Nationwide Plan Review

Transcription

1 Nationwide Plan Fiscal Year 2010 Report to Congress July 15, 2010 Federal Emergency Management Agency

2 Message from the Administrator July 15, 2010 I am pleased to present the following report, Nationwide Plan, which has been prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pursuant to the Joint Explanatory Statement and Senate Report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2010 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act (P.L ). This report provides an update to Congress from the 2006 Nationwide Plan. In working with the states, territories and urban areas during this review, FEMA found that planning across the Nation is stronger and more active and addresses a broader range of topics than in The 2010 Nationwide Plan incorporates more planning components than the 2006, including a more comprehensive set of functional appendices and hazardspecific annexes. Additionally, the 2010 was guided by new doctrine, Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 (CPG 101), developed by state and local partners to replace State and Local Guide 101. Incorporating recommendations from the 2006, CPG 101 modernized planning efforts and established current, mutually accepted doctrine. Although planning challenges remain, the state of national planning has substantially improved and much has been accomplished to address the recommendations and findings from the Pursuant to congressional requirements, this report is being provided to the following Members of Congress: The Honorable David E. Price Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security The Honorable Harold Rogers Ranking Member, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg Interim Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security The Honorable George V. Voinovich Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security i

3 Inquiries relating to this report may be directed to me at (202) or to the Department s Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Peggy Sherry, at (202) Sincerely, W. Craig Fugate Administrator Federal Emergency Management Agency ii

4 Executive Summary Planning across the Nation is stronger and more active and addresses a broader range of topics than ever before. Over a period of 3 months beginning in January 2010, working with state, local and territory partners, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a follow-up to the 2006 Nationwide Plan. The 2010 Nationwide Plan shows that planning theory, doctrine and practice are in alignment, planners are taking on the difficult challenges presented by catastrophic events and, most important, there is a uniformly higher degree of confidence in planning processes and plans. Although planning challenges remain, planning has substantially improved and much has been done to address the 2006 recommendations. The 2010 Nationwide Plan addressed an expanded roster of functional appendices and hazard-specific annexes when compared to the In 2010, newly strengthened FEMA staff federal planners and operators who work with jurisdictions daily provided a second set of eyes to examine jurisdictions self-assessments, using the same criteria as the jurisdictions. Unlike 2006, when planners struggled with obsolete planning doctrine, the process in 2010 employed new doctrine developed by the planning community. Provide confidence in planning as a Nation. More than 75 percent of states and more than 80 percent of urban areas report confidence that their overall basic emergency operations plans are well-suited to meet the challenges presented during a large-scale or catastrophic event. Additionally, both states and urban areas show high degrees of confidence in functional appendices and growing confidence in newer topic areas, such as prevention/protection and critical infrastructure/key resource restoration. Hazard-specific annexes follow the same trend, with higher degrees of confidence where there has been more real-world experience. Continuously examine plans to improve preparedness. Since the 2006, participants have worked tirelessly to update and exercise plans. More than 80 percent of states and more than 75 percent of urban areas have updated their basic plans since the last. Most important, many of these updates occurred in the last 2 years. Additionally, nearly 95 percent of all states and urban areas have exercised their basic plans since the Ensure theory and doctrine is practice. In 2006, the review was guided by the obsolete State and Local Guide 101 (SLG 101), published in The Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 (CPG 101), published in March 2009, replaced the SLG 101 and guided the Developed by state and local planners, CPG 101 modernized planning efforts and established current, commonly accepted planning doctrine. Though CPG 101 was in use for less than a year, the near 100-percent correlation of basic plans with the principles and practices of CPG 101 is a testament to sound doctrine that reflects a consensus of the entire planning community. Continue to advance national planning efforts. The 2006 made 39 recommendations that addressed different aspects of federal, state and local planning. Three additional findings were generated as a result of this report. This report documents the significant progress to address those recommendations. iii

5 Know there is more to be done. The Agency s progress also highlights several remaining challenges. The Agency must prioritize the delivery of up-to-date training to develop a cohort of highly skilled planners and support their professional development. Although some progress has been made toward establishing a national planning system and tools, this effort has slowed to accommodate the revision of core preparedness policies. Finally, the starting point for planning is sound threat and hazard identification and risk assessment. Development of a process that is agreed upon and usable by all levels of government is critical to successful planning and also would facilitate integrated planning. This review represents a snapshot of several months in 2010 and reveals accomplishments and national momentum building on the goals of the Currently, plans are being updated, exercises are being conducted and guidance is being refined. This report demonstrates progress and guides future planning and preparedness activities. As reported in the 2006 Phase 2 Report, the procedural and technical challenges to modernizing planning were daunting but not insurmountable. The progress of the review participants shows a renewed commitment to the value of planning described in the National Framework. Participants demonstrate they can develop new community-wide doctrine, modernize their plans and processes and adopt new means of collaboration. Although work remains, their progress is admirable. iv

6 Table of Contents Nationwide Plan I. Legislative Language... 1 II. Background... 2 Approach... 3 Participating Jurisdictions... 4 Data Collection Process... 5 Analysis Process... 5 III. Analysis... 7 Overview... 7 Analysis of Basic Plan... 8 Analysis of Functional Appendices... 9 Analysis of Hazard-Specific Annexes Comparative Analysis IV. Progress on 2006 State and Urban Area Findings V. Progress on 2006 Federal Findings VI. Next Steps Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations Appendix B: Distribution Memo Appendix C: Certification Matrices Jurisdiction Certification Matrix Certification Matrix Appendix D: References Appendix E: Self-Assessment Data Basic Plan Functional Appendices Hazard-Specific Annexes v

