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

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

3. 3 Track B Progress - I [2][2] Meeting with State Officials while in Tuscola County. Community FEMA Call w/ Region State Visit Federal Visit FEMA Letter Sent Given OK to Start Calls Hayward, CA 11/25/0312/15/03 (Sacramento) 12/16/03 (Oakland) 12/19/031/8/04 Jefferson Co., AL Project Impact 1/5/04Not Planned (Clanton ) 2/11/04 (Atlanta) 1/15/042/5/04 Horry Co., SC Project Impact 1/5/042/18/04 (Columbia) 2/13/04 (Atlanta) 1/15/042/7/04 Freeport, NY Project Impact 2/5/04Not Planned (Albany) 2/27/04 (New York City) 3/1/043/11/04 Tuscola, MI 1/27/043/17/04 (Lansing) 2/18/04 (Chicago) 3/4/043/10/04 Jamestown, ND Project Impact 3/30/048/16/04 (Bismarck) 4/27/04 (Denver) 4/15/044/26/04 Multnomah Co, OR Project Impact 6/23/04Not Planned (Salem) 8/2/04 (Seattle) 7/15/048/9/04 Orange, CA Pending Fort Walton Bch., FL Pending Mandeville, LA Project Impact Pending

4. 4 Track B Progress - II [2][2] Meeting with State Officials while in Tuscola County. Community Given OK to Start Calls Interviews Completed Community Visited BCA Data Collected Bibliography Created Hayward, CA 1/8/043/12/041/22/04Complete Jefferson Co., AL Project Impact 2/5/043/10/044/6/04Complete Horry Co., SC Project Impact 2/7/043/2/044/20/04Complete Freeport, NY Project Impact 3/11/047/1/047/15/04Complete Tuscola, MI 3/10/047/15/043/17/04Complete Jamestown, ND Project Impact 4/26/047/20/048/17/04CompletePending Multnomah Co, OR Project Impact 8/9/04In ProcessPendingCompletePending Orange, CA Pending Fort Walton Bch., FL Pending Mandeville, LA Project Impact Pending

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

6. 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. 7 Informant Participation Status

8. 8 Informant Participation Status by Community # Individuals

9. 9 Reasons Informants Were Not 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. 10 Informant Referrals by Community

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

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

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

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

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

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

18. 18 1 Index Informant Flow Chart of Interview Network in Jamestown City Engineer Interviewed 6/4/04 Consultant Interviewed 6/7/04 Local Red Cross Chapter Interviewed 6/18/04 Parks and Recreation Interviewed 6/30/04 State House of Reps. Interviewed 7/9/04 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 State Department of Emergency Management Interviewed 7/20/04 City Administrator Interviewed 7/1/04 FEMA Mayor Interviewed 1 6/1/04 Director, State Dept. of Emergency Mgmt. Refused 7/6/04 Asst. City Engineer Refused 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. 19 Interview Informant Job Titles (N=52)

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

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

22. 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. 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? (Asked of those who think there is one) n=36; Missing, n=1

24. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Much Worse About the Same MEAN

29. 29 Percent of Informants Who Mentioned Primary Mitigation Objectives/Benefits-I Reducing Death, Injury, Illness Reducing Stress and Trauma Reducing Property Damage Reducing Infrastructure Damage Reducing Damage to Historic Sites Reducing Environmental Damage Red. Residents’ Disrptn/Displcmt. Red. Emerg. Rspns/Mgmt. Costs Reducing Government Disruption Reducing Business Disruption 100% Which of the following benefits were provided by [this mitigation activity]? (52 informants were asked about multiple activities; n=111-121 for each benefit; includes Project and Process activities; spin-offs excluded) 0% 94%

30. 30 Percent of Informants Who Mentioned Primary Mitigation Objectives/Benefits-II 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% Which of the following benefits were provided by [this mitigation activity]? (52 informants were asked about multiple activities; n=111-121 for each benefit; includes Project and Process activities; spin-offs excluded)

31. 31 Number of Times Benefits Mentioned as Primary Mitigation Objective-I What was the major objective of this activity? (52 informants were asked about 1 or more of 53 different activities [39 Project, 14 Process] yielding 90 Project- Informant and 23 Process-Informant activity combinations; spin-offs excluded) Benefits/Objectives Project Mitigations N=90 (%) Process Mitigations N=23 (%) Reducing deaths, injuries, illnesses13(14.4) 2 (8.7) Reducing stress and trauma5 (5.6) 1 (4.3) Reducing property damage36(40.0)3(13.0) Reducing infrastructure damage8(8.9)0(0.0) Red. Emergency response/mgmt. costs0(0.0) Red. residents’ disruption/displacement7(7.8)0(0.0) Reducing business disruption2(2.2)1(4.3) Reducing government disruption0(0.0) Reducing environmental damage5(5.6)0(0.0) Reducing damage to historic sites0(0.0)

32. 32 Number of Times Benefits Mentioned as Primary Mitigation Objective-II Benefits/ObjectivesProject Mitigations N=90 (%) Process Mitigations N=23 (%) Reducing insurance premiums1(1.1)0(0.0) Improving emergency response capacity4(4.4)1(4.3) Improving disaster mitigation capacity2(2.2)2(8.7) Stimulating private sector mitigations0(0.0) New knowledge about hazards, impacts1(1.1)3(13.0) Pub. ed. about risks/risk red. options0(0.0)7(30.4) Increase in property values2(2.2)0(0.0) Environmental benefits0(0.0) Other4(4.4)3(13.0) What was the major objective of this activity? (52 informants were asked about 1 or more of 53 different activities [39 Project, 14 Process] yielding 90 Project- Informant and 23 Process-Informant activity combinations; spin-offs excluded)

33. 33 Total Number of Spin-Offs: Mentioned Vs. Confirmed # Spin-Offs (To be Determined) *Spin-off mentioned in Freeport still under evaluation. *