memphis - rrw after action report final

8/8/2019 Memphis - RRW After Action Report Final

1/41

After Action ReportMarch 9-10, 2010

Memphis, Tennessee

The 2010 Regional Readiness Workshop was sponsored by the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, in cooperation with the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency.

2010 Regional Readiness Workshop After Action Report


2/41

Page intentionally left blank.

2010 USACE/FEMA Regional Readiness Workshop After Action Report 2


3/41

Table of Contents

I.

Table of Contents.................................................................3

Background..........................................................................6



4/41

Page intentionally left blank.



5/41

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) Regional Readiness Workshop (RRW) wasconducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on 9-10 March 2010 inMemphis, Tennessee. The event provided a platform for USACE to work together

with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), other Federal agencies(OFA), State and local representatives, professional and academic organizations,and private enterprise to improve overall preparedness to respond to a catastrophicearthquake occurring in the central United States in the NMSZ. Through a series ofcandid, facilitated discussions over the course of the two-day workshop, participantsfocused on the identification of issues that may impede USACE/FEMA responseefforts under the National Response Framework (NRF).

The RRW discussions went beyond the usual USACE preparedness and responseactivities associated with a New Madrid earthquake scenario by also addressingissues related to long-term recovery and other agency recovery activities that wouldrequire coordinated actions at the regional and national level beyond the initial

response and recovery.

The workshop further focused on the importance of state and countyparticipation in our planning efforts. Feedback from the participating statesand counties helped participants to understand the importance ofcollaborative planning. The objectives set forth in the workshop and theresultant outcomes further strengthened relationships between the federaland state partners while raising expectations for interagency success in futureresponses.

The outcomes from the workshop will result in improvements to existingUSACE response and recovery operations under USACE authorities as well asEmergency Support Function (ESF) #3, Public Works and Engineering doctrine

in support of the NRF. Among the discussions was a focus on a NationalHousing Strategy for New Madrid; Infrastructure impacts to include pipelinesas well as major electrical grid interconnects; Pre-scripted MissionAssignments; Navigation and other Transportation requirements; andResource Adjudication.

This NMSZ RRW After Action Report contains a record of proceedings, issue

discussions, and recommendations from the workshop. It is organized into five (5)areas taken from the preparatory briefings and topical area discussions on thescenario presented.

Key Challenges; Planning Issues; Response Issues; Recovery Issues; and

Analysis of Key Outcomes (leading tothe Senior Leaders Seminar)

2010 USACE/FEMA Regional Readiness Workshop After Action Report

The 2010 NMSZ RRW emphasized

individual preparedness and reality-based

planning, as reflected in the opening

comments of BG (P) Michael Walsh,

Commander, Mississippi Valley Division,

excerpted here:

o What are we doing to be ready for a

New Madrid shake?

o a key issue is a New Madrid

earthquake will be a no-notice event.

o Where will you be when the earth

5


6/41

III. INTRODUCTION

This After Action Report (AAR) provides a summary of proceedings, issues,and outcomes from the 2010 USACE/FEMA Regional Readiness Workshop(RRW), held March 9-10 2010 in Memphis, Tennessee. The workshop was

hosted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in cooperation with theFederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is part of theDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS).

Background

a. Goal. The workshop goal was to improve overall preparedness torespond to a catastrophic earthquake occurring in the central UnitedStates in the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) through candid,solution-focused discussion among intergovernmental agencies at theFederal, state, and local levels.

b. NMSZ RRW Objectives :

Review the principles, concepts and plans for the intergovernmentalresponse to a catastrophic earthquake, focusing on USACE roles andresponsibilities.

Test the current USACE plans and procedures against a scenariowhich provides context for stakeholder discussions concerning theclarity of respective roles and responsibilities over time.

Identify gaps and shortfalls in strategy, plans and procedures as ameans of improving current guidance and doctrine on specificUSACE mission areas.

Discuss tactical aspects of USACE plans and procedures whereknown gaps exist.

Advance USACE planning in order to participate effectively in the2011 New Madrid NLE.

c. RRW Scenario:

After a 7.7 EQ in NMSZ, by Day 3:

Approximately 2,038,000 people will seek shelter. Nearly 1.1 millions households are without potable water service.

Over 2.6 million households are without electric power (day1).

There are approximately 82,500 injuries and 3500 deaths.

Nearly 715,000 buildings are damaged.

Approximately 3600 bridges are damaged.



7/41

d. Participation: Participants included representatives from USACEHeadquarters, Divisions and Districts, USACE LNOs to Commands, FEMAHeadquarters and Regions, EPA, US Department of Health and HumanServices/ASPR, US Coast Guard, Department of Transportation, ARNORTH,NORTHCOM, USAID, HUD, SBA, State Representative from: Tennessee,

Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, other participants were from Virginia Tech,Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC), Mid-AmericaEarthquake (MAE) Center and Verizon Communications.

WORKSHOP OVERVIEW

The workshop was divided into three discussion periods that covered effortsfollowing a New Madrid earthquake during pre-event, response, and thetransition to recovery time frames, with input solicited from Federal, state,local and regional perspectives. During each of the discussion periods,participants engaged in dialogue about their agency roles and actions

specific to that period.

Participants received briefings on key challenges as part of day one asbackground information which can be found on the USACE CERAP website at:(http://cerap.usace.army.mil). These briefings were provided by:

Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC):

Shelby County, Tennessee

Tennessee Emergency Management Agency (TEMA)

FEMA

USACE

http://cerap.usace.army.mil/http://cerap.usace.army.mil/


8/41

IV. OPENING SESSION

The opening plenary session of the NMSZ RRW was brought to order by theWorkshop Facilitator, Mr. Robert Fletcher. After participant introductions, Mr.Fletcher explained the format of the workshop, to include a review of the

workshop objectives and agenda. Mr. Fletcher then turned the workshopover to the Senior Leadership in attendance for opening remarks.

