This page intentionally left blank Emergency Planning Ronald W. Perry, Ph.D. and Michael K. Lindell, Ph.D. Credits Publisher Anne Smith Production Manager Kelly Tavares Development Editor Laura Town Production Assistant Courtney Leshko Marketing Manager Jennifer Slomack Creative Director Harry Nolan Senior Editorial Assistant Tiara Kelly Cover Designer Hope Miller This book was set in Times New Roman, printed and bound by R.R. Donnelley. The cover was printed by Phoenix Color. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except as permitted under Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, website www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, website http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions. To order books or for customer service please, call 1-800-CALL WILEY (225-5945). ISBN-13 978-0-471-92077-0 ISBN-10 0-471-92077-0 Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Perry, Ronald W. Emergency planning/Ronald W. Perry and Michael K. Lindell. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-471-92077-9 (pbk.) 1. Emergency management—United States. 2. Hazard mitigation—United States. II. Title. HV551.3.P46 2007 363.34’5250973—dc22 2006023044 I. Lindell, Michael K. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Ronald W. Perry joined Arizona State University in 1983 as Professor of Public Affairs. He has studied natural and technological hazards and terrorism since 1971. His principal interests are incident management systems, citizen warning behavior, public education and community preparedness. He has published more than a dozen books and many journal articles. Perry currently serves on the Steering Committees of the Phoenix Urban Areas Strategic Initiative and the Phoenix Metropolitan Medical Response System. He also serves on the Arizona Council for Earthquake Safety and on the Fire Chiefs’ Advisory Committees for the Arizona Cities of Gilbert, Mesa, Phoenix and Tempe. He holds the Award for Excellence in Emergency Management from the Arizona Emergency Services Association and the Pearce Memorial Award for Contributions to Hazardous Incident Response from the Phoenix Fire Department. He also holds both the Award for Outstanding Environmental Achievement by a Team from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and a Certificate of Recognition from Vice President Gore’s National Partnership for Reinventing Government. Michael K. Lindell is the former Director of the Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center (HRRC) at Texas A&M University and has 30 years of experience in the field of emergency management, conducting research on community adjustment to floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and releases of radiological and toxic materials. He worked for many years as an emergency preparedness contractor to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and has provided technical assistance on radiological emergency preparedness for the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Department of Energy, and nuclear utilities. In addition, he has trained as a Hazardous Materials Specialist at the Michigan Hazardous Materials Training Center and worked on hazardous materials emergency preparedness with state emergency response commissions, local emergency planning committees, and chemical companies. In the past few years, Lindell directed HRRC staff performing hurricane hazard analysis and evacuation planning for the entire Texas Gulf coast. He has made over 120 presentations before scientific societies and short courses for emergency planners, and he has been an invited participant in workshops on risk communication and emergency management in this country and abroad. Lindell has also written extensively on emergency management and is the author of over 120 technical reports and journal articles, as well as five books. This page intentionally left blank PREFACE College classrooms bring together learners from many backgrounds with a variety of aspirations. Although the students are in the same course, they are not necessarily on the same path. This diversity, coupled with the reality that these learners often have jobs, families, and other commitments, requires a flexibility that our nation’s higher education system is addressing. Distance learning, shorter course terms, new disciplines, evening courses, and certification programs are some of the approaches that colleges employ to reach as many students as possible and help them clarify and achieve their goals. Wiley Pathways books, a new line of texts from John Wiley & Sons, Inc., are designed to help you address this diversity and the need for flexibility. These books focus on the fundamentals, identify core competencies and skills, and promote independent learning. The focus on the fundamentals helps students grasp the subject, bringing them all to the same basic understanding. These books use clear, everyday language, presented in an uncluttered format, making the reading experience more pleasurable. The core competencies and skills help students succeed in the classroom and beyond, whether in another course or in a professional setting. A variety of built-in learning resources promote independent learning and help instructors and students gauge students’ understanding of the content. These resources enable students to think critically about their new knowledge, and apply their skills in any situation. Our goal with Wiley Pathways books—with its brief, inviting format, clear language, and core competencies and skills focus—is to celebrate the many students in your courses, respect their needs, and help you guide them on their way. CASE Learning System To meet the needs of working college students, Emergency Planning uses a four-step process: the CASE Learning System. Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning, CASE presents key emergency planning topics in easy-to-follow chapters. The text then prompts analysis, synthesis, and evaluation with a variety of learning aids and assessment tools. Students move efficiently from reviewing what they have learned, to acquiring new information and skills, to applying their viii PREFACE new knowledge and skills to real-life scenarios. Each phase of the CASE system is signaled in-text by an icon: ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Content Analysis Synthesis Evaluation Using the CASE Learning System, students not only achieve academic mastery of emergency planning topics, but they master real-world emergency planning skills. The CASE Learning System also helps students become independent learners, giving them a distinct advantage whether they are starting out or seeking to advance in their careers. Organization, Depth and Breadth of the Text Emergency Planning offers the following features: ▲ Modular format. Research on college students shows that they access information from textbooks in a non-linear way. Instructors also often wish to reorder textbook content to suit the needs of a particular class. Therefore, although Emergency Planning proceeds logically from the basics to increasingly more challenging material, chapters are further organized into sections (four to six per chapter) that are self-contained for maximum teaching and learning flexibility. ▲ Numeric system of headings. Emergency Planning uses a numeric system for headings (for example, 2.3.4 identifies the fourth sub-section of section 3 of chapter 2). With this system, students and teachers can quickly and easily pinpoint topics in the table of contents and the text, keeping class time and study sessions focused. ▲ Core content. This volume is designed to introduce students to the process and practice of emergency planning. The work has an “all hazards” application to complement the traditional practice of comprehensive emergency management. Emergency planning is treated as a critical avenue to community emergency preparedness. Therefore, emergency planning is presented in its many contexts: the practice of emergency management, the community for which the planning is done—including the political, private business and nonprofit sectors—and the network of intergovernmental relationships in which planning must operate. PREFACE An important emphasis in the volume is the characterization of emergency planning as a process. This process view forms the framework from which specific strategies and techniques are drawn. We educate the planner in known patterns of human disaster behavior to create a vision of actions on the ground where plan implementation takes place. Similarly, time is given to sharing emergency plan information with the public, including the goals for sharing and the social psychology of the communication process. Building from this base, the student is given a picture of what the planning process must address: preparedness, vulnerability, the notion of resources inside and outside the community, and a view of outcomes for individuals and organizations. The book addresses a range of strategies and skills that planners require to achieve a successful planning process. The student is taught the basics of generic protective actions (for example in place protection, expedient respiratory protection and evacuation) and the planning concepts supporting effective protective action recommendations. The accepted formats are given for the two principal types of written plans—emergency operations plans and continuity of operations plans. Then in short format, we present the milestones a planner must address for dealing with disasters in future time and those that one should consider when planning for implementation of the emergency plan at the time of disaster impact. We acknowledge that the plan is a snapshot of the planning process at one point in time and discuss the ways that plans are translated into action. We discuss the local emergency operations center, not just to describe its functions and structure, but also to explain how one plans to build an emergency operations center. The volume closes with a discussion of credentialing for emergency planners and admonitions regarding preservation of the planning process. This text begins with an introductory chapter entitled “Introduction to Emergency Planning.” This chapter provides an introduction and overview of how emergency planning fits within the field of emergency management. Chapter 2, “The Emergency Planning Process: Mandates, Structure, and Guidelines,” outlines the components of an emergency plan, principles that guide the planning process, and resources that can be used in the planning process. Chapter 3, “Patterned Human Behavior in Disasters: What a Planner Must Know,” examines the impact of disasters on people’s health, as well as people’s likely psychological reactions to disasters. This chapter also discusses disaster myths and how to assess patterns of pro-social or positive behavior that can support emergency plans. ix x PREFACE Chapter 4, “Fostering Successful Emergency Planning: A Planner’s Guide to Making It Work,” examines how to assemble