Skip to main content

Full text of "DTIC ADA578492: Wide Area Recovery and Resiliency Program (WARRP) Mile High Challenge After Action Report"

See other formats


Mile High Challenge Workshop 
After Action Report 


Long's Peak Conference room 
FEMA Region VIII 
Federal Center 
Lakewood, Colorado 
December 14 - 15,2011 



Report Documentation Page 


Form Approved 
OMB No. 0704-0188 


Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington 
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it 
does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 


1. REPORT DATE 

15 DEC 2011 


2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 


4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Wide Area Recovery and Resiliency Program (WARRP) Mile High 
Challenge After Action Report 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Briese, Garry 


7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

Cubic Corporation 2280 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 
92106 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

Lori Miller Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology 
Directorate Washington, DC 20538 


3. DATES COVERED 

15 Dec 2011 - 30 Jan 2012 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROIECT NUMBER 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 
REPORT NUMBER 


10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

DHS 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 
NUMBER! S) 

6.5.0 


12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release, distribution unlimited 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

The original document contains color images. 

14. ABSTRACT 

The Mile High Challenge Workshop was a discussion-based workshop designed to provide an environment 
for participants to: (1) review the draft of the Denver UASI All-Hazards Regional Recovery Framework, 
known as the Regional Recovery Framework from this point forward, and (2) examine the use of an 
All-Hazards Incident Management Teams (IMTs) to support recovery planning and operations. Members 
of the Jefferson County All-Hazards IMT were the primary participants. The purpose of the Mile High 
Challenge Workshop was to: (1) Enhance the awareness and understanding of the challenges and impacts 
of a radiological incident and the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF); (2) Explore the 
organizational approach to the use of the Regional Recovery Framework to a catastrophic radiological 
incident; and (3) Explore how an All-Hazards Type III IMT could support the initiation of recovery in the 
Denver Metro Area. 

15. SUBIECT TERMS 

WARRP, Radiological Incident, National Disaster Recovery Framework, All-Hazards Type III Incident 
Management Team 


16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 


a. REPORT 

unclassified 


b. ABSTRACT 

unclassified 


c. THIS PAGE 

unclassified 


17. LIMITATION OF 

18. NUMBER 

ABSTRACT 

OF PAGES 

uu 

38 


19a. NAME OF 
RESPONSIBLE PERSON 




Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 



This Page Intentionally Left Blank 



Table of Contents 

1.0 Executive Summary.3 

2.0 Background.3 

3.0 Goal & Objectives.4 

4.0 Scope/Format.5 

Scope.5 

Format.5 

Targeted Audience.5 

5.0 Scenario Overview.5 

General.5 

Description of Radiological Agent.6 

Economic Impact.6 

6.0 Academic Sessions (Day 1).6 

Welcome/Introductions.7 

7.0 Free Form Discussion (Day 2).7 

Workshop Set-Up.7 

IMT works with Regional Recovery Framework.7 

Recovery IMT Initial Actions:.8 

Unified Command Objectives Meeting.9 

Operational Coordination/Command Structures.10 

Recovery Support Functions (RSF's).15 

Public Health and Medical Services.15 

Public Messaging.17 

Identity, Stabilize, and Maintain Infrastructure and Property.18 

Debris Management.19 

Prioritization of Clean-up.20 

Post Disaster Flousing.20 

8.0 Conclusions & Recommendations.22 

1 






























Table 1.0 - Operational Considerations and Command Structures: Key Discussion Items and 


Recommendations.23 

Table 2.0 - Recovery Support Functions: Priorities, Perceived Gaps.24 

An nex A - Workshop Agenda.27 

An nex B - Workshop Participants.29 

An nex C - National Core Capabilities Diagram.32 

An nex D - Participant Feedback.33 

An nex E - Workshop Planning Team and Key Points of Contact.34 

An nex F - List of Acronyms.35 


2 











1.0 Executive Summary 


The following After Action Report (AAR) was developed following the Mile High Challenge (MHC) workshop, 
which occurred on December 14-15, 2011 in Lakewood, Colorado. The AAR incorporates information from 
recorder notes, including questions, comments, recommendations, and includes information from the 
feedback form. The AAR was distributed to the planning team for review and comment prior to final release. 

The MHC event was hosted at Long's Peak Conference room FEMA Region VIII Federal Center in Lakewood, 
Colorado. This was a discussion-based workshop designed to provide an environment for participants to 1) to 
review the draft of the Denver UASI and State of Colorado All-Hazards Regional Recovery Framework, known 
as the "Regional Recovery Framework" from this point forward, and 2) to examine the use of an All-Hazards 
IMTs to support recovery planning and operations. Members of the Jefferson County All-Hazards IMT were the 
primary participants. Active participation in discussions during the academic sessions (day 1) and free form 
discussion (day 2) was encouraged. Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) from various local, state, and federal 
agencies and organizations, including Denver and Aurora Offices of Emergency Management, Tri-County Public 
Health, Colorado Public Health, Public Works, Regional Public Information Officers, Hospital Staff, Colorado 
Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Division of Emergency Management (DEM), 
Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) and Department of Defense (DoD)/Civil Support Team (CST), Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), Health and Human Services (HHS)/Center for Disease Control (CDC), Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratories (LLNL), Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNNL), and Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) supported 
workshop discussions and provided expert feedback in the context of the presented scenario. 


The content of this After Action Report represents the best efforts of the participants based on the 
information available at the time of publication, but is not intended to convey formal guidance or policy of 
the federal government or other participating agencies. The views and opinions expressed herein do not 
necessarily state or reflect those of their respective organizations or the US Government. 


Many of the gaps identified extend beyond the Regional Recovery Framework and encompass the Denver area 
as a whole. Some of these gaps may not apply specifically to the Regional Recovery Framework and should be 
evaluated as a Denver UASI Gap for Recovery. The gaps are listed in Section 8.0 - Conclusions and 
Recommendations. , Table 1.0 and "able 2.0 . 


2.0 Background 


The Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, in close coordination with the Denver Urban Area 
Security Initiative (UASI) and the State of Colorado, have partnered to establish the Wide Area Recovery and 
Resiliency Program (WARRP). The purpose of this collaborative program is to study, develop and demonstrate 
frameworks, operational capabilities and interagency coordination, enabling a timely return to functionality 
and re-establishment of socio-economic order and basic services through execution of recovery and resiliency 


3 










activities, as applicable. This program explores a coordinated systems approach to the recovery and resiliency 
of wide urban areas, including meeting public health requirements and restoring all types of critical 
infrastructure, key resources (both civilian and military) and high traffic areas (transit/transportation facilities) 
following a chemical, biological or radiological (CBR) incident. 

The Denver UASI and State of Colorado All-Hazards Regional Recovery Framework with CBR annexes is built 
around a set of 11 Recovery Support Functions (RSFs) defined by the Denver UASI, and is intended to align with 
the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF). The Technical Reports focus on key planning factors that 
align with relevant core capabilities defined under the National Preparedness Goal. The Regional Recovery 
Framework and related CBR products will be provided to the State of Colorado, the Denver UASI and/or FEMA 
when completed, with the intent of supporting informed and consistent recovery planning and preparedness 
for wide urban areas across the Denver UASI, State of Colorado, FEMA regions, and the Nation. 


3.0 Goal & Objectives 


Goal: 

Conduct a workshop to examine solutions to shorten the time to initiate recovery following a catastrophic 

radiological incident. 

Overall Workshop Objectives: 

• Enhance the awareness and understanding of the challenges and impacts of a radiological incident and 
the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF). 

• Explore the organizational approach to the use of the Regional Recovery Framework to a catastrophic 
radiological incident. 

• Explore how an All-Hazards Type III Incident Management Team (IMT) could support the initiation of 
recovery in the Denver Metro Area. 

Day 1 Objectives: 

• Enhance awareness on the following topics: Radiological Impacts, the Regional Recovery Framework, 
Federal Recovery Efforts in a Radiological Incident, Department of Defense (DOD) Support in a 
Radiological Incident, the NDRF, and Type III IMT support. 

