Statewide Emergency Preparedness 2007-2008 Annual Report to the Governor Emergency Management Council Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division Washington State Emergency Management Council Washington State Patrol State Fire Marshal Sheriff and Police Chiefs State and Local Emergency Management Directors Department of Ecology Department of Health Military Department Building Officials Department of Natural Resources Private Industry Search and Rescue Volunteers City Officials County Officials Washington State Association of Fire Chiefs Member-at-Large Washington Emergency Management Division Building 20: TA-20 Camp Murray, WA 98430 August 20, 2008 The Honorable Christine O. Gregoire Governor of Washington P.O. Box 40002 Olympia, WA 98504-0002 Dear Governor Gregoire: The Emergency Management Council’s role is to inform you about our state’s critical hazards, our preparedness to respond to these hazards and provide you with recommendations for improving overall emergency preparedness statewide. As Chair of the Council, I am pleased to present the Washington State Emergency Management Council’s 2007-2008 Annual Assessment of Statewide Emergency Preparedness. Washington citizens are fortunate to have local, state and federal emergency management organizations, National Guard Units, business and nongovernmental organization that work together effectively in response to emergencies and disasters. As recent flooding and winter storm events demonstrated, we have drawn upon lessons learned from past disasters to improve our actions in subsequent emergencies. There is always room to improve and this report offers additional short and long-term recommendations. The Report highlights our concern over the ever-widening gap in local and state emergency management programs abilities to perform their functions. Competing priorities, increased public expectations, population growth, climate change, unpredictable changes and reductions in federal support coupled with current state and local fiscal constraints are clearly having adverse affects on the entire state’s emergency management system. The effects diminish the emergency management system’s ability to meet critical preparedness, response and recovery needs. The Council’s recommendations are summarized in our Action Plan. This Plan focuses on the priorities we believe are critical for improving our state’s emergency management capability and capacity. We appreciate the time and attention you and your staff have paid to the Council’s efforts and we intend to provide you with periodic Action Plan progress reports during this coming year. Table of Contents Letter to the Governor Table of Contents ...............................…………………………………………………………… iii Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………. 1 Introduction………………….………….………………………………………………………… 4 The Importance of a viable Emergency Management System….……………………………… ...4 Role of the Emergency Management Council...……………………………….…………………. 7 State Remains at Risk………..…………………………………………………………………… 8 Hazard Specific Assessments…………………………………………………………………… 10 A. Hazard Mitigation-Climate Change and Pandemic Influenza……...…………………… 10 B. Winter Storms-Flooding Events Assessment…………………..………………………...11 C. Seismic Safety Committee……………………………………………………………… .13 D. Committee on Homeland Security……………………………………………………… .15 E. State Emergency Response Commission...…………………………..…………………. .17 Discipline Specific Assessments...……………………………………………………………….18 A. Citizens Preparedness and Participation…………………………...…………………… .18 B. Local Programs Task Force – Status Report.........………………..……………………...18 C. Public-Private Partnerships…………………………………………………………...… .20 D. Response, Recovery and revitalization...……..………………………………………… .20 Council Recommendations……...……………………………………………………………… .25 A. System Changes for Improvement..….……..…………………………………………... .25 B. Administrative Actions to Strengthen Statewide system…………….…………………. .27 C. Legislative Actions….....……………….………………………………………….......... 28 APPENDIX A. Emergency Management Council Statue and Members…….………….……………… ..31 B. Emergency Management Council’s Action Plan………………………………………. ..33 C. Seismic Safety Report……………..…………………………………………………… ..39 D. Homeland Security Annual Report….…………………………………………………. ..48 E. SERC Annual Report….……………………………………………………………….. ..52 F. References for: State Preparedness Report 2007-2008 2007 Winter Storm; After Actions Report Climate Change Report 2008 .............................................................................................55 iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The mission of emergency management agencies is broad and demanding. Emergency management agencies respond to almost all disasters and emergencies that may occur. These include natural disasters such as flooding, fires, winds, earthquakes, and disease, as well as human-made and “homeland security” emergencies. The protection and safety of citizens is one of the most critical responsibilities of government. It is the Emergency Management Council’s (Council) responsibility to recommend improvements in Washington’s ability to mitigate, prepare, respond, and recover from “all-hazards” events. An “all-hazards” approach to emergency management continues to be a priority for the Council. This report describes the need for maintaining an effective and healthy emergency management system that is in a state of transition. The actions generated by this report provide a clear roadmap to bridging the identified gaps in our capabilities.        Prevent demands placed on emergency responders from outstripping their capabilities and resources. Increase effectiveness of emergency response by involving government, business, and the public in taking preparedness measures together in advance of an event. Build a disaster resistant economy and ensure robust response and recovery operations through strong public-private partnerships. Strengthen partnerships with federal, state, local, tribal and private sector organizations. Complete a quantitative assessment of current statewide needs and integrate the results into future planning, exercise, training and equipment decisions. Develop and propose a system to sustain basic local emergency management preparedness, response and recovery efforts. Support the efforts of local jurisdictions to leverage local funding options and seek other resources for emergency management activities. -1- Competing priorities, increased public expectations, and limited existing resources--all dilemmas for emergency management in this state. In addition, dramatic decreases in federal, state and local funding for emergency management in this state coupled with current fiscal conditions are clearly having adverse effects on the entire state’s emergency management system. This Council’s Annual Report again highlights recommendations for actions that address these concerns. The intended impact of each is to close the ever-widening gap between the responsibilities of the state emergency management system and its ability to meet them. In a first step to keep pace with the dramatically changing emergency management environment, including new challenges presented by climate change, the Council and its partners are assessing the status of the preparedness, capacity and capability of local and state emergency organizations to respond. Early in 2007, the Council met in special session to assess its own strengths and weaknesses, and to establish a set of attainable priorities for the future. Because of that strategic planning session, the Council reviewed additional information and reports. In further discussions and assessments, Council members identified several systems and administrative actions that will support ongoing local and CBRNE (chemical, biological, radioactive, nuclear, and explosive) initiatives. System Improvements: 1. Adopt and promote a core personal preparedness message for the state. A work group with broad based representation will evaluate current messages and develop an agreed upon core message. The message can be integrated at the state and local level by organizations and groups involved in public emergency preparedness and recovery. 2. Expand the number of qualified and trained state agency personnel available to provide “surge capacity” for both state and local emergency management. 3. Convene a task force, to include local jurisdictions, state agencies, business and affiliated community response organizations, to develop criteria and standards for emergency management systems within the state. The task force will recommend funding options to support and maintain the emergency management system. 4. The Council will establish a Recovery-Restoration Work Group and coordinate with associated groups addressing “best management practices” for disaster recovery in Washington. Administrative Improvements: 1. The Seismic Safety Advisory Committee’s Annual Report recommended a critical examination of the state’s current approach to seismic safety. In response, the Council will establish a Panel of all affected parties including private-industry to examine the Seismic Safety Committee’s Annual Report and address the effectiveness of the current organization and structure. The Panel will assess additional elements to include analysis of seismic safety authorities, actions and activities in this state. 2. The Committee on Homeland Security (CHS) will focus its attention on terrorism. The Council will work with CHS to review its function and identify what type of forum is needed to address issues to increase:  jurisdiction and regional collaboration  information sharing  law enforcement and intelligence connectivity  communication and systems interoperability and technology management 3. The Council recommends that the state continue support of the Washington Joint Analytical Center (WAJAC). -2- Legislative Priorities: 1. A priority for the Council is the establishment of a stable and sustainable state funding mechanism for emergency management. The state must address the federal funding reductions and other funding shortfalls currently impacting state and local programs. Funding coupled with the development of a baseline service standard for local emergency management programs will result in a consistent level of preparedness across the state. 2. The Council continues to support the efforts of the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) to obtain legislative action to seek a sustainable statewide CBRNE program. The SERC will continue to emphasize the significance of this issue and seek to have the bill introduced again in the 2009 legislative session. -3- INTRODUCTION The importance of maintaining a viable emergency management system The mission of emergency management agencies today is much broader than the mission given the predecessor “civil defense” agencies of the 1950s and ‘60s. Today emergency management agencies respond to almost all disasters and emergencies that may occur. These include natural disasters such as flooding, fires, wind, earthquakes, and disease, as well as human-made and “homeland security” emergencies. Washington State has taken significant steps to incorporate terrorism into its strategic and operational plans. Homeland security presents several unique challenges for emergency management, which include the need for information sharing and improved coordination among law enforcement, emergency management, public health and the medical community; preserving evidence and investigating the criminal aspect of terrorism while simultaneously saving lives and restoring essential services. Emergency management agencies have become involved in other new areas, too, such as planning for special needs populations, school safety, and animal rescue, providing interagency coordination for largescale public events like the Olympic Games, and lending planning assistance and resource support to other events. The state’s all-hazards approach to emergency management requires coordination among all departments and agencies, local and tribal governments, non-governmental organizations, the business community and faith-based groups. State and local emergency management agencies regularly plan and coordinate with agencies responsible for transportation, environmental protection, natural resources, agriculture, fire fighting/safety, health and human services, law enforcement education, volunteer organizations, private sector interests and other areas covered by disaster preparedness, response and recovery. The interface with the private sector promotes a business community that is engaged in disaster mitigation and planning to protect its employees, facilities, and critical infrastructure. It is critical that government and the private sector work together to assist businesses in recovering as quickly as possible following a disaster to ensure the rapid restoration of essential services and economic stability in a community. The emergency needs of the state’s communities continue to increase and are becoming broader in scope. In an Interim Report to the Governor and Legislature in February of 2008, the twenty-seven member Climate Advisory Team made twelve recommendations to help address climate change impacts to the -4- state. The report states that we must take steps to be prepared and adapt to climate change. A specific recommendation in the report states: “Enhance emergency preparedness and response. Incorporate climate change and its impacts into (emergency management) planning and decision-making processes.” 1 The national and international concern over pandemic flu moved the state into action over the past eighteen months to develop a Pandemic Influenza Plan. This state plan addresses the overall state emergency management response, and bridges the gap between federal guidance, the existing state emergency plan and the public health aspects. Many state agencies and many local governments have also completed individual plans, which have included Continuity of Operations (COOP) as a central focus. Current fiscal conditions at the national, state and local level require the prioritization and leveraging of resources to achieve maximum results. The federal government has been providing significant funding for homeland security that has helped to enhance the overall response capability to an “all-hazards” event. However, Homeland Security and other federal funds have been significantly reduced or will be eliminated within the next five years. Local and state funding for emergency management programs either are non-existent or have not kept pace with the increased demands on basic preparedness activities and the new missions asked of the emergency management system. 