Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 Producing Emergency Plans A Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning for State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal Governments INTERIM Version 1.0 1 August 2008 (Intentionally Blank) CONTENTS PREFACE................................................................................................................................ P-1 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... P-3 1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW .............................................................................. 1-1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1-1 Purpose......................................................................................................................... 1-1 Applicability and Scope................................................................................................ 1-2 Supersession.................................................................................................................. 1-3 Authorities.................................................................................................................... 1-3 How to Use This Guide................................................................................................. 1-3 Recommended Training................................................................................................ 1-5 NIMS Compliance and Integration............................................................................... 1-5 Administrative Information .......................................................................................... 1-5 Revision Process ........................................................................................................... 1-5 2. THE PLANNING PROCESS............................................................................................. 2-1 Overview............................................................................................................................ 2-1 Planning Principles ............................................................................................................. 2-2 Characteristics of Effective Planning Processes................................................................. 2-5 Steps in the Planning Process ............................................................................................. 2-5 Form a Collaborative Planning Team................................................................................. 2-6 Understand the Situation..................................................................................................... 2-14 Conduct Research ......................................................................................................... 2-14 Analyze the Information ............................................................................................... 2-17 Determine Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................ 2-19 Plan Development............................................................................................................... 2-20 Develop and Analyze Courses of Action, Identify Resources...................................... 2-20 Plan Preparation, Review, Approval................................................................................... 2-23 Write the Plan ............................................................................................................... 2-23 Approve and Implement the Plan ................................................................................. 2-24 Plan Refinement and Execution.......................................................................................... 2-25 Exercise the Plan and Evaluate Its Effectiveness ......................................................... 2-25 Review, Revise, and Maintain the Plan ........................................................................ 2-28 3. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN FORMATS .......................................................... 3-1 Emergency Plans and Procedures ....................................................................................... 3-1 State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal EOPs .................................................................... 3-2 Structuring an EOP ............................................................................................................. 3-4 Traditional Functional Format ...................................................................................... 3-5 Emergency Support Function (ESF) Format ................................................................ 3-7 August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 Agency/Department-Focused Format........................................................................... 3-9 Using EOP Templates......................................................................................................... 3-11 4. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN CONTENT........................................................... 4-1 The Basic Plan .................................................................................................................... 4-1 Introductory Material.................................................................................................... 4-1 Purpose, Scope, Situation, and Assumptions................................................................ 4-2 Concept of Operations .................................................................................................. 4-3 Organization and Assignment of Responsibilities........................................................ 4-4 Direction, Control, and Coordination ........................................................................... 4-4 Disaster Intelligence (Information Collection) ............................................................. 4-4 Communications ........................................................................................................... 4-5 Administration, Finance, and Logistics ........................................................................ 4-5 Plan Development and Maintenance ............................................................................ 4-5 Authorities and References........................................................................................... 4-6 Supporting Annexes............................................................................................................ 4-6 Functional, Support, Emergency Phase, or Agency-Focused Annex Content ............. 4-7 Hazard- or Incident-Specific Annexes or Appendices.................................................. 4-9 Annex and/or Appendix Implementing Instructions..................................................... 4-11 Special Preparedness Programs .................................................................................... 4-12 5. ADDITIONAL TYPES OF PLANS................................................................................... 5-1 General Types of Plans ....................................................................................................... 5-1 Procedural Documents.................................................................................................. 5-2 Determining Whether Response Information Belongs in a Plan or Procedural Document ............................................................................................... 5-4 6. LINKING FEDERAL, STATE, TERRITORIAL, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL PLANS ................................................................................................................ 6-1 Recent Changes to Emergency Planning Requirements..................................................... 6-1 National Incident Management System........................................................................ 6-3 National Response Framework..................................................................................... 6-5 Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC).............................................. 6-6 Relationship between Federal Plans and State EOPs ......................................................... 6-7 The National Response Framework (NRF) .................................................................. 6-7 FEMA Regional Response Plans (RRPs) ..................................................................... 6-8 State Emergency Operations Plan................................................................................. 6-9 APPENDIX A: AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES .......................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY AND LIST OF ACRONYMS................................................... B-1 APPENDIX C: EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN (EOP) COMPONENT NIMS INTEGRATION ASSESSMENT................................................................... C-1 APPENDIX D: EOP DEVELOPMENT GUIDE..................................................................... D-1 Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 APPENDIX E: SAMPLE HAZARD PROFILE WORKSHEET ............................................ E-1 APPENDIX F: SAMPLE ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX........................ F-1 APPENDIX G: SAMPLE DEPARTMENT-TO-ESF CROSS-REFERENCE MATRIX ....... G-1 APPENDIX H: SAMPLE INFORMATION COLLECTION MATRIX................................. H-1 FIGURES 2.1 Comparison of Published Planning Processes .................................................................. 2-1 3.1 Traditional Functional EOP Format.................................................................................. 3-6 3.2 Emergency Support Function EOP Format....................................................................... 3-8 3.3 Agency/Department-Focused EOP Format....................................................................... 3-10 6.1 Relationships of National Preparedness Initiatives to State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal Emergency Planning........................................................................................ 6-2 TABLES 2.1 Potential Members of a Larger Community Planning Team ............................................ 2-9 2.2 Sample Hazard List ........................................................................................................... 2-18 4.1 Comparison of Potential Functional Annex Structures..................................................... 4-8 August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 (Intentionally Blank) Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 PREFACE This FEMA Comprehensive Preparedness Guide, CPG 101, continues the more than 50-year effort to provide guidance about emergency operations planning to State, Local, Territorial, and Tribal Governments. Some predecessor material can be traced back to the 1960s-era Federal Civil Defense Guide. Long-time emergency management (EM) practitioners also will recognize the influence of Civil Preparedness Guide 1-8, Guide for the Development of State and Local Emergency Operations Plans, and State and Local Guide (SLG) 101, Guide for All-Hazards Emergency Operations Planning, in this document. While CPG 101 maintains its link to the past, it also reflects the changed reality of the current emergency planning environment. Hurricane Hugo and the Loma Prieta earthquake influenced the development of CPG 1-8. Hurricane Andrew and the Midwest floods shaped the contents of SLG 101. In a similar way, CPG 101 reflects the impacts of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and recent major disasters, such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, on the emergency planning community. CPG 101 integrates concepts from the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and National Response Framework (NRF), and it incorporates recommendations from the 2005 Nationwide Plan Review. It also references the Target Capabilities List (TCL) that outlines the fundamental capabilities essential to implementing the National Preparedness Guidelines. As part of a larger planning modernization effort, CPG 101 provides methods for emergency planners to: • Develop sufficiently trained planners to meet and sustain planning requirements; • Identify resource demands and operational options throughout the planning process; • Link planning, preparedness, and resource and asset management processes and data in a virtual environment; • Prioritize plans and planning efforts to best support emergency management and homeland security strategies and allow for their seamless transition to execution; • Provide parallel and concurrent planning at all levels; • Produce and tailor the full range and menu of combined Federal, State/Tribal, and Local Government options according to changing circumstances; and August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 • Quickly produce plans on demand, with revisions as needed. This Guide provides emergency managers and other emergency services personnel with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) best judgment and recommendations on how to address the entire planning process – from forming a planning team, through writing and maintaining the plan, to executing the plan. It also encourages emergency managers to follow a process that addresses all of the hazards that threaten their jurisdiction through a suite of plans connected to a single, integrated emergency operations plan (EOP). Over the past five years, many communities have also been developing multi- hazard mitigation plans, addressing many of the same hazards as their emergency operations plan. In fact, the hazard identification and risk assessment sections of these plans should be the same (although the mitigation plans are only required to address natural hazards communities are encouraged to address man-made and technological hazards as well). Communities are encouraged to coordinate their mitigation and emergency management planning efforts to reduce duplication of effort. This Guide should help State and Local Government emergency management organizations produce EOPs that: • Serve as the basis for effective response to any hazard that threatens the jurisdiction, • Integrate prevention and mitigation activities with traditional response and recovery planning, and • Facilitate coordination with the Federal Government during incidents that require the implementation of the National Response Framework (NRF). Additionally, CPG 101 incorporates concepts that come from disaster research and day-to-day experience: • Effective plans convey the goals and objectives of the response and the intended actions needed to achieve them. • Successful responses occur when organizations know their roles, accept them, and understand how they fit into the overall plan. • The process of planning is more important than the document that results from it. P-2 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 • Plans are not scripts followed to the letter but are flexible and adaptable to the actual situation. This Guide is part of a larger series of emergency planning related CPGs published by FEMA. CPG 101 discusses the steps used to produce an EOP, possible EOP structures, and what goes into the basic plan and its annexes. Follow-on guides will provide detailed information about planning considerations for different response functions and hazards. While CPG 101 is the foundation for public sector emergency planning in the United States, emergency planners in all disciplines and organizations may find portions of this Guide useful in the development of their emergency response plans. FEMA-141, Emergency Management Guide for Business and Industry, provides additional information for developing emergency response plans for private sector organizations. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A working group composed of State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal government emergency managers and emergency management researchers developed CPG 101. The group included representatives from: State and Territorial Governments • Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency • State of Arkansas: Arkansas Department of Emergency Management • State of California: Office of Emergency Services • State of Delaware: Delaware Emergency Management Agency • State of Florida: Office of Public Health Preparedness • State of Illinois: Illinois Emergency Management Agency • State of Maryland: Maryland Emergency Management Agency • State of Michigan: Michigan State Police • State of Minnesota: Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency Management • State of Mississippi: Mississippi Emergency Management Agency • State of New Jersey: Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness; Department of Law and Public Safety • State of New Mexico; New Mexico Office of Emergency Management • State of Nevada: Southern Nevada Health District • State of Ohio: Ohio Emergency Management Agency • State of Oklahoma: Department of Emergency Management; Department of Homeland Security • State of South Carolina: South Carolina Emergency Management Division; South Carolina Law Enforcement Division August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 Local and Tribal Governments • Baltimore County (MD): Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management • Chesterfield County (VA): Office of Emergency Management • City of Grapevine (TX): Grapevine Fire Department • City of Milwaukee (WI): Department of Public Works • City of San Francisco (CA): Office of Emergency Services • Clark County (NV): Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security • Cobb County (GA): Emergency Management Agency • Cullman County (AL) : Emergency Management Agency • Johnson County (KS): Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security • Jones County (MS): Emergency Management Agency • Madison County (AL): Emergency Management Agency • Madison County (OH): Emergency Management Agency • Marion County (AL): Emergency Management Agency • Mobile County (AL): Emergency Management Agency • Overland Park (KS): Overland Park Police Department • Rockingham County (NC): Emergency Services Professional Associations • International Association of Emergency Managers • National Emergency Management Association Industry, Research Organizations, and Universities • Argonne National Laboratory: Center for Integrated Emergency Preparedness • CRA, Incorporated • Innovative Emergency Management, Incorporated • Oklahoma State University: Center for the Study of Disasters and Extreme Events • Towson University: Center for Homeland Security P-4 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION PURPOSE CPG 101 provides general guidelines on developing Emergency Operations Plans (EOPs). It promotes a common understanding of the fundamentals of planning and decision making to help emergency planners examine a hazard and produce integrated, coordinated, and synchronized plans. This Guide helps emergency managers in State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal governments in their efforts to develop and maintain a viable all-hazard EOP. Each jurisdiction’s EOP must reflect what that community will do to protect itself from its unique hazards with the unique resources it has or can obtain. The value of planning rests in its proven ability to influence events before they occur and in its indispensable contribution to unity of effort. Planning is part of the broad framework of incident management and an essential activity of homeland security. The President identified emergency planning as a national security priority, and this prioritization is reflected in the National Preparedness Guidelines (NPG). Planning must be conducted in an atmosphere of trust and mutual understanding. Accomplished properly, planning provides a methodical way to think through the entire “Let our life cycle of a potential crisis, determine required advance capabilities, and help stakeholders learn and practice worrying their roles. It directs how we envision and share a become desired outcome, select effective ways to achieve it, and communicate expected results. Planning is not advanced formulaic or scripted. No planner can anticipate every thinking and scenario or foresee every outcome. Planners measure a planning.” plan’s quality by its effectiveness when used to address unforeseen events, not by the fact that responders Winston executed it as scripted. Planning includes the collection Churchill and analysis of intelligence and information and the development of plans, procedures, mutual aid agreements, and other publications that comply with the relevant laws, policies, and guidance needed to perform response missions and tasks. Comprehensive planning systems involve both deliberative planning and incident action planning. Deliberative planning is the process of developing strategic and August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 operational plans based upon facts or assumptions about the circumstances involved in a hypothetical situation; in other words, they are created in advance of events. In incident action planning, we adapt existing deliberative plans during an incident or when we recognize an event is about to occur. Emergency planners will find that both are critical to developing a robust planning capability within and among all stakeholders (including nongovernmental organizations [NGOs]). Planners achieve unity of purpose through horizontal integration and vertical coordination of emergency plans among all levels and sectors. This supports the foundational principle that response starts at the Local level and adds State, Regional, and Federal assets as the affected jurisdiction needs more resources and capabilities. This means that plans must be coordinated vertically among levels of government to ensure a common operational focus. Similarly, emergency planners at each level must ensure that individual department and agency response plans fit into the jurisdiction’s concept of operations (CONOPS). This horizontal integration ensures that the department or agency understands, accepts, and is prepared to execute response missions identified in the jurisdiction’s EOP. Incorporating both aspects ensures that the sequence and scope of a planned operation (what should happen, when, and at whose direction) is synchronized for all responders in purpose, place, and time. A shared planning system or planning community increases collaboration, shortens planning cycles, and makes plans easier to maintain. Planning is an essential homeland security activity. It requires policies, procedures, and tools that support the decision makers and planners who make up the emergency planning community. The goal of both the Comprehensive Preparedness Guide initiative and the broader scope National Preparedness Guidelines is to create a simple national planning system and develop a national planning community that can cope with change. APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE The U.S. Department of Homeland Security recommends that teams responsible for developing EOPs within State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal governments and in the private sector use CPG 101 to guide their efforts. It provides a context for EOPs in light of other existing plans and describes a process to use in any planning effort. The Guide recognizes that many jurisdictions across the country have already developed EOPs. Therefore, it establishes no immediate requirements but suggests that the next iteration of all EOPs generally follow this guidance. 1-2 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 SUPERSESSION CPG 101 is new. It replaces SLG 101, which is rescinded. AUTHORITIES Through the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121, et seq., Congress recognizes emergency management as a joint responsibility of Federal, State, and Local governments. For the Federal government, Congress defines a role that includes providing "necessary direction, coordination, and guidance" (Sec. 601, 42 U.S.C. 5195) for the nation's emergency management system, to include "technical assistance to the states in developing comprehensive plans and programs for preparation against disasters" (Sec. 201(b), 42 U.S.C. 5131(b)). The Stafford Act also provides the legal basis for FEMA's mitigation plan requirements for State, local, and Indian Tribal governments (44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 201) as a condition of receiving funding for mitigation grants. This Act provides an opportunity for states and local governments to take a new and revitalized approach to mitigation planning and emphasizes the need for state, Tribal, and local entities to closely coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. The requirement for a State mitigation plan is continued as a condition of disaster assistance, adding incentives for increased coordination and integration of mitigation activities at the State level. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 established new leadership positions and position requirements within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), brought new missions into FEMA, restored some that had previously been removed, and enhanced the agency’s authority by directing the FEMA Administrator to undertake a broad range of activities before and after disasters occur. The Post-Katrina Act contains provisions that set out new law, amend the Homeland Security Act, and modify the Stafford Act. Additionally, the regulations governing emergency management and assistance are promulgated in Chapter 1, Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations and provide procedural, eligibility, and funding requirements for program operations. State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal governments should use this Guide to supplement laws, policies, and regulations from their jurisdictions. HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE CPG 101 is designed to help both novice and experienced planners navigate the planning process. Chapter 1, in addition to addressing the applicability, authority, purpose, and scope of CPG 101, suggests minimum training needs for August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 emergency planners. It also CPG 101 Content Summary discusses NIMS compliance and informs users about how 1. Introduction to recommend changes for 2. The Planning Process future versions. Chapter 2 3. EOP Formats outlines planning principles 4. EOP Content and the steps of the planning 5. Additional Types of Plans process. It discusses how to 6. Linking Federal, State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal produce EOPs as a team, Plans the importance of research 7. Appendices and hazard analysis in producing a plan, and how to A. Authorities and References determine the roles and B. Glossary and Acronyms responsibilities of C. NIMS Integration Assessment participating organizations. D. EOP Development Guide Chapter 3 provides some E. Hazard Profile Worksheet practice-based options for F. Organization Responsibility Matrix structuring EOPs. Chapter 4 G. Department-to-ESF Cross-Reference Matrix discusses typical content for H. Information Collection Matrix an EOP’s basic plan and annexes. Chapter 5 summarizes other forms of emergency plans and the relationship between those plans and an EOP. Chapter 6 explains how Federal and State emergency plans link to Local plans. The appendices include the following: • A list of source material used in developing the Guide, • A glossary of terms and a list of acronyms used throughout the Guide, • An EOP component assessment derived from National Integration Center (NIC) materials, • Checklists to help guide EOP development, • A sample hazard profile worksheet, • A sample organizational responsibility matrix, • A sample department-to-ESF (emergency support function) cross- reference matrix, and • A sample information collection matrix. 1-4 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 RECOMMENDED TRAINING This guide assumes that users have some experience in emergency management and emergency planning. At a minimum, users should have completed the following Independent Study courses offered by FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute: • IS 1: Emergency Manager – An Orientation to the Position • IS 100: Introduction to the Incident Command System I-100 • IS 200: ICS for Single Resources and Initial Action Incidents • IS 208: State Disaster Management • IS 230: Principles of Emergency Management (This course will be revised to reflect CPG101 as the basis for training.) • IS 235: Emergency Planning • IS 292: Disaster Basics • IS 700: National Incident Management System (NIMS), An Introduction • IS-701 Multiagency Coordination Systems • IS-702 NIMS Public Information Systems • IS-703 NIMS Resource Management • IS-706 NIMS Intrastate Mutual Aid – An Introduction • IS 800b: The National Response Framework, An Introduction NIMS COMPLIANCE AND INTEGRATION In November 2005, the NIC published guides for integrating NIMS concepts into EOPs. This Guide incorporates the concepts and suggestions found in those documents. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION Terms and acronyms in the text emphasized with bold type come from the FEMA Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Terms (FAAT) or the National Incident Management System (NIMS). The glossary lists most terms used in CPG 101 that have FAAT or NIMS definitions. Bold and italic type is used for terms or acronyms first identified in this CPG. REVISION PROCESS FEMA will revise CPG 101 as needed and issue change pages through the publication distribution system and on-line through a variety of sources (e.g., DHSInteractive [https://interactive.dhs.gov/suite/portal/index.jsp] and DHS Lessons Learned Information Sharing [http://www.llis.dhs.gov]). August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 FEMA welcomes recommendations on how to improve this CPG so it better serves the needs of the emergency management community. You can provide recommendations for improving this Guide to: DHS/FEMA National Preparedness Directorate Planning and Assistance Branch 800 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20531 ATTN: CPG Initiative E-mail: donald.lumpkins@dhs.gov 1-6 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 2. THE PLANNING PROCESS OVERVIEW This chapter describes an approach for emergency planning that is consistent with the process described in the National Incident Management System manual. When planners use this process consistently during the preparedness phase, its use during response operations becomes second nature. The goal is to make the planning process routine across all phases of emergency management. The process described in this chapter blends concepts from a variety of sources, including not only the NIMS manual but also previously published FEMA guidance and National Response Team hazardous materials planning guidance. Figure 2.1 shows the relationships among the different processes. This chapter suggests an emergency planning process that planners can apply at all levels of government to tactical, operational, and strategic planning efforts. This process also allows private and nongovernmental organizations to integrate and find synergy with government planning efforts. Although individual planners can use this process, it is most effective when used by a planning team. Figure 2.1 Comparison of Published Planning Processes August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 PLANNING PRINCIPLES The challenge of developing an all-hazards plan for protecting lives, property, and the environment within is made easier if the emergency planners preparing it apply the following principles to the planning process: Planning is an orderly, analytical, problem-solving process. It follows a set of logical steps from plan initiation to analysis of objectives, to development and comparison of ways to achieve the objectives, and to selection of the best solution. Rather than concentrating on every detail of how to achieve the objective, an effective plan structures thinking and supports insight, creativity, and initiative in the face of an uncertain and fluid environment. While using a prescribed planning process cannot guarantee success, inadequate plans and planning are proven contributors to failure. Plans guide preparedness activities. They provide a common framework to guide preparedness by establishing the desired end state and the tasks required to accomplish it. This process identifies the capabilities required. Capabilities provide the means to accomplish a mission and achieve desired outcomes by performing critical tasks, under specified conditions, to target levels of performance. Exercises provide opportunities to demonstrate and evaluate performance, while periodic assessments of plans identify lessons learned and provide the means to share best products and practices. Planning helps deal with complexity. Homeland security problems are most often a complex set of interrelated problems. The National Strategy for Homeland Security attaches special emphasis to planning for catastrophic events with “the greatest risk of mass casualties, massive property loss and immense social disruption.” Planning provides the opportunity for a jurisdiction or regional response structure to work through these very complex situations and their unique set of problems. Planning helps emergency managers understand how their decisions might affect the ability of their jurisdiction and neighboring jurisdictions to achieve response goals. Emergency planning addresses all hazards. The causes of emergencies can vary greatly, but many of the effects do not. This means planners can address emergency functions common to all hazards in the basic plan instead of having unique plans for every type of hazard. For example, floods, wildfires, and hazardous materials releases may lead a jurisdiction to issue an evacuation order. Even though each hazard’s characteristics (e.g., speed of onset, size of the affected area) are different, the general tasks for conducting an evacuation are the same. Differences in the speed of onset may affect when an evacuation order is given, but the process of issuing an evacuation order does not change. All-hazards planning ensures that when we plan for emergency functions, we identify common tasks and who is responsible for accomplishing those tasks. 2-2 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 Emergency planning does not need to start from scratch. Planners should take advantage of others' experience. The State is a valuable resource for the Local jurisdiction. Many States publish their own standards and guidance for emergency planning, conduct workshops and training courses, and assign their planners to work with Local planners. FEMA supports State training efforts through its National Preparedness Directorate by offering resident, locally presented, and independent-study emergency planning courses. FEMA also publishes many documents related to planning for specific functions and hazards. By reviewing existing emergency or contingency plans, planners can: • Identify applicable authorities and statutes, • Gain insight into community risk perceptions, • Identify organizational arrangements used in the past, • Identify mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions, and • Learn how some planning issues were resolved in the past. Planning depicts the anticipated environment for action. This promotes early understanding and agreement on planning assumptions and risks, and it provides the context for interaction. Effective planning identifies clear tasks and purposes, promotes frequent interaction among stakeholders, guides preparedness activities, establishes procedures for implementation, provides measures to synchronize actions, and allocates or reallocates resources. It can also serve, at least in part, as a substitute for experience. Experience helps us know intuitively what to expect and what actions to take. In situations where we lack experience, planning provides the opportunity to anticipate conditions and systematically think through potential problems and workable solutions. Planners should review the existing emergency plans for questionable assumptions, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, omissions, and vagueness. Critiques of recent emergency operations and exercises in the jurisdiction will help planners develop a list of topics to address when updating plans. Planning must involve all partners. Just as a coordinated emergency response depends on teamwork, good emergency planning requires a team effort. The most realistic and complete plans are prepared by a team that includes representatives of the departments, agencies, and private sector and NGOs that will have to execute the plan. This principle is so important that the first step of the planning process is forming a planning team. When the plan considers and incorporates the views of the individuals and organizations assigned tasks in it, the more likely they are to accept and use it. Planning assigns tasks, allocates resources, and establishes accountability. Decision makers must ensure planners have the means to accomplish the mission. They do so by organizing, staffing, equipping, and August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 allocating resources. They ensure planners have clearly established priorities to make the most efficient use of key resources, and they hold planners and plan participants accountable for effective planning and performance. Planning includes senior officials throughout the process to ensure both understanding and buy-in. Potential planning team members have many day- to-day concerns. For a team to come together, potential members must be convinced that emergency planning has a higher priority, and the person to convince them is the jurisdiction's chief executive. They discipline the process to meet requirements of time, planning horizons, simplicity, and level of detail. They ensure plans comply with policy and law, are relevant, and are suitable for implementation. Planning helps decision makers anticipate and think critically, reducing time between decisions and actions. The more involved decision makers are in planning, the better the planning product is. The emergency manager has to enlist the chief executive's support for and involvement in the planning effort. The emergency manager must explain to the chief executive what is at stake in emergency planning by: • Sharing the hazard analysis for the jurisdiction, • Describing what the government body and especially the chief executive will have to do, • Discussing readiness assessments and exercise critiques, and • Reminding the chief executive that planning is an iterative, dynamic process that ultimately facilitates his or her job in an emergency. Planning is influenced by time, uncertainty, risk, and experience. These factors define the starting point where planners apply appropriate concepts and methods to create solutions to particular problems. Since this involves judgment and balancing of competing demands, plans cannot be overly detailed, followed to the letter, or so general that they provide insufficient direction. This is why planning is both science and art, and why plans are evolving frameworks. Those aspects of planning that are quantifiable, measurable, and lend themselves to analysis – such as how long it takes a team to mobilize and travel certain distances – are part of the science of planning. Planners gain knowledge about the science of planning through training and study. Other aspects of planning, such as the choice of particular options or arrangement of a specific sequence of actions, are part of the art of planning. Applying the art of planning requires an understanding of the dynamic relationships between participants and of the conditions and complexity imposed by the situation. Mastering the art of planning comes through exercises and operational experience. 2-4 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 Effective plans not only tell those within the planning community what to do (the task) and why to do it (the purpose). They also inform those outside the jurisdiction about how to cooperate and provide support and what to expect. Plans identify important constraints (what “must be done”) and restraints (what “must not be done”) that affect freedom of action and expectations. Planning is fundamentally a risk management tool. Uncertainty and risk are inherent in response planning and operations. Risk management during planning identifies potential hazards and assesses the probability and severity of each to mission accomplishment. Decision makers determine and communicate acceptable levels of risk. CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE PLANNING PROCESSES Examples of effective planning processes include the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) Joint Operation Planning and Execution System, DHS’s National Planning and Execution System, and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan System. These planning systems and processes share common characteristics. They are: • Constantly occurring; • Attempt to reduce unknowns in the anticipated event, while acknowledging it is impossible to preplan every aspect of a response; • Aim at evoking appropriate actions; • Are based on what is likely to happen and what people are likely to do; • Are based on facts, including knowledge about people’s typical behavior, the threat or hazard itself, and required capabilities; • Focus on general principles while maintaining flexibility; • Are partly a training and education activity; and • Are tested. STEPS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS There are many ways to produce an EOP. The planning process that follows has enough flexibility for each community to adapt it to its unique characteristics and situation. Small communities can follow just the steps that are appropriate to their size, known hazards, and available planning resources. The steps of this process are to: 1. Form a collaborative planning team; 2. Understand the Situation; a) Conduct research August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 b) Analyze the information 3. Determine Goals and Objectives; 4. Plan Development; a) Develop and analyze courses of action b) Identify resources 5. Plan Preparation, Review, Approval; and a) Write the plan b) Approve and implement the plan 6. Plan Refinement and Execution; a) Exercise the plan and evaluate its effectiveness b) Review, revise, and maintain the plan FORM A COLLABORATIVE PLANNING TEAM Experience and lessons learned indicate that emergency planning is best performed by a team. Using a team or group approach helps response organizations define their perception of the disaster/emergency and the role they will play. Case studies and research reinforce this concept by pointing out that the common thread found in successful responses is that the responding organizations have understood and accepted their roles. In addition, members of the planning team should be able to understand and accept the roles of other departments and agencies. One goal of using a planning team is to build and expand relationships that help bring creativity and innovation to planning during emergencies. It helps establish a planning routine, so that processes followed before an emergency are the same as those used during an emergency. 2-6 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 In most jurisdictions, the emergency manager is the senior elected official’s policy advisor for mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery strategies. In this role, emergency managers are often responsible for coordinating and developing the EOP. In practice, this means that the emergency manager usually provides oversight to the planning team. However, other government agencies or departments have statutory authority and responsibility for implementing preparedness and response actions. Two key groups in this regard are law enforcement and public health. Law enforcement often has the lead in addressing prevention issues, in concert with other services. Public health in the modern era continues to address unique hazards that cross the bounds between natural and intentional. Thus, the emergency manager must ensure that emergency planning involves the jurisdiction's entire emergency team. Initially, the team should be small, consisting of planners from the organizations that usually respond to an emergency or disaster. They form the core for all planning efforts. As the emergency plan matures, the core team expands to include other planners. Jurisdictions that use an agency and department response structure might use a core team consisting of planners from: • Emergency management, A Small Community Planning Team A small community (population of 1,500) took the following approach to forming its planning team: Who was involved in the core planning team? Any department or office that was likely to be involved in most if not all responses. Involvement was limited to the 5–7 most central people – Fire Chief, Police Chief, Emergency Manager, Emergency Planner, Head of Public Works. What did they do? -Provided information to create a complete plan draft. -Answered the questions about the community for the draft plan. -Provided additional commentary on roles and responsibilities. -Gave information about the communities’ standard operations. -Clarified command structures. -Provided information about resources, capabilities, threats, and risks. -Gave writers information for integration. Who participated in the larger planning team? Responders and stakeholders who might become involved in a major incident. In this case, the community used a 10–20 member group that included emergency managers from surrounding communities, business leaders, secondary responders, representatives from industry, community leaders, and community contractors. What did they do? -Reviewed the full plan. -Provided insights and recommendations for improvement. -Integrated additional perspectives. -Agreed to provide additional support. August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 • Law enforcement, • Fire services, • Emergency medical services, • Public health, • Hospitals and health care facilities, • Public works, • Social services, • Private sector, and • NGOs (including those that address special needs issues). A jurisdiction might want to base the core planning team’s membership on the EOP structure it uses. For example, locations using an Emergency Support Function (ESF) EOP structure might form a core team composed of planners from the lead agency or department for ESF-4 (Fire), ESF-5 (Emergency Management), ESF-6 (Mass Care), ESF-8 (Public Health and Medical Services), and ESF-13 (Public Safety). No matter how a jurisdiction structures its core planning team, it needs the involvement of executives from the member departments or agencies. Their participation indicates support for the planning function. They are able to speak with authority on policy, provide subject matter expertise, and provide accountability as it relates to their agency or department. FEMA encourages the establishment of state and local Citizen Corps Councils (CCCs) to bring government and nongovernment community leaders together to facilitate continuous integrated community all-hazard emergency planning. Local government-sponsored CCCs can be a valuable resource for including multi- sector representation in developing and updating government EOPs and coordinating and integrating with nongovernmental plans. Table 2.1 identifies potential members of the larger planning community and their areas of expertise upon which the core planning team can draw. The list is not all-inclusive. The emergency manager must constantly bring planners or subject matter experts who have experience and insights that are appropriate for the task into the planning process. 