FEMA Nationwide Plans Review 2010

Nationwide Plan Review Fiscal Year 2010 Report to Congress July 15, 2010

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Message from the Administrator

July 15, 2010 I am pleased to present the following report, “Nationwide Plan Review,” which has been prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pursuant to the Joint Explanatory Statement and Senate Report 111-31 accompanying the Fiscal Year 2010 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-83). This report provides an update to Congress from the 2006 Nationwide Plan Review. In working with the states, territories and urban areas during this review, FEMA found that planning across the Nation is stronger and more active and addresses a broader range of topics than in 2006. The 2010 Nationwide Plan Review incorporates more planning components than the 2006 Review, including a more comprehensive set of functional appendices and hazard-specific annexes. Additionally, the 2010 Review was guided by new doctrine, Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 (CPG 101), developed by state and local partners to replace State and Local Guide 101. Incorporating recommendations from the 2006 Review, CPG 101 modernized planning efforts and established current, mutually accepted doctrine. Although planning challenges remain, the state of national planning has substantially improved and much has been accomplished to address the recommendations and findings from the 2006 Review. Pursuant to congressional requirements, this report is being provided to the following Members of Congress:

The Honorable David E. Price Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security The Honorable Harold Rogers Ranking Member, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg Interim Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security The Honorable George V. Voinovich Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security

i

Inquiries relating to this report may be directed to me at (202) 646-3900 or to the Department’s Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Peggy Sherry, at (202) 447-5751.

Sincerely,

W. Craig Fugate Administrator Federal Emergency Management Agency

ii

Executive Summary Planning across the Nation is stronger and more active and addresses a broader range of topics than ever before. Over a period of 3 months beginning in January 2010, working with state, local and territory partners, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a follow-up to the 2006 Nationwide Plan Review. The 2010 Nationwide Plan Review shows that planning theory, doctrine and practice are in alignment, planners are taking on the difficult challenges presented by catastrophic events and, most important, there is a uniformly higher degree of confidence in planning processes and plans. Although planning challenges remain, planning has substantially improved and much has been done to address the 2006 recommendations.

The 2010 Nationwide Plan Review addressed an expanded roster of functional appendices and hazard-specific annexes when compared to the 2006 Review. In 2010, newly strengthened FEMA Regional staff—federal planners and operators who work with jurisdictions daily—provided a second set of eyes to examine jurisdictions’ self-assessments, using the same criteria as the jurisdictions. Unlike 2006, when planners struggled with obsolete planning doctrine, the process in 2010 employed new doctrine developed by the planning community.

Provide confidence in planning as a Nation. More than 75 percent of states and more than 80 percent of urban areas report confidence that their overall basic emergency operations plans are well-suited to meet the challenges presented during a large-scale or catastrophic event. Additionally, both states and urban areas show high degrees of confidence in functional appendices and growing confidence in newer topic areas, such as prevention/protection and critical infrastructure/key resource restoration. Hazard-specific annexes follow the same trend, with higher degrees of confidence where there has been more real-world experience.

Continuously examine plans to improve preparedness. Since the 2006 Review, participants have worked tirelessly to update and exercise plans. More than 80 percent of states and more than 75 percent of urban areas have updated their basic plans since the last Review. Most important, many of these updates occurred in the last 2 years. Additionally, nearly 95 percent of all states and urban areas have exercised their basic plans since the 2006 Review.

Ensure theory and doctrine is practice. In 2006, the review was guided by the obsolete State and Local Guide 101 (SLG 101), published in 1996. The Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 (CPG 101), published in March 2009, replaced the SLG 101 and guided the 2010 Review. Developed by state and local planners, CPG 101 modernized planning efforts and established current, commonly accepted planning doctrine. Though CPG 101 was in use for less than a year, the near 100-percent correlation of basic plans with the principles and practices of CPG 101 is a testament to sound doctrine that reflects a consensus of the entire planning community.

Continue to advance national planning efforts. The 2006 Review made 39 recommendations that addressed different aspects of federal, state and local planning. Three additional findings were generated as a result of this report. This report documents the significant progress to address those recommendations.

iii

Know there is more to be done. The Agency’s progress also highlights several remaining challenges. The Agency must prioritize the delivery of up-to-date training to develop a cohort of highly skilled planners and support their professional development. Although some progress has been made toward establishing a national planning system and tools, this effort has slowed to accommodate the revision of core preparedness policies. Finally, the starting point for planning is sound threat and hazard identification and risk assessment.

Development of a process that is agreed upon and usable by all levels of government is critical to successful planning and also would facilitate integrated planning. This review represents a snapshot of several months in 2010 and reveals accomplishments and national momentum building on the goals of the 2006 Review. Currently, plans are being updated, exercises are being conducted and guidance is being refined. This report demonstrates progress and guides future planning and preparedness activities.

As reported in the 2006 Phase 2 Report, the procedural and technical challenges to modernizing planning were daunting but not insurmountable. The progress of the review participants shows a renewed commitment to the value of planning described in the National Response Framework. Participants demonstrate they can develop new community-wide doctrine, modernize their plans and processes and adopt new means of collaboration. Although work remains, their progress is admirable.

iv

Nationwide Plan Review

Table of Contents I. Legislative Language ............................................................................................................. 1 II. Background............................................................................................................................ 2

Approach.............................................................................................................................. 3 Participating Jurisdictions.................................................................................................... 4 Data Collection Process ....................................................................................................... 5 Analysis Process .................................................................................................................. 5

III. Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 7

Overview.............................................................................................................................. 7 Analysis of Basic Plan ......................................................................................................... 8 Analysis of Functional Appendices ..................................................................................... 9 Analysis of Hazard-Specific Annexes ................................................................................. 11 Comparative Analysis.......................................................................................................... 14

IV. Progress on 2006 State and Urban Area Findings ................................................................. 21 V. Progress on 2006 Federal Findings........................................................................................ 28 VI. Next Steps .............................................................................................................................. 42 Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................................. 44 Appendix B: Distribution Memo ................................................................................................. 46 Appendix C: Certification Matrices............................................................................................. 50

Jurisdiction Certification Matrix.......................................................................................... 50 Regional Certification Matrix .............................................................................................. 52

Appendix D: References .............................................................................................................. 53 Appendix E: Self-Assessment Data ............................................................................................. 55

Basic Plan............................................................................................................................. 56 Functional Appendices......................................................................................................... 63 Hazard-Specific Annexes..................................................................................................... 74

v

vi

Table of Figures Figure 1: NPR2010 Process ........................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2: Urban Areas Participating in the 2010 Nationwide Plan Review ............................... 5 Figure 3: Certification Matrix Data Collection Categories......................................................... 7 Figure 4: States’ Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents ....................................................... 8 Figure 5: Urban Areas’ Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents ........................................... 8 Figure 6: States’ Confidence in Functional Appendices............................................................. 10 Figure 7: Urban Areas’ Confidence in Functional Appendices.................................................. 10 Figure 8: Types of Hazards......................................................................................................... 12 Figure 9: States’ Confidence in Hazard-Specific Annexes......................................................... 13 Figure 10: Urban Areas’ Confidence in Hazard-Specific Annexes............................................ 13 Figure 11: Map of States and Urban Areas in the Hurricane Belt .............................................. 15 Figure 12: Hurricane Belt States’ Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents ........................... 15 Figure 13: Hurricane Belt Urban Areas’ Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents................. 17 Figure 14: EMAP-Accredited States and Urban Areas .............................................................. 19 Figure 15: EMAP-Accredited States’ Confidence in the Basic Plan Subcomponents ............... 19 Figure 16: EMAP-Accredited States’ Exercising of Basic Plan Subcomponents ...................... 20

I. Legislative Language On October 28, 2009, the President signed the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-83). This report is prepared pursuant to the Joint Explanatory Statement and Senate Report 111-31 accompanying P.L. 111-83. Specifically, the Joint Explanatory Statement states:

Nationwide Plan Review Update

The conferees direct FEMA to provide an update on the status of catastrophic planning, including mass evacuation planning, in all 50 States and the 75 largest urban areas, by April 16, 2010, as discussed in the Senate report.

Senate Report 111-31 states:

NATIONWIDE PLAN REVIEW UPDATE The Committee directs FEMA to provide an update on the status of catastrophic planning, including mass evacuation planning, in all 50 States and the 75 largest urban areas by April 16, 2010. The update should include the same certifications and status of plans for evacuations included in the Nationwide Plan Review dated June 16, 2006.

1

II. Background The driving force for the 2006 Nationwide Plan Review (NPR2006) was the Nation’s experience with the 2005 hurricane season. NPR2006 employed a two-phased approach. During phase 1, DHS collected and analyzed self-assessments, Emergency Operations Plans (EOPs) and supporting materials from 131 jurisdictions to determine the status of catastrophic planning. Phase 2 consisted of onsite visits composed of contracted peer review teams to provide for in-depth discussion with the participating jurisdictions. All jurisdictions were required to use FEMA’s State and Local Guide 101 (SLG 101), “Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning,” as a reference. NPR2006 drew initial conclusions for strengthening plans and planning processes at the federal, state and local levels of government. The 39 findings of NPR2006 were reduced to six major observations that highlighted the need for fundamental planning modernization:

Catastrophic planning efforts were found to be unsystematic and uneven.

Rapid homeland security mission expansion and the diversity of risks outpaced planning and planning actions had outstripped planning documentation.

Planning processes were outmoded, current tools and guidance were rudimentary and planning expertise showed insufficiency for catastrophic incidents.

Collaboration requirements were not well-defined, fostering a tendency to plan internally.

The prevailing approach to planning emphasized general roles and responsibilities over detailed procedures for specific hazards, scenarios or thresholds of incidents.

The feasibility of plans was dependent on resource inventories, databases and resource tracking mechanisms, all of which were areas of universal weakness.

Building on NPR2006, the 2010 Nationwide Plan Review (NPR2010) provides a snapshot of the current status of catastrophic planning across a broader footprint of functional areas and hazards. Catastrophic planning should address:

Any natural or manmade incident, including terrorism, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, national morale and/or government functions.1

The five guiding principles for NPR2010 are as follows:

Strengthen planning while preserving a decentralized initiative

1 National Response Framework, p. 42.

2

Reinforce the role of states as intergovernmental pivot points2

Identify systemic corrections for system-wide problems

Engage the FEMA Regions to enter into a planning dialogue with jurisdictions

Identify needed improvements in national preparedness to advance readiness for catastrophic events

A. Approach

To achieve comparable results, the NPR2010 approach mirrored the process from 2006 in many ways. For example, the same states and urban areas participated in the NPR2010. Additionally, a self-assessment process was employed to collect key information. FEMA regional staff conducted a second-stage review of the submittals, in several cases jointly assessing with the sites. Although there are many similarities with the NPR2006, the scope of NPR2010 was expanded to capture additional basic plan subcomponents and functional appendices that align with Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 (CPG 101) guidance. Hazard-specific annexes were also reviewed in 2010 to encompass some of the greatest risks facing the Nation. Although the aforementioned NPR2006 approach produced two separate reports, the streamlined process employed in NPR2010 resulted in one comprehensive report. NPR2010 examines the progress in state and local planning since NPR2006 and produces conclusions based on the evaluation of the self-assessment data. As depicted in Figure 1, the Nationwide Plan Review package was distributed by FEMA on January 19, 2010 (see Appendix B), to notify the participating states and urban areas of their involvement in NPR2010 and to outline the process and requirements for submittal of a self-assessment package by February 19, 2010. FEMA Regions also received guidance regarding their role in the process. The participating jurisdictions, data collection process and analysis process of NPR2010 are described in detail in Figure 1, followed by the 2010 results and findings.

2 Tierney, Kathleen J., Michael K. Lindell and Ronald W. Perry, Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States, Joseph Henry Press, 2001, p. 63: “State government has been described (Durham and Suiter, 1991) as ‘the pivot in the intergovernmental system . . . in a position to determine the emergency management needs and capabilities of its political subdivisions and to channel State and Federal resources to local government.’”

Figure 1: NPR2010 Process

January 19: February 22:

Memo with Instructions and

Tools Released to Participating Jurisdictions

Submission Packages Distributed

to Regions and Federal Staff for

Analysis

April 1:

Final Draft Report Due for Routing

February 19: April 16:March 12:

Completed Submissions Due from Participating

Jurisdictions

Final 2010 Nationwide Plan Review Report

Distributed

Regional Reviews and Federal Analysis

Due

3

B. Participating Jurisdictions

All 50 states, the District of Columbia, the territories3 and 75 urban areas were required to participate in NPR2010 as a prerequisite for receipt of FY 2010 DHS Homeland Security grant funds. The 764 participating urban areas remain the same as in 2006, which were selected to include the 55 FY 2005 Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) program grantees and 20 major urban areas selected by DHS on the basis of an analysis of 2004 population, risk and need. Moving forward with the remainder of this report, the 56 states and territories are referred to as the “States.” The full list of participating urban areas is shown in Figure 2.

Urban Areas Participating in 2010 Nationwide Plan Review

Albany, New York Albuquerque, New Mexico Anaheim, California Anchorage, Alaska Arlington, Texas Atlanta, Georgia Aurora, Colorado Austin, Texas Baltimore, Maryland Baton Rouge, Louisiana Boston, Massachusetts Buffalo, New York Charlotte, North Carolina Chicago, Illinois Cincinnati, Ohio Cleveland, Ohio Colorado Springs, Colorado Columbus, Ohio Corpus Christi, Texas Dallas, Texas Denver, Colorado Detroit, Michigan El Paso, Texas Fort Worth, Texas Fresno, California Honolulu, Hawaii Houston, Texas Indianapolis, Indiana Jacksonville, Florida Jersey City, New Jersey

Mesa, Arizona Miami, Florida Milwaukee, Wisconsin Minneapolis, Minnesota Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee National Capital Region 5 New Haven, Connecticut New Orleans, Louisiana New York, New York Newark, New Jersey Oakland, California Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Omaha, Nebraska Orlando, Florida Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Phoenix, Arizona Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Portland, Oregon Raleigh, North Carolina Richmond, Virginia Riverside, California Sacramento, California San Antonio, Texas San Diego, California San Francisco, California San Jose, California Santa Ana, California Seattle, Washington St. Louis, Missouri St. Paul, Minnesota

3 Territories include: American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 4 NPR2010 includes the same 75 urban areas as NPR2006; however, in NPR2010, the cities of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Norfolk, Virginia, submitted separately, creating a total of 76 urban area submittals. 5 Washington, D.C., submitted on behalf of the National Capital Region.

4

Urban Areas Participating in 2010 Nationwide Plan Review

Kansas City, Kansas & Missouri Las Vegas, Nevada Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky Lincoln, Nebraska Long Beach, California Los Angeles, California Louisville, Kentucky Memphis, Tennessee

St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Toledo, Ohio Tucson, Arizona Tulsa, Oklahoma Virginia Beach-Norfolk, Virginia6 Wichita, Kansas

Figure 2: Urban Areas Participating in the 2010 Nationwide Plan Review

C. Data Collection Process

Participating jurisdictions submitted a self-assessment package consisting of three components. Respondents were asked to focus their answers on their abilities to manage catastrophic events as they completed each item for the self-assessment package outlined below.

Transmittal letter – Provided approval by the jurisdiction’s designated official, a point-of-contact for questions or communications regarding the package and an optional summary of the jurisdiction’s planning efforts including the following:

o Three biggest successes related to planning and three biggest challenges to planning that have been encountered since the last review in 2005-2006

o Major future planning efforts

Certification matrix (see Appendix C) – Provided basic data about the jurisdiction’s plans, appendices and annexes, including a self-assessment of each document’s adequacy, feasibility and completeness using a five-point scale

Supporting documents – Electronic copies of plans identified in the certification matrix

D. Analysis Process

As submissions were received from the jurisdictions, the documents were distributed to FEMA regional staff for review. FEMA regional staff reviewed the plans and certification matrices submitted by the sites within their region and rated each plan on the basis of its adequacy, feasibility and completeness to manage a catastrophic event. Once complete, FEMA Regions submitted the certification matrix to FEMA National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) Headquarters for analysis. A team of federal staff reviewed and analyzed the following information to identify key themes, trends, progress since 2006 and 2010 findings, which serve as the foundation of the NPR2010 report:

6 The cities of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Norfolk, Virginia, participated as separate urban areas in 2010.

