Transcript WSEMA CSZ Intro slides

Presentation for Washington State
Emergency Management Association
Sept 27, 2012




Stephanie Fritts – Pacific County Emergency
Management Director
Jim Hutchinson – Washington State EMD
Catastrophic Planner
Kathleen Cox – FEMA Region X Response
Planner and Cascadia Subduction Zone Plan
Project Leader
John Ufford – Washington EMD Planning,
Analysis, and Logistics Section Manager
Common State (Washington, Oregon, California)
and Federal Planning Scenario:
•
Modeled by Los Alamos Laboratory (HITRAC) for FEMA
• Rupture of approximately 800 mi. long Cascadia
Subduction Zone geologic fault
• 4+ minute shake @ 6.2 & higher throughout Puget Sound
Area (9.0 near fault) [Tohoku shake lasted 6 minutes]
•Tsunami waves w/ heights of 30+ ft wash over Pacific
Coastal areas
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Severe damage to every transportation mode
Power failure across all of Washington
Communications degraded to extreme degree
Likely 10s of thousands of structures damaged and
destroyed across every sector
Thousands killed by tsunami & building collapse
Up to hundreds of thousands sheltered initially
Damage to pipeline systems
Failure of some aboveground storage tanks
Liquefaction damage to buildings & buried utilities
Ocean Shores, Hoquiam & other Pacific coastal
communities very heavily damaged
7/7/2015
Regional isolation due to landslides/road damage
• Local mutual aid inadequate/doesn’t come
• Health systems adjust for loss of capacity, added
patient load & to maintain care where possible
• Loss of potable water closes hospitals & refineries
• Prioritize available resources due to shortfalls
• Exhaustion of responders and EM personnel
• Localized food deserts & supply shortages
• Fuel rationing
• Increase organizational complexity & liaison
• Situational awareness not immediately available
• Immediate response by federal agencies
•
THE LOCAL PERSPECTIVE
Stephanie Fritts
Pacific County Emergency Management Agency
10,000
residents
on the
Long
Beach
Peninsul
a
The scientific version
…and the Pacific County
version




Began with a simple evacuation plan (not the
UASI model) in 1998
Identified areas of high ground
Signed routes in coordination with DOT,
DPW, WSP
Remain in the process of signing “assembly
areas”
?





How many cars could
leave the Long Beach
Peninsula with one road
(US Hwy 101) outbound?
And in how much time?
Pedestrian evacuation
concepts were applied to
vehicles and that did not
truly work.
Studies since Hurricane
Katrina are urban oriented.
Project ended with no
successful outcome
Cape Disappointment receives about
2552 hours of fog a year – the equivalent
of 106 days – making it one of the
foggiest places in the US.





Began to look at the prospect of
vertical evacuation
Project Safe Haven – 2004
Indonesian tsunami
2008 - FEMA and NOAA
released guidance FEMA P646:
Guidelines for Design of
Structures for Vertical
Evacuation from Tsunamis
Pacific County Mitigation Plan
January 2010 Project Safe Haven
began in earnest
Nishiki Tower







Conducted in cooperation with University of
Washington
Community involvement was high
Ground truthing the concepts
Potential site selections were made
Difference in community
preferences
Countywide meetings
Design charrettes