2-8 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 Table 2.1 Potential Members of a Larger Community Planning Team Individuals/Organizations What They Bring to the Planning Team Senior Official (SO, elected or . Support for the emergency planning process appointed) or designee . . . Government intent by identifying planning goals and essential tasks Policy guidance and decision-making capability Authority to commit the jurisdiction’s resources Emergency Manager or designee . . . . Knowledge about all-hazard planning techniques Knowledge about the interaction of the tactical, operational, and strategic response levels Knowledge about the preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation strategies for the jurisdiction Knowledge about existing mitigation, emergency, continuity, and recovery plans Fire Services Chief or designee . . . Knowledge about fire department procedures, on-scene safety requirements, hazardous materials response requirements, and search-and-rescue techniques Knowledge about the jurisdiction’s fire-related risks Specialized personnel and equipment resources Law Enforcement Chief or designee . . Knowledge about police department procedures, on-scene safety requirements, local laws and ordinances, explosive ordnance disposal methods, and specialized response requirements, such as perimeter control and evacuation procedures Specialized personnel and equipment resources Public Works Director or designee . . Knowledge about the jurisdiction’s road and utility infrastructure Specialized personnel and equipment resources August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 Table 2.1 (cont.) Individuals/Organizations What They Bring to the Planning Team Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Director or designee . . . . Knowledge about emergency medical treatment requirements for a variety of situations Knowledge about treatment facility capabilities Specialized personnel and equipment resources Knowledge about how EMS interacts with the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and incident command Healthcare Facility Manager or designee . . . . Knowledge about the jurisdiction’s surge capacity Knowledge about medical treatment requirements for a variety of situations Knowledge about interactions among EMS, hospitals, and health departments Knowledge about historic syndromic surveillance Public Health Officer or designee . . . . . Records of morbidity and mortality Knowledge about the jurisdiction’s surge capacity Understanding of the special medical needs of the community Knowledge about historic infectious disease and syndromic surveillance Knowledge about infectious disease sampling procedures Hazardous Materials Coordinator . . Knowledge about hazardous materials that are produced, stored, or transported in or through the community Knowledge about U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements for producing, storing, and transporting hazardous materials and responding to hazardous materials incidents Mutual Aid Partners . Knowledge about specialized personnel and equipment resources available within their jurisdiction 2-10 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 Table 2.1 (cont.) Individuals/Organizations What They Bring to the Planning Team Transportation Director or designee . . . . Knowledge about the jurisdiction’s road infrastructure Knowledge about the area’s transportation resources Familiarity with the key local transportation providers Specialized personnel resources Agriculture Extension Service . Knowledge about the area’s agricultural sector and associated risks (e.g., fertilizer storage, hay and grain storage, fertilizer and/or excrement runoff) Tax Assessor . Records of all properties in the community and their value Building Inspector . . . Knowledge about the types of construction used in the community Knowledge about land use and land-use restrictions Records of planned development School Superintendent or designee . . . Knowledge about school facilities Knowledge about the hazards that directly affect schools Specialized personnel and equipment resources (e.g., buses) Nongovernment Organizations . Knowledge about specialized resources that can be (includes participants in Volunteer brought to bear in an emergency Organizations Active in Disaster [VOAD]), and other private, not-for. Lists of shelters, feeding centers, and distribution centers profit, faith-based, and community organizations . Knowledge about special-needs populations Citizen Corps Councils . . Knowledge about integrating government and nongovernmental plans Assistance in identifying, developing, and integrating nongovernmental resources to fill gaps identified by planning August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 Table 2.1 (cont.) Individuals/Organizations What They Bring to the Planning Team Local business and industry representatives . . . Knowledge about hazardous materials that are produced, stored, and/or transported in or through the community Facility response plans (to be integrated with the jurisdiction’s EOP) Knowledge about specialized facilities, personnel, and equipment resources that could be used in an emergency Amateur Radio Emergency Service . List of ARES/RACES resources that can be used in an (ARES)/Radio Amateur Civil emergency Emergency Services (RACES) Coordinator Media representatives . Knowledge about community media infrastructure and capabilities Social services agencies representatives . Knowledge about special-needs populations Utility representatives . . Knowledge about utility infrastructures Knowledge about specialized personnel and equipment resources that could be used in an emergency Veterinarians/animal shelter representatives . Knowledge about the special response needs for animals, including livestock Local Federal asset representatives . . . Knowledge about specialized personnel and equipment resources that could be used in an emergency Facility response plans (to be integrated with the jurisdiction’s EOP) Knowledge about potential hazards at Federal facilities (e.g., research laboratories, military installations) 2-12 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 Planners must persuade these leaders and/or their designees to take an active interest in emergency planning. Although scheduling meetings with so many participants may prove difficult, it is critical that everyone participates in the planning process and takes ownership of the plan. This objective can be accomplished by involving leaders and managers from the beginning. Their expertise and knowledge of their organizations’ resources are crucial to developing a plan that considers the entire jurisdiction’s needs and the resources that are available in an emergency. A community benefits from the active participation of all stakeholders. Some tips for gathering the team together include the following: • Plan ahead. The planning team should receive plenty of notice about where and when the planning meeting will be held. If time permits, ask the team One way to overcome members to identify the time(s) and place(s) that will work for the group. scheduling issues is to use planning tools • Provide information about team expectations. Planners should explain that support on-line why participating on the planning team is collaboration. Many important to the participants’ agencies and to the community itself, showing the of the tools available participants how their contributions will lead to a more effective emergency allow for response. In addition, budget and other coordination, version project management concerns should be outlined early in the process. control, and plan • Ask the senior elected or appointed implementation official (SO) or designee to sign the during a crisis. meeting announcement. A directive from the executive office will carry the authority of the SO and sends a clear signal that the participants are expected to attend and that emergency planning is important to the community. • Allow flexibility in scheduling after the first meeting. Not all team members will need to attend all meetings. In some cases, task forces or subcommittees can complete the work. When the planning team chooses to use this option, it should provide project guidance (e.g., timeframes and milestones) but let the subcommittee members determine when it is most convenient to meet. August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 • Consider using external facilitators. Third-party facilitators can perform a vital function by keeping the process focused and mediating disagreements. The key to planning in a group setting is to allow open and frank discussion during the process. A lot of interaction among planners can help elicit a common operational understanding. Individual group members must be encouraged to express objections or doubts. If a planner disagrees with a proposed solution, that planner must also identify what needs to be fixed. UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION CONDUCT RESEARCH This step and Step 2b (Analyze the Information) start the problem solving process. Hazards are the general problems that emergency managers face. Researching and analyzing information about potential hazards a jurisdiction may face brings specificity to the planning process. If hazards are viewed as problems and emergency plans are the solution, then hazard identification and analysis are key steps in the planning process. Gathering information about the jurisdiction's planning framework, potential hazards, resource base, and geographic or topological characteristics that could affect emergency operations is the first step of research. Planners need two types of information: facts and assumptions. • Facts are verifiable pieces of information, such as laws, regulations, floodplain maps, and resource inventories. • Assumptions consist of information accepted by planners as being true in the absence of facts in order to provide a framework or set conditions for variables so that planning can proceed. Assumptions are used as facts only if they are considered valid (likely to be true) and are necessary for solving the problem. Emergency managers change assumptions to facts when they implement a plan. For example, when one plans for dealing with a flood, the location of the water overflow, size of the flood hazard area, and speed of the rise in water may be assumed. When the plan is put into effect, these assumptions are replaced by the facts of the 2-14 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 situation, and the plan is modified accordingly. Use assumptions sparingly – put great effort into doing research and acquiring facts. A variety of information sources are available to planners. The Universal Task List (UTL), Target Capabilities List (TCL), Resource Typing List, National Planning Scenarios (NPS), and other recently published documents can help define response issues, roles, and tasks. Hazard maps are available in compilations of hazard information made by FEMA and State emergency management agencies, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and State geological surveys, and the National Weather Service (NWS) and its local offices. For more localized hazards, maps from the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA), maps of 10- and 50-mile emergency planning zones (EPZs) around nuclear power plants, and any maps of hazardous materials (HAZMAT) sites prepared by Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) may be useful. Jurisdictional geographic information system (GIS) data and raw data collected for disasters (such as global positioning system [GPS] locations and depth of flood at the site) may also be available for use. For historical investigations, Federal and State analyses provide tabulated data about historical occurrences of hazards by jurisdiction. Local organizations (e.g., the local chapter of the American Red Cross [ARC]), utilities, other businesses, and members of the planning team can provide records about their experiences in previous disasters. Avoid limiting the number of sources and encourage long-time community residents to contribute to the process. The sources for “expert opinions” on hazard Gathering Data on the Special-Needs Populations To properly plan for the entire community, governments must have an informed estimate of the number and type of special- needs individuals in the population. Emergency planners should base their assessments on lists and information collected from multiple sources, including these: • U.S. Census data • Social services listings (dialysis centers, Meals on Wheels, etc.) • Para-transit providers • Health departments • Utility providers • Job access services • Congregate settings • Schools • County emergency alert list serves • Medicaid • Hospitals • Day care centers (for children or senior citizens) • Places of worship The key to getting good information is to cultivate good relationships with the service agencies. Data on the special-needs population needs updating at least once a year. potential are similar: Federal, State, and Local agencies; academic, industrial, and public interest group researchers; private consultants specializing in hazard August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 analysis; and professional associations concerned with the hazards on a planner’s list. Sources for information on the community and possible consequences from hazards vary. To determine the potential consequences of certain facility-based hazards, planners might check with the facility or the agency (Local, State, Regional, or Federal) that regulates that kind of facility. For demographic data, Census data are available, as are off-the-shelf computer products that organize such data by zip code. The planning team should also make extensive use of the information about the jurisdiction that both government organizations and NGOs develop for their own purposes. For example, the local planning and zoning commission or department may have extensive demographic, land use, building stock, and similar data. The tax assessor and/or local realtors' association can often provide information on the numbers, types, and values of buildings. Building