A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned for Improving Local Community Recovery from Disastrous Hazardous Materials Transportation Incidents (2012)

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.

39 4.1 Overview Advance planning is critical to effective disaster recovery. Examining recovery efforts from previous domestic and international disasters resulting from hazardous materials incidents, as well as other causal factors, affords a wide variety of best practices and lessons learned that can be applied as communities seek not only to recover, but also to build resiliency by undertaking recovery planning initiatives. This section provides information related to best practices and lessons learned to support recovery planning processes in general; however, it specifically considers factors unique to the potential ramifications of a hazardous materials transportation incident. As used in this report, the term “best practice” is defined as a superior or innovative method contributing to improved performance or providing a successful solution to an operational dilemma. A best practice, by its nature, implies cumulative and applicable knowledge regarding “what works” in varying situ- ations and contexts based on past experience, lessons learned, and the continuing process of improvement through identification and analysis of shortfalls or gaps, successive approxima- tions, peer review and feedback, and successful applications under diverse circumstances with uniform outcomes. Recovery planning activities take place pre-incident (as a key component of community pre- paredness and mitigation efforts), as well as post-incident. The American Planning Association (APA) states unexpected contingencies can always arise in the aftermath of a disaster, no matter how good the pre- disaster planning, in large part because no plan developed in the pre-disaster period can anticipate the precise nature of the next disaster.67 Although both the act and the end-product of recovery planning are vital, the need for inno- vation and adaptability is also imperative.68 Particularly as they relate to hazardous materials transportation incidents, such innovation and adaptability are essential due to the many short- and long-term variables related to the nature of particular hazardous materials, along with the element of surprise inherent to accidents involving the transportation of hazardous materials. It is also important to keep in mind that there is great diversity in the U.S. within each community, ranging from population density and complexity of infrastructure, to environmental, cultural, symbolic, and historic features that make a difference in the recovery planning processes and recovery prioritization. For example, restoration of historic properties (along with the accom- panying array of preservation and building code issues) may be paramount to recovery planning in a community like Williamsburg, VA, but not a top priority in other communities. Much of the planning guidance presented in this section is from the National Disaster Recovery Framework. An additional resource for planning in relation to a hazardous materials transportation C H A P T E R 4 Best Practices for Community Recovery Planning

40 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned incident can be found on the DOT website (http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ publications.htm#eto). Topics range from evacuation route planning to emergency transportation operations and traffic incident management. 4.2 Standards for Recovery Planning There are two primary standards used in emergency management planning as follows: • National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1600; and • The Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) standard, which supports the NFPA 1600 Standard. NFPA 1600 provides guidance on the development of emergency plans for both government and private-sector businesses and includes a framework of considerations for a comprehensive recovery plan. NFPA 1600 provides a common criteria set for disaster, emergency management, and busi- ness continuity programs. NFPA 1600 also details recommendations for the various stages of such programs, including development, implementation, assessment, and maintenance. First conceived 20 years ago, NFPA 1600 was designed to address disaster preparation, response, and recovery. DHS has adopted NFPA 1600 as a national preparedness standard. Furthermore, NFPA 1600 is designated as a qualified anti-terrorism technology (QATT) and is certified as an approved product for homeland security through the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 (SAFETY Act).69 Among the specific sections of NFPA 1600 that reference recovery and planning, highlighted suggestions include utilizing an all-hazards approach and applying risk management principles. Specifically, NFPA 1600 recognizes risk assessment as a means to identify strategies for preven- tion and mitigation, as well as the basis for informing response, continuity, and recovery plan- ning.70 Although previous editions of NFPA 1600 provided more details relative to short- and long-term recovery, the 2010 edition addresses recovery more broadly. Key recommendations for inclusion as elements of recovery plans include the following: • Critical infrastructure; • Telecommunications and cyber systems; • Distribution systems/networks for essential goods; • Transportation systems, networks, and infrastructure; • Facilities; • Psychosocial services; • Health services; and • Continuity of operations.71 Highlighted short-term recovery planning objectives recommended by NFPA 1600 are similarly broad. Goals and objectives listed in the context of building short-term recovery plans include • Vital personnel, systems, operations, records, and equipment; • Restoration and mitigation priorities; • Acceptable levels of downtime prior to minimum restoration; and • Minimum functions, services, and resources required. NFPA 1600 identifies long-term recovery planning goals primarily in terms of management activities (e.g., coordination, funding, volunteer and contractual resources, etc.), as well as long- term mitigation. According to NFPA 1600, long-term recovery planning should also be informed by existing community strategic plans.

Best Practices for Community Recovery Planning 41 Various agencies at the federal and state levels, as well as private-sector and non-profit orga- nizations, have developed guidance for creating and implementing emergency plans, business continuity programs, and other guidance that is valuable in terms of deriving recovery planning policies and procedures. Emergency plans at all levels address some basics of recovery from hazardous materials incidents within the context of their responsibilities and ESF #10 – Oil and Hazardous Materials Response. 4.3 Samples of Recovery Planning There are multiple ways of developing plans for hazardous materials incidents; however, the two primary types of plans are area hazardous materials plans (stand-alone plans) and an all- hazards basic plan with annexes. The basic plan covers such topics as authorities and references, a concept of operations, the organizational structure, and identification and analysis of hazards. The basic plan is supplemented with annexes that can consist of the operational functions of the organization (usually based on the National Incident Management System [NIMS], to address command/management, operations, planning, logistics, and finance); an annex for each hazard addressed in the hazard identification and analysis; an annex for each department in the jurisdic- tion; or an annex for each of the emergency support functions that are a part of the NRF. The method used to develop a plan (whether stand alone or basic) is typically determined by the local authority and based on need(s), past planning practices, compatibility with other plans, legal requirements, and subjective preferences. There are two approaches commonly followed in developing recovery plans. The first is to develop a recovery section for the community’s emergency operations plan (basic plan) that outlines recovery information applicable to all hazards. An outline of the recovery plan for the County of San Diego, California, is presented as an example of this type of overarching recovery plan. The second approach (known as hazard-specific planning) is to develop a stand-alone haz- ardous materials plan that includes a recovery component. The plan outline from Contra Costa County, California, provides an example of that type of planning activity. Sample Recovery Plan San Diego County Emergency Services Organization and County of San Diego – Recovery Plan, County of San Diego, CA, URS Corporation, April 2007 (www.llis.gov) The following represents an outline of the topics covered in the referenced plan and is taken directly from that document. For the full contents of the Recovery Plan, see Appendix C of this report. 1. Relationship to Response Operations 2. Short-term Recovery Operations 3. Long-term Recovery Operations 4. Debris Removal and Management • Overview • Recycling • Debris Clearance • Curbside Debris Removal • Private Property Debris Removal • Demolition • Direct Federal Assistance 5. Economic Recovery

42 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned Sample Hazardous Materials Plan Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Area Plan, County of Contra Costa, CA, William Walker, MD, Health Services Director; Randall L. Sawyer, Hazardous Materials Division Director; and Michael P. Wedl, Hazardous Materials Specialist, December 2005 The following represents an outline of the topics covered in the referenced plan and is taken directly from that document. For the full contents of the Recovery Plan, see Appendix C of this report. SHELTER-IN-PLACE & EVACUATION PLANS The following procedures have been developed to safeguard the public affected by a hazardous materials incident: 1. Determine the properties of the hazardous materials involved, including toxicity, physical, chemical, fire, explosion, quantity, concentration, vapor pressure, density, and potential health effects . . . CLEAN-UP 1. Overall operations for returning the incident scene to a normal condition are the responsibility of the IC. It is the policy of Contra Costa County that the IC identify and encourage the responsible party to take prompt remedial action . . . EMERGENCY FUNDING ACCESS 1. Local funds may be accessed through CCHS-HazMat on incidents when an imminent threat to human health or the environment exists and no responsible parties have been identified or will not assume financial responsibility for cleanup costs . . . When developing recovery plans, consideration might be given to the creation of a Recovery Office charged with the responsibility of overseeing all recovery operations. The case study in this section highlights the lessons learned from a tabletop exercise on disaster recovery involving Rebuild Iowa, the Recovery Office within the State of Iowa. This exercise was based on scenarios covering the progression of a flood disaster well into long-term recovery. The scenario begins on April 8, 2022, with 2 weeks of rain and flooding throughout central Iowa. Twenty-five counties are named in a Presidential Declaration of Major Disaster. The second scenario occurs 3 days later, with 67 counties now named in the disaster. In addition, the flooding has impacted two urban centers and destroyed many acres of cropland. Fifty people have also been killed and/or injured, and another 60,000 have been displaced from their homes. A special meeting has been called by the Governor to (1) discuss the status of the storms and on-going response efforts and (2) assess the state’s capacity to address long-term recovery. Though the recommendations are aimed at a state agency, the concept and idea of a Recovery Office may also be appropriate for other levels of government. Case Study Iowa Disaster Recovery Tabletop Exercise After Action Report/Improvement Plan, Rebuild Iowa & Iowa Homeland Security & Emergency Management Division, August 2010 (www.llis.gov) The information presented in this case study is taken directly from the referenced document. 1. The State of Iowa lacks a formal, permanent system designed to coordinate long-term recovery following a major disaster. Recommendation: The State of Iowa needs to formulate and adopt a scalable, flexible state disaster recovery framework. 2. Immediately following a major disaster, there needs to be a group charged with the responsibility to set recovery goals and oversee progress toward meeting those goals.

