Download:
pdf |
pdf2015
National Preparedness
Report
March 30, 2015
1
2015 National Preparedness Report
ExEcutivE Summary
This report marks the fourth National Preparedness Report. Required annually by Presidential Policy Directive 8:
National Preparedness, the National Preparedness Report summarizes progress in building, sustaining, and delivering the
31 core capabilities described in the National Preparedness Goal (the Goal). Each year, the report presents an opportunity
to assess gains that whole community partners—including all levels of government, private and nonprofit sectors, faithbased organizations, communities, and individuals—have made in preparedness, and to identify where challenges remain.
The 2015 National Preparedness Report focuses primarily on preparedness activities undertaken or reported during 2014.
The intent of the National Preparedness Report is to provide the Nation with practical insights on preparedness that can
inform decisions about program priorities, resource allocations, and community actions. The 2015 National Preparedness
Report places particular emphasis on highlighting preparedness progress in implementing the National Planning
Frameworks (the Frameworks) across the Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery mission areas. The
Frameworks describe how the whole community works together to achieve the goal of a secure and resilient Nation.
National Preparedness Report
dentifies six
sixkey
keyfindings
findingsthat
that
outline
overarching
national
trends,
as as
The
The 2015 National
Report iidentifies
outline
overarching
national
trends,
as well
well as additional
findings
for
each
of
the
five
preparedness
mission
areas
included
in
the
Goal.
additional findings for each of the five preparedness mission areas included in the Goal.
Topic
Additional Capabilities to Sustain
National Areas for
Improvement
Response Coordination Challenges
for Events that Do Not Receive
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford
Overarching Finding
Environmental Response/Health and Safety, Intelligence and Information Sharing,
and Operational Coordination are additional core capabilities to sustain, which are
capabilities in which the Nation has developed acceptable levels of performance for
critical tasks, but which face potential performance declines if not maintained and
updated to address new challenges.
Cybersecurity, Housing, Infrastructure Systems, and Long-term Vulnerability
Reduction remain national areas for improvement, and Economic Recovery reemerged as an area for improvement from the 2012 and 2013 National Preparedness
Reports. Access Control and Identity Verification is a newly identified national area
for improvement.
Recent events, including the epidemic of Ebola virus disease, have highlighted
challenges with coordinating the response to and recovery from complex incidents
that do not receive Stafford Act declarations.
Act) Declarations
Incorporating Emergency
Preparedness into
Technology Platforms
Businesses and public-private partnerships are increasingly incorporating emergency
preparedness into technology platforms, such as Internet and social media tools and
services.
Challenges Assessing the Status of
Corrective Actions
While Federal departments and agencies individually assess progress for corrective
actions identified during national-level exercises and real-world incidents,
challenges remain to comprehensively assess corrective actions with broad
implications across the Federal Government.
Self-assessment Results from
States and Territories
Perspectives from states and territories on their current levels of preparedness were
similar to previous years. All 10 core capabilities with the highest self-assessment
results in 2012 and 2013 remained in the top-10 for 2014; Cybersecurity continues
to be the lowest-rated core capability in state and territory self-assessments.
i
table of Contents
Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................................................................i
Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................................................1
2014 Year in Review.............................................................................................................................................................................4
Multi-year Progress Highlights......................................................................................................................................................8
Overarching Findings.........................................................................................................................................................................9
Prevention..............................................................................................................................................................................................17
Prevention Key Findings.....................................................................................................................................................................20
Protection..............................................................................................................................................................................................26
Protection Key Findings......................................................................................................................................................................29
Mitigation..............................................................................................................................................................................................38
Mitigation Key Findings......................................................................................................................................................................41
Response................................................................................................................................................................................................50
Response Key Findings.......................................................................................................................................................................53
Recovery.................................................................................................................................................................................................64
Recovery Key Findings........................................................................................................................................................................67
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................................................76
Acronym List........................................................................................................................................................................................79
Appendix A: Grant Case Studies.................................................................................................................................................80
ii
Introduction
The National Preparedness Report summarizes progress in building, sustaining, and delivering the core capabilities
outlined in the 2011 National Preparedness Goal (the Goal). Fulfilling an annual reporting requirement established by
Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness, the 2015 National Preparedness Report focuses on progress
achieved or reported in 2014. The report presents a national perspective, highlighting the contributions to preparedness
made by the whole community—namely, Federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, the private and
nonprofit sectors, faith-based organizations, communities, and individuals.
Methodology
State Preparedness Report
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) coordinates the
development of the National Preparedness Report with whole community
partners. The approach for this year’s report included the following
activities:
Researching open-source materials for information on notable progress
and challenges related to the 31 core capabilities identified in the Goal;
Soliciting Federal departments and agencies through a data call to
identify their latest accomplishments toward national preparedness;
Engaging Federal departments and agencies and senior interagency
coordination groups to shape and enhance the report’s content and
validate key findings;
Analyzing Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment and
State Preparedness Report submissions from states and territories;
Applying criteria—including assessments, exercises, funding, and
long-term trends influencing preparedness—to identify national
areas for improvement and capabilities to sustain among the 31 core
capabilities; and
Collaborating with stakeholders to review, comment on, and refine the
report.
The 2015 National Preparedness Report
includes results from an integrated
self-assessment process that states,
territories, urban areas, and tribes
completed in 2014. Through this
process, states, territories, urban
areas, and tribes conducted Threat
and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessments to better understand risks
and estimate capability requirements.
States and territories then assessed
their ability to meet those capability
requirements through the State
Preparedness Report. These selfassessment results reflect extensive
whole community involvement across
all 56 states and territories. State
and territory homeland security and
emergency management personnel led
multi-disciplinary, statewide efforts
that engaged representatives from law
enforcement; fire service agencies;
public health and medical systems,
including emergency medical services,
hospitals, and healthcare organizations;
and nongovernmental organizations.
The 2015 National Preparedness Report reflects inputs from more than 143 stakeholders (including 14 non-Federal
organizations) and more than 450 data sources.
1
Introduction
Sources
FEMA compiled the National Preparedness Report using a combination of Federal
and state input, qualitative and quantitative open-source research, and contributions
from the whole community.
By the Numbers
97
Federal Data Call
Submissions
129
450+
Federal Offices
Engaged
Data Sources
Referenced
56
State Preparedness
Report Submissions
Additional Whole Community Engagement Included:
American Red Cross
Heritage Preservation
National Academy of Sciences
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
National Voluntary Organizations Other private-sector partners
Active in Disasters
Report Organization
report Organization
The 2015 National Preparedness Report begins with a Year in
Review section that highlights examples of events from 2014 that
tested the Nation’s preparedness. Next, an Overarching Findings
section highlights six key findings focused on national-level trends.
This year, the National Preparedness Report emphasizes progress in
implementing the National Planning Frameworks (the Frameworks),
which describe how the whole community works together to
achieve the Goal. Specifically, the Frameworks outline critical tasks
for the five preparedness mission areas and their associated core
capabilities. Page 3 lists the core capabilities aligned to each mission area. Unlike previous years, the three core capabilities
common to all five mission areas—Planning, Operational Coordination, and Public Information and Warning—are not
discussed separately in the report but, instead, are integrated within each mission area.
While previous National Preparedness Reports have organized key findings by core capability, the 2015 National
Preparedness Report uses the critical tasks identified in the Frameworks to develop key findings for each of the five
preparedness mission areas—Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery. This approach provides greater
flexibility to address crosscutting issues and progress arising within and across the mission areas. In total, the 2015 report
identifies 43 key findings across the five mission areas. As relevant, the key findings include maps, charts, and case
studies to enhance insights on preparedness progress and challenges. Additionally, call-out boxes titled “Mission Area
Connections” under each mission area illustrate how activities occurring in one mission area link to other mission areas.
Each mission area section of the report begins with a brief overview describing Framework critical tasks and core
capabilities in the context of real-world events, as well as state perspectives on preparedness. In addition, the overviews
highlight examples of measurable achievements in current programs and initiatives, resilience innovations, and best
practices from the whole community.
2
Introduction
Mission Areas and Core Capabilities
Prevention
Protection
Mitigation
Response
Recovery
Planning
Public Information and Warning
Operational Coordination
Intelligence and Information Sharing
Interdiction and Disruption
Screening, Search, and Detection
Forensics and
Attribution
Community Resilience
Long-term
Vulnerability
Reduction
Access Control and
Identity Verification
Risk and Disaster
Resilience Assessment
Cybersecurity
Threats and Hazard
Identification
Physical Protective
Measures
Infrastructure Systems
Critical Transportation
Economic Recovery
Environmental
Response/Health and
Safety
Health and Social
Services
Fatality Management
Services
Mass Care Services
Mass Search and
Rescue Operations
Risk Management for
Protection Programs
and Activities
On-scene Security and
Protection
Supply Chain Integrity
and Security
Operational
Communications
Public and Private
Services and Resources
Public Health and
Medical Services
Situational Assessment
3
Housing
Natural and Cultural
Resources
2014 Year in review
In 2014, there were 45 major disaster declarations,
17 fewer than in 2013. However, as the examples
below demonstrate, the Nation faces a range of
threats and hazards each year that confirm the need
to continuously enhance preparedness and promote
security and resilience across the whole community.
January 9–20
A chemical spill into the Elk River in Charleston, West Virginia, resulted in a “do not use” order for residents
of nine counties, affecting 300,000 people. For some residents, the order remained in place for more than a week. At the
request of West Virginia officials, FEMA delivered more than 3 million liters of water to the region. In addition, a Laboratory
Response Network laboratory tested 581 drinking water samples and provided Public Health Emergency Preparedness-funded
epidemiology support from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS’s) Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC).
January–September
With California under dry
conditions since 2012, and 2014 projected as the driest
year on record, the Governor of California declared a
state of emergency and directed state officials to prepare
for drought conditions. In July, the U.S. Drought Monitor
reported that approximately 58 percent of the state was
experiencing an “Exceptional Drought,” the most severe
drought level (see Figure 1). To increase California’s
resilience to water shortages, the Governor signed
legislation in September strengthening local management
and monitoring of key groundwater basins to ensure a
sustainable water supply.
Figure 1. During the week of
July 29, 2014, 100 percent
of California experienced
“Severe” to “Exceptional”
drought conditions.
January 28–29, February 11–13
A winter storm struck northern and
central Georgia from January 28–29, trapping motorists on highways and
stranding approximately 2,000 students in their schools or on buses overnight
in the Atlanta metropolitan area. A second, more powerful winter storm
brought heavy snow and a record level of ice to northern and central Georgia
February 11–13, causing over 700,000 customers to lose power and resulting
in an emergency declaration (February 11) and a major disaster declaration
(March 6) from the President.
February 22, April 30
Growth in U.S. oil production is increasing use of rail and barge shipments to transport crude
oil to refineries. On February 22, more than 31,000 gallons of crude oil coming from the Bakken region of North Dakota
spilled into the Mississippi River when a tank barge carrying the oil collided with a tugboat 154 miles north of the river’s
mouth, closing the waterway for several days. This and other recent accidents—including one on April 30 in Lynchburg,
Virginia, that released crude oil into the James River—have highlighted potential environmental and public safety risks.
4
Year in Review
March 22
Heavy rain throughout February and March contributed to
a mudslide that killed 43 people in Snohomish County, Washington. The
mudslide covered a 360-yard section of highway with up to 20 feet of mud
and debris and destroyed several homes. Searchers screened approximately
200,000 cubic yards of material, recovering the last victim in July. FEMA
provided more than $16 million in disaster assistance, and the U.S. Small
Business Administration (SBA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
made additional Federal financial assistance available.
March 25–Present
The 2014 Ebola virus disease epidemic is the
largest in history, affecting multiple countries in West Africa. On March
25, CDC provided an initial announcement about an outbreak of Ebola
virus disease in the West African country of Guinea. In September, a man
traveling from Liberia to Texas became the first domestic laboratoryconfirmed case of Ebola virus disease in the United States. CDC and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enhanced screening procedures for
travelers entering the United States from Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia.
Additional details on U.S. efforts with the Ebola virus disease are located on
pages 29 and 54.
April 2
An active shooter at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas, killed three people and wounded 16 others before killing
himself. Eight minutes passed between the first 9-1-1 calls and confirmation that the shooter was neutralized. By April 4,
10 of the 16 wounded returned to duty. Over 150 law enforcement officials representing Federal, state, and local agencies
participated in a Joint Task Force led by U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command to investigate the incident. This
incident was one of at least 13 active shooter events in 2014.
April 7
A cybersecurity industry report identified a vulnerability in OpenSSL (known as “Heartbleed”) that could be
exploited to expose sensitive data. In response, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) U.S. Computer
Emergency Readiness Team issued an alert to the public to share actionable information and ways to mitigate
Heartbleed’s effects. Moreover, DHS’s Industrial Control System-Cyber Emergency Response Team contacted vendors
and owners to determine potential vulnerabilities to essential computer systems.
April 27–May 6
Severe weather and tornados struck the central and
southern United States, resulting in 34 fatalities. Between April 29 and May
6, the President issued major disaster declarations for Alabama, Arkansas,
Florida, and Mississippi. In addition to FEMA disaster assistance, the
Internal Revenue Service designated survivors in disaster-affected counties
as potentially eligible for tax relief based on the President’s disaster
declaration and FEMA damage assessments. Moreover, the National Mobile
Disaster Hospital deployed to Louisville, Mississippi, to temporarily
replace a hospital that was heavily damaged by a tornado.
5
Year in Review
May 13–22
A series of wildfires in San Diego County, California, burned
more than 26,000 acres and damaged or destroyed 119 buildings. Due to
agreements put in place by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Prevention, 30 U.S. Navy and Marine Corps helicopters deployed to help
combat fires across the county. These wildfires provided an opportunity for
the San Diego County Operational Area Emergency Operations Center to
test infrastructure improvements made after the 2003 and 2007 wildfires,
including implementation of WebEOC®, an online incident management
system.
June 2–October
In response to a significant increase in the number of unaccompanied children crossing the U.S.-Mexico
border, the President directed the establishment of an interagency Unified Coordination Group, consisting of representatives
from FEMA, CBP, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, HHS’s Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response
(ASPR), HHS’s Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and other supporting
agencies. The rise in apprehensions and processing of unaccompanied children in the Rio Grande Valley region presented
unique challenges for DHS and HHS. In fiscal year 2014, CBP referred more than 57,000 children to the care and custody
of the Office of Refugee Resettlement within ACF.
July 29
A rupture in a Los Angeles, California, water main resulted in over 20 million gallons of fresh water flooding
sections of the University of California, Los Angeles campus. The failure of the water main—portions of which were installed
in 1921—highlights the consequences of aging infrastructure systems.
August 24
Napa and Solano Counties in California experienced a
6.0-magnitude earthquake—the strongest Bay Area earthquake on record in
25 years. Test users of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) earthquake early
warning system, ShakeAlert, in Berkeley, California, received alerts five
seconds before shaking arrived from the earthquake. On September 11, the
President issued a major disaster declaration for Napa and Solano Counties.
FEMA has provided nearly $9 million in disaster assistance, and SBA has
provided more than $10 million in low-interest Federal disaster loans to help
residents and business owners recover.
August–December
The United States experienced a nationwide outbreak of enterovirus D68 (EV-D68), which results in
severe respiratory illness. From mid-August to January 15, 2015, CDC and state public health laboratories had confirmed a
total of 1,153 people in 49 states and the District of Columbia with respiratory issues caused by EV-D68. Laboratories also
found EV-D68 in samples from 14 patients who died. The HHS National Syndromic Surveillance Program provided support
in monitoring and responding to this outbreak.
November 24–December
Sony Pictures Entertainment was the victim of a cyber attack that destroyed systems, stole
large quantities of personal data and proprietary information, and disrupted business operations. Based on evidence gathered
and intelligence sources, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) concluded that the government of North Korea sponsored
the attack. In response to this cyber vandalism, the U.S. Department of the Treasury instituted new economic sanctions against
three North Korean entities and 10 individuals. The scale and objectives of this attack demonstrate the challenges that cyber
threats pose to social, economic, and national security.
6
Year in Review
Supporting State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Governments
In 2014, Federal agencies assisted
in 45 major disaster declarations
across 32 states and territories.
In fiscal year 2014, FEMA training
programs achieved more than 2.1
million course completions across
all 31 core capabilities.
Major Disaster Declarations in 2014
USDA Drought Designations in 2014
Distribution of FEMA Preparedness (Non-Disaster) Grants
Fiscal Year 2013
Planning
In fiscal year 2014,
FEMA and HHS
provided more than
$1.5 billion and $900
million, respectively, in
preparedness grants.
Operational Coordination
Public Information and Warning
$1million
million
<<$1
Forensics and Attribution
Intelligence and Information Sharing
Interdiction and Disruption
Screening, Search, and Detection
Access Control and Identity Verification
Cybersecurity
Physical Protective Measures
Risk Management for Protection Programs and Activities
<< $1
$1 million
million
Supply Chain Integrity and Security
Threats and Hazard Identification
Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment
Community Resilience
Long-term Vulnerability Reduction
$1million
million
<<$1
Critical Transportation
Environmental Response/Health and Safety
Fatality Management Services
Appendix A: Grant
Case Studies provides
additional examples
of how FEMA
preparedness grants
have supported
capability development
at state and local levels.
Mass Care Services
Mass Search and Rescue Operations
On-scene Security and Protection
Operational Communications
Public and Private Services and Resources
Public Health and Medical Services
Situational Assessment
Infrastructure Systems
Economic Recovery
Health and Social Services
Housing
$0
$0
Natural and Cultural Resources
0
200
400
in Millions of Dollars
7
Multi-year Progress Highlights -
Multi-year Progress HigHligHts
Recovery
Response
Mitigation
Protection
Preparedness Improvements
2011 to 2014
Prevention
This report marks the fourth National Preparedness Report.
Table 1 lists examples of key preparedness improvements
taking place in the five mission areas over the past four years.
Developing the National Planning Frameworks, Federal Interagency Operational Plans,
and associated guidance to unify whole community preparedness planning
P P P P P
Increasing the portion of the U.S. population covered by the Integrated Public Alert and
Warning System, an integrated set of capabilities that enable authorities to alert and warn
their communities
P P P P P
Incorporating social media and other technological innovations to increase public awareness
and communication
P P P P P
Achieving full operational status for the Next Generation Identification program, which
expands the use and accuracy of biometrics
P
Increasing the number of fusion centers that meet designated standards for gathering/
receiving, analyzing, and sharing threat-related information across all levels of government, as
determined through an annual assessment process
P
Expanding training and support to enhance capabilities for chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear, and explosive threats, and establishing the DoD CBRN [Chemical,
Biological, Radiological, Nuclear] Response Enterprise, which provides personnel capable
of supporting and conducting operations in chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear
environments
P
Securing vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials around the world
P
P
Improving abilities to detect and address infectious disease and chemical, biological,
nuclear, and radiological threats, and ensuring availability of medical countermeasures
P
Increasing the whole community’s awareness of cybersecurity risks and the availability of
cybersecurity training opportunities and resources
P
Increasing the number of critical infrastructure assessments by Federal programs, which
have aided critical infrastructure owners and operators in identifying and closing security gaps
P
Expanding efforts to plan for and adapt to hazards posed by climate change
Strengthening links between Mitigation and Recovery mission areas by tying resilient
building practices to funding for post-disaster recovery
P
P
P
P
P
Applying the National Disaster Recovery Framework in real-world incidents, including the
2012–2013 drought and Hurricane Sandy
P
Improving management and coordination of Federal assistance to support recovery, including
innovative mechanisms such as the National Drought Resilience Partnership and the
Sandy Program Management Office
P
Table 1. Over the past four years, preparedness progress has occurred in all mission areas.
8
Overarching Findings
Environmental Response/Health and Safety, Intelligence and Information Sharing, and Operational
Coordination are additional capabilities to sustain.
“Capabilities to sustain” are core capabilities in which the
Nation has developed acceptable levels of performance for
critical tasks, but which face potential performance declines
if not maintained and updated to address new challenges. The
2015 National Preparedness Report identified three additional
core
capabilities—Environmental
Response/Health
and
Safety, Intelligence and Information Sharing, and Operational
Coordination—as capabilities to sustain.
Selection criteria for identifying capabilities to sustain included
preparedness assessments; future trends and drivers influencing
preparedness; and other preparedness indicators, such as exercise
results and grant funding. No core capabilities in the Mitigation
or Recovery mission areas have emerged as capabilities to sustain.
All capabilities to sustain identified in the current and previous
National Preparedness Reports are common core capabilities or
fall under the Prevention, Protection, and Response mission areas.
Core Capabilities to Sustain
National Preparedness Reports have identified
eight core capabilities to sustain:
Environmental Response/Health and Safety
Intelligence and Information Sharing
Interdiction and Disruption
On-scene Security and Protection
Operational Communications
Operational Coordination
Public and Private Services and Resources
Public Health and Medical Services
Core capabilities to sustain have yet to emerge
from the Mitigation or Recovery mission areas.
Additional Core Capabilities to Sustain
Environmental Response/Health and Safety
A diverse set of Federal, state, and local assets exists to address both routine and large-scale
hazardous material and chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive incidents.
For example, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
personnel respond to thousands of hazardous materials spills annually.
Intelligence and Information Sharing
States and territories rated Intelligence and Information Sharing among the
top-10 core capabilities in their 2014 State Preparedness Report submissions.
Progress in developing fusion center capabilities and an emphasis on addressing
Intelligence and Information Sharing in exercises have helped support increases
in state and territory self-assessment ratings over the past three years.
9
Overarching Findings
Operational Coordination
As highlighted in the 2012 National Preparedness Report, the National Incident Management
System has become the nationwide standard for incident management. For the second
consecutive year, states and territories assessed Operational Coordination as the highestrated core capability.
A broad range of factors presents challenges to capabilities identified in 2014 and 2015 as capabilities to sustain. For
example, decreasing state and local budgets have forced jurisdictions to prioritize preparedness efforts and rethink
approaches to achieving preparedness results. Other factors, such as violent extremism and climate change impacts,
may also place new or increased demands on capabilities. In other cases, results from exercises and state and territorial
assessments have identified challenges in executing and sustaining core capabilities.
Cybersecurity, Housing, Infrastructure Systems, and Long-term Vulnerability Reduction remained
national areas for improvement, and Economic Recovery re-emerged as an area for improvement
from 2012 and 2013. Access Control and Identity Verification is a newly identified national area for
improvement.
Each year, the National Preparedness Report identifies core capabilities as national areas for improvement based
on consistent criteria, such as national findings on preparedness, indicators of exercise frequency and performance,
funding support, State Preparedness Report results, and long-term trends influencing preparedness. The 2015 National
Preparedness Report identified Cybersecurity, Housing, Infrastructure Systems, Long-term Vulnerability Reduction,
Economic Recovery, and Access Control and Identity Verification as areas for improvement. Several of these core
capabilities have experienced persistent challenges over time. Cybersecurity, Housing, and Infrastructure Systems have
been areas for improvement for four consecutive years, and structural barriers hinder their successful execution. For the
third time in four years, Economic Recovery also re-emerged as an area for improvement.
Areas for Improvement
Cybersecurity
The number of reported cyber incidents in the United States each year is increasing, and
the Nation faces persistent challenges with a widespread, growing, and ever-changing
threat of cyber attacks and an insufficient number of cybersecurity professionals. State
and territorial perspectives from the 2014 State Preparedness Report reflect these
challenges. Self-assessed ratings of Cybersecurity proficiency decreased overall, despite
nearly 90 percent of states and territories identifying Cybersecurity as a high priority.
Housing
Coordination structures continue to mature as Federal agencies formalize operational
guidance on how to implement the Housing capability under the National Disaster Recovery
Framework. However, Housing lacks sufficiently trained Federal personnel to assist in
large-scale incidents. In addition, states and territories have insufficient training options that
address housing processes and programs. Additional challenges continue to impede progress,
including: coordination of transitions in authority from response to long-term recovery;
funding variability caused by supplemental disaster appropriations; timing of available
housing options; and limited state resources to execute disaster-housing operations.
10
Overarching Findings
Infrastructure Systems
The Nation continues to apply lessons learned from Hurricane Sandy to improve
coordination of large-scale infrastructure investments following a natural disaster.
However, cost is a consideration in investment decisions, and limited public resources
exist to bolster infrastructure systems. In many cases, the cost of improvements may be
prohibitively expensive without broad stakeholder investment.
Long-term Vulnerability Reduction
The Nation is already experiencing the effects of climate change, such as rising
sea levels, drought, and severe weather. The President’s Climate Action Plan has
prompted activities to improve resilience, including efforts to update and implement
climate adaptation plans and encourage green infrastructure. However, many efforts
are in early stages of maturity. Twenty percent of states and territories identified
Long-term Vulnerability Reduction as most in danger of future decline, second only
to Cybersecurity among all core capabilities.
Economic Recovery
States and territories reported the second-lowest self-assessment ratings for Economic
Recovery in 2014 State Preparedness Report submissions. When compared to
results from the 2013 State Preparedness Report, Economic Recovery experienced
a four-percent decline in ratings at the top-two rating categories, the third-largest
decrease among all 31 core capabilities. The National Level Exercise in 2014 revealed
training and experience deficiencies among Federal staff needed to support Recovery
Support Functions.