an emergency planning team, how to motivate the team members, and how to train the team. Chapter 5, “Classes of Protective Action Recommendations: Emergency Planning Conditions and Considerations,” discusses different recommendations the emergency planner can make for people to take to protect themselves from the impact of different types of disasters. Chapter 6, “Analyzing and Selecting Protective Actions: How to Make Effective Choices,” continues this discussion on protective actions and how to estimate hazard exposure. Chapter 7 is “The Content and Format of Emergency Plans: Framing a Picture of the Planning Process.” This chapter provides an outline of what information to include in an information plan and discusses how to write a plan including what appendices should be included. Chapter 8, “Continuity of Operations Plans: Keeping the Organization Alive,” examines continuity plans for both government and businesses. This chapter provides information about how a community can continue to operate after a disaster. Chapter 9, “Milestones That Structure Emergency Planning: Organizing Tasks for Emergency Planners,” examines the connection between relationship planning and mitigation planning. Chapter 10, “Population Warning: Behavioral Foundations and Practical Applications,” discusses how to detect disasters and warn the population of the disaster. Risk communication and different protective action recommendations are discussed as well. Chapter 11, “Planning for Hazard Adjustment: Protection Adoption, Hazard Awareness, and Risk Communication,” examines different hazard adjustments and how to communicate to the public the adjustments that they need to make. The strengths and limitations of different communication channels are discussed as well. Chapter 12, “Structures for Managing Emergency Response: Executing Emergency Plan Provisions,” examines structures such as the emergency operations center (EOC) and the incident management system (IMS) that are used in managing emergency response. Chapter 13, “Selected Federal Emergency Planning Mandates: Balancing Local Needs with Federal Requirements,” discusses the federal laws and requirements that govern emergency management. Chapter 14, “Emergency Planning, Professionalism, and the Future: Professional Identity, Credentials, and Prospects,” discusses the profession of emergency planning and how emergency management is evolving into a profession. PREFACE Learning Aids Each chapter of Emergency Planning features the following learning and study aids to activate students’ prior knowledge of the topics and orient them to the material: ▲ Pre-test. This pre-reading assessment tool in multiple-choice format not only introduces chapter material, but it also helps students anticipate the chapter’s learning outcomes. By focusing students’ attention on what they do not know, the self-test provides students with a benchmark against which they can measure their own progress. The pre-test is available online at www.wiley.com/college/Perry. ▲ “What You’ll Learn in This Chapter” and “After Studying This Chapter.” These bulleted lists tell students what they will be learning in the chapter and why it is significant for their careers. They also explain why the chapter is important and how it relates to other chapters in the text. “What You’ll Learn…” lists focus on the subject matter that will be taught (e.g., what emergency planning is). “After Studying This Chapter…” lists emphasize capabilities and skills students will learn (e.g., how to write an emergency plan). ▲ Goals and Outcomes. These lists identify specific student capabilities that will result from reading the chapter. They set students up to synthesize and evaluate the chapter material and relate it to the real world. ▲ Figures and Tables. Line art and photos have been carefully chosen to be truly instructional rather than filler. Tables distill and present information in a way that is easy to identify, access, and understand, enhancing the focus of the text on essential ideas. Within-text Learning Aids The following learning aids are designed to encourage analysis and synthesis of the material, and to support the learning process and ensure success during the evaluation phase: ▲ Introduction. This section orients the student by introducing the chapter and explaining its practical value and relevance to the book as a whole. Short summaries of chapter sections preview the topics to follow. xi xii PREFACE ▲ “For Example” Boxes. Found within each section, these boxes tie section content to real-world organizations, scenarios, and applications. ▲ Self-Check. Related to the “What You’ll Learn” bullets and found at the end of each section, this battery of short-answer questions emphasizes student understanding of concepts and mastery of section content. Though the questions may either be discussed in class or studied by students outside of class, students should not go on before they can answer all questions correctly. Each Self-Check question set includes a link to a section of the pre-test for further review and practice. ▲ Summary. Each chapter concludes with a summary paragraph that reviews the major concepts in the chapter and links back to the “What You’ll Learn” list. ▲ Key Terms and Glossary. To help students develop a professional vocabulary, key terms are bolded in the introduction, summary and when they first appear in the chapter. A complete list of key terms with brief definitions appears at the end of each chapter and again in a glossary at the end of the book. Knowledge of key terms is assessed by all assessment tools (see below). Evaluation and Assessment Tools The evaluation phase of the CASE Learning System consists of a variety of within-chapter and end-of-chapter assessment tools that test how well students have learned the material. These tools also encourage students to extend their learning into different scenarios and higher levels of understanding and thinking. The following assessment tools appear in every chapter of Emergency Planning: ▲ Summary Questions help students summarize the chapter’s main points by asking a series of multiple choice and true/false questions that emphasize student understanding of concepts and mastery of chapter content. Students should be able to answer all of the Summary Questions correctly before moving on. ▲ Review Questions in short-answer format review the major points in each chapter, prompting analysis while reinforcing and confirming student understanding of concepts, and encouraging mastery of chapter content. They are somewhat PREFACE more difficult than the Self-Check and Summary Questions, and students should be able to answer most of them correctly before moving on. ▲ Applying This Chapter Questions drive home key ideas by asking students to synthesize and apply chapter concepts to new, real-life situations and scenarios. ▲ You Try It Questions are designed to extend students’ thinking and are ideal for discussion or writing assignments. Using an open-ended format and sometimes based on Web sources, they encourage students to draw conclusions using chapter material applied to real-world situations, which fosters both mastery and independent learning. ▲ Post-test should be taken after students have completed the chapter. It includes all of the questions in the pre-test, so that students can see how their learning has progressed and improved. Instructor and Student Package Emergency Planning is available with the following teaching and learning supplements. All supplements are available online at the text’s Book Companion Website, located at www.wiley.com/college/Perry. ▲ Instructor’s Resource Guide. Provides the following aids and supplements for teaching: • Diagnostic Evaluation of Grammar, Mechanics, and Spelling. A useful tool that instructors may administer to the class at the beginning of the course to determine each student’s basic writing skills. The Evaluation is accompanied by an Answer Key and a Marking Key. Instructors are encouraged to use the Marking Key when grading students’ evaluations, and to duplicate and distribute it to students with their graded evaluations. • Sample Syllabus. A convenient template that instructors may use for creating their own course syllabi. • Teaching Suggestions. For each chapter, these include a chapter summary, learning objectives, definitions of key terms, lecture notes, answers to select text question sets, and at least three suggestions for classroom activities, such as ideas for speakers to invite, videos to show, and other projects. xiii xiv PREFACE ▲ Test Bank. One test per chapter, as well as a mid-term and a final. Each includes true/false, multiple choice, and open-ended questions. Answers and page references are provided for the true/false and multiple choice questions, and page references are provided for the open-ended questions. Available in Microsoft Word and computerized formats. ▲ PowerPoints. Key information is summarized in 10 to 15 PowerPoints per chapter. Instructors may use these in class or choose to share them with students for class presentations or to provide additional study support. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The field of emergency management and the practice of emergency planning have operated in a very turbulent environment since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Much of the uncertainty and organizational stresses have centered at the national government level, producing a tentative policy environment. Emergency Planning was written to be science-based, drawing on the decades of research about human behavior related to disasters and hazards and the knowledge and technology of natural and physical science. The content also reflects the practitioner and applied knowledge base, particularly lessons learned at local and state government levels. Ultimately, we strived for Emergency Planning to balance science and practice to give careeroriented students a basis for learning what to do, how to do it, and, most important knowing why it should be done. No book is solely the product of its authors. Books tend to be culminations of accumulated experience that grow from many influences. We are especially grateful to our many teachers and colleagues who have taught us over the years, and desire to mention several people whose knowledge and guidance influenced this volume in particular. First among these is Carla Prater, who not only contributed wisdom and perspective, but her wonderful sense of humor. In addition we wish to thank our teachers and colleagues E.L. Quarantelli, Tom Drabek, Bill Anderson, Bob Stallings, David Alexander, Danny Peterson, and Walt Peacock. We gratefully acknowledge the insights and willingness to share of three exceptional practicing emergency managers: Marcus Aurelius (Phoenix, Arizona), Sheri Gibbons (Gilbert, Arizona), and Warren Leek (Maricopa County, Arizona). Included with Tom Skowronski, a dedicated WMD/CBRNE specialist, these colleagues helped keep accurate focus on the most critical of emergency planning venues: local government. We remain grateful for the long friendship and guidance of four Arizona fire chiefs: Cliff Jones (Tempe), Collin DeWitt (Gilbert), Harry Beck (Mesa), and Alan Brunacini (Phoenix). Each of these leaders insured our attendance to connections between planning and operations. Finally, we wish to acknowledge our debt to the police and fire service command officers who shared their experience and knowledge: Tom Abbott, Jim Bloomer, Chris DeChant, Ron Dykes, G.T. Fowler, T.J. Martin, Blake McClelland, Wade Pew, and Steve Storment. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the National Science Foundation for supporting most of our emergency management xvi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS research over the past three decades. Most recently, our research has been supported by NSF grants CMS 0219155 and SES 0527699. None of the conclusions expressed here necessarily reflects views of that agency. Finally, good advice is subject to the slings and arrows of the authors who use it. We simultaneously thank and absolve our colleagues from responsibility for our use and interpretations. We owe a special debt to our Wiley Editor, Laura Town, and her team. Laura’s writing skills were transformative, her eye for organization vital and her good humor sustaining. We also thank the Wiley reviewers, Donna Fair-Klikus (State of Colorado) and Judy Jaeger (Central Georgia Technical College), for comments and suggestions. For more than three decades of collaboration, the authors have each blamed the other for errors, omissions and problems that readers may find in our work. With each admonishing the other to listen more carefully, we shall continue this tradition. BRIEF CONTENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Introduction to Emergency Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Emergency Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Patterned Human Behavior in Disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Fostering Successful Emergency Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Classes of Protective Action Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Analyzing and Selecting Protective Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 The Content and Format of Emergency Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Continuity of Operations Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Milestones That Structure Emergency Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Population Warning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 Planning for Hazard Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 Structures for Managing Emergency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 Selected Federal Emergency Planning Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 Emergency Planning, Professionalism and the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492 Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000 This page intentionally left blank CONTENTS 1 Introduction to Emergency Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1 The Emergency Management Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.1 Emergencies, Disasters and Catastrophes . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.2 The Work of Emergency Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.1.3 Distinguishing Emergency Planning from Emergency Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2 The Public Policy Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.1 The Intergovernmental System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.2.2 Hazards Management Policy at the Local Government Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.2.3 Adopting and Implementing Environment Hazard Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.2.4 Local Agency Involvement in Hazards Policy Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.3 The Local Jurisdictional Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.3.1 The Local Structure for Emergency Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1.3.2 Business and Emergency Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1.3.3 Connecting the Dots: A Picture of the Local Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Summary Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Applying This Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 You Try It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2 The Emergency Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2.1 Planning Practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.1.1 Planning for Public Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.1.2 Planning for Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.1.3 Establishing Emergency Operations Centers. . . . . . . . 50 2.1.4 Conducting and Evaluating Training, Drills, and Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 xx CONTENTS 2.2 Guidelines for the Emergency Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 2.2.1 Managing Resistance to the Planning Process . . . . . . . 52 2.2.2 Adopt an All-Hazards Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 2.2.3 Promote Multi-Organizational Participation . . . . . . . . 53 2.2.4 Rely on Accurate Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 2.2.5 Identify Appropriate Actions while Encouraging Improvisation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 2.2.6 Link Emergency Response to Disaster Recovery and Hazard Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 2.2.7 Training and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 2.2.8 Adopt a Continuous Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Summary Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Applying This Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 You Try It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 3 Patterned Human Behavior in Disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 3.1 Myths about Human Response to Disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 3.1.1 Patterns of Citizen Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 3.1.2 The Disaster Syndrome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3.1.3 Panic and Panic Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 3.1.4 Positive Patterns of Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 3.2 Expected Human Behavior in Emergencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 3.2.1 Expectations Regarding Stress Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 3.2.2 Expectations for Physical Health Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 3.2.3 Special Terrorism Expectations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 3.2.4 Role Abandonment by Emergency Professionals. . . . . 84 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Summary Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Applying This Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 You Try It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 4 Fostering Successful Emergency Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 CONTENTS 4.1 4.2 5 Successfully Implementing the Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 4.1.1 Hazard Exposure and Community Vulnerability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 4.1.2 Community Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 4.1.3 Community Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 4.1.4 Extra-Community Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 4.1.5 Staffing and Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4.1.6 Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 4.1.7 Individual Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 4.1.8 Organizational Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Transitioning from Plans to Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 4.2.1 Functions of Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 4.2.2 Plans, Training, Exercises and Disaster Preparedness 108 4.2.3 Types of Exercises. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Summary Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Applying This Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 You Try It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Classes of Protective Action Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 5.1 In Place Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 5.1.1 Sheltering Against Wind, Ground Shaking, and Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 5.1.2 Sheltering from Inhalation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 5.1.3 Safety Risks for Protection In Place. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 5.2 Expedient Respiratory Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 5.3 Evacuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 5.3.1 Private Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 5.3.2 Mass Transit Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 5.3.3 Schoolchildren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 5.3.4 Special Facilities Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 5.3.5 Transients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 5.3.6 Dispersed Groups with Special Needs . . . . . . . . . . . 140 5.3.7 Safety Hazards in Evacuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 xxi xxii CONTENTS Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Summary Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Applying This Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 You Try It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 6 Analyzing and Selecting Protective Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 6.1 Critical Elements to Include in the Planning Process . . . . . . . . 149 6.1.1 Hazard Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 6.1.2 Physical Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 6.1.3 Social Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 6.1.4 Agricultural Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 6.1.5 Structural Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 6.1.6 Social Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 6.2 Analysis Supporting PARs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 6.2.1 Mapping Community Hazard Exposures . . . . . . . . . 158 6.2.2 Mapping Natural Hazard Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 6.2.3 Mapping Hazardous Materials Exposures . . . . . . . . . 159 6.2.4 Mapping Exposure to Secondary Hazards . . . . . . . . 160 6.2.5 Conducting Hazard/Vulnerability Analysis with HAZUS-MH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 6.2.6 The Community Vulnerability Assessment Tool . . . . 