Best Practices for Community Recovery Planning 43 Case Study (Continued). Iowa Disaster Recovery Tabletop Exercise After Action Report/Improvement Plan, Rebuild Iowa & Iowa Homeland Security & Emergency Management Division, August 2010 (www.llis.gov) Recommendation: A State Recovery Council comprised of state and local leaders should be established to collect, analyze, and share damage assessment data, seek input from those impacted by disaster, set recovery goals and expectations, and monitor and report recovery progress. 3. While Iowa is well-versed in disaster response planning and preparedness, Iowa needs to improve long- term recovery preparedness and planning. Recommendation: A State Recovery Coordinator position needs to be created to lead recovery planning and preparedness efforts and serve as the Recovery Coordinating Officer during major disaster events. Recommendation: The State of Iowa needs to create a system to collect and share comprehensive, standardized damage assessment data to be used to inform decisions and track recovery progress. 4. A lack of coordinated communication and messaging causes time delays, confusion, frustration, and overall inefficiencies in recovery efforts. Recommendation: A centralized communication team must gather and disburse information about damage assessments, funding, programs, and progress to ensure a highly coordinated message at the local, state, and federal level, and to minimize delay times and maximize efficiencies. 5. The State of Iowa does not have a disaster emergency fund with resources readily available for allocation to disaster recovery programs. Recommendation: The State of Iowa should finance an emergency disaster fund so that resources are available to fund long-term disaster recovery programs. To implement these recommendations it is necessary to look at potential barriers and how those barriers might be overcome. Barriers to Implementation • To create a new agency or department would, most likely, require some form of legislative action. In today’s climate of cutting and shrinking budgets, legislation creating a new department/office would most likely fail. Possible Resolution to the Implementation Barriers 1. A short-term option would be to create a recovery division with the emergency management agency and re-direct staff to perform the functions of establishing the division. Once funding becomes available, the jurisdiction and the agency could decide if the recovery office would remain with the emergency management agency or be moved to a new department/agency. The planning guidance presented in this section highlights a best practice from the United Nations Environment Programme that addresses response planning in relation to hazardous materials. The 10 steps presented are equally applicable to the recovery planning process. The steps presented also compare favorably to the planning concepts included in the NDRF. Planning Guidance TransAPELL Guidance for Dangerous Goods Transport Emergency Planning in a Local Community, United Nations Environment Programme, 2000 (http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/2679-TransApellEN.PDF) The information presented in this case study is taken directly from the referenced document. Ten steps are defined as general best practices. 1. Identify the emergency response participants and establish their roles, resources, and concerns. 2. Evaluate the risks and hazards that may result in emergency situations in the community. (continued on next page)

44 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned Planning Guidance (Continued). TransAPELL Guidance for Dangerous Goods Transport Emergency Planning in a Local Community, United Nations Environment Programme, 2000 (http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/2679-TransApellEN.PDF) 3. Have participants review their own emergency plan for adequacy relative to a coordinated response. 4. Identify the required response tasks not covered by existing plans. 5. Match these tasks to the resources available from the identified participants. 6. Make the changes necessary to improve existing plans, integrate them into an overall community plan, and gain agreement. 7. Commit the integrated community plan to writing and obtain approval from local government. 8. Educate participating groups about the integrated plan and ensure that all emergency responders are trained. 9. Establish procedures for periodic testing, review, and updating of the plan. 10. Educate the general community about the integrated plan. To implement these guidelines it is necessary to look at potential barriers and how those barriers might be overcome. Barriers to Implementation 1. These are guidelines outlining the process for developing plans. There are really no barriers to their implementation. However, the barrier to planning in general would be funding to pay for the plan development. 2. Resistance from already over-burdened staff. 3. Lack of public participation. Possible Resolution to Implementation Barriers 1. Some grant funding is available to LEPCs for planning through the HMEP grant program and various other federal grant programs (see Appendix E for more detailed information on this issue). 2. Mandates to develop the plans from the local governing body can help overcome resistance. 3. Implementing town hall meetings, websites, and/or disaster fairs can increase public participation in the planning process. 4.4 Recovery Planning Activities The NDRF defines disaster recovery roles for federal, state, local, and tribal governments, non-profits, the private sector, and individual citizens in an effort to outline and supplement an effective coordinating structure for disaster recovery programs; identify shortfalls, gaps, and duplication in recovery programs and funding; and create measurable performance standards for federal support of state and local recovery efforts. 4.4.1 Pre-Incident Recovery Planning The NDRF identifies the following key elements in pre-incident planning for recovery:72 • Establish clear leadership, coordination, and decision-making structures at the state, local, and tribal levels; • Develop pre-disaster partnerships to ensure engagement of all potential resources through the following methods: – Identify and engage stakeholders, including the general public, community leaders, and the private sector; – Organize connections to, and interface with, federal, state, local, and tribal governments; – Ensure participation of populations that have historically been underserved during the recovery process, including individuals with disabilities and others with access and func- tional needs, children, and those who are elderly;

Best Practices for Community Recovery Planning 45 – Test and evaluate pre-disaster plans through seminars, workshops, and exercises; – Build partnerships between neighborhoods and local government agencies that form the basis for pre- and post-multihazard assessments and support for mitigation actions; – Integrate pre-disaster recovery planning (e.g., response, land use, and hazard mitigation planning) with other appropriate community planning (e.g., comprehensive accessibility design and capital improvement planning); – Identify limitations in community recovery capacity and the means to address those limitations; – Incorporate sustainable development, including environmental, historic preservation, and financial elements, into recovery planning guidelines; – Develop an accessible public information campaign that addresses the concerns of the public and an array of possible scenarios; – Prepare pre-disaster Memoranda of Understanding as a way to establish early partnership, planning initiatives and expectations with stakeholders, community faith-based organiza- tions, nonprofit groups, and private-sector entities; – Develop and implement recovery training and education as a tool for building recovery capacity and making it available to all other stakeholders; and – Identify resource requirements and conduct acquisition planning. The NDRF establishes state or tribal Disaster Recovery Coordinators and Local Disaster Recovery Managers (SDRCs, TDRCs, and LDRMs), with the primary role of organizing, coor- dinating, and advancing the recovery process. The Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator is the primary interface with the SDRC, TDRC, and LDRM during large-scale disasters or catastrophic incidents when a federal role may be required.73 Pre-incident planning activities include the following: • Identifying the LDRM and establishing roles and responsibilities for recovery staff; • Establishing general priorities to restore vital services to the community; and • Laying the groundwork for assistance and programs that will be implemented after an incident. Pre-incident recovery planning is not necessarily incident specific, nor does it need to be a stand-alone effort. Once the LDRM has been appointed, a planning team can be established. Suggested members of the planning team include the following: • Elected officials; • Emergency planners; • Community planning department; • Legal counsel; • Public works; • Members of the medical community; • Local businesses; • Non-governmental organizations; • Community-based organizations; • Faith-based organizations; • Members of the general public; • Individuals with economic development expertise; and • Technical specialists to address specific issues. Lessons from various communities caution against actions that may lead to short-term deci- sions that adversely impact a community’s ability to attain long-term post-incident goals.74 Due to public pressure to return a community to its pre-event condition as quickly as possible, public policy and decision makers may succumb to expedient, short-term recovery fixes that may not be in keeping with the community’s vision and may even preclude opportunities to rebuild

46 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned a safer and better community for the future. According to FEMA, successfully avoiding such undesirable outcomes requires “identifying in advance those decisions that will need to be made after a disaster that are most likely to have long-term repercussions . . . ”75 Some short-term decisions that affect long-term goals include, but are not limited to, the following:76 • The location of temporary housing, which often becomes more permanent than was origi- nally intended; • The siting of temporary business locations, which begin with the aim of allowing local busi- nesses to continue to operate, but may become de facto long-term relocations; • The selection of sites for dumping disaster debris; • Road closures and re-openings; • Bridge closures and re-openings; • Restoration of critical infrastructure that might otherwise have been suitable for relocation; and • Permitting the reoccupation of homes that have suffered substantial damage. Although this report is specific to recovery from a hazardous materials transportation acci- dent, basic pre-incident and post-incident planning principles are universal, regardless of inci- dent cause, and can, therefore, be applied as circumstances require. Integrating recovery into a community’s plan facilitates fulfillment of future planning endeavors and can aid in strengthen- ing public unity and support within a community. 4.4.2 Post-Incident Recovery Planning Post-incident planning activities are based on the full direct and indirect impacts of the inci- dent. This planning typically addresses the following four issues: • Long-term medical care for victims and responders; • Decontamination plans for infrastructure; • Environmental restoration plans; and • Long-term community recovery plans. To determine recovery needs, a full assessment of the impacts of the incident should be devel- oped. The assessment should include direct costs (actual documented costs to the community for response, physical damage, etc.), as well as indirect costs (estimated loss of revenue, loss of business opportunities, etc.). The development of this assessment begins at the start of the inci- dent through the collection of data from the emergency operations center and the local business community. While the assessment is being completed, a recovery planning team should be estab- lished for this planning effort. Ideally, the same people who were involved in the pre-incident planning should be included in the post-incident planning. Realistically, this may not always be possible, but representatives from the same disciplines, agencies, and organizations should be involved. Suggested members of the planning team therefore include the following: • Elected officials; • Emergency planners; • Community planning department; • Legal counsel; • Public works; • Members of the medical community; • Local businesses; • Non-governmental organizations; • Community-based organizations;

Best Practices for Community Recovery Planning 47 • Faith-based organizations; • Members of the general public; • Individuals with economic development expertise; and • Technical specialists to address specific issues. After reviewing numerous state and local plans, the Government Accountability Office has identified three key characteristics of successful state and local government recovery plans devel- oped in the post-incident period, including the following: • Identifying clear recovery goals; • Detailing information to facilitate recovery implementation; and • Establishing plans in a timely manner.77 The overall purpose of the recovery plan is to provide clear, specific, and timely guidance to achieve not only a quick return to pre-incident conditions, but to strengthen communities by fostering sustainable recovery. Ideas and goals for a community’s future vision may already be established in a community’s comprehensive/general plan, annual reports, urban planning guid- ance, or may be available through community association meeting minutes. During this time, specific approaches are developed to achieve the following: • Address the short-term medical needs of victims and responders; • Implement long-term medical care programs; • Initiate short- and long-term housing programs; • Implement decontamination operations of the infrastructure; • Implement operations to clean up the environment; and • Look at the long-term issues of rebuilding and revitalizing the community. Post-incident recovery planning builds on the groundwork laid during pre-incident planning to fully identify the priorities and approaches to recovery based on the actual impacts from the incident. The NDRF notes the following elements as key in the post-disaster planning process:78 • Organizing recovery priorities and tasks through the use of a planning process to – Evaluate the conditions and needs after a disaster; – Assess risk; – Set goals and objectives; – Identify opportunities to build-in future resilience through mitigation; and – Identify specific projects in areas of critical importance to the community’s overall recovery; • Using a community-driven and locally managed process, designed to promote local decision- making and ownership of the recovery planning and implementation effort; • Working collaboratively with all groups of people affected by the disaster to promote inclusive and accessible outreach to their communities and address issues relevant to them; • Ensuring inclusion and encouraging participation of individuals and communities that may require alternative and/or additional outreach support (e.g., racial/ethnic communities, indi- viduals with limited English proficiency, and people with disabilities); • Incorporating considerations that include the concept of “growing smarter” as long-term recovery progresses, including compliance with standards for sustainable and accessible design, alteration, and construction; • Integrating multihazard considerations into mitigation and preparedness activities; • Building partnerships among local agencies, jurisdictions, and state, tribal, and federal governments; • Providing well-defined activities and outcomes – including schedules and milestones;