7 Table of Figures Figure 1: NPR2010 Process... 3 Figure 2: Participating in the 2010 Nationwide Plan... 5 Figure 3: Certification Matrix Data Collection Categories... 7 Figure 4: Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents... 8 Figure 5: Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents... 8 Figure 6: Confidence in Functional Appendices Figure 7: Confidence in Functional Appendices Figure 8: Types of Hazards Figure 9: Confidence in Hazard-Specific Annexes Figure 10: Confidence in Hazard-Specific Annexes Figure 11: Map of and in the Hurricane Belt Figure 12: Hurricane Belt Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents Figure 13: Hurricane Belt Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents Figure 14: EMAP-Accredited and Figure 15: EMAP-Accredited Confidence in the Basic Plan Subcomponents Figure 16: EMAP-Accredited Exercising of Basic Plan Subcomponents vi

8 I. Legislative Language On October 28, 2009, the President signed the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Act (P.L ). This report is prepared pursuant to the Joint Explanatory Statement and Senate Report accompanying P.L Specifically, the Joint Explanatory Statement states: Nationwide Plan Update The conferees direct FEMA to provide an update on the status of catastrophic planning, including mass evacuation planning, in all 50 and the 75 largest urban areas, by April 16, 2010, as discussed in the Senate report. Senate Report states: NATIONWIDE PLAN REVIEW UPDATE The Committee directs FEMA to provide an update on the status of catastrophic planning, including mass evacuation planning, in all 50 and the 75 largest urban areas by April 16, The update should include the same certifications and status of plans for evacuations included in the Nationwide Plan dated June 16,

9 II. Background The driving force for the 2006 Nationwide Plan (NPR2006) was the Nation s experience with the 2005 hurricane season. NPR2006 employed a two-phased approach. During phase 1, DHS collected and analyzed self-assessments, Emergency Operations Plans (EOPs) and supporting materials from 131 jurisdictions to determine the status of catastrophic planning. Phase 2 consisted of onsite visits composed of contracted peer review teams to provide for indepth discussion with the participating jurisdictions. All jurisdictions were required to use FEMA s State and Local Guide 101 (SLG 101), Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning, as a reference. NPR2006 drew initial conclusions for strengthening plans and planning processes at the federal, state and local levels of government. The 39 findings of NPR2006 were reduced to six major observations that highlighted the need for fundamental planning modernization: Catastrophic planning efforts were found to be unsystematic and uneven. Rapid homeland security mission expansion and the diversity of risks outpaced planning and planning actions had outstripped planning documentation. Planning processes were outmoded, current tools and guidance were rudimentary and planning expertise showed insufficiency for catastrophic incidents. Collaboration requirements were not well-defined, fostering a tendency to plan internally. The prevailing approach to planning emphasized general roles and responsibilities over detailed procedures for specific hazards, scenarios or thresholds of incidents. The feasibility of plans was dependent on resource inventories, databases and resource tracking mechanisms, all of which were areas of universal weakness. Building on NPR2006, the 2010 Nationwide Plan (NPR2010) provides a snapshot of the current status of catastrophic planning across a broader footprint of functional areas and hazards. Catastrophic planning should address: Any natural or manmade incident, including terrorism, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, national morale and/or government functions. 1 The five guiding principles for NPR2010 are as follows: Strengthen planning while preserving a decentralized initiative 1 National Framework, p

10 Reinforce the role of states as intergovernmental pivot points 2 Identify systemic corrections for system-wide problems Engage the FEMA Regions to enter into a planning dialogue with jurisdictions Identify needed improvements in national preparedness to advance readiness for catastrophic events A. Approach To achieve comparable results, the NPR2010 approach mirrored the process from 2006 in many ways. For example, the same states and urban areas participated in the NPR2010. Additionally, a self-assessment process was employed to collect key information. FEMA regional staff conducted a second-stage review of the submittals, in several cases jointly assessing with the sites. Although there are many similarities with the NPR2006, the scope of NPR2010 was expanded to capture additional basic plan subcomponents and functional appendices that align with Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 (CPG 101) guidance. Hazard-specific annexes were also reviewed in 2010 to encompass some of the greatest risks facing the Nation. Although the aforementioned NPR2006 approach produced two separate reports, the streamlined process employed in NPR2010 resulted in one comprehensive report. NPR2010 examines the progress in state and local planning since NPR2006 and produces conclusions based on the evaluation of the self-assessment data. As depicted in Figure 1, the Nationwide Plan package was distributed by FEMA on January 19, 2010 (see Appendix B), to notify the participating states and urban areas of their involvement in NPR2010 and to outline the process and requirements for submittal of a selfassessment package by February 19, FEMA Regions also received guidance regarding their role in the process. The participating jurisdictions, data collection process and analysis process of NPR2010 are described in detail in Figure 1, followed by the 2010 results and findings. January 19: February 22: Memo with Instructions and Tools Released to Participating Jurisdictions Submission Packages Distributed to Regions and Federal Staff for Analysis April 1: Final Draft Report Due for Routing February 19: April 16: March 12: Completed Final 2010 s Submissions Due Nationwide Plan and Federal Analysis from Participating Report Due Jurisdictions Distributed Figure 1: NPR2010 Process 2 Tierney, Kathleen J., Michael K. Lindell and Ronald W. Perry, Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and in the United, Joseph Henry Press, 2001, p. 63: State government has been described (Durham and Suiter, 1991) as the pivot in the intergovernmental system... in a position to determine the emergency management needs and capabilities of its political subdivisions and to channel State and Federal resources to local government. 3