5

Successes, challenges and future planning efforts outlined in submitted transmittal letters

Certification matrix data submitted by the jurisdictions, specifically:

o Consistency with CPG 101 Appendix C for plans and functional appendices

o Last updated and last exercised dates for the plans, functional appendices and hazard-specific annexes

o Ratings of adequacy, feasibility and completeness for each plan, functional appendix and hazard-specific annex using a five-point scale

Regional certification matrix data submitted by the FEMA Regions, specifically a rating of adequacy, feasibility and completeness for each plan, functional appendix and hazard-specific annex using a five-point scale

A number of topics in emergency planning were presented for the first time as recommended annexes with the March 2009 release of CPG 101. These topics—Prevention and Protection and Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR) Restoration—were included in the NPR2010. With less than a year to consider these topics, analysis for these functional appendices largely serves to provide a baseline for future reports. Three additional topics—Population Reception, Recovery and Repatriation—were included in the data collection but are not currently addressed by CPG 101. On the basis of the wide variations in planning and gaps in definitive guidance, no meaningful analysis could be conducted on these topics for this report.

6

III. Analysis of 2010 Results

A. Overview

This section discusses the cumulative results of NPR2010, including a comparison of results from NPR2006. The discussion of plans, functional appendices and hazard-specific annexes and organization of the figures’ content mirror the order presented in the certification matrix. The table in Figure 3 provides a comparison of the information requested in the NPR2010 and NPR2006 certification matrices for each document reviewed.

Certification Matrix Data Collection Categories

NPR2010 NPR2006

Consistency with CPG 101, with response options of “Yes,” “Partially” and “No”

Date of last update

Date of last exercise

A self-evaluation of the jurisdiction’s confidence in each document’s adequacy, feasibility and completeness to manage a catastrophic event using a five-point scale where “1” equals “No” and “5” equals “Yes”

Consistency with SLG 101 with response options of “Yes” and “No”

Date of last update

Date of last exercise

A self-evaluation of their confidence that the plan is adequate to manage evacuation and shelter requirements comparable to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita using three response options: “Yes,” “Qualified Yes” and “No”

Figure 3: Certification Matrix Data Collection Categories

In this report, the categories of “Consistency with CPG 101” in NPR2010 and “Consistency with SLG 101” in NPR2006 have been combined into a single category labeled “Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101.” Further, the design of the NPR2006 did not afford a “partial” response because it relates to consistency with SLG 101. During the analysis, “partial” responses were examined both discretely and in aggregate with “yes” responses to evaluate consistency with CPG 101. The responses to the plans’ adequacy, feasibility and completeness to manage a catastrophic event in NPR2010 were based on a five-point scale, where “1” equaled “No” and “5” equaled “Yes.” The NPR2010 response options were grouped to align with the NPR2006 response options for this analysis. Specifically, the “4” or “5” ratings in 2010 equate to the “Yes” response option in NPR2006, the “3” rating in NPR2010 equates to the “Qualified Yes” response option in NPR2006 and the “1” or “2” ratings in NPR2010 equate to the “No” response option in NPR2006. For the purposes of evaluating each document’s ability to manage a catastrophic event, responses of “5” and “4” have been combined to represent “confidence,” while responses of “1” and “2” have been combined to represent a “lack of confidence.” A broad analysis of the self-assessments and regional reviews follows for the Basic Plan, functional appendices and hazard-specific annexes. Additionally, a comparative analysis conducted in 2006 was updated; the analysis examines differences in Hurricane Belt states and

7

urban areas compared to the balance of the nation, as well as the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP)-accredited states compared to the balance of the Nation. Detailed data can be referenced in Appendix E. B. Analysis of Basic Plan

The Basic Plan provides an overview of the jurisdiction’s approach to emergency operations. It details emergency response policies, describes the response organization and assigns tasks. Although the Basic Plan guides the development of the more operationally oriented annexes, its primary audience consists of the jurisdiction’s chief executive, his or her staff and agency heads.7 Data were collected and analyzed for the overall Basic Plan, as well as for the following specific subcomponents:

Organization and Responsibilities

Direction, Control and Coordination

Information Collection and Dissemination

Communications

Administration, Finance and Logistics

Self-assessment results show strong confidence levels from both states (79 percent) and urban areas (82 percent) in their basic plans’ ability to manage a catastrophic event. As illustrated in Figures 4 and 5, a significant increase in the number of jurisdictions that indicated confidence is reflected. These levels have doubled for states (from 39 percent) and nearly tripled for urban areas (from 31 percent) since 2006. Furthermore, the percentage of states and urban areas that indicated a lack of confidence in their basic plans to manage a catastrophic event has decreased from 2006, with only 5 percent of states and 1 percent of urban areas indicating a lack of confidence. The regional reviews support the states’ and urban areas’ assessments of their overall basic plans.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

Overall Basic Plan

Organization & Responsibilities

Direction, Control &

Coordination

Information Collection & Dissemination

CommunicationsAdministration, Finance & Logistics

Percent of States that Indicated Confidence in the Subcomponent's Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event

2010 2006

Figure 4: States’ Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

Overall Basic Plan



Coordination


CommunicationsAdministration, Finance & Logistics

Percent of Urban Areas that Indicated Confidence in the Subcomponent's Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event

2010 2006

Of the five subcomponents of the Basic Plan reviewed, states and urban areas indicated the most

7 CPG 101, p. 6-1

Figure 5: Urban Areas’ Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents

8

confidence in the Organization and Responsibilities subcomponent and the Direction, Control and Coordination subcomponent, with more than 80 percent of states and urban areas indicating confidence in the ability of these subcomponents to manage a catastrophic event. States and urban areas were also relatively confident in the Communications subcomponent (75 percent of states and 72 percent of urban areas). Moreover, the confidence in the Direction, Control and Coordination and Communications subcomponents has more than doubled since 2006, when 39 percent of states and 31 percent of urban areas were confident in their Direction, Control and Coordination subcomponents and 30 percent of states and urban areas were confident in their Communications subcomponents. Although the final version of CPG 101 had only been available to states and urban areas for less than 1 year at the time of the NPR2010 data call, nearly all states and urban areas (100 percent and 96 percent, respectively) indicated that their basic plans fully or partially incorporate applicable components of CPG 101. This reflects the integral role of states and urban areas in the development of the guidance. These numbers represent a 7-percent increase for states and 15-percent increase for urban areas since NPR2006, which referenced SLG 101, the predecessor to CPG 101, as the source for its evaluation criteria. Furthermore, the NPR2010 results indicated that more than 85 percent of states and urban areas fully or partially incorporated applicable elements of CPG 101 for each of the five Basic Plan subcomponents reviewed. Exercising and updating the Basic Plan remains a priority for states and urban areas. Over the last 4 years, 95 percent of states and urban areas exercised their overall basic plans. Within the same timeframe, 84 percent of states and 78 percent of urban areas updated their overall basic plans. Although these percentages reflect a slight decrease from the NPR2006, results are generally positive.

C. Analysis of Functional Appendices

Functional appendices add specific information and direction to the EOP. Focusing on critical operational functions, these appendices clearly describe the policies, processes, roles and responsibilities that agencies and departments carry out before, during and after any emergency. Although the Basic Plan provides broad, overarching information relevant to the EOP as a whole, these appendices focus on specific responsibilities, tasks and operational actions that pertain to the performance of a particular emergency operations function. These appendices also establish preparedness targets (for example, training, exercises, equipment checks and maintenance) that facilitate achieving function-related goals and objectives during emergencies and disasters.8 Depending on the jurisdiction, these appendices may align to general functions, Emergency Support Functions or both. Only a limited number of functional appendices were included in the NPR2006. More than 60 percent of states and urban areas indicated confidence in the majority of the functional appendices reviewed. As illustrated in Figures 6 and 7, across the Warning, Public Information, Health and Medical and Resource Management functional appendices, states’ and urban areas’ confidence in the ability of their plans to manage a catastrophic event more than

8 CPG 101, p. 6-6

9

doubled since 2006. Additionally, states’ and urban areas’ confidence in the ability of the Public Protection and Evacuation and Mass Care and Sheltering functional appendices to manage a catastrophic event has more than quadrupled since 2006.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Warning Public Information

Public Protection & Evacuation

Mass Care & Sheltering

Health and Medical

Resource Management

Prevention & Protection

CIKR Restoration

Damage Assessment

Debris Management

Donations Management

Percent of States that Indicated Confidence in the Functional Appendix's Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event

2010 2006

Figure 6: States’ Confidence in Functional Appendices

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Warning Public Information



Health and Medical

Resource Management


CIKR Restoration

Damage Assessment

Debris Management


Percent of Urban Areas that Indicated Confidence in the Functional Appendix's Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event

2010 2006

Figure 7: Urban Areas’ Confidence in Functional Appendices

More than 71 percent of states and urban areas indicated that they fully or partially incorporated applicable components from CPG 101 for each functional appendix. As seen in the Basic Plan analysis, these high percentages may reflect the integral role of states and urban areas in the development of CPG 101. More than 90 percent of both states and urban areas fully or partially incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 in their Warning, Public Information, Health and Medical, Mass Care and Sheltering and Damage Assessment functional appendices. Additionally, more than 90 percent of states and urban areas reported fully or partially incorporating applicable components of CPG 101 into other functional appendices (that is, Resource Management and Donations Management [states] and Public Protection and Evacuation [urban areas]). All six functional appendices included in both the NPR2006 and NPR2010 showed a significant increase in the percentage of states and urban areas that fully or partially incorporated applicable components of CPG 101/SLG 101. Furthermore, the percentage of states and urban areas that reported not incorporating applicable components of CPG 101 decreased across all six of the functional appendices evaluated in 2006.

10

States and urban areas made great strides to ensure the maintenance and utility of their functional appendices. For each functional appendix reviewed, approximately three-quarters of states and urban areas reported incorporating updates within the last 4 years. Self-assessment results indicated that a similar percentage of states and urban areas exercised each functional appendix within the same timeframe. Finally, of the six functional appendices included in both the NPR2006 and NPR2010, the Health and Medical appendix had the largest percentage increase of exercises conducted in the last 2 years by states and urban areas. Two new functional appendices have been identified in CPG 101 for inclusion in plans—Prevention and Protection and CIKR Restoration. As a general rule, the goals of prevention and protection planning efforts should be to identify threats and protect potential targets. To accomplish these goals, prevention and protection plans focus on information collection and threat detection; risk, vulnerability and intelligence analysis; information sharing and collaboration; criminal investigation and intervention; critical infrastructure protection; and risk management. Because the protection of CIKR impacts emergency preparedness and operations, state and local governments’ EOPs should contain information on what steps they are taking to identify and protect CIKR. Planners must assess potential vulnerabilities, consequences or threats and provide critical infrastructure protection measures for the systems and assets they identify as CIKR.9 Despite the fact that guidance for the Prevention and Protection and CIKR Restoration appendices has only been available for less than 1 year, self-assessment results are encouraging. Nearly 50 percent of states and urban areas indicated confidence in the use of their Prevention and Protection appendices to manage a catastrophic event. Similarly, 50 percent of states indicated confidence in the use of their CIKR Restoration appendices to manage a catastrophic event, while 36 percent of urban areas indicated confidence in this appendix. The data also revealed that nearly 80 percent of states and urban areas fully or partially incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 into their Prevention and Protection appendices. Additionally, 79 percent of states and 71 percent of urban areas fully or partially incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 into their CIKR Restoration appendices. Although these percentages are not as high compared to the majority of the functional appendices, the results of the self-assessments are generally strong and indicate dedication by the states and urban areas and an effort to build upon the success of existing prevention and protection programs.

D. Analysis of Hazard-Specific Annexes

A new area of analysis for NPR2010, hazard-specific annexes describe the unique operational requirements specific to a particular hazard and supplement the information both in the Basic Plan and the functional appendices. A document review of these annexes presents a number of unique challenges, given both the scenarios presented by these events as well as the wide variety of resources they may require. Further complicating this analysis is the reality that few of these hazards have been experienced at a catastrophic level and, thus, by their nature, have little historical data against which they can be referenced. States and urban areas also face a variety of

9 CPG 101, page 2-4.

11

hazards based on their geographic location; as a result, not all hazard-specific annexes are applicable to each jurisdiction participating in the review. The result is an increase in the number of jurisdictions that did not provide a response for these annexes compared to the Basic Plan and functional appendices. The hazard-specific annexes examined as part of NPR2010 can be broadly categorized into three groups, described in Figure 8.

These events are emergencies caused by forces extraneous to man

in elements of the natural environment. Natural hazards cannot

be managed and are often interrelated. Natural hazards can occur and cause no damage to

humans or the built environment; however, when a hazard and

development intersect, significant damage to the built environment

occurs, causing a natural disaster.

These events are emergencies that involve materials created by man and

that pose a unique hazard to the general public and environment. The jurisdiction needs to consider events

that are caused by accident (e.g., mechanical failure, human mistake) or result from an emergency caused by another hazard (e.g., flood, storm)

or are caused intentionally.

These are disasters created by man, either intentionally or by accident.

Note: The jurisdiction must complete its own hazard analysis to identify

what human-caused emergencies will require activation of the EOP’s

procedures.

Types of Hazards

Natural Technological Adversarial or Human-Caused

These events are emergencies caused by forces extraneous to man

in elements of the natural environment. Natural hazards cannot

be managed and are often interrelated. Natural hazards can occur and cause no damage to

humans or the built environment; however, when a hazard and

development intersect, significant damage to the built environment

occurs, causing a natural disaster.

These events are emergencies that involve materials created by man and

that pose a unique hazard to the general public and environment. The jurisdiction needs to consider events

that are caused by accident (e.g., mechanical failure, human mistake) or result from an emergency caused by another hazard (e.g., flood, storm)

or are caused intentionally.

These are disasters created by man, either intentionally or by accident.

Note: The jurisdiction must complete its own hazard analysis to identify

what human-caused emergencies will require activation of the EOP’s

procedures.

Types of Hazards

Natural Technological Adversarial or Human-Caused

Figure 8: Types of Hazards

Each type of hazard presents its own unique planning requirements and challenges. The analysis will focus on these three groups and provide some insight as to the status of planning. The data and analysis in this section can serve as a baseline for future assessment tools. The way jurisdictions approach hazard-specific planning varies greatly. Local communities may integrate hazard-specific information into functional appendices if they believe such integration would make the plan easier to read and use. Alternatively, jurisdictions may address specific hazards or threats in completely separate and stand-alone plans. In this case, the Basic Plan must specifically reference those plans and provide a brief summary of how the Basic Plan procedures are to be coordinated with the stand-alone procedures. Finally, hazards have unique planning requirements directed by specific state and federal laws. The local emergency management agency must review those requirements and determine how the Basic Plan can best address and meet those legal requirements.10 As depicted in Figures 9 and 10, states reported the highest level of confidence in their Pandemic Influenza and Flooding annexes. Approximately three-quarters of states indicated these annexes support management of a catastrophic event. Urban areas also reported a high level of confidence in their Pandemic Influenza annexes, as well as their Hazardous Materials annexes, with more than two-thirds of urban areas indicating these annexes support management of a catastrophic event. One factor influencing the high levels of confidence across states and urban areas in their Pandemic Influenza annexes is the recent global outbreak of H1N1 Pandemic Influenza 2009 (H1N1), which may have redirected planning resources and priorities. Similarly, flooding is another common hazard that many jurisdictions have faced. Additionally, regulatory requirements of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III, which requires the annual review of hazardous materials plans, and the high concentration of hazardous

10 CPG 101, p. C-23

12

materials being transported through many urban areas may contribute to the high level of confidence in the Hazardous Materials annex.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Improvised Nuclear Device

Radiological Dispersal Device

Improvised Explosive Device

Chemical Event

Biological Event

Cyber Event Pandemic Influenza

Hurricanes Flooding Winter Storms

Tornadoes Earthquakes Dam Failure Hazardous Materials

Percent of States that Indicated Confidence in the Hazard‐Specific Annex's Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event

Confident No Response

Natural Hazards Technological HazardsHuman‐Caused Hazards Figure 9: States’ Confidence in Hazard-Specific Annexes

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




Chemical Event

Biological Event

Cyber Event Pandemic Influenza

Hurricanes Flooding Winter Storms

Tornadoes Earthquakes Dam Failure Hazardous Materials

Percent of Urban Areas that Indicated Confidence in the Hazard‐Specific Annex's Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event

Confident No Response

Natural Hazards Technological HazardsHuman‐Caused Hazards Figure 10: Urban Areas’ Confidence in Hazard-Specific Annexes

Of the adversarial or human-caused hazards, the highest percentage of states and urban areas indicated confidence in their Chemical Event annexes and Biological Event annexes. The historical focus on these scenarios, going back to the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici program and the 120 Cities Initiative, provided jurisdictions with guidance, support and exercise opportunities to develop and validate these annexes. States and urban areas indicated the lowest levels of confidence in the use of their Cyber Event annexes compared to other hazard-specific annexes. Notably, planning for cyber events is an extremely complex and relatively new focus area, which may contribute to the lower confidence levels. A high percentage of states and urban areas indicated confidence in their annexes for natural hazards. Although the confidence levels for Hurricane annexes and Earthquake annexes appear relatively low in comparison to the other natural hazards, both of these hazards are only applicable to specific regions of the Nation, resulting in a more limited population for comparison. When the number of jurisdictions that did not provide a response is omitted from the data set, the percent of states and urban areas that indicated confidence in their Hurricane annexes significantly increases to 79 percent. Similarly, the percentage of states and urban areas indicating confidence in their Earthquake annexes increased, with 58 percent of states and

13

44 percent of urban areas indicating confidence, compared to 45 percent and 26 percent in 2006, respectively. States and urban areas continue to focus on exercising and updating their hazard-specific annexes. Three-quarters of states and 65 percent of urban areas have updated their Pandemic Influenza annexes since 2006, representing one of the most updated hazard-specific annexes within the last 4 years. This focus on Pandemic Influenza planning may support the concept that real-world events such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, Avian Flu and H1N1 contribute to plan updates. Self-assessment results indicate that the Hazardous Materials annexes were the most updated and exercised hazard-specific annex among urban areas in the last 4 years. This could be attributed to the regulatory requirements of SARA Title III.