In his opening remarks, BG (P) Michael Walsh pointed out that the MississippiRiver watershed is the third largest in the world and referenced responses tothe Floods of 2008, Hurricanes Gustav and Ike and the flooding on the RedRiver of the North. He then asked the audience, What are we doing to beready for a New Madrid shake? and noted that the key issue will be that aNew Madrid earthquake will be a no-notice event. Where will you be whenthe earth shakes? He also quoted FEMA Administrator Fugate who said"you can go fast, you can cheap, and you can go right" in a response andagreed it is better to go fast. He reminded all to keep a mindset that, as werespond, we "go big early" and that we continue to exercise to be sure wehave confidence in our decision-making process. He asked the group to beopen and frank during the RRW about our capabilities so that issuesidentified now are available to incorporate into the 2011 National LevelExercise (NLE).

V. DISCUSSION PERIOD 1Discussion Period 1: Planning Issues and Status of Planning: There

were five separate informational briefings provided to outline ongoingplanning for catastrophic earthquakes, specifically a NMSZ event. Some ofthe key points captured from each briefing were as follows:

Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC): Intergovernmental Planning Integration/Timing (how to

coordinate among 8 States that may be impacted) Gaps and Shortfalls leading up to NLE 2011 (more clarity

needed) Trigger Points relative to earthquake alert systems

Shelby County, Tennessee Reality-based planning; actions to be performed must be

realistic under the envisioned conditions. All incidents are local in their impacts. Local issues will drive

requirements for state and Federal response agencies.

Stafford Act provisions must be understood at the local levelas funding is driven by them.



9/41

Private Sector Involvement with local, state and Federalresponse actions will be important in ensuring an effectiverecovery.

Resiliency much of the success of the recovery is dependentupon the will of the people to bounce back after the incident.

Quick reconstitution of local government may be the key tothe intergovernmental response as requirements arise at localgovernment. It is important to restore a sense of normalcy assoon as possible.

Tennessee Emergency Management Agency (TEMA) Regular vs. Catastrophic Disaster Planning: The planning

process is different as is the response. Time Phased Automatic Response Process: Phases must be

described in the plans that lead the operation from initialresponse into the recovery period.

Importance of having Real Expectations: Expectations maywell exceed what is humanly possible.

FEMA Development of new national and regional doctrine is in

process. Impacts of HSPD-8 rewrite must be considered. Reorganization and Planning Process. Development of Regional Planning Guide. Federal Interim Contingency Plan to be replaced by National

Earthquake Plan (August 2010).

USACE Triggers based upon conditions versus operational decisions

are needed in the absence of communications. Demand Exceeds Supply (how to resource the shortfall). Scope of the Riverine mission and composition of a multi-

agency Task Force needs further evaluation.

Discussion Period 1: Planning Doctrine Issues/Concerns:

Good state and local plans, but no overarching national/regional

Concept of Operations that links it all together or identifies atime-phased approach to response and recovery

Absence of identified response triggers in regional/Federal plans Operational Awareness at all levels (local to Federal) must be

addressed through a Common Operating Picture. Regional Concept for System of infrastructure Interdependencies

is needed. Points to consider are:

Utilize concept similar to the Interagency Levee Task Forceused for Midwest Floods of 2008.



10/41

Obtain Governor buy-in on liabilities and cost sharingrequirements ahead of time.

Establish agreement in advance of an event for support. Locating the center of local operations without communications

(including Mobile EOCs) may be difficult if not almost impossible.

States viewpoint is that Federal support is not a question of ifit is needed, it is a matter of how, where and when!

The national priority will focus on command and control andprioritization of resources.

The availability and condition of transportation corridors is aconcern at all levels (how to get in and get out).

VI. DISCUSSION PERIOD 2Discussion Period 2 Response Issues - Caucus Groups: The workshopparticipants were divided up into five (5) heterogeneous caucus groups

based upon the four (4) primary FEMA Regions represented in the NMSZ andHeadquarters elements. The groups were asked to answer four basicquestions about priorities in the first 7 days of the response. When thegroups returned to plenary, they discussed their findings. Issues discussedincluded the following:

Region VII USACE Coordination of PL84-99 activities in multiple states. Adjudication of priorities and resources. Coordination and prioritization of assets.

Region IV State and local governments need a filter system to help

identify USACE capabilities. Shelter/Housing (i.e., Base Camps) for responders and

survivors. Pre-Scripted Flood Control Messages. Fuel Shortages.

Region V Unified Coordination Group to meet the needs of the State by

establishing priorities. Capacity of State to process local requirements.

Region VI Insufficient USACE assets to meet PL 84-99 and other Corps

Authorities as well as support of FEMA/Other Requirements -(Contracting Support to Bridge Gaps).



11/41

Habitability Inspections; need clear picture in order to manageexpectations.

National Group No viable resource allocation process for an event of this size

(first request; first received?). Defense Production Act of 2009 may govern some resource

issues. Decision making process must be included in future National

Earthquake Plan. Resource Coordination/Adjudication decisions at local level vs.

National level Self-Sufficiency of outside responders Speed of Prioritization Ability to manage expectations

Federal Assets

Contract Support Timelines

Local Capabilities

External Affairs

Public Awareness and Education Messages

Before an event

After and during long-term recovery Sustainment of Responder Workforce to reflect multiple JFOs,

etc. Integration of JTFs into Response Operations.

