Communicating with Local Jurisdictions

1. Communicating with Local Jurisdictions Developed with funding from the Multi-State Partnership for Security in Agriculture

2. Workshop Objectives • Overview of the Multi-State Partnership for Security in Agriculture project • Review lessons learned from the HPAI outbreak • Develop a local jurisdiction communication plan • Plan will include when and what is communicated to local jurisdictions • Determine what role local jurisdictions may fill during a Foreign Animal Disease response

3. 2015 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza • December 2014 - June 2015 • 21 states impacted • 211 commercial and 21 backyard premises • Depopulation of 7.5 million turkeys and 42.1 million egg-layer and pullet chickens • Cost over $950 million

4. Who Responded to HPAI? • United States Department of Agriculture • State Departments of Agriculture • Local Emergency Management • Industry • Others

5. MSPSA After Action Review Project • Lessons learned from 10 states • Interviews or reviews of written After Action Reports • Focus on state and local challenges that could be addressed through facilitated discussion

6. MSPSA After Action Review Project (cont.) • Identified four priority topics • ICS structure improvements • Local communication • State communication • State contracting improvements • This workshop deals with local communication improvements

7. Local Communication Lessons Learned • Communicating with local jurisdictions prior to response is critical • Some counties were unfamiliar with their role during a response • Lead State Agency was not aware of the capabilities of local responders

8. Local Communication Lessons Learned (cont.) • Local jurisdictions were not engaged in the response • Counties understood they were not the Lead Agency but wanted to be kept in the loop on the response • Some counties do have the ability to provide assistance during the response

9. Local Communication Lessons Learned (cont.) • Local jurisdictions were not included in incident briefings • County Emergency Management received questions from local producers but were unable to answer because they did not have the appropriate information • When local jurisdictions were included in the briefings, the briefings did not adequately address questions and concerns of local jurisdictions

10. Local Communication Lessons Learned (cont.) • Some states were concerned about sharing specifics, including actual farm locations, with local jurisdictions • Several states have legal requirements to keep information confidential

11. Best Management Practices • Develop guidelines for communicating with local jurisdictions • Communicate with local jurisdictions regarding what they can expect during a response • Include local jurisdictions in an initial briefing • One state held a briefing with the impacted county along with the surrounding counties to allow local officials to ask questions about the response

12. Best Management Practices (continued) • Develop an information distribution list to keep local jurisdictions included • One state developed an email distribution list from the initial briefing; individuals on the list were provided a daily situation update • Distribution of the information reduced the number of additional questions

13. Best Management Practices (continued) • Address any legal requirements surrounding emergency response information prior to the event

14. Sharing Information

15. Notifying Local Jurisdictions • What is the trigger for the Lead Agency to notify supporting local jurisdictions of a response? • Does this timing meet the needs of the local agencies? • How will this notification be implemented? • What is the scope of the notification? Will it include the impacted jurisdiction or a larger area? • How is this notification dependent on the disease?

16. Notifying Local Jurisdictions (continued) • What is the best method to share information with local jurisdictions? How will this change after the initial briefing? • Who is the audience for the initial briefing and how does that shift for subsequent briefings? • How frequently should information be shared?

17. Notifying Local Jurisdictions (continued) • What information should be included in the initial notification? • Is the scope of information different in the initial notification vs. briefings during the response?

18. Notifying Local Jurisdictions (continued) • What ICS position or Lead Agency position is responsible for making the initial notification and subsequent local briefings? • How could local jurisdictions interface with a Multi-Agency Coordination (MAC) Group?

19. Critical Information Requirements • What are the critical information requirements for local jurisdictions? • How does this change from the initial briefing to subsequent briefings? • Are briefings the same for each local jurisdiction? • How is information sharing different between impacted and non-impacted counties?

20. Incorporating Local Jurisdictions in the ICS Structure

21. Lead Agency ICS Structure • Insert an example of the Lead Agency ICS Structure

22. Local Jurisdictions in the Lead Agency’s ICS Structure • What support can each local jurisdiction provide? • How does the Lead Agency request this support? • Does this support depend on a State Emergency Declaration? • Does this support vary by county/region?

23. Local Jurisdictions in the Lead Agency’s ICS Structure • How can local jurisdictions provide support for the Lead Agency’s ICS Structure, including task forces and/or strike teams? • Which roles can be filled by a local jurisdiction? • For what period of time can a local jurisdiction provide assistance?

24. Local Jurisdictions in the Lead Agency’s ICS Structure • Which agencies, including the Lead Agency, are able to support the response with needed Just-In-Time training?

25. Additional Discussion