inspection offices maintain data on the structural integrity of buildings, codes in effect at time of construction, and the hazard effects that a code addresses. Local public works (or civil engineering) departments and utilities are sources for information on potential damage to and restoration time for the critical infrastructures threatened by hazard effects. The Chamber of Commerce may offer a perspective on damage to businesses and general economic loss. Other sources of information mentioned previously – emergency service logs and reports, universities, professional associations, etc. – also apply. It is also important to involve civic leaders, members of the public, and representatives of community-based organizations in the planning process. They may serve as an important resource for validating assumptions about public needs, capabilities, and reactions. Since many planning assumptions and response activities will directly impact the public-at-large, it is critical to involve these representatives during the planning phase and to ensure their inclusion during validation and implementation. Potential roles include support to planning teams, public outreach, and establishing Community Emergency Response Teams (CERTs). Planners can obtain assistance for including the community sectors in the planning process from State or Local CCCs. The second step of research is organizing the information into a format that is usable by the planning team. One effective method for organizing hazard information is to use a matrix based on disaster dimensions used during the hazard analysis process: 1. Probability or frequency of occurrence, 2. Magnitude – the physical force associated with the hazard, 3. Intensity/severity – the impact or damage expected, 4. Time available to warn, 2-16 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 5. Location of the event – a specific or indeterminate site or facility, 6. Potential size of the disaster area, 7. Speed of onset – how fast the hazard can impact the public, and 8. Duration – how long the hazard will be active. Depending on the kinds of decisions and analyses the information is meant to support, planners might use other categories for data organization. For example, the decision that one hazard poses more of a threat than another may require only a qualitative estimate (e.g., high versus medium), whereas planning how to deal with health and medical needs caused by a particular hazard may require estimates of likely fatalities and injuries. ANALYZE THE INFORMATION Hazard analysis is the basis for mitigation and infrastructure protection efforts and EOP development. From an emergency planning perspective, hazard analysis helps a planning team decide what hazards merit special attention, what actions must be planned for, and what resources are likely to be needed. FEMA Publication 386-2, Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Loss, provides a detailed method for conducting hazard and risk assessments for many hazards. Planners can also obtain the Hazards U.S. Multi- Hazard (HAZUS-MH) model from FEMA. HAZUS-MH is a nationally applicable and standardized methodology and software program that estimates potential losses from earthquakes, floods, and hurricane winds. In addition, FEMA has several resources available for the analysis of human- caused events, primarily terrorism. These resources include the National Planning Scenarios, Fusion Center Technical Assistance, and Transit Risk Assessment Module/Maritime Assessment Strategy Toolkit. Hazard analysis requires that the planning team knows the kinds of emergencies that have occurred or could occur in the jurisdiction. The process should begin with a list of the hazards that concern emergency managers in the planners’ jurisdiction, developed from research conducted earlier in the planning process. A list of concerns might include those listed in Table 2.2. August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 Planners must remember to keep in mind that hazard lists pose two problems. The first is the possibility of exclusion or omission. There is always a potential for new and unexpected hazards (part of the reason why maintaining an all-hazards capability is important). The second is that such lists involve groupings, which can affect subsequent analysis. A list may give the impression that hazards are independent of one another, when in fact they are often related (e.g., an earthquake might give rise to dam failure). Lists may group very different causes or sequences of events that require different types of responses under one category. For example, "Flood" might include dam failure, cloudbursts, or heavy rain upstream. Lists also may group a whole range of consequences under the category of a single hazard. "Terrorism," for example, could include use of conventional explosives against people or critical infrastructure; nuclear detonation; or release of lethal chemical, biological, or radiological material. Table 2.2 Sample Hazard List Natural Hazards Technological Hazards Human-Caused Hazards - Avalanche - Drought - Earthquake - Epidemic - Flood - Hurricane - Landslide - Tornado - Tsunami - Volcanic eruption - Wildfire - Winter storm - Airplane crash - Dam failure - HAZMAT release - Power failure - Radiological release - Train derailment - Urban conflagration - Civil disturbance - School violence - Terrorist act - Sabotage The planning team must compare and prioritize risks to determine which hazards merit special attention in planning (and other emergency management efforts). It also must consider the frequency of the hazard and the likelihood or severity potential of its consequences in order to develop a single indicator of the threat. This effort allows for comparisons and the setting of priorities. While a mathematical approach is possible, it may be easier to manipulate qualitative ratings (e.g., high, medium, low) or index numbers (e.g., reducing quantitative information to a 1-to-3, 1-to-5, or 1-to-10 scale based on defined thresholds) for different categories of information used in the ranking scheme. Some approaches involve the consideration of only two categories – frequency and consequences – and treat them as equally important. In other approaches, potential consequences receive more weight than frequency. While it is important to have a sense of the magnitude involved (whether in regard to the single indicator used to rank hazards or to estimate the numbers of people affected), 2-18 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 these indicators are static. Some hazards may pose a threat to the community that is so limited that additional analysis is not necessary. A sample hazard profile worksheet is provided in Appendix E. DETERMINE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES By using information from the hazard profile developed as part of the analysis process, the planning team thinks about how the hazard would evolve in the jurisdiction and what defines a successful response. Starting with a given intensity for the hazard, the team imagines the hazard's development from initial warning (if available) to its impact on the jurisdiction (as identified through analysis) and its generation of specific consequences (e.g., collapsed buildings, loss of critical services or infrastructure, death, injury, or displacement). These scenarios should be realistic and created on the basis of the jurisdiction’s hazard and risk data. Planners may use the event or events that have the greatest impact on the jurisdiction (worst-case), those that are most likely to occur, or an event constructed from the impacts of a variety of hazards. During this process of building a hazard scenario, the planning team identifies the needs and demands that determine response actions and resources. Planners are looking for hazard-, response-, and constraint-generated needs and demands. • Hazard-generated needs and demands are caused by the nature of the hazard. They lead to response functions like public protection, population warning, and search and rescue. • Response-generated needs and demands are caused by actions taken in response to a hazard-generated problem. These tend to be common to all disasters. An example is the potential need for emergency refueling during a large-scale evacuation. Subsets could include the needs to find a site for refueling, identify a fuel supplier, identify a fuel pumping method, control traffic, and collect stalled vehicles. • Constraint-generated demands are caused by things planners must do, are prohibited from doing, or are not able to do. The constraint may be caused by a law, regulation, or management directive or by some physical characteristic (e.g., terrain and road networks that make east-west evacuations impossible). August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 Once the needs and demands are identified, the planning team restates them as operational priorities, goals, and objectives. Written properly, they tell responding organizations what to accomplish and by when. Operational priorities indicate a desired end-state for the response. Goals are broad, general statements that indicate the intended solution to problems identified by planners during the previous step. They are what personnel and equipment resources are supposed to achieve. They help identify when major elements of the response are complete and when the response is successful. Objectives are more specific and identifiable actions carried out during the response. They lead to achieving response goals. They are the things that responders have to accomplish – the things that translate into activities, implementing procedures, or operating procedures by responsible organizations. The following callout box shows the relationships among operational priorities, goals, and objectives. As goals and objectives are set, planners may identity more needs and demands. Relationships among Operational Priorities, Goals, and Objectives Operational priority: Protect the public from hurricane weather and storm surge. Response goal: Complete evacuation before arrival of tropical storm (TS) winds. Intermediate objective: Complete tourist evacuation 72 hours before arrival of TS winds. Intermediate objective: Complete medical evacuations 24 hours before arrival of TS winds. PLAN DEVELOPMENT DEVELOP AND ANALYZE COURSES OF ACTION, IDENTIFY RESOURCES This step is a process of generating and comparing possible solutions for achieving the goals and objectives identified in Step 3. The same scenarios used during problem identification are used to develop potential courses of action. Planners consider the needs and demands, goals, and objectives to develop several response alternatives. The art and science of planning will help determine how many solutions or alternatives to consider; however, at least two options should always be considered. Although developing only one solution may speed the planning process, it will most likely provide an 2-20 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 inappropriate response, leading to more damaging effects on the affected population or environment. The process of developing courses of action is often referred to as either game planning or war gaming. It combines aspects of scenario-based, functional, and capabilities-based planning. At its core, game planning is a form of brainstorming. It depicts how the response unfolds by using a process of building relationships among the hazard action, decision points, and response actions. Game planning helps planners determine what tasks occur immediately at event initiation, tasks that are more mid-event focused, and tasks that affect long- term operations. The planning team should work through this process by using tools that help members visualize response flow, such as a white board, “yellow sticky chart,” or some type of project management or special planning software. Game planning follows these steps: 1. Establish the timeline. Supporting Planning Concepts Scenario-Based Planning: As the name implies, this planning process starts with building a scenario. The impact of the scenario is analyzed to determine appropriate response strategies. Functional Planning: This planning process identifies the common tasks that the community must perform during emergencies. It is the basis for the all- hazards approach to planning described in SLG 101. It identifies lead and supporting agencies for response tasks. Capabilities-Based Planning: A capability is the ability to take a course of action. Capability-based planning answers the question, “Do I have the right mix of TOPPLEF (training, organizations, plans, people, leadership and management, equipment, and facilities) elements to perform required response tasks?” The Target Capabilities List provides a definition; an outcome; and preparedness and performance activities, tasks, and measures for a predetermined set of capabilities. It combines aspects of scenario and functional based planning and uses the planning process described in CPG 101. Planners typically use the speed of hazard onset to establish the timeline. The timeline may also change by phases. For example, a hurricane’s speed of onset is typically days, while a major HAZMAT incident’s speed of onset is minutes. The timeline for a hurricane might be in hours and days, particularly during the pre- and post-impact phases. The timeline for the HAZMAT incident would most likely be in minutes and hours. For a multijurisdictional or layered plan, the timeline for a particular scenario is the same at all participating levels of government. Placement of decision points and response actions on the timeline depicts how soon the different government entities enter the plan. 2. Depict the scenario. Planners use the scenario information developed in Step 4 (Determine Goals and Objectives) and place the hazard information on the timeline. August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 3. Identify and depict decision points. Decision points indicate the place in time, as hazard events unfold, when leaders anticipate making decisions about a course of action. They indicate where and when decisions are required to provide the best chance of achieving an intermediate objective or response goal (the desired end state). They also help planners determine how much time is available or needed to complete a sequence of actions. 4. Identify and depict response actions. For each response action depicted, some basic information is needed. Developing this information during game planning helps planners incorporate the task into the plan when they are writing it. A response action is correctly identified when planners can answer the following questions about it: • What is the action? • Who does it? • When do they do it? • How long does it take/how much time is actually available to do it? • What has to happen before it? • What happens after it? • What resources does it need? STOP! NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO TAKE THE WORK TO DATE AND REVIEW IT WITH YOUR SENIOR OFFICIALS – IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE PLANNING FOR AND WHY 5. Identify resources. Initially, the planning team identifies resources needed to accomplish response tasks in an unlimited manner. The object is to identify the resources needed to make the response work. Once the planning team identifies all the needs and demands, they begin matching available resources to requirements. By tracking obligations and assignments, the planning team determines resource shortfalls and develops a list of needs that private suppliers or other jurisdictions might fill. The resource base also should include a list of facilities vital to emergency operations, and the list should indicate how individual hazards 2-22 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 might affect the facilities. Whenever possible, resources should be matched with other geographical/regional needs so that multiple demands for the same or similar resources can be identified and conflicts resolved. The EOP should account for unsolvable resource shortfalls so they are not just “assumed away.” 6. Identify information needs. Another outcome from the game planning effort is a “list” of the information needs for each of the response participants. Planners need to identify the information they need and the time they need it by to drive decisions and trigger critical actions. 