NTHMP Tsunami Survey Results & Proposed Performance Metrics

1. NTHMP Tsunami Survey Results & Proposed Performance Metrics MES Meeting February 6, 2012 Adapted from presentation by J. Rhoades

2. Agenda • Overview • NTHMP Survey Results • Recommendation from the MES-EC • Next Steps…

3. First, a bit of history…. • 2008 NTHMP Strategic Plan mandated baseline measures would be determined for 10 specific metrics • Fall 2010 – Survey conducted to establish baselines • May 2011 – Survey Results Report Finalized • September 2011 – MES-EC Sub-Team formed • Determine baselines • Propose annual update methodology • October 2011 – Review of survey results by MES-EC and establishment of metric/survey alignment • February 2012 – Review by MES and Proposal to NTHMP-CC on Implementation

4. Initial Survey Results • Reviewed Survey Results to establish baseline measurements starting in 2010 • 529 communities targeted • 155 responded • Results displayed • Total number for the NTHMP Metric • Survey question referenced • Additional relevant survey results included

5. Metric 1: Increase percentages of the critical facilities and communities in tsunami-threatened areas which include tsunamis in their emergency response plan by 30% annually (SIIIQ1) • 70% (N = 73) indicated they have a completed plan • 16% (N = 17) are in the development stage of developing a plan • 11% (N=11) have intentions to develop a plan • 4% (N = 4) do not have and do not plan to develop a plan

6. Metric 2: Annually update the number of tsunami threatened communities which include tsunami response in their hazard mitigation plan (SVQ1 and SVQ4) • 87 reported their communities and critical facilities have hazard mitigation plans that include tsunami response • 53 reported their organization has developed a hazard mitigation plan that addresses tsunamis • 34 indicated critical facilities within the hazard zone have response plans that address tsunamis • 16 indicated they have initiated planning • 16 indicated they plan to start drafting a plan • 13 do not plan to develop a plan

7. Metric 3: Increase the number of tsunami evacuation maps by 10% of the 2010 Baseline (SIIQ5) • 64% (N = 55) reported their communities have published and disseminated evacuation route maps that direct residents/visitors to tsunami safe areas.

8. Metric 4: Annually update the number of communities that include tsunami in their community planning, zoning and building code deliberations from the 2010 Baseline (SIQ9) • 70% (N = 108) reported their communities include tsunami in their community planning activities • 30% (N = 47) reported their communities do not include tsunami in their community planning activities

9. Metric 5: Increase the number of communities that conduct tsunami outreach and education to increase the number of informed citizens and visitors (SIIQ1) • 82% (N = 88) conduct tsunami outreach and education. • 26% (N = 22) reported the greatest barrier to being able to conduct tsunami outreach and education is a lack of resources • 0% (N = 0) reported that unavailability of high quality education materials was a barrier

10. Metric 6: Increase percentage of states and local community conducted educational tsunami events by 10% annually (SIIQ3_cb_3 and SII3_cb_8) • 58% (N = 92) utilize public workshops, meetings, schools and/or seminars to promote tsunami education • Responses including mailings, newspaper, literature displays, kiosks, telephone books and signage were not included.

11. Metric 7 (MMS): Complete inundation maps for all threatened communities in Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands by 2013 (SIIIQ7, SIIIQ8_cb_2, and SIIIQ9_cb_1 - 5) • Survey did not specifically as if the community had a completed inundation map. • 82% (N = 83) reported their organization has used or will use inundation maps in their tsunami planning • 71% (N = 58) reported the most common source of the inundation maps they use for tsunami planning is a state agency

12. Metric 8 (MMS): Complete inundation maps for 33% of highly-threatened communities in Alaska and the U.S. Pacific Island Territories by 2013 • Survey did not specifically ask if the community had a completed inundation map. • Alaska ? • Guam ? • CNMI ? • American Samoa ?

13. Metric 9 (WCS): Annually increase local warning dissemination capabilities by 10%, based on baseline established in 2010 (SVIQ1 and SVIQ2_cb_1-5_other) • 52% (N = 51) reported their organization does not have tsunami signaling devices or sirens 0r use existing signaling devices for tsunami warnings. Of those: • The majority (70%, N = 35) reported they did not feel signaling devices were need, and • 30% (N = 15) reported that signaling devices are too expensive

14. Metric 10 (WCS): Annually increase local warning reception capabilities by 10%, based on baseline established in 2010 • No specific question asked in the survey to determine the baseline. • Need to identify an approach to capture and report these figures…

15. MES-EC Recommendations • Keep Survey Report unedited and publish to NTHMP website, but… • Issue errata to clarify some results, like number of evacuation & inundation maps available • Keep social science questions “as is” in future iterations of survey, but modify other questions. • Allows for better ‘apples to apples’ comparisons • Use existing data collection method (progress reports) from State Partners to capture changes over time • Conduct electronic survey annually or bi-annually for community stats. • Which questions/metrics are recommended for modification?

