A Guide to Emergency Response Planning at State Transportation Agencies (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

The unprecedented advancement in technology, social change, and worldwide economic development has ushered in a 21st Century world much different from that at the close of the 20th Century. At the same time there has been unparalleled technological advancement, the nation has endured a major terrorist attack; a wide range of weather-related calamities; the specter of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) events associ- ated with terrorist threats; and cyber threats. These events have raised the global and national consciousness of vulnerability and the profile of emergency response management. In response to the changing threat environment, the nation has taken numerous steps to improve planning for incidents of all types, including broadening the definition of threat inci- dents and instituting an all-hazards threat response system. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which consolidated federal emergency management and response agencies following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, leads these initiatives. In response to a sequence of Pres- idential Directives, DHS has developed policies, plans, and guidelines and a systematic and organized set of emergency preparedness and emergency response doctrines and procedures. Key players in the emergency response process are the owners-operators of surface trans- portation infrastructure—state, territorial, tribal, and local transportation agencies. In addi- tion to the traditional role of managing major traffic and weather events, state transportation agencies are also assuming greater responsibility for large-scale evacuations resulting from natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes and wildfires). In addition, state transportation agencies are asked to play a new role in addressing no-notice evacuations and situations requiring mobility limitations—or shelter-in-place/quarantine—in response to biological outbreaks, epidemics, pandemics, and threats of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). It is crucial that state transportation agencies better understand how to upgrade their tradi- tional activities and integrate them with the national emergency activities—generally led by designated state and regional Emergency Management Agencies (EMAs). Throughout this integration process, it is important that state transportation agencies recognize the overlap and need for consistency regarding procedures, protocols, relationships, and resources across the complete spectrum of disruptive and/or emergency hazards. A Guide to Emergency Response Planning at State Transportation Agencies (the 2010 Guide, the Guide) is a tool designed and developed specifically to assist these agencies as they plan for and assume this changing role. NOTE: The term state transportation agency usually refers to state departments of transportation (DOTs). As used in this publication, the term includes those agencies at the state, territorial, multi-regional, local (county and city), and tribal authorities. Nongovernmental organizations and private-sector stakeholders involved in emergency response can also benefit from using this 2010 Guide. 1 S U M M A R Y A Guide to Emergency Response Planning at State Transportation Agencies

Relevance and Context The 2010 A Guide to Emergency Response Planning at State Transportation Agencies replaces a 2002 document, A Guide to Updating Highway Emergency Response Plans for Terrorist Incidents (AASHTO, 2002). Most states have used the 2002 Guide to institute some kind of emergency response plan; however, the risk environment of threats and hazards has changed. In addition, new technologies and new, more comprehensive laws, policies, and guidelines require that trans- portation agencies broaden their operational agenda beyond traffic and weather events to include emergency response (ER) planning. In assuming this role in the state’s emergency response program, the transportation agency must understand that DHS and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manage a consol- idated ER planning process. They also regularly publish updated policies and guides that support standardizing the ER process. Most states have some type of emergency response plan in place, but these plans also are often revised and updated. In this context, as emergency response planning becomes an integral part of a state transporta- tion agency’s operational agenda, it is important to understand that the transportation agency always fulfills a support role in the emergency response effort to major incidents. Rather than serving as the lead emergency response agency, the transportation agency will receive direction from the state or some higher government authority. Challenges Facing State Transportation Agencies The importance of planning for emergency response (and the value of this 2010 Guide and its use) relates to the following important challenges for transportation agencies: • Increased public awareness of the impact of major incidents and emergencies. State transportation agencies are increasingly accountable for their performance in areas such as evacuation, shelter-in-place/quarantine, and HAZMAT response. • Protection of critical assets can be essential in some contexts, but the scarcity of resources implies the need for an organized risk management approach on an all-hazards basis that can capitalize on a range of funding sources. • Extending the range of transportation agency responsibilities to all-hazards requires a custom-tailored response to the state’s particular circumstance. There are significant economies to closely coordinating traffic-related incident procedures and resources with those needed by other types of emergencies. • State agency plans and procedures are expected (indeed required if the agency seeks federal compensation) to be related to state and regional emergency structure and plan(s). This involves multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional cooperation in emergency plan- ning and operations. • There are specific federal requirements and accepted practices that establish standard practice. • State transportation agencies have important resources that can be made available in the event of emergencies (transportation management centers, surveillance, field staff, trucks, etc.). EMAs have not always adequately considered these resources in their ER planning. • Effective emergency response is increasingly multimodal, including all modes and sectors that use the highway system—personal travel, transit, and commercial vehicle transport. NOTE: The 2010 Guide does not directly address aviation, marine, heavy rail, or pipeline modes, although these modes and the threats against them can affect transportation infrastructure and 2 A Guide to Emergency Response Planning at State Transportation Agencies