E. Comparative Analysis

This section presents a comparative analysis for several cross-cutting issues that provide additional insight into the status of nationwide catastrophic planning. 1. Comparison of Plans in the “Hurricane Belt” and the Balance of the Nation The Hurricane Belt, comprising the Gulf and Atlantic Coast states, has a constant and frequent hazard against which to write and update plans, conduct training and exercises, draft functional and incident-specific annexes and allocate resources. This section of the report explores how the Hurricane Belt compares with the balance of the Nation in terms of planning for catastrophic incidents. This comparison explores whether the need to prepare against a known hazard with the potential to inflict mass casualties and significant damage to infrastructure, the environment, economy and/or government functions was an important factor in the development of plans and mechanisms required to manage catastrophic incidents.

14

Figure 11: Map of States and Urban Areas in the Hurricane Belt

Figure 11 identifies the states along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts and associated urban areas. States and urban areas shaded in blue comprise the Hurricane Belt and are at higher risk for a hurricane and associated heavy rains, strong winds and storm surge. To be consistent with the approach taken for the NPR2006 and enable comparable analysis, the territories are not included in the Hurricane Belt states. 2. States Most states in the Hurricane Belt (89 percent) indicated confidence that their overall basic plans are adequate, feasible and complete to manage a catastrophic event, as shown in Figure 12. This is also true for the Hurricane annexes. This suggests that greater exposure to disasters could be an important factor contributing to confidence levels in Basic Plans and Hurricane annexes. Furthermore, Hurricane Belt states were more likely to indicate confidence in their overall basic plans, as well as each basic plan subcomponent, than non-Hurricane Belt states.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Overall Basic Plan



Coordination


Communications Administration, Finance & Logistics


States in the Hurricane Belt States Outside the Hurricane Belt

In 2006, Hurricane Belt states were more likely to have plans rated as sufficient by the peer review process than states outside of the Hurricane Belt. The Figure 12: Hurricane Belt States’ Confidence in Basic Plan

Subcomponents

15

Resource Management, Health and Medical and Communications subcomponents were noticeably stronger for Hurricane Belt states.11 Although NPR2010 did not include a peer review process, the self-assessment results indicated Resource Management as a continued area of strength for the Hurricane Belt states as opposed to the non-Hurricane Belt states. Results from the independent Regional review generally supported this finding. Conversely, the gap in 2006 between the Hurricane Belt states and the non-Hurricane Belt states narrowed for the Communications and Health and Medical appendices. Although the majority of states indicated it fully or partially incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 into its basic plans, this percentage was significantly higher for Hurricane Belt states than non-Hurricane Belt states. Similar results were found for the Direction, Control and Coordination and Communications subcomponents, with 100 percent of Hurricane Belt states indicating they fully or partially incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 compared to 71 percent of non-Hurricane Belt states across both subcomponents. Overall, more Hurricane Belt states reported incorporating applicable components of CPG 101 into all subcomponents of the Basic Plan by at least 28 percent compared to non-Hurricane Belt states, with the exception of Organization and Responsibilities, which showed a smaller, yet still noteworthy difference of 15 percent. CPG 101 includes specific guidance in its Appendix C for components that comprise general functional planning (for example, Resource Management, Public Information and so on). More Hurricane Belt states indicated they incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 across all functional appendices than non-Hurricane Belt states, including Warning, Donations Management, Resource Management, Mass Care and Sheltering and Public Protection and Evacuation, which play a significant role in planning for and responding to a hurricane. Overall, nearly 100 percent of Hurricane Belt states reported exercising their basic plans in the last 2 years. Hazard-specific annexes appear to be exercised less within the same timeframe, most notably Improvised Nuclear Device annexes. Conversely, the Pandemic Influenza annex was exercised the most within the last 2 years by both Hurricane Belt states (72 percent) and non-Hurricane Belt states (66 percent). In the past 3 years, 89 percent of Hurricane Belt states exercised their Hurricane annexes; an equal percentage of Hurricane Belt states updated these annexes within the same timeframe. Flooding, a common hazard related to hurricanes, also showed high percentages (more than 52 percent) of hazard-specific plan updates in the last 2 years for both Hurricane Belt and non-Hurricane Belt states.

11 Nationwide Plan Review Phase 2 Report page 34. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. June 2006.

16

3. Urban Areas Similar to the results for Hurricane Belt states, a higher percentage of Hurricane Belt urban areas indicated confidence in their overall basic plans, as well as each Basic Plan subcomponent, than non-Hurricane Belt urban areas, as depicted in Figure 13. In NPR2006, urban areas in the Hurricane Belt produced plans that were more likely to be rated sufficient by the Peer Review Team across the Warning, Resource Management, Emergency Public Information and Mass Care appendices. Exceptions to this trend were found in the review of the Health and Medical and Communications appendices. Similar to 2006, the Warning, Resource Management, Emergency Public Information and Mass Care appendices continue to be strengths for Hurricane Belt urban areas based on self-assessment results. Although both Health and Medical and Communications were less likely to be rated as sufficient for urban areas in 2006, Hurricane Belt urban areas indicated more confidence in these particular appendices in 2010.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Overall Basic Plan



Coordination



Percent of Urban Areas that Indicated Confidence in the Subcomponent's Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event

Urban Areas in the Hurricane Belt Urban Areas Outside the Hurricane Belt

Figure 13: Hurricane Belt Urban Areas’ Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents

Although urban areas in the Hurricane Belt were more likely to indicate confidence in the majority of their hazard-specific annexes compared to urban areas outside of the Hurricane Belt, this should not be construed as indicating that urban areas with a high propensity for hurricanes are fully prepared to deal with all catastrophic events. Although certain planning elements and mechanisms are in place based on the known hazards within the area, many of these do not address events that rise to the catastrophic level. Urban areas in the Hurricane Belt reported their basic plans and functional appendices fully or partially incorporate applicable components of CPG 101 more often than urban areas outside of the Hurricane Belt, with the exception of the CIKR Restoration appendix. Similar to the Hurricane Belt states, the Hurricane Belt urban areas were also more likely to report that their Direction, Control and Coordination (97 percent) and Communications (86 percent) subcomponents fully or partially incorporate components of CPG 101 than non-Hurricane Belt urban areas. In addition, the Organization and Responsibilities subcomponent was reported as fully or partially incorporating applicable components of CPG 101 for many of the Hurricane Belt and non-Hurricane Belt urban areas (86 percent and 72 percent, respectively). Despite being a new addition to the March 2009 release of CPG 101, Hurricane Belt urban areas are already addressing issues related to CIKR Restoration based on their experiences. A slightly higher number of urban areas in the Hurricane Belt (41 percent) reported incorporating applicable components of CPG 101 for their CIKR Restoration annexes than those urban areas outside of the Hurricane Belt (36 percent).

17

The Evacuation appendix, a key element of hurricane preparedness, was exercised more within the last 2 years among Hurricane Belt urban areas than non-Hurricane Belt urban areas. However, more non-Hurricane Belt urban areas updated their Evacuation appendices in the last 2 years than did Hurricane Belt urban areas. Similar to NPR2006, evacuation appears to be an opportunity for further development moving forward. More urban areas outside of the Hurricane Belt reported that their overall basic plans were updated in the last 2 years than did urban areas in the Hurricane Belt. NPR2006 found that different expectations exist regarding the responsibilities between state and urban area planning. It is possible that the updating of key components of the overall basic plan is done by the state as the responsibility may lie with it. 4. Comparison of EMAP-Accredited and Non-Accredited States EMAP assesses and accredits state and local government programs responsible for coordinating prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery activities for natural and human-caused disasters. The EMAP accreditation process is based on a peer-reviewed evaluation of consistency with collaboratively developed national voluntary standards, or the EMAP Standard. As of the publication of this report, the EMAP Commission has granted accreditation to 22 states12 and the Consolidated City/County of Jacksonville/Duval (Florida); East Baton Rouge Parish (Louisiana); Orange County, Florida; and the County of San Diego, California (depicted in blue in Figure 14). Given the limited number of accredited urban areas, FEMA did not include urban areas for the purpose of this comparative analysis. As conducted in 2006, FEMA compared state self-assessment findings with EMAP-accredited states and non-accredited states. Consistency with the EMAP Standard indicates the overall quality of an emergency management program,13 with planning as one component. FEMA compared the 22 EMAP-accredited states to the balance of the Nation with the expectation that meeting the EMAP Standard would result in greater confidence in the adequacy, feasibility and completeness of plans used to manage a catastrophic incident.

12 At publication of the previous NPR2006 report, the EMAP Commission had granted accreditation to eight states and the Consolidated City/County of Jacksonville/Duval, Florida. 13 EMAP defines an emergency management program as “a jurisdiction-wide system that provides for management and coordination of prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery activities for all hazards. The system encompasses all organizations, agencies and individuals responsible for emergency management and homeland security.”

18

Figure 14: EMAP-Accredited States and Urban Areas

As indicated in Figure 15, EMAP-accredited states were more likely to indicate confidence in the use of their overall basic plans and each basic plan subcomponent to manage a catastrophic event than non-accredited states. Similarly, a higher percentage of EMAP-accredited states indicated confidence for each functional appendix than EMAP-accredited states. As shown in Figure 16, EMAP-accredited states were also more likely to update and exercise their overall basic plans, as well as each Basic Plan subcomponent, within the last 2 years than non-accredited states. This finding is also true for each functional appendix.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Overall Basic Plan Organization & Responsibilities

Direction, Control & Coordination




EMAP‐Accredited States Non‐Accredited States

Figure 15: EMAP-Accredited States’ Confidence in the Basic Plan Subcomponents

Similar to 2006, comparing EMAP-accredited and non-accredited states yields an opportunity to review the EMAP Standard’s effect on catastrophic planning. The NPR2006 found that EMAP-accredited states are far more likely to receive sufficient ratings for certain subcomponents, specifically for the Direction and Control and Resource Management appendices. In NPR2010 state self-assessments, this trend continued with a higher number of EMAP-accredited states

19

reporting confidence in the adequacy, feasibility and completeness of the Direction and Control and Resource Management appendices. These findings suggest that the EMAP Standard is a significant contributor and one indicator of the quality of the plan for managing catastrophic events.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Overall Basic Plan Organization & Responsibilities




Percent of States that Exercised the Subcomponent within the Last 2 Years

EMAP‐Accredited States Non‐Accredited States

Figure 16: EMAP-Accredited States’ Exercising of Basic Plan Subcomponents

20

IV. Progress on 2006 State and Urban Area Findings The NPR2006 Phase 2 Report identified 15 findings for states and urban areas. This section examines the progress made to those findings since 2006. The 15 state and urban area findings reflect the same language presented in the 2006 Phase 2 Report. Additionally, each finding’s “Desired Outcome from 2006” is included, as written in the Phase 2 Report, to provide context. The “Progress since 2006” provides a description of the current status of efforts related to each finding.

1. Finding from 2006. The majority of the Nation’s current emergency operations plans and planning processes cannot be characterized as fully adequate, feasible or acceptable to manage catastrophic events as defined in the NRP.

Desired Outcome from 2006. States and urban areas should examine their individual Peer Review Team detailed reports that were provided following the site visits, compare them with the Phase 2 Report and conduct necessary research, analysis and consultation to identify where change is required and develop a blueprint for remedial action.

Progress since 2006.

o States and urban areas indicated an increased level of confidence in their basic plans’ abilities to manage a catastrophic event since 2006, with 79 percent of states and 82 percent of urban areas indicating confidence compared to 39 percent of states and 31 percent of urban areas in 2006.

o Nearly 100 percent of states and urban areas indicated fully or partially incorporating applicable components of the community-developed CPG 101 into their basic plans.

2. Finding from 2006. States and urban areas are not conducting adequate collaborative planning as a part of “steady state” preparedness.

Desired Outcome from 2006. (See Initial Conclusions for the Federal Government #1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15 and 19 in the NPR2006 Phase 2 Report.)


o Regional planning, one of the National Priorities released in 2007, and interagency collaboration were cited by states and urban areas as two of their top five successes achieved since 2006.

o An increase in regional interaction was reported by participants in the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP), indicating improved collaborative planning in 11 of the nation’s high-risk, high-consequence areas, including seven Tier I UASIs.

21

3. Finding from 2006. Assumptions in Basic Plans do not adequately address catastrophic events.

Desired Outcome from 2006. State and urban area planning assumptions should be improved to reflect the crucial role of assumptions in the planning process. Assumptions serve as suppositions of current events or presuppositions of the future course of events, cover issues over which the planner has no control and are used to fill gaps in knowledge so planning can continue. In all-hazards planning, assumptions should be carefully reviewed to ensure they reflect the differences between adaptive threats and non-adaptive hazards. Few assumptions should be necessary for commonly experienced hazards. Given the uncertainty and surprise of terrorist attacks, planners should use available risk information, plan for realistic worst-case scenarios and assume that terrorists will use every capability at their disposal and operate in the most efficient manner possible.


o The majority of states and urban areas (79 percent and 82 percent, respectively) reported a high level of confidence in their basic plans’ abilities to address a catastrophic event, indicating their planning assumptions are appropriate.

o Nearly 100 percent of states and urban areas reported their basic plans fully or partially incorporated applicable components of CPG 101, which promotes validated planning assumptions.

4. Finding from 2006. Basic Plans do not adequately address continuity of operations and continuity of government.

Desired Outcome from 2006. All organizations tasked in a basic plan should ensure that lines of succession for key management positions are established; essential records, facilities and equipment are protected; where possible, alternate operating locations are available; emergency response staff is protected; and functioning of emergency communications is assured. (See Initial Conclusion for the Federal Government #24 in the NPR2006 Phase 2 Report.)


o An increased number of states and urban areas requested Continuity of Operations (COOP) Technical Assistance (TA) since 2006 in comparison to the previous 4 years, with 26 requests since 2006 and three requests from 2002 through 2005.

o Through the Competitive Training Grant Program, updated COOP training has been made available to jurisdictions throughout the country, with 41 deliveries since 2007.

5. Finding from 2006. The most common deficiency among state and urban area Direction and Control Annexes is the absence of a clearly defined command structure.

Desired Outcome from 2006. National Incident Management System (NIMS)-compliant plans should be sufficiently detailed to allow integration of a multi-jurisdictional and multi-agency response involving combined plans. Augmentation of key management positions should be planned for and documented to ensure

22

continuity in the event a disruption renders leadership unable, unavailable or incapable of assuming and performing their authorities and responsibilities.


o States’ and urban areas’ confidence in the ability of their Direction, Control and Coordination subcomponents to manage a catastrophic event increased since 2006, with 84 percent of states and 83 percent of urban areas indicating confidence compared to 39 percent and 31 percent in 2006, respectively.

o States and urban areas reported increased consistency with available planning guidance for the Direction, Control and Coordination subcomponent, which details information on a defined command structure. In 2010, 100 percent of states and 97 percent of urban areas fully or partially incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 into their plans, compared to 89 percent of states and 81 percent of urban areas that incorporated applicable components of SLG 101 in 2006.

