The Initial Damage Assessment Process for Strathcona County

Running Head: THE INITIAL DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

The Initial Damage Assessment Process for Strathcona County

Iain P. Bushell

Strathcona County Emergency Services, Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada

THE INITIAL DAMAGE ASSESSMENT 2

CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of others is

set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have used the

language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another.

Signed: ___________________________________


Abstract

The problem was that Strathcona County Emergency Services does not have a procedure for

conducting a rapid initial damage assessment of property or critical infrastructure following a

widespread natural or human induced disaster. The purpose of the research is to develop a rapid

initial damage assessment standard operating procedure that can be used to accurately and

effectively quantify the scale and geographic scope of damage in the immediate aftermath of a

disaster. The research questions were: (a) what standards or guidelines exist regarding initial

damage assessment, (b) what processes or procedures are utilized by other Canadian agencies to

assess damage following a disaster, (c) what are the experiences and impressions of Strathcona

fire officers regarding the damage assessment process, and (d) how can the damage assessment

information be most effectively collected into a useful emergency management tool? The action

research approach included reviews of the current procedures of other jurisdictions, a survey of

Alberta fire departments, a survey of Strathcona fire officers, and personal observations of

damage assessment following a major flood. The research showed that Canadian agencies lag

behind their American counterparts in terms of federal standards and department policies, the use

of fire crews is the most common approach to the initial damage assessment, pre-designated

assessment areas and critical infrastructure targets are important to the success of damage

assessments, and the damage categories defined by FEMA are preferred by Strathcona officers.

One area of concern is the natural inclination of fire crews to stop and render aid prior to

completing the assessment. The recommendations were inclusion of the draft damage assessment

annex into the municipal emergency plan, adoption of a draft standard operating procedure,

expansion of the response plan to include immediate debris management, creation of several

supplemental materials to enhance the damage assessment program, and creation of a disaster

preparation procedure.


Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 3

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 4

Background and Significance ......................................................................................................... 6

Literature Review.......................................................................................................................... 10

Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 18

Results ........................................................................................................................................... 22

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 37

Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 42

References ..................................................................................................................................... 45

Appendix A – Alberta Fire Department Survey Introductory Email ............................................ 50

Appendix B – Alberta Fire Department Survey ........................................................................... 51

Appendix C – SCES Officers Survey Introductory Email............................................................ 58

Appendix D – SCES Officers Survey ........................................................................................... 59

Appendix E – Draft SOP 285: Rapid Damage Assessment (Post Disaster) ................................. 74


The Initial Damage Assessment Process for Strathcona County

Whether caused by Mother Nature or human nature, disasters happen. The Emergency

Management Framework for Canada defines a disaster as “essentially a social phenomenon that

results when a hazard intersects with a vulnerable community in a way that exceeds or

overwhelms the community’s ability to cope and may cause serious harm to the safety, health,

welfare, property or environment of people; may be triggered by a naturally occurring

phenomenon which has its origins within the geophysical or biological environment or by human

action or error, whether malicious or unintentional, including technological failures, accidents

and terrorist acts.” (Public Safety Canada, 2013) Damage assessment can be defined as “the

systematic process of determining and appraising the nature and extent of loss, suffering or harm

resulting from a disaster or emergency.” (Michigan Department of State Police, 2013)

The problem is that Strathcona County Emergency Services (SCES) does not have a

procedure for conducting a rapid initial damage assessment of property or critical infrastructure

following a widespread natural or human induced disaster. The purpose of the research is to

develop a rapid initial damage assessment standard operating procedure that can be used to

accurately and effectively quantify the scale and geographic scope of damage in the immediate

aftermath of a disaster. Action research will be used to answer the following questions: (a) what

standards or guidelines exist regarding initial damage assessment, (b) what processes or

procedures are utilized by other Canadian agencies to assess damage following a disaster, (c)

what are the experiences and impressions of SCES fire officers regarding the damage assessment

process, and (d) how can the damage assessment information be most effectively collected into a

useful emergency management tool?


Background and Significance

Located in north central Alberta, Canada, immediately east of the provincial capital city

of Edmonton, Strathcona County is the fourth largest municipality in the province (Alberta

Municipal Affairs, 2013). The county has a specialized municipality designation which

recognizes the unique urban and rural makeup of the area. The county government is made up of

a mayor and eight councillors, with five councillors representing the urban wards of Sherwood

Park and three representing the rural wards in the remainder of the county. The 2012 population

census counted 92,403 people and divided the county into 65,465 urban residents and 26,938

rural residents (Strathcona County, 2012). Technically a hamlet, the unincorporated Sherwood

Park is a large urban services area abutting Edmonton on the western edge of the county,

although it makes up only a small percentage of the total 1,180 square kilometres of land area

within Strathcona County. The remaining large rural areas contain several small hamlets and

many rural acreage subdivisions. The population of Strathcona County is predicted to continue

growing. Based on the current projections of a 2% annual growth rate (Strathcona County,

2012), Strathcona County’s population will grow to 100,114 by 2015 and 110,534 by 2020.

Two significant industrial centers exist within the county boundaries. Known locally as

refinery row, the western edge of Sherwood Park along the boundary with the city of Edmonton

contains several refineries, associated chemical facilities, a large network of pipelines, and

several bulk fuel and oil terminals. At the north end of the county and extending into several

adjoining jurisdictions, an area known as the Heartland Industrial Area (HIA) contains a refinery,

two heavy bitumen upgraders, several chemical facilities and multiple associated industries.

Combined, these two regions are recognized as the most heavily industrialized area in Canada

and the second largest geographical area in the world specifically zoned for the heavy oil

industry (Brisbois, 2012).


Strathcona County Emergency Services protects the entire community with a

combination department operating from six stations. Figure 1 shows the geographic distribution

of the population centers and fire stations. As of August 2013, there are 151 full time officers

and firefighters operating from four stations: three in Sherwood Park and one near Josephburg in

the HIA. There are also approximately 45 part time officers and firefighters operating from two

on-call stations in the rural hamlets of South Cooking Lake and Ardrossan.

Figure 1. Geographical distribution of Strathcona County hamlets and fire stations.

SCES is a fully integrated service providing fire suppression, rescue and emergency

medical services, as well as several support services. The management team oversees a total staff

complement of almost 250 and consists of the fire chief, a deputy chief of operations, a deputy

chief of human resources and logistics, a deputy chief of community safety and emergency


communications, an assistant chief of business operations, and an assistant chief of emergency

management. The department has four divisions including fire prevention and investigation;

emergency communications; occupational health, safety and training; and fire suppression. All

full time firefighters are trained and certified as either emergency medical technicians or

paramedics. At the time of writing, SCES staffs four advanced life support ambulances on

contract to Alberta Health Services.

The impetus for this research paper becomes apparent through a look at the recent history

of natural disasters in Alberta and how they had an impact on SCES. On July 31, 1987, an F4

tornado struck the east edge of Edmonton and parts of Sherwood Park, resulting in the deaths of

27 people and widespread damage to several light industrial areas and the Evergreen trailer park

(Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2013). The path of destruction was up to one kilometre

wide and 37 kilometres long. SCES responded to multiple emergency calls and conducted an ad

hoc damage assessment process that lasted several days. The 1987 tornado still stands as the

second deadliest tornado in Canadian history (Environment Canada, 2013).

Pine Lake is approximately 150km south of Strathcona County. The area was struck by

an F3 tornado on July 14, 2000 and 12 people were killed. At that time, the SCES

Communications Centre was responsible for 9-1-1 service in the area as well as the dispatch

function for several of the region’s fire and emergency medical services. The tornado struck a

campsite and destroyed dozens of recreational vehicles making damage assessment challenging

for local responders. The Pine Lake tornado is the fourth deadliest tornado in Canadian history

(Environment Canada, 2013).

On May 14, 2011, the town of Slave Lake located approximately 200 kilometres north of

Strathcona County was struck by a series of wildfires known as the Flat Top Complex (Alberta

Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, 2012). The Slave Lake Regional Fire


Department requested all available assistance and SCES responded with a small firefighting task

force consisting of the fire chief, an engine, a water tanker and a brush truck followed the next

day by an Incident Management Team (IMT). SCES chief officers served as incident command

beginning on the second day of the fire and were responsible for the initial damage assessment of

the town and surrounding municipality in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.

June 19 and 20, 2013 saw some of the heaviest rain ever recorded in the southern Alberta

foothills of the Rocky Mountains. More than 300 millimetres of rain fell in less than 24 hours

and in combination with a significant late snow melt run off resulted in widespread flooding. A

state of local emergency was declared in 25 separate municipalities as a result of the flooding

(Alberta Government, 2013). The city of Calgary evacuated over 100,000 residents along the

Elbow and Bow rivers, while the entire population of the town of High River, some 12,000

residents, was evacuated. Several members of SCES belong to Canada Task Force 2 (CAN-TF2)

one of several urban search and rescue teams across Canada. The team was deployed to Calgary

on the first day of flooding to assist in evacuations and damage assessments. All four SCES fire

prevention and inspection officers were also deployed to Calgary to participate in the early

damage assessment process. At the request of the Alberta Emergency Management Agency

(AEMA), the SCES water rescue team was quickly dispatched to High River and arrived at the

height of the rescue efforts, while an IMT from SCES was sent on June 26. The complete

damage assessment process in High River took twelve days, as several neighbourhoods remained

accessible only by boat while millions of gallons of water were mechanically removed from low

lying areas. A second SCES IMT arrived on July 4 to replace the first. Finally, the SCES

technical rescue team were deployed to High River in the third week of the event to provide

structural assessments and shoring of some of the most damaged and unstable buildings to

facilitate temporary access by the homeowners.


Each of these historic disaster events required some form of damage assessment to be

performed, yet SCES lacks any formal process or training in how to efficiently and effectively

perform an initial rapid damage assessment. SCES staff assigned to this task were required to

rapidly learn a system in which they had limited background or training. SCES officers would

have to rely on their varied experiences in order to accomplish a rapid damage assessment should

a natural or human induced disaster occur within Strathcona County today.

As future disasters are likely to affect SCES in some way, shape or form, this research

has as a clear linkage to the curriculum of the National Fire Academy’s Executive Analysis of

Fire Service Operations in Emergency Management (EAFSOEM) course. As outlined in the

fourth unit of the student manual, a damage assessment is a key to understanding the scope and

scale of a disaster and will aid in the decision making of the emergency operations entre (EOC)

(Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 2012). By good fortune, the author had

completed the EAFSOEM course only three months prior to being deployed to High River. This

research is timely as it looks to fill a known gap in the standard operating procedures of SCES

and the emergency management plans of Strathcona County, meeting a strategic goal of the

United States Fire Administration: to “improve local planning and preparedness.” A second

strategic goal is to “improve the fire and emergency services’ capability for response to and

recovery from all hazards.” (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2010, p.14) SCES needs to

be better prepared for the next disaster so that an effective rapid damage assessment can be

completed efficiently and response activities can be prioritised appropriately.

Literature Review

The literature review began by looking at the definition, purpose and reasons for

conducting a damage assessment. The EAFSOEM student manual describes damage assessment

as an information gathering exercise to determine the impact of an event, or series of events, on


life and property within a defined area of operations. It further provides that there are two

different types of damage assessment. The first is an immediate damage assessment that is made

quickly upon arrival at the scene of an incident and gives a rapid initial estimate of damage. This

information is subsequently used during the active response phase of an incident. The second is a

preliminary incident damage assessment, which involves a far more detailed examination after

the active response phase is completed and looks at the total damage inflicted within the area of

an incident (FEMA, 2012).

McEntire (2002) expands these definitions by stating that a rapid damage assessment

usually involves the collection of data regarding injuries and deaths as well as the number of

structures damaged or destroyed, while the preliminary damage assessment is completed with

state and federal officials for the purpose of obtaining a presidential disaster declaration.

McEntire adds a third type of damage assessment which he calls a technical damage assessment,

which is performed on structures and infrastructure to view in depth engineering issues.