48 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned • Developing tools and metrics for evaluating progress against set goals, objectives, and mile- stones; and • Identifying resource requirements and conducting acquisition planning. FEMA has found that a good way of encouraging community involvement in the post- incident recovery planning process is through a series of structured “town hall” meetings (see Figure 4-1). These typically are brainstorming sessions wherein the public is free to provide ideas and have them considered by all. This approach is easier to implement and manage with small, urban or rural communities. However, it is fairly easy to adapt for large, diverse communities. A reasonable approach is to break the community into readily identifiable districts (e.g., city council districts) and hold mul- tiple meetings. The planning team can then consolidate the information collected. It will be during these meetings that elected officials present their vision for the recovery efforts and establish their priorities. The community can then provide feedback. This same pro- cess can also be used to address specific initiatives aimed at sustaining the recovery potentially beyond the point of simply restoring pre-incident conditions. Additionally, the community’s legal counsel needs to be involved to address liability issues and the legal issues related to the ability of the community to implement the projects and programs identified. 4.4.3 Additional Planning Resources Another resource available to local community planning efforts is the National Planning Sce- narios. There are 15 all-hazards scenarios available for use in local community planning activi- ties. The scenarios are tools representing disasters ranging from potential terrorist attacks to natural disasters and their related impacts. The National Incident Management System (NIMS) is also a valuable reference source for preparedness. As stated in a NIMS document Preparedness is a foundational step in emergency management and incident response; therefore, the con- cepts and principles that form the basis for preparedness are an integration of the concepts and principles of all NIMS components. (SOURCE: Personal photographs; Photo credit: Audra G. Kunf, CEM) Figure 4-1. Community meeting Hallam, Nebraska.

Best Practices for Community Recovery Planning 49 A significant component of this approach is for local communities, other government agen- cies, and the private sector to evaluate their capabilities to prepare for, mitigate against, respond to, and recover from all incidents no matter what their cause. Such a capability analysis will identify short falls in planning and resources that will allow a focused approach to preparedness and planning for an incident. Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 20 also needs to be considered as a part of pre-incident planning. This policy establishes “National Essential Functions, prescribes conti- nuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private-sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.”79 As mentioned in Section 3.3.5, resources are also available to local communities through industry organizations that can provide technical knowledge and specialized equipment to assist communities with their planning efforts, as well as with response and recovery operations. In addition to industry resources, the DOT Resource Guide for Hazardous Materials has useful infor- mation to assist in planning for hazardous materials transportation incidents. 4.5 Recovery Planning for Mass Care Typically, the local community will be in the lead for mass care. The determination of whether there is an evacuation or shelter-in-place order will be made by the Unified Command. It will be similar for most decontamination operations. Should there be a shelter-in-place order from the Unified Command, it is possible that the local community will take the lead for any evacuation once the shelter-in-place order is lifted. 4.5.1 Pre-Incident Planning for Mass Care This element of recovery planning addresses • Evacuation potentially following shelter-in-place; • Decontamination of people; • Sheltering; • Short- and long-term medical care for victims and responders; and • Interim housing. While past hazardous materials transportation incidents have not required as great a focus on all of these issues as some other types of disasters, each incident is unique, and so all aspects of the recovery process are fully addressed in this report. Evacuation, Decontamination and Sheltering. The decision whether or not to evacuate is not solely dependent on the need for decontamination. It is possible that decontamination will not be required, but individuals will need to be evacuated because of exposure to airborne contaminants or damage to their homes or utilities such that minimum health and safety condi- tions cannot be met. In this case, a rapid safety assessment process should be implemented before the decision is made. The safety assessment is simply a review of the infrastructure within the impacted area to determine if the roads and utilities are safe enough to continue operation and if the buildings are safe for continued occupancy. Establishing and implementing decontamination operations include options for establish- ing decontamination operations at a local hospital or outside the hot zone (contaminated area) and should include cooperative tracking of hospital and emergency medical service staff. Actual

50 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned decontamination criteria will be established following the incident when the specifics of the hazardous materials are known and the techniques for effective decontamination can be identi- fied and implemented. During pre-incident planning, consideration can be given to the requirements for decon- taminating individuals in the field outside the hot zone, including the physical size of the decon- tamination area, identifying transportation resources for moving individuals, determinations of whether individuals will be transported out of the hot zone with community resources or be allowed to drive their personal vehicles, and determining whether or not personal vehicles will need to be decontaminated. The option of establishing decontamination operations at local hospitals will require many of the same pre-incident planning options as for decontaminating in the field outside the hot zone. Shelter operations (see Figure 4-2) historically have been conducted by non-governmental organizations working closely with the local community. Additional support can be provided by the state and if necessary from the federal government through ESF #6 – Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Housing, and Human Services. Local officials and non-governmental organizations should anticipate shelter requirements based on the80 • Nature and magnitude of the incident; • Complexity of individual and household needs; • Number of displaced persons; • Community characteristics; and • Available shelter options. Additionally, these factors drive logistical requirements for commodities and support services. While urban areas typically have a greater number of facilities that can serve as shelters, they may also face the need to shelter very large numbers of people. Rural areas tend to have fewer structures that are appropriate as shelters and rely more on the social network of friends, family and community groups, with shelters typically established at local schools, religious facilities or National Guard Armories. Sheltering can appear to be as simple as locating a suitable facility and opening the doors to disaster victims. However, the process becomes increasingly difficult when the full range of (SOURCE: http://www.fema.gov/photolibrary/; Photo credit: FEMA/Patsy Lynch: FEMA News Photo) Figure 4-2. Flood shelter in Fargo, North Dakota.

Best Practices for Community Recovery Planning 51 individual and household needs must be met. Consideration must be given to individuals with special needs (seniors, those who are infirm, children); people with disabilities and the equip- ment they require; service animals; household pets; and need for triage to determine if medical care is required. Additionally, the buildings selected should have some form of cooking facilities and must be ADA compliant. Consideration needs to be given to specialized shelters that may be required. These include: • Medical Support Shelters – Shelters for individuals who have medical issues requiring care beyond the capability of a general population shelter. These shelters provide a variety of medi- cal services, ranging from extensive first aid, to medical assessment and monitoring, to pri- mary care services. • Functional Needs Shelters or Units – Serve individuals with functional needs who require additional support. These are individuals who are normally able to live independently, but may face a challenge in a general population shelter. • Household Pet Shelters – Specialized shelters to meet the needs of people with household pets. These shelters require extensive planning and specialized equipment and staff, such as kennels for boarding and transporting, veterinarians and veterinarian technicians, fans for air circulation, feeding supplies, and supplies for parasite control. Additional considerations include sanitation and exercise requirements for the animals. When looking at evacuation and sheltering operations for hazardous materials transportation incidents, the process and procedures are similar to those for other types of incidents, emergen- cies, or disasters. Planning for shelter operations ensures that the specific issues associated with hazardous materials transportation incidents are also addressed. As evacuation plans are reviewed or developed, consideration should be given to addressing how and when individuals and local businesses will be allowed to re-enter the impacted area after they and/or the area have been decontaminated. Many of the issues addressed in the evacuation will also need to be addressed in the re-entry plan. Issues to be addressed include, but are not limited to (1) transportation needs for individuals without cars; (2) how individuals will be able to retrieve their vehicles if they were left to be decontaminated; and (3) what transportation will be needed to return individuals to hospitals and nursing homes. Re-entry plans should also include a security component to ensure only individuals with a legitimate need are allowed into the area (e.g., residents, business owners, employees, etc.) Medical Needs. Short-term medical care will encompass • Establishment of Casualty Collection Points – In cases where decontamination of the vic- tims will not be necessary, a casualty collection point can be established somewhere in the cold zone (area that is free of contamination) where medical triage of individuals can take place. Those requiring additional medical treatment can be transported to the appropriate medical facility from this location. • Triage and Establishment of Reception Centers – Activities include medical triage and registration of victims. Pre-incident planning activities can include establishing layouts for the set-up of decontamination areas; space layouts and processes for the registration of vic- tims; identifying the information needed and developing appropriate forms and signs for the collection of the information; having signs and forms translated into the predominant languages spoken within the community; and pre-identifying potential staffing requirements and resources. • Establishment of Decontamination Operations – Activities include options for establishing decontamination operations at a local hospital or outside the hot zone (contaminated area). If operations are at a local hospital, activities include providing transportation for victims to minimize the spread of contamination and may include cooperative tracking of hospital and emergency medical service staff.