11 B. Participating Jurisdictions All 50 states, the District of Columbia, the territories 3 and 75 urban areas were required to participate in NPR2010 as a prerequisite for receipt of FY 2010 DHS Homeland Security grant funds. The 76 4 participating urban areas remain the same as in 2006, which were selected to include the 55 FY 2005 Security Initiative (UASI) program grantees and 20 major urban areas selected by DHS on the basis of an analysis of 2004 population, risk and need. Moving forward with the remainder of this report, the 56 states and territories are referred to as the. The full list of participating urban areas is shown in Figure 2. Participating in 2010 Nationwide Plan Albany, New York Albuquerque, New Mexico Anaheim, California Anchorage, Alaska Arlington, Texas Atlanta, Georgia Aurora, Colorado Austin, Texas Baltimore, Maryland Baton Rouge, Louisiana Boston, Massachusetts Buffalo, New York Charlotte, rth Carolina Chicago, Illinois Cincinnati, Ohio Cleveland, Ohio Colorado Springs, Colorado Columbus, Ohio Corpus Christi, Texas Dallas, Texas Denver, Colorado Detroit, Michigan El Paso, Texas Fort Worth, Texas Fresno, California Honolulu, Hawaii Houston, Texas Indianapolis, Indiana Jacksonville, Florida Jersey City, New Jersey Mesa, Arizona Miami, Florida Milwaukee, Wisconsin Minneapolis, Minnesota Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee National Capital Region 5 New Haven, Connecticut New Orleans, Louisiana New York, New York Newark, New Jersey Oakland, California Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Omaha, Nebraska Orlando, Florida Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Phoenix, Arizona Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Portland, Oregon Raleigh, rth Carolina Richmond, Virginia Riverside, California Sacramento, California San Antonio, Texas San Diego, California San Francisco, California San Jose, California Santa Ana, California Seattle, Washington St. Louis, Missouri St. Paul, Minnesota 3 Territories include: American Samoa, Guam, rthern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 4 NPR2010 includes the same 75 urban areas as NPR2006; however, in NPR2010, the cities of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and rfolk, Virginia, submitted separately, creating a total of 76 urban area submittals. 5 Washington, D.C., submitted on behalf of the National Capital Region. 4

12 Participating in 2010 Nationwide Plan Kansas City, Kansas & Missouri Las Vegas, Nevada Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky Lincoln, Nebraska Long Beach, California Los Angeles, California Louisville, Kentucky Memphis, Tennessee St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Toledo, Ohio Tucson, Arizona Tulsa, Oklahoma Virginia Beach-rfolk, Virginia 6 Wichita, Kansas Figure 2: Participating in the 2010 Nationwide Plan C. Data Collection Process Participating jurisdictions submitted a self-assessment package consisting of three components. Respondents were asked to focus their answers on their abilities to manage catastrophic events as they completed each item for the self-assessment package outlined below. Transmittal letter Provided approval by the jurisdiction s designated official, a point-ofcontact for questions or communications regarding the package and an optional summary of the jurisdiction s planning efforts including the following: o Three biggest successes related to planning and three biggest challenges to planning that have been encountered since the last review in o Major future planning efforts Certification matrix (see Appendix C) Provided basic data about the jurisdiction s plans, appendices and annexes, including a self-assessment of each document s adequacy, feasibility and completeness using a five-point scale Supporting documents Electronic copies of plans identified in the certification matrix D. Analysis Process As submissions were received from the jurisdictions, the documents were distributed to FEMA regional staff for review. FEMA regional staff reviewed the plans and certification matrices submitted by the sites within their region and rated each plan on the basis of its adequacy, feasibility and completeness to manage a catastrophic event. Once complete, FEMA Regions submitted the certification matrix to FEMA National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) Headquarters for analysis. A team of federal staff reviewed and analyzed the following information to identify key themes, trends, progress since 2006 and 2010 findings, which serve as the foundation of the NPR2010 report: 6 The cities of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and rfolk, Virginia, participated as separate urban areas in

13 Successes, challenges and future planning efforts outlined in submitted transmittal letters Certification matrix data submitted by the jurisdictions, specifically: o Consistency with CPG 101 Appendix C for plans and functional appendices o Last updated and last exercised dates for the plans, functional appendices and hazard-specific annexes o Ratings of adequacy, feasibility and completeness for each plan, functional appendix and hazard-specific annex using a five-point scale certification matrix data submitted by the FEMA Regions, specifically a rating of adequacy, feasibility and completeness for each plan, functional appendix and hazardspecific annex using a five-point scale A number of topics in emergency planning were presented for the first time as recommended annexes with the March 2009 release of CPG 101. These topics Prevention and Protection and Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR) Restoration were included in the NPR2010. With less than a year to consider these topics, analysis for these functional appendices largely serves to provide a baseline for future reports. Three additional topics Population Reception, Recovery and Repatriation were included in the data collection but are not currently addressed by CPG 101. On the basis of the wide variations in planning and gaps in definitive guidance, no meaningful analysis could be conducted on these topics for this report. 6