1 Leading the Way on Climate Change: The Challenge of Our Time Interim Report, Department of Ecology, February 2008. -5- Local emergency management programs struggle to acquire adequate basis or additional funding needed to address public safety needs and growing public expectations in their communities. The state’s emergency management system must be stabilized, made more robust and able to be maintained over the long-term. While federal disaster assistance can be available for large-scale disasters and emergencies, most events never receive a presidential disaster declaration and must be handled by state and local government. The state must devise strategies to fund emergency management to ensure that sufficient resources are available to assist local jurisdictions and sustain the state emergency management program. Not being prepared will put the health and safety of our citizens and our economy at great risk. -6- ROLE OF THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Help to sustain and improve emergency management statewide The protection and safety of citizens is one of the most critical responsibilities of government and it is the responsibility of the Council to provide recommendations to improve Washington’s ability to mitigate, prepare, respond, and recover from “all-hazards” events. The Council is composed of seventeen Governor-appointed individuals. As required by RCW 38.52.040, the Council advises the Governor and Director of the Military Department on all matters pertaining to state and local emergency management by promoting, assessing, and reporting on statewide readiness. The members represent city and county government, sheriffs and police chiefs, Washington State Patrol, Washington State Military Department, and the Department of Ecology, state and local fire chiefs, seismic safety experts, state and local emergency management directors, search and rescue volunteers, and medical professionals who have expertise in emergency medical care, building officials and private industry. An “all-hazards” approach to emergency management continues to be a priority for the Council. Each year the Council highlights a particular priority. In its 2005 Report, the Council focused on local emergency management programs and their challenges and concluded that the staffing and resource disparities in local programs had led to significant inconsistencies in statewide capability and preparedness. The report stated that the lack of adequate dedicated support available at the state level contributed to lower levels of overall local preparedness; specifically, inadequate capability levels in mitigation and planning, insufficient training and exercises, regional collaboration and local outreach. The 2006 Report acknowledged the strengths of the CBRNE (chemical, biological, radioactive, nuclear, and explosive) Response Program; it also identified gaps between current capabilities and those required for effective, cost-efficient, and safe responses to these types of incidents.2 The Council and the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) continue to emphasize the need to develop through legislation a sustainable statewide CBRNE program that fills existing gaps and builds on existing capabilities. This Annual Report again highlights the concern over the ever-widening gap in the CBRNE Response Program and local and state emergency management programs abilities to perform their functions. Competing priorities, increased public expectations beyond existing resource levels and dramatic decreases in federal, state and local funding for emergency management in this state coupled with current fiscal conditions are clearly having adverse affects on the entire state’s emergency management system. These effects diminish the system’s ability to meet critical preparedness, response and recovery needs. 2 Statewide CBRNE Response Program – Final Report, October 2006. -7- STATE REMAINS AT RISK Washington state has a population of over 6.5 million people in 39 counties, 29 federally recognized tribes, 231 cities, and faces unique challenges in its more than 66,582 square miles of largely remote terrain. To the west, the State meets the Pacific Ocean with 157 miles of open coastline. The State shares a northern international border with British Columbia, Canada that stretches 325 miles east and west and features numerous land and maritime border entry points. Washington borders Idaho to the east and Oregon to the south. The state’s diverse climate and recreational opportunities draw almost 10 million visitors a year. Due to the state’s strong biotechnology, aerospace, forestry products, technology and computing base, as well as agricultural production it enjoys $100+ billion in annual trade. The state is comprised of varying climates and geographical features. Washington’s diverse landscapes are under threat. The climate is changing and there is widespread international agreement that climate change and its impacts are already under way. Climate change is already disrupting Washington’s natural environment, economy, and communities 3 The state is ranked #2 nationally in earthquake risk based on the threats and hazards from the existence of major fault lines and population. Susceptibility to earthquakes and the potential for resulting tsunamis along the coast is the state’s number one natural hazard. The coastal area has a record of catastrophic subduction zone earthquakes resulting in tsunamis. The state also has a history of tsunamis caused by earthquakes as far away as Alaska. An extensive mapping, evacuation planning, and citizen preparedness campaign along the coast has helped mitigate some of this risk but a significantly high risk still exists. Five active volcanoes, Mt. Rainier, Mt. Baker, Glacier Peak, Mt Adams, and Mt. St. Helens make the state’s largest population concentrations vulnerable to volcanic eruptions. The 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens caused 57 fatalities, created ash fall with global environmental impacts, destroyed 25,000 acres of timber valued at $162 million, prompted $40 million in FEMA relief, and lead to a recovery effort that lasted two decades. Lahars cascading to highly populated centers in the valleys around Mt. Rainier could be a catastrophic event. 3 Leading the Way on Climate Change: The Challenge of Our Time Interim Report, Department of Ecology, February 2008. -8- The state contains 2.5 million acres of state owned forestland and 10 million acres of privately owned forest land which are vulnerable to perennial wild land fires. It is susceptible to annual statewide flooding and storm events. The state has 1,000+ dams, many of which are key components to the nation’s energy infrastructure and could be impacted by large flood events or other intentional acts. In the last five years, the state has had five presidential disaster declarations for winter storm related disasters. Over half of the State’s population (3.3 million people) lives in the King, Pierce and Snohomish tricounty area. King County, the 11th largest county in the nation, with 1.8 million people, is home to the city of Seattle, the largest city in the state and the area is home to several iconic businesses, landmarks, and buildings. The tri county area has four major cities, Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, and Everett; two of the ten largest ports in the nation; three strategic military facilities; two international airports; the largest ferry system in the nation; the state’s only Level One Trauma Center; the state’s largest university; and a highly vulnerable transportation infrastructure. The area’s vulnerabilities are due largely to its geographically limited travel routes between large waterways, lakes, and mountain ranges. Travel between this area and its neighbors to the west are limited to two bridges and four ferry routes with limited capacity. In addition to access by terrorists across international borders and waterways, the area is vulnerable to major earthquakes, volcanic activity, severe winter weather, significant flooding, and tsunamis. The terrorist threat in Washington consists of a complex portfolio of domestic and international terrorist groups and cells with varied political and social agendas. Communities across the state are vulnerable to terrorist incidents and most have high visibility and vulnerable targets. These critical facilities, sites, systems, and special events in our communities are usually located near routes with high transportation access, and, consequently, increased vulnerability. Retrieval of improperly buried waste at the Hanford Site The Hanford Area and Columbia Generating Station nuclear facility, abutting the Columbia River in Benton County, present risks from radiation related materials. The state borders the Umatilla Chemical Weapons Stockpile Depot in Oregon, exposing vast agriculture lands and livestock to the risk from various chemical agents. -9- HAZARD SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS The state’s natural hazards include droughts resulting in wildfires, earthquakes, floods, severe storms, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and contagious disease outbreaks affecting people, animals and plants. Technological hazards include hazardous materials and terrorism. Loss of life and property will occur because of any hazard. Mitigation continues to prove its effectiveness in reducing losses. Federal, state and local governments work together to mitigate and reduce the effects of natural and technological hazards. The Council continues to support a focus towards prevention and mitigation. The following is the Council’s annual assessment of statewide emergency preparedness including, but not limited to, hazard mitigation, seismic safety improvements, flood hazards reduction, hazardous materials planning and response and terrorism/Homeland Security. This year the Report provides information on climate change and pandemic influenza. A. Hazard Mitigation – Climate Change and Pandemic Influenza Pacific Northwest climate experienced substantial change over the 20th century and it is predicted to continue4. Some of the affects are: 4 Leading the Way on Climate Change: The Challenge of Our Time Interim Report, Department of Ecology, February 2008. - 10 -      Changes in temperature and precipitation will affect forest health differently depending on elevation and proximity to the coast. Wildfires are strongly associated with climate, especially in eastside forests. Lower precipitation and warmer temperatures between May and September will negatively influence summer drought. Short, intense heat waves may become more frequent, more intense and last longer, and the greatest impacts will be in cities with historically milder summers, less air conditioning and higher population densities. Changes in atmospheric circulation patterns and coastal vertical land movements will affect the amount of sea level rise we will experience locally. A recommendation from the Climate Impacts Group5 states: that a “Heat Emergency Task Force be convened to review emergency management planning requirements and guidelines for heat waves and emergency preparedness exercises. The Emergency Management Division should coordinate improvements to the state’s ability to respond to such emergencies. Collaboration across multiple jurisdictions, landowners, and stakeholders needs to promote agreement on forest health and fire hazard response approaches. Develop appropriate statewide drought management strategies that account for evolving drought risks in a drier climate.” The threat of pandemic influenza remains in the forefront of pubic health concern. In 2006, the State Legislature passed the Pandemic Influenza Planning and Preparedness Act. The new law requires all local health jurisdictions to write plans describing how they will prepare for, and respond to, an influenza pandemic. The plans outline actions intended to decrease illness and deaths, continue critical government activities and other community services, and reduce social unrest and financial loss. Pandemic influenza response plans from 35 local health jurisdictions were evaluated and recommendations provided to each local health jurisdiction for improvement. The Governor in June 2007 directed all cabinet-level state agencies to complete COOP plans. These plans outline how the agencies will maintain critical functions during an influenza pandemic or other major emergency. Emergency Management Division and the Department of Health are providing planning assistance, and over 50% of the state cabinet-level agencies have completed their initial COOP plans. B. Winter Storms-Flooding Events Assessment One of the most common natural disasters in this state is floods. Severe winter storms have caused extensive flooding on both sides of the Cascades, but the majority of flood damage involves the Puget Sound lowland. As many Washington communities grow, flood plains have become desirable areas to develop, and urban storm water flooding is becoming a more common occurrence, particularly in these developed areas. Flood plain management aims to reduce losses to life and property – while protecting the natural resources and functions of a flood plain. Raising public awareness about local flood risks in each community is crucial. Local governments must identify the awareness needs of their citizens and coordinate with state and federal authorities to develop programs tailored to their unique flood hazard issues. Private and public properties located in flood hazard areas are continuously at risk. Many of the state’s pipelines, highways and rail corridors, must use or cross floodplain areas. Washington recently experienced two significant storm events, the December 2006 Wind Storm and the December 2007 Storm Flood event. The December 2006 windstorms had a dramatic affect on the state 5 Leading the Way on Climate Change: The Challenge of Our Time Interim Report, Department of Ecology, February 2008. - 11 - and region. The severity and duration of these events stretched local and state emergency management resources to capacity and in some instances at the local level beyond their capacity and capability to provide an effective response. Had the scale been larger and duration of the events longer, the demand for qualified emergency management staff would have exceeded the supply. The statewide emergency management system must expand the number of trained emergency management staff needed to respond to a large-scale disaster. After the December 2006 Wind Storm, Governor Gregoire requested a full after-action review with recommendations on how to improve processes. Through the work of the Governor’s Review Team and other work groups, several areas were identified that needed improvement:    Expand capabilities and capacities for public education, overall situational awareness, and better understand the expectations of our citizens and those involved in emergency responses. Expand coordination across state, local, and tribal emergency response agencies. Continue to strengthen partnerships between public and private sectors.6 The response to the December 2007 Storm Flood event demonstrated how agencies operate effectively to deal with a major disaster or incident without significant loss of life. Lessons learned and adopted from past events proved very beneficial during this disaster response and allowed state and locals to more effectively mobilize recovery operations. Broadening the involvement of the private sector in emergency management planning and the establishment of a business desk in the State’s Emergency Operations Center was a major improvement to business and corporate operations and humanitarian responses. The state needs to continue to expand private industries role and integrate them into emergency management, response and recovery. Sheltering efforts during the flood event were, for the most part, effective but limited by existing protocols, staff availability and volunteer training and experience. Sheltering groups need to work together