52 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned Typically, these three activities are initiated outdoors. When establishing these locations, inclement weather and the comfort of the victims, as well as staff, should be considered and addressed. Beyond the obvious necessity for adequate sanitation, protection from the elements and hydration should also be provided. The following case study highlights best practices in the use of staging areas for local dispensing sites providing prophylaxis using the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS). This best practice is a compilation of several documents relating to the SNS and provides recommendations on the use of segmented dispensing sites aimed at better controlling the flow of patients and vehicles. The concept involves splitting dispensing site functions into multiple and distinct physical locations. Case Study Strategic National Stockpile Distribution Planning: Using Staging Sites to Segment Dispensing Processes, Lessons Learned Information Sharing (www.llis.gov) The information presented in this case study is taken directly from the referenced document. Local dispensing sites may encounter a surge of a large number of individuals and vehicles during a mass prophylaxis event. Local SNS planners may wish to consider segmenting dispensing sites to help cope with these surges and better manage the flow of patients. Staging Site Advantages and Disadvantages Segmented sites offer several advantages. These include: • Reduced traffic congestion at non-segmented dispensing sites; • Eliminating parking concerns at dispensing sites; • Ensuring that patients can reach the dispensing sites; • Improving security and controlling unruly patients by regulating patient flow to dispensing sites; • Controlling the number of patients arriving at the dispensing sites; and • Educating the public about the incident and dispensing operations while on the bus. Segmented sites can also pose several distinct challenges, including: • Arranging for transportation between the staging site and the dispensing site(s); • Pre-planning, securing, and rehearsing travel routes between sites; • Increased number of security personnel to cover both the staging site and the dispensing sites; • Possible increase in number of staff required to operate staging sites; • Forcing people to start at the staging site—and not travel directly to the dispensing facilities; and • Increased coordination challenges given the increased number of facilities. Staging Site Functions Staging sites can be employed in a variety of manners to relieve congestion at dispensing sites. For example, a staging site can be used for staff to initially screen patients, triage them, and provide initial information. The staff at a separate physical facility could dispense pharmaceuticals to the non-symptomatic patients who are transported to the dispensing facility after completing screening and triage. Symptomatic patients are transported to a hospital or other treatment facility. A staging site can serve one or more dispensing sites. If a staging site serves no other purpose than to initially greet patients, provide some information, and control the flow of patients to the dispensing site, the staging site is often referred to as a “queuing site.” • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials stated that the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services has successfully modeled the use of queuing sites for SNS distribution on computer software. This is an option available to assist planners. • Los Angeles County has a checklist for deciding on specific dispensing and vaccination sites. The document focuses on issues of accessibility, physical characteristics, and functionality of specific sites. • During the DC Postal Anthrax Incident in 2001, postal workers were taken by bus to DC General Hospital from their worksite at the start/end of their shifts. This practice minimized parking and traffic difficulties.

Best Practices for Community Recovery Planning 53 Staging Facility Requirements Using staging sites to manage patient loads at operating dispensing sites requires that planners pre-select a sufficiently large gathering point with adequate access for ground transportation to and from dispensing sites. One example of a good staging site is a local shopping mall. At minimum, potential staging sites should have the following characteristics: • Accessible by public transportation; • Able to hold a large number of people, dependent on the population and number of dispensing sites of the jurisdiction; • Ample parking for people arriving at the site in their own vehicles; and • Basic facilities, including potable water, toilets, and seating. Public Information Requirements Rather than directing individuals to allocated dispensing sites, officials will need to ensure the public is directed to the staging sites and, from there, transported to a dispensing site. Individuals should also be told of the best modes of transport to get to the staging site and directions for its location. Transportation Requirements SNS planners will be required to organize transport between the staging and dispensing sites. In order to arrange for the use of staging sites, local planners will need sufficient resources to arrange for extra support, including personnel, drivers, and vehicles. Local bus companies or school buses could be used as a potential resource because they have the required personnel, drivers, and vehicles. Triage at Staging Sites In the event of a communicable disease, it may be decided that staging sites should not be used because of the possibility of cross-contamination while patients are on the bus. Local planners could consider setting up triage operations at the staging sites. This would immediately identify any symptomatic patients, reduce the burden of operations at the dispensing sites, and speed up the patient flow once patients arrive at the dispensing sites. To implement this best practice it is necessary to look at potential barriers and how those barriers might be overcome. Barriers to Implementation: 1. The establishment of staging areas requires the identification and use of multiple facilities in the community. Suitable resources may not be available. 2. Funding for the planning operation will be an issue and is an extension of the barrier to planning. 3. Private hospital may be resistant to cooperative planning and training. Possible Resolution to Implementation Barriers: 1. Develop public-private partnerships with industrial complexes where multi-purpose rooms would be available to serve as staging areas (this concept could also include schools, colleges/universities, community centers, etc.); 2. Use of grant funding available to LEPCs for planning through the HMEP grant program and various other federal grant programs (see Appendix E for more detailed information on this issue); and 3. Develop mutual aid agreements between the community and the private hospitals. Long-term medical care for victims and responders should be included in post-incident recovery planning when the medical community has been able to determine if long-term care will be required and what it will entail. Pre-incident planning activities may focus primarily on identifying available resources within the community to provide any required long-term care, establishing reciprocal care agreements and procedures with other medical facilities to absorb long-term patients, and researching grant/funding opportunities. A more detailed discussion is included in Section 4.5.1.

54 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned Interim Housing. There is no legal mandate for government (either local or state) to provide emergency/interim housing for displaced residents (see Figure 4-3). However, precedent to do so has been established through numerous emergencies and disasters. Addressing the issue of pro- viding interim housing in plans and post-event actions has therefore become common practice. Without pre-established plans and agreements, clear expectations and a prescribed timeline for the duration of this support, motivation to find more permanent living accommodations or expend the effort to return to the impacted area can be lacking. Further, although the costs of interim housing may be reimbursable under provisions of a federally declared disaster, many hazardous materials transportation emergencies may not qualify. Key principles related to the provision of interim housing include:81 • Effective interim housing starts with setting clear expectations – To prepare communities for disasters, local and state officials should address interim housing as part of their public information campaigns. Messages can be developed in advance describing how the public can obtain housing assistance, what to expect, and what actions they can take ahead of time. As challenges arise, all involved must strive to raise issues quickly, be flexible, and work collaboratively to resolve them. • Interim housing extends well beyond simply providing a structure – Interim housing is much more than just the process and mechanics required for providing physical structures. It must also include restoration of private-sector infrastructure, such as grocery stores, banks, gas stations, and healthcare facilities, along with the other social support services that can make temporary cir- cumstances work for people who are struggling to recover from a disaster and rebuild their lives. • Interim housing must be safe, secure, and accessible – The most fundamental requirement for interim disaster housing is to provide a safe and secure environment where victims can live while they recover from the event and seek permanent housing. Local public safety officials are responsible for providing support services for victims living in interim housing units within their jurisdictions. When community sites are built to house victims, local police, fire, and emergency medical services may have to assume additional workload. This must be factored into temporary housing plans. • Interim housing is temporary – The intent is to provide temporary housing for those dis- placed by the incident while permanent housing is arranged. In creating temporary housing (SOURCE: http://www.fema.gov/about/photolibrary/; Photo credit: FEMA/Mark Wolfe: FEMA News Photo) Figure 4-3. Interim housing in Pascagoula, Mississippi.

Best Practices for Community Recovery Planning 55 plans, officials must balance the intensive effort to supply temporary housing with the need to immediately start developing plans for restoring permanent housing. Pre-incident planning for interim housing typically involves input from the community’s housing authority. Primary pre-incident planning activities are intended to ensure that the local housing authority always has a current list of available properties for short- or long-term occu- pancy. At this point in the planning process, working with local real estate companies, property management companies, and hotel associations can establish partnerships that will be helpful if a large number of properties are required for interim housing. Other activities can include establishing a tracking process for those who need to evacuate. This tracking system should follow the evacuee from evacuation to the point when they can return to their home or new permanent housing and include current contact information. Tracking becomes very important when evacuees leave the area for interim housing. Consider- ation also needs to be given to ensuring that sheltering facilities are available for domestic pets and livestock on a short- and long-term basis. 4.5.2 Post-Incident Planning for Mass Care The development of this section of the plan can begin during the emergency response and short-term phase of recovery. Once the medical community knows the impact of the incident on the medical and mental health of the victims and responders, determinations can be made on the necessity and types of long-term care that will be required. This element of the plan addresses how the community will secure the resources necessary to meet the identified long-term care needs. If the community lacks resources, the plan also identifies where these can be obtained. Some examples include: • Public-Private Partnerships – In this case, the community works with medical providers within the community or in neighboring communities to secure the medical resources neces- sary to provide the care needed. • Mutual Aid Agreements with Surrounding Communities – If one or more of the surrounding communities have the available resources to provide the necessary long-term care, a community may enter into mutual aid agreements that will allow the community’s victims to take advantage of the services provided. • Grant Applications – Financing the expense of long-term care needs will always be a chal- lenge. These expenses can be minimized or eliminated through grant funding to provide for the long-term care needs of victims and responders. Local governments and communities can work with the medical community to apply for and secure the necessary grant funding. The January 2005, Graniteville, SC, train accident is reported to be the second largest chlorine spill to date in the United States (see Figure 4-4). In researching the long-term health needs of victims in the wake of this incident, Dr. Erik Svendsen found the following:82 • More than 850 people sought medical care following the train accident. • Nine people died and the area was evacuated of thousands of others. An area health registry has 958 enrollees with 259 screenings done in 2005 and an additional 81 in 2007. • The registry identified 256 more injured people bringing the total number of victims to 1,384. • Fifty-five percent of the people seen during the first round of screenings were recommended for additional follow-up medical care for at least one condition. • Over half of the people screened during the first round tested positive for some type of decreased lung function.

56 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned • Just over 26 percent of those screened during the first round had some form of inflammation in their airways. • Nearly a third of those checked in the first round showed evidence of possible conditions such as asthma. • Three people who claimed to be non-smokers had airway blockages that could have been caused by emphysema. • Just over 26 percent of those screened in the first round had a significant loss of lung function but did not know it. • Nearly 41 percent of the people screened showed evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder, an emotional disorder that can linger for years. • An additional eight people have died from various causes since the event: four from cardiovas- cular disease, two from emphysema, one from pneumonia, and one suicide. Chlorine injury is not listed as a contributor in any of these deaths. Svendsen further notes that the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) continues to monitor the aftereffects of the accident through the Graniteville Recovery and Chlorine Epidemiology project, or GRACE. 4.6 Recovery Planning for Infrastructure The responsibilities for infrastructure will be shared between the Unified Command and the local community. The lead for any decontamination that is required will be the Unified Com- mand. Unified Command will complete the final decontamination plan. The physical repair and restoration of infrastructure will be lead by the local community. 4.6.1 Pre-Incident Planning for Infrastructure Recovery Infrastructure relates to the built environment and includes such items as roads, bridges, utili- ties, buildings, rail lines, etc., and the systems that use them, such as mass transportation. Pre- incident planning activities in this area often focus on identifying the transportation resources available to the community that can be activated following an incident to help keep traffic flow- ing; addressing alternate routes and how that information will be communicated to the public (SOURCE: http://www.hazmatteam.com/; Photo credit: Aiken County Hazardous Materials Team) Figure 4-4. Train derailment in Graniteville, South Carolina.

