Project Management Committee Meeting Washington, D.C. September 21, 2004

1. Independent Study to Assess Future Savings from Mitigation, Track B Telephone Interview Data Preliminary Analysis Project Management Committee Meeting Washington, D.C. September 21, 2004

2. Track BProgress to Date [2] Meeting with State Officials while in Tuscola County.

3. Track B Progress - I [2] Meeting with State Officials while in Tuscola County.

4. Track B Progress - II [2] Meeting with State Officials while in Tuscola County.

5. Track BProcess Data [2] Meeting with State Officials while in Tuscola County.

6. Overview of Telephone Interviews • Tape recorded with participant consent • Key informants were identified through snowball and network sampling • Items were developed based on: • Previous research (Project Impact) • Objectives of present study • Pilot study (Tulsa) • Pre-testing results (from non-selected communities) • Length ranged from 10 to 160 minutes (Mean=67.0 minutes)

7. Informant Participation Status

8. Informant Participation Status by Community # Individuals

9. Reasons Informants WereNot Approached (n=21) • Likely bias (e.g., SHMO, FHMO) • Insufficient/inaccurate contact information • Working outside of the country • Minimal contribution to study anticipated based on statements by informant providing referral and job title/role • Track B team leader contacted by interview staff for final determination

10. Informant Referrals by Community

11. Total Number of Contacts Needed to Complete Interviews(Includes Telephone, Mail, Fax, Email)

12. Index Informants • Key individuals with knowledge of mitigation activities within the community • Identified based on: • FEMA recommendation • Preliminary data analysis • Provided research staff with names and contact information of potential informants • Provided local “endorsement” of study

13. Flow Chart of Interview Network in Hayward City Manager, Originally agreed Then REFUSED 1/30/04 1 Division Head of Water Facility INTERVIEWED 2/19/04 Assistant Director of Public Works INTERVIEWED 1/27/04 1 Dir. Public Works INTERVIEWED 2/9/04 Emergency Operations REFUSED 2/9/04 Fire Chief REFUSED 2/5/04 Acting Assistant City Manager REFUSED 2/3/04 FEMA Senior Planner REFUSED 2/5/04 HAZMAT Program Coordinator INTERVIEWED 2/18/04 Chief Building Inspector REFUSED 2/5/04 Director, Community & Economic Development INTERVIEWED 3/12/04 2 Deputy Publicity Dir. for Utilities Not Approached Associate Civil Engineer INTERVIEWED 2/11/04 Public Information Officer INTERVIEWED 3/12/04 2 Cal State Hayward Not Approached 1 Index Informant 2 Independent Network

14. Flow Chart of Interview Network in Jefferson Co. Director, Land Development Interviewed 3/4/04 County GIS Manager Not Approached Fire Chief, City of Tarrant Not Approached County Commissioner Interviewed 1 3/4/04 Land Development e Interviewed 2/24/04 Dir., Local Land Trust Interviewed 3/4/04 Auburn University Not Approached County Commissioner Refused 3/8/04 Land Development pr Interviewed 2/17/04 USGS Not Approached County EMA Not Approached President, Local Engineering Company Interviewed 3/10/04 FEMA Former City Planner, Consultant Interviewed 2/23/04 Director, County EMA Interviewed 1 3/1/04 Hydrologist, Local Engineering Company Interviewed 3/10/04 County EMA Not Approached Admin. Assistant, County EMA Interviewed 2/24/04 Dir. of County Inspection Services Not Approached City NFIP Not Approached State Hazard Mitigation Officer Not Approached Director, Inspection Services Not Approached 1 Index Informant

15. Flow Chart of Interview Network in Horry Co. Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Clemson University Interviewed 2/23/04 Head Building Official, City of Conway Not Approached Public Safety Director, County EMD Interviewed 2/25/04 FEMA National Weather Service Not Approached Meteorologist, Local Television Station Interviewed 3/1/04 Emergency Planner, County EMD Interviewed 1 2/18/04 Property Manager, County EMD Interviewed 3/2/04 Director, County Storm Water Management Not Approached Fire Chief, County Fire Department Refused 3/8/04 Director, Emergency Services County Red Cross Chapter Interviewed 3/19/04 1 Index Informant

