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

Project Management Committee MeetingWashington, D.C.

September 21, 2004

Independent Study to Assess FutureIndependent Study to Assess FutureSavings from Mitigation, Track BSavings from Mitigation, Track B

Telephone Interview DataTelephone Interview DataPreliminary AnalysisPreliminary Analysis

2

Track BProgress to Date

3

Track B Progress - ICommunity

FEMACall w/ Region

StateVisit

Federal Visit

FEMA LetterSent

Given OK to Start Calls

Hayward, CA

11/25/03 12/15/03(Sacramento)

12/16/03(Oakland)

12/19/03 1/8/04

Jefferson Co., AL Project Impact

1/5/04 Not Planned(Clanton)

2/11/04(Atlanta)

1/15/04 2/5/04

Horry Co., SC Project Impact

1/5/04 2/18/04(Columbia)

2/13/04(Atlanta)

1/15/04 2/7/04

Freeport, NY Project Impact

2/5/04 Not Planned(Albany)

2/27/04(New York City)

3/1/04 3/11/04

Tuscola, MI

1/27/04 3/17/04(Lansing)

2/18/04(Chicago)

3/4/04 3/10/04

Jamestown, ND Project Impact

3/30/04 8/16/04(Bismarck)

4/27/04(Denver)

4/15/04 4/26/04

Multnomah Co, OR Project Impact

6/23/04 Not Planned(Salem)

8/2/04(Seattle)

7/15/04 8/9/04

Orange, CA

Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending

Fort Walton Bch., FL Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending

Mandeville, LA Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending

4

Track B Progress - IICommunity

Given OK to Start Calls

Interviews Completed

CommunityVisited

BCA DataCollected

Bibliography Created

Hayward, CA

1/8/04 3/12/04 1/22/04 Complete Complete

Jefferson Co., AL Project Impact


Horry Co., SC Project Impact


Freeport, NY Project Impact


Tuscola, MI


Jamestown, ND Project Impact

4/26/04 7/20/04 8/17/04 Complete Pending

Multnomah Co, OR Project Impact

8/9/04 In Process Pending Complete Pending

Orange, CA

Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending

Fort Walton Bch., FL Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending

Mandeville, LA Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending

5

Track BProcess Data

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

88

67

52

0

20

40

60

80

100

# In

divi

dual

s

Referred Approached Interviewed

8

Informant Participation Status by Community

15

21

10 10

1517

1311

79

12

15

7

10

67

11 11

0

5

10

15

20

25

Hayward

Jefferson Co.

Horry Co.

Freeport

Tuscola

Jamestown

Referred Approached Interviewed

# In

div

idu

als

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 Community21

3.91.6

3.13.6 2.82.8

1715

1010

15

0

5

10

15

20

# R

efer

rals

Avg. Referrals per Person Tot. Individuals Referred

11

Total Number of Contacts Needed to Complete Interviews

(Includes Telephone, Mail, Fax, Email)

98

70

50

8194 90

7 10 6 7 11 11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Hayward

Jefferson Co.

Horry Co.

Freeport

Tuscola

Jamestown

(n )

Total Contacts Interviews

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

Acting AssistantCity ManagerREFUSED2/3/04

Assistant Director of Public WorksINTERVIEWED 1/27/04 1

City Manager, Originally agreed Then REFUSED 1/30/04 1

Dir. Public WorksINTERVIEWED 2/9/04

Chief BuildingInspectorREFUSED 2/5/04

Associate CivilEngineerINTERVIEWED2/11/04

SeniorPlannerREFUSED 2/5/04

HAZMAT ProgramCoordinatorINTERVIEWED 2/18/04

Fire ChiefREFUSED2/5/04

Emergency OperationsREFUSED 2/9/04

Division Head of Water FacilityINTERVIEWED 2/19/04

1 Index Informant2 Independent Network

Director, Community &Economic DevelopmentINTERVIEWED 3/12/04 2

Public Information OfficerINTERVIEWED 3/12/04 2

Flow Chart of InterviewNetwork in Hayward

FEMA

Deputy Publicity Dir. for UtilitiesNot Approached

Cal State HaywardNot Approached

14

FEMA

Director, County EMAInterviewed 1

3/1/04

1 Index Informant

Flow Chart of InterviewNetwork in Jefferson Co.