Day 2 Objectives: 

• Enact the Regional Recovery Framework to determine who and how it will be "operationalized". This 
term was used to mean, "put into use/action." The intent is to use the output from the exercise to 
feed into the content and organization of the framework. The following feedback was requested from 
the IMT: 

o Have appropriate lead and support agencies been identified in each respective Recovery 
Support Function (RSF)? How will the IMT organize itself to execute each RSF? 
o How will the IMT establish and adjust priorities regarding the implementation of the RSFs as 
the recovery process proceeds? Key RSFs for developing a recovery strategy have been 
identified as: 


4 



❖ Public Health and Medical Services 

❖ Identify, Stabilize, and Maintain Infrastructure and Property 

❖ Public Messaging 

❖ Debris Management 

❖ Prioritization of Clean-up 

❖ Post Disaster Housing 


4.0 Scope/Format 


Scope 

This was a discussion-based workshop designed to provide an environment for participants to "operationalize" 
the Regional Recovery Framework and to examine the use of an all-hazards Type III IMT to support recovery 
planning and operations. 

Format 

The workshop combined academic sessions (day 1) with free form discussion (day 2). The general format of the 
workshop was as follows: 

• Day 1, December 14, 2011: Academic Sessions provided an overview of scenario, agent, and other 
factors to prepare participants for Day 2. 

• Day 2, December 15, 2011: Free Form Discussion: Participation in this session occurred by invitation. 


Targeted Audience 

The targeted audience of this event was state and local planners and emergency managers, regional planning 
coordinators, military planning coordinators, and subject matter experts. 


5.0 Scenario Overview 


General 

The overview of the radiological scenario was 
designed to provide workshop participants with 
relevant background and event information to 
stimulate discussions on various aspects of recovery 
planning. The information was presented in discrete 
time jumps over a course of several weeks and 
months, and highlighted the short-, intermediate-, 
and long-term phases of recovery. 


The scenario was based on National Planning 
Scenario (NPS) #11: Radiological Attack - Radiological 

Dispersal Devices, and involved back to back explosions in the greater Denver metropolitan area. The first 



5 






explosion is the result of terrorists who detonate a large truck bomb (~3/4 the detonation size of the OK city 
bomb) containing a significant source of 137-Cesium ( 137 Cs) outside the U.S. Mint in the downtown business 
district of Denver. The second identical explosion occurs at the Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora. This 
bomb collapsed a significant section of a campus building resulting in hundreds of injuries. 

The FBI was identified as the lead federal law-enforcement agency for this incident, in coordination with the 
Colorado Department of Public Safety for the State. For Denver, the Denver Fire Department was identified as 
the local lead for victim rescue, with support of Denver Health Paramedic Division on emergency medical 
actions. Public health actions were expected to be co-managed at the local level by Denver Public Health and 
Denver Environmental Health. 

An Emergency phase was briefed to set the stage; the primary focus was the blast victims and the mass 
casualty situation. Many of the victims were contaminated with radioactive material; however, the levels are 
low enough that medical stabilization takes priority over decontamination. Although the areas that require 
action in the emergency phase were fairly limited, the predicted areas for intermediate phase activities were 
much more extensive. The relocation areas in Denver and Aurora were defined as 3 miles downwind to 
accommodate a maximum annual dose exposure of 2 rem (first year) / 0.5 rem (subsequent years). These 
boundaries led to the relocation of 8,000 people in Denver, and 4,000 in Aurora. 


Description of Radiological Agent 

137Cs is a radioactive isotope of cesium, with a half-life of 30.17 years. It is highly water soluble and 
chemically reactive with a wide variety of materials, including common building materials such as concrete and 
stone. This makes the cleanup of 137Cs difficult. People may ingest 137Cs with food and water, or may inhale 
it as dust. If 137Cs enters the body, it is distributed fairly uniformly throughout the body's soft tissues, 
resulting in exposure of those tissues. Exposure may also be external (that is, exposure to gamma radiation 
from outside the body). If exposures to 137Cs are very high, serious burns, and even death, can result. People 
may become internally contaminated (inside their bodies) with radioactive materials by accidentally ingesting 
(eating or drinking) or inhaling (breathing) them, or through direct contact (open wounds). The sooner these 
materials are removed from the body, the fewer and less severe the health effects of the contamination will 
be. 

Economic Impact 

Over 3000 commercial and industrial buildings were in the area of potential clean-up and nearly 500 
businesses would have been expected to be closed as a result. Many of them are critical to the Denver and 
Aurora area. Furthermore, postal and shipping services e.g., rail transport and trucking, came to halt due to 
concerns regarding spread of contaminated goods and products. This led to a significant decline in the regional 
distribution of energy resources, manufacturing materials, and agricultural products. For these reasons, the 
cities and State's tax revenue would have been severely impacted. Restoring the local economy was a high 
priority for obvious reasons. 

Note: The complete scenario is not included in this AAR. Please contact Kelli Thompson at 
kelli.thompson@cubic.com for more information regarding the scenario. 


6.0 Academic Sessions (Day 1) 


6 




Welcome/Introductions 

Ms. Robin Finnegan, FEMA Region VIII Administrator welcomed participants and expressed that "in today's 
response environment, we must have frameworks in place that provide innovative and creative guidance for 
response & recovery. Additionally, it's imperative that we include the private sector, non-governmental, and 
faith-based organizations in our planning efforts." 

Mr. Chris Russell, DHS S&T Directorate and WARRP Program Manager, also welcomed participants and 
thanked them for their respective organizations' contribution to WARRP and the goal of reducing time and 
resources required to recover following incidents of national significance, including catastrophic Chemical, 
Biological, or Radiological (CBR) incidents. Mr. Russell agreed that we must continue to adhere to the "Whole 
of Community" approach and ensure we are inclusive in our planning efforts. 

Note: See Annex A : Workshop Agenda, for specific academic topics and presenters. It should be mentioned that 
a presentation was given to provide an overview of the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF). It was 
pointed out that the NDRF will be operationally dependent on the annexes being developed by WARRP; 
however, regional plans such as the Regional Recovery Framework that is being developed are expected to 
have more regional information than the NDRF. Following the academic sessions, Mr. Tim McSherry, Jefferson 
County IMT, reviewed Day 1 highlights and discussed Day 2 expectations. He pointed out the need to focus on 
operational sustainment as a key focus area for discussion on Day 2. The IMT would be activated for up to 2-3 
weeks. In this scenario, the IMT is viewed as an advisory team that is able to take initial actions that will help 
initial response and recovery operations with the understanding that additional resources and staffing will be 
required for intermediate and long-term recovery operations. 


7.0 Free Form Discussion (Day 2) 


Workshop Set-Up 

Activities on Day 2 began with Steve Stein, PNNL, moderating the discussion and reviewing objectives and 
format (see page 4), followed by Brooke Buddemeier, LLNL reviewing the scenario and assumptions. Garry 
Briese, local WARRP program integrator, provided an in-brief to the Jefferson County IMT (two weeks post 
event). This scenario assumed the creation of multi-jurisdictional Recovery Task Force (RTF) due to 
catastrophic nature of the incident and limited resources. Incident objectives (based on the 6 Key Regional 
Recovery Framework RSFs) were passed directly to the RTF. 

Scenario Assumptions included: 

• Discussion begins two-weeks into incident (Intermediate Phase - days - weeks) 

• A high military presence 

• Morgue and DMAT teams on site 

• Children's hospital has been evacuated 

• Mandatory relocation of approximately 12,000 individuals, with estimated self-relocation of an 
additional 100,000 

• The President has committed to paying for operations for first year. 


IMT works with Regional Recovery Framework 


7 





The IMT members who participated in this review are identified in the below table. 


Name 

Role 

Work History 

Mike Frary 

Incident Commander 

US Forest Service - Ret. 

Tim McSherry 

Deputy Incident Commander 

Jefferson County Sheriff's 

Office/E M 

Bill Easterling 

Operations Section Chief 

Jefferson County Sheriff's Office 

Mike Rubenstein 

Planning/Operations Section Chief 

Jefferson County Sheriff's Office 

Dean Clark 

Planning Section Chief 

National Park Service - Ret. 

Bill Wallis 

Situation Unit Leader 

Bureau of Land Management - 
Ret. 

Colleen Gadd 

Logistics Section Chief 

Jefferson County Open Space 

Bill Benerman 

Operations - Public Health Branch 
Director 

Denver Department of 
Environmental Health 

Daniel Flatlestad 

Public Information Officer & Safety 
Officer 

Marketing Director - Private 
Corporation 

Victoria Lytle 

Liaison Officer Trainee 

American Red Cross 

Andrew Parker 

Liaison Officer 

Bureau of Land Management - 
Ret. 

