JULY 2014

AFTER-ACTION REPORT

Central United States Earthquake Consortium
CAPSTONE-14

PREPARED BY:

After-Action Report

TABLE
OF
CONTENTSCAPSTONE-14

Central United States
Earthquake Consortium

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

II. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

5

III. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND

A. CAPSTONE-14 Exercise Overview
B. Summary of Activities Leading up to CAPSTONE-14
C. Hazard Overview: New Madrid Seismic Zone
and Wabash Valley Seismic Zone

IV. CAPSTONE-14 OBJECTIVESAND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Private Sector Integration
B. Communications
C. Shared Situational AwarenessD. Regional and National Resource Allocation
E. Regional Transportation Coordination
F. Department of Defense, National Guard Mobilization
Support to Civil Authorities
G. Additional Lessons Learned and Recommendations

V. OPERATIONAL ADVANCES OF
NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

A. Emergency Management Assistance Compact
B. Joint Reception Staging, On-ward Integrationand EMAC Personnel Accounting Processing Package
C. Resource Management Planning Cycle(Resource Synchronization Matrix)
D. Private Sector Integration

VI. THE WAY AHEAD
VII. APPENDICES

9
10
12
14
17
18
25
31
38
45
50
60

62
63
65
66
67

70

75
77
80

A. CAPSTONE-14 Participants
B. List of Acronyms(i)After-Action Report

CAPSTONE-14

Central United States
Earthquake Consortium

SIGNATURE PAGE

The members of the CUSEC Board participated in the preparation of this document and approve of its
content by affixing their signatures below.
Mr. Art Faulkner, State Director, Alabama Emergency Management Agency
Mr. David Maxwell, State Director, Arkansas Department of Emergency Management
Mr. Jonathon E. Monken, State Director, Illinois Emergency Management Agency
Mr. John H. Hill, State Director, Indiana Department of Homeland Security
Mr. Michael Dossett, State Director, Kentucky Division Emergency Management
Mr. Robert R. Latham, Jr., State Director, Mississippi Emergency Management Agency
Mr. Ron Walker, State Director, Missouri State Emergency Management Agency
Mr. David Purkey, Director, Tennessee Emergency Management Agency( ii )

09/09/14
Date

09/11/14
Date

09/11/14
Date

09/11/14
Date

09/11/14
Date

09/11/14
Date

09/11/14
Date

09/11/14
Date

After-Action Report

According to the USGS the chance of amagnitude M6.0 or greater earthquake
occurring within a 50-year window is
between 25% and 40%.

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY(1)

After-Action Report

CAPSTONE-14

Central United States
Earthquake Consortium

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Emergency Management
must continue to seek andimplement new technology
solutions to extend the reachof limited resources at the
local, state, and federal levels.
Partners, such as the National
Information Sharing Consortium(NISC) and National Emergency
Management Association(NEMA) are essential inachieving future goals.

Illinois

Indiana

MissouriKentuckyTennessee
Arkansas

Mississippi

Alabama

CUSEC Member States

The Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC) was
formed in 1983, with funding support from the U.S. Departmentof Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). CUSEC’s primary mission is, “The reductionof deaths, injuries, property damage, and economic losses
resulting from earthquakes in the Central United States.” CUSEC
supports this mission by providing dynamic support to multistate response and recovery planning; resource acquisition;
public education and awareness; and promotion, mitigation,and research associated with earthquake preparedness in theCentral United States.
The CUSEC Board recognizes that the New Madrid Seismic Zone(NMSZ) presents a regional threat with national implications.
CUSEC Member States are those most vulnerable to the effects ofearthquakes in the region: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. In addition tothese eight Member States, CUSEC also represents ten AssociateStates, which also face earthquake risk, although not from the
New Madrid. These states will support the impacted states withresources during a damaging earthquake and Member States
will support Associate States in the event they are affectedby a disaster. The Associate States are Georgia, Iowa, Kansas,
Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, and Virginia.