162 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 6.3 Selecting PARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 6.3.1 The Limits and Functions of H/VAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 6.3.2 A Frameworks for Selecting PARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 6.3.3 Technical Considerations in Protective Action Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Summary Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Applying This Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 You Try It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 7 The Content and Format of Emergency Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 7.1 Understanding and Producing the EOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 7.1.1 Distinguishing a Written Emergency Plan. . . . . . . . . 184 7.1.2 Model EOPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 CONTENTS 7.1.3 The Relationship between the Plan and the Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 7.2 7.3 The Content of an EOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 7.2.1 Mission, Goals, and Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 7.2.2 Plan Authority and Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 7.2.3 Plan Activation and Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 7.2.4 Increased Readiness Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 7.2.5 Plan Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 7.2.6 Concept of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 7.2.7 Integration with Other EOPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 7.2.8 Documentation of Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 7.2.9 Training, Exercises, and Critiques. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 7.2.10 Administrative Responsibility for the Plan . . . . . . . . 203 7.2.11 Postimpact Recovery Initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Plan Annexes and Supporting Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 7.3.1 Functional Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 7.3.2 Hazard-Specific Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 7.3.3 Supporting Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 7.3.4 Equipment Inventories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Summary Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Applying This Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 You Try It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 8 Continuity of Operations Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 8.1 Government Continuity Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 8.1.1 Continuity of Government and Continuity of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 8.1.2 Guidance for Creating and Maintaining Continuity of Operations Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 8.1.3 Continuity of Operations Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 8.2 Critical Continuity of Operations Plan Elements . . . . . . . . . . . 238 8.2.1 Essential Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 8.2.2 Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 8.2.3 Operation and Maintenance of Continuity of Operations Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 xxiii xxiv CONTENTS 8.3 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 Business Continuity Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Summary Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Applying This Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 You Try It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 9 Milestones That Structure Emergency Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 9.1 Strategic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 9.2 Operational and Resource Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 9.2.1 Resource Mobilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 9.3 Steps for Escalating Crisis or Emergency Response . . . . . . . . . . 289 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 Summary Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Applying This Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 You Try It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 10 Population Warning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 10.1 Protective Action Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 10.1.1 The Protective Action Decision Model . . . . . . . . . . . 300 10.1.2 Factors Influencing Protective Action Decision Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 10.1.3 Warning Compliance and Spontaneous Response . . 314 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316 10.2 Planning Applications of Decision-Making Studies . . . . . . . . . . 316 10.2.1 Community Warning System Structure . . . . . . . . . . 317 10.2.2 Elements of Issuing Population Warnings. . . . . . . . . 318 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 Summary Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 CONTENTS Applying This Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 You Try It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 11 Planning for Hazard Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 11.1 The Concept of Hazard Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 11.1.1 The Dimensions of Hazard Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . 336 11.1.2 Risk Communication and Hazard Adjustment . . . . . 339 11.1.3 The Local Context for Risk Communication. . . . . . . 340 11.1.4 Leveraging Hazard Adjustment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 11.2 Hazard Awareness Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 11.2.1 Communication Model and Evaluation Issues . . . . . 346 11.2.2 Information Sources and Their Characteristics . . . . . 347 11.2.3 Information Channels and Their Characteristics. . . . 348 11.2.4 Message Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348 11.2.5 Characteristics of Information Receivers. . . . . . . . . . 349 11.2.6 Social Psychology of Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 11.3 Practical Implications for Risk Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 11.3.1 Strategy for Risk Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 11.3.2 Structuring Risk Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 Summary Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364 Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364 Applying This Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 You Try It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366 12 Structures for Managing Emergency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 12.1 Emergency Operations Centers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 12.1.1 Jurisdictional Setting of the EOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372 12.1.2 Functions of the EOC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 12.1.3 Staffing and Operating the EOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377 12.1.4 Designing EOCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 12.1.5 Special Features for EOCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386 12.2 Incident Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386 12.2.1 Evolution of the IMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 12.2.2 IMS in Jurisdictional Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388 xxv xxvi CONTENTS 12.2.3 Elements of the IMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389 12.2.4 Revisiting the IMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396 Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396 Summary Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 Applying This Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399 You Try It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 13 Selected Federal Emergency Planning Mandates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402 13.1 Centralized Planning and Response Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 13.1.1 SARA Title III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 13.1.2 The National Incident Management System . . . . . . . 410 13.1.3 National Response Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420 13.2 Terrorism-Related Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420 13.2.1 The Metropolitan Medical Response System . . . . . . . 421 13.2.2 The Urban Areas Security Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430 Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 Summary Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432 Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432 Applying This Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 You Try It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434 14 Emergency Planning, Professionalism and the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436 14.1 Picturing Emergency Planning and Management . . . . . . . . . . . 436 14.1.1 Emergency Planners and Managers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436 14.1.2 Emergency Management as a Profession . . . . . . . . . . 439 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 14.2 Opportunities for Education and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 14.2.1 Certification Programs in Emergency Management. . 444 14.2.2 College and University Academic Programs . . . . . . . 446 14.2.3 Professionalism and Legal Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 14.3 Exploring the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 14.3.1 Challenges Facing Emergency Planners and Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451 CONTENTS 14.3.2 Opportunities for Emergency Planners and Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455 14.3.3 Hazard Vulnerability Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456 14.3.4 Hazard Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457 14.3.5 Emergency Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457 14.3.6 Emergency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458 14.3.7 The Impact of Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458 Self-Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460 Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460 Summary Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 Applying This Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462 You Try It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 xxvii This page intentionally left blank 1 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY PLANNING The Contexts of Emergency Planning Starting Point Go to www.wiley.com/college/Perry to assess your knowledge of emergency planning basics. Determine where you need to concentrate your effort. What You’ll Learn in This Chapter ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ The relationship of emergency planning to emergency management The public policy context of emergency planning The mission and organization of the local emergency management agency The differences among emergencies, disasters, and catastrophes The complementary role of government and business in emergency planning After Studying This Chapter, You’ll Be Able To ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Distinguish emergency planning from operations Evaluate the role of vulnerability as