VII. DISCUSSION PERIOD 3Discussion Period 3: Recovery Issues: This period of the workshopallowed review of actions at the six-month point of the operation andtransition to recovery. Time was devoted to briefing participants on USACEmissions and capabilities as described in the

Workshops Situation Pamphlet (SITPAM). It had become apparent in caucusdiscussions that state and local government representatives were not fullyaware of the full range of capabilities that USACE brings to the operation,

how to request that assistance during an operation, and how to integrate theUSACE capabilities into the state and local operation when it arrives. Thislack of familiarity with USACE mission areas is due in part to the fact that,with the exception of Mississippi and Alabama, the other states have notbeen through a recent disaster that required broad USACE support. Asummary of the most pressing issues are as follows:

Issue: Broad areas of the potential earthquake impact area aresusceptible to liquefaction. Much of the Federal and non-Federal



12/41

flood control system is built upon foundation materials that mightbe vulnerable to liquefying and subsequent failure. No analysis hasbeen performed to determine the extent of this problem andpotential consequences.

o Recommendation: Conduct a study to determine whetherlevees are susceptible to failure and, if so, how extensive isthe problem.

Issue: States and counties are not aware of what is included inUSACE PSMAs that have been developed for FEMA missions underthe Stafford Act. They requested that they obtain the PSMAlanguage and be allowed to offer suggestions as to how they mightbe improved from the requestor perspective.

o Recommendation 1: FEMA/USACE jointly conduct workshops

with states and counties in the NMSZ regarding pre-scriptedmission assignments (PSMAs).

o Recommendation 2: Library of PSMAs, posted where

everyone from state to local level has access.

Association of General Contractors lack a plan for resourcing largeequipment across the NMSZ impact area.

o Recommendation: Mississippi Valley Branch of the Association

of General Contractors (AGC) work with the National AGC todevelop a plan to resource large equipment for debris removal

and mission activities necessitating other large equipment.

Examination of proposed sheltering sites to assure their structuralviability in aftershocks.

o Recommendation: Process to examine proposed sheltering

sites for structural survivability from an initial earthquake andaftershocks; document if the location is outside flood plain.

Determination of the size of the Building Structural Assessmentmission.

o Recommendation: USACE work with the FEMA Regions and

states to determine what the requirements will be, in order forresource planning to be achieved.

Clearing obstacles to navigation channels, such as debris,landslides, failed levee material, bridges, sunken vessels, brokenpipelines, HAZMAT and other materials involves multiple



13/41

organizations with varying authorities, capabilities andresponsibilities. It is not clear how these competing interests will becoordinated and managed.

o Recommendation: Establish a Regional Workgroup (from

Riverine TF or USCG Maritime Transportation Recovery Unit)to address coordination and decision making process (includelegislation authority, railroad bridges, vehicle bridges, sunkenvessels, broken pipelines, etc.). This needs to be coordinatedwith the USCG.

Viability of wooden or wood/steel bridges in agricultural areas of theMississippi

o Recommendation: State/counties need to provide data to

FEMA and USACE

Availability of the Infrastructure Assessment and other critical datato all potential stakeholders

o Recommendation: State/counties need to provide data to

FEMA and USACE.

While there is a FEMA National Housing Strategy, and some regions,such as Region IV have been working on a housing strategy for theNMSZ, there was not a clear link to an overarching plan for New

Madrid Seismic Zone type ofevents to address immediate temporary sheltering (for bothsurvivors and first responders), to temporary housing with atransition to permanent housing.

o Recommendation: Work this through the FEMA National

Disaster Housing Task Force.

Loss of Power Grid

o Recommendation: Concern was raised over the impacts to

the Eastern Interconnect Grid. In addition, there should beefforts to mitigate damage to power plants and facilities toinclude coordination with private industry and the Departmentof Energy.

Coordination of impacts to pipeline infrastructure in the New MadridSeismic Zone.



14/41

o Recommendation: Define roles and responsibilities for

DHS/FEMA/USCG/DOE/DOT. Is there a role for USACE?

USACE Authorities are not understood by other stakeholders.

o Recommendation: Provide education on USACE authoritiesother than PL84-99 to States and Counties.

Continue to keep public informed of potential risk relative toearthquake aftershocks or additional earthquakes outside the faultand aftershock zone.

o Recommendation: Plan for aftershocks or additional earthquakes outside the

aftershock zone; make it a part of the planning assumptions when moving

assets into this area.

VIII. RRW CLOSING REMARKS

Note the following summaries are paraphrased and were not extracted fromwritten text.

MG Grisoli, Deputy Commanding General (DCG) USACE: MG Grisoliexpressed the need to invest in preparedness in order to understandthe issues before you can improve the situation. He highlighted thefact that the reporting structure should be seamless to the public andthat everyone should know their roles and responsibilities. TheGeneral suggested that we all need to think through what themagnitude of the problem. The DCG asked, Who do I need to know

before I get there and can execute something? His direction was tomake sure we have the right people on our teams; that we thinkthrough the tough problems, and then step back. He referred to thetough challenges ahead and acknowledged that the RRW will help usprepare for NLE 2011.

COL Shepard, Deputy Commander, MVD: COL Shepard thankedeveryone for the effort associated with the RRW. Colonel Shepardrelayed a message from BG Walsh that we are in this together andreiterated the policy to Go big, and go early, once again reflecting on



15/41

the words of Director Fugate. He emphasized bringing resources in aspart of an established plan. He asked, as did BG Walsh, Where willyou be when the ground shakes? --- physically and where will we be inour planning? He asked, Will we have the Riverine Task Force fleshedout?

