"All Hazard" Disaster Preparedness Framework

"All Hazard" Disaster Preparedness Framework

Michael P. Murphy
January 15th, 2004

Identification and Significance of the Problem or Opportunity

Tedesco & Associates, LLC, (Tedesco) plans to collaborate with PLe Government Systems, part of P&L E-Communications, LLC (PLe), and to create a strategic plan mechanism to help create a framework for exchanging best practices for major disaster planning for public agencies, first responders, not-for-profit entities, companies and individuals. Tedesco believes that the primary mission of all disaster plans should be to protect and preserve human life. Federal preparation for disasters often anticipate the protection of critical infrastructure. Without a framework for disaster preparedness and well thought escalation procedures under the framework, civilian planning may be limited to reactive response. The preparedness method in this proposal anticipates the role of the Air Force in civil defense and the preservation of lives within the United States.

Air Operations Center sites may receive both military and civil defense data from a variety of sources. Disaster preparedness information relevant to first responders must be parsed from information that is more relevant to the preparation for national defense and response. In many cases, the Air Force may become involved in both the civil and military responses, but there will be a strong need to involve police and life safety professionals with timely civil defense data without compromising national security.

While a national disaster preparedness system must be comprehensive, there must also be wide variations in local response plans from region to region. The regional geography impacts the types of natural and artificial disasters that citizens may face. For example, the hurricane response plan of a Gulf Coast state or a tsunami response for California have little bearing on a plan to aid the citizens of Upstate New York. Response or evacuation plans must be tailored to the type of disaster; whether the disaster was anticipated or a surprise; the scope of the disaster; and the features of the affected region.

Elements of a plan for flood, fire, terrorism or war may be just as relevant in a Gulf Coast State, California or Illinois. A framework for disaster preparedness will allow for the development of a comprehensive system of best practices in order to support a number of organizations in their own development of disaster plans suitable for a given region. We begin with a template (to be incorporated into the framework in Phase II) of a less densely populated region (the Finger Lakes) for several reasons.

Extremely dense populated regions may have secondary disaster planning issues caused by an evacuation.

Extremely dense populated regions will have a greater number of service agencies to coordinate than the Phase I budget allows.

Extremely dense populated regions are not a underserved as less densely populated regions.

In terms of land mass, there are a greater number of less densely populated regions.

The advanced methodologies are meant to be replicated and modified within the framework to suit anticipated and specific regional threats and to provide response scenarios for more unusual situations. The proposed methodologies are meant to be supplemented with specific expertise provided by entities and individuals with skills to improve or modify a proposed system.

The most desirable preparedness plan is one which is kept current but never has to be used. A traditional planning cycle is to Plan, Prepare, Respond and Recover. In reality, there is a subcycle between planning and preparation in which there is in an opportunity to train and drill, innovate and improve, and integrate new information from the process. Innovation is least desirable at the moments following the disaster when the response and recovery portion of the cycle begins. The potential for more harm to result, from a poorly prepared public, is significant.

The framework is intended to help large and small civilian entities develop escalation procedures in response to natural or man made incidents. Comprehensive civil response systems for anticipated disasters may have become antiquated. Within a global or national framework, templates for regional disaster response can be drafted for use within a specified region or modified for other regional response systems. For example, the Finger Lakes template solutions for Lake Ontario may be modified for future regional templates in other Great Lakes States. As multiple templates become available under the framework, best practices for disaster response scenarios may become evident.

Collaborative Working Groups:

Tedesco and Associates has formed an ad hoc working group in Chicago (Chicago Working Group) with the Illinois Institute of Technology Institute of Design ID (IIT ID), Battelle Chicago, NASA Illinois, Boeing and others to investigate framework solutions for Homeland Security. The Chicago Working Group will become active in Phase II of the project following license negotiations to expand an IIT ID project into a full disaster preparedness framework. Tedesco's founder of the Chicago Working Group, Michael Murphy, will work (for Tedesco) with PLe in New York. The Chicago Working Group will become more involved in Phase II.

PLe is working with businesses and agencies in western New York State developing innovative approaches to sensor solutions for first responders, homeland security groups and security companies, directly supporting data and information sharing across organizational boundaries. PLe is partnering with the University of Rochester Computer Vision Robotics Lab (UR) are partnering to develop image processing algorithms and a formal framework for a Situation Awareness Fusion Environment (SAFE). In addition, PLe is participating in working groups with several private, governmental and tax exempt organizations in New York (New York Working Group).

First Template / Communications (Phase I):

Tedesco and PLe will develop the first template with the New York Working Group in Phase I and a larger metropolitan area in Phase II with the Chicago Working Group (for example, Chicago and the "collar counties"). In Phase I, Tedesco will follow New York State Emergency Management Office (NY SEMO) guidelines and tools ( http://www.nysemo.state.ny.us ) as well as other Federal, state and local planning resources. According to SEMO, there have been 25 federally-declared disasters or emergencies in New York State since 1995. Phase II will seek to use similar Federal, state and local planning resources for larger populated areas.

Military networks by their nature require that vast amounts of transmitted information must remain classified. Within military networks there is a renewed focus on " getting the right information to the right people at the right time." The civilian network will not be "top secret," "secret" or "sensitive" because of the importance of articulating disaster preparedness plan information needed by first responders, government agencies and the general public.

The presumed starting point for military civilian communications is via the Department of Defense Joint Technical Architecture (JTA). Communications are likely to take place in a for “stressed” communications environment (characterized by one or more of high bit error rates, long delays, low bandwidths, and high degrees of asymmetry). The military/civilian communications will exchange data at JTA compliant External Environment Interfaces (EEIs). Communications tests will take place in Phase II and are not expected for Phase I.

Where possible, Tedesco plans to use OASIS Common Alerting Protocol, v. 1.0 (Committee Specification, 12 August 2003) Document: emergency-CAP-1.0 ( http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency/ ) for communications between first responders. "The Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) is a simple but general format for exchanging all hazard emergency alerts and public warnings over all kinds of networks. CAP allows a consistent warning message to be disseminated simultaneously over many different warning systems, thus increasing warning effectiveness while simplifying the warning task."