Best Practices for Community Recovery Planning 57 (covered in Section 4.3.2); beginning the outline of a decontamination plan should decontami- nation of the infrastructure be required by the incident; and debris management. During pre-incident planning, consideration should be given to identifying the methods of communicating alternate routes for traffic to the impacted community (see Section 4.3.2 for dis- cussion of the San Francisco Bay Area 511.org website). Additional methods of communication include, but are not limited to, the media (radio, television), reverse 9-1-1 systems, door-to-door notifications, internet, cell phones, and public address systems on emergency services vehicles. Also, identifying available resources for route marking and monitoring can be very helpful. Pre-incident planning for infrastructure recovery addresses worst-case scenarios as they relate to location and subjective evaluation. For example, a caustic release in or near an industrial or manufacturing area may not have the same risk value as a chemical fire in a residential neighbor- hood. It is up to the community’s planners to determine what scenarios relating to hazardous materials transportation incidents are the most relevant, what infrastructure would be affected, and which parts of that infrastructure are critical to the success and well being of the commu- nity. The National Planning Scenarios represent resources available to local communities to help guide this type of planning (http://publicintelligence.net/national-planning-scenarios-version- 21-3-2006-final-draft/). Projecting worst-case scenario results will help determine and prioritize critical facilities, routes, and utilities. Once these are identified, the community can enact preparedness and miti- gation measures to protect and strengthen their infrastructure from potential harm. As dis- cussed previously, preparedness and mitigation are on-going activities that can help to decrease the consequences of an incident, ease response, and speed recovery. Besides identifying and prioritizing critical facilities, other examples of pre-incident planning for infrastructure recov- ery include: • Ensuring accessibility to emergency equipment and supplies by: – Periodically checking water lines for flow and water pressure; – Stockpiling and pre-positioning materials like sand, precast concrete berms, and tarps; – Developing and maintaining a resource list; and – Developing agreements or contracts to ensure that critical items such as fuel are delivered in a timely manner. • Training staff. • Having appropriate contracting authorities in place. Pre-Incident Transportation Planning. Transportation is often an issue following a haz- ardous materials transportation incident. The community may need to increase the number of transportation resources operating within their locality to provide alternatives to commuters. Additionally, if there are a large number of casualties, ambulances and potentially busses will be needed to move victims from casualty collection points or decontamination areas to appropriate medical facilities. Because of the potential need for multiple forms of transportation, consider- ation must be given to establishing transportation staging areas. Transportation for individuals without personal vehicles and those with mobility issues also should be considered. Pre-incident planning is a good time for local community transportation agencies to develop general priorities for the re-establishment of arterials, local streets and mass transportation sys- tems. The goals for this process are to efficiently and rapidly get people and traffic moving again. The priorities are generally based on a number of factors including, but not limited to, opening routes for emergency vehicles and facilities (e.g., fire, law enforcement, hospitals, etc.), getting the business district open and functioning, and movement of the largest number of people that will achieve the goal of “getting back to normal.” Having these priorities established prior to the incident and understanding the goals or the re-establishment of routes allows for more rapid

58 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned implementation during the recovery process. At that time, it will be easy to adjust priorities based on actual impacts. During this process, the local community will also need to coordinate closely with regional and state transportation agencies. Pre-Incident Planning for Infrastructure Decontamination. If it is determined that decon- tamination of infrastructure will be required, a decontamination plan will need to be devel- oped. Typically, decontamination plans are done post-incident when the hazardous materials involved are clearly known and the appropriate decontamination techniques can be identified. Section 4.5.2 presents a best practice on the development of a post-incident decontamination plan. Using applicable portions of this or a similar plan as the basis for creating an outline in advance represents another potential best practice, as many pre-incident planning elements and issues are universal. This can include the identification of personnel who will be involved in the decontamination operation, the training that will be required, and the types of personal protective equipment that will be needed. Communities can contact the EPA regional offices for technical assistance on this topic. The EPA can also provide guidance on training, equipment, and other available resources. Pre-Incident Planning for Debris Operations. One of the most significant pre-incident planning activities is the development of a comprehensive debris management plan. Developing a debris management plan includes (1) pre-designation of debris storage and reduction sites; (2) identification of routes to and from the storage and reduction sites; (3) segregation of debris by type; (4) establishing position descriptions and responsibilities for debris monitors; (5) pro- cedures for reducing the volume of debris; (6) determination of when government may be required to enter private property for debris removal; (7) determination of when right-of-entry agreements between the government and the property owner are required; and (8) identification of resources for recycling the debris. To complete a full debris management plan, communities need to decide if they wish to pre- bid contracts for debris removal. This process ensures that communities will have the required resources to effectively and efficiently remove debris from the community and deliver it to the storage and reduction sites. Usually, these contracts are bid on a unit price basis with a price that is based on the cost to pick up and move debris on a dollar per cubic yard basis. Typically, the contract is for a fixed period of time, with a built-in escalation in the unit price for the subsequent years of the contract. FEMA has been encouraging communities to develop debris management plans for some time. In 2008, the agency implemented a pilot program within the Public Assistance Program to provide incentives to communities that developed debris management plans and pre-bid debris removal contracts. To be eligible for these incentives, communities had to submit their plans to FEMA for approval and have contracts in place. The incentives were then included in the devel- opment of the community’s debris project worksheets. The pilot program was in place for just over a year. During that time, a number of communities took advantage and now have FEMA- approved debris management plans with contracts in place. Although the FEMA 325 publication, Public Assistance Debris Management Guide, focuses primarily on debris generated from major natural hazards, such as earthquakes, floods, and hur- ricanes, it does provide basic guidance for any type of debris management. However, trans- portation accidents involving hazardous materials present some unique problems in debris management that are only marginally addressed in the FEMA 325 publication. The main issue is the pickup and disposal of contaminated materials. For communities located on waterways or along the coastal areas where there is a large amount of vessel traffic, consideration needs to be given to the pickup and disposal of contaminated sand and soil. This is especially true for incidents that involve the release of oil or nuclear material. In such cases,

Best Practices for Community Recovery Planning 59 the contaminated materials often must be picked up and placed in appropriate containers for shipment to a long-term hazardous materials storage site. The removal of contaminated sand and soil can be a very labor-intensive and expensive process for a community. Attention also needs to be devoted to safety and protection of debris removal workers. In some cases, collec- tion materials and equipment may also become contaminated and require special handling. Planning assistance for such operations is available through the EPA regional offices and the local commands of the USCG. For those communities located on coastlines, waterways, or within port areas, another con- sideration for the debris management plan will be salvage operations to address marine-related incidents. When the community is developing the debris management plan there should be close coordination with the appropriate USCG Captain of the Port and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to determine roles and responsibilities for salvage operations. The community’s debris management plan should clearly indicate who is in the lead for which parts of the debris removal operation. Typically, USCG has the authority to order immedi- ate implementation of salvage operations in the navigable waterways and will monitor those activities. USACE has the authority to order immediate implementation of salvage operations when the vessel is impacting a facility under their control, such as a levee, and will monitor those operations. Other considerations for a hazardous materials transportation incident include: • Resources – Communities must decide who will pick up contaminated debris. If the com- munity determines they want to use their sanitation department to accomplish this, consid- eration will need to be given to the training of these individuals in the handling of hazardous materials. • Materials – There will likely be a significant amount of debris following a hazardous materials transportation incident. A large percentage of this debris will be the captured decontamina- tion materials. However, other significant amounts of debris can be generated within retail stores with contaminated inventory that may be cost prohibitive to decontaminate. In addi- tion, supplies and inventory from manufacturing concerns may be prohibitive to decontami- nate and will also add to the amount of debris. Finally, foodstuffs from homes, stores and restaurants may also contribute to the magnitude of the debris problem. In most cases, these materials will need to be securely packaged for shipping to a long-term hazardous materials storage area. • Environment – If the debris storage and reduction site is pre-defined, measures to protect the environment will need to be incorporated into the design of the site. These measures can include impervious moisture barriers to cover the ground; berms around debris piles; protective measures to contain any materials that spill or leak; locations and procedures for taking contaminated debris from the trucks and loading it into appropriate containers; and determining the requirements and locations of available long-term hazardous materials stor- age areas. 4.6.2 Post-Incident Planning for Infrastructure Recovery Soon after the incident, responders will have identified any hazardous materials involved. Once identified, decisions can be made on the need for decontamination, how best to accomplish this task, the extent of decontamination required, and associated parameters (i.e., “how clean is clean”). The following sample plan relates specifically to an attack using a radiological dispersion device (RDD); however, the concepts presented relating to the development of a decontamina- tion plan are applicable and may be considered a best practice in planning for any incident that requires decontamination.

60 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned Sample Plan Radiological Incident Response: Decontamination of Buildings and Public Sites, Lessons Learned Information Sharing (www.llis.gov) The following represents an outline of the topics covered in the referenced plan and is taken directly from that document. For the full text of the plan, see Appendix D of this report. Developing a Site Decontamination Plan for an Urban Area Publicly Accepted Level of Contamination Decontamination Plans Emergency managers should consider the following aspects when establishing site decontamination plans specifically tailored to metropolitan areas: • Contamination distribution • Contamination location • Contamination type • Decontamination or demolition Recovery Manager and Technical Working Groups Responsibilities during Cleanup and Site Restoration Public-Private Partnerships during Cleanup and Site Restoration Decontamination Techniques Decontamination of Food and Water Identification of a Short-Term Storage Site for Contaminated Waste • Site geography and structure • Transportation • Security and safety Long-Term Monitoring • Establishing, maintaining, and regularly updating a register for long-term monitoring of victims and on-site emergency response personnel • Establishing mechanisms for long-term monitoring of soil, food, water, and livestock To implement these concepts it is necessary to look at potential barriers and how those barriers might be overcome. Barriers to Implementation Lack of expertise in the community could be a barrier to developing decontamination plans. Possible Resolution to Implementation Barriers There are federal resources that are available to provide technical assistance in developing decontamination plans involving radioactive materials. These resources include EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Radiation Protection Division’s Center for Remediation Technology; Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health; Department of the Army; and Centers for Disease Control (CDC), National Center for Environmental Health, Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, Radiation Studies Branch. For other types of incidents not involving radioactive materials, decontamination assistance can be provided by EPA and their National Decontamination Team, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), CDC, and the military. 4.7 Recovery Planning for the Environment Most environmental restoration efforts will be under the lead of the Unified Command. How- ever, the local community can begin the environmental restoration plan during the pre-incident planning period. In this manner, the community can ensure that all the land and water areas that are of importance are included in the restoration plan. Following the incident, the Unified Com- mand will take the lead in the completion of the environmental restoration plan.