operations. These modes should be considered, as appropriate, in the ER planning process (e.g., aviation and marine have a place in emergency evacuation planning). Executive Leadership is Key Meeting an agency’s emergency response needs requires an organized management response— championed at the executive level—based on clear agency policy and commitment in the form of program and organizational arrangements. It is essential that state transportation agency exec- utives become familiar with the changing context and challenges facing emergency response, in addition to the challenge of the 4-Cs—multiple agency communication, cooperation, coordina- tion, and consensus system. Some key overarching principles of interest to transportation agency top management in this 2010 Guide include the following: • Use the emergency management planning cycle (plan, prepare, respond, recover) as specified in the Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101, Developing and Managing State, Territorial, Tribal, and Local Government Emergency Plans (CPG 101, 2009). Within the plan- ning framework, transportation agencies should strongly consider preparing for specific response activities. • Recognize the need for transportation agencies to understand the basic concepts of the Incident Command System (ICS), including Unified Command (UC), as defined in the National Incident Management Sys- tem (NIMS). Familiarity with these procedures can be coordinated and integrated with the broader emergency transportation operations and with the day-to-day incident management process. • Working within a State EMA context is likely to require the ability to respond to the DHS requirements in the form of NIMS. • EM roles and responsibilities cannot be left to an ad hoc real-time approach. The respec- tive roles of various state transportation agency units within both headquarters and the districts must be predetermined and exercised. Likewise, many of the functions covered in this 2010 Guide are accomplished more at the district (or even local) government lev- els, and the agency central office has little role. The important point is that transportation agencies should properly account for all applicable actions in some manner. • Planning and executing emergency response demands special expertise. Developing suf- ficiently trained planners to meet and sustain planning requirements may be a special challenge. • Throughout the ER planning process, it is important to identify explicit resource demands and operational options. The most efficient approach may be to allocate resources, used originally to prepare for terrorist incident responses, for pre-event preparedness efforts that enable the state transportation agency to respond to the full range of emergencies. • Prioritize plans and planning efforts to best support emergency management and home- land security strategies. State transportation agency top-level management leadership is necessary to give the ER process and resource requirements the prominence they require to compete for funding resources and organizational attention. The planning and actual response processes—and the intensive coor- dination required—cannot take place without clear top-down leadership and an accountability framework. It is important, therefore, that agencies use the 2010 Guide as a tool to energize and check the agency’s current level of preparedness. Summary 3 The importance of Unified Com- mand is not to have a single Inci- dent Commander, but rather to operate under a single Incident Action Plan (IAP). (Paraphrased from NIMS)

Value of the 2010 Guide The 2010 Guide is designed to help state transportation agencies and their local/regional coun- terparts assess their ER plans and identify areas needing improvement. The 2010 Guide reflects accepted practices in emergency response planning and incorporates advances made over the last decade in Traffic Incident Management (TIM), Emergency Trans- portation Operations (ETO), and supporting programs. In addition to the introduction, background, and institutional context for ER planning, the 2010 Guide has two major sections: • Sections 3–5: Design an Emergency Preparedness Program—a program-level review of the all-hazards approach to emergency management, which will help transportation agen- cies assess their plans and identify areas needing improvement. • Section 6: Resource Guide—guidance on organizational, staffing, and position decisions; decision-making sequences; a full emergency response matrix; and a purpose and support- ing resources for action reference matrix. Within the context of transportation-accepted practices, as well as existing state transporta- tion agency protocols and procedures, the 2010 Guide integrates concepts from NIMS and the National Response Framework (NRF) and incorporates recommendations from FEMA’s 2005 nationwide review of all state emergency operations plans. The 2010 Guide also references the DHS Target Capabilities List (TCL), which identifies the fundamental capabilities essential to implementing the National Preparedness Guidelines. The material in this 2010 Guide also connects the federal guidance and the state transportation agency’s participation in the state/regional ER community plans and the agency’s internal EOP. Finally, this is a guide, not a standard. 4 A Guide to Emergency Response Planning at State Transportation Agencies