Access Control and Identity Verification
In 2014, new metrics revealed a slower rate of progress in adopting personal
identity verification cards across Federal agencies. Self-assessments by states and
territories also placed Access Control and Identity Verification in the bottom quarter
of all capabilities, with approximately two-thirds of states and territories continuing
to face challenges, both in controlling cyber access to systems and in controlling
physical access to facilities.
Recent events, including the epidemic of Ebola virus disease, have highlighted challenges with
coordinating the response to and recovery from complex incidents that do not receive Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) declarations.
The National Planning Frameworks describe scalable, flexible, and adaptable coordinating structures that are
essential for the whole community to work effectively together in delivering the core capabilities. In responding
to and recovering from incidents, however, the whole community historically has perceived these nationallevel coordination structures—such as the Emergency Support Functions identified in the National Response
11
Overarching Findings
Framework—as only available during Stafford Act declarations. Despite being “always on,” challenges remain in
the process for their use in non-Stafford Act events. The Recovery Support Functions face the same challenge under
the National Disaster Recovery Framework.
In recent years, several events that have not resulted in a Stafford Act declaration have required extensive Federal
interagency coordination in support of state and local response efforts. These complex events have taken place over
extended periods of time and often across large geographic areas, with uncertainty surrounding the role of existing
coordination structures and authorities for multi-agency activity for non-Stafford Act events. Examples include:
2014 Epidemic of Ebola Virus Disease: CDC made an initial announcement about the West Africa epidemic of
Ebola virus disease in March 2014, and the first diagnosed case on U.S. soil occurred in September. The ongoing
response to the epidemic has involved numerous Federal agencies, as well as states, private-sector companies,
and other nations, with efforts occurring domestically and overseas.
2014 Increase in Arrivals of Unaccompanied Children: The number of unaccompanied children crossing the
U.S.-Mexico border increased in 2014. What began as a border security issue for CBP grew to an unprecedented
humanitarian issue, as more than 57,000 children (over 30,000 more than the previous year) arrived in need
of food, water, shelter, and social and medical services. While an issue in 2014, large annual increases in the
number of unaccompanied children occurred the previous two years, as well.
2012 and 2013 National Drought: This historic drought developed over many months, beginning in 2010 and
covering 65 percent of the continental United States at its peak in 2012. The drought was the first disaster to use
the National Disaster Recovery Framework without a Stafford Act declaration.
2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: The response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill fell under USCG’s existing
authorities. However, the scope and scale of the response to this oil spill—the largest in U.S. history—raised a
number of issues, including monitoring immediate and long-term behavioral and public health, testing seafood,
and addressing social and economic effects.
In 2014, the epidemic of Ebola virus disease
and the increase in arrivals of unaccompanied
children underscored the continuing need to
improve understanding about how to rapidly
identify when multi-agency collaboration across
multiple levels of government is necessary and
how to coordinate effectively. Although neither
event received a Stafford Act declaration, both
events resulted in a complex response taking
place over several months. Moreover, unlike
responses to Stafford Act events, in which FEMA
manages multi-agency coordination, responses
to these two events originated under the existing
authorities of specific agencies. In both cases,
the President acted to facilitate multi-agency
coordination, establishing an Ebola Response
Coordinator for the epidemic of Ebola virus
disease and directing the DHS Secretary to
establish a Unified Coordination Group for the increase in arrivals of unaccompanied children. These two events
highlight the challenges of placing agencies unaccustomed to coordinating multiple agencies unexpectedly into that
role, without previously exercising their responsibilities and capabilities. Moreover, these challenges are exacerbated
as events increase in size, scope, and complexity. Greater clarity would enhance interagency decisions regarding
when and how to use national-level coordination structures for non-Stafford Act events, as well as the role of existing
authorities for non-Stafford Act events to support the use of these structures.
12
Overarching Findings
Businesses and public-private partnerships are increasingly incorporating emergency preparedness
into technology platforms, such as Internet and social media tools and services.
Major incidents have demonstrated how technology can empower survivors, first responders, and government officials
with critical information and resources. For example, during the 2014 Atlanta winter storm, an Atlanta resident created
a Facebook page, SnowedOutAtlanta, that enabled volunteers to find and offer assistance to stranded motorists and
individuals needing food, shelter, or transportation. Within one day, the page had more than 50,000 members.
In July 2014, the White House hosted “Innovation for Disaster Response and Recovery Demo Day”—as part of a broader
White House Innovation for Disaster Response and Recovery Initiative launched in 2013—to identify challenges in
disaster preparedness and disaster response and recovery efforts, as well as to showcase innovative technological solutions
from businesses, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and other groups. Several demonstrations highlighted
the potential for businesses to use their existing tools to support emergency preparedness, including new avenues to
obtain services in disaster-affected areas, provide preparedness and public warning information, and collect and analyze
information from the public. Examples include the following:
Airbnb, an online service for users to list and book accommodations, can activate a no-cost version of its service
during disasters that allows nearby hosts to offer shelter to displaced individuals. In 2014, Airbnb partnered with
San Francisco, California, and Portland, Oregon, to enhance this disaster service by pre-identifying hosts who have
committed to housing displaced individuals and increasing their preparedness through training and educational
materials.
The City72 toolkit builds on the SF72 webbased platform created by the San Francisco
Department of Emergency Management
to connect community members and
promote resilience. The SF72 platform
takes advantage of everyday digital
and neighborhood networks to promote
preparedness, and the new toolkit allows
other communities to develop similar
websites, and provides information on how
to create localized content and promote
their site.
Facebook’s “Safety Check,” released in
2014, builds on Facebook’s social media
platform and allows users in disasteraffected areas to notify friends and family
that they are safe, as well as check on
others.
A partnership between Dataminr and Twitter allows Dataminr software to analyze social media posts (i.e., “tweets”) to
identify potential threats to public safety and disseminate real-time, map-based alerts. In 2014, Dataminr confirmed a
gas explosion in New York City in less than four minutes and supported the City of Boston during the 2014 marathon
by monitoring for potential threats.
Each of these tools and services reflects the benefits of applying private-sector technological expertise to emergency
preparedness challenges, and several have fostered cooperation between and among public and private entities. In
December 2014, the Federal Government launched the disasters.data.gov website, which provides a portal to access tools
and innovations, as well as disaster-relevant datasets, to empower the whole community and increase preparedness.
13
Overarching Findings
While Federal departments and agencies individually assess progress for corrective actions
identified during national-level exercises and real-world incidents, challenges remain to
comprehensively assess corrective actions with broad implications across the Federal Government.
Exercises and real-world incidents teach lessons and provide
best practices that can help improve preparedness for
future events. Federal agencies use after-action reports and
performance assessments to identify corrective actions that will
help resolve gaps or shortcomings experienced during exercises
and disasters.
Large-scale exercises and incidents have revealed high-priority
issues that span multiple Federal agencies and require extended
resources and time commitments to address. For example,
the 2014 National Level Exercise identified challenges with
communications and information flow among participating
agencies, hindering development of a shared common operating
picture.
In 2014, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
found that while Federal agencies individually monitor their
corrective actions from national-level exercises, the Federal
Government lacks mechanisms for comprehensively assessing
the status of and outcomes from these actions. Federal agencies
maintain multiple systems and processes to track corrective
actions progress, with limited interoperability between systems.
The lack of a timely, comprehensive mechanism for assessing
implementation of corrective actions across the Federal
Government makes it difficult to address persistent, complex
preparedness challenges.
Sandy Program Management Office
The most systematic tracking of recommended
actions from a real-world incident emerged
from the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy.
A Program Management Office monitored
implementation progress for 69 policy
recommendations across 13 Federal agencies.
The office also facilitated five quarterly meetings
with senior Federal leaders to ensure continued
Federal agency commitment to implementing
the recommendations. In November 2014, the
Program Management Office’s responsibility
for tracking and reporting progress on
outstanding Hurricane Sandy funding and
policy recommendations transferred to FEMA’s
Office of Federal Disaster Coordination from
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
For exercises, FEMA’s National Exercise Program serves as
the principal mechanism for examining national preparedness
and measuring readiness across the entire homeland security
enterprise by coordinating, designing, and delivering a
progressive cycle of exercises. FEMA requests regular status
updates from Federal departments and agencies on the status of corrective actions from all national-level exercises.
Currently, no Federal department or agency has the authority to require other agencies to implement corrective actions
resulting from lessons learned during exercises or real-world incidents.
Perspectives from states and territories on their current levels of preparedness were similar to
previous years. All 10 core capabilities with the highest self-assessment results in 2012 and 2013
remained in the top-10 for 2014; Cybersecurity continues to be the lowest-rated core capability in
state and territory self-assessments.
Through State Preparedness Report submissions, states and territories provide core capability self-assessments based on
the unique preparedness targets they establish in their Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessments. Figure 2
14
Overarching Findings
shows results of State Preparedness Report submissions from 2014, which used a 5-point scale (with 5 as the highest
rating) to assess each capability in terms of planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercises. While rankings
shifted slightly, the top-10 core capabilities remained unchanged from 2012 and 2013. Nine of these top-10 capabilities
are common capabilities or from the Response mission area. Operational Coordination again received the highest selfassessment ratings, with 65 percent of responses falling into the top-two rating categories (i.e., a 4 or 5). Cybersecurity
was the lowest-rated among all core capabilities for a fourth consecutive year.
The self-assessment ratings also continue to reflect state and territory priorities. In addition to rating themselves on a
5-point scale, states and territories assign each capability a high, medium, or low level of priority. Among the 10 core
capabilities most frequently identified as high priority, eight were among the capabilities with the ten-highest selfassessment ratings. The two exceptions were Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Systems, which remain among the bottom
half of core capabilities, despite more than three-quarters of states and territories identifying them as high priority.
Assessment of Current Capability Based on State Preparedness Report Results
Operational Coordination
Public Health and Medical Services
On-scene Security and Protection
Intelligence and Information Sharing
Public Information and Warning
Environmental Response/Health and Safety
Situational Assessment
Critical Transportation
Planning
Operational Communications
Threats and Hazard Identification
Mass Search and Rescue Operations
Interdiction and Disruption
Public and Private Services and Resources
Community Resilience
Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment
Mass Care Services
Screening, Search, and Detection
Infrastructure Systems
Health and Social Services
Long-term Vulnerability Reduction
Risk Management for Protection Programs and Activities
Forensics and Attribution
Physical Protective Measures
Fatality Management Services
Access Control and Identity Verification
Supply Chain Integrity and Security
Natural and Cultural Resources
Housing
Economic Recovery
Cybersecurity
65%
25%
10%
61%
26%
13%
19%
21%
60%
18%
22%
59%
58%
31%
11%
15%
26%
58%
16%
26%
58%
57%
22%
21%
13%
31%
56%
14%
30%
56%
52%
30%
17%
52%
27%
21%
44%
36%
20%
42%
33%
25%
40%
33%
27%
38%
34%
29%
38%
31%
31%
37%
34%
29%
36%
38%
26%
36%
33%
30%
35%
29%
36%
35%
29%
36%
35%
39%
26%
29%
34%
37%
43%
29%
28%
43%
29%
28%
27%
27%
46%
24%
27%
49%
31%
55%
25%
26%
20%
54%
0%
32%
34%
34%
50%
75%
13%
100%
Percentage of Total Ratings Based on 5-point Scale (5 = Highest Rating)
Rating = 1 or 2
Rating = 3
Rating = 4 or 5
Figure 2. Results from 2014 State Preparedness Report submissions were similar to the previous year, with Operational
Coordination and Cybersecurity once again receiving the highest and lowest self-assessment ratings, respectively, from 56
states and territories. [Note: Due to rounding, some percentages may total slightly more or slightly less than 100 percent.]
15
Overarching Findings
The 2014 State Preparedness Report revealed mixed progress in core capability ratings relative to the 2013 State
Preparedness Report. Gains occurred in 17 out of the 31 core capabilities, with the largest gains in Threats and Hazard
Identification and in Public and Private Services and Resources. In contrast, Physical Protective Measures and Forensics
and Attribution reflected the largest decreases. Nine out of the 10 highest-rated capabilities in 2013 experienced positive
gains. For capability gaps, states and territories shared their views on expected responsibilities for addressing those gaps
in the long term (see Figure 3). Similar to 2013, states and territories believe that the Federal Government should play a
larger long-term role in filling gaps for capabilities such as Fatality Management Services and Housing.
State and Territory Views on Expected Roles in Addressing Capability Gaps
Fatality Management Services
Housing
Forensics and Attribution
Economic Recovery
Screening, Search, and Detection
Interdiction and Disruption
Natural and Cultural Resources
Supply Chain Integrity and Security
Physical Protective Measures
Mass Search and Rescue Operations
Mass Care Services
On-scene Security and Protection
Environmental Response/Health and Safety
Risk Management for Protection Programs and Activities
Intelligence and Information Sharing
Infrastructure Systems
Critical Transportation
Long-term Vulnerability Reduction
Public Health and Medical Services
Health and Social Services
Public and Private Services and Resources
Cybersecurity
Access Control and Identity Verification
Threats and Hazard Identification
Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment
Operational Communications
Community Resilience
Public Information and Warning
Planning
Operational Coordination
Situational Assessment
46%
54%
59%
41%
59%
41%
38%
62%
64%
36%
64%
36%
65%
35%
67%
33%
67%
33%
68%
32%
70%
30%
71%
29%
71%
29%
73%
27%
74%
26%
74%
26%
75%
25%
75%
25%
75%
25%
75%
25%
79%
21%
79%
21%
80%
20%
80%
20%
18%
82%
16%
84%
86%
14%
87%
13%
87%
13%
87%
13%
7%
93%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Percent of States/Territories
Entirely or Mostly State Responsibility
Entirely or Mostly Federal Responsibility
Figure 3. For each of the 31 core capabilities, a majority of states and territories believe that responsibility for addressing
most, if not all, of the remaining gaps lies with the state or territory.
In their 2014 State Preparedness Report submissions, states and territories also reflected on progress during the past
year and future concerns. More than one-third identified Planning (43 percent) and Operational Coordination (34
percent) as among the three core capabilities that made the most progress in the past year. Looking ahead, states
and territories most frequently identified Cybersecurity as the capability in greatest danger of future decline. At 38
percent, Cybersecurity received nearly twice as many selections as the next most frequently selected capabilities,
Long-term Vulnerability Reduction and Infrastructure Systems (both at 20 percent).
16
Prevention
Mission Area Overview
Highlights
New policies increase
accountability for intelligence
collection and informationsharing activities across the
Federal Government. (p. 20)
State, local, tribal, and territorial
governments are using Federal
training and assistance programs
to enhance their chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear,
and explosive prevention
capabilities. (p. 22)
The law enforcement community
faces new considerations in
using financial tracking to detect
criminal and terrorist networks,
due to the increasing popularity
of virtual currencies. (p. 23)
Focused on ensuring the
Nation is optimally prepared
to avoid, prevent, or stop
an imminent terrorist attack
within the United States
Frameworks
in Action
T h e N a t i o n a l P re v e n t i o n
Framework (the Prevention
Framework) describes the
capabilities and associated whole community
roles, responsibilities, and coordination
structures designed to prevent a threatened or actual act of terrorism against
the United States. The Prevention Framework expands on the seven Prevention
core capabilities in the Goal and identifies 53 critical tasks necessary for
the successful execution of these capabilities. Moreover, three overarching
principles guide these core capabilities and critical tasks: (1) engaged
partnerships; (2) scalability, flexibility, and adaptability; and (3) readiness to act.
The Prevention Framework emphasizes that individuals and communities
possess a strong understanding of the threats they face, and that they help
prevent incidents by sharing information with law enforcement. To
that end, the whole community is taking steps to advance partnerships
among government agencies, the private sector, and the public. In 2014,
for example, faith-based communities and individuals worked with
law enforcement officials to report potential violent extremist activity,
contributing to police interdicting at least seven Americans before they
traveled abroad to join the fighting in Syria, possibly with terrorist
organizations. Additionally, the public continued contributing information
through the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative and the “If
You See Something, Say Something” campaign. The National Network of
Fusion Centers receives these tips and shares them with the FBI. The fusion
centers also vet, assess, and analyze the tips to identify and extract valuable
intelligence information to further terrorism or other law enforcement
investigations. In 2014, the fusion centers enhanced their accuracy in
analyzing intelligence to refine investigative leads—238 out of the 4,326
Core
Capabilities in
the Prevention
Mission Area
17
Forensics and Attribution
Intelligence and Information Sharing
Interdiction and Disruption
Operational Coordination
Planning
Public Information and Warning
Screening, Search, and Detection
Prevention
reports (5.5 percent) submitted to FBI aided an investigation or helped identify, locate, or interdict individuals on the
Terrorist Screening Center watch list, up from 3.3 percent in 2013.
The Federal Government continued to engage with the public and private sectors using scalable and flexible technology
platforms. For example, FBI’s InfraGard platform—a public-private partnership established to prevent attacks on critical
infrastructure—continues to grow, with over 80 chapters nationwide that include more than 350 of the Nation’s Fortune
500 companies. As of December 2014, InfraGard includes 34,403 active members. Another platform, DHS’s Homeland
Security Information Network, disseminated over 950 situational awareness and current situation reports to 13,500 critical
infrastructure partners during a 10-month span in 2014. Additionally, the Federal Government developed new products
to support the private sector. For example, the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA’s) SMARToolbox provides
the transportation industry with a self-assessment tool to analyze security measures already in place, and a corresponding
database of measures that can be taken to improve security.
Private-sector organizations also continued sharing surveillance video camera feeds with local police in 2014, enhancing
law enforcement’s ability to locate and identify people associated with imminent terrorist threats. In 2014, at least 22
cities began voluntary programs to share private video feeds with local police to enhance situational awareness and assist
with identifying terrorist suspects.
In 2014, the whole community also initiated new efforts to balance privacy with the sharing of security-related
information. In September, several technology companies introduced privacy software that precludes any entity except the
user from accessing data stored on mobile devices. These software updates allow users to protect their information if their
device is lost or stolen, but the software also limits law enforcement’s ability to conduct digital forensic analysis on the
devices, even after obtaining a warrant. In reaction, FBI has called for a national conversation on the benefits and risks of
these software updates.
By the Numbers
3.48
The U.S. Secret Service completed
digital forensics examinations on 5,482
devices in fiscal year 2014, inspecting
3.48 petabytes of data, up from 1.25
petabytes in fiscal year 2013.
653
In 2014, TSA screened over 653 million
airline passengers, intercepting 2,212
firearms, as well as bomb-making
supplies and hundreds of other
weapons.
65
In fiscal year 2014, the Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO)
completed 65 comprehensive
evaluations and demonstrations of new
and improved technologies to prevent
nuclear terrorism.
petabytes
of data
million
airline
passengers
evaluations
Resilience
Innovations
The Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis
Center and the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
worked together to develop the first industry-driven
platform to share cyber threat intelligence, released
December 2014.
DoD and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
released a video, and FBI initiated a pilot program in 12
field offices to raise awareness of the danger of aiming
laser pointers at aircraft. Since the February launch,
metropolitan areas in the pilot program reported a
19-percent decrease in the number of such incidents.
18
Prevention
Whole Community Accomplishments
Ohio
Ohio Homeland Security released the “Safer Ohio” phone application to engage the public
in anti-terrorism and public safety efforts. The application’s “See Something, Send Something”
feature allows users to report suspicious activities to Ohio Homeland Security analysts.
Muslim Public Affairs Council
In March 2014, the Muslim Public Affairs Council launched
their community-based Safe Spaces Initiative, a nationwide effort to identify individuals who
may be susceptible to committing violent acts and positively intervene in their development. The
initiative uses a three-tiered approach—prevention, intervention, and ejection—to help youth
workers and community leaders offer a healthy outlet and prevent violence at the community level.
University of California, San Francisco, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
A group of researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, and the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory developed a new platform that can simultaneously detect 10 biothreat toxins,
the largest number to be simultaneously detected to date, in a variety of environmental and clinical
samples. In the event of a bioterrorist attack, this platform can decrease the time required to
determine which agent was released, helping individuals to take the necessary measures to prevent
people from becoming exposed and to deliver appropriate medical treatment.
State Perspectives on Preparedness
2014 State Preparedness Report Results
Intelligence and Information
Sharing was the highest selfassessed core capability in the
Prevention mission area, with 59
percent of responses falling into
the top-two rating categories (i.e.,
a 4 or 5).
Compared to other Prevention
mission area core capabilities,
Intelligence and Information
Sharing had superior ratings for
planning, organization, equipment,
training, and exercises.
Intelligence and Information
Sharing was the only Prevention
capability ranked in the top-10 of
all 31 core capabilities.
Intelligence and Information Sharing
Planning
Organization
Equipment
Training
Exercises
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Percentage of State/Territory Responses Indicating Proficiency
(4 or 5 on a 5-point Scale)
Notes: Vertical red lines (|) indicate the average rating for all other Prevention core
capabilities in each respective category. The chart and statements do not include
contributions from the three common core capabilities—Planning, Operational
Coordination, and Public Information and Warning.
19
Prevention Mission Area
KEy FindingS
The Federal Government continued efforts to integrate the Nation’s capabilities to address
imminent weapons of mass destruction threats.
In May 2013, the President delivered remarks to the National
Defense University in which he laid out his priorities and approach to
counterterrorism. In response, FBI, in conjunction with the National
Security Council, led an initiative involving 16 agencies and 50
components to map out the Nation’s reaction to imminent weapons
of mass destruction threats across Prevention, Protection, Mitigation,
and Response mission areas. The mapping effort connected strategicand tactical-level actions to resolve imminent threats, save lives, and
protect critical infrastructure. More broadly, it highlighted the need
for strong coordination to address interdependencies among all levels
of government and across mission areas, leading to the creation of two
interagency operational teams in fiscal year 2014—the Weapons of Mass
Destruction Strategic Group and its Crisis Consequence Management
Unit. The Weapons of Mass Destruction Strategic Group brings together
interagency subject-matter experts and FBI leadership to produce classified and unclassified threat information products
tailored to the needs of state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement. The FEMA-led Crisis Consequence Management
Unit organizes real-time terrorist threat information from the protection, mitigation, and response communities. These
efforts also align with a recommendation from a 2014 Inspector General’s report on the Boston Marathon bombings that
FBI share threat information with state and local partners more proactively and uniformly.
The Federal Government has developed policies to increase accountability for intelligence
collection and information-sharing activities.
The Federal Government took several steps in 2014 to strengthen
its oversight of intelligence activities, affecting the mechanisms for
sharing classified and unclassified information. In late 2013, the Federal
Government partnered with an independent group of subject-matter
experts to review existing signals intelligence programs, which gather
information by intercepting electronic signals from communications
systems, weapons systems, or radar. Using the review group’s
recommendations, the President announced a series of reforms to increase
transparency of intelligence collection and information sharing in January
2014. These reforms included creating a Civil Liberties and Privacy
Office within the National Security Agency and initiating a White House
review of privacy and big data. The big data report, released in May 2014,
recommended expanding privacy protections and promoting privacyenhancing technologies.
20
Prevention
In January 2014, the White House also issued Presidential Policy Directive 28: Signals Intelligence Activities, which
represents the first-ever unclassified, public document to outline the Federal Government’s standards for collecting signals
intelligence. The Directive limits government collection of bulk signals intelligence, outlines principles for safeguarding
personal information, and requires relevant departments and agencies to annually review intelligence requirements and
advise on the necessity of maintaining classified intelligence programs.
Fusion centers strengthened their processes for categorizing data and sharing intelligence in
accordance with standards and through common systems.
State and major urban area fusion centers serve as focal points for the gathering and receipt, analysis, and sharing of
threat-related information across all levels of government. In 2014, the National Network of Fusion Centers made
progress in several key areas:
Standardized analytic processes: The number of fusion
centers that tagged their analytic products according to
established topics of interest (i.e., Homeland Security Standing
Information Needs) increased from 19 percent in 2013 to
69 percent in 2014. Tagging products provides a basis for
tracking the number of products and the extent to which
they meet customer needs. Tagged documents also facilitate
searches for information between Federal, state, and local
partners and the Intelligence Community. Additionally, the
percentage of fusion centers that did not tag any documents
decreased from 41 percent in 2013 to 4 percent in 2014.
Requests for information: Fusion centers responded to
over 4,300 requests (65 percent) for information from the
FBI Terrorist Screening Center, up slightly from 64 percent
in 2013. Fusion centers varied in the timeliness of their
responses, ranging from two hours to more than a day.
Information-sharing portals: DHS’s Homeland Security
Information Network Intelligence Community of Interest is
the most commonly used sensitive-but-unclassified system for
information sharing and analytic collaboration among fusion
centers and Federal partners. Forty-four percent of fusion
centers used the Homeland Security Information Network
Intelligence Community of Interest as their primary system
for sharing information among fusion centers and Federal
partners. Moreover, 82 percent of fusion centers posted all
distributable products to that portal, up from 46 percent in
2013; of the remainder, 10 fusion centers posted products on
their own Community of Interest rather than to the portal, and
five reported a need for additional training on using the portal.