7. Assess progress. When game planning, the process should be periodically “frozen” so the planning team can: • Identify progress made toward the end state, • Identify goals and objectives met and new needs or demands, • Identify “single point failures” (i.e., tasks that, if not completed, would cause the response to fall apart), • Check for omissions or gaps, • Check for inconsistencies in organizational relationships, and • Check for mismatches between the jurisdiction’s plan and plans from other jurisdictions with which they are interacting. PLAN PREPARATION, REVIEW, APPROVAL WRITE THE PLAN This step turns the results of game planning into an emergency plan. The planning team develops a rough draft of the base plan, functional or hazard or annexes, or other parts of the plan as appropriate. The recorded results of the game planning process used in the previous step provide an outline for the rough draft. As the planning team works through successive drafts, they add necessary tables, charts, and other graphics. A final draft is prepared August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 and circulated to organizations that have responsibilities for implementing the plan for their comments. (See Chapter 3 for more information on plan formats.) Following these simple rules for writing plans and procedures will help ensure that readers and users understand their content: • Keep the language simple and clear by writing in plain English. Summarize important information with checklists and visual aids such as maps and flowcharts. • Avoid using jargon. • Use short sentences and the active voice. Qualifiers and vague words only add to confusion. • Provide enough detail to convey an easily understood concept of operations. The less certain a situation, the less detail can be put into the plan. Those parts of a plan that would be most affected by the hazard’s effects should have the least amount of detail. Conversely, those that would be least affected by the hazard effects should have the most amount of detail. The amount of detail a plan should provide depends on the target audience and the amount of certainty about the situation. Similarly, plans written for a jurisdiction or organization with high staff turnover might require more detail. • Format the plan and present its content so that its readers can quickly find solutions and options. Focus on providing mission guidance and not on discussing policy and regulations. Plans should provide guidance for carrying out common tasks as well as enough insight into intent and vision so that responders can handle unexpected events. However, when writing a plan, “stay out of the weeds.” Procedural documents (e.g., standard operating procedures) should provide the fine details. APPROVE AND IMPLEMENT THE PLAN The written plan should be checked for its conformity to applicable regulatory requirements and the standards of Federal or State agencies (as appropriate) and for its usefulness in practice. Planners should consult the next level of government about its emergency plan review 2-24 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 cycle. Reviews of plans allow other agencies with emergency responsibilities to suggest improvements to a plan based on their accumulated experience. States may review local plans; FEMA regional offices may assist States in the review of emergency plans, upon request. Hazard-specific Federal programs (such as the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program [REPP]) require periodic review of certain sections of the all-hazards plan and may require review of associated standard operating procedures (SOPs). Conducting a tabletop exercise involving the key representatives of each tasked organization may serve as a practical and useful means to help validate the plan. Use of the TCL to validate the plan is another method of review. At a minimum, the plan should address all TCL Phase I capabilities. However, the jurisdiction does not have to provide all of the resources needed to meet a capability. For example, many jurisdictions do not have the bomb squads or Urban Search and Rescue teams required to meet certain capabilities. Neighboring jurisdictions can provide those resources (or capability elements) through mutual aid agreements, memorandums of agreement or understanding, regional compacts, or some other formal request process. Once the plan validation is completed, the emergency manager should present the plan to the appropriate elected officials and obtain official promulgation of the plan. The promulgation process should be based in specific statute, law, or ordinance. Obtaining the senior official's approval through a formal promulgation documentation process is vital to gaining the widest acceptance possible for the plan. It is also important to establish the authority required for changes and modifications to the plan. Once approved, the emergency manager should arrange to distribute the plan and maintain a record of the people and organizations that received a copy (or copies) of the plan. “Sunshine” laws may require a copy of the plan be posted on the jurisdiction’s web-site or be placed in some other public accessible location. PLAN REFINEMENT AND EXECUTION EXERCISE THE PLAN AND EVALUATE ITS EFFECTIVENESS Exercising the plan and evaluating its effectiveness involve using training and exercises and evaluating actual events to determine August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 whether the goals, objectives, decisions, actions, and timing outlined in the plan led to a successful response. In this way, homeland security and other emergency preparedness exercise programs (e.g., Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program [HSEEP], REPP, and Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program [CSEPP]) become an integral part of the planning process. Similarly, planners need to be aware of lessons and practices from other communities. The Lessons Learned Information Sharing Web site (http://www.llis.dhs.gov) provides an excellent forum for evaluating concepts identified in a jurisdiction’s plan against the experiences of others. Commonly used criteria can help decision makers determine the effectiveness and efficiency of plans. These measures include adequacy, feasibility, acceptability, completeness, and compliance with guidance or doctrine. Decision makers directly involved in planning can employ these criteria, along with their understanding of plan requirements, not only to determine a plan’s effectiveness and efficiency but also to assess risks and define costs. Some types of analysis, such as a determination of acceptability, are largely intuitive. In this case, decision makers apply their experience, judgment, intuition, situational awareness, and discretion. Other analyses, such as a determination of feasibility, should be rigorous and standardized to minimize subjectivity and preclude oversights. • Adequacy. A plan is adequate if the scope and concept of planned response operations identify and address critical tasks effectively; the plan can accomplish the assigned mission while complying with guidance; and the plan’s assumptions are valid, reasonable, and comply with guidance. • Feasibility. When determining a plan’s feasibility, planners assess whether their organization can accomplish the assigned mission and critical tasks by using available resources within the time contemplated by the plan. They allocate available resources to tasks and track the resources by status (assigned, out of service, etc.). Available resources include internal assets and those available through mutual aid or through existing State, Regional compact, or Federal assistance agreement. • Acceptability. A plan is acceptable if it meets the needs and demands driven by the event, meets decision maker and public cost and time limitations, and is consistent with the law. The plan can be justified in terms of the cost of resources and if its scale is proportional to mission requirements. Planners use both acceptability and feasibility tests to ensure that the mission can be accomplished with available resources, without incurring excessive risk regarding personnel, equipment, materiel, or time. They also verify that risk management procedures have identified, assessed, and applied control measures to mitigate operational risk (risk of achieving operational objectives). 2-26 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 • Completeness. Planners must determine whether the plan: - Incorporates all tasks to be accomplished, - Includes all required capabilities, - Provides a complete picture of the sequence and scope of the planned response operation (i.e., what should happen, when, and at whose direction), - Makes time estimates for achieving objectives, and - Identifies success criteria and a desired end state. • Compliance with Guidance and Doctrine. The plan needs to comply with guidance and doctrine to the maximum extent possible, since they provide a baseline that facilitates both planning and execution. When using these criteria, planners should ask the following questions: • Did an action, a process, a decision, or the response timing identified in the plan make the situation worse or better? • Were new alternate courses of action identified? • What aspects of the action, process, decision, or response timing make it something to keep in the plan? • What aspects of the action, process, decision, or response timing make it something to avoid or remove from the plan? • What specific changes to plans and procedures, personnel, organizational structures, leadership or management processes, facilities, or equipment can improve response performance? A remedial action process can help a planning team identify, illuminate, and correct problems with the jurisdiction’s EOP. This process captures information from exercises, post-disaster critiques, self-assessments, audits, administrative reviews or lessons-learned processes that may indicate that deficiencies exist. It then brings members of the planning team together again to discuss the problem and to consider and assign responsibility for generating remedies. Remedial actions may involve revising planning assumptions and operational concepts, changing organizational tasks, or modifying organizational implementing instructions (i.e., the SOPs). Remedial actions also may involve providing refresher training on performing tasks assigned by the EOP to an organization’s personnel. The final component of a remedial action process is a mechanism for tracking and following up on the assigned actions. As appropriate, significant issues and problems identified through a remedial action process and/or the annual review should provide the information needed to allow the planning team to make the necessary revision(s) to the plan. August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 REVIEW, REVISE, AND MAINTAIN THE PLAN This step closes the loop in the planning process. It is really all about adding the information gained in Step 6a to the research collected in Step 2a and starting the planning cycle over again. Remember, emergency planning is a continuous process that does not stop when the plan is published. Planning teams should establish a process for reviewing and revising the EOP. Reviews should be a recurring activity. Some jurisdictions have found it useful to review and revise portions of the EOP every month. Many accomplish their reviews on an annual basis. In no case should any part of the plan go for more than two years (24 months) without being reviewed and revised. Teams should also consider reviewing and updating the plan after the following events: • A change in response resources (policy, personnel, organizational structures, or leadership or management processes, facilities, or equipment), • A formal update of planning guidance or standards, • A change in elected officials, • Each activation, • Major exercises, • A change in the jurisdiction’s demographics or hazard profile, or • The enactment of new or amended laws or ordinances. The planning process is all about response stakeholders bringing their strengths to the table to develop and reinforce a jurisdiction’s emergency management program. Properly developed, supported, and executed emergency plans are a direct result of an active and evolving program. 2-28 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 3. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN FORMATS EMERGENCY PLANS AND PROCEDURES The centerpiece of comprehensive emergency management is the emergency operations plan (EOP). Each jurisdiction develops an EOP that defines the scope of preparedness and incident management activities necessary for that jurisdiction. A jurisdiction's EOP is a document that: • Assigns responsibility to organizations and individuals for carrying out specific actions at projected times and places during an emergency that exceeds the capability or routine responsibility of any one agency; • Sets forth lines of authority and organizational relationships and shows how all actions will be coordinated; • Describes how people and property are protected in emergencies and disasters; • Identifies personnel, equipment, facilities, supplies, and other resources available – within the jurisdiction or by agreement with other jurisdictions – for use during response and recovery operations; • Reconciles requirements with other jurisdictions; and • Identifies steps to address mitigation concerns during response and recovery activities. As a public document, an EOP also cites its legal basis, states its objectives, and acknowledges assumptions. An EOP is flexible enough for use in all emergencies. A complete EOP describes the: • Purpose of the plan, • Situation, • Assumptions, August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 • Concept of Operations (CONOPS), • Organization and assignment of responsibilities, • Administration and logistics, • Plan development and maintenance, and • Authorities and references. The EOP contains annexes and appendices appropriate to the jurisdiction’s organization and operations. EOPs predesignate jurisdictional and/or functional area representatives to the Incident Command, Unified Command, or multiagency coordination entity whenever possible to facilitate responsive and collaborative incident management. An EOP also defines the scope of preparedness activities necessary to make the EOP more than a mere paper plan. This is because the EOP defines the requirements to effectively manage response. These requirements are used to set training and exercise goals. Training helps emergency personnel become familiar with their responsibilities and acquire the skills necessary to perform assigned tasks. Exercises provide a means to validate plans, checklists, and response procedures and evaluate the skills of personnel. Adjusting an EOP after conducting training or exercises or responding to events also makes it practice-based. The EOP facilitates response and short-term recovery (which set the stage for successful long-term recovery). Response actions are time-sensitive. Some post- disaster recovery issues, such as the rebuilding and placement of temporary housing facilities, also must be addressed quickly. Advance planning makes performing this task easier, especially when a changing environment requires “mid-course corrections.” The EOP helps drive decisions on long-term prevention, recovery, and mitigation efforts or risk-based preparedness measures directed at specific hazards. Jurisdictions (especially those with known severe hazards and vulnerabilities) should consider planning for housing and overall community recovery and to link those plans to the EOP. STATE, TERRITORIAL, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL EOPS In our country's system of emergency management, the Local government must act first to attend to the public’s emergency needs. Depending on the nature and size of the emergency, State, Territorial, regional compact organizations (such as the National Capital Region), and Federal assistance may be provided to the Local or Tribal jurisdiction. The focus of Local and Tribal EOPs is on the emergency measures that are essential for protecting the public. At the minimum, these include warning, emergency public information, evacuation, and shelter. 