|
ATTACHMENTfl2
<br />I9SHSP lnvestment and Regional Proiect
<br />:l nves. timcnt'J u stlf lcatlo n
<br />Washington is cornprised of 39 counties with geography including brests, mountains, islands, rainbrests, rivers, lakes,
<br />and plains. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis ranked Washington 13 of 5O states fur gross dornestic product in
<br />2017; severalworl&class organizations headquarter their operations withln the state. Washington has marine,
<br />aviation, rail, and road transportation infrastructure to support its position as a bustling trade center, Approximately
<br />half of Washlngton's 7.5 rnillion population lives in the Seattle rnetropolitan area located along the Puget Sound. This
<br />area is the center of transportation, business, and industry and is the fastest growing reglon ln the state. Over three-
<br />fiourths of the state's populatlon liver in densely settled urbanized areas. Understanding Washington's population is
<br />critical ln order to mitigate vulnerabilities, respond to incidents, end effuctively concentrate recovery efbrts.
<br />Washington is subject to ten natural hazards and seven hurnan-caused hazards. The THIM focuses on eight of those
<br />ilsks: earthquake, tsunami, flood, biological [communicable dbeaset, wildfirg radiological, cyber incident, and
<br />terrorism, Planning training, and exercisc efforts are being restructured to encornpass the entire spectrurn of
<br />catastrophic incidenb within this context Washington saw few significant changes in the 2018 Capabilities Assessment.
<br />The lowest rated capablllties were Slhratlonal Assessment, Mass Care Scruices, Economlc Recovery, Health and Socirl
<br />Services, and Housing- all essential during a catastrophic incident. - The strongest capabilities lie in Pubic lnforrnation
<br />and Warning and the most opportunity lie in Situational Assessment. The 2018 SPR results confirmed the findings from
<br />prior years: Stakeholders at every level struggle to sustain ernergency response capabitities with dwindling resources
<br />and are significantly challenged preparing for catastrophlc disasters. Since the early 20ffis, cumulative emertency
<br />managernent funding at the state and local levels has reduced significantly causing an increased dependence on federal
<br />grants to meet necessary emergency management requirements. As a result, rnany areas are in a sustalnment mode
<br />when it cornes to emergency rnanagement capability and capacity.
<br />,lnvectnent fl3 - Rcglonal Homcland Securlty Profects
<br />The State is divided into 9 Horneland Security Regions, made up of 39 counties, whlch differ in rnany respects including
<br />geography (from rnarine to desert), rnajor industry (from large business to agriorltural), and population (from dense
<br />urban settingp to rural areasl. Each Re6ion develops projects to address their specific dsks and hazards which sustain
<br />previously built capabilities or close identified gaps. While the comrnunities may difhr, emergency management
<br />prlorities are slmllar across the state and most initiatives can be tied back to building regional capability to respond and
<br />recover, and be in "a shte of readiness" through planning tralning, equippln6 or exercislng, should a natural or human-
<br />caused catastrophlc incident occur. As mmrnunicated in the 2017 and conffrmed in the 2018 THIRA, Capabllities
<br />Estlmation, & SP& gaps have been ldentified ln the following core capabllitlel. Allfurlsdlctions have targeted efforts
<br />related to Operational €oordination, The fioremost gaps are: 1) PIANNINGI Plans lack horizontal and vertical
<br />lntegration and need adjustin6 to be scalable br use during a catastrophic lncident, Recovery needs to be
<br />incorporated. 2l ORGANIZATION; Response and recovery to catestrophic incidents wlll requlre additlonal trained
<br />petsonnel to support either large.scale or long-term activations. 3) EQUIPMENT: There is a lack of integration and
<br />interoperabllity of tools to forrn a Common Operating Picture forallstakeholders, Additionalln equipment continues
<br />to ate, with subsequent degradation occurring with routire usage, and there is a lack of funding to sustain andlor
<br />replace. Reslllency ls still an evolvlng concept wlthouta formalized statewlde, whole comrnunity approach to fucus
<br />efforts. While the State is introducing initiatirres to combat that reality, localjurisdictions still struggle with gap related
<br />to Comrnunity Resilience: 1)TRAlNlilGr lndividuals and businesses need to move from awareness to action. 2)
<br />EXERCISE: Communldes are dependent on volunteers to exercise thls capaHllty and do not have the tools or expertise
<br />to engage stakeholders. Related to Resilience, jurisdictions recognize the need to communicate with all stakeholders
<br />and continue to expand the reach of their messaging. lnitiatives are ongoing to address the ldentified Public
<br />lnforrnation and Warning gap related to 1) PtANNlllG: Plans do not fully address mmmunicating with non-English
<br />speaking populations, immigrant groups, and individuals with disabilities.
<br />DHS.FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FFY 1 9 Pap 32 of37 Kittitas County . E22-2W
|