to develop a more effective process for assessment of shelter resources needed during an event and how to best utilize local and state support to manage these resources. Also identified was a need to 6 December 2006 Windstorm Response After-Action Report: A Statewide Report to the Governor, March 2007. - 12 - increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the resource delivery and accountability systems and the management of donated goods. Another key improvement area is the continued need for more aggressive public education and outreach at the state and local level. The use of flood insurance for private individuals and risk-management insurance and insurance pools for business needs to be included in public education efforts. C. Seismic Safety Committee Washington ranks number two in the nation for seismic risk based on population vulnerability to earthquake hazards. The Seismic Safety Committee (Committee) 2008 Annual Report provides some background on where Washington State has been and where the status of the state’s seismic preparedness stands today:          The state has benefited from its volunteer advisory Committee since its creation in 1985. In 1991 a comprehensive plan7, with recommendations for improving earthquake preparedness was completed and published. Two additional reports published in 19988 and in 20049 essentially restated the recommendations published in the 1991 comprehensive plan. In 1997-1998, the Legislature adopted and revised the Uniform Building Code; which has contributed to earthquake loss reduction. Growth Management Act (GMA), which requires local jurisdictions to include geological hazardous areas in their critical areas ordinances, has had limited success related to limiting or eliminating sighting of commercial, residential or industrial development in hazardous areas. In 2006 the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Division of Geology and Earth Resources (Washington Geological Survey) was directed by the Legislature to conduct and maintain an assessment, project impacts and occurrence rates, and map volcanic, seismic, landslide, and tsunami hazards. Some area maps are currently available. Current scientific and engineering studies continue to demonstrate that the seismic hazards is greater than previously reported and mitigation efforts and funding for improved assessments by state agencies have not kept pace with the new information. Current land use and development practices do not address results from hazard assessments. Currently most of the state’s “built environment” is uninsured for earthquake related losses. The Committee’s Annual Report recommends an examination of the effectiveness of its current organization and structure including an assessment of progress on the state’s seismic safety plan. The committee believes that seismic safety is best accomplished prior to an event by promoting overall awareness of earthquake hazards, developing methods to mitigate risks, such as liquefaction maps, proper seismic instruments, and building evaluations, and developing strategies to enhance earthquake preparedness so impacts are ameliorated. The report states that actions are needed to organize and improve the state’s efforts to reduce causalities and damage to critical infrastructure and provide timely information to assist in the state’s response and recovery. The current role and responsibilities of the Committee are limited to providing strategies, policies, and recommendations to the state. The Committee recommends, develops, evaluates and prioritizes actions that identify and promote seismic safety. Funding is not provided to the agencies expected to carry out the plan recommendations or made available to support the Committee’s activities. Consequently, the A Policy Plan for Improving Earthquake Safety in Washington – Fulfilling Our Responsibilities, 1991. Earthquake Safety in Washington State: A Progress Report for the Period 1992-97, 1998. 9 Earthquake Safety in Washington State; Policy Recommendations, 2004. 7 8 - 13 - Committee has no authority or funding to carry out the policies or recommendations in the seismic plan. The Committee’s 1991 comprehensive plan presents actions that will constructively move Washington forward to meet this hazard in a realistic manner. These actions require the commitment of significant resources and to date, no specific legislative action has taken place that would permit the expenditure of state funds to address plan priorities. WSDOT crews repairing earthquake damage on the viaduct in April 2001. The Nisqually earthquake resulted in $3.5 million in repairs. Over the past 22 years, the state has used voluntary approaches, with the exception of the adoption of modern building codes, with limited success. Mitigation efforts and funding for improved assessments by state and local agencies has not kept up with the new seismic information. The state lags behind other states’ efforts to reduce losses due to earthquakes. In addition, the lack of success using a voluntary approach to implement plan recommendations has discouraged the needed experts from devoting additional time to the development of a broad seismic safety program in Washington. Seismic Safety Committee (SSC) recommends the following immediate actions:     Provide more formality to participation on the Committee. For example, members on the SSC would be appointed by the Governor and specific periods of service established by charter. Establish a specific roster of organizations and disciplines represented on the Committee. Require formal public briefings by the Committee to the Emergency Management Council and a separate annual report to the Governor from the Committee. Identify and provide funding to one agency to serve as the coordinator for the Committee. - 14 -  Provide a mechanism for “formal” adoption of a seismic safety plan. Long-term recommendations:    The state’s vision of seismic safety be revised to focus on planning and mitigation strategies that address fragile infrastructure, vulnerable buildings, and land use planning. During the next year, evaluate the efficacy of establishing an Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan that would be administered by an entity with the authority to develop the plan, coordinate the earthquake loss reduction program and include recommendations for funding priorities. Develop methods to mitigate risks and strategies to enhance earthquake preparedness for transportation infrastructure, critical facilities, lifelines and earthquake public education. D. Committee on Homeland Security Washington State communities are vulnerable to terrorist activity and attacks directed toward individuals, as well as highly visible and vulnerable targets such as critical infrastructure facilities, public sites, infrastructure systems and special events. The Emergency Management Council’s Committee on Homeland Security (CHS) was charged to develop initiatives and recommend statewide strategies that address “all-hazards” as well as threats and acts of terrorism through mitigation, prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery activities. At its February 2008 meeting, the CHS determined that it needed to re-focus its attention on the terrorism aspects of all hazard response. The CHS will also review its function and identify what type of forum is needed to further effective coordination, planning, training and resource acquisition so local and state - 15 - governments and citizens are prepared, damage is minimized and communities are capable of recovering and returning to normalcy. The Committee identified the following priorities: Analyze and share intelligence: The State’s top priority for enhancing its existing capability for responding to and recovering from terrorists’ acts continues to be the access to federal information and the ability to analyze and share this information with state and local officials. The establishment of the state’s Joint Analytical Center (WAJAC) has greatly increased the multi agency sharing, analysis and rapid dissemination of intelligence information to uncover both common criminal behavior and potential terrorist activity. The State should continue to support the WAJAC whose activities are intended to gather information and data, analyze the information and alert legal authorities to intercede and prevent the execution of destructive and life threatening acts. Prevention – Analysis/Outreach/Education: The CHS supports the engagement of the appropriate partners in the data collection and the accurate assessment of the information regarding activities or actions that may indicate potential terrorist activity. The analysis must be communicated with appropriate partners including the private sector. Statewide prevention activities that communicate with and educate the public on risks/threats, how they can stay informed, and provide guidance on constructive measures to address potential threats be supported and enhanced. Medical Surge: Medical surge involves written plans, activation protocols, resource inventories, training, exercises and the use of innovative non-traditional medical resources. This issue is critical to any successful response to a large-scale event. Protocols are developed to register public health and medical volunteers. On-going assessment of training, education and resources are completed to ensure that health providers and public health personnel are prepared and able to respond effectively to a mass casualty incident. Identification, organization and training of non-standard medical personnel and resources should be completed to improve response capability and capacity in a mass causality event. Recovery: Broad statewide recovery and restoration planning is crucial to assure that state, local governments and citizens are prepared and capable of addressing the consequences of a large-scale event. A concerted effort to organize statewide recovery and restoration planning is a priority. The CHS supports the Council taking the lead to address broad recovery and restoration planning. The CHS will provide guidance and direction to the Council on terrorist threats, events or scenarios related to recovery and restoration planning. Critical Infrastructure: The state needs to continue to address critical infrastructure risk assessment/evaluation and in conjunction with WAJAC, identify gaps and prioritize risks. Capability/Capacity Sustainment: The state must develop a strategy for the sustainment of effective Homeland Security Programs including the development of long-term state funding mechanisms. Training – NIMS: Continue state support of National Incident Management Systems (NIMS) training for all responder organizations and other appropriate agencies and entities. State “All-Hazard” Strategic Planning: The CHS supports the efforts of the Strategy Development Working Group (SDWG) to provide strategic policy development and planning in support of terrorism prevention and response. The Council should continue to evaluate the purpose, members and organization of this group and appropriately align its activities and reporting structure in the context of “all-hazard” strategic planning. - 16 - E. State Emergency Response Commission The State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) continues to emphasize the need for the Statewide CBRNE Response Program. A formal report, entitled Statewide CBRNE Response Program – Final Report (October 2006), identified the gaps in hazardous material response coverage throughout the state, designated program administration through the Office of the State Fire Marshall, defined substantial training requirements, and recommended establishment of several committees to ensure the program was thoroughly grounded and vetted. Over the past two sessions, the Legislature has not acted on a bill that would establish the program and permanent funding. Unfortunately, the need still exists, and hazardous materials incident response capability for the citizens of this state remains impaired. The SERC will continue to emphasize the significance of this issue and seek to have the bill introduced again. Train derailment near DuPont WA Community involvement in the Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) remains a key SERC issue. LEPCs are the cornerstones of the Emergency Planning Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA), sometimes referred to as SARA Title III. Essentially, this law requires the disclosure of all chemicals, hazardous substances, and extremely hazardous substances exceeding U.S. EPA threshold levels. LEPCs collect information and disseminate it to fire agencies and others who have the need. The SERC will focus on greater leadership, training, and involvement at the LEPC level during the next two years. - 17 - DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS A. Citizen Preparedness and Participation Personal preparedness of our state’s citizens is a crucial component in responding to any emergency event. The challenge that faces this state and many others is to change peoples’ behavior to prepare and be ready to take action. The Washington State Preparedness Report, published in March 2008, confirmed the need for the aggressive public education initiative undertaken by Emergency Management Division to remain in the forefront of disaster preparedness activities for the state of Washington and its communities. Washington prides itself on its comprehensive citizen preparedness activities, and effective public/business education campaigns. The goal of the state’s Citizen Preparedness effort is to increase the state’s citizen and business community preparedness, Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training and enhancements, volunteer development and retention, and school outreach. In addition, it maintains current Citizen Corps activities, as well as Neighborhood Watch, Volunteers in Police Service, reserve officer corps, and other citizen preparedness/volunteer programs. It is widely accepted that, in the event of a major disaster, volunteers would be required to support traditional emergency responders in a variety of roles, including shelter and feeding, medication dispensing, family support, first aid, disaster relief and personal safety. A state initiative would:         Inform, prepare, and ready citizens to help prevent or respond to an emergency event. Reach out to citizens who have the economic capability and social knowledge to become prepared. Focus on schools and children who will help educate and train their parents. Be community focused to include the faith-based community service groups, Conservation Corps volunteers, private corporations, and other integral parts of communities to ensure all segments of the population are involved. Target government employees at the state and local levels through education and outreach activities to become better prepared. Ensure COOP Plans are in place in government, private non-profit and business sector so people are trained and ready to execute their plans. Establish baseline level of preparedness (percentage of the general population). Enhance existing programs and additional efforts targeting special needs populations. All levels of government throughout the state acknowledge that public education should be part of an emergency management program. However, the extent of ongoing programs is limited by the