the driver of emergency planning Argue that hazards issues should be on the local policy agenda Assess critical tasks for implementing hazard policy Build local resources into an emergency planning system Goals and Outcomes ▲ Design planning goals for mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery ▲ Evaluate the political process and use it to support emergency planning ▲ Support the integration of government, business, and nonprofit assets into emergency planning ▲ Evaluate the place of legal and statutory mandates in local emergency planning ▲ Assess the importance of an intergovernmental, regional, and public/private view of the emergency planning process 2 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY PLANNING INTRODUCTION Emergency planning is important and complex. We plan to ensure that a business or government is prepared for emergencies and disasters. We plan to reduce losses, both in terms of human life and in damages to property. Emergency planning is designed to achieve community or organizational preparedness. Preparedness is the ability to marshal community and extracommunity resources to reduce or minimize vulnerability. The path to preparedness includes understanding vulnerability, making choices about which threats to plan for, creating teams to make plans, and testing and revising plans. The planning process is never complete. The threat environment changes. The tools to manage threats change. The ongoing planning process continues to identify new vulnerabilities. An effective planning process recognizes changes in old vulnerabilities. The planning process also monitors changes in knowledge and technology that affect the ways we respond to emergencies and disasters. The emergency plan—sometimes called the emergency operations plan or EOP—is a snapshot of the planning process at a single point in time. Like the planning process, the plan must evolve with the current needs to be useful. As an emergency planner, you may lead or serve as a team member in the planning process. You don’t need to be an expert on every issue addressed in planning. You must know the steps in the planning process; however, you can call on a wide range of specialists to help with specific tasks. These experts may be hazard vulnerability analysts, or they may be specialists in geographic information systems. Or they may be specialists in specific threats or in different types of response (hazardous materials technicians, evacuation planners, or others). The experts consulted and the composition of the planning team are unique to the community’s vulnerability profile. Planning takes place in a variety of contexts. This is true whether you are planning for a community or an organization. Three contexts are particularly important. The primary one is the emergency management context. The emergency management system defines the goals, structure, and strategy used to deal with extreme events that can generate losses. The second is the public policy context. Emergency planning addresses ways to gather resources. Planning also addresses ways to influence the behavior of others in ways that minimize risk. The expenditure of public money and the use of rules to control behavior fall within the purview of the public policy system. To achieve your goals, you must learn to work within the limits of government and the public policy system. Finally, most planners work in a specific jurisdictional context. This is true whether the planner is a government employee planning for an entire jurisdiction or working for a private organization. For each role, the local jurisdictional context defines the emergency management system and the public policy environment. It is important to understand each of these three contexts if you are to be effective. 1.1.1 EMERGENCIES, DISASTERS, AND CATASTROPHES 1.1 The Emergency Management Context Comprehensive emergency management (CEM) is the practice of handling emergency tasks in all phases for all types of disaster agents. The phases are mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Disaster agents can range from flooding to nuclear power plants to terrorism. CEM is implemented through Integrated Emergency Management Systems (IEMS). This is a process of coordinating the efforts and resources of governments and private organizations to achieve goals. The emergency planner is critical to the success of CEM. Emergency planners study vulnerability. They assemble strategies for reducing vulnerability. They then prepare plans that can be implemented to manage all phases of emergency management for all types of hazards. 1.1.1 Emergencies, Disasters, and Catastrophes CEM looks at tasks and types of threat. We must also confront the extent to which threats are predictable. We must understand their damage scope and their frequency. E. L. Quarantelli (2005) distinguishes three types of events: emergencies, disasters, and catastrophes. Emergencies are defined in two different ways. Emergencies are unforeseen but predictable, narrow-scope incidents that regularly occur. They include house fires, vehicle accidents, medical crises, and small hazardous materials releases. Fire departments, emergency medical services agencies, police departments, and public works employees respond to these events by using standard operating procedures. The term emergency is also used in a broader sense to mean a future event that is expected to cause significant damage and disruption. For example, meteorologists predicted that the 2005 hurricane season would begin early. They also predicted it would involve hurricanes of much greater strength than previous seasons. This is an emergency because we know that throughout the season multiple impacts will occur. They are not precisely identified by geographic place yet, but they will produce large losses. This type of emergency is distinguished by the need for vigilance, careful monitoring, and the expectation of high losses. Quarantelli (2000:682) defines disasters as sudden onset occasions that seriously disrupt social routines, cause adoption of unplanned actions to adjust to the disruption, are designated in social space and time, and endanger valued social objects. Disasters are more rare than emergencies. They are defined by human casualties, property damage, and severe social disruption. A volcanic eruption can produce massive environmental disruption. This can occur through lava flows, ash falls, floods, and mud flows. It is not a disaster, however, unless it directly impacts people or the human use system in some fashion. Disasters disrupt social interaction. They interrupt the ability of major community systems to afford reasonable conditions of life. This means that significant subsystems in a community no longer work to allow people to pursue their 3 4 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY PLANNING work, recreation, and other activities. A town’s public health protections (sewage treatment or fresh water systems) may fail. The utility system may no longer provide electricity. The hospital system may no longer be able to accommodate as many patients. And there may be other system failures. The aims of CEM are to create alternate mechanisms that bridge the time between the failure of systems and their restoration to some level of functioning. A disaster disrupts only a single community. This allows external resources to support the response and recovery. A catastrophe is a large scope of impact event that crosses multiple communities, produces very high levels of damage and social disruption, and sharply and concurrently interrupts community and lifeline services. A broad scope of impact greatly limits extracommunity support. In 2005, for example, Hurricane Katrina severely impacted large coastal areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. In this setting, small towns that might otherwise count on help from larger urban centers simply found that all communities were unable to extend support. The levels of damage and social disruption are even greater than most disasters. Most of the buildings are damaged or destroyed. This includes common systems to maintain public health and safety. This destruction interrupts much preparedness and response planning. Plans for victim shelter and medical care in the community are rendered useless. Specific damage assessment is complex. It is difficult to get to the affected areas because of the debris on the roads and the destruction of roads. Catastrophic events also devastate responders and their facilities. Following the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia, more than 90% of the medical personnel in several towns were killed. In Florida, Hurricane Andrew seriously damaged or destroyed buildings housing police, fire, welfare, and medical workers. This severely reduced their ability to mobilize. Most community functions are sharply and concurrently interrupted. Lifeline infrastructures simultaneously fail. This interrupts electric power, fuel, water, sewer, transportation, and communication service. The effect is exacerbated because the failures are simultaneous and not sequential. Responders must prioritize or triage the restoration of critical services. Social life is simultaneously interrupted. Places of employment, recreation, worship, and education are gone. Recovery from catastrophe also requires that social institutions and activities be restored. Hurricane Hugo destroyed or heavily damaged more than 90% of the buildings on St. Croix. This took away not just physical protection, but also the social functions that were tied to those places. Emergency managers must plan for emergencies, disasters, and catastrophes. Emergencies, such as vehicle accidents and house fires, are only sometimes targets of trained planners. Planning for these events is usually done directly by the fire or police or EMS department involved in response. This planning process is more about agency logistics than about CEM. The product of the process is usually called standard operating procedure (SOP). The planner 1.1.2 THE WORK OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT focuses on disasters and catastrophes. Large-scale, high-impact events demand the broad scope of emergency management activities that are the province of the planner. 