14 III. Analysis of 2010 Results A. Overview This section discusses the cumulative results of NPR2010, including a comparison of results from NPR2006. The discussion of plans, functional appendices and hazard-specific annexes and organization of the figures content mirror the order presented in the certification matrix. The table in Figure 3 provides a comparison of the information requested in the NPR2010 and NPR2006 certification matrices for each document reviewed. Certification Matrix Data Collection Categories NPR2010 Consistency with CPG 101, with response options of, Partially and Date of last update Date of last exercise A self-evaluation of the jurisdiction s confidence in each document s adequacy, feasibility and completeness to manage a catastrophic event using a five-point scale where 1 equals and 5 equals NPR2006 Consistency with SLG 101 with response options of and Date of last update Date of last exercise A self-evaluation of their confidence that the plan is adequate to manage evacuation and shelter requirements comparable to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita using three response options:, and Figure 3: Certification Matrix Data Collection Categories In this report, the categories of Consistency with CPG 101 in NPR2010 and Consistency with SLG 101 in NPR2006 have been combined into a single category labeled Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101. Further, the design of the NPR2006 did not afford a partial response because it relates to consistency with SLG 101. During the analysis, partial responses were examined both discretely and in aggregate with yes responses to evaluate consistency with CPG 101. The responses to the plans adequacy, feasibility and completeness to manage a catastrophic event in NPR2010 were based on a five-point scale, where 1 equaled and 5 equaled. The NPR2010 response options were grouped to align with the NPR2006 response options for this analysis. Specifically, the 4 or 5 ratings in 2010 equate to the response option in NPR2006, the 3 rating in NPR2010 equates to the response option in NPR2006 and the 1 or 2 ratings in NPR2010 equate to the response option in NPR2006. For the purposes of evaluating each document s ability to manage a catastrophic event, responses of 5 and 4 have been combined to represent confidence, while responses of 1 and 2 have been combined to represent a lack of confidence. A broad analysis of the self-assessments and regional reviews follows for the Basic Plan, functional appendices and hazard-specific annexes. Additionally, a comparative analysis conducted in 2006 was updated; the analysis examines differences in Hurricane Belt states and 7

15 urban areas compared to the balance of the nation, as well as the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP)-accredited states compared to the balance of the Nation. Detailed data can be referenced in Appendix E. B. Analysis of Basic Plan The Basic Plan provides an overview of the jurisdiction s approach to emergency operations. It details emergency response policies, describes the response organization and assigns tasks. Although the Basic Plan guides the development of the more operationally oriented annexes, its primary audience consists of the jurisdiction s chief executive, his or her staff and agency heads. 7 Data were collected and analyzed for the overall Basic Plan, as well as for the following specific subcomponents: Organization and Responsibilities Direction, Control and Coordination Information Collection and Dissemination Communications Administration, Finance and Logistics Self-assessment results show strong confidence levels from both states (79 percent) and urban areas (82 percent) in their basic plans ability to manage a catastrophic event. As illustrated in Figures 4 and 5, a significant increase in the number of jurisdictions that indicated confidence is reflected. These levels have doubled for states (from 39 percent) and nearly tripled for urban areas (from 31 percent) since Furthermore, the percentage of states and urban areas that indicated a lack of confidence in their basic plans to manage a catastrophic event has decreased from 2006, with only 5 percent of states and 1 percent of urban areas indicating a lack of confidence. The regional reviews support the states and urban areas assessments of their overall basic plans. Of the five subcomponents of the Basic Plan reviewed, states and urban areas indicated the most 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percent of that Indicated Confidence in the Subcomponent's Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event Overall Basic Plan Organization & Responsibilities Direction, Control & Coordination Information CommunicationsAdministration, Collection & Finance & Dissemination Logistics Figure 4: Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents Percent of that Indicated Confidence in the Subcomponent's Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event Overall Basic Plan Organization & Responsibilities Direction, Control & Coordination Information Collection & Dissemination CommunicationsAdministration, Finance & Logistics 7 CPG 101, p. 6-1 Figure 5: Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents 8

16 confidence in the Organization and Responsibilities subcomponent and the Direction, Control and Coordination subcomponent, with more than 80 percent of states and urban areas indicating confidence in the ability of these subcomponents to manage a catastrophic event. and urban areas were also relatively confident in the Communications subcomponent (75 percent of states and 72 percent of urban areas). Moreover, the confidence in the Direction, Control and Coordination and Communications subcomponents has more than doubled since 2006, when 39 percent of states and 31 percent of urban areas were confident in their Direction, Control and Coordination subcomponents and 30 percent of states and urban areas were confident in their Communications subcomponents. Although the final version of CPG 101 had only been available to states and urban areas for less than 1 year at the time of the NPR2010 data call, nearly all states and urban areas (100 percent and 96 percent, respectively) indicated that their basic plans fully or partially incorporate applicable components of CPG 101. This reflects the integral role of states and urban areas in the development of the guidance. These numbers represent a 7-percent increase for states and 15-percent increase for urban areas since NPR2006, which referenced SLG 101, the predecessor to CPG 101, as the source for its evaluation criteria. Furthermore, the NPR2010 results indicated that more than 85 percent of states and urban areas fully or partially incorporated applicable elements of CPG 101 for each of the five Basic Plan subcomponents reviewed. Exercising and updating the Basic Plan remains a priority for states and urban areas. Over the last 4 years, 95 percent of states and urban areas exercised their overall basic plans. Within the same timeframe, 84 percent of states and 78 percent of urban areas updated their overall basic plans. Although these percentages reflect a slight decrease from the NPR2006, results are generally positive. C. Analysis of Functional Appendices Functional appendices add specific information and direction to the EOP. Focusing on critical operational functions, these appendices clearly describe the policies, processes, roles and responsibilities that agencies and departments carry out before, during and after any emergency. Although the Basic Plan provides broad, overarching information relevant to the EOP as a whole, these appendices focus on specific responsibilities, tasks and operational actions that pertain to the performance of a particular emergency operations function. These appendices also establish preparedness targets (for example, training, exercises, equipment checks and maintenance) that facilitate achieving function-related goals and objectives during emergencies and disasters. 8 Depending on the jurisdiction, these appendices may align to general functions, Emergency Support Functions or both. Only a limited number of functional appendices were included in the NPR2006. More than 60 percent of states and urban areas indicated confidence in the majority of the functional appendices reviewed. As illustrated in Figures 6 and 7, across the Warning, Public Information, Health and Medical and Resource Management functional appendices, states and urban areas confidence in the ability of their plans to manage a catastrophic event more than 8 CPG 101, p

17 doubled since Additionally, states and urban areas confidence in the ability of the Public Protection and Evacuation and Mass Care and Sheltering functional appendices to manage a catastrophic event has more than quadrupled since % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Warning Percent of that Indicated Confidence in the Functional Appendix's Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event Public Information Public Protection & Evacuation Mass Care & Sheltering Health and Medical Resource Prevention & Management Protection CIKR Restoration Damage Assessment Debris Management Donations Management Figure 6: Confidence in Functional Appendices 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percent of that Indicated Confidence in the Functional Appendix's Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event Warning Public Information Public Protection & Evacuation Mass Care & Sheltering Health and Medical Resource Prevention & Management Protection CIKR Restoration Damage Assessment Debris Management Donations Management Figure 7: Confidence in Functional Appendices More than 71 percent of states and urban areas indicated that they fully or partially incorporated applicable components from CPG 101 for each functional appendix. As seen in the Basic Plan analysis, these high percentages may reflect the integral role of states and urban areas in the development of CPG 101. More than 90 percent of both states and urban areas fully or partially incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 in their Warning, Public Information, Health and Medical, Mass Care and Sheltering and Damage Assessment functional appendices. Additionally, more than 90 percent of states and urban areas reported fully or partially incorporating applicable components of CPG 101 into other functional appendices (that is, Resource Management and Donations Management [states] and Public Protection and Evacuation [urban areas]). All six functional appendices included in both the NPR2006 and NPR2010 showed a significant increase in the percentage of states and urban areas that fully or partially incorporated applicable components of CPG 101/SLG 101. Furthermore, the percentage of states and urban areas that reported not incorporating applicable components of CPG 101 decreased across all six of the functional appendices evaluated in

18 and urban areas made great strides to ensure the maintenance and utility of their functional appendices. For each functional appendix reviewed, approximately three-quarters of states and urban areas reported incorporating updates within the last 4 years. Self-assessment results indicated that a similar percentage of states and urban areas exercised each functional appendix within the same timeframe. Finally, of the six functional appendices included in both the NPR2006 and NPR2010, the Health and Medical appendix had the largest percentage increase of exercises conducted in the last 2 years by states and urban areas. Two new functional appendices have been identified in CPG 101 for inclusion in plans Prevention and Protection and CIKR Restoration. As a general rule, the goals of prevention and protection planning efforts should be to identify threats and protect potential targets. To accomplish these goals, prevention and protection plans focus on information collection and threat detection; risk, vulnerability and intelligence analysis; information sharing and collaboration; criminal investigation and intervention; critical infrastructure protection; and risk management. Because the protection of CIKR impacts emergency preparedness and operations, state and local governments EOPs should contain information on what steps they are taking to identify and protect CIKR. Planners must assess potential vulnerabilities, consequences or threats and provide critical infrastructure protection measures for the systems and assets they identify as CIKR. 9 Despite the fact that guidance for the Prevention and Protection and CIKR Restoration appendices has only been available for less than 1 year, self-assessment results are encouraging. Nearly 50 percent of states and urban areas indicated confidence in the use of their Prevention and Protection appendices to manage a catastrophic event. Similarly, 50 percent of states indicated confidence in the use of their CIKR Restoration appendices to manage a catastrophic event, while 36 percent of urban areas indicated confidence in this appendix. The data also revealed that nearly 80 percent of states and urban areas fully or partially incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 into their Prevention and Protection appendices. Additionally, 79 percent of states and 71 percent of urban areas fully or partially incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 into their CIKR Restoration appendices. Although these percentages are not as high compared to the majority of the functional appendices, the results of the selfassessments are generally strong and indicate dedication by the states and urban areas and an effort to build upon the success of existing prevention and protection programs. D. Analysis of Hazard-Specific Annexes A new area of analysis for NPR2010, hazard-specific annexes describe the unique operational requirements specific to a particular hazard and supplement the information both in the Basic Plan and the functional appendices. A document review of these annexes presents a number of unique challenges, given both the scenarios presented by these events as well as the wide variety of resources they may require. Further complicating this analysis is the reality that few of these hazards have been experienced at a catastrophic level and, thus, by their nature, have little historical data against which they can be referenced. and urban areas also face a variety of 9 CPG 101, page