competing disaster preparedness requirements for planning, training, and exercising. Through strategic disaster preparedness programs and messaging, the population of the state of Washington will become better prepared and more engaged. B. Local Programs Task Force - Status Report In 2003, the Council created the Task Force on Local Programs to look at “the state of emergency management” in Washington’s counties, cities, and tribes. The Task Force completed its assessment in 2004, and the project remained active through 2005 with a working group. The Council anticipated that - 18 - the local program study and follow-up would play a significant role in its annual commitment to the Governor on statewide emergency preparedness. The study was designed to identify both strengths and gaps in local and tribal governments’ ability to mitigate, plan for, respond to, and recover from the unique combination of hazards that exists in this state-both natural and human caused. The survey identified many strengths, which continue today including a growing trend towards professionalization in the discipline of emergency management at the local level. State and local support and use of standardized incident command and NIMS has increased collaboration as well as the consistency and effectiveness of response operations. Counties and cities are developing, updating their Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans (CEMP), Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessments (HIVA). It is difficult to forecast the future costs for local planners administrative burden, advisory committee and legislative oversight for 39 counties and 281 cities in a home rule state to continuously update and implement the changing Department of Homeland Security requirements for response and recovery functions expected to be implemented at the local level. Critical challenges remain. Performance standards for emergency management to establish baseline capabilities and capacities needed at the local level must be developed to assure jurisdictions have the necessary training, exercises, facilities, equipment and staff to adequately respond and recover from emergencies and disasters. There are no commonly accepted national standards for emergency preparedness, although the Department of Homeland Security’s Target Capabilities do provide baseline capacity and capabilities expected by the federal government for state and local response organizations. As a result, the essential capabilities that every jurisdiction of a particular size should have, or have immediate access to are not readily understood. The original Task Force study stated that most local programs lack sufficient funding to address the essential capabilities and capacities issues. These disparities have lead to significant inconsistencies in statewide capability and preparedness. The lack of adequate dedicated support resources available at the state level contributes to lower levels of overall local preparedness; specifically inadequate capability levels in mitigation and planning, insufficient training and exercises, regional collaboration and local outreach. In Washington, funding for local programs is complex due to the large number of funding sources that are managed. Available funding fluctuates each year rendering the process unpredictable. Managing Homeland Security costs adds to this complexity. Jurisdictions continue to report that available funding is inadequate to meet the increasing emergency management needs. As a result, planning and response efforts are emphasized, and mitigation, training, exercises, and long-term recovery efforts become compromised. Local programs rely largely upon grants and federal dollars, in addition to limited state funding. The most common federal grant program is the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG). The EMPG requires non-federal matching funds, leaving some small jurisdictions without these grant dollars altogether and now with increasing reductions in federal dollars and local jurisdictions reducing the amount of matching funds available due to the economic downturn some jurisdictions will have reduced or in some cases no grant dollars. Two important Task Force recommendations were the establishment of a stable state fund and funding source to support emergency planning and mitigation efforts and develop performance guidelines for local emergency management programs. At least 23 other states have special funds used to support emergency planning and mitigation among other needs. In 2006, a supplemental budget proviso provided $1.6 million for Emergency Management and Preparedness Grant (EMPAG) funding, and $400,000 for emergency management projects. This was a first step towards the establishment of a stable state fund for - 19 - emergency planning and mitigation efforts and was the first time state general funds were used for emergency management grants. The EMPAG funding was available for only one year. Local emergency management leadership recognized the value added by those limited funds. And in 2007, the Washington State Emergency Management Association (WSEMA) introduced legislation that would partially fund local emergency management programs through an insurance surcharge. The legislation was reintroduced in 2008, but the surcharge was not established. In addition, performance guidelines and standards for local emergency management programs remain to be developed. C. Public Private Partnerships Private business plays a significant role in protecting their employees and community during disasters. Businesses also play a vital role in working with government to facilitate and provide emergency response and recovery from all types of disasters. It is critically important to this state that government at all levels and the private sector strengthen their partnership. The state is moving to improve disaster preparedness by fully integrating business into the state’s emergency management system. Private sector facilities are primarily intended to provide a locally based function that can integrate with emergency management at the city and county government levels, as appropriate. Private sector facilities that are primarily intended to provide regional or multi-county functions will be able to integrate with the emergency management system at the state level. During the initial days after a disaster, private-sector resources may be crucial in augmenting the state’s first-responders’ resources and aiding state’s citizens and businesses. This critical need has been recognized by the state and local emergency managers who are working to help expand public/private partnerships and allow greater participation by the private sector in governmental emergency management efforts. The state can only truly be prepared for the next disaster if the public and private sector work together. The Emergency Management Division has established a program to provide guidance to business and nonprofit organizations representing business interests on how to integrate private sector emergency preparedness measures into governmental disaster planning programs, conduct outreach efforts to encourage business to work with governments and communities to better prepare the community and their employees to survive and recover from disasters. The program also encourages business and government to work cooperatively to advance technology that will protect the public during disasters and to work to secure agreements between affected state agencies and non-profit and private sector resources necessary to respond to emergency situations. The program is still in its infancy but is working to provide advice to key decision makers, including the Council, on methods to utilize non-profit and private sector capabilities. The program intends to help increase the surge capacity of state and local agencies by promoting the integration of the non-profit and private sectors into the emergency service system. D. Response, Recovery and Revitalization Alert and warning: The ability to inform and warn the public regarding a hazard is crucial to reduce or eliminate loss of life during any hazard. A partnership involving the state, local jurisdictions, tribal governments and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) used the state’s Tsunami program to develop an all-hazard alert and warning system. This system has been deployed along coastal areas, on tribal reservations, and in urban areas of Puget Sound. The capability to provide information, alerts, and warning to public and responders; develop plans, procedures, protocols and systems prior to event and ensure all affected populations are notified, including special needs is a - 20 - priority. The state and Council continue to support regional Emergency Community Notification Systems (ECNS) (reverse 911). 10 Planning, preparedness and response information is reviewed and revised on the state’s newly revamped emergency management website. Citizen Protection, Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place: This is the capability to immediately execute the appropriate strategy to shelter or evacuate from the risk. As part of the state’s pandemic planning efforts, a report on mitigation strategies to reduce mortality, sustain community infrastructure, and reduce economic impact related to a potential pandemic flu epidemic was completed. The report, developed by representatives from local public health, hospitals, health maintenance organizations, public educators, and federal Centers for Disease Control and Health and Human Services outlines in detail in the Washington State Preparedness Report referenced in the Appendix of the report. Quileute Tribe Village evacuation drill Aberdeen School evacuation drill Communication: Ability to perform routine and basic job functions and talk within and across agencies and jurisdictions as needed is the most critical underpinning of any emergency response. Communication planning incorporates redundancy, diversity, and continuity of operations through back up systems and interoperable communications agreements and exercises of system. Washington state-level and local jurisdictions will pursue $22 million worth of communications capability improvement during the 2008-2010 period. The Washington State Legislature allocated $3 million of general funds during the 2007-2009 Biennium for SIEC interoperability projects and the Public Safety Interoperable Communication (PSIC) Grant will provide an additional $19 million required to build the target capabilities outlined below. The State of Washington has several initiatives underway that seek to identify and address data interoperability. The state is moving forward with providing tactical information to public safety personnel with programs such as the state’s Justice Information Network Possible Criminal History and Case and Criminal History application. In addition, the Statewide Electronic Collision and Ticket Online Reporting (SECTOR) project automates the collection and routing of citations and collisions among local and state record systems. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) are overseeing a school-mapping project and Kitsap County is implementing a suspect identification project using portable finger print identification technology. 10 Washington State Preparedness Report, Washington Military Department, Emergency Management Division, March 31, 2008. - 21 - The state’s Communications Interoperability Work Group intent is to make use of existing successful data sharing efforts by enhancing them for the 2010 Olympics effort and leaving them in place for continued use by local jurisdictions. The Work Group is using tools developed and implemented for Seattle as a starting point. It is anticipated these systems will be expanded statewide following the 2010 Games The WAJAC serves as the state’s central fusion center. Established in 2003, the WAJAC is co-located with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Field Intelligence Group (FIG) in Seattle. WAJAC operates under the directives of the Fusion Center Guidelines, the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan and the Statewide Integrated Intelligence Plan. Continuation of this investment will address identified intelligence collection gaps and provide the threat assessment analysis of data supplied by law enforcement and private-public partners. Fatality management: In this state, the responsibilities for collection and recovery of victims and effects and planning for large-scale fatality management are shared activities. Due to Washington’s home rule system, there is no designated state medical examiner. Each local health jurisdiction and county medical examiner is an independent entity. This bifurcated system makes planning for fatality management more difficult and time consuming; however, the Mass Fatality Appendix to the state CEMP addressing state level response to a mass fatality incident is nearing completion Medical Surge and Mass Care: Medical surge is the ability to rapidly expand capacity of the existing heath care system in order to provide triage and medical care. The State Department of Health (DOH), in partnership with the Hospital Association and regional hospital coalitions, continues to strengthen medical surge capabilities. Staffing for a major surge continues to be a limiting factor but with the development of the WAVE volunteer tracking system and legislation, which provides retired medical volunteers the same protections as other emergency workers, it is projected that volunteer staffing and coordination will improve. Testing has begun to assess the ability of local entities to conduct surge medical operations through various types of exercises. These efforts are ongoing but are dependent on continuing federal support. Washington currently has excellent plans, which provide the basis for the capabilities needed for providing mass care medical countermeasures to the entire affected population with 48 hours. The state will continue to improve these plans and has targeted an 8% overall increase in average assessment score for local jurisdictions by 2010. The state will continue to improve the capability to track pharmaceuticals throughout.11 Identification of alternate care sites is still in the early stages. A limited number of sites have been identified as healthcare surge capacity is developed. A number of health care facilities have been approached, and the assets of all public and quasi-municipal agencies, which are under the power of the Governor in a declared emergency, are available. Currently, Washington’s Regional Preparedness Region 6 has identified and planned for six large facilities in three zones to serve as alternate care sites. Pierce County successfully opened and operated one of these sites during the December 2006 Windstorm. Several local jurisdictions are actively planning for the needs of at-risk populations. Additionally, regional alternate care capacity needs to be established in order to ensure supplemental surge capacity for the healthcare system. Pre-Disaster Mitigation: Mitigation is a complex process that can significantly reduce or eliminate the damages associated with a disaster and, therefore, decrease dollars spent for communities to recover from emergencies/disasters. State and local emergency management programs work together to address local 