MG Peabody, Commander, LRD: MG Peabody asked that the audiencethink about how big of a task this is, recognizing the complexities canbe extremely daunting. He also asked all to think about theirauthorities and responsibilities and to focus on their piece of thepuzzle, and focus on solving their piece of the problem. The Generalsuggested that if we all do this if we each solve just 1 thing, andsome solve 2-3 things over the course of the next few months, we willhave moved the ball and will be more prepared for when this occurs.He stated this as our sacred duty, our responsibility and that, if wehave not done that, then we will have gone backwards and wasted the

time and energy spent at the RRW. He ended by reminding the groupthat there are tens of thousands, maybe millions of people whose livesand property are relying on us and that we each need to push thesituation forward, at least in some small way.

X. ANALYSISOF KEYOUTCOMESThe RRW PDT met the morning after the RRW to discuss general outcomes of

the workshop. The following comments are provided as immediate areas ofconcern to take forward to the upcoming Senior Leaders Seminar (SLS) thatwill be conducted 13-14 April 2010:

a. Common Operating Picture : The intergovernmental system ofinformation sharing appears broken.

b. USACE Authorities and Missions : There is a lack of awareness atstate and local government concerning USACE authorities andmission activities that would be performed under ESF #3 of theNRF.

c. Concept of Operations to Address C2, Resource

Adjudications/Allocation, and Infrastructure Systems: There is alack of knowledge relative to a Concept of Operations. Theoperative plan for command and control, resource prioritizationand allocation or coordination of infrastructure that crosses stateand Federal regional boundaries is unclear.

d. Maritime Concept of Operations : Immediate opening of theMississippi River and tributaries as a major transportationcorridor is one of the most pressing requirements arising from aNMSZ event. Though the US Coast Guard indicated they had anexisting maritime structure to address the issue, a concept of



16/41

operations between the Federal agencies and states does notexist.

e. Doctrinal Concerns Relative to NMSZ Event : The currentapproaches, as written, to a catastrophic NMSZ event, do notdemonstrate the limitations of performing missions as we always

have (on a limited scale). We continue to try to do response to acatastrophic event using traditional methods. The current draft orinterim doctrine is unrealistic when considering the magnitude ofthe event, expected multiple aftershocks and operatingenvironment along with the projected operational timelines.

f. Decision Making Process : The current version of the NationalEarthquake Plan does not provide for a decision making processand the continuing absence of this overarching national plan hascreated uncertainty and confusion for people to make decisionswithout guidance.

g. C4I: The plan for C4I must be a high priority and must clearly be

addressed.

__________________________________________________________________________



17/41

2010 USACE/FEMA New Madrid Seismic Zone Regional Readiness WorkshopIssue Matrix9-10 March 2010

ID Year Category Title Issue Statement Recommended Course of Action

Lead Milestone/DueDate

Applicability IssueStatus

2010 CatastrophicPlanning

Levee Studies Broad areas of thepotential earthquakeimpact area aresusceptible toliquefaction. Much ofthe Federal and non-Federal flood controlsystem is built uponfoundation materialsthat might bevulnerable toliquefying andsubsequent failure.No analysis has beendone to determinethe extent of thisproblem and potentialconsequences.

Conduct a study todetermine whether leveesare susceptible to failureand, if so, how extensivethe problem is.

Intergovernmental



18/41





2010 Pre-ScriptedMissionAssignments

States and countiesare not aware of whatis included in USACEPSMAs that have

been developed forFEMA missionsunder the StaffordAct. They requestedthat they obtain thePSMA language andbe allowed to offersuggestions as tohow they might beimproved from therequestorperspective.

#1: FEMA/USACE jointlyconduct workshops withStates and counties in theNMSZ regarding pre-

scripted missionassignments.#2: Library of PSMAs,posted where everyonefrom State to local level hasaccess.

Intergovernmental


Resourcing ofLargeEquipment

Association ofGeneral Contractorslack a plan forresourcing largeequipment across the

NMSZ impact area.

Mississippi Valley Branch ofthe Association of GeneralContractors (AGC) workwith the National AGC todevelop a plan to resource

large equipment for debrisremoval and missionactivities necessitating largeequipment.

Intergovernmental


Pre-IdentifiedSheltering Sites

Examination ofproposed shelteringsites to assure theirstructural viability inaftershocks.

Process to examineproposed sheltering sitesfor structural survivabilityfrom an initial earthquakeand aftershocks; documentif the location is outsideflood plain.

Intergovernmental



19/41






Mission Scoping Determination of thesize of the BuildingStructuralAssessment mission.

USACE will work with theFEMA Regions and Statesto determine what therequirements will be, in

order for resource planningto be achieved.

Intergovernmental


ClearingNavigationChannels

Clearing obstacles tonavigation channels,such as debris,landslides, failedlevee material,bridges, sunkenvessels, HAZMATand other materialsinvolves multipleorganizations withvarying authorities,capabilities andresponsibilities. It isnot clear how thesecompeting interestswill be coordinatedand managed.

Establish a RegionalWorkgroup (from RiverineTask Force or USCGMarine TransportationSystem Recovery Unit) toaddress coordination anddecision making process(include legislationauthority, railroad bridges,vehicle bridges, sunkenvessels, etc.). This needsto be coordinated with theUSCG.

Intergovernmental


Debris Recycling Viability of wooden orwood/steel bridges inagricultural areas ofthe Mississippi.

State/counties need to beprovided data to FEMA andUSACE.

Intergovernmental



20/41






CatastrophicHousingStrategy

While there is aFEMA NationalHousing Strategy,and some regions,

such as Region IVhave been workingon a housingstrategy, there wasnot a clear link to anoverarching plan forNew Madrid SeismicZone type of eventsto address immediatetemporary sheltering(for both survivorsand first responders)with a transition topermanent housing.

Work this through theFEMA National DisasterHousing Task Force.

Intergovernmental


Electrical Grid Loss of EasternInterconnect Grid

Conduct efforts to mitigatedamage to power plantsand facilities to include

coordination with privateindustry and theDepartment of Energy.