6. Finding from 2006. Many states and urban areas need to improve systems and procedures for communications among all operational components.

Desired Outcome from 2006. Communications Annexes should be updated to reflect the progress in expansion of emergency communications capabilities and system redundancy. The FY 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) required development of a Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan (TICP) and validation of the plan through an exercise. Fusion centers should be incorporated into incident response communications systems, operational plans and applicable annexes to provide critical data to planners and for situational awareness during execution of EOPs and functional annexes.


o States’ and urban areas’ confidence in the ability of their Communications plans to manage a catastrophic event more than doubled since 2006, with 75 percent of states and 72 percent of urban areas indicating confidence compared to 30 percent of states and 29 percent of urban areas in 2006.

o States and urban areas allocated nearly 90 percent of Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) funding for acquisition and deployment of technology, demonstrating the states’ needs and desires for infrastructure improvements to achieve communications interoperability. Furthermore, $42.3 million of PSIC funds has been allocated by states for planning and coordination activities.

o From 2005 to 2007, the TICP initiative found the area of governance in the Interoperable Communications Continuum needed strengthening, particularly the resourcing, coordination and planning aspects pertaining to operability rather than interoperability. The Office of Emergency Communications is capturing the progress of the 75 TICP sites as well as planning for the TICP 2, which goes beyond exercises to look at real-world events.

23

7. Finding from 2006. All Functional Annexes do not adequately address special needs populations.

Desired Outcome from 2006. (See Initial Conclusions for the Federal Government #10-13, 20 and 21 in the NPR2006 Phase 2 Report.)


o Planning that integrates the needs of individuals with disabilities, children, seniors, individuals with limited English proficiency and others with access and functional needs (formerly described as special needs populations), remains on the forefront. States and urban areas specifically referenced planning for these populations as a future planning priority, success and/or challenge.

o State and local stakeholders actively contributed to the development of the Interim CPG 301: Emergency Management Planning Guide for Special Needs Populations and continue to provide feedback to FEMA’s Disability Integration and Coordination Director regarding all relevant doctrine and policy, including integration of this information into an update of CPG 101.

8. Finding from 2006. States should designate a specific state agency that is responsible for providing oversight and ensuring accountability for including people with disabilities in the shelter operations process.

Desired Outcome from 2006. The designation of a specific state agency (for example, the State Department of Health) that is responsible for providing oversight and ensuring accountability for people with disabilities in the shelter operation process. This should include persons evacuated from private sector health care and housing facilities. Minimum standards for efficient and effective handling of the issues must be in place to guide local entities, private sector organizations, the American Red Cross or other volunteer organizations active in disasters to ensure a common approach. This state agency should ensure that accessibility for persons with disabilities is a priority factor in the selection of all emergency shelters.


o States have begun to assign a state agency with the responsibility for disabilities planning. The integration of these issues into overall preparedness plans remains a challenge. This includes the need to integrate special needs populations into general population shelters. The upcoming revision of CPG 101 will emphasize the need to integrate these issues into basic planning.

o States have expanded the number and types of organizations represented on planning boards, including organizations representing individuals with disabilities, children, seniors, individuals with limited English proficiency and others with access and functional needs, among boards with little contact with special needs populations.

9. Finding from 2006. Timely warnings requiring emergency actions are not adequately disseminated to custodial institutions, appropriate government officials and the public.

Desired Outcome from 2006. Plans, annexes and operational documents should be revised to ensure that timely dissemination of hazard information is provided to

24

custodial institutions. These actions are critical to institutions’ ability to make appropriate decisions, exploit available transportation modes and provide for en route services (for example, fuel, water, food, medical care) to successfully execute an evacuation from a catastrophic event. (See Initial Conclusions for the Federal Government #9, 12, 13, 20 and 21 in the NPR2006 Phase 2 Report.)


o Confidence in the ability to provide reliable, timely and effective warning to the public more than doubled for states and urban areas since 2006, with 77 percent of states and 74 percent of urban areas indicating confidence in their Warning appendices compared to 36 percent of states and 32 percent of urban areas in 2006.

o Consistency with planning guidance related to warning processes and procedures has increased since 2006, with 91 percent of states and 96 percent of urban areas indicating they fully or partially incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 into their Warning appendices compared to 84 percent of states and 81 percent of urban areas that incorporated applicable components of SLG 101 in 2006.

10. Finding from 2006. The ability to give the public accurate, timely and useful information and instructions through the emergency period should be strengthened.

Desired Outcome from 2006. Emergency public communications should be strengthened to ensure that they reflect the appropriate characteristics (for example, source credibility, repetition, frequency, specificity, type and number of methods/media used to disseminate information) of effective risk communications; include feedback mechanisms that understand the multi-dimensional nature of communication (that is, hearing, understanding, believing and personalizing risk); and account for different target audiences and socio-demographic characteristics. Given the general inexperience with Joint Information Center/Joint Information System, integration of multi-jurisdictional and multiagency joint information operations should be routinely exercised, including role-playing media that provide authenticity in the form of appropriate levels of stress for spokespersons, products, processes and technologies. These efforts should also prioritize the testing and validation of emergency communications in required accessible formats for persons with disabilities. Enlisting the participation of people with disabilities and individuals who are disability subject matter experts, representatives of civic and faith-based organizations, neighborhood associations and educational institutions can ensure risk communications account for appropriate target audiences and have the appropriate impact on social structures and social trust. (See Initial Conclusions for the Federal Government #13 and 21 in the NPR2006 Phase 2 Report.)


o Confidence in the ability to provide reliable, timely and effective information to the public has more than doubled for states and urban areas since 2006, with 86 percent of states and 78 percent of urban areas indicating confidence in their Public Information appendices compared to 41 percent of states and 29 percent of urban areas in 2006.

25

11. Finding from 2006. Significant weaknesses in evacuation planning are an area of profound concern.

Desired Outcome from 2006. See the “Evacuation Plans” section of the NPR2006 Phase 2 Report for a summary of Department of Transportation (DOT) findings and the DOT companion report for detailed analysis of evacuation planning in the Gulf Coast states and selected counties and parishes.


o Confidence in evacuation planning has increased, with two-thirds of states and urban areas indicating confidence in their Public Protection and Evacuation appendices compared to 11 percent of states and 9 percent of urban areas in 2006.

o Approximately 90 percent of both states and urban areas reported they incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 into their Public Protection and Evacuation appendices compared to approximately 65 percent in 2006.

o A new Evacuation Planning TA program was created in 2007 at the request of states and urban areas and has been delivered 15 times since its inception.

12. Finding from 2006. Capabilities to manage reception and care for large numbers of evacuees are inadequate.

Desired Outcome from 2006. States and urban areas should evaluate existing and planned capacity to host large numbers of evacuees, including government augmentation of non-governmental services; assess the adequacy of accommodation of special needs populations, including accommodation of durable medical equipment, assistive devices, service animals, family members and/or caregivers; and review capabilities for extended provision of services in the face of long-term disruptions or damage to the evacuated areas. (See Initial Conclusions for the Federal Government #9, 11, 12, 14 and 20 in the NPR2006 Phase 2 Report.)


o The percentage of states and urban areas that reported confidence in the ability of their Mass Care and Sheltering appendices to manage a catastrophic event more than quadrupled since 2006, with 64 percent of states and 71 percent of urban areas indicating confidence compared to 14 percent of states and 15 percent of urban areas in 2006.

13. Finding from 2006. Capabilities to track patients under emergency or disaster conditions and license out-of-state medical personnel are limited.

Desired Outcome from 2006. States and urban areas should reconcile patient/casualty tracking systems to ensure interoperability and foster situational awareness and accountability. Licensing of out-of-state medical personnel should be addressed in authorities, Health and Medical Annexes and operational documentation to facilitate their rapid deployment and employment.


o Jurisdictions’ confidence in the ability of their Health and Medical appendices to manage a catastrophic event has nearly tripled for states and more than

26

quadrupled for urban areas, with 71 percent of states and 74 percent of urban areas indicating confidence compared to 25 percent of states and 17 percent of urban areas in 2006. FEMA will continue to work with jurisdictions to ensure these appendices address patient tracking.

14. Finding from 2006. Resource management is the “Achilles heel” of emergency planning. Resource Management Annexes do not adequately describe in detail the means, organization and process by which states and urban areas will find, obtain, allocate, track and distribute resources to meet operational needs.

Desired Outcome from 2006. State and urban area capabilities and corresponding resources available internally or through mutual aid should be inventoried and placed into an appropriate management system, and operational procedures should be developed for integration and employment. Plans should clearly define required resources, routine inventories should be conducted, available resources should be matched to planning requirements and shortfalls should be identified and resolved.


o Although this remains an area requiring further development and attention, states’ and urban areas’ confidence levels in the ability of their Resource Management appendices to manage a catastrophic event has more than doubled since 2006, with 59 percent of states and 61 percent of urban areas indicating confidence compared to 21 percent of states and 17 percent of urban areas in 2006.

o Jurisdictions identified Resource Management planning as a success and/or future planning effort, particularly related to developing resource management plans and guidance.

15. Finding from 2006. Plans should clearly define required resources, inventories must be conducted, available resources must be matched to requirements and shortfalls must be identified and resolved.

Desired Outcome from 2006. Capabilities and corresponding resources available internally or through mutual aid are inventoried and placed into an appropriate database, and operations procedures are developed for integration and employment.


o Under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), the volume and types of resources requested have grown considerably. EMAC, along with its accompanying policies, procedures and practices, provides for successful collaboration that enables its members to request and track resources and provides timely assistance to states in need.

o Jurisdictions and Regions noted development and implementation of resource management tools for tracking goods, services and personnel as an area of improvement in future planning efforts.

o See related discussion under State and Urban Area Finding #14.

27

V. Progress on 2006 Federal Findings

The NPR2006 Phase 2 Report identified 24 findings for the Federal Government. This section examines the progress made to those findings since 2006. The 24 federal findings reflect the same language presented in the 2006 Phase 2 Report. Additionally, each finding’s “Desired Outcome from 2006” is included, as written in the Phase 2 Report, to provide context. The “Progress since 2006” provides a description of the current status of efforts related to each finding.

1. Finding from 2006. Planning products, processes, tools and technologies should be developed to facilitate a common nationwide approach to catastrophic planning in accordance with the National Preparedness Goal’s National Priority to Strengthen Planning and Citizen Preparedness Capabilities.

Desired Outcome from 2006. Develop modernized planning doctrine, policies, guidance, standards and procedures that are utilized in conformance with the NIMS and National Response Plan (NRP) and are sufficient to address the contemporary hazards and threats facing the nation.


o Annex I to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 (HSPD-8), released in 2007, established a standard and comprehensive approach to national planning that prompted the development of the Integrated Planning System (IPS). Although IPS did not completely satisfy the outcome, the efforts involved in developing the system led to identification of key lessons learned that are shaping the next evolution of a robust national planning system.

o Released in September of 2007 by DHS, the National Preparedness Guidelines, which incorporated the revised Target Capabilities List (TCL), provided preparedness doctrine. The National Preparedness Guidelines highlight that preparedness is a shared responsibility and integrate the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and NPR2006.

o CPG 101, officially released in March 2009, provides guidelines for developing an EOP and promotes a common understanding of the fundamentals of planning and decision making to help emergency planners examine relevant hazards and produce integrated, coordinated and synchronized plans. CPG 101, which replaced SLG 101, was developed by members of the planning community and reflects the best available planning doctrine.

2. Finding from 2006. Planning modernization should be fully integrated with other key homeland security initiatives.

Desired Outcome from 2006. Development and implementation of planning modernization in a way that promotes synergies and avoids undesirable conflicts or redundancies with other related initiatives.

28


o CPG 101, which modernized planning guidance for states and urban areas, integrated approaches, frameworks and concepts from the National Response Framework (NRF) and the NIMS. DHS grant guidance now includes CPG 101 as recommended guidance for planning and plan development.

o The National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), the National Preparedness Guidelines and NRF together provide a comprehensive, integrated approach to the homeland security mission. The NIPP, released in 2009, establishes the overall risk-informed approach that defines the Nation’s CIKR protection posture, while the NRF provides the approach for domestic incident management. The National Preparedness Guidelines set forth national priorities, doctrine and roles and responsibilities for building capabilities across the prevention, protection, response and recovery mission areas.

3. Finding from 2006. Clear guidance should be developed on how state and local governments plan for coordinated operations with federal partners under the National Response Plan (NRP).

Desired Outcome from 2006. Clear guidance is provided to state and local governments on how to plan for coordinated operations with federal partners under the NRP.


o Built on both stakeholder input and public comment, the NRF, released in January 2008, superseded the NRP and emphasizes the importance of coordinated planning efforts between federal, state, tribal and local governments.

o CPG 101, developed by the state and local community, provides specific guidance on linking federal, state and local plans.

o The establishment of new positions within FEMA Regional Offices enabled an increased focus on coordination of planning operations between federal, state and local partners.

o The National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF), currently in development, introduces the concept of Recovery Support Functions that will provide more effective and recovery-focused coordinating structures for federal, state, tribal and local governments.

4. Finding from 2006. Existing federal technical assistance should be used to help states and urban areas address the specific needs identified during the Nationwide Plan Review.

Desired Outcome from 2006. Provision of technical assistance to meet the most urgent planning needs. Standardized guidance on catastrophic incident planning in the areas mentioned above.


o FEMA offers TA across four areas—Prevention, Protection, Planning Support and Program Management—to build and sustain state and local capabilities for a wide array of hazards. Specific to this report, Planning Support TA includes more

29

than 25 various topics, ranging from Basic Emergency Operations Plan development and COOP to Mass Casualty Incident Planning and Special Events Planning.

o Since 2006, 839 TA offerings have been delivered to state and local partners, 340 of which are specific to Planning Support. Overall, approximately 25 percent more TAs were delivered in the last 4 years than in the 4 years preceding NPR2006.

o At the request of stakeholders, more than 20 new TA offerings have been developed in the past 4 years to meet the needs and gaps identified.

o FEMA developed an Evacuee Support Planning Guide (Host State Guide) and template to assist state and local governments when engaging in evacuation hosting operations. The guide included input from states’ evacuee support planning initiatives to ensure that the guide reflects the states’ planning needs.

5. Finding from 2006. Critical tasks, target capabilities and associated performance measures, such as those identified in the National Preparedness Goal, should serve as the common reference system for planning and the language of synchronization.

Desired Outcome from 2006. A common reference and language for plan development, validation and assessment.


o DHS released the updated TCL Version 2.0 in September 2007 and a draft TCL User Guide in February 2009, which outlines how jurisdictions can leverage the TCL to build capabilities along each phase of the preparedness cycle and identify capability targets and gaps.

o The Homeland Security Exercise Evaluation Program institutionalized the use of the TCL for exercise planning, conduct and evaluation.

6. Finding from 2006. Detailed planning assumptions and planning magnitudes for catastrophic incidents should be defined such as has been initiated through the National Planning Scenarios.

Desired Outcome from 2006. Detailed planning assumptions that identify the anticipated magnitude and duration of all-hazards catastrophic incidents. Plans that include capabilities and tasks for guiding prevention, protection, response and recovery actions and time-phased deployment schedules that match the magnitude and duration of the catastrophic incidents.


o The NRF provides details on how the Nation should conduct an all-hazards response by providing a comprehensive approach to domestic incident response planning. It includes specific authorities and best practices for managing incidents. This information ranges from the serious but purely local, to large-scale terrorist attacks or catastrophic natural disasters.

o The National Planning Scenarios are planning tools that provide critical assumptions to aid in the development of plans for a range of potential disasters.

30

Since 2006, working groups have been organized to review and update the National Planning Scenarios to ensure they apply to the current dynamic homeland security environment.

o Working groups for Resource Typing defined assumptions for three levels of sheltering. Categorized by number of residents and services provided over time, this information includes a matrix of resources and operations for all three levels.

7. Finding from 2006. Current preparedness data should be readily accessible to planners.

Desired Outcome from 2006. Informed and empowered homeland security planners with easy access to required preparedness data.


o Development and use of new online tools, such as the pilot Virtual Joint Planning Office, contributes to a collaborative planning environment. It provides for increased accessibility of data to planners from across the nation.

o FEMA is developing SharePoint sites as a way to collect, store and share information across national preparedness efforts, including planning.

8. Finding from 2006. Regional planning capabilities, processes and resources should be strengthened in accordance with the National Preparedness Goal’s National Priorities to Expand Regional Collaboration and Strengthen Planning and Citizen Preparedness Capabilities.

