A Guide to Emergency Management at State Transportation Agencies (2020)

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.

6 What Is Emergency Management? The discipline known today as emergency management has evolved over time. Federal Emer- gency Management Agency (FEMA) Course IS-0230.d: Fundamentals of Emergency Manage- ment adopts the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) definition for emergency management: “The managerial function charged with creating the framework within which communities reduce vulnerability to threats/hazards and cope with disasters.” Emergency management has been contextualized in many forms. Frequently, emergency or disaster preparedness and emergency management have been considered interchangeable terms; however, in the strictest sense, “preparedness” describes a process designed to ensure that the response to an incident or emergency is effectively coordinated. FEMA defines preparedness as “a continuous cycle of planning, organizing, training, equipping, exercising, evaluating, and taking corrective action in an effort to ensure effective coordination during incident response.” In contrast, emergency management is a programmatic activity that encompasses a compre- hensive approach to building and sustaining capabilities focused toward a predesignated set of risk-based emergency management categories—“prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from” threats and hazards. In the transportation industry, maintaining an effective emergency management func- tion is both a daily business requirement and a strategic enterprise-wide risk management responsibility. Emergency management is needed in all modes of transportation—highway, rail, public transit, pipeline, aviation, and maritime. Typically, the robustness of a trans- portation agency’s emergency management program is determined by the interrelatedness of the established framework, both to other modes as well as to other interdependent func- tions that constitute the whole of community services, such as public health, public works, and communications. Emergency management has also been impacted by its interface with security. Terms, such as critical infrastructure protection, threats versus hazards, all-hazards, and now “resilience,” have transcended the field of emergency preparedness and the discipline of emergency management, creating differing sets of accountability for various kinds of incidents or emergencies. Maintaining the focus on the full set of emergency management categories—prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from—resolves the process-oriented confusion over these terms. Emergency management’s programmatic approach addresses the outcomes, impacts, and consequences of events. It is irrelevant whether the incident or emergency was caused by the intentional act of an individual (threat based), an act of nature, or an accident (hazard based). Similarly, both an all-hazards and a resilient approach to emergency manage- ment are accomplished by managing across the full set of emergency management categories. S E C T I O N 2 Institutional Context for Emergency Management

Institutional Context for Emergency Management 7 Emergency Management Principles The FEMA Emergency Management Institute’s Higher Education Project working group identified the following eight principles: 1. Comprehensive. Emergency managers consider and take into account all threats/hazards, all phases, all stakeholders, and all impacts relevant to disasters. 2. Progressive. Emergency managers anticipate future disasters and take protective, preventive, and preparatory measures to build disaster-resistant and disaster-resilient communities. 3. Risk-Driven. Emergency managers use sound risk management principles (threat/hazard identification, risk analysis, and impact analysis) in assigning priorities and resources. 4. Integrated. Emergency managers ensure unity of effort among all levels of government and all elements of a community. 5. Collaborative. Emergency managers create and sustain broad and sincere relationships among individuals and organizations to encourage trust, advocate a team atmosphere, build consensus, and facilitate communication. 6. Coordinated. Emergency managers synchronize the activities of all relevant stakeholders to achieve a common purpose. 7. Flexible. Emergency managers use creative and innovative approaches to solve disaster challenges. 8. Professional. Emergency managers value a science- and knowledge-based approach based on education, training, experience, ethical practice, public stewardship, and continuous improvement. Types of Incidents and Events An emergency may consist of a short duration, simple, static, and singular incident; or it may be prolonged, complex, and dynamic, impacting multiple fronts and requiring deploy- ment of extensive assets and resources. An incident is an occurrence, regardless of cause, that requires response actions to prevent or minimize loss of life and damage to property and the environment. The term “all-hazards” includes a broad range of incidents and events that have the potential to impact transportation systems. Table 1 provides an overview of various incidents, ranging from minor to catastrophic, and planned events. The more severe categories of incidents are those more commonly associated with emergencies. As the degree of complexity of an incident increases, so does the coordination required for the typical response. Figure 1 illustrates typical patterns of response for different scales of incidents. Emergency Management Authorities Federal and State Emergency Management Requirements The federal government requires state DOTs to incorporate principles and concepts of national initiatives that provide common approaches to incident management and response in emergency response plans and operations. New federal guidance issued since 2010 has resulted in a need to re-examine requirements for state transportation agency planning and response functions, roles, and responsibilities. For example, the Fixing America’s Surface Transporta- tion (FAST) Act, enacted in 2015, amends Section 5303 of the U.S. Code to include the word “resilient” in the guidance for metropolitan and statewide transportation planning.