Intergovernmental


PipelineInfrastructure

Coordination ofimpacts to pipelineinfrastructure in theNew Madrid SeismicZone.

Defined roles andresponsibilities forDHS/FEMA/USCG/DOE/DOT.

Intergovernmental



21/41





2010 USACEAuthorities

There is a lack ofawareness at theState and localgovernment levels

concerning USACEauthorities andmission activities thatwould be performedunder ESF #3 of theNRF as well as workperformed by USACEunder their ownstatutory authorities.

#1: Address during the2010 Senior Leaders'Seminar.#2: Provide education on

USACE authorities otherthan PL 84-99.

Intergovernmental


RiskCommunication/PublicInformation

Continue to keeppublic informed ofpotential risk relativeto earthquakeaftershocks oradditionalearthquakes outsidethe fault and

aftershock zone.

Plan for aftershocks oradditional earthquakesoutside the aftershockzone; make it part of theplanning assumptions whenmoving assets into thisarea.

Intergovernmental

2010 Technologyand Tools

CommonOperatingPicture

Theintergovernmentalsystem of informationsharing is broken.

Intergovernmental



22/41





2010 Concept ofOperations

There is a lack ofknowledge relative toa concept ofoperations. The

operative plan forcommand andcontrol, resourceprioritization andallocation orcoordination ofinfrastructure thatcrosses State andFederal regionalboundaries isunclear.

Address during the 2010Senior Leaders' Seminar.

Intergovernmental


MaritimeConcept ofOperations

Immediate opening ofthe Mississippi Riverand tributaries as amajor transportationcorridor is one of themost pressing

requirements arisingfrom a NMSZ event.Though the USCGindicated they had anexisting maritimestructure to addressthe issue, a conceptof operationsbetween Federalagencies and Statesdoes not exist.


Intergovernmental



23/41






NMSZ Doctrine The current versionof the NationalEarthquake Plandoes not provide for

a decision makingprocess and thecontinuing absenceof this overarchingnational plan hascreated uncertaintyand confusion forpeople to makedecisions withoutguidance.


Intergovernmental


C4I There appears to bea lack of a plan toconduct C4I, toinclude theidentification oftriggers fordeployment when the

lines ofcommunication aredown in the impactedarea.

The plan for C4I must be ahigh priority and mustclearly be addressed duringdiscussions at the 2010Senior Leaders' Seminar.

Intergovernmental



24/41

9-10 March 2010

New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ)

Regional Readiness Workshop (RRW)

Evaluation Form Results

(Ratings Averaged)

1=StronglyDisagree

2=

Disagree

3=

Neutral

4=

Agree

5=Strongy Agree

1. The 2010 NMSZ RRW objectives were realistic. 1

( )

2

( )

3

( )

4

( X )

5

( )

Comments:

- Many local representatives needed a USACE 101 tutorial. Maybe they should have done this

concurrent with the USACE workshop.

- USACE workshop disappointing and did not Get USACE talking with one voice.- Objectives were too broad.- Facilitator should have periodically revisited objectives to ensure the discussion remained focused

on executing the objectives.

- Yes, event would be overwhelming and addressing issues now, and identifying as many as possible

now, will certainly ease confusion later.

- Appreciate laying out the basis of workshop up front.- Extremely optimistic; many problems, many participants; very difficult to pull in a focused central

plan.

- A bit ambitious, but generated a lot of conversation.- I think most dove into the discussions independent of the objectives.

- Many issues may require new legislation.- Objectives #2 and #4 were a little too ambitious.

2. Workshop presentations, simulations, and handouts

were relevant and enhanced the proceedings.

1

( )

2

( )

3

( )

4

( X )

5

( )

Comments:

- Simulations excellent. Should have used more (time-phased). Understand this existed but we got bogged

down on the 2nd day.

- No place to discuss vegetation on levees & liquefactions.- Everyone else is working with data from the Mid-America Earthquake Center simulations for their

planning efforts. Using slightly different simulations muddied the already-murky waters.

- Great sit Pam. This has a great deal of useful information and is a great resource.- Good use of Situation Pamphlet

3. Workshop tools (e.g., situation pamphlet, maps, etc.)

will be valuable as future reference materials.

1

( )

2

( )

3

( )

4

( )

5

( X )

2010 USACE/FEMA Regional Readiness Workshop After Action Report24


25/41

Comments:

- Situation Pamphlet was a very useful document.

- Absolutely. Workbook is a future useful tool, especially for local/state organizations.

- See #2.- Sit Pam was outstanding!

- Will continue to use maps and products.

- Sit Pam very good info.

- Excellent reference material.

4. The workshop was organized to your expectations. 1

( )

2

( )

3

( )

4

( X )

5

( )

Comments:

- Never addressed several objectives in details.- Allowed too many people to step back and admire the problem.

- Add more private organizations like the Mississippi Contractor Association

- Caucus session was not very helpful.- Questions to the group were too broad and there were too many questions.

- Discussion was not guided strongly enough to produce good information.

- If Stakeholders had known to come prepared to discuss those topics, the session may have beenbeneficial.

- Roles/Responsibilities under Stafford Act and PL84-99 should have been part of Day 1 Discussion.

- Someone should have been designated to give PL84-99 overview, then open up to audience forcomments.

- Yes

- Was disappointed in the working lunch. We should have moved on and not wasted the time waiting on

others.- Exceeded expectations.

5. Presenter(s)/Speaker(s) were knowledgeable about

topic(s).

1

( )

2

( )

3

( )

4

( )

5

( X )

Comments:

- Yes. USAID disappointing, geared only to seismic info from the Geologist perspective. What about

housing, hospitals, etc., using experience from foreign countries?

