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