8 A Guide to Emergency Management at State Transportation Agencies Also, because other local, state, and federal agencies may be involved, along with a trans- portation agency in emergency response, there is a need to review and understand the specific requirements, procedures, and protocols that have been established for managing emergencies and coordinating between different roles and responsibilities among different agencies, includ- ing the coordination role of MPOs. As an example, the FAST Act encourages MPOs to consult with state agencies that plan for natural disaster risk reduction to produce plans that include strategies to reduce the vulnerability to natural events. At the federal level, public laws are the governing authorities for other directives, policies, and guidance. Figure 2 illustrates this relationship. Table 1. Types of incidents with their characteristics. CBRNE: Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (threats).

Institutional Context for Emergency Management 9 Figure 1. Agency involvement by incident level for state transportation agencies and other agencies. (Source: NCHRP 525: Surface Transportation Security, Volume 6: Security Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations.) Figure 2. National emergency management policies and guidelines. HSPD: Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

10 A Guide to Emergency Management at State Transportation Agencies Public Laws Governing Emergency Management The key federal laws implementing emergency management policy are as follows: Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)1 The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 100-707) created the system in place today by which a Presidential disaster declaration triggers financial and physical assistance through FEMA. The Stafford Act: • Covers all hazards, including natural disasters and terrorist events. • Provides primary authority for the Federal Government to respond to disasters and emergencies. • Gives FEMA responsibility for coordinating Government response efforts. The President’s authority is delegated to FEMA through separate mechanisms. • Describes the programs and processes by which the Federal Government provides disaster and emer- gency assistance to State and local governments, tribal nations, eligible private nonprofit organizations, and individuals affected by a declared major disaster or emergency. Under the Stafford Act, the President can designate an incident as an “Emergency” or “Major Disaster.” The President may declare an “emergency” unilaterally but may only declare a “major disaster” at the request of a Governor or tribal Chief Executive who certifies that the State or tribal government and affected local governments are overwhelmed. The Federal assistance available for emergencies is more limited than that which is available for a major disaster. Emergencies are “Any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance to supplement the efforts and available resources of States, tribal governments, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hard- ship, or suffering.” Major disasters may be caused by such natural events as floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes. Disasters may include fires, floods, or explosions that the President feels are of sufficient magnitude to warrant Federal assistance. Emergency Management Assistance Compact (PL-104-321, 1996)2 Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) is a national interstate mutual aid agree- ment that enables states to share resources during times of disaster. Since the 104th Congress ratified the compact, EMAC has grown to become the nation’s system for providing mutual aid through operational procedures and protocols that have been validated through experience. EMAC is admin- istered by NEMA, the National Emergency Management Association, headquartered in Lexington, Kentucky. EMAC acts as a complement to the federal disaster response system, providing timely and cost- effective relief to states requesting assistance from assisting member states who understand the needs of jurisdictions that are struggling to preserve life, the economy, and the environment. EMAC can be used either in lieu of federal assistance or in conjunction with federal assistance, thus providing a “seamless” flow of needed goods and services to an impacted state. EMAC further provides another venue for mitigating resource deficiencies by ensuring maximum use of all available resources within member states’ inventories. The thirteen (13) articles of the Compact set the foundation for sharing resources from state to state that has been adopted by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA)3 Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 was the most devastating natural disaster in U.S. history. Gaps that became apparent in the response to that disaster led to the Post-Katrina Emergency Management 1 Information obtained and adapted from FEMA Course IS-0230.d: Fundamentals of Emergency Management. Contains quotations. 2 Information obtained at https://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/EMACoverviewForNRF.pdf. Contains quotations. 3 Information obtained and adapted from FEMA Course IS-0230.d: Fundamentals of Emergency Management. Contains quotations.