11 State Preparedness Plan, Emergency Management Division, March 31, 2008. - 22 - mitigation plans as resources allow. This activity, when adequately funded, allows community stakeholders to conduct an analysis of past and potential losses and develop methods and priorities to reduce or eliminate future losses due to disaster. The Flood Mitigation Assistance Program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program provide assistance to local governments in planning and completing mitigation projects. One of the key responsibilities of state agencies is to mitigate the effects of emergencies and disasters on the state’s citizens. Several agencies have specific emergency preparedness and response roles. Coordination of the activities of these agencies is critical to improving the state’s ability to respond to an emergency. Lessons learned from the storm events of December 2006 and 2007 have highlighted the importance of the need for close collaboration and coordination of state agencies to ensure effective response and recovery. Three major tasks for state agencies are: (1) providing information to the Governor, Legislature, local agencies and public on pending emergency conditions that threaten public health and safety; (2) providing recommendations to improve state prevention and response capabilities and (3) assisting in emergency preparedness management, response, and recovery and mitigation efforts. Recovery: Recovery is the period after a disaster that continues until all systems return to normal, or as close to normal, as possible. Federal, state and local recovery efforts coordinate assistance to households, businesses, local agencies, and eligible nonprofit organizations to recover from emergencies. The state administers federal public infrastructure and individual human assistance programs for emergency events and provides technical assistance to local governments concerning these programs. It is essential for the public and economic health of the state and local communities to get the government services and business community “back-to-business”. Local emergency management agencies do have plans in place for recovery-restoration but the scope and size of a disaster may severely limit the capability and capacity of locals to recover and restore their communities and economies. A regional approach must be taken when addressing large or catastrophic disasters. There is currently no plan in place for catastrophic planning, and state and locals do need to work together to address this level of event. There is a current state workgroup that assists Emergency Management Division in the development and revisions of the state’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans (CEMP) and there is a Governor’s working group that is looking at a variety of long-term needs. The state is moving to develop a “best management practice” that will address how to help communities return as quickly as possible to normal business including the restoration of essential/lifeline private and public services. The Council will also establish a Recovery-Restoration work group and coordinate with other groups, such as the Governor’s Restoration Working Group. Safe and Secure Schools: K-12 schools in the state are challenged by the potential for natural and human-caused emergencies and disasters. State law requires the K-12 public school system develop and maintain comprehensive safe school plans that address the major safety threats to a school environment, and collaborate with local community safety agencies to develop plans that work for students, staff, parents and community members. In the upcoming year, the state and local emergency management programs will work closely with higher education programs and schools to assist in developing their emergency preparedness. The school systems across the state also are viable communication routes to reach vulnerable populations and their families. - 23 - Schools by law need comprehensive school safety plans that address the full spectrum of safety measures, including prevention, intervention, preparedness, mitigation, emergency response and post-incident recovery. Most efforts to address these issues have come in the form of time-limited grants, which tend to have a decreasing impact over time, in part due to the high rate of turnover of school personnel. Despite the fact that Congress determined that school districts are included in the definition of “local government” in the 2002 Homeland Security Act, the public school system has been unable to access these funds. In addition, Washington has experienced over a 50% reduction in Homeland Security grant funds over the past two years. Local government emergency management agencies, directed by statute to provide assistance to schools in developing these comprehensive plans, are unable to provide much support, in many cases due to the loss of federal Homeland Security funds for their local government. While expectations have increased, school districts have seen substantial reductions in both federal and state-appropriated school safety resources since 2001. The result has been to erode the overall safety climate, despite increased expectations among students, parents, educators and the public for safe and secure schools. Schools are likely to divert resources from academic programs to complete these requirements if additional funding is not available. School districts will continue to struggle to meet the needs and expectations for school safety and security, and run a serious risk of non-compliance with statutory requirements. Funding assistance for supporting the comprehensive plan development and adjunct training and exercising will be a priority for the state’s Superintendent of Public Instruction Office in the coming years. - 24 - COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS A. System Change for Improvement Citizen All Hazard Preparedness We need to build a “culture of safety/preparedness” and help citizens to understand there is a public citizen responsibility to prepare for disasters. There are significant limitations on what they can expect local, state and federal governments to provide in disasters. Key state leaders, such as all elected state and local officials and local and state emergency management agencies and organizations, and affiliated associations such as Washington State Emergency Management Association (WSEMA) need to be involved in building this “culture of preparedness”. Council Recommendation: The State must adopt and promote a core personal preparedness message. A work group will evaluate current messages and develop a core message. Elements in the message need to include: preparedness is a partnership between individuals, government and business and everyone must “work together to be prepared when disaster strikes” This message can be integrated at the state and local level and utilized by organizations and groups throughout the state involved in public emergency preparedness and recovery. The work group will address local impacts and needed resources including the identification of the specific tools such as websites and education programs that are currently being used. These tools will be made available for everyone to use across the state. Surge Capacity The state and locals do not have sufficient staff to be self-sustaining during lengthy emergencies and disasters. The state and locals need immediate, qualified responders in large-scale events. The Council recommendations to the Governor that state agencies be required to increase the number of state agency staff that would be made available to provide “surge capacity” as responders in an extended event. State policy and COOP plans will need to be reviewed and revised as needed. Council Recommendation: The Council requests the Governor’s Office assist in developing a program to increase and expand the number of qualified and trained state agency personnel available to provide “surge capacity” for both state and local emergency management. Statewide Operational Capability Current federal funding sources, such as homeland security grants, are competitively distributed; and have diminished to the point where many programs are in jeopardy. The federal government believes that homeland security monies were intended to “kick start” needed programs and activities at the state and local level. It was never the intention of the federal government to continue funding these programs on an on-going basis, and it is the responsibility of the state and local governments to provide a plan for on-going maintenance of the programs and activities. Local emergency management programs and WSEMA are building legislative initiatives and coalitions to address these critical resource needs. They will continue to pursue legislative initiatives and budget requests during the next legislative session. Local programs will work with the state to establish standards and measures that will identify service needs and gaps and demonstrate to the legislature the urgent need for funds. - 25 - Other state level response agencies and organizations such as the Department of Agriculture are responsible for both the local and state response in an agriculture disaster. These agencies along with school districts are responsible for emergency planning and response and have no stable and sustainable funding support for these activities The Council believes that local program funding is a priority for the state. The Council will work with local programs to establish baseline program standards and measures that will be used to identify service gaps, prioritize and distribute resources and assure a consistent baseline emergency management capacity statewide. Council Recommendation: Convene a work group, to include local jurisdictions, both city and county, state agencies, business and affiliated community response organizations to develop criteria and standards for emergency management systems within the state. The task force will recommend funding options to support and maintain the emergency management system. Recovery-Restoration In a post disaster environment there is a role for facilitating dialogue and coordinating decisions among organizations providing essential services, lifeline services, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and the private sector. The benefit of such an activity would be to continue to improve the delivery of services in a more prioritized manner. Current “best management practices” at the state and local level do involve utilities and other essential service providers in making decisions but need to be expanded to include other business entities. Post-disaster recovery “best management practices” regarding the prioritization of lifeline and other private sector services need to be developed. It is essential for the public and economic health of the state and local communities to get government services and business community “back-to-business”. Many local emergency management agencies do have plans in place for recovery-restoration, but the scope and size of a disaster may severely limit the capability and capacity of locals to recover and restore their communities and economies. A regional approach needs to be taken when addressing large or catastrophic disasters. There is currently no plan in place for catastrophic planning, and state and locals do need to work together to address this level of event. There is a current state workgroup that assists Emergency Management Division in the development and revisions of the state’s CEMP, and a Governor’s working group that is looking at a variety of long-term needs such as housing and economic impact. Council Recommendation: The state needs to develop a “best management practice” for recovery that will address helping communities return as quickly as possible to normal business including the restoration of essential/lifeline private and public services. The Council will establish a RecoveryRestoration Work Group and coordinate with other groups, such as the Governor’s Restoration Working Group, which is addressing these issues. - 26 - B. Administrative action to strengthen statewide system Seismic Safety FEMA ranks Washington number two in the nation for seismic risk based on population’s vulnerability to earthquake hazards. The state has historically seen catastrophic tsunamis. Due to increases in population, infrastructure and construction, the next great earthquake is expected to have significant impact in terms of loss of life and to the state’s economy. The Seismic Safety Committee’s (SSC) Annual Report to the Council recommended that Washington revise its efforts to focus on planning and mitigation strategies that address fragile infrastructure, vulnerable buildings, and land use planning. The SSC recommends establishing an Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan administered by an organization with the authority to plan, monitor implementation and recommend funding priorities. The SSC believes that only this type of vision can lead the state to a “resilient community” that is able to rebuild its economy quickly enough to ensure the continuation of the state’s economic vitality. (See full report in Appendix.) Council Recommendation: Establish a panel of experts made up of effected parties including private-industry, to examine the Seismic Safety Committee’s Annual Report and address the effectiveness of the current organization and structure of the Seismic Safety Advisory Committee. The panel will:     Assess the State’s progress on meeting the SSC Comprehensive Plan objectives including assessment of the state and local agencies commitment to implement plan recommendations and compliance with GMA. The economic effects, including projected direct costs to the state if plan elements are not implemented (cost-benefit analysis), and resources and approaches, both voluntary and administrative, needed to implement the Comprehensive Plan. What specific policy, executive, legislative and administrative actions are required to carry out the SSC Comprehensive Plan recommendations. Provide a report to the Emergency Management Council and Governor. Committee on Homeland Security The purpose of the Emergency Management Council’s Committee on Homeland Security (CHS) is to develop initiatives and recommend statewide strategies that address “all hazards” as well as threats and acts of terrorism through mitigation, prevention, preparedness, and response and recovery activities. Policy Recommendations reported to EMC:    The CHS will refocus its efforts primarily on terrorism and the broad “all-hazard” disaster response; recovery and restoration issues will be referred to the Emergency Management Council. Strengthen the regional framework of multi-jurisdictional and multi-discipline coordination and cooperation, including Security Programs, and provide a long-term state funding mechanism. Continue to support regional strategic planning, use of technology to enhance information sharing and collaboration and support regional Emergency Community Notification Systems. - 27 -  Continue state support of National Incident Management System training for all responder organizations and other appropriate groups. Council Recommendations: The CHS will become more effective by re-focusing its attention on terrorism. The Council will be responsible for all broad-based “all-hazard” emergency