Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 15
Institutional Context for Emergency Response 15
Figure 4. Implementation of HSPD-8, National Preparedness.
Figure 5 demonstrates how agencies can use the 2010 Guide in conjunction with CPG 101 to
comply with federal policies and guidelines. The Guide provides a filter to help transportation
agencies identify new or changed requirements for the EOP (EM and agency versions). Refer to
CPG 101 for the actual updating steps.
Emergency response planning is an ongoing process for state transportation agencies. The first
pass through it, which most state transportation agencies have largely accomplished, is the most
challenging. The remainder of this 2010 Guide thus focuses on the ER planning process itself.
Agencies should recognize, however, that there will never be a perfect, all-encompassing EOP.
Rather, the 2010 Guide's primary intent is to help the agencies prioritize and implement their
ER planning efforts. What is required is that the agencies, working together, be nimble to react
to exigencies not expressly addressed in the EOP. The ability to adapt to a wide range of emer-
gencies is probably more useful because the hazards/threat matrix is infinite, as are the turns an
emergency can take as it unfolds.
Organizational Context
The state transportation agency is clearly an important player in the EM/ER arena. Table 1
summarizes the stakeholders. Appendix C further describes the roles and responsibilities of these
entities.
Guiding Principles
The 2010 Guide is itself tempered by several overarching principles, or tenets, as follows:
· State transportation agencies should stay within principles of contemporary emergency man-
agement thinking unless there is good reason to do otherwise. These principles include that
the agency will
Play a support role to the State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA), play an active
role in developing and exercising the State EOP, and should be the lead agency for ESF #1--
Transportation and play a significant role in other ESFs;
OCR for page 16
16 A Guide to Emergency Response Planning at State Transportation Agencies
Figure 5. State transportation agency emergency response
planning process using CPG 101.
OCR for page 17
Institutional Context for Emergency Response 17
Table 1. Emergency management stakeholders.
Category Stakeholder
Federal Agencies U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S.DOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
Other U.S.DOT modal administrations as appropriate
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
Other DHS security agencies as appropriate
Regional Coalitions Ad hoc regional coalitions; see Appendix C for details
State, Territorial, and Tribal State Transportation Agency or Territorial/Tribal Equivalent:
Agencies (including
Emergency Management Office
statewide authorities)
Traffic Operations Office/ITS Section
Planning Office
Maintenance Office
Safety Office
Motor Vehicle Compliance Office
State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA)
State Patrol (SP)
Department of Military or National Guard
Department of Law Enforcement (DLE)
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
Emergency Operations Center (EOC)
Intelligence Fusion Center (FC), also regional
Joint Telecommunications Centers
Authorities, such as Expressway Authorities
Local Agencies Emergency Management Agency (EMA), EOC, and Public Safety
Answering Points (PSAPs)
Law Enforcement (Police and Sheriffs)
Fire/Rescue
Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Medical Examiner/Coroner
City and County Public Works and Traffic Engineering
Transit Agencies (public or private, including school buses)
Private Partners Towing and Recovery Operators
HAZMAT Contractors
Asset Maintenance/Management Contractors
Motor Carrier Companies
Insurance Companies
Traffic Media
(continued on next page)
OCR for page 18
18 A Guide to Emergency Response Planning at State Transportation Agencies
Table 1. (Continued).
Category Stakeholder
Associations Volunteer Organizations (see Appendix C for details)
Automobile Associations
Technical Societies (ITS State Chapter, State Section ITE)
Associations of Cities, Counties, Sheriffs, Police, EMS, etc.
Community/Corridor Traffic Safety Teams (CTSTs)
Chambers of Commerce
Other Organizations Citizens for Better Transportation (state-by-state)
and People
Citizens' Groups
Individuals and Families
Have an agencywide emergency operations plan (which all agencies do not as yet have);
Ensure plans and procedures complement the state's overall emergency structure and
plan(s);
Ensure plans adhere to an all-hazards approach;
Use the CPG 101 emergency management planning cycle (plan, prepare, respond, recover),
and within that framework, prepare for specific response activities; and
Actively participate in Unified Command during incidents.
· Acknowledge that different state transportation agencies view their response roles differently
and recognize these different perspectives and approaches.
· Recognize the need for transportation agencies to understand the basic concepts of the Inci-
dent Command System (ICS), including Unified Command (UC), as defined in NIMS.
· Encourage transportation agencies to be full players within their state emergency management
community and their role in providing the support needed for all applicable functions, partic-
ipating actively in unified command, and participating in multi-agency communications and
coordination. In most major incidents, the state transportation agency will fulfill a support role
in the emergency response effort and receive direction from the state or some higher govern-
ment authority.
Using this 2010 Guide, a transportation agency can assess how well its existing agency proto-
cols and procedures align with NIMS/NRF and within the context of transportation-accepted
practices. Some of the issues addressed in the Guide include
· Part of the NIMS compliance regimen includes training. Do NIMS training requirements
cover the needs of transportation agency responders? How should an agency training program
be structured?
· What does NIMS compliance mean for state transportation agencies--beyond training?
· Transportation agencies operate within a complex of institutional relationships. How does an
agency typically relate to, and interact with, other state agencies in an emergency, as well as
with federal and local agencies?
· What are the response considerations between state transportation agencies in states that bor-
der one another? Or for agencies in states that border Canada or Mexico?
· How do the different modal interests in state transportation agencies coordinate within the
agency and with their modal clients?
· What is the role of headquarters versus the districts or other nonheadquarters offices when it
comes to response? Are senior headquarters staff sufficiently briefed and trained to understand
the agency's response roles and responsibilities?