Christine Billings 

Operations - Assistant Public Health 
Branch Director 

Jefferson County Public Health 

Carol Small 

Deputy Logistics Chief 

Jefferson County Sheriff's 

Office/E M 


Recovery IMT Initial Actions: 

1. Identify key agency representatives to serve as the RTF (prioritize clean-up and other activities) 

> Accomplished in workshop by setting up a table with city, county, state, federal emergency 
managers & public/environmental health 

2. Delegation of Authority - Establish Objectives 

> Typically get a delegation of authority from the governor with clearly defined objectives; in this 
case, since scenario is multi-jurisdictional, large-scale event with a group of multiple 
representatives from city/county/state/fed, a single POC within the RTF would meet regularly with 
IMT and liaison with UC 

> IMT worked with RTF to immediately start working on prioritized set of incident objectives; 3 of 5 
members will be expected at all future UC meetings/briefs 

The RTF, appointed by elected local and state leaders, nationally maintains authority and serves a key decision¬ 
making group. Note: the Recovery IMT served as an advisor to the RTF for the initial recovery organization. The 
IMT identified the following individuals to make up the RTF. 


8 


















Potential Recovery Task Force (RTF) 

Greg Palmer 

Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office 

Richard Newman 

Adams County 

Michelle Askenazi 

Tri-County Health 

Fran Santanaga 

Douglas County 

Bob Wold 

State CDEM 

Yonette Hintzen-Schmidt 

CDPHE 

Charles Smedly 

Denver Public Health 

Matt Chapman 

Aurora OEM 

Scott Field 

Denver OEM 


Unified Command Objectives Meeting 

The group proceeded to conduct a Unified Command Objectives Meeting. This meeting produced a list of 
Prioritized Incident Objectives. These are based on the Regional Recovery Framework RSFs to develop a 
recovery strategy. These objectives may change and/or be renegotiated in the Incident Management planning 
cycle based on several factors [e.g., assistance, resources, etc.). The objectives identified are: 

❖ Ensure safety of responders and public 

❖ Assess and stabilize/maintain essential services and CIKR (much discussion about need for public 
messaging to be #2 priority) 

❖ Provide unified public messaging and information management 

❖ Conduct damage assessment/debris management and prioritize clean-up operations (assessment must 
come first to help with prioritization - preferred having this as one objective) 

❖ Identify post disaster housing options (will be driven by damage assessment) 

Note: it was pointed out that NGOs and faith-based groups have a huge role to play and they would be 
constantly informed of recovery efforts. It was recommended they have a clear voice within the response and 
recovery structures. Figure 1.0 represents discussion regarding where NGO's role and how the process works. 
(NGO's were added to diagram due to their similar structure to that of the private sector. It was also pointed 
out that understanding composition of the structure above the IMT is critical). 



Recovery 

IMT 


Figure 1.0 - Recovery Structure 


9 























Operational Coordination/Command Structures 

A very lengthy discussion transpired on Incident Command System structures, roles, and responsibilities. A 
summary of the discussion is listed below. 


• Building a structure "above" the IMT will be critical for recovery operations. (See Figure 1.0) 

Recommendation: Ensure the Multi-Agency Coordination (MAC) Working Group meeting addresses 
this issue and a final product is a clear structure for the Regional Recovery Framework. 

Considerations: 1.) The IMT depends on regional leadership to notify them of who important contacts 
are because the assumption must be made that the IMT is not from the area impacted; 2.) Farm & 
Agriculture, the Private Sector, and NGO/Volunteer Organizations are essential stakeholders and 
should be included in the MAC or RTF; 3.) Disaster Assistance Centers will be used for one-to-one 
support for community and should be considered as well when working on overall structure (e.g., to 
ensure cohesive integration of activities such as volunteer coordination, public messaging, and 
addressing public health issues); 4.) The IMT (logistics) will need guidance from the MACG about 
procurement and directing cost; 5.) Normally the IMT has a link to the EOC and policy group but will 
need to figure out how to connect local and state elected officials; 6.) Presumption is that the IMT 
would come in to be an advisory group to jumpstart recovery and would not be a long term presence. 

• Situation Unit (SITU) would be expected to be very robust and a critical element. 

Recommendation: Pre-identify list of agencies/organizations and SMEs that will be needed to work 
within Technical Specialist Units, specifically, the situation unit. 

Considerations: Key areas for SME support include, but are not limited to: Radiological SME, GIS 
Mapping, EPA/FIAZMAT, Engineering, Water, Natural and Cultural Resources, Behavioral Health, 

Human Services (populations at risk), Housing, and Economic Development. 

• Liaison activities will require a comprehensive plan. 

Recommendation: Ensure Liaison issues are considered for operational coordination. 

Considerations: 1.) Assisting and cooperating agencies should assign their own liaison officers that can 
reach back to other potentially effected jurisdictions; 2.) Liaison staff should located near, but not in 
the UC and coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies and community stakeholders to ensure 
RSFs are properly addressed and aligned with incident objectives. 3.) Criminal investigation and actions 
would be considered throughout the process; 4.) Responder safety issues and public health issues 
would be expected to be managed by OPS and Safety Officer; however, there would be liaison officers 
coordinating with respective agencies and stakeholders and the JIC for public messaging. 

Liaison responsibilities: 

o Generate governmental phone book/contact list (get information to/from agencies quickly, 
used by IMT to assist with planning) 

o Maintain liaison with agencies not directly involved to support awareness and understanding 
of recovery planning activities 
o Work with assisting and cooperating agencies 

o Explain objectives and priorities of the UC with a diverse array of stakeholders (note: it was 
explained that reconciling objectives and priorities is a function of the Joint Recovery Task 
Force and/or Policy Group not the liaison or UC. This should be clear in the Delegation of 
Authority.) 

o Champion efforts to get politicians to engage in strategic public messaging 
o Interface with private sector and NGOs/volunteer organizations 


10 


• Review of Operations Section for Recovery IMT. 

Recommendation: Consider Operations Section structure changes for operational coordination. 
Considerations: Review notional Operations configuration for Recovery based on directives from 
command structures group (Figure 2.0). It would be expected at this point that operations would be 
coordinating activities through Branches assigned to impacted areas and have unique functions for 
each area. Branch Directors (BDs) would coordinate activities based on incident objectives. BDs will 
use different groups based on needs for his/her area. Operations are envisioned with two different 
Field OPS assigned to BDs for each impacted area. Within each branch they can pull resources from 
the functional areas noted (Security, Performance, Mitigation, Construction - see table below) and 
coordinate closely with SMEs and Intel to gather information. Intelligence components would be 
required for public health and environment, damage assessment, and criminal investigation. The 
Criminal Investigation Division (CID) will also be operational. NOTE: In this discussion, there was 
internal IMT disagreement on this structure. 


Security 

Performance 

Mitigation 

Construction 

Internal 

Compliance 

Water 

Demolition 

External 

Inspection 

Waste 

Recovery 

Perimeter 

Cleaning 

Barrier 

Storage 

Credentialing 


Reclamation 

Transportation 


OPS 


STAM 




Asst Deputy 
Denver, Aurora, 
Pink 


-Intel 
-PH & E 
-Damage 
Assess. 


Figure 2.0 - Recovery Operations Structure 


• Review of Logistics Section for Recovery IMT. 

Recommendation: Consider logistic matters for operational coordination. 


11 












































Considerations: 1.) The IMT will utilize the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), a 
national Governors' interstate mutual aid group, which facilitates the sharing of resources, personnel 
and equipment across state lines during times of disaster and emergency; 2.) The central focal point 
for ordering resources are County and state EOCs (purchasing authorities); 3.) Some key focus areas 
would be intermediate and long-term housing, contract requirements, land-use agreements, IGAs, 
contractors for recovery, security at sites, etc. Logistics will need to ensure support for transportation 
and track and inventory resources; 4.) It was pointed out that there are laws in place that require going 
through local channels for purchasing (concern was expressed from audience regarding barriers to 
obtaining resources with local ordering process); 5.) When the IMT goes to a location, it ties in with 
local purchasing, finance authority/entity; and 6.) An EOC liaison should be used to ensure 
coordination between UC and the EOC. [Note: Original focus on the Logistics/EOC cell was to translate 
response construct to recovery, primarily focusing on logistics for the recovery teams. This 
approach/construct changed significantly once they considered the Regional Recovery Framework], 



Figure 3.0- Recovery Logistics Structure 

• Finance cost tracking will be major challenge. 