Institutional Context for Emergency Management 11 Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA). PKEMRA significantly reorganized FEMA, provided it substantial new authority to remedy gaps in response, and included a more robust preparedness mission for FEMA. This act addresses the following: • Establishes a Disability Coordinator and develops guidelines to accommodate individuals with disabilities. • Establishes the National Emergency Family Registry and Locator System to reunify separated family members. • Coordinates and supports precautionary evacuations and recovery efforts. • Provides transportation assistance for relocating and returning individuals displaced from their residences in a major disaster. • Provides case management assistance to identify and address unmet needs of survivors of major disasters. Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-2)4 The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-2) authorizes several significant changes to the way FEMA may deliver disaster assistance under a variety of programs. Key changes relate to the following: • Authorizing alternative procedures for the Public Assistance (PA) Program. • Reviewing and evaluating the Public Assistance small project threshold. • Establishing a nationwide dispute resolution pilot program for Public Assistance projects. • Streamlining the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). • Developing a national strategy to reduce costs from future disasters • Revising the factors considered when evaluating the need for the Individual Assistance Program in a major disaster or emergency. • Authorizing the lease and repair of rental units for use as direct temporary housing. • Establishing a unified and expedited interagency environmental and historic preservation process for disaster recovery projects. • Authorizing changes in the way certain government employees are reimbursed for performing emergency protective measures. • Amending the Stafford Act to allow the Chief Executive of a federally recognized Indian tribe to make a direct request to the President for a major disaster or emergency declaration. Tribes may elect to receive assistance under a State’s declaration, provided that the President does not make a declaration for the tribe for the same incident. The Act also includes the following: • Authorizes the President to establish criteria to adjust the non-federal cost share for an Indian tribal government consistent to the extent allowed by current authorities. • Requires FEMA to consider the unique circumstances of tribes when it develops regulations to implement the provision. • Amends the Stafford Act to include federally recognized Indian tribal governments in numerous references to state and local governments within the Stafford Act. Other key transportation industry federal laws that impact emergency management requirements include the following: 1. The FAST Act is the current transportation reauthorization legislation that expands the focus on the resiliency of the transportation system. “It is in the national interest to encourage and promote the safe and efficient management, operation, and development of resilient surface transportation systems that will serve the mobility needs of people and freight and foster economic growth and development within and between States and urbanized areas through metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes.” It requires strategies to reduce the vulnerability of existing transportation infra- structure to natural disasters and expands the scope of consideration of the metropolitan planning process to include improving transportation system resiliency and reliability. 2. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21) is the previous transportation reauthoriza- tion legislation that focused on performance management and established a series of national perfor- mance goals. The goals related to safety, congestion reduction, freight movement, economic vitality, and environmental sustainability are of particular relevance to emergency management. MAP-21 also required incorporating performance goals, measures, and targets into transportation planning. 4 Information obtained and adapted from FEMA Course IS-0230.d: Fundamentals of Emergency Management. Contains quotations.

12 A Guide to Emergency Management at State Transportation Agencies Presidential Directives The Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs), Presidential Policy Directives (PPDs), and Executive Orders are directive in nature and must be implemented in other formats, generally policy documents or guidelines. The requirements of these directives and implementing mechanisms are voluntary to state, territorial, tribal, and local governments (note that typically the entity must comply to qualify for federal disaster relief compen- sation). The HSPDs provide specific schedules for incremental compliance. The relevant HSPDs are as follows: 1. HSPD-5, Management of Domestic Incidents, created the NIMS and the National Response Plan (the latter was later replaced by the NRF), as shown in Figure 2. 2. HSPD-7, Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection, led to the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP). 3. HSPD-8, National Preparedness, led to creation of a National Preparedness Goal (NPG), which was implemented in the form of the NPG document and several other guidelines. PPD-8 links national preparedness efforts using the following key elements: NPG, National Preparedness System, Whole Community Initiative, and Annual National Preparedness Report. 4. PPD-21, Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience, focuses on the need for secure critical infrastructure that can withstand and rapidly recover (resiliency) from all hazards. 5. Executive Order 13636, Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, provides a technology-neutral cybersecurity framework and the means to promote the adoption of cyber- security practices. 6. Executive Order 13653, Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change, requires federal agencies to integrate considerations of challenges posed by climate change effects into their programs, policies, rules, and operations to ensure they continue to be effective, even as the climate changes. National Emergency Management Policies and Guidelines National Incident Management System NIMS created a national standard system for federal, state, tribal, and local governments to work together to prepare for and respond to incidents affecting lives and property. It presents and integrates accepted practices proven effective over the years into a compre- hensive framework for use by incident management organizations in an all-hazards context (NIMS 2008). The following two NIMS companion documents are tailored to transporta- tion professionals: • FHWA’s Simplified Guide to the Incident Command System for Transportation Professionals introduces the ICS to stakeholders who could be called upon to provide specific expertise, assistance, or material during highway incidents, but who may be largely unfamiliar with ICS organization and operations (FHWA 2006a). • I-95 Corridor Coalition’s Supplemental Resource Guide to the NIMS for Transportation Management Center Professionals (I-95CC 2008). National Infrastructure Protection Plan NIPP 2013 Partnering for Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience emphasizes the importance of resilience—the need to reduce all-hazards vulnerabilities and mitigate poten- tial consequences of incidents or events that do occur. The NIPP 2013 has six chapters, two

Institutional Context for Emergency Management 13 appendices, and four supplements. After an Executive Summary, the Introduction (Chapter 1) gives an overview of the NIPP 2013 and its evolution from the NIPP 2009. Chapter 2 defines the Vision, Mission, and Goals of the NIPP 2013, while Chapter 3 describes the Critical Infra- structure Environment in terms of key concepts, risk, policy, operations, and partnership. Core Tenets are established in Chapter 4. Ways to collaborate to manage risk are given in Chapter 5. The final chapter is a Call to Action (“Steps to Advance the National Effort”). The Sector-Specific Plans of the 16 critical infrastructure sectors are being updated to align with the NIPP 2013. The web page for NIPP 2013 also contains links to training courses, critical infrastructure partnership courses, security awareness courses, and relevant authorities (i.e., laws, regulations, and guidance). National Preparedness Framework The NPG (2015) is “a secure and resilient nation with the capabilities required across the whole community to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk.” The following changes were made to the NPG document: • Language was added to stress the importance of community preparedness and resilience. • The risk and the core capabilities were enhanced to include items on cybersecurity and climate change. • A new core capability, Fire Management and Suppression, was added. • Core capability titles were revised as follows: – Threats and Hazard Identification (Mitigation)—revised to Threats and Hazards Identification. – Public and Private Services and Resources (Response)—revised to Logistics and Supply Chain Management. – On-Scene Security and Protection (Response)—revised to On-Scene Security, Protection, and Law Enforcement. – Public Health and Medical Services (Response)—revised to Public Health, Healthcare, and Emergency Medical Services. National Preparedness Guidelines implement the NPG called out in HSPD-8, National Pre- paredness (NPG 2007). It introduces several capabilities-based planning tools, including the following: • National Planning Scenarios are a diverse set of 15 high-consequence threat scenarios for potential terrorist attacks and natural disasters that form the basis for coordinated federal planning, training, exercises, and grant investments needed to prepare for emergencies of all types. The scenarios include 12 chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) threats; a cyberattack; a Category 5 hurricane; and an earthquake. • Target Capabilities List (TCL) defines 37 specific capabilities that communities, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and all levels of government should collec- tively possess to respond effectively to disasters. • Universal Task List (UTL) is a series of 1,600 unique tasks that can facilitate efforts to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from the events represented by the National Planning Scenarios. It presents a common vocabulary and identifies key tasks that support development of essential capabilities among organizations at all levels. No entity will perform every task. The NRF replaced the earlier National Response Plan and was expanded in scope, audi- ence, and breadth (NRF 2008). The NRF is the definitive guide for Emergency Response and

14 A Guide to Emergency Management at State Transportation Agencies delineates the nation’s response doctrines, responsibilities, and structures. It embraces NIMS and updates the ESF descriptions. There are several important companion documents to the NRF: • ESF Annexes define the stakeholders and their roles and responsibilities, purpose, capabilities, and concept of operations for the 15 ESFs. These are critical to effective emergency response planning; state and local versions adapted to state and local conditions are typically included in EOPs. • Support Annexes are a separate set of annexes that describe how federal departments and agencies; state, territorial, tribal, and local entities; the private sector; volunteer organiza- tions; and NGOs coordinate and execute the common functional processes and adminis- trative requirements for efficient and effective incident management. They may support several ESFs. • Incident Annexes are a separate set of annexes that describe the concept of operations to address specific contingency or hazard situations or an element of an incident requiring specialized application of the NRF. The National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) describes “how the whole commu- nity works together to restore, redevelop, and revitalize the health, social, economic, natural, and environmental fabric of the community.” The NDRF incorporates the edits to the NPG and new lessons learned. Additional changes made to the NDRF include the following: • “Increased focus on Recovery’s relationship with the other four mission areas. • Updated Recovery Support Functions (RSFs) to reflect changes in Primary Agencies and Supporting Organizations. • Additional language on science and technology capabilities and investments for the rebuilding and recovery efforts.” The National Mitigation Framework covers the capabilities necessary to reduce the loss of life and property by lessening the effects of disasters. It focuses on risk (understanding and reducing it), resilience (helping communities recover quickly and effectively after disasters), and a culture of preparedness. It incorporates the edits to the NPG and new lessons learned, including a revised core capability titled Threats and Hazards Identification. Additional language was added on science and technology efforts to reduce risk and analyze vulnerabilities within the Mitigation mission area. There were updates on the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG), which is now operational, and to the Community Resilience core capa- bility definition “to promote preparedness activities among individuals, households and families.” The National Protection Framework focuses on “actions to deter threats, reduce vulner- abilities, and minimize the consequences associated with an incident.” It incorporates the edits to the NPG and new lessons learned. In addition, the following changes have been made: • Updated Cybersecurity Core Capability Critical Tasks to align with the Mitigation, Response, and Recovery mission areas • Additional language on science and technology investments to protect against emerging vulnerabilities is included within the Protection mission area • Additional language on interagency coordination within the Protection mission area to support the decisionmaking processes outlined within the framework The National Prevention Framework focuses on terrorism and addresses the capabilities necessary to avoid, prevent, or stop imminent threats or attacks. Some core capabilities overlap

Institutional Context for Emergency Management 15 with the Protection mission area. The updates include edits to the NPG and lessons learned. Other edits include the following: • Updates to Coordinating Structure language on Joint Operations Centers and the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative • Clarification on the relationship and differences between the Prevention and Protection mission areas • Updated language on the National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) as part of the Public Information and Warning core capability • Additional language on science and technology investments within the Prevention mission area