Because an "all hazard" plan under the Homeland Security Act also includes nuclear and other sensitive topics, framework use by government agencies will not be available to the general public. We anticipate that the framework will be flexible enough to be modified for non-public use within agency systems. Further, information which begins as a military observation is necessary for disaster response and information which begins from first responders may become significant to the military.

Integration with "Planning For Joint Operations"

For the purposes of this application, the framework is expected to work in a manner similar to The Joint Chiefs of Staff, "Planning For Joint Operations." Joint Chiefs of Staff, J-7, "Planning For Joint Operations" http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jrm/plans.pdf . The preparedness framework is meant to be used in times of peace and in response to the caprice of nature or the recklessness or malice of man within the Continental United States (CONUS including Alaska and Hawaii) and U.S. protectorates. A unique instance in the case of terrorism, is that the source of attack and the target of attack may both occur within the United States (as witnessed on September 11, 2001). The preparedness framework must anticipate actions from land, sea, air or space.

Joint operation planning employs an integrated process entailing similar policies and procedures during war and military operations other than war, providing for orderly and coordinated problem solving and decision making. In its peacetime application, the process is highly structured to support the thorough and fully coordinated development of deliberate plans. In crisis, the process is shortened, as necessary, to support the dynamic requirements of changing events. In wartime, the process adapts to accommodate greater decentralization of joint operation planning activities.

Interoperable planning and execution systems are essential to effective planning for joint operations. The activities of the entire planning community must be integrated through an interoperable joint system that provides for uniform policies, procedures, and reporting structures supported by modern communications and computer systems. The system designed to provide interoperability is the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES). JOPES is first and foremost policies and procedures that guide joint operation planning efforts.

Doctrine for Planning Joint Operations, vii Joint Pub 5-0, 13 April 1995.

Organizational Framework for Homeland Defense

"An Organizational Framework for Homeland Defense" was raised by Terrence Kelly in Parameters (US Army War College Quarterly), Autumn 2001, pp. 105-16. Kelly (at the suggestion of Dr. Vigdor Teplitz) suggested that the military's regional Commanders in Chief (CINCs) would have a role within the framework (warfighting, peacekeeping, humanitarian operations). Similarly, AF04-088 states that "Air Operations Center sites within the continental United States form the de facto regional framework for Homeland Defense."

In short, first responders will need to have access to "need to know" information declassified from various branches of the military. While the method of information distribution will be controlled, the security level of the communications is likely to be far less than within military networks. Thus, the framework must take into account the removal of classified information before it is transmitted to first responders. The framework must perform this task as quickly as possible in order to preserve the value of near real time data to first responders.

A "major disaster" is either not anticipated or, if anticipated, overwhelms an infrastructure with an unexpected magnitude either over a brief or extended period of time. It is Tedesco's intent to conform to (or precede) the development of a "comprehensive national incident management system" by the office of the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response.

Phase I Technical Objectives

Service Delivery Point: Homeland

The coordinating entity responsible to assist the people through agencies, the states, municipalities and "first responders," is the office of Homeland Security. The comments to the statute state that:

Under the President’s proposal, a single government Department would communicate with the American people about a chemical or biological attack. The new Department would also be the organization that coordinates provision of specific threat information to local law enforcement and sets the national threat level. The new Department would ensure that local law enforcement entities – and the public – receive clear and concise information from their national government. Citizens would also have one Department telling them what actions – if any – they must take for their safety and security.

Source: Department of Homeland Security http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/sect1.html

Prior to the comment's above, the executive summary also points out that:

Currently, if a chemical or biological attack were to occur, Americans could receive warnings and health care information from a long list of government organizations, including HHS, FEMA, EPA, GSA, FBI, DOJ, OSHA, OPM, USPS, DOD, USAMRIID, and the Surgeon General – not to mention a cacophony of state and local agencies.

The Department of Homeland Security has the responsibility for responding to major disasters resulting from the caprice of nature or the maliciousness of man. By definition, "major disasters" involve a significant threat to human life and property. In addition to the Homeland Security, State and local organizations (like New York's Office of Public Security) must effectively communicate and provide immediate response to disasters and perform the logistics to prevent vulnerabilities to secondary incidents resulting from the first response.

In Phase I, Tedesco will develop a regional disaster preparedness template for the Finger Lakes region of New York including escalation procedures for anticipated disasters. In Phase II, the template will be supplemented with a national or global framework in which other local or regional templates can be added. Resources in Phase I can be staged on PCs, however, resources in Phase II will require a more robust architecture and network to disseminate the best practices material.

The Symbiotic Agent-based Fusion Environment (SAFE) is a framework that can be used to develop simplified tools, which integrate and correlate inputs from various intelligence sensors and visually display the information. The SAFE framework has, as its primary objective, the integration of diverse intelligence sensor data to support our military troops and domestic first-responders. The SAFE framework is planned to help troops and responders gather information from an autonomous proactive/predictive system, which they rapidly can use to complete their mission.

In Phase I, we will articulate a reusable framework, more plans can be moved from crisis planning (responsive) to operations planning (proactive) and coordinated between military and civilian agencies.

In Phase II, The Tedesco advanced methodologies are intended to be combined with existing work from IIT ID to set forth a framework for a reusable "best practices database" of global, national and regional disaster preparedness and recovery plans. Tedesco plans to expand the existing Illinois Institute of Technology Institute of Design ID Safe(earth)2000 and the ID strategic planning software tools to develop a framework for a governmental organization.

Safe(earth)2000 was an award winning treatment of a hypothetical disaster preparedness system. While the text of the final book contained innovative solutions, the importance of the book may have been dwarfed by the potential of the framework involved in the creation of the book. The hypothetical data in Safe(earth)2000 will be supplemented with real world examples and escalation procedures.

Force Majure

"Force Majure" is a concept that has found its way in to many modern contracts. the concept recognizes a "major disaster" so significant, that it creates an exception to the operation of a contract resulting in an excusable delay or termination due to impossibility. Recent examples are the two World Trade Center attacks, major floods, earthquakes and Mt. St. Helen's. However, history reveals the United States must also brace for other events of even greater magnitude as significant as the Chicago Fire, The Galveston Hurricane, the San Francisco Earthquake.