(2)

CAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

The CAPSTONE-14 initiative is a prominent example of how CUSEC facilitates its mission by performing
the critical role of coordinating multi-state efforts in the region. CAPSTONE-14 was a three-year, multistate scope of planning and preparedness activities culminating in a major, multi-state earthquake
exercise in June 2014.
Following the CAPSTONE-14 exercise, CUSEC Board Members reviewed three years’ worth of activities
to collaborate around the threat of a regional, catastrophic earthquake, and they outlined a pathforward. Board Members agreed that continuing the successes and lessons learned in CAPSTONE-14
will require implementation of multiple recommendations in support of the following:• Advancing key partnerships to support programs, such as such as the virtual Business
Emergency Operation Center (vBEOC), Mutual Aid Support System (MASS), and a regional
Common Operating Picture (COP), among others.
• Furthering efforts to identify and pre-assign public andprivate sector resources that can be used throughout
region in an emergency, and continuing to review stateand federal requirements for resource allocation.

• Ongoing information sharing information acrossagencies, state borders, and between the public andprivate sectors, as well as a continued commitment torefining processes and tools for information sharing.
• Examining ways to enhance alternative, redundant
systems for communications that enable agencies tocommunicate across state lines.

Emergency Management isbest served by establishingpartnerships across the public
and private sector. Private
sector partners are eager tomove forward collaboratively
within all phases of Emergency
Management. CUSEC should
continue to integrate private
sector partners into regional
preparedness activities.

• Enhancing coordination with public and private partners in the transportation sector toestablish clear expectations and effective processes for emergency operations.

• Furthering integration of military partners into regional emergency preparedness andresponse efforts.
• Conducting regular planning, training, exercising, and evaluation to continue to address therisk of a regional earthquake in the Central U.S.

The progress made through CAPSTONE-14 will enhance the mitigation, preparedness, response, andrecovery capabilities to this potentially devastating threat. At the same time, the lessons learned andbest practices outlined in this report are also applicable for all hazards across the U.S., especiallycomplex, large-scale disasters. “The Way Forward” section of this report further elaborates on each ofthese important next steps.

(3)

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

The NMSZ is responsible for three of the largest earthquakes in U.S. history, during 1811-12. These
quakes were felt strongly over 50,000 square miles and moderately across 1 million square miles,
according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The affected area was therefore more than twice that of
the 1964 Great Alaskan Earthquake, the largest earthquake in U.S. history, and approximately 10 times
that of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake.
Although it has been more than two centuries since the last
major earthquake along the NMSZ, the threat of a catastrophic
earthquake in the region has not waned. Due to population density
and current infrastructure, a similar earthquake today would be
devastating. Thousands of cities and towns would be affected;
millions of people would be directly impacted. Most states in
the region did not adopt seismic building codes until the early
1990s, and as a result, much of the buildings and infrastructure
are extremely vulnerable. Many communities’ downtown
buildings are more than a century old, and significant portionsof the region’s structures are unreinforced masonry. The region’s
diverse geography—with major rivers, mountains, wetlands,
and ridges—would pose difficult challenges for responders.   Themultitude of local and state governmental structures could also
prove challenging. Each jurisdiction would have unique needs
and challenges reaching out to and protecting their populations.
An earthquake in this area could forever change the face of
thousands of rural, suburban, and urban communities.

Exercises and workshops, suchas NLE-11 and CAPSTONE-14,
represent the best opportunity
for the states and all levelsof their partners—including
the private sector, institutionsof higher education, andthe federal government—toshare ideas and advance theeffective practice of emergency
management. DHS and FEMA
should provide funding for
future regional efforts, because
funding for CUSEC projects has
the most effective reach andimpact across multiple states.

This report contains a summary of observations, lessons learned, and broad recommendations
developed through the three year CAPSTONE-14 effort. The observations and recommendations
summarized in this report have been developed from interviews, independent observations during
the exercise and activities leading up to the exercise, exercise documentation, and meetings with the
CUSEC Board.
The accomplishments that
result from exercises suchas CAPSTONE-14 must be
aggressively shared, refined,
codified, and included in theareas of planning, training
and daily operations. Toooften “lessons learned” do not
become “lessons applied.”