In the book Introduction to Emergency Management, Lindell, Prater and Perry (2007)

also describe the three types of damage assessment. Within the first three hours following an

event, the rapid assessment identifies the areas affected by a disaster, including the severity of

any physical impacts to determine the need for rescue and lifesaving tasks. The book also

discusses the concept of secondary impacts or disasters caused by the disaster. These are

described as new emergencies caused by or resulting from the original disaster. Examples of

secondary impacts could include severe fires following an earthquake; contaminated fish,

wildlife or agricultural products following a hazardous materials incident; or water

contamination as a result of severe flooding. The preliminary damage assessment matches that

described by McEntire and the EAFSOEM manual and provides more accurate counts of

destroyed, severely damaged, moderately damaged and slightly damaged structures. This


assessment is completed over the course of three or four days. Lindell, Prater and Perry place the

windshield survey in the preliminary damage assessment category and describe it as the counting

of structures by vehicle-bound teams who subsequently place each structure into one of three

categories. The book uses the colours red, yellow and green to describe major, moderate and

minor damage respectively. The third type of assessment described in the book produces detailed

estimates of the cost to repair or replace structures and is conducted by designated damage

assessment teams. This is referred to as the site assessment (Lindell, Prater & Perry, 2007).

Damage assessment is necessary to determine the need for federal aid in the United States

and is completed by local, state, federal and volunteer organizations to determine losses and

recovery needs as part of the major disaster declaration process. Funding for response and

recovery is provided by the President’s disaster relief fund managed by FEMA (FEMA, 2012).

FEMA identifies several types of damage assessments. A windshield survey generally involves

travel through any affected areas to record observed damages and hazards while periodically

stopping to conduct interviews. The primary purpose for conducting preliminary damage

assessments is to identify the impact, type and extent of disaster damages and to determine the

impact on individuals and communities while identifying the resources needed for the

community to recover. The preliminary damage assessment is an important first step in the

declaration process (FEMA, 2012).

Broward County (2009) in Florida uses a rapid impact assessment process that is defined

as a quick drive by or windshield survey to determine the impact of an incident or event. The

rapid impact assessment is intended to be completed by municipal representatives in four to six

hours following an incident and provides an indication of the observed damage in specific

geographic areas. The county also has a home damage assessment program for use by residents


following a hurricane to help quickly identify the most impacted areas of the community after an

emergency.

Similar to the United States, a comprehensive damage assessment requirement exists in

Canada. The Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangement is a federal program designed to

provide financial assistance to provincial governments when the cost of dealing with a disaster

would place an undue burden on the economy of the affected province (Public Safety Canada,

2013). Proper damage assessment by teams including both provincial and federal officials should

be conducted prior to any restoration work commencing. These damage assessment teams are

used for all public works and facilities, while insurance adjusters are used for the private sector.

An immediate damage assessment is necessary to allow local officials to determine the

magnitude and severity of a disaster in order to determine the need for mutual aid or other

outside resources. Collins (2009) emphasized the importance of rapid and accurate post-

earthquake assessment and reporting following an earthquake exercise along the San Andreas

fault and further added that it was important in any disaster. According to the Institution of Civil

Engineers, a planned, prompt and accurate building damage assessment and reporting procedure

is vital to ensure effective disaster response and recovery. A structural triage, assessment and

marking system is designed to help identify, select and prioritise buildings with the highest

probability of success in locating live victims (Peña-Mora, Aziz, Chen, Plans & Foltz, 2008).

The British Columbia Earthquake Response Plan identifies the immediate response phase

as the time period from a few hours to a few days following an earthquake where the immediate

actions by first responders may be needed to save lives, protect property and safeguard the

environment (Emergency Management British Columbia, 2008). During this phase, damage

assessment is used to gain critical situational awareness by gathering information on the type and

extent of impact from the earthquake. A rapid damage assessment program is maintained by BC


Housing and is described in the course description as a program designed for property managers,

building inspectors, fire prevention staff and engineers to be able to rapidly assess the damage

caused by a disaster (BC Housing, 2013).

Even if a natural or human induced event has not impacted the population of an area,

infrastructure still needs to be assessed for damage and safety reasons. In order to effectively

deploy limited resources, the New York state department of transportation uses a damage

assessment process to establish the scale of damage and repairs necessary for the more than

15,000 miles of state owned roads (Hunt, 2010).

Damage assessment processes can also be used to provide information on the health

status of a population following a disaster. The Iowa department of public health utilized

geographic information systems (GIS) technology to conduct rapid needs assessments to

estimate the impact of the 2008 flooding events on the population. The results of the assessments

demonstrated that many residents had been displaced and that lack of access to their prescription

medications and the presence of environmental health hazards presented significant health risks

to those residents in the areas affected by flooding (Quinlisk et al., 2011).

Lindell, Prater and Perry (2007) purport that the rapid assessment phase occurs in the first

hours following a disaster and is performed by local police, fire and public works personnel. In

Broward County, Florida, the rapid impact assessment or windshield assessment is completed by

municipal government employees, while the home damage assessment is completed by residents

(Broward County, 2009). Florida State Emergency Response Team (SERT) members who have

received special training perform the preliminary damage assessment process once the active

response phase of the disaster is complete.

There are many applied research papers on the subject of damage assessments at the

learning resource center of the National Fire Academy. A review of the most recent examples


suggests that fire departments across the United States would be involved in the rapid damage

assessment process. McCormick (2010) outlines the procedure for the city of Santa Rosa,

California which utilizes fire companies supported by fire prevention personnel to conduct

assessments within an assigned geographic area. Similarly, Mazza (2010) describes the process

for Monterey, California as having pre-designated survey areas that include critical infrastructure

locations.

The Lakewood, Washington fire department has a lead role in the rapid damage

assessment process and uses fire companies to survey pre-assigned map zones. Companies are

equipped with maps and priority lists for critical infrastructure (Roth, 2009). In the city of

Tempe, Arizona, flash flooding is a problem following any heavy rainfall. Ruiz (2012) states that

Tempe will initially use Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) members within

assigned geographical areas as the fire department will be focused on rescue activities. Only

when available will fire companies begin to conduct damage assessment tasks. Amarillo, Texas

specifically focuses one procedure on the immediate damage assessment following a tornado.

Mayes (2009) describes the assignment of fire companies to a geographical division within the

city to assess damage. Suarez (2006) describes a similar process in place in Miami-Dade,

Florida. That department utilizes fire companies in their designated response districts to conduct

the rapid “snapshot” disaster assessment following major emergencies.

Along the coast of South Carolina, Phillips (2013) reported that 23 of 24 fire departments

were expected to perform windshield surveys in the immediate aftermath of a hurricane or

tropical storm. Further north, New Britain, Connecticut uses combined teams of fire, police and

emergency medical personnel along with public works crews where available to conduct

assessments across six geographically defined zones as directed by the emergency operations

centre (Carr, 2007).


The training required to conduct effective damage assessment was reviewed by several

authors. McEntire (2002) states that it is necessary to plan, train and exercise with all those who

are responsible for damage assessments in order to be efficient. He suggests that everyone

involved in the process immediately following a disaster should attend an initial briefing prior to

going out on assignment.

In his research for the Bedford, NH fire department rapid windshield assessment

procedure, Klose (2012) found that approximately four hours of training is sufficient to

effectively teach fire crews the essentials of rapid damage assessment. McCormick (2010)

discovered that 90% of the fire crews he surveyed in Santa Rosa felt that they would benefit

from additional training and he ultimately recommended annual training and exercises.

Appropriate and repetitive training to conduct preliminary damage assessments was a key

take away for the fire service according to a US Fire Administration report following a series of

severe tornadoes impacting Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee in 2011 (FEMA,

2012). The report outlines that the preliminary damage assessment task was difficult to complete

and that all agencies responsible for performing them needed training, equipment, and practice.

A later note in the report states that the urban search and rescue (USAR) marking system used on

each affected structure was poorly understood and often misread.

A final aspect of the literature review looked at evaluations of the success and efficacy of

damage assessments following disasters. In Cape Corral, Florida following Hurricane Charlie the

immediate damage assessment took over 24 hours to complete despite having a significant

number of inspectors (Kilbury, 2007). Damage reports were returned to the EOC using radio,

cellular telephone, paper forms, face-to-face, and one other undisclosed method. Kilbury reports

that debris on roadways and communications issues were the two main problems that interfered

with mission completion and success. Of the inspectors surveyed, over 50% felt the damage


assessment mission was either a failure or minimally accomplished. A second survey by Kilbury

of the same inspectors revealed that over half had no training in damage assessment before they

were deployed to the field. Perhaps due to a lack of formal training, the forms used to collect the

assessment information were cited by a significant number of inspectors as being difficult to use.

In addition, 100% of the surveyed inspectors told Kilbury that more reliable communications

with the EOC were needed to improve the process. The final recommendations made to improve

the process include having designated drivers for each inspection team, complete a risk

assessment to identify target hazards within the community, provide thorough training to all

those who will be involved in the process, use electronic data gathering instead of paper forms,

and design a reliable back up communications system (Kilbury, 2007).

A significant obstacle to the success of damage assessments in the barrier islands of New

Jersey following Hurricane Sandy was debris. Physical roads were destroyed during the

hurricane and those that were not destroyed were often impassable due to blown sand, fallen

trees and other structural debris (Hopson, 2013). Heavy equipment became necessary to assist in

the movement of fire apparatus around the various communities to respond to the secondary

emergencies resulting from the hurricane.

The findings of the literature review demonstrated that while windshield assessments,

rapid damage assessments, and preliminary damage assessments are commonly incorporated into

the emergency plans of fire departments, municipalities and states in the United States, they are

far less common in Canada. The literature review also revealed that the province of British

Columbia had the most readily available and comprehensive damage assessment program in

Canada. It also became apparent that the terminology used to describe the various components

and types of damage assessment can be blurred by local descriptions. One noted feature of the

literature review specific to applied research papers at the National Fire Academy was that there


were many papers on the development of processes and procedures, but a very limited number

that assessed the effectiveness of damage assessment procedures following a disaster.

Procedures

Research was conducted using an action methodology. Several methods were used to

gather information to answer the first research question regarding existing standards and

guidelines. The Alberta Emergency Management Agency (AEMA) was contacted to determine if

any provincial standard existed. Contact was made with the British Columbia Provincial

Emergency Program for the same reason and the author was directed to BC Housing. The

mandate of BC Housing includes responsibilities for the administration of the Homeowner

Protection Act, which entails strengthening consumer protection for buyers of new homes and

helping bring about improvements to the quality of residential construction. As part of that

mandate, BC Housing coordinates a provincial damage assessment training program, a copy of

which was requested by electronic mail.

An internet search was conducted to determine the existence of a nationally recognized or

supported Canadian standard of damage assessment. Extensive review of many public safety and

government websites was conducted. Contact was made with a senior Alberta government

building safety codes officer to gather information on the systems of damage assessment used in

several recent provincial emergencies. The literature review also sought out current FEMA

standards, as well as examples of damage assessment processes in use in various American

jurisdictions as examples of the application of those guidelines.

The Strathcona County Municipal Emergency Plan was reviewed for any information on

damage assessment and information regarding any procedures was requested from the assistant

chief of emergency management.


Personal observation was used by the author while in the High River EOC from June 26

to July 4, 2013. Initial windshield assessments had been conducted by the High River fire

department during the first hours of the flooding, but the author had the opportunity to see how

the preliminary damage assessment process was carried out and how the damage assessment

information was collected.

The second research question focused on the process or procedure utilized by other

Canadian agencies and was first addressed using the online Survey Monkey tool to seek input

from other Alberta fire departments. The survey included questions regarding already developed

standard operating procedures, the history of using those procedures including an evaluation of

their success, the design of the procedures, and the reported limitations or challenges of the

procedures. Questions regarding the damage assessment training programs were also included. In

total the survey was sent to 54 fire departments using contact information supplied in the 2012

Alberta Fire Chiefs Association membership list. The departments represented all 16 with

unionized firefighters, 16 of 17 cities, 4 of 5 specialized municipalities, and a large percentage of

the volunteer departments with known full time chief officer(s). The missing city and specialized

municipality did not have contact information listed. The survey was activated on July 25, 2013

and remained open until August 20, 2013. Using the 2012 population statistics from Alberta

Municipal Affairs, the selected departments protect 3,081,678 out of 3,699,939 residents, or

83.3% of the provincial population (Alberta Municipal Affairs, 2013). The Alberta fire

department survey was completed by 24 respondents, representing a 44.4% participation rate.

Damage assessment procedures were also sought from the most populous area of British

Columbia. An email was sent to a member of the Greater Vancouver Fire Chiefs Association

and a request was forwarded to the membership of that group for any standard operating

procedures (SOP) existing. Like the pacific northwest area of the United States, the greater


Vancouver area in the lower mainland of British Columbia rests along a very active earthquake

zone.

Internet searches were conducted of each provincial and territorial emergency

management agency aimed at finding any publicly available information on damage assessment

procedures. An email request for information was made to officials at Emergency Management

Ontario.