CountyCommissionerInterviewed 1

3/4/04

Director, Land DevelopmentInterviewed 3/4/04

Land Development eInterviewed 2/24/04

Land Development prInterviewed 2/17/04

Former City Planner, Consultant Interviewed 2/23/04

Admin. Assistant,County EMA Interviewed 2/24/04

City NFIPNot Approached

Director, Inspection ServicesNot Approached

County GIS ManagerNot Approached

CountyCommissionerRefused 3/8/04

Dir., Local Land TrustInterviewed 3/4/04

Fire Chief, City of TarrantNot Approached

Auburn UniversityNot Approached

USGSNot Approached

Dir. of County Inspection ServicesNot Approached

State Hazard Mitigation OfficerNot Approached

President, Local Engineering CompanyInterviewed 3/10/04

Hydrologist, Local Engineering CompanyInterviewed 3/10/04 County EMA

Not Approached

County EMANot Approached

15

FEMA

1 Index Informant

Flow Chart of InterviewNetwork in Horry Co.

Emergency Planner,County EMDInterviewed 1

2/18/04

Director, Emergency ServicesCounty Red Cross ChapterInterviewed 3/19/04

Meteorologist, Local Television StationInterviewed 3/1/04

Public Safety Director,County EMDInterviewed 2/25/04

Property Manager, County EMDInterviewed 3/2/04

Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Clemson UniversityInterviewed 2/23/04

National Weather ServiceNot Approached

Head Building Official,City of ConwayNot Approached

Fire Chief,County Fire DepartmentRefused 3/8/04

Director, County Storm Water ManagementNot Approached

16

FEMA

1 Index Informant

Flow Chart of InterviewNetwork in Freeport

Grant Administrator,Public WorksInterviewed 1

3/23/04

Floodplain Manager,Superintendent of Buildings, Mitigation CoordinatorInterviewed 3/18/04