issues. The Council will work with the CHS to review its functions and identify what type of forum needs to address issues to increase:     Jurisdictional and regional collaboration Information sharing Law enforcement and intelligence connectivity Communication and systems interoperability and technology management The Council will also evaluate its own function, structure and organization, and representation to determine whether it has the appropriate representation from the broader emergency management community and decide on how it can be organized to more effectively serve as the state’s integration pint for “all-hazard” preparedness, response, mitigation and recovery. Council Recommendation: Supports the engagement of appropriate partners in collection and assessment of data regarding activities or actions that may include potential terrorist activity and the state’s continued support of the Washington Joint Analytical Center. Local Programs While performance standards for emergency management have gained broader acceptance, the absence of a single standard applied consistently across the state makes it difficult to define baseline capabilities or assess preparedness. The essential capabilities that every jurisdiction should have do not exist. Most local programs lack the funding to secure necessary training, exercises, facilities, equipment, and staff to adequately mitigate against and fully recover from emergencies or disasters. Without an established baseline, locals will not be able to assess capabilities needed and will be unable to articulate service gaps to local, state, and federal funding sources. Council Recommendation: The Council will establish a Local Programs Work Group. As part of the charter for the group, members will work with state and local program officials to determine the baseline capability and capacity standards that will be utilized to determine acceptable operational levels for local programs. It was recommended that the federal target capabilities be utilized to help make these determinations and “lessons learned” from recent after-action reports. In addition, regional relationships need to be looked at as to how these relationships can provide additional capability and capacity through mutual aid or other types of agreements. The Local Programs Work Group will review the status of the original Local Programs Task Force recommendations and identify needed actions or modifications. C. Legislative actions 1. Local Program Funding Priority Current federal funding sources, such as Homeland Security grants, are competitively distributed and have diminished to the point where many programs are in jeopardy. Local programs are building legislative initiatives and coalitions to address this critical resource need and will pursue these legislative initiatives and budget requests during the next legislative session. Local programs want to - 28 - work with the state to establish standards and measures, which will identify service needs and gaps and demonstrate the urgent funding needs. Council Recommendation: A priority for the Council is the establishment of a stable and sustainable state funding mechanism. The state must address the federal funding reductions and other funding shortfalls currently impacting state and local programs. Funding coupled with the development of a baseline service standard for local emergency management programs will result in a consistent level of preparedness across the state. - 29 - Appendix A -30- Appendix A Emergency Management Council Members REPRESENTING State Emergency Management Directors Building Officials City Government County Government Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources Local Emergency Management Directors Local Fire Chiefs Medical Officers Police Chiefs Private Industry Search and Rescue Sheriffs State Fire Marshal Washington Military Department Washington State Patrol Member-at-Large MEMBER Steve Bailey Director, Pierce County Department of Emergency Management Vacant Steve Jenkins Building Official, City of Lynwood Diane Oberquell Commissioner, Thurston County Jay Manning Washington Department of Ecology Doug Sutherland Commissioner of Public Lands JoAnn Boggs Director, Pend Oreille County Department of Emergency Management Brian Schaeffer Chief, Spokane Fire Department John Erickson Assistant Secretary, Washington State Department of Health Jim Scharf Chief, Everett Police Department Robert Zimmerman Senior Manager, Support Operations, Security and Fire Protection, The Boeing Company Bill Gillespie Chairman, Washington State Search and Rescue Volunteers Advisory Committee Vacant Mike Matlick State Fire Marshal, Fire Protection Bureau Jim Mullen Director, Emergency Management Division John Batiste Chief, Washington State Patrol Vacant -31- Appendix -32- Appendix B EMC ACTION PLAN 2008-09 Task Action Agenda Objective Performance Measure Activity/Strategy Timeline Lead(s) Measurement criteria and standards established. Results are integrated into future planning and resource decisions to sustain system. Dec 2009 Lester Olsen (Thurston Co.) Linda Crerar (EMD) Statewide emergency management system meets or exceeds basic standards. Public confidence is high regarding statewide level of preparedness Ongoing 50% of the Cabinet Level Agencies have agreements in place. Dec 2009 I. Stabilize and improve response and recovery statewide 1.1 Ensure demands placed on emergency responders do not outstrip capabilities and resources.   Complete quantitative assessment of current needs statewide and integrate results into future planning, exercise, training and equipment decisions.  Assess and identify resources and funding options to support and sustain emergency management system.     Appoint a Local Program work group to identify criteria and establish standards. Validate criteria and standards. Complete survey/assessment of current emergency management system.  Optimize local funding. Obtain additional resources to ensure the emergency management system statewide is meeting basic standards for service.     Expand the number of qualified and trained state agency personnel to be available to provide “surge capacity” at state and local levels.    Request Governor’s Office to authorize the expansion and training of additional state personnel for emergency response capacity. Assess current capacity of qualified and trained personnel. State agencies complete agreements to increase capacity by specific date. -33-  Jim Mullen (EMD) Appendix B EMC ACTION PLAN 2008-09 Task 1.2 Action Agenda Develop and strengthen effective emergency preparedness and response partnerships. Objective Improve response and recovery capabilities to minimize human, economic, and environmental losses. Timeline Lead(s)  Assess and analyze strengths/weaknesses and initiate actions to enhance, expand and strengthen partnerships at all levels.  Expand public-private partnerships initiative at the state and local level through agreements or other mechanisms.  Expanded public-private partnership statewide documented by agreements. Ongoing Wendy Freitag (EMD)  Evaluate and modify partnership program annually.  Develop a methodology to assess public-private partnership initiative, assess and identify improvement areas. Implement improvements.  Improvements/ Changes implemented. Annually Wendy Freitag (EMD) Appoint broad based workgroup. Evaluate current messaging used throughout state. Develop agreed upon core message to be integrated at the state and local level. Evaluate adoption of message. Design an evaluation tool and complete effectiveness evaluation every 2 years.  20% of the state’s citizens report they have achieved basic level of preparedness. 2010 TBA Establish a Recovery-Restoration Work Group. Partner with other efforts /groups addressing issue(s). Collect data, analyze and develop a “best practice” strategy.  “Recover Washington” best management practice established. Dec 2009 Kurt Hardin and Wendy Freitag (EMD)  1.3 Performance Measure Activity/Strategy  Adopt a statewide core personal preparedness message.       Adopt a “best management practice” to effectively and expeditiously return the state to normalcy.    -34- Appendix B EMC ACTION PLAN 2008-09 Task 1.4 Action Agenda Sustain the CBRNE program statewide. Objective Performance Measure Activity/Strategy Timeline Lead(s)  BMP utilized in emergency response/recovery effort.  BMP applied to actual response and recovery, evaluated and modified as needed.  BMP improved recovery performance. Dec 2009 Kurt Hardin and Wendy Freitag (EMD)  Support efforts by the Sate Emergency Management Commission (SERC) to seek legislative action to establish a sustainable CBRNE program statewide.  Provide support to Commission‘s legislative initiative with testimony and/or other reports or data.  100% hazmat coverage achieved. Ongoing Council  Appoint members with appropriate expertise to a work group, which will a complete review of 2008 Seismic Safety Program Annual Report, progress the state has made on meeting Seismic Safety Comprehensive Plan objectives and compliance with GMA. Assess economic effects including projected direct costs if plan elements are not implemented. Recommend specific voluntary and administrative actions needed. Draft changes to rules and regulations and recommend legislative action. Obtain appropriate approvals for  Work group appointed and chartered. Plan progress assessment completed. GMA compliance review completed. Cost-benefit analysis completed. Voluntary and administrative actions. identified. June 2009 Dave Norman (DNR) 2. Improve organization/administrative effectiveness. 2.1 Reduce casualties and damage to critical infrastructure, and improve communication of information to aid in response and recovery from a seismic event.   Evaluate efficacy of establishing an Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan. Identify what changes to state authorities, actions and activities must be made to expedite progress in meeting comprehensive plan elements.     -35-     Appendix B EMC ACTION PLAN 2008-09 Task Action Agenda Objective Performance Measure Activity/Strategy legislative or regulatory changes.   2.2 Focus the state’s efforts on activities that effectively address and reduce threats and acts of terrorism.   Improve CHS effectiveness to serve as the state’s integration point for jurisdiction/regional collaboration, information sharing, law enforcement and intelligence connectivity, communication, systems interoperability and technology management to address terrorism.  Sustain and support the activities of the WAJAC.    CHS will evaluate its currents structure, roles and responsibilities to determine necessary changes to improve effectiveness. CHS will initiate needed improvements w/concurrence of EMC. CHS will bi-annually evaluate effectives of sub-committee and its workgroups.  Identify and support strategies that engage appropriate partners in the collection and assessment of data.  -36-  Timeline Lead(s) Draft of regulatory and/or rule changes to complete. Legislation passed and/or rules codified. Restructure of CHS Completed. Periodic evaluation of organizational effectiveness completed. Stable and funded WAJAC. Ongoing John Erickson (DOH) Jim Scharf (Everett PD) Appendix B EMC ACTION PLAN 2008-09 Task 2.3 2.4 Action Agenda Objective Improve the development, planning and assessment of state emergency preparedness, response and recovery.  Improve EMC performance outcomes.  Strategic policy development, planning and assess will be restructured to align activities in the context of “all hazard” strategic planning.    Evaluate current committee membership, organization & responsibilities. Assess sub-committee structure. Performance Measure Activity/Strategy   Timeline Lead(s) Evaluate the purpose; members and organization of the Strategy Development Working Group (SWDPG) to appropriate align its activities and reporting structure in the context of “all-hazards” strategic planning. Improve the systems for assessing statewide preparedness to integrate the analysis required for status and performance reports.  Effective strategic planning, policy development and preparedness assessment information readily available and utilized. Ongoing Jill Bushnell (WMD ) Analyze current structure and organization utilizing assessment criteria developed. Complete recommendations for modification as needed.  Council is organized effectively and as a diverse representation needed to fully address state’s critical issues. April 2009 Dale Jensen (Ecology) Linda Crerar (EMD) -37- Appendix -38- Appendix C Seismic Safety Committee 2007 Annual Report May 2008 The Earthquake Threat Scientific information about Washington’s susceptibility to earthquakes has changed radically in the last 25 years.      Discovery in the late 1980s of evidence of past Cascadia Subduction Zone megaquakes had chilling implications for communities in western Washington The magnitude 5.4 1996 earthquake during a Mariner’s game in Seattle and the magnitude 5.8 1999 quake near Montesano were gentle wakeup calls. The 2001 Nisqually earthquake was a not-so-gentle wakeup call. Four months later a swarm of earthquakes near Spokane demonstrated that eastern Washington is also at risk. The introduction of LIDAR mapping of active earthquake faults led to the realization that the Seattle Fault is capable of producing earthquakes under Seattle up to Magnitude7+. A 2005 study by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) and the Washington Emergency Management Division estimates losses in a Magnitude 6.7 Seattle Fault quake at 1,600 dead, 24,000 injured, 9,700 buildings destroyed and more than 29,000 buildings severely damaged and unsafe to occupy. In the last 25 years, we watched people respond to earthquakes at Loma Prieta, Northridge, Kobe and Aceh. Each of these events provided lessons Washington could learn about impacts on transportation infrastructure, just-in-time inventory deliveries, earthquake loss prevention and education. Washington experienced a windstorm in 2006 and a flood/windstorm in 2007. These events highlighted the fragility of the electrical grid, the lack of individual emergency preparedness and the community fragmentation that occurs when bridges and roads are damaged. One can only wonder how the response to these events would have proceeded if an earthquake inflicted a similar level of damage over all of western Washington. Washington’s Response In 1985, the Legislature passed a bill to establish an independent state-level seismic safety commission allegedly modeled after the California Seismic Safety Commission. Other than the title, the bill bore little resemblance to the California legislation. It set up a seismic safety commission to report to the governor, legislature and the Emergency Management director “responsible for the following in connection with earthquake hazard reduction: (1) To review and recommend methods, practices, and procedures to educate the public, including public officials, about the nature and consequences of earthquakes, about procedures for identifying those locations and structures especially susceptible to earthquake damage and about methods to reduce and mitigate the adverse effects of an earthquake. (2) Recommend goals and priorities to the state; and (3) Gather, analyze and disseminate information.” -39- Appendix C The Seismic Safety Commission was unfunded, had no