Research question three also used the online survey tool but this time sought input from

both the officers of SCES and the building safety codes officers employed by the Planning and

Development department of Strathcona County. The survey was divided into sections designed

to determine what experience each officer had with the damage assessment process, where and

what type of training they may have received, who they believe should conduct damage

assessments, what a damage assessment process should look like for SCES, potential challenges

to the completion of the damage assessment, how a damage assessment should be communicated

once complete, and how damage assessment training should be accomplished. Prior to

distributing the survey, the survey questions were vetted through SCES fire chief Darrell Reid

and SCES assistant chief of emergency management Mark Eckley. Suggested modifications

were incorporated (D. Reid, personal communication, July 24, 2013). The survey was activated

on July 25, 2013 and remained open until August 15, 2013, with a reminder request sent

approximately half way through the period to encourage participation. The survey was sent via

department electronic mail to 66 staff. 56 SCES officers including the chief were surveyed,

including all four chief officers (other than the author), all forty six suppression division officers,

three fire prevention and inspection officers, and the two senior training officers. Additionally,

ten firefighters from the Water Rescue Team and Technical Rescue Team who had deployed to

High River in June 2013 were included as they were known to have operated in an environment


where damage assessment had been conducted. Finally the survey was sent to the senior safety

codes officer in Strathcona County for further distribution to the eight county safety codes staff.

The SCES survey was completed by 45 participants, representing 68.2% of the targeted

officers and firefighters. This number falls approximately 11 participants short of assuring a 95%

confidence level, but is still a significant representation of the officer corps.

The fourth research question concerned the effective collection and collation of damage

assessment information. The question was addressed using several of the questions from both the

Alberta fire department survey and the SCES officer survey, as well as using personal

observations of the process used during the High River flooding in June 2013.

A number of limitations were identified in the process of this research paper. The

development of effective surveys is a profession in itself and the author believes that a more

effective survey could be achieved with improved knowledge of the types of question and

answer formats that are available. In particular, the lack of a consistent standard for Canadian

damage assessments could have lead individual respondents to have their own opinions of terms

such as initial or rapid assessment. The spectrum of assessments discussed in literature also

indicates that many municipalities discuss the preliminary damage assessment only in municipal

emergency plans as it is a requirement to receive funding. The emergency response and initial

rapid damage assessment seem to have been poorly understood and ignored by many. A second

limitation was the sheer number of departments that have done research on developing damage

assessment procedures. It became very apparent to the author that an exhaustive review of each

individual jurisdiction was not possible and that each had variances from the next. Due to the

somewhat random sampling of examples it is possible that an unintended bias exists that has

influenced the results of this research.


Results

Research question one revolved around what Canadian or other standards exist regarding

damage assessment. The AEMA website identified that the Alberta Emergency Plan was under

review and not available for public consumption. Similarly, the Model Plan for Municipalities

was unavailable as it was in the process of being replaced by a more comprehensive community

emergency management program (Alberta Emergency Management Agency, 2013). The acting

manager of recovery operations for AEMA stated that he was not aware of any provincial policy

on windshield or rapid damage assessments (B. Brand, personal communication, September 16,

2013).

The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC, 2008) has produced a series of model

response procedures, including one on the response of emergency vehicles during hurricanes and

tropical storms. The document outlines preparations to be taken prior to a storm event as well as

suggested guidelines for the post event period. Within the procedure, windshield assessments are

discussed as well as identification of the critical infrastructure facilities with a fire company’s

response district.

BC Housing identified that they manage the Rapid Damage Assessment Program as a

course designed to provide instruction on the process to arrange and deliver damage assessment

of wood frame, masonry and concrete buildings following a disaster such as a flood, earthquake

or wind storm. The actual course in damage assessment uses the guidelines of the Applied

Technology Council from California, specifically ATC 20 and ATC 45 (BC Housing, 2013).

In order to establish a uniform approach to damage assessment across the United States,

FEMA (2012) published the Preliminary Damage Assessment for Individual Assessment

Operations Manual. This manual details the standard procedures for performing a preliminary

damage assessment and identifies its purpose as the establishment of a standardized process by


which consistent damage impact information is gathered and reported by damage assessment

teams before and after a Presidential Declaration. Within the manual, a key role identified is that

of the housing PDA specialist, who has among several tasks the responsibility to identify the

number of damaged dwellings, the degree of damage and the types of structures damaged.

FEMA uses five categories of damage. A destroyed home is a total loss where repair is

not feasible and the structure is permanently uninhabitable. Major damage describes a home that

has sustained significant structural damage and will require extensive and extended repair,

typically beyond 30 days. A flooded home with more than 18 inches of water, or water above

electrical outlets meets this description, as does a home with failed but repairable structural

elements. The category of minor damage describes a home that is immediately uninhabitable, but

could be made habitable within 30 days. This broadly describes a home with damaged functional

components such as the furnace. An affected home has minimal damage and the home is

immediately habitable without repairs. The fifth category is inaccessible and describes a home

that cannot be reached due to damage to roads or infrastructure (FEMA, 2012).

The standards set by FEMA were duplicated in several state guidelines located during the

literature review. The Oregon Office of Emergency Management (2013) uses the same five

categories, while the Michigan Department of State Police (2013) uses only four, combining

affected and inaccessible homes into a single category.

The Emergency Measures Organisation (2011) in the province of Manitoba uses an

online reporting system called a community impact assessment. The online form used for

communities to report damage to the provincial EOC places damages into the three categories of

minor, major or destroyed. No definitions of these terms were provided on the form.

During the review of the Strathcona County municipal emergency plan and subsequent

conversation with the assistant chief of emergency management Mark Eckley, it was discovered


that a draft annex regarding damage assessment was being compiled (M. Eckley, personal

communication, August 13, 2013). A copy was obtained. The draft annex describes how damage

assessment is a series of activities designed to allow local government to develop a coordinated

picture of the overall impact of the incident. The draft document makes reference to a windshield

survey or rapid assessment as the initial process for gaining a general impression of the impacted

area. The document points out that the rapid assessment is not intended to estimate dollar loss,

but should be focused on the status and impact on seven key areas including (a) life safety, (b)

transportation systems (roads), (c) communications, (d) utilities, (e) emergency services, (f)

public services, and (g) imminent hazards (Strathcona County, 2013).

The draft annex goes on to anticipate that the rapid assessment is most likely to be

accomplished by driving through the affected areas and that assigned teams should attempt to

survey as many streets as possible, noting which ones have damage, and should not become

overly concerned with noting specific addresses. Only exterior damage should be assessed and as

many photographs as possible should be taken. Within the draft annex a situation report is

described that includes (a) areas of reported damage, (b) extent of damage, (c) nature of damage

(residential, commercial, infrastructure), (d) impacts to critical facilities and services, (e)

casualty estimates, (f) resources deployed to assess damage, and (g) outside assistance needed or

anticipated.

A final component of the draft damage assessment annex is an appendix that describes

how to estimate and categorize damage. The appendix notes that the guide is intended for the use

of a preliminary damage assessment team, which is earlier described as a multi-disciplinary team

that includes building inspectors, safety codes officers, public works employees, utilities

representatives, engineers, and transportation staff. Several methods are described including a

numbered scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is the least severe and 10 is the most severe. A second


method describes four categories including (a) affected, (b) minor damage, (c) major damage,

and (d) destroyed. One component of the draft damage assessment annex that has not yet been

completed is the forms section (Strathcona County, 2013).

Personal observation in High River during the flooding revealed that a similar system

was in place. The damage assessment teams consisted of safety codes officers and police

officers. Residential and commercial structures were inspected rapidly and then placed in one of

four categories. Green homes were those in which no remediation or repair was required. Yellow

homes did not suffer structural damage however the water level had reached the electrical

outlets. Orange homes had water at the level of the electrical panel, or the heating appliances

(furnace) had been compromised. Natural gas and electricity supply were isolated from these

structures until repairs were completed. Red homes had received either structural damage or had

flood waters above the level of the main floor which affected the floor integrity.

To gain perspective on how this system had been chosen, contact was made with the

senior building safety codes officer for the province of Alberta. He indicated that the chosen

processes used in High River came from background knowledge and not from a specific

provincial policy (G. Brownleigh, personal communication, July 24, 2013). He further indicated

that the FEMA standards were the most likely source of the background system and was not

aware of any Canadian standards in this regard.

Question two of this research paper looked to reveal the standard operating procedures,

practices or policies of other Canadian agencies. The response to the Alberta fire department

survey was 24 of 56 departments, or a 44.4% response. The survey started by asking which

weather events or hazardous conditions could cause widespread damage in each responding

community. Responses were (a) tornado, 87.5%; (b) flood, 54.2%; (c) wildfire, 83.3%; (d)

earthquake, 4.2%; (e) severe winter storm, 100%; (f) hazardous materials transportation incident,


100%; and (g) heavy industrial facility incident, 87.5%. Two other responses were indicated in

the open comment area of the survey: a terrorist attack on heavy industry and an offsite aircraft

crash due to proximity of an international airport.

Six of 24, or 25% of responding departments indicated that they had some form of

process or procedure. Of those six, five respondents indicated that the department had used the

process or procedure following an actual incident, while one respondent indicated the department

had never used the process or procedure.

Several survey questions were directed only to those respondents who had indicated that

had an existing process. The answers to the type of event following which the existing processes

had been used were (a) tornado, 1; (b) flood, 4; and (c) wildfire, 2. There were no departments

who responded that they had used their process following an earthquake, severe winter storm,

hazardous materials transportation incident, or heavy industrial incident. Respondents were then

asked how they would rate the success of their established damage assessment process. Two

respondents indicated it was very successful and worked as planned. Two respondents indicated

it was successful with only a few issues. There were no responses for unsuccessful or complete

failure.

Survey question number six asked about factors that had interfered with the ability of

crews to complete rapid damage assessment following an actual event. Only three respondents of

six provided answers as follows: (a) widespread power outages, 2; (b) damage and debris on

roadways, 3; (c) radio or cellular telephone outages, 2; (d) significant snow or water on

roadways, 1; (e) public interference, 0; and (f) overwhelming workload or the amount of

damage, 2.

The six departments who indicated they had existing damage assessment processes or

procedures were asked if they would be willing to share them. Five indicated that they would.


One respondent skipped the question. Each department received a follow up request to provide a

copy of their procedure. A general description of process was received from Pincher Creek (D.

Cox, personal communication, September 8, 2013) and described a joint effort with public works

staff to determine damages to infrastructure. The Pincher Creek process has been used following

a flood event. The Calgary Emergency Management Agency did not provide a specific process

but referred to the FEMA debris management documents as the basis for their process (G.

Solecki, personal communication, September 9, 2013). The Calgary process was most recently

used during the June 2013 flood event. Red Deer County did not forward any documents prior to

the deadline. The Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo could not provide any documentation

as the specific document was still in draft form and unable to be shared (A. McIntosh, personal

communication, September 11, 2013).

All respondents were asked who would be involved in performing rapid damage

assessments in their community following a natural or man-made disaster. The responses were

(a) 81.8%, fire suppression crews; (b) 72.7%, other fire personnel such as fire prevention staff;

(c) 59.1%, the police agency; (d) 86.4%, public works crews; and (e) 81.8%, safety codes

officers or building inspectors. Responses to a question regarding the fire department role in

damage assessment were 8.7% for no role, 47.8% for a supporting or assisting role, and 43.5%

for the primary role. When asked what damage assessment training is provided by departments

to staff, responses were (a) 0, a complete rapid damage assessment course; (b) 6, written

materials such as an SOP or manual; (c) 3, video or photographic examples; (d) 8, hands on

training; (e) 2, online training; and (f) 13, no training provided. A later survey question asked

who is, or would be, primarily responsible for collecting the damage assessment reports.

Responses were (a) the fire department, 19.0%; (b) the building or planning department, 0%; (c)

the police agency, 0%; (d) the public works department, 4.8%; and (e) the EOC, 76.2%.


The survey asked about any priority structure lists in each community. Five departments

responded that their EOC maintained a list of priority structures to be assessed, while 18

departments indicated that they did not maintain such a priority list. Those five respondents were

then asked to indicate their priority for a series of items. Civilian injuries were rated as a medium

priority by two respondents and a high priority by three respondents. Damage to residential

structures was rated as a low priority by three respondents, a medium priority by one respondent

and a high priority by one respondent. Damage to critical facilities was rated as a high priority by

all five respondents. Damage to hazardous facilities was rated as a medium priority by two

respondents and a high priority by three respondents. Damage to infrastructure was rated as a

medium priority by all five respondents.