Desired Outcome from 2006. The systematic incorporation and “roll-up” of jurisdictional-level plans into regional-level plans that address the specific demands of large scale and/or catastrophic events. The systematic process should be based on standard procedures for review, synchronization and validation of regional plans based on the ability to achieve desired outcomes.


o To support improved regional planning capabilities, FEMA introduced RCPGP in FY 2008. This program enhances catastrophic incident preparedness in selected high-risk, high-consequence urban areas and their surrounding regions. RCPGP supports coordination of regional all-hazard planning for catastrophic events. It includes development of integrated planning communities, plans, protocols and procedures to manage a catastrophic event. Deliverables from participating sites will be available to the preparedness community throughout the country to enhance national resilience.

o Since NPR2006, a major regional planning effort was initiated to focus on the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) composed of the eight Midwest states: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi and Tennessee. This effort engages partners at all levels in catastrophic planning efforts. NMSZ collaborative planning identifies high-risk areas, assesses current disaster response capabilities, identifies anticipated response shortfalls and results in comprehensive planning strategies. The emphasis is on building local and state capabilities that are integrated with federal capabilities. This planning initiative will be tested during the 2011 National-Level Exercise (NLE).

31

9. Finding from 2006. Collaboration between government and non-governmental entities should be strengthened at all levels, as outlined in the National Priority to Expand Regional Collaboration.

Desired Outcome from 2006. Citizen Corps Councils, which are designed to foster this collaboration, can assist planners in developing and testing plans for public preparedness, direct assistance and surge capacity.


o Citizen Corps Councils continue to expand with more than 2,400 Councils registered to date. More than 600 new Councils have been formed since 2006. A new online data tool will be launched in 2010 to capture Council membership, integration of nongovernmental resources in EOPs and activities to prepare the public and expand volunteer service opportunities.

o Since 2006, many Federal Government agencies have created offices dedicated to engaging and/or coordinating with the private sector. For example, FEMA established a Private Sector Division within the Office of External Affairs in October 2007. This division improves information sharing and coordination between FEMA and the private sector during disaster planning, response and recovery efforts.

o Since 2006, partnerships between law enforcement and emergency management have strengthened. To promote collaboration with law enforcement, FEMA appointed a law enforcement advisor to the agency’s administrator in 2007. This position provides a law enforcement perspective on agency plans and policies. It also supports FEMA’s growing interaction with law enforcement associations, fusion centers and terrorism task forces. Furthermore, the FEMA Regions hosted regional meetings in 2009 bringing state and local fusion center directors together with state and local emergency management officials. These meetings encouraged dialogue and discussion for a collaborative path forward.

o RCPGP has contributed to enhanced collaboration between government and nongovernmental entities by requiring development of Regional Catastrophic Planning Teams. These teams are composed of both government and non-government representatives (for example, Citizen Corps Council points of contact (POC), Metropolitan Medical Response System POCs, private sector representatives).

o FEMA is working collaboratively with federal, state and nongovernmental partners on a Functional Needs Support Services Guide. The guide assists with planning and integration of functional needs support services in general population shelters.

10. Finding from 2006. The Federal Government should develop a consistent definition of the term “special needs.”

Desired Outcome from 2006. Development of an unambiguous definition of “special needs.”

32


o In June 2007, FEMA named its first National Disability Coordinator. The coordinator provides guidance and coordination on emergency planning requirements and relief efforts for individuals with disabilities. DHS established a working group to focus on special needs considerations and contribute to the development of a definition for special needs. This definition is in the final stages of development and is expected to be released shortly.

o FEMA recognizes the importance of integrating the preparedness, response and recovery needs of individuals with disabilities, children, seniors, individuals with limited English proficiency and others with access and functional needs (formerly described as special needs populations) across all of its efforts. While planning for special needs is currently covered in the Interim CPG 301, the revised CPG 101, planned for release in 2010, will include comprehensive guidance for the entire population, including special needs.

11. Finding from 2006. The Federal Government should provide guidance to states and local governments on incorporation of disability-related demographic analysis into emergency planning.

Desired Outcome from 2006. The identification of people with disabilities as a separate or specifically identified grouping, coupled with the incorporation of disability related demographic analysis in planning processes.


o Through CPG 101, the Federal Government provides guidance to states and local governments on the inclusion of disability-related demographics in emergency planning. The Interim CPG 301 guidance provides additional details on how jurisdictions should plan for those with special needs. To improve incorporation of disability-related demographic analysis across the planning process, CPG 101 and CPG 301 will be merged into an updated version of the guidance.

o Federal agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, produce guidance and training on identifying special needs persons in the local community.

o In Spring 2010, FEMA will publish “Guidance on Planning for the Integration of Functional Needs Support Services in General Population Shelters.” This guidance includes accommodation of durable medical equipment, assistive devices, service animals, family members, caregivers and the delivery of personal assistance services.

12. Finding from 2006. Federal, state and local governments should work with the private sector to identify and coordinate effective means of transporting individuals with disabilities before, during and after an emergency.

Desired Outcome from 2006. A mechanism to ensure the availability of sufficient and timely accessible transportation to evacuate concentrated populations that may need additional assistance (for example, nursing homes, group homes, assistive living facilities and cluster care blocks of home-base clients or naturally occurring

33

retirement communities), as well as individuals with disabilities living in the community who are dependent upon accessible transportation. This mechanism should safeguard against separation from durable medical equipment, assistive devices, service animals, family members and/or caregivers.


o The NRF Revision includes the addition of a Mass Evacuation Incident Annex, which addresses how the Federal Government will support state and local evacuation efforts, including the evacuation of individuals with disabilities and others with transportation needs.

o The DOT Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) conducted studies of transportation options and gaps for major urban areas. Specific studies include: communication with non-English speaking populations, defining the amount of time required for individuals to move from their home to emergency transportation, the use of DOT grantees providing special needs vans and equipment for transport as an untapped resource.

o DOT FHWA established an interagency committee to address the transportation needs of those with disabilities.

o The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), FHWA, National Consortium on Human Services Transportation and DOT Committees (Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility and the Emergency Transportation Subcommittee) have conducted numerous studies, demonstrations and models for appropriate transportation access and management of special needs/medical needs populations since 2000. After Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, the aforementioned agencies—along with disability-related organizations—issued recommendations, checklists, vehicle specifications and emergency transportation management guides. Additionally, the number of demonstration grants available to identify best practices has increased.

13. Finding from 2006. Improvements in public preparedness and emergency public information should be implemented in accordance with the National Preparedness Goal’s National Priority to Strengthen Planning and Citizen Preparedness Capabilities.

Desired Outcome from 2006. Planning is synchronized with public education for relevant high-risk threats and hazards and special needs populations. Citizens are provided with meaningful and clear information on basic preparedness measures, response actions and community response protocols. Jurisdictions periodically test effectiveness of outreach efforts and citizen awareness.


o Since 2006, FEMA’s Individual and Community Preparedness Division has conducted two nationwide household surveys (2007 and 2009). These surveys provide comprehensive data on the public’s thoughts, perceptions and behaviors related to preparedness and community safety for multiple types of hazards. Survey findings provide valuable insights for increasing personal preparedness, civic engagement and community resilience. Data analysis includes demographic profiles, including people with disabilities.

34

o Since 2006, FEMA has developed an internal Community Preparedness Working Group, comprised of multiple Directorates and Divisions. This working group coordinates preparedness education and outreach across all of FEMA.

o FEMA submitted an Interim Report to Congress on the Emergency Preparedness Demonstration Pilot Project in August 2007. The final report is in development. The project has three principle objectives:

Conduct research on the status of disaster awareness and emergency preparedness in socially and economically disadvantaged households and communities.

Design and implement demonstration projects to improve awareness and preparedness in such households and communities.

Develop proposals for incorporating changes in FEMA programs based on results received.

o Since 2008, FEMA has been working with partners throughout DHS to develop improved public awareness and information materials to support improvised nuclear device planning, as well as a range of other catastrophic hazards.

o In 2009, the Ready Campaign was moved from DHS to FEMA and, through multimedia outlets, created greater emphasis on disaster preparedness messages. In addition, Ready and Citizen Corps are working in collaboration to further promote community resilience through citizen engagement and involvement in their local communities.

14. Finding from 2006. Federal, state and local governments should take action to better integrate non-governmental resources to meet surge capacity.

Desired Outcome from 2006. All levels of government identify and track available resources from nongovernmental organizations and have pre-established procedures to integrate these resources into operations.


o A private sector more engaged in planning will positively impact a community’s overall resilience and capacity to recover from all disasters, which, in turn, allows businesses to operate and support the overall community infrastructure. Since 2006, many Federal Government agencies have created offices dedicated to engaging and/or coordinating with the private sector.

o FEMA’s Citizen Corps program promotes the involvement of government and nongovernmental partners through state and local Citizen Corps Councils. These councils conduct all-hazards community preparedness planning, including the identification of planning gaps and the resources to fill those gaps.

o The online data collection tool for Citizen Corps Councils, scheduled to be launched in 2010, will capture local activities to better integrate non-governmental resources to meet surge capacity.

35

15. Finding from 2006. The Federal Government should provide the leadership, doctrine, policies, guidance and standards necessary to build a shared national homeland security planning system.

Desired Outcome from 2006. A disciplined, collaborative and integrated system is established for facilitating consistent homeland security planning in conformance with the National Preparedness Goal at the federal, state, local and tribal levels of government. System development and implementation advances are based on stakeholder feedback and process and technology maturation.


o In conjunction with state and local partners, the Federal Government developed doctrine, policies, guidance and standards, such as the National Preparedness Goal, CPG 101, NIMS, NRF, NIPP and the National Preparedness Guidelines to contribute to a national homeland security planning system.

16. Finding from 2006. Identification of technologies, tools and architecture(s) for the national homeland security planning community should be included in the National Priority to Strengthen Planning and Citizen Preparedness Capabilities.

Desired Outcome from 2006. With the support of organizations such as the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), identify, develop and field technology (near- and long-term) that will enable networked collaboration, access to authoritative data and parallel planning; improved tools that can analyze before and after comparisons of consequences; and access to databases and tools that identify required resources for planning purposes and allow operational resource tracking among organizations nationwide.


o The National Exercise Simulation Center (NESC), established by FEMA in January 2009, is a state-of-the-art facility geared to serve the all-hazards preparedness and response mission through pooling resources, maximizing efficiency and providing sustained exercise and training support to all stakeholders. The NESC uses a mix of live, virtual and constructive simulations to prepare elected officials, emergency managers, emergency response providers and emergency support suppliers at all levels of government to operate cohesively. The NESC also assists in the development of operational procedures and exercises, particularly those based on catastrophic incidents. The NESC serves as a link with other centers that provide specialty modeling, simulation and data services, such as the Joint Warfighting Center, the NISAC and the Emergency Management Institute.

17. Finding from 2006. Comprehensive national guidance on the potential consequences associated with catastrophic risks and hazards should be developed to drive risk management and operational planning.

Desired Outcome from 2006. Provide states and urban areas with national guidance, by geographic area, on the consequences associated with potential catastrophic natural and technological hazards and terrorist threats.

36


o Both RCPGP and the NMSZ project have supported the development of national guidance by identifying best practices and lessons learned in planning for catastrophic events. These efforts are being leveraged to establish a “whole of community” planning process that addresses a set of planning factors that will stress planning efforts by focusing on the “maximum of maximum” requirements presented by a catastrophic event.

o FEMA is releasing CPG 502: Considerations for Fusion Center and Emergency Operations Center Coordination. This guide focuses on the information sharing processes between these centers during steady state activities and incident management. These processes will be critical to effectively addressing risk management in a jurisdiction.

o FEMA has provided guidance to states located in the Hurricane Belt and conducted exercises to test the capabilities related to hurricane response. Immediate feedback was provided to states as a result of the exercises.

o CPG 101, version 2.0 will include enhanced guidance on risk assessment and management to further ensure that risk serves as the foundation for operational planning and the development of capabilities.

o Comprehensive Preparedness Guides (CPGs) are under development to address each of the hazard-specific annexes identified as part of the 2010 Review. The language in those guides will identify the planning factors for use in risk management and operational planning.

18. Finding from 2006. Development of focused training, education and professional development programs for homeland security planners should be included in the National Priority to Strengthen Planning and Citizen Preparedness Capabilities.

Desired Outcome from 2006. A full complement of trained and qualified homeland security planners across the nation.


o Through the DHS Office of Operations Coordination, planners throughout the Federal Government are trained on the fundamentals of planning for large-scale and catastrophic events.

o In 2009, a joint planning course was conducted for state and federal participants in the Task Force for Emergency Readiness (TFER) pilot on the basis of concepts identified in CPG 101.

o FEMA’s National Emergency Management Institute is developing a Planners course that includes key concepts from CPG 101 and is built on the lessons learned from the TFER pilot.

37

19. Finding from 2006. Collaborative planning and planning excellence should be incentivized. Funding and projects should be linked to operational readiness through a specific task or capability in a plan or plan annex.

Desired Outcome from 2006. Demonstrated excellence in collaborative planning and plans is incentivized. Planning initiatives funded by DHS and other federal departments and agencies demonstrate a strong relationship between expected project outcomes and plan requirements, particularly as they address key resource and service delivery gaps.


o Language throughout FEMA’s grant programs promotes collaborative planning across organizations and jurisdictions.

o RCPGP specifically focuses on collaborative planning by structuring a program around the larger combined statistical area footprint that represents the daily flow of populations across multiple cities, counties and states. The program requires participants to establish a collaborative planning team to address the difficult issues presented by a catastrophic event.

o To receive federal grant funding, states are required to comply with NIMS guidelines. These guidelines represent a core set of doctrines, concepts, principles, terminology and organizational processes that enable effective, efficient and collaborative incident management across organizational and geographical boundaries.

20. Finding from 2006. Federal, state and local governments should increase the participation of people with disabilities and disability subject matter experts in the development and execution of plans, training and exercises.

Desired Outcome from 2006. Increased awareness among state and local officials based on the inclusion of people with disabilities and others who are disability subject matter experts as partners and stakeholders in the development and execution of plans, training and exercises.


o During the development of the NRF in 2007, input was solicited from all groups of stakeholders and a Special Needs Working Group was established. This ensured that the NRF properly articulated the requirements and roles of special needs populations (that is, individuals with disabilities, children, seniors, individuals with limited English proficiency and others with access and functional needs).

o Disability subject matter experts contributed to the development of planning and policy guidance, such as the National Disaster Housing Strategy published in January 2009 and the draft NDRF released for public comment in February 2010.

o Guidance to Citizen Corps Councils regarding membership recommendations includes the participation of people with disabilities and disability subject matter experts.

38

o NLE 2011 includes an exercise working group focused on citizen and community preparedness, spearheaded by FEMA’s Individual and Community Preparedness Division. The DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will lead a subcommittee of this working group on including disability issues in this exercise.

o FEMA has established an Office of Disability Integration and Coordination, whose mission is “Preparing individuals and families and strengthening communities before, during and after a disaster by providing guidance, tools, methods and strategies to integrate and coordinate emergency management efforts to meet the needs of all citizens, including children and adults with disabilities and others with access and functional needs.” This office regularly communicates with more than 500 disability organizations and groups and widely distributes opportunities to participate in planning, training and exercises.

21. Finding from 2006. The Federal Government should provide technical assistance to clarify the extent to which emergency communications, including public information associated with emergencies, must be in accessible formats for persons with disabilities. This assistance should address all aspects of communication, including, for example, televised and other types of emergency notification and instructions, shelter announcements and applications and forms for government and private disaster benefits.

Desired Outcome from 2006. Further collaboration and support of the Emergency Alert System (EAS) to ensure that accessible communications are integral to the nation’s public alert and warning system.


o CPG 101 and NIMS provide guidance to state and local governments regarding considerations for individuals who have additional communications access needs.

o TA for Special Needs Planning addresses evacuation assistance and emergency public warning and provides recommendations on the use of community notification systems targeted to assist people with disabilities and others with communication access needs.

o FEMA is currently developing a CPG to address a variety of emergency public information planning issues.

o The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) is the Nation’s next-generation infrastructure of alert and warning networks expanding on the traditional audio-only radio and television EAS by providing one message over more media to more people before, during and after a disaster. IPAWS will assist in this effort by providing federal, state, territorial, tribal and local alert and warning authorities integrated services and capabilities enabling them to alert and warn their respective communities, via multiple communications pathways for all hazards impacting public safety and well-being.