A "force majure" clause might have had little bearing on the operation of a contract in effect outside of New York City, following the world Trade Center bombing. However, the operation of contracts, delivery systems, airports and more critical industries ground to a halt after the attacks of September 11. The threat of further danger brought several industries to a complete standstill. After September 11, 2001, the Federal government decided to expand its powers to respond to "major disasters" and to coordinate more completely with state and local systems.

While a national system must be comprehensive, there must also be wide variations in plans from region to region. The regional geography impacts the types of natural disasters that citizens may face. For example, the hurricane response plan of a Gulf Coast state or a tsunami response for California have little bearing on a plan to aid the citizens of Chicago or Illinois. However, elements of a plan for flood, fire, terrorism or war may be just as relevant in a Gulf Coast State, California or Illinois.

Even a comprehensive disaster preparedness plan will not prevent disasters.

The shift in disaster philosophy over the past few years has been away from prevention to planned response. People who are trained to react to a disaster also may be able to mitigate its effect (or at least prevent further disasters from happening). Teams trained to respond to a number of disaster scenarios follow escalation procedures that have been tested through drills or previous emergencies.

In a "major disaster," even a well trained team may reach the end of an escalation procedure.

Communications and coordination may be strained so that the disaster response team is in need of rescue. In the United States, we have the luxury of a population willing to help in the time of need and a sufficiently large land mass to allow for remote disaster services to be provided from U. S. citizens and other agencies. In the case of Japan, we know that plans for a "major disaster" anticipate the failure of major components of communications systems. Further, resources available to the Island nation may have to be drawn from neighboring countries.

"All-Hazard Plan" (Incident Management)

On Nov. 25, President George W. Bush signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law No: 107-296). The new law mandates the creation of a "cabinet level position" and the blending of several existing federal entities to effect the provisions of the Act. The law also incorporates some key definitions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, (Pub. L. No. 93-288, as amended).

(7) 'Local government' has the meaning given in section 102(6) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Pub. L. No. 93-288;

(8) 'Major disaster' has the meaning given in section 102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Pub. L. No. 93-288;

The underlying definition of the Stafford Act will also be amended to include threats to Homeland Security that were not contemplated when the Stafford Act was intended for peacetime use.

The Department of Homeland Security is expected to develop a comprehensive national incident management system for response to terrorist incidents and natural disasters. This "all hazard plan" will significantly expand the role of the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (which replaced the Civil Defense Act of 1950. Public Law 81-920, as amended ) beyond its implementation before and after September 11, 2001. (See, inter alia, Emergency Management and Assistance, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44 and Presidential Decision Directive 39 (PDD-39)).

The Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response is be responsible for functions relevant to emergency preparedness and response. The Under Secretary is to build a comprehensive national incident management system, and will consolidate existing federal government emergency response plans into a single, coordinated national response plan. (www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/theme_home2.jsp)

The description below, is from the commentary on the Homeland Security Act:

Incident Management. The Department would work with federal, state, and local public safety organizations to build a comprehensive national incident management system for response to terrorist incidents and natural disasters. This system would clarify and streamline federal incident management procedures, eliminating the artificial distinction between "crisis management" and "consequence management." The Department would consolidate existing federal government emergency response plans – namely the Federal Response Plan, the National Contingency Plan, the U.S. government Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan, and the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan – into one genuinely all-hazard plan. In time of emergency, the Department would manage and coordinate federal entities supporting local and state emergency response efforts.

Interoperable Communications. In the aftermath of any major terrorist attack, emergency response efforts would likely involve hundreds of offices from across the government and the country. It is crucial for response personnel to have and use equipment and systems that allow them to communicate with one another. The current system has not yet supplied the emergency response community with the technology that it needs for this mission. The new Department of Homeland Security would make this a top priority.

Source: Department of Homeland Security http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/sect4.html#4-2

Communication issues that arise between military and civilian first responders does have a parallel within the military community. There is a similar need to communicate intelligence to forward deployed troops. Although the communications takes place within military networks, the information passed between the forces must also be filtered and fused.

First responders may react to significant disasters in a manner similar to warfighters in the pitch of battle. The Virtual Reality Applications Center which is administered by the Institute for Physical Research and Technology (IPRT) at Iowa State University describes the need for information balance in its project for Visualization of the Joint Battlespace:

This project addresses the critical need for battlefield information to pierce the confusion and haze of war. As our surveillance and intelligence capabilities continue to increase, the issues of discrimination, selection and dissemination of information become paramount. The key question is: How do we get the right information to the right people at the right time? At the same time, we need to avoid the problem of overwhelming or desensitizing the user with too much information.

Tedesco and PLe are working with businesses and agencies in western New York State developing traditional and innovative approaches to sensor solutions for first responders, homeland security groups and security companies, directly supporting data and information sharing across organizational boundaries. University of Rochester Computer Vision Robotics Lab (UR), and PLe are partnering to develop image processing algorithms and a formal framework for a Situation Awareness Fusion Environment (SAFE).

Phase I Work Plan

Work Schedule and Deliverables

Table 1: Task Schedule

Tasks	Months
FINGER LAKES TEMPLATE	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Identify Critical Recovery Procedures	¨	¨	¨	¨
2. Identify Critical Support Procedures		¨	¨	¨	¨
3. Define Escalation Procedures				¨	¨	¨	¨
4. Document Procedures and Process					¨	¨	¨	¨	¨
5. Review: Finger Lakes Template as First Part of Framework (Phase II Readiness Report)							¨	¨	¨

John William Toigo in “Preparing for the Unthinkable,” Enterprise Systems Journal (http://esj.com/features/article.asp?editorialsid=34) states that: “Disaster planning is difficult work, but it pales in comparison to actually executing the plan.” In addition, he advises companies to consider his following ten observations in light of the murders of September 11, 2001:

Plan for total disaster

Focus on key assets

Size doesn’t matter

Work with law enforcement

Expect people’s best -- and worst

Watch out for third parties affected

Plan for employee’s work space

Try to avoid the media

Consider your workers

Reward innovation

Id.