Best Practices for Community Recovery Planning 61 4.7.1 Pre-Incident Planning for Environmental Remediation As with the decontamination plan previously discussed, an environmental recovery plan plays an important role in recovery operations by defining the magnitude of the operation, clearly presenting what needs to be cleaned and restored, and developing the standard for “how clean is clean,” covering the natural resources of air, water, and soil and incorporating standards for capturing and cleaning wildlife of all kinds. Pre-incident planning activities for environmental recovery include developing good quality maps that clearly define protected and sensitive envi- ronmental areas, the wildlife living within them, soil types, flora and fauna and water condition. These maps should show areas that are federally designated as protected lands and areas that are vital to the community from a recreational, business, and economic standpoint. Another area for pre-incident planning includes the advance identification of resources and the training that will be required for cleanup operations. As an example, the plan should identify which of the community’s agencies or departments will have lead authority and which will provide support. As with other facets of recovery, the activities of environmental remediation need to be prioritized so the proper resources are provided to the operation. This part of the recovery will involve the FOSC, state and local government agencies, non-governmental organizations, business-related organizations, and the general public, which can also be identified as groups that can provide labor and other vital resources. 4.7.2 Post-Incident Planning for Environmental Remediation Shortly after the response to the incident begins and the hazardous materials have been identified, planning begins on how to restore the environment. The development of environmental remediation plans includes involvement of federal, state, and local community representatives, plus local business and the general public. These plans need to cover not just federally protected lands and waterways, but all lands and waterways in the community impacted by the incident. One of the first steps in developing the restoration plan is to incorporate the federal standards on cleanup covering the natural resources including air, soil, and water, as well as wildlife of all kinds. Based on these standards, infor- mation then needs to be communicated to the general public characterizing this within the context of “how clean is clean.” With this criterion established, detailed restoration plans can then be developed to address all aspects of the environmental cleanup activities. The case study below presents an outline of the environmental restoration plan developed by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council and may be considered a best practice in post-incident planning for environmental recovery. On March 24, 1989, the oil tanker T/V Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, and in the process, spilled almost 11 million gallons of crude oil being transported from the North Slope area of Alaska. This plan provides long-term guidance for restoring the resources and services damaged by the oil spill that contaminated nearly 600 miles of Alaska’s coastline. Case Study Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, November 1994 (http:// www.fakr.noaa.gov/oil/eis/1994RestorationPlan.pdf) The information presented in this case study is taken directly from the referenced document. Mission and Policies Public participation is not a once-a-year government activity limited to commenting on draft documents. Rather, to the greatest extent possible, individual projects should integrate the affected and knowledgeable public in planning, design, implementation, and review. Some projects have a more easily identifiable public, for example those designed to affect services or the resources that support them. However, incorporating public preferences and information into any project is likely to improve its cost-effectiveness, take advantage of available knowledge, and help ensure that the restoration program is understood and accepted by the public. (continued on next page)

62 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned Case Study (Continued). Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, November 1994 (http:// www.fakr.noaa.gov/oil/eis/1994RestorationPlan.pdf) Categories of Restoration Actions Injury: This is a description of the effects of the oil spill. • Mortality • Sub-Lethal Effects • Degradation of Habitat (alteration or contamination of flora, fauna, and the physical components of the habitat) Goals, Objectives, and Strategies The restoration plan is based on established goals, objectives, and strategies that will guide the restoration activities. In the plan, goals, objectives, and strategies are developed for the entire restoration process followed by goals, objectives, and strategies for each species, biota, and wilderness area impacted by the event. The following is the general outline of the goals, objectives, and strategies: Goal: The end toward which restoration is directed Objectives: Measurable outcomes of restoration Strategies: Plans of action • Biological Resources • Recovering Resources • Resources Not Recovering • Recovery Unknown • Other Resources • Services Then, for each species, biota, or wilderness area: • Objectives and Strategies by Resource and Service • Injury and Recovery • Recovery Objective • Restoration Strategy • Monitor Recovery • Appendices • Summary of Results of Injury Assessment Studies • Trustee Council Resolution to Proceed with the Habitat Protection Program To implement this plan it is necessary to look at potential barriers and how those barriers might be overcome. Barriers to Implementation Since development of a restoration plan is required as part of response operations under the NCP and CERCLA, there are no foreseeable barriers. Technical assistance is also available from federal and state agencies to assist in the development of the plan. 4.8 Recovery Planning for the Economy Economic recovery will be lead by the local community. Ideally, the post-incident planning team will include one or more representatives from the responsible party’s organization. Funding, either partial or full, for this element of recovery may or may not be included in the negotiated settlement with EPA. 4.8.1 Pre-Incident Planning for Economic Recovery The faster a community can restore functionality to its businesses, the faster recovery will occur, thus lessening the total financial impact on the community. The use of innovative pro-

Best Practices for Community Recovery Planning 63 grams to provide rapid assistance to businesses will be necessary to minimize loss of revenue, even if that level of assistance is only to provide support in finding vacant space into which busi- nesses can move temporarily. Additionally, it is incumbent on local business to address business continuity issues before an incident occurs. One of the biggest considerations for businesses in developing continuity plans is to ask the question what will happen if I cannot resume business for some weeks or months following an incident? What will be the impact on my supply chain? Will I be able to receive the raw materials I need to stay in business? Just like a community, business owners/operators need to examine their risk exposure and implement sound risk management principles, such as insurance, continu- ity planning, and/or strengthening of their facilities to withstand the hazards to which they are exposed. However, communities cannot force businesses to plan for disastrous situations. To help address this issue, FEMA established a Private Sector Division in 2007 to cultivate public-private collaboration and networking in support of the different roles the private sector plays in emergency management. One resource developed by this division is the Voluntary Pri- vate Sector Preparedness and Accreditation Program (PS-Prep). Additional information on this program and other resources for business and private-sector preparedness and planning can be found at http://www.fema.gov/privatesector/preparedness/. An important relationship to build during the pre-incident planning stages for economic recovery is between the economic development officials and community elected officials at each level of government. To develop viable programs to revitalize a community’s economy requires the commitment of these officials to work together. Many of the programs developed will require the “buy in” and support of the elected officials for them to be implemented. Build- ing these relationships during the planning stage helps ensure that economic recovery opera- tions will be effective. One method for cementing these relationships is to ensure that elected officials and economic development officials are involved in the planning process and take part in any associated training and exercises. Further, this process will help to identify “champions” who can carry the community’s needs to the various government entities that can provide the necessary support. Typically, these champions are the elected officials. The following case study is from the City and State of New York following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (2001). It is being presented in the pre-incident planning sec- tion because this is generally considered the time to lay the groundwork in developing such pro- grams. In this best practice, the City of New York’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC), along with the State of New York’s Empire State Development Corporation (ESD), used various financial organizations to implement this effort with funding from the State of New York. Case Study Economic Recovery from the 9/11 Disaster: Lessons From New York State’s Response in Lower Manhattan, Karl Seidman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Beth Siegel, Mt. Auburn Associates, Applied Research in Economic Development, vol. 5, issue 2, October 2008, The complete text version of this article is available online at www.usm.edu/aredjournal The information presented in this case study is taken directly from the referenced document. Within days of the 9/11 attack, the Strategic Business Division of ESD was assisting 150 large companies to find available space within the city. ESD staff also established a walk-in center in midtown to assist small companies dislocated by the attack, businesses facing sudden financial crises, or both. To complement the ESD’s walk-in center EDC staff also opened a walk-in center. (continued on next page)

64 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned Case Study (Continued). Economic Recovery from the 9/11 Disaster: Lessons From New York State’s Response in Lower Manhattan, Karl Seidman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Beth Siegel, Mt. Auburn Associates, Applied Research in Economic Development, vol. 5, issue 2, October 2008, The complete text version of this article is available online at www.usm.edu/aredjournal Three inventive loan or grant programs were established early in the recovery before federal money was available. They included the following: • A Bridge Loan Program, backed by $50 million in state and city funding, was jointly created by ESD and New York City’s EDC to provide businesses with access to credit quickly. Local banks originated the concept to address expected time delays in receiving SBA loan approvals. • To aid these retailers and provide cash quickly before the approaching holiday season, ESD established the Retail Recovery Grant (RRG) program. The program used a simple one-page application and grant formula (3 days of lost revenue up to a $10,000 maximum grant) and limited eligibility to firms with fewer than 500 employees located on or south of Houston Street on 9/11. • New York City’s EDC established a comparable grant program to assist small non-retail firms. New York City’s Lower Manhattan Grant Program (LMGP) launched on November 6 with $5 million in city funds and provided grants of up to $10,000 to non-retail businesses and nonprofit organizations with 50 or fewer workers that had also applied for disaster assistance loans from the SBA (which was waived for companies directly displaced from the World Trade Center [WTC] buildings). Grant funds could be used to reopen businesses or to defray the cost of relocating from the WTC area to elsewhere in New York City. As part of the long-term recovery strategy, ESD established two overarching goals: 1. To retain the major employers that were critical to the downtown’s long-term stability, and 2. To get financial assistance into the hands of cash-strapped small businesses quickly to ensure their survival. There was genuine fear that anchor companies, particularly in the financial services industry, would leave the area. In support of ESD’s goals, funds were devoted to loss compensation to firms and businesses ($401 million) and to retention and attraction ($250 million). ESD’s draft Action Plan for the longer term recovery proposed the following three additional programs: • Business Recovery Grant Program (BRG). The BRG program was developed when it became clear that SBA disaster loans and private insurance would not sufficiently compensate many non-retail businesses for their economic losses. It was designed as an entitlement grant to compensate businesses for economic losses from physical damage to property, business interruption, or loss of customers. Grant levels were based on a specified numbers of days of lost business revenue that varied according to a firm’s location in one of four zones of impact established by the New York City Office of Emergency Management. • Business Recovery Loan Program (BRLP). The BRLP was developed to fill a financing gap for creditworthy smaller firms that did not qualify for SBA disaster loans or otherwise lacked access to credit. The program used intermediaries, both community-based financial institutions and nonprofits, to provide low-cost working capital loans of up to $250,000. • Job Creation and Retention Program (JCRP). The JCRP provided a financial incentive for large firms to remain in, or relocate to, Lower Manhattan south of Canal Street. This program allocated funds on a per-job basis in order to retain firms at risk of relocating outside of Lower Manhattan. Decisions on whether to provide assistance and how much to offer were made on a case-by-case basis, jointly with EDC staff, based on an assessment of the economic value of the project to the city, the risk of employment loss, and the location of the facility. To implement these approaches it is necessary to look at potential barriers and how those barriers might be overcome.