Recommendation: Ensure cost tracking issues are considered for operational coordination. 
Considerations: 1.) There would be one Finance Section within UC that would be in charge of entire 
region's activities with representatives from each impacted jurisdiction; 2.) An Incident Business 
Advisor (IBA) would be required and would interface directly with the FSC; 3.) The Finance Section 
would be tracking funds, compensation claims, etc. and would require a Cost Unit, Procurement Unit, 
and Legal Unit (due to complexity); 4.) Will require funding SMEs to ensure steps are not missed so 
proper costing occurs; 5.) Viewed as "one large arm within the UC" reaching up to state EOC, but each 
jurisdiction would have to track its own costs; 6.) Because the IMT is not local, they would have to 


12 




















work through contracts out of the local region; specifically, the IMT would need to find funding to pay 
for its resources and personnel. 



Figure 4.0 - Recovery Finance Structure 


Funding for Operations and Rebuilding (e.g., local funding sources, planning or attaining advance of 
activities, and who is responsible for funding activities) is unclear. 

Recommendation: Ensure funding issues are considered for operational coordination. 

Considerations: 1.) Ensure message is sent to citizens to start applying for federal assistance from 
FEMA (the State would work on a reimbursement assumption for those jurisdictions impacted and 
would request federal assistance via the Stafford Act; a big challenge for recovery is the need for "up¬ 
front money" where typically response is based on reimbursement); 2.) The State's RTF would be 
managing overall activities within state EOC and would be looking for funding opportunities from 
outside federal agencies; 3.) Based on FEMA NDRF briefing on Day 1, funding also needs to be worked 
out at the federal level as the transition to the NDRF places agencies other than FEMA as lead for 
various recovery support functions. 

Technical support and resources for strong Safety staff should be expected (environmental and 
public health, DOE, national labs, etc.). 

Recommendation: Provide the RTF with well-qualified personnel in technical areas specifically 
including safety. 

Considerations: 1.) This type of incident will require an organizational structure that can sustain long¬ 
term safety activities; a robust remediation and recovery team training program will be required; 2.) 
First order of business is to meet with existing safety structure and identify any immediate needs, as 
well as support or technical experts required for safety issues, then build organization structure for 
safety unit that can be sustained for a long period of time; 3.) Regarding statutory authority on PPE; 
should expect a combination of federal and state authorities but needs to be defined in plan along 
with who is communicating levels on dosage level and safety. 

13 























• Response JIC will evolve into Recovery JIC. 

Recommendation: Consider developing a process for JIC transition from response to recovery. 
Considerations: 1.) JIC should be centrally located but away from UC (possibly located in same building 
as State EOC) with other agency PIOs operating as well outside the JIC. 2.) Focus of public messaging 
will come from four areas: a.) Social Media Center; b.) Remote media centers; c.) Education Center; 
and d.) Colorado Recovers Information Center. Location of JIC will be dependent on activities; work 
should be seen and should have good access and exposure to media outlets. 3.) Media Center should 
be set up for traditional and non-traditional media, including Social Media (SM); 4.) Consistency in 
messaging and public safety messaging is critical (e.g., conveying shelter-in-place or evacuation 
activities); 5.) Messaging about contamination, radiation protection, food questions and set-up of 
surveillance system levels is most important. Agricultural industry concerns, water, soil contamination, 
etc. are big issues (many in the agricultural community not able to sustain on reimbursement promises 
so need to better understand what up-front funding is available); 6.) Remote information centers will 
be used for long distance evacuation activities and public/family accountability, (keeping people 
attached to affected areas is important); 7.) 24/7 SM posting, monitoring, and responding will be 
required (keeping public messaging timely and consistent is critical); 8.) SM is great resource for 
information gathering (where people are located, evolving concerns/issues) but will require a large 
staff (during Katrina, nearly 300 agencies were interfaced with daily, public messaging effort must rely 
on well-qualified liaison staff located near, but not in UC). Should establish a call center that interfaces 
with SM staff; 9.) VIP media center will manage VIPs and international media. 10.) Remote media 
centers will be used for managing community recovery plan and getting people back in area and 
economy up and running - gathering community input into rebuilding effort will be important. 11.) Its 
very important to control poor messaging; training program for PIOs for remote centers would be 
required (minimum 200 PIOs). Should have general FAQs pre-identified and part of the Regional 
Recovery Framework. Canned FAQs that can be reworded as needed and adjust those as needed for 
public messaging via social media. Can rely more heavily on SMEs the deeper the questions got; it was 
pointed out that there are a number of public messaging sources already available and ready to go. 

The more technical the event becomes, the more important it is to tailor your vernacular, part of the 
strategy for consistent messaging should be avoiding the use of acronyms and using an agreed upon 
list of terms developed by authorities and SMEs. 


14 




Figure 5.0- Recovery Joint Information Structure 


Recovery Support Functions [RSF’s] 

The “Recovery Support Functions" (RSF's) originate from FEMA's National Disaster Recovery Framework. An 
analysis of national level planning documents to the local Regional Recovery Framework is provided in Annex 
C: National Core Capabilities . The Denver UASI identified key focal areas and developed local RSF's that this 
region finds of most importance to focus on for the development of the Regional Recovery Framework. In the 
context of this exercise, six RSF's were discussed: 1.) Public Health and Medical Services, 2.) Identify, Stabilize, 
and Maintain Infrastructure and Property, 3.) Public Messaging, 4.) Debris Management, 5.) Prioritization of 
Clean-up, and 6.) Post Disaster Housing. 

Each area was reviewed in context of helping update the draft Regional Recovery Framework. Priorities and 
Perceived Gaps are listed in each category below. In some cases, there were general discussion items, and this 
information is captured as well. 

Public Health and Medical Services 


Discussion Points: 

• Perhaps one of the priorities/objectives can be titled medical surge/ ensuring medical capability of 
community. 

• Disaster Assistance Centers should provide one-to-one support for community with Public and mental 
health experts on hand to field issues. 


15 


































• Messaging about contamination levels and personal protection is very important. Agricultural industry 
concerns, water, soil contamination, etc. are big issues. Ensure following considerations: food quality, 
water quality, disease control, air quality, and hazardous materials related to clean-up. 

• Behavioral health will be major issue. Many of the providers are located within the affected zone; 
therefore, it may create problems in terms of providing services. 

• Red Cross and other NGOs/ volunteer organizations will be instrumental in supporting overall effort. 

• Various current public and mental health hotlines would be used to manage public concerns and 
issues. The use of the Poison Center was recommended by the poison control representative. Several 
pieces of infrastructure in area, but out of impact zone. Nurses are available through call center 24/7, 
remote site at Lowry Base, relationships with other poison control centers throughout the nation, also 
have Colorado Help Center to track questions and response and provide public messaging (24/7 
infrastructure). Have redundancy, surge capacity, tracking capabilities, remote site and medically 
trained staff. It was recommended that the Poison Center (working from the JIC) be written into the 
Regional Recovery Framework as a resource. 

Priorities: 

• Public Health and Medical Surge 

o Addressing long term care, assisted living, other facilities 

o Shift operations of field hospital from acute treatment to medical maintenance and behavioral 
health. 

• Sustaining Medical Logistics and Supply Chain 

o Staffing, Medical Supplies, Supply Chain, Lab Capacity, Doctors Office, Dialysis, Pharmaceutical 
Supply 

• Food/Agriculture and Water Safety 

o Food Supply Chain, Dairy Animals, Disposal of animals, Consumer Products, Drinking 
Water/Waterways, Restaurants outside of affected areas 

o Agricultural Run-off. Need to monitor downstream agricultural areas not just public 
consumptions 

• Fatality Management 

o Releasing Bodies to Families 

■ Requirements (mortuary education for public needed) 

■ Restrictions for burial, cremation, etc. 

• Behavioral Health 

o Services for the public and first responders/workers 

o Surveillance 

• Population Monitoring 

o Reverse Point of Dispensing (POD) concept (from CDC). People who are worried about 

contamination can visit a place for monitoring. This should attempt to address "worried well" 
issues. 

• Surveillance 

o Epidemiological and RAD specific surveillance system aligned with system 

o Hospitals monitoring and inputting information to control for trends. 

■ Need integrated monitoring system to monitor trends for emerging health issues. 

• Public Health and Medical Recovery Play book 

• Public Messaging should use "211" hotline to inform victims of new location of medical services. 