1.1.2 The Work of Emergency Management The work of emergency management is characterized as mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery for environmental hazards. Within any given year, any of these hazards could produce an emergency, disaster, or catastrophe. People might live for years on the slope of a volcano. However, there might only occasionally be an eruption that endangers people and property. Emergency managers conduct mitigation and preparedness activities even when a disaster is not imminent. Response and recovery activities occur when there is a specific disaster. Emergency management activities can be described in different ways. We know that the four activity phases are both indistinct and interdependent. They are indistinct because there isn’t an absolute “beginning” and “end” to each period. They are interdependent because actions undertaken in one phase affect the type and range of actions that can be undertaken in another phase. The four-activity framework is simple and widely accepted. Planning focuses primarily on preparedness. However, planners must understand all four activities. By examining each of these phases, we can present a picture of the emergency planner’s role. We can examine basic strategies and tactics available to the planner. Mitigation activities try to eliminate the causes of a disaster. This is done either by reducing the likelihood of its occurrence or limiting the magnitude of its negative effects. The aim is to prevent a disaster before it happens. The potential human impact of an extreme natural event, such as floods, hurricanes, or earthquakes, can be altered by modifying either the natural event system or the human use system or both. In floods, the loss of life or property can be reduced by dams or levees that confine the floodwaters. Land use restrictions (zoning) limit people’s intrusion into the flood plain. Only limited control can be exercised over natural event systems. Many technological hazards are controllable by their very nature as human creations. Explosives, toxic chemicals, and radioactive materials can all be produced, stored, and transported in ways that avoid adverse effects on people. However, this control can be lost. This can result in releases into the soil, surface water or groundwater, or air. The level of human control exercised is directly related to the state of knowledge and the available technology. Disasters linked to human agents like terrorists are difficult to mitigate. However, they can be addressed through detection and intelligence systems. The choice of whether to mitigate hazards by controlling the hazard agent or by controlling the human use system depends on political and economic decisions about the costs and benefits of each. Specific questions include who has control 5 6 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY PLANNING over the hazards, what degree of control is maintained, and what incentives there are for the maintenance of control. Finding answers to these questions requires knowledge of science, technology, and public policy. Preparedness activities protect lives and property when threats can’t be controlled or when only partial protection can be achieved. These activities assume that a disaster will occur. Plans, procedures, and resources must be in place in advance to support an effective response to the threat. Preparedness measures fall into two general categories. The first category is alerting members of response organizations and the public about the timing and extent of a potential disaster. The second category includes actions designed to enhance the effectiveness of response. To alert people, you must first be able to detect the threat. Detection and monitoring systems include rainfall and river gauges. They include radar detection and tracking of severe storms. Also included are sensors and computers designed to assess the magnitude of releases of toxic or radioactive materials. Warning dissemination systems convey information about threats from authorities to the public. Preparedness measures include: ▲ Developing plans for the activation and coordination of response organizations. ▲ Devising SOPs to guide organizations in the performance of their functions. ▲ Training personnel in the use of those procedures. ▲ Conducting exercises to test the effectiveness of these plans, procedures, and training efforts. ▲ Stockpiling resources. ▲ Assembling inventories of community resources and determining their location. A hallmark of planning for biological terrorism is the creation of programs that stockpile antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals that can be quickly available. The CHEMPACK program operated under the auspices of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention places pharmaceutical stockpiles in major cities for local emergency use. Response activities are the actions of officials just before and during the disaster impact that protect public safety and minimize physical damage. This response begins with the detection of a threat. Response ends with the stabilization of the situation following disaster impact. For earthquakes, detection of the event may be no more technically sophisticated than noticing that your highrise office building is swaying. For floods along the lower Mississippi River, there is an extensive system of instrumentation. It is integrated into a model for forecasting the timing and magnitude of the flood crest. Detection depends on the state of knowledge and technology for the hazard. Stabilization means that the risk of loss of life and property is back to “normal” levels. Response focuses on 1.1.2 THE WORK OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT protecting people first. Response attempts to limit damage from the initial impact. Response also seeks to limit damage from secondary or repeated impacts. Response activities to limit the primary impact include: ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Securing the impact area. Evacuating dangerous areas. Conducting search and rescue for the injured. Providing emergency medical care. Sheltering evacuees and other victims. Mounting operations to counter secondary threats. ▲ Fighting urban fires and hazardous materials releases after earthquakes. ▲ Identifying contaminated water supplies or other public health threats following floods. ▲ Identifying contaminated wildlife or fish in connection with toxic chemicals spilled into a reservoir. Response actions also assess damages and coordinate the arrival of converging equipment and supplies so they may be deployed to those areas most in need. Recovery activities begin after disaster impact has been stabilized and seek to restore lost functions. Recovery extends until the community is restored to a reasonable level of functioning. This may require long periods of time. We assume that societies function and change over time. Disasters reduce that level of functioning. Disasters alter physical resources and human interaction patterns. The level of restored functioning will not match predisaster states. However, there will come a time when temporary housing and other temporary measures are no longer necessary. This point marks the close of the recovery period. The immediate objective of recovery measures is to restore the physical infrastructure of the community. In recovery, we seek to establish an acceptable quality of life. This may be improved upon as time passes. Recovery has been defined in terms of short-range measures versus longer-range measures. We refer to shortrange measures as relief and rehabilitation. We refer to longer range measures as reconstruction. Relief and rehabilitation activities usually include: ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Clearance of debris and restoration of access to the impact area. Reestablishment of economic activities. Restoration of essential government or community services. Provision of an interim system for caring for victims, including housing, clothing, and food. Reconstruction activities tend to be dominated by rebuilding major structures and by efforts to revitalize the area’s economic system. In some communities, 7 8 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY PLANNING leaders may view the reconstruction phase as an opportunity to institute the plans for change that existed before the disaster. Leaders may introduce mitigation measures to promote sustainability. 1.1.3 Distinguishing Emergency Planning from Emergency Operations Emergency planning is not to be confused with operations. Planning is preparing before the event. Planning includes developing training module content and identifying and acquiring the resources. Planning begins with the community vulnerability assessment. Planning identifies events to be managed. Planning identifies hazard agent- and response-generated demands. The planner examines the available resources and creates strategies and tactics for addressing disaster demands. Response operations focus on performance. Disaster operations require use of plan-based decision guidelines. They require resources and that responders assess demands as they arise. Responders must act to meet those demands in a creative way. Disaster operations can rarely be accomplished entirely by using pre-event checklists. However, such lists can be helpful when personnel must improvise. Although emergency planning is distinct from response operations, the two must be linked. Integrating these functions decreases the chance that plans will: ▲ Fail to support operations. ▲ Be viewed by response personnel as irrelevant. ▲ Reside quietly on shelves, giving comfort only to the uninformed. More constructively, response operations consist of actions taken by response personnel and emergency managers. The planning process establishes the framework for emergency response decision making and structures the options from which a decision maker can choose to address practical challenges. Emergency planners do the intensive work during times when disasters don’t threaten to support response decisions during disasters. Politics affect both disaster planning and response operations. Emergency management exists in a political arena. It must accommodate elected and appointed officials. This political arena includes municipalities (towns and cities). It also includes county, state, and federal governments. The political process often defines which vulnerabilities will be addressed in planning and how resources will be allocated to manage them. During operations, decisions to establish quarantine or to implement mandatory evacuation are often made on technical grounds. However, they are strongly influenced by politics. Any attempt to engage in emergency management without an awareness of and responsiveness to the political context invites failure. Planning aims to create preparedness. Planners influence response and recovery. The plans they build guide operational decisions when managing 1.1.3 DISTINGUISHING EMERGENCY PLANNING FROM EMERGENCY OPERATIONS FOR EXAMPLE Hurricane Katrina Late in August 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf coast just east of New Orleans (see Figure 1-1). The National Hurricane Center placed Katrina at landfall as a Saffir-Simpson Category 3 storm with winds up to 131 miles per hour. Citizens with access to transportation were evacuated before the impact. However, many who had no access to transportation were trapped in the city. This left nearly 100,000 people to experience the impact. Many survivors had to be rescued in the immediate aftermath. Among other failures, the lack of adequate preparedness to evacuate citizens without their own transportation multiplied both the response challenges and the human suffering. agent-generated and response-generated