neighbors drainage 0

local storm water management system 3

dev in neighboring town 5

excessive rain amounts 8

intensity of rain (time) 7

global climate 1

other:

failure of Island Farm Weir Green Brook plan, impervious coverages, water debris, smaller stream issues

1

Natural and construction debris 2

Construction in 20s on top of old streambed 1

What is flooding like in your town? (Choose one)

What is flooding like in your town? # of top

votes

light 3

nuisance 4

heavy 3

torrential 2

critical/hazardous 6

Other: nuisance to heavy 2

Which of the following mitigation strategies do you think apply in your community?

(L – low, M – medium, H – high)

mitigation strategies for your community L M H

Improve stormwater systems 3 9 7

dry wells 7 7 3

Community -wide Best Management Practices (BMPs) 6 5 7

elevation & no basement 7 7 4

88 | P a g e

How important are the following potential benefits to your community of reduced flooding?

1 = Single most important benefit 2 = Important 3 = Slightly important 4 = not important

importance of benefits to community most

imp imp slightly not imp

reduction of costs absorbed by local budget 7 5 2 2

reduction of nuisance flooding 6 6 2 1

attraction of new "green" business 3 2 5 4

increased ratables 5 4 3 3

Which mitigation strategies are you familiar with?

1 = very familiar 2 = somewhat familiar 3 = not familiar

Mitigation strategies very fam somewhat no

rain barrels

11 6 rain gardens

9 7

cisterns

4 8 5

dry wells

9 8 3

bioswales

5 6 6

stream restoration

10 7 1

bio retention basins

7 4 5

constructed wetlands

5 9 2

extended detention basins 5 6 5

reconnecting floodplains 3 7 8

raising bridges

9 3 6

levees/floodwalls

8 7 3

What information do you want about mitigation options in order to better inform your decisions on flood planning/maintenance?

funding, one asked how to implement 6 Model projects 1 How to implement 1 Understanding of flow rates 1

89 | P a g e

How could we communicate more effectively and get better input on implementing mitigation strategies in your community?

1 = best 2 = good 3 = fair 4 = not an approach that would work here ( feel free to add comments)

communication mechanism best good fair no

personal meeting 9 1 1

workshops and videos for PW 7 3 2 1

workshops for OEM 6 7 1

workshops for municipal leaders 7 6 1

presentation to community 6 6 2

web based videos 1 5 5 2

media stories 3 2 2

If you checked training workshops above, how close to your town do they need to be?

travel to workshops in town 7

10 miles 5

25 miles 2

New Brunswick 2

How willing are you to get involved in implementing more mitigation in your town?

willingness to implement more mitigation in your town

working group once/month 5

group 3-4 times a year 3

group twice a month 1

training on BMPs 6

willing to organize 1

comment - will provide a venue 1

90 | P a g e

Appendix G: Thresholds Data

Following are the underlying data used to generate the estimated payout threshold

and damage estimates for the four municipalities analyzed in Section 1 of the text. The

damage coefficient is the estimated dollar damages per cubic foot of streamflow over the

estimated threshold. Graphs compare the model results to actual payout levels.

Bound Brook

Damage Threshold: 29,185 cu. ft. per sec.

Damage Coefficient: $528.72 Payouts (2011 $) Payouts (2011 $)

Year Peak Flow Actual Predicted Year Peak Flow Actual Predicted

1975 27,100 $7,297 $0 1993 20,000 $0 $0 1976 20,200 $0 $0 1994 22,900 $0 $0 1977 26,300 $0 $0 1995 11,200 $1,410 $0 1978 30,000 $8,241 $430,756 1996 32,700 $2,599,154 $1,858,309 1979 34,600 $302,870 $2,862,883 1997 40,100 $0 $5,770,860 1980 25,300 $0 $0 1998 14,100 $0 $0 1981 18,200 $0 $0 1999 82,900 $23,822,964 $28,400,210 1982 22,900 $0 $0 2000 12,600 $10,383 0 1983 28,100 $8,392 $0 2001 13,600 $17,252 0 1984 28,600 $0 $0 2002 10,600 $46,318 $0 1985 14,100 $0 $0 2003 16,700 $77,097 $0 1986 20,100 $0 $0 2004 23,100 $0 $0 1987 21,100 $7,547 $0 2005 24,700 $27,666 $0 1988 12,600 $0 $0 2006 25,100 $0 $0 1989 23,500 $0 0 2007 56,900 $24,655,293 $14,653,409 1990 17,900 $0 $0 2008 23,200 $17,274 $0 1991 11,400 $45,215 $0 2009 24,100 $0 $0 1992 15,000 $0 $0 2010 45,900 $11,425,324 $8,837,454

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

Payo

uts

Streamflow (cu. ft. per sec.)

Actual vs. Predicted Payouts by Streamflow Level Bound Brook, 1975-2010

Actual

Predicted

91 | P a g e

Branchburg

Damage Threshold: 17,748 cu. ft. per sec.