When asked if a department had pre-identified driving routes that must be followed by

units conducting rapid damage assessments, only one respondent indicated that they did and 22

indicated they did not. Respondents were also asked how many fire department apparatus, crews

or vehicles would be assigned to conduct rapid damage assessments. Responses were (a) 0 to 2,

30.4%; (b) 3 to 5, 56.5%; (c) 6 to 8, 4.3%; (d) 9 to 12, 4.3%; (e) 13 to 15, 4.3%; and (f) more

than 15, 0%.

The final survey question for Alberta fire departments sought demographic population

data for comparison. The population sizes served by the 23 respondents were (a) less than 5000,

1; (b) 5000 to 10000, 5; (c) 10000 to 25000, 9; (d) 25000 to 50000, 4; (e) 50000 to 100000, 2;

and (f) more than 100000, 2.

BC Housing provided the form used by the rapid damage assessment teams to record

information collected at each building assessed. In addition, a copy of each of the three possible

placards was obtained. The course refers to an immediate windshield assessment that is

completed by first responders in order to identify areas of damage in the immediate aftermath of


the disaster. This windshield survey is then followed quickly with a rapid damage assessment.

The rapid damage assessment is an inspection for life safety purposes only and includes a brief

visual inspection of non-concealed areas to identify the presence or absence of seven damage

assessment criteria that would suggest a building is unsafe. These criteria are: (a) collapse, partial

collapse, or building off of foundation; (b) building or story leaning / out of plumb; (c) damage

to primary structural members, racking of walls; (d) falling hazards such as chimney, parapet,

etc.; (e) ground movement or slope failure, scour, erosion; (f) damaged / submerged fixtures or

services, (electric / gas); and (g) proximity risks / other conditions. Each one of these criteria is

subsequently graded as none / minor, moderate or severe. Additionally an estimate of the

percentage of the building damage is made in the following increments: (a) none, (b) 1 to 10%,

(c) 11 to 30%, (d) 31 to 60%, (e) 61 to 99%, and (f) 100%. Following the inspection, a building

is given one of three possible outcomes and a placard is placed on the exterior by the assessment

team. Severe conditions endangering the overall building are categorised as unsafe and given a

red placard. Localised severe and overall moderate conditions are categorised as restricted use

and given a yellow placard. When no apparent structural or other safety hazards are found, a

building is categorised as inspected and given a green placard.

In response to the request made to the greater Vancouver fire chiefs, a standard operating

guideline entitled Earthquake and Major Disaster Protocols was provided by the Surrey fire

department. It identified the immediate actions to be taken by on duty fire crews and officers.

Once safe to do so, crews are directed to begin a windshield rapid damage assessment by

following a pre-determined route. This is a drive-by assessment of major roads and infrastructure

in each station`s initial response area. The guideline indicates that particular items to note

include: (a) road issues, obstructions or damage, (b) general structural damage to buildings, with

particular emphasis on high occupancy buildings and critical infrastructure, and (c) common fire


department apparatus refuelling stations. Further the guideline suggests an initial assessment

should be provided to the EOC within 20 to 30 minutes (Surrey Fire Service, 2012).

No other positive responses were received from the departments in the greater Vancouver

area. The District of North Vancouver responded that they did not have an established procedure.

The third research question sought input from SCES officers on their impressions of the

damage assessment process. Demographically the survey was completed by 23 suppression

company officers, seven suppression firefighters on specialty teams, one fire prevention

inspector, nine chief officers or training officers, and two county safety codes officers. Three

respondents did not identify their position. The survey began by asking if the respondent had

ever been involved in conducting a rapid damage assessment. 35.6% or 16 officers answered yes,

while 64.4% or 29 officers answered no. Only the positive respondents were asked the next four

questions.

When asked where the 16 had previously conducted damage assessments, the answers

were (a) 2, the 1987 Edmonton tornado; (b) 0, the 2000 Pine Lake tornado; (c) 3, the 2011 Slave

Lake fire; (d) 3, the 2013 Calgary flood; and (e) 10, the 2013 High River flood. The systems

used to classify the damage to structures were (a) 5, a colour coding system; (b) 4, a numbered

scale; (c) 5, a descriptive word system; and (d) 3, other – a letter grading system. Respondents

were asked about the ease of use for each of the classification systems. 92.9% of respondents

found them easy to use or requiring some training while only 7.1% or one respondent found the

system complicated and difficult to use.

The survey asked if respondents had ever received formal training in conducting rapid

damage assessments. 20.9% indicated that they had received formal training and 79.1% indicated

that they had not received formal training. Ten respondents reported receiving formal training

from the following agencies: (a) 2, SCES; (b) 3, Canada Task Force 2; (c) 6, an emergency


services educational institution such as the NFA; and (d) 1, other – Alberta Environment

Sustainable Resources Development (AESRD).

The survey asked if respondents had ever received informal training in conducting rapid

damage assessments. 37.2% indicated that they had received informal training and 62.8%

indicated that they had not received informal training. 16 respondents reported receiving

informal training from the following sources: (a) 9, magazine articles; (b) 5, web based videos;

(c) 3, books; (d) 2, a formal SOP from another fire department; (e) 12, training materials from

another fire department; and (f) 6, other – an overview given by a structural engineer, on scene

training during a flood, AESRD course, briefing prior to assignment, insurance industry tables

and calculations, and a structural collapse course.

Anticipating that formal and informal training was limited to only a few members of the

department, the next survey question asked how prepared officers felt to conduct a rapid damage

assessment today. Responses were (a) 7.1%, fully prepared; (b) 50.0%, partly prepared and

capable of performing some form of assessment; (c) 26.2%, minimally prepared and would have

difficulty performing an effective assessment; and (d) 16.7%, unprepared.

To determine who should perform rapid damage assessments following a disaster,

respondents were asked their opinion on who the best group would be. Responses were (a)

57.1%, SCES fire crews; (b) 11.9%, SCES fire prevention and inspection staff; (c) 2.4%, the

RCMP; (d) 23.8%, safety codes officers; (e) 2.4%, other county staff such as public works

employees; and (f) 2.4%, residents and business owners. There were also 13 responses in an

open comment box including SCES administrators, fire crews supplemented with a trained

engineer, the technical rescue team, CAN-TF2, a joint inspection team from multiple disciplines,

an outside agency, and insurance industry representatives.


Respondents were asked a series of questions regarding their perception of how long it

should take for the EOC to gain a full understanding of the extent of damage, versus how long it

would actually take. For the urban services area of Sherwood Park, respondents felt it should

take (a) less than one hour, 0%; (b) one to three hours, 23.8%; (c) three to six hours, 21.4%; (d)

six to 12 hours, 19.0%; (e) 12 to 24 hours, 19.0%; (f) 24 to 48 hours, 11.9%; (g) two to three

days, 0%; and (h) more than three days, 4.8%. For the urban services area of Sherwood Park,

respondents felt it would take (a) less than one hour, 0%; (b) one to three hours, 7.1%; (c) three

to six hours, 11.9%; (d) six to 12 hours, 23.8%; (e) 12 to 24 hours, 14.3%; (f) 24 to 48 hours,

19.0%; (g) two to three days, 11.9%; and (h) more than three days, 11.9%. For the rural area of

Strathcona County, respondents felt it should take (a) less than one hour, 0%; (b) one to three

hours, 9.5%; (c) three to six hours,16.7%; (d) six to 12 hours, 23.8%; (e) 12 to 24 hours, 21.4%;

(f) 24 to 48 hours, 16.7%; (g) two to three days, 9.5%; and (h) more than three days, 2.4%. For

the rural area of Strathcona County, respondents felt it would take (a) less than one hour, 0%; (b)

one to three hours, 0%; (c) three to six hours, 14.3%; (d) six to 12 hours, 9.5%; (e) 12 to 24

hours, 26.2%; (f) 24 to 48 hours, 21.4%; (g) two to three days, 14.3%; and (h) more than three

days, 14.3%.

The officers were asked what they thought would be the most effective and efficient way

for crews to conduct a rapid damage assessment. Responses were (a) 21.4%, walking house to

house completing a form for each house; (b) 9.5%, driving slowly down each street filling out

forms for each house; (c) 57.1%, driving moderately down each street counting houses in several

categories such as destroyed, damaged, or undamaged; (d) 9.5%, driving quickly down each

street getting a general impression of how many houses are damaged or undamaged; and (e)

2.4%, driving rapidly down the main streets getting a general impression of neighbourhood

damage.


The next question asked which method of categorizing damage to residences or

businesses would be the most effective. 22.0% felt a numbered scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being no

damage and 5 being destroyed) would be effective. 46.3% felt a word scale of no damage, minor

damage, moderate damage, major damage, or destroyed would be effective. 19.5% felt a colour

scale such as green, yellow, orange, red, or black would be effective. 12.2% felt that a simple

choice of damaged or undamaged would be effective. No respondents felt that the method of

categorizing damage should be left to the discretion of the teams conducting the damage

assessment. Four other comments were entered by respondents including a colour scale

combined with standard USAR symbols, a range from inhabitable to do not enter, a simple first

assessment with a more thorough second assessment, and a three word scale of undamaged,

damaged or destroyed.

The order of importance for damage assessment was surveyed next. 92.9% of

respondents felt civilian injuries were a high priority, 2.4% a medium priority, and 4.8% a low

priority. 11.9% of respondents felt damage to residential structures was a high priority, 52.4% a

medium priority, and 35.7% a low priority. 81.0% of respondents felt damage to critical facilities

was a high priority, 19.0% a medium priority, and 0% a low priority. 78.6% of respondents felt

damage to hazardous facilities was a high priority, 21.4% a medium priority, and 0% a low

priority. 42.9% of respondents felt damage to infrastructure was a high priority, 50.0% a medium

priority, and 7.1% a low priority.

The next question on the survey asked what method of assigning damage assessments

should be used. The responses were (a) 0%, each crew should self-assign areas for assessment;

(b) 38.1%, each crew should have a predetermined area for assessment; (c) 11.9%, each crew

should have a predetermined driving route for assessment; (d) 19.0%, each crew should have a


priority list of structures or target hazards for assessment; and (e) 31.0%, each crew should be

individually assigned an area for assessment by the EOC.

Officers were next asked what they thought was the most likely to interfere with the

completion of rapid damage assessments. Of the 42 respondents 92.9% indicated damage and

debris on roadways was most likely to interfere. This compares to 83.3% for significant snow or

water on roadways, 83.3% for public interference from injured civilians, 76.2% for radio or

telephone outages, 76.2% for overwhelming workload or amount of damage, and 64.3% for

widespread power outages.

A question was asked regarding the ability of officers to complete the damage assessment

despite large numbers of casualties or widespread damage. 28.6% indicated that they could

complete the damage assessment, while 71.4% of respondents indicated that they would not be

able to drive past injured civilians and damaged structures without stopping.

The next three survey questions addressed rapid damage assessment training. 92.9% of

survey respondents indicated that SCES and other county departments should have a formal

training program for conducting damage assessments. A question regarding who should receive

rapid damage assessment training received the following answers in descending order: (a)

78.0%, SCES fire officers; (b) 61.0%, SCES firefighters; (c) 61.0%, county safety codes officers

and building inspectors; (d) 58.5%, SCES fire prevention and inspection staff; (e) 43.9%, the

RCMP and peace officers; (f) 36.6%, other county staff such as public works and utilities; and

(g) 2.4%, residents and business owners.

The final survey question asked what kinds of training the SCES officer corps would like

to see regarding rapid damage assessments. The responses were (a) none, 2.4%; (b) a quick

briefing prior to conducting damage assessments, 7.3%; (c) a written SOP only, 41.5%; (d) a

short online learning session, 34.1%; (e) a short classroom learning session, 17.1%; and (f) a


comprehensive training program that includes a training manual, an SOP, online videos and

practice sessions, and a quick reference guide, 63.4%. Additional comments were added by

several respondents indicating that officers should receive advanced training while firefighters

need only basic training.

An area of the survey called for final comments. Several respondents thought that the two

SCES specialty rescue teams could be identified as key resources for damage assessment. There

were also a number of comments that suggested mixed teams would be more effective than pure

fire crews.

The fourth research question sought information on the effective ways of collecting and

collating damage assessment information. Question 14 of the Alberta fire department survey

asked how the data collected during rapid damage assessments was transmitted to the appropriate

collection points. 47.6% of departments use written reports collected once complete, 61.9% of

departments give verbal reports in person once complete, 76.2% of departments give verbal

reports via radio, 38.1% of departments send reports by email, 0% of departments send reports in

by facsimile, and 4.8% of departments input reports into an online website. One respondent

indicated they had no planned system in place.