demands. Agent-generated demands are those imposed by the hazard agent itself. These might come from wind, water, ground shaking, heat, sulfuric acid, or influenza. They threaten human health and safety, property, and the environment. By contrast, response-generated demands are caused by the response to the incident. There is a need to coordinate the Figure 1-1 The 2005 Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans with wind and surge and created secondary problems like this ignited leaking gas main. 9 10 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY PLANNING activities of everyone who responds to the incident. Major disasters elicit a significant outpouring of assistance. For example, during the immediate aftermath of 9/11, people from all over the country rushed to the scene in New York to help. Foreign governments offered to send search and rescue teams. This outpouring creates convergence at an incident scene. When the incident demands deviate from your expectations, response organizations will improvise. In some cases, new groups emerge to meet unforeseen needs. The planning process identifies the availability of mitigation measures. The planning process also oversees the implementation of such measures. The process also determines the effect of mitigation. Planning has a critical role in all phases of emergency management. SELF-CHECK • Give an example of an emergency and explain how emergencies differ from disasters. • Why do we say the emergency planning process is never complete? • What are mitigation activities? Please give an example of how this works for a natural hazard. • What is the difference between emergency planning and emergency operations? 1.2 The Public Policy Context Emergency planning takes place within a system of policies. The policies are set by multiple and interacting governmental agencies. This policy system perspective is a device used to divide public policy into parts. Understanding the policy system allows us to know which tasks are the responsibility of which level of government and which agencies. This provides insights into the kinds of activities each level of government must perform to plan for and respond to disasters. The policy system is a conceptual tool. The intergovernmental system is a characteristic of the governmental process. It provides limits and opportunities for policy makers. The policy system is often described as a series of stages. Together, the stages outline the tasks involved in making and implementing policy. Thomas Dye (1995) groups these activities into four categories. These categories are policy formulation, adoption, implementation, and evaluation. 1.2.1 THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM ▲ Policy formulation is planning and information gathering. This is needed for identifying policy options and gaining the attention of decision makers. ▲ Policy adoption is the approval of one or more of the options by an authority. This authority might be a city council, county board of supervisors, or state legislature. In turn, the authority can transform the option into a law or policy. ▲ Policy implementation refers to the actual execution of the policy. This stage involves putting the policy into effect. Implementation includes creating the rules by which the policy will be administered. ▲ Policy evaluation involves determining the effectiveness of the policy. This helps leaders to adjust the policy if needed, or if the policy has completely failed, a new policy can be devised. 1.2.1 The Intergovernmental System Formulating and implementing community policy for mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery involves actors and processes at multiple governmental levels. Federal, state, county, and local governments can be involved in all phases of the policy development process. The process can be sequential. However, the process also can be quite complex. First, all of these activities can occur at the same time within a single level of government. Second, governments or citizens at one level (city) may involve themselves in different stages at other levels (state or national). Keep in mind that no single level of government can control the entire process for all levels. The development of hazards policy in the United States is very much a product of all levels interacting together. A rational, consistent policy is created only if all levels of government can work together. No level completely dominates hazard policy. Some levels do carry primary responsibility for particular tasks. For example, the creation and implementation of specific response protocols is a local function. By contrast, writing building codes with seismic provisions is a state function, but making sure these codes are adopted is the task of local government. You will need to understand the role of citizens in the policy process before moving to the complexity of intergovernmental relations. Politicians often attach little importance to disaster issues. The exception to this is when (and just after) a major disaster occurs. It is not surprising that in many areas of hazards policy, citizens play a small role in public policy. One reason is that policies tend to be developed by experts in the field. They require special expertise to be implemented. You can play an important role as the go-between with experts and elected authorities. Constituent policies might define standards for disposing of toxic waste. Nonetheless, other policies clearly require citizen input. Those policies in which an actual service is delivered to the public are likely to demand some degree of citizen participation for success. 11 12 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY PLANNING 1.2.2 Hazards Management Policy at the Local Government Level Local governments are crucial to the creation and implementation of hazards policy. Although states can make land use decisions and enact building codes, these powers are usually delegated to local governments. Local governments are expected to take the lead in plans for mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Hazards policy may be created by either elected officials or by appointed administrative officials. Most hazard policy implementation is carried out by administrative and/or public safety departments at the local level. Despite the critical roles assigned to local governments, their performance has been spotty. Some local governments have strong, consistent, well-implemented hazard policyies. However, others appear to ignore the issue. They do this even to the peril of their citizens. This lack of a consistent record is due to systemic constraints. Local government has far more constraints placed on its revenue than either the federal or state governments. Furthermore, local governments are closest to their citizens. Their expenses are subject to close public scrutiny. Emergency management requires spending money now for something that might happen in the future. This is a difficult sell. Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the federal government has made much more money available for hazards. This is not locally controlled money, however. Many federal rules and scrutiny are imposed. In addition, not all cities are eligible to obtain such funding. Ultimately, local governments give a tiny portion of their own revenue base to emergency management. Municipalities organize emergency planning and management in a wide variety of ways. Some cities have emergency management departments. Some cities vest this activity in a fire or police department. Other cities use a committee composed of city department officials serving part-time. Such diversity offers considerable difficulty to a state agency attempting to coordinate local efforts across all disaster events. The challenge to the federal government is, of course, even greater. 1.2.3 Adopting and Implementing Environmental Hazard Policy The lack of money and the diverse structures of local systems are obstacles to emergency management. But there are three additional challenges. To successfully formulate, adopt, and implement effective responses to environmental hazards, a local government must: 1. Be aware a threat exists and consider it a community priority. 2. Believe that there are effective methods of coping with the threat. 3. Develop a politically and economically feasible policy to manage the hazard. To have a natural hazards mitigation program, both citizens and officials must first be aware that hazards exist. They must believe that there is a risk of losses. Hazard researchers have long known that hazard or risk perception is a necessary 1.2.3 ADOPTING AND IMPLEMENTING ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD POLICY step in obtaining action. In practice, most cities assign very low priority to emergency management. Some cities may take an interest in one particular hazard that creates seasonal disruptions. Rossi and his colleagues (1982) questioned people influential in state and local politics. They found that problems associated with five natural hazards (flooding, fire, hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes) were near the bottom in importance on a list of 18 problems confronting state and local governments. This study has been supported by others. These studies show that political influentials do not define natural hazards as pressing problems. Local officials may have different risk perceptions than other officials or the public. Not knowing the effects of the hazard or when it will occur plays a major role in these different perceptions. Moreover, such perceptions vary with one’s relationship to the hazard. Officials who have responsibility for public safety may take seriously a potential threat that could injure many community residents. Citizens might take such a threat much less seriously unless they feel they are at risk. In some cases, citizens or interest groups are more concerned about a hazard than local officials. These groups often work to place issues on the local political agenda. Members of the public who are technical experts may also try to generate a political response to a hazard. For example, a local college professor who understands the meaning of the 100-year flood plain might seek restrictive zoning. Grassroots pressure for adoption of a hazard policy may also come from citizens who understand and are concerned about the hazard. You can seize these initiatives and actors as potential partners. To formulate hazard policies, local officials must believe that there are effective ways for coping with the hazards. Mitigation can include any of a variety of activities. These range from controlling the hazard agent to adjusting the typical patterns of human activity that are likely to be affected by the hazard. It is essential that at least one individual or organizational action be identified as an effective adjustment to the hazard. When there are severe (and, equally important, well-publicized) disagreements among experts regarding the extent of or the strategies for