1. WASHINGTON Go Seahawks, Sounders, Mariners, Storm, … “Best Practices for Supporting Locals” PETER TASSONI, WA-SHMO

2. 2 COMMUNICATION - WEMD  HOW DO YOU REACH OUT TO LOCALS ABOUT HAZARDS, RISKS, AND RISK REDUCTION?  WSEMA, PIEPC, IACC, NORFMA (ASFPM), EERI, WSSPC  WA Mitigation Matters Newsletter, Annual Blog, WEMD website  RiskMAP – 13 counties with Coastal Studies plus 4+ counties with Riverine Studies (Lewis, Cowlitz, Thurston, Spokane, Yakima, Kittitas – DFIRM & PMR)  WHAT CAN FEMA DO TO ASSIST COMMUNICATION BETWEEN YOU AND LOCALS?  Not about communication but about funding (PDM)  How to get credit for HMP within GMA Comprehensive Land Use Plans  SR530 Slide will drive legislative change to GMA / Plans this session

3. 3 COMMUNICATION - Ecology  HOW DO YOU REACH OUT TO LOCALS ABOUT HAZARDS, RISKS, AND RISK REDUCTION?  NFIP Regulatory Technical Assistance  NFIP Regulatory CAVs  WHAT CAN FEMA DO TO ASSIST COMMUNICATION BETWEEN YOU AND LOCALS?  Meetings with local staff and public  Increase grant funding for buyouts and building elevations

4. 4 PLANNING - WEMD  HOW DO YOU SUPPORT/HOW ARE YOU INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING EFFORTS OF LOCALS?  Passive w/newsletter, periodic distribution of FEMA documents, blog  Active if TA requested, state review of plan/components, presentations  Complimentary to RiskMAP / DFIRM processes  WHAT SUPPORT CAN FEMA PROVIDE TO THE STATE TO SUPPORT RISK REDUCTION PLANNING EFFORTS?  Hx: 386 publication series updates, G393 course updates, crosswalk, best practices, etc. updates (the material is there but who has the time to weed through it and read it besides students & FTE practitioners  CFR HMP regulatory review vs. intent of DMA2000 ~ How to get credit for HMP within GMA Comprehensive Land Use Plans; “Integration”

5. 5 PLANNING - Ecology  HOW DO YOU SUPPORT/HOW ARE YOU INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING EFFORTS OF LOCALS?  Involvement in local planning efforts such as watershed planning, design charrettes and SWIFs.  WHAT SUPPORT CAN FEMA PROVIDE TO THE STATE TO SUPPORT RISK REDUCTION PLANNING EFFORTS?  Engineering Review Assistance

6. 6 REGULATIONS - WEMD  HOW DO YOU ENFORCE REGULATIONS MEANT TO REDUCE RISK?  WEMD – only HMGP project eligibility; not a regulatory body  Commerce – GMA compliance; Ecology – NFIP compliance; DNR  DO LOCALS UNDERSTAND THE REGULATIONS? DO THEY CHALLENGE THEM?  HMP – yes/not really; trying to meet regulations with minimal effort  GMA, NFIP, CAO, CZMA, ESA, etc. yes/yes  WHAT SUPPORT CAN FEMA PROVIDE TO ASSIST YOUR REGULATORY PROCESSES?  WEMD – except for HMGP project eligibility, has no regulatory duty  NCU-CH repository of best practices, FEMA local HMP in GMA document, Optional Hazard Mitigation Element for GMA compliance @ Commerce

7. 7 REGULATIONS - Ecology  HOW DO YOU ENFORCE REGULATIONS MEANT TO REDUCE RISK?  Specific project comments and CAVs.  DO LOCALS UNDERSTAND THE REGULATIONS? DO THEY CHALLENGE THEM?  Most locals understand the regulations. Only a handful of personalities challenge them. Local concerns can discourage local regulators from assertive implementation of the NFIP standards.  WHAT SUPPORT CAN FEMA PROVIDE TO ASSIST YOUR REGULATORY PRO CESSES?  Concise written polity direction

8. 8 Coastal Hazard Resilience Network Washington Sea Grant/Ecology collaboration to unify state efforts as they related to coastal hazards Engaging with Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties during two-year grant and through RiskMAP process WA EMD, DNR, WWU, Commerce as partners Goal to engage with local communities in a more unified way Collaboration website: www.wacoastalnetwork.com

9. 9 COMMENTS - Ecology  By promoting the “Floodplains by Design” approach we’re encouraging communities to take a watershed scale or at least reach scale look at their flood hazards and incorporate any remedies with other ecological functions and processes.  In addition to promoting the concept and approach of Floodplains by Design we (Ecology) are pursuing continued funding for large-scale, multiple benefit projects that coordinate with other investments at the federal, state and local level.  Having a funding source and being able to define the criteria by which the funds are allocated helps Ecology promote progressive public policy on floodplain management.

10. 10 COMMENTS - WEMD

11. 11 Hazard Mitigation Program Satisfaction – Survey Results 2011 ValuePercent Very Satisfied33% Satisfied38% Neutral23% Dissatisfied1% Very Dissatisfied1% Not Applicable5% 2013 ValuePercent Very Satisfied17% Satisfied37% Neutral29% Dissatisfied4% Very Dissatisfied0% Not Applicable14%

12. 12 Survey Results - Conclusions 2011 (90 participants)  Invested in website update, webinar deliveries, and training courses (BCA, NFIP) with no noticeable change in knowledge base  Did we miss people or was the training unsuccessful?  The outreach appeared to work with good webinar & course attendance  Conference participants not conference presenters 2013 (45 participants)  Investing in newsletters, continued training course deliveries (BCA, etc.)  Trend towards a depository of information vs. actively delivering information?  Constituents have fewer EM years but more hazard mitigation knowledge?  HMP no longer novel?  Lower satisfaction rate