Survey question five of the SCES officer survey garnered 12 responses from members

with experience using a comment box. Three respondents reported using a system of marking

damage information on a map and then returning the completed map to command. Six responses

indicated that reports were delivered verbally through face-to-face interaction upon completion

of an assigned assessment area. One response indicated that email was used to send reports to the

EOC but did not indicate what level of information was sent. There were four responses that

indicated either radio or telephone reporting was used to deliver results to command.


In the SCES officer survey respondents were asked what they thought would be the most

effective way to communicate assessment information from the field to the EOC. The responses

were (a) 9.5%, verbal reports by radio or telephone as each damaged area is located; (b) 4.8%,

verbal reports by radio or telephone on a street by street basis; (c) 0%, verbal reports by radio or

telephone on a neighbourhood by neighbourhood basis; (d) 19.0%, verbal reports by radio or

telephone once the assigned area is completed; (e) 4.8% reports emailed as each damaged area is

located; (f) 0%, reports emailed on a street by street basis; (g) 2.4%, reports emailed on a

neighbourhood by neighbourhood basis; (h) 9.5%, reports emailed once the assigned area is

completed; (i) 11.9%, an online reporting system completed as each damaged area is located; (j)

11.9, an online reporting system completed on a street by street basis; (k) 4.8%, an online

reporting system completed on a neighbourhood by neighbourhood basis; (l) 11.9%, an online

reporting system competed once the assigned area is completed; and (m) 9.5%, paper reports or

forms handed in to the EOC as required.

Five respondents added comments to their responses. One felt that mobile devices that

updated a database in real time were needed. One respondent felt the method of damage

reporting depended on the scope of damage. One respondent indicated that the damage would

potentially interfere with all reporting methods except face to face reporting.

Michigan (2013) uses a web-based Critical Incident Management System called

WebEOC that shares information in real time across the state. Information can be entered by

anyone with appropriate security access and a live internet connection and displayed in any

EOC. Should the system be unavailable due to internet outages, information can be relayed using

email or facsimile. In addition, back up paper forms are available for all damage assessment

teams to use to report their results.


The Surrey (2012) operating guide instructs fire crews to use whatever means are

available to report damage assessment information including fire department radio channels,

cellular telephones or amateur radio communications located at each fire station. If no

communications are established with the EOC, crews maintain paper records and establish their

own priorities until they achieve contact.

The personal observations of the author in High River during the flood event was that the

preliminary damage assessment grades of green, yellow, orange or red were collected on paper

forms by the safety codes officers and given to the planning section at the end of each day to be

collated into a visual representation on a map.

Discussion

There exists a spectrum of damage assessment timeframes and procedures spanning from

the immediate minutes following a disaster to full structural engineering examinations several

weeks later. The literature review demonstrated that even though there are clear FEMA

guidelines, many jurisdictions have blurred the lines between the various definitions and

nomenclature. In general, Canadian agencies appear far behind their American counterparts in

terms of documented procedures and training programs, most likely due to the lack of strong

national direction from any federal source.

The EAFSOEM manual (FEMA, 2012) suggests that the immediate damage assessment

is completed upon arrival at the scene of an incident. In the case of a disaster the incident may be

widespread and result in an extended assessment. Surrey (2012) has a procedure that discusses

the actions to be taken immediately following a disaster by the fire crews. They conduct rapid

windshield assessments within the first 30 minutes of the disaster event. Lindell, Prater and Perry

(2007) target the three hour mark for completion of the rapid assessment. Broward County

(2009) aims for a rapid impact assessment to be completed in four to six hours. The experiences


of Hurricane Charlie suggest that 24 hours is a more realistic timeframe if the disaster has

impacted the entire community (Kilbury, 2007). The responses of the SCES fire officers indicate

the majority (62.4%) belief that a complete rapid assessment of Sherwood Park should take

between one and 12 hours, but would in fact take between six and 24 hours (57.1%), and that the

remainder of the county would take between 12 and 72 hours (61.9%).

Using fire crews for the initial assessment is the most common approach. McCormick

(2010), Mazza (2010), Roth ( 2009), Mayes (2009) and Suarez(2006) all describe the use of fire

crews for the initial assessment and windshield survey. Carr (2007) adds the police and public

works crews to the mix, which supports the ideas of Lindell, Prater and Perry (2007). 57.1% of

SCES officers indicate their support for the use of fire crews as front line damage assessment

teams, followed by fire inspection staff at 23.8%. Amongst Alberta fire departments, 81.8% of

them suggest that fire crews would be the most likely candidates to perform initial damage

assessments. Kilbury (2007) reveals that the use of trained fire inspectors can make the mission

successful and 72.7% of Alberta fire departments intend to use them to supplement the fire

crews. The SCES respondents indicated that their top three groups to perform assessments would

include fire prevention inspectors and safety codes officers. The author’s experience in High

River leads to the belief that in the case of widespread disaster affecting multiple communities,

everyone who has the appropriate training and skills should likely participate to accomplish the

complete damage assessment as efficiently as possible.

Only one Alberta department identified that pre-designated driving routes had been

considered. Surrey (2012) as the only Canadian example directs crews to follow the pre-planned

route. McCormick (2010), Mazza (2010), Roth (2009), Mayes (2009), Carr (2007) and Suarez

(2006) all reveal that their respective departments use designated geographic zones rather than

designated routes. Based on the results that Kilbury found, debris is likely to be a significant


problem and would likely hamper the following of a pre-planned route. The draft debris

management annex (Strathcona County, 2013) identifies that debris could be a significant issue

during both the response and recovery phases. The officers of SCES agree, with 92.9%

indicating that debris would interfere with the damage assessment mission. The clearance of

emergency access routes will be of high importance to ensure the success of the rapid assessment

by fire crews. This is further solidified by the 100% response of Alberta fire departments who

indicated debris was a problem when they had actually used their damage assessment process

following a disaster.

Mazza (2010) highlights the critical infrastructure in each geographic zone as being of

prime importance and the recommendations of Kilbury (2007) support this. SCES does not

currently have a critical infrastructure list and neither do 78.3% of the Alberta departments who

participated in the survey.

The draft damage assessment annex currently under development by the emergency

management division of SCES provided several examples of damage assessment categories and

a rating scale. The rating scale of 1 to 10 was the only such scale noted during but provides

another method for trained crews to estimate damage. The damage assessment categories match

that of FEMA as well as many of the documented damage assessment guides viewed during the

course of this research. Table 1 provides a comparison of the categories to the rating scale and a

water depth chart.


Table 1

Comparison of damage categories listed in the Strathcona County Emergency Management Plan

Damage Assessment Annex.

Damage

Level

Scale

Damage Level

Assessment

Most Likely

Observations

Flood Water Depth

10 DESTROYED Structure is a total loss or

permanently uninhabitable.

Not feasible to rebuild.

Structure has been levelled

or shifted from foundation.

Roof and or most walls are

gone.

More than 8 feet (floor joists affected)

9 7 to 8 feet

8 MAJOR Structure is currently

uninhabitable. Extensive

repairs are necessary. More

than 30 days to repair.

Portions of the roof are

missing. Structural walls are

twisted or bowed.

Foundation is damaged.

6 to 7 feet 7 5 to 6 feet 6 4 to 5 feet

(furnace affected)

5 MINOR Structure is damages but

habitable. Minor repairs are

necessary. Less than 30 days

to repair.

Roof shingles missing.

Windows broken. Damaged

exterior coverings.

3 to 4 feet 4 2 to 3 feet 3 6 inches to 2 feet

(water above electrical

outlets) 2 AFFECTED

Structure has received

minimal damage and is

habitable without repairs.

Few shingles missing. Some

broken windows. Very

limited flooding in

basement.

3 to 6 inches 1 0 to 3 inches

Note. Column 1 is a simple rating scale of 1 to 10. Column 2 represents the four damage

categories used by FEMA and Strathcona County, however the inaccessible designation is

omitted. Column 3 was created by the emergency management division of SCES and is a

combination of various definitions and descriptions. Column 4 is an interpretation of water depth

levels compared to several indicators used in a variety of materials.


The SCES officers clearly identified the process and procedural elements that they

believe would most positively contribute to an effective rapid damage assessment procedure.

57.1% believe that driving moderately down each street counting houses and placing them in

each of several categories would be the most effective and efficient way to conduct a rapid

assessment. 46.3% of them indicated that a word scale such as minor, moderate, major and

destroyed would be the most effective classification system. Their responses indicate that they

recognize that there needs to be priority assessments conducted of some buildings and

infrastructure. The officers prefer pre-designated assessment areas versus pre-designated driving

routes by a margin of over three to one (38.1% compared to 11.9%). Finally, the most common

response to the question of preferred reporting methods was a verbal report delivered in person

or by telephone upon completion of the assessment of the pre-designated area. Given the

widespread communications failures identified by sources such as Kilbury (2007), verbal reports

may well be the only communications method available. Interestingly, SCES members who had

been involved in disaster response damage assessment were more likely to indicate that an online

system was preferable. 28.6% of them identified this. It is possible that the constant stream of

information from the field to the EOC is preferred to long periods of silence followed by a

lengthy report.

An area of concern that arose during the research was the identification by 71.4% of the

SCES officer respondents that they felt they would be unable to prioritize the completion of the

rapid damage assessment over treatment of the injured or other emergency distractions. Perhaps

more concerning is that when filtered to include only those officers who had actually conducted

damage assessment following a disaster, the percentage rises to 78.6%. This strongly indicates

that the natural tendency for firefighters is to stop and help the injured. Based on these numbers


it would seem prudent to identify the shortest timeframe possible for the completion of a rapid

assessment so that fire crews are less likely to be distracted from the rapid damage assessment

mission as they understand that they will be able to begin rendering aid sooner. Extended

damage assessment processes would lead the researcher to believe that the effectiveness of the

mission would degrade as time goes on due to the increasing opportunities for the fire crews to

be distracted by more and more injured residents. The key findings of this research were

incorporated into the draft standard operating procedure.

Recommendations

As a result of this research, several recommendations should be considered given the

reasonable probability that a future disaster will either impact Strathcona County directly or

require a response of SCES resources. The draft annexes of the Strathcona County emergency

management plan regarding damage assessment and debris management should be completed

and implemented. This will give authority and direction to the departments that will be involved

in both the initial damage assessment and the preliminary damage assessment, as well as those

departments who will be involved in debris management, which will likely be required at some

scale in any disaster.

Draft standard operating procedure number 285: Rapid Damage Assessment (Post

Disaster), included as Appendix E should be adopted into SCES policy. The adoption of this

policy will provide guidance for the SCES occupational health, safety and training division to

begin development of the appropriate training materials and training program to effectively

prepare SCES officers and fire crews to execute the damage assessment mission. It is

recommended that the policy be coded yellow, which in the context of SCES means the

procedure should be in the awareness of staff but not memorized. A further suggestion would be

an annual review of the procedure as part of annual competency training, perhaps coordinated to


occur in the spring as wildfire season, spring flooding and tornado season all occur between May

and August of each year.

A third recommendation is that the transportation and agriculture services (TAS)

department of Strathcona County be engaged in the development of a plan to immediately deploy

heavy equipment to fire stations and districts to provide direct debris clearing assistance to fire

crews involved in the rapid damage assessment. Due to the overwhelming evidence from the

research and the experience of all those who have been faced with widespread disasters, debris

clearing is one of the most significant obstacles to an efficient rapid damage assessment.

The preparation of several supplemental documents is recommended. These documents

include the forms associated with the damage assessment annex of the municipal emergency

plan, a quick reference guide that includes the damage assessment scale and categories for crews

to refer to while conducting the windshield assessment, and a full appendix to SOP 285 to

provide explanations, definitions and examples. The recommended documents would follow the

same format as other operating procedures at SCES and provide a consistent approach to the

process.

A final recommendation surrounds the area of pre-disaster preparation. Several of the

most significant disasters in Alberta history have had some warning of their arrival. Both

tornadoes and floods are usually predictable, even if it is only by a matter of hours or even

minutes. The model response procedures produced by IAFC (2008) provide excellent direction

and considerations that could be incorporated into a future SCES operating procedure.

Future research could take place after the next disaster event and focus on an evaluation

of the recommended standard operating procedure and processes to ensure continuous

improvement. In addition, further research into the area of risk assessment and critical

infrastructure identification would supplement the damage assessment process and make the


overall response to disasters more robust, furthering the Unites States Fire Administration’s

strategic goals. One other research topic closely related to disaster management would be civilian

emergency preparedness and more specifically for the families of emergency responders. The

response to disasters may be improved if all available responders are secure in the knowledge

that their own families are well prepared and well taken care of.