39

22. Finding from 2006. The status of the Nation’s plans should be a central focus of the annual report to the President on the Nation’s preparedness required by HSPD-8.

Desired Outcome from 2006. The status of catastrophic planning and plans is routinely included in the annual report.


o The National Preparedness Report will provide information on the Nation’s all-hazards preparedness. This pending report includes a balanced analysis of federal, state and local organizational preparedness and the preparedness of individuals, households and communities.

23. Finding from 2006. Emergency Operations Plans should be a focal point for resource allocation, accountability and assessments of operational readiness.

Desired Outcome from 2006. Plans identify requirements for specific operational capabilities to drive multi-year planning, programming and budgeting. Resource allocation is conditioned on and measured against delivery of specific operational capabilities as required by homeland security plans. Plans are focal points for measurements of readiness.


o CPG 101 provides guidance on how preparedness estimates (PEs) can be incorporated into the planning process. PEs are a planner’s assessment of a jurisdiction’s ability to take a course of action and help planners decide if pursuing a particular course of action is doable and supportable. PEs help planners better project and understand what might take place during an operation.

24. Finding from 2006. Performance management frameworks to support the National Preparedness Goal should measure the ability to:

Integrate a multi-jurisdictional and multi-agency response based on the intersection of tasks and capabilities in combined plans; and

Maintain operations in the face of disruptions of service, damage to the environment in which operations occur or loss of critical resources.

o Desired Outcome from 2006. Creation of a performance management framework that tracks performance against standard capabilities and tasks as reflected in synchronized plans across levels of government. Continuity of operations and government should be included as a priority performance measure.

o Progress since 2006.

The TCL serves as a framework to guide operational readiness planning, priority-setting and program implementation at all levels of government. The TCL provides a basis for assessing preparedness to help jurisdictions and agencies to plan strategically, design appropriate programs that meet proven needs and evaluate the effectiveness of investments over time. Since 2006 the TCL has been increasingly utilized for emergency planning and planning for exercises, including those related to continuity. Included in these capabilities are the elements necessary for effective continuity programs. The

40

structure and use of the target capabilities continues to evolve on the basis of the needs of jurisdictions.

41

VI. Next Steps Although significant progress has been made to improve planning efforts nationwide, there still remains much to be done. Efforts continue to address remaining actions derived from the original 39 recommendations in the NPR2006. Three additional findings were generated from this 2010 Report and are described below. FEMA will work with its partners to generate an implementation plan to address these findings and continue efforts on remaining issues related to the NPR2006; the implementation plan will describe how activities are related and arranged to accomplish objectives that address the findings and will include direction and focus; identify major tasks and schedules for decisions; and define what constitutes success. Finding #1: The Agency must prioritize the delivery of up-to-date training to develop a cohort of highly skilled planners and support their professional development. (Connected to Federal Finding #18 – NPR2006)

Background: A number of courses exist that address planning but are not currently presented in an organized and sequenced manner and are not adequately integrated across the homeland security enterprise. These are often “one and done” courses, which are insufficient to build a cadre of well-trained and knowledgeable planners.

Desired Outcome: A “master practitioner” track, similar to those available for training and exercises, will be developed as part of the larger homeland security and emergency management professional development program. Additionally, working with higher education institutions, materials will be developed and provided to further planning-related education in homeland security and emergency management undergraduate and graduate programs nationwide.

Finding #2: The Agency must establish a National Planning System that is usable by all levels of government. (Connected to Federal Finding #15 – NPR2006)

Background: Annex I to HSPD-8 directed establishment of a national integrated planning system. All levels of government made significant contributions in an effort to design and implement a national planning system. However, the federal-led effort attempted to institutionalize a system that was principally based on a military planning model, which was not well-suited to the homeland security and emergency management enterprise. Military planning has a unitary decision maker (a commander) at its pinnacle, whereas planning in the decentralized yet highly interdependent homeland security and emergency management enterprise relies on coordination and collaboration. Planning in the military is accomplished by staff who possess all the required functional competencies; in emergency management and homeland security, functional competencies are scattered across departments and agencies and levels of government. Finally, IPS produced a proliferation of guidance and plans that proved unwieldy and burdensome for the homeland security and emergency management planning community. The effort also resulted in separate doctrinal guides—IPS for the Federal Government and CPG 101 for the bulk of the planning community—serving as a quasi-national planning system. This proved to be confusing and cumbersome; although planning continues across all levels of

42

government, IPS has been suspended in favor of designing a system better suited to the emergency management and homeland security enterprise.

Desired Outcome: A planning system “is essential and indispensable to homeland security.”14 The future planning system will establish a uniform approach to planning that promotes not only a process usable at all levels of government but also a common lexicon and associated training. This system will define and guide efforts for all levels of government and by all partners. This planning doctrine will address the full spectrum of homeland security missions.

Desired Outcome: Tools must be made available to address gaps identified through this process. This includes not only improvements in available planning guidance but also the training and technical assistance to support its implementation. These improvements will enhance resource identification and management, support detailed public messaging and evacuation planning, improve patient tracking, facilitate prevention and protection planning and address additional gaps in plans.

Finding #3: The Agency must develop a risk assessment and management process usable by all levels of government.

Background: The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) identified the need to establish a national-level homeland security risk assessment. Such an assessment:

“Will provide the Nation’s homeland security leaders with an assessment of homeland security risks to our national strategic interests from challenges that include weapons of mass destruction, global terrorism, mass cyber attacks, pandemics, major accidents and natural disasters, illegal trafficking and related transnational criminal activity and smaller scale attacks. Such a risk assessment will help homeland security decision makers determine the most promising strategic opportunities to manage risks across the homeland security enterprise.”15

Although a number of efforts have been completed to aid in the risk assessment and risk management process, including the development of a number of effective tools, no uniform process yet exists.

Desired Outcome: A consistent methodology and process for use by all levels of government is a necessity for a comprehensive national planning system. Threat and hazard identification and risk assessments are foundational to effective planning.

14 Quadrennial Homeland Security Report, p. 72, February 2010. 15 Id at 66.

43

Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations CIKR Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources

COOP Continuity of Operations

CPG Comprehensive Preparedness Guide

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOT Department of Transportation

EAS Emergency Alert System

EMAC Emergency Management Assistance Compact

EMAP Emergency Management Accreditation Program

EOP Emergency Operations Plan

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

FY Fiscal Year

H1N1 H1N1 Pandemic Influenza (2009)

HSGP Homeland Security Grant Program

HSPD-8 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8

IPAWS Integrated Public Alert Warning System

IPS Integrated Planning System

NDRF National Disaster Recovery Framework

NESC National Exercise Simulation Center

NIMS National Incident Management System

NIPP National Infrastructure Protection Plan

NISAC National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center

NLE National-Level Exercise

NMSZ New Madrid Seismic Zone

NPR Nationwide Plan Review

NRF National Response Framework

NRP National Response Plan

PE Preparedness Estimates

44

POC Point of Contact

PSIC Public Safety Interoperable Communications

QHSR Quadrennial Homeland Security Review

RCPGP Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SLG State and Local Guide

S.R. Senate Report

TA Technical Assistance

TCL Target Capabilities List

TFER Task Force for Emergency Readiness

TICP Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan

UASI Urban Areas Security Initiative

45

Appendix B: Distribution Memo

46

47

48

49

Appendix C: Certification Matrices Jurisdiction Certification Matrix

Meets Criteria

in CPG 101

Last Exercised

LastUpdated

5 4 3 2 1

C-5 - C-12

C-8

C-9

C-9

C-10C-15

C-10

C-16

C-16

C-16

C-17

C-18

C-20

C-20

C-21

C-21

C-22

C-22

N/A

N/A

N/A

Warning

Is the Plan Adequate / Feasible / Complete in Support of a Catastrophic Event?

YES --- SOMEWHAT --- NO

Functional Appendices / Plans (as applicable)

Communications

Administration, Finance & Logistics

Overall Basic Plan




CI/KR Restoration

Damage Assessment

Debris Management

Completed By:

CPG 101 Page Ref

Page Number(s)

of Plan (MM/YYYY)

Date Completed:

(Y/P/N)

Jurisdiction Name:


Health and Medical

Resource Management


Nationwide Plan Review 2010 -- Certification Matrix

General Instructions :Answers provided in the table below should be supported by submitting the related document. Plan components may use titles that are different from those listed below. For the comparison, please place an ‘X’ in the column corresponding to a number on the scale. Additional instructions regarding CPG Criteria and use of the 5 point scale are provided on tabs 2 and 3.

Plan Components

Basic Plan

(MM/YYYY)

Recovery

Repatriation

Public Information


Population Reception


50

Last Exercised

LastUpdated

5 4 3 2 1


(MM/YYYY)YES --- SOMEWHAT --- NO

Flooding

Chemical Event

Biological Event

Cyber Event

Earthquakes

Plan Components

Hazard-Specific Annexes / Plans (mark N/A if not appropriate for your jurisdiction)Improvised Nuclear Device

(MM/YYYY)

Tornadoes

Hurricanes

Source of GuidancePage

Number(s) of Plan


Dam Failure

Hazardous Materials

Pandemic Influenza


Winter Storms

51

Regional Certification Matrix

Meets Criteriain CPG 101

Last Exercised Last

Updated

5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

C-5 - C-12

C-8

C-9

C-9

C-10C-15

C-10

C-16

C-16

C-16

C-17

C-18

C-20

C-20

C-21

C-21

C-22

C-22

N/A

N/A

N/A

Last Exercised Last

Updated

5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

Repatriation

Public Information

Dam Failure

Hazardous Materials

Pandemic Influenza


Population Reception


Winter Storms


For each question below, please place an ‘X’ in the column corresponding to a number on the scale. Responses should be based on the criteria provided on tab 3: Adequate-Feasible-Complete.

Source of GuidancePage

Number(s) of Plan


Recovery

Resource Management

Hurricanes


Nationwide Plan Review 2010 -- Certification Matrix

General Instructions :Answers provided in the table below should be supported by submitting the related document. Plan components may use titles that are different from those listed below. For the comparison, please place an ‘X’ in the column corresponding to a number on the scale. Additional instructions regarding CPG Criteria and use of the 5 point scale are provided on tabs 2 and 3.

Plan Components

Basic Plan

(MM/YYYY)

Page Number(s) of Plan

(MM/YYYY)

Date Completed:

(Y/P/N)

Jurisdiction Name:

Plan Components

Hazard-Specific Annexes / Plans (mark N/A if not appropriate for your jurisdiction)


(MM/YYYY)

Tornadoes


Hazard-Specific Annexes / Plans (as applicable)

Organization & ResponsibilitiesDirection, Control & CoordinationInformation Collection & Dissemination

CI/KR Restoration

Damage Assessment

Debris Management


Health and Medical

(MM/YYYY) YES --- SOMEWHAT --- NO

Flooding

Chemical Event

Biological Event

Cyber Event

Earthquakes






Basic Plan

Functional Appendices / Plans (as applicable)Functional Appendices / Plans (as applicable)

Warning

CPG 101 Page Ref

Administration, Finance & Logistics

Overall Basic Plan

Completed By:

To Be Completed By the Region

Completed By: Date Completed:

Communications


52

Appendix D: References Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101: Developing and Maintaining State, Territorial,

Tribal and Local Government Emergency Plans, Federal Emergency Management Agency, March 2009.

Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 201: Catastrophic Logistics Planning Guide, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Interim Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 301: Emergency Management Planning Guide for Special Needs Populations, Federal Emergency Management Agency, August 15, 2008.

Continuity Guidance Circular 1: Continuity Guidance for Non-Federal Entities, January 21, 2009.

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill 2010, S.R.1298, Department of Homeland Security, October 28, 2009.

Draft National Disaster Recovery Framework, Federal Emergency Management Agency and Department of Housing and Urban Development, February 5, 2010.

Emergency Management Standard, Emergency Management Accreditation Program, September 2007.

Evacuee Support Planning Guide, Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 2009. Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States,

Tierney, Lindell and Perry 2001. Functional Needs Support Services Guide, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Personal Preparedness in America: Findings from the 2009 Citizen Corps National

Survey, Individual and Community Preparedness Division. Interim Report to Congress on the Emergency Preparedness Demonstration Pilot

Project, Federal Emergency Management Agency, August 2007. National Disaster Housing Strategy, Federal Emergency Management Agency,

January 16, 2009. National Incident Management System, Department of Homeland Security,

December 2008. National Infrastructure Protection Plan, Department of Homeland Security, 2009. National Preparedness Goal, Department of Homeland Security, 2005. National Preparedness Guidelines, Department of Homeland Security, September 2007. National Response Framework, Department of Homeland, January 2008. National Response Plan,. Department of Homeland Security, December 2004. Nationwide Plan Review Phase 1 Report, Department of Homeland Security,

February 10, 2006. Nationwide Plan Review Phase 2 Report. Department of Homeland Security and U.S.

Department of Transportation, June 16, 2006.

53

Quadrennial Homeland Security Report, Department of Homeland Security, February 2010.

S.R. 111-31, U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, June 18, 2009. Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs

(NFPA 1600), National Fire Protection Association, 2004. State and Local Guide (SLG) 101: Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations

Planning, Federal Emergency Management Agency, September 1996. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Title III: Implementation of Hazardous

Materials Training for Tribal Nations, Environmental Protection Agency, June 2006. Target Capabilities List, Draft User Guide, Department of Homeland Security,

February 2009. Target Capabilities List, Version 2.0, Department of Homeland Security,

September 2007.

54

Appendix E: Self-Assessment Data

Self-assessment data are included in the following tables for each basic plan subcomponent, functional appendix and hazard-specific annex evaluated in the 2010 Nationwide Plan Review (NPR2010). Additionally, data have been provided for those plans that were also evaluated in 2006 for comparison. For those subcomponents that were evaluated for the first time in NPR2010, the 2006 cells have been filled with gray to show that the data are not available. The questions of adequacy have been summarized in the tables under the category, “Self-assessment for managing a catastrophic event.” Results are reported at a consolidated level for each data set to preserve the blind and un-biased analysis.

55

Basic Plan

Basic Plan: Consistency with Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101/ State and Local Guide (SLG) 101

States Urban Areas

Response Options 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101

Yes 64.3% 92.9% 68.4% 81.3%

Partially 35.7% N/A 27.6% N/A

No 0.0% 5.4% 1.3% 6.7%

No Response 0.0% 1.8% 2.6% 12.0%

Basic Plan: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options

Responses Regional Review

Response Options

ResponsesResponse Options


Response Options

Responses

5 41.1% 19.6% 5 32.9% 23.7%

4 37.5% 55.4% Yes 39.3%

4 48.7% 53.9% Yes 30.7%

3 14.3% 16.1% Qualified

Yes 26.8% 3 15.8% 18.4%

Qualified Yes

26.7%

2 5.4% 7.1% 2 1.3% 2.6%

1 0.0% 0.0% No 28.6%

1 0.0% 1.3% No 29.3%

No Response

1.8% 1.8% No

Response 5.4%

No Response

1.3% 0.0% No

Response 13.3%

Basic Plan: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 28.6% 83.9% 22.4% 73.3%

1-2 Years 57.1% 8.9% 52.6% 4.0%

2-3 Years 3.6% 0.0% 14.5% 0.0%

3-4 Years 5.4% 0.0% 5.3% 1.3%

> 4 Years 3.6% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0%

No Response 1.8% 7.1% 2.6% 21.3%

Basic Plan: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 28.6% 58.9% 21.1% 65.3%

1-2 Years 37.5% 16.1% 25.0% 16.0%

2-3 Years 10.7% 7.1% 21.1% 8.0%

3-4 Years 7.1% 1.8% 10.5% 6.7%

> 4 Years 14.3% 7.1% 21.1% 8.0%

No Response 1.8% 8.9% 1.3% 12.0%

56

57

Organization and Responsibilities: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101

States Urban Areas


Yes 78.6% 77.6%

Partially 21.4% 18.4%

No 0.0% 1.3%

No Response 0.0% 2.6%

Organization and Responsibilities: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 51.8% 41.1% 5 48.7% 38.2%

4 33.9% 39.3% Yes

4 31.6% 40.8% Yes

3 10.7% 12.5% Qualified

Yes 3 17.1% 18.4%

Qualified Yes

2 1.8% 3.6% 2 1.3% 1.3%

1 1.8% 1.8% No

1 0.0% 1.3% No

No Response

0.0% 1.8% No

Response

No Response

1.3% 0.0% No

Response

Organization and Responsibilities: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 28.6% 19.7%