Best Practices for Community Recovery Planning 65 Barriers to Implementation For those communities and states that potentially could fund such operations, they will need legal authority for providing government funds to private businesses. Possible Resolution to Implementation Barriers Communities and states could work with legal counsel to explore their ability to legally fund such operations. Where legal authorities do not exist, legislative action could be taken to develop the appropriate authorities. Communities could work with their local chambers of commerce to develop a reserve fund to serve as a program similar to community business interruption insurance. In this case, businesses without business interruption would pay into the system and be able to file claims against the reserve following an incident. For businesses that carry business interruption insurance, they could possibly draw on this fund as a low-interest loan until such time as they receive their insurance settlement. 4.8.2 Post-Incident Planning for Economic Recovery From the perspective of long-term recovery, addressing economic development includes the identification of actions that must be taken by the community to implement the program. Some issues to consider include the following: • Legal Authority – Legal counsel would need to review the community charter/articles of incorporation to ensure that elected officials have the authority necessary. If the authority does not exist, what is the process for creating it? • Zoning – City Planners will need to review the community’s comprehensive plan/general plan to determine the requirements for increasing business and industry. Are the zoning regula- tions conducive to encouraging new business and industry? If not, what has to be done to change the requirements? • Available Property – City Planners would need to identify appropriate areas in the community for new businesses and industries. Do such vacant areas exist? What processes are necessary to establish the appropriate areas? • Infrastructure – Public Works will need to determine if the existing infrastructure (roads, bridges, utilities, etc.) within the community has the necessary capacity to carry the additional load of increased business and industry. What improvements will be necessary? What environ- mental requirements need to be implemented? 4.8.3 Post-Incident Planning for Sustained Community Recovery Effective long-term community recovery planning is a process that ideally works with the public to identify their vision of the community and where they would like to be as a com- munity in the future. Based on this vision, projects and programs are identified to include potential funding sources to sustain recovery and revitalize the community. Long-term com- munity recovery (LTCR) plans will direct the long-term recovery operation and will incor- porate the community’s vision for the future with approaches to revitalize the community commensurate with the community’s vision. The development of this plan begins as soon as the full impact of the incident has been determined and reported. As the NDRF indicates, this plan will be community-driven and locally managed. Useful guidance in the development of an LTCR plan is provided in FEMA’s Long-Term Community Recovery Planning Process – A Self Help Guide.83

66 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned Planning Guidance Long-Term Community Recovery Planning Process – A Self Help Guide (FEMA, 2005) The guidance summarized here is taken from the referenced document. Produced by FEMA, this self-help guide for communities provides a step-by-step approach to developing, implementing, and updating Long-Term Community Recovery (LTCR) Plans in an easy-to-digest format that supplements guidance with real-world case studies. The step-by-step approach detailed in this document includes the following 13 steps: 1. Assess the need for LTCR 2. Select a leader and outline the LTCR program 3. Secure outside support 4. Establish a public information campaign 5. Build consensus 6. Identify LTCR issues and opportunities 7. Articulate vision and set goals 8. Identify, evaluate, and prioritize LTCR projects 9. Develop a community recovery plan 10. Choose project champions 11. Prepare an LTCR funding strategy 12. Implement the plan 13. Update the plan Additionally, this document provides a user-friendly LTCR Planning Process Checklist and detailed information about additional resources for information related to community recovery. 4.8.4 Hurricane Katrina – Louisiana’s Long-Term Community Recovery Planning Experience Following Hurricane Katrina (2005), FEMA activated its newly formed ESF #14 – Long- Term Community Recovery capability and deployed multiple planning teams to work in 27 heavily affected parishes (note: the National Disaster Recovery Framework has replaced ESF #14; however, some of the information from past activations of the ESF is valuable in looking at post-incident planning for revitalizing the community). These planning teams were composed of FEMA staff, other federal agency planners, FEMA Technical Assistance Con- tractors, and local hires. The information and plans developed by these teams were provided to the Louisiana Recovery Authority, which then developed their program and interactive website called Louisiana Speaks (http://www.louisianaspeaks-parishplans.org/) to document the processes followed and track the progress of the identified long-term recovery proj- ects. The following information is a brief overview of the process that the ESF #14 planning teams followed. The full text can be viewed at http://www.louisianaspeaks-parishplans.org/ PlanningProcessRecovery Strategy.cfm. The process followed by the ESF #14 teams was very much a community-driven approach and is depicted in Figure 4-5. The LTCR planning process used a step-by-step method to identify, evaluate, and prioritize needs, define projects, and develop implementation strategies. • RECOVERY NEEDS: Planning professionals, in partnership with local community leadership and citizens, assess community damage and recovery capability to determine the impact of disaster-related destruction. Defining disaster-related impacts and needs creates a community baseline. • RECOVERY PRIORITY ISSUES: After identifying recovery needs, LTCR professionals work with community members to prioritize needs. Recovery needs can be complicated by other

Best Practices for Community Recovery Planning 67 issues that require consideration. Louisiana residents who participated in Open House events agreed on several of the following key issues: – Better hurricane protection and levees, – Development of new housing, and – Restoration of coastal areas. • RECOVERY GOALS: Establishing a community vision and goals is an important step in the LTCR process and provides a structured framework, helping to guide recovery policies and the development of recovery programs and projects. Recovery vision and goals are developed through public input. • RECOVERY PROJECTS, PROGRAMS, AND POLICIES: Clearly defined recovery projects, programs, and policies aid communities in leveraging external funds (from foundations, philanthropists, and other funding sources) and as a base from which to apply for govern- ment funds (e.g., Community Development Block Grants). Projects are ranked according to recovery value (high, moderate, low, or community interest). Recovery values are objective and determined by applying an evaluation methodology that includes a determination of how well each meets stated goals and its relationship to the overall recovery effort. • RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FUNDING SOURCES: The final stage in the process involves the development of an implementation strategy that outlines funding resources and processes to accomplish recovery projects. Using a strategic recovery timeline (SRT), communities can plan how projects will be completed and track progress. 4.9 Mitigating Risk through Planning Activities To meet specific community needs, various planning guidance recommends the inclusion of risk management principles, such as hazard identification and analysis, vulnerability assessment, and impact analysis, as a means to identify, assess, and prioritize resources and investments. Furthermore, in developing a valuable roadmap for implementing, coordinating, documenting, and communicating recovery goals, decisions, and priorities, the involvement of stakeholders from across a broad spectrum of disciplines is recognized as fundamental. An integrated and collaborative approach toward recovery planning helps communities not only develop partner- ships and mutual aid agreements84 but also create an organizational culture aimed at achieving unity of effort within government, the community, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector.85 (SOURCE: http://www.louisianaspeaks-parishplans.org/PlanningProcess_Homepage.cfm) Figure 4-5. Community-driven approach to recovery.

68 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned Risk is generally defined as the product of an event’s likelihood and the consequences if it were to take place. The more information that is available for the assessment, the more factors that can be employed to more accurately represent the risk. For example, vulnerability is often evaluated as part of the probability because vulnerability represents whether the event will be successful or will fully realize the potential consequences. Communities that are prepared and are working to manage hazards before they occur will have less vulnerability than those jurisdic- tions that are not. The results of this analysis provide the background and information necessary to arrive at fiscally sound, effective, and performance-driven solutions to reduce a community’s risk exposure. Mitigation is the process of performing actions to prevent, reduce, remove, or avoid the nega- tive impacts of incidents. There are two types of mitigation actions: (1) structural actions, which use a technological approach such as building flood levees, or (2) non-structural actions, such as land use planning, legislation, sanctions, or insurance. At a minimum, mitigation measures must be technically feasible, cost-effective, and environmentally sound. Examples of potential mitiga- tion measures relating to hazardous materials transportation incidents include the following: • Prevention: enforcing safety provisions and regulations regarding hazardous materials transport; • Reduction: regulating quantities and types of hazardous materials allowed in, or near, a single area; encouraging improvements to containment measures; • Removal: prohibition of certain substances through legislation forestalling public exposure; and • Avoidance: creating alternate routes for hazardous materials transport away from populated or sensitive areas. Although mitigation opportunities may become evident during any phase of emergency man- agement, risk mitigation associated with hazardous materials transportation accidents is usually accomplished during pre-incident planning. Examples of several relevant mitigation programs and activities are presented in the following subsections. 4.9.1 Designated Hazardous Materials Transportation Routes Establishing a designated route for trucks carrying hazardous materials through a commu- nity is one proven way of minimizing the potential impacts of a transportation incident on that community. Generally, these routes should be located away from the population and business centers and be clearly marked. A subset of establishing a designated route includes prohibiting flammable and explosive materials in tunnels where possible. If there is no other available route through the community than through one or more tunnels, then consideration should be given to restricting the times at which carriers may use the tunnels. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) contain specific requirements for states to follow in presenting required or preferred routes for hazardous materials. Different criteria apply to designating routes for radioactive (49 CFR 397.101 to 103) and non-radioactive (49 CFR 397.61 to 77) materials, and these include a number of factors that must be considered before specifying a routing designation. If a local jurisdiction wishes to designate hazardous materials routes, the state is still responsible for ensuring that the federal guidelines are fol- lowed and that FMCSA is notified of the resulting designations. Improperly designated routes are subject to federal preemption. Further, there is a federal preemption of routing restrictions for rail carriers (49 CFR 172.822). In addition to the FMCSR requirements, there also needs to be coordination with the state department of transportation, which is responsible for managing the national highway system within their state, to avoid preemption.