Despite progress, the National Network of Fusion Centers is still striving to meet goals for tagging 100 percent of analytical
products to Homeland Security Standing Information Needs, responding to 100 percent of FBI Terrorist Screening Center
information requests, and posting 100 percent of distributable analytic products to relevant information-sharing portals. Key
fusion center customers—including state police, state investigative agencies, homeland security advisors, state emergency
management directors, major city police chiefs, county sheriffs, and FBI field offices—reported a decrease of 5.6 percent in
the relevancy of fusion center products and an increase of 15.1 percent in their timeliness to support mission needs.
21
Prevention
Recovery
Federal training and assistance programs are helping state, local, tribal, and territorial governments
to enhance their chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive prevention capabilities.
DNDO’s Securing the Cities initiative continued establishing local capabilities to detect and report dangerous radiological
and nuclear materials within high-risk metropolitan areas. In September 2014, DNDO expanded the program to its third
urban area, the National Capital Region. The first Securing the Cities urban area, New York City, demonstrated a regional
ability to detect and interdict radiological and nuclear threats. As a result, the program’s focus at this location shifted to
sustaining capabilities in 2014. DNDO has provided more than 5,800 pieces of detection equipment, trained nearly 11,000
personnel, and conducted more than 100 drills in the New Jersey-New York-Pennsylvania tri-state area. As of December
2014, the Securing the Cities program had covered 23 million people. When fully implemented, it will include 10 highrisk areas, covering nearly 100 million people and 42 percent of the Nation’s critical infrastructure.
In fiscal year 2014, through Securing the Cities and other programs, the Federal Government continued training state,
local, tribal, and territorial partners in chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive materials detection and
planning:
FBI’s Hazardous Devices School, the
Nation’s authority for accrediting bomb
squads, updated the National Guidelines for
Bomb Technicians in March 2014 and trained
approximately 1,500 state, local, tribal, and
territorial partners.
FBI field offices offered 40 National
Improvised
Explosives
Familiarization
workshops to provide field demonstrations
of bomb and chemical threats, training 314
bomb technicians and 1,029 law enforcement
personnel and first responders.
FBI’s Counter-Improvised Explosives Device
Section of the Critical Incident Response
Group—a cadre of specialists who provide
expertise in crisis negotiations, hostage
rescue, hazardous device mitigation, and
tactical operations—provided approximately
400 training opportunities for state and local bomb squads to enhance detection and investigation capabilities for
attacks ranging from improvised explosives to weapons of mass destruction.
The DHS Office of Bombing Prevention held 13 planning workshops on improvised explosive security, training 626
people to identify and close planning gaps related to explosives.
DNDO and the DHS Office of Bombing Prevention trained more than 9,925 public- and private-sector partners
through more than 240 courses to prevent chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive incidents.
The Center for Domestic Preparedness—DHS’s only federally chartered weapons of mass destruction training
center—trained more than 52,000 state, local, tribal, and territorial first responders in 2014.
Additionally, the Federal Government supported state and local governments to prevent chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear, and explosive threats at special events. DNDO maintains mobile deployable units to provide training and
enhanced radiological and nuclear detection capability at large events, such as the Super Bowl or the President’s State of
the Union Address. In fiscal year 2014, these units deployed to 70 events, up from 54 in fiscal year 2013, providing 20 to
40 personnel with detection equipment at each event. The DHS Office of Infrastructure Protection assisted in planning,
22
Prevention
exercises, conducting security assessments, and developing geospatial situational awareness products for 17 events. The
USCG provided bridge and ferry security for the 2014 New York City marathon. In 2014, National Guard Joint Forces
Headquarters–State organizations deployed Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams to nearly 2,400 missions
(including stand-by mission support).
The increasing popularity of virtual currencies means that Federal agencies face new considerations
in executing their law enforcement and national security responsibilities.
The Federal Government investigates the financing of terrorism to help identify, arrest, and prosecute terrorists and
their supporters. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigates and prosecutes cases of terrorism financing, which
occurs through charitable organizations, corporations, criminal activity, and other means. Virtual currencies—digital
representations of value that can be traded and exchanged for goods and services—present new challenges to law
enforcement and counterterrorism officials because they are more difficult to track. As of March 2014, GAO estimated
that Bitcoin, the most popular virtual currency in circulation, was worth a total of over $5.6 billion. While virtual
currencies can provide lower transaction costs and facilitate global commerce, law enforcement agencies have indicated
that virtual currencies also present new opportunities for terrorists to conceal their actions when purchasing weapons,
selling illegal drugs, or laundering funds.
Criminals are already using virtual currencies to conceal their illegal activities. When law enforcement disrupted
two of the world’s largest online black markets, Silk Road and Silk Road 2, they seized over $150 million worth of
virtual currencies that had been used to exchange drugs, weapons, and services. Additionally, U.S. Secret Service
cyber investigations led to the 2014 arrest and dismantling of Liberty Reserve, a centralized digital currency service
with over 5 million users that laundered and distributed an estimated $6 billion in proceeds from criminal activity. Law
enforcement officials have also arrested individuals using virtual currencies to plot attacks, including a San Francisco,
California, man arrested for buying bomb-making materials from an online black market.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury is leading efforts in the Financial Action Task Force—the international body that
sets standards for anti–money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism—to develop risk-based standards for
virtual currencies.
Preparedness Case Study:
FBI Shuts Down Dark Net Websites
In November 2014, FBI—in partnership with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, Europol’s
European Cybercrime Centre, and Eurojust—launched an operation to shut down over 400 Tor network addresses. Tor
is a free anonymizing software that allows an estimated one million daily users to hide their identities online, sometimes
obscuring illicit activity. The operation targeted Tor dark market websites selling illegal goods, such as drugs, firearms,
stolen credit card information, fake passports, counterfeit currency, and computer-hacking services and tools, often
in exchange for virtual currency. In addition to shutting down Tor websites, FBI and partners arrested 17 individuals and
seized over $1.2 million worth of currencies and goods.
23
Prevention
The Next Generation Identification program became fully operational nationwide in 2014,
contributing to greater use and accuracy of biometrics across the Federal Government.
Law enforcement officers use biometric data—such as fingerprints, facial recognition, and iris scans—to identify and
interdict malicious actors. To aid in such efforts, FBI initiated the Next Generation Identification biometric program
in 2010, which replaced and expanded upon the capabilities of FBI’s longstanding system. In September 2014, FBI
announced that the new program was fully operational and available nationwide, including two new components called
Rap Back and the Interstate Photo System. The Rap Back system notifies agencies that conduct background checks of
subsequent criminal activity by individuals who undergo those checks; as of February 10, 2015, four states and several
Federal agencies had been working toward participation in Rap Back. Using facial recognition software, the Interstate
Photo System will aid investigations by allowing law enforcement officers to query more than 21 million images of
criminals.
Meanwhile, other Federal biometric systems and previously established components of the Next Generation Identification
program are improving. Fingerprint matches using the Next Generation Identification system are over 99-percent accurate,
and hits on latent prints, which require powders or chemicals to visualize, were 81-percent accurate—up from 27-percent
accuracy using the old fingerprint-identification system. Additionally, the average search time for queries from U.S.
ports of entry to the biometric watch list maintained by the Office of Biometric Identity Management improved from
6.9 seconds in fiscal year 2013 to 6.5 seconds in fiscal year 2014. During fiscal year 2014, CBP had 264,580 hits in
its biometric database, which the agency referred for additional screening at air, land, and sea ports of entry. Of those
referrals, 4,045 cases had a traveler exclusion code in the system, such as an indicator that the traveler was being
processed for expedited removal.
Police officers around the Nation are
using biometric tools to assist law
enforcement activities. In August 2014,
FBI recognized a Massachusetts police
officer for solving a 27-year-old murder
case using biometric technology to
examine fingerprints left at the scene.
Similarly, FBI’s Albuquerque Division
used the Next Generation Identification
facial recognition software to locate and
arrest a fugitive who had been on the run
for 14 years.
Preparedness Case Study:
Biometrics Leads to Arrests
Nationwide demand for unmanned aircraft systems continues to rise, and state governments are
passing regulations to limit law enforcement use of these systems.
Unmanned aircraft systems technology continues to improve rapidly, and can perform a variety of tasks with greater
flexibility and at a lower cost than comparable manned aircraft. In the public sector, unmanned aircraft systems can help
law enforcement agencies gather information during high-risk situations, such as hostage situations; investigate hazardous
materials incidents (including incidents potentially involving explosive devices); or quickly document crime scenes. As
of December 31, 2014, the FAA had issued 603 certificates of waiver or authorization for public-sector use of unmanned
aircraft systems, up from 545 as of December 2013. Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies received 292 of
those certificates.
24
Prevention
However, these systems present privacy concerns when outfitted with cameras or other monitoring devices. In
February 2015, the White House issued a Presidential Memorandum on “Promoting Economic Competitiveness While
Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems,” which
establishes principles that govern the Federal Government’s use of unmanned aircraft systems and promotes responsible
use of this technology in private and commercial sectors. In addition, 14 states have passed or enacted legislation
requiring public-sector agencies to obtain a warrant to use unmanned aircraft systems to conduct surveillance for use in
an investigation or trial. Two states have passed legislation that bans the use of the systems. As illustrated in Figure 4, in
2013, only seven states had passed legislation limiting public-sector use of unmanned aircraft systems, and one state had
passed legislation banning it.
State Regulation for Law Enforcement Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems
2013
2014
Bans Law Enforcement Use
Requires a Warrant for Law Enforcement Use
Legislation Proposed
No Legislation Proposed
Bans Law Enforcement Use
Requires a Warrant for Law Enforcement Use
Legislation Proposed
No Legislation Proposed
Figure 4. Several states passed or proposed regulation for unmanned aircraft systems in 2014.
Prevention
Response
Mission Area
Connections
Protection
Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Recovery
Prevention
Gather information during a terrorist standoff or hostage situation.
Protection
Conduct surveillance for hazardous weather or border crossings.
Inspect infrastructure, from oil rigs to dams and bridges, to ensure safety.
Document crime scenes and fatal traffic accidents.
Response
Use thermal scanners to detect hot spots in a wildfire to avoid firefighter injury.
Reduce the need for first responders to enter dangerous environments to conduct search and rescue.
Enable responders to more rapidly search large areas for missing persons.
Recovery
Assist in conducting post-disaster damage assessments.
25
Mission Area Overview: Protection
Protection
Mission Area Overview
Focused on actions to
safeguard the Nation’s people,
critical assets, and networks
against acts of terrorism and
manmade or natural disasters in
a manner that allows American
interests, aspirations, and way
of life to thrive
Highlights
The West Africa epidemic of Ebola
virus disease prompted enhanced
health screening measures at
airports and highlighted varying
approaches to quarantine policies
at state and local levels. (p. 29, 30)
DoD and HHS are consolidating
biosurveillance systems to
streamline reporting procedures
and increase efficiency. (p. 31)
The Nation has intensified
programs to combat violent
extremism in response to threats
within the United States and from
Americans trained abroad. (p. 34)
Frameworks
in Action
T h e N a t i o n a l P ro t e c t i o n
Framework (the Protection
Framework) provides guidance to
the whole community by describing the 11 core
capabilities necessary to protect the Nation
against acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other threats or hazards. The
Protection Framework identifies 66 critical tasks for implementing Protection
activities under three overarching principles: (1) a risk-informed culture; (2)
resilience and scalability; and (3) shared responsibility.
Recent attacks highlight the importance of a risk-informed culture in
protecting the Nation’s energy infrastructure. In June 2014, an improvised
explosive device ruptured a fuel tank at a power station in Nogales, Arizona.
This followed a 2013 incident in which armed assailants opened fire on a
substation’s cooling systems in San Jose, California, knocking out power to 17
transformers. The Congressional Research Service reports that a coordinated
attack on multiple high-voltage transformers could leave large regions without
power for days or weeks.
In response to these incidents, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
ordered the North American Reliability Corporation to develop new reliability
standards that require grid owners to conduct risk assessments and
implement security measures to protect against attacks. FBI also partnered
with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to ensure the capacity to interdict
persons associated with a potential threat at facilities that use radiological
material. In fiscal year 2014, this partnership supported security enhancements
at 96 facilities, 14 courses that trained 396 personnel, and 6 tabletop exercises.
The 2014 epidemic of Ebola virus disease in West Africa also highlighted
the Nation’s ability to develop scalable capabilities for screening and
Core Capabilities
in the Protection
Mission Area
Access Control and Identity Verification
Cybersecurity
Intelligence and Information Sharing
Interdiction and Disruption
Operational Coordination
Physical Protective Measures
26
Planning
Public Information and Warning
Risk Management for Protection
Programs and Activities
Screening, Search, and Detection
Supply Chain Integrity and Security
Protection
detection. Prior to the epidemic, the CDC laboratory in Atlanta, Georgia, and DoD’s U.S. Army Medical Research
Institute of Infectious Diseases were the only U.S. laboratories capable of testing human specimens for clinical diagnosis
of Ebola virus disease. By August 2014, 13 laboratories in the Laboratory Response Network qualified to test individuals
for Ebola virus disease. As of February 25, 2015, 55 laboratories in 43 states are approved to test for Ebola using a DoD
test authorized for emergency use by HHS’s U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This increase, in addition to
technological improvements, broadened the capacity to identify and interdict persons who may be infected with the
Ebola virus disease, and decreased the turnaround time for Ebola virus disease test results from 24 hours to between 4
and 6 hours. This improved the ability of public health authorities and hospitals to monitor and analyze public health
threats posed by the epidemic of Ebola virus disease.
Several cyber incidents in 2014 also illustrate how the Protection mission area relies on shared responsibility to
coordinate capabilities across the whole community. In April 2014, private-sector cybersecurity engineers discovered a
vulnerability in commonly used encryption software that exposed up to two-thirds of all web servers to exploitation by
cyber criminals. The vulnerability, known as Heartbleed, enabled hackers to intercept and decrypt private information
transmitted online. Once notified, the Federal Government promptly shared cyber threat information with the public
using alerts that included actionable measures for reducing the risk. Moreover, DHS’s National Coordinating Center
for Communications provided situational awareness to partners in the communications sector to inform their protective
measures. The same team worked with partners to deny access to networks, applications, and systems that could be exploited.
On February 13, 2015, the President signed an Executive Order that promotes information sharing about cyber threats within
the private sector and between the private sector and the Federal Government. The Executive Order encourages the formation
of hubs to share information, and calls for a common set of standards to facilitate information sharing between Federal
agencies and these hubs and improve access to classified cybersecurity threat information.
Federal agencies and private-sector partners also provided updated cyber risk assessments to help stakeholders in
healthcare, financial services, and retail sectors assess the likelihood of cyber attacks and identify industry-wide
capability gaps. For several years, HHS has sponsored briefings on cyber threats with the healthcare and public health
sectors to encourage security. Moreover, the FBI issued a Private Industry Notification to healthcare providers in April
2014 warning of their increased risk for cyber attacks. During summer 2014, however, a cyber attack on one of the
Nation’s largest hospital operators exposed patient identification data for more than 4.5 million individuals. DHS’s U.S.
Computer Emergency Readiness Team worked with FBI and HHS to implement countermeasures, share information
on the threat, and secure networks from additional breaches of personal information. In October, FDA hosted a
workshop on “Collaborative Approaches to Medical Device and Healthcare Cybersecurity” to address the challenges of
cybersecurity in the healthcare and public health sector.
34 dam
inspections
and risk
assessments
43
USCG updated and tested all 43 Maritime
Security Plans in 2014. These plans help
ports, vessels, and facilities coordinate
information sharing and preparedness for
transportation security incidents.
116
In fiscal year 2014, the National Cyber
Exercise and Planning Program conducted
116 cyber exercises that focused on
building cybersecurity capabilities across
the whole community.
Maritime
Security
Plans
cyber
exercises
Resilience
Innovations
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation conducted
34 dam inspections and risk assessments
in fiscal year 2014 to determine
potential means of failure and resulting
consequences.
USCG developed a Cyber Quick Response card, which
provides guidance for quickly managing Federal agency
coordination during a cyber attack.
DHS developed the Cybersecurity Evaluation Tool to
assist organizations in protecting key national cyber
assets through a systematic and repeatable selfassessment.
CDC introduced Red Sky, a web-based dashboard
that provides CDC programs with a platform to inform
leadership of emerging public health emergencies and
uses a tiered system to show the severity of an event.
27
Protection
Whole Community Accomplishments
Hewlett Foundation
The Hewlett Foundation launched the Cyber Initiative in April 2014,
which pledged $20 million over the next five years to develop a network of experts who will
identify Internet security best practices, help individuals and institutions comprehensively analyze
cybersecurity problems and solutions, and fill critical research gaps.
University of California, Berkeley
In December 2014, the University of California, Berkeley—
in partnership with prevention and environmental nongovernmental organizations—held a series of
events to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Union Carbide gas disaster in India and draw
attention to chemical disaster risk in the United States. Events included educational presentations at
local university medical centers and high schools, film screenings, community art exhibitions, staged
performance art, and panel discussions.
University of Maryland In May 2014, researchers at the University of Maryland’s Supply Chain
Management Center created an online portal called CyberChain, which allows organizations to
assess their cyber and supply chain risks, track developing threats, map their information technology
supply chains, and anonymously measure themselves against industry peers and the National Institute
of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) Cybersecurity Framework and supply chain guidelines.
Companies from aerospace manufacturing, telecommunication, real estate, medical, and professional
services industries have used the portal to assess their resiliency and determine supply chain
vulnerabilities.
State Perspectives on Preparedness
2014 State Preparedness Report Results
Of over 200 specific core
capability gaps listed in the
State Preparedness Report
survey tool, 13 gaps were
selected in 60 percent or
more of the responses.
Capabilities in the Protection
mission area accounted for
10 of these.
Cybersecurity accounted for
6 of the 13 most frequently
selected gaps, including the
top-three selected gaps.
Physical Protective Measures,
Access Control and Identity
Verification, and Supply
Chain Integrity and Security
accounted for four additional
gaps.
Most Frequently Selected Core Capability Gaps
Controlling cyber access to systems and networks
Ensuring continuity of operations for systems and networks
Performing technical countermeasures on cyber attacks
Performing environmental preservation and restoration
Analyzing supply chain dependencies
Detecting malicious activity on systems and networks
Verifying identities
Controlling physical access to facilities
Implementing protective measures for systems and networks
Conducting historic preservation
Performing mortuary services
Securing critical infrastructure against cyber attack
Implementing physical security measures
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Percentage of Times Selected as a Capability Gap
Notes: The chart and statements do not include contributions from the three common
core capabilities—Planning, Operational Coordination, and Public Information and
Warning. The bar chart colors designate the mission areas to which gaps correspond
(see page 3). The number of standardized gaps varied by core capability from 3 to 13.
28
Protection Mission Area
KEy FindingS
Based on previous interagency planning efforts, CBP and CDC adopted enhanced health screening
measures for travelers who have been in countries experiencing widespread transmission of Ebola
virus disease.
On October 11, 2014, CBP and CDC enhanced screening procedures at the five U.S. airports that received 94 percent of
all inbound passengers from Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. On October 21, the DHS Secretary announced that all
passengers arriving in the United States from those three countries were required to fly into those five airports. When
health officials identified cases of Ebola virus disease in Mali, CBP and CDC implemented enhanced screening in
mid-November for travelers arriving from that country, as well. CDC removed Mali from the list of nations subject to
enhanced screening for Ebola virus disease in January 2015, after 42 days had passed (i.e., two incubation cycles for the
Ebola virus disease) since the last patient with Ebola virus disease in Mali came into contact with a person not wearing
personal protective equipment.
CBP’s Office of Information Technology automated the CDC Health Questionnaire form, allowing CBP officers to
complete and submit screening forms to CDC in real time via a computer or mobile device; as of December 31, CBP had
screened 6,846 total passengers arriving from affected countries. CBP referred 430 (6 percent) of those travelers to CDC
public health officers for additional evaluation; of those, 13 received further evaluation at medical facilities. Evaluations
revealed that none had Ebola virus disease.
These domestic screening efforts complement the exit health screening processes that were put into place for travelers
leaving Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. CDC provided technical assistance for these exit-screening programs, which
were initiated in early August 2014 and
expanded to Mali in late November. CDC
has been training screeners and general
airport staff in the affected countries to
perform the screening procedures. This
screening requires airport personnel or
other relevant authorities in these four
countries to administer questionnaires,
visually assess travelers for symptoms,
and take travelers’ temperatures before
permitting them to board a plane. Of
the approximately 118,500 people who
underwent exit screening as of December
31, 2014, 120 did not receive permission
to board. The combination of domestic
and foreign screening efforts enhances
opportunities for early detection and
containment of individuals with Ebola
virus disease potentially entering the
United States.
29
Protection
Preparedness Case Study:
Supply Chains for Personal Protective Equipment
In October 2014, CDC issued revised guidance for use of personal protective equipment when caring for patients
with Ebola virus disease. The guidance created a surge in demand by U.S. hospitals for personal protective equipment
and led to delays in filling some equipment orders. In response, manufacturers have increased production of personal
protective equipment, and distributors are identifying ways to provide the requested quantities and meet the delivery
timelines. HHS has been working with manufacturers to better understand the demand for and availability of products,
as well as the actions taken to address any shortages in additional orders. CDC provided additional guidance that links
the amount of personal protective equipment a hospital needs to its degree of potential involvement in identifying,
isolating, evaluating, and treating patients with Ebola virus disease. Through these efforts, manufacturers expect to
return to typical order-fulfillment times for many of their personal protective equipment product-lines by April 2015.
The epidemic of Ebola virus disease highlighted varying approaches to quarantine at state and local
levels.
Differing quarantine policies for Ebola virus disease demonstrate the difficult balance between supporting medical
workers who fight the disease on the front lines in Africa (as well as reducing unnecessary costs and restrictions) and
minimizing risk to the public. Prior to the 2014 epidemic of Ebola virus disease, several state quarantine laws were
between 35 and 100 years old, and they focused on a small number of specific diseases such as tuberculosis or typhoid
fever. As of October 2014, eight states had specific statutes for quarantine and isolation of people suspected of having
tuberculosis, but no state had statutes for any other specific diseases. At least eight state governors issued orders
addressing quarantine protocols for Ebola virus disease in 2014.
In early August 2014, CDC released interim guidance
for monitoring the movement of persons potentially
exposed to Ebola virus disease. The CDC guidance
uses a risk-based method to determine the level of
quarantine or monitoring, based on an individual’s
exposure history and clinical state. For example, based
on CDC guidance, an asymptomatic healthcare worker
who had direct contact with an Ebola patient while
wearing appropriate personal protective equipment
should undergo direct active monitoring (i.e., a public
health authority checks the individual for symptoms
and fever each day through direct observation) and
movement restrictions for 21 days after the last
potential exposure.
At least 14 states decided to maintain or develop
stricter policies than CDC’s guidance (see Figure 5).
These diverse approaches can create public confusion
30
Protection
Recovery
about the necessary restrictions to protect the public and can lead to complications when a person with possible exposure
to Ebola virus disease travels through different states. Two states with stricter policies—New York and New Jersey—
ordered mandatory quarantine for all healthcare workers returning from affected regions of West Africa, requiring them to
avoid interaction with others for 21 days. In
contrast, Virginia’s policy was more aligned
Divergences in State Policies from CDC Guidance for Monitoring and
Movement of Individuals with Potential Exposure to Ebola Virus Disease
with CDC guidance. The Commonwealth
ordered active monitoring in-residence for
asymptomatic healthcare workers, allowing
Calls for home quarantine of individuals with high
13
risk of Ebola virus disease exposure
them to interact with small groups of friends
and family, but asking them to avoid large
Requires monitoring for all travelers arriving from
community gatherings. Between October
countries with widespread transmission of Ebola
9
virus disease
and November 2014, 10 states were actively
Places movement and travel restrictions for
monitoring at least 854 people.
Another area of concern has been
transporting a patient infected with Ebola
virus disease from an assessment center to
a U.S. treatment facility. Interstate transport
of patients infected with Ebola virus
disease is primarily handled by state and
local public health authorities, with CDC
providing support and guidance. Moreover,
the U.S. Department of State helped
coordinate international transport of U.S.
citizens infected with Ebola virus disease in
West Africa back to the United States.
individuals with even some risk of Ebola virus
disease exposure
7
Includes risk-category determination and
monitoring actions that are specific to healthcare
workers
6
Aligns with CDC guidance
30
0
25
50
Number of States
Figure 5. Several states have policies that diverge from CDC guidance for
monitoring and movement of persons with potential exposure to Ebola
virus disease.
HHS and DoD are consolidating biosurveillance networks and databases to streamline reporting
procedures for state and local health systems, and to increase reporting efficiency.
As of early 2014, CDC operated, funded, or worked with more than 100 biosurveillance systems. Of those systems, nearly
65 monitor agents, conditions, or activities that could lead to a potential outbreak or other public health emergency. The
large number of systems imposed duplicative requirements on state and local public health departments and complicated
the process of reporting diseases and conditions to the proper surveillance systems. In 2014, 73 percent of states and
territories reported one or more significant gaps in biosurveillance planning, organization, equipment, training, or
exercises. CDC released the Surveillance Strategy in February 2014 to consolidate biosurveillance programs, eliminate
redundancies, and reduce reporting burden.