1. Identify Critical Recovery Procedures

Identify critical procedures most critical to environment

Identify the recovery procedures most critical for a specific recovery.

Identify alternative recovery procedures for the specific recovery.

IDENTIFY POINTS OF FAILURE:

Framework and Advanced Methodologies

A framework methodology is necessary because a "comprehensive national incident management system" may take years to put into place. It is possible that a significant natural or man made event will occur before the national system is put into place. Agencies that were expected to be reactive to disasters are now being asked to be proactive.

We will begin by developing a small regional template to fit within the eventual framework.

Proactive plans will require the involvement of the military to observe and prevent foreign or domestic actions resulting in harm to citizens and property. Further observations will require the military to communicate with civilian agencies and first responders swiftly, in order to mitigate the results of the initial incident and subsequent results. Because the incident is within the shores of the United States, the response may be police action rather than military and the information shared between civil and military authorities must be swift and resolute.

One of Tedesco' first requests for U.S. best practices came from Michael Murphy's presentation to several government and private interests in Japan. The Japanese Prefectures (government) and private companies must plan for a strong magnitude earthquake along a fault very near Tokyo.

In a worst case scenario, a substantial earthquake would be followed by a tsunami of several meters. The presumption is that there will be a large scale loss of human life, infrastructure and support systems as well as an immediate devastation of almost all land based and wireless telecommunications systems.

As Japan is a nation of Islands with many costal cities, this represents a serious and significant national threat. Unlike the United States, Japan does not have geographically remote centers from which to launch a recover and rescue operation. Assistance will have to come from surviving Japanese cities and from neighboring and distant countries.

Tedesco anticipates that the framework and advanced methodologies can be used by agencies, companies and even individuals to prepare a comprehensive disaster preparedness plan that supplements and conforms to parallel plans prescribed by Federal, state and local authorities.

In turn, a we presume that a comprehensive "all hazard" plan can be drafted by the Homeland Security Department's Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response. The proposed methodologies are meant to be supplemented with specific expertise provided by entities and individuals with skills to improve or modify a proposed system.

The teams responding to the disaster caused by natural, military or terrorist threat will need to have a wide range of responses to the event while different teams or agencies may be responsible for a response to the cause.  Teams may also need the assistance of protection of public safety officials, the police or the military in order to accomplish their task.

2. Identify Critical Support Procedures

Identify critical support processes that could be used for the recovery

Identify the technical support processes required to support recovery.

Identify alternative support processes that support recovery.

Identify resources that have already been created

Improve the Existing Disaster Recovery Methods with Existing Resources

State, Local and Agency Resources

States, municipalities and other government agencies are already taking steps to prepare for future disasters. Major metropolitan areas have moved swiftly to reorganize disaster preparedness plans to incorporate "all hazard" plans. The State of New York is gaining recognition for preparedness as is the New York's Cyber Security Office. Other large city examples are the City of Chicago's Office of Emergency Management and Communications to allow its citizens to prepare for disasters. Chicago has also incorporated a "reverse 911" system that allows a 911 system to deliver recorded thousands of simultaneous recorded messages to telephone users. A wide range of options will be needed ranging from "Amber Alerts" for missing children to a variety of pre recorded instructions for citizens in the event of a local or regional disaster.

Cities have been forced in to the role of early adopters of proactive planning, but it may be years before comprehensive plans anticipate a wide variety of events. Other municipalities may lag behind the early adopters. Money remains an issue. Homeland Security dollars have not reached every municipality. Tight budgets may require that some municipalities may need to learn from the best practices of the early adopters who have had the time to plan and drill their newer preparedness plans.

In his "State of the State" address in January of 2004, Governor Pataki proclaimed that:

Together, we've led the nation in fighting crime, and today New York is the safest large state in America. Let's pledge action so that in five years we will be the safest of any state in America. Today, I will outline a series of administrative and legislative actions to meet that goal.

* * *

Shortly after the September 11th attacks, I assembled a team of the top law enforcement officials in America.

That team was the foundation for New York's Office of Public Security (OPS). Today, New York's Office of Public Security is the best in the nation... And it has to be, because New York embodies the very principles of freedom the terrorists despise.

* * *

I'm proud to report that the United States Department of Homeland Security has just designated New York's Cyber Security Office as the national information sharing center. Today, we are providing protection from terror, not just for New York, but for the entire nation.

We've accomplished much, but we live in a new era of danger.

We must confront that danger with firmness and resolve.

As we gather here together under the sober reality of Orange Alert, let us pledge a new era of public security. Today, I ask you to reinforce the strong steps we've taken with new legislation...

3. Define Escalation Procedures

Determine how the procedures and support processes would be used together to handle the recovery

Integrate recovery procedures and support processes most likely to succeed.

Identify example processes that have provided adequate recovery.

Identify new recovery processes needed to adequately support a recovery.

Formalize Response Planning Initial Steps -- People, Location(s)

Joint Operation Planning Methodologies and an "All Hazard" Framework

Within Joint Operation planning, campaign plans only resort to crisis action planning in a situation not anticipated by deliberate planning.   In many cases, crisis action planning is the only method available to first responders because they have not engaged in deliberate planning.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, "Planning For Joint Operations" has been suggested as a comparable method of planning a framework for domestic disaster preparedness. The Joint operation planning methodology most suitable between the the military and first responders would be similar to planning for multinational operations. In addition to security concerns, integration must take place "without violating [domestic] laws and customs, including the Privacy Act, Proprietary Information, Posse Comitatus and Military Security."

While traditional "joint operation planning involves a sequential process performed simultaneously at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of war." An "all hazards" plan does not require a state of war or even an act of terrorism. The "all hazard" status may be reached through the need for civilian response to a natural disaster. However, the similarities for an "All Hazard" framework and Joint Operations Planning is substantial

Joint Operations Planning and Execution System

Whether it be dealing with national or multinational planning, Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES) is the principal system within the Department of Defense for translating policy decisions into Operations Plans (OPLANs). The planning provides the means to respond to emerging crisis situations or transition to war through rapid, coordinated execution planning and implementation through the use of a set of command and control techniques and processes, supported by computerized information systems.

The following are Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES) five basic planning functions:

Threat Identification and Assessment: This function involves detecting actual and potential threats to national security, alerting decision makers, and then determining threat capabilities and intentions.

Strategy Determination: This function furnishes direction from the national level for developing courses of action (COAs).

Course of Action Development: COA development support includes JOPES functions that help the supported commander’s staff develop and test alternative COAs . . .

Detailed Planning: This function supports preparation of the approved concept of operations for implementation.

Implementation: This function gives decision makers the tools to monitor, analyze, and manage plan execution. Planning is a cyclic process that continues throughout implementation.

(JP 5-0, Chapter I, para 21)

4. Document Procedures and Process

BASIC DISASTER SCENARIOS AND RESPONSES: Of the sets of procedures and processes, determine the ones most likely to succeed in the recovery, and also backups for each (escalation procedures)

Create the recovery plan and alternative plans for the specific disaster
and the specific area.

Identify ways of testing each of the recovery processes.

Understand the potential limitations of plans.

Identify the transition from deliberate planning to crisis action planning

The Scope of Disaster

Despite the preparedness of the "first responders," the public may not be prepared for even the most localized events. Chilling videos of recent club disasters in Illinois and New Hampshire demonstrate that panic, in the wake of an initial event, can lead to fatal consequences. In each case, the disasters were highly localized events with significant loss of life. Major disasters will substantially tax the ability of "first responders" well beyond the club events and poor response by the public could result in massive amounts of needless deaths.

Disasters of entire regions can be anticipated and addressed through the planning process (e.g., Chicago has a disaster, but New York and LA are not affected.). A subsequent earthquake occurs in LA at about the same time. These unrelated and remote events stretch the response resources of the federal systems. They are sufficiently remote that the response of state and local responses are not affected by the remote disaster. Major cities in the surrounding areas will extend relief and support resources.
Early adopters benefit from sharing their best practices with their proximate and remote neighbors because their comfort and support may come from these neighbors in the event of a major disaster. By preparing other municipalities to develop their own response plans, early adopters may be training their own secondary or tertiary response teams. One of the consequences of a disaster is that the preparedness teams may be overwhelmed without aid from other sources.
Rather than presuming that help will come from other sources, secondary or tertiary response areas need to be specified in advance. If the primary disaster response system is degraded or destroyed a remote center may be needed until a nearer regional or local center is located.
Preparedness information, should be backed up in geographically remote offices and those offices must communicate with the appropriate back up facilities.
Planning Limitations

One of the reasons to build a framework is that preparedness escalation plans often reach a point of exhaustion. The cause for this exhaustion are other disasters that could be proximate or remote. One proximate disaster, following the San Francisco Earthquake of the early 1900s, was the gas fires from pipes ruptured by the earthquake. The fires were more deadly than the quake.

Fire and rescue response was also limited by the lack of water resources in the Marina District of San Francisco nearly a century after the previous major quake.  Water lines, electrical lines, communication lines and other resources are badly affected in an earthquake. Without the fire departments use of a few fountains or retaining ponds, a catastrophic fire could have resulted when water pressure in hydrants dropped below usable levels.

Disaster preparedness may require logistics planning, in order to reach hard to find or unusual resources, at the time of a significant infrastructure failure. In a future quake, forest fire planes or other non traditional resources might be considered to provide badly needed water to extinguish fires that result from disrupted electrical or gas services. Postponing new ideas until the time of the disaster may mean that precious minutes or hours are lost.

Secondary and tertiary disasters often result from an initial disaster. A dam break on a lake, miles away from Johnstown was the cause of one of its famous floods. Considerable property damage has resulted from dam breaks with very little time to notify residents of a deadly hazard. In many cases the source of the initial disaster was less significant at the source and miles away from the subsequent disaster.

The 1990s were rife with examples of major disasters, but the effect of those disasters were not visited in full force upon major metropolitan areas with the impact of disasters such as the Fire of London, the Chicago Fire, the San Francisco Earthquake. The Mississippi has risen to 500 year levels, California has been struck with significant quakes, domestic and foreign terrorists have destroyed entire buildings. Hurricanes have struck with significant force and other disasters have had substantial impact upon the lives of those effected. However, we are fortunate to lack the experience of dealing with the size and scope of disasters that affected America in the last century.

We may not be able to extend that luxury for another 100 years. Planning does not lessen the impact of an initial disaster, but planning and training in advance may help mitigate the disaster. For those who fail to plan, the framework may serve as a rapid way to contact preparedness groups that have been trained and who are prepared to help in the disaster response.

A good disaster preparedness plan may not be able to anticipate or handle multiple systems failures:

Diversified systems are not immune from failure or overload.
For example, in 1999, a tornado struck Salt Lake City at about the same time that downtown Chicago experienced a carrier network failure and an unrelated city power failure.  The plights of the unusual tornado in Salt Lake City and the dual failures of MCI and the downtown Chicago power failure of several generators reveal the complexity of disaster preparedness planning.
Let's examine the plight of a hypothetical business in Salt Lake City with a backup in downtown Chicago. Suppose that the network equipment was at a facility in Salt Lake City and that the equipment was damaged by the tornado. If (under the disaster preparedness escalation procedure) the system was switched over to downtown Chicago, the risk of loss would be worsened by the MCI and subsequent power failures. The disaster preparedness team may have had very few options left in their escalation procedure. The laws of probability often collide headlong into Murphy's law. Even dual systems are subject to failure.
Both AT&T and MCI have experienced major frame relay outages. In both cases, the carrier shifted blame to the underlying manufacturers (Cisco and Lucent). If the major carriers are not immune to failure, then smaller carriers are at equal or greater risk.
No single system is immune from failure.
In Chicago, ComEd had already lost one generator. Two more failed and the power was turned off in the loop to save the overburdened fourth. Some of the telecommunications buildings in the South Loop were serviced by a secondary power grid. Temperatures were moderate on the day of the dual outages. Results could have been far worse if it had been an exceptionally hot day.

With the exception of a large scale tornado, none of the actual events above would be considered a "major disaster," but the impact on data and response capability were affected significantly.

5. Review: Finger Lakes Template as First Part of Framework (Phase II Readiness Report)

Provide the plan for each of the recovery steps based upon the best practices for both the procedures and support processes.

Study the processes used and determine improvements for new best practices.

Place the plans and alternate plans into effect and train the people that
would be involved in the recovery to make the recovery process work.

Review the results of training to determine if improvements to the plan can be made.

Disaster planners are used to seeing their handiwork during preparedness audits. The inside joke within the industry is that the consulting time for audit can be determined by examining how much dust has settled on the disaster planning manual.

Clients often fail to realize that a disaster plan is an "organic document." As a client changes in size or direction, the disaster plan must change with it. If the client's employees are not trained to understand the disaster procedures, they cannot learn them by reading the manual for the first time during the disaster. Like fire drills, emergency plans need to be practiced.

Large scale plans and evacuations cannot be staged within reasonable costs, but tests of alert systems and first responder training exercises can be conducted. It is also possible to deal with disaster simulations to review the response capacity of 911 centers and first response teams.

Tedesco and PLe will identify response agencies within the Finger Lakes and make its findings available to those agencies. It is likely that the City of Canandaigua and the County of Ontario could benefit from the template findings and the development of the preparedness framework. The Canandaigua program is under development and the County procedures have only recently been proposed. PLe is also pursuing business with several county CIOs and is participating in an upcoming Coast Guard planning forum.

TOLERANCE OF FAILURE:

From Planning to Response & Recovery

The seconds following an initial disaster are critical. The opportunity for advance planning shifts to response and recovery. For those who have planned, it is time to respond by following the paths set forth in past plans and drills. For those who have not prepared, there is little time for intelligent response. As we have indicated above, it is possible to exhaust even a well designed plan. At this point, both the prepared and the unprepared must engage in crisis action planning (CAP).

CAP is based on current events and conducted in time-sensitive situations and emergencies using assigned, attached, and allocated forces and resources. It is based on actual circumstances that exist at the time planning occurs. CAP parallels deliberate planning, but is more flexible and responsive to changing events.

(JP 5-0, Chapter I, para 12c)

It is possible and desirable to have also been trained in CAP procedures in addition to following specific disaster plans.

CAP occurs in a six phased process:

Situation Development

Crisis Assessment

Course of Action Development

Course of Action Selection

Execution Planning

Execution

(JP 5-0, Chapter III, para 9)

Innovation in disaster plans is acceptable in the planning and preparation phases and is often required as part of disaster response. However, innovation during a disaster is not acceptable until previously defined responses are exhausted. In order for a six phase CAP process to work, first responders

need to exhaust all options in the deliberate plan via the escalation procedure AND

understand how to implement CAP.

A person trained with CAP must make the most well informed decisions possible based on limited information and within a limited communications environment. While it is the goal of planning to cover every contingency, new situations should not devastate a properly trained team. Each first responder may be called upon to be a leader when the chain of command is broken or cut off.

By learning CAP measures before a disaster, first responders should be able to respond to new circumstances in stride and maximize their potential to protect human life.

Phase II

In Phase II, the template developed for the Finger Lakes will be integrated into a larger whole for the disaster preparedness framework. In Phase II the New York and Chicago Working Groups can meet to discus the results of the template development and specify the strategic planning software tools needed to develop a comprehensive framework for disaster preparedness. The entire framework must be robust enough to cover templates for the entire United States. In addition to developing a template for a more densely populated area (for example, Chicago and the "collar counties"), the method of delivering best practices to planners and first responders will be determined (for example distribution via electronic libraries, Internet, CDs, print editions, etc.).

RELATED WORK

The principal investigator has experience with several different applications that are relevant to the concepts that will be applied in the proposed research. Some of these applications and their relevance to the proposed work are summarized below.

We need to start the genetic, threat scenario, learning process by using Bayesian analysis. The PI created AI engine rule sets for a Bayesian analysis to determine high school student acceptance to specific colleges. The actual student acceptance to the specific colleges determines how well the system works. The system continuously learns from the acceptances of students.
We have the need to continuously learn. We created AI rule sets for a proactive monitor for a computer billing system for a large telephone company. The system continuously learns new monitoring requirements based on changing bill volumes. The continuous operation and monitoring of the process reduced processing faults in the billing process for the Telephone Company.
We need to use documented investigation processes to predict event threat scenarios. We have used a corporate chart of accounts as a set of AI rules to control a corporate accounting system. The chart of accounts is a documented process that describes how specific accounts are to be recorded. The accounting system performed accounting functions by following the rules within the chart of accounts for recording each account.
We need to create rules and program segments from a verbal description of the actions that the system needs to perform. At Illinois Blue Cross we created a fraud detection system. The system interpreted descriptions of possible fraud that were written by users in stylized English and detected frauds that were so described. This process was also used to create computer programs from the English directives. The value of the system was determined by the fraud events that the system identified. We intend to use this process to help create rules to select successful assessment objects, process objects, to control genetic learning, and to use human control for learning.
From understanding the content of specific threat events the system creates a thorough set of scenarios for threat analysis. At Illinois Blue Cross we investigated the structure of health care contracts. We created a system that was capable of using the contract language to control the processing of health care claims. This formalized context sensitive approach is an alternative to using English descriptions to create and use human control for learning. Threat descriptions would form the creation of threat scenarios. This alternative supports the determination of the value of each threat event.
We will need to make a series of complex decisions each based upon sets of facts, and the complex analysis of the current state of the process. This is similar to the complex threat event patterns that are found in threat scenarios. Many threat scenarios would be created. We have designed complex systems that had several different outputs based upon some form of logic similar to the multiple threat scenario patterns. We designed complex telephone company switching systems providing twenty (20) different floor plan layouts and providing for ten (10) and twenty (20) year expansion plans with output drawn on a plotter to ¼" scale. Management selected a specific plan from the twenty- (20) plans produced.
Knowledge about detecting potential threats can be captured through rules structured to assess different types of threats. This is similar to the problem resolution structure of the Cognitor, Inc. AI engine. This engine performs problem resolution for telephone support within the Customer Relationship Management business and it learns solutions over time. The system uses processing knowledge to control decisions. Observing the usefulness of the resolution meters this process. If a resolution is not useful over a period of time it is discarded and resolutions that work replace them. This is a continuous learning process. New resolutions are learned automatically once there is a resolution that has been posted to the system.
New rules and even system structures can be constructed using the common format of the rules and of rule usage. We have created a scripting engine (capable of learning the best ways of providing scripts to sales personnel on a sales call). We will use this concept to create rules instead of scripts. Script created rules will provide the rules that have learned genetically and that control the system. The current scripting process measures the success rate of the people using the scripts. Higher success rates for a user provide a specific script as needed.
Applied Systems Intelligence uses Bayesian analysis in their production work and have several systems that use the process. They are successful in the market and in servicing government organizations.
Boeing Phantom Works has systems that work with databases and are able to provide heterogeneous and fused accumulated information for our system.