16. Which questions will be modified to better align with NTHMP Strategic Plan? • Metric 1: Yes – amend. (Take out critical facilities) • Metric 2: Yes – amend. Be clear about “tsunami threatened community” so it doesn’t apply for some states where tsunamis are not a threat. • Metric 3: Yes – amend (amend results – how many do you really have?) • Metric 4: Let stand. (but add “and/or” as a slight change.) • Metric 5: Let stand. • Metric 6: Let stand. • Metric 7: Yes – amend • Metric 8: Yes – amend – modify to include U.S. location not included in Metric 7. • Metric 9: Let stand. • Metric 10: Let stand. (with one word change – local warning point reception)

17. MES-EC Proposal for Future Performance Measurement • Validate the results and issue errata to report • Low response rate for some states • Determine actual counts for inundation map and warning reception metrics • Update non-social science questions to better align with NTHMP metrics • Utilize Semi-Annual Reports to update metrics annually (end of each CY) • Sub-Committee Co-Chairs will update metrics for FY12 using the February 2013 Semi Annual Report • NTHMP Rules of Procedure will need to be updated: • Grant Section: each grant recipient will be required to report on these metrics in each Semi-Annual Report starting with the February 2013 FY11 Semi-Annual Report • Annual Meeting: Sub-Committee Co-Chars will request an update in January of each from their State members on these metrics and report on the status at the Annual NTHMP Meetings

18. A Few Next Steps are Needed Before Implementation… • Validate Results: Up to each State Partner and NTHMP Subcommittee • MES approval of Proposal • Coordinate with other Sub-Committees to ensure proposal meets their needs as well • Present Findings and Proposal to NTHMP-CC • Propose RoP Changes to NTHMP-CC • Update Performance Measurements (Co-Chairs) • Display Performance Measurements (e.g., NTHMP Website Home Page link)

19. Metric 1: Increase percentages of the critical facilities and communities in tsunami-threatened areas which include tsunamis in their emergency response plan by 30% annually (SIIIQ1) • State Results (Number) Alaska 7 New Hampshire 1 Alabama 1 New Jersey 1 California 29 Oregon 4 Delaware 1 Puerto Rico 2 Georgia 1 Texas 2 Hawaii 3 Washington 18 Maine 1

20. Metric 2: Annually update the number of tsunami threatened communities which include tsunami response in their hazard mitigation plan (SVQ1 and SVQ4) • State Results (Number) Alaska 7 New Jersey 1 California 25 Oregon 4 Georgia 1 South Carolina 1 Guam 1 Texas 3 Hawaii 5 Virginia 2 New Hampshire 1 Washington 21

21. Metric 3: Increase the number of tsunami evacuation maps by 10% of the 2010 Baseline (SIIQ5) • State Results (Number) Alaska 5 New Jersey 1 Alabama 1 Oregon 5 California 18 Puerto Rico 3 Delaware 1 South Carolina 2 Georgia 1 Texas 2 Hawaii 2 Virginia 1 Washington 13

22. Metric 4: Annually update the number of communities that include tsunami in their community planning, zoning and building code deliberations from the 2010 Baseline (SIQ9) • State Results (Number) Alaska 11 New Hampshire 1 Alabama 2 New Jersey 1 California 43 Oregon 4 Delaware 2 Puerto Rico 3 Georgia 1 South Carolina 3 Guam 1 Texas 5 Hawaii 3 Virginia 1 Maryland 1 Washington 24 Maine 1

23. Metric 5: Increase the number of communities that conduct tsunami outreach and education to increase the number of informed citizens and visitors (SIIQ1) • State Results (Number) Alaska 9 New Hampshire 1 Alabama 2 New Jersey 1 California 34 Oregon 5 Delaware 2 Puerto Rico 3 Georgia 1 South Carolina 2 Guam 1 Texas 3 Hawaii 3 Virginia 1 Maryland 1 Washington 19

24. Metric 6: Increase percentage of states and local community conducted educational tsunami events by 10% annually (SIIQ3_cb_3 and SII3_cb_8) • State Results (Number) Alaska 9 New Hampshire 1 Alabama 2 New Jersey 1 California 31 Oregon 3 Delaware 3 Puerto Rico 6 Georgia 1 South Carolina 2 Guam 2 Texas 2 Hawaii 3 Virginia 1 Maryland 1 Washington 23

25. Metric 7 (MMS): Complete inundation maps for all threatened communities in Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands by 2013 • State Results (Number) – Need to establish California Hawaii Oregon Puerto Rico Washington U.S. Virgin Islands

26. Metric 9 (WCS): Annually increase local warning dissemination capabilities by 10%, based on baseline established in 2010 (SVIQ1) • State Results (Number) – Yes Responses Alaska 8 New Hampshire 1 Alabama 2 New Jersey 1 California 9 Oregon 4 Delaware 1 Puerto Rico 2 Hawaii 3 Washington 12