Challenge
Pierce County’s All Hazard Mitigation Plan covers over 900,000 residents across 76 jurisdictions. A key part of the planning process is to seek input from all individuals and groups. Those who do not take part in updating the plan are less likely to understand or use it. With 76 jurisdictions and many partners, it was hard to engage everyone in the planning process. Also, once the HMP was updated, they all had to adopt the plan. The jurisdictions had different timelines, and the county has many hazards. It needed a planning process for all members of the area that would help address each hazard risk.
Solution
The county took a unique approach to the planning process. It brought in and engaged parts of the community in two ways: by geography and by professional disciplines. The plan’s executive summary explains that taking a “coordinated approach to mitigation strategy at the local, state, and regional levels, will contribute to the safety and well-being of citizens throughout the region.”
The regional groups were based on the county’s geographies (north, west, southwest, northeast and central). Each of those had subgroups, which held more localized meetings. For each regional group, the risks to hazards and the hazard impacts are similar. The discipline groups reflected different interests or parts of the community. These were based on FEMA’s community lifelines. FEMA defines the lifelines as “the most fundamental services in the community that, when stabilized, enable all other aspects of society to function.” They are key to a hazard mitigation plan’s development. The eight community lifelines are:
From these eight groups, Pierce County created subgroups for the community lifeline disciplines. These were: city and town; fire district; special purpose; unincorporated Pierce County; school; utility; health and medical. This was an innovative way to expand the public participation in the process to update the hazard mitigation plan.
During the plan update, the county worked with these groups. They pinpointed key champions, who are vital to the county’s operations. Debbie Bailey, Mitigation Coordinator for Pierce County, said that this helped keep the planning process active. It brought in new people and viewpoints and helped advance the planning activities.
For instance, the county formed a “schools discipline group.” It was made up of leaders from 14 school districts and one university. These included superintendents, safety officers, and facilities directors. This group highlighted challenges and solutions for institutions and their facilities. For example, it pointed out buildings that need retrofits to withstand the impacts from earthquakes.
Many members of these groups were new to the plan update committee. However, they had similar interests in hazard mitigation. Those from the discipline groups also took part in the regional groups, based on where they lived or worked. The county arranged cross-discipline groups, and the jurisdictions chose whom to send to these meetings. Since many of the jurisdictions have the same hazards, these groups provided ways for attendees to partner on mitigation projects. The discipline groups met once a month.
The county hosted drop-in workshops twice a month for six months, as well as one-on-one meetings. Pierce County held separate meetings to review and draft each section of the mitigation plan. The state also noted that the local planning partners were very engaged. This helps the plan be more relevant and specific to each community. They continued to build ties across municipal boundaries. That allowed them to compare and validate each other’s information. This helped the plan to be accurate and up to date. A planning team website included meeting invitations and progress reports. It also had a space for plan drafts, and a form for the public to comment on them.
Once a year, everyone came together at an Annual Mitigation Workshop. They shared mitigation strategies and ideas. As the network of local champions grew, the state saw more people take part in this meeting. Minutes and photos from this meeting were added to an appendix for each of the 76 addenda.
Pierce County expanded its reach to more people and groups with an interest in community lifelines. As a result, the county collected new input and ideas. This also raised the awareness of risks and vulnerabilities. The plan update has a new and improved risk assessment. It also has detailed mitigation actions to address those risks. The plan built in yearly meetings for both sets of working groups as part of its maintenance cycle. This will allow members to continue building relationships and to exchange mitigation strategies and ideas. That helps protect the county into the future.
Key Takeaways
The All Hazards Mitigation Plan covers 76 jurisdictions. The update was a challenge to coordinate. To do this effectively, Pierce County used FEMA’s Community Lifeline groups. This helped it identify the right people to be involved in the update process.
- Increasing the Reach of Public Input. The Community Lifelines were used to pinpoint local champions and other representatives. This increased the public involvement in the plan update. It brought in new viewpoints and led to new partnerships on mitigation projects.
- Creating Working Groups. Sorting the working groups based on interest and geography increased joint efforts. It led to more detailed mitigation actions.
- Coordinating Updates of Large Hazard Mitigation Plans. Due to the volume of this plan, several communities could not adopt the plan at the same time as others.
Related Documents and Links
- Region 5 All Hazard Mitigation Plan (Approved Nov. 22, 2020, expires Nov. 21, 2025)
- National Response Framework, Fourth Edition
A jurisdiction needs an approved and adopted HMP for certain kinds of funding. This includes FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance and Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dam Grant programs. To learn more about mitigation planning and funding, review Mitigation Planning and Grants | FEMA.gov. The following are links to assistance programs: