DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 1

Transcription

1 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 1 A Gap Analysis of the City of Dunedin's Disaster Plan and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Guidelines for Disaster Recovery William L. Barrs Dunedin Fire Department, Dunedin, Florida

2 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 2 Certification Statement I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of others is set forth, quotation marks so indicate and that appropriate credit is given where I have used the language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another. Signed:

3 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 3 Abstract The problem was that the City of Dunedin s disaster plan had not been updated to reflect current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidelines for disaster recovery. The purpose of this research was to determine what changes could have been made to Dunedin s disaster plan to better align it with FEMA disaster recovery guidelines. This evaluative research was intended to analyze and compare FEMA publications, State and local guidelines, and current best practices to the City of Dunedin s disaster plan. Areas where the City s plan could be improved were recommended for consideration. The following questions were answered to gather the data necessary to conduct a gap analysis between FEMA requirements for receiving disaster recovery aid and the City of Dunedin s disaster plan: a.) What publications has the Federal Government produced that provide guidance to local governments seeking to improve their ability to recover from a disaster? b.) What documentation is required by FEMA in order to receive Federal Aid following a disaster? c.) What have other municipalities done to comply with FEMA disaster recovery directives and guidelines? d.) How does Dunedin s disaster recovery preparedness compare to the guidelines as described in the FEMA literature and current research? e.) How can the City of Dunedin comply with FEMA requirements in the immediate postdisaster phase of recovery? A survey was conducted of Dunedin s municipal employees to establish the current level of employee knowledge about the city s emergency plan. Prior research was reviewed and relevant sections included in the literature review for analysis in the

4 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 4 discussion section. Another survey was conducted nationally to determine personnel preparedness of other fire service organizations so that it could be compared to the results of Dunedin s preparedness. Results indicated that Dunedin employees lacked a familiarity with FEMA procedures, training in disaster recovery, and a cohesive plan for resource utilization. Recommendations were made for the development of a critical infrastructure identification plan, capabilities assessment, and documentation procedures as part of a revamped City of Dunedin disaster plan.

5 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 5 Table of Contents Section Page Introduction.6 Background and Significance.8 Literature Review...10 Procedures..27 Results 30 Discussion..38 Recommendations..43 Reference List 47 Appendix A Unit Activity Log..52 Appendix B Initial Damage Assessment Form..53 Appendix C Preliminary Damage Assessment Form.54 Appendix D Capabilities Assessment Checklist 55 Appendix E Dunedin Fire Department SOP 600-5A.64 Appendix F Dunedin Employee Preparedness Survey...69 Appendix G National Fire Service Preparedness Survey...71 Appendix H Initial Damage Assessment Form Examples.74 Appendix I Dunedin s Current Emergency Plan 80

6 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 6 The problem is that the City of Dunedin s disaster plan has not been updated to reflect current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidelines for disaster recovery. The purpose of this research is to determine what changes could be made to Dunedin s disaster plan to better align it with FEMA disaster recovery guidelines. This evaluative research is intended to analyze and compare FEMA data to the City of Dunedin s disaster plan and to note areas where the City s plan could be improved. A survey of similarly positioned municipalities will also be conducted to determine what has been done to ensure their disaster plans comply with FEMA guidelines. An assessment tool, along with analysis of its current disaster plan, will be used to determine Dunedin's current state of readiness to begin the disaster recovery process in accordance with FEMA requirements and demonstrated best practices in disaster preparation and response. The following questions are designed to gather the data necessary to compare Dunedin s current disaster plan to FEMA guidelines, current research, and to other municipalities plans for disaster preparation and recovery efforts: a.) What publications has the Federal Government produced that provide guidance to local governments seeking to improve their ability to recover from a disaster? b.) What documentation is required by FEMA in order to receive Federal aid following a disaster? c.) What have other municipalities done to comply with FEMA disaster recovery directives and guidelines?

7 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 7 d.) How does Dunedin s disaster recovery preparedness compare to the guidelines as described in the FEMA literature and current research? e.) How can the City of Dunedin comply with FEMA requirements in the immediate post-disaster phase of recovery? The materials used and referenced in the National Fire Academy s course Executive Analysis of Fire Service Operations in Emergency Management (EAFSOEM) will be reviewed to determine what general recommendations are contained for preparing to recover from a disaster. The immediate post-disaster recovery phase and long-term recovery effort will be researched and sources for disaster plan development identified. Strategic considerations and methods to ensure documentation of tactical operations will be explored in this review of literature. The processes for municipalities to receive Federal aid following a disaster will be identified through literature review. Types of aid available will also be identified in the literature review. Critical infrastructure will be defined with examples of both pre and post-disaster documentation needed to ensure inclusion by FEMA in the recovery aid programs. A survey of other fire service organizations will be conducted and examples of their post-disaster procedures will be noted. These results will be compared to the FEMA recommendations previously identified and will be presented in chart, narrative, and list formats. Best practices will be identified by analysis and comparison of the survey results to FEMA guidelines. A comparison of Dunedin s disaster plan will then be made with the successful practices that have been identified

8 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 8 in the research. Areas of non-compliance with FEMA guidelines will be noted and recommendations will be included to improve Dunedin s disaster plan. Documentation procedures used in other municipalities will be noted and sources for correcting deficiencies in Dunedin s documentation processes will be developed. An evaluation tool will be developed and administered to Dunedin s employees to assess current institutional knowledge in the area of disaster recovery. Areas of greatest concern will be noted in the results section and topics for improvement recommended. These survey results will be used to identify options for Dunedin to consider when updating its current emergency plan. An appendix containing relevant FEMA forms as well as items from other municipalities that may aid Dunedin in it s process development will be included. Background and Significance The City of Dunedin contains 17.8 miles of coastline and is located in Pinellas County, Florida. More than one-third of the geographic area encompassed by the City of Dunedin is in an evacuation zone due to its susceptibility to storm surge during a major weather event (Pinellas County GIS, 2012). Dunedin s 2011 population of 35,321 persons live in 17,618 housing units (United States Census Bureau, 2011). According to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, 2010), 13 tropical storms and hurricanes have passed within 50 nautical miles of Dunedin since The potential for a devastating tropical storm or hurricane to cause widespread

9 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 9 destruction in the City of Dunedin is justification for the continual review and updating of the City s plan for disaster recovery. Following the 2004 hurricane season, when three major hurricanes caused the City of Dunedin to undertake emergency protective actions to prepare for the storms, City staff developed what was, at the time, a comprehensive emergency plan. Although the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has since enacted more recent guidelines and requirements for dealing with all hazard preparation, Dunedin s emergency plan has not been significantly updated since its creation in The EAFSOEM Student Manual (2012) identifies current best practices in planning for disaster management and recovery. Critical infrastructure identification and hazard assessment are key factors EAFSOEM suggests are included in an all-hazards disaster plan, neither of which are addressed in Dunedin s emergency plan. Dunedin s current emergency plan consists of three sections: An emergency plan defining a purpose, scope, and authority; an intranet based list of tactical objectives by Department; and a standard operating procedure for storm operations within the Dunedin Fire Department. None of these procedures addresses in any detail the steps necessary to receive Federal or State aid in the event of a natural or man-made disaster. The City of Dunedin employs 339 personnel who are all subject to recall in the event of a tropical storm or hurricane watch being issued for the City (Dunedin, 2011). According to Division Chief Snelling of the Dunedin Fire Department (personal communication, March 23, 1012), Emergency Operations Center (EOC) training is conducted annually for city leadership at the department head and higher level. There is no formal plan for training in disaster recovery operations for employees below the

10 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 10 department head level. Some employees only assignment during a storm or disaster recall is to make contact with their supervisor. It is entirely possible that in the wake of a major disaster, communications could be disrupted causing those employees not assigned and trained in disaster recovery to become unused resources. By not utilizing its employees to their full potential during the immediate post-disaster phase of operations, Dunedin limits its ability to adequately recover when disaster strikes. Successful postdisaster recovery will require the coordination of all local resources available to the City of Dunedin. The United States Fire Administration (USFA) promotes effective local emergency preparedness and response to disasters through its five strategic initiatives. This research is designed to accomplish the USFA s (2010) goal to Improve the fire services capability for response to and recovery from all hazards. By determining Dunedin s level of preparedness and comparing it to the national standard, recommendations can be made to improve both emergency preparedness and post-disaster response at the local level. Literature Review FEMA is the Federal agency responsible for assisting State and local governments with disaster recovery. FEMA is an agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whose director is a cabinet-level member of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Established in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the DHS was created as part of a comprehensive Federal plan to reorganize the framework by which all levels of government prepare and respond to all types of disasters (Jensen, 2011). Federal guidelines for disaster response are contained in publications designed to

11 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 11 foster implementation of a national response framework that promotes a standard response at all levels of government. State disaster response legislation is derived from the procedures outlined in the Federal framework. These publications, as well as the Presidential directives that created them, will be explored in this literature review. Prior research into the implementation of the Federal disaster response framework at the local level will also be explored. Federal Publications The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act was originally signed into law November 23, 1988 with revisions in June of 2007 (FEMA, 2011). This act, commonly referred to as the Stafford Act, provides the Executive Branch of the Federal Government the authority to provide disaster aid to State and local governments. FEMA s website states the goal of this act is to allow the Federal Government to assist State and local governments in preparing for and responding to disasters that disrupt the normal functioning of governments and communities (p.1). Under Federal leadership, the separate States are provided with assistance in developing plans for recovering from disasters and for receiving funds from the Federal Government to replace public infrastructure damaged as a result of a declared disaster. Once the provisions of the Stafford Act are satisfied, local governments may be eligible to receive no less than 75% of costs associated with disaster response and recovery (FEMA, 2011). According to FEMA s Guide to Federal Aid in Disasters (2008), Federal assistance may not be granted in a disaster until both State and local authorities have met certain conditions. A State s governor must be the requestor of Federal aid, and once granted, then distribute it to local governments meeting the criteria for the aid requested. The State

12 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 12 disaster plan must be enacted in accordance with requirements in the Stafford Act, and the scope of the disaster must exceed the state s ability to respond. The FEMA guide states the following: The Governor s request for a major disaster must be based upon a finding that the situation is of such a severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and the affected local governments, and that Federal assistance is necessary. The Governor must furnish information on the extent and nature of State resources which have been or will be used to alleviate the conditions of the disaster. (p.3) Determination of the extent of the destruction caused is the responsibility of the local government, although FEMA will appoint a Public Assistance Coordinator (PAC) to assist in the process (FEMA Guide, 2008). A survey of the extent of both public and private property damaged is required to be submitted for Federal consideration within 30 days following a disaster. This is the preliminary damage assessment, which is compiled in part from the initial damage survey that is done by local resources as soon after the disaster as it is safe to do so (EAFSOEM, 2012). These surveys allow the affected State s Governor to determine what types of Federal aid are available. The FEMA Guide provides Examples of the types of assistance available: disaster housing, mass care (food, water, and medical care), debris removal when in the public interest, emergency repairs to keep essential facilities operating (p.4). Aid for damaged private and publicnot-for-profit (PNP) facilities is also available contingent upon meeting the documentation criteria required by FEMA. Criteria for determining eligibility for aid is

13 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 13 specified in CFR Ch.1 of Federal Law, and requires accurate damage assessments in the immediate post-disaster timeframe to be considered (FEMA, 2011). Lessons in Community Recovery, a 2011 FEMA study, examines the lessons learned in communities that were affected by disasters requiring Federal aid between 2004 and Key factors identified in successful disaster recovery at the community level were pre-disaster preparation by both the local government and the community at large, quick action in the post event phase, and local management of the recovery effort. Long-term community recovery was shown to be dependent upon the framework in place at the time of the disaster. Strong leadership and a proactive community allowed Federal resources to concentrate on recovery rather than educating the local populace at the initiation of the aid process. FEMA s community recovery study also notes the importance of support from State Government in the local recovery process. State resources are required to be committed, but additional support in the form of guidance and access to Federal representatives were shown to be crucial. Experience has shown that local disaster recovery efforts should focus on the initial emergency response and preparing an initial damage assessment to be used in creating a more comprehensive preliminary damage assessment (PDA). This PDA is then used by FEMA in determining the need for additional aid (FEMA Recovery, 2011). The National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) of 2009 was developed by the Federal Government to assist in mitigating the risks associated with manmade and naturally occurring hazards. By partnering with local governments and private resources, the Department of Homeland Security hopes to identify Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR) that are vulnerable in times of disaster (NIPP, 2009). The NIPP

14 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 14 establishes the framework to meet the requirements of Homeland Security Presidential Directive Seven (HSPD-7) by establishing roles and responsibilities for all levels of government involved in disaster response. Local responsibilities under the NIPP are identification of CIKR sites within their jurisdiction, developing public-private partnerships, and identifying and implementing increases in protection at these sites as necessary (NIPP, 2009). A proactive approach to all-hazard preparation that is initiated at the local level identifies both areas of exposure and barriers to public-private cooperation. By sharing best practices with private industry that operates identified CIKR sites, the NIPP helps local government assist in reducing risk to the community in the event of a disaster. According to the National Fire Academy s Executive Analysis of Fire Service Operations in Emergency Management (EAFSOEM) Student Manual (2012), local communities can be held liable for failing to adequately prepare for hazard mitigation and recovery. The ESFSOEM manual identifies the types of critical infrastructure that are critical to a community s ability to function normally. These sites include water and sewer facilities, power-generating facilities, transportation infrastructure, engineered structures such as dams and viaducts, as well as other public and private facilities critical to daily operation. The EAFSOEM manual divides these into three types based on contents, occupancy, and purpose. Once CIKR sites are identified and classified into one of these three categories, communities are urged to perform a Community Hazards Emergency Response-Capability Assessment Process (CHER-CAP). The CHER-CAP identifies deficiencies in disaster planning, training, and coordination of all stakeholders in the event of a disaster (EAFSOEM, 2012). Performing a critical risk assessment allows

15 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 15 a community to more efficiently organize and prioritize protection and recovery measures. Homeland Security Presidential Directive Five (HSPD-5), released in 2003 establishes a National Incident Management System, or NIMS. HSPD-5 is designed to provide a single approach to emergency incident and disaster management that will be used at all levels of government. The National Response Framework (NRF) is the set of protocols establishing the methods for assessing and reporting disaster information to the Federal Government. Along with the NIMS, the NRF was established as a result of HSPD-5 to allow for coordinated action between local, State, and Federal Governments in times of natural or man-made disaster. Adoption of the criteria contained in HSPD-5 is required as a condition to receive Federal disaster aid (EAFSOEM, 2012). Presidential Policy Directive Eight (PPD-8) directs FEMA to coordinate with other Federal, State, and local agencies to develop a post-disaster recovery framework. As a result of PPD-8, FEMA has developed the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) (FEMA NDRF, 2011). Under this plan, local government is charged with managing a community s recovery following a disaster. This document reinforces the use of Federal and State guidelines when local governments plan for disaster mitigation. Specific suggestions in the NDRF include plans for continuity of government and continuity of operations when faced with overwhelming devastation. Roles for State and local governments, individuals, and not-for-profit organizations are identified in the appendix of the NDRF. Priorities at the local government level include pre-disaster planning and including mitigation efforts during the recovery phase to lessen the impact of future disasters (FEMA NDRF, 2011).

16 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 16 State Publications Since a State s Governor is the point of contact for FEMA when requesting disaster recovery assistance, State Government is the intermediary between FEMA and local governments who require Federal aid. Both local and State resources must be exhausted before Federal relief may be requested. A local municipality must follow its State reporting guidelines so that information flows to the Governor and then to FEMA, as illustrated by figure 1. Figure 1 Steps in the Public Assistance Process (EAFSOEM, 2012) Florida s Division of Emergency Management is responsible for the Florida Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (FCEMP). This plan complies with Chapter 252 of the Florida Statutes and Rule 9G of the Florida Administrative Code (FCEMP, 2010). These regulations require each Florida County to maintain an Emergency Management Agency that is tasked with coordination of State assistance in a disaster. The FCEMP is designed to mobilize all levels of government as a unified organization in responding to disasters at the local level. The NIMS and the NRF are the basis of Florida s plan for deploying State resources in accordance with the Statewide

17 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 17 Emergency Response Plan (SERP) developed and implemented by the Florida Fire Chiefs Association (2011). Statewide mutual aid in Florida is provided using guidelines listed in the Florida Fire Chiefs (2011) SERP. The SERP contains standard resource definitions, activation procedures, deployment procedures, and documentation requirements for deployed resources. Documentation of equipment, personnel, and other disaster mitigation expenses is crucial for FEMA reimbursement of deployed resources (Florida Fire Chiefs, 2011). Florida s SERP aligns with the reimbursement procedures detailed in 44 CFR, part 206; requiring that hourly totals be tracked on personnel and equipment usage, as well as costs for expendable materials used for disaster mitigation. The SERP endorses use of the ICS 214 unit log for documentation of its resource deployment (Appendix A). All personnel are required to complete training commensurate with the functions they are expected to perform when functioning as a part of the SERP. To comply with FCEMP (2010) guidelines, the minimum training requirements are as follows: Firefighters/Company Officers- NIMS IS 100 and 700 Team Leaders- NIMS IS 100, 200, and 700 Liaisons and Command Staff- all of the above plus I 300, I 400/402, and IS800 Florida utilizes an initial damage assessment tool called the snapshot system. Although it does not use a specific form to record damage, guidelines for use of this system are included in appendix J of the 2011 revision of the Florida Fire Chief s SERP. Use of the snapshot assessment allows for a uniform approach when gathering information that will later be used by the State and Federal damage assessment processes.

18 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 18 This system utilizes a one-to-four scale to rate the structural damage sustained by a structure. Flooding is rated using similar guidelines and the same numeric system. The SERP requires a numerical rating be assigned to all residential and commercial structures in a pre-determined area and recorded on a locally developed initial damage assessment form. Appendix B contains a sample form, the National Fire Academy s initial damage assessment tool that is used in its EAFSOEM (2012) course. These values are then reported to the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for compilation into a preliminary damage assessment. CIKR sites, determined pre-disaster using the CHER-CAP process, should also be evaluated as part of the initial damage assessment (FCEMP, 2010). The FCEMP requires that damage locations are to be reported using Latitude and Longitude in the format approved for use by Federal guidelines; degrees, minutes, decimal minutes (DD-MM-mmm). In Florida, State Emergency Response Teams (SERT) assembled by the Division of Emergency Management use the same standard operating procedures as outlined for initial damage assessment to conduct the preliminary damage assessment (SERT, 2008). The Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA) is used by FEMA in its recommendation to the President for a disaster declaration. County, State, and FEMA officials are all represented on the SERT and work with local government to complete the PDA after the initial response phase of the emergency is stabilized. According to the EAFSOEM student guide (2012), the PDA is begun in the sixth operational period following the disaster. The information compiled in the PDA is then used to begin the estimation process for the extent of damages caused by the disaster and is a critical tool used by

19 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 19 FEMA in its recommendation to the President for a disaster declaration (EAFSOEM, 2012). The SERT PDA form is included for reference as appendix C. Initial damage assessment information is obtained by local agencies using fly-over, drive-by, and walk-thru surveys of the affected areas. SERT teams are tasked with verifying the initial damage reports as part of the PDA process (SERT, 2008). This role of the SERT allows it to perform both support and oversight operations for the local agencies affected by the disaster. According to SERT guidelines, upon arrival at the local EOC the SERT team will require the following: A briefing with the County and local Emergency Managers, a copy of the initial damage assessment, and a tour of the damaged area. The SERT team then conducts the PDA and reports its findings to the Governor. Local Implementation According to Florida Administrative Code rule 9G, all County Governments in Florida are required to develop a comprehensive emergency management plan that is in compliance with the standards set by the FCEMP (2010). County plans establish the county EOC, provide a capability assessment, and identify specific responsibilities in the event of a disaster. The Pinellas County Emergency Management Plan is designed to provide the framework and mechanism for response for the entire county (Pinellas County Emergency Management website, 2012, Jurisdiction, para. 1). Pinellas plan also states that each of the 24 municipalities within the County are expected to develop their own emergency management plans for disaster response. These municipal plans are then supported by the county plan and its EOC, which serves as a focal point for resource management within automatic and mutual aid agreements. The County plan is also tasked with ensuring that additional resources are available if needed to ensure that each

20 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 20 jurisdiction has adequate capabilities to provide emergency services following a disaster. A Capabilities Assessment Checklist (appendix D) is provided by the Florida Division of Emergency Management (2001) for Counties to use in assessing their emergency management capabilities. The City of Dunedin (2005) states the purpose of its disaster management plan is to: 1. Minimize suffering, loss of life, personal injury, and damage to property resulting from hazardous and emergency conditions 2. Minimize disaster-related material shortages and service disruptions that would have an adverse impact on the residents, businesses, visitors, and economy of the City of Dunedin. 3. Provide for the immediate relief and promote short-range and longrange recovery operations following a disaster (para. 2). This disaster plan is an all-hazards plan that is designed to establish core concepts which City leaders are expected to use in their decision making as relating to disaster management. Florida Statutes, , State of Florida Executive Order 80-29, the Pinellas County Emergency Plan, and City of Dunedin Ordinances Chapter 18 grant authority for Dunedin s disaster plan. According to the FCEMP (2010), responsibilities for all City staff are to be defined as part of the City s disaster plan. All local emergency management must adhere to guidelines established in Federal, State, and County plans. The Dunedin Fire Department Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 600-5A (2005) addresses the member s responsibilities during natural disasters. Per SOP 600-5A, a general recall of all Fire Department personnel is required any time the City of Dunedin comes under a tropical storm or hurricane watch. The Fire Chief is designated as the Civil

21 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 21 Preparedness Director and he or his designee (the Fire Marshal) must be present in the City s EOC at all times while it is activated. The Deputy Fire Chief is designated as Operations Section Chief and is responsible for accomplishing strategic objectives as developed by the EOC. Two District Chiefs are assigned as incident managers and respond in their assigned geographic areas. Emergency response to incidents that are normally handled by the Fire Department is accomplished using three advanced life support (ALS) engines, a ladder truck, and one District Chief. Five additional storm units will be placed in service to respond to disaster or storm related calls for assistance. One of the Department s District Chiefs is assigned as Finance Officer and is responsible for tracking all disaster related expenses. The department has no specified format for tracking and documentation of personnel, equipment, and other disaster related costs. SOP 600-5A assigns the Fire Prevention Division s staff and Division Chief of EMS to coordinate evacuations and medical needs at locations designated by the County as shelters. The Division Chief of Training is assigned as Safety Officer for all disaster related operations. Company officers and line staff perform tactical assignments as directed by the Operations Section. Assignments for Dunedin s non-fire Department employees are detailed in emergency plans for each Department/Division. According to Dunedin s Emergency Plan (2005) only nine of the 17 functional divisions within the Dunedin organization have a defined disaster plan. Of these nine divisions, five have emergency plans that address only their internal issues and do not make provisions for work assignments outside the scope of securing their own facilities and their normal operations.

22 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 22 The Facilities Maintenance Division has a detailed plan in place to ensure that all municipal buildings are inspected for damage immediately post-incident. Debris removal and temporary debris storage is to be handled by the Solid Waste Division with assistance from Facilities Maintenance. Human Resources staff are assigned to functions within the EOC. Facilities Maintenance Division has developed a standard form for tracking loads of debris removed, but no other standard form has been developed for documenting operations during a disaster recovery. Water and Stormwater Divisions have no emergency plans on file. Fleet Services Division, which is responsible for vehicle and backup generator maintenance and fueling, also has no plan on file. According to the Dunedin Emergency Plan (2005), all divisions are responsible for securing property within their workspaces even if they have no other disaster related responsibilities. These property conservation operations are to be implemented at the issuance of a storm or hurricane watch or warning. No provision is made for disaster preparation or response where there is not warning of an impending event. Prior Research Carafano and Sauter (2012) advocate an all-hazards approach to emergency preparedness and management, arguing against the confining aspects of using a specific hazards approach (p.314). This includes considerations for mitigating both man-made and natural disasters as described in FEMA s basic framework for disaster response and recovery. Carafano and Sauter recognize four components that are common to all disaster management scenarios. An emergency plan addressing all-hazard management should consider the following four aspects: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Mitigation involves educating the public about safety and procedures to follow in the

23 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 23 event of a disaster as well as other pre-disaster activities such as adopting stronger building codes in wind prone regions. Providing training for emergency management staff, stockpiling equipment, and EOC exercises are examples of preparedness given by Carafano and Sauter. Response to a disaster event includes not only the crucial actions taken to save life and property, but estimating support needs, extent of damage, and resource capabilities as the magnitude of the disaster becomes evident. Carafano and Sauter define recovery as meeting the immediate needs of critical infrastructure while preparing to restore long-term prosperity to a disaster-affected region. Carafano and Sauter (2012) state that using NIMS at all-hazard events standardizes incident management at all levels during response and recovery. The potential drawbacks, however, of using such a system at the local level include the potential for disagreements among commanders of the various first responder organizations. Interagency communication challenges may also exist, as could opposing objectives between police, fire, EMS and other responders. Carafano and Sauter advise practitioners of emergency management that time and effort spent equipping, training, and exercising emergency responders as one cohesive organization are the best methods of overcoming these obstacles. Given the complexity of an all-hazards response plan, some method must be in place to measure the effectiveness of the plan prior to its being implemented at a disaster scene. Jackson, Faith, and Willis (2010) have coined the term response reliability to describe the probability that an emergency or disaster response and recovery plan will function as designed (p. xiv). Response reliability can be analyzed using a process that Jackson et al. refer to as the four steps of reliability analysis. The initial step consists of defining the

24 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 24 various aspects of the system to be analyzed. A breakdown of the major components or objectives would create definable functions in a disaster response plan. Each of these components would then be scrutinized for what Jackson, et al. describe as failure modes. Failure modes are observable manners in which a component fails (Jackson, et al., 2010, p. xv). Examples of failure modes include human error, mechanical breakdown, unforeseen circumstances, and communications breakdowns. The third step in this analysis, according to Jackson, et al., is to determine the probability of occurrence of each of the different failure modes. Statistical analysis of failures occurring during past events and calculation of probabilities based on redundancy and complexities of individual systems within the plan are used to determine if failure is likely. Finally, the effect and severity of each potential failure is considered as it relates to the ability of the plan to continue functioning as designed. This process allows a response organization to systematically evaluate multiple aspects of their emergency disaster plan before it is put into operation for the first time. Moore, Wermuth, Werber, Chandra, Noricks, Resnick, & Chu (2010) identify barriers to the development of local disaster preparedness plans. Interoperability of communication networks between civilian and military resources is cited as a primary cause of underutilization of Federal resources in post-disaster operations. In addition to technology and terminology differences, Moore, et al. note a gap in the ability of the military to provide support to local resources due to perceived legal constraints by the State and Federal military resources. Moore, et al. (2010) advocate a capabilities-based planning process for development of an emergency disaster plan. By using a modular, objectives based approach to

25 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 25 planning for response and recovery from disasters, organizations are able to emphasize flexibility, adaptiveness, and robustness of capability (Moore, et al., p. 47). This approach implies a redundancy of systems within the plan to reduce the possibility that the plan will experience a critical failure as described by Jackson, et al. (2010). Efforts at the local level should be focused, according to Moore, et al., on exercising, evaluating, and improving the emergency plan as part of an ongoing disaster preparation process. A survey conducted by the March 3-14, 2012 EAFSOEM class at the National Fire Academy identified damage assessment procedures and Community Hazards Emergency Response Capability Assurance Process (CHER-CAP) as the areas of greatest deficiency in local emergency management plans. Of the 23 communities surveyed, 54% listed both of these items as areas most in need of attention in their emergency disaster plans (Phil McGlaughlin, personal communication, March 13, 2012). Improving a local disaster plan in both of these areas will require extensive preparedness activities before a disaster strikes notes McEntire (2002). Identifying CIKR sites and evaluating capabilities predisaster will not be effective unless procedures have been trained on by those assigned to complete the initial damage assessment. McEntire advocates conducting a meeting immediately after a disaster with all parties that will be participating in the damage assessment. This can be done in person or via technology as long as the controlling entity, likely the EOC or Operations Branch, provides direction and coordination of the process. Once an initial damage assessment has been completed, the data gathered would need to be organized into print and graphic form suggests McDowell & Moore (2002). Using a standard format such as a Geographic Information System or GIS allows an EOC to