Mitigation Letter
of Intent
Cost Benefit
Analysis
Grant app is in
process
• Downtown
• Elementary School
• Residential
neighborhoods
Questions?
Stephanie Fritts
(360) 875-9340
[email protected]
Whatcom
San Juan
Okanogan
Pend
Oreille
Ferry
Skagit
Stevens
Island
Clallam
Snohomish
Chelan
Jefferson
Douglas
Kitsap
Spokane
Lincoln
King
Mason
Grays Harbor
Kittitas
Grant
Adams
Thurston
Pacific
Whitman
Pierce
Lewis
Yakima
Garfield
Franklin
Columbia
Wahkiakum
Cowlitz
Skamania
Benton
Klickitat
Clark
Walla Walla
Asotin
What is state approach?
Catastrophic Incident Annex
• An overview of concepts NOT present in
the CEMP
• Appendices to this Annex
•
•
Synchronization Matrix
• Appendix containing coordinated options
•
Cascadia Subduction Zone Scenario
Catastrophic Incident Annex
•The
base annex is brief
•
Describes catastrophic disasters in general
•
Identifies need to plan at all governmental levels
•
Identifies principles to be applied in planning
•
Lists numerous complexities of the Response
environment likely to be present
What is a Catastrophic Incident?
•
•
Generally corresponds with FEMA concepts of Maximum of
Maximums and Meta-Scenario
Limited number of scenarios which:
•
Impact many social/economic sectors simultaneously
•
Overwhelm jurisdictions with requirements
•
Result in fewer available response resources
•
Prompt unusual state/local response activities
•
Engage major portions of state/local governments
•
Result in major federal response
•
Have broad impacts lasting decades (new normal)
What is the planning requirement?
•
Federal, Tribal, State, Local & Private
•
•
•
Coordination critical
Anticipate initial conditions and requirements
•
Identify priorities and decisions
•
`70% solution’ for Response actions
Develop contingency procedures
•
Checklist-level
What principles apply?
 Whole of Government

Time is of the essence

Public-Private partnerships

Prepare for Area Command options

Organizational Complexity

Anticipate shortfalls
How are the principles implemented?
•
Appendices describe specific scenarios
•
Based on scenarios, Response options are developed
•
Each protocol or agreement coordinated separately
•
Options applied through different phases
Summarized in Synchronization Matrix which
includes:
•
• Decision points and priorities
• Specific information requirements (EEI)
What is a Synchronization Matrix?
• This is a sample with theoretical entries