19 hazards based on their geographic location; as a result, not all hazard-specific annexes are applicable to each jurisdiction participating in the review. The result is an increase in the number of jurisdictions that did not provide a response for these annexes compared to the Basic Plan and functional appendices. The hazard-specific annexes examined as part of NPR2010 can be broadly categorized into three groups, described in Figure 8. Types of Hazards Natural Technological Adversarial or Human-Caused These events are emergencies caused by forces extraneous to man in elements of the natural environment. Natural hazards cannot be managed and are often interrelated. Natural hazards can occur and cause no damage to humans or the built environment; however, when a hazard and development intersect, significant damage to the built environment occurs, causing a natural disaster. These events are emergencies that involve materials created by man and that pose a unique hazard to the general public and environment. The jurisdiction needs to consider events that are caused by accident (e.g., mechanical failure, human mistake) or result from an emergency caused by another hazard (e.g., flood, storm) or are caused intentionally. These are disasters created by man, either intentionally or by accident. te: The jurisdiction must complete its own hazard analysis to identify what human-caused emergencies will require activation of the EOP s procedures. Figure 8: Types of Hazards Each type of hazard presents its own unique planning requirements and challenges. The analysis will focus on these three groups and provide some insight as to the status of planning. The data and analysis in this section can serve as a baseline for future assessment tools. The way jurisdictions approach hazard-specific planning varies greatly. Local communities may integrate hazard-specific information into functional appendices if they believe such integration would make the plan easier to read and use. Alternatively, jurisdictions may address specific hazards or threats in completely separate and stand-alone plans. In this case, the Basic Plan must specifically reference those plans and provide a brief summary of how the Basic Plan procedures are to be coordinated with the stand-alone procedures. Finally, hazards have unique planning requirements directed by specific state and federal laws. The local emergency management agency must review those requirements and determine how the Basic Plan can best address and meet those legal requirements. 10 As depicted in Figures 9 and 10, states reported the highest level of confidence in their Pandemic Influenza and Flooding annexes. Approximately three-quarters of states indicated these annexes support management of a catastrophic event. Urban areas also reported a high level of confidence in their Pandemic Influenza annexes, as well as their Hazardous Materials annexes, with more than two-thirds of urban areas indicating these annexes support management of a catastrophic event. One factor influencing the high levels of confidence across states and urban areas in their Pandemic Influenza annexes is the recent global outbreak of H1N1 Pandemic Influenza 2009 (H1N1), which may have redirected planning resources and priorities. Similarly, flooding is another common hazard that many jurisdictions have faced. Additionally, regulatory requirements of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III, which requires the annual review of hazardous materials plans, and the high concentration of hazardous 10 CPG 101, p. C-23 12

20 materials being transported through many urban areas may contribute to the high level of confidence in the Hazardous Materials annex. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Improvised Nuclear Device Percent of that Indicated Confidence in the Hazard Specific Annex's Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event Radiological Dispersal Device Improvised Explosive Device Chemical Event Human Caused Hazards Biological Event Cyber Event Confident Pandemic Influenza Hurricanes Flooding Winter Storms Natural Hazards Tornadoes Earthquakes Dam Failure Hazardous Materials Technological Hazards Figure 9: Confidence in Hazard-Specific Annexes 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Improvised Nuclear Device Percent of that Indicated Confidence in the Hazard Specific Annex's Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event Radiological Dispersal Device Improvised Explosive Device Chemical Event Human Caused Hazards Biological Event Cyber Event Confident Pandemic Influenza Hurricanes Flooding Winter Storms Natural Hazards Tornadoes Earthquakes Dam Failure Hazardous Materials Technological Hazards Figure 10: Confidence in Hazard-Specific Annexes Of the adversarial or human-caused hazards, the highest percentage of states and urban areas indicated confidence in their Chemical Event annexes and Biological Event annexes. The historical focus on these scenarios, going back to the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici program and the 120 Cities Initiative, provided jurisdictions with guidance, support and exercise opportunities to develop and validate these annexes. and urban areas indicated the lowest levels of confidence in the use of their Cyber Event annexes compared to other hazard-specific annexes. tably, planning for cyber events is an extremely complex and relatively new focus area, which may contribute to the lower confidence levels. A high percentage of states and urban areas indicated confidence in their annexes for natural hazards. Although the confidence levels for Hurricane annexes and Earthquake annexes appear relatively low in comparison to the other natural hazards, both of these hazards are only applicable to specific regions of the Nation, resulting in a more limited population for comparison. When the number of jurisdictions that did not provide a response is omitted from the data set, the percent of states and urban areas that indicated confidence in their Hurricane annexes significantly increases to 79 percent. Similarly, the percentage of states and urban areas indicating confidence in their Earthquake annexes increased, with 58 percent of states and 13