16. Flow Chart of Interview Network in Freeport Manager, Public Works Interviewed 3/16/04 Business Owner, Local Restaurant Refused 5/27/04 FEMA Floodplain Manager, Superintendent of Buildings, Mitigation Coordinator Interviewed 3/18/04 Coordinator, Emergency Management Team Interviewed 5/25/04 Grant Administrator, Public Works Interviewed 1 3/23/04 Village Engineer, Department of Public Works Not Approached Village Trustee; Owner, Local Insurance Agency Interviewed 3/23/04 Director, Emergency Management Interviewed 4/21/04 Business Owner, Local Marine Storage Interviewed 4/14/04 Village Trustee Refused 5/21/04 1 Index Informant

17. Flow Chart of Interview Network in Tuscola Engineer, Local Eng. Group Refused 4/6/04 FEMA Prog. Admin., Intercounty Drains Interviewed 5/25/04 County Drain Commissioner Interviewed 1 4/5/04 Lieutenant, State Police Dept. Interviewed 4/5/04 Preliminary Research Engineer, Local Eng. Group Interviewed 4/1/04 Local Construction Co. Interviewed 1 3/22/04 Township Mgr., Tittabawassee Interviewed 4/1/04 Manager, City of Vassar Interviewed 1 3/25/04 Engineer, Local Company Interviewed 3/25/04 Environmental Engineer, State Dept. Environmental Quality Interviewed 5/24/04 Director, Public Works City of Frankenmuth Interviewed 1 4/2/04 Flood Specialist, City of Vassar Interviewed 4/2/04 State Hazard Mitigation Officer Not Approached Engineer, Canadian Company Not Approached President, Local Business Not Approached 1 Index Informant

18. Flow Chart of Interview Network in Jamestown City Engineer Interviewed 6/4/04 State Department of Emergency Management Interviewed 7/20/04 Director, State Dept. of Emergency Mgmt. Refused 7/6/04 Consultant Interviewed 6/7/04 City Administrator Interviewed 7/1/04 Local Red Cross Chapter Interviewed 6/18/04 FEMA County Emergency Manager Interviewed 6/21/04 Asst. City Engineer Refused 7/6/04 Mayor Interviewed 1 6/1/04 Parks and Recreation Interviewed 6/30/04 State House of Reps. Interviewed 7/9/04 President, Amateur Radio Association Interviewed 6/17/04 Weather Spotter Refused 6/4/04 Training Office, Fire Dept. Refused 6/8/04 City Fire Chief Interviewed 6/8/04 Police Chief Not Approached Local Cable Services Refused 7/12/04 1 Index Informant

19. Interview Informant Job Titles (N=52)

20. Track BPreliminary Findings [2] Meeting with State Officials while in Tuscola County.

21. Informant Perceptions of Community Risk Very High Very Low Don’t Know: n=3, n=3, n=2 for Quake, Wind, Flood (n=49, n=49, n=50)

22. Percent of Informants who Believe the Community Has a Natural Hazard Mitigation Program % Yes In your opinion, does the community have a natural hazard mitigation program? (n=48; Don’t Know, n=4)

23. Informants’ Knowledge of the Community’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Program Average Knowledge How much do you know about the community’s natural hazard mitigation program? (n=36 of those who think there is one)

24. Informants’ Assessment of the Community’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Program? (Community Officials) “It’s good in that we've gotten a lot of state and federal grants, and we’ve been proactive with the retrofit of public as well as emergency response buildings. “I’m not that familiar with it. The government required them to have a plan, but I don’t know what’s in it. They have earmarked $2 million dollars per year to reduce flood damage over next 10 yrs, $37 million total…They are probably better than average overall, but not by much.” “The flood programs have accomplished a lot, but more still needs to be done. A lot of people are still in the floodplain. They are doing a lot to further the program. [The County] is putting their own money toward addressing that need.” “It’s pretty good, we’re further along than most—top in the state. We have had several presidential declarations of disasters which opened up HMGP grants, and we’ve spent lots of money on mitigation. The HMGP money was used to implement grant mitigation projects—$5 or $6 million.” “I don't think they have a defined program for natural hazards. We used to have floods, but now we have two dams. That changed the flooding problems. Now it’s not every year, only when there’s major rain.” What is your assessment of the community’s natural hazard mitigation program?

