NTHMP Tsunami Survey Results & Proposed Performance Metrics

MES MeetingFebruary 6, 2012

Adapted from presentation by J. Rhoades

AgendaOverviewNTHMP Survey ResultsRecommendation from the MES-ECNext Steps…

2

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 FinalizedSeptember 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

3

Initial Survey Results

Reviewed Survey Results to establish baseline measurements starting in 2010529 communities targeted155 responded

Results displayed Total number for the NTHMP Metric

Survey question referencedAdditional relevant survey results included

4

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 plan4% (N = 4) do not have and do not plan to

develop a plan

5

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 response53 reported their organization has developed a

hazard mitigation plan that addresses tsunamis34 indicated critical facilities within the hazard

zone have response plans that address tsunamis16 indicated they have initiated planning16 indicated they plan to start drafting a plan13 do not plan to develop a plan

6

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.

7

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

8

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

9

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.

10

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

11

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 ?

12

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, and30% (N = 15) reported that signaling devices are

too expensive

13

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…

14

MES-EC RecommendationsKeep 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?

15

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 – amendMetric 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) 16

MES-EC Proposal for Future Performance Measurement

Validate the results and issue errata to reportLow response rate for some statesDetermine actual counts for inundation map and warning

reception metricsUpdate non-social science questions to better align with

NTHMP metricsUtilize 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 ReportNTHMP 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

17

A Few Next Steps are Needed Before Implementation…Validate Results: Up to each State Partner

and NTHMP SubcommitteeMES approval of ProposalCoordinate with other Sub-Committees to

ensure proposal meets their needs as wellPresent Findings and Proposal to NTHMP-CCPropose RoP Changes to NTHMP-CCUpdate Performance Measurements (Co-

Chairs)Display Performance Measurements (e.g.,

NTHMP Website Home Page link) 18

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 1Alabama 1 New Jersey 1California 29 Oregon 4Delaware 1 Puerto Rico 2Georgia 1 Texas 2Hawaii 3 Washington 18Maine 1

19

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 1California 25 Oregon 4Georgia 1 South Carolina 1Guam 1 Texas 3Hawaii 5 Virginia 2New Hampshire 1 Washington 21

20

Metric 3: Increase the number of tsunami evacuation maps by 10% of the 2010 Baseline (SIIQ5)

State Results (Number)Alaska 5 New Jersey 1Alabama 1 Oregon 5California 18 Puerto Rico 3Delaware 1 South Carolina 2Georgia 1 Texas 2Hawaii 2 Virginia 1

Washington 13

21

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 1Alabama 2 New Jersey 1California 43 Oregon 4Delaware 2 Puerto Rico 3Georgia 1 South Carolina 3Guam 1 Texas 5Hawaii 3 Virginia 1Maryland 1 Washington 24Maine 1

22

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 1Alabama 2 New Jersey 1California 34 Oregon 5Delaware 2 Puerto Rico 3Georgia 1 South Carolina 2Guam 1 Texas 3Hawaii 3 Virginia 1Maryland 1 Washington 19

23

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 1Alabama 2 New Jersey 1California 31 Oregon 3Delaware 3 Puerto Rico 6Georgia 1 South Carolina 2Guam 2 Texas 2Hawaii 3 Virginia 1Maryland 1 Washington 23

24

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 establishCaliforniaHawaii OregonPuerto RicoWashingtonU.S. Virgin Islands

25

Metric 9 (WCS): Annually increase local warning dissemination capabilities by 10%, based on baseline established in 2010 (SVIQ1)

State Results (Number) – Yes ResponsesAlaska 8 New Hampshire 1Alabama 2 New Jersey 1California 9 Oregon

4Delaware 1 Puerto Rico 2Hawaii 3 Washington 12

26