• Clear policy/guidance for "reallocation of funds". There is a perceived "fund" managed by CDPHE. 
However, for CDPHE to use funds, they have to get permission from federal partners. Funding is 


16 



encumbered by specific requirements and difficult to obtain. Need to ensure a seamless process for 
funding assistance for locals. An "1135 Waiver" was mentioned; this allows medical services to waive 
certain requirements, changes reimbursement process and avoid other requirements. 

Perceived Gaps: 

• Educational pamphlet for mortuaries for disposal of contaminated bodies 

• Health and medical educational system for what to look for after a disaster 

o For wide range of people from lay people to medical personnel 

• Food Specific Education pamphlet covers 

o Food producers, restaurants, concerns of general public, embargo process for food, and safety 
of food 

o Provides a consistent message 

• Lack of an organized approach to public health and medical recovery 

o Public health and medical recovery playbook (similar to Coast Guard Incident Management 
Handbook (IMH) process checklist - [note: check ASPR resource at: 
http://www.phe.qov/Preparedness/planninq/plavbooks/rdd/Paqes/default.aspxl 

• Shifting operations of field hospital from acute care to continued care 

o Must stagger staff and supplies 

Public Messaging 

Priorities: 

• Information Management - good structure in place early on will be critical to corral and control 
media/messaging. Will be expected to interface with authority types to assist with controlling 
misinformation and correcting other agencies. 

• Unity of Effort - need common, clear, concise controlled message across broad spectrum of response 
agencies. 

• Robust Liaison Program/JIC - must ensure stakeholders at all levels are involved. Locating the JIC 
strategically - away for the UC to minimize UC traffic and promote economic development. 

• Strategic Messaging (based on key areas, e.g., Behavioral/Mental Health, Worried Well, etc.) - proper 
blend of crisis/risk/strategic communications that is expected to address initial stress/trauma initially 
followed by plethora of issues. Safety concerns will need to be addressed with "intentional community 
messaging" (initiated in Disaster Assistance Center and carried out by local voices). Family unification 
will be important. Social Media (SM) is a double-edged sword: it is a tool for collecting and 
disseminating information, but can work against the effort to control messaging. Public Affairs 
Guidance (PAG) should be vetted through JIC and used across county/state lines with goal of 
consistency with messaging. Also important to continually interface with Public Health representatives 
to ensure timely and accurate public health updates with the use of FAQs and a central hotline (e.g., 
poison center) that has access to JIC. Addressing "worried well" issues will minimize impact on 
hospitals and play a key role in addressing behavioral health issues. Will want to avoid putting a strain 
on other systems (e.g., 911, 211, etc.) as a return to normalcy occurs. 

Perceived Gaps: 

• Public Messaging is "generic" in the Regional Recovery Framework. 

Section 3.6.9 of Regional Recovery Framework "Diversion from message" is a critical point and must be 
prevented. Phase II - Intermediate Phase is a key to success. Central issues for public messaging 
efforts will be behavioral/mental health, long-term food/water/housing/health issues, 


17 







education/schools, and restoration of the private sector (re-establishing routine within communities). 
No significant problems seen with Regional Recovery Framework RSF, but is viewed as general 
guidance. 

Identity, Stabilize, and Maintain Infrastructure and Property 

Priorities: 

• Transportation - roads, rail and air 

• Utilities - water, power and gas 

• Communication and IT 

• Public Health and Safety - ongoing from the immediate response phase 

• Agriculture 

• Banking 

• Establish a public/private partnership to identify and coordinate regional businesses 

• Make sure RTF is pre-identified and trained; needs to be multi-jurisdictional 

• Need to have an Economic Recovery policy group 

• Develop a robust private sector liaison program 

• Develop messaging about containment levels 

• Process of communication between the different support functions because of interrelationships 

• Should rapidly identify critical interdependencies (many CIKR are privately owned) 

Perceived Gaps: 

• Insurance industry representative is not included on the organizational structure 

• Scenario does not include downstream contamination of the Platte River (used as a water source). No 
Science and Technology currently in place to manage water contamination. 

o According to EPA (Dr. Graham), there is a maximum containment level (MCL)for Cesium that 
allows for some contamination in the water which can be used as targets and to educate the 
public. 

• Multi-jurisdictional RTF is not pre-identified and trained 

• Prioritization should be upfront in the Regional Recovery Framework 

• Need to have an Economic Recovery policy group 

• MAC composition is not clear; need to ensure NGO/Volunteer organization participation 

• RSFs should be linked somehow to ensure alignment of priorities and objectives 

• Need capability (tools, technology, plans) to rapidly identify and prioritize CIKR 

• Regulatory exemptions for recovery is not well-defined 

• Small and mid-sized private sector business continuity is a weakness 

• Agricultural industry concerns, water, soil contamination, etc. are big issues. Many in the agricultural 
community not able to sustain on reimbursement promises. Need to better understand what initial 
funding is available. 

• Need incentives for maintaining critical infrastructure owned by the private sector. 

• Understand how terrorist codicils affect insurance policies 

• Need to integrate zoning and building code officials 

• In the first couple of weeks, there will be a lot of temporary systems to deal with people. These will 
eventually need to be replaced. 


18 







Debris Management 


Discussion Points: 

• Economic Recovery is critical and should drive incident objectives, especially CIKR and Debris 
Management which are closely linked to economic recovery 

• Regarding waste management, work that is initially done is clean-up of transportation areas to limit 
spread. /As systems get in place to clean-up areas, systems also need to be in place to remediate waste. 

• Concern expressed for hazardous materials related to clean-up, storm run-off, and air pollution 

• Need to understand the cost associated with all the different levels of radiation (waste treated 
differently based level on concentration). Some type of matrix that outlines the push and pull between 
time, cost and cleanup levels would be useful. Cost of destroying and rebuilding versus cleaning (cost 
needs to consider hard dollar clean-up, economics and emotional); debris cost should also include 
monitoring and security of new site 

• Should provide specialized training for companies with employees who do this kind of work; and 
ensure the private sector capability is in place to support clean-up efforts (some discussion occurred 
regarding specialized ion exchange columns that can clean up water; talked about fixatives and 
strippable coatings) 

Priorities: 

• Develop a Technical Working Group to establish allowable levels (clean-up, residencies, worker, 
agriculture, water etc.). 

• Unified public messaging. Need to quickly contact political officials and caution them on citing clean¬ 
up goals until technical group / MAC / RTF has agreed to appropriate standards. 

• Understand the cost associated with different radiation levels 

• Clear understanding for how to define debris (contaminated vs. non-contaminated) 

• Enforcement of mitigation and barriers to limit the spread of contamination 

• Provide specialized training for companies 

• Manage/control waste in inter and intrastate commerce routs (including highways and trains) 

• Provide rapid options for housing to get people back in permanent long-term homes 

• Managing liability for future claims needs to be a cost considered 

Perceived Gaps: 

• Review personal property laws and the right to trespass decontaminate and/or condemn private 
property 

• Consider an increase in long-term worker compensation claims 

• Fire-codes, building codes and other regulations may need to be relaxed 

• There is no identifiable standard for containment level at the national level and don't foresee that 
happening. The local group would have to establish a level before pursuing a debris management 
strategy. NOTE: Locals want a clean-up standard. It was explained this will be situation specific and 
likely goal will not happen without more S&T. 

• Future litigation is not covered 

• No clear understanding of cost analysis for disposal and clean-up methodologies 

• No clear plan for liaison program and strategy for messaging; must message carefully regarding plans 
for rebuilding 


19 






• No clear guidance regarding personal property rights. Discussed the legal consideration of going in to 
private property and start cleaning. Is there a declaration? Consensus was laws would need to be 
relaxed so cleanup crews could commence. 

• Regarding OSHA regulations that are applied; the level of PPE required may slow down operations 

• Suggest removing references "human remains" from debris section. Group believes it was offensive. 


Prioritization of Clean-up 

Priorities: 

• Safety & Security/Public Health 

• Restoration of CIKR 

• Economic Stability and Community Needs 

Perceived Gaps: 

• Composition of the MAC - Roles and Responsibilities need to be defined 

• Need to identify a multijurisdictional RTF to will understand the scale and scope of the event - 
national level impact 

• Determining how clean is clean is a policy level decision based on circumstances 

• Business continuity capacity of small and medium sized businesses 

• Need to determine resources 

Post Disaster Housing 

Discussion Points: 

• Only 10% of displaced persons will go to a Red Cross shelter, 90% will go with friends and family. Are 
people continuing to pay their mortgages? Do they have to? 