- Yes

- Nice mix of speakers- Most were.



26/41

6. Workshop format provided opportunities for

audience input.

1

( )

2

( )

3

( )

4

( )

5

( X )

Comments:

- Good Situation Pamphlet

- Good Flood Fight Luncheon with MG Grisoli

- Great interaction; best tech support Ive seen at a conference of this type and size.- Absolutely. Participation was good as well.

- Great participation and the facilitator kept everyone engaged.

- Main tables only.

- However, too large for creative input.- The site (large) of the group in my opinion did not encourage audience input.

7. The workshop facilitator should be recommended for

future workshops.

1

( )

2

( )

3

( )

4

( )

5

( X )

Comments:

- Needs significant guidance. Too much personal opinion added when the current SMEs were in the room.

- Please do not continue to talk to the group when we are told to read or discuss in smaller groups.- Bob did an excellent job.

- Outstanding! Bob is one of the best facilitators I have seen. He is very knowledgeable and knew several

people who helped keep things moving and increased group participation.

- Excellent more facilitation of discussion.- He controlled the conversations really well and was knowledgeable about topics. This was very helpful.

- Bob was excellent, very knowledgeable, kept us on task.

- Outstanding!- Fantastic job!

- Very personable as well as knowledgeable.

- Bob does good work!

- Very knowledgeable of processes for EM CoP- Excellent job! Bob did a great job staying on target and task.

- Spoke clearly, asked right follow up questions and stimulated audience participation.- Bob Fletcher did an excellent job!

8. There was adequate time allowed for each discussion

topic.

1

( )

2

( )

3

( )

4

( X )

5

( )

Comments:

- Yes, it would have been nice to have at least one more breakout group.- The discussion session (breakout) should have been at least an hour for all questions to be addressed.

- Would have liked more time when the caucuses met.



27/41

9. Each session was organized with a discussion topic. 1

( )

2

( )

3

( )

4

( X )

5

( )

Comments:

- Although we had a topic, did not enforce staying on topic. People discussed what they wanted despite

topic.

- Get separate rooms for caucus groups.- Yes, topics were well thought out.

- Good except for breakout session, which was not well focused at all.

10. Facilitator kept discussions focused. 1

( )

2

( )

3

( )

4

( )

5

( X )

Comments:

- Great job! Bob kept everything on track, yet allowed focus on critical areas when necessary.

- Bob Fletcher is a professional. Great job! He knows the issues and the territory and the players!

- Bob Fletchers knowledge and poise generated the input from the guests.

11. Issues that came out of workshop discussions were

accurately captured and appropriate actions identifiedand assigned where possible.

1

( )

2

( )

3

( )

4

( X )

5

( )

Comments:

- Note Takers often missed major point of discussion and context.

- Appreciated the opportunity to review what was captured.

- Difficult to assign; little assignments made.- How are results of action items relayed to participants?

- Not sure yet. Seemed like a lot of issues required higher level input/guidance, but not specifically

assigned action officers.

12. In your opinion, results of this workshop will bevaluable in planning for and responding to a NMSZ

event.

1( )

2( )

3( )

4(X)

5( )

Comments:

- Good Senior Leader involvement. Who were the 200 people in the room that did not speak?- Only if the information and results are made easily available to all participants.- Depends on Senior Leader level decisions/discussions.- Good topics to address in focused working groups



28/41


29/41

14. In your opinion, overall, this workshop was

productive.

1

( )

2

( )

3

( )

4

( X )

5

( )

Workshop Strengths:

- Got many different agencies together.

- Verizon helpful.

- Sit Pam; Facilitator; Technical Support- I have a better understanding of USACE capabilities but everyone is a long way from integration and

synchronization

- Situation Pamphlet

- Facilitator - Right people in attendance.

- In-depth discussion and breakdown for ESF#3 functions Great Workbooks. Will be a useful resource

later.- The great representation from local, state, and federal levels.

- Inter-government idea sharing.

- Good facilitation! Good RRW.- Topics: All inclusive.

- Flow

- Great overview of USACE; great handout (sit Pam)- Focused need for Gap Analysis (Needs Resources = Gap).- Engaging Facilitator

- Structured and flexible enough to engage a very diverse audience

- Facilitator essential.- The Facilitator kept the topic and presenters moving.

- The Moderator was well schooled and did a great job of orchestrating the event!

- Organization of activities; workshop materials; Facilitator skills par excellence; excellent lunch, too.- Different agencies exchange ideas and processes.

- Involvement of states, locals, others

- Knowledgeable participants

- Good venue for discussion- Good scenario

- Good tools, etc.

- Keep format.- Bob Fletcher kept on focus.

- Format; organization.

- Great to break down USACE authorities, capability and expected actions.- Outstanding workshop Thank you!!

- Facilitator; audience participation; audiovisual

- Audience was knowledgeable, willing to share.- Information was presented to all, not just senior leaders.



30/41

Suggestions for Improvement:

- Each state should have been required to brief their plan.

- Loosely organize seating by FEMA Regions.

- Make a concerted effort to invite more County and State-level Stakeholders. These are our customers andour means of communicating with their peers. Involve them in discussions so they can carry the message

to their counterparts.

- Have panel discussions that cover the spectrum of levels of government and key federal agencies.

- Let the County and State ask the Feds their questions; then switch sides and let the Feds ask County andState Representatives their questions. This would help manage expectations for all involved.

- Possibly webcast meeting to allow for more people to listen in on interagency planning.

- An integral part of Civil Support for disasters, such as an Earthquake in NMSZ, would be Department ofDefense Response. Briefing on NORTHCOM and ARNORTH was prepared, but not presented due to

time constraints. The info would be informative to workshop participants.

