A New Approach to Emergency Management

Created by an act of Congress in 1846, the Smithsonian is the largest museum complex and research organization in the world. Its 17 museums, many of which line the historic National Mall between the Washington Monument and the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., protect and display more than 143 million objects and works of art. Approximately 2,700 animals, representing more than 435 species, reside in its National Zoological Park, one of the world’s premier zoo facilities.

As both a storehouse of national treasures and an icon of American culture, the Smithsonian has the tremendous responsibility of safeguarding its facilities, their contents, and the tens of millions of people who visit them each year. Fortunately, the Smithsonian is a model organization not only for its role in the museum world, but also for its approach to emergency management. Today the institution is conducting a state-of-the-art hazards threat analysis, vulnerability assessment, and impact assessment for 30 key facilities and special events—all in line with the nation’s new philosophy of an all-hazards approach to disaster preparedness.

Responding to 9/11

By raising the consciousness of Americans about the possibility— indeed, the likelihood—of terrorism on native soil, the attacks of September 11, 2001, have had far-reaching effects. One of the most significant responses has been how this nation views disasters. Almost every federal agency now has responsibility for some element of homeland security, response, and recovery in case of a catastrophic natural or manmade disaster. Agencies with a focus on coordinating mass casualty responses—like the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control, and the newly formed Department of Homeland Security—are all now firmly focused on preparedness systems that consider the full spectrum of potential hazards: manmade, natural, and terrorist-invoked.

In 1998, Presidential Decision Directive 63 was issued that required all federal agencies to conduct vulnerability assessments of their critical infrastructure, but there were no guidelines or established processes to follow and a lack of funding. According to Marcelle Habibion, Ed.D., a senior program analyst with the VA, the change from addressing infrastructure vulnerability on a topical basis—such as seismic events or aging boiler plants—to one that recognized a wide variety of threats actually began after the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 1995. “But it was the post September 11 appropriation of $2 million in additional funding that gave us the opportunity to develop and test a methodology and begin the implementation of our assessment strategy in a systematic way,” she recalls.

The VA was one of the first federal agencies to develop a methodology for all-risk vulnerability assessments of building facilities. Keeping in mind the primary goals of protecting the occupants of its buildings and being able to meet its statutory mission of serving veterans and their families, the VA looked at 12 different threat scenarios. “Some of these were of manmade origin, in other words, potential mischief caused by individuals. Some were natural disasters, and some were accidents of various sorts,” Habibion explains.

One year after the 9/11 attacks, the VA had completed development of its all-hazards vulnerability assessment methodology and a building vulnerability checklist to support the assessment process. The VA had also identified its most critical infrastructure for assessments. Habibion reports that as of July of this year, 116 of these assessments have been completed.

Equally important, the assessment methodology developed by the VA with the nonprofit National Institute of Building Sciences was the foundation for the FEMA 426 –Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings. This definitive document is now being used across the nation to provide guidance to architects and engineers in how to reduce physical damage to buildings, related infrastructure, and people caused by terrorist assaults.

One County Takes Action

Although the events of September 11 shook the nation at large, few communities have felt the effects as immediately and as deeply as Arlington County, Virginia. Home to the Pentagon, Arlington County was called on to respond immediately to the disaster within its borders. And with two-thirds of Arlington’s 40.5 million square feet of office space housing federal activities, disaster preparedness and security suddenly took center stage, threatening to change the quality of life for residents and shake the foundation of the community’s economic success.

“We had been working on the Metro (Washington Metropolitan Area Transit System) corridor for the last 30 years and developed a very clear vision for our community,” relates Terry Holzheimer, AICP, director of business investment for Arlington Economic Development. A series of unique “urban villages,” carefully planned and precisely executed over the years, support a transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly lifestyle with active residential and retail spaces. “Certainly, the workers at our federal agencies have enjoyed the benefits of this lifestyle. However, we found our vision in conflict with a number of those agencies’ security-based actions.”

Features like shared underground parking and office buildings with ground-floor retail stores became problems for federal agencies looking for greater security; steel-spiked fencing and obtrusive barriers were at odds with the county’s sense of aesthetics.

“The issue was how to provide adequate safety and security for building occupants while maintaining Arlington’s vision,” comments Holzheimer. “You have to approach this with the belief that everyone can win, that there doesn’t have to be confrontation. You can do something that makes sense for everyone.”

The county set about educating itself in the federal criteria related to all-hazards emergency preparedness. Federal operations in the county were inventoried, and a checklist was developed to facilitate the review of their security needs. The county contracted PBS&J to assist in identifying requirements, cost-effective mitigation strategies, and options for security and natural hazards as well as available grants and other sources of funding. According to Holzheimer, many of the threat mitigation techniques being developed are based on FEMA 426 . Recommendations can range from implementing minimum hardening or streetscaping to hardening an entire building to changing the tenancy of a building.

In addition, the county began a series of workshops on threat vulnerability and risk assessment for building owners and managers. The goal: to provide a basic level of training from which to perform assessments and make cost-effective modifications.

“We applied a process that allowed us to tackle the issue in a systematic way, to build consensus and promote compromise when it was appropriate,” Holzheimer says. And while Arlington County may not be typical in its risk and emergency management needs, he encourages all communities to understand the federal criteria and how or if it relates to their community. “Then you can develop realistic steps to mitigate potential threats,” he concludes.

Heeding the Call for National Security

State agencies have also become the torchbearers for emergency management and the all-hazards approach, scrambling to develop appropriate frameworks and guidelines for regional agencies and local governments. “Because at the end of the day, the ultimate responsibility for preparedness lies with individual communities,” says PBS&J Risk and Emergency Management Division Project Manager Hank Schneider.

Schneider, who has specialized expertise in antiterrorist and force protection and has 20 years of experience in engineering, environmental compliance, and program management with the U.S. Marine Corps, today is helping local and regional entities tackle the issues of homeland security and emergency management. One of these entities is District Seven of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), which is revising its comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP) to integrate natural and manmade disasters.

“FDOT District Seven covers five counties on the west coast of Florida and encompasses approximately 1,066 miles of federal highway system roadway,” states Schneider. “Like much of Florida, the district is located within a hurricane-prone area and historically has focused its emergency preparedness efforts on potential hurricane events. That’s all changing.”

Ron Anderson, emergency coordination officer for FDOT District Seven, explains. “In the aftermath of 9/11, the Governor of Florida examined the emergency preparedness of all state organizations and directed the completion of a continuity of operations plan (COOP) in order to recover essential functions. With the COOP describing who is in charge, what functions they need to immediately perform, and what authority they have, we turned to upgrading our comprehensive emergency management plan.”

He adds that instead of simply providing points of contact and checklists, “our vision is to create a manual to explain the responsibilities, policies, and procedures for FDOT to support the communities within our District.”

Based upon the deliberate planning conducted to complete the CEMP and through practice of crisis planning, the district is training and exercising its staff to respond with the supported communities to any emergency. “I am very happy with the progress the district is making to improve our emergency management readiness. Our employees understand the importance of being ready and are looking forward to the challenge when they are needed,” Anderson says.

A Nation Prepared

Living in constant fear of potential disasters is neither healthy nor desired by our government leaders. But we can—and should—be ready, and through actions like those discussed here, we know that we are making tremendous strides in that direction. A common vision, systematic approaches, shared knowledge, and a readiness plan that includes both natural and manmade disasters go a long way to reducing vulnerability, lessening impacts, and creating a nation prepared.