Final Program - Society for Risk Analysis

variation on Day 0. Results showed a high degree of stability and reproducibility for32 single DBPs, TOX, and 11 DBP mixture subgroups, including the halomethane,haloacid, and haloaldehyde chemical classes. (The views expressed in this abstract donot necessarily reflect the views or policies of the US EPA.)W2-D.1 Thekdi SA, Lambert JH; thekdi.s@gmail.comUniversity of VirginiaRISK MODELS AND NEGOTIATION ANALYSIS FOR LAND DEVEL-OPMENT ADJACENT TO INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMSRisk-informed decision making for the protection of transportation, energy,communications, water, emergency services, and other infrastructures from adjacentland development is an essential need. The issues include diverse technology andadministrative remedies; large-scale and distributed assets; multiple owners and stakeholders;diverse nature of stakeholders, constraints and competing objectives; uncertaintiesin forecasts, time horizon, schedule, and cost; and needs for agency transparencyand accountability in the prioritization and programming of investments. Theproblem calls for knowledge across several domains including risk analysis, lifecycleanalysis, scenario analysis, impact analysis, reliability modeling, multi-criteria analysis,and negotiation analysis. This presentation will develop risk and decision models thataddress risk of land development adjacent to infrastructure systems, testing the modelswith agencies responsible for a 6000-mile multimodal transportation network. Themodels will address a time horizon of about ten years, which is longer than annualor biannual budget cycles and shorter than long-range investment planning. The firstpart of this effort develops predictive models to estimate time-to-develop for milelongsections of corridor. The second part of this effort refines a scenario analysisto describe the impact of various scenarios on the time to develop. The third part ofthis effort performs negotiation analysis to support regulators/planners, localities,infrastructure owner/operators, and developers in coordinated risk management ofland development. This research has led the National Research Council to evaluatebest practices, methods, and tools that support transportation agencies to manage therisk of land development.W1-D.2 Thompson MP, Calkin DE; mpthompson02@fs.fed.usUS Forest ServiceADVANCEMENTS IN INTEGRATED WILDFIRE RISK ASSESSMENTFederal wildfire management within the United States continues to increase incomplexity, as the converging drivers of increased development, past managementpractices, and a changing climate magnify threats to human and ecological values andplace additional stress on limited fiscal resources. Further amplifying wildfire managementcomplexities are manifold sources of uncertainty, including variability surroundingfire occurrence and behavior, limited understanding of the spatiotemporaldynamics of ecological responses to fire, and limited resource value measures to guideprioritization across resources threatened by fire. In this presentation we will reviewprogress towards identification and characterization of uncertainties and the incorporationof this information into integrated wildfire risk assessment frameworks to supportdecision-making. First, we will review a recently developed typology of uncertaintiescommon to wildfire decision-making and highlight the most salient sourcesof uncertainty. Second, we will describe the expanding role of spatially explicit burnprobability modeling as state-of-the-art exposure analysis, and illustrate the applicationof burn probability modeling to support strategic fuel reduction treatments aswell as active wildfire incident management. Third, we will discuss how our limitedunderstanding of fire effects poses challenges to quantifying risk, especially for nonmarketresources, and how we have relied on systematic elicitation of expert judgmentto advance wildfire effects analysis. We will provide examples from recent andongoing integrated risk assessments ranging from local to national planning scalesand describe their use for informing on-the-ground management and strategic policydevelopment. Lastly we will discuss remaining barriers to broader adoption of riskmanagement principles within federal wildfire management.M3-C.1 Thran BH, Intano GI, McAtee MJ; randbthran@hotmail.comArmy Institute of Public HealthNEED DRIVES DEVELOPMENT - ARMY BIOLOGICAL MILITARYEXPOSURE GUIDELINES (BMEGS)The U.S. Army Public Health Command (USAPHC) published risk assessmentguidance in 2009 for assessing exposures to aerosolized microbial pathogens fromenvironmental, occupational (i.e., laboratory accident), or intentional (e.g., terrorist)releases. The development of guidance supplements for specific areas continues andthey provide military public health relevant technical information in the emerging areaof microbial risk assessment from non-traditional exposures. A critical proceduralgap is the ability to integrate mechanistic knowledge dose-response relationships intothe military risk assessment matrix used to categorize population-level health and operationalrisks. A team of risk analysts at the USAPHC have developed procedures toderive Biological Military Exposure Guidelines (BMEGs) for pathogens in air or waterthat represent health-protective or safe-sided estimates for certain health effects.Standardized data review and analysis should facilitate efficient derivation of BMEGs.An additional outcome of the BMEG derivation process is the identification of datagaps that can be used to fuel model-directed research. Directed research will beginto close current data gaps, reduce uncertainty about the nature and magnitude ofmicrobial risks, and improve confidence of future BMEGs. A phased approach toBMEG development is being implemented due in large part because the concept ofmicrobial exposure guidelines is so new. Preliminary BMEGs based on available scientificevidence and models can be useful decision criteria, if needed today and thereis adequate confidence in their level of protection/prediction. Interim and Final181