1-2 Years 57.1% 52.6%

2-3 Years 3.6% 15.8%

3-4 Years 5.4% 3.9%

> 4 Years 3.6% 2.6%


Organization and Responsibilities: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 26.8% 19.7%

1-2 Years 39.3% 25.0%

2-3 Years 10.7% 21.1%

3-4 Years 8.9% 10.5%

> 4 Years 12.5% 21.1%


58

Direction, Control and Coordination: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101

States Urban Areas


Yes 80.4% 89.3% 84.2% 81.3%


No 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 8.0%

No Response 0.0% 3.6% 2.6% 10.7%

Direction, Control and Coordination: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 51.8% 44.6% 5 48.7% 44.7%

4 32.1% 30.4% Yes 39.3%

4 34.2% 35.5% Yes 30.7%

3 12.5% 17.9% Qualified

Yes 23.2% 3 14.5% 14.5%

Qualified Yes

37.3%

2 3.6% 3.6% 2 1.3% 3.9%

1 0.0% 1.8% No 28.6%

1 0.0% 1.3% No 24.0%

No Response

0.0% 1.8% No

Response 8.9%

No Response

1.3% 0.0% No

Response 8.0%

Direction, Control and Coordination: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 26.8% 78.6% 17.1% 74.7%

1-2 Years 58.9% 5.4% 56.6% 4.0%

2-3 Years 5.4% 0.0% 15.8% 0.0%

3-4 Years 5.4% 0.0% 3.9% 1.3%

> 4 Years 1.8% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0%

No Response 1.8% 16.1% 3.9% 20.0%

Direction, Control and Coordination: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 25.0% 57.1% 19.7% 64.0%

1-2 Years 39.3% 14.3% 26.3% 12.0%

2-3 Years 12.5% 3.6% 19.7% 8.0%

3-4 Years 8.9% 1.8% 9.2% 6.7%

> 4 Years 12.5% 5.4% 22.4% 8.0%

No Response 1.8% 17.9% 2.6% 12.0%

59

Information Collection and Dissemination: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101

States Urban Areas


Yes 55.4% 55.3%


No 14.3% 10.5%


Information Collection and Dissemination: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 32.1% 16.1% 5 25.0% 15.8%

4 32.1% 41.1% Yes

4 22.4% 23.7% Yes

3 23.2% 23.2% Qualified

Yes 3 31.6% 42.1%

Qualified Yes

2 3.6% 5.4% 2 6.6% 10.5%

1 8.9% 12.5% No

1 7.9% 7.9% No

No Response

0.0% 1.8% No

Response

No Response

6.6% 0.0% No

Response

Information Collection and Dissemination: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 26.8% 17.1%

1-2 Years 53.6% 52.6%

2-3 Years 3.6% 14.5%

3-4 Years 3.6% 1.3%

> 4 Years 3.6% 2.6%


Information Collection and Dissemination: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 25.0% 18.4%

1-2 Years 41.1% 21.1%

2-3 Years 8.9% 18.4%

3-4 Years 5.4% 7.9%

> 4 Years 12.5% 19.7%


60

Communications: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101

States Urban Areas


Yes 80.4% 83.9% 71.1% 84.0%


No 1.8% 10.7% 1.3% 4.0%

No Response 0.0% 5.4% 2.6% 12.0%

Communications: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 33.9% 21.4% 5 30.3% 26.3%

4 41.1% 39.3% Yes 30.4%

4 42.1% 35.5% Yes 29.3%

3 21.4% 30.4% Qualified

Yes 28.6% 3 18.4% 23.7%

Qualified Yes

34.7%

2 1.8% 7.1% 2 6.6% 11.8%

1 0.0% 0.0% No 32.1%

1 1.3% 2.6% No 25.3%

No Response

1.8% 1.8% No

Response 8.9%

No Response

1.3% 0.0% No

Response 10.7%

Communications: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 35.7% 76.8% 21.1% 76.0%

1-2 Years 55.4% 8.9% 53.9% 2.7%

2-3 Years 1.8% 0.0% 15.8% 0.0%

3-4 Years 1.8% 0.0% 1.3% 2.7%

> 4 Years 1.8% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0%

No Response 3.6% 14.3% 5.3% 18.7%

Communications: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 25.0% 55.4% 18.4% 61.3%

1-2 Years 42.9% 16.1% 22.4% 14.7%

2-3 Years 10.7% 5.4% 19.7% 6.7%

3-4 Years 8.9% 0.0% 10.5% 6.7%

> 4 Years 10.7% 5.4% 25.0% 12.0%

No Response 1.8% 17.9% 3.9% 13.3%

61

Administration, Finance and Logistics: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101

States Urban Areas


Yes 67.9% 64.5%


No 5.4% 2.6%


Administration, Finance and Logistics: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 32.1% 19.6% 5 30.3% 19.7%

4 35.7% 32.1% Yes

4 34.2% 34.2% Yes

3 23.2% 30.4% Qualified

Yes 3 19.7% 27.6%

Qualified Yes

2 1.8% 8.9% 2 11.8% 14.5%

1 7.1% 5.4% No

1 1.3% 3.9% No

No Response

0.0% 3.6% No

Response

No Response

2.6% 0.0% No

Response

Administration, Finance and Logistics: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 26.8% 17.1%

1-2 Years 55.4% 48.7%

2-3 Years 3.6% 17.1%

3-4 Years 7.1% 5.3%

> 4 Years 3.6% 3.9%


Administration, Finance and Logistics: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 25.0% 21.1%

1-2 Years 37.5% 23.7%

2-3 Years 10.7% 19.7%

3-4 Years 8.9% 9.2%

> 4 Years 14.3% 21.1%


62

Functional Appendices

Warning Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101

States Urban Areas


Yes 66.1% 83.9% 76.3% 81.3%


No 5.4% 12.5% 1.3% 5.3%

No Response 3.6% 3.6% 2.6% 13.3%

Warning Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 30.4% 16.1% 5 36.8% 34.2%

4 46.4% 48.2% Yes 35.7%

4 36.8% 31.6% Yes 32.0%

3 14.3% 19.6% Qualified

Yes 26.8% 3 15.8% 27.6%

Qualified Yes

30.7%

2 1.8% 10.7% 2 6.6% 3.9%

1 3.6% 3.6% No 28.6%

1 1.3% 2.6% No 26.7%

No Response

3.6% 1.8% No

Response 8.9%

No Response

2.6% 0.0% No

Response 10.7%

Warning Appendix: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 35.7% 71.4% 28.9% 68.0%

1-2 Years 44.6% 7.1% 39.5% 4.0%

2-3 Years 3.6% 0.0% 19.7% 0.0%

3-4 Years 3.6% 0.0% 2.6% 1.3%

> 4 Years 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 1.3%

No Response 12.5% 21.4% 5.3% 25.3%

Warning Appendix: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 14.3% 48.2% 22.4% 64.0%

1-2 Years 39.3% 17.9% 26.3% 20.0%

2-3 Years 17.9% 7.1% 17.1% 6.7%

3-4 Years 5.4% 0.0% 7.9% 4.0%

> 4 Years 14.3% 3.6% 21.1% 12.0%

No Response 8.9% 23.2% 5.3% 13.3%

63

Public Information Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101

States Urban Areas


Yes 76.8% 83.9% 76.3% 80.0%


No 3.6% 8.9% 1.3% 8.0%

No Response 0.0% 7.1% 1.3% 12.0%

Public Information Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 42.9% 26.8% 5 35.5% 31.6%

4 42.9% 50.0% Yes 41.1%

4 42.1% 35.5% Yes 29.3%

3 8.9% 14.3% Qualified

Yes 25.0% 3 15.8% 25.0%

Qualified Yes

34.7%

2 1.8% 5.4% 2 2.6% 3.9%

1 1.8% 1.8% No 26.8%

1 1.3% 3.9% No 24.0%

No Response

1.8% 1.8% No

Response 7.1%

No Response

2.6% 0.0% No

Response 12.0%

Public Information Appendix: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 33.9% 73.2% 26.3% 73.3%

1-2 Years 50.0% 8.9% 48.7% 6.7%

2-3 Years 7.1% 3.6% 13.2% 0.0%

3-4 Years 3.6% 0.0% 2.6% 1.3%

> 4 Years 1.8% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0%

No Response 3.6% 14.3% 5.3% 18.7%

Public Information Appendix: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 16.1% 58.9% 17.1% 64.0%

1-2 Years 41.1% 14.3% 28.9% 12.0%

2-3 Years 14.3% 1.8% 17.1% 9.3%

3-4 Years 10.7% 1.8% 7.9% 5.3%

> 4 Years 10.7% 5.4% 25.0% 9.3%

No Response 7.1% 17.9% 3.9% 12.0%

64

Public Protection and Evacuation Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101

States Urban Areas


Yes 57.1% 66.1% 65.8% 62.7%


No 7.1% 28.6% 1.3% 24.0%

No Response 3.6% 5.4% 5.3% 13.3%

Public Protection and Evacuation Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 26.8% 12.5% 5 21.1% 15.8%

4 39.3% 39.3% Yes 10.7%

4 42.1% 38.2% Yes 9.3%

3 14.3% 28.6% Qualified

Yes 33.9% 3 19.7% 30.3%

Qualified Yes

32.0%

2 10.7% 10.7% 2 10.5% 9.2%

1 5.4% 7.1% No 44.6%

1 2.6% 6.6% No 44.0%

No Response

3.6% 1.8% No

Response 10.7%

No Response

3.9% 0.0% No

Response 14.7%

Public Protection and Evacuation Appendix: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 16.1% 58.9% 6.6% 54.7%

1-2 Years 48.2% 7.1% 44.7% 8.0%

2-3 Years 8.9% 1.8% 21.1% 1.3%

3-4 Years 5.4% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0%

> 4 Years 0.0% 3.6% 7.9% 4.0%

No Response 21.4% 28.6% 14.5% 32.0%

Public Protection and Evacuation Appendix: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 17.9% 44.6% 17.1% 53.3%

1-2 Years 46.4% 14.3% 25.0% 14.7%

2-3 Years 8.9% 5.4% 19.7% 6.7%

3-4 Years 1.8% 1.8% 9.2% 6.7%

> 4 Years 14.3% 3.6% 23.7% 9.3%

No Response 10.7% 30.4% 5.3% 22.7%

65

Mass Care and Sheltering Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101

States Urban Areas


Yes 62.5% 76.8% 72.4% 70.7%


No 1.8% 17.9% 5.3% 16.0%

No Response 3.6% 5.4% 2.6% 13.3%

Mass Care and Sheltering Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 28.6% 19.6% 5 28.9% 22.4%

4 35.7% 35.7% Yes 14.3%

4 42.1% 40.8% Yes 14.7%

3 25.0% 28.6% Qualified

Yes 25.0% 3 22.4% 27.6%

Qualified Yes

29.3%

2 3.6% 7.1% 2 5.3% 6.6%

1 3.6% 7.1% No 51.8%

1 0.0% 1.3% No 40.0%

No Response

3.6% 1.8% No

Response 8.9%

No Response

1.3% 1.3% No

Response 16.0%

Mass Care and Sheltering Appendix: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 21.4% 66.1% 7.9% 65.3%

1-2 Years 50.0% 5.4% 51.3% 4.0%

2-3 Years 8.9% 0.0% 21.1% 1.3%

3-4 Years 3.6% 1.8% 5.3% 0.0%

> 4 Years 3.6% 3.6% 7.9% 1.3%

No Response 12.5% 23.2% 6.6% 28.0%

Mass Care and Sheltering Appendix: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 17.9% 51.8% 19.7% 57.3%

1-2 Years 50.0% 12.5% 27.6% 16.0%

2-3 Years 7.1% 5.4% 19.7% 5.3%

3-4 Years 5.4% 3.6% 9.2% 8.0%

> 4 Years 12.5% 7.1% 19.7% 8.0%

No Response 7.1% 19.6% 3.9% 21.3%

66

Health and Medical Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101

States Urban Areas


Yes 64.3% 83.9% 72.4% 74.7%


No 1.8% 10.7% 2.6% 10.7%

No Response 0.0% 5.4% 3.9% 14.7%

Health and Medical Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 33.9% 25.0% 5 36.8% 27.6%

4 37.5% 33.9% Yes 25.0%

4 36.8% 42.1% Yes 17.3%

3 21.4% 28.6% Qualified

Yes 32.1% 3 18.4% 19.7%

Qualified Yes

36.0%

2 7.1% 8.9% 2 1.3% 2.6%

1 0.0% 1.8% No 35.7%

1 3.9% 6.6% No 32.0%

No Response

0.0% 1.8% No

Response 7.1%

No Response

2.6% 1.3% No

Response 14.7%

Health and Medical Appendix: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 23.2% 71.4% 11.8% 60.0%

1-2 Years 58.9% 0.0% 65.8% 5.3%

2-3 Years 5.4% 1.8% 5.3% 1.3%

3-4 Years 5.4% 1.8% 6.6% 1.3%

> 4 Years 1.8% 1.8% 3.9% 0.0%

No Response 5.4% 23.2% 6.6% 32.0%

Health and Medical Appendix: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 16.1% 50.0% 21.1% 54.7%

1-2 Years 42.9% 16.1% 25.0% 13.3%

2-3 Years 10.7% 7.1% 18.4% 6.7%

3-4 Years 7.1% 1.8% 13.2% 6.7%

> 4 Years 14.3% 3.6% 19.7% 9.3%

No Response 8.9% 21.4% 2.6% 22.7%

67

Resource Management Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101

States Urban Areas


Yes 62.5% 83.9% 64.5% 64.0%


No 7.1% 14.3% 9.2% 20.0%

No Response 0.0% 1.8% 2.6% 16.0%

Resource Management Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 28.6% 14.3% 5 27.6% 22.4%

4 30.4% 39.3% Yes 21.4%

4 32.9% 27.6% Yes 17.3%

3 26.8% 26.8% Qualified

Yes 32.1% 3 25.0% 34.2%

Qualified Yes

29.3%

2 7.1% 10.7% 2 6.6% 10.5%

1 5.4% 7.1% No 39.3%

1 6.6% 3.9% No 41.3%

No Response

1.8% 1.8% No

Response 7.1%

No Response

1.3% 1.3% No

Response 12.0%

Resource Management Appendix: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 30.4% 64.3% 17.1% 54.7%

1-2 Years 48.2% 3.6% 44.7% 6.7%

2-3 Years 5.4% 1.8% 14.5% 1.3%

3-4 Years 7.1% 0.0% 2.6% 1.3%

> 4 Years 0.0% 1.8% 3.9% 1.3%

No Response 8.9% 28.6% 17.1% 34.7%

Resource Management Appendix: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 19.6% 51.8% 18.4% 53.3%

1-2 Years 41.1% 14.3% 26.3% 10.7%

2-3 Years 10.7% 5.4% 19.7% 2.7%

3-4 Years 8.9% 1.8% 6.6% 4.0%

> 4 Years 10.7% 7.1% 22.4% 10.7%

No Response 8.9% 19.6% 6.6% 28.0%

68

Prevention and Protection Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101

States Urban Areas


Yes 48.2% 50.0%


No 19.6% 13.2%


Prevention and Protection Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 17.9% 7.1% 5 22.4% 14.5%

4 30.4% 28.6% Yes

4 25.0% 22.4% Yes

3 23.2% 28.6% Qualified

Yes 3 28.9% 30.3%

Qualified Yes

2 5.4% 10.7% 2 11.8% 23.7%

1 12.5% 16.1% No

1 5.3% 6.6% No

No Response

10.7% 8.9% No

Response

No Response

6.6% 2.6% No

Response

Prevention and Protection Appendix: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 14.3% 7.9%

1-2 Years 33.9% 32.9%

2-3 Years 8.9% 15.8%

3-4 Years 3.6% 1.3%

> 4 Years 0.0% 5.3%


Prevention and Protection Appendix: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 14.3% 19.7%

1-2 Years 41.1% 19.7%

2-3 Years 7.1% 18.4%

3-4 Years 3.6% 6.6%

> 4 Years 10.7% 18.4%


69

Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101

States Urban Areas


Yes 44.6% 38.2%


No 14.3% 19.7%


Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 17.9% 3.6% 5 11.8% 6.6%

4 32.1% 33.9% Yes

4 23.7% 23.7% Yes

3 23.2% 25.0% Qualified

Yes 3 34.2% 34.2%

Qualified Yes

2 5.4% 16.1% 2 6.6% 13.2%

1 10.7% 12.5% No

1 14.5% 17.1% No

No Response

10.7% 8.9% No

Response

No Response

9.2% 5.3% No

Response

Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources Appendix: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 12.5% 10.5%

1-2 Years 32.1% 26.3%

2-3 Years 7.1% 18.4%

3-4 Years 7.1% 5.3%

> 4 Years 1.8% 1.3%


Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources Appendix: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 23.2% 17.1%

1-2 Years 33.9% 18.4%

2-3 Years 5.4% 14.5%

3-4 Years 3.6% 10.5%

> 4 Years 10.7% 14.5%


70

Damage Assessment Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101

States Urban Areas


Yes 69.6% 64.5%


No 3.6% 3.9%


Damage Assessment Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 39.3% 21.4% 5 26.3% 25.0%

4 32.1% 41.1% Yes

4 38.2% 34.2% Yes

3 17.9% 19.6% Qualified

Yes 3 25.0% 25.0%

Qualified Yes

2 7.1% 8.9% 2 2.6% 13.2%

1 3.6% 7.1% No

1 2.6% 2.6% No

No Response

0.0% 1.8% No

Response

No Response

5.3% 0.0% No

Response

Damage Assessment Appendix: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 25.0% 14.5%

1-2 Years 44.6% 30.3%

2-3 Years 7.1% 22.4%

3-4 Years 8.9% 6.6%

> 4 Years 0.0% 6.6%


Damage Assessment Appendix: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 14.3% 15.8%

1-2 Years 44.6% 19.7%

2-3 Years 10.7% 18.4%

3-4 Years 7.1% 13.2%

> 4 Years 16.1% 25.0%


71

Debris Management Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101

States Urban Areas


Yes 64.3% 53.9%


No 5.4% 7.9%


Debris Management Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 33.9% 23.2% 5 32.9% 19.7%

4 35.7% 39.3% Yes

4 23.7% 31.6% Yes

3 16.1% 16.1% Qualified

Yes 3 25.0% 21.1%

Qualified Yes

2 7.1% 12.5% 2 10.5% 21.1%

1 3.6% 5.4% No

1 3.9% 5.3% No

No Response

3.6% 3.6% No

Response

No Response

3.9% 1.3% No

Response

Debris Management Appendix: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 16.1% 13.2%

1-2 Years 39.3% 22.4%

2-3 Years 8.9% 19.7%

3-4 Years 5.4% 9.2%

> 4 Years 0.0% 10.5%


Debris Management Appendix: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 19.6% 14.5%

1-2 Years 35.7% 27.6%

2-3 Years 14.3% 17.1%

3-4 Years 5.4% 10.5%

> 4 Years 12.5% 19.7%


72

Donations Management Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101

States Urban Areas


Yes 67.9% 44.7%


No 5.4% 19.7%


Donations Management Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 30.4% 19.6% 5 19.7% 13.2%

4 30.4% 41.1% Yes

4 23.7% 26.3% Yes

3 26.8% 23.2% Qualified

Yes 3 19.7% 26.3%

Qualified Yes

2 10.7% 10.7% 2 13.2% 13.2%

1 1.8% 3.6% No

1 11.8% 15.8% No

No Response

0.0% 1.8% No

Response

No Response

11.8% 5.3% No

Response

Donations Management Appendix: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 14.3% 7.9%

1-2 Years 33.9% 17.1%

2-3 Years 12.5% 22.4%

3-4 Years 7.1% 3.9%

> 4 Years 7.1% 7.9%


Donations Management Appendix: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 26.8% 17.1%

1-2 Years 33.9% 26.3%

2-3 Years 8.9% 13.2%

3-4 Years 8.9% 9.2%

> 4 Years 14.3% 11.8%


73

Hazard-Specific Annexes

Adversarial or Human-Caused Hazards

Improvised Nuclear Device Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 12.5% 7.1% 5 10.5% 7.9%

4 25.0% 12.5% Yes

4 19.7% 22.4% Yes

3 19.6% 33.9% Qualified

Yes 3 26.3% 26.3%

Qualified Yes

2 8.9% 10.7% 2 7.9% 11.8%

1 12.5% 21.4% No

1 15.8% 17.1% No

No Response

21.4% 14.3% No

Response

No Response

19.7% 14.5% No

Response

Improvised Nuclear Device Annex: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 1.8% 3.9%

1-2 Years 12.5% 18.4%

2-3 Years 1.8% 5.3%

3-4 Years 5.4% 11.8%

> 4 Years 7.1% 2.6%


Improvised Nuclear Device Annex: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 25.0% 7.9%

1-2 Years 26.8% 13.2%

2-3 Years 7.1% 11.8%

3-4 Years 0.0% 17.1%

> 4 Years 12.5% 17.1%


74

Radiological Dispersal Device Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 16.1% 7.1% 5 17.1% 10.5%

4 26.8% 16.1% Yes

4 23.7% 22.4% Yes

3 25.0% 37.5% Qualified

Yes 3 27.6% 31.6%

Qualified Yes

2 7.1% 10.7% 2 9.2% 17.1%

1 8.9% 14.3% No

1 9.2% 5.3% No

No Response

16.1% 14.3% No

Response

No Response

13.2% 13.2% No

Response

Radiological Dispersal Device Annex: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 3.6% 5.3%

1-2 Years 25.0% 28.9%

2-3 Years 1.8% 5.3%

3-4 Years 5.4% 14.5%

> 4 Years 5.4% 14.5%


Radiological Dispersal Device Annex: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 19.6% 10.5%

1-2 Years 26.8% 14.5%

2-3 Years 8.9% 14.5%

3-4 Years 1.8% 18.4%

> 4 Years 14.3% 19.7%


75

Improvised Explosive Device Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 16.1% 8.9% 5 22.4% 15.8%

4 23.2% 17.9% Yes

4 26.3% 26.3% Yes

3 19.6% 21.4% Qualified

Yes 3 25.0% 25.0%

Qualified Yes

2 8.9% 16.1% 2 6.6% 13.2%

1 10.7% 19.6% No

1 7.9% 9.2% No

No Response

21.4% 16.1% No

Response

No Response

11.8% 10.5% No

Response

Improvised Explosive Device Annex: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 8.9% 5.3%

1-2 Years 26.8% 40.8%

2-3 Years 7.1% 11.8%

3-4 Years 10.7% 14.5%

> 4 Years 3.6% 7.9%


Improvised Explosive Device Annex: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 12.5% 11.8%

1-2 Years 26.8% 18.4%

2-3 Years 12.5% 11.8%

3-4 Years 1.8% 14.5%

> 4 Years 16.1% 21.1%


76

Chemical Event Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 26.8% 14.3% 5 25.0% 18.4%

4 26.8% 32.1% Yes

4 34.2% 31.6% Yes

3 17.9% 25.0% Qualified

Yes 3 18.4% 23.7%

Qualified Yes

2 10.7% 8.9% 2 6.6% 11.8%

1 5.4% 14.3% No

1 3.9% 5.3% No

No Response

12.5% 5.4% No

Response

No Response

11.8% 9.2% No

Response

Chemical Event Annex: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 14.3% 5.3%

1-2 Years 37.5% 35.5%

2-3 Years 3.6% 9.2%

3-4 Years 5.4% 11.8%

> 4 Years 7.1% 13.2%


Chemical Event Annex: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 8.9% 10.5%

1-2 Years 33.9% 22.4%

2-3 Years 7.1% 15.8%

3-4 Years 5.4% 17.1%

> 4 Years 19.6% 17.1%


77

Biological Event Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 25.0% 16.1% 5 22.4% 15.8%

4 23.2% 26.8% Yes

4 27.6% 27.6% Yes

3 26.8% 25.0% Qualified

Yes 3 23.7% 26.3%

Qualified Yes

2 3.6% 8.9% 2 10.5% 15.8%

1 7.1% 17.9% No

1 5.3% 6.6% No

No Response

14.3% 5.4% No

Response

No Response

10.5% 7.9% No

Response

Biological Event Annex: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 16.1% 7.9%

1-2 Years 32.1% 28.9%

2-3 Years 7.1% 7.9%

3-4 Years 3.6% 14.5%

> 4 Years 3.6% 13.2%


Biological Event Annex: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 14.3% 14.5%

1-2 Years 30.4% 22.4%

2-3 Years 10.7% 13.2%

3-4 Years 5.4% 14.5%

> 4 Years 16.1% 19.7%


78

Cyber Event Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 10.7% 1.8% 5 2.6% 3.9%

4 28.6% 21.4% Yes

4 17.1% 10.5% Yes

3 14.3% 17.9% Qualified

Yes 3 19.7% 18.4%

Qualified Yes

2 7.1% 12.5% 2 7.9% 6.6%

1 17.9% 30.4% No

1 21.1% 30.3% No

No Response

21.4% 16.1% No

Response

No Response

31.6% 30.3% No

Response

Cyber Event Annex: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 5.4% 11.8%

1-2 Years 14.3% 9.2%

2-3 Years 12.5% 0.0%

3-4 Years 5.4% 2.6%

> 4 Years 1.8% 3.9%


Cyber Event Annex: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 16.1% 9.2%

1-2 Years 23.2% 10.5%

2-3 Years 8.9% 7.9%

3-4 Years 5.4% 1.3%

> 4 Years 8.9% 6.6%


79

Natural Hazards

Pandemic Influenza Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 46.4% 39.3% 5 32.9% 27.6%

4 32.1% 33.9% Yes

4 31.6% 32.9% Yes

3 12.5% 14.3% Qualified

Yes 3 13.2% 19.7%

Qualified Yes

2 5.4% 3.6% 2 2.6% 2.6%

1 0.0% 3.6% No

1 5.3% 6.6% No

No Response

3.6% 5.4% No

Response

No Response

14.5% 10.5% No

Response

Pandemic Influenza Annex: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 10.7% 15.8%

1-2 Years 57.1% 55.3%

2-3 Years 7.1% 2.6%

3-4 Years 7.1% 5.3%

> 4 Years 7.1% 5.3%


Pandemic Influenza Annex: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 17.9% 11.8%

1-2 Years 37.5% 34.2%

2-3 Years 10.7% 13.2%

3-4 Years 8.9% 5.3%

> 4 Years 12.5% 17.1%


80

Hurricanes Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 21.4% 12.5% 5 19.7% 14.5%

4 19.6% 23.2% Yes

4 14.5% 13.2% Yes

3 8.9% 8.9% Qualified

Yes 3 5.3% 6.6%

Qualified Yes

2 1.8% 5.4% 2 0.0% 1.3%

1 0.0% 1.8% No

1 3.9% 7.9% No

No Response

48.2% 48.2% No

Response

No Response

56.6% 56.6% No

Response

Hurricanes Annex: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 3.6% 2.6%

1-2 Years 25% 15.8%

2-3 Years 14.3% 10.5%

3-4 Years 3.6% 2.6%

> 4 Years 0.0% 5.3%


Hurricanes Annex: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 10.7% 3.9%

1-2 Years 26.8% 14.5%

2-3 Years 7.1% 7.9%

3-4 Years 3.6% 1.3%

> 4 Years 3.6% 7.9%


81

Flooding Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 28.6% 16.1% 5 28.9% 26.3%

4 42.9% 39.3% Yes

4 34.2% 32.9% Yes

3 10.7% 23.2% Qualified

Yes 3 10.5% 15.8%

Qualified Yes

2 5.4% 8.9% 2 6.6% 6.6%

1 1.8% 5.4% No

1 2.6% 6.6% No

No Response

10.7% 7.1% No

Response

No Response

17.1% 11.8% No

Response

Flooding Annex: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 10.7% 14.5%

1-2 Years 37.5% 30.3%

2-3 Years 12.5% 13.2%

3-4 Years 5.4% 2.6%

> 4 Years 5.4% 10.5%


Flooding Annex: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 23.2% 10.5%

1-2 Years 30.4% 23.7%

2-3 Years 10.7% 17.1%

3-4 Years 5.4% 9.2%

> 4 Years 10.7% 13.2%


82

Winter Storms Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 35.7% 21.4% 5 27.6% 22.4%

4 33.9% 33.9% Yes

4 30.3% 21.1% Yes

3 12.5% 21.4% Qualified

Yes 3 10.5% 19.7%

Qualified Yes

2 0.0% 5.4% 2 3.9% 3.9%

1 1.8% 0.0% No

1 3.9% 7.9% No

No Response

16.1% 17.9% No

Response

No Response

23.7% 25.0% No

Response

Winter Storms Annex: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 26.8% 28.9%

1-2 Years 28.6% 21.1%

2-3 Years 5.4% 5.3%

3-4 Years 0.0% 1.3%

> 4 Years 1.8% 5.3%


Winter Storms Annex: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 19.6% 10.5%

1-2 Years 37.5% 23.7%

2-3 Years 10.7% 14.5%

3-4 Years 3.6% 6.6%

> 4 Years 5.4% 14.5%


83

Tornadoes Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 28.6% 14.3% 5 18.4% 15.8%

4 26.8% 33.9% Yes

4 27.6% 22.4% Yes

3 14.3% 17.9% Qualified

Yes 3 14.5% 18.4%

Qualified Yes

2 1.8% 5.4% 2 5.3% 6.6%

1 1.8% 1.8% No

1 5.3% 10.5% No

No Response

26.8% 26.8% No

Response

No Response

28.9% 26.3% No

Response

Tornadoes Annex: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 5.4% 10.5%

1-2 Years 26.8% 19.7%

2-3 Years 10.7% 6.6%

3-4 Years 3.6% 6.6%

> 4 Years 3.6% 6.6%


Tornadoes Annex: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 12.5% 7.9%

1-2 Years 30.4% 15.8%

2-3 Years 16.1% 15.8%

3-4 Years 3.6% 5.3%

> 4 Years 5.4% 15.8%


84

Earthquakes Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 17.9% 8.9% 5 7.9% 6.6%

4 26.8% 26.8% Yes

4 18.4% 19.7% Yes

3 23.2% 30.4% Qualified

Yes 3 25% 25.0%

Qualified Yes

2 3.6% 8.9% 2 5.3% 3.9%

1 5.4% 3.6% No

1 3.9% 10.5% No

No Response

23.2% 21.4% No

Response

No Response

39.5% 34.2% No

Response

Earthquakes Annex: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 5.4% 3.9%

1-2 Years 25.0% 9.2%

2-3 Years 8.9% 9.2%

3-4 Years 5.4% 0.0%

> 4 Years 1.8% 5.3%


Earthquakes Annex: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 17.9% 10.5%

1-2 Years 28.6% 13.2%

2-3 Years 10.7% 13.2%

3-4 Years 3.6% 7.9%

> 4 Years 8.9% 9.2%


85

Technological Hazards

Dam Failure Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 28.6% 16.1% 5 18.4% 15.8%

4 32.1% 25.0% Yes

4 26.3% 23.7% Yes

3 14.3% 30.4% Qualified

Yes 3 13.2% 17.1%

Qualified Yes

2 3.6% 7.1% 2 1.3% 3.9%

1 3.6% 5.4% No

1 5.3% 9.2% No

No Response

17.9% 16.1% No

Response

No Response

35.5% 30.3% No

Response

Dam Failure Annex: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 3.6% 5.3%

1-2 Years 30.4% 14.5%

2-3 Years 12.5% 7.9%

3-4 Years 1.8% 0.0%

> 4 Years 5.4% 6.6%


Dam Failure Annex: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 17.9% 9.2%

1-2 Years 28.6% 19.7%

2-3 Years 12.5% 10.5%

3-4 Years 3.6% 6.6%

> 4 Years 7.1% 13.2%


86

87

Hazardous Materials Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

Response Options


Response Options



Response Options

Responses

5 35.7% 25.0% 5 30.3% 28.9%

4 32.1% 33.9% Yes

4 42.1% 42.1% Yes

3 17.9% 25.0% Qualified

Yes 3 13.2% 17.1%

Qualified Yes

2 3.6% 3.6% 2 2.6% 3.9%

1 3.6% 5.4% No

1 1.3% 2.6% No

No Response

7.1% 7.1% No

Response

No Response

10.5% 5.3% No

Response

Hazardous Materials Annex: Last Exercised

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 14.3% 14.5%

1-2 Years 32.1% 43.4%

2-3 Years 8.9% 7.9%

3-4 Years 7.1% 6.6%

> 4 Years 5.4% 3.9%


Hazardous Materials Annex: Last Updated

States Urban Areas

2010 2006 2010 2006

< 1 Year 17.9% 13.2%

1-2 Years 33.9% 27.6%

2-3 Years 8.9% 17.1%

3-4 Years 7.1% 17.1%

> 4 Years 16.1% 11.8%


Documents

FEMA Nationwide Plans Review 2010