Artificial Intelligence Systems, Genetic Programs

Tedesco and Associates, Inc. is currently a Boeing vendor for Artificial Intelligence Systems. Boeing and other primary vendors will use some of the research that is being performed. Other research will be used to create primary products for sale within the market place.

For this process we have used a basic design concept. There is an anticipated reduction in the size from some of the prior designs, a simplification in design, and an increase in functionality. The concept has been redesigned to better provide for genetic programming. There are improvements in the acquisition of knowledge which support the ideas behind genetic programming and the learning required for the threat event scenarios. This learning will come from an autonomous discriminator. Our research will be directed towards finding a minimal amount of information about specific topics from which we can gather knowledge for both creating the threat event scenarios and for determining the importance of activities for the discriminator.

Genetic programs would provide a new way for our customers and for larger firms to automatically add knowledge to their existing processes and systems. Most corporations have a lot of data from which they are not able to extract knowledge. Much of the data is not formatted but is able to be placed into some context for knowledge extraction.

The improvements in the acquisition of knowledge would also allow for a better understanding of events and the meaning of events. Specific events could belong to multiple event categories. Several events in combination could decide a specific category and thereby the potential existence of a threat. In business the same study of events could help determine specific business actions that need to be taken or business strategies that need to be set.

Automatic Night Video Surveillance Electronics and Public Health Sensor via MOEMS

P&L E-Communications, LLC (PLe), is currently licensing algorithms based on
existing research at the University of Rochester for modification, with ultimate distribution via a Night Vision Toolkit Software Development Kit (NVT SDK). The research includes:

Automated activity detection,
Identification, tracking, and object discovery
DARPA’s Image Understanding (IU) programs
DARPA’s Video Surveillance and Monitoring (VSAM) programs

PLe is working with the center for future health and University of Rochester’s Randal Nelson. PLe is pursuing development of an advanced video exploitation capability for nighttime applications for personal health and military applications. A novel extension of PLe's effort is to create NVT MOEMS to augment existing video surveillance solutions to enable automated video surveillance even under conditions of darkness using low network bandwidth. Microchips will be designed, tested, manufactured, and deployed in New York State. PLe is planning on creating microchip technology to embed into a variety of video surveillance systems to provide low-bandwidth automatic video "object discovery" for public health and military applications. We anticipate that the development process for a family of NVT MOEMS may continue for several years.

Safe(earth)2000 and the IIT ID strategic planning software tools

Safe(earth)2000 and the IIT ID strategic planning software tools to develop a framework for a governmental organization in the region. Some of the ID planning tools have been used by the United States Parks District in order to develop a national strategy. The ID tools were used to develop a theoretical project called "Safe Earth 2000." While the methodology provides a starting point, actual entities and resources must be substituted for the framework posited in the report.

ID employs analytic and synthetic design methods to identify current and future needs and to humanize the technology needed to solve those problems. Through [their] research initiatives, ID is constantly developing new methodologies for user-centered, strategic design.

RELATIONSHIP WITH FUTURE RESEARCH OR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Commercialization Strategy

Michael Murphy has been involved with disaster preparedness for several decades. While the market potential for preparedness should be rather large, commercial clients as a whole may only account for billions of dollars in areas where preparedness is mandated by government agencies. This level of preparation is only for business systems. Corporate planning for life safety is often bound up in preparations for fires and building or facilities evacuations.

It would be optimistic to expect growth into a multibillion dollar market (served by thousands of possible vendors) for proactive planning. Disaster preparedness remains responsive, even within industries under a mandate for disaster planning. Disaster planning is used by companies that recognize that the value of preparedness is measured by the dollars lost during a service outage (securities, insurance, health care and service industries). The greater the potential loss volume per hour, the more likely the industry segment is to seek preparedness solutions. For example, an accounting firm was able to finance its headquarters entire preparedness plan from the anticipated savings for protecting its national payroll account system.

The advantage of a framework is that industry subgroups could develop their own best practices systems for commercial preparedness as a part of life safety planning. Very few business systems are integrated with life safety systems. Even well prepared systems may not be able to locate employees at a site following a disaster because H.R. systems are not traditionally integrated with life safety systems.

Parallel Systems Requested by the U.S. Government

Beyond New York, similar disaster systems are needed by USAID, and governments outside of the United States. A framework for disaster preparedness allows for the development of a comprehensive system of best practices in order to support the development of disaster plans suitable for a given region. While the framework and advanced methodologies are complex, a user interface for obtaining information should be easy to use.

The planned Tedesco framework will be complex and proactive (rather than responsive). But the size and scope of a strategic planning framework is not without parallel. One recent example is a naval request, SBIR N03 068 "Geo-Political Context Decision Support Tool" described as a:

"Long term strategic planning for naval forces demands an evolving geo-political context that produces fiscally and culturally constrained alternative futures. . . . The delivered product will be an automated tool that will permit rapid extraction from relevant external databases of economic assessments and prediction of various geo-political sates that may result. The results will form the basis for making future force architecture alternative design decisions.

* * * *

Dual Use Commercialization Potential

The methodology to develop cognitive models of human behavior has potential application in many arenas requiring constructive representation of behavior, including air traffic control system development, transportation system analysis, etc. Constructive simulation can also support direct training applications and decision aid development. There is also significant opportunity in the gaming industry where the trend is for the development of more complex and realistic human behavior models for computer generated forces.