21 44 percent of urban areas indicating confidence, compared to 45 percent and 26 percent in 2006, respectively. and urban areas continue to focus on exercising and updating their hazard-specific annexes. Three-quarters of states and 65 percent of urban areas have updated their Pandemic Influenza annexes since 2006, representing one of the most updated hazard-specific annexes within the last 4 years. This focus on Pandemic Influenza planning may support the concept that real-world events such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, Avian Flu and H1N1 contribute to plan updates. Self-assessment results indicate that the Hazardous Materials annexes were the most updated and exercised hazard-specific annex among urban areas in the last 4 years. This could be attributed to the regulatory requirements of SARA Title III. E. Comparative Analysis This section presents a comparative analysis for several cross-cutting issues that provide additional insight into the status of nationwide catastrophic planning. 1. Comparison of Plans in the Hurricane Belt and the Balance of the Nation The Hurricane Belt, comprising the Gulf and Atlantic Coast states, has a constant and frequent hazard against which to write and update plans, conduct training and exercises, draft functional and incident-specific annexes and allocate resources. This section of the report explores how the Hurricane Belt compares with the balance of the Nation in terms of planning for catastrophic incidents. This comparison explores whether the need to prepare against a known hazard with the potential to inflict mass casualties and significant damage to infrastructure, the environment, economy and/or government functions was an important factor in the development of plans and mechanisms required to manage catastrophic incidents. 14

22 Figure 11: Map of and in the Hurricane Belt Figure 11 identifies the states along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts and associated urban areas. and urban areas shaded in blue comprise the Hurricane Belt and are at higher risk for a hurricane and associated heavy rains, strong winds and storm surge. To be consistent with the approach taken for the NPR2006 and enable comparable analysis, the territories are not included in the Hurricane Belt states. 2. Most states in the Hurricane Belt (89 percent) indicated confidence that their overall basic plans are adequate, feasible and complete to manage a catastrophic event, as shown in Figure 12. This is also true for the Hurricane annexes. This suggests that greater exposure to disasters could be an important factor contributing to confidence levels in Basic Plans and Hurricane annexes. Furthermore, Hurricane Belt states were more likely to indicate confidence in their overall basic plans, as well as each basic plan subcomponent, than non- Hurricane Belt states. In 2006, Hurricane Belt states were more likely to have plans rated as sufficient by the peer review process than states outside of the Hurricane Belt. The 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percent of that Indicated Confidence in the Subcomponent's Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event Overall Basic Plan in the Hurricane Belt Organization & Responsibilities Direction, Control & Coordination Outside the Hurricane Belt Information Collection & Dissemination Communications Administration, Finance & Logistics Figure 12: Hurricane Belt Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents 15

23 Resource Management, Health and Medical and Communications subcomponents were noticeably stronger for Hurricane Belt states. 11 Although NPR2010 did not include a peer review process, the self-assessment results indicated Resource Management as a continued area of strength for the Hurricane Belt states as opposed to the non-hurricane Belt states. Results from the independent review generally supported this finding. Conversely, the gap in 2006 between the Hurricane Belt states and the non-hurricane Belt states narrowed for the Communications and Health and Medical appendices. Although the majority of states indicated it fully or partially incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 into its basic plans, this percentage was significantly higher for Hurricane Belt states than non-hurricane Belt states. Similar results were found for the Direction, Control and Coordination and Communications subcomponents, with 100 percent of Hurricane Belt states indicating they fully or partially incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 compared to 71 percent of non-hurricane Belt states across both subcomponents. Overall, more Hurricane Belt states reported incorporating applicable components of CPG 101 into all subcomponents of the Basic Plan by at least 28 percent compared to non-hurricane Belt states, with the exception of Organization and Responsibilities, which showed a smaller, yet still noteworthy difference of 15 percent. CPG 101 includes specific guidance in its Appendix C for components that comprise general functional planning (for example, Resource Management, Public Information and so on). More Hurricane Belt states indicated they incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 across all functional appendices than non-hurricane Belt states, including Warning, Donations Management, Resource Management, Mass Care and Sheltering and Public Protection and Evacuation, which play a significant role in planning for and responding to a hurricane. Overall, nearly 100 percent of Hurricane Belt states reported exercising their basic plans in the last 2 years. Hazard-specific annexes appear to be exercised less within the same timeframe, most notably Improvised Nuclear Device annexes. Conversely, the Pandemic Influenza annex was exercised the most within the last 2 years by both Hurricane Belt states (72 percent) and non-hurricane Belt states (66 percent). In the past 3 years, 89 percent of Hurricane Belt states exercised their Hurricane annexes; an equal percentage of Hurricane Belt states updated these annexes within the same timeframe. Flooding, a common hazard related to hurricanes, also showed high percentages (more than 52 percent) of hazard-specific plan updates in the last 2 years for both Hurricane Belt and non- Hurricane Belt states. 11 Nationwide Plan Phase 2 Report page 34. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. June