3-2 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 States, Territories, and regional compact organizations play three roles: They assist Local jurisdictions whose capabilities must be augmented or are overwhelmed by an emergency; they themselves respond first to certain emergencies; and they work with the Federal Government when Federal assistance is necessary. The State/Territorial EOP is the framework within which Local EOPs are created and through which the Federal Government becomes involved. As such, the State/Territorial EOP ensures that all levels of government are able to mobilize as a unified emergency organization to safeguard the wellbeing of their citizens. The State/Territorial EOP should serve to synchronize and integrate Local, Tribal, and Regional plans. Regional compact organization operations plans serve a similar purpose. Emergency management involves several kinds of plans, just as it involves several kinds of actions. While the EOP is considered the centerpiece of a jurisdiction’s emergency management effort, it is not the only plan that addresses that effort. Other types of plans support and supplement the EOP. (See Chapter 5 for a further discussion of these plans.) A planning team's main concern is to include all essential information and instructions in the EOP. Poor organization of that information can limit the EOP's effectiveness. FEMA does not mandate a particular format for EOPs. In the final analysis, an EOP's format is "good" if its users understand it, are comfortable with it, and can extract the information they need. When an EOP cannot pass that test – in training, exercises, actual response, plan review and coordination meetings, and the like -- some change of format may be necessary. In designing a format for an all-hazard EOP and in reviewing the draft, the planning team should consider the following: • Organization. Do the EOP sections and subsections help users find what they need, or must users sift through information that is not relevant? Can single subdivisions be revised without forcing a substantial rewrite of the entire EOP? • Progression. In any one section of the EOP, does each element seem to follow from the previous one, or are some items strikingly out of place? Can the reader grasp the rationale for the sequence and scan for the information he or she needs? • Consistency. Does each section of the EOP use the same logical progression of elements, or must the reader reorient himself or herself in each section? • Adaptability. Does the EOP’s organization make its information easy to use during unanticipated situations? August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 • Compatibility. Does the EOP format promote or hinder coordination with other jurisdictions, including the State and/or Federal Government? Can reformatting the EOP or making a chart of the coordination relationships (i.e., a "crosswalk") solve problems in this area? STRUCTURING AN EOP While the causes of emergencies vary greatly, their potential effects do not. This means that jurisdictions can plan to deal with effects common to several hazards rather than develop separate plans for each hazard. For example, earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes can all force people from their homes. The jurisdiction can develop a plan organized around the task of finding shelter and food for the displaced. If desired, the EOP planners can make minor adjustments to reflect differences in the speed of onset, duration, and intensity of the hazards. The planning team must try to identify all critical common tasks or functions that participating organizations must perform. Then it must assign responsibility for accomplishing each of those functions. Finally, the emergency manager must work with the heads of tasked organizations to ensure that they prepare SOPs detailing how they will carry out critical tasks associated with the emergency management strategy. Because the jurisdiction's goal is a coordinated and integrated response, all EOP styles should flow from a basic plan that outlines the jurisdiction's overall emergency organization and its policies. This section outlines a variety of formats that a jurisdiction could use for an EOP, to include a Functional format, an Emergency Support Function format, and an Agency / Department-Focused format. These format options come from EOPs used by State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal governments across the nation. No matter the source, these formats are, at best, suggestions for new planners on where to start when developing an EOP. Seasoned planners can use these formats to validate the effectiveness of their EOP’s organization. As the planning team begins to develop a new EOP, members must discuss what format is the most effective and easiest to use by their jurisdiction. Population size, the jurisdiction’s style of government, or the results of a vulnerability assessment may help the team decide which format to use. For example, in a sprawling metropolitan county that contains several municipalities, county emergency operations may take on more of a coordination-and-support flavor. Thus, an ESF approach may be optimal for the county EOP. In contrast, a small rural community whose EOC may also be a command post or Area Command location providing a central node for tactical command and control as well as strategic decision making may get more utility out of a functional EOP. In short, "form follows function" in the sense that operational needs should help determine the EOP format a jurisdiction uses. 3-4 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 The planning team may modify any of these formats to make the EOP fit the jurisdiction’s emergency management strategy, policy, resources, and capabilities. Note, however, that some States prescribe an EOP format for their Local governments. TRADITIONAL FUNCTIONAL FORMAT The traditional functional structure is probably the most commonly used EOP format. This is the format found in both FEMA CPG 1-8 and SLG-101, both of which were used by many jurisdictions to draft their EOPs in the 1980s and 1990s. Its format has three major sections: the Basic Plan, Functional Annexes, and Hazard-Specific Appendices (Figure 3.1). The Basic Plan provides an overview of the jurisdiction’s preparedness and response strategies. It describes expected hazards, outlines agency roles and responsibilities, and explains how the jurisdiction keeps the plan current. The Functional Annexes are individual chapters that focus on specific response and recovery missions, such as Communications and Damage Assessment. These annexes describe the actions, roles, and responsibilities that participating organizations have for completing tasks for a function. They discuss how the jurisdiction manages the function before, during, and after the emergency and identify the agencies that implement that function. However, each Functional Annex addresses only general strategies used for any emergency. The Hazard-Specific Appendices describe strategies for managing preparedness and response missions for a specific hazard. Attached to the end of each functional annex, they explain the procedures that are unique to that annex for a hazard type. For example, the Direction and Control Annex may have an appendix that discusses how local law enforcement’s command post will coordinate its functions with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) on-scene operations center during a terrorist response. These appendices may be short or long, depending on the details needed to explain the actions, roles, and responsibilities. Strategies already outlined in a Functional Annex should not be repeated in a Hazard-Specific Appendix. If the planning team notes that it has an appendix in every annex for the same hazard, it could consider combining these appendices into one larger appendix to the base plan. For example, chemical or radiological emergencies often drive similar strategies for each annex. In this case, the planning team may want to merge those strategies into one chemical or radiological appendix to the EOP. The traditional format also uses a specific outline to define the elements of each annex or appendix. When the format is followed, EOP users can find information in the plan easier because the same type of information is in the same location. The traditional EOP format is flexible enough to accommodate all jurisdictional August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 TRADITIONAL FUNCTIONAL EOP FORMAT 1) Basic Plan i) Promulgation Document/Signature Page ii) Approval and Implementation iii) Record of Changes iv) Record of Distribution v) Table of Contents a) Purpose, Scope, Situations, and Assumptions i) Purpose ii) Scope iii) Situation Overview (a) Hazard Analysis Summary (b) Capability Assessment (c) Mitigation Overview iv) Planning Assumptions b) Concept of Operations c) Organization and Assignment of Responsibilities d) Direction, Control, and Coordination e) Disaster Intelligence f) Communications g) Administration, Finance, and Logistics h) Plan Development and Maintenance i) Authorities and References 2) Functional Annexes a) Direction and Control b) Continuity of Government/Operations c) Communications d) Warning e) Emergency Public Information f) Evacuation g) Mass Care h) Health and Medical i) Resource Management 3) Hazard-Specific Appendices (Note: This is not a complete list. Planning teams must define the annexes on the basis of their hazard analysis.) a) Earthquake b) Flood/Dam Failure c) Hazardous Materials d) Hurricane/Severe Storm e) Lethal Chemical Agents and Munitions f) Radiological Incident g) Terrorism h) Tornado FIGURE 3.1 TRADITIONAL FUNCTIONAL EOP FORMAT 3-6 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 preparedness and response strategies. The planning team can add annexes or appendices to include a new response function or newly identified hazard. Similarly, the team can separate an operational issue (e.g., Mass Care) into two separate annexes (e.g., Emergency Sheltering and Life Support). EMERGENCY SUPPORT FUNCTION (ESF) FORMAT The ESF format is the plan structure used in the NRF. Many State-level EOPS also use this format. It begins with a Basic Plan, includes unique Appendices that support the whole plan, addresses individual Emergency Support Function (ESF) Annexes, and then attaches separate Support or Incident Annexes (Figure 3.2). The Basic Plan provides an overview of the jurisdiction’s emergency management system. It briefly explains the hazards faced, capabilities, needs and demands, and the jurisdiction’s emergency management structure. It also reviews expected mission execution for each emergency phase and identifies the agencies that have the lead for a given ESF. The Basic Plan then outlines the ESFs activated during an emergency. Appendices provide relevant information not already addressed in the Basic Plan. Typically, this includes common information such as a list of terms and definitions, guidelines for EOP revision, or an EOP exercise program. It may also include forms used for managing most emergencies. The ESF Annexes identify the ESF coordinator and the primary and support agencies for each ESF. ESFs with multiple primary agencies should designate an ESF coordinator to coordinate pre-incident planning. An ESF Annex describes expected mission execution for each emergency phase and identifies tasks assigned to members of the ESF. The Support Annexes describe the framework through which a jurisdiction’s departments and agencies, the private sector, not for profit and volunteer organizations, and other NGOs coordinate and execute the common emergency management strategies. The actions described in the Support Annexes apply to nearly every type of emergency. Each Support Annex identifies a coordinating agency and cooperating agencies. In some instances, two departments or agencies share coordinating agency responsibilities. The Incident Annexes describe the policies, situation, CONOPS, and responsibilities for particular hazards or incident types. Each Incident Annex has four sections: • Policies: The policy section identifies the authorities unique to the incident type, the special actions or declarations that may result, and any special policies that may apply. August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 • Situation: The situation section describes the incident or hazard characteristics and the planning assumptions. It also outlines the management approach for those instances when key assumptions do not hold (e.g., how authorities will operate if they lose communication with senior decision makers). EMERGENCY SUPPORT FUNCTION EOP FORMAT 1) Basic Plan (i) Promulgation Document/Signature Page (ii) Approval and Implementation (iii) Record of Changes (iv) Record of Distribution (v) Table of Contents a) Purpose, Scope, Situations, and Assumptions i) Purpose ii) Scope iii) Situation Overview (a) Hazard Analysis Summary (b) Capability Assessment (c) Mitigation Overview iv) Planning Assumptions b) Concept of Operations c) Organization and Assignment of Responsibilities d) Direction, Control, and Coordination e) Disaster Intelligence f) Communications g) Administration, Finance, and Logistics h) Plan Development and Maintenance i) Authorities and References 2) Emergency Support Function Annexes a) ESF #1 – Transportation b) ESF #2 – Communications c) ESF #3 – Public Works and Engineering d) ESF #4 – Firefighting e) ESF #5 – Emergency Management f) ESF #6 – Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Housing, and Human Services g) ESF #7 – Resource Support h) ESF #8 – Public Health and Medical Services i) ESF #9 – Search and Rescue j) ESF #10 – Oil and Hazardous Materials k) ESF #11 – Agriculture and Natural Resources l) ESF #12 – Energy m) ESF #13 – Public Safety and Security n) ESF #14 – Long-Term Community Recovery o) ESF #15 – External Affairs p) Other Locally Defined ESFs Figure 3.2 Emergency Support Function EOP Format 3-8 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 3) Support Annexes a) Financial Management b) Local