Rapid deployment challenges:

Address multiple applications requirements throughout the defense and intelligent community. In addition, commercial development would open sizable markets in supporting a variety of users: first responder organizations responsible for bomb threat and terrorism defense; CDC, USAMRIID, NATO, and UN agencies responding to endogenous and emerging infectious disease crisis; HAZMAT and environmental event responder teams; and, a range of biomedical, laboratory, and industry decontamination responders.

KEY PERSONNEL

PAUL TEDESCO
Chief Scientist
M.S., Mathematics, DePaul University, Chicago, Il. 1964
M.A., Mathematics, Creighton University, Omaha, NB. 1960

CURRENT POSITION AND RESEARCH

Paul Tedesco is the Founder and Chief Scientist of Tedesco and Associates, Inc. He is responsible for the conceptual design of the genetic AI engine. The engine can continuously learns and is capable of changing its own programs to provide better solutions.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE:

At a start-up company created a dual stage AI engine to provide problem resolution with continuous learning capabilities. The software was used to create a product that is currently being sold in the market place.

For the technical division of a large retail organization designed a proactive monitoring system and database to provide early warning of on-line systems problems.

For Illinois Blue Cross and Blue Shield created a fraud detection system that read English and either created bug free programs or performed the fraud detection tasks dynamically.

For a large chemical company used the chart of accounts as the rule set to control an accounting system.

For a large company that produced telephone switching equipment created a system to design floor plans for the different telephone companies around the country.

MICHAEL MURPHY
New Business Development
BA., Political Science, Wittenberg University, 1980
JD, Hamline University School of Law, 1985
Northwestern University, Accounting Certificate Program

CURRENT POSITION AND RESEARCH:

Michael conducts new business development for Tedesco & Associates in the US and Japan.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE:

Michael Murphy has been responsible for drafting network and disaster recovery plans for business networks and responses to prospects' RFPs. He relies upon skills learned in the design, planning, modeling and evolution for large, telecommunications networks from previous posts. Michael has given lectures in the United States and Japan on the topics of advanced networks and disaster preparedness. In 2002, Michael realized the need to expand preparedness procedures from business response systems to civil preparedness and began to form the Chicago Working Group at IIT.

In the mid 90's Michael worked with Nortel Federal, CSC and independent engineers on several large telecommunications design, optimization and disaster preparedness projects. Michael also helped telecommunications engineers write disaster preparedness escalation procedures and conducted preparedness audits. Based on his experience in Washington, D.C., Michael realized that there were several opportunities in data and telecommunications in Chicago. He served as the co-chair of the Telecommunications committee of the Chicago Chamber and helped found the Internet subcommittee.

Michael Murphy is the founder and chair of the Chigagoland Electronic Commerce Initiative (CECI - www.ceci.org ), founded in 1995. The organization participates with bar associations and trade associations to discuss business to business commerce. CECI advocates the position that effective electronic commerce can be achieved through open, standards-based software protocols and the intelligent use of advanced public and private network infrastructures.

In the early 90's, Michael supervised the development and maintenance of a national private tax research database used by Arthur Andersen employees. Today, the application would have been termed a knowledge management and best practices intranet. Michael participated in the project's full life cycle: from creation and system design to daily operations, system documentation, redundancy planning and process re-engineering. A version of the Andersen best practices system was sold to KPMG before Andersen's demise.

DAVID KOELLIKER
President

CURRENT POSITION AND RESEARCH:

President of Tedesco & Associates

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE:

FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT

New York Working Group -- The facilities necessary for the proposed project are already in place at PL E--Communications, UR’s Computer Science Department, and the Center for Future Health located in the University’s Medical Center. Backup Facilities are in P&L E-Communications offices in Rochester and a new facility opening in Ontario County, New York. Phase I work can be performed on PCs, but we have more powerful systems at our disposal.

For sensing, processing, and storage of frame-rate video we have twelve computational sensors, ten of which are located in U of R's Vision lab and two of which are in the Center for Future Health. Each computational sensor is attached to two Sony EVI-D30 cameras and offers online control of pan, tilt, zoom, and other internal parameters for the cameras. The six newest sensors are dual 2.0 GHz processor machines each having 1 GB main memory and 300 GB of RAIDed secondary storage. The computational sensors are connected to each other via a Gigabit/sec ethernet. Additional processing crunch at the CS department comes from 8 and 4 processor Suns with 3 GB and 2 GB main memory respectively, a 32 processor DEC Memory Channel supercomputer, a 32 Processor IBM Regetta class multiprocessor, and a 64-processor Linux cluster. The mounted PTZ video cameras of the computational sensors can serve for development, and we have successfully dealt with digitized Predator data during previous DARPA image understanding (IU) and VSAM contracts.

Chicago Working Group -- The Chicago Working Group meets at the LaSalle Street Offices of The Illinois Institute of Technology Institute of Design. Backup Facilities are at Technology Management Associates at 221 North LaSalle Street and DePaul University at Wabash. Phase I work can be performed on PCs of Working Group Members. More powerful systems will be used during Phase II from the University participants.

Subcontractors/Consultants

Mr. Paul G. Simpson is Manager of Software Development at PL E-Communications. Mr. Simpson has over 18 years experience and has led the development of many commercial and DoD software development efforts as large as 500K/year, 5-year programs. He has broad software expertise ranging from customized Windows and UNIX applications, to distributed databased Web-applications, to real-time embedded systems and is proficient in multiple programming languages. Mr. Simpson has developed applications for Win, UNIX, Linux and leads a team of highly professional and experienced software engineers and computer scientists.

Prior, Current, or Pending Support of Similar Proposals or Awards

Tedesco and PLe have written several proposals.

Tedesco proposals often include the use of artificial intelligence. Tedesco collaborates with several entities on Federal BAAs and SBIRs.

PLe specializes in advanced video imaging, sensor fusion data, night vision, and other projects involved in disaster preparedness and Homeland Security.

Bibliography

[see document references and links. above]