Damage Coefficient: $134.53 Payouts (2011 $) Payouts (2011 $)

Year Peak Flow Actual Predicted Year Peak Flow Actual Predicted

1975 10,900 $0 0 1993 7,590 $0 $0 1976 6,020 $0 0 1994 10,000 $3,105 $0 1977 9,730 $0 0 1995 5,070 $0 $0 1978 9,730 $1,025 $0 1996 23,700 $1,774,621 $800,695 1979 15,100 $153,145 $0 1997 29,100 $0 $1,527,157 1980 11,600 $0 $0 1998 5,110 $0 $0 1981 11,400 $0 $0 1999 29,000 $3,448,032 $1,513,704 1982 14,500 $0 $0 2000 6,000 $0 $0 1983 14,200 $3,556 $0 2001 4,300 $0 $0 1984 27,900 $564,383 $1,365,721 2002 7,730 $0 $0 1985 9,750 $0 $0 2003 4,530 $0 $0 1986 9,030 $0 $0 2004 14,600 $15,321 $0 1987 9,310 $0 $0 2005 9,690 $19,224 $0 1988 7,050 $0 $0 2006 11,200 $0 $0 1989 8,200 $0 $0 2007 19,500 $53,902 $235,669 1990 9,390 $0 $0 2008 12,900 $8,326 $0 1991 5,590 $0 $0 2009 10,300 $0 $0 1992 6,680 $0 $0 2010 22,200 $200,917 $598,900

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

Payo

uts

Streamflow (cu. ft. per sec.)

Actual vs. Predicted Payouts by Streamflow Level Branchburg, 1975-2010

Actual

Predicted

92 | P a g e

Manville

Damage Threshold: 20,217 cu. ft. per sec.

Damage Coefficient: $281.53 Payouts (2011 $) Payouts (2011 $)

Year Peak Flow Actual Predicted Year Peak Flow Actual Predicted

1975 17,200 $0 0 1993 14,500 $0 $0 1976 13,400 $0 0 1994 14,900 $0 $0 1977 18,300 $3,681 0 1995 8,010 $0 $0 1978 19,400 $7,837 $0 1996 24,300 $2,189,581 $1,149,372 1979 23,000 $156,478 $783,380 1997 32,000 $0 $3,317,171 1980 17,700 $0 $0 1998 10,900 $0 $0 1981 17,900 $0 $0 1999 77,600 $16,039,910 $16,155,046 1982 17,000 $5,232 $0 2000 6,660 $0 $0 1983 22,800 $1,114 $727,073 2001 12,000 $0 $0 1984 27,300 $7,546 $1,993,969 2002 10,600 $0 $0 1985 11,500 $0 $0 2003 11,000 $0 $0 1986 15,800 $0 $0 2004 19,100 $0 $0 1987 17,600 $0 $0 2005 19,300 $0 $0 1988 10,900 $0 $0 2006 19,200 $0 $0 1989 16,200 $0 $0 2007 30,400 $9,113,389 $2,866,719 1990 14,400 $0 $0 2008 19,700 $0 $0 1991 8,730 $0 $0 2009 15,800 $0 $0 1992 12,300 $0 $0 2010 28,900 $1,929,122 $2,444,420

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

$18,000,000

Payo

uts

Streamflow (cu. ft. per sec.)

Actual vs. Predicted Payouts by Streamflow Level Manville, 1975-2010

Actual

Predicted

93 | P a g e

Middlesex

Damage Threshold: 26,022 cu. ft. per sec.

Damage Coefficient: $97.62 Payouts (2011 $) Payouts (2011 $)

Year Peak Flow Actual Predicted Year Peak Flow Actual Predicted

1975 27,100 $0 105,187 1993 20,000 $0 $0 1976 20,200 $0 0 1994 22,900 $9,568 $0 1977 26,300 $3,066 27,095 1995 11,200 $0 $0 1978 30,000 $802 $388,271 1996 32,700 $2,047,519 $651,831 1979 34,600 $38,237 $837,300 1997 40,100 $21,685 $1,374,183 1980 25,300 $24,721 $0 1998 14,100 $0 $0 1981 18,200 $0 $0 1999 82,900 $5,662,446 $5,552,108 1982 22,900 $0 $0 2000 12,600 $0 $0 1983 28,100 $0 $202,802 2001 13,600 $668 $0 1984 28,600 $141,370 $251,610 2002 10,600 $0 $0 1985 14,100 $0 $0 2003 16,700 $0 $0 1986 20,100 $0 $0 2004 23,100 $16,458 $0 1987 21,100 $0 $0 2005 24,700 $1,388 $0 1988 12,600 $0 $0 2006 25,100 $3,055 $0 1989 23,500 $395 $0 2007 56,900 $1,499,626 $3,014,116 1990 17,900 $0 $0 2008 23,200 $0 $0 1991 11,400 $0 $0 2009 24,100 $0 $0 1992 15,000 $64,228 $0 2010 45,900 $4,930,102 $1,940,350

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

Payo

uts

Streamflow (cu. ft. per sec.)

Actual vs. Predicted Payouts by Streamflow Level Middlesex, 1975-2010

Actual

Predicted