26 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 26 identify the scope of damage, control entry to the affected areas, determine debris staging points, and provide information to State and Federal authorities for use in the disaster declaration process (McDowell & Moore). GIS may also be used during the preparation phase for documenting the location of CIKR sites and in CHER-CAP assessment. The EAFSOEM Student Manual (2012) defines CIKR as community assets (real or virtual) that are critical to the functioning of the society and economy (p. 2-5). Examples, according to EAFSOEM, include utility services, transportation, government facilities, and large industrial complexes. For purposes of the CHER-CAP process these pre-identified sites should be grouped by risk to the content, occupancy, or purpose. Once grouped, exposure to risk can be evaluated for a triggering event, such as damage from hurricane force winds and cascade effects mapped. EAFSOEM defines cascade effects as damages caused as a result of events that occur after a triggering event has happened. As an example, high winds may cause damage to buildings, but the cascade effect from wind driven tidal surges may have devastating effects on responder s ability to reach those injured by the triggering event. The same flooding may contaminate fresh water supplies, damage vital electrical equipment, and destroy crops in farmer s fields. The later events are all a result of the cascade effect from one triggering event (high winds). Vulnerability to cascade effects must be considered during the preparedness phase of disaster planning. The CHER-CAP process, advocates EAFSOEM (2012), considers the following five vulnerability factors for each CIKR site identified: Danger to persons/ destruction of the occupancy, economic impact, environmental impact, social aspects, and political considerations. Once completed, this risk assessment process becomes the basis for determining priorities in emergency planning. Comprehensive planning and

27 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 27 capability assessment allows resource needs to be pre-planned and disaster preparedness training to be focused on areas with the most vulnerability (EAFSOEM). The National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) (2009) suggests that when private industry is identified as a CIKR site, government at all levels should work toward developing public-private partnerships to help reduce vulnerability to all hazard events. NIAC identifies the concept of infrastructure resilience, or the ability to reduce the magnitude and/or duration of disruptive events. The effectiveness of a resilient infrastructure or enterprise depends on its ability to anticipate, absorb, adapt to, and/or rapidly recover from a potentially disruptive event (p. 8). Although investing in preparation for a high risk/low probability event is not always in the best financial interest of a business, NIAC suggests government intervention to assist with preparations that limit the effect a disaster would have on the community as a whole. Market incentives, clarification of roles in a disaster scenario, and joint training exercises are some of the ways in which NIAC suggests to promote public-private partnerships for disaster preparedness. Procedures To perform a gap analysis of the current FEMA recommendations and the City of Dunedin s disaster plan, a literature review was conducted with the intent of defining the Federal Government s expectations for local disaster plans. Federal publications relevant to the research were identified and noted in the literature review for future reference. The Learning Resource Center (LRC) at the National Fire Academy and Internet searches produced both statute and rule data on the subject. State, County, and local emergency management websites were consulted and their relationships to Federal publications

28 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 28 noted. As part of this literature review, documentation tools were discovered and are contained for review in the appendices. The City of Dunedin s disaster management plan was researched and areas that differed from the requirements previously noted were discussed and recommendations made for improvement. Dunedin s post-disaster response procedure was also analyzed, deficiencies noted, and recommendations for improvement made. A survey was conducted of Dunedin s 339 municipal employees using an Internet based cross-sectional survey tool to establish the current level of employee knowledge about the City s Emergency Plan (Appendix F). An Internet link to self-administered questionnaires was sent via to all city employees. The sample population consisted of executive, supervisory, and staff employees and generated a response from 11% of the population. The number of persons employed by the City who have intranet access limited the sample population. Other limitations of this survey include the low response rate, the inability of the researcher to identify respondents for follow up, and the inability to determine whether the respondents reviewed the emergency plan while completing the survey instrument. Prior research was reviewed and relevant sections included in the literature review for analysis in the discussion section. A search of Executive Fire Officer Applied Research Papers was conducted in the Learning Resource Center using the keywords damage assessment and critical infrastructure key resources. Prior Applied Research Papers containing other municipalities disaster and emergency plans were evaluated and included in the results section as examples of current practices.