Operational
Partner
Preparation
& Planning
Period 1
Days 1-5
Period 2
Days 6-15
Period 3
Days 16-45
State EOC
Coordinate scale
issues for WA
Air Ops Center
& FAA
Establish
single flight
management
center
Conduct all
state missions
– SA, medical,
logistics, SAR
Coord
departure
USN flight
operations
ESF-7
Logistics
Preplan push
assets with
localities
Load push
package on
SA missions
Coordinate
coastal
logistics
Report status
establishing
retail supply
ESF-6
Mass Care
ID staff
Staff for 40
compliment for a shelters of
1000+ person
1,000+
shelter
Logistical
support 40
shelters
Consolidate
shelters
ESF-8
Public Health
Identify Cat Y
patients for
immediate
transfer
Validate
patient
tracking
processes
Review
repatriation
plan
Transfer
patients in
Cat Y out of
area
What conditions relate to response?
• Western WA - 5 distinct damage/response zones
• Portland/Vancouver
• Portland UASI
• Columbia River & heavy industry
• Pacific Coastal areas
• tsunami & strongest shaking
• isolation & extreme devastation
• N. Puget Sound
• smaller population
• major refineries
• S. Puget Sound
• major population centers
• Unreinforced Masonry building inventory
• Eastern WA also severely impacted
•commerce disrupted
•overwhelmed with response forces
7/7/2015
Vancouver, BC Canada
Victoria, BC
Canada
North Puget
Sound area
Pacific Coastal
area
South Puget
Sound area
SW Washington
area
Portland, OR
Eastern Washington
•
What principles apply to the CSZ scenario?
Adjust operational procedures to
•
•
•
Time is of the essence
•
•
•
Recovery Task Force
Integrate federal, state & local response
Public-Private partnerships
•
•
•
Clearing residences for return relieves shelters
Coordinate Whole of Government actions
•
•
Minimize effect of resource shortfalls
Implement novel procedures –e.g. mass casualty
Information sharing
Increase resource access
Incorporate Recovery planning
•
Washington Restoration Organization
Actions & Timeline for Basic Annex
•
•
•
EMD Review
Coordinate with stakeholders
Publish
9/21/12
10/30/12
11/30/12
FEMA is developing a federal CSZ plan
•
•
•
•
Priority actions based on Core Capabilities
Considers multi-state impact & response
WA participated in plan development
• Included state agencies
• Recommended local priorities
• Requested federal asset assignments
Includes federal synchronization matrix
Region X Cascadia
Subduction Zone
Earthquake and Tsunami
Response Plan
September 2012
Kathleen Cox, Lead Planner, FEMA Region X
Mission
Provide immediate federal support and resources to
the impacted states in order to save and sustain life.
Set the conditions for transition to long-term
recovery from a Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ)
earthquake and tsunami.
Senior Leaders’ Intent
Purpose
Provide immediate disaster support to the Region X states impacted by a CSZ earthquake and
tsunami.
Key Tasks
•
Immediately alert and deploy resources to save lives, protect property and the
environment, and prevent suffering.
•
Integrate seamlessly with state organizations and actions.
•
Coordinate the employment of external personnel and lifesaving/life-sustaining resources.
•
Stabilize and restore essential critical infrastructure.
•
Develop atypical solutions (e.g., whole community) to support critical resource shortfalls.
End State
Complete all lifesaving operations, stabilize essential infrastructure, re-establish life-support
functions and complete the transition to long-term recovery.
Form a
collaborative
planning team
Decide what to
plan
Develop a work
plan
Form a
collaborative
planning team
Understand
the situation
Conduct
research and
analysis
• Scenario
• Physical effects
• Impact
• Requirements
Determine
goals and
objectives
Develop
objectives
• Mission
• End state
• Phases
• Objectives
Develop the
plan options
Develop COAs
• Development
• Analysis
• Evaluation
• Capabilities
Prepare,
review and
approve
the plan
Write the plan
• Base plan
• Annexes
Obtain plan
approval
Form senior
leader steering
committee
Key Deliverables
Fact Sheets &
Information
Analysis Brief
COA Decision
Brief
Written Plan
Implement and
maintain the
plan
Exercise the plan
Review, revise
Implement the plan
Cascadia Planning Timeline FY 2011-13
Region IX & X Coordination
RISC
FY 2011
Information Analysis
Project Outreach
October
November
December
Risk/Impact Analysis
January
February
Lit
Review
FY 2012
October
December
April
May
Contract
Coordination
Oregon
RISC
State Concept Development
November
March
January
State Concept
June
Contractor
Arrival
Idaho RISC
February
March
August
Idaho
Funding RISC
April
May
June
COA Development
IAB
July
COA Brief
COA workshops
July
September
Information
Analysis
Working
Groups
(Region X)
August
September
August
September
Alaska
RISC
Plan Review
FY 2013
October
RISC
Final
Plan
Initial
Draft
OPLAN
November
December
Review
After
Actions and
update Plan
Table Top
January
PUBLISH
the PLAN
February
Table Top
March
April
FY 2014
May
June
Table Top
July
FY 20 15/16
Exercise
Understand the situation
Conduct research and analysis
• Defined and built consensus on the Scenario
• Workshops in each state
• Leveraged a detailed analysis through HITRAC
• Multi Region, Multi State
• Collaborative Analytical Team
• Identified the physical effects, including the
secondary and cascading effects
• Earthquake data was used but each state used
own Tsunami data
• This phase is 40% of the planning effort
• Completed an analysis of the impact based on
state, Federal, public, private and tribal input
• Requirements development
Oregon
Department of
Geology
and Mineral
Industries
Geographic Response Areas
In each state: (Divided by Columbia River)
- Coastal
- I-5 Corridor
- East of the Cascades
 As depicted in the figure:
- Each GRA generally follows county
borders and/or mountain terrain features.
Further break down will be developed in
coordination with each state as the plan
develops.