• Near term - individuals would request funds for damages through FEMA's Disaster Recovery Center. 
Expect that full reimbursement will be provided. FEMA representative commented that many of the 
options/issues discussed are occurring in response already, not solely recovery functions. The JFO 
would be up and running and a lot of the items discussed would be covered here. 

• Is there a standard that FEMA can review to see what the ratio is for Stafford Act coverage in a 
community to act as a gap analysis to assist in recognizing post-disaster housing issues? 

• What happens when housing needs continue beyond 18 months (a FEMA limit)? 

• Another resource is the State's Disaster Housing Task Force 

• Should make it a priority following an incident to identify existing housing options 

• Uncertainty regarding long-term housing issues (e.g., will people move back into a "cleared" house?) 
Most agree many people won't come back even if the homes are declared "safe." Combating the 
stigma and perception of the region is going to be a challenge. 

• Need to help people help themselves and involve the community in the planning process 

• Should evaluate the ability to issue rent control policies 

• Will need to identify "At Risk" populations and provide them with housing options 

• Regarding insurance issues. When they become paralyzed we all become paralyzed. Also most 
insurance has terrorist codicils on it. How many people have that? Insurance companies are key 
players to keep recovery moving along. Need to include insurance representatives in the 
organizational structure. Would need a task force that includes the insurance industry and attorney 


20 







general. Can't really recover until the insurance industry makes decision. Some businesses (i.e. 
airports) may have additional insurance that supplements the ability to clean-up. 

• Will need to consider individuals who self-evacuate and take up housing that is needed for others (i.e. 
volunteers)? 

• Think about private sector opportunities to provide post disaster housing in order to incentivize 
housing options; consideration is there may be existing housing available because so many people 
have relocated. 

Priorities: 

• Ensure housing solutions are in place that span intermediate and long-term recovery phases 

• Help people help themselves; post capabilities to post housing opportunities on a common 
information source, e.g., website. Include what they should do with their house or apartment 

• Engage the community in the planning process (e.g., have a Housing Action Plan in place) 

Housing Action Plan: 

• Provide mechanism for affected population to register with FEMA 

• Activate the State-led Housing Task Force; to provide the following activities: 

> Identify existing housing opportunities i.e., available apartment rentals 

> Identify rental assistance resources e.g. Financial assistance 

> Provide housing policy recommendations to local jurisdictions e.g. rent control policies 

> Coordinate with unmet needs and groups 

> Engage with public messaging to increase awareness of resources 

> Identify at-risk populations and prioritize their housing needs 

> Task force includes the following organizations: 

o Insurance, HUD, FEMA, USDA Rural Development, Colorado Housing Authority, and Denver 
Community Development 

• Setup a housing recovery center (FEMA/state), where information on housing is provided. One stop 
shop for resources and information e.g., how to get a disaster loan and obtain rental resources. 

• Establish entity/assign responsibility for addressing recovery workforce housing needs e.g., tent cities, 
college dormitories 

• Provide mechanism for engaging community and enabling them to provide input e.g., conduct public 
meetings and forums 

Longer term actions: 

• Identifying funds sources (public/private) to develop housing 

• Campaigns to introduce government legislation to provide financial support for housing development 
e.g., grants, appropriations, other 

• Developing incentives to convince population to stay or repopulate the area 
Perceived Gaps: 

• The group effectively utilized the framework in developing their Housing Action Plan. Specifically, the 
group walked through the list of considerations and confirmed each consideration was addressed by 
an organization or group such as the State task force or Recovery center. They were able to develop a 
housing action plan with high confidence. 

• NGOs can really aid in the section. They really need to be added because they can play a major role in 
relieving the burden from the recovery team 


21 




8.0 Conclusion 


Although the areas that require action in the Short-Term Recovery Phase were fairly robust, expected actions 
and capabilities for the Intermediate Phase and Long-Term activities were even more extensive. Critical is the 
speed that Recovery is begun; Recovery Planning must begin in the first few hours of the incident response. As 
the Joint Recovery Task Force and /or Recovery Support Functions identify prioritized objectives; they must be 
integrated with any continuing response incident management plans. 

Utilizing a Type III IMT following a catastrophic incident appears to serve as a significant advantage for the 
rapid initiation of recovery operations during the earliest phases of response. The IMT demonstrated a good 
grasp of potential issues and could be expected to greatly assist with initial stabilization of the situation given 
clear situational awareness and a unified, multijurisdictional command and control Structure. IMT members 
provided valuable feedback for the effort underway to complete writing the Regional Recovery Framework; 
particularly in regards to recommendations for improving the RSFs. In terms of priority, first responder and 
Public Health and Medical (including public safety and security) was considered first and foremost, followed by 
Public Messaging/Information Management and Identifying, Stabilizing and Maintaining Critical Infrastructure 
and Property. Debris Management, Prioritization of Clean-up, and Post Disaster Housing were also discussed 
and considered priorities; underpinning all of these is the need to restore the local economy. 

It is crucial that each jurisdiction's Recovery Plan(s) identify the key members of the Joint Recovery Task Force. 
These members extend beyond members of response organizations; i.e., Elected Official, Community 
Development Representative, Legal Representative, Jurisdictional spokesperson that community identifies as 
trusted, Waste Management Representative, Water Representative, Wastewater Representative, Private 
Sector Representative, Health Representative, Emergency Management Representative, Subject Matter 
Experts. Further, representatives in region with actual recovery experience should be identified and trained to 
form a Recovery Assistance Team, providing expertise to impacted jurisdictions. 

For summary of lessons learned see Table 1.0 - Operational Considerations and Command Structures: Key 
Discussion Items and Recommendations; and Table 2.0. Recovery Support Functions: Priorities, Perceived 
Gaps on the following pages. 


22 



Table 1.0 - Operational Considerations and Command Structures: Key Discussion Items and 
Recommendations 


Category 

Discussion Item 

Recommendations 


Building a structure "above" the IMT 

• 

Further discuss a Multi-Agency Coordination (MAC) Structure during the MAC 


will be critical for recovery options 


Working Group Meeting 23FEB2012. Goal should be to develop and include a MAC 
structure in the Regional Recovery Framework and define protocols between the 

MAC and IMT in the recovery process. 

0) 

i- 

Situation Unit (SITU) would be 

• 

Pre-identify a list of agencies / organizations and SMEs that will work within 

3 

+■» 

O 

expected to be very robust and a 


Technical Specialist Units during recovery. 

3 

+■» 

LO 

"O 

c 

fR 

critical element 

• 

Emphasize coordination within the Situation Unit 

TO 

E 

c 

Liaison activities will require a 

• 

Ensure liaison roles and responsibilities are considered for operations coordination 

c 

o 

u 

comprehensive plan 


planning 


Recovery IMT: Operations Section 

• 

Consider the recommended changes to the IMT Operations Section structure for 
recovery operations coordination 


Recovery IMT: Logistics Section 

• 

Consider logistic matters for recovery operations coordination 


Finance cost tracking will be a major 

• 

Consider cost tracking issues for recovery operations coordination 

(/) 

c 

o 

challenge 



'+-» 

m 

Funding for Operations and Rebuilding 

• 

Consider funding issues for recovery operations coordination 

cu 

is unclear (e.g., funding sources, 



'to 

c 

o 

advanced planning, responsibilities) 



u 

Technical support and resources for a 

• 

Provide the RTF with well-qualified personnel in technical areas, specifically safety 

C 

o 

strong Safety staff should be expected 



*+■» 

fO 

(e.g., environmental and public health, 



j_ 

QJ 

Q. 

DOE, national labs) 



o 

Response J 1C will evolve into Recovery 

• 

Develop a process for JIC transition from response to recovery and ensure 


JIC 


integration of recovery messaging early in the incident 


23 







Table 2.0 - Recovery Support Functions: Priorities, Perceived Gaps 


RSF 

Priorities 

Perceived Gaps 

Public Health and 

• Public Health and Medical Surge 

Education Materials 

Medical Services 

• Sustaining Medical Logistics and Supply Chain 

• Mortuary disposal practices 


• Food, Agriculture and Water Safety 

• Health and medical information for medical community and public 


• Fatality Management 

• Behavioral Health 

• Food safety for industry and consumers 


• Population Monitoring 

Organized approach for recovery operations 


• Surveillance 

• Recovery playbook (being discussed in WARRP Public Health Working 


• Recovery Playbook 

Group - POCs: Charles Smedly and John Gibbons) 


• Policy / guidance for "reallocation of funds" 

• Field hospital transition from acute to continued care 

Public Messaging 

• Public Messaging should use "211" hotline 

Discussion in Regional Recovery Framework 


• Information Management 

• Public Messaging is "generic" in the Regional Recovery Framework 


• Unity of Effort 

• Highlight "Diversion from Message" section 


• Robust Liaison Program / JIC 

• Highlight importance during Intermediate Phase 


• Strategic Messaging 

• Central issues: behavioral/mental health; long-term 
food/water/housing/health issues; education/schools 

Identify, Stabilize, 

• Transportation 

Organization and Coordination 

and Maintain 

• Utilities 

• Insurance Industry Representative 

Infrastructure 

• Communication and IT 

• Economic Policy Group 

and Property 

• Public Health and Safety 

• Pre-identified and trained RTF 


• Agriculture 

• NGO/Volunteer representation 


• Banking 

• Integrate zoning and building code officials 


• Public/private partnership 

• Pre-identified, trained, multi-jurisdiction RTF 

• Link RSFs to ensure alignment of priorities and goals 


• Economic Recovery policy group 

Incentives / Funding 


• Private sector liaison program 

• Agricultural community cannot sustain on reimbursement 


• Messaging about containment levels 

• Private sector incentives for maintaining critical infrastructure 


• Communications process across support functions 

• Policy / Guidelines 


• Rapid identification of critical interdependencies 

• Well-defined regulatory exemptions for recovery 

• Small and mid-sized private sector business continuity 


24 









Debris 

Management 


Prioritization of 
Clean-up 


Technical Working Group 

Unified public messaging 

Costs associated with different radiation levels 

Debris definitions (contaminated vs. non- 

contaminated) 

Enforcement of mitigation and barriers 
Specialized training 

Management of Inter- and intrastate commerce 
routes 

Rapid options for housing 
Liability for future claims 


Safety and Security / Public Health 
Restoration of CIKR 

Economic Stability and Community Needs 


• Understand effects of terrorist codicils (i.e., amendments') on insurance 
policies 

• Replacement of temporary systems for dealing with people 

Science and Technology 

• Water source decontamination 

• Rapid identification and prioritization of CIKR 


Planning 

• Liaison program plans 

• Messaging strategy for rebuilding plans 

• Cost analysis for disposal and clean-up methodologies 

Policies, Regulations, Laws, and Rights 

• Personal Property: Ability to trespass, decontaminate and/or condemn 
private property 

• Long-term worker compensation claims 

• Relaxed fire codes, building codes, and other regulations 

• Protection against unwarranted litigation/clear guidance to avoid it 

• OSHA regulations, PPE requirements hinder cleanup operations 

• Provide federal standards (vs. federal recommendations to locals) for 
containment levels prior to local debris management strategy 

Organization and Coordination 

• MAC composition, with defined roles and responsibilities 

• Pre-identified multi-jurisdictional RTF 

Planning 

• Resource determination 

• Business continuity capacity of small and medium-size businesses 

Policies 

• Situation-specific “How clean is clean" policy decision 


25 





Post Disaster 
Housing 




Housing Action Plan: Solutions for intermediate and • 
long-term recovery phases 
Help people help themselves 
Community engagement in planning process 


Include NGO in organizational structure to help relieve burden from 
recovery team 


26 



Annex A - Agenda 


December 14, 2011 


0730 - 0830 

Registration 

0830 - 0900 

Welcome: Introductions, Review of Workshop Objectives, Agenda 

Speakers: Ms. Robin Finnegan, Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VIII 

Mr. Chris Russell, Department of Flomeland Security 

Mr. Garry Briese, Wide Area Recovery & Resiliency Program 

0900 - 0930 

Topic: Radiological Impacts 

Speakers: Mr. Steve Morreale, Department of Energy 

& 

Mr. Brooke Buddemeier, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

0930-1000 

Topic: Real World Lessons Learned- Debris Management 

Speaker: Mr. Richard Graham, Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 

1000-1030 

Topic: Real World Lessons Learned-Japan 

Speaker: Mr. Steve Morreale, Department of Energy 

1030-1045 

Break 

1045-1115 

Topic: Framework Orientation 

Speaker: Pat Williams, Mayor's Office of Emergency Management & Homeland 

Security 

1115-1145 

Topic: Federal Recovery Efforts 

Speaker: Mr. George Betz, Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VIII 

1145-1245 

Lunch 

1245-1315 

Topic: DOD Support 

Speaker: Major Choy & Major Moore 

Northern Command 


27 















1315-1345 

Topic: The National Disaster Recovery Framework 

Speaker: Mr. Martin McNeese, Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VIII 

1345-1400 

Break 

1400- 1445 

Topic: Incident Management Team (IMT) Overview 

Speaker: Mr. Tim McSherry, Jefferson County IMT 

1445- 1500 

Day 1 Wrap-up 


December 15, 2011 


0900 - 0930 

Workshop Objectives, Workshop Format, Introductions, Scenario, 

Assumptions 

Speakers: Mr. Steve Stein, Pacific Northwest National Labs 

Mr. Brooke Buddemeier, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

0930 - 1115 

IMT works with All Hazards Recovery Framework 

Mr. Tim McSherry, Jefferson County IMT 

1115-1130 

Workshop Status Brief: 

Report out on Issues, Observations, & Challenges 

1130-1230 

Lunch 

1230-1430 

IMT works with All Hazards Recovery Framework 

1430-1530 

Hotwash 

1530-1600 

Way Ahead Discussion: 

Key Objectives, Framework, Expansion of IMT Scope 


28 
















Annex B - Workshop Participants 


Last Name 

First Name 

Organization 

Alexander 

Dan 

FEMA 

Askenazi 

Michele 

Tri-County Health Department 

Bakersky 

Peter 

FEMA RVIII 

Benerman 

Bill 

Denver Department of Environmental Health 

Betz 

George 

FEMA Region 8 

Billings 

Christine 

Jefferson County Public Health 

Bluhm 

Carolyn 

Denver OEMHS 

Briese 

Garry 

WARRP 

Bronstein, MD, FACMT 

Alvin 

Rocky Mountain Poison & Drug Center 

Buddemeier 

Brooke 

LLNL 

Campbell 

Chris 

LLNL 

Chandler 

Meghan 

Thornton 911 

Chapman 

Matt 

Aurora Fire Department 

Chard 

Michael 

Boulder OEM 

Chase 

Charles 

Denver Fire Department 

Choy 

Eric 

HQ USNORTHCOM J35 

Ciazza 

Lisa 

Aurora Fire Department 

Clark 

L. Dean 

NPS- Retired 

Cloyd 

Wade 

Denver International Airport 

Craig 

Charles 

North Central Region 

Deal 

Tim 

FEMA 

DiPaolo 

Elizabeth 

WARRP 

Easterling 

Bill 

Jefferson County IMT 

Englund 

Garth 

Douglas County 

Field 

Scott 

Denver Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security 

Franco 

David 

Sandia National Laboratories 

Frary 

Michael 

Jefferson County IMT 

Gafkjen 

Jeff 

FEMA 

Gerber 

Brian 

University of Colorado Denver, Buechner Institute for Governance 

GIBBONS 

JOHN 

HHS/ASPR 

Ginley 

William 

US Army ECBC 

Godd-Doe 

Colleen 

Jefferson County IMT 

Graham 

Richard 

EPA Region 8 

Graver 

Jim 

HUD 

Grove 

Glenn 

Adams and Jefferson County Hazardous Response Authority 

Groves 

Katey 

Cubic Applications, Inc. 

Gunderson 

Jonathan 

CDPHE-OEPR 


29 













































Last Name 

First Name 

Organization 

Hackbarth 

Hunter 

Aurora FD 

Hard 

Dave 

Colorado Division of Emergency Management 

Hardy 

Doug 

SPAWAR Systems 

Hatlestad 

Daniel 

Jefferson County IMT 

Hilko 

Mary 

Rocky Mountain Poison & Drug Center 

Hlavacek 

Brian 

Tri-County Health Department 

Holmes 

Lanney 

FEMA 

Huntsinger 

David 

City of Denver Public Works 

Johnson 

Melinda 

Denver MMRS 

Kallam 

Hans 

Colorado Emergency Preparedness Partnership (CEPP) 

Laubhan 

Zane 

Gilpin County/Gilpin Ambulance Authority 

Leach 

Merrie 

Boulder OEM 

Lee 

Steve 

Denver International Airport 

Long 

Keith 

Fairmont Fire Department 

Lynch 

Rose 

City of Englewood 

Lytle 

Victoria 

Jefferson County IMT 

Mahlik 

Scott 

UC-Denver School of Public affairs / FEMA 

Martinez 

Rebecca 

City of Brighton 

McDermott 

Heather 

Adams County OEM 

McNeese 

Martin 

FEMA 

McSherry 

Tim 

Jefferson County IMT 

Midgley 

Mike 

Cubic Applications, Inc. 

