|
REVISEDATTACHMENT #2
<br />l9SHSP lnvestment and Regional Project
<br />lnvestment Justification
<br />Washington is comprised of 39 counties with geography including forests, mountains, islandq rainforestg rivers, lakes, and plains.
<br />The U.S, Bureau of EconomicAnalysis ranked Washington 13 of 50 states for gross domestic product in 2017; several world-class
<br />organizations headquartertheiroperations withinthe state, Washington has marine, aviation, rail, and road transportation
<br />infrastructure to support its position as a bustling trade center. Approximately half of Washington's 7.5 million population lives in
<br />the Seattle metropolitan area located along the Puget Sound. This area is the centor of transportation, businesq and industry and is
<br />thefustestgrowingreglon inthestate. Overthree-fourthsof thestate's populatlon livesin denselysettled urbanizedareas,
<br />Understanding Wash in6on's population ls critical in order to mitigate vulnera bilities, respond to incldents, a nd effectlvely
<br />conc€ntmt€ recovery efforts, Washington is subject to ten natural hazards and sEven human-caused hazards, The THIRA focuses on
<br />eight of those risks: earthquake, tsuna mi, flood, biological [mmmunicable disease], wildfire, ndiological, cybe r incident, and
<br />tsrrorism. Planning, tralning, and exercise efforts are being r€structured to encompass the entir€ spectrum of catastrophic incidents
<br />within this context, Washington saw few significa nt changes in the 2018 Capabilities Assassment. The lowest rat€d capabilities were
<br />Situationa I Assessm€nt, Mass Ca r€ Seruices, Emnomic Recorery Hea lth and Socia I Servlces, and Housing - all essential during a
<br />catastrophic lncid€nt, - The strongest capabilities lie in Pubic lnformatlon and Warning and th6 most opportunlty [i6 in Situational
<br />fusessment. The 2018 SPR results conf irmed the f indings from prior years: Stakeholders at every level struggle to sustain emergency
<br />response capabilities with dwindling resources and are significantly challenged preparing for catastrophic disasters. Since the early
<br />2000E cumulativ€ emsrgensy ma nagementfunding at the state and local levels has reduced signfficantly causlng an lncr€ased
<br />dependence on fedenl grants to meet necessa ry smerg€ncy ma nagEment requirements. As a resuh, many areas are in a
<br />sustainment mode when it com€s to €mergency management capability and capacity,
<br />lnvestment f3 - Reglonal llomeland Securlty Projects
<br />The State is divided into 9 Homeland Security Regions, made up of 39 cou nties, which differ in many r€spects including geography
<br />(from marlne to desert), major industry (from large business to agricultunl), and population (from dense urban settings to rural
<br />areas). Each Region develops proiects to address their specific risks and hazards wh ich sustain previously bu ilt capabilities or close
<br />identified gaps. While the communities may differ, emergency management priorities ar€ similaracross the state and most
<br />initiatives can be tiad back to building regional capability to respond and recover, and be in % state of readiness" through planning,
<br />training, €quipping, or axercising, should a natural or human-caused catastrophic incident occur. As comm unicated in the 2017 and
<br />confirmed in the 20t8THIRA, Capablllties Esllmatlon, & SPR, gaps have been identifiad in the following core capabilities. All
<br />jurisdictions have targeted efforts related to Operational Coordination. ThE foromost gaps are: 1) PIANNING: Plans lack horizontal
<br />and vertical intsgratbn and need adjustlngto be scalablefor use duringa etastrophic incident, Recovery needsto be incorporated.
<br />2) ORGANIZATIO N: Response and recovery to catastroph ic lncidents wlll requ ire additional tra ined personnel to support either large-
<br />scale or longterm activations. 3) EQU IPM ENT: There is a lack of integration and interopera bility of tools to form a Com mon
<br />Operating Picture for allstakeholders. Additionally, equipment continues to age, with subsequent degradation occurring with
<br />routine usage, and there is a lack offu nding to sustain and/or replace. Resiliency is still an ovolvlng concept without a formalized
<br />statewide, whole community approach to focus efforts, While the State is introducing initiativas to combat that reality, local
<br />iurisdictions still struggle with gaps related to Community Resilience: 1) TMINING: lndividuals and businesses need to move from
<br />awaren€ss to action. 2) EXERCISE: Communiti€s ar€ dependent on voluntesrs to exercise this capabillty and do not have the tools or
<br />sxpertis€ to engage stakeholders, Related to Resilience, jurisdictions recognize the need to communicate with all stakeholders and
<br />continue to expand th€ reach of their messaging, lnitiatives are ongoing to address the identified Public lnformation and Wamlng
<br />gap related to 1) PLANNING; Plans do not fully address communicating with non-English speaking populations, immigrant groups,
<br />and individuals with disabilities.
<br />Regional Hazards and Risks - Reasons for the Work
<br />f errxlst targets Indude:
<br />. llvdroelectric facllitie$
<br />. Tran$portation
<br />. Public Events
<br />. lndustry
<br />Prlmary allhazard rtsks lncluda:
<br />' Wildland Fires
<br />. landslides
<br />. Floods
<br />. Winter Slorms
<br />r Wlnd Storms
<br />. [arthquakes
<br />. Pandemic lncidents
<br />DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FFY1 9 Page 3 of 9 Kittitas County, E20-087 Amendment A
|