In my recent article on planning (Who’s Going to Use Your Plan?), I wrote how many planners misunderstand how to use hazard specific annexes to address the agent generated needs of specific disasters. This confusion stems from failing to understand that “all-hazards planning” does not mean “plan for everything” but rather to develop plans and strategies that can be adapted to unexpected circumstances. At the same time, it does not mean we cannot make use of what information we have about specific hazards to begin adapting our all-hazards plan to the unique demands of those hazards prior to their occurrence.
Basic emergency management theory recognizes that there needs generated by disasters that tend to remain relatively constant from disaster to disaster and for which we can therefore plan. These are, to an extent, independent of the hazard that generated them. For example, while we may need to adjust plans slightly to adapt to specific circumstances, we generally conduct feeding and sheltering operations in the same manner. These disaster-generated needs form the bulk of our detailed planning and are summarized in the basic plan and developed more fully in functional annexes.
In addition to disaster generated needs, there are agent generated needs that are specific to the hazard causing the disaster that may force us to make major modifications to our plans. The hazard specific annex is an attempt to identify those required modifications as much as possible and develop strategies for addressing them before a disaster occurs.
I wrote in my previous article that the hazard specific annex is, in essence, a contingency plan. While this is true in the generic sense, I think it gives a false impression of what the hazard specific annex is and may be the reason so many are poorly written. The hazard specific annex is not a plan that directs operations but rather a strategy that provides a starting point for dealing with a specific crisis. That strategy builds on previous planning and organizational structure and cannot be implemented separately from those elements.
For example, the functional annex may identify specific shelter locations and the priority for opening them. However, if some are in an area of expected flooding, the hazard-specific annex for flooding might negate the use those shelters, identify alternatives, or alter the priority. A key point is this: the annex identifies a potential problem and offers possible solutions but the decision of what will be done rests with the crisis management team based on their assessment of the situation. The hazard specific annex is a tool, not a directive.
Unfortunately, many planners approach the hazard specific annex as a plan and feel the need to include information found elsewhere in the operations plan. For example, many of the annexes I have reviewed spend a great deal of time describing the specific hazard, many times just copying data from the hazard analysis section found in the basic plan. The implication is that the annex is to be read separately rather than build on the rest of the plan. I submit that anyone turning to a hazard specific annex in a crisis will have no interest in this information but instead is seeking guidance on what they should do.
So, what should be in a hazard specific annex? The starting point for a useful annex is not any of the generic nonsense you usually find in them such as scope, concept of operations, etc. Nor is it a summary of the history of the hazard and technical data related to the potential impact. Remember who is using this annex and why. The starting point of the annex is the assumptions you are making about the impact of the hazard. For example, we have a lot of information on potential road closures in the San Francisco Bay Area after an earthquake. This will impact our ability to move resources in or evacuate people out of the affected area. Locally it might hinder our ability to open shelters or deploy emergency equipment. Our major assumption is therefore that we will be isolated and unable to access mutual aid and that this isolation may extend to individual neighborhoods.
Once the assumptions on the potential impact of the disaster are identified, the question becomes, “how do these assumptions affect my existing plans?” For example, do they affect my ability to provide public warning because widespread power outages are expected? Do they affect the ability of departments to perform tasks as expected under the operational plan because of the loss of key facilities? What key facilities will be isolated or unavailable due to flooding? Once you can identify what needs to be modified in your current plans, you are able to suggest alternate strategies to modify them.
If this process sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the same planning process we use all the time. The point I’m trying to make is that this planning is all done behind the scenes and should be transparent to the person reading the hazard specific annex. The assumptions tell the reader what problems they may encounter. If an assumption is not valid (e.g., a key transportation route was not affected as expected), thats good. If it is valid, they have suggested strategies to consider. Either way, they are cued to consider a potential problem that might have been overlooked.
The disaster specific annex is not a stand-alone document. Reference can be made to other annexes in the operations plan, to contingency plans, or to departmental plans. The important thing is to keep the annex short and focused on the issue: what do I need to do differently in this situation? If you can maintain this focus on the needs of the user, your hazard specific annex becomes an extremely useful tool in a crisis rather than a useless appendage to your plan.
Comments