coping with the threat, leaders will hesitate to act. In the absence of a consensus among experts, the management of a hazard moves into a political arena. It will be subject to the same kinds of forces as other political and social value questions. During the Cold War, the question of civil defense measures assumed a political dimension. This was due to disagreement among experts regarding the threat and the effectiveness of protective actions. There was a federal plan for crisis relocation. This involved massive evacuation of “risk area” counties to “host area” counties. It went on for decades. It failed when many counties decided there was no safety after a nuclear attack. They refused to continue to participate in the program. Finally, for a local government to act, a politically feasible program must be available. That is, this program must not conflict with established elites or 13 14 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY PLANNING community values. Moreover, a policy must be economically feasible. The importance of having an acceptable proposal on which to act should not be underestimated. Crew (1992) argues that elected bodies work mostly as boards of review. Instead, they review the draft bills submitted by others. Members rarely write their own bills. Politicians will adopt a bill if the advocates convince them the premise is sound and they will not incur serious political vulnerabilities. A hazard policy must be presented in a form that allows officials to act. In addition, the policy must minimize political and economic costs. Local officials can and do “fine-tune” proposals into a fully acceptable form in light of the political climate. If you are seeking political action, you must present the proposal to the decision-making body in a form that is understandable. No or minimal additional work should be required. The presentation should include advocates, costs, and a demonstration that the benefits exceed the costs. Legal obligations and liabilities form an excellent argument that policies be established and funded. Obligations vary for the federal government, the states, and localities. Governments and emergency managers are given immunity from some legal restrictions under state and federal law. At the same time, governments and emergency managers can be held legally liable for incompetently performing established duties or for a failure to plan for a major hazard. Explaining that policy makers may be held legally liable for failures to act is often a quick route to the political agenda. In summary, hazard policies come before local government via two primary avenues. First, broad public safety responsibilities may induce local authorities to place hazard policy on their agenda. Second, interest or constituent (professional) groups can lobby to have public officials address issues. Other routes are possible as well. Sometimes, legal obligations to address hazards generate policy attention. In still other cases, a community accepts grant funds from the federal government. The community will be required to use the money for hazard policy or specific activities. In practice, local officials, professional or client groups, and citizens interact to create and sustain hazard policy. Policy sometimes must be established for an emergency planning process to start or go forward. Emergency planners or their agencies can suggest items for the political agenda in some communities. Planners are sometimes called on to serve as “expert witnesses” when communities are considering proposed policies. In some cases, planners serve as a “point of contact” for citizens or advocate groups who desire the development of public policy. Emergency planners who understand the policy system can find many points of entry to the political process. 1.2.4 Local Agency Involvement in Hazards Policy Implementation Emergency management and public safety (police and fire) departments rarely play a major direct role in policy formation. They become involved when they identify 1.2.4 LOCAL AGENCY INVOLVEMENT IN HAZARDS POLICY IMPLEMENTATION new threats or gaps in existing policy. You are responsible for interpreting hazard policy. You are also in charge of implementing hazard policy. You will need to focus on developing EOPs. You will also need to acquire the resources needed to coordinate the activities of different agencies. The public safety mission of these departments focuses on action. They must mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from acute threats. Recognizing a potential threat is the first step. This is true for each of these activities. If no one believes there is a threat, no action is likely to be taken. When managing hazards, administrators of other departments are more actively involved with preparedness than with response. These departments might include public works, transit, information technology, traffic control, public health, planning, and water. City and county administrators are responsible for the functioning of their jurisdiction. Because such officials have broad duties, they are limited in the amount of time they can devote to hazard management. There are administrators whose duties include land-use planning, building regulation, public works, public health, information technology, transit, and utilities. They are most likely to be concerned with mitigation and recovery. However, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 changed this. The outcome of the attacks emphasized the importance of these departments in preparedness and response. These attacks demonstrated the potential danger to lifelines. Lifelines include utilities such as water and electricity. When these are disrupted, there are terrible consequences for the public. Many natural hazards have long been known to threaten lifelines. However, the damage to lifelines due to natural hazards received less attention. The degree of involvement in response varies. Transit, public works, sewer and water departments have a more direct involvement in plans. They also have a more direct involvement in response. However, mitigation decisions will have a great impact on which hazards you must address. City planning directors, attorneys, building code officers, and public health authorities often make these decisions. These decisions will affect how you address the hazards. These decisions will also determine the challenges faced by responders. Local administrators who successfully address mitigation and recovery have an indirect impact on preparedness. Local governments require federal resource allocations to expand and maintain CEM. The federal drive to enhance national preparedness for terrorist attacks recently has produced significant resources for communities. Since 2002, the federal Urban Area Security Initiative and the Homeland Security Grant Program have given billions of dollars to communities. This money is to be used to initiate and sustain local emergency capabilities. This is the greatest infusion of disaster-related funding ever. Other forms of assistance have been given to communities as well. This assistance has included access to equipment, information systems, and highly specialized response teams and recovery specialists. Ironically, this support is what local officials have been 15 16 INTRODUCTION TO EMERGENCY PLANNING requesting for decades. However, there is a price. There is a “top-down” model for distributing resources. Acceptance of funds depends on adopting the National Incident Management System (NIMS). NIMS specifies an incident command structure. It also specifies resource naming and planning protocols. Similarly, communities are required to adapt local plans to include many federally (centrally) devised protocols. These protocols include the national “Universal Task List,” national “Target Capabilities List,” and the “National Response Plan.” These are constructive ideas. However, they can be problematic because they are devised at a distance from the jurisdictions being forced to implement them. To some extent, they represent a “one-size-fits-all” plan. This plan is not easily adapted to local needs for responding to local disasters that do not qualify for federal assistance. The emergency planning community has long resisted such “model planning” on the grounds that each community has distinctive characteristics. These must be accounted for in a plan. The imposition of an outside plan short-circuits the process that is so vital to effective planning. In this environment, you must carefully balance the benefits of federal support with the potential loss of local autonomy. Local governments can maximize their benefits in this situation by maintaining a proactive stance on management and planning. This requires local leaders to remain informed about local emergency management issues. The local planning process also should be nurtured and maintained. It should cement relationships among planners and responders. You should have a local plan. Revise the plan as the planning process proceeds. This gives you a firm base for engaging federal officials when local interests are not met by federal plans. FOR EXAMPLE Oakland, California, Seismic Safety Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings have a very high rate of collapse during earthquakes. Simple brick and block buildings are not flexible, and even small shocks produce failures of integrity. For years, officials in Oakland were aware of their earthquake risk and the high proportion of their buildings that were URM construction. In 1974, the problem was mentioned explicitly in the Oakland Comprehensive Plan. It was not until 1993, however, that Oakland finally passed an effective URM ordinance. The politics whirled for nearly 20 years, through repeated damaging earthquakes, pressure from the state to pass an ordinance, and many years of watching surrounding communities pass their own ordinances. 1.3 THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL CONTEXT SELF-CHECK • What is policy evaluation and why is it important? • What are some of the roles citizens play in the policy process? • Why is it difficult to get local governments to adopt and implement hazard policies? • Through what routes or initiatives do hazard policies come to local government? 1.3 The Local Jurisdictional Context Tip O’Neill, longtime Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, is reputed to have said “all politics is local.” The same principle applies to disasters. Emergency planning and management is a local endeavor. We do not suggest that these activities cannot be or are not undertaken by county, state, and federal governments. Higher levels of government certainly have an important role to play in local success. However, most hazards have a critical geographic dimension that is tied to their management. In any large event, external support (particularly state and federal) of many forms is critical to local jurisdictions. This is especially the case when the disaster produces widespread destruc...
Purchase answer to see full attachment