25. Informants’ Assessment of the Community’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Program? (CBO/Community Partners) “It’s pretty well thought out. We’ve spent a lot of time and effort preparing for a large earthquake.” “We are pretty well prepared for natural disasters. We have a strong team, a weather watch group, up-to-date weather reports, and well-trained police force. If we are weak, it’s on incident shelters. We have one that’s centrally located, but it’s not sufficient for a huge disaster.” “We don’t really have one as such. Our number one disaster issue is weather-related stuff, and how prepared can you be for that?” “The county has an Emergency Management Department and full-time Director, which allows for pre-planning and mitigation activities. It helps with coordination and allows us to be proactive.” “People are becoming more aware of flooding, and are being as proactive as they can. If they can’t make improvements on their own, they have to petition local government. It works well to keep people and farmers dry.” What is your assessment of the community’s natural hazard mitigation program?

26. Informants’ Assessment of the Community’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Program?(Local Informants) “The state has a multi-hazard mitigation program. There are 10 programs in the state, addressing all types of hazards, including terrorism. The cities and counties do a good job of carrying out the programs at the local level. For example, each city and county has a floodplain manager.” “It has been very successful and helpful. There are only 55,000 people in the county. Because we have such a small population, we wouldn't be able to complete projects if not for the hazard mitigation process.” “They are very acclimated in the understanding of flood contexts and have geared much of the planning to flood events and responses and less to mitigation. Mitigation is something [we have] fought over tremendously. Many people don't want the government telling them what they can build.” “We are very proactive in mitigation efforts. The Mayor and Board of Trustees comprise the political body that controls mitigation—our goal is to be flood free. We do education; we’re part of CRS and should be moving to a 7 soon.” What is your assessment of the community’s natural hazard mitigation program?

27. Informants’ Assessment of the Appropriateness and Effectiveness of Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs How appropriate/effective do you consider these [natural hazard mitigation] efforts?(n=40; Don’t Know, n=12)

28. Informants’ Perceptions of how the Community’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Program Compares to Others Much Better About the Same MEAN Much Worse In your opinion, how does the community’s natural hazard mitigation program compare to natural hazard mitigation programs in other communities? (n=38; Don’t Know, n=14)

29. Percent of Informants Who Mentioned Primary Mitigation Objectives/Benefits-I 100% Reducing Death, Injury, Illness Reducing Stress and Trauma Reducing Property Damage Reducing Infrastructure Damage Red. Emerg. Response/Mgmt. Costs Red. Residents’ Disruption/Displcmt. Reducing Business Disruption Reducing Government Disruption Reducing Environmental Damage Reducing Damage to Historic Sites Which of the following benefits were provided by [this mitigation activity]? (n=?)

30. Percent of Informants Who Mentioned Primary Mitigation Objectives/Benefits-II 100% Reducing Insurance Premiums Improving Emerg. Response Capacity Improving Disaster Mitig. Capacity Stimulating Private Sector Mitigations New Knowlg. about Hazards, Impacts Pub. Ed. abt Risks, Risk Red. Options Increase in Property Values Environmental Benefits Other Which of the following benefits were provided by [this mitigation activity]? (n=?)

31. Number of Times Benefits Mentioned as Primary Mitigation Objective-I What was the major objective of this activity? (n=?)

32. Number of Times Benefits Mentioned as Primary Mitigation Objective-II What was the major objective of this activity? (n=?)

33. Informants’ Perceptions of Success Meeting Major Objectives with V. without Mitigation Activities How would you rate the community’s success in meeting this [major] objective with/ without this activity? (n=?)

34. Total Number of Spin-Offs: Mentioned Vs. Confirmed *Spin-off mentioned in Freeport still under evaluation. # Spin-Offs * (To be Determined)