The strategy highlights four initiatives that target existing biosurveillance activities—three of which include measurable
performance targets to monitor progress. One of these initiatives calls for the acceleration of electronic laboratory
reporting to public health agencies. This effort will improve surveillance of diseases and conditions by increasing the
timeliness and accuracy of reporting to public health authorities. The performance target for this initiative is for 80
percent of laboratory reports to public health agencies to be received electronically by 2016. As of October 2014, 47 states
electronically received lab reporting data, and 43 states electronically received syndromic surveillance data from hospitals
and other clinical settings; this is up from 44 and 33 in 2012, respectively.
DoD uses 10 to 15 key biosurveillance systems and has been making efforts to combine these systems internally and with
Federal partners. In May 2014, DoD moved forward on the development of the Global Biosurveillance Portal. The portal will
provide unclassified global access to geo-located and time-stamped biosurveillance data to support environmental, health,
force health protection, and medical planning. Additionally, DoD is working with HHS and DHS to ensure that they can
31
Protection
leverage DoD’s new prototype Biosurveillance Ecosystem. This system provides automated surveillance on global data feeds
for over 400 human infectious diseases and uses pilot-stage analytics and algorithms to provide early warning of disease
patterns to inform decisions.
Preparedness Case Study:
International Health Regulations
The International Health Regulations (2005) is an international framework
established to prevent, protect against, control, and respond to the
international spread of disease, while avoiding unnecessary interference
with international traffic and trade. As part of their International Health
Regulations obligation, countries must notify the World Health Organization
of all events that may constitute a potential public health emergency of
international concern (according to criteria outlined in the regulations) and
respond to public health risks that may spread internationally. In addition,
the International Health Regulations contains requirements for sharing
information during unexpected or unusual public health events. For example,
the United States reported biosafety lapses in Federal laboratories in
summer 2014. As a result, the White House urged Federal agencies working
with infectious agents to take steps to enhance the safety and security of
their research. This included an immediate review of more than 4,000 U.S.
facilities—examining inventory and documentation for more than 40 million
samples—to identify select biological agents and toxins; and ensure their
proper registration, safe stewardship, and secure storage or disposal.
The 2014 Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity is guiding government and
industry development of cybersecurity initiatives.
In February 2014, NIST released the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity to help organizations
across the public and private sectors better manage cybersecurity risks. The framework provides a flexible set of
cybersecurity standards and best practices, which allows stakeholders to adapt and adopt pieces of the framework as
they see fit. NIST solicited feedback on the framework through targeted outreach, and stakeholders suggested that
NIST publish “real-world” applications, lessons learned, and case studies to highlight examples of how organizations
of varying sizes, types, and cybersecurity capabilities can use the framework to improve their security. Stakeholders
also recommended sharing more extensive mappings of existing standards and guidelines to the framework. NIST will
continue to explore options for hosting publicly available framework reference materials and will continue to hold
workshops, webinars, and similar meetings on the framework to bring in additional stakeholders.
Some stakeholders also provided feedback regarding the lack of standardized measures available to assess implementation
progress. The development and use of metrics is at the discretion of individual framework users, allowing them to tailor
measures to the specific priorities of their organization. As the framework continues to mature, NIST will evaluate the
approach to measuring its implementation and effectiveness.
To help facilitate use of the framework, DHS created the Critical Infrastructure Cyber Community (C3) Voluntary
Program to aid academia, businesses, and governments with implementation; and develop sector-specific guidance for
32
Protection
using the framework. In 2014, 420 stakeholders from across the Federal Government and the private sector participated
in C3 Voluntary Program regional meetings. Additionally, this program features more than 30 DHS programs and tools
on its website, including an updated self-assessment tool called the Cyber Security Evaluation Tool, which assesses an
organization’s security practices for its information-technology network against recognized industry standards. C3
stakeholders downloaded or received the tool 5,132 times in fiscal year 2014.
In October 2014, the Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association published
Preparedness Case Study:
Principles for Effective Cybersecurity Regulatory
Guidance, which advises financial institutions on
Cyber Framework Implementation
creating effective cybersecurity initiatives and
encourages them to leverage NIST’s framework
on cybersecurity.
The Federal Government has expanded cybersecurity workforce hiring and training programs
to state, local, tribal, and territorial partners in order to address widespread shortages of trained
cybersecurity professionals.
Thousands of cybersecurity jobs across all levels of government and the private sector remain unfilled, despite years of
effort to boost hiring of cybersecurity professionals. In a 2014 survey of 49 state Chief Information Security Officers,
59 percent indicated that hiring cybersecurity professionals was a top barrier to strengthening their state’s cybersecurity.
Additionally, despite 88 percent of states and territories listing the Cybersecurity core capability as a high priority in their
2014 State Preparedness Report responses, only 15 percent rated their Cybersecurity training capabilities as proficient
(i.e., a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale). To help address Cybersecurity needs, Federal departments and agencies expanded several
ongoing training and hiring initiatives to state, local, tribal, and territorial partners in 2014 (see Table 2), which include
scholarship programs, collaborative tools, and online-lab practice opportunities. In addition, states (e.g., Delaware),
nonprofit organizations, and private-sector cybersecurity companies started their own cybersecurity hiring initiatives in 2014
to address workforce gaps.
Program
Cyber Shield Alliance
Description
An online platform with cyber training opportunities and cyber incident reporting to state and
local law enforcement partners
Federal Cybersecurity A platform for hosting interactive events that bring participants together to share cybersecurity
Training Events best practices
Federal Virtual Training
A library of more than 800 hours of cybersecurity classroom training and over 100 hands-on labs
Environment
A training campus operated by the U.S. Secret Service offering cybersecurity training courses to
National Computer officials from over 700 state and local agencies, departments, and judicial offices from around
Forensics Institute the country (In fiscal year 2014, the Institute trained 1,533 students for a total of 84,800 hours,
exceeding their fiscal year 2014 goals of 1,000 students and 45,000 hours)
National Initiative for
Cybersecurity Careers and An online resource for cybersecurity career, education, and training information
Studies
Scholarship for Service
A program providing scholarships for students to obtain cybersecurity degrees in exchange for
government service (As of December 2014, 54 academic institutions were participating)
Table 2. Federal cybersecurity hiring and training programs are available to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments as of 2014.
33
Protection
The Nation has intensified its efforts to combat violent extremism in response to threats within the
United States and from Americans trained abroad.
Law enforcement officials are concerned that Americans and Europeans traveling to fight and train with violent extremists
abroad may return and conduct terrorist attacks in the United States. Since 2001, law enforcement officers have accused at
least nine Americans who fought for or received training from violent extremist organizations abroad of plotting terrorist
attacks after their return to the United States. In addition, more than 100 Americans have joined over 1,000 Europeans in
traveling or attempting to travel to Syria to fight in the country’s civil conflict. In response, DHS has imposed enhanced
screening measures on Europeans normally allowed to visit without visas, out of concern that Europeans who have
fought in Syria may try to enter the United States. FBI has also created a hotline and requested the public’s assistance in
identifying individuals who have traveled (or plan to travel) overseas to engage in terrorist activities.
Violent extremism led to several incidents within the United States in 2014, including an attempted airport bombing
and an attack on a Jewish Community Center. The Federal Government has recently expanded its efforts to address
domestic violent extremism. In September 2014, DOJ initiated a pilot program in three regions that engages education
administrators, mental health professionals, religious leaders, and other social service providers at the local level to
identify individuals susceptible to radicalization and intervene to prevent acts of violence. Similarly, DHS and the
National Counterterrorism Center held six exercises in 2014 to improve communication between Federal law enforcement
and local communities on countering violent extremism. Afterward, exercise facilitators helped each community develop
a community action plan that local governments can use to identify and respond to incidents of violent extremism. In
2014, DHS also supported the implementation of 15 roundtables on Building Communities of Trust. The roundtables
provided a forum for community leaders and law enforcement officials to discuss how to keep communities safe from
terrorism, crime, violence, and other locally based problems.
Recent incidents and analysis have led Federal departments and agencies to increase physical
protections for high-risk facilities and radioactive materials.
After the DoD review of the September 2013
Washington Navy Yard shooting, the Secretary of
Defense accelerated DoD’s efforts to deploy the
Identity Matching Engine for Security and Analysis,
which enhances access control by checking the
identification cards of individuals entering military
installations against arrest and warrant records.
Deployed to more than 100 military installations
as of November 2014, the program identified over
170 individuals with outstanding arrest warrants
attempting to enter DoD bases during a two-month
period. DoD alerted law enforcement authorities
to arrest these individuals, instead of allowing
potentially dangerous persons to enter the military
installations.
In the energy sector, DOE initiated and led a series of briefings in conjunction with DHS across 10 states to enhance
physical security of electric substations in response to an April 2013 sabotage incident that damaged 17 transformers
transmitting power to Silicon Valley. Additionally, FBI partnered with DOE to strengthen physical security at facilities
that use radiological material. In fiscal year 2014, law enforcement and energy communities joined together to install
security enhancements at 96 facilities, train 396 personnel, and conduct 6 tabletop exercises.
34
Protection
In May 2014, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation adopted a new reliability standard designed to enhance
physical security measures for bulk-power system facilities to lessen their vulnerability to physical attacks. The Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission approved the new standard in November 2014. The standard requires that owners and
operators perform a risk assessment of their systems, analyze potential threats to those systems, and identify system
vulnerabilities.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) also codified previously issued orders for physical protection of highly
radioactive material in March 2014. Two months later, in partnership with the National Nuclear Security Administration
and a nonprofit organization, NRC distributed a best practices guide to provide benchmarks and assistance for
implementing the new requirements. The NRC is currently conducting inspections and taking enforcement actions to
ensure compliance with the physical protection requirements of the 2014 regulation.
Critical infrastructure owners and operators are increasingly using Federal risk-analysis tools and
implementing recommended security improvements, while Federal assessments are expanding
focus to address new hazards.
Critical infrastructure owners and operators continue to use Federal tools and programs to help conduct risk assessments,
leading to an increased number of implemented security measures in 2014. In fiscal year 2014, DHS completed 2,202
critical infrastructure surveys or facility visits to assess overall security and increase security awareness, up 13 percent
from fiscal year 2013. Over the same period, DHS conducted an additional 246 site-assistance visits and 623 web-based
assessments. Fiscal year 2014 follow-up visits confirmed that 76 percent of facilities had planned, started, or completed
at least one security improvement since the DHS risk assessment. Of those that had completed improvements, 86 percent
reported that the security enhancement was a direct result of the DHS assessment.
Through the Regional Resiliency Assessment Program, DHS also provided 10 regional vulnerability assessments in 2014
that focused on groups of critical infrastructure and key resources. These studies assess specific infrastructure sectors
against a range of hazards, including the first-ever climate change and cyber-focused regional assessments in 2014. Of the
regional assessments completed, 65 percent of primary stakeholders reported that they implemented, are in the process of
implementing, or plan to implement at least one security enhancement.
Additionally, private-sector partners used sector-specific tools and programs to analyze risk and protect against hazards
in 2014. The Dams Sector Analysis Tool—a web-based platform of analysis tools and data-collection mechanisms to
protect the Nation’s dams—helped stakeholders run more than 1,300 dam-break, flood-inundation simulations to test for
screening, prioritization, characterization, and analysis of critical assets, and update plans and policies accordingly. The
Bureau of Reclamation also helped improve dam preparedness by conducting 34 dam inspections and risk assessments
in fiscal year 2014 to determine potential means of failure and resulting consequences. Moreover, DHS began a series of
resilience webinars to address risks from cross-sector interdependencies for commercial stakeholders.
Mission Area
Connections
Protection
Mitigation
Risk Analysis
Conducting risk analysis helps design successful strategies to minimize consequences on critical infrastructure for
both the Protection and Mitigation mission areas. Protection uses risk analysis to enhance security, while Mitigation
relies on risk analysis (using concepts of risk identification and vulnerability assessment) to strengthen resilience.
Many of the same steps to conducting effective mitigation are equally applicable to protecting critical infrastructure
(see page 38 for additional details).
35
Protection
Preparedness Case Study:
In September 2014, DHS released the IP Gateway—
an online interface where state, tribal, and territorial
partners can access a range of tools and information
to conduct risk analysis using a standardized,
streamlined assessment methodology. Within
a month of its release, 35 states adopted the IP
Gateway to support their critical infrastructure
security and resilience efforts.
IP Gateway
The Federal Government is working with chemical facility owners and operators to improve
information-sharing platforms and to provide guidance on regulatory requirements for facility
security.
A key element of Executive Order 13650: Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security is strengthening the
relationship between government and chemical facility owners and operators. EPA, the U.S. Department of Labor, and
DHS developed several initiatives to improve information-sharing platforms in 2014. Specifically, they partnered to
update online systems to help chemical facilities determine regulatory requirements and enabled the Federal Government
to compare a facility’s information across nearly 90 separate Federal and state systems. These comparisons help identify
at-risk facilities by examining compliance history and chemical storage information.
DHS also worked with high-risk chemical facilities to implement security plans authorized under the Chemical Facility
Anti-Terrorism Standards regulations. Chemical facility inspectors found that the highest-risk chemical facilities
implemented 78 percent of required security measures in 2014, an increase from 46 percent in fiscal year 2013, but short
of DHS’s goal of 97 percent. In fiscal year 2014, FBI tested cross-jurisdictional response capabilities in six Livewire
tabletop exercises, which addressed the acquisition and release of toxic industrial chemicals by terrorists. Additionally,
in October 2014, EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) updated the Computer-Aided
Management of Emergency Operations Suite, a system of software applications that the whole community can use to plan
for and respond to chemical emergencies. In 2014, users downloaded the suite of programs over 80,000 times. Improving
the Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations Suite was one of several actions that a working group
established by Executive Order 13650 recommended in a May 2014 report to the President, entitled Actions to Improve
Chemical Facility Safety and Security – A Shared Commitment, to further minimize chemical facility safety and security
risks.
DHS also conducted over 250 compliance-assistance visits and 130 presentations to assist chemical facilities in meeting
Federal security standards in fiscal year 2014. DHS’s Infrastructure Security Compliance Division has found that as
facilities move through the Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Standards regulations, compliance assistance visits become
less necessary. As a result, DHS saw a slight downward trend in the number of these visits in 2014 and an upward trend
in the number of regulatory inspections. Chemical facilities also took initiative to improve security practices, completing
3,994 web-based Chemical Security Awareness Trainings in fiscal year 2014.
Implementation of personal identity verification cards for network access across the Federal
Government was at 72 percent overall in 2014, but implementation gaps remain in several Federal
agencies. Excluding DoD, implementation was at 41 percent.
36
Protection
Percentage of Users
The 2004 Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12: Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees
and Contractors requires all Federal agencies to issue and adopt smartcards to verify user identity for access to Federal
facilities and information systems. These credentials allow access to Federal facilities and systems, using more than one
means of authentication to create a high level of identity assurance. Fifty-four percent of Federal civilian cybersecurity
incidents in fiscal year 2014 were related to or could have
been prevented by these strong authentication measures,
100%
Personal Identity Verification Card Adoption
down from 66 percent of incidents in fiscal year 2013.
Among Federal Agencies (Excluding DoD)
Implementation of personal identity verification cards
across the Federal Government to allow access to
75%
Federal information networks increased from 67 percent
in fiscal year 2013 to 72 percent in fiscal year 2014.
However, as of fiscal year 2014, 18 of the 24 agencies
50%
41%
required to implement smartcard verification had not
30%
made a majority of privileged users on their networks
26%
log on using smartcard authentication, and three agencies
20%
25%
17%
14%
had not implemented smartcard verification at all.
12%
7%
7%
DoD’s inclusion resulted in a higher overall percentage
1%
of implementation because of its large number of
0%
0 FY10 Q4 2
4 FY11 Q4 6
8 FY12 Q4 10
12FY13 Q4 14
16FY14 Q4 18
network users and strong performance in authentication
implementation.
Fiscal Year (FY) and Quarter (Q)
Figure 6. Despite progress in recent years, less than half of the Federal
To provide a more nuanced view of the Federal workforce (when excluding DoD) require personal identity verification
cards for access to information systems. [Note: Dashed lines indicate
Government’s overall progress, in March 2014, the
quarters in which data were unavailable.]
White House began reporting implementation metrics
for personal identity verification cards that do not
include DoD contributions. As shown in Figure 6, 41 percent of non-DoD agency personnel had adopted cards by the fourth
quarter of fiscal year 2014, an increase of more than 20 percentage points since the previous year. The new metrics reveal
opportunities for improving implementation of personal identity verification cards across the Federal Government.
The Federal Government has initiated pilot programs in preparation of implementing the
International Trade Data System.
The Federal Government requires businesses that engage in international trade to submit import/export data to help law
enforcement interdict illicit goods before they enter the United States, while facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and
travel. Since 2006, 48 agencies, led by CBP, have worked to build and implement the International Trade Data System,
which establishes a single electronic platform for import/export data. By centralizing, automating, and integrating
data-collection processes, the system allows for easier identification of items of concern, while reducing the reporting
burden for industry. In 2014, the White House issued Executive Order 13659: Streamlining the Export/Import Process
for America’s Businesses, establishing a December 2016 deadline for completing the International Trade Data System.
The Executive Order also charges the Border Interagency Executive Council—an interagency working group—to develop
processes that enhance coordination for supply chain management and to establish common risk management principles
and methods that inform CBP operations associated with cargo review and release.
The Federal Government continued implementing the International Trade Data System in 2014. CBP, the Food Safety
Inspection Service, and EPA began testing the system through two programs in spring 2014. By the end of 2014, CBP
automated 73 of the 189 forms that it intends to automate using the International Trade Data System.
37
Mitigation
Mission Area Overview
Highlights
Severe drought continues to
affect much of the western
United States, but new tools and
guidance are available to assist
states in improving their drought
plans. (p. 41)
The Nation faces growing risks
associated with climate change,
but Federal agencies and states
are taking steps to adapt to those
risks. (p. 43)
The Federal Government is
studying how green infrastructure
projects that harness natural
processes can reduce damage
from natural disasters. (p. 44)
The whole community is
increasingly using resilience
competitions to spur innovations
that will strengthen disaster
preparedness nationwide. (p. 46)
The National Flood Insurance
Program continues to face
challenges to its long-term
financial sustainability. (p. 49)
Focused on reducing loss of
life and property by lessening
the impact of disasters through
increasing risk awareness and
leveraging mitigation products,
services, and assets across the
whole community
Frameworks
in Action
The National Mitigation
Framework (the Mitigation
Framework) builds on the seven
mitigation core capabilities identified in
the Goal and describes 88 critical tasks to
support their execution. The Mitigation Framework employs a risk-based
approach to reduce loss of life and property and increase community
resilience. By reducing risk, mitigation activities reduce the resources
needed to respond to and recover from disasters.
As shown in Figure 7, effective mitigation begins with risk identification,
in which a community identifies the threats and hazards it faces and
the likelihood of their occurrence. The community then conducts a
vulnerability assessment to understand the effects that these threats
and hazards would have if they occurred. Based on this understanding of
risk, a community can choose one or more risk management strategies,
including:
Risk avoidance – Preventing exposure to an event (e.g., using zoning laws
and other standards to prevent the construction of homes in high-risk areas);
Risk reduction – Minimizing vulnerabilities (e.g., retrofitting buildings to
be more resistant to earthquakes);
Risk transfer – Eliminating or limiting financial liability, without reducing
vulnerability (e.g., purchasing insurance); and
Risk acceptance – Tolerating any remaining risk and liability (e.g.,
agreeing to pay a deductible).
Efforts to improve resilience after Hurricane Sandy demonstrate how the
Mitigation Framework guides the whole community in employing the
Mitigation core capabilities. The President established the Hurricane Sandy
Core
Capabilities in
the Mitigation
Mission Area
38
Community Resilience
Long-term Vulnerability Reduction
Operational Coordination
Planning
Public Information and Warning
Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment
Threats and Hazard Identification
Mitigation
Rebuilding Task Force (the Task Force) to improve rebuilding and develop
a comprehensive set of recommendations that cover every component of
effective mitigation.
Risk Identification & Vulnerability Assessment: The Task Force recognized
the need to identify risks associated with rising sea levels and incorporate
them into future vulnerability assessments. Acting on the Task Force’s
recommendation, NOAA, FEMA, the U.S. Global Change Research Program,
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) coordinated to develop a sea
level–rise calculator and an interactive web-based map to identify risks posed
by sea level rise. The mapping tool combines the best available data from
peer-reviewed, global sea level–rise scenarios with existing FEMA National
Flood Insurance Program maps to estimate where the 100-year floodplain
boundaries will be in the future. The interactive web-based map translates
data into actionable information by allowing users to see how vulnerable their
properties are to the risk of rising sea levels.
Mitigation
Risk Identification
Vulnerability Assessment
Risk Management
Risk Avoidance
and Reduction
Risk Transfer
and Acceptance
Figure 7. Multiple steps are necessary
to conduct effective mitigation.
Risk Management: The majority of the Task Force’s recommendations focus
on improving risk management. The Task Force embraced both risk-avoidance and risk-reduction strategies in its green
infrastructure recommendations. For example, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) Coastal Resilience/Green
Infrastructure projects restored 147 acres of floodplains, helping jurisdictions avoid future flood risk by removing existing
structures from floodplains and preventing new structures from being built in those locations. Additionally, by freeing the
floodplain land to absorb water, jurisdictions have likely reduced the risk of flooding in surrounding communities.
Effectively transferring risk is also critical, as adequate insurance provides policyholders with funds to rebuild quickly
after an event. Acting on Task Force recommendations to promote insurance coverage, FEMA has begun clarifying its
insurance requirement for obtaining Public Assistance under the Stafford Act and is seeking to incentivize increased levels
of private insurance coverage. In addition, the National Academy of Sciences is examining how to make the National
Flood Insurance Program more affordable.
Resilience
Innovations
By the Numbers
$1.4
billion
1,000
organizations
43
cents
USGS’s Coastal Change Hazards Portal is an interactive
mapping product that shows shoreline change, extreme
storms, and sea level rise. It supports planning and
preparedness to enhance coastal resilience.
In October 2014, USDA announced
the availability of $1.4 billion in loan
guarantees to support projects that
improve rural electrical infrastructure in
21 states.
A partnership of Federal agencies developed the U.S.
Climate Resilience Toolkit, which provides scientific tools,
information, and expertise to help people manage their
climate-related risks.
NOAA has recognized nearly 1,000
organizations under its new WeatherReady Nation Ambassador™ initiative
to build community resilience in the
face of increasing vulnerability to
extreme weather and water events.
NOAA completed construction of the National Water
Center, which will serve as a catalyst for Integrated Water
Resources Science and Services, enabling NOAA to work
with Federal partners to deliver state-of-the-art analyses
and forecasts for floods and droughts.
For every dollar that FEMA spent on
Public Assistance in New York for
Hurricane Sandy recovery, 43 cents
supported mitigation activities. The
program’s national average is six cents.
DOE published a study of four major metropolitan areas
that offer a flexible and scalable approach to identify
energy facilities potentially at risk for flooding from rising
sea levels through the year 2100.
39
Mitigation
Whole Community Accomplishments
Los Angeles and Long Beach, California
In 2014, the
cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California, working
with the State of California and DHS, invested nearly $6
million for 125 new seismic stations across the region,
which advance the capacity to provide early earthquake
warnings.
Washington State
Washington State is partnering with
the University of Washington, FEMA, NOAA, and USGS to
build the first tsunami-resistant building in North America.
Construction began in 2014.
Nevada
Nevada Division of Forestry led an effort that
resulted in all counties in Nevada developing plans to
provide communities with a prioritized list of hazards
and step-by-step recommendations to protect people,
infrastructure, and resources from wildfires.
State Perspectives on Preparedness
2014 State Preparedness Report Results
From 2012 to 2014, the percentage
of proficient ratings for Threats and
Hazard Identification increased
by 9.6 percentage points, second
only in progress to Operational
Coordination. In contrast, Risk and
Disaster Resilience Assessment
experienced the third-worst decline
in performance among all 31 core
capabilities.
On average, when comparing
performance among planning,
organization, equipment, training,
and exercises, Mitigation core
capabilities achieved the highest
ratings for planning. Sixty-four
percent of states and territories
assessed themselves as proficient for
planning under Threats and Hazard
Identification—an increase of nearly
20 percentage points since 2012.
Percentage Change in Self-Assessment Scores from 2012 to 2014
Threats and Hazard Identification
Community Resilience
Long-term Vulnerability Reduction
Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
Percentage Change
Note: The chart and statements do not include contributions from the three
common core capabilities—Planning, Operational Coordination, and Public
Information and Warning.
40
Mitigation Mission Area
KEy FindingS
Risk identification and VulneRability assessment
Severe drought continues to affect much of the western United States. Most states do not have
recently updated drought-specific plans, but new guidance and tools are available to help states
identify their drought risks and improve their plans.
Much of the western United States continued to experience
drought throughout 2014. For example, California experienced
its third-driest water year in recorded history from October
2013 to September 2014. During the past three years,
California’s average precipitation reflected the second-driest
conditions since recordkeeping began in 1895. Although
severe rainstorms brought some drought relief in early
December, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
scientists have determined that California would still need 11
trillion gallons of water to recover from the three-year drought.
Across the United States, severe drought conditions have
caused more than $57 billion in damages from 2009 to 2013
(see Table 3). An estimate in July projected that the 2014
drought in California alone would cost the state $2.2 billion in
damages and 17,100 seasonal and part-time jobs.
Year
Region(s) Affected by Drought
Estimated Losses
2014
2013
2012
2011
2009
Western Drought
Western /Plains Drought
Expansive/U.S. Drought
South Plains/Southwest Drought
Plains/Southwest Drought
> $1 billion
$10 billion
$30 billion
$12 billion
$4 billion
Total
> $57 billion
Table 3. Drought conditions have cost the United States billions of dollars in five of the last six years.
Although the Secretary of Agriculture issued drought disaster designations for counties in 31 states in 2014, only eight
states have updated their drought plans since 2010 (see Figure 8). Furthermore, five states do not have a statewide
drought-specific plan; three of these states are currently experiencing drought. Regularly updating drought plans allows
jurisdictions to incorporate new technology, research, or laws.
41
Mitigation
Number of States
New guidance is available to assist state
Year States Approved Current Drought Plans
and local jurisdictions with planning for
50
drought and its related impacts. In January
2014, the National Integrated Drought
40
Information System, the National Drought
Mitigation Center, and the American Planning
30
Association issued a new drought planning
guidebook, which assists planners in preparing
20
for risks associated with drought, including
the need to plan for secondary hazards such
10
as increased risk of flooding or wildfire. In
2014, CDC also assembled a set of drought0
1980–1989 1990–1999 2000–2009 2010–2014
No Plan
related information resources for individuals
Decade
and communities, including guidance on how
Figure 8. Most states have not updated their drought plans since 2010.
to prevent fire hazards resulting from drought.
Additionally, the National Drought Resilience
Partnership—a collaboration between seven Federal agencies established in 2013 as part of the President’s Climate Action
Plan—issued new guidance for Federal agencies to advance drought resilience in November 2014.
In addition, Federal agencies are working together to provide states with tools that help identify their drought risks. The
U.S. Drought Portal is continuing to enhance its capabilities to predict the onset of drought. Currently, the U.S. Drought
Outlook tool can predict drought conditions up to three months in advance. In 2014, NOAA awarded $6.6 million to
support 15 new, multi-year projects that enable university partners and Federal researchers to improve understanding of
drought and advance drought prediction and monitoring capabilities.
The Federal Government is improving the quality of the Nation’s flood maps, particularly in coastal
areas.
FEMA’s Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning program (Risk
MAP) provides the public and emergency managers with highquality flood maps. In fiscal year 2014, Risk MAP updated maps for
56 coastal projects, bringing the total number of updated projects to
153. As of June 2014, updated Risk MAP products covered more than
53 percent of the U.S. population, exceeding the program’s goal of 50
percent. FEMA is also using the expertise of the whole community
to improve the quality of its maps. The 2014 Homeowner Flood
Insurance Affordability Act requires FEMA to convene a Technical
Mapping Advisory Council to provide expert guidance during the
map-making process and certify that FEMA is using technically
credible data and mapping approaches. The council—which includes
representatives from six Federal agencies, as well as state and local
experts—held its first public meeting in September.
Other Federal agencies also contribute to the national flood-mapping effort. In 2014, NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey
conducted two aerial surveys of coastal areas using a laser-based remote sensing technology known as LiDAR to improve
the accuracy of data used for mapping floodplains, managing coastal zones, and reducing impacts from storms. USGS, in
partnership with other Federal agencies, also launched a $13.1 million program to develop three-dimensional mapping data
of the United States for flood risk management, water resource planning, and mitigation of coastal erosion. FEMA is using
the data collected by NOAA and USGS to update coastal flood insurance studies, including storm surge and wave modeling.
42
Mitigation
Recovery
Preparedness Case Study:
Mapping Non-accredited Levees
To improve flood map quality, FEMA launched 25
pilot programs across eight FEMA Regions to map
the Nation’s non-accredited levee systems. The new
approach recognizes that these levee systems—
which do not currently meet Federal regulations
for levees—may still provide some level of
protection, resulting in more accurate assessments
of communities’ flood risks. As of October 2014, 4
of the 25 projects had completed final analysis and
mapping plans. Including the pilots, FEMA initiated
65 projects in fiscal year 2014 to analyze and map
levees.
Risk management: Risk aVoidance and Reduction
The third National Climate Assessment reported that the Nation faces growing risks associated with
climate change. Federal agencies and states are responding by taking steps to adapt to these risks.
In January 2015, NOAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration issued separate assessments concluding
that 2014 was the hottest year worldwide since 1880. Earlier in 2014, the U.S. Global Change Research Program
published the third National Climate Assessment. Using the best available science, the report identifies current and
possible future impacts of climate change on the United States, including an increased risk of sea level rise and severe
storms. The President’s Climate Action Plan is helping direct efforts to increase climate resilience. Executive Order
13653: Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change created a State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task
Force on Climate Preparedness and Readiness to advise the Federal Government on how to respond most effectively to
community-level needs regarding climate change adaptation. This task force issued several recommendations, including:
(1) improving the Nation’s ability to address challenges that communities face to provide physical, programmatic, and
effective communication accessibility inclusive of individuals with access and functional needs; (2) promoting and
prioritizing the use of green infrastructure; and (3) examining how incentives can increase economic resilience. Federal
agencies are actively reviewing and prioritizing actions they can take to respond to the task force’s recommendations.
The Executive Order also required Federal agencies to update their climate adaptation plans. In 2014, 38 agencies
publicly released updated plans outlining how they will reduce climate risk. Federal agency adaptation plans also support
collaboration across regions and promote data sharing and tool development. For example, USDA launched Regional
Climate Hubs in 2014 to provide technical support, assessments, and forecasts to regional and local stakeholders. FEMA’s
National Exercise Division also launched a Climate Change Preparedness and Resilience Exercise Series to advance
dialogue on climate resilience among participants and identify collaborative and sustainable approaches to communitybased adaptation. In 2014, FEMA held climate exercises in Anchorage, Alaska; Fort Collins, Colorado; Houston, Texas;
and Hampton Roads, Virginia. Exercise participants included Federal, state, and local government representatives, as well
as private-sector, nongovernmental, and academic partners.
43
Mitigation
Preparedness Case Study:
New Federal Flood Risk Management Standard
The President’s Climate Action Plan directed Federal agencies to update their
flood risk reduction standards to better account for future risks from climate
change. In response, Federal agencies developed a new Federal Flood Risk
Management Standard, established in Executive Order 13690, which seeks
to support implementation of Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management
and to improve the Nation’s resilience to current and future flood risk. When
implemented, the new standard gives Federal agencies the flexibility to select
one of three approaches for establishing the flood elevation and hazard area
they use in siting, design, and construction. They can:
Use data and methods informed by best-available, actionable climate science;
Build two feet above the 100-year (one-percent annual chance) flood
elevation for standard projects, and three feet above for critical buildings such
as hospitals and evacuation centers; or
Build to the 500-year (0.2-percent annual chance) flood elevation.
The standard allows exceptions for emergency actions, national security
considerations, and other mission-critical needs. Federal agencies will
reassess the standard annually to determine if updates are needed outside of
a comprehensive update every five years.
In addition to Federal efforts, some states are responding to the risks of climate change by creating climate adaptation
plans. As of 2014, 14 states had finalized state-led adaptation plans, and another nine states began planning efforts. The
Georgetown Climate Center State Adaptation Progress Tracker monitors progress in implementing goals and milestones
in state adaptation plans. On average, states have begun to address more than 50 percent of their identified goals, but have
only completed 5.4 percent of those goals. California and New York have completed the most, having each finished 14
percent of their goals. Despite progress, 48 percent of states did not consider climate change in their Threat and Hazard
Identification and Risk Assessments for 2014. Of those states, 60 percent are located in coastal areas.
Federal agencies are exploring the potential benefits of green infrastructure for disaster mitigation.
The President’s State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience recommended that
agencies promote and prioritize green infrastructure due to its potential economic, environmental, and risk-reduction
benefits. As a result, EPA and the White House Council on Environmental Quality launched a Green Infrastructure
Collaborative in 2014 to coordinate green infrastructure initiatives and align public and private knowledge and resources
to promote green infrastructure. As of October 2014, the partnership had consisted of 26 organizations and associations.
Federal commitments to the collaborative that may provide risk-reduction benefits include:
EPA providing assistance to 25 communities to create integrated stormwater management and hazard mitigation plans;
and
DOI committing $100 million for green infrastructure projects through the Hurricane Sandy Coastal Resilience Grant Program.
44
Mitigation
The extent of risk reduction provided by green infrastructure projects, however, is difficult to measure, which has limited
private-sector adoption of green infrastructure as a tool for risk reduction. To address this knowledge gap, NOAA and
USACE are assessing the effectiveness of green infrastructure to reduce risks as part of long-term research projects. In
one of its multi-year projects for the Sandy-affected region, NOAA is assessing green infrastructure performance metrics
and techniques that use plants, sand, and rocks to provide shoreline protection, as well as other nature-based protections
and restoration options. For example, NOAA is funding a project to analyze suitable shoreline restoration approaches for
damaged areas in Staten Island and Jamaica Bay, including developing decision support criteria and providing technical
assistance to decision-makers. In addition, USACE’s North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study provides a framework to
help communities assess the value of natural and nature-based protections. This framework includes:
Examples of construction costs associated with natural and nature-based features;
A matrix showing how each type of green infrastructure feature contributes to environmental and mitigation benefits
(e.g., biodiversity, reduction of storm surge, erosion protection); and
Performance metrics for measuring the effectiveness of each type of green infrastructure feature in delivering associated benefits.
In accordance with recommendations from the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, a task force organized under
the National Science and Technology Council, with guidance from the White House Office of Science Technology and
Policy, is developing a Federal research agenda to address knowledge gaps related to the societal benefits—often referred
to as “ecosystem services”—associated with green infrastructure, and how this infrastructure can be used to protect and
enhance the resilience of our Nation’s communities, particularly in coastal areas.
Preparedness Case Study:
Long-term Mitigation Efforts in North Carolina
On July 3, 2014, Hurricane Arthur made landfall on the coast of North
Carolina. Although the Category-2 hurricane produced high winds and
flooding, North Carolina experienced minimal damage. This was due in
part to North Carolina’s pursuit of a long-term mitigation strategy that had
increased the resilience of local communities affected by earlier hurricanes
and severe storms.
Since 2003, North Carolina has used the majority of its mitigation funding to
buy out vulnerable properties and elevate structures. Moreover, North Carolina
Emergency Management conducts vulnerability assessments to prioritize
which structures to modify when funding becomes available. To date, North
Carolina has acquired more than 5,000 homes located in vulnerable areas and
elevated 800 flood-prone properties. In March 2014, North Carolina became
one of only 11 states in the Nation with an Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan,
indicating superior floodplain-management practices and qualifying the
state for additional hazard mitigation grant funding following a disaster.
North Carolina has also invested in natural protections against storm surge.
The town of Nags Head, on North Carolina’s Outer Banks, placed 4.6 million
cubic yards of sand from offshore areas and restored a 10-mile stretch of beach
to protect structures from storm surge. The project succeeded in mitigating
losses from Hurricane Irene in 2011, Hurricane Sandy in 2012, and Hurricane
Arthur in 2014.
45
Mitigation
Mitigation grant funding is incentivizing state and local governments to engage in multi-hazard
mitigation planning, but gaps remain.
FEMA requires states to have approved hazard mitigation plans to qualify for permanent repair and restoration of
damaged public infrastructure, as well as for FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants. Additionally, states can increase the
amount of Hazard Mitigation Grants they receive by 33 percent if they maintain an “enhanced” hazard mitigation plan.
This status indicates that the state has expended additional effort to reduce losses, protect its resources, and create safer
communities. While all 50 states have approved hazard mitigation plans, as of September 2014, only 11 states achieved
enhanced status.
Local jurisdictions must also maintain hazard mitigation plans to qualify for FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants. Over the
past five years, the percentage of the U.S. population living in jurisdictions with FEMA-approved local hazard mitigation
plans has risen steadily from less than 70 percent to nearly 80 percent. However, 96 percent have lived in jurisdictions
that initially had an approved hazard mitigation plan, indicating that some plans have expired. Despite progress,
variations exist among regions in the development and maintenance of hazard mitigation plans. For example, hazard
mitigation plans cover over 90 percent of populations in the Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and Great Plains, whereas plans
cover 61 percent of the population in the Northeast. Moreover, only 127 of the 566 federally recognized tribes maintain
an approved or pending hazard mitigation plan; however, this is an increase from 88 tribes five years earlier.
The 2013 tornados near Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, highlighted the importance of maintaining local hazard mitigation
plans. The original major disaster declaration included five counties, but, of the five, only one county had a FEMAapproved local hazard mitigation plan at the time of the disaster. Thus, FEMA could not provide mitigation funding to
four of the five counties, despite authorizing more than $2.3 million in Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding in
Oklahoma within 30 days of the disaster declaration. The remaining counties had previously received FEMA Hazard
Mitigation Grant funds to create or renew their plans. FEMA worked with these counties to expedite the renewal of their
expired plans and eventually qualified them for funding, but most missed project application deadlines by not proactively
submitting applications.
Mission Area
Connections
Mitigation
Recovery
Hazard Mitigation
Plan
Mitigation
Qualifies states for FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant funding, with additional funding for states that
maintain Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plans.
Recovery
Allows communities to receive more Federal mitigation funding after a disaster, enabling them to
complete more recovery projects to increase future resiliency.
The Federal Government and other organizations are increasingly using sponsored competitions to
incentivize innovations that improve community resilience across the Nation.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, Federal and local governments sponsored design competitions to encourage resilient
rebuilding projects in the affected area. For example, the HUD-sponsored “Rebuild by Design” competition sought
to provide communities with new, more durable infrastructure designs. For this competition, HUD partnered with the
46
Mitigation
Rockefeller Foundation, academic institutions, and
regional nonprofit organizations. In May 2014,
HUD announced the availability of $930 million
in Community Development Block Grant Disaster
Recovery funds for projects in the Sandy-affected area
that incorporate these winning designs. New York City’s
Urban Post-Disaster Housing Prototype Program is
also testing an interim post-disaster housing unit based
on the winning design entry in the city’s “What If New
York City…” innovation competition (see page 70 for
more details).
In 2014, Federal agencies and the Rockefeller
Foundation also sponsored competitions to address other
resilience challenges facing the Nation:
In June 2014, the President announced the
National Disaster Resilience Competition, which
awards nearly $1 billion to help disaster-affected
communities build toward a more resilient future.
Participants must identify unmet needs in a
community, commit to actions that permanently
strengthen resilience, and propose innovative
approaches to deliver resilience to multiple sectors.
The estimated date for the announcement of the
competition winners is December 2015.
The Rockefeller Foundation is sponsoring the 100
Resilient Cities competition, which helps cities
around the world mitigate the risks of extreme weather. The Foundation has selected the first 67 cities, including 17
located in the United States. Winning applicants receive support for developing resilience plans and hiring a Chief
Resilience Officer to guide the city’s resilience efforts.
In December 2014, the White House announced 16 communities from around the country as the first cohort of
Climate Action Champions. Selected communities receive a broad range of Federal support, including facilitated peerto-peer learning, technical assistance, exercise opportunities, and climate data and tools.
Mission Area
Connections
Mitigation
Recovery
National Disaster
Resilience Competition
The $1 billion competition is eligible within any state that received a major disaster declaration from 2011 to 2013
and encourages communities to consider not only how they can recover from past disasters, but also how to avoid
future losses. The application process requires communities to demonstrate how they are approaching the recovery
from the previous disaster as an opportunity to reduce future risks and advance broader development goals.
47
Mitigation
Preparedness Case Study:
Kentucky and Georgia Promote Emergency
Response Drills for Schools through America’s PrepareAthon!
In 2014, FEMA launched America’s PrepareAthon!—a community-based campaign focused on encouraging emergency
preparedness through planning, drills, discussions, and exercises. Over 26 million individuals registered to participate
in the spring and fall campaigns. In FEMA Region IV, the Kentucky Center for School Safety collaborated with America’s
PrepareAthon! to promote earthquake and tornado readiness exercises in all Kentucky schools. Over 1.3 million
students, teachers, and administrators completed drills in September 2014. Similarly, Ready Georgia—a statewide
campaign supported by the Georgia Emergency Management Agency aimed at motivating Georgians to prepare for
a disaster—initiated a school tornado drill to increase awareness of the severe autumn tornado season. Organizers
synchronized the event with America’s PrepareAthon! to generate community awareness and engagement in the drill.
More than 1.1 million students from 1,400 Georgia schools completed a tornado drill in October 2014.
The Federal Government, states, and the private sector are working together to develop and test
microgrids. States are applying funding for Hurricane Sandy recovery to further these and related
efforts to improve the resilience of their electrical grids.
Federal research institutions, private companies, and state and local governments are partnering to develop
microgrid projects that enhance the resilience of the electrical grid. Disasters of all sizes commonly result
in power outages. The Council of Economic Advisers and DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability estimate that the susceptibility of the electrical grid to these outages costs the U.S. economy between
$18 and $33 billion annually. Microgrid technology—which provides a self-sustained electrical supply that
can operate independently from traditional large-scale distribution networks—can help mitigate these impacts.
DoD, DOE, and Sandia National Laboratories are completing a multi-year pilot project called the Smart Power
Infrastructure Demonstration for Energy Reliability and Security to test new microgrid technology. The project installed
microgrids at military bases in Hawaii and Colorado, allowing the bases to continue operating even when the external
grid experiences power loss. While primarily focused on cybersecurity for military installations, the technology has
broader disaster applications for the public and private sector to improve the resiliency of energy infrastructure. In
April 2014, the U.S. Northern Command hosted an event for stakeholders interested in microgrid development to
facilitate information sharing on how to apply the pilot technology to public utilities and the commercial sector.
States are also increasing the resilience of electrical grids and mass transit systems in Sandy-affected areas. DOE and
Sandia National Laboratories are working with Hoboken, New Jersey, to improve the resilience of the city’s electrical
grid, including installing microgrids. DOE and Sandia are also partners in a New Jersey Transit project to build a resilient
energy supply system for trains running between New York and New Jersey. The U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) provided over $400 million in funding for this project, which will be the largest microgrid in the United States.
FEMA and HUD are also providing $705 million in combined grant funding to repair and increase the resilience of
the Long Island power grid by elevating damaged substations, strategically relocating power circuits to underground
48
Mitigation
positions, and implementing other related strategies. In addition, New York State announced the NY Prize, a $40 million
competition to help build community-scale microgrids for areas with approximately 40,000 residents.
Preparedness Case Study:
The City of Los Angeles, California, partnered
with the USGS to develop Resilience by Design, a
strategic plan to proactively address the city’s
earthquake vulnerabilities. The partnership studied
vulnerabilities; convened stakeholders and experts
from academia, industry, business, government, and
local communities; and incorporated cutting-edge
research and lessons learned from past earthquakes.
The city recommended steps to fortify buildings, water
systems, and telecommunications networks against
seismic hazards.
Resilience by Design
Risk ManageMent: Risk tRansfeR and acceptance
The long-term financial viability of the National Flood Insurance Program remains at risk.
Through the National Flood Insurance Program, the Federal Government offers private and commercial flood insurance
policies, providing property owners with protection that is usually unavailable or unaffordable in the private insurance
market. FEMA currently owes the U.S. Department of the Treasury $23 billion, primarily to pay claims from Hurricane
Katrina and Hurricane Sandy. FEMA made a $1 billion principal payment in December 2014, but estimates that it will not
be able to repay this debt within the next 10 years.
Congress has taken steps to convert the program from being taxpayer-dependent to financially self-sufficient. For
example, the 2012 Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act (the Reform Act) required FEMA to eliminate the subsidy
for certain grandfathered policies, with some policies increasing by thousands of dollars. The resulting affordability
challenges led to the passage of the Homeowner’s Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014. This law modified certain
provisions of the Reform Act, including the reinstatement of subsidies that the Reform Act eliminated. New statutory
limitations on premium increases also limit FEMA’s ability to build sufficient reserves for future expenses or pay down the
program’s existing debt, making the National Flood Insurance Program’s long-term financial stability an ongoing challenge.
49
rESPonSE
Mission Area Overview
Highlights
The Federal Government
supported the response to the
Ebola virus disease epidemic
in West Africa and cases in the
United States. (p. 54)
The discovery of a major cyber
vulnerability called Heartbleed
prompted the Federal
Government to establish new
guidelines to delineate the roles
and responsibilities of Federal
cyber response assets. (p. 57)
Increasingly violent and frequent
mass shooting incidents prompted
whole community partners to
develop new response planning,
training, and exercise initiatives
for managing active shooter
events. (p. 58)
The large increase in
unaccompanied children across
the U.S.-Mexico border tested
the ability of Federal agencies to
expand and coordinate services in
a non-Stafford Act event. (p. 60)
Core Capabilities
in the Response
Mission Area
Focused on ensuring that the
Nation is able to respond
effectively to all types of
incidents, including those of
catastrophic proportion
that require marshaling the
capabilities of the entire
Nation
Frameworks
in Action
The National Response Framework
(the Response Framework) guides
how the Nation responds to all
types of incidents by describing the principles,
roles and responsibilities, and coordinating
structures for delivering the 14 core capabilities—and 29 associated critical
tasks—necessary in incident response.
The whole community response to the March 2014 mudslide in Snohomish
County, Washington, demonstrated the execution of several critical tasks.
The American Red Cross provided 142 overnight stays in shelters for
victims, highlighting the ability to establish, staff, and equip emergency
shelters. Northwest Regional Aviation, an aircraft-sharing consortium
created with support from the Seattle Urban Areas Security Initiative,
conducted mass search and rescue operations and, in cooperation with
the U.S. Navy, rescued 16 survivors. Additionally, the Governor activated
more than 100 Air National Guardsman to assist in search and extraction
operations. A collaborative effort among local, state, and Federal agencies
established operations leading to the recovery of all 43 human remains.
This collaboration also established physical access to the area through
debris removal efforts, supported efforts to decontaminate responders and
equipment exposed to spilled fuel and other hazardous liquids, and helped
to dispose of animal remains. In addition, mental health professionals from
various organizations (e.g., American Red Cross, Green Cross, Critical
Critical Transportation
Environmental Response/Health
and Safety
Fatality Management Services
Infrastructure Systems
Mass Care Services
Mass Search and Rescue
Operations
On-scene Security and Protection
50
Operational Communications
Operational Coordination
Planning
Public and Private Services and
Resources
Public Health and Medical Services
Public Information and Warning
Situational Assessment
Response
Incident Stress Management response teams) provided counseling and
support services to the families of victims.
The Response mission area also comprises several mature capabilities—
including Mass Search and Rescue Operations, which focuses on
conducting search and rescue operations to locate persons in distress.
For the past seven years, USCG has consistently deployed assets to support
search and rescue operations within two hours, meeting this target more
than 95 percent of the time. The past year also saw emerging challenges
for some mature capabilities. For example, the increasing frequency
of wildfires and the length of the fire season stressed the highly capable
wildfire response community in 2014. Nearly 3,000 more wildfires
occurred in 2014 than 2013. Recognizing the need to provide support to
state and local wildfire operations, the U.S. Forest Service continued
to modernize its airtanker fleet in 2014, operating 18 next-generation and
older airtankers and over 100 exclusive-use helicopters. An additional 100
helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft were on-call for the 2014 fire season.
By the Numbers
90
percent
of Federal
Departments
and Agencies
127
Chemical
Industry
Outreach
Workshops
200
tribes
USCG Expands Search and
Rescue Capability to New
Operating Environment
USCG continued to expand their
operating environment, exercising new
methods and technologies in the Arctic
Circle. During Arctic Shield 2014,
USCG focused on delivering search
and rescue capabilities to Western
Alaskan tribal regions and the Bering
Strait, while testing new unmanned
aerial systems, radars, and specialized
ice-cutting tools.
Resilience
Innovations
DoD and partner organizations collaboratively developed
the Geospatial capabilities for Security, Humanitarian
Assistance, Partner Engagement (GeoSHAPE). This mapping
technology supports disaster relief by giving users the ability
to create and dynamically display the locations of disaster
response resources and the extent of damage in near real
time.
Approximately 90 percent of Federal
departments and agencies responding
to a 2014 preparedness survey
reported that they were developing
operational plans supporting the
Response Framework, and nearly 50
percent have developed an inventory
of incident management assets
conforming to nationally standardized
definitions (i.e., resource typing).
The Guardian Indoor Gunshot Detection System adapts
military technology that identifies gunshot locations for
use in schools, public spaces, and airports. The system
links to smartphones and provides real-time “shots fired”
information on an interactive map, helping potential
victims avoid encounters with shooters and directing law
enforcement to the shooter’s location.
FBI conducted 127 Chemical Industry
Outreach Workshops to present
information on preventing terrorists
from acquiring bomb-making
chemicals, and provide integrated
response training among chemical
industry personnel, academia, law
enforcement, and first responder
communities.
NOAA employed a novel aerial photographic technique to
conduct post-storm surveys for Hurricane Arthur. By taking
photographs at an angle, the technique captures more
comprehensive ground images, allowing users to document
storm damage and erosion, identify hazards and effects on
navigation routes, and support damage assessments.
The DHS Office of Health Affairs (OHA) publicly released
two products that provide guidance and lessons learned to
the whole community on how to respond to a large-scale
chemical release: (1) an abridged after-action report from
the Baltimore Demonstration Tabletop Exercise; and (2)
FEMA, with support from DOI’s
Bureau of Indian Affairs, engaged
200 tribes during 60 in-person
meetings to inform new guidance for
tribes seeking presidential disaster
declarations.
Patient Decontamination in a Mass Chemical Exposure Incident:
National Planning Guidance for Communities.
51
Response
Whole Community Accomplishments
Honolulu, Hawaii
Building on the previous year’s success, the second annual “Ready 2 React
Whole Community Emergency Preparedness Event” provided an opportunity for over 25 city, state,
Federal, and nongovernmental agencies to engage with the public to discuss preparedness activities
for emergencies or disasters that may affect the island.
Galveston Bay, Texas
In March 2014, as part of the whole community’s response to an oil spill
in Galveston Bay, over 200 volunteers supported Federal, state, and local government agencies in
surveying more than 100 miles of beachfront and identifying areas and wildlife in need of cleaning.
Raleigh, North Carolina The North Carolina Office of Emergency Medical Services deployed a
mobile medical facility to Mississippi after Mississippi’s governor requested assistance through the
Emergency Management Assistance Compact.
San Francisco, California
In October 2014, the City of San Francisco used Fleet Week to
teach and improve whole community disaster preparedness and enhance coordination between
first responders and the military for a large-scale disaster in the Bay Area. As a precursor to Fleet
Week, more than 150 officials from Federal, state, and local government agencies and the military
participated in a tabletop exercise focused on military support in response to a 7.8-magnitude
earthquake on the San Andreas Fault.
State Perspectives on Preparedness
2014 State Preparedness Report Results
Response core capabilities accounted
for 6 of the 10 core capabilities with
the highest self-assessment ratings.
States and territories reported the
lowest ratings for Fatality Management
Services among all Response
mission area core capabilities, with
approximately 60 percent identifying
gaps in mortuary services and body
recovery.
Capability Comparison of Response Mission Area to
All Mission Areas
100%
Percentage of State/Territory Responses Indicating
Proficiency (4 or 5 on a 5-point Scale)
Ratings for the Response mission area
in planning, organization, training, and
exercises were superior to those for all
other mission areas. Equipment ratings
for the Response mission area were
slightly lower than for the Prevention
mission area.
Response Mission Area
All Mission Areas
75%
50%
25%
0%
Planning
Organization Equipment
Training
Exercises
Notes: The chart and statements do not include contributions from the
three common core capabilities—Planning, Operational Coordination,
and Public Information and Warning.
52
Response Mission Area
KEy FindingS
Since the release of the National Health Security Strategy 2010–2014, the Nation has leveraged whole
community partners to make significant progress toward improving health security.
The National Health Security Strategy 2010–2014 describes a unified national approach that facilitates collaboration
among government agencies and private-sector, nonprofit, and community organizations, as well as academic and
research partners, to improve the Nation’s health security. In accordance with legislative requirements, ASPR reviewed
and updated this strategy in 2014 with the involvement of other Federal departments and agencies and a broad array of
other whole community partners. The second iteration, National Health Security Strategy 2015–2018, builds upon past
progress, sustains the Nation’s momentum, and sets the strategic direction for achieving the Nation’s health security goal,
which is to strengthen and sustain communities’ abilities to manage incidents with negative health consequences.
The National Health Security Strategy 2015–2018 includes a section that reflects on the Nation’s progress in health
security over the past five years, which centers on the following:
Community Resilience: Stakeholders are increasingly
incorporating initiatives to promote community health
resilience (such as public outreach tools and partnerships
with community organizations) into their planning and
emergency response programs.
Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures
Enterprise: This interagency partnership continued to
strengthen existing relationships and foster new ones
across the Federal interagency and with industry partners
to coordinate medical countermeasures against chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear threats.
Health Situational Awareness: Through extensive
collaboration, health security stakeholders continued to
develop a common understanding that informed decisionmaking requires situational awareness of both health- and
non-health-related data.
Healthcare Coalitions: There are nearly 24,000 members
in Hospital Preparedness Program–supported coalitions,
including 5,288 of the Nation’s 6,340 hospitals. Hospitals
can now communicate with other responders through
interoperable communication systems; track bed and resource availability using electronic systems; protect healthcare
workers with proper equipment; train healthcare workers on how to handle medical crises and surges; develop fatality
management, hospital evacuation, and alternative care plans; and coordinate regional training exercises.
Global Health Security: The Federal Government continued to foster new and stronger relationships with other
countries to improve global health security, as part of the Nation’s commitment and contribution to the Global Health
Security Agenda.
53
Response
In 2014, the evolving U.S. response to assist with the epidemic of Ebola virus disease in West Africa and to domestic
cases demonstrated the Nation’s progress in health security. The response also highlighted the need to expand such efforts,
especially for managing a variety of unfamiliar, prolonged, and geographically dispersed incidents, such as emerging
infectious disease threats. The Infectious Disease Policy Report Series “Outbreak: Protecting Americans from Infectious
Diseases 2014,” from Trust for America’s Health, substantiates this need for protecting the health of Americans.
The Federal Government dedicated resources and personnel to support response efforts for the
epidemic of Ebola virus disease in West Africa.
To help the World Health Organization and affected West African countries prevent a global epidemic of Ebola virus
disease, the United States played a key role in a coordinated international public health and medical response in West
Africa. The U.S. strategy has focused on containing
the epidemic of Ebola virus disease in West Africa to
minimize the spread of the virus. Specifically, as of
December 2014, the United States deployed assets—
including more than 285 personnel from CDC, over
10,000 diagnostic kits for Ebola virus disease and a
field-deployable hospital from DoD, and 130,000 sets of
personal protective equipment from the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID)—to support public
health and medical response operations and to provide
humanitarian assistance. In addition, DoD deployed
approximately 2,800 personnel to West Africa in support
of USAID. The DoD missions focused on command
and control, logistics, engineering, and training. DoD
constructed 10 Ebola Treatment Units. At the height of
the crisis, DoD provided and staffed six mobile testing
laboratories in Liberia to support Liberia’s national
laboratory for Ebola testing. DoD also trained healthcare
workers to care for patients with Ebola virus disease,
and established a logistics system for countries to use.
In addition, DoD is collaborating with the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (within
HHS’s National Institutes of Health), the National
Institutes of Health, the CDC, and the Liberian Institute
USAID deployed a 28-member Disaster Assistance
for Biomedical Research to support long-term capacity
Response Team to coordinate the U.S. response.
development for laboratory diagnostic testing and
broader biosurveillance capabilities.
USAID provided more than 16 tons of medical
supplies and equipment.
Overall, U.S. response missions in West Africa include:
CDC assisted the government of Nigeria in
Providing diagnostic testing, sample transport support,
coordinating the response to Ebola virus disease
patient treatment, infection control, safe burial,
from the Nigeria Emergency Operations Center.
traveler screening, and biosurveillance capabilities;
CDC supported exit screenings at airports in West
Africa.
Training local healthcare workers to support the
response;
The U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps
Examples of the Federal Government’s
Response to Ebola Virus Disease in West Africa
Educating the local population on the facts and risks
of Ebola virus disease;
Establishing an incident management system to
staffed a 25-bed hospital constructed by DoD to
treat healthcare workers diagnosed with Ebola virus
disease.
54
Response
coordinate the response to Ebola virus disease; and
Building temporary medical care facilities to augment existing in-country medical care infrastructure.
The domestic response to Ebola virus disease identified needs to improve hospital preparedness
and to continue research and development for public health and medical countermeasures.
The Ebola virus disease epidemic highlighted the need to improve hospital preparedness across the United States for
contagious diseases, which can potentially result in large numbers of geographically dispersed cases. Although the Federal
Government has provided technical expertise (e.g., through the CDC [Ebola virus disease] Team and the DoD Medical
Support Team) and evolving guidance
regarding hospital preparedness for
Ebola virus disease, the capabilities of
hospitals to respond to cases of Ebola
virus disease and similar threats vary
across the Nation.
To enhance U.S. healthcare system
preparedness, HHS, in collaboration
with state and local public health
agencies, devised and built out a
nationwide system of Ebola Treatment
Centers—facilities designated by
state health officials to treat a patient
with Ebola virus disease safely and
effectively. As of February 2015, 55
hospitals across 18 states and the
District of Columbia were Ebola
Treatment Centers (see Figure 9).
Figure 9. Fifty-five Ebola Treatment Centers exist nationwide to manage patients
confirmed with Ebola virus disease.
In addition, HHS has worked with state and local public health
officials to identify Ebola Assessment Hospitals; these facilities
are equipped to evaluate and care for potential Ebola virus
disease patients for up to 96 hours, to coordinate testing for case
confirmation, and to transfer confirmed cases to a designated
Ebola Treatment Center. Finally, HHS published interim
guidance for all hospitals regarding possible or confirmed
patients with Ebola virus disease. The guidance provides a
framework for hospitals to rapidly identify patients with Ebola
virus disease, immediately isolate them and inform appropriate
agencies and hospital personnel, and determine needs.
Medical Countermeasures Development
Through the Biomedical Advanced Research
and Development Authority, ASPR and DoD’s
Medical Countermeasure Systems Joint Vaccine
Acquisition Program are working to increase
development of medical countermeasures using
public-private partnerships. In the last two years,
seven products supported by the Biomedical
Advanced Research and Development Authority
received FDA approval and three received
Emergency Use Authorizations for prevention,
treatment, or diagnosis of chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear agents and pandemic
influenza associated diseases.
Since the first domestic case of Ebola virus disease, Federal
partners have also rapidly expanded Ebola-related training
efforts. HHS has trained more than 675,000 healthcare workers
through a combination of webinars and online training courses;
these efforts also include regular calls with 10,000 nurses and
20,000 physicians and dentists, as well as outreach to emergency
responders, laboratory workers, waste management workers, hospital executives, and other response personnel.
Additionally, more than 8,000 responders attended live training events on infection control and personal protective
55
Response
equipment, with an additional 20,000 trained online. CDC has also continued to refine and disseminate guidance on
adequate and effective use of personal protective equipment, including equipment from the Strategic National Stockpile.
Moreover, FEMA’s National Domestic Preparedness Consortium developed and conducted Ebola response training for
941 responders, with a specific focus on personal protective equipment and staffing of Ebola Treatment Units abroad.
Finally, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health collaborated with Federal and state partners to develop guidance for improving Ebola preparedness for workers in
various sectors (e.g., healthcare, airlines, sanitation, environmental services) who may be at risk of occupational exposure
to Ebola virus disease.
The epidemic also highlighted the importance of
effective medical countermeasures. The Public
Health
Emergency
Medical
Countermeasure
Enterprise—an ASPR-led interagency collaborative
established to combat chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear agents through medical
countermeasures—has
supported
extensive
research and development of potential medical
countermeasures for Ebola virus disease, including
vaccine trials, the first of which began in September
2014 at the National Institutes of Health, and ongoing
clinical trials in West Africa—conducted by the
National Institutes of Health, CDC, and ASPR’s
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development
Authority—to evaluate vaccine safety and efficacy.
The National Institutes of Health, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and DoD’s Defense
Threat Reduction Agency funded research and development on vaccines and therapeutics for Ebola virus disease,
including the treatment used for the first two infected healthcare workers in the United States. The Biomedical Advanced
Research and Development Authority also has engaged with pharmaceutical manufacturers to expand the production of
possible vaccine and therapeutic candidates to large, commercial scales. Additionally, because no approved therapies
exist, FDA granted several Emergency Investigational New Drug Applications for experimental antiviral medications
to treat patients with Ebola virus disease. FDA continues to work with product sponsors, manufacturers, and other
interagency and international partners on clinical trial designs for both vaccines and antiviral therapies.
FDA also issued eight Emergency Use Authorizations (as of February 24, 2015) for diagnostic tests to detect Ebola
virus disease, as there were no tests previously cleared for this specific purpose. DoD received the first Emergency Use
Authorization on August 5, 2014, for its Ebola diagnostic test, which military-certified laboratories and more than 25
CDC Laboratory Response Network public health laboratories are using. More broadly, CDC has developed, revised,
and currently maintains processes to facilitate timely and widespread access to medical countermeasures for other public
health threats. These processes include the Pre-Emergency Use Authorization (submitted for FDA review prior to an
emergency to expedite the review process) and the Emergency Use Authorization (submitted for FDA review during an
emergency) request submissions.
Effective use of technology in disaster response relies on the public sector’s ability to adapt
to the growing use of mobile communication technology, implement effective processes for
technological applications, and maintain necessary knowledge and expertise among system users
and operators.
Recent events demonstrated the importance of the response community’s ability to adapt to new technologies, such as
mobile devices and social media platforms, as the public grows less reliant on traditional communication systems. For
56
Response
example, in May 2014, San Diego County was unable to send emergency notifications quickly to the public during its
wildfire response because the AlertSanDiego System was pre-loaded with only landline telephone numbers. The system
can send alerts to mobile devices, but a subscriber
must first voluntarily enroll with the system.
Subsequent to the wildfire, the county noted a
pressing need to increase mobile and Internetbased telephone registrations.
Increasing use of mobile technology and social
media provides emergency responders with more
channels to communicate with the public. In
2014, FEMA worked with Federal, state, local,
territorial, and tribal alerting authorities to extend
the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System
to 49 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of
Columbia, an increase from 42 in 2013. Over 400
distinct emergency response entities have become
alerting authorities (see Figure 10), an increase
from 250 authorities in 2013. Since the program’s
inception in 2011, the National Center for Missing
Figure 10. Alerting authorities for the Integrated Public Alert and Warning
& Exploited Children has directly attributed the
System (IPAWS) exist in almost every state and territory. These are entities
recovery of 15 children to the distribution of
that have completed the necessary authentication steps to use IPAWS.
AMBER Alerts released through the Integrated
Public Alert and Warning System. Since June 2012, the National Weather Service has used the system to distribute more
than 11,000 imminent weather threat warnings, notifying citizens of tornados, flash floods, dust storms, and other extreme
weather events.
Maximizing the effectiveness of technology in disaster response also requires effective processes for implementing such
technology, as well as knowledgeable and skilled system users and operators. The Virtual Social Media Working Group
and DHS First Responders Group report, Using Social Media for Enhanced Situational Awareness and Decision Support,
identified several challenges to the effective implementation of technological solutions in disaster response. These include:
(1) information application; (2) privacy, legal, and security issues; (3) data and open standards; and (4) technology
development. Lessons learned from the national Capstone Exercise 2014 and the 2013 Colorado floods underscore the
importance of providing training to users and ensuring their proficiency with response technologies. Specifically, the
lack of familiarity and training with incident management tools and systems remains a prevailing gap among disaster
responders.
A major cyber vulnerability prompted the Federal Government to establish new guidelines on
the roles and responsibilities of Federal cyber response assets to increase the speed of response
activities in government Internet domains and alerts to the public.
On April 7, 2014, the Federal Government learned of Heartbleed,
a cyber vulnerability in the encryption software used to protect
roughly two-thirds of the Internet. Heartbleed could allow
attackers to track private keys and decrypt encrypted traffic,
exposing sensitive information (e.g., passwords). Within 24 hours
of learning about the vulnerability, DHS’s National Cybersecurity
and Communications Integration Center began working with
DoD, DOJ, and the private sector to alert the public, identify
vulnerabilities, and patch afflicted systems.
57
Cyber incident: An occurrence that actually or
potentially results in adverse consequences to an
information system or the data processed, stored,
or transmitted by an information system
Cyber vulnerability: A characteristic or specific
weakness that renders an information system
open to exploitation by a given threat or hazard
Response
Although the Federal Government’s major public networks were not exposed, the unclear and overlapping roles and
responsibilities in Federal cyber response delayed DHS’s ability to scan government networks for the vulnerability. In
response, the Office of Management and Budget issued new guidelines in October 2014 that empower DHS to conduct
regular, proactive scans of Federal domain systems, enabling stronger system security and faster, more comprehensive
responses to future cybersecurity incidents. The new guidelines helped to increase the number of systems that DHS
proactively scans from 32 to 68 in fiscal year 2014, with efforts underway to scan approximately 120 systems by the
end of fiscal year 2015. DHS also increased how often it can conduct scans by automating the process to develop and
distribute post-scan summary reports.
In fiscal year 2014, the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications identified 297 cyber incidents on Federal
Government networks, including Heartbleed and other high-profile cyber attacks on the White House, the U.S.
Department of State, the U.S. Postal Service, and NOAA. The U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team took
an average of 18 minutes to notify impacted agencies and sent 86 percent of agency notifications within 30 minutes.
Over the same period, the team validated 87 percent of system-generated cybersecurity alerts as legitimate. The
Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team, which works to reduce cybersecurity risk across critical
infrastructure, responded to 245 incidents and 149 reported cyber vulnerabilities in fiscal year 2014.
Mission Area
Connections
Protection
Response
Cybersecurity
While the Protection mission area focuses on securing the cyber environment and infrastructure from unauthorized
or malicious access, use, or exploitation (see page 32 for more details), the Response mission area guides activities to
save lives, protect property, and preserve vital systems after a successful cyber attack occurs.
Increases in mass shooting incidents have prompted whole community partners to conduct
additional training and to revise their plans and procedures to bolster response capabilities and
resources.
In 2014, FBI, in consultation with Texas State University, completed a study that found an increase in both the number
and severity of active shooter events in recent years. Among the 160 active shooter events since 2000, 115 incidents
(72 percent) have occurred in the last seven years. In addition, the violence and severity of active shooter events have
risen sharply; for example, the average number of casualties per year has more than tripled from 35 individuals between
2000 and 2006, to 114 individuals between 2007 and 2013.
Increased concerns regarding active shooter events have highlighted the need to revise response training, plans, policies,
and procedures. The “Run.Hide.Fight.® Surviving an Active Shooter Event” video—developed by Houston, Texas, with
support from Federal grant programs—is a prominent public information and training video on how to survive an active
shooter incident. To date, the video has received over three million views in four different languages on the official Ready
Houston YouTubeTM channel. Federal, state, and local governments, along with other members of the whole community,
have also widely adopted the video as a tool for active shooter response training. In addition, efforts continued in 2014 to
implement recommendations from “Now is the Time: The President’s Plan to Protect our Children and our Communities
by Reducing Gun Violence,” a joint effort by the U.S. Secret Service, FBI, DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis, and
the U.S. Department of Education. Funding for “Now is the Time” expanded by $115 million to increase youth access to
mental health treatment and services, a key initiative in the plan.
Recently, HHS, in collaboration with FEMA and FBI, also developed Incorporating Active Shooter Incident Planning into
Health Care Facility Emergency Operations Plans, which offers best practices and issues for consideration to healthcare
58
Response
facilities on how to plan for an active shooter incident.
In February 2014, DHS OHA held a two-day meeting
in which subject-matter experts and the first responder
community discussed ways to improve survivability
of victims and first responders in active shooter and
improvised explosive device incidents. Moreover, an
OHA-led interagency group is developing survivability
guidance that addresses hemorrhage control, protective
equipment, and response and incident management. More
broadly, DHS and FBI coordinate a wide range of training
and public outreach initiatives for active shooter response,
in collaboration with interagency partners, first responders,
and community and private-sector organizations.
Joint Counterterrorism Awareness
Workshop Series
The Joint Counterterrorism Awareness Workshop
Series is a partnership among FEMA, the National
Counterterrorism Center, and FBI to increase law
enforcement preparedness for responding to and
resolving terrorist attacks. The series of tabletop
exercises, which are tailored to each host city, depicts
a scenario similar to the 2008 Mumbai, India, terrorist
attack to examine crisis response plans and law
enforcement capabilities. In 2014, four workshops
occurred. The workshops identified the need to: (1)
integrate plans among local government and Federal,
state, territorial, and tribal crisis response and
emergency management responders; and (2) conduct
joint training and exercises for first responders to
ensure an efficient and unified response.
The law enforcement community also began implementing
lessons learned from past active shooter events. In March
2014, the Police Executive Research Forum released Police
Response to Active Shooter Incidents, which identified
recommendations based on previous active shooter
incidents. The report recommended that police agencies
develop dedicated active shooter response procedures,
with a principal focus on immediately subduing the active shooter(s) using teams of officers. This recommended tactic
encourages responding officers to engage the shooter(s), rather than waiting for Special Weapons and Tactics teams. The
report also recommended that police agencies provide officers with specialized training for engaging active shooters
and providing on-scene emergency medical triage. Lessons learned from the 2012 theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado,
supported this recommendation, as a responding police officer with paramedic training provided initial medical triage to
wounded survivors.
Agencies across all levels of government have updated emergency response plans to include the
access and functional needs of individuals with and without disabilities, but implementation
challenges remain.
Across the Nation, states have made progress in
incorporating access and functional needs support into
response planning. CDC’s State Disability and Health
Programs have supported 18 states in this effort, providing
subject-matter experts in accessibility and response planning,
who have facilitated 63 training sessions, 25 workshops,
and 15 exercises. FEMA also added Disability Integration
Advisors to its National Incident Management Assistance
Teams, which coordinate operational planning for incident
response and recovery. Disability Integration Advisors
engage with and facilitate the involvement of whole
community partners, including state and local disability
services agencies and advocacy groups. In 2014, 37
Disability Integration Advisors deployed to 88 incidents.
While whole community partners have made incremental
progress in incorporating access and functional needs into
emergency response planning, barriers to implementation
59
Response
remain. For example, a May 2014 National Council on Disability report documented numerous barriers to effective
communication with persons with access and functional needs during an emergency. These barriers include inaccessible
emergency notification systems, inaccessible evacuation maps, emergency shelters without staff able to communicate
with people who are deaf or hard of hearing, and websites with emergency information that is not suited to screenreading software applications. To address these barriers, the Federal Government and state, local, tribal, and territorial
jurisdictions have increased training, modified response plans, and enhanced collaboration with disability advocates.
MissionArea
Connections
Mitigation
Mi
Recovery
Response
Accessibility Issues
Accessibility requirements are not limited to emergency response. Reports such as Effective Communications for People
with Disabilities: Before, During, and After Emergencies emphasize the need to address physical, programmatic, and
effective communication accessibility in all phases of emergency management, including mitigation and recovery.
This includes ensuring that emergency management agencies understand the demographics of their community to
better meet anticipated needs and address the accessibility of actionable information to access recovery programs
and services such as temporary housing. Broader accessibility issues also exist, such as the availability of accessible
housing for individuals after a disaster. For example, in May 2014, the U.S. Access Board—the Federal agency that
promotes equality for people with disabilities and establishes formal guidelines—clarified accessibility standards for
emergency mobile housing units.
While Federal agencies were able to quickly expand their capacity to transport, shelter, and care
for the increase in arrivals of unaccompanied children across the U.S.-Mexico border in 2014, the
response prompted Federal actions that will more seamlessly provide resources and services in the
future.
In fiscal year 2014, CBP referred more than 57,000 unaccompanied children entering the country across the U.S.-Mexico
border to the care and custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement within ACF. This increase in arrivals strained both
DHS’s and HHS’s capacities to process and care for these children, ultimately requiring temporary housing assistance
for the increase. DoD temporarily housed approximately 7,700 unaccompanied children on three military installations.
In addition to processing and tracking these children through appropriate systems, the Federal Government’s response
included expanding capacities to: transport these children; medically evaluate and treat, shelter, and care for them;
and place them in the least restrictive environment with families, legal guardians, or foster care in the United States,
or repatriate them to their home countries. This also included hiring additional case management staff, particularly staff
fluent in Spanish.
While interagency efforts quickly expanded the Nation’s capacity to manage the situation involving unaccompanied
children in 2014, the Federal response revealed an underlying need for greater programmatic agility to quickly open
facilities to shelter and care for these children, as existing HHS shelters and CBP temporary holding facilities were rapidly
overwhelmed. In response, ACF significantly expanded national shelter capacity for unaccompanied children. Moreover,
the Executive Branch has enhanced the Federal Government’s capabilities and coordination mechanisms for managing
this case load. On June 2, 2014, the President launched an initiative to unify efforts among Federal agencies for addressing
the situation. Specifically, this initiative directed the DHS Secretary to establish an interagency Unified Coordination
Group to assist the coordination and use of response assets from across the Federal Government, including ongoing
Federal planning to manage future situations involving unaccompanied children.
60
Response
Government and whole community partners continue to implement lessons learned and develop
innovative approaches for improving response capacities in lifeline sectors, particularly the energy
and transportation sectors.
The Nation continued to make progress toward sustainment
and rapid restoration of lifeline sector services for disaster
response. These lifeline sector services—primarily energy,
water, transportation, and communications—underpin the
operation of nearly every business sector, community, and
government agency.
Recent Federal, state, and private-sector initiatives in the
energy sector include the following:
In June 2014, DOE established the Northeast Gasoline
Supply Reserve. The reserve holds one million barrels
of gasoline and can help mitigate the impacts of sudden,
unexpected supply interruptions. Similarly, the New York
State gasoline reserve, launched in October 2014, is the
first state-based strategic gasoline reserve and serves as an
emergency stockpile to provide replacement supplies when
gasoline supplies are interrupted.
Notable Shale Crude Oil Incidents in 2014
January 2014, New Augusta, Mississippi:
A train transporting crude oil from North
Alberta, Canada, to a Gulf Coast refinery
derailed, spilling 50,000 gallons of product.
February 2014, Mississippi River: A barge
collision spilled over 30,000 gallons and
closed 65 miles of river.
April 2014, Lynchburg, Virginia: A train
derailment in the downtown area caused an
explosion and resulted in a 17-mile oil slick
on the James River, a major tributary of the
Chesapeake Bay.
GridEx II, conducted November 2013, is the largest and most comprehensive energy grid security exercise to date.
The after-action report for the exercise, published in March 2014, recommended that energy-sector stakeholders
continue to enhance information sharing, improve incident coordination, and clarify roles and responsibilities for
developing situational awareness.
The Environment for Analysis of Geo-Located Energy Information, a web-based tool developed by DOE, enables
real-time sharing of power and natural gas infrastructure statuses during emergencies. The tool now covers 72 percent
of all domestic electricity customers, and more than 20 Federal agencies and 14 Federal Emergency Operations
Centers use the tool to monitor energy infrastructure to better coordinate emergency response and recovery.
In the transportation sector, production of domestic shale
crude oil continues to increase demands on rail transportation.
Quantities of shale crude oil transported by rail surpassed
one million barrels per day in 2014. For comparison,
U.S. railroads moved only 9,500 cars of shale crude oil in
2008, but more than 200,000 in the first seven months of
2014 alone—more than eight percent of the country’s oil
production. The possibility of train derailment, crude-related
transportation incidents, and oil spills poses not only a threat
to transportation-sector reliability, but also to the safety, health,
and environmental wellbeing of the communities those railcars
traverse.
In response, government and private-sector partners are
continuing to develop and conduct emergency response
training and exercise programs specific to shale crude oil.
FEMA’s National Exercise Division held planning meetings
61
Crude by Rail Emergency
Response Training
An agreement between DOT and the American
Association of Railroads requires rail carriers
to subsidize the training course on responding
to rail incidents involving shipments of crude
oil. In 2014, more than 1,500 first responders
completed the three-day course, which takes
place in a field-based setting. The course
provides practical training using rail cars and
addresses response tactics, including firefighting
foam application, and the environmental impact
of crude oil-related incidents.
Response
and conducted research and development of an exercise toolkit focused on crude-oil rail incidents. The toolkit—named
“Operation Safe Delivery” and developed by DOT in collaboration with other Federal departments and agencies—will
debut through a series of exercises in early 2015. To support training, the U.S. Fire Administration also reached out to
over 400,000 firefighters through electronic mailing lists and social media to share best practices and safety information
for responding to oil-related incidents. Additionally, the National Response Team, a multi-agency Federal coordination
entity under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, worked with Canadian partners and
delivered Bakken Crude Oil First Responder Awareness training to more than 300 responders at all levels of government.
In May 2014, Federal Railroad Authority issued an emergency order requiring rail carriers to provide State Emergency
Response Commissions with information on the number of trains, descriptions of products, emergency response
information, and routing data for trains carrying more than one million gallons of shale crude oil. Finally, the private
sector is actively striving to improve rail safety for oil transportation. Training initiatives include the Safety Train and
Crude by Rail training programs, which began in May and July 2014, respectively.
While the transition to Next Generation 9-1-1 will augment emergency response capabilities,
the uneven implementation of adopted standards and best practices for Next Generation 9-1-1
threatens its reliability.
Next Generation 9‑1‑1 is an Internet Protocol–based system that offers several benefits over traditional 9‑1‑1 systems,
including the ability to transmit digital information (e.g., text, photo, and video) and receive real-time location information
from mobile devices. Next Generation 9-1-1 also offers more resiliency and redundancy than traditional 9-1-1 systems.
Given the ubiquity of Internet Protocol technology—as well as migration of emergency responders to broadband
networks—Next Generation 9-1-1 is increasingly important for effective emergency response. As the Nation continues
to transition to Next Generation 9-1-1, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) noted that a seamless transition
requires a broad understanding among all stakeholders on the status of Next Generation 9-1-1 deployment.
Next Generation 9‑1‑1 offers significant long‑term benefits,
but the transition carries significant risks. These risks are
attributable to jurisdictions’ lack of experience with the types
of procurements necessary to operate Next Generation 9-1-1
systems, evolving governance structures, unstable 9-1-1
funding, high costs associated with transitioning to Next
Generation 9-1-1 systems, and the need to coordinate with
larger and different groups of public and private stakeholders.
In January 2014, DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration identified and reviewed Next Generation
9-1-1 standards and found limited coordination among Next
Generation 9-1-1 stakeholders for developing and adopting
such standards. For example, while the National Emergency
Number Association provides functional, interface, and
cybersecurity standards for next generation systems, gaps
remain in identifying best practices among next generation
system stakeholders and in the adequacy of reliability and
security standards associated with evolving network threats.
FCC Adopted Rules to Increase
Next Generation 9-1-1 Reliability
December 2013: Adopted rules requiring
9-1-1 service providers to certify annual
implementation of industry-backed best
practices or acceptable alternative measures
November 2014: Adopted rules requiring
9-1-1 service providers to report major
disruptions to 9-1-1 operators within 30
minutes of discovering an outage
November 2014: Approved notice of
proposed rulemaking to expand 9-1-1
provider certification rules and create
a group of lead 9-1-1 providers with
coordination responsibilities in the event of
an outage
Another challenge with Next Generation 9-1-1 is that
integration with legacy systems can result in incompatibilities,
compromising emergency response efforts. A multistate 9-1-1 outage in April 2014 demonstrated this risk. As critical
9-1-1 functions from two locations were combined, a software coding error at the consolidated Next Generation 9-1-1
call-routing facility in Colorado stopped the system from directing calls to 81 9-1-1 call centers across seven states. This
led to interruptions in services to over 100 million people for up to six hours. This outage affected significantly more
62
Response
people than a traditional 9-1-1 system outage would. In November 2014, FCC launched a proceeding to address gaps
in 9-1-1 and Next Generation 9-1-1 governance. FCC has also adopted additional rules to ensure industry adherence to
network best practices in efforts to support Next Generation 9-1-1 implementation and improve 9-1-1 system reliability
and resiliency.
The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) continues to make progress in establishing a
dedicated nationwide public safety broadband network, though challenges remain.
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 established FirstNet as an independent authority within the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration to ensure the building, deployment, and operation of
a nationwide, high-speed network dedicated to public safety. During disasters, this broadband network will enable
responders at local, state, regional, and Federal levels to communicate and exchange data.
Numerous challenges exist for implementing the first-ever nationwide public safety broadband network, including its
long-term financial self-sustainability. Although FirstNet will likely receive the full $7 billion congressional allocation
provided in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, the cost of deploying the network is expected to
significantly exceed this initial funding. FirstNet intends to partner with entities to help offset the costs of constructing and
operating the nationwide public safety broadband network, and can lease excess network capacity and collect user fees to
help sustain the network.
In 2014, FirstNet made progress in planning for the deployment of the nationwide public safety broadband network.
It issued its first public notice addressing key statutory issues and initiated a consultation process aimed at informing
FirstNet’s plans for deployment of the network. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 requires
FirstNet to develop plans for each state and territory for the deployment of the network, as informed, in part, by ongoing
consultations. As of February 25, 2015, FirstNet had submitted initial state consulting packages to all 56 states and
territories; held pre-consultation conference calls with 52 states and territories; received initial consultation checklists
from 47 states and territories; and completed 15 state consultations. In Spring 2015, FirstNet management will release
a Special Notice requesting comments on draft request for proposal documents that detail key terms, as part of its
ongoing consultation efforts and market research with industry. A final solicitation is targeted for late 2015/early 2016.
Additionally, DHS Office of Emergency Communications has worked with states and territories to incorporate broadband
planning into their strategic plans for enhancing interoperable and emergency communications by offering technical
assistance and helping states and territories identify near- and long-term plans for preparing for the nationwide public
safety broadband network.
63
RecoveRy
Mission Area Overview
Highlights
Federal agencies are improving
their ability to support recovery
under the National Disaster
Recovery Framework, but staff
awareness and abilities for
conducting collateral duties
remain challenges. (p. 67)
The Housing and Infrastructure
Systems core capabilities have
experienced limited progress
and remain national areas for
improvement. (p. 69, 71)
The Federal Government
modernized its process for
reviewing environmental and
historic preservation requirements
for large-scale projects addressing
infrastructure recovery. (p. 72)
Whole community partners are
developing new informationsharing tools to support
community recovery. (p. 74)
Focused on a timely
restoration, strengthening,
and revitalization of the
infrastructure; housing; a
sustainable economy; and the
health, social, cultural, historic,
and environmental fabric of
communities affected by a
catastrophic incident
Frameworks
in Action
The National Disaster Recovery
Framework (the Recovery
Framework) identifies the process
for jurisdictions affected by disaster to achieve
effective and timely recovery. The Recovery
Framework includes 90 pre- and post-disaster activities. Nine core principles
guide the Recovery Framework. These principles are: individual and family
empowerment; leadership and local primacy; pre-disaster recovery planning;
partnerships and inclusiveness; public information; unity of effort; timeliness
and flexibility; resilience and sustainability; and psychological and emotional
recovery.
Colorado adopted three core principles from the Recovery Framework—predisaster recovery planning; resilience and sustainability; and psychological
and emotional recovery—to successfully recover from historic flooding that
occurred in September 2013. Approximately 17 inches of rainfall resulted
in the most severe flooding disaster in decades for the central and eastern
regions of Colorado. Despite the extensive scale and scope of the damage,
local officials were prepared to manage the disaster recovery effort. Prior to
the flood, Colorado had developed a statewide Disaster Recovery Framework
that pre-identified 13 recovery functions along with the state agencies that
coordinated each function. This planning effort—modeled after the Recovery
Framework—identified stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities, and shortand long-term recovery strategies. When the disaster occurred, state agencies
were able to coordinate quickly with Federal and local counterparts to
implement recovery support in the field.
Core Capabilities
in the Recovery
Mission Area
64
Economic Recovery
Health and Social Services
Housing
Infrastructure Systems
Natural and Cultural Resources
Operational Coordination
Planning
Public Information and Warning
Recovery
Colorado’s recovery efforts also emphasized the Recovery Framework’s core principle of resilience and sustainability.
The Colorado Recovery Support Strategy—developed by Federal, state, and local partners—included hazard mitigation
activities to help local communities become more resilient to future disasters. These longer-term activities included
floodplain management, riverbank realignment, and resilient infrastructure and housing construction.
The psychological and emotional recovery core principle has appeared since the beginning of Colorado’s recovery
activities. The 2013 flood damaged more than 17,000 homes and affected thousands of livelihoods. Recognizing that
disasters have more than physical consequences, Colorado officials, with support from FEMA and HHS’s Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), provided counseling and disaster case-management
programs to address the mental health needs of affected communities. For example, Colorado and SAMHSA activated
disaster-related distress helplines that provided immediate crisis counseling to survivors. In Boulder County, the local
flood-recovery group distributed a bilingual resource guide to survivors on flood recovery that highlighted available
mental health services and resources. For individuals with financial limitations, the group implemented a voucher program
to help flood survivors receive mental health and counseling services. By summer 2014, the group distributed more than
200 vouchers to families and individuals in the community. These core recovery principles are helping to facilitate a
lasting, holistic recovery for the affected communities.
By the Numbers
Resilience
Innovations
$80
In 2014, the U.S. Department of
Commerce’s (DOC’s) Economic
Development Administration (EDA)
invested nearly $80 million for
economic-development activities
related to recovery and resilience.
6,248
In fiscal year 2014, SBA approved
6,248 loans totaling $333 million to
help businesses, homeowners, and
renters recover from disasters.
million
loans
930
museums
and
collections
institutions
FEMA, HHS, and the DHS Coastal Hazards Center of
Excellence collaborated with the University of North
Carolina to develop a tool that tracks disaster recovery
progress based on 79 metrics.
EPA added an improved user interface and other features to
I-WASTE, a secure web-based tool that helps communities
manage waste resulting from natural and manmade
disasters, including chemical, biological, radiological, and
nuclear incidents.
DoD developed the Tactical Dynamic Operational Guided
Sampling tool, which reduces the time required to
characterize a hazard area and recover from a biological
event in an urban area by mapping data from sampling
teams and tracking laboratory results in near real time.
From 2007 to 2014, the Western States
and Territories Preservation Assistance
Service helped 930 museums and
collections institutions develop
disaster preparedness and recovery
plans.
USGS developed new tools to assess disaster consequences
and facilitate recovery and rebuilding strategies along
coastal communities, including developing monitoring
networks for storm surge, tracking contaminant dispersion,
and determining the impacts of wetland inundation.
65
Recovery
Whole Community Accomplishments
Rockefeller Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation selected six additional U.S. cities—Boston,
Chicago, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Tulsa, and St. Louis—to join its 100 Resilient Cities Challenge, an
initiative aimed at making major cities more resilient and better able to recover from disasters. The
foundation provides support to selected cities to create a strategic plan, develop local leadership, and
access innovative tools and networks.
American Red Cross
After the March 2014 mudslide tore through a neighborhood in
Snohomish County, Washington, the American Red Cross deployed more than 500 volunteers,
opened emergency shelters, and provided food and other assistance to survivors. The American
Red Cross has pledged hundreds of thousands of dollars for emergency relief, recovery support,
and preparedness efforts in the affected communities—including funds for local nonprofit
organizations. This funding is supporting mental health services; a food bank; repairs to the
damaged community center; an emergency preparedness program for local schools; and casework
efforts to assist survivors with health and social services, and housing.
Libraries, Museums, and Other Collections Institutions
Over 4,300 cultural and civic
institutions have used dPlan—an online toolkit for disaster planning supported by the Institute of
Museum and Library Services—to create emergency preparedness and recovery plans.
State Perspectives on Preparedness
2014 State Preparedness Report Results
States and territories reported some
of the lowest levels of capability in
the Recovery mission area. Economic
Recovery, Housing, and Natural and
Cultural Resources were among the
bottom-five of all 31 core capabilities.
Twenty-one states and territories
reported not having complete or upto-date plans for any Recovery core
capability. Seven states and territories
do not have a plan or annexes for
Housing and Natural and Cultural
Resources.
Fourteen states and territories
reported that they have not exercised
the Housing core capability in the past
five years and 15 states and territories
have not exercised the Natural and
Cultural Resources core capability in
the same timeframe.
Assessment of Current Capability by Mission Area
Response
Prevention
25%
30%
29%
41%
0%
35%
31%
35%
Recovery
42%
32%
27%
Protection
44%
33%
23%
Mitigation
50%
29%
22%
50%
75%
100%
Percentage of Total Ratings Based on 5-point Scale (5 = Highest Rating)
Rating = 1 or 2
Rating = 3
Rating = 4 or 5
Notes: The chart and statements do not include contributions from the
three common core capabilities—Planning, Operational Coordination, and
Public Information and Warning. Due to rounding, some percentages may
total slightly more or slightly less than 100 percent.
66
Recovery Mission Area
KEy FindingS
Federal agencies have yet to adequately familiarize their personnel on the Recovery Framework,
but some are taking steps to address challenges in coordinating and delivering recovery support.
The Recovery Framework seeks to optimally engage existing Federal resources and authorities to better assist disasteraffected communities. In practice, this centers on how Federal agencies can adapt, pivot, and apply their existing
programmatic resources (e.g., funding, technical assistance, staff time) for disaster recovery, which in turn relies on the
ability of their personnel to facilitate these transitions effectively.
An initial challenge is familiarizing personnel with the
roles, responsibilities, and coordinating mechanisms of
the Recovery Framework. Without this awareness, staff
assigned to coordinate multi-agency efforts may struggle
to comprehend the full scope of their mission and only
consider solutions from the perspective of their specific
agency’s equities and not those of other organizations.
Moreover, shifting personnel from daily operations to
support recovery operations may require agencies to
identify agency-specific competencies for recovery,
which can be challenging due to the inherent variability of
disasters. The absence of identified competencies hinders
the ability to pre-identify appropriate staff, even in cases
in which doing so would be beneficial. For example,
agencies such as FEMA, USACE, DOC, SBA, and USDA
currently rely on existing permanent staff at the regionalor district-level to support long-term recovery. However,
these staff members possess uneven levels of awareness and experience in supporting and applying their resources for
disaster recovery. Without personnel adequately prepared with a working knowledge of the Recovery Framework and
capable of conducting specific collateral duties, agencies limit their ability to plan ahead and risk exacerbating disruptions
to daily operations while supporting recovery operations.
This issue becomes particularly pronounced when staff members are called to perform key leadership positions as a
Recovery Support Function coordinating agency. A recent recovery-focused exercise highlighted a distinct advantage
of staff that had prior experience and expertise in leading and coordinating recovery activities. This observation further
impresses the need among Recovery Support Function coordinating agencies to investigate steps to ensure staff leading
recovery activities are effectively prepared to fully implement recovery missions and engage the whole community.
Federal agencies are continuing to familiarize staff that serve key coordinating roles with the Recovery Framework and
are exploring flexibility within their programs to better support recovery activities when needed. Examples include the
following:
SBA formally established a Disaster Preparedness and Operations Team in 2014 to provide training for district offices,
as well as connections to trained, headquarters-based personnel to help communities with the multifaceted recovery of
67
Recovery
small businesses affected by disaster. This is distinct from SBA’s longstanding reserve force, which is maintained by
the Office of Disaster Assistance and is trained specifically to provide disaster assistance loans (often a key first step in
homeowner and small business recovery).
In 2014, USACE developed and delivered training to all USACE field coordinators on their roles, responsibilities, and
associated tasks during a recovery deployment.
DOC is developing a cadre of trained professionals based on its executive development and professional development
programs.
The National Weather Service trained its first cadre of hydrologists to provide meteorological and hydrological
expertise in support of landscape recovery following wildfires, and dispatched these specialists to support several
incidents in 2014.
HHS has five permanent, headquarters-based coordinators who can provide guidance and direction remotely, but who
are also pre-designated to deploy to assigned geographic regions to staff Health and Social Services Recovery Support
Function activations, if necessary.
FEMA trained and appointed permanent Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinators in all 10 of its regional offices in
2014, establishing a permanent recovery support network nationwide for the first time.
Despite these advances, effectively managing staff resources to pivot from daily operations to long-term recovery
operations for a major disaster remains a challenge.
The Federal Government developed new guidance and policies to more effectively define and
deliver recovery support, but a major recovery exercise identified several remaining areas for
improvement.
The Federal Government made progress throughout 2014 in formalizing coordinating structures and internal guidance
to help communities recover from disasters. In February 2014, Federal agencies approved a charter for the Recovery
Support Function Leadership Group, the senior-level entity that coordinates responsibilities and resolves operational,
resource, and preparedness issues relating to interagency recovery activities at a national level. The charter formalized
recovery coordinating processes and designated lead officials from each agency to streamline the group’s decision-making
authority. In addition, HHS released two concepts of operations for disaster behavioral health and human services in
2014. These documents provide detailed guidance on how agencies will work together to support state and local recovery
efforts.
In 2014, FEMA also revised formal guidance on the timeframes for mission assignments to more accurately reflect the
longer operational periods typically needed for recovery. FEMA uses mission assignments to reimburse other Federal
agencies for supporting disaster response and recovery activities during a presidentially declared disaster. The new
guidelines extend the timeframe necessary to complete mission assignments to up to two years, permitting agencies
to undertake longer-term recovery support activities more easily. FEMA also updated its Donated Resources Policy in
2014 for Public Assistance Emergency Work, significantly expanding the resources that count toward the requirement
for grant recipients to match up to 25 percent of grant dollars by allowing donated resources and services from voluntary
organizations to be included.
Although post-incident activations of Recovery Support Functions continue to be the primary manner in which state
and local leaders practically apply the principles in the Recovery Framework, Federal efforts to familiarize states with
the Recovery Framework are expanding. FEMA redesigned the format for its National Disaster Recovery Framework
Leadership Workshop to convene local-, state-, and regional-level Federal staff in a collaborative, seminar-style learning
environment. Two of the 10 FEMA Regions held the workshop in 2014. Additionally, six states received briefings from
FEMA on the Recovery Framework in 2014. Other training resources targeting state, local, tribal, and territorial levels
68
Recovery
include two courses offered by the Emergency Management Institute to better prepare state and local recovery planners.
While training efforts focused on the Recovery Framework have expanded, limited technical assistance exists to help state
and local jurisdictions address recovery planning and capability gaps.
Silver Phoenix, a participant-led tabletop exercise that was part of the National Exercise Program Capstone Exercise
2014 series, helped Federal partners identify several ways to strengthen recovery support. For example, Health and Social
Services Recovery Support Function agencies prioritized activities for maintaining services to displaced populations and
re-establishing critical health and social services facilities. The exercise also highlighted additional Federal programs that
might be beneficial for recovery, prompting a discussion of pre-disaster coordination. Additional coordination challenges
identified during Silver Phoenix include using supplemental appropriations efficiently and effectively in tandem with
existing budgets and authorities, and improving collaboration among all levels of government to accurately share
information on ongoing recovery operations.
Structural challenges have prevented the whole community from making more progress in
comprehensively addressing housing needs of disaster survivors.
Disaster housing has been an acknowledged area for improvement since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. While performance
has improved since then, Hurricane Ike in 2008 revealed continued coordination difficulties, and a specific
recommendation from the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force four years later indicate that room for progress
remains. As outlined in Table 4, numerous structural challenges continue to hinder the ability of whole community
partners to fully address the housing needs of disaster survivors from response through long-term recovery.
Challenge
Description
Transitions across
housing phases
A variety of Federal agencies and whole community partners lead distinct phases in housing
recovery, but transitions between these phases and their associated programs are not well defined.
The American Red Cross and other nonprofit organizations often provide immediate sheltering
assistance prior to the arrival of Federal support. If needed and requested by a state, FEMA’s
Transitional Shelter Assistance Program can provide support between temporary shelter and interim
housing. Once authorized, FEMA can also provide temporary housing to eligible individuals and
households for up to 18 months, which can be extended under extraordinary circumstances. After
this period, displaced individuals must find long-term housing solutions, which may take many years
to fully address, due to obstacles such as a lack of affordable rental units.
Funding variability
HUD uses supplemental funds that Congress approves as needed for the Community Development
Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program to support disaster housing. The approval processes and
disbursement of these funds can unfold over several years, and the amount of supplemental funds
can vary greatly from one disaster to the next. These funds do not always address the full range
of housing needs, which sometimes require disaster survivors to seek further support from other
programs or resources.
Influence of early
decisions
Given the complex legal, administrative, and logistical requirements of different housing options,
decisions made in early phases of a disaster response can affect available housing options in
subsequent phases. As a result, some housing solutions may not be viable in later stages.
State capabilities,
resources, and
competing priorities
Many states lack the resources and expertise necessary to manage and implement a large-scale
disaster housing operation, particularly one that stretches over a long period. State leaders may
also have other recovery priorities, limiting resources for federally recommended planning and
assessment efforts after a disaster. For example, some states do not appoint state-led disaster
housing task forces to coordinate state, Federal, and private-sector efforts.
Table 4. Structural issues impede progress in meeting housing needs of disaster survivors.
69
Recovery
Reflecting these challenges, 2014 State
Preparedness Report results indicate that the
Housing core capability remains among the
lowest-scoring core capabilities for the fourth
year in a row. Only 26 percent of responses
fell into the top-two rating categories (i.e., a
4 or 5). Sixty percent of states and territories
reported low levels of training for the Housing
core capability (see Figure 11). In addition,
more than half of responses from states and
territories identified addressing housing
shortages (57 percent), conducting housing
assessments (57 percent), and rehabilitating
damaged housing (52 percent) as remaining
gaps for the Housing core capability. Fortytwo percent of states and territories believed
that the responsibility for addressing remaining
capability gaps in Housing was mostly or
entirely Federal, which was second-highest
among all 31 core capabilities.
States and Territories Rating Their Level of Training
at or below 40 Percent of Their Estimated Requirements
Housing Core Capability
Average of All Core Capabilities
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Percentage of States and Territories
Figure 11. More than twice as many states and territories reported
low levels of training proficiency for Housing than the average for all
31 core capabilities.
Federal efforts to address persistent gaps in disaster housing have been modest. Limited formal training courses in disaster
housing exist for state and local officials. To date, the most comprehensive disaster housing guidance available is the
Catastrophic Housing Annex to the 2012 Federal Interagency Operational Plan – Hurricane. FEMA began updating
the annex in 2014 so that whole community partners could apply the processes, options, and programs it describes to
other hazards. FEMA also developed templates to assist states in creating state-level housing plans and disaster housing
strategies. These documents help states identify key information, such as building codes or zoning laws, that Federal
agencies need from states to develop housing assistance options. In August 2013, the Sandy Rebuilding Task Force
directed Federal agencies involved in disaster housing to provide new policy recommendations for improving disaster
housing coordination from response through long-term recovery. These efforts are still in progress.
Preparedness Case Study:
Disaster Housing Prototype for Urban Areas
Limited housing stock and land availability can
complicate the provision of post-disaster housing
for survivors in large metropolitan areas. A New York
City pilot program of a new manufactured home
design addresses disaster housing limitations in
densely populated urban areas. The prototype can
accommodate several families in a single, multi-story
building. USACE provided support for the assembly of
the prototype in Brooklyn, New York, in April 2014 and
will leave it in place for one year to learn more about
the logistical and administrative challenges of rapidly
deploying manufactured housing units inside the city.
70
Recovery
Limited investment capacity among the whole community hinders progress in strengthening the
resilience of the Nation’s infrastructure systems.
The ability of communities to recover quickly from a disaster depends, in part, on the resilience of their critical
infrastructure, particularly lifeline sectors such as transportation and drinking water systems. Recent assessments identify
significant investment demands to maintain and improve these systems:
In February 2015, DOT publicly released
a draft of Beyond Traffic: Trends and
Choices 2045, which notes that current
public revenues to support transportation
are insufficient to address the rising costs
of maintaining existing infrastructure
and adding new capacity to meet future
transportation needs.
In 2013, EPA’s Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Survey and Assessment reported that
the Nation needs more than $384 billion in
infrastructure projects from 2011 to 2030
for water systems to continue to provide safe
drinking water to the public.
The 2013 Report Card for America’s
Infrastructure, the latest installment of a
national assessment of infrastructure that
the American Society of Civil Engineers
publishes every four years, gave the
Nation’s transportation and drinking-water
infrastructure “Mediocre” and “Poor” ratings,
respectively.
The Federal Government has a difficult
challenge in prioritizing and optimizing limited
public resources to bolster infrastructure
capacity. The costs to repair or replace largescale infrastructure typically exceed the capacity
of any one stakeholder. For example, DOT estimates that an annual investment of between $85 and $177 billion is
necessary to strengthen the Nation’s transportation sector; the low end of the range would prevent further degradation
of the infrastructure, but would result in little or no improvement. Improvement would require investments closer to the
upper estimate.
Federal partners are exploring public-private partnerships and innovative monitoring capabilities to help increase the
resilience of infrastructure. In September 2014, the White House hosted the Infrastructure Investment Summit to advance
public-private partnerships. The summit brought together over 100 government and private-sector leaders who announced
their intent to commit more than $50 billion for U.S. infrastructure over the next five years. Additionally, NIST showcased
innovative infrastructure-monitoring technologies from academia and the private sector in March 2014. Examples
included self-powering, wireless sensors that continuously monitor bridge integrity, and unmanned aircraft systems that
provide high-quality structural surveillance. Through improvements in monitoring infrastructure, the whole community
can better identify and prioritize needed maintenance and repairs and make more efficient use of resources.
71
Recovery
The Federal Government has established new approaches to coordinate large-scale infrastructure
recovery projects and modernize Federal review processes.
In 2014, the Federal Government pioneered
a new approach for managing large-scale
infrastructure projects in the Sandy-affected
region by establishing the Sandy Regional
Infrastructure Resilience Coordination Group
(Coordination Group). This group is enhancing
regional resilience by coordinating more
than $18 billion in Federal infrastructure
investments appropriated under the Disaster
Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 across more
than 400 projects. To help manage this effort,
the Coordination Group created a repository
of key information on these projects in order to
promote interagency information sharing. The
Coordination Group has used this information to
map and identify all projects taking place within
particular geographic areas (see Figure 12) and
enhance coordination of Federal support and
funding. The group also established 10 Technical
Coordination Teams of local, state, and Federal
officials to facilitate planning, development,
and implementation of planned and proposed
infrastructure
projects
in
the
affected
jurisdictions. The teams’ success in improving
interagency coordination led the Sandy Recovery
Office to develop a charter for each team that
formalizes its structure and approach, including
tools for future large-scale infrastructure
recovery and resilience efforts.
Figure 12. The Sandy Regional Infrastructure Resilience Coordination
Group assigns project numbers and color markings to distinguish among
the numerous infrastructure projects it monitors in the New York City area.
Federal initiatives are also updating the
permitting and compliance review process
for disaster recovery projects. Large-scale
interagency infrastructure projects can face
complex legal reviews to ensure compliance
with environmental and historic preservation
requirements from multiple Federal agencies.
During this process, different agencies may need
to review the same data, leading to duplication
of effort and project delays. In July 2014, 11
Federal agencies approved the Unified Federal Review process to streamline environmental and historic preservation
reviews for disaster recovery projects. FEMA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implemented an early version of
the Unified Federal Review process in New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy. In just 90 days, the two agencies identified 825
project actions that met existing multi-jurisdictional environmental requirements, providing a quick and efficient review of
important recovery projects for New Jersey.
72
Recovery
Hurricane Sandy: The First Large-scale Implementation of the Recovery Framework
Congress appropriated more than $47 billion to 19 Federal
agencies across more than 65 programs.
Appropriated by Agency (Top-8 Federal Agencies) $ Millions
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Department of Homeland Security/FEMA
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Small Business Administration
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Other agencies
Number of Recommendations
Of the 69 recommendations
in the Hurricane Sandy
Rebuilding Strategy, 53 (77
percent) are complete, and
16 are in progress, many
of which are long-term by
design.
25
$11,468M
$5,081M
$787M
$764M
$760M
$577M
$932M
The Sandy Program Management Office served as
a centralized source of information on the status
of Hurricane Sandy recovery funding. The office
developed a new toolkit—including guidance on
interagency tracking—to help agencies adapt key
functions for future large-scale disasters and crossagency supplemental appropriations.
2
15
10
Completed
In Progress
19
5
5
Rebuilding
Rebuilding
Strategy
Strategy
Goals
Goals
$12,417M
Status of Sandy Rebuilding Strategy Recommendations
(as of January 2015)
3
20
0
$15,200M
3
14
4
4
2
Supporting Small
Restoring and
Ensuring a
Promoting Resilient
Businesses and
Strengthening
Regionally
Rebuilding through
Revitalizing Local
Homes and
Coordinated,
Innovative Ideas
Economies
and a Thorough Resilient Approach Providing Families
with Safe,
Understanding of to Infrastructure
Affordable Housing
Investment
Current and Future
Options
Risk
73
2
5
4
Building State and Improving Data
Addressing
Local Capacity to Sharing between
Insurance
Federal, State, and
Plan for and
Challenges,
Local Officials
Understanding, Implement Longand Affordability term Recovery and
Rebuilding
2
Program
Management
Office
Recovery
Federal agencies and nongovernmental organizations are developing new information-sharing
resources and improving existing systems to facilitate state and local recovery efforts.
Federal and nongovernmental organizations are collaborating to develop new information-sharing resources for recovery
efforts. Examples of such innovations include the following:
Disaster Assessment and Assistance Dashboard: An online platform for citizens, businesses, and governments to
map nearby environmental hazards, share resources, and access a marketplace of local resources and services that state
and local governments can hire to promote local economic recovery while rebuilding after a disaster.
American Red Cross’s Coordinated Assistance Network: A cloud-based case-management system that enables the
American Red Cross and its partners to share information and better coordinate delivery of recovery resources.
Economic Resilience Planning Evaluation Tool: EDA and FEMA created a tool, first piloted in Colorado following
the 2013 floods, to help economic development professionals better determine and define economic resilience
activities in practice.
Recognizing the increasing number of
these information resources, the Federal
Government is also working to consolidate
information on Federal recovery assistance
in a more publicly accessible and userfriendly format. The U.S. Drought Portal
contains a list of drought recovery resources
available from eight separate Federal
departments and agencies. As of December
2014, the portal had received approximately
280,000 visits. Similarly, EDA supported the
development of RestoreYourEconomy.org, a
website that consolidates economic recovery
resources, technical assistance, and training
into one site for use by local officials and
economic recovery professionals.
Mission Area
Connections
Response
Recovery
Disaster Assessment and
Assistance Dashboard
Response
Presents real-time mapping of disaster relief locations and requests for assistance
Provides status updates on roadways
Displays information on hospitals, shelters, and other support facilities
Recovery
Allows citizens, businesses, and governments to share information on Federal aid and how to reopen
businesses
Lists job-seekers local to disaster-affected areas available for hire
74
Recovery
Preparedness Case Study:
Santa Clara Pueblo and the Recovery Framework
In the last decade, wildfires have destroyed over 80 percent of the Santa Clara Pueblo tribe’s forest land. One
consequence has been an increased susceptibility to flooding, with five major disaster declarations occurring in the last
four years. A July 2013 flood resulted in the most damage, destroying four dams in the Santa Clara Canyon and causing
some areas of the Santa Clara Creek to widen nearly ten-fold.
To meet recovery needs, the Santa Clara Pueblo became the first tribe to request and receive direct Federal support
under the National Disaster Recovery Framework in September 2013. However, the Santa Clara Pueblo faced several
challenges in their recovery efforts. Small staff size required tribal officials to serve multiple roles. For example, the
sheriff for the tribe also served as the Tribal Coordinating Officer and the Tribal Disaster Recovery Coordinator. The
Pueblo also encountered difficulties satisfying Federal cost-sharing requirements associated with obtaining disaster
grants. In addition, standard methods of relocating individuals from flood-prone areas were not viable options, as
reservation boundaries are not easily adjusted, and Pueblo people have strong cultural ties to the land on which they
reside.
The Recovery Framework served as an effective mechanism for coordinating and planning the tribe’s disaster recovery
efforts. The Tribal Disaster Recovery Coordinator and Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator facilitated the creation
of a Recovery Support Strategy through an existing working group composed of tribal, state, and Federal officials. The
strategy enabled the Pueblo to identify critical recovery priorities, secure commitments of Federal resources through
the activation of Recovery Support Functions and issuing of Mission Assignments, and provide a timeline for monitoring
recovery progress. Moreover, the Federal Coordinating Officer facilitated a consultation between Pueblo leadership,
the FEMA Regional Administrator, and state officials that resulted in reduced cost-sharing requirements, enabling
high-priority recovery projects to proceed.
A major part of the recovery effort was the tribe’s collaboration with Federal agencies, the State of New Mexico, and
the philanthropic community to repair and upgrade an early-warning system for floods. The 2013 floods destroyed the
system, along with four dams. The Bureau of Indian Affairs offered a portion of Federal funding, and USGS provided
technical assistance and updated technology for real-time remote monitoring and automated, community-wide alerts.
The tribe received additional financial support from New Mexico and a philanthropic foundation. This effective whole
community collaboration enabled the tribe to install an upgraded early-warning system prior to the summer 2014
monsoon season.
75
Conclusion
The 2015 National Preparedness Report provides evidence of
the progress that the Nation has made in strengthening national
preparedness and identifies remaining areas for improvement.
Real-world events, exercises, and assessments highlighted the
continued maturation of the National Preparedness System over
the past year. The report identified three new core capabilities—
Environmental Response/Health and Safety, Intelligence and
Information Sharing, and Operational Coordination—as meeting
acceptable levels of performance but requiring sustained effort
to maintain capability and meet emerging challenges. These
capabilities join five others from the 2014 report that future
National Preparedness Reports will revisit to determine if they are
still meeting performance goals.
The 2015 National Preparedness Report also highlights key
preparedness challenges remaining for the Nation. Three
core capabilities—Cybersecurity, Housing, and Infrastructure
Systems—have persisted as areas for improvement across all four
National Preparedness Reports. A fourth core capability, Longterm Vulnerability Reduction, repeats as an area for improvement
from last year, due in part to questions surrounding the longterm solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program and
nascent national efforts for climate change adaptation and green
infrastructure. Preparedness data further revealed that the Federal Government, states, and territories are also struggling
to build capacity for the Access Control and Identity Verification and Economic Recovery core capabilities. These areas
for improvement are a reminder that preparedness gains are gradual and that solutions to complex challenges will not
materialize without sustained support from the whole community.
In addition, the 2015 National Preparedness Report identifies four overarching findings with national implications.
First, recent events—such as the epidemic of Ebola virus disease and the increase in arrivals of unaccompanied children
crossing the U.S.-Mexico border—highlighted response and recovery coordination challenges for complex incidents
that do not receive a Stafford Act declaration. Second, businesses and public-private partnerships are increasingly
incorporating emergency preparedness into technology platforms. Third, the report found that the Federal Government
lacks a mechanism to comprehensively assess the status of corrective actions for high-priority issues with broad
implications across multiple Federal agencies, as identified in large-scale exercises and real-world incidents. Finally, states
and territories reported current levels of preparedness similar to previous years.
The 2015 National Preparedness Report also marks the start of a multiyear analytic agenda, which is based on five issues introduced in the
2014 report:
Studying resilience efforts over a multi-year period to better
understand the return on investment for mitigation and recovery
initiatives;
76
Multi-year analytic agenda: A set of
issues identified in previous National
Preparedness Reports as requiring longterm examination to inform the Nation’s
overall understanding of preparedness
Conclusion
Examining in greater depth the concepts of capability maturity and
long-term sustainment, including identifying inputs to help assess
maturity, track capability assets from year to year, and better understand
the relative contributions of whole community partners;
Exploring how dynamic elements within the preparedness
environment—including emerging technology, climate change, aging
infrastructure, and legal and policy updates—positively and negatively
affect prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery
initiatives;
Partnering with Federal Government and whole community
stakeholders to measure performance in the core capabilities more
effectively based on the new National Planning Frameworks and
Federal Interagency Operational Plans to explore complementary
approaches for visualizing this information; and
Examining security and resilience efforts that address the
interconnected nature of cyber and physical infrastructure,
including interdependencies across sectors.
These issues informed research topics and findings in the 2015 National
Preparedness Report. Future reports will use the analytic agenda to track
trends in capability over time, support resource-allocation strategies, and
enrich the Nation’s overall understanding of preparedness.
2015 National Preparedness Report Analytic Agenda
Resilience efforts over a multi-year period
Federal agencies are expanding initiatives piloted through
Hurricane Sandy recovery efforts to increase resilience across the
Nation.
The Sandy Regional Infrastructure Resilience Coordination Group
is coordinating more than $18 billion in Federal infrastructure
investments across more than 400 projects.
Capability maturity and long-term sustainment
The Federal Government faces challenges in systematically assessing the
implementation of corrective actions from real-world incidents and large-scale
exercises.
This year’s report applied selection criteria for identifying capabilities to sustain;
criteria included assessments of current preparedness, future trends and drivers
influencing preparedness, and other preparedness indicators.
77
Conclusion
Dynamic elements within the preparedness
environment
Law enforcement strengthened community-based programs to
combat violent extremism in response to evolving threats at home
and abroad.
As of October 2014, 38 Federal agencies had updated their climate
change adaptation plans.
Measurement of performance based on the Frameworks and
Federal Interagency Operational Plans
The 2015 National Preparedness Report organized key findings by the National
Planning Frameworks and linked preparedness data to critical tasks to assess
performance.
Interconnected nature of cyber
and physical infrastructure
DHS increased engagement across the Federal Government and the
private sector to support the response to cyber attacks against critical
infrastructure.
Federal agencies and Sandia National Laboratories are completing
the Smart Power Infrastructure Demonstration for Energy Reliability
and Security project to allow military bases to continue operating
even when the external power grid is disrupted.
78
acronym List
ACF
ASPR
CBP
CDC
DHS
DNDO
DOC
DoD
DOE
DOI
DOJ
DOT
EDA
EPA
FAA
FBI
FCC
FDA
FEMA
GAO
HHS
HUD
IPAWS
NIST
NOAA
NRC
OHA
SAMHSA
SBA
TSA
USCG
USACE
USAID
USDA
USGS
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Economic Development Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Communications Commission
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Government Accountability Office
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Health Affairs
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services
U.S. Small Business Administration
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Agency for International Development
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Geological Survey
79
Appendix A:
GrAnt CAse studies
In 2014, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) completed a series of grant case studies to demonstrate
how states and urban areas across the country have used Federal homeland security grants to improve preparedness.
FEMA partnered with stakeholders to develop case studies in Washington, Colorado, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Illinois,
as well as Houston, Texas. FEMA chose these locations to account for a mix of homeland security non-disaster grant
programs, ensure geographical diversity, and link grant investments with recent events.
Washington: At a Glance
Since 2006, Washington has received nearly $469 million in preparedness grant funding. Washington implemented a
regional approach to managing homeland security investments and improving preparedness. Regions are organized by
threats, hazards, and population, and the regional approach provides planning and coordination support for the all-hazards
environment. Washington’s investment in the Northwest Regional Aviation unit demonstrates the value of the regional
approach.
Northwest Regional Aviation Unit
Four Washington regions created the Northwest Regional
Aviation Unit in response to the 1999 arrest of an al-Qaeda
operative at a Puget Sound port and the 9/11 attacks. The air unit
protects regional critical assets and provides search and rescue
capabilities to the Puget Sound area. Regional partners used grant
funds to purchase two helicopters and train aviation crews. They
upgraded equipment through the addition of high-tech video and
map interfaces, and integrated law enforcement communications
systems. Local governments provided supplemental funding to
support the unit’s staff, maintenance, and operations.
In March 2014, when a major mudslide engulfed a rural
neighborhood in Snohomish County, the Northwest Regional
Aviation Unit was the most effective asset for spotting and
rescuing survivors in thick, unstable mud up to 75 feet deep. The
unit saved 16 people in the first three hours of the response
From 2007–2011, Washington invested $7.4 million of
funding from the State Homeland Security Program, Urban
Areas Security Initiative, and Port Security Grant Program
to support the Northwest Regional Aviation Unit.
Colorado: At a Glance
Colorado has received over $180 million in Federal homeland security grants since 2006. Colorado’s emergency
preparedness initiatives target terrorism prevention and all-hazards disaster response. The Colorado Information Analysis
Center plays a critical role in coordinating information sharing and ensuring public safety throughout the state.
Colorado Information Analysis Center
The Colorado Information Analysis Center serves as Colorado’s analytic hub for all hazards. The center conducts
interstate and intrastate information sharing that assists in investigations. The center and law enforcement partners
80
Appendix A
established an intelligence cell in the immediate aftermath of the 2012 Aurora theater shooting. The cell searched for
accomplices and potential follow-on attacks using the agencies’ combined databases, social media, and thousands of
public tips.
In 2013, after the assassination of a Colorado Cabinet member, the Colorado Information Analysis Center partnered
with the Texas Department of Public Safety Fusion Center to support a criminal manhunt. The Colorado Information
Analysis Center distributed a request for information with a description of the suspect’s car. Two days later, the Texas
Fusion Center reported that a suspect driving a similar car had shot a Texas corrections officer. Through the fusion center,
the Colorado Information Analysis Center located the assassin and enabled his arrest, along with the arrest of other
individuals planning future assassinations.
Oklahoma: At a Glance
Between 2006 and 2013, Oklahoma received over $146 million in preparedness grant funding. Oklahoma faces a
diverse set of threats and hazards, including tornados, wildfires, ice storms, and floods. The Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building bombing in 1995 also influenced the state’s grant investment strategy. In an effort to protect Oklahoma’s
geographically dispersed population with limited emergency management resources, the state developed the Regional
Response System.
Regional Response System
Since 2006, Oklahoma has supported the Regional Response
System through $35 million of funding from the State
Homeland Security Program, Urban Areas Security Initiative,
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Grant Program, and
Metropolitan Medical Response System Grant Program.
Oklahoma has strategically placed Regional Response System
assets, including equipment and 117 specialized teams, to
ensure that response teams arrive on scene for all hazards
within two hours or less in all regions of the state. Investments
include nearly $3.5 million to deliver four training courses (in
hazardous materials, rescue, incident management, and the
National Incident Management System) 1,500 times to over
27,000 responders. Local response organizations maintain
Regional Response System assets and contribute trained
personnel to operate the equipment. The system has responded
to numerous incidents, including tornados, a microburst storm,
and a potential animal disease outbreak.
In May 2013, Regional Response System assets were vital to
response efforts after an EF5 tornado struck the Oklahoma City
metropolitan area. Five Technical Rescue Teams searched for
children at two elementary schools. Thirty-three self-sufficient Regional Emergency Medical Services System units—
equipped with generator power and tower lights—arrived at the destroyed Moore Medical Center within 10 minutes after
the EF5 tornado touched down. During the eight-hour response operation, teams provided generator power to the medical
station, lighting for citizens and responders, and medical supplies for patient treatment and transport.
Louisiana: At a Glance
Since 2005, Louisiana has received over $380 million in Federal homeland security grants. Louisiana’s history of
severe hurricanes and flooding, including Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, has shaped its emergency preparedness
and response initiatives. Since 2005, the state has invested in interoperable communications, partnerships to enhance
disaster response and recovery, and critical infrastructure protection. Through projects such as the Louisiana Wireless
Information Network, Louisiana’s investments of Federal preparedness grants aid in their response to hurricanes and
large-scale incidents.
81
Appendix A
Louisiana Wireless Information Network
The Louisiana Wireless Information Network is a statewide
interoperable public safety communications network that can
link with surrounding states’ networks. The network provides
95-percent geographic area radio coverage to over 70,000 users
across 500 agencies.
The Louisiana Wireless Information Network provides first
responders with interoperable communication capabilities in
dense urban areas. New Orleans regularly hosts large-scale
events and festivals, requiring significant surge communications
capacity. During a large event such as Super Bowl XLVII or
during annual events such as Mardi Gras, the Sugar Bowl, and
the Jazz Festival, New Orleans’ population can surge six-fold to
two million people. Urban Areas Security Initiative investments
in tower sites, microwave relays, remote equipment monitors,
and radio repeaters inside buildings enable comprehensive
wireless coverage. The Louisiana Wireless Information Network
has decreased busy signals experienced by first responders by
over 90 percent, enabling reliable communications capabilities.
Since 2005, Louisiana has invested over $90 million from
grants, including funding from the State Homeland Security
Program, Community Development Block Grant, Public
Safety Interoperable Communications, Interoperable
Communications Emergency Planning Grant, and
Community Oriented Policing Services to support the
Louisiana Wireless Information Network.
The Louisiana Wireless Information Network features multiple
layers of redundancies, providing overall system resiliency during large and complex disasters. During Hurricane Isaac in
2012, the network increased communications capacity and handled twice the call volume compared to during Hurricane
Gustav in 2008.
Illinois: At a Glance
From 2006 through 2013, Illinois received over $1 billion in Federal preparedness grant funding. The state faces a
range of threats and hazards, including tornados, severe winter storms, and floods. Chicago is the Nation’s third-largest
metropolitan area and faces an enduring threat of terrorism. Chicago hosts high-profile public events requiring regional
coordination and planning, such as the Chicago Marathon, the 2012 North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit, and
major music festivals such as Lollapalooza. The Illinois Emergency Management Agency divides the state into eight
regions and provides all regions with access to deployable response teams. Through projects such as the Chicago Fire
Department’s simulation center, Illinois uses grant awards to address important regional needs with information systems,
targeted training, and equipment.
Chicago Fire Department Training and Simulation Center
The Chicago Fire Department’s training and simulation
center serves as a regional resource for all-hazards training.
The center brings together regional partners through
regularly offered training courses to enhance collaboration
during response operations. More than 12 regional partners
train at the center each year, including the U.S. Secret
Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Transportation
Security Administration, O’Hare Airport, and local hospitals.
Training includes courses addressing scenarios for active
shooters, courses on emergency medical services, and other
82
The Chicago Fire Department has used $180,000 in Urban
Areas Security Initiative funding to modernize its training and
simulation center.
Appendix A
training for public safety operations, such as chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive response.
The center’s immersive fire and emergency medical services simulation center contributes to a dramatic increase in
positive emergency medical outcomes. The center trains over 2,000 responders annually on proper techniques and
procedures for emergency medical services. Responders train on state-of-the-art manikins that provide real-time feedback
to students and instructors. Modernized training increased cardiac-arrest survival rates ten-fold. Additionally, successful
first-attempt tracheal intubations increased by 20 percentage points.
Houston, Texas: At a Glance
From 2006 through 2013, the Houston Urban Area received over $455 million in preparedness grants. The Houston
Urban Area Working Group and its standing committees collaboratively govern Urban Areas Security Initiative
preparedness priorities. The Houston Urban Area funds preparedness initiatives based on relevant threat scenarios,
regional risk assessments, and resource gap analysis. Houston used these grant funds to build programs with regional and
national-level impact, including the “Run. Hide. Fight.® Surviving an Active Shooter Event” video.
“Run. Hide. Fight.® Surviving an Active Shooter Event” Video
The “Run. Hide. Fight.® Surviving an Active Shooter Event”
video provides a realistic depiction of an active shooter incident
and clear steps that individuals can take to survive such an
event. The video, which Houston released shortly after the
2012 shooting in Aurora, Colorado, was developed to address
preparedness gaps revealed during a Joint Counterterrorism
Awareness Workshop.
The video was produced and developed with an initial
investment from the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant
Program. The video has been shared with government agencies,
nonprofit organizations, and private-sector entities in the
United States and abroad. FEMA currently uses it to train its
employees.
83
The “Run. Hide. Fight.® Surviving an Active Shooter Event”
video has received millions of views on YouTubeTM.
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | 2015 National Preparedness Report |
| File Modified | 2015-05-27 |
| File Created | 2015-04-28 |