Mutual Aid/Multi-State Coordination c) Logistics Management d) Private Sector Coordination e) Public Affairs f) Volunteer and Donation Management g) Worker Safety and Health 4) Incident Annexes a) Biological b) Catastrophic c) Cyber d) Food and Agriculture e) Nuclear/Radiological f) Oil and Hazardous Materials g) Terrorism h) Other Hazards as Required Figure 3.2 (cont.) • Concept of Operations: This section describes the flow of the emergency management strategy for the incident or hazard. It identifies special coordination structures, specialized response teams or unique resources needed, and other special considerations unique to the type of incident or hazard. • Responsibilities: Each Incident Annex identifies the coordinating and cooperating agencies involved in an incident- or hazard-specific response. AGENCY/DEPARTMENT-FOCUSED FORMAT The Agency/Department-Focused Format addresses emergency management strategies by describing each department or agency’s tasks in a separate section. In addition to the Basic Plan, this format includes Response and Support Agency sections and Hazard-Specific Procedures for the individual agencies (Figure 3.3). Very small communities may find this format more appropriate for their situation than the other formats previously presented. Just like all of the other EOP formats, the Basic Plan provides an overview of a jurisdiction’s ability to respond to disasters. It summarizes the basic tasks taken to prepare for a disaster and defines how the plan is developed and maintained. Separate Response and Support Agency sections discuss the emergency functions completed by individual departments or agencies. Each individual agency section still needs to refer to other agency sections to ensure coordination with their respective emergency management strategies. The Hazard-Specific Procedures section addresses the unique preparedness, August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 response, and recovery strategies relevant to each department or agency for specific disaster types. The hazard-specific procedures can immediately follow each agency section or be attached as a separate chapter to the plan. AGENCY/DEPARTMENT-FOCUSED EOP FORMAT 1) Basic Plan i) Promulgation Document/Signature Page ii) Approval and Implementation iii) Record of Changes iv) Record of Distribution v) Table of Contents a) Purpose, Scope, Situations, and Assumptions i) Purpose ii) Scope iii) Situation Overview (a) Hazard Analysis Summary (b) Capability Assessment (c) Mitigation Overview iv) Planning Assumptions b) Concept of Operations c) Organization and Assignment of Responsibilities d) Direction, Control, and Coordination e) Disaster Intelligence f) Communications g) Administration, Finance, and Logistics h) Plan Development and Maintenance i) Authorities and References 2) Response Agencies a) Fire b) Law Enforcement c) Emergency Medical d) Emergency Management e) Hospital f) Public Health g) Others as Needed 3) Support Agencies a) Identify those agencies that have a support role during an emergency and describe/address the strategies they are responsible for implementing. 4) Hazard-Specific Procedures a) For any response or support agency, describe/address its hazard-specific strategies. Figure 3.3 Agency/Department-Focused EOP Format This format allows EOP users to review only those procedures specific to their agency without having to review everyone else’s response tasks. The individual sections still reference the unique relationships that need to exist with other agencies during a disaster; however, they do not contain details on the other departments’ or agencies’ strategies. If needed, the plan users can go to the 3-10 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 other departments’ or agencies’ sections and review their procedures to understand the bigger picture. The level of detail provided in each section varies according to the needs of the specific department or agency. Agencies or departments with detailed SOPs may not need much information in their portion of the plan, while others may need to provide more details in the EOP. USING EOP TEMPLATES Emergency managers and planners, particularly at the Local level, recognize that the planning process demands a significant commitment of time, effort, and resources. It is challenging to gather the team, work through the planning process, and accomplish the writing and validation of a plan before its promulgation. To ease this burden, many planners and jurisdictions use EOP templates to complete their plans. Some States provide templates to their Local jurisdictions. Other templates are available through hazard-specific preparedness programs or commercially from private sector vendors. Emergency managers must ensure using those templates does not undermine the planning process. For example, “fill in the blank” templates defeat the socialization, mutual learning, and role acceptance that are so important to achieving effective planning and a successful response. The best templates are those that offer a plan format and describe the content that each section might contain – allowing for tailoring to the jurisdiction’s geographic, political, and social environment. Using this definition, planners could consider CPG 101 a template because it provides plan formats (Chapter 4) and content guidance (Appendix D) When using an EOP template, planners should consider whether: • The resulting EOP represents the jurisdiction’s unique hazard situation by ensuring that the underlying facts and assumptions that drove the template’s content match those applicable to the jurisdiction. • The hazard and risk assessments match the jurisdiction’s demographics, infrastructure inventory, probability of hazard occurrence, etc. • The template identifies the resources needed to address the problems generated by an emergency or disaster only in a general way. • Using the template may stifle creativity and flexibility, thereby constraining the development of strategies and tactics needed to solve disaster problems. • Using the templates makes it easy to plan “in a vacuum,” by allowing a single individual to “write” the plan. August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 In the end, planners will usually find that, in order to adapt the template to their jurisdiction’s needs, they needed to go through the planning process anyway. This observation does not mean that planners should not use templates or plans from other jurisdictions to help with writing style and structure. Similarly, planners may find software programs specifically designed to support plan development, helpful. What it does mean, is that planners must evaluate the usefulness of any planning tool (template, software) used as part of the planning process. They should be particularly wary of templates or programs claiming guaranteed NIMS compliance. The only way to ensure NIMS compliance is to build response relationships by following the planning process outlined in this CPG. 3-12 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 4. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN CONTENT THE BASIC PLAN The Basic Plan provides an overview of the jurisdiction's approach to emergency operations. It details emergency response policies, describes the response organization, and assigns tasks. Although the Basic Plan guides the development of the more operationally oriented annexes, its primary audience consists of the jurisdiction's chief executive, his or her staff, and agency heads. The plan elements listed in this chapter (not necessarily in the order presented or under the headings given here) should meet the needs of this audience while providing a solid foundation for the development of supporting annexes. INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL Certain items that enhance accountability and ease of use should preface the EOP. Typical introductory material includes the components that follow. • Cover page. The cover page has the title of the plan. It should include a date and identify the jurisdiction(s) covered by the plan. • Promulgation document. The promulgation document enters the plan “in force.” Promulgation is the process that officially announces/declares a plan (or law). It gives the plan official status and gives both the authority and the responsibility to organizations to perform their tasks. It should also mention the responsibilities of tasked organizations with regard to preparing and maintaining SOPs and commit those organizations to carrying out the training, exercises, and plan maintenance needed to support the plan. The promulgation document also allows the chief executives to affirm their support for emergency management. • Approval and implementation page. The approval and implementation page introduces the plan, outlines its applicability, and indicates that it supersedes all previous plans. It should also include a delegation of authority for specific modifications that can be made to the plan and by whom they can be made WITHOUT the senior official's signature. It should include a date and must be signed by the senior official(s) (e.g., governor, Tribal leader[s], mayor, county judge, commissioner[s]). August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 • Record of changes. Each update or change to the plan needs to be tracked. The record of changes, usually in table format, contains, at a minimum, a change number, the date of the change, and the name of the person who made the change. Other relevant information could be considered. • Record of distribution. The record of distribution, usually in table format, indicates the title and the name of the person receiving the plan, the agency to which the receiver belongs, the date of delivery, and the number of copies delivered. Other relevant information could be considered. The record of distribution can be used to prove that tasked individuals and organizations have acknowledged their receipt, review, and/or acceptance of the plan. Copies of the plan can be made available to the public and media without SOPs, call-down lists, or other sensitive information. • Table of contents. The table of contents should be a logically ordered and clearly identified layout of the major sections and subsections of the plan that will make finding information within the plan easier. PURPOSE, SCOPE, SITUATION, AND ASSUMPTIONS Purpose. The rest of the EOP flows logically from its purpose. The Basic Plan’s purpose is a general statement of what the EOP is meant to do. The statement should be supported by a brief synopsis of the Basic Plan, the Functional Annexes, and the Hazard-Specific Appendices. Scope. The EOP should also explicitly state the scope of emergency and disaster response to which the plan applies and the entities (departments, agencies, private sector, citizens, etc.) and geographic areas to which it applies. Situation overview. The situation section characterizes the “planning environment,” making it clear why an EOP is necessary. At a minimum, the situation section should summarize hazards faced by the jurisdiction and discuss how it fits into Regional response structures. The situation section covers: • Relative probability and impact of the hazards, • Geographic areas likely to be affected by particular hazards, • Vulnerable critical facilities (nursing homes, schools, hospitals, infrastructure, etc.), • Population distribution, 4-2 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 August 2008 • Characteristics and locations of special needs populations (e.g., individuals living in the community and in residential facilities who may require assistance with regard to transportation, child care, health care, personal care activities, language comprehension, etc.), and • Dependencies on other jurisdictions for critical resources. The level of detail is a matter of judgment; some information may be limited to a few specific Functional Annexes and presented there. Maps should be included (as tabs) to support the situation description. Planning assumptions. These identify what the planning team assumed to be facts for planning purposes in order to make it possible to execute the EOP. During operations, the assumptions indicate areas where adjustments to the plan have to be made as the facts of the event become known. “Obvious” assumptions should be included but limited to those that need to be explicitly stated (e.g., do not state as an assumption that the hazard will occur; it is reasonable for the reader to believe that if the hazard was not possible, the plan would not address it). CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS The audience for the Basic Plan needs to be able to visualize the sequence and scope of the planned emergency response. The CONOPS section is a written or graphic statement that explains in broad terms the decision maker’s or leader’s intent with regard to an operation. The CONOPS is designed to give an overall picture of the operation. It is included primarily to clarify the purpose, and it explains the jurisdiction's overall approach to an emergency (i.e., what should happen, when, and at whose direction). Topics should include the division of Local, State, Federal, and any intermediate inter-jurisdictional responsibilities; activation of the EOP; “action levels” and their implications (if formalized in the jurisdiction); the general sequence of actions before, during, and after an emergency; and who should request aid and under what conditions. (The necessary forms should be contained in tabs.) General emergency management goals and objectives are discussed in this section. State EOPs should designate who appoints a State Coordinating Officer (SCO) and how the SCO and the State response organization will coordinate and work with Federal response personnel in accordance with the NRF. The CONOPS should touch on direction and control, alert and warning, and continuity of operations matters that may be dealt with more fully in annexes. August 2008 INTERIM - Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 ORGANIZATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITIES This section of the Basic Plan establishes the emergency organization that will be relied on to respond to an emergency situation. It includes a list of the kinds of tasks to be performed, by position and organization, and it provides a quick overview of who does what, without all of the procedural details included in Functional Annexes. When two or more organizations perform the same kind of task, one should be given primary responsibility, and the other(s) should be given a supporting role. For the sake of clarity, a matrix of organizations and areas of responsibility (including functions) should be included to summarize the primary and supporting roles. (Shared general responsibilities, such as developing SOPs, should not be neglected, and the matrix might include organizations not under jurisdictional control, if they have defined responsibilities for responding to emergencies that might occur in the jurisdiction.) Organization charts, especially those depicting how a jurisdiction is implementing the Incident Command System (ICS) or Multiagency Coordination System (MACS) structure, are helpful. In addition, this section is where a jurisdiction discusses the response organizing option that it uses for emergency management – ESF, or agency and department, or functional areas of ICS/NIMS, or a hybrid. The selected management structure determines what types of annexes are included in the EOP and must be carried through to any hazard annexes. A sample organization responsibility matrix is provided