Manager,Public WorksInterviewed 3/16/04

Village Trustee; Owner, Local Insurance AgencyInterviewed 3/23/04

Business Owner, Local Marine StorageInterviewed 4/14/04

Coordinator, Emergency Management TeamInterviewed 5/25/04

Director, Emergency ManagementInterviewed 4/21/04

Business Owner, Local Restaurant Refused 5/27/04

Village Trustee Refused 5/21/04

Village Engineer,Department of Public WorksNot Approached

17

FEMA

1 Index Informant

Flow Chart of InterviewNetwork in Tuscola

County Drain CommissionerInterviewed 1 4/5/04

Engineer, Local Eng. GroupRefused 4/6/04

Prog. Admin., Intercounty DrainsInterviewed 5/25/04

Lieutenant, State Police Dept.Interviewed 4/5/04

Township Mgr., TittabawasseeInterviewed 4/1/04

Engineer, Local Company Interviewed 3/25/04

Flood Specialist,City of Vassar Interviewed 4/2/04

President, Local BusinessNot Approached

Environmental Engineer,State Dept. Environmental QualityInterviewed 5/24/04

Engineer, Local Eng. GroupInterviewed 4/1/04

Preliminary Research

Manager, City of VassarInterviewed 1 3/25/04

Director, Public WorksCity of FrankenmuthInterviewed 1 4/2/04

State Hazard Mitigation Officer Not Approached

Local Construction Co.Interviewed 1 3/22/04

Engineer, Canadian CompanyNot Approached

181 Index Informant

Flow Chart of InterviewNetwork in Jamestown

City Engineer Interviewed 6/4/04

Consultant Interviewed 6/7/04

Local Red Cross ChapterInterviewed 6/18/04

Parks and Recreation Interviewed 6/30/04

State House of Reps. Interviewed 7/9/04

Weather SpotterRefused 6/4/04

Training Office, Fire Dept.Refused 6/8/04

City Fire Chief Interviewed 6/8/04

Police ChiefNot Approached

State Department of Emergency ManagementInterviewed 7/20/04

City AdministratorInterviewed 7/1/04

FEMA

MayorInterviewed 1

6/1/04

Director, State Dept. of Emergency Mgmt.Refused 7/6/04

Asst. City EngineerRefused 7/6/04

President, Amateur Radio Association Interviewed 6/17/04

Local Cable Services Refused 7/12/04

County Emergency Manager Interviewed 6/21/04

19

Interview Informant Job Titles (N=52)

68%

15%

15%2%

Community OfficialNGO/Community PartnerLocal InformantHazard Mitig. Officer

20

Track BPreliminary Findings

21

Informant Perceptions of Community Risk

123456789

10

Quake Wind Flood

VeryLow

Very High

(n=49, n=49, n=50)Don’t Know: n=3, n=3, n=2 for Quake, Wind, Flood

22

Percent of Informants who Believe the Community Has a Natural Hazard

Mitigation Program

83100 100 100

50 54

0102030405060708090

100

% Y

es%

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

3.4

6.7

3.5

7.97.3

4.8

123456789

10

Not Very

Much

Very Much

Ave

rage

Kn

owle

dge

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


(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.”


26


(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.”


27

Informants’ Assessment of the Appropriateness and Effectiveness of Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs

123456789

10

Appropriate Effective

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

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)

Much Better

3.84.3

3.84.1

4.7 5

1

2

3

4

5

Hayward

Jefferson Co.

Horry Co.

Freeport

Tuscola

Jamestown

Much Worse

About the Same

ME

AN

29

Percent of Informants Who Mentioned Primary Mitigation Objectives/Benefits-I

Which of the following benefits were provided by [this mitigation activity]? (n=?)

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

0%

Reducing Death, Injury, Illness

Reducing Stress and Trauma

Reducing Property Damage

Reducing Infrastructure Damage

Reducing Damage to Historic Sites

Reducing Environmental Damage

Red. Residents’ Disruption/Displcmt.

Red. Emerg. Response/Mgmt. Costs

Reducing Government Disruption

Reducing Business Disruption

100%

30

Percent of Informants Who Mentioned Primary Mitigation Objectives/Benefits-II

Which of the following benefits were provided by [this mitigation activity]? (n=?)

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

0%

Reducing Insurance Premiums

Improving Emerg. Response Capacity

Improving Disaster Mitig. Capacity

Stimulating Private Sector Mitigations

Other

Pub. Ed. abt Risks, Risk Red. Options

New Knowlg. about Hazards, Impacts

Environmental Benefits

Increase in Property Values

100%

31

Number of Times Benefits Mentioned as Primary Mitigation Objective-I

What was the major objective of this activity? (n=?)

Benefits/Objectives Project Mitigations Process Mitigations

Reducing deaths, injuries, illnesses # #

Reducing stress and trauma # #

Reducing property damage # #

Reducing infrastructure damage # #

Red. Emergency response/mgmt. costs # #

Red. residents’ disruption/displacement # #

Reducing business disruption # #

Reducing government disruption # #

Reducing environmental damage # #

Reducing damage to historic sites # #

32

Number of Times Benefits Mentioned as Primary Mitigation Objective-II

What was the major objective of this activity? (n=?)

Benefits/Objectives Project Mitigations Process Mitigations

Reducing insurance premiums # #

Improving emergency response capacity # #

Improving disaster mitigation capacity # #

Stimulating private sector mitigations # #

New knowledge about hazards, impacts # #

Pub. ed. about risks/risk red. options # #

Increase in property values # #

Environmental benefits # #

Other # #

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

3 3

2

1

0 00

1 1 1

0 00

1

2

3

4

5

Mentioned Mentioned and Confirmed Total Confirmed

# S

pin

-Off

s#

Sp

in-O

ffs

(To be Determined)

*Spin-off mentioned in Freeport still under evaluation.

*

Documents

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