24 3. Similar to the results for Hurricane Belt states, a higher percentage of Hurricane Belt urban areas indicated confidence in their overall basic plans, as well as each Basic Plan subcomponent, than non-hurricane Belt urban areas, as depicted in Figure 13. In NPR2006, urban areas in the Hurricane Belt produced plans that were more likely to be rated sufficient by the Peer Team across the Warning, 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percent of that Indicated Confidence in the Subcomponent's Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event in the Hurricane Belt Overall Basic Plan Organization & Responsibilities Direction, Control & Coordination Outside the Hurricane Belt Information Collection & Dissemination Communications Administration, Finance & Logistics Figure 13: Hurricane Belt Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents Resource Management, Emergency Public Information and Mass Care appendices. Exceptions to this trend were found in the review of the Health and Medical and Communications appendices. Similar to 2006, the Warning, Resource Management, Emergency Public Information and Mass Care appendices continue to be strengths for Hurricane Belt urban areas based on self-assessment results. Although both Health and Medical and Communications were less likely to be rated as sufficient for urban areas in 2006, Hurricane Belt urban areas indicated more confidence in these particular appendices in Although urban areas in the Hurricane Belt were more likely to indicate confidence in the majority of their hazard-specific annexes compared to urban areas outside of the Hurricane Belt, this should not be construed as indicating that urban areas with a high propensity for hurricanes are fully prepared to deal with all catastrophic events. Although certain planning elements and mechanisms are in place based on the known hazards within the area, many of these do not address events that rise to the catastrophic level. Urban areas in the Hurricane Belt reported their basic plans and functional appendices fully or partially incorporate applicable components of CPG 101 more often than urban areas outside of the Hurricane Belt, with the exception of the CIKR Restoration appendix. Similar to the Hurricane Belt states, the Hurricane Belt urban areas were also more likely to report that their Direction, Control and Coordination (97 percent) and Communications (86 percent) subcomponents fully or partially incorporate components of CPG 101 than non-hurricane Belt urban areas. In addition, the Organization and Responsibilities subcomponent was reported as fully or partially incorporating applicable components of CPG 101 for many of the Hurricane Belt and non-hurricane Belt urban areas (86 percent and 72 percent, respectively). Despite being a new addition to the March 2009 release of CPG 101, Hurricane Belt urban areas are already addressing issues related to CIKR Restoration based on their experiences. A slightly higher number of urban areas in the Hurricane Belt (41 percent) reported incorporating applicable components of CPG 101 for their CIKR Restoration annexes than those urban areas outside of the Hurricane Belt (36 percent). 17

25 The Evacuation appendix, a key element of hurricane preparedness, was exercised more within the last 2 years among Hurricane Belt urban areas than non-hurricane Belt urban areas. However, more non-hurricane Belt urban areas updated their Evacuation appendices in the last 2 years than did Hurricane Belt urban areas. Similar to NPR2006, evacuation appears to be an opportunity for further development moving forward. More urban areas outside of the Hurricane Belt reported that their overall basic plans were updated in the last 2 years than did urban areas in the Hurricane Belt. NPR2006 found that different expectations exist regarding the responsibilities between state and urban area planning. It is possible that the updating of key components of the overall basic plan is done by the state as the responsibility may lie with it. 4. Comparison of EMAP-Accredited and n-accredited EMAP assesses and accredits state and local government programs responsible for coordinating prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery activities for natural and humancaused disasters. The EMAP accreditation process is based on a peer-reviewed evaluation of consistency with collaboratively developed national voluntary standards, or the EMAP Standard. As of the publication of this report, the EMAP Commission has granted accreditation to 22 states 12 and the Consolidated City/County of Jacksonville/Duval (Florida); East Baton Rouge Parish (Louisiana); Orange County, Florida; and the County of San Diego, California (depicted in blue in Figure 14). Given the limited number of accredited urban areas, FEMA did not include urban areas for the purpose of this comparative analysis. As conducted in 2006, FEMA compared state self-assessment findings with EMAP-accredited states and non-accredited states. Consistency with the EMAP Standard indicates the overall quality of an emergency management program, 13 with planning as one component. FEMA compared the 22 EMAP-accredited states to the balance of the Nation with the expectation that meeting the EMAP Standard would result in greater confidence in the adequacy, feasibility and completeness of plans used to manage a catastrophic incident. 12 At publication of the previous NPR2006 report, the EMAP Commission had granted accreditation to eight states and the Consolidated City/County of Jacksonville/Duval, Florida. 13 EMAP defines an emergency management program as a jurisdiction-wide system that provides for management and coordination of prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery activities for all hazards. The system encompasses all organizations, agencies and individuals responsible for emergency management and homeland security. 18

26 Figure 14: EMAP-Accredited and 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percent of that Indicated Confidence in the Subcomponent's Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event Overall Basic Plan EMAP Accredited Organization & Responsibilities Direction, Control & Coordination n Accredited Information Collection & Dissemination Communications Administration, Finance & Logistics Figure 15: EMAP-Accredited Confidence in the Basic Plan Subcomponents As indicated in Figure 15, EMAP-accredited states were more likely to indicate confidence in the use of their overall basic plans and each basic plan subcomponent to manage a catastrophic event than non-accredited states. Similarly, a higher percentage of EMAPaccredited states indicated confidence for each functional appendix than EMAP-accredited states. As shown in Figure 16, EMAPaccredited states were also more likely to update and exercise their overall basic plans, as well as each Basic Plan subcomponent, within the last 2 years than non-accredited states. This finding is also true for each functional appendix. Similar to 2006, comparing EMAP-accredited and non-accredited states yields an opportunity to review the EMAP Standard s effect on catastrophic planning. The NPR2006 found that EMAPaccredited states are far more likely to receive sufficient ratings for certain subcomponents, specifically for the Direction and Control and Resource Management appendices. In NPR2010 state self-assessments, this trend continued with a higher number of EMAP-accredited states 19