Determine goals and objectives
Defined the Problem
• Developed a Mission Statement
• End state – Define what we are to accomplish
• Phases – Broke the response into phase
• Objectives: Established and built consensus for each core
capability
Outcomes
*Senior Leadership Approval
Draft Situation Paragraph
Mission
Senior Leaders Intent
Draft Intel Annex
Fact Sheets
*Information Analysis Brief
Develop the Plan Options
Developed three overarching Concept of Operations (COA) (three ways to
solve the problems identified in the information Analysis).
•
Development – 14 COA workshops (hundreds of State, Federal , Tribal,
Public, Private Sector, voluntary agencies participated
• Analysis - Reviewed and developed alternate ways to solve the same problem
• Evaluation – Establish evaluation criteria
• Capabilities – Identified capability and resources required to accomplish
• Advantage and Disadvantages
•Provide a Sketch that provides a visual view of the option.

Obtain plan approval
*Senior Leadership Approval
Outcomes
*COA Decision Brief
Execution
Draft Concept of Operations
Logistic Annex
(Ph 2a) Deploy and employ resources and capabilities to support lifesaving operations to
the impacted area throughout the Coastal and I-5 Corridor GRAs in order to support
state and local lifesaving operations based on pre-identified resource requirements.
Simultaneously deploy life-sustaining/restoration capabilities and all other resources to
one or more ISBs in the East of the Cascades GRA in order to conduct RSOI, provide justin-time training and build capability to provide stability based on state identified
priorities and situational awareness. Initiate targeted life-sustaining and critical
infrastructure assessment within the impacted area to establish a tactical response
infrastructure. Subsequently expand air, ground and maritime avenues of approach in
order to expand operational and logistic capability. Establish tactical ground, air and
maritime main supply routes to facilitate operations and logistic support requirements
based on state priorities/objectives and situational assessments.
(Ph 2b) Rapidly assess and repair critical infrastructure in order to expand the capability
to support the impacted population based on state priorities. Establish staging areas
throughout the impacted area in order to provide capabilities and resources in support of
state priorities and objectives. Deploy additional responders, assessment/repair teams
and all incoming life-sustaining resources in order to expand access throughout the
impacted area.
COA 3: Concept of Operations
Phase 1
Phase 2a
Phase 2b
Phase 2c
IMAT
RX
UCG
FSA
ISBs
UCG
FSA
IMAT
UACG
FEMA
HQ
Prepare, review and approve the plan
Write the Plan* Completed Drafts
4.0 ADMINISTRATION RESOURCES AND FUNDING *
1.0 SITUATION *
1.1 Purpose *
1.2 Background *
1.3 Scenario *
1.4 Authorities and References *
1.5 Threat *
1.6 Critical Considerations *
1.7 Critical Assumptions *
2.0 MISSION *
3.0 EXECUTION *
3.1
Senior Leader Intent *
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
Concept of Operations *
3.2.1
Phase 1 *
3.2.2
Phase 2 *
3.2.2.1
Phase 2a *
3.2.2.2
Phase 2b *
3.2.2.3
Phase 2c *
3.2.3
Phase 3 (to be completed )
Key Federal Roles and Responsibilities *
State and Local Coordination Requirements
NGO Coordination Requirements *
Private Sector Coordination Requirements *
Key Decisions *
Critical Information Requirements *
4.1
4.2
4.2.1
4.3
Administration *
Resources *
Concept of Logistics Support *
Funding *
5.0 OVERSIGHT AND COORDINATING
INSTRUCTIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
5.1
Oversight *
5.2
5.3
Coordinating Instructions *
Communications *
ANNEXES
Annex A:
Annex B:
Annex C:
Appendix:
Annex D:
Annex E:
Annex F:
Annex G:
Annex H:
Annex I:
Annex J:
Annex K:
*Senior Leadership Approval
Task Organization
Intelligence *
Appendix B-1: Core Capability Fact Sheets (1-13) *
Appendix B-2: Reference Materials *
Operations *
Core Capability Concepts of Operations (Appendix 1-13) *
Logistics *
External Affairs *
Information Collection Plan *
Synchronization Matrix *
Executive Decision Checklist *
Execution Matrix *
Acronym List *
Distribution
Implement and maintain the plan
Implement and maintain the plan
•3 table tops - two in FY 13, 1 in FY 14 and Full Scale Exercise
• Updated using after action reviews after each table top
• Exercise tentatively in FY 15/16
*