The success of CAPSTONE-14 is due to the commitment anddedication of CUSEC member agencies and public and private
sector partners. In addition to the CUSEC members’ Emergency
Management Agencies that organized and led CAPSTONE-14, theinitiative would not have been successful without the significant
involvement of a great many partners in government and theprivate sector. These include the DHS Science and Technology
Directorate (DHS-S&T), FEMA Regional offices, and the USGS. In
particular, National Emergency Management Association (NEMA)
Executive Director Trina Sheets and her staff were essential tothe planning, training, and execution of CAPSTONE-14.

(4)After-Action ReportAfter-Action Report

Many communities contain un-reinforced masonrybuildings and fragile infrastructure, much of which was notconstructed in accordance with modern seismic codes andstandards. The value of the current inventory of buildings
and infrastructure in the central U.S. at risk from groundshaking or failure, is in the trillions of dollars. HAZUS, amodeling software, indicates that approximately 700,000
buildings would be damaged and 300,000 buildings
destroyed in a major earthquake along the NMSZ. Seven
million people would be affected, including 85,000 injured,3,500 deaths, and 2 million people seeking shelter.
Source: http://www.cusec.org/publications/planning/electedofficialsguide.pdf

II. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS(5)

After-Action Report

CAPSTONE-14

Central United States
Earthquake Consortium

II. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSCUSEC, a partnership between its Member and Supporting States, fully understands that emergency
management works best when expertise, capabilities, and capacities are leveraged and coordinated,
and the result is greater than the respective parts.
CAPSTONE-14 would not have been successful
without the commitment and dedication of a great
many partners in government and the private
sector, including participants from Member States,
Associate States, and non-CUSEC affiliated states,
including Wisconsin, Michigan, West Virginia,
and Maryland, among others. DHS Science andTechnology Directorate, FEMA Regions IV, V, VI, andVII, the USGS, and other partners detailed below
played an invaluable role as well.
The role of NEMA, and specifically Executive Director
Trina Sheets and her staff, was essential to theplanning, training, and execution of CAPSTONE-14.
NEMA provided support that was unparalleled.

Although many partners participated throughout
the process, CUSEC would like to specificallyacknowledge the following partners thatmade essential contributions to the success of
CAPSTONE-14.

“CUSEC and NEMA share a common goal of
helping to advance the nation’s emergency
management capabilities. The CAPSTONE
exercise and the planning leading up to it
provided tremendous benefits for not only
the CUSEC Member States, but also forpartners like NEMA who have roles to playin catastrophic disaster response. NEMA
administrators the Emergency Management
Assistance Compact (EMAC), the systemthrough which interstate mutual aid
resources will flow to the impacted states.
Including EMAC in the CAPSTONE exercise
advanced the understanding of the type andnumber of resources that will be needed
and where those resources are located.
Congratulations to CUSEC and its members
for a very successful event that enhanced
our national preparedness.”
Trina Sheets, NEMA Executive Director• National Emergency Management Association: NEMA added support that resulted in thecontinuation of key concepts that were developed during the National Level Exercise, 2011
(NLE-11). Specifically NEMA provided the capability to establish the Mutual Aid Support(6)

CAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

System (MASS), conduct the second and third iterations of the Resource Allocation Workshops
and conduct the after-action sessions that produced this report and recommendations for apath forward.

• National Information Sharing Consortium: The National Information Sharing Consortium(NISC) provided substantial support in developing and refining the concepts that resulted in
the new Common Operating Picture and greatly added to the data standardization efforts thatwill drive the adoption of new processes, procedures, and techniques. NEMA is a member of
the NISC and CUSEC.
• CUSEC Private Sector Working Group: CUSEC and its partners in the private sector
demonstrated that the time for integrating private sector capabilities and capacities is now.
More than 40 corporations demonstrated that they are full partners in disaster planning,
response, and recovery. Their support elevated CAPSTONE-14 to new levels.

• U.S. Department for Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate: The support
from DHS-S&T, particularly Dr. Robert Griffin and his team, helped to enhance the outcomeof the original vision of CAPSTONE-14. