You are on page 1of 94

Nationwide Plan Review

Fiscal Year 2010 Report to Congress


July 15, 2010

Federal Emergency Management Agency


Message from the Administrator
July 15, 2010

I am pleased to present the following report, “Nationwide


Plan Review,” which has been prepared by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pursuant to the
Joint Explanatory Statement and Senate Report 111-31
accompanying the Fiscal Year 2010 Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-83). This report
provides an update to Congress from the 2006 Nationwide
Plan Review.

In working with the states, territories and urban areas during


this review, FEMA found that planning across the Nation is
stronger and more active and addresses a broader range of
topics than in 2006. The 2010 Nationwide Plan Review incorporates more planning components
than the 2006 Review, including a more comprehensive set of functional appendices and hazard-
specific annexes. Additionally, the 2010 Review was guided by new doctrine, Comprehensive
Preparedness Guide 101 (CPG 101), developed by state and local partners to replace State and
Local Guide 101. Incorporating recommendations from the 2006 Review, CPG 101 modernized
planning efforts and established current, mutually accepted doctrine.

Although planning challenges remain, the state of national planning has substantially improved
and much has been accomplished to address the recommendations and findings from the 2006
Review.

Pursuant to congressional requirements, this report is being provided to the following Members
of Congress:

The Honorable David E. Price


Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security

The Honorable Harold Rogers


Ranking Member, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security

The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg


Interim Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security

The Honorable George V. Voinovich


Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security

i
Inquiries relating to this report may be directed to me at (202) 646-3900 or to the Department’s
Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Peggy Sherry, at (202) 447-5751.

Sincerely,

W. Craig Fugate
Administrator
Federal Emergency Management Agency

ii
Executive Summary

Planning across the Nation is stronger and more active and addresses a broader range of topics
than ever before. Over a period of 3 months beginning in January 2010, working with state,
local and territory partners, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a
follow-up to the 2006 Nationwide Plan Review. The 2010 Nationwide Plan Review shows that
planning theory, doctrine and practice are in alignment, planners are taking on the difficult
challenges presented by catastrophic events and, most important, there is a uniformly higher
degree of confidence in planning processes and plans. Although planning challenges remain,
planning has substantially improved and much has been done to address the 2006
recommendations.

The 2010 Nationwide Plan Review addressed an expanded roster of functional appendices and
hazard-specific annexes when compared to the 2006 Review. In 2010, newly strengthened
FEMA Regional staff—federal planners and operators who work with jurisdictions daily—
provided a second set of eyes to examine jurisdictions’ self-assessments, using the same criteria
as the jurisdictions. Unlike 2006, when planners struggled with obsolete planning doctrine, the
process in 2010 employed new doctrine developed by the planning community.

Provide confidence in planning as a Nation. More than 75 percent of states and more than
80 percent of urban areas report confidence that their overall basic emergency operations plans
are well-suited to meet the challenges presented during a large-scale or catastrophic event.
Additionally, both states and urban areas show high degrees of confidence in functional
appendices and growing confidence in newer topic areas, such as prevention/protection and
critical infrastructure/key resource restoration. Hazard-specific annexes follow the same trend,
with higher degrees of confidence where there has been more real-world experience.

Continuously examine plans to improve preparedness. Since the 2006 Review, participants
have worked tirelessly to update and exercise plans. More than 80 percent of states and more
than 75 percent of urban areas have updated their basic plans since the last Review. Most
important, many of these updates occurred in the last 2 years. Additionally, nearly 95 percent of
all states and urban areas have exercised their basic plans since the 2006 Review.

Ensure theory and doctrine is practice. In 2006, the review was guided by the obsolete State
and Local Guide 101 (SLG 101), published in 1996. The Comprehensive Preparedness Guide
101 (CPG 101), published in March 2009, replaced the SLG 101 and guided the 2010 Review.
Developed by state and local planners, CPG 101 modernized planning efforts and established
current, commonly accepted planning doctrine. Though CPG 101 was in use for less than a year,
the near 100-percent correlation of basic plans with the principles and practices of CPG 101 is a
testament to sound doctrine that reflects a consensus of the entire planning community.

Continue to advance national planning efforts. The 2006 Review made 39 recommendations
that addressed different aspects of federal, state and local planning. Three additional findings
were generated as a result of this report. This report documents the significant progress to
address those recommendations.

iii
Know there is more to be done. The Agency’s progress also highlights several remaining
challenges. The Agency must prioritize the delivery of up-to-date training to develop a cohort of
highly skilled planners and support their professional development. Although some progress has
been made toward establishing a national planning system and tools, this effort has slowed to
accommodate the revision of core preparedness policies. Finally, the starting point for planning
is sound threat and hazard identification and risk assessment.

Development of a process that is agreed upon and usable by all levels of government is critical to
successful planning and also would facilitate integrated planning.

This review represents a snapshot of several months in 2010 and reveals accomplishments and
national momentum building on the goals of the 2006 Review. Currently, plans are being
updated, exercises are being conducted and guidance is being refined. This report demonstrates
progress and guides future planning and preparedness activities.

As reported in the 2006 Phase 2 Report, the procedural and technical challenges to modernizing
planning were daunting but not insurmountable. The progress of the review participants shows a
renewed commitment to the value of planning described in the National Response Framework.
Participants demonstrate they can develop new community-wide doctrine, modernize their plans
and processes and adopt new means of collaboration. Although work remains, their progress is
admirable.

iv
Nationwide Plan Review

Table of Contents
I.  Legislative Language ............................................................................................................. 1 

II.  Background ............................................................................................................................ 2 


Approach.............................................................................................................................. 3 
Participating Jurisdictions.................................................................................................... 4 
Data Collection Process ....................................................................................................... 5 
Analysis Process .................................................................................................................. 5 

III.  Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 7 
Overview.............................................................................................................................. 7 
Analysis of Basic Plan ......................................................................................................... 8 
Analysis of Functional Appendices ..................................................................................... 9 
Analysis of Hazard-Specific Annexes ................................................................................. 11 
Comparative Analysis.......................................................................................................... 14 

IV. Progress on 2006 State and Urban Area Findings ................................................................. 21 

V.  Progress on 2006 Federal Findings........................................................................................ 28 

VI. Next Steps .............................................................................................................................. 42 

Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................................. 44 


Appendix B: Distribution Memo ................................................................................................. 46 
Appendix C: Certification Matrices............................................................................................. 50 
Jurisdiction Certification Matrix.......................................................................................... 50 
Regional Certification Matrix .............................................................................................. 52 
Appendix D: References .............................................................................................................. 53 
Appendix E: Self-Assessment Data ............................................................................................. 55 
Basic Plan............................................................................................................................. 56 
Functional Appendices......................................................................................................... 63 
Hazard-Specific Annexes..................................................................................................... 74 

v
Table of Figures
Figure 1: NPR2010 Process ........................................................................................................ 3 
Figure 2: Urban Areas Participating in the 2010 Nationwide Plan Review ............................... 5 
Figure 3: Certification Matrix Data Collection Categories......................................................... 7 
Figure 4: States’ Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents ....................................................... 8 
Figure 5: Urban Areas’ Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents ........................................... 8 
Figure 6: States’ Confidence in Functional Appendices............................................................. 10 
Figure 7: Urban Areas’ Confidence in Functional Appendices.................................................. 10 
Figure 8: Types of Hazards......................................................................................................... 12 
Figure 9: States’ Confidence in Hazard-Specific Annexes......................................................... 13 
Figure 10: Urban Areas’ Confidence in Hazard-Specific Annexes............................................ 13 
Figure 11: Map of States and Urban Areas in the Hurricane Belt .............................................. 15 
Figure 12: Hurricane Belt States’ Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents ........................... 15 
Figure 13: Hurricane Belt Urban Areas’ Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents................. 17 
Figure 14: EMAP-Accredited States and Urban Areas .............................................................. 19 
Figure 15: EMAP-Accredited States’ Confidence in the Basic Plan Subcomponents ............... 19 
Figure 16: EMAP-Accredited States’ Exercising of Basic Plan Subcomponents ...................... 20 

vi
I. Legislative Language

On October 28, 2009, the President signed the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-83). This report is prepared pursuant to the Joint
Explanatory Statement and Senate Report 111-31 accompanying P.L. 111-83.

Specifically, the Joint Explanatory Statement states:

Nationwide Plan Review Update

The conferees direct FEMA to provide an update on the status of catastrophic planning,
including mass evacuation planning, in all 50 States and the 75 largest urban areas, by
April 16, 2010, as discussed in the Senate report.

Senate Report 111-31 states:

NATIONWIDE PLAN REVIEW UPDATE

The Committee directs FEMA to provide an update on the status of catastrophic


planning, including mass evacuation planning, in all 50 States and the 75 largest urban
areas by April 16, 2010. The update should include the same certifications and status of
plans for evacuations included in the Nationwide Plan Review dated June 16, 2006.

1
II. Background
The driving force for the 2006 Nationwide Plan Review (NPR2006) was the Nation’s experience
with the 2005 hurricane season. NPR2006 employed a two-phased approach. During phase 1,
DHS collected and analyzed self-assessments, Emergency Operations Plans (EOPs) and
supporting materials from 131 jurisdictions to determine the status of catastrophic planning.
Phase 2 consisted of onsite visits composed of contracted peer review teams to provide for in-
depth discussion with the participating jurisdictions. All jurisdictions were required to use
FEMA’s State and Local Guide 101 (SLG 101), “Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations
Planning,” as a reference. NPR2006 drew initial conclusions for strengthening plans and
planning processes at the federal, state and local levels of government.

The 39 findings of NPR2006 were reduced to six major observations that highlighted the need
for fundamental planning modernization:
 Catastrophic planning efforts were found to be unsystematic and uneven.
 Rapid homeland security mission expansion and the diversity of risks outpaced planning
and planning actions had outstripped planning documentation.
 Planning processes were outmoded, current tools and guidance were rudimentary and
planning expertise showed insufficiency for catastrophic incidents.
 Collaboration requirements were not well-defined, fostering a tendency to plan internally.
 The prevailing approach to planning emphasized general roles and responsibilities over
detailed procedures for specific hazards, scenarios or thresholds of incidents.
 The feasibility of plans was dependent on resource inventories, databases and resource
tracking mechanisms, all of which were areas of universal weakness.

Building on NPR2006, the 2010 Nationwide Plan Review (NPR2010) provides a snapshot of the
current status of catastrophic planning across a broader footprint of functional areas and hazards.
Catastrophic planning should address:

Any natural or manmade incident, including terrorism, that results in


extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting
the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, national morale and/or
government functions. 1

The five guiding principles for NPR2010 are as follows:


 Strengthen planning while preserving a decentralized initiative

1
National Response Framework, p. 42.

2
 Reinforce the role of states as intergovernmental pivot points 2
 Identify systemic corrections for system-wide problems
 Engage the FEMA Regions to enter into a planning dialogue with jurisdictions
 Identify needed improvements in national preparedness to advance readiness for
catastrophic events

A. Approach
To achieve comparable results, the NPR2010 approach mirrored the process from 2006 in many
ways. For example, the same states and urban areas participated in the NPR2010. Additionally,
a self-assessment process was employed to collect key information. FEMA regional staff
conducted a second-stage review of the submittals, in several cases jointly assessing with the
sites. Although there are many similarities with the NPR2006, the scope of NPR2010 was
expanded to capture additional basic plan subcomponents and functional appendices that align
with Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 (CPG 101) guidance. Hazard-specific annexes
were also reviewed in 2010 to encompass some of the greatest risks facing the Nation.

Although the aforementioned NPR2006 approach produced two separate reports, the streamlined
process employed in NPR2010 resulted in one comprehensive report. NPR2010 examines the
progress in state and local planning since NPR2006 and produces conclusions based on the
evaluation of the self-assessment data.

As depicted in Figure 1, the Nationwide Plan Review package was distributed by FEMA on
January 19, 2010 (see Appendix B), to notify the participating states and urban areas of their
involvement in NPR2010 and to outline the process and requirements for submittal of a self-
assessment package by February 19, 2010. FEMA Regions also received guidance regarding
their role in the process. The participating jurisdictions, data collection process and analysis
process of NPR2010 are described in detail in Figure 1, followed by the 2010 results and
findings.

January 19: February 22:


Memo with Submission April 1:
Instructions and Packages Distributed
Final Draft Report
Tools Released to to Regions and
Due for Routing
Participating Federal Staff for
Jurisdictions Analysis

February 19: April 16:


March 12:
Completed Final 2010
Regional Reviews
Submissions Due Nationwide Plan
and Federal Analysis
from Participating Review Report
Due
Jurisdictions Distributed

Figure 1: NPR2010 Process

2
Tierney, Kathleen J., Michael K. Lindell and Ronald W. Perry, Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and
Response in the United States, Joseph Henry Press, 2001, p. 63: “State government has been described (Durham
and Suiter, 1991) as ‘the pivot in the intergovernmental system . . . in a position to determine the emergency
management needs and capabilities of its political subdivisions and to channel State and Federal resources to local
government.’”

3
B. Participating Jurisdictions
All 50 states, the District of Columbia, the territories 3 and 75 urban areas were required to
participate in NPR2010 as a prerequisite for receipt of FY 2010 DHS Homeland Security grant
funds. The 76 4 participating urban areas remain the same as in 2006, which were selected to
include the 55 FY 2005 Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) program grantees and 20 major
urban areas selected by DHS on the basis of an analysis of 2004 population, risk and need.
Moving forward with the remainder of this report, the 56 states and territories are referred to as
the “States.” The full list of participating urban areas is shown in Figure 2.

Urban Areas Participating in 2010 Nationwide Plan Review

Albany, New York Mesa, Arizona


Albuquerque, New Mexico Miami, Florida
Anaheim, California Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Anchorage, Alaska Minneapolis, Minnesota
Arlington, Texas Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee
Atlanta, Georgia National Capital Region 5
Aurora, Colorado New Haven, Connecticut
Austin, Texas New Orleans, Louisiana
Baltimore, Maryland New York, New York
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Newark, New Jersey
Boston, Massachusetts Oakland, California
Buffalo, New York Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Charlotte, North Carolina Omaha, Nebraska
Chicago, Illinois Orlando, Florida
Cincinnati, Ohio Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Cleveland, Ohio Phoenix, Arizona
Colorado Springs, Colorado Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Columbus, Ohio Portland, Oregon
Corpus Christi, Texas Raleigh, North Carolina
Dallas, Texas Richmond, Virginia
Denver, Colorado Riverside, California
Detroit, Michigan Sacramento, California
El Paso, Texas San Antonio, Texas
Fort Worth, Texas San Diego, California
Fresno, California San Francisco, California
Honolulu, Hawaii San Jose, California
Houston, Texas Santa Ana, California
Indianapolis, Indiana Seattle, Washington
Jacksonville, Florida St. Louis, Missouri
Jersey City, New Jersey St. Paul, Minnesota

3
Territories include: American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
4
NPR2010 includes the same 75 urban areas as NPR2006; however, in NPR2010, the cities of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, and Norfolk, Virginia, submitted separately, creating a total of 76 urban area submittals.
5
Washington, D.C., submitted on behalf of the National Capital Region.

4
Urban Areas Participating in 2010 Nationwide Plan Review
Kansas City, Kansas & Missouri St. Petersburg, Florida
Las Vegas, Nevada Tampa, Florida
Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky Toledo, Ohio
Lincoln, Nebraska Tucson, Arizona
Long Beach, California Tulsa, Oklahoma
Los Angeles, California Virginia Beach-Norfolk, Virginia 6
Louisville, Kentucky Wichita, Kansas
Memphis, Tennessee

Figure 2: Urban Areas Participating in the 2010 Nationwide Plan Review

C. Data Collection Process


Participating jurisdictions submitted a self-assessment package consisting of three components.
Respondents were asked to focus their answers on their abilities to manage catastrophic events as
they completed each item for the self-assessment package outlined below.
 Transmittal letter – Provided approval by the jurisdiction’s designated official, a point-of-
contact for questions or communications regarding the package and an optional summary
of the jurisdiction’s planning efforts including the following:
o Three biggest successes related to planning and three biggest challenges to
planning that have been encountered since the last review in 2005-2006
o Major future planning efforts
 Certification matrix (see Appendix C) – Provided basic data about the jurisdiction’s
plans, appendices and annexes, including a self-assessment of each document’s
adequacy, feasibility and completeness using a five-point scale
 Supporting documents – Electronic copies of plans identified in the certification matrix

D. Analysis Process
As submissions were received from the jurisdictions, the documents were distributed to FEMA
regional staff for review. FEMA regional staff reviewed the plans and certification matrices
submitted by the sites within their region and rated each plan on the basis of its adequacy,
feasibility and completeness to manage a catastrophic event. Once complete, FEMA Regions
submitted the certification matrix to FEMA National Preparedness Directorate (NPD)
Headquarters for analysis.

A team of federal staff reviewed and analyzed the following information to identify key themes,
trends, progress since 2006 and 2010 findings, which serve as the foundation of the NPR2010
report:

6
The cities of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Norfolk, Virginia, participated as separate urban areas in 2010.

5
 Successes, challenges and future planning efforts outlined in submitted transmittal letters
 Certification matrix data submitted by the jurisdictions, specifically:
o Consistency with CPG 101 Appendix C for plans and functional appendices
o Last updated and last exercised dates for the plans, functional appendices and
hazard-specific annexes
o Ratings of adequacy, feasibility and completeness for each plan, functional
appendix and hazard-specific annex using a five-point scale
 Regional certification matrix data submitted by the FEMA Regions, specifically a rating
of adequacy, feasibility and completeness for each plan, functional appendix and hazard-
specific annex using a five-point scale

A number of topics in emergency planning were presented for the first time as recommended
annexes with the March 2009 release of CPG 101. These topics—Prevention and Protection and
Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR) Restoration—were included in the NPR2010.
With less than a year to consider these topics, analysis for these functional appendices largely
serves to provide a baseline for future reports.

Three additional topics—Population Reception, Recovery and Repatriation—were included in


the data collection but are not currently addressed by CPG 101. On the basis of the wide
variations in planning and gaps in definitive guidance, no meaningful analysis could be
conducted on these topics for this report.

6
III. Analysis of 2010 Results

A. Overview
This section discusses the cumulative results of NPR2010, including a comparison of results
from NPR2006. The discussion of plans, functional appendices and hazard-specific annexes and
organization of the figures’ content mirror the order presented in the certification matrix. The
table in Figure 3 provides a comparison of the information requested in the NPR2010 and
NPR2006 certification matrices for each document reviewed.

Certification Matrix Data Collection Categories


NPR2010 NPR2006

 Consistency with CPG 101, with response  Consistency with SLG 101 with response
options of “Yes,” “Partially” and “No” options of “Yes” and “No”
 Date of last update  Date of last update
 Date of last exercise  Date of last exercise
 A self-evaluation of the jurisdiction’s confidence  A self-evaluation of their confidence that the
in each document’s adequacy, feasibility and plan is adequate to manage evacuation and
completeness to manage a catastrophic event shelter requirements comparable to Hurricanes
using a five-point scale where “1” equals “No” Katrina and Rita using three response options:
and “5” equals “Yes” “Yes,” “Qualified Yes” and “No”

Figure 3: Certification Matrix Data Collection Categories

In this report, the categories of “Consistency with CPG 101” in NPR2010 and “Consistency with
SLG 101” in NPR2006 have been combined into a single category labeled “Consistency with
CPG 101/SLG 101.” Further, the design of the NPR2006 did not afford a “partial” response
because it relates to consistency with SLG 101. During the analysis, “partial” responses were
examined both discretely and in aggregate with “yes” responses to evaluate consistency with
CPG 101.

The responses to the plans’ adequacy, feasibility and completeness to manage a catastrophic
event in NPR2010 were based on a five-point scale, where “1” equaled “No” and “5” equaled
“Yes.” The NPR2010 response options were grouped to align with the NPR2006 response
options for this analysis. Specifically, the “4” or “5” ratings in 2010 equate to the “Yes”
response option in NPR2006, the “3” rating in NPR2010 equates to the “Qualified Yes” response
option in NPR2006 and the “1” or “2” ratings in NPR2010 equate to the “No” response option in
NPR2006. For the purposes of evaluating each document’s ability to manage a catastrophic
event, responses of “5” and “4” have been combined to represent “confidence,” while responses
of “1” and “2” have been combined to represent a “lack of confidence.”

A broad analysis of the self-assessments and regional reviews follows for the Basic Plan,
functional appendices and hazard-specific annexes. Additionally, a comparative analysis
conducted in 2006 was updated; the analysis examines differences in Hurricane Belt states and

7
urban areas compared to the balance of the nation, as well as the Emergency Management
Accreditation Program (EMAP)-accredited states compared to the balance of the Nation.
Detailed data can be referenced in Appendix E.

B. Analysis of Basic Plan


The Basic Plan provides an overview of the jurisdiction’s approach to emergency operations. It
details emergency response policies, describes the response organization and assigns tasks.
Although the Basic Plan guides the development of the more operationally oriented annexes, its
primary audience consists of the jurisdiction’s chief executive, his or her staff and agency
heads. 7 Data were collected and analyzed for the overall Basic Plan, as well as for the following
specific subcomponents:

 Organization and Responsibilities  Communications


 Direction, Control and Coordination  Administration, Finance and Logistics
 Information Collection and Dissemination

Self-assessment results show strong confidence levels from both states (79 percent) and urban
areas (82 percent) in their basic plans’ ability to manage a catastrophic event. As illustrated in
Figures 4 and 5, a significant Percent of States that Indicated Confidence in the Subcomponent's 
increase in the number of Ability to Manage  a Catastrophic  Event
2010 2006
jurisdictions that indicated 100%
confidence is reflected. These 90%
80%
levels have doubled for states 70%
60%
(from 39 percent) and nearly 50%
tripled for urban areas (from 40%
30%
31 percent) since 2006. 20%
10%
Furthermore, the percentage of 0%
states and urban areas that Overall Basic  Organization &  Direction,  Information  CommunicationsAdministration, 
Plan Responsibilities Control &  Collection &  Finance & 
indicated a lack of confidence in Coordination Dissemination Logistics

their basic plans to manage a


Figure 4: States’ Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents
catastrophic event has decreased
from 2006, with only 5 percent of
states and 1 percent of urban areas Percent of Urban Areas that Indicated Confidence in the Subcomponent's 
Ability to Manage  a Catastrophic  Event
indicating a lack of confidence. 2010 2006
100%
The regional reviews support the 90%
states’ and urban areas’ 80%
70%
assessments of their overall basic 60%
50%
plans. 40%
30%
20%
Of the five subcomponents of the 10%
Basic Plan reviewed, states and 0%
Overall Basic  Organization &  Direction,  Information  CommunicationsAdministration, 
urban areas indicated the most Plan Responsibilities Control &  Collection &  Finance & 
Coordination Dissemination Logistics

7
CPG 101, p. 6-1
Figure 5: Urban Areas’ Confidence in Basic Plan Subcomponents

8
confidence in the Organization and Responsibilities subcomponent and the Direction, Control
and Coordination subcomponent, with more than 80 percent of states and urban areas indicating
confidence in the ability of these subcomponents to manage a catastrophic event. States and
urban areas were also relatively confident in the Communications subcomponent (75 percent of
states and 72 percent of urban areas). Moreover, the confidence in the Direction, Control and
Coordination and Communications subcomponents has more than doubled since 2006, when 39
percent of states and 31 percent of urban areas were confident in their Direction, Control and
Coordination subcomponents and 30 percent of states and urban areas were confident in their
Communications subcomponents.

Although the final version of CPG 101 had only been available to states and urban areas for less
than 1 year at the time of the NPR2010 data call, nearly all states and urban areas (100 percent
and 96 percent, respectively) indicated that their basic plans fully or partially incorporate
applicable components of CPG 101. This reflects the integral role of states and urban areas in
the development of the guidance. These numbers represent a 7-percent increase for states and
15-percent increase for urban areas since NPR2006, which referenced SLG 101, the predecessor
to CPG 101, as the source for its evaluation criteria. Furthermore, the NPR2010 results indicated
that more than 85 percent of states and urban areas fully or partially incorporated applicable
elements of CPG 101 for each of the five Basic Plan subcomponents reviewed.

Exercising and updating the Basic Plan remains a priority for states and urban areas. Over the
last 4 years, 95 percent of states and urban areas exercised their overall basic plans. Within the
same timeframe, 84 percent of states and 78 percent of urban areas updated their overall basic
plans. Although these percentages reflect a slight decrease from the NPR2006, results are
generally positive.

C. Analysis of Functional Appendices


Functional appendices add specific information and direction to the EOP. Focusing on critical
operational functions, these appendices clearly describe the policies, processes, roles and
responsibilities that agencies and departments carry out before, during and after any emergency.
Although the Basic Plan provides broad, overarching information relevant to the EOP as a
whole, these appendices focus on specific responsibilities, tasks and operational actions that
pertain to the performance of a particular emergency operations function. These appendices also
establish preparedness targets (for example, training, exercises, equipment checks and
maintenance) that facilitate achieving function-related goals and objectives during emergencies
and disasters. 8 Depending on the jurisdiction, these appendices may align to general functions,
Emergency Support Functions or both. Only a limited number of functional appendices were
included in the NPR2006.

More than 60 percent of states and urban areas indicated confidence in the majority of the
functional appendices reviewed. As illustrated in Figures 6 and 7, across the Warning, Public
Information, Health and Medical and Resource Management functional appendices, states’ and
urban areas’ confidence in the ability of their plans to manage a catastrophic event more than

8
CPG 101, p. 6-6

9
doubled since 2006. Additionally, states’ and urban areas’ confidence in the ability of the Public
Protection and Evacuation and Mass Care and Sheltering functional appendices to manage a
catastrophic event has more than quadrupled since 2006.

Percent of States that Indicated Confidence in the Functional  Appendix's Ability to Manage  a Catastrophic  Event


2010 2006
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Warning Public  Public  Mass Care &  Health and  Resource  Prevention &  CIKR  Damage  Debris  Donations 
Information Protection &  Sheltering Medical Management Protection Restoration Assessment Management Management
Evacuation
 
Figure 6: States’ Confidence in Functional Appendices
 
Percent of  Urban Areas that Indicated Confidence in the Functional  Appendix's Ability to Manage  a Catastrophic  Event
2010 2006
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Warning Public  Public  Mass Care &  Health and  Resource  Prevention &  CIKR  Damage  Debris  Donations 
Information Protection &  Sheltering Medical Management Protection Restoration Assessment Management Management
Evacuation
 
Figure 7: Urban Areas’ Confidence in Functional Appendices

More than 71 percent of states and urban areas indicated that they fully or partially incorporated
applicable components from CPG 101 for each functional appendix. As seen in the Basic Plan
analysis, these high percentages may reflect the integral role of states and urban areas in the
development of CPG 101. More than 90 percent of both states and urban areas fully or partially
incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 in their Warning, Public Information, Health
and Medical, Mass Care and Sheltering and Damage Assessment functional appendices.
Additionally, more than 90 percent of states and urban areas reported fully or partially
incorporating applicable components of CPG 101 into other functional appendices (that is,
Resource Management and Donations Management [states] and Public Protection and
Evacuation [urban areas]). All six functional appendices included in both the NPR2006 and
NPR2010 showed a significant increase in the percentage of states and urban areas that fully or
partially incorporated applicable components of CPG 101/SLG 101. Furthermore, the
percentage of states and urban areas that reported not incorporating applicable components of
CPG 101 decreased across all six of the functional appendices evaluated in 2006.

10
States and urban areas made great strides to ensure the maintenance and utility of their functional
appendices. For each functional appendix reviewed, approximately three-quarters of states and
urban areas reported incorporating updates within the last 4 years. Self-assessment results
indicated that a similar percentage of states and urban areas exercised each functional appendix
within the same timeframe. Finally, of the six functional appendices included in both the
NPR2006 and NPR2010, the Health and Medical appendix had the largest percentage increase of
exercises conducted in the last 2 years by states and urban areas.

Two new functional appendices have been identified in CPG 101 for inclusion in plans—
Prevention and Protection and CIKR Restoration. As a general rule, the goals of prevention and
protection planning efforts should be to identify threats and protect potential targets. To
accomplish these goals, prevention and protection plans focus on information collection and
threat detection; risk, vulnerability and intelligence analysis; information sharing and
collaboration; criminal investigation and intervention; critical infrastructure protection; and risk
management. Because the protection of CIKR impacts emergency preparedness and operations,
state and local governments’ EOPs should contain information on what steps they are taking to
identify and protect CIKR. Planners must assess potential vulnerabilities, consequences or
threats and provide critical infrastructure protection measures for the systems and assets they
identify as CIKR. 9

Despite the fact that guidance for the Prevention and Protection and CIKR Restoration
appendices has only been available for less than 1 year, self-assessment results are encouraging.
Nearly 50 percent of states and urban areas indicated confidence in the use of their Prevention
and Protection appendices to manage a catastrophic event. Similarly, 50 percent of states
indicated confidence in the use of their CIKR Restoration appendices to manage a catastrophic
event, while 36 percent of urban areas indicated confidence in this appendix. The data also
revealed that nearly 80 percent of states and urban areas fully or partially incorporated applicable
components of CPG 101 into their Prevention and Protection appendices. Additionally,
79 percent of states and 71 percent of urban areas fully or partially incorporated applicable
components of CPG 101 into their CIKR Restoration appendices. Although these percentages
are not as high compared to the majority of the functional appendices, the results of the self-
assessments are generally strong and indicate dedication by the states and urban areas and an
effort to build upon the success of existing prevention and protection programs.

D. Analysis of Hazard-Specific Annexes


A new area of analysis for NPR2010, hazard-specific annexes describe the unique operational
requirements specific to a particular hazard and supplement the information both in the Basic
Plan and the functional appendices. A document review of these annexes presents a number of
unique challenges, given both the scenarios presented by these events as well as the wide variety
of resources they may require. Further complicating this analysis is the reality that few of these
hazards have been experienced at a catastrophic level and, thus, by their nature, have little
historical data against which they can be referenced. States and urban areas also face a variety of

9
CPG 101, page 2-4.

11
hazards based on their geographic location; as a result, not all hazard-specific annexes are
applicable to each jurisdiction participating in the review. The result is an increase in the
number of jurisdictions that did not provide a response for these annexes compared to the Basic
Plan and functional appendices. The hazard-specific annexes examined as part of NPR2010 can
be broadly categorized into three groups, described in Figure 8.

Types of Hazards

Natural Technological Adversarial or Human-Caused

These events are emergencies


caused by forces extraneous to man These events are emergencies that
These are disasters created by man,
in elements of the natural involve materials created by man and
either intentionally or by accident.
environment. Natural hazards cannot that pose a unique hazard to the
Note: The jurisdiction must complete
be managed and are often general public and environment. The
its own hazard analysis to identify
interrelated. Natural hazards can jurisdiction needs to consider events
what human-caused emergencies will
occur and cause no damage to that are caused by accident (e.g.,
require activation of the EOP’s
humans or the built environment; mechanical failure, human mistake)
procedures.
however, when a hazard and or result from an emergency caused
development intersect, significant by another hazard (e.g., flood, storm)
damage to the built environment or are caused intentionally.
occurs, causing a natural disaster.

Figure 8: Types of Hazards

Each type of hazard presents its own unique planning requirements and challenges. The analysis
will focus on these three groups and provide some insight as to the status of planning. The data
and analysis in this section can serve as a baseline for future assessment tools.

The way jurisdictions approach hazard-specific planning varies greatly. Local communities may
integrate hazard-specific information into functional appendices if they believe such integration
would make the plan easier to read and use. Alternatively, jurisdictions may address specific
hazards or threats in completely separate and stand-alone plans. In this case, the Basic Plan must
specifically reference those plans and provide a brief summary of how the Basic Plan procedures
are to be coordinated with the stand-alone procedures. Finally, hazards have unique planning
requirements directed by specific state and federal laws. The local emergency management
agency must review those requirements and determine how the Basic Plan can best address and
meet those legal requirements. 10

As depicted in Figures 9 and 10, states reported the highest level of confidence in their Pandemic
Influenza and Flooding annexes. Approximately three-quarters of states indicated these annexes
support management of a catastrophic event. Urban areas also reported a high level of
confidence in their Pandemic Influenza annexes, as well as their Hazardous Materials annexes,
with more than two-thirds of urban areas indicating these annexes support management of a
catastrophic event. One factor influencing the high levels of confidence across states and urban
areas in their Pandemic Influenza annexes is the recent global outbreak of H1N1 Pandemic
Influenza 2009 (H1N1), which may have redirected planning resources and priorities. Similarly,
flooding is another common hazard that many jurisdictions have faced. Additionally, regulatory
requirements of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III, which
requires the annual review of hazardous materials plans, and the high concentration of hazardous

10
CPG 101, p. C-23

12
materials being transported through many urban areas may contribute to the high level of
confidence in the Hazardous Materials annex.

Percent of States that Indicated Confidence in the Hazard‐Specific Annex's Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event
Confident No Response
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Improvised  Radiological  Improvised  Chemical  Biological  Cyber Event Pandemic  Hurricanes Flooding Winter  Tornadoes Earthquakes Dam Failure Hazardous 
Nuclear  Dispersal  Explosive  Event Event Influenza Storms Materials
Device Device Device
Human‐Caused Hazards Natural Hazards Technological Hazards

Figure 9: States’ Confidence in Hazard-Specific Annexes

Percent of Urban Areas that Indicated Confidence in the Hazard‐Specific Annex's Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event
Confident No Response
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Improvised  Radiological  Improvised  Chemical  Biological  Cyber Event Pandemic  Hurricanes Flooding Winter  Tornadoes Earthquakes Dam Failure Hazardous 
Nuclear  Dispersal  Explosive  Event Event Influenza Storms Materials
Device Device Device
Human‐Caused Hazards Natural Hazards Technological Hazards

Figure 10: Urban Areas’ Confidence in Hazard-Specific Annexes

Of the adversarial or human-caused hazards, the highest percentage of states and urban areas
indicated confidence in their Chemical Event annexes and Biological Event annexes. The
historical focus on these scenarios, going back to the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici program and the
120 Cities Initiative, provided jurisdictions with guidance, support and exercise opportunities to
develop and validate these annexes. States and urban areas indicated the lowest levels of
confidence in the use of their Cyber Event annexes compared to other hazard-specific annexes.
Notably, planning for cyber events is an extremely complex and relatively new focus area, which
may contribute to the lower confidence levels.

A high percentage of states and urban areas indicated confidence in their annexes for natural
hazards. Although the confidence levels for Hurricane annexes and Earthquake annexes appear
relatively low in comparison to the other natural hazards, both of these hazards are only
applicable to specific regions of the Nation, resulting in a more limited population for
comparison. When the number of jurisdictions that did not provide a response is omitted from
the data set, the percent of states and urban areas that indicated confidence in their Hurricane
annexes significantly increases to 79 percent. Similarly, the percentage of states and urban areas
indicating confidence in their Earthquake annexes increased, with 58 percent of states and

13
44 percent of urban areas indicating confidence, compared to 45 percent and 26 percent in 2006,
respectively.

States and urban areas continue to focus on exercising and updating their hazard-specific
annexes. Three-quarters of states and 65 percent of urban areas have updated their Pandemic
Influenza annexes since 2006, representing one of the most updated hazard-specific annexes
within the last 4 years. This focus on Pandemic Influenza planning may support the concept that
real-world events such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, Avian Flu and H1N1 contribute
to plan updates. Self-assessment results indicate that the Hazardous Materials annexes were the
most updated and exercised hazard-specific annex among urban areas in the last 4 years. This
could be attributed to the regulatory requirements of SARA Title III.

E. Comparative Analysis
This section presents a comparative analysis for several cross-cutting issues that provide
additional insight into the status of nationwide catastrophic planning.

1. Comparison of Plans in the “Hurricane Belt” and the Balance of the Nation

The Hurricane Belt, comprising the Gulf and Atlantic Coast states, has a constant and frequent
hazard against which to write and update plans, conduct training and exercises, draft functional
and incident-specific annexes and allocate resources. This section of the report explores how the
Hurricane Belt compares with the balance of the Nation in terms of planning for catastrophic
incidents. This comparison explores whether the need to prepare against a known hazard with
the potential to inflict mass casualties and significant damage to infrastructure, the environment,
economy and/or government functions was an important factor in the development of plans and
mechanisms required to manage catastrophic incidents.

14
Figure 11: Map of States and Urban Areas in the Hurricane Belt

Figure 11 identifies the states along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts and associated urban areas.
States and urban areas shaded in blue comprise the Hurricane Belt and are at higher risk for a
hurricane and associated heavy rains, strong winds and storm surge. To be consistent with the
approach taken for the NPR2006 and enable comparable analysis, the territories are not included
in the Hurricane Belt states.

2. States

Most states in the Hurricane Belt (89 percent) indicated confidence that their overall basic plans
are adequate, feasible and complete to manage a catastrophic event, as shown in Figure 12. This
is also true for the Hurricane annexes. This suggests that greater exposure to disasters could be
an important factor contributing to
confidence levels in Basic Plans Percent of States that Indicated Confidence in the Subcomponent's 
Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event
and Hurricane annexes. States in the Hurricane  Belt States Outside the Hurricane Belt
Furthermore, Hurricane Belt states 100%90%
were more likely to indicate 80%
70%
confidence in their overall basic 60%
plans, as well as each basic plan 50%
40%
subcomponent, than non- 30%
Hurricane Belt states. 20%
10%
0%
In 2006, Hurricane Belt states Overall Basic 
Plan
Organization & 
Responsibilities
Direction, 
Control & 
Information  Communications Administration, 
Collection &  Finance & 
were more likely to have plans Coordination Dissemination Logistics

rated as sufficient by the peer


review process than states outside
Figure 12: Hurricane Belt States’ Confidence in Basic Plan
of the Hurricane Belt. The Subcomponents

15
Resource Management, Health and Medical and Communications subcomponents were
noticeably stronger for Hurricane Belt states. 11 Although NPR2010 did not include a peer
review process, the self-assessment results indicated Resource Management as a continued area
of strength for the Hurricane Belt states as opposed to the non-Hurricane Belt states. Results
from the independent Regional review generally supported this finding. Conversely, the gap in
2006 between the Hurricane Belt states and the non-Hurricane Belt states narrowed for the
Communications and Health and Medical appendices.

Although the majority of states indicated it fully or partially incorporated applicable components
of CPG 101 into its basic plans, this percentage was significantly higher for Hurricane Belt states
than non-Hurricane Belt states. Similar results were found for the Direction, Control and
Coordination and Communications subcomponents, with 100 percent of Hurricane Belt states
indicating they fully or partially incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 compared to
71 percent of non-Hurricane Belt states across both subcomponents. Overall, more Hurricane
Belt states reported incorporating applicable components of CPG 101 into all subcomponents of
the Basic Plan by at least 28 percent compared to non-Hurricane Belt states, with the exception
of Organization and Responsibilities, which showed a smaller, yet still noteworthy difference of
15 percent.

CPG 101 includes specific guidance in its Appendix C for components that comprise general
functional planning (for example, Resource Management, Public Information and so on). More
Hurricane Belt states indicated they incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 across all
functional appendices than non-Hurricane Belt states, including Warning, Donations
Management, Resource Management, Mass Care and Sheltering and Public Protection and
Evacuation, which play a significant role in planning for and responding to a hurricane.

Overall, nearly 100 percent of Hurricane Belt states reported exercising their basic plans in the
last 2 years. Hazard-specific annexes appear to be exercised less within the same timeframe,
most notably Improvised Nuclear Device annexes. Conversely, the Pandemic Influenza annex
was exercised the most within the last 2 years by both Hurricane Belt states (72 percent) and
non-Hurricane Belt states (66 percent).

In the past 3 years, 89 percent of Hurricane Belt states exercised their Hurricane annexes; an
equal percentage of Hurricane Belt states updated these annexes within the same timeframe.
Flooding, a common hazard related to hurricanes, also showed high percentages (more than
52 percent) of hazard-specific plan updates in the last 2 years for both Hurricane Belt and non-
Hurricane Belt states.

11
Nationwide Plan Review Phase 2 Report page 34. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. June 2006.

16
3. Urban Areas Percent of Urban Areas that Indicated Confidence in the Subcomponent's 
Ability to Manage a Catastrophic Event
Urban Areas in the Hurricane Belt Urban Areas Outside the Hurricane Belt
Similar to the results for Hurricane 100%
90%
Belt states, a higher percentage of 80%
Hurricane Belt urban areas 70%
60%
indicated confidence in their 50%
overall basic plans, as well as each 40%
30%
Basic Plan subcomponent, than 20%
non-Hurricane Belt urban areas, as 10%
0%
depicted in Figure 13. In Overall Basic  Organization &  Direction,  Information  Communications Administration, 
Plan Responsibilities Control &  Collection &  Finance & 
NPR2006, urban areas in the Coordination Dissemination Logistics
Hurricane Belt produced plans that
were more likely to be rated
Figure 13: Hurricane Belt Urban Areas’ Confidence in Basic Plan
sufficient by the Peer Review Subcomponents
Team across the Warning,
Resource Management, Emergency Public Information and Mass Care appendices. Exceptions
to this trend were found in the review of the Health and Medical and Communications
appendices. Similar to 2006, the Warning, Resource Management, Emergency Public
Information and Mass Care appendices continue to be strengths for Hurricane Belt urban areas
based on self-assessment results. Although both Health and Medical and Communications were
less likely to be rated as sufficient for urban areas in 2006, Hurricane Belt urban areas indicated
more confidence in these particular appendices in 2010.

Although urban areas in the Hurricane Belt were more likely to indicate confidence in the
majority of their hazard-specific annexes compared to urban areas outside of the Hurricane Belt,
this should not be construed as indicating that urban areas with a high propensity for hurricanes
are fully prepared to deal with all catastrophic events. Although certain planning elements and
mechanisms are in place based on the known hazards within the area, many of these do not
address events that rise to the catastrophic level.

Urban areas in the Hurricane Belt reported their basic plans and functional appendices fully or
partially incorporate applicable components of CPG 101 more often than urban areas outside of
the Hurricane Belt, with the exception of the CIKR Restoration appendix. Similar to the
Hurricane Belt states, the Hurricane Belt urban areas were also more likely to report that their
Direction, Control and Coordination (97 percent) and Communications (86 percent)
subcomponents fully or partially incorporate components of CPG 101 than non-Hurricane Belt
urban areas. In addition, the Organization and Responsibilities subcomponent was reported as
fully or partially incorporating applicable components of CPG 101 for many of the Hurricane
Belt and non-Hurricane Belt urban areas (86 percent and 72 percent, respectively).

Despite being a new addition to the March 2009 release of CPG 101, Hurricane Belt urban areas
are already addressing issues related to CIKR Restoration based on their experiences. A slightly
higher number of urban areas in the Hurricane Belt (41 percent) reported incorporating
applicable components of CPG 101 for their CIKR Restoration annexes than those urban areas
outside of the Hurricane Belt (36 percent).

17
The Evacuation appendix, a key element of hurricane preparedness, was exercised more within
the last 2 years among Hurricane Belt urban areas than non-Hurricane Belt urban areas.
However, more non-Hurricane Belt urban areas updated their Evacuation appendices in the last
2 years than did Hurricane Belt urban areas. Similar to NPR2006, evacuation appears to be an
opportunity for further development moving forward.

More urban areas outside of the Hurricane Belt reported that their overall basic plans were
updated in the last 2 years than did urban areas in the Hurricane Belt. NPR2006 found that
different expectations exist regarding the responsibilities between state and urban area planning.
It is possible that the updating of key components of the overall basic plan is done by the state as
the responsibility may lie with it.

4. Comparison of EMAP-Accredited and Non-Accredited States

EMAP assesses and accredits state and local government programs responsible for coordinating
prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery activities for natural and human-
caused disasters. The EMAP accreditation process is based on a peer-reviewed evaluation of
consistency with collaboratively developed national voluntary standards, or the EMAP Standard.
As of the publication of this report, the EMAP Commission has granted accreditation to 22
states 12 and the Consolidated City/County of Jacksonville/Duval (Florida); East Baton Rouge
Parish (Louisiana); Orange County, Florida; and the County of San Diego, California (depicted
in blue in Figure 14). Given the limited number of accredited urban areas, FEMA did not
include urban areas for the purpose of this comparative analysis.

As conducted in 2006, FEMA compared state self-assessment findings with EMAP-accredited


states and non-accredited states. Consistency with the EMAP Standard indicates the overall
quality of an emergency management program, 13 with planning as one component. FEMA
compared the 22 EMAP-accredited states to the balance of the Nation with the expectation that
meeting the EMAP Standard would result in greater confidence in the adequacy, feasibility and
completeness of plans used to manage a catastrophic incident.

12
At publication of the previous NPR2006 report, the EMAP Commission had granted accreditation to eight states
and the Consolidated City/County of Jacksonville/Duval, Florida.
13
EMAP defines an emergency management program as “a jurisdiction-wide system that provides for management
and coordination of prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery activities for all hazards. The
system encompasses all organizations, agencies and individuals responsible for emergency management and
homeland security.”

18
Figure 14: EMAP-Accredited States and Urban Areas

As indicated in Figure 15,


EMAP-accredited states were Percent of States that Indicated Confidence in the Subcomponent's Ability to 
Manage a Catastrophic Event
more likely to indicate
confidence in the use of their EMAP‐Accredited States Non‐Accredited States

overall basic plans and each 100%


90%
basic plan subcomponent to 80%
70%
manage a catastrophic event 60%
50%
than non-accredited states. 40%
30%
Similarly, a higher 20%
percentage of EMAP- 10%
0%
accredited states indicated Overall Basic Plan Organization &  Direction, Control  Information  Communications Administration, 
Responsibilities & Coordination Collection &  Finance & Logistics
confidence for each Dissemination

functional appendix than


EMAP-accredited states. As Figure 15: EMAP-Accredited States’ Confidence in the Basic Plan
Subcomponents
shown in Figure 16, EMAP-
accredited states were also more likely to update and exercise their overall basic plans, as well as
each Basic Plan subcomponent, within the last 2 years than non-accredited states. This finding is
also true for each functional appendix.

Similar to 2006, comparing EMAP-accredited and non-accredited states yields an opportunity to


review the EMAP Standard’s effect on catastrophic planning. The NPR2006 found that EMAP-
accredited states are far more likely to receive sufficient ratings for certain subcomponents,
specifically for the Direction and Control and Resource Management appendices. In NPR2010
state self-assessments, this trend continued with a higher number of EMAP-accredited states

19
reporting confidence in the Percent of States that Exercised the Subcomponent within the Last 2 Years
adequacy, feasibility and EMAP‐Accredited States Non‐Accredited States
completeness of the 100%
Direction and Control and 90%
80%
Resource Management 70%
60%
appendices. These 50%
findings suggest that the 40%
30%
EMAP Standard is a 20%

significant contributor and 10%


0%
one indicator of the quality Overall Basic Plan Organization &  Direction, Control  Information  Communications Administration, 
Responsibilities & Coordination Collection &  Finance & Logistics
of the plan for managing Dissemination

catastrophic events.
Figure 16: EMAP-Accredited States’ Exercising of Basic Plan
Subcomponents

20
IV. Progress on 2006 State and Urban Area Findings
The NPR2006 Phase 2 Report identified 15 findings for states and urban areas. This section
examines the progress made to those findings since 2006.

The 15 state and urban area findings reflect the same language presented in the 2006 Phase 2
Report. Additionally, each finding’s “Desired Outcome from 2006” is included, as written in the
Phase 2 Report, to provide context. The “Progress since 2006” provides a description of the
current status of efforts related to each finding.

1. Finding from 2006. The majority of the Nation’s current emergency operations plans and
planning processes cannot be characterized as fully adequate, feasible or acceptable to
manage catastrophic events as defined in the NRP.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. States and urban areas should examine their individual
Peer Review Team detailed reports that were provided following the site visits, compare
them with the Phase 2 Report and conduct necessary research, analysis and consultation
to identify where change is required and develop a blueprint for remedial action.
 Progress since 2006.
o States and urban areas indicated an increased level of confidence in their basic
plans’ abilities to manage a catastrophic event since 2006, with 79 percent of states
and 82 percent of urban areas indicating confidence compared to 39 percent of states
and 31 percent of urban areas in 2006.
o Nearly 100 percent of states and urban areas indicated fully or partially
incorporating applicable components of the community-developed CPG 101 into their
basic plans.

2. Finding from 2006. States and urban areas are not conducting adequate collaborative
planning as a part of “steady state” preparedness.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. (See Initial Conclusions for the Federal Government #1,
3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15 and 19 in the NPR2006 Phase 2 Report.)
 Progress since 2006.
o Regional planning, one of the National Priorities released in 2007, and interagency
collaboration were cited by states and urban areas as two of their top five successes
achieved since 2006.
o An increase in regional interaction was reported by participants in the Regional
Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP), indicating improved
collaborative planning in 11 of the nation’s high-risk, high-consequence areas,
including seven Tier I UASIs.

21
3. Finding from 2006. Assumptions in Basic Plans do not adequately address catastrophic
events.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. State and urban area planning assumptions should be
improved to reflect the crucial role of assumptions in the planning process.
Assumptions serve as suppositions of current events or presuppositions of the future
course of events, cover issues over which the planner has no control and are used to
fill gaps in knowledge so planning can continue. In all-hazards planning,
assumptions should be carefully reviewed to ensure they reflect the differences
between adaptive threats and non-adaptive hazards. Few assumptions should be
necessary for commonly experienced hazards. Given the uncertainty and surprise of
terrorist attacks, planners should use available risk information, plan for realistic
worst-case scenarios and assume that terrorists will use every capability at their
disposal and operate in the most efficient manner possible.
 Progress since 2006.
o The majority of states and urban areas (79 percent and 82 percent, respectively)
reported a high level of confidence in their basic plans’ abilities to address a
catastrophic event, indicating their planning assumptions are appropriate.
o Nearly 100 percent of states and urban areas reported their basic plans fully or
partially incorporated applicable components of CPG 101, which promotes
validated planning assumptions.

4. Finding from 2006. Basic Plans do not adequately address continuity of operations and
continuity of government.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. All organizations tasked in a basic plan should ensure
that lines of succession for key management positions are established; essential
records, facilities and equipment are protected; where possible, alternate operating
locations are available; emergency response staff is protected; and functioning of
emergency communications is assured. (See Initial Conclusion for the Federal
Government #24 in the NPR2006 Phase 2 Report.)
 Progress since 2006.
o An increased number of states and urban areas requested Continuity of
Operations (COOP) Technical Assistance (TA) since 2006 in comparison to the
previous 4 years, with 26 requests since 2006 and three requests from 2002
through 2005.
o Through the Competitive Training Grant Program, updated COOP training has
been made available to jurisdictions throughout the country, with 41 deliveries
since 2007.

5. Finding from 2006. The most common deficiency among state and urban area Direction
and Control Annexes is the absence of a clearly defined command structure.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. National Incident Management System (NIMS)-
compliant plans should be sufficiently detailed to allow integration of a multi-
jurisdictional and multi-agency response involving combined plans. Augmentation of
key management positions should be planned for and documented to ensure

22
continuity in the event a disruption renders leadership unable, unavailable or
incapable of assuming and performing their authorities and responsibilities.
 Progress since 2006.
o States’ and urban areas’ confidence in the ability of their Direction, Control and
Coordination subcomponents to manage a catastrophic event increased since
2006, with 84 percent of states and 83 percent of urban areas indicating
confidence compared to 39 percent and 31 percent in 2006, respectively.
o States and urban areas reported increased consistency with available planning
guidance for the Direction, Control and Coordination subcomponent, which
details information on a defined command structure. In 2010, 100 percent of
states and 97 percent of urban areas fully or partially incorporated applicable
components of CPG 101 into their plans, compared to 89 percent of states and
81 percent of urban areas that incorporated applicable components of SLG 101 in
2006.

6. Finding from 2006. Many states and urban areas need to improve systems and procedures
for communications among all operational components.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. Communications Annexes should be updated to
reflect the progress in expansion of emergency communications capabilities and
system redundancy. The FY 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP)
required development of a Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan (TICP) and
validation of the plan through an exercise. Fusion centers should be incorporated into
incident response communications systems, operational plans and applicable annexes
to provide critical data to planners and for situational awareness during execution of
EOPs and functional annexes.
 Progress since 2006.
o States’ and urban areas’ confidence in the ability of their Communications plans
to manage a catastrophic event more than doubled since 2006, with 75 percent
of states and 72 percent of urban areas indicating confidence compared to
30 percent of states and 29 percent of urban areas in 2006.
o States and urban areas allocated nearly 90 percent of Public Safety Interoperable
Communications (PSIC) funding for acquisition and deployment of technology,
demonstrating the states’ needs and desires for infrastructure improvements to
achieve communications interoperability. Furthermore, $42.3 million of PSIC
funds has been allocated by states for planning and coordination activities.
o From 2005 to 2007, the TICP initiative found the area of governance in the
Interoperable Communications Continuum needed strengthening, particularly
the resourcing, coordination and planning aspects pertaining to operability rather
than interoperability. The Office of Emergency Communications is capturing the
progress of the 75 TICP sites as well as planning for the TICP 2, which goes
beyond exercises to look at real-world events.

23
7. Finding from 2006. All Functional Annexes do not adequately address special needs
populations.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. (See Initial Conclusions for the Federal Government
#10-13, 20 and 21 in the NPR2006 Phase 2 Report.)
 Progress since 2006.
o Planning that integrates the needs of individuals with disabilities, children,
seniors, individuals with limited English proficiency and others with access and
functional needs (formerly described as special needs populations), remains on
the forefront. States and urban areas specifically referenced planning for these
populations as a future planning priority, success and/or challenge.
o State and local stakeholders actively contributed to the development of the
Interim CPG 301: Emergency Management Planning Guide for Special Needs
Populations and continue to provide feedback to FEMA’s Disability Integration
and Coordination Director regarding all relevant doctrine and policy, including
integration of this information into an update of CPG 101.

8. Finding from 2006. States should designate a specific state agency that is responsible for
providing oversight and ensuring accountability for including people with disabilities in the
shelter operations process.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. The designation of a specific state agency (for
example, the State Department of Health) that is responsible for providing oversight
and ensuring accountability for people with disabilities in the shelter operation
process. This should include persons evacuated from private sector health care and
housing facilities. Minimum standards for efficient and effective handling of the
issues must be in place to guide local entities, private sector organizations, the
American Red Cross or other volunteer organizations active in disasters to ensure a
common approach. This state agency should ensure that accessibility for persons
with disabilities is a priority factor in the selection of all emergency shelters.
 Progress since 2006.
o States have begun to assign a state agency with the responsibility for disabilities
planning. The integration of these issues into overall preparedness plans remains
a challenge. This includes the need to integrate special needs populations into
general population shelters. The upcoming revision of CPG 101 will emphasize
the need to integrate these issues into basic planning.
o States have expanded the number and types of organizations represented on
planning boards, including organizations representing individuals with
disabilities, children, seniors, individuals with limited English proficiency and
others with access and functional needs, among boards with little contact with
special needs populations.

9. Finding from 2006. Timely warnings requiring emergency actions are not adequately
disseminated to custodial institutions, appropriate government officials and the public.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. Plans, annexes and operational documents should be
revised to ensure that timely dissemination of hazard information is provided to

24
custodial institutions. These actions are critical to institutions’ ability to make
appropriate decisions, exploit available transportation modes and provide for en route
services (for example, fuel, water, food, medical care) to successfully execute an
evacuation from a catastrophic event. (See Initial Conclusions for the Federal
Government #9, 12, 13, 20 and 21 in the NPR2006 Phase 2 Report.)
 Progress since 2006.
o Confidence in the ability to provide reliable, timely and effective warning to the
public more than doubled for states and urban areas since 2006, with 77 percent
of states and 74 percent of urban areas indicating confidence in their Warning
appendices compared to 36 percent of states and 32 percent of urban areas in
2006.
o Consistency with planning guidance related to warning processes and
procedures has increased since 2006, with 91 percent of states and 96 percent of
urban areas indicating they fully or partially incorporated applicable components
of CPG 101 into their Warning appendices compared to 84 percent of states and
81 percent of urban areas that incorporated applicable components of SLG 101 in
2006.

10. Finding from 2006. The ability to give the public accurate, timely and useful information
and instructions through the emergency period should be strengthened.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. Emergency public communications should be
strengthened to ensure that they reflect the appropriate characteristics (for example,
source credibility, repetition, frequency, specificity, type and number of
methods/media used to disseminate information) of effective risk communications;
include feedback mechanisms that understand the multi-dimensional nature of
communication (that is, hearing, understanding, believing and personalizing risk); and
account for different target audiences and socio-demographic characteristics. Given
the general inexperience with Joint Information Center/Joint Information System,
integration of multi-jurisdictional and multiagency joint information operations
should be routinely exercised, including role-playing media that provide authenticity
in the form of appropriate levels of stress for spokespersons, products, processes and
technologies. These efforts should also prioritize the testing and validation of
emergency communications in required accessible formats for persons with
disabilities. Enlisting the participation of people with disabilities and individuals who
are disability subject matter experts, representatives of civic and faith-based
organizations, neighborhood associations and educational institutions can ensure risk
communications account for appropriate target audiences and have the appropriate
impact on social structures and social trust. (See Initial Conclusions for the Federal
Government #13 and 21 in the NPR2006 Phase 2 Report.)
 Progress since 2006.
o Confidence in the ability to provide reliable, timely and effective information to
the public has more than doubled for states and urban areas since 2006, with
86 percent of states and 78 percent of urban areas indicating confidence in their
Public Information appendices compared to 41 percent of states and 29 percent of
urban areas in 2006.

25
11. Finding from 2006. Significant weaknesses in evacuation planning are an area of profound
concern.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. See the “Evacuation Plans” section of the NPR2006
Phase 2 Report for a summary of Department of Transportation (DOT) findings and
the DOT companion report for detailed analysis of evacuation planning in the Gulf
Coast states and selected counties and parishes.
 Progress since 2006.
o Confidence in evacuation planning has increased, with two-thirds of states and
urban areas indicating confidence in their Public Protection and Evacuation
appendices compared to 11 percent of states and 9 percent of urban areas in 2006.
o Approximately 90 percent of both states and urban areas reported they
incorporated applicable components of CPG 101 into their Public Protection and
Evacuation appendices compared to approximately 65 percent in 2006.
o A new Evacuation Planning TA program was created in 2007 at the request of
states and urban areas and has been delivered 15 times since its inception.

12. Finding from 2006. Capabilities to manage reception and care for large numbers of
evacuees are inadequate.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. States and urban areas should evaluate existing and
planned capacity to host large numbers of evacuees, including government
augmentation of non-governmental services; assess the adequacy of accommodation
of special needs populations, including accommodation of durable medical
equipment, assistive devices, service animals, family members and/or caregivers; and
review capabilities for extended provision of services in the face of long-term
disruptions or damage to the evacuated areas. (See Initial Conclusions for the Federal
Government #9, 11, 12, 14 and 20 in the NPR2006 Phase 2 Report.)
 Progress since 2006.
o The percentage of states and urban areas that reported confidence in the ability of
their Mass Care and Sheltering appendices to manage a catastrophic event
more than quadrupled since 2006, with 64 percent of states and 71 percent of
urban areas indicating confidence compared to 14 percent of states and 15 percent
of urban areas in 2006.

13. Finding from 2006. Capabilities to track patients under emergency or disaster conditions
and license out-of-state medical personnel are limited.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. States and urban areas should reconcile
patient/casualty tracking systems to ensure interoperability and foster situational
awareness and accountability. Licensing of out-of-state medical personnel should be
addressed in authorities, Health and Medical Annexes and operational documentation
to facilitate their rapid deployment and employment.
 Progress since 2006.
o Jurisdictions’ confidence in the ability of their Health and Medical appendices to
manage a catastrophic event has nearly tripled for states and more than

26
quadrupled for urban areas, with 71 percent of states and 74 percent of urban
areas indicating confidence compared to 25 percent of states and 17 percent of
urban areas in 2006.  FEMA will continue to work with jurisdictions to ensure
these appendices address patient tracking.

14. Finding from 2006. Resource management is the “Achilles heel” of emergency planning.
Resource Management Annexes do not adequately describe in detail the means, organization
and process by which states and urban areas will find, obtain, allocate, track and distribute
resources to meet operational needs.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. State and urban area capabilities and corresponding
resources available internally or through mutual aid should be inventoried and placed
into an appropriate management system, and operational procedures should be
developed for integration and employment. Plans should clearly define required
resources, routine inventories should be conducted, available resources should be
matched to planning requirements and shortfalls should be identified and resolved.
 Progress since 2006.
o Although this remains an area requiring further development and attention, states’
and urban areas’ confidence levels in the ability of their Resource Management
appendices to manage a catastrophic event has more than doubled since 2006,
with 59 percent of states and 61 percent of urban areas indicating confidence
compared to 21 percent of states and 17 percent of urban areas in 2006.
o Jurisdictions identified Resource Management planning as a success and/or
future planning effort, particularly related to developing resource management
plans and guidance.

15. Finding from 2006. Plans should clearly define required resources, inventories must be
conducted, available resources must be matched to requirements and shortfalls must be
identified and resolved.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. Capabilities and corresponding resources available
internally or through mutual aid are inventoried and placed into an appropriate
database, and operations procedures are developed for integration and employment.
 Progress since 2006.
o Under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), the volume
and types of resources requested have grown considerably. EMAC, along with its
accompanying policies, procedures and practices, provides for successful
collaboration that enables its members to request and track resources and provides
timely assistance to states in need.
o Jurisdictions and Regions noted development and implementation of resource
management tools for tracking goods, services and personnel as an area of
improvement in future planning efforts.
o See related discussion under State and Urban Area Finding #14.

27
V. Progress on 2006 Federal Findings
The NPR2006 Phase 2 Report identified 24 findings for the Federal Government. This section
examines the progress made to those findings since 2006.

The 24 federal findings reflect the same language presented in the 2006 Phase 2 Report.
Additionally, each finding’s “Desired Outcome from 2006” is included, as written in the Phase 2
Report, to provide context. The “Progress since 2006” provides a description of the current
status of efforts related to each finding.

1. Finding from 2006. Planning products, processes, tools and technologies should be
developed to facilitate a common nationwide approach to catastrophic planning in
accordance with the National Preparedness Goal’s National Priority to Strengthen Planning
and Citizen Preparedness Capabilities.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. Develop modernized planning doctrine, policies,
guidance, standards and procedures that are utilized in conformance with the NIMS
and National Response Plan (NRP) and are sufficient to address the contemporary
hazards and threats facing the nation.
 Progress since 2006.
o Annex I to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 (HSPD-8), released in
2007, established a standard and comprehensive approach to national planning
that prompted the development of the Integrated Planning System (IPS).
Although IPS did not completely satisfy the outcome, the efforts involved in
developing the system led to identification of key lessons learned that are shaping
the next evolution of a robust national planning system.
o Released in September of 2007 by DHS, the National Preparedness Guidelines,
which incorporated the revised Target Capabilities List (TCL), provided
preparedness doctrine. The National Preparedness Guidelines highlight that
preparedness is a shared responsibility and integrate the lessons learned from
Hurricane Katrina and NPR2006.
o CPG 101, officially released in March 2009, provides guidelines for developing
an EOP and promotes a common understanding of the fundamentals of
planning and decision making to help emergency planners examine relevant
hazards and produce integrated, coordinated and synchronized plans. CPG 101,
which replaced SLG 101, was developed by members of the planning community
and reflects the best available planning doctrine.

2. Finding from 2006. Planning modernization should be fully integrated with other key
homeland security initiatives.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. Development and implementation of planning
modernization in a way that promotes synergies and avoids undesirable conflicts or
redundancies with other related initiatives.

28
 Progress since 2006.
o CPG 101, which modernized planning guidance for states and urban areas,
integrated approaches, frameworks and concepts from the National Response
Framework (NRF) and the NIMS. DHS grant guidance now includes CPG 101 as
recommended guidance for planning and plan development.
o The National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), the National Preparedness
Guidelines and NRF together provide a comprehensive, integrated approach to
the homeland security mission. The NIPP, released in 2009, establishes the
overall risk-informed approach that defines the Nation’s CIKR protection posture,
while the NRF provides the approach for domestic incident management. The
National Preparedness Guidelines set forth national priorities, doctrine and roles
and responsibilities for building capabilities across the prevention, protection,
response and recovery mission areas.

3. Finding from 2006. Clear guidance should be developed on how state and local
governments plan for coordinated operations with federal partners under the National
Response Plan (NRP).
 Desired Outcome from 2006. Clear guidance is provided to state and local
governments on how to plan for coordinated operations with federal partners under
the NRP.
 Progress since 2006.
o Built on both stakeholder input and public comment, the NRF, released in
January 2008, superseded the NRP and emphasizes the importance of
coordinated planning efforts between federal, state, tribal and local governments.
o CPG 101, developed by the state and local community, provides specific guidance
on linking federal, state and local plans.
o The establishment of new positions within FEMA Regional Offices enabled an
increased focus on coordination of planning operations between federal, state
and local partners.
o The National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF), currently in development,
introduces the concept of Recovery Support Functions that will provide more
effective and recovery-focused coordinating structures for federal, state, tribal
and local governments.

4. Finding from 2006. Existing federal technical assistance should be used to help states and
urban areas address the specific needs identified during the Nationwide Plan Review.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. Provision of technical assistance to meet the most
urgent planning needs. Standardized guidance on catastrophic incident planning in
the areas mentioned above.
 Progress since 2006.
o FEMA offers TA across four areas—Prevention, Protection, Planning Support
and Program Management—to build and sustain state and local capabilities for a
wide array of hazards. Specific to this report, Planning Support TA includes more

29
than 25 various topics, ranging from Basic Emergency Operations Plan
development and COOP to Mass Casualty Incident Planning and Special Events
Planning.
o Since 2006, 839 TA offerings have been delivered to state and local partners, 340
of which are specific to Planning Support. Overall, approximately 25 percent
more TAs were delivered in the last 4 years than in the 4 years preceding
NPR2006.
o At the request of stakeholders, more than 20 new TA offerings have been
developed in the past 4 years to meet the needs and gaps identified.
o FEMA developed an Evacuee Support Planning Guide (Host State Guide) and
template to assist state and local governments when engaging in evacuation
hosting operations. The guide included input from states’ evacuee support
planning initiatives to ensure that the guide reflects the states’ planning needs.

5. Finding from 2006. Critical tasks, target capabilities and associated performance measures,
such as those identified in the National Preparedness Goal, should serve as the common
reference system for planning and the language of synchronization.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. A common reference and language for plan
development, validation and assessment.
 Progress since 2006.
o DHS released the updated TCL Version 2.0 in September 2007 and a draft TCL
User Guide in February 2009, which outlines how jurisdictions can leverage the
TCL to build capabilities along each phase of the preparedness cycle and
identify capability targets and gaps.
o The Homeland Security Exercise Evaluation Program institutionalized the use of
the TCL for exercise planning, conduct and evaluation.

6. Finding from 2006. Detailed planning assumptions and planning magnitudes for
catastrophic incidents should be defined such as has been initiated through the National
Planning Scenarios.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. Detailed planning assumptions that identify the
anticipated magnitude and duration of all-hazards catastrophic incidents. Plans that
include capabilities and tasks for guiding prevention, protection, response and
recovery actions and time-phased deployment schedules that match the magnitude
and duration of the catastrophic incidents.
 Progress since 2006.
o The NRF provides details on how the Nation should conduct an all-hazards
response by providing a comprehensive approach to domestic incident response
planning. It includes specific authorities and best practices for managing
incidents. This information ranges from the serious but purely local, to large-
scale terrorist attacks or catastrophic natural disasters.
o The National Planning Scenarios are planning tools that provide critical
assumptions to aid in the development of plans for a range of potential disasters.

30
Since 2006, working groups have been organized to review and update the
National Planning Scenarios to ensure they apply to the current dynamic
homeland security environment.
o Working groups for Resource Typing defined assumptions for three levels of
sheltering. Categorized by number of residents and services provided over time,
this information includes a matrix of resources and operations for all three levels.

7. Finding from 2006. Current preparedness data should be readily accessible to planners.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. Informed and empowered homeland security planners
with easy access to required preparedness data.
 Progress since 2006.
o Development and use of new online tools, such as the pilot Virtual Joint Planning
Office, contributes to a collaborative planning environment. It provides for
increased accessibility of data to planners from across the nation.
o FEMA is developing SharePoint sites as a way to collect, store and share
information across national preparedness efforts, including planning.

8. Finding from 2006. Regional planning capabilities, processes and resources should be
strengthened in accordance with the National Preparedness Goal’s National Priorities to
Expand Regional Collaboration and Strengthen Planning and Citizen Preparedness
Capabilities.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. The systematic incorporation and “roll-up” of
jurisdictional-level plans into regional-level plans that address the specific demands
of large scale and/or catastrophic events. The systematic process should be based on
standard procedures for review, synchronization and validation of regional plans
based on the ability to achieve desired outcomes.
 Progress since 2006.
o To support improved regional planning capabilities, FEMA introduced RCPGP in
FY 2008. This program enhances catastrophic incident preparedness in selected
high-risk, high-consequence urban areas and their surrounding regions. RCPGP
supports coordination of regional all-hazard planning for catastrophic events.
It includes development of integrated planning communities, plans, protocols and
procedures to manage a catastrophic event. Deliverables from participating sites
will be available to the preparedness community throughout the country to
enhance national resilience.
o Since NPR2006, a major regional planning effort was initiated to focus on the
New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) composed of the eight Midwest states:
Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi and
Tennessee. This effort engages partners at all levels in catastrophic planning
efforts. NMSZ collaborative planning identifies high-risk areas, assesses current
disaster response capabilities, identifies anticipated response shortfalls and results
in comprehensive planning strategies. The emphasis is on building local and state
capabilities that are integrated with federal capabilities. This planning initiative
will be tested during the 2011 National-Level Exercise (NLE).

31
9. Finding from 2006. Collaboration between government and non-governmental entities
should be strengthened at all levels, as outlined in the National Priority to Expand Regional
Collaboration.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. Citizen Corps Councils, which are designed to foster
this collaboration, can assist planners in developing and testing plans for public
preparedness, direct assistance and surge capacity.
 Progress since 2006.
o Citizen Corps Councils continue to expand with more than 2,400 Councils
registered to date. More than 600 new Councils have been formed since 2006. A
new online data tool will be launched in 2010 to capture Council membership,
integration of nongovernmental resources in EOPs and activities to prepare the
public and expand volunteer service opportunities.
o Since 2006, many Federal Government agencies have created offices dedicated
to engaging and/or coordinating with the private sector. For example, FEMA
established a Private Sector Division within the Office of External Affairs in
October 2007. This division improves information sharing and coordination
between FEMA and the private sector during disaster planning, response and
recovery efforts.
o Since 2006, partnerships between law enforcement and emergency management
have strengthened. To promote collaboration with law enforcement, FEMA
appointed a law enforcement advisor to the agency’s administrator in 2007. This
position provides a law enforcement perspective on agency plans and policies. It
also supports FEMA’s growing interaction with law enforcement associations,
fusion centers and terrorism task forces. Furthermore, the FEMA Regions hosted
regional meetings in 2009 bringing state and local fusion center directors together
with state and local emergency management officials. These meetings
encouraged dialogue and discussion for a collaborative path forward.
o RCPGP has contributed to enhanced collaboration between government and
nongovernmental entities by requiring development of Regional Catastrophic
Planning Teams. These teams are composed of both government and non-
government representatives (for example, Citizen Corps Council points of contact
(POC), Metropolitan Medical Response System POCs, private sector
representatives).
o FEMA is working collaboratively with federal, state and nongovernmental
partners on a Functional Needs Support Services Guide. The guide assists with
planning and integration of functional needs support services in general
population shelters.

10. Finding from 2006. The Federal Government should develop a consistent definition of the
term “special needs.”
 Desired Outcome from 2006. Development of an unambiguous definition of
“special needs.”

32
 Progress since 2006.
o In June 2007, FEMA named its first National Disability Coordinator. The
coordinator provides guidance and coordination on emergency planning
requirements and relief efforts for individuals with disabilities. DHS established a
working group to focus on special needs considerations and contribute to the
development of a definition for special needs. This definition is in the final
stages of development and is expected to be released shortly.
o FEMA recognizes the importance of integrating the preparedness, response and
recovery needs of individuals with disabilities, children, seniors, individuals with
limited English proficiency and others with access and functional needs (formerly
described as special needs populations) across all of its efforts. While planning
for special needs is currently covered in the Interim CPG 301, the revised CPG
101, planned for release in 2010, will include comprehensive guidance for the
entire population, including special needs.

11. Finding from 2006. The Federal Government should provide guidance to states and local
governments on incorporation of disability-related demographic analysis into emergency
planning.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. The identification of people with disabilities as a
separate or specifically identified grouping, coupled with the incorporation of
disability related demographic analysis in planning processes.
 Progress since 2006.
o Through CPG 101, the Federal Government provides guidance to states and local
governments on the inclusion of disability-related demographics in emergency
planning. The Interim CPG 301 guidance provides additional details on how
jurisdictions should plan for those with special needs. To improve incorporation
of disability-related demographic analysis across the planning process, CPG 101
and CPG 301 will be merged into an updated version of the guidance.
o Federal agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
produce guidance and training on identifying special needs persons in the local
community.
o In Spring 2010, FEMA will publish “Guidance on Planning for the Integration
of Functional Needs Support Services in General Population Shelters.” This
guidance includes accommodation of durable medical equipment, assistive
devices, service animals, family members, caregivers and the delivery of personal
assistance services.

12. Finding from 2006. Federal, state and local governments should work with the private
sector to identify and coordinate effective means of transporting individuals with disabilities
before, during and after an emergency.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. A mechanism to ensure the availability of sufficient
and timely accessible transportation to evacuate concentrated populations that may
need additional assistance (for example, nursing homes, group homes, assistive living
facilities and cluster care blocks of home-base clients or naturally occurring

33
retirement communities), as well as individuals with disabilities living in the
community who are dependent upon accessible transportation. This mechanism
should safeguard against separation from durable medical equipment, assistive
devices, service animals, family members and/or caregivers.
 Progress since 2006.
o The NRF Revision includes the addition of a Mass Evacuation Incident Annex,
which addresses how the Federal Government will support state and local
evacuation efforts, including the evacuation of individuals with disabilities and
others with transportation needs.
o The DOT Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) conducted studies of
transportation options and gaps for major urban areas. Specific studies include:
communication with non-English speaking populations, defining the amount of
time required for individuals to move from their home to emergency
transportation, the use of DOT grantees providing special needs vans and
equipment for transport as an untapped resource.
o DOT FHWA established an interagency committee to address the transportation
needs of those with disabilities.
o The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), FHWA, National Consortium on
Human Services Transportation and DOT Committees (Coordinating Council on
Access and Mobility and the Emergency Transportation Subcommittee) have
conducted numerous studies, demonstrations and models for appropriate
transportation access and management of special needs/medical needs
populations since 2000. After Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, the
aforementioned agencies—along with disability-related organizations—issued
recommendations, checklists, vehicle specifications and emergency transportation
management guides. Additionally, the number of demonstration grants available
to identify best practices has increased.

13. Finding from 2006. Improvements in public preparedness and emergency public
information should be implemented in accordance with the National Preparedness Goal’s
National Priority to Strengthen Planning and Citizen Preparedness Capabilities.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. Planning is synchronized with public education for
relevant high-risk threats and hazards and special needs populations. Citizens are
provided with meaningful and clear information on basic preparedness measures,
response actions and community response protocols. Jurisdictions periodically test
effectiveness of outreach efforts and citizen awareness.
 Progress since 2006.
o Since 2006, FEMA’s Individual and Community Preparedness Division has
conducted two nationwide household surveys (2007 and 2009). These surveys
provide comprehensive data on the public’s thoughts, perceptions and behaviors
related to preparedness and community safety for multiple types of hazards.
Survey findings provide valuable insights for increasing personal preparedness,
civic engagement and community resilience. Data analysis includes demographic
profiles, including people with disabilities.

34
o Since 2006, FEMA has developed an internal Community Preparedness Working
Group, comprised of multiple Directorates and Divisions. This working group
coordinates preparedness education and outreach across all of FEMA.
o FEMA submitted an Interim Report to Congress on the Emergency
Preparedness Demonstration Pilot Project in August 2007. The final report is in
development. The project has three principle objectives:
 Conduct research on the status of disaster awareness and emergency
preparedness in socially and economically disadvantaged households and
communities.
 Design and implement demonstration projects to improve awareness and
preparedness in such households and communities.
 Develop proposals for incorporating changes in FEMA programs based on
results received.
o Since 2008, FEMA has been working with partners throughout DHS to develop
improved public awareness and information materials to support improvised
nuclear device planning, as well as a range of other catastrophic hazards.
o In 2009, the Ready Campaign was moved from DHS to FEMA and, through
multimedia outlets, created greater emphasis on disaster preparedness messages.
In addition, Ready and Citizen Corps are working in collaboration to further
promote community resilience through citizen engagement and involvement in
their local communities.

14. Finding from 2006. Federal, state and local governments should take action to better
integrate non-governmental resources to meet surge capacity.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. All levels of government identify and track available
resources from nongovernmental organizations and have pre-established procedures
to integrate these resources into operations.
 Progress since 2006.
o A private sector more engaged in planning will positively impact a community’s
overall resilience and capacity to recover from all disasters, which, in turn, allows
businesses to operate and support the overall community infrastructure. Since
2006, many Federal Government agencies have created offices dedicated to
engaging and/or coordinating with the private sector.
o FEMA’s Citizen Corps program promotes the involvement of government and
nongovernmental partners through state and local Citizen Corps Councils.
These councils conduct all-hazards community preparedness planning, including
the identification of planning gaps and the resources to fill those gaps.
o The online data collection tool for Citizen Corps Councils, scheduled to be
launched in 2010, will capture local activities to better integrate non-
governmental resources to meet surge capacity.

35
15. Finding from 2006. The Federal Government should provide the leadership, doctrine,
policies, guidance and standards necessary to build a shared national homeland security
planning system.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. A disciplined, collaborative and integrated system is
established for facilitating consistent homeland security planning in conformance
with the National Preparedness Goal at the federal, state, local and tribal levels of
government. System development and implementation advances are based on
stakeholder feedback and process and technology maturation.
 Progress since 2006.
o In conjunction with state and local partners, the Federal Government developed
doctrine, policies, guidance and standards, such as the National Preparedness
Goal, CPG 101, NIMS, NRF, NIPP and the National Preparedness Guidelines to
contribute to a national homeland security planning system.

16. Finding from 2006. Identification of technologies, tools and architecture(s) for the national
homeland security planning community should be included in the National Priority to
Strengthen Planning and Citizen Preparedness Capabilities.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. With the support of organizations such as the
National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), identify, develop
and field technology (near- and long-term) that will enable networked collaboration,
access to authoritative data and parallel planning; improved tools that can analyze
before and after comparisons of consequences; and access to databases and tools that
identify required resources for planning purposes and allow operational resource
tracking among organizations nationwide.
 Progress since 2006.
o The National Exercise Simulation Center (NESC), established by FEMA in
January 2009, is a state-of-the-art facility geared to serve the all-hazards
preparedness and response mission through pooling resources, maximizing
efficiency and providing sustained exercise and training support to all
stakeholders. The NESC uses a mix of live, virtual and constructive simulations
to prepare elected officials, emergency managers, emergency response providers
and emergency support suppliers at all levels of government to operate
cohesively. The NESC also assists in the development of operational procedures
and exercises, particularly those based on catastrophic incidents. The NESC
serves as a link with other centers that provide specialty modeling, simulation
and data services, such as the Joint Warfighting Center, the NISAC and the
Emergency Management Institute.

17. Finding from 2006. Comprehensive national guidance on the potential consequences
associated with catastrophic risks and hazards should be developed to drive risk management
and operational planning.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. Provide states and urban areas with national guidance,
by geographic area, on the consequences associated with potential catastrophic
natural and technological hazards and terrorist threats.

36
 Progress since 2006.
o Both RCPGP and the NMSZ project have supported the development of national
guidance by identifying best practices and lessons learned in planning for
catastrophic events. These efforts are being leveraged to establish a “whole of
community” planning process that addresses a set of planning factors that will
stress planning efforts by focusing on the “maximum of maximum”
requirements presented by a catastrophic event.
o FEMA is releasing CPG 502: Considerations for Fusion Center and
Emergency Operations Center Coordination. This guide focuses on the
information sharing processes between these centers during steady state activities
and incident management. These processes will be critical to effectively
addressing risk management in a jurisdiction.
o FEMA has provided guidance to states located in the Hurricane Belt and
conducted exercises to test the capabilities related to hurricane response.
Immediate feedback was provided to states as a result of the exercises.
o CPG 101, version 2.0 will include enhanced guidance on risk assessment and
management to further ensure that risk serves as the foundation for operational
planning and the development of capabilities.
o Comprehensive Preparedness Guides (CPGs) are under development to address
each of the hazard-specific annexes identified as part of the 2010 Review. The
language in those guides will identify the planning factors for use in risk
management and operational planning.

18. Finding from 2006. Development of focused training, education and professional
development programs for homeland security planners should be included in the National
Priority to Strengthen Planning and Citizen Preparedness Capabilities.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. A full complement of trained and qualified homeland
security planners across the nation.
 Progress since 2006.
o Through the DHS Office of Operations Coordination, planners throughout the
Federal Government are trained on the fundamentals of planning for large-scale
and catastrophic events.
o In 2009, a joint planning course was conducted for state and federal participants
in the Task Force for Emergency Readiness (TFER) pilot on the basis of concepts
identified in CPG 101.
o FEMA’s National Emergency Management Institute is developing a Planners
course that includes key concepts from CPG 101 and is built on the lessons
learned from the TFER pilot.

37
19. Finding from 2006. Collaborative planning and planning excellence should be incentivized.
Funding and projects should be linked to operational readiness through a specific task or
capability in a plan or plan annex.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. Demonstrated excellence in collaborative planning
and plans is incentivized. Planning initiatives funded by DHS and other federal
departments and agencies demonstrate a strong relationship between expected project
outcomes and plan requirements, particularly as they address key resource and service
delivery gaps.
 Progress since 2006.
o Language throughout FEMA’s grant programs promotes collaborative planning
across organizations and jurisdictions.
o RCPGP specifically focuses on collaborative planning by structuring a program
around the larger combined statistical area footprint that represents the daily flow
of populations across multiple cities, counties and states. The program requires
participants to establish a collaborative planning team to address the difficult
issues presented by a catastrophic event.
o To receive federal grant funding, states are required to comply with NIMS
guidelines. These guidelines represent a core set of doctrines, concepts,
principles, terminology and organizational processes that enable effective,
efficient and collaborative incident management across organizational and
geographical boundaries.

20. Finding from 2006. Federal, state and local governments should increase the participation
of people with disabilities and disability subject matter experts in the development and
execution of plans, training and exercises.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. Increased awareness among state and local officials
based on the inclusion of people with disabilities and others who are disability subject
matter experts as partners and stakeholders in the development and execution of
plans, training and exercises.
 Progress since 2006.
o During the development of the NRF in 2007, input was solicited from all groups
of stakeholders and a Special Needs Working Group was established. This
ensured that the NRF properly articulated the requirements and roles of special
needs populations (that is, individuals with disabilities, children, seniors,
individuals with limited English proficiency and others with access and functional
needs).
o Disability subject matter experts contributed to the development of planning and
policy guidance, such as the National Disaster Housing Strategy published in
January 2009 and the draft NDRF released for public comment in February 2010.
o Guidance to Citizen Corps Councils regarding membership recommendations
includes the participation of people with disabilities and disability subject
matter experts.

38
o NLE 2011 includes an exercise working group focused on citizen and community
preparedness, spearheaded by FEMA’s Individual and Community Preparedness
Division. The DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will lead a
subcommittee of this working group on including disability issues in this
exercise.
o FEMA has established an Office of Disability Integration and Coordination,
whose mission is “Preparing individuals and families and strengthening
communities before, during and after a disaster by providing guidance, tools,
methods and strategies to integrate and coordinate emergency management efforts
to meet the needs of all citizens, including children and adults with disabilities
and others with access and functional needs.” This office regularly
communicates with more than 500 disability organizations and groups and
widely distributes opportunities to participate in planning, training and exercises.

21. Finding from 2006. The Federal Government should provide technical assistance to clarify
the extent to which emergency communications, including public information associated
with emergencies, must be in accessible formats for persons with disabilities. This assistance
should address all aspects of communication, including, for example, televised and other
types of emergency notification and instructions, shelter announcements and applications and
forms for government and private disaster benefits.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. Further collaboration and support of the Emergency
Alert System (EAS) to ensure that accessible communications are integral to the
nation’s public alert and warning system.
 Progress since 2006.
o CPG 101 and NIMS provide guidance to state and local governments regarding
considerations for individuals who have additional communications access
needs.
o TA for Special Needs Planning addresses evacuation assistance and emergency
public warning and provides recommendations on the use of community
notification systems targeted to assist people with disabilities and others with
communication access needs.
o FEMA is currently developing a CPG to address a variety of emergency public
information planning issues.
o The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) is the Nation’s next-
generation infrastructure of alert and warning networks expanding on the
traditional audio-only radio and television EAS by providing one message over
more media to more people before, during and after a disaster. IPAWS will assist
in this effort by providing federal, state, territorial, tribal and local alert and
warning authorities integrated services and capabilities enabling them to alert and
warn their respective communities, via multiple communications pathways for all
hazards impacting public safety and well-being.

39
22. Finding from 2006. The status of the Nation’s plans should be a central focus of the annual
report to the President on the Nation’s preparedness required by HSPD-8.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. The status of catastrophic planning and plans is
routinely included in the annual report.
 Progress since 2006.
o The National Preparedness Report will provide information on the Nation’s all-
hazards preparedness. This pending report includes a balanced analysis of
federal, state and local organizational preparedness and the preparedness of
individuals, households and communities.

23. Finding from 2006. Emergency Operations Plans should be a focal point for resource
allocation, accountability and assessments of operational readiness.
 Desired Outcome from 2006. Plans identify requirements for specific operational
capabilities to drive multi-year planning, programming and budgeting. Resource
allocation is conditioned on and measured against delivery of specific operational
capabilities as required by homeland security plans. Plans are focal points for
measurements of readiness.
 Progress since 2006.
o CPG 101 provides guidance on how preparedness estimates (PEs) can be
incorporated into the planning process. PEs are a planner’s assessment of a
jurisdiction’s ability to take a course of action and help planners decide if
pursuing a particular course of action is doable and supportable. PEs help
planners better project and understand what might take place during an operation.

24. Finding from 2006. Performance management frameworks to support the National
Preparedness Goal should measure the ability to:
 Integrate a multi-jurisdictional and multi-agency response based on the intersection of
tasks and capabilities in combined plans; and
 Maintain operations in the face of disruptions of service, damage to the environment
in which operations occur or loss of critical resources.
o Desired Outcome from 2006. Creation of a performance management
framework that tracks performance against standard capabilities and tasks as
reflected in synchronized plans across levels of government. Continuity of
operations and government should be included as a priority performance measure.
o Progress since 2006.
 The TCL serves as a framework to guide operational readiness planning,
priority-setting and program implementation at all levels of government. The
TCL provides a basis for assessing preparedness to help jurisdictions and
agencies to plan strategically, design appropriate programs that meet proven
needs and evaluate the effectiveness of investments over time. Since 2006
the TCL has been increasingly utilized for emergency planning and planning
for exercises, including those related to continuity. Included in these
capabilities are the elements necessary for effective continuity programs. The

40
structure and use of the target capabilities continues to evolve on the basis of
the needs of jurisdictions.

41
VI. Next Steps
Although significant progress has been made to improve planning efforts nationwide, there still
remains much to be done. Efforts continue to address remaining actions derived from the
original 39 recommendations in the NPR2006. Three additional findings were generated from
this 2010 Report and are described below. FEMA will work with its partners to generate an
implementation plan to address these findings and continue efforts on remaining issues related to
the NPR2006; the implementation plan will describe how activities are related and arranged to
accomplish objectives that address the findings and will include direction and focus; identify
major tasks and schedules for decisions; and define what constitutes success.

Finding #1: The Agency must prioritize the delivery of up-to-date training to develop a cohort
of highly skilled planners and support their professional development. (Connected to Federal
Finding #18 – NPR2006)
 Background: A number of courses exist that address planning but are not currently
presented in an organized and sequenced manner and are not adequately integrated
across the homeland security enterprise. These are often “one and done” courses,
which are insufficient to build a cadre of well-trained and knowledgeable planners.
 Desired Outcome: A “master practitioner” track, similar to those available for
training and exercises, will be developed as part of the larger homeland security and
emergency management professional development program. Additionally, working
with higher education institutions, materials will be developed and provided to further
planning-related education in homeland security and emergency management
undergraduate and graduate programs nationwide.

Finding #2: The Agency must establish a National Planning System that is usable by all levels
of government. (Connected to Federal Finding #15 – NPR2006)
 Background: Annex I to HSPD-8 directed establishment of a national integrated
planning system. All levels of government made significant contributions in an effort
to design and implement a national planning system. However, the federal-led effort
attempted to institutionalize a system that was principally based on a military
planning model, which was not well-suited to the homeland security and emergency
management enterprise. Military planning has a unitary decision maker (a
commander) at its pinnacle, whereas planning in the decentralized yet highly
interdependent homeland security and emergency management enterprise relies on
coordination and collaboration. Planning in the military is accomplished by staff who
possess all the required functional competencies; in emergency management and
homeland security, functional competencies are scattered across departments and
agencies and levels of government. Finally, IPS produced a proliferation of guidance
and plans that proved unwieldy and burdensome for the homeland security and
emergency management planning community. The effort also resulted in separate
doctrinal guides—IPS for the Federal Government and CPG 101 for the bulk of the
planning community—serving as a quasi-national planning system. This proved to be
confusing and cumbersome; although planning continues across all levels of

42
government, IPS has been suspended in favor of designing a system better suited to
the emergency management and homeland security enterprise.
 Desired Outcome: A planning system “is essential and indispensable to homeland
security.” 14 The future planning system will establish a uniform approach to planning
that promotes not only a process usable at all levels of government but also a
common lexicon and associated training. This system will define and guide efforts
for all levels of government and by all partners. This planning doctrine will address
the full spectrum of homeland security missions.
 Desired Outcome: Tools must be made available to address gaps identified through
this process. This includes not only improvements in available planning guidance but
also the training and technical assistance to support its implementation. These
improvements will enhance resource identification and management, support detailed
public messaging and evacuation planning, improve patient tracking, facilitate
prevention and protection planning and address additional gaps in plans.

Finding #3: The Agency must develop a risk assessment and management process usable by all
levels of government.
 Background: The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) identified the
need to establish a national-level homeland security risk assessment. Such an
assessment:
“Will provide the Nation’s homeland security leaders with an assessment of
homeland security risks to our national strategic interests from challenges that
include weapons of mass destruction, global terrorism, mass cyber attacks,
pandemics, major accidents and natural disasters, illegal trafficking and related
transnational criminal activity and smaller scale attacks. Such a risk assessment
will help homeland security decision makers determine the most promising
strategic opportunities to manage risks across the homeland security enterprise.” 15
Although a number of efforts have been completed to aid in the risk assessment and
risk management process, including the development of a number of effective tools,
no uniform process yet exists.
 Desired Outcome: A consistent methodology and process for use by all levels of
government is a necessity for a comprehensive national planning system. Threat and
hazard identification and risk assessments are foundational to effective planning.

14
Quadrennial Homeland Security Report, p. 72, February 2010.
15
Id at 66.

43
Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations

CIKR Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources


COOP Continuity of Operations
CPG Comprehensive Preparedness Guide
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOT Department of Transportation
EAS Emergency Alert System
EMAC Emergency Management Assistance Compact
EMAP Emergency Management Accreditation Program
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FY Fiscal Year
H1N1 H1N1 Pandemic Influenza (2009)
HSGP Homeland Security Grant Program
HSPD-8 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8
IPAWS Integrated Public Alert Warning System
IPS Integrated Planning System
NDRF National Disaster Recovery Framework
NESC National Exercise Simulation Center
NIMS National Incident Management System
NIPP National Infrastructure Protection Plan
NISAC National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center
NLE National-Level Exercise
NMSZ New Madrid Seismic Zone
NPR Nationwide Plan Review
NRF National Response Framework
NRP National Response Plan
PE Preparedness Estimates

44
POC Point of Contact
PSIC Public Safety Interoperable Communications
QHSR Quadrennial Homeland Security Review
RCPGP Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SLG State and Local Guide
S.R. Senate Report
TA Technical Assistance
TCL Target Capabilities List
TFER Task Force for Emergency Readiness
TICP Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan
UASI Urban Areas Security Initiative

45
Appendix B: Distribution Memo

46
47
48
49
Appendix C: Certification Matrices
Jurisdiction Certification Matrix

Nationwide Plan Review 2010 -- Certification Matrix


Date
Jurisdiction Name: Completed By:
Completed:

General Instructions :
Answers provided in the table below should be supported by submitting the related document. Plan components may use titles that are
different from those listed below. For the comparison, please place an ‘X’ in the column corresponding to a number on the scale. Additional
instructions regarding CPG Criteria and use of the 5 point scale are provided on tabs 2 and 3.

Meets
Last Last Is the Plan Adequate / Feasible / Complete in
Page Criteria
CPG 101 Exercised Updated Support of a Catastrophic Event?
Plan Components Number(s) in CPG 101
Page Ref
of Plan Y ES --- SOM EW HAT --- NO
(Y /P/N ) (M M /Y Y Y Y ) (M M /Y Y Y Y )
5 4 3 2 1
Basic Plan
Overall Basic Plan C-5 - C-12

Organization &
C-8
Responsibilities
Direction, Control &
C-9
Coordination
Information Collection &
C-9
Dissemination
C-10
Communications
C-15
Administration, Finance
C-10
& Logistics
Functional Appendices / Plans (as applicable)
Warning C-16

Public Information C-16

Public Protection &


C-16
Evacuation

Mass Care & Sheltering C-17

Health and Medical C-18

Resource Management C-20

Prevention & Protection C-20

CI/KR Restoration C-21

Damage Assessment C-21

Debris Management C-22

Donations Management C-22

Population Reception N/A

Recovery N/A

Repatriation N/A

50
Last Last Is the Plan Adequate / Feasible / Complete in
Page
Exercised Updated Support of a Catastrophic Event?
Plan Components Source of Guidance Number(s)
of Plan Y ES --- SOM EW HAT --- NO
(M M /Y Y Y Y ) (M M /Y Y Y Y )
5 4 3 2 1
Hazard-Specific Annexes / Plans (mark N/A if not appropriate for your jurisdiction)
Improvised Nuclear
Device
Radiological Dispersal
Device
Improvised Explosive
Device

Chemical Event

Biological Event

Cyber Event

Pandemic Influenza

Hurricanes

Flooding

Winter Storms

Tornadoes

Earthquakes

Dam Failure

Hazardous Materials

51
Regional Certification Matrix

Nationwide Plan Review 2010 -- Certification Matrix To Be Completed By the Region


Jurisdiction Name: Completed By: Date Completed: Completed By: Date Completed:

General Instructions :
For each question below, please place an ‘X’ in the column
Answers provided in the table below should be supported by submitting the related document. Plan components may use titles that are different from those
corresponding to a number on the scale. Responses should be based
listed below. For the comparison, please place an ‘X’ in the column corresponding to a number on the scale. Additional instructions regarding CPG Criteria
on the criteria provided on tab 3: Adequate-Feasible-Complete.
and use of the 5 point scale are provided on tabs 2 and 3.

Meets Criteria Last Is the Plan Adequate / Feasible / Complete in Is the Plan Adequate / Feasible / Complete in Support of a
Last Exercised
CPG 101 Page Number(s) of in CPG 101 Updated Support of a Catastrophic Event? Catastrophic Event?
Plan Components
Page Ref Plan YES --- SOMEWHAT --- NO
YES --- SOMEWHAT --- NO
(Y/P/N) (MM/YYYY) (MM/YYYY)
5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1
Basic Plan Basic Plan
Overall Basic Plan C-5 - C-12
Organization &
C-8
Responsibilities
Direction, Control &
C-9
Coordination
Information Collection &
C-9
Dissemination
C-10
Communications
C-15
Administration, Finance &
C-10
Logistics
Functional Appendices / Plans (as applicable) Functional Appendices / Plans (as applicable)
Warning C-16

Public Information C-16


Public Protection &
C-16
Evacuation
Mass Care & Sheltering C-17

Health and Medical C-18

Resource Management C-20

Prevention & Protection C-20

CI/KR Restoration C-21

Damage Assessment C-21

Debris Management C-22

Donations Management C-22

Population Reception N/A

Recovery N/A

Repatriation N/A

Last Is the Plan Adequate / Feasible / Complete in Is the Plan Adequate / Feasible / Complete in Support of a
Page Last Exercised
Updated Support of a Catastrophic Event? Catastrophic Event?
Plan Components Source of Guidance Number(s)
YES --- SOMEWHAT --- NO YES --- SOMEWHAT --- NO
of Plan (MM/YYYY) (MM/YYYY)
5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1
Hazard-Specific Annexes / Plans (mark N/A if not appropriate for your jurisdiction) Hazard-Specific Annexes / Plans (as applicable)
Improvised Nuclear Device
Radiological Dispersal
Device
Improvised Explosive
Device
Chemical Event

Biological Event

Cyber Event

Pandemic Influenza

Hurricanes

Flooding

Winter Storms

Tornadoes

Earthquakes

Dam Failure

Hazardous Materials

52
Appendix D: References
 Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101: Developing and Maintaining State, Territorial,
Tribal and Local Government Emergency Plans, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, March 2009.
 Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 201: Catastrophic Logistics Planning Guide,
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 Interim Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 301: Emergency Management Planning
Guide for Special Needs Populations, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
August 15, 2008.
 Continuity Guidance Circular 1: Continuity Guidance for Non-Federal Entities,
January 21, 2009.
 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill 2010, S.R.1298, Department of
Homeland Security, October 28, 2009.
 Draft National Disaster Recovery Framework, Federal Emergency Management Agency
and Department of Housing and Urban Development, February 5, 2010.
 Emergency Management Standard, Emergency Management Accreditation Program,
September 2007.
 Evacuee Support Planning Guide, Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 2009.
 Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States,
Tierney, Lindell and Perry 2001.
 Functional Needs Support Services Guide, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 Personal Preparedness in America: Findings from the 2009 Citizen Corps National
Survey, Individual and Community Preparedness Division.
 Interim Report to Congress on the Emergency Preparedness Demonstration Pilot
Project, Federal Emergency Management Agency, August 2007.
 National Disaster Housing Strategy, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
January 16, 2009.
 National Incident Management System, Department of Homeland Security,
December 2008.
 National Infrastructure Protection Plan, Department of Homeland Security, 2009.
 National Preparedness Goal, Department of Homeland Security, 2005.
 National Preparedness Guidelines, Department of Homeland Security, September 2007.
 National Response Framework, Department of Homeland, January 2008.
 National Response Plan,. Department of Homeland Security, December 2004.
 Nationwide Plan Review Phase 1 Report, Department of Homeland Security,
February 10, 2006.
 Nationwide Plan Review Phase 2 Report. Department of Homeland Security and U.S.
Department of Transportation, June 16, 2006.

53
 Quadrennial Homeland Security Report, Department of Homeland Security,
February 2010.
 S.R. 111-31, U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, June 18, 2009.
 Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs
(NFPA 1600), National Fire Protection Association, 2004.
 State and Local Guide (SLG) 101: Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations
Planning, Federal Emergency Management Agency, September 1996.
 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Title III: Implementation of Hazardous
Materials Training for Tribal Nations, Environmental Protection Agency, June 2006.
 Target Capabilities List, Draft User Guide, Department of Homeland Security,
February 2009.
 Target Capabilities List, Version 2.0, Department of Homeland Security,
September 2007.

54
Appendix E: Self-Assessment Data

Self-assessment data are included in the following tables for each basic plan subcomponent,
functional appendix and hazard-specific annex evaluated in the 2010 Nationwide Plan Review
(NPR2010). Additionally, data have been provided for those plans that were also evaluated in
2006 for comparison. For those subcomponents that were evaluated for the first time in
NPR2010, the 2006 cells have been filled with gray to show that the data are not available. The
questions of adequacy have been summarized in the tables under the category, “Self-assessment
for managing a catastrophic event.” Results are reported at a consolidated level for each data set
to preserve the blind and un-biased analysis.

55
Basic Plan

Basic Plan: Consistency with Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101/


State and Local Guide (SLG) 101
States Urban Areas
Response Options 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101
Yes 64.3% 92.9% 68.4% 81.3%
Partially 35.7% N/A 27.6% N/A
No 0.0% 5.4% 1.3% 6.7%
No Response 0.0% 1.8% 2.6% 12.0%

Basic Plan: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 41.1% 19.6% 5 32.9% 23.7%


Yes 39.3% Yes 30.7%
4 37.5% 55.4% 4 48.7% 53.9%
Qualified Qualified
3 14.3% 16.1% 26.8% 3 15.8% 18.4% 26.7%
Yes Yes
2 5.4% 7.1% 2 1.3% 2.6%
No 28.6% No 29.3%
1 0.0% 0.0% 1 0.0% 1.3%
No No No No
1.8% 1.8% 5.4% 1.3% 0.0% 13.3%
Response Response Response Response

Basic Plan: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 28.6% 83.9% 22.4% 73.3%
1-2 Years 57.1% 8.9% 52.6% 4.0%
2-3 Years 3.6% 0.0% 14.5% 0.0%
3-4 Years 5.4% 0.0% 5.3% 1.3%
> 4 Years 3.6% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0%
No Response 1.8% 7.1% 2.6% 21.3%

Basic Plan: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 28.6% 58.9% 21.1% 65.3%
1-2 Years 37.5% 16.1% 25.0% 16.0%
2-3 Years 10.7% 7.1% 21.1% 8.0%
3-4 Years 7.1% 1.8% 10.5% 6.7%
> 4 Years 14.3% 7.1% 21.1% 8.0%
No Response 1.8% 8.9% 1.3% 12.0%

56
57
Organization and Responsibilities: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101
States Urban Areas
Response Options 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101
Yes 78.6% 77.6%
Partially 21.4% 18.4%
No 0.0% 1.3%
No Response 0.0% 2.6%

Organization and Responsibilities: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic


Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 51.8% 41.1% 5 48.7% 38.2%


Yes Yes
4 33.9% 39.3% 4 31.6% 40.8%
Qualified Qualified
3 10.7% 12.5% 3 17.1% 18.4%
Yes Yes
2 1.8% 3.6% 2 1.3% 1.3%
No No
1 1.8% 1.8% 1 0.0% 1.3%
No No No No
0.0% 1.8% 1.3% 0.0%
Response Response Response Response

Organization and Responsibilities: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 28.6% 19.7%
1-2 Years 57.1% 52.6%
2-3 Years 3.6% 15.8%
3-4 Years 5.4% 3.9%
> 4 Years 3.6% 2.6%
No Response 1.8% 5.3%

Organization and Responsibilities: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 26.8% 19.7%
1-2 Years 39.3% 25.0%
2-3 Years 10.7% 21.1%
3-4 Years 8.9% 10.5%
> 4 Years 12.5% 21.1%
No Response 1.8% 2.6%

58
Direction, Control and Coordination: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101
States Urban Areas
Response Options 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101
Yes 80.4% 89.3% 84.2% 81.3%
Partially 19.6% N/A 13.2% N/A
No 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 8.0%
No Response 0.0% 3.6% 2.6% 10.7%

Direction, Control and Coordination: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic


Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 51.8% 44.6% 5 48.7% 44.7%


Yes 39.3% Yes 30.7%
4 32.1% 30.4% 4 34.2% 35.5%
Qualified Qualified
3 12.5% 17.9% 23.2% 3 14.5% 14.5% 37.3%
Yes Yes
2 3.6% 3.6% 2 1.3% 3.9%
No 28.6% No 24.0%
1 0.0% 1.8% 1 0.0% 1.3%
No No No No
0.0% 1.8% 8.9% 1.3% 0.0% 8.0%
Response Response Response Response

Direction, Control and Coordination: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 26.8% 78.6% 17.1% 74.7%
1-2 Years 58.9% 5.4% 56.6% 4.0%
2-3 Years 5.4% 0.0% 15.8% 0.0%
3-4 Years 5.4% 0.0% 3.9% 1.3%
> 4 Years 1.8% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0%
No Response 1.8% 16.1% 3.9% 20.0%

Direction, Control and Coordination: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 25.0% 57.1% 19.7% 64.0%
1-2 Years 39.3% 14.3% 26.3% 12.0%
2-3 Years 12.5% 3.6% 19.7% 8.0%
3-4 Years 8.9% 1.8% 9.2% 6.7%
> 4 Years 12.5% 5.4% 22.4% 8.0%
No Response 1.8% 17.9% 2.6% 12.0%

59
Information Collection and Dissemination: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101
States Urban Areas
Response Options 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101
Yes 55.4% 55.3%
Partially 30.4% 30.3%
No 14.3% 10.5%
No Response 0.0% 3.9%

Information Collection and Dissemination: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a


Catastrophic Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 32.1% 16.1% 5 25.0% 15.8%


Yes Yes
4 32.1% 41.1% 4 22.4% 23.7%
Qualified Qualified
3 23.2% 23.2% 3 31.6% 42.1%
Yes Yes
2 3.6% 5.4% 2 6.6% 10.5%
No No
1 8.9% 12.5% 1 7.9% 7.9%
No No No No
0.0% 1.8% 6.6% 0.0%
Response Response Response Response

Information Collection and Dissemination: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 26.8% 17.1%
1-2 Years 53.6% 52.6%
2-3 Years 3.6% 14.5%
3-4 Years 3.6% 1.3%
> 4 Years 3.6% 2.6%
No Response 8.9% 11.8%

Information Collection and Dissemination: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 25.0% 18.4%
1-2 Years 41.1% 21.1%
2-3 Years 8.9% 18.4%
3-4 Years 5.4% 7.9%
> 4 Years 12.5% 19.7%
No Response 7.1% 14.5%

60
Communications: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101
States Urban Areas
Response Options 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101
Yes 80.4% 83.9% 71.1% 84.0%
Partially 17.9% N/A 25.0% N/A
No 1.8% 10.7% 1.3% 4.0%
No Response 0.0% 5.4% 2.6% 12.0%

Communications: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 33.9% 21.4% 5 30.3% 26.3%


Yes 30.4% Yes 29.3%
4 41.1% 39.3% 4 42.1% 35.5%
Qualified Qualified
3 21.4% 30.4% 28.6% 3 18.4% 23.7% 34.7%
Yes Yes
2 1.8% 7.1% 2 6.6% 11.8%
No 32.1% No 25.3%
1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1.3% 2.6%
No No No No
1.8% 1.8% 8.9% 1.3% 0.0% 10.7%
Response Response Response Response

Communications: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 35.7% 76.8% 21.1% 76.0%
1-2 Years 55.4% 8.9% 53.9% 2.7%
2-3 Years 1.8% 0.0% 15.8% 0.0%
3-4 Years 1.8% 0.0% 1.3% 2.7%
> 4 Years 1.8% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0%
No Response 3.6% 14.3% 5.3% 18.7%

Communications: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 25.0% 55.4% 18.4% 61.3%
1-2 Years 42.9% 16.1% 22.4% 14.7%
2-3 Years 10.7% 5.4% 19.7% 6.7%
3-4 Years 8.9% 0.0% 10.5% 6.7%
> 4 Years 10.7% 5.4% 25.0% 12.0%
No Response 1.8% 17.9% 3.9% 13.3%

61
Administration, Finance and Logistics: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101
States Urban Areas
Response Options 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101
Yes 67.9% 64.5%
Partially 25.0% 30.3%
No 5.4% 2.6%
No Response 1.8% 2.6%

Administration, Finance and Logistics: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic


Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 32.1% 19.6% 5 30.3% 19.7%


Yes Yes
4 35.7% 32.1% 4 34.2% 34.2%
Qualified Qualified
3 23.2% 30.4% 3 19.7% 27.6%
Yes Yes
2 1.8% 8.9% 2 11.8% 14.5%
No No
1 7.1% 5.4% 1 1.3% 3.9%
No No No No
0.0% 3.6% 2.6% 0.0%
Response Response Response Response

Administration, Finance and Logistics: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 26.8% 17.1%
1-2 Years 55.4% 48.7%
2-3 Years 3.6% 17.1%
3-4 Years 7.1% 5.3%
> 4 Years 3.6% 3.9%
No Response 3.6% 7.9%

Administration, Finance and Logistics: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 25.0% 21.1%
1-2 Years 37.5% 23.7%
2-3 Years 10.7% 19.7%
3-4 Years 8.9% 9.2%
> 4 Years 14.3% 21.1%
No Response 3.6% 5.3%

62
Functional Appendices

Warning Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101


States Urban Areas
Response Options 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101
Yes 66.1% 83.9% 76.3% 81.3%
Partially 25.0% N/A 19.7% N/A
No 5.4% 12.5% 1.3% 5.3%
No Response 3.6% 3.6% 2.6% 13.3%

Warning Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 30.4% 16.1% 5 36.8% 34.2%


Yes 35.7% Yes 32.0%
4 46.4% 48.2% 4 36.8% 31.6%
Qualified Qualified
3 14.3% 19.6% 26.8% 3 15.8% 27.6% 30.7%
Yes Yes
2 1.8% 10.7% 2 6.6% 3.9%
No 28.6% No 26.7%
1 3.6% 3.6% 1 1.3% 2.6%
No No No No
3.6% 1.8% 8.9% 2.6% 0.0% 10.7%
Response Response Response Response

Warning Appendix: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 35.7% 71.4% 28.9% 68.0%
1-2 Years 44.6% 7.1% 39.5% 4.0%
2-3 Years 3.6% 0.0% 19.7% 0.0%
3-4 Years 3.6% 0.0% 2.6% 1.3%
> 4 Years 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 1.3%
No Response 12.5% 21.4% 5.3% 25.3%

Warning Appendix: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 14.3% 48.2% 22.4% 64.0%
1-2 Years 39.3% 17.9% 26.3% 20.0%
2-3 Years 17.9% 7.1% 17.1% 6.7%
3-4 Years 5.4% 0.0% 7.9% 4.0%
> 4 Years 14.3% 3.6% 21.1% 12.0%
No Response 8.9% 23.2% 5.3% 13.3%

63
Public Information Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101
States Urban Areas
Response Options 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101
Yes 76.8% 83.9% 76.3% 80.0%
Partially 19.6% N/A 21.1% N/A
No 3.6% 8.9% 1.3% 8.0%
No Response 0.0% 7.1% 1.3% 12.0%

Public Information Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 42.9% 26.8% 5 35.5% 31.6%


Yes 41.1% Yes 29.3%
4 42.9% 50.0% 4 42.1% 35.5%
Qualified Qualified
3 8.9% 14.3% 25.0% 3 15.8% 25.0% 34.7%
Yes Yes
2 1.8% 5.4% 2 2.6% 3.9%
No 26.8% No 24.0%
1 1.8% 1.8% 1 1.3% 3.9%
No No No No
1.8% 1.8% 7.1% 2.6% 0.0% 12.0%
Response Response Response Response

Public Information Appendix: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 33.9% 73.2% 26.3% 73.3%
1-2 Years 50.0% 8.9% 48.7% 6.7%
2-3 Years 7.1% 3.6% 13.2% 0.0%
3-4 Years 3.6% 0.0% 2.6% 1.3%
> 4 Years 1.8% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0%
No Response 3.6% 14.3% 5.3% 18.7%

Public Information Appendix: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 16.1% 58.9% 17.1% 64.0%
1-2 Years 41.1% 14.3% 28.9% 12.0%
2-3 Years 14.3% 1.8% 17.1% 9.3%
3-4 Years 10.7% 1.8% 7.9% 5.3%
> 4 Years 10.7% 5.4% 25.0% 9.3%
No Response 7.1% 17.9% 3.9% 12.0%

64
Public Protection and Evacuation Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101
States Urban Areas
Response Options 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101
Yes 57.1% 66.1% 65.8% 62.7%
Partially 32.1% N/A 27.6% N/A
No 7.1% 28.6% 1.3% 24.0%
No Response 3.6% 5.4% 5.3% 13.3%

Public Protection and Evacuation Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a


Catastrophic Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 26.8% 12.5% 5 21.1% 15.8%


Yes 10.7% Yes 9.3%
4 39.3% 39.3% 4 42.1% 38.2%
Qualified Qualified
3 14.3% 28.6% 33.9% 3 19.7% 30.3% 32.0%
Yes Yes
2 10.7% 10.7% 2 10.5% 9.2%
No 44.6% No 44.0%
1 5.4% 7.1% 1 2.6% 6.6%
No No No No
3.6% 1.8% 10.7% 3.9% 0.0% 14.7%
Response Response Response Response

Public Protection and Evacuation Appendix: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 16.1% 58.9% 6.6% 54.7%
1-2 Years 48.2% 7.1% 44.7% 8.0%
2-3 Years 8.9% 1.8% 21.1% 1.3%
3-4 Years 5.4% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0%
> 4 Years 0.0% 3.6% 7.9% 4.0%
No Response 21.4% 28.6% 14.5% 32.0%

Public Protection and Evacuation Appendix: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 17.9% 44.6% 17.1% 53.3%
1-2 Years 46.4% 14.3% 25.0% 14.7%
2-3 Years 8.9% 5.4% 19.7% 6.7%
3-4 Years 1.8% 1.8% 9.2% 6.7%
> 4 Years 14.3% 3.6% 23.7% 9.3%
No Response 10.7% 30.4% 5.3% 22.7%

65
Mass Care and Sheltering Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101
States Urban Areas
Response Options 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101
Yes 62.5% 76.8% 72.4% 70.7%
Partially 32.1% N/A 19.7% N/A
No 1.8% 17.9% 5.3% 16.0%
No Response 3.6% 5.4% 2.6% 13.3%

Mass Care and Sheltering Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic


Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 28.6% 19.6% 5 28.9% 22.4%


Yes 14.3% Yes 14.7%
4 35.7% 35.7% 4 42.1% 40.8%
Qualified Qualified
3 25.0% 28.6% 25.0% 3 22.4% 27.6% 29.3%
Yes Yes
2 3.6% 7.1% 2 5.3% 6.6%
No 51.8% No 40.0%
1 3.6% 7.1% 1 0.0% 1.3%
No No No No
3.6% 1.8% 8.9% 1.3% 1.3% 16.0%
Response Response Response Response

Mass Care and Sheltering Appendix: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 21.4% 66.1% 7.9% 65.3%
1-2 Years 50.0% 5.4% 51.3% 4.0%
2-3 Years 8.9% 0.0% 21.1% 1.3%
3-4 Years 3.6% 1.8% 5.3% 0.0%
> 4 Years 3.6% 3.6% 7.9% 1.3%
No Response 12.5% 23.2% 6.6% 28.0%

Mass Care and Sheltering Appendix: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 17.9% 51.8% 19.7% 57.3%
1-2 Years 50.0% 12.5% 27.6% 16.0%
2-3 Years 7.1% 5.4% 19.7% 5.3%
3-4 Years 5.4% 3.6% 9.2% 8.0%
> 4 Years 12.5% 7.1% 19.7% 8.0%
No Response 7.1% 19.6% 3.9% 21.3%

66
Health and Medical Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101
States Urban Areas
Response Options 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101
Yes 64.3% 83.9% 72.4% 74.7%
Partially 33.9% N/A 21.1% N/A
No 1.8% 10.7% 2.6% 10.7%
No Response 0.0% 5.4% 3.9% 14.7%

Health and Medical Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 33.9% 25.0% 5 36.8% 27.6%


Yes 25.0% Yes 17.3%
4 37.5% 33.9% 4 36.8% 42.1%
Qualified Qualified
3 21.4% 28.6% 32.1% 3 18.4% 19.7% 36.0%
Yes Yes
2 7.1% 8.9% 2 1.3% 2.6%
No 35.7% No 32.0%
1 0.0% 1.8% 1 3.9% 6.6%
No No No No
0.0% 1.8% 7.1% 2.6% 1.3% 14.7%
Response Response Response Response

Health and Medical Appendix: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 23.2% 71.4% 11.8% 60.0%
1-2 Years 58.9% 0.0% 65.8% 5.3%
2-3 Years 5.4% 1.8% 5.3% 1.3%
3-4 Years 5.4% 1.8% 6.6% 1.3%
> 4 Years 1.8% 1.8% 3.9% 0.0%
No Response 5.4% 23.2% 6.6% 32.0%

Health and Medical Appendix: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 16.1% 50.0% 21.1% 54.7%
1-2 Years 42.9% 16.1% 25.0% 13.3%
2-3 Years 10.7% 7.1% 18.4% 6.7%
3-4 Years 7.1% 1.8% 13.2% 6.7%
> 4 Years 14.3% 3.6% 19.7% 9.3%
No Response 8.9% 21.4% 2.6% 22.7%

67
Resource Management Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101
States Urban Areas
Response Options 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101
Yes 62.5% 83.9% 64.5% 64.0%
Partially 30.4% N/A 23.7% N/A
No 7.1% 14.3% 9.2% 20.0%
No Response 0.0% 1.8% 2.6% 16.0%

Resource Management Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic


Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 28.6% 14.3% 5 27.6% 22.4%


Yes 21.4% Yes 17.3%
4 30.4% 39.3% 4 32.9% 27.6%
Qualified Qualified
3 26.8% 26.8% 32.1% 3 25.0% 34.2% 29.3%
Yes Yes
2 7.1% 10.7% 2 6.6% 10.5%
No 39.3% No 41.3%
1 5.4% 7.1% 1 6.6% 3.9%
No No No No
1.8% 1.8% 7.1% 1.3% 1.3% 12.0%
Response Response Response Response

Resource Management Appendix: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 30.4% 64.3% 17.1% 54.7%
1-2 Years 48.2% 3.6% 44.7% 6.7%
2-3 Years 5.4% 1.8% 14.5% 1.3%
3-4 Years 7.1% 0.0% 2.6% 1.3%
> 4 Years 0.0% 1.8% 3.9% 1.3%
No Response 8.9% 28.6% 17.1% 34.7%

Resource Management Appendix: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 19.6% 51.8% 18.4% 53.3%
1-2 Years 41.1% 14.3% 26.3% 10.7%
2-3 Years 10.7% 5.4% 19.7% 2.7%
3-4 Years 8.9% 1.8% 6.6% 4.0%
> 4 Years 10.7% 7.1% 22.4% 10.7%
No Response 8.9% 19.6% 6.6% 28.0%

68
Prevention and Protection Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101
States Urban Areas
Response Options 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101
Yes 48.2% 50.0%
Partially 28.6% 30.3%
No 19.6% 13.2%
No Response 3.6% 6.6%

Prevention and Protection Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic


Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 17.9% 7.1% 5 22.4% 14.5%


Yes Yes
4 30.4% 28.6% 4 25.0% 22.4%
Qualified Qualified
3 23.2% 28.6% 3 28.9% 30.3%
Yes Yes
2 5.4% 10.7% 2 11.8% 23.7%
No No
1 12.5% 16.1% 1 5.3% 6.6%
No No No No
10.7% 8.9% 6.6% 2.6%
Response Response Response Response

Prevention and Protection Appendix: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 14.3% 7.9%
1-2 Years 33.9% 32.9%
2-3 Years 8.9% 15.8%
3-4 Years 3.6% 1.3%
> 4 Years 0.0% 5.3%
No Response 39.3% 36.8%

Prevention and Protection Appendix: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 14.3% 19.7%
1-2 Years 41.1% 19.7%
2-3 Years 7.1% 18.4%
3-4 Years 3.6% 6.6%
> 4 Years 10.7% 18.4%
No Response 23.2% 17.1%

69
Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101
States Urban Areas
Response Options 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101
Yes 44.6% 38.2%
Partially 33.9% 32.9%
No 14.3% 19.7%
No Response 7.1% 9.2%

Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a


Catastrophic Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 17.9% 3.6% 5 11.8% 6.6%


Yes Yes
4 32.1% 33.9% 4 23.7% 23.7%
Qualified Qualified
3 23.2% 25.0% 3 34.2% 34.2%
Yes Yes
2 5.4% 16.1% 2 6.6% 13.2%
No No
1 10.7% 12.5% 1 14.5% 17.1%
No No No No
10.7% 8.9% 9.2% 5.3%
Response Response Response Response

Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources Appendix: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 12.5% 10.5%
1-2 Years 32.1% 26.3%
2-3 Years 7.1% 18.4%
3-4 Years 7.1% 5.3%
> 4 Years 1.8% 1.3%
No Response 39.3% 38.2%

Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources Appendix: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 23.2% 17.1%
1-2 Years 33.9% 18.4%
2-3 Years 5.4% 14.5%
3-4 Years 3.6% 10.5%
> 4 Years 10.7% 14.5%
No Response 23.2% 25.0%

70
Damage Assessment Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101
States Urban Areas
Response Options 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101
Yes 69.6% 64.5%
Partially 23.2% 26.3%
No 3.6% 3.9%
No Response 3.6% 5.3%

Damage Assessment Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event

States Urban Areas


2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 39.3% 21.4% 5 26.3% 25.0%


Yes Yes
4 32.1% 41.1% 4 38.2% 34.2%
Qualified Qualified
3 17.9% 19.6% 3 25.0% 25.0%
Yes Yes
2 7.1% 8.9% 2 2.6% 13.2%
No No
1 3.6% 7.1% 1 2.6% 2.6%
No No No No
0.0% 1.8% 5.3% 0.0%
Response Response Response Response

Damage Assessment Appendix: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 25.0% 14.5%
1-2 Years 44.6% 30.3%
2-3 Years 7.1% 22.4%
3-4 Years 8.9% 6.6%
> 4 Years 0.0% 6.6%
No Response 14.3% 19.7%

Damage Assessment Appendix: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 14.3% 15.8%
1-2 Years 44.6% 19.7%
2-3 Years 10.7% 18.4%
3-4 Years 7.1% 13.2%
> 4 Years 16.1% 25.0%
No Response 7.1% 7.9%

71
Debris Management Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101
States Urban Areas
Response Options 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101
Yes 64.3% 53.9%
Partially 25.0% 34.2%
No 5.4% 7.9%
No Response 5.4% 3.9%

Debris Management Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 33.9% 23.2% 5 32.9% 19.7%


Yes Yes
4 35.7% 39.3% 4 23.7% 31.6%
Qualified Qualified
3 16.1% 16.1% 3 25.0% 21.1%
Yes Yes
2 7.1% 12.5% 2 10.5% 21.1%
No No
1 3.6% 5.4% 1 3.9% 5.3%
No No No No
3.6% 3.6% 3.9% 1.3%
Response Response Response Response

Debris Management Appendix: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 16.1% 13.2%
1-2 Years 39.3% 22.4%
2-3 Years 8.9% 19.7%
3-4 Years 5.4% 9.2%
> 4 Years 0.0% 10.5%
No Response 30.4% 25.0%

Debris Management Appendix: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 19.6% 14.5%
1-2 Years 35.7% 27.6%
2-3 Years 14.3% 17.1%
3-4 Years 5.4% 10.5%
> 4 Years 12.5% 19.7%
No Response 12.5% 10.5%

72
Donations Management Appendix: Consistency with CPG 101/SLG 101
States Urban Areas
Response Options 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101 2010: CPG-101 2006: SLG-101
Yes 67.9% 44.7%
Partially 23.2% 26.3%
No 5.4% 19.7%
No Response 3.6% 9.2%

Donations Management Appendix: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic


Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 30.4% 19.6% 5 19.7% 13.2%


Yes Yes
4 30.4% 41.1% 4 23.7% 26.3%
Qualified Qualified
3 26.8% 23.2% 3 19.7% 26.3%
Yes Yes
2 10.7% 10.7% 2 13.2% 13.2%
No No
1 1.8% 3.6% 1 11.8% 15.8%
No No No No
0.0% 1.8% 11.8% 5.3%
Response Response Response Response

Donations Management Appendix: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 14.3% 7.9%
1-2 Years 33.9% 17.1%
2-3 Years 12.5% 22.4%
3-4 Years 7.1% 3.9%
> 4 Years 7.1% 7.9%
No Response 25.0% 40.8%

Donations Management Appendix: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 26.8% 17.1%
1-2 Years 33.9% 26.3%
2-3 Years 8.9% 13.2%
3-4 Years 8.9% 9.2%
> 4 Years 14.3% 11.8%
No Response 7.1% 22.4%

73
Hazard-Specific Annexes

Adversarial or Human-Caused Hazards

Improvised Nuclear Device Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic


Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 12.5% 7.1% 5 10.5% 7.9%


Yes Yes
4 25.0% 12.5% 4 19.7% 22.4%
Qualified Qualified
3 19.6% 33.9% 3 26.3% 26.3%
Yes Yes
2 8.9% 10.7% 2 7.9% 11.8%
No No
1 12.5% 21.4% 1 15.8% 17.1%
No No No No
21.4% 14.3% 19.7% 14.5%
Response Response Response Response

Improvised Nuclear Device Annex: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 1.8% 3.9%
1-2 Years 12.5% 18.4%
2-3 Years 1.8% 5.3%
3-4 Years 5.4% 11.8%
> 4 Years 7.1% 2.6%
No Response 71.4% 57.9%

Improvised Nuclear Device Annex: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 25.0% 7.9%
1-2 Years 26.8% 13.2%
2-3 Years 7.1% 11.8%
3-4 Years 0.0% 17.1%
> 4 Years 12.5% 17.1%
No Response 28.6% 32.9%

74
Radiological Dispersal Device Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic
Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 16.1% 7.1% 5 17.1% 10.5%


Yes Yes
4 26.8% 16.1% 4 23.7% 22.4%
Qualified Qualified
3 25.0% 37.5% 3 27.6% 31.6%
Yes Yes
2 7.1% 10.7% 2 9.2% 17.1%
No No
1 8.9% 14.3% 1 9.2% 5.3%
No No No No
16.1% 14.3% 13.2% 13.2%
Response Response Response Response

Radiological Dispersal Device Annex: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 3.6% 5.3%
1-2 Years 25.0% 28.9%
2-3 Years 1.8% 5.3%
3-4 Years 5.4% 14.5%
> 4 Years 5.4% 14.5%
No Response 58.9% 31.6%

Radiological Dispersal Device Annex: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 19.6% 10.5%
1-2 Years 26.8% 14.5%
2-3 Years 8.9% 14.5%
3-4 Years 1.8% 18.4%
> 4 Years 14.3% 19.7%
No Response 28.6% 22.4%

75
Improvised Explosive Device Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic
Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 16.1% 8.9% 5 22.4% 15.8%


Yes Yes
4 23.2% 17.9% 4 26.3% 26.3%
Qualified Qualified
3 19.6% 21.4% 3 25.0% 25.0%
Yes Yes
2 8.9% 16.1% 2 6.6% 13.2%
No No
1 10.7% 19.6% 1 7.9% 9.2%
No No No No
21.4% 16.1% 11.8% 10.5%
Response Response Response Response

Improvised Explosive Device Annex: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 8.9% 5.3%
1-2 Years 26.8% 40.8%
2-3 Years 7.1% 11.8%
3-4 Years 10.7% 14.5%
> 4 Years 3.6% 7.9%
No Response 42.9% 19.7%

Improvised Explosive Device Annex: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 12.5% 11.8%
1-2 Years 26.8% 18.4%
2-3 Years 12.5% 11.8%
3-4 Years 1.8% 14.5%
> 4 Years 16.1% 21.1%
No Response 30.4% 22.4%

76
Chemical Event Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 26.8% 14.3% 5 25.0% 18.4%


Yes Yes
4 26.8% 32.1% 4 34.2% 31.6%
Qualified Qualified
3 17.9% 25.0% 3 18.4% 23.7%
Yes Yes
2 10.7% 8.9% 2 6.6% 11.8%
No No
1 5.4% 14.3% 1 3.9% 5.3%
No No No No
12.5% 5.4% 11.8% 9.2%
Response Response Response Response

Chemical Event Annex: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 14.3% 5.3%
1-2 Years 37.5% 35.5%
2-3 Years 3.6% 9.2%
3-4 Years 5.4% 11.8%
> 4 Years 7.1% 13.2%
No Response 32.1% 25.0%

Chemical Event Annex: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 8.9% 10.5%
1-2 Years 33.9% 22.4%
2-3 Years 7.1% 15.8%
3-4 Years 5.4% 17.1%
> 4 Years 19.6% 17.1%
No Response 25.0% 17.1%

77
Biological Event Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 25.0% 16.1% 5 22.4% 15.8%


Yes Yes
4 23.2% 26.8% 4 27.6% 27.6%
Qualified Qualified
3 26.8% 25.0% 3 23.7% 26.3%
Yes Yes
2 3.6% 8.9% 2 10.5% 15.8%
No No
1 7.1% 17.9% 1 5.3% 6.6%
No No No No
14.3% 5.4% 10.5% 7.9%
Response Response Response Response

Biological Event Annex: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 16.1% 7.9%
1-2 Years 32.1% 28.9%
2-3 Years 7.1% 7.9%
3-4 Years 3.6% 14.5%
> 4 Years 3.6% 13.2%
No Response 37.5% 27.6%

Biological Event Annex: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 14.3% 14.5%
1-2 Years 30.4% 22.4%
2-3 Years 10.7% 13.2%
3-4 Years 5.4% 14.5%
> 4 Years 16.1% 19.7%
No Response 23.2% 15.8%

78
Cyber Event Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 10.7% 1.8% 5 2.6% 3.9%


Yes Yes
4 28.6% 21.4% 4 17.1% 10.5%
Qualified Qualified
3 14.3% 17.9% 3 19.7% 18.4%
Yes Yes
2 7.1% 12.5% 2 7.9% 6.6%
No No
1 17.9% 30.4% 1 21.1% 30.3%
No No No No
21.4% 16.1% 31.6% 30.3%
Response Response Response Response

Cyber Event Annex: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 5.4% 11.8%
1-2 Years 14.3% 9.2%
2-3 Years 12.5% 0.0%
3-4 Years 5.4% 2.6%
> 4 Years 1.8% 3.9%
No Response 60.7% 72.4%

Cyber Event Annex: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 16.1% 9.2%
1-2 Years 23.2% 10.5%
2-3 Years 8.9% 7.9%
3-4 Years 5.4% 1.3%
> 4 Years 8.9% 6.6%
No Response 37.5% 64.5%

79
Natural Hazards

Pandemic Influenza Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 46.4% 39.3% 5 32.9% 27.6%


Yes Yes
4 32.1% 33.9% 4 31.6% 32.9%
Qualified Qualified
3 12.5% 14.3% 3 13.2% 19.7%
Yes Yes
2 5.4% 3.6% 2 2.6% 2.6%
No No
1 0.0% 3.6% 1 5.3% 6.6%
No No No No
3.6% 5.4% 14.5% 10.5%
Response Response Response Response

Pandemic Influenza Annex: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 10.7% 15.8%
1-2 Years 57.1% 55.3%
2-3 Years 7.1% 2.6%
3-4 Years 7.1% 5.3%
> 4 Years 7.1% 5.3%
No Response 10.7% 15.8%

Pandemic Influenza Annex: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 17.9% 11.8%
1-2 Years 37.5% 34.2%
2-3 Years 10.7% 13.2%
3-4 Years 8.9% 5.3%
> 4 Years 12.5% 17.1%
No Response 12.5% 18.4%

80
Hurricanes Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 21.4% 12.5% 5 19.7% 14.5%


Yes Yes
4 19.6% 23.2% 4 14.5% 13.2%
Qualified Qualified
3 8.9% 8.9% 3 5.3% 6.6%
Yes Yes
2 1.8% 5.4% 2 0.0% 1.3%
No No
1 0.0% 1.8% 1 3.9% 7.9%
No No No No
48.2% 48.2% 56.6% 56.6%
Response Response Response Response

Hurricanes Annex: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 3.6% 2.6%
1-2 Years 25% 15.8%
2-3 Years 14.3% 10.5%
3-4 Years 3.6% 2.6%
> 4 Years 0.0% 5.3%
No Response 53.6% 63.2%

Hurricanes Annex: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 10.7% 3.9%
1-2 Years 26.8% 14.5%
2-3 Years 7.1% 7.9%
3-4 Years 3.6% 1.3%
> 4 Years 3.6% 7.9%
No Response 48.2% 64.5%

81
Flooding Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 28.6% 16.1% 5 28.9% 26.3%


Yes Yes
4 42.9% 39.3% 4 34.2% 32.9%
Qualified Qualified
3 10.7% 23.2% 3 10.5% 15.8%
Yes Yes
2 5.4% 8.9% 2 6.6% 6.6%
No No
1 1.8% 5.4% 1 2.6% 6.6%
No No No No
10.7% 7.1% 17.1% 11.8%
Response Response Response Response

Flooding Annex: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 10.7% 14.5%
1-2 Years 37.5% 30.3%
2-3 Years 12.5% 13.2%
3-4 Years 5.4% 2.6%
> 4 Years 5.4% 10.5%
No Response 28.6% 28.9%

Flooding Annex: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 23.2% 10.5%
1-2 Years 30.4% 23.7%
2-3 Years 10.7% 17.1%
3-4 Years 5.4% 9.2%
> 4 Years 10.7% 13.2%
No Response 19.6% 26.3%

82
Winter Storms Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 35.7% 21.4% 5 27.6% 22.4%


Yes Yes
4 33.9% 33.9% 4 30.3% 21.1%
Qualified Qualified
3 12.5% 21.4% 3 10.5% 19.7%
Yes Yes
2 0.0% 5.4% 2 3.9% 3.9%
No No
1 1.8% 0.0% 1 3.9% 7.9%
No No No No
16.1% 17.9% 23.7% 25.0%
Response Response Response Response

Winter Storms Annex: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 26.8% 28.9%
1-2 Years 28.6% 21.1%
2-3 Years 5.4% 5.3%
3-4 Years 0.0% 1.3%
> 4 Years 1.8% 5.3%
No Response 37.5% 38.2%

Winter Storms Annex: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 19.6% 10.5%
1-2 Years 37.5% 23.7%
2-3 Years 10.7% 14.5%
3-4 Years 3.6% 6.6%
> 4 Years 5.4% 14.5%
No Response 23.2% 30.3%

83
Tornadoes Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 28.6% 14.3% 5 18.4% 15.8%


Yes Yes
4 26.8% 33.9% 4 27.6% 22.4%
Qualified Qualified
3 14.3% 17.9% 3 14.5% 18.4%
Yes Yes
2 1.8% 5.4% 2 5.3% 6.6%
No No
1 1.8% 1.8% 1 5.3% 10.5%
No No No No
26.8% 26.8% 28.9% 26.3%
Response Response Response Response

Tornadoes Annex: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 5.4% 10.5%
1-2 Years 26.8% 19.7%
2-3 Years 10.7% 6.6%
3-4 Years 3.6% 6.6%
> 4 Years 3.6% 6.6%
No Response 50.0% 50.0%

Tornadoes Annex: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 12.5% 7.9%
1-2 Years 30.4% 15.8%
2-3 Years 16.1% 15.8%
3-4 Years 3.6% 5.3%
> 4 Years 5.4% 15.8%
No Response 32.1% 39.5%

84
Earthquakes Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 17.9% 8.9% 5 7.9% 6.6%


Yes Yes
4 26.8% 26.8% 4 18.4% 19.7%
Qualified Qualified
3 23.2% 30.4% 3 25% 25.0%
Yes Yes
2 3.6% 8.9% 2 5.3% 3.9%
No No
1 5.4% 3.6% 1 3.9% 10.5%
No No No No
23.2% 21.4% 39.5% 34.2%
Response Response Response Response

Earthquakes Annex: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 5.4% 3.9%
1-2 Years 25.0% 9.2%
2-3 Years 8.9% 9.2%
3-4 Years 5.4% 0.0%
> 4 Years 1.8% 5.3%
No Response 53.6% 72.4%

Earthquakes Annex: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 17.9% 10.5%
1-2 Years 28.6% 13.2%
2-3 Years 10.7% 13.2%
3-4 Years 3.6% 7.9%
> 4 Years 8.9% 9.2%
No Response 30.4% 46.1%

85
Technological Hazards

Dam Failure Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 28.6% 16.1% 5 18.4% 15.8%


Yes Yes
4 32.1% 25.0% 4 26.3% 23.7%
Qualified Qualified
3 14.3% 30.4% 3 13.2% 17.1%
Yes Yes
2 3.6% 7.1% 2 1.3% 3.9%
No No
1 3.6% 5.4% 1 5.3% 9.2%
No No No No
17.9% 16.1% 35.5% 30.3%
Response Response Response Response

Dam Failure Annex: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 3.6% 5.3%
1-2 Years 30.4% 14.5%
2-3 Years 12.5% 7.9%
3-4 Years 1.8% 0.0%
> 4 Years 5.4% 6.6%
No Response 46.4% 65.8%

Dam Failure Annex: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 17.9% 9.2%
1-2 Years 28.6% 19.7%
2-3 Years 12.5% 10.5%
3-4 Years 3.6% 6.6%
> 4 Years 7.1% 13.2%
No Response 30.4% 40.8%

86
Hazardous Materials Annex: Adequacy/Feasibility/Completeness of Plan to Manage a Catastrophic Event
States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
Response Regional Response Response Regional Response
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Options Review Options Options Review Options

5 35.7% 25.0% 5 30.3% 28.9%


Yes Yes
4 32.1% 33.9% 4 42.1% 42.1%
Qualified Qualified
3 17.9% 25.0% 3 13.2% 17.1%
Yes Yes
2 3.6% 3.6% 2 2.6% 3.9%
No No
1 3.6% 5.4% 1 1.3% 2.6%
No No No No
7.1% 7.1% 10.5% 5.3%
Response Response Response Response

Hazardous Materials Annex: Last Exercised


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 14.3% 14.5%
1-2 Years 32.1% 43.4%
2-3 Years 8.9% 7.9%
3-4 Years 7.1% 6.6%
> 4 Years 5.4% 3.9%
No Response 32.1% 23.7%

Hazardous Materials Annex: Last Updated


States Urban Areas
2010 2006 2010 2006
< 1 Year 17.9% 13.2%
1-2 Years 33.9% 27.6%
2-3 Years 8.9% 17.1%
3-4 Years 7.1% 17.1%
> 4 Years 16.1% 11.8%
No Response 16.1% 13.2%

87