29 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 29 A second survey instrument, entitled Disaster Recovery Preparedness Survey (Appendix G), was distributed via The National Society of Executive Fire Officers website. The purpose of this cross-sectional questionnaire was to determine the level of personnel preparedness of other fire service organizations so that it could be compared to the results of Dunedin s preparedness. This survey also used an Internet based questionnaire and was distributed to a possible 783 Executive Fire Officers with 39 responses received. Ease of distribution and cost were factors in determining the population surveyed. Limitations of this research method include the inability to accurately determine a response rate as it is unknown how many members of the organization actually saw the survey posted on their website. Question number seven appears to have been poorly worded, as results did not accurately reflect the intent of the question, and no question adequately addressed CIKR site assessment. The following terms are defined for clarification using Wikipedia: All-hazards A grouping classification encompassing all conditions, environmental or man-made, that have the potential to cause injury, illness, or death; damage to infrastructure, property, or causing degradation to social, economic, or environmental aspects. Automatic aid Assistance dispatched automatically by a contractual agreement between two communities or fire districts. Cross-sectional questionnaire A survey where data is collected at one point in time as opposed to longitudinally, where a set of data is collected over time. Emergency preparedness All activities undertaken to prepare for or minimize the effects of a hazard upon the civilian population.

30 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 30 Gap analysis - A tool that compares actual performance with potential performance. Mutual aid - A formal agreement among emergency services providers to lend assistance across jurisdictional boundaries. Natural disaster An event or force of nature that has catastrophic consequences. Results The following five questions were developed to identify shortcomings and potential remedies for Dunedin s disaster plan: a.) What publications has the Federal Government produced that provide guidance to local governments seeking to improve their ability to recover from a disaster? b.) What documentation is required by FEMA in order to receive Federal aid following a disaster? c.) What have other municipalities done to comply with FEMA disaster recovery directives and guidelines? d.) How does Dunedin s disaster recovery preparedness compare to the guidelines as described in the FEMA literature and current research? f.) How can the City of Dunedin comply with FEMA requirements in the immediate post-disaster phase of recovery? What publications has the Federal Government produced that provide guidance to local governments seeking to improve their ability to recover from a disaster? The Stafford Act of 1988, with revision in 2007, is the authorizing document for all Federal disaster aid. Provisions of this document outline the various types of aid available

31 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 31 to both private and public entities. Local governments that have been overwhelmed by a disaster may receive 75% of disaster related expenditures reimbursed by FEMA. Private entities are also eligible for Federal assistance in the form of Small Business Administration loans if uninsured property is damaged (FEMA, 2011). FEMA s Guide to Federal Aid in Disasters (2008) provides detailed procedures and documentation requirements for both public and private aid requests. Eligibility criteria for Federal assistance may be found in chapter 1 of CFR. The National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) developed as a result of HSPD-7 outlines protective and mitigation strategies for use in disaster preparedness at the State and local levels. The NIPP requires identification of CIKR sites and response capability assessment by local authorities. HSPD-5 establishes the National Incident Management System (NIMS) as the standard incident management procedure and terminology for all levels of government. The National Response Framework, also a result of HPSD-5, establishes a standard method for assessing and reporting disaster damage to the Federal Government. The National Disaster Recovery Framework (FEMA NDRF, 2011) charges local government with managing all recovery efforts following a disaster but allows for Federal and State resources to be used. What documentation is required by FEMA in order to receive Federal aid following a disaster? Florida s Statewide Emergency Response Plan (SERP) (Florida Chiefs, 2011) is based upon Federal requirements found in the preceding section. The SERP requires that documentation of recovery activities be completed using an ICS 214 form (Appendix A). Chapter 252 of the Florida Statutes and Rule 9G FAC specify documentation of training

32 DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN REVIEW 32 by emergency responders who will deploy to the scene of a declared disaster (FCEMP, 2010). CIKR sites are required by Florida s Emergency Plan to be identified and assessed for vulnerability as part of a municipality s disaster preparedness efforts. Florida s SERP (Florida Chiefs, 2011) identifies the snapshot system as the standard for recording damage following a disaster. Initial damage assessment forms are left to the discretion of local government, but none are provided in the SERP. Appendix B contains the EAFSOEM (2012) version of an Initial Damage Assessment Form for reference. The FCEMP (2010) requires that damage locations are to be reported using Latitude and Longitude in the format approved for use by Federal guidelines; degrees, minutes, decimal minutes (DD-MM-mmm). McDowell & Moore (2002) suggest using a standard format such as a geographic information system (GIS) to identify the scope of damage once it has been reported to the EOC. Using this data, a Preliminary Damage Assessment will then be prepared by local officials with assistance from FEMA s assigned Public Assistance Coordinator (FEMA Guide, 2008). What have other municipalities done to comply with FEMA disaster recovery directives and guidelines? Prior research suggests the need to plan well in advance of a disaster, conduct recurrent training on the response plan, and manage recovery efforts locally in coordination with County, State, and Federal assistance (Carafano & Sauter, 2012). Needs assessments, including CIKR site identification, should be a primary consideration when local authorities formulate mutual and automatic aid agreements (Moore,et al., 2010). Jackson, et al., (2010) recommend evaluating an emergency response plan for response reliability prior to implementation.