References

Alberta Emergency Management Agency. (2013). Alberta emergency plan. Retrieved from

http://aema.alberta.ca/ps_alberta_emergency_plan.cfm

Alberta Emergency Management Agency. (2013) Model plan for municipalities. Retrieved from

http://aema.alberta.ca/ps_model_plan_for_municipalities.cfm

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. (2012). Final report from the flat

top complex wildfire review committee (AESRD Publication No. T/272). Retrieved from

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/wildfire/WildfirePreventionEnforcement/WildfireReviews/doc

uments/FlatTopComplex.pdf

Alberta Government. (2013). Update 6:government continues to respond to flooding emergency

(news release on June 23, 2013). Retrieved from

http://alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=3440472D4E4B3-07C6-13EC-FE919558A3F3B17A

Alberta Municipal Affairs. (2013). Population 2012. Retrieved from

http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/mc_official_populations.cfm

BC Housing. (2013). Rapid damage assessment program. Retrieved from

http://www.bchousing.org/aboutus/RDA

Brisbois, J. (2012, October). The industrial heartland evokes awe and trepidation. Business in

Edmonton Magazine, 10.

Broward County, Emergency Management Division. (2009). Rapid impact assessment handbook

and course guide. Retrieved from

http://www.broward.org/Emergency/Responder/Documents/2009RapidImpactAssessmen

tClassHandbook080709.pdf


Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (2013). Deadly skies: Canada’s most destructive tornadoes.

Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/environment/extreme-

weather/deadly-skies-canadas-most-destructive-tornadoes/1987-edmonton-tornado.html

Carr, M. (2007). Creating a damage assessment plan for the city of New Britain fire department.

Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy.

Collins, L. (2009, April). The shakeout san andreas earthquake scenario: Lessons learned. Fire

Engineering. Retrieved from http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-

162/issue-4/features/the-shakeout-san-andreas-earthquake-scenario-lessons-learned.html

Emergency Management British Columbia. (2008). British Columbia Earthquake Response

Plan. Retrieved from http://www.embc.gov.bc.ca/em/hazard_plans/EQ_Plan.pdf

Emergency Measures Organisation Manitoba. (April 2011). Community impact assessment form.

Retrieved from http://www.gov.mb.ca/emo/community/recover/cia.html

Environment Canada. (2010). Flood damage reduction program. Retrieved from

http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=0365F5C2-1

Environment Canada. (2013). Spring and summer weather hazards. Retrieved from

http://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=6C5D4990-1

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2012). Executive analysis of fire service operations

in emergency management: student manual (National Fire Academy 3rd edition, 5th

printing). Emmitsburg, MD: Author.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2012). Fire service operations for the southeastern

tornadoes – April 2011.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2012). Preliminary damage assessment for individual

assistance operations manual (9327.2-PR). Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/media-

library-data/20130726-1856-25045-0599/ia_pda_manual_and_forms.pdf


Florida, Division of Emergency Management. (2009). Preliminary damage assessment team –

pocket guide for individual assistance. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

Hopson, B. (2013). Jersey shore ops. Fire Engineering, 161 (6), p.52-60. Fair Lawn, NJ:

Pennwell Corp.

Hunt, K. (2010). Road status and damage assessment tool aids emergency operations in New

York. Public Safety Log, Spring 2010.

International Association of Fire Chiefs. (2008). Model procedures for response of emergency

vehicles during hurricanes and tropical storms. Fairfax, VA: Author.

Kilbury, D.G. (2007). The damage assessment process in Cape Corral, Florida following

Hurricane Charlie. Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy.

Klose, M.E. (2012). Development of a rapid windshield damage assessment standard operating

guideline for the Bedford, NH, fire department. Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire

Academy.

Lindell, M.K., Prater, C., & Perry, R.W. (2007). Introduction to Emergency Management.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Mayes, G. (2009). Development of a tornado initial damage assessment procedure for the

Amarillo fire department. Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy.

Mazza, S. (2010). Initial damage assessment criteria and procedures for the city of Monterey,

California. Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy.

McCormick, M. (2010). Development of a rapid damage assessment procedure for the city of

Santa Rosa, California. Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy.

McEntire, D.A. (2002, May). Understanding and improving damage assessment. International

Association of Emergency Managers Bulletin, 19, 9-12.


Michigan Department of State Police, Emergency Management and Homeland Security

Division. (2013).Michigan damage assessment handbook (MSP/EMHSD Publication

901). Retrieved from

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/Michigan_Damage_Assessment_Handbook_

December_2009_306809_7.pdf

Oregon Office of Emergency Management. (2013). Emergency management procedures guide

(slide presentation). Retrieved from

http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/plans_train/docs/EMPG/module_2_ia_slides.pdf

Peña-Mora, F., Aziz, Z., Chen, A.Y., Plans, A. and Foltz, S. (2008). Building assessment during

disaster response and recovery. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Urban

Design and Planning 161, 183-194. doi:10.1680/udap.2008.161.4.183

Phillips, E. (2013). Analysis of immediate damage assessment reporting in support of municipal

emergency operations. Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy.

Public Safety Canada. 2011. An emergency management framework for Canada. 2nd Edition.

Emergency Management Policy Directorate. Ottawa: Author.

Public Safety Canada. 2011. Manual to assist in the interpretation of federal guidelines EPC

22/88. Retrieved from www.publicsafetycanada.gc.ca/cnt/mrgnc-mngmnt/rcvr-

dsstrs/dsstr-fnncl-ssstnc-rrngmnts/archive-nml-ssstntrprttn-eng.aspx

Quinlisk, P., Jones, M.J., Bostick, N.A., Walsh, L.E, Curtiss, R., Walker, R.,…Subbarao, I.

(2011). Results of rapid needs assessments in rural and urban Iowa following large scale

flooding events in 2008. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 5(4), 287-

292.

Roth, K.G. (2009). Developing a rapid damage assessment procedure for Lakewood fire district

2. Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy.


Ruiz, G. (2012). Development of a rapid damage assessment policy and procedure for Tempe

fire department. Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy.

Statistics Canada. 2012. Strathcona County , Alberta (Code 4811052) and Division No. 11,

Alberta (Code 4811) (table). Census Profile. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue

no. 98-316-XWE. Ottawa. Released February 8, 2012. Retrieved February 26, 2012 from

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-rencensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E

Strathcona County, (2012). Strathcona County Municipal Census Report. Retrieved from

http://www.strathcona.ab.ca/files/Files/att-LLS-census-

2012_Strathcona_County_Census_Report.pdf

Strathcona County. (2013). Strathcona County Municipal Emergency Plan (draft damage

assessment annex). Sherwood Park, AB: Author.

Strathcona County. (2013). Strathcona County Municipal Emergency Plan (draft debris

management annex). Sherwood Park, AB: Author.

Suarez, R.J. (2006). Rapid damage assessment: Will it function as expected when the big one

hits? Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy.

Surrey Fire Service. (2012). Earthquake and major disaster protocol. (SOG No.2.25.04). Surrey,

BC: Author.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States

Fire Administration. Strategic plan fiscal years 2010-2014. Retrieved February 15, 2012

from http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/strategic_plan.pdf


Appendix A

Alberta Fire Department Survey – Introductory Email

From: Iain Bushell Sent: July 26, 2013 15:52 To: Iain Bushell Subject: Rapid Damage Assessment SOP - A request from Strathcona

Good afternoon,

My name is Iain Bushell and I am the Deputy Fire Chief - Operations at Strathcona County Emergency Services.

I am currently enrolled in the third year of the Executive Fire Officer Program at the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland. Recently, I completed a course titled "Executive Analysis of Fire Services Operations in Emergency Management". As part of that class, I am writing a research paper on the Rapid Damage Assessment process that would be used by Strathcona County Emergency Services in the immediate aftermath of a widespread natural or man-made disaster.

To gather data on the rapid damage assessment processes that may be in place in other departments in Alberta, I have created the following short (just a few minutes, I promise) survey. I would appreciate it greatly if you could find a few minutes to complete the survey or forward it to one of your staff to complete for me. I only need one response per department.

Please click on the link to complete the survey:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/56TN7NC

My goal is to create an SOP and training program for use in Strathcona, but as always we are willing to share it once complete. If you have a Rapid Damage Assessment SOP or something similar and would be willing to share it with me, I would appreciate a copy.

Please let me know if you would be interested in my final product.

Thanks very much. Have a great day.

Iain

Iain Bushell, MBA, EMT-P Deputy Fire Chief, Operations Strathcona County Emergency Services 1933 Sherwood Drive Sherwood Park, AB T8A 3R3 Phone: (deleted)

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/56TN7NC


Appendix B

Alberta Fire Department Survey

Which of the following weather events or hazardous conditions exist or are possible in your community that could cause widespread damage? Check all that apply.

Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

Tornado 87.5% 21 Flood 54.2% 13 Wildfire 83.3% 20 Earthquake 4.2% 1 Severe winter storm 100.0% 24 Hazardous materials transportation incident (rail or road)

100.0% 24

Industrial incident (chemical plant, oil refinery, etc.) 87.5% 21 Other (please specify) 2

answered question 24 skipped question 0

Other: 1. Terrorist attack to industry ( chemical or biological attack) Jul 30, 2013 9:35 AM 2. off site airplane crash (proximity to EIA) Jul 25, 2013 12:11 PM

Does your department or agency have a documented process or standard operating procedure (SOP) for rapidly assessing damage following a large scale natural or man-made disaster?


Response Count

Yes 25.0% 6 No 75.0% 18


Has your department used the SOP or process following an actual event in your community?


Response Count

Yes 83.3% 5 No 16.7% 1



After which type(s) of event did your department use a rapid damage assessment process?


Response Count

Tornado 25.0% 1 Flood 100.0% 4 Wildfire 50.0% 2 Earthquake 0.0% 0 Severe winter storm 0.0% 0 Hazardous materials transportation incident (rail or road)

0.0% 0

Industrial incident (chemical plant, oil refinery, etc.) 0.0% 0 answered question 4

skipped question 20

How would you describe how well your rapid damage assessment process worked?


Response Count

Very successful - worked as planned 50.0% 2 Successful - we had only a few issues 50.0% 2 Unsuccessful - we have more training to do 0.0% 0 Failed - did not work at all 0.0% 0


Did any of the following interfere with the ability of crews or teams to complete rapid damage assessments? Check all that apply.


Response Count

Widespread power outages 66.7% 2 Damage and debris on roadways 100.0% 3 Radio failure or cell phone outages 66.7% 2 Significant snow or water on roadways 33.3% 1 Public interference (residents distracting or stopping crews to report damage or injuries)

0.0% 0

Overwhelming workload or the amount of damage 66.7% 2 Other (please specify) 1


Other:

1. nil Jul 29, 2013 7:27 AM


Would you be willing to share your process or SOP?


Response Count

Yes 100.0% 5 No 0.0% 0


Who would be involved in performing rapid damage assessments in your community following a natural or man-made disaster? Check all that apply.


Response Count

Fire suppression crews 81.8% 18 Other fire personnel (such as Fire Prevention and Inspection staff)

72.7% 16

Police 59.1% 13 Public works crews 86.4% 19 Safety codes officers or building inspectors 81.8% 18 Other (please specify) 6


Other: 1. Any staff directly involved with the REOC activation Jul 30, 2013 9:38 AM 2. Technical Rescue, Assessment staff, other staff Jul 29, 2013 7:28 AM 3. Each municipality served by our regional service do their own in coordination with the EMA Jul 29, 2013 7:27 AM 4. Electric and Gas Crews Jul 25, 2013 2:48 PM 5. Peace Officer Jul 25, 2013 12:24 PM 6. Insurance providers, GoA personnel Jul 25, 2013 12:12 PM


What training does your department or agency provide to staff regarding rapid damage assessments? Check all that apply.


Response Count

A complete rapid damage assessment course 0.0% 0 Written materials (such as an SOP or training manual) 26.1% 6

Video or photographic examples 13.0% 3 Hands on training 34.8% 8 Online training 8.7% 2 None 56.5% 13 Other (please specify) 2


Other: 1. RMWB does not use the term rapid damage assessment. The regional emergency operations center is staffed according to the Emergency management plan, and assessments are conducted based on the type of incident Jul 30, 2013 9:40 AM 2. Currently the County of Grande Prairie Fire Service is working on developing an SOP for such assessments which will include identified levels of training for staff Jul 27, 2013 9:40 AM What is your fire department's role in rapid damage assessment?