staff and was to sunset in two years. Governor Gardner correctly noted that the Department of Emergency Management already had the authority to carry out the limited actions detailed in the legislation and vetoed the bill. There has been no attempt to establish a formal commission since. Unfortunately, this bill incorrectly established the job description of a seismic safety committee and set a tone that has lasted since 1985. In place of the vetoed bill, The Washington State Seismic Safety Council was created as an advisory group to the Department of Emergency Management (now EMD). It produced its Report of the Washington State Seismic Safety Council, September 1986. It says, “This report reviews our knowledge of earthquake hazards in the state and outlines the elements of an earthquake risk reduction program. The longer-range agenda and recommendations for legislative and executive action are aimed at fostering appropriate actions by state agencies, local jurisdictions, industry, and individuals in preparing for the inevitability of a major earthquake in Washington State.” In 1990, SSB6407 ordered the Seismic Safety Advisory Committee (renamed from the Council) to develop a comprehensive plan and recommendations for improving earthquake preparedness. This resulted in A Policy Plan for Improving Earthquake Safety in Washington – Fulfilling Our Responsibility, December 1, 1991. A note on the first page from Director Chuck Clarke bodes ill when it says, “Unfortunately, in this period of reduced resources, these activities will have to compete with other state priorities. I am hopeful, however, that as you review the Seismic Safety Advisory Committee’s work there will be an effort made to sustain the momentum that has begun.” This report was followed by Earthquake Safety in Washington State, A Progress Report for the Period 1992 – 1997 in 1998 by the Seismic Safety Subcommittee (renamed from the Advisory Committee), followed by Earthquake Safety in Washington State, Policy Recommendations 2004. The recommendations in each are essentially those presented in 1986. The Legislature has taken some actions that have indirectly contributed to earthquake loss reduction. In 1997, the Uniform Building Code recognized the danger of Cascadia Subduction Zone quakes. The code was modified to include all of Washington west of the Cascade Crest in Seismic Zone 3. The Legislature adopted the updated code in 1998 so all buildings constructed since than are supposed to meet the standards. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires all counties and cities to include geologically hazardous areas in their critical areas ordinances. The definition of critical areas in RCW 36.70A.030(5) “include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas. They are defined as (9) "Geologically hazardous areas" means areas that because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological events, are not suited to the siting of commercial, residential, or industrial development consistent with public health or safety concerns.” GMA is administered by local governments with varying degrees of concern about seismic safety so consistent enforcement is questionable. -40- Appendix C In 2006, the Legislature told the Division of Geology and Earth Resources (Washington Geological Survey) to “conduct and maintain an assessment of seismic, landslide, and tsunami hazards in Washington. This assessment must include the identification and mapping of volcanic, seismic, landslide, and tsunami hazards, an estimation of potential consequences, and the likelihood of occurrence.” These maps are being made available by the Washington Geological Survey but they have not been completed everywhere. As mentioned earlier, the Governor and the Legislature have relied on an Emergency Management Council subcommittee for advice on seismic safety policy issues since 1986. A word search of the Emergency Management Statute shows the words “seismic safety” only twice. RCW 38.52.040 (1) includes “seismic safety experts” as members of a voluntary Emergency Management Council that … “shall advise the governor and the director on all matters pertaining to state and local emergency management. The council may appoint such ad hoc committees, subcommittees, and working groups as are required to develop specific recommendations for the improvement of emergency management practices, standards, policies, or procedures. The council shall ensure that the governor receives an annual assessment of statewide emergency preparedness including, but not limited to, specific progress on hazard mitigation and reduction efforts, implementation of seismic safety improvements …” The word mitigate occurs only once (mitigation appears twice) in RCW 38.52. RCW 38.52.010 defines "Emergency management" or "comprehensive emergency management" means “the preparation for and the carrying out of all emergency functions, other than functions for which the military forces are primarily responsible, to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies and disasters…” This is a clear-cut mandate for EMD to prepare for and carry out all emergency functions to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies and disasters. It clearly speaks to planning, training and preparing emergency facilities, managers and responders. It not a legislative mandate that would permit the expenditure of money and man hours to examine schools, public buildings, critical facilities, transportation infrastructure, lifelines and educate the public about seismic hazards. Current Status Scientific and engineering studies continue to demonstrate that the hazard is greater than previously thought. Mitigation efforts and funding for improved assessments by state agencies have not kept pace with new information. The fundamental problems of vulnerable buildings and fragile infrastructure remain. Land use and development practices do not address results from hazard assessments. Most of the state’s built environment is uninsured for earthquakerelated losses. Governor Gregoire’s March 5, 2008 letter to the Council directed specific questions regarding the SSC be answered in the Council’s Annual Report.   An examination of the SSC organizational structure: Was it clearly charged, understood its priorities and optimally organized to carry out duties representing all interests? Thoughts on resource allocation decisions: “Are we organized, equipped and trained to respond to all foreseeable emergencies, are there capability gaps that should be -41- Appendix C  addressed by state, local, tribal or private NGOs, and are there critical policies, processes or procedures that should be sustained and/or enhanced?” The identification of unmet system-wide needs. The purpose of the SSC as presented on its website is to prepare and submit to the Council statewide strategies, policies, and recommendations that address the seismic threat through mitigation, preparedness, responses and recovery activities. This will be established through a collaborative effort and consensus of committee members representing stakeholder organizations across the state. The SSC lists priorities as objectives. They are: 1. Identify and promote existing state, local and regional mitigation initiatives that model implementation of committee advocated strategies. 2. Coordinate the development of a statewide strategy for educating, mitigating, planning and responding to the threat of seismic events. 3. Promote an effective and coordinated mechanism to assess and disseminate risk and threat information. 4. Identify resource opportunities to include but not limited to funding, equipment, staffing, and technology. Recommend appropriate lead agencies or entities for specific seismic issues. 5. Provide a forum for general coordination and the exchange of information among federal, state, local, and private entities. 6. Recommend legislation and policy changes to improve and enhance statewide seismic safety. 7. Develop a method for an annual assessment report of statewide implementation of seismic safety improvements, deficiencies and needs to the Council using a consistent format and method. 8. Evaluate and prioritize recommendations based on cost-benefit to the life safety, property, environment, and economic vitality of the state. SSC Response to Governor Gregoire’s letter  Examine SSC organization structure - Is it clearly charged? The SSC is charged as an advisory body to the Council. It has achieved its currently worded purpose. It has no authority or funding to carry out the submitted “strategies, policies and recommendations” or require the Council or state to accept and implement them. The SSC has been made up of up to thirty organizations. It may include “other entities as the Council may designate from time to time.” As noted above, decisions are reached “through a collaborative effort and consensus of committee members.” Only twelve of the members have direct seismic education and seismic experience. Three of those are federal agencies; one is an NGO. The remainder may be able to advise on implementation of a plan, but lack the credentials to create one. -42- Appendix C  Examine SSC organization structure - Are priorities understood? The operative words in the objectives include “recommend, develop, evaluate and prioritize, provide a forum, identify and promote.” There are no words to direct the “onthe ground” implementation of seismic safety measures. The SSC understands its priorities, as they exist, and has demonstrated its ability to achieve its assigned objectives within the funding and authority given to it seven times since 1986. However, no funding has been provided to the agencies that might be expected to implement the committee’s recommendations, and no funding is currently available to support the seismic safety committee.  Examine SSC organization structure – Is it optimally organized to carry out duties representing all interests? Reference to the subcommittee as a “focus group” and the requirement that it use a collaborative/consensus decision-making process make it questionable if the committee could be useful in anything but an advisory role. The consensus requirement may actually permit those who have to implement an effective plan to prevent its adoption. The Council bylaws require the Commissioner of Public Lands to be Chairman of the SSC. This places an untrained participant in charge. The rules should be amended to allow the Commissioner of Public Lands to designate the State Geologist or other appropriate expert as Chairman. The SSC has carried out its duties as currently defined. They lack authority or funding to do more.  Thoughts concerning key resource allocation decisions - Are we organized, equipped and trained to respond to all foreseeable (this response is limited to seismic) emergencies? Seismic safety is not emergency response, so this question would be better phrased as “Are we organized, equipped and prepared for all foreseeable seismic emergencies?” The answer is no. This is because of a fundamental misunderstanding of terms. Seismic safety can only be accomplished prior to an event by promoting overall awareness of earthquake hazards, developing methods to mitigate risks (such as liquefaction maps, proper seismic instruments, and building evaluations) and developing strategies to enhance earthquake preparedness so impacts are ameliorated. The Council purpose statement for the SSC orders it to “address the seismic threat through mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery activities.” This is a rightful charge by the Council to help it achieve its mission in a seismic emergency. However, the focus is on actions that facilitate response and recovery. The state needs to organize and improve its efforts to mitigate impacts and install seismic instrumentation prior to an event. This will lessen damage to critical infrastructure, reduce casualties and provide timely information to assist the Council in its response and recovery. -43- Appendix C  Thoughts concerning key resource allocation decisions - Are there capability gaps that should be addressed by state, local, tribal or private? Yes, there are capability gaps. The State of Washington has confused the term “seismic safety” with “Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan.” An Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan would be administered by an agency or commission with the authority to develop the plan, coordinate the earthquake loss reduction program, including recommendations for funding priorities within and across agencies; advise the Governor, propose legislation, monitor implementation and facilitate coordination of public education programs. The key elements in the program would be developing methods to mitigate risks and strategies to enhance earthquake preparedness for transportation infrastructure, critical facilities, lifelines and earthquake public education. The Council will still need advice on seismic safety matters that could be supplied by the current SSC, a commission or both. Filling the gap between the current voluntary system and a formal legislatively charged commission may ultimately save more lives then the seat belt law. The Nisqually earthquake showed us the need to do a better job in several areas. The delay and confusion in establishing a post-earthquake technical clearinghouse resulted in the loss of critical data collection opportunities. This gap has now been remedied, and a revised system will be in place shortly led by the Department of Natural Resources. The lack of resources to obtain current HAZUS data hampered the state to make effective use of FEMA’s HAZUS software package to generate correct damage estimates in developing rapid requests for Federal assistance. This gap remains and is discussed in more detail below. Nisqually also represented a “missed opportunity” due to the lack of a broad strong motion instrumentation program in Washington. This gap meant that information on the attenuation of seismic energy and structural response that such instrumentation would have given us to guide structural engineering decisions is not available. This gap is further discussed below.  Thoughts concerning key resource allocation decisions – Are there critical policies, processes or procedures that should be sustained/enhanced? Washington’s vision of seismic safety must be revised to focus on planning and mitigation strategies that address fragile infrastructure, vulnerable buildings, and land use planning. Only this type of vision can lead us to a resilient community that is able to rebuild its economy quickly enough to ensure the continuation of the state’s economic vitality. To move towards this vision, we suggest the following initial actions aimed at providing more continuity and consistency of expertise on the SSC: 1. Provide more formality to participation on the Seismic Safety Committee. This could be done by inviting people to participate with a letter from the Governor and setting a specific period for their participation. 2. Establish a specific roster of organizations and disciplines be represented of the Committee as is now done by statute for the Council. 3. Require a separate annual report to the Governor from the Committee -44- Appendix C 4. Require formal briefings by the Committee to the Council. Make these briefings public. 