Moore 

Lyle 

CDPHE 

Moore 

Ronnie 

USNORTHCOM 

Morreale 

Steve 

DOE/National Nuclear Security Administration 

Mower 

John 

Cubic Applications, Inc. 

Newman 

Richard 

Adams County OEM 

Normandie 

Kristin 

HQ NORTHCOM J35 

O'Keefe 

Paul 

Aurora Police Department 

Ordonez 

Michael 

FEMA RVIII 

Palmer 

Greg 

Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office 

Parker 

Andrew 

Jefferson County IMT 

Pearson 

Brooke 

Cubic Applications, Inc. 

Rogers 

Scott 

West Metro Fire Rescue 

Roome 

Beth 

CDPHE-OEPR 

Rubenstein 

Mike 

Jefferson County IMT 

Rushing 

Derek 

University of Colorado Hospital 

Russell 

Chris 

DHSS&T 

Sandusky 

Jessica 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

Santagata 

Fran 

Douglas County OEM 


30 















































Last Name 

First Name 

Organization 

Small 

Carol 

Jefferson County Emergency Management 

Smedly 

Charles 

Denver Public Health 

Socha 

Marie 

SHRR Consulting 

Sorensen 

Marcia 

Douglas County Government - CPSD, Engineering Division 

Stein 

Steve 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

Stein 

Steve 

PNNL 

Steinhour 

LeeAnn 

Cubic/WARRP 

Sullivan 

George 

American Red Cross 

Sullivan 

Suzanne 

University of Colorado Hospital 

Suter 

Stephen 

University of Colorado Hospital 

Thomas 

Jane 

Clear Creek County Office of Emergency Management 

Thompson 

Kelli 

Cubic Applications, Inc. 

Tolbert 

Bill 

COVAD 

Tucker 

Mark 

Sandia National Laboratories 

Vogt 

Jim 

Idaho Springs PD / NWIMT 

Walker 

Thomas 

Aurora Fire Department 

Wallis 

Bill 

Jefferson County IMT 

Wheat 

Cari 

ARC 

White 

Sarah 

University of Colorado Hospital 

Williams 

Pat 

Denver OEM 

Wold 

Bob 

Colorado Division of Emergency Management 


31 




























Annex C - National Core Capabilities Diagram 


Key Response 
Planning Factors 


Denver UASI RSFs 


National Preparedness Goal National Recovery 
Recovery Core Capabilities Framework RSFs 


Planning 

Prioritization of 
Clean-up 

Planning 

Community Planning 
and Capacity Building 

Operational 

Coordination_ 

Operational 

Coordination 


Public intormation 

and Warning 

Public Messaging 

Public Intormation 

and Warning 


public and Private volunteer and 

Services and Resources Donation Management 



Environmental 
Response/Health and 
_ Safety _ 


Health and social 
Services 


Public Health and 

Medical Services 


Debris 

Management 


Fatality Management 


Public Health and 
Medical 


Public Safety 


Health and Social 
Services 


Health, Social, and 
Community Services 


Kestore and Kevitalize 
Infrastructure Systems 


Maintain infrastructure 
and Property 


Infrastructure Systems 


Infrastructure Systems 







tcononnc 

Recovery 


tconomic 

Development 


tconomic 

Recovery 


tconomic 

Development 



Housing 

Post Disaster Housing 

Housing Housing 


Natural and cultural 

Resources 

Natural and cultural 
Resources 

Natural and cultural Natural and cultural 

Resources Resources 


32 










































































Annex D - Participant Feedback 


Below are the results of participant feedback: 


Examined Solutions to Reduce Time & Resources to 
Recover 



Examined the use of an All-Hazards IMT to Support 
Initiation of Recovery Operations 


N/A 

Strongly Disagree 
Disagree 
Neither 
Agree 
Strongly Agree 



0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % 


Enabled Participants to Identify Relevant Issues 



Enhanced Awareness & Understanding of Impacts 
from Radiological Incident 

N/A 

Strongly Disagree 
Disagree 
Neither 
Agree 
Strongly Agree 

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % 


Increased Awareness of Radiological Impacts, 

Regional Recovery Framework, Federal Efforts, DoD 
Support, NDRF& IMT 

N/A 

Strongly Disagree 
Disagree 
Neither 
Agree 
Strongly Agree 

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % 



The Workshop was Effectively Executed 



Explored an Organizational Approach of Regional 
Recovery Framework 


N/A 

Strongly Disagree 
Disagree 
Neither 
Agree 
Strongly Agree 


0 % 


20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % 


Effectively Explored the Operationalization of 
Regional Recovery Framework 

N/A 

Strongly Disagree 
Disagree 
Neither 
Agree 
Strongly Agree 

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % 



The Facilities Contributed to Success 



33 











































































Annex E -Key Points of Contact 


Planning Team 

• Aurora OEM: Matt Chapman 

• Denver OEM: Matt Mueller 

• FEMA 8: Lanney Holmes 

• Jefferson County OEM/IMT: Tim McSherry 

• State OEM: Dave Hard 

• Regional Framework (PNNL): Steve Stein / Jessica Sandusky 

• WARRP Integrators (Cubic): Mike Midgley, John Mower, Katey Groves, Brooke Pearson, Kelli 
Thompson, Stacey Tyler 

• WARRP Local Integrators (Cubic): Gary Briese, LeeAnn Steinhour 

• WARRP PM: Chris Russell 

• WARRP Systems Analysis: Dave Franco (SNL) 

Key Points of Contact: The following personnel are key points of contact for this workshop: 

Cubic Applications. Inc. 

Garry Briese, WARRP Local Integrator 
(571)221-3319 

gbriese(5) brieseandassociates.com 
Ms. Katey Groves, Workshop Coordinator 
(858) 810 5782 (office) 

(951) 775 0053 (mobile) 

katey.groves(5)cubic.com 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

Steve Stein, PNNL Director 
(206) 528-3340 (office) 

(206)409-9630 (cell) 
steve.stein(5) pnnl.gov 

Jessica Sandusky, Regional Framework Lead 
Tel: 206-528-3422 
Fax: 206-528-3557 
jessica.sandusky(5) pnnl.gov 


34 










Annex F - Acronyms 


After Action Report (AAR) 

Branch Director (BD) 

Chemical, Biological, Radiological (CBR) 

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

Colorado Division of Emergency Management (CDEM) 
Colorado Department of Public Health (CDPHE) 

Colorado Emergency Preparedness Partnership (CEPP) 
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) 

Criminal Investigation Division (CID) 

Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR) 

Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (COFA) 
Common Operating Plan (COP) 

Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) 

Civil Support Team (CST) 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Department of Defense (DoD) 

Department of Energy (DOE) 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) 

Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) 
Emergency Management (EM) 

Emergency Operations Center (EOC) 

Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) 

Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

Finance Section Chief (FSC) 

Government (GOVT) 

Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) 

Health and Human Services (HHS) 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

Incident Action Plan (IAP) 

Insurance and Brokers Association (IBA) 

Incident Commander (1C) 

Interagency Biological Restoration Demonstration (IBRD) 
Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) 

Incident Management Handbook (IMH) 

Incident Management Team (IMT) 

Joint Field Office (JFO) 

Joint Information Center (J 1C) 

Joint Information System (JIS) 

Joint Recovery Task Force (JTRF) 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) 
Logistics Section Chief (LSC) 

Multi-Agency Coordination (MAC) 

Maximum Containment Level (MCL) 

National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) 


35 



Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) 

Office of Emergency Management (OEM) 
Operations (OPS) 

Public Affairs Guidance (PAG) 

Public Information Officer (PIO) 

Program Manager (PM) 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) 

Point of Contact (POC) 

Point of Dispensing (POD) 

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) 

Planning Section Chief (PSC) 

Recovery Support Function (RSF) 

Recovery Task Force (RTF) 

Situation Unit (SITU) 

Social Media (SM) 

Subject Matter Expert (SME) 

Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) 

Science and Technology (S&T) 

Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) 

Unified Command (UC) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Wide Area Recovery & Resiliency Program (WARRP) 


36