- Involve/invite more locals/organizations to the table to voice concerns.- Need to talk more about communications to the Public. This should be an element added to the

workshops. That will be a major issue.

- There seemed to be a lack of the right people from FEMA HQ & Logistics- More breakouts sessions by Region

- Specific action items; still unclear who or if they will be acted on- Invites should have been specific to a position such as Operations Officers, Logistics, etc.

- Needed more locals, private sector, NGO- Suggest more breakout sessions to help facilitate more focused topics.

- Intro comments each day seemed lengthy.

- Why? Lots of discussion at breaks bout the surprising size of this event. Why are doing it now and wherare we going?

- Provide copies of presentations, slides.

- Get HQ decision makers to attend. Present briefings that encompass other related initiatives that directlyimpact MNSZ planning assumptions.

- Send the scenario for discussion out in advance.

- Issue=> Discussion => Resolution (Often times the resolution aspect was not attained. The issue stillremains

- More assigned breakout sessions. Should have been in separate rooms.

- Need Acronym Sheet

- Need better high-level FEMA representation.- Need more private industry representation.

- Build from regional (FEMA) focus groups to Regional NMSZ group.

- Need to be more specific about who can make decisions on issues (federal) that are identified.- More focus on other agencies/jurisdictions and greater involvement of private sector.

- Need to remember that a catastrophic event could occur according to the scenario, but it could also occur

well north of the scenario epicenter. The scenario is great for the NLE, but it should not be considered th

end all for the National Earthquake Plan. The plan needs to look at aftershocks of at least equalmagnitude north of the scenario epicenter.

- None

- Provide copies of slide presentations to all; makes it easier for reference later.



31/41

Other Observations:

- No senior FEMA Representative.

- HUD should be involved with housing problem. Just kicked the problem down the road.

- BBQ lunch was great!- Need to better define at what level youre asking for from state and locals (Executive, Ops, Plans, etc.)

- The audio/video system was great. Easy to see the presentations and loved the TV cameras. Helped us to

see who was speaking. The table mics were very helpful and didnt wait on someone passing mics.

- It is deeply concerning to host the workshop in the heart of NMSZ with all of USACE Leadership.Highly recommend future conferences held outside the NMSZ to ensure high ranking personnel are

available to respond if the event were to happen during the conference.

- A lot of questions, not a lot of resolution; dont know that resolutions are possible with the parameters thawe have right now.

- No indication of conference wrap up minutes distribution

- Provide soft copies of all presentations.- Good conferencedefinitely sustain.

- Excellent idea to have the working lunch.

- Excellent mix of participants.- Participants were engaged and interested.



32/41

15. Future USACE/FEMA Regional Readiness Workshops

(RRWs) should be conducted in the same fashion as this

2010 NMSZ RRW.

1

( )

2

( )

3

( )

4

( )

Comments:

- Facilitator got meeting significantly off track Weds AM. Lost focus of Response objectives.- Much too vague to have the senior leaders participate at the USACE 101 level.

- Maybe Monday evening or Tues evening should have been a USACE 101 briefing so the conference

could have continued on schedule.

- Probably should be longer than 2 days. Could accomplish more and discuss more with additional time.- Breakouts would have been useful similar to Day 1 huddles.

- As a local government responder, my major focus is to receive info of what is being done during the even

and how it will affect my area of the incident. Also, if assets are available to assist, receive the who,what, when, and where they are.

- I did receive some good info to take back to my agency to make it better prepared.

- Wish more breakouts- NORTHCOM/DOD outside USACE could have played more. Seems like they would be

posturing/pushing and interacting as a real player.

- Great forum and format A WINNER!

- There was a very well-thought out participant roster.- Utilize CUSEC as a planning partner for future meetings.

- Too large of a room for groups.

- Reduce # of participants.- Excellent job by all.



33/41

APPENDIX B: AGENDA


AGENDA

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers /

Federal Emergency Management Agency

New Madrid Earthquake Regional Readiness Workshop

Day 1

9 March 2010

0700 - 0800 Registration

0800 - 0840

Opening Remarks BG (P) Michael Walsh

Introductions Bob Fletcher

Administrative Remarks

Workshop Objectives and Process

0840 - 1040

DISCUSSION PERIOD 1-Earthquake Planning & Preparedness

Activities

Facilitated Discussion Bob Fletcher

History of New Madrid Seismic Zone

-Video

New Madrid Catastrophic Earthquake Operations Plans Summary

oCentral United States Earthquake Jim Wilkinson

Consortium (CUSEC)

oShelby County Bob Nations

o

Tennessee Emergency Management Cecil Whaley

Agencyo

Federal Emergency Management AgencyDon Daigler

oU.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rick Howley

Pat Tucker

Tom Howko

Issues

Identification of unique issues associated with intergovernmentalearthquake planning and concept of operations

Identification of planning gaps/shortfalls

Objectives Addressed

Objective 1

1040

1100

Break

DISCUSSION PERIOD 2-

Earthquake Response Activities (E+0 ?E+7 Days)


33


34/41


1100-1200

DISCUSSION PERIOD 2 - Earthquake Response Activities (E+0 E+7Days)

Facilitated Discussion Bob FletcherVideo Vignettes - Future Glimpse of Simulated Impacts

City of Memphis

TEMA

FEMA Region IV FEMA HQ

HQUSACE

Special Topic Brief

Communications JoanneSechrest,

DHS-ESF 2

Issues

Implications of power outage predictions

Impacts outside the Immediate NMSZ

Triggers for mobilization/deployment of assets and capabilities in adegraded communications environment