5. Provide a small amount of funding to one of the agencies to serve as the coordinator for the SSC. This agency would then provide clerical support for the Committee, meeting support, and pay for travel of the non-state members of the Committee. Since EMD serves this function for the Council, perhaps the SSC could be supported by the Department of Natural Resources with appropriate funding. 6. Provide a mechanism for “formal” adoption of a vision for seismic safety along the lines outlined above to separate seismic safety from emergency response. The state cannot be resilient unless we do more than respond after the fact. Economic recovery after an event depends directly on our resiliency.  Identify/respond to unmet system-wide needs. The actions of the SSC over the past 22 years have used volunteers to develop a series of recommendations that, with the exception of the adoption of modern building codes, have not been implemented. This weak response to earlier efforts has discouraged the potential group of experts from devoting more time to the Committee. As noted above, the state needs to find methods to encourage these experts to devote additional time to the development of a broad seismic safety program in Washington. In more specific terms, some fundamental gaps in Washington’s seismic safety program still exist. All of the critical hazard assessments, including liquefaction, soil conditions, and probabilistic ground motions that are necessary to guide mitigation depend directly on detailed surface and subsurface geological mapping. Resources are needed for a focused geological mapping program and to work with local government on the proper understanding and use of geological and hazard information for land use planning and mitigation purposes. The state currently lacks the capability to run realistic HAZUS Multi-Hazard (MH) damage and casualty assessments in real time to support rapid development of Federal disaster response and financial assistance. The proper application of this tool also requires loading and maintaining current local geological hazard assessment information into the HAZUS MH model. This can be most efficiently accomplished by the Washington Geological Survey at the Department of Natural Resources because of its ArcGIS capabilities and access to the most current digital earth science and hazard assessment information. The results can be fed live in real time to the state EOC for generating the final requests with input from real-time on-the-ground observations by first responders. States currently using this approach can generate documented requests for assistance with credible damage and requirements numbers within 2 hours of the initial event. Implementation will require the resources to maintain and run the system. Such a program can be used to attract additional Federal funding. -45- Appendix C One of Washington’s real success stories has been the response of our coastal communities to the strong public education effort by the Emergency Management Division at the Military Department, with support from the Washington Geological Survey at the Department of Natural Resources, regarding the tsunami threat and proper response. This same level of effort must now be directed at public education related to the seismic threats. We need to get beyond “Drop, Cover, and Hold” to educate the public about land use planning, proper construction techniques for both residential and public buildings, choices regarding where to live, and the proper preparation and response to such an event. As we implement this program in Washington, the much larger population and number of communities targeted means that additional resources are needed to effectively fill this gap. Another critical gap is the need to distribute modern seismic information tools to state and local emergency managers and first responders. Filling this gap will require enhancements of strong motion instrumentation for the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN), enhancements of PNSN communication capabilities, and added expertise to effectively maintain and deliver these services. These enhancements will also support the use of real time HAZUS MH as described above. Conclusions The Washington Legislature mistakenly assumed “seismic safety” was described in a 1985 bill vetoed by the Governor. It has based its actions since then on that interpretation. Earth science has identified serious seismic hazards to Washington that were unknown or poorly known in 1985. Legislation to mitigate those hazards has not kept pace with the science. A committed group of volunteers has done its best to provide the Council and the Governor, as required by law, with the best advice about how to prepare and implement an Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan. They have done so without funding or enabling legislation. Their reports have been minimized. Washington has benefited from its volunteer Seismic Safety Subcommittee. Their recommendations have been invaluable in assisting EMD in identifying hazards that helped the state reach today’s current readiness for earthquake rescue and response. However, their mandate does not allow them to prepare and implement an Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan. The mandate aims at providing advice, not mitigation. In spite of this, the committee’s efforts have resulted in implementation of an ad hoc partial plan. WSDOT implemented a seismic retrofit program, the Washington Geological Survey at DNR made seismic hazard maps available, and EMD educated the public about earthquake-related hazards, especially tsunamis, and procedures to save lives such as “Drop, Cover, and Hold.” PNSN has continued limited development of real-time seismic information tools. Continuation of these efforts is hampered by lack of a coherent strategy at the state level that integrates these efforts with policy and financial support. Washington lags behind other states’ efforts to reduce losses due to earthquakes. Those losses include lives, personal property, state infrastructure, private industry, jobs, and ultimately, the economic vitality of our state. A great deal more work needs to completed. -46- Appendix -47- Appendix D Homeland Security Annual Report Short/long term recommendations to improve resiliency and overall preparedness. Short Term Recommendations o Continue CHS activity o Review efficacy of CHS sub-committee activity o Pursue priorities identified for 2008 o For State resiliency: 1. Continue NIMS training for responder and other agencies and entities 2. Encourage collaborative planning among responder and other related agencies and entities. Continue integration of federal plans. 3. Continue coordinated disaster scenario exercises to improve agency and governmental coordination and collaboration for potential disaster events. 4. Review and revise Statewide Homeland Security Strategic Plan. 5. Maintain three-year statewide exercise strategy and plan. 6. Continue to maximize use of federal resources. Long Term recommendations o Refer broad all-hazards Disaster Recovery issues to the Council. o Have CHS focus on Terrorism and Homeland Security (HS) Issues, not allhazards issues. (However, CHS will be aware of how CHS activities and direction can positively affect all-hazards issues.) o For State resiliency: 1. Maintain training and education and exercise programs for responders. 2. Continue collaborative emergency planning activities. 3. Create accurate and effective Public Education materials related to terrorism threats. 4. Develop effective Public Information to increase public awareness of terrorism threats. Create public information materials that are effective and accurate. Develop the capacity to provide timely and accurate public information to warn of potential terrorist activity and to inform the public in the aftermath of a terrorist event. 5. Develop and maintain effective prevention mechanisms through data collection, risk communication, education, and engagement of partners. 6. Develop effective medical surge capabilities for use throughout the state to respond to both terrorist actions and broad impact health pandemics. 7. Develop strategy for sustainment of effective Homeland Security programs. o Identify priority issues/concerns 1. Adequate, appropriate training 2. Adequate, appropriate exercises 3. Regular coordinated planning -48- Appendix D o Evaluate/analyze capacity/capability at state/local level 1. Capacity at local and state level continues to vary depending on resources, awareness, and commitment. o Identify gaps and unmet system-wide needs. 1. Medical surge capacity statewide. 2. CBRNE team capacity statewide. 3. Development of an effective prevention system and mechanism. 4. Broad coordinated regional planning. 5. Accurate and effective Public Information program on HS issues. 6. Resource typing and credentialing for effective incident deployment. 7. Effective law enforcement resources mobilization plan. 8. Improve private sector involvement in HS prevention, planning, and preparedness. 9. Continue to improve communications interoperability throughout the state and with adjoining state and international neighbors. 10. Continue to acquire interoperable equipment for HS purposes statewide. 11. Continue Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources assessment so that we have a complete picture of vulnerabilities. 12. Continue and complete Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government planning so that we are prepared for major disasters that could disrupt social order.  Improve preparation and response o Learning from experience o Training and exercise o Citizen/local/business involvement  Specific questions o Outstanding concerns that need to be address by agencies/organizations. 1. Medical surge organization and management. o What are the critical issues related to homeland security and how will these be addressed? o What does the state need to do to identify, prepare and respond to unmet system wide needs? 1. Develop long term funding mechanism. o What key resource allocation decisions need to be made to prepare us? o What are the capability gaps in the state, local, tribal or private sector and how do we address these? o What are critical policies, processes or procedures that should be sustained or enhanced? You may also want to address your organizational performance related to evaluation of current committee membership, organization and responsibilities and structure. Certainly, those are going to be part of the Council’s overall activities as we go through the year but we probably will -49- Appendix D not focus on those for the report to the Governor and for developing our legislative and funding agendas. Most of the discussion yesterday centered on these themes and we are looking to the CHS as our experts to answer the questions and give us their recommendations. -50- Appendix -51- Appendix E STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION (SERC) Overview The SERC continued to emphasize the need for the Statewide CBRNE Response Program. A formal report, entitled Statewide CBRNE Response Program – Final Report (October 2006), identified the gaps in hazardous material response coverage throughout the state, designated program administration through the Office of the State Fire Marshal, defined substantial training requirements, and recommended establishment of several committees to ensure the program was thoroughly grounded and vetted. Sponsors twice placed a bill creating this program, along with a permanent funding stream, before the legislature. Both times the bill failed to make it out of committee. Unfortunately, the need still exists, and the hazardous material, incident response capability for the citizens of this state remains impaired. The SERC will continue to emphasize the significance of this issue and seek to have the bill introduced again. Community involvement in the Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) remains a key SERC issue. LEPCs are the cornerstones of the Emergency Planning – Committee Right-ToKnow Act (EPCRA), sometimes referred to as SARA Title III. Essentially, this law requires the disclosure of all toxic chemicals, hazardous substances, and extremely hazardous substances exceeding U.S. EPA threshold levels. LEPCs collect this information and disseminate it to fire agencies and others who have the need. The SERC will focus on greater leadership, training, and involvement at the LEPC level during the next two years. Statewide CBRNE Response Program As indicated in the previous report, this partnership program will:  Build on existing HazMat teams and Explosive Disposal Units to create a network of fully trained and equipped CBRNE response teams that operate with standardized training, equipment, and procedures.  Administer an aggressive cost-recovery program to recover the costs of responding to CBRNE incidents from responsible parties.  Reimburse local jurisdictions for approved responses to CBRNE incidents.  Pay for training, equipment, and medical surveillance for CBRNE technicians.  Support training for other levels of responders (awareness, operations, technician, and command).  Purchase necessary equipment and supplies.  Be supported by a sustainable funding source. -52- Appendix E Keys to this program: it does not pay for CBRNE incident response; rather, it creates a trained, equipped response force along with an aggressive cost recovery process to obtain reimbursement from responsible parties. Additionally, and very importantly, existing resources cannot be effectively cross-leveled to fully-address the needs. Much of the equipment and training for hazardous materials incident response is highly specialized, expensive, and is located only within or around population pockets in our state while many areas have little or no response capability. In terms of location, hazmat and CBRNE incidents are indiscriminate. Local Emergency Planning Committees – Planning and Training The SERC accomplished much during the previous year. Representatives attended several LEPC meetings, provided guidance and direction, and sponsored two conferences that focused on planning and training. During the annual SERC Workshop, members concluded greater emphasis should be placed on LEPC maturation, interaction, and training. Fortunately, the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) grant received a 71% increase for the next federal fiscal year. At least 75% of this 350K dollar grant will be passed through to local jurisdictions or state agencies to provide planning and training capabilities, respectively. The SERC intends to promote an aggressive planning and training grant program that will:  Double the number of individuals trained from the previous year.  Focus on rural areas with large number of volunteer Fire/EMS agencies.  Increase the HAMMER Training Facility student capacity by 25%.  Improve core competency levels in all HLS regions.  Encourage and support joint or regional exercise and planning ventures.  Encourage development of Commodity Flow Studies as the basis for plan formulation. -53- Appendix -54- References State Preparedness Report 2007 – 2008 Visit: http://www.emd.wa.gov/grants/_private/hls/limited_access.shtml 2007 Winter Storm; After-Actions Review Contact: t.egan@emd.wa.gov for more information. Interim Climate Change Report 2008 Visit: www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/ 55