Response Count

No role 8.7% 2 Assist or support another agency who has the primary role

47.8% 11

Primary role 43.5% 10 answered question 23

skipped question 1

Does your department or Emergency Operations Centre maintain a list of priority structures to be assessed following a disaster?


Response Count

Yes 21.7% 5 No 78.3% 18



Please prioritize the following areas for assessment:

Answer Options Low priority Medium priority High priority Response

Count

Civilian injuries 0 2 3 5 Damage to residential structures (single and multi-family)

3 1 1 5

Damage to critical facilities (hospitals, city hall, seniors lodges)

0 0 5 5

Damage to hazardous facilities (refineries, chemical storage tanks)

0 2 3 5

Damage to infrastructure (roads, bridges) 0 5 0 5 answered question 5

skipped question 19

Does your department have pre-identified driving routes that must be followed by units conducting rapid damage assessments?


Response Count

Yes 4.3% 1 No 95.7% 22


How do you collect and collate the data collected during rapid damage assessments? Check all that apply.


Response Count

Written reports collected once complete 47.6% 10 Verbal reports given in person once complete 61.9% 13 Verbal reports given by radio 76.2% 16 Written reports sent by email 38.1% 8 Written reports sent by fax 0.0% 0 Reports entered into an online website 4.8% 1 Other (please specify) 2


Other: 1. Informtation is fed to REOC, and entered into the data base, ( real time incident report) Jul 30, 2013 9:41 AM 2 No system in place Jul 26, 2013 8:44 AM


Who is, or would be, primarily responsible for collecting the rapid damage assessment reports?


Response Count

The fire department 19.0% 4 The building department 0.0% 0 The police agency 0.0% 0 The public works department 4.8% 1 The Emergency Operations Centre 76.2% 16 Other (please specify) 1


Other:

1.The Emergency Management Agency portion of our service Jul 29, 2013 7:29 AM

What is the population of your community or service area?


Response Count

Less than 5,000 4.3% 1 5,000 to 10,000 21.7% 5 10,000 to 25,000 39.1% 9 25,000 to 50,000 17.4% 4 50,000 to 100,000 8.7% 2 More than 100,000 8.7% 2


How many fire department apparatus, crews or vehicles would be assigned to conduct rapid damage assessments following a widespread disaster?


Response Count

0 to 2 30.4% 7 3 to 5 56.5% 13 6 to 8 4.3% 1 9 to 12 4.3% 1 13 to 15 4.3% 1 More than 15 0.0% 0



If you are open to any follow up questions, please complete the remaining contact information.


Response Count

Name: 100.0% 16 Email Address: 100.0% 16 Phone Number: 93.8% 15


Thank you again for taking the time to answer this survey. I appreciate your assistance. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, or you may add any comments in the space below. Iain Bushell Deputy Fire Chief - Operations Strathcona County Emergency Services 780 416 6754

Answer Options Response Count

2 answered question 2

skipped question 22 Comments: 1. I would love to see this SOG when completed. Thanks. Jul 26, 2013 3:09 PM 2. Contact with any questions you may have. I was in EOC as a deputy director during our flood incident. We did do some damage assessments and I could be more specific than I was with the survey. Good luck with the project (name deleted) Jul 25, 2013 3:05 PM


Appendix C

SCES Officer Survey – Introductory Email

From: Iain Bushell Sent: July 25, 2013 08:31 To: Iain Bushell Subject: A Survey About Damage Assessment

Good morning, As some of you may know, I am currently enrolled in the Executive Fire Officer program at the National Fire Academy. As part of an applied research paper I am writing, I would appreciate it if you would take a few minutes to complete the survey below. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GWKL2YY I will be closing the survey on August the 9th. Thanks in advance. Iain Iain Bushell Deputy Fire Chief – Operations


Appendix D

SCES Officer Survey

SCES Officers Rapid Damage Assessment Survey 1. Have you ever been involved in conducting a rapid damage assessment of residential areas, businesses or other structures following a natural or man-made disaster?

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Yes 35.6% 16 No 64.4% 29


2. Where have you conducted a rapid damage assessment? Check all that apply.

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

1987 Edmonton/Sherwood Park tornado 13.3% 2 2000 Pine Lake tornado 0.0% 0 2011 Slave Lake fire 20.0% 3 2013 Calgary flood 20.0% 3 2013 High River flood 66.7% 10 Other (please specify) 0



3. Please describe the system(s) you have used to classify the damage to structures


Response Count

A colour coding system (eg. damage categories of red/yellow/green)

45.5% 5

A numbered or scale system (eg. damage scale of 1 to 10) 36.4% 4 A word system (eg. no damage, damaged, destroyed) 45.5% 5 Other (please specify) 3


Other: 1. USAR - Box markings and ABCD. Also used colours for bio/health hazard. Aug 7, 2013 5:33 PM 2. A:entrance by homeowner permitted,B:TRT member enters with resident, C:Only TRT permitted, D: No one enters; also used color system in conjunction with Building inspectors & Engineers Aug 3, 2013 12:19 AM 3. A, B, C, D – D being the worst… Jul 24, 2013 2:05 PM

4. How would you describe the previous system in terms of ease of use?


Response Count

Easy to understand and use 50.0% 7 Required some understanding or training before it could be used 42.9% 6 Complicated and difficult to use 7.1% 1



5. Please describe how the data collected was returned to the EOC or Incident Command



skipped question 33 Answers: 1. It was transcribed on a map and handed in. Aug 9, 2013 1:38 PM 2. combination of verbal and electronically transmitted reports Aug 9, 2013 12:44 PM 3. Data was painted on homes then numbers and extent if damage passed along to IC via Team lead. Problem areas identified this way. Aug 7, 2013 5:33 PM 4. visual inspection, then emailed to EOC Aug 7, 2013 4:41 PM 5. We graded homes on their severity and their tenability for residents to be able to return to them. We conducted inspections with a building engineer to evaluate structural stability. We relayed this infomation back to the EOC/IC via telephone reports, face to face meetings/updates, and Operational debriefs. Aug 7, 2013 9:02 AM 6. Via radio and post recon report Aug 7, 2013 8:48 AM 7. Data collected was returned to the building safety codes officer at the community centre in the area we were affected. If the building had no structural damage/water damage only we would access the electrical system in the house. Dependant on the water level in the home we would shut off of the breakers in the house if it did not compromise the electrical panel. If the electrical panel was compromised we would sock off the meter. In the event there was structural damage to the home we would have the owner sign off making them aware that the home should not be entered until a building SCO or engineer completed an assessment. Jul 26, 2013 7:33 AM 8. Daily briefing. Jul 25, 2013 7:46 PM 9. Daily summaries Jul 24, 2013 5:25 PM 10. radio and cell phone Jul 24, 2013 2:31 PM 11. Calgary: a standard written template was built allowing the end user to fill in the address, name of owner/property mgr/occupant, the level of water/and or damage/impact, standing water in structure, and an area for a brief written narrative. If no one was available, a short note was taped to the front entrance, with a contact number and information. These were combined with neighborhood maps and strike teams were given certain areas to work in based on population density and flood impact. Jul 24, 2013 2:09 PM 12. Written notes on a map that were personally handed in to Ops Chief, who then forwarded it (I think) to GIS Jul 24, 2013 2:05 PM


6. Have you ever received formal training in conducting rapid damage assessments?


Response Count

Yes 20.9% 9 No 79.1% 34


7. Where did you receive your formal training in rapid damage assessment?


Response Count

Strathcona County Emergency Service 20.0% 2 Canada Task Force 2 20.0% 2 An emergency services school (such as Fire ETC, ESA, JIBC, NFA, TEEX, etc.)

60.0% 6

A formal online training program 0.0% 0 Other (please specify) 2


Other: 1. ESRD provided training Jul 25, 2013 10:22 AM 2. also with CANTF2 Jul 24, 2013 2:10 PM

8. Have you ever completed any informal training in conducting rapid damage assessments?


Response Count

Yes 37.2% 16 No 62.8% 27



9. What type of informal training have you received in conducting rapid damage assessments? Check all that apply.


Response Count

I have read one or more magazine articles 56.3% 9 I have watched one or more online or recorded videos 31.3% 5 I have read a book 31.3% 5 I have seen a formal SOP from another department 12.5% 2 I have seen training materials from another department 75.0% 12 Other (please specify) 6


Other: 1. I was given a brief overview on what to look for by a structural engineer. Aug 9, 2013 1:40 PM 2. On site training during the Calgary floods Jul 26, 2013 7:34 AM 3. One day course with SRD. Jul 24, 2013 3:35 PM 4. MAT center in Calgary Jul 24, 2013 3:18 PM 5. We utilized an insurance industry table that gauged square footage of damage, extent of damage from clean-up to total burnout, and then a per square footage dollar figure based on the damage extent. This was for individual or multi structure fires and not for estimating damage after a disaster. Jul 24, 2013 2:32 PM 6. TF2 and structural collapse courses Jul 24, 2013 2:07 PM

10. If a widespread natural or man-made disaster occurred in Strathcona County today, how prepared do you feel to conduct an effective rapid damage assessment?


Response Count

Fully prepared and capable of performing a complete damage assessment

7.1% 3

Partly prepared and capable of performing some form of damage assessment

50.0% 21

Minimally prepared and would have difficulty performing much of a damage assessment

26.2% 11

Not prepared at all. I would not know where to start. 16.7% 7 answered question 42

skipped question 3


11. If a widespread natural or man-made disaster occurred in Strathcona County today, who do you feel would be the best group to perform rapid damage assessments?


Response Count

SCES fire crews 57.1% 24 SCES Fire Prevention & Inspection staff 11.9% 5 RCMP members and Strathcona County peace officers 2.4% 1 Strathcona County safety codes officers (not SCES) and building inspectors

23.8% 10

Other Strathcona County staff such as Transportation And Agriculture Services (TAS) or Utilities

2.4% 1

Residents and business owners should complete self-assessments

2.4% 1

Other (please specify) 13 answered question 42

skipped question 3 Other: 1. SCES Admininstrators Aug 15, 2013 7:53 PM 2. All depends on extent of damage and safety concerns. Aug 9, 2013 1:42 PM 3. SCES fire crews or special teams with disaster trained engineer if quickly deployable. Aug 7, 2013 7:04 PM 4. Fire crews with trained members on each crew Aug 7, 2013 8:50 AM 5. SCES TRT Team, most trained and now most experienced Aug 3, 2013 12:22 AM 6. Joint task force of above. Jul 30, 2013 10:13 PM 7. Canada Task Force 2 Jul 27, 2013 3:08 PM 8. I would have a joint inspection team of safety codes officers - building, electrical, gas and fire work together. We did this in Calgary and it seemed to work well. All disciplines focused on their portion of the code Jul 26, 2013 7:36 AM 9. Mixture of crews and Officers, Officers with formal for triaging formally. Crews informal to assist Officers. Jul 25, 2013 7:41 AM 10. outside agency with training in rapid damage assessments - don't think SCES is equiped for this task Jul 24, 2013 9:03 PM 11. Insurance industry representatives Jul 24, 2013 2:46 PM 12. Us first due to our numbers, followed by other SCO and building inspectors Jul 24, 2013 2:16 PM 13. strike teams made up of 1 TRT member and 1 member off the floor for accountability purposes, with a Structures Specialist/structural engineer and utilities inspectors available for further consultation. SCO's and building inspectors are not part of the rapid structural evaluation process, they are for the recovery phase of the operation. Jul 24, 2013 2:13 PM


12. Please focus now on just the urban services area of Sherwood Park. How long do you think it should take before the Emergency Operations Centre has an approximate picture of how many structures are damaged or destroyed following a widespread natural or man-made disaster affecting Sherwood Park?


Response Count

Less than 1 hour 0.0% 0 1 to 3 hours 23.8% 10 3 to 6 hours 21.4% 9 6 to 12 hours 19.0% 8 12 to 24 hours 19.0% 8 24 to 48 hours 11.9% 5 2 to 3 days 0.0% 0 More than 3 days 4.8% 2


13. How long do you think it would actually take before the Emergency Operations Centre has an approximate picture of how many structures are damaged or destroyed following a widespread natural or man-made disaster affecting Sherwood Park?


Response Count




14. Please focus now on just the rural areas of Strathcona County. How long do you think it should take before the Emergency Operations Centre has an approximate picture of how many structures are damaged or destroyed following a widespread natural or man-made disaster affecting rural Strathcona County?


Response Count



15. How long do you think it would actually take before the Emergency Operations Centre has an approximate picture of how many structures are damaged or destroyed following a widespread natural or man-made disaster affecting rural Strathcona County?


Response Count




16. For rapid damage assessments in general, what do you think would be the most effective and efficient way for Strathcona County crews to conduct a rapid damage assessment?


Response Count

Walking house to house, filling out a form for each house 21.4% 9

Driving slowly down each street, filling out forms for each house 9.5% 4

Driving moderately down each street, counting houses in several categories (such as destroyed/damaged/undamaged)

57.1% 24

Driving quickly down each street, getting a general impression of how many houses are destroyed/damaged/undamaged

9.5% 4

Driving rapidly down the main streets, getting a general impression of the damage to an entire neighbourhood

2.4% 1


17. What method of categorizing damage to residences or buildings do you think would be the most effective?


Response Count

A scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being no damage and 5 being completely destroyed

22.0% 9

A word scale, such as no damage / minor / moderate / major / destroyed

46.3% 19

A colour scale, such as green / yellow / orange / red / black 19.5% 8 A simple choice of damaged or undamaged 12.2% 5 Each crew or team conducting assessments should make up their own method

0.0% 0


skipped question 4 Other: 1. I like colour scale with universal USAR symbols Aug 7, 2013 7:13 PM 2. range of assessment from (un)habitable to do not enter Aug 7, 2013 12:33 PM 3. for rapid keep it simple, for the follow-up colour or word scale with good Definitions Jul 24, 2013 2:22 PM 4. change the wording to just 3 categories: undamaged, damaged, destroyed Jul 24, 2013 2:16 PM


18. Please prioritize the following in order of importance for assessment.

Answer Options Low priority Medium priority High priority Response

Count

Civilian injuries 2 1 39 42

Damage to residential structures (single and multi-family)

15 22 5 42

Damage to critical facilities (hospital, County Hall, seniors lodges)

0 8 34 42

Damage to hazardous facilities (refineries, chemical storage tanks)

0 9 33 42

Damage to infrastructure (roads, bridges) 3 21 18 42 answered question 42

skipped question 3

19. What method should be used to assign rapid damage assessments?


Response Count

Each crew or team should self-assign areas to be assessed 0.0% 0 Each crew or team should have a pre-determined area for assessment

38.1% 16

Each crew or team should have a pre-determined driving route for assessment

11.9% 5

Each crew or team should have a priority list of structures or target hazards for assessment

19.0% 8

Each crew or team should be individually assigned an area by the Incident Commander or EOC at the time

31.0% 13



20. What do you think would be the most effective way to communicate rapid damage assessment information from the field to the Incident Commander or Emergency Operations Centre?


Response Count

Verbal reports delivered to the EOC by radio or telephone as each damaged area is located

9.5% 4

Verbal reports delivered to the EOC by radio or by telephone on a street by street basis

4.8% 2

Verbal reports delivered to the EOC by radio or by telephone on a neighbourhood by neighbourhood basis

0.0% 0

Verbal reports delivered to the EOC in person or by telephone once the assigned area or route is completed

19.0% 8

Reports completed and emailed to the EOC as each damaged area is located

4.8% 2

Reports completed and emailed to the EOC on a street by street basis

0.0% 0

Reports completed and emailed to the EOC on a neighbourhood by neighbourhood basis

2.4% 1

Reports completed and emailed to the EOC once the assigned area or route is completed

9.5% 4

An online reporting system completed as each damaged area is located

11.9% 5

An online reporting system completed on a street by street basis 11.9% 5

An online reporting system completed on a neighbourhood by neighbourhood basis

4.8% 2

An online reporting system completed once the assigned area or route is completed

11.9% 5

Paper reports or forms handed in to the EOC as required 9.5% 4 Other (please specify) 5


Other: 1. Mobile devices updating a data base in real time. Aug 15, 2013 11:14 PM 2. Emailed report as well as face to face at early sit rep with team leads Aug 7, 2013 7:28 PM 3. Will depend on how widespread. Street by street assessment report if only a few hundred homes affected. Neighborhood by neighborhood if thousands of homes are affected Jul 24, 2013 3:24 PM 4. An online/email system that could go directly to Planning/GIS as well as the EOC to expedite current mapping intel sounds ideal. Jul 24, 2013 2:33 PM 5. low tech...assume that you don't have infrastructure/cell coverage, wireless,etc....heavily entrapped victims need to be located and the degree of entrapment and resource allocation has to be determined by operations Jul 24, 2013 2:20 PM


21. What do you think may interfere with the ability of a crew or team to complete rapid damage assessments? Check all that apply.


Response Count

Widespread power outages 64.3% 27 Damage and debris on roadways 92.9% 39 Radio failure or cell phone outages 76.2% 32 Significant snow or water on roadways 83.3% 35 Public interference (residents distracting or stopping crews to report damage or injuries)

83.3% 35

Overwhelming workload or the amount of damage 76.2% 32 Other (please specify) 4


Other: 1. All interfere and need to be addressed. Hence the reason for prolonged but realistic initial assessment. Aug 7, 2013 7:31 PM 2 Experienced all in Calgary Jul 24, 2013 5:54 PM 3 time of day,current weather, objectives that are not clear, free-lancing Jul 24, 2013 2:35 PM 4 This is why Spec Ops is set up in the way that it is...a couple of saws, lifting/moving equipment, winch/4WD. Light recce capability. Jul 24, 2013 2:21 PM 22. Rapid damage assessments are essentially a triage system for buildings and structures. It is possible that large numbers of residents could be injured or even killed. Do you think you will be able to drive past injured residents and damaged structures without stopping in order to complete the rapid damage assessment?


Response Count

Yes 28.6% 12 No 71.4% 30


23. Let's talk about training. Do you think there should be formal training for Strathcona County Emergency Services and other county departments in conducting rapid damage assessments?


Response Count

Yes 92.9% 39 No 7.1% 3



24. Who should receive training in conducting rapid damage assessments? Check all that apply.


Response Count

SCES fire officers 78.0% 32 SCES fire fighters 61.0% 25 SCES Fire Prevention & Inspection staff 58.5% 24 RCMP members and Strathcona County peace officers 43.9% 18 Strathcona County safety codes officers (not SCES) and building inspectors

61.0% 25

Other Strathcona County staff such as Transportation And Agriculture Services (TAS) or Utilities

36.6% 15

Residents and business owners 2.4% 1 No one. 0.0% 0



25. What kind of training would you like to see regarding rapid damage assessments? Check all that apply.


Response Count

None 2.4% 1 A quick briefing prior to conducting a rapid damage assessment is all I need

7.3% 3

A written Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that I can reference 41.5% 17

A short online learning session 34.1% 14 A short classroom learning session 17.1% 7

A comprehensive training program that includes a training manual, an SOP, online videos and practice sessions, and a Quick Reference Guide

63.4% 26


skipped question 4 Other: 1. A comprehensive training program that includes a training manual, an SOP, classroom training and practice sessions, and a Quick Reference Guide Aug 15, 2013 11:17 PM 2. Depending on the audience it may have to include some extra structural info and ICS training. It could be streamlined for officers, special teams, building engineers, etc. however, valuable to all EMS responders it some level, even if a more basic one. Aug 7, 2013 7:40 PM 3. comprehensive training for "leaders" only (some of "doers") can do the "shorter" sessions Aug 7, 2013 12:36 PM 4. if we are going to do this..then do it right Jul 24, 2013 9:10 PM 5. Officers should have more comprehensive training, but need everyone introduced on how to perform an assessment - based on what I saw in Calgary/High River, the more trained, the better (but have to realize budget/time restrictions Jul 24, 2013 5:59 PM 6. Everyone at every level to conduct some sort of training no matter how brief. They will then get an idea as to the importance of what we are trying to accomplish as a department. The officers should be following a more comprehensive training program. Vids of villages getting vaporized by runaway trains, large planes crashing into Glen Allen, '87 tornado wiping out a swath of the city, "Brunsfield" type explosion wiping out Woodbridge...... You get the idea Jul 24, 2013 3:30 PM 7. A pre-built form that can be handed out and a grasp of basic English. Jul 24, 2013 2:23 PM

26. Please let me know your position within Strathcona County


Response Count

I am an SCES fire suppression company officer 54.8% 23 I am an SCES fire fighter 16.7% 7 I am an SCES Fire Prevention and Inspection officer 2.4% 1 I am another SCES employee (Chief Officer, OHST officer, admin staff)

21.4% 9

I am a Strathcona County safety codes officer (not SCES) or building inspector

4.8% 2



27. Thank you for completing this survey. I appreciate your time. Please feel free to add any other comments you may have or contact me with any questions. Iain Bushell Deputy Fire Chief - Operations



skipped question 39 Comments: 1. Our specialty teams (Trt) have specialized training that would augment this process dramatically, focus should be with them initially. They could assist in department wide process. Aug 3, 2013 12:30 AM 2. I believe during a large scale disaster operations staff members will be busy dealing with the emergency (pumping water, putting out fires, medical aid for patients). Support divisions (FPI, OHST) would be better suited to manage the damage assessments. Having other county resources available (TAS, PDS, Utillities) would enhance the ability to mitigate the incident in a more timely fashion. Jul 26, 2013 7:47 AM 3. It would useful to have a Canadian standard that could be followed. Jul 24, 2013 5:30 PM 4. If presented with the situation today, I would develop a team that consisted members from one of the specialty teams and a member of building codes. They have knowledge, background and now (High River) experience. Jul 24, 2013 3:48 PM 5. (name deleted). TF2 members have some exposure to rapid building assessments following INSARAG. HAZ MAT, DEAD, ALIVE, RATS, STABLE/ UNSTABLE etc building markings. If you have any Q's regarding process, give me a call. Jul 24, 2013 3:33 PM 6. Technical Rescue Team members should be given priority with this, training goal for 2015 is Collapse Tech for the team. Need to send Colin for the Structures Specialist course, possibly look into bringing (our CANTF2 Structures Spec that lives in Edmonton) into a closer involvement with the dept. Jul 24, 2013 2:26 PM


Appendix E

Draft SCES Standard Operating Procedure

Strathcona County Emergency Services

Level SOP# Title YELLOW 285

RAPID DAMAGE ASSESSMENT (POST

DISASTER) Date created Review date 2013 09 11 YYYY MM DD

Approved by Darrell Reid, Fire Chief Signature

Date Reference Strathcona County Municipal Emergency Plan Replaces N/A Purpose

• To provide policy direction and guidelines for the actions of SCES staff and apparatus in the period immediately following a widespread natural or human induced disaster.

Scope

• This SOP applies to all members of SCES who may be involved in damage assessment following a disaster.

Policy

1. During a disaster, there is an expectation that all personnel on duty shall remain on duty until released by the Fire Chief. On duty personnel shall be given an opportunity to contact and assess the safety of their family as soon as practical.

2. During a disaster, there is an expectation that all personnel off duty shall assess the

safety of their family and then report for emergency duty as soon as practical.

3. If there is advance warning of a disaster (such as an approaching tornado), all personnel

should immediately seek shelter.

Immediate Station Actions 4. Following a disaster, Station officers will quickly:

a. assess the status of all on duty personnel, apparatus and the station itself, b. go outside( if safe to do so) and visually assess the neighbourhood immediately

surrounding the station, and c. attempt to contact the Emergency Communications Centre (ECC) by radio, cell

phone, land line or any other means possible to report on the above.


Rapid Damage Assessment

5. As soon as it is safe to do so, crews shall conduct a Rapid Damage Assessment (RDA) of their assigned areas using the pre-designated routes when assigned or by using their best judgement to complete the assigned area.

6. Whenever possible, heavy equipment from TAS will be requested to accompany units to

provide immediate debris removal and emergency access. 7. At no point should SCES units/apparatus be staffed with less than two personnel. No-

one should work alone during a disaster.

8. It is important that as much of the RDA be completed as possible so that the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) can begin prioritizing responses. Crews shall keep in mind that the entire community needs to be triaged prior to becoming involved in response and rescue activities.

9. Crews shall focus on gaining a broad perspective of the scope and scale of damage to

neighbourhoods, critical facilities and major infrastructure.

10. Crews shall use the Quick Reference Guide and RDA reporting form to collect information.

11. The intent is to complete the RDA within one hour or less of the disaster event.

12. As soon as the RDA is complete, officers shall report the results to the ECC or EOC as

directed.

13. If communications cannot be established with the ECC, EOC or Command, crews shall begin to prioritize their activities based on their RDA results.

14. If it becomes apparent that a station’s response district has not been affected by the

disaster, officers shall report this as soon as possible and request re-assignment.