Best Practices for Community Recovery Planning 69 The planning team responsible for developing such routes and criteria would include the following: 1. Elected officials; 2. Emergency management agency; 3. Public works/road department; 4. Fire department; 5. State department of transportation; 6. Representatives from the trucking companies hauling the hazardous materials; 7. Representatives from the business community; and 8. Representatives from the public. Although potentially creating additional transit time for the haulers, there is a positive impact to the community in that exposure of the population and business centers to the consequences of a transportation accident is reduced. Another positive effect of designated routes is that the community can establish alternate routes that can be placed into operation rapidly following an accident. Rapidly implementing alternate routes, and providing that information to the public, potentially reduces the economic impact of an incident. With this information, commuters can plan their routes and time of travel in advance to minimize the negative results of the altered commute and its impact on productivity in the workplace. 4.9.2 Public Information on Alternate Routes and Alternate Transportation Resources Commute times can increase dramatically when alternate routes are required because of transportation accidents. As commute times increase, there is potential for lost productivity from the commuter workforce, which can be reflected in lost revenue to businesses. Well- advertised alternate routes and transit options allow commuters to plan their commute to reduce travel times as much as practicable. Based on past experience, the San Francisco Bay Area has implemented a system they call “511” that includes pre-recorded phone messages that can be received by telephoning 5-1-1 or by accessing an Internet website (www.511.org) that provides a wide variety of commute information such as details regarding the emergency, areas and routes affected, alternate routes and travel conditions, and other modes of transportation available. On Sunday, April 29, 2007, a tanker truck carrying 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline over- turned on a connector and exploded causing the collapse of two on-ramps associated with Inter- state 580 and the San Francisco Bay Bridge.86 This accident adversely impacted commute routes for some 80,000 vehicles each day. To address traffic disruption, the San Francisco Bay Area implemented plans jointly developed by multiple jurisdictions following the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. In accordance with this plan, additional ferries were added to the daily schedules and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) added additional cars to their trains during peak hours. Within hours of the incident, announcements were available on the 511 system website, in con- junction with announcements on the 5-1-1 phone system, to provide information on the ferries, BART, and carpooling, plus a map of the area showing where the collapses occurred and the associated alternate routes. This information allowed commuters to better plan their Monday morning commute and adjust their travel times and work hours to minimize the disruption caused by the explosion and subsequent bridge collapses. Today, 511 systems are operational in nearly every state (http://www.deploy511.org/ deployment-stats.html) and provide a ready resource for use during hazardous materials trans- portation incidents. Generally, liability concerns limit the information provided to the presence of an incident and possibly the expected duration of the incident. Weather and construction

70 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned information are also generally provided by 511 systems. The San Francisco Bay Bridge incident has been an exception for 511 systems in providing alternate routes for motorists. An alterna- tive for localized disruptions is Highway Advisory Radio (HAR), whereby a radio transmitter is positioned near the disruption and variable message signs are used to inform motorists to tune their radios to the station broadcasting the recorded message. The liability concerns mentioned previously can be overcome through coordination and com- munication between state department of transportation personnel and local traffic engineers prior to the announcement of the alternate route. This allows the local community to take appro- priate actions, such as changing the timing of traffic signals, to ensure safe driving conditions. Additionally, other liability concerns can be addressed through the use of disclaimer statements like “these alternate routes may prove to be inadequate due to unknown travel and safety condi- tions” or “there may be lengthy travel times when using these alternate routes”. 4.9.3 Addressing Procurement Policies to Allow Expedited Repair Work During the pre-incident planning period, a community’s Public Works/Road Department can review procurement procedures to determine their ability to enter into contracts for the repair of infrastructure, especially major arteries, which are geared to expedited design and construction processes. There are several types of contracts that have been developed specifically for expedited construction, as follows: • Design-Build Contracts: This type of contract places the contractor and the design engi- neer on the same team. As the engineer is designing the project and preparing construction drawings, the contractor is developing and refining cost estimates and developing materials lists. Permitting agencies also play an active role in this type of contract by working with the engineers during design to ensure necessary permitting issues are considered as the design progresses. Before the engineer has completed the construction documents, the contractor has activated the staging site and is bringing in necessary supplies and personnel. As soon as the construction drawings are complete (and in some cases before they are complete) the contrac- tor begins work. Design-build contracts have been used for infrastructure work for many years and have a reasonably successful track record. • Incentive/Penalty Contracts: Under this type of contract, the contractor is offered a mon- etary incentive for every day the project is completed ahead of schedule. There is also a mon- etary penalty for every day the contractor is late completing the project. An example of this type of contract was the repair work to the San Francisco Bay Bridge on-ramps damaged by the gasoline tanker truck accident discussed in the previous section. The contractor’s winning bid was $876,075 to repair the damage to the connector. The bid was estimated to cover approximately one-third of the total cost of the work, but the firm counted on making up the shortfall with an incentive of $200,000 per day for every day before the scheduled completion of June 27, 2007. On Thursday, May 24, 2007, the work was completed and the ramps were opened to traffic.87 The contractor earned a substantial bonus and the total repair cost including the bonus was below official repair estimates. • Sole Source Contracts: A sole source contract allows the department to contract directly with a known contractor without going through the bidding process. This can significantly reduce the time to complete repairs. However, many jurisdictions place significant restrictions on the use of this process. These types of procurement policies need to be reviewed with legal counsel, and if the policies do not currently exist, they would need to be developed and put into place prior to the occur- rence of an incident.

Best Practices for Community Recovery Planning 71 4.9.4 Encourage Planning, Training, and Exercising with Pipeline Owners and Operators Pipelines represent a unique issue for local communities because typically they are owned and operated by utility companies or private industry. As such, the community has little oversight in relation to their operations and maintenance. The recent explosions of natural gas pipelines in San Bruno, California, on September 9, 2010, and Allentown, Pennsylvania, on February 9, 2011, highlight the risk to local communities. Despite this, there are still activities and actions that can be pursued to ensure that the owner and/or operators of the pipelines and the local community are fully prepared for an incident, as follows: • Verify that maps showing the existing pipelines are current. These maps should clearly show where emergency shutoff valves are located and how they operate. This information should be shared with the local fire department that will typically be first on scene following an incident to enable them to be able to quickly stop the flow of material, enhance their response, and reduce impacts to the community. • Verify locations of the pipelines with existing comprehensive plans/general plans to ensure that proper zoning restrictions are in place for future development along the pipeline right of ways. If necessary, changes can be made to the plan to address situations that could impact the community following an incident. • Local fire service and the pipeline operators should train and exercise together so each party knows the full capabilities of the other and they are used to working cooperatively. • Ensure 24-hour contact information is available for essential personnel from the operators. • Ensure that owner/operators are included in community training and exercises. • Encourage owner/operators to hold training and conduct exercises on a regular schedule. As a result of the explosion and fire in San Bruno, California, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) created a pilot program with the cities of San Francisco and Fremont, with San Bruno to be added in the near future. Under this program, PG&E will provide fire departments with elec- tronic copies of their pipeline infrastructure. This access should provide the fire departments with the information they need when responding to an incident in the vicinity of a pipeline.88 (Note: The general concepts presented here for pipelines also apply to railroads.) 4.10 Summary of Case Studies Table 4-1 provides a summary of the recovery planning case studies presented in order of their appearance in this section. Table 4-1. Summary of recovery planning case studies. Lessons Learned/Best Practices Summary Case Study: Iowa Disaster Recovery Tabletop Exercise After Action Report/Improvement Plan, Rebuild Iowa & Iowa Homeland Security & Emergency Management Division, August 2010 (www.llis.gov) • Adopt a scalable, flexible state Disaster Recovery Framework. • A state Recovery Council should be established. • A state Recovery Coordinator position needs to be created. • Create a system to collect and share comprehensive, standardized damage assessment data. • A centralized communication team must gather and disburse information. • Finance an emergency disaster fund so that resources are available to fund long-term disaster recovery programs. (continued on next page)

72 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned Lessons Learned/Best Practices Summary Case Study: Strategic National Stockpile Distribution Planning: Using Staging Sites to Segment Dispensing Processes, Lessons Learned Information Sharing (www.llis.gov) Provides information on: • Staging Site Advantages and Disadvantages • Staging Site Functions • Staging Facility Requirements • Public Information Requirements • Transportation Requirements • Triage at Staging Sites Case Study: Economic Recovery from the 9/11 Disaster: Lessons from New York State’s Response in Lower Manhattan, Karl Seidman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Beth Siegel, Mt. Auburn Associates, Applied Research in Economic Development, vol. 5, issue 2, October 2008. The complete text version of this article is available online at www.usm.edu/aredjournal Describes three inventive loan or grant programs established early in the recovery before federal money was available. • Bridge Loan Program to address expected time delays in receiving SBA loan approvals. • Retail Recovery Grant (RRG) Program to provide 3 days of lost revenue. • Lower Manhattan Grant Program (LMGP) to provide grants to non-retail businesses and nonprofit organizations. As part of the long-term recovery strategy, three additional programs were implemented. • Business Recovery Grant Program (BRG), an entitlement grant to compensate businesses for economic losses. • Business Recovery Loan Program (BRLP) to fill a financing gap for credit-worthy small firms that did not qualify for SBA disaster loans. • Job Creation and Retention Program (JCRP), a financial incentive for large firms to remain in, or relocate to, Lower Manhattan. Case Study: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, November 1994 (http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/oil/eis/1994RestorationPlan.pdf) Presents steps in developing an environmental restoration plan including: • Mission and Policies • Categories of Restoration Actions • Goals, Objectives, and Strategies • Strategies o Biological Resources o Recovering Resources o Resources Not Recovering o Recovery Unknown o Other Resources o Services Then for each species, biota, or wilderness area: • Objectives and Strategies by Resource and Service • Injury and Recovery • Recovery Objective • Restoration Strategy • Monitor Recovery • Appendices Table 4-1. (Continued).