1. MES Meeting February 6, 2012 Adapted from presentation by J. Rhoades

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

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 3

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 4

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 5

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 6

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. 7

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 8

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 9

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. 10

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 11

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? 12

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 13

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… 14

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? 15

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) 16

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 17

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) 18

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) Alaska7 New Hampshire1 Alabama1 New Jersey1 California29 Oregon4 Delaware1 Puerto Rico2 Georgia1 Texas2 Hawaii3 Washington18 Maine1 19

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) Alaska7 New Jersey1 California25 Oregon4 Georgia1 South Carolina1 Guam1 Texas3 Hawaii5 Virginia2 New Hampshire1 Washington21 20

21. Metric 3: Increase the number of tsunami evacuation maps by 10% of the 2010 Baseline (SIIQ5) State Results (Number) Alaska5 New Jersey1 Alabama1 Oregon5 California18 Puerto Rico3 Delaware1 South Carolina2 Georgia1 Texas2 Hawaii2 Virginia1 Washington13 21

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) Alaska11 New Hampshire1 Alabama2 New Jersey1 California43 Oregon4 Delaware2 Puerto Rico3 Georgia1 South Carolina3 Guam1 Texas5 Hawaii3Virginia1 Maryland1Washington24 Maine1 22

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) Alaska9 New Hampshire1 Alabama2 New Jersey1 California34 Oregon5 Delaware2 Puerto Rico3 Georgia1 South Carolina2 Guam1 Texas3 Hawaii3Virginia1 Maryland1Washington19 23

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) Alaska9 New Hampshire1 Alabama2 New Jersey1 California31 Oregon3 Delaware3 Puerto Rico6 Georgia1 South Carolina2 Guam2 Texas2 Hawaii3Virginia1 Maryland1Washington23 24

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 25

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 8New Hampshire1 Alabama2New Jersey1 California9Oregon4 Delaware1Puerto Rico2 Hawaii3Washington12 26