Requirements for NM-specific Pre-Scripted Mission Assignments

Resource allocation and prioritization

Communications interoperability


Objectives 2, 3, 4, 5

1200 1330 Lunch

1330 1440DISCUSSION PERIOD 2 - Response Activities (Continued)


1440 1500 Break

1500 1630DISCUSSION PERIOD 2 - Response Activities (Continued)


1630 1700 Wrap-up Bob Fletcher

34


35/41



36/41

APPENDIX C:ACRONYMS LIST

AAR After Action Report

ACI Advanced Contract Initiative

AFO Area Field Office

AO Action Officer

APO Accountable Property Officer

ARC American Red Cross

ARF Assistance Request Form


DAY 2 10 March 20100800 0830 Review Of Day 1 Issues Paul Holtz Dobie

0830 1000

DISCUSSION PERIOD 3 - Recovery Activities (2 Weeks - 6 Months)


Multimedia Presentation - Riverine Task Force

Issues

Riverine Task Force approach for HAZMAT, debris clearance, bridging,ferrying, opening ports, and navigation restoration

USACE missions and interagency organization to restore criticalinfrastructure in coordination with federal, state, local, and private sectorstakeholders

Federal housing strategy

Federal functions / projects which may be stopped or delayed to enablesurging of capabilities


Objectives 2, 3, 4, 5

1000 1020 Break

1020 1130

DISCUSSION PERIOD 3 - Recovery Activities (Continued)


1130 1300 Lunch

1300 1430DISCUSSION PERIOD 3 - Recovery Activities (Continued)


1430 1450 Break

1450 1630Hotwash Bob Fletcher

Paul Holtz Dobie

1630Closing Comments MG William Grisoli MG John Peabody

36


37/41

ARNORTH Army North Command

ASPR HHS/ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response

ATL Assistant Team Leader

BDT Base Development Team

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

CDM Contaminated Debris Management

CDRG Catastrophic Disaster Response Group

CEERP Corps of Engineers Emergency Response PortalCERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CIA&R Critical Infrastructure Assessment & Restoration

CI/KR Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources

C&L Commodities and Logistics

COA Course of Action

COD Common Operating Database

COE Corps of Engineers

CoP Community of Practice

COP Common Operating Picture

CORE Cadre of Response Employees

COTR Contracting RepresentativeCMT Crisis Management Team

CONOP Concept of Operations

CPF Critical Public Facilities

CR Continuing Resolution

CTPR Critical Temporary Power Restoration

CUSEC - Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium

DC Distribution Center

DCO Defense Coordinating Officer

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DHS-IP Department of Homeland Security, Infrastructure and Protection

DHS/OIP Department of Homeland Security, Office of Infrastructure and ProtectionDNR Department of Natural Resources

DoD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOI Department of Interior

DOMS Director of Military Support

DOT Department of Transportation

DRF Disaster Relief Fund

DRG Disaster Response Group

DTOS Deployable Tactical Operations System

EEI Essential Elements of Information

EEO Equal Employment OpportunityEIS Environmental Impact Statement

EM Emergency Manager or Emergency Management

EMAC Emergency Management Assistance Compact

EMIMS Emergency Management Information Management System

EOC Emergency Operation Center

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ER Engineer Regulation



38/41

ERT Emergency Response Team

ERT-N Emergency Response Team, National

ESF Emergency Support Function

ESFLG Emergency Support Function Leaders Group

EWP Emergency Watershed Protection

EXSUM Executive Summary

FCO Federal Coordinating Officer

FEMA Federal Emergency Management AgencyFLM Flood Risk Management

FOC Full Operational Capability

FOSA Federal Operations Staging Area

FRPCC Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee

F&W Fish and Wildlife

FWLS Fish and Wildlife Service

GAP Gap Analysis Program

GIS Geographical Information System

GSA General Services Administration

HHS Health and Human Services

HLT Hurricane Liaison TeamHQ - Headquarters

HQUSACE Headquarters, United States Army Corps of Engineers

HR Human Resources

HSC Homeland Security Council

HSIN Homeland Security Information Network

HSPD Homeland Security Presidential Directive

HUD Housing and Urban Development

I&A Information and Analysis

IAA Inter-Agency Agreement

IAAT Independent Assessment and Assistance Team

IAP Interagency PlanningIA-TAC Individual Assistance Technical Assistance Contracting

ICAL Infrastructure Capability List

ICP Information Collection Plan

ICS Incident Command System

ILTF Interagency Levee Task Force

ILWG Interagency Levee Work Group

IMAT Incident Management Assistance Team

IMPT Incident Management Planning Team

IOC Initial Operating Capability

IOP Interagency Operational Planning

JDOMS Joint Director of Military SupportJFO Joint Field Office

KW Kilowatt

LMD Logistics Management Directorate or Division

LNO Liaison Officer

MA Mission Assignment

MAC Mission Assignment Coordinator

MAE Mid-American Earthquake Center



39/41


40/41

SBA Small Business Administration

SES Senior Executive Service

SSA Sector Specific Agencies

SBU Sensitive But Unclassified

SITREP Situation Report

SLS Senior Leaders Seminar

SME Subject Matter Expert

SOP Standard Operating ProcedureSOW Statement of Work

SPOTREP Spot Report

SUPSAL Supervisor of Salvage (USCG entity)

SWO Staff Watch Officer

TAV Total Asset Visibility

TF Task Force

TH&R Temporary Housing and Roofing

TL Team Leader

TLC Territory Logistics Center

TTX Table Top Exercise

UOC United States Army Corps of Engineers Operations CenterUSACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USCG United States Coast Guard

US&R Urban Search and Rescue

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VAL Volunteer Agency Liaison

VOLAG Volunteer Agency

VTC Video Teleconference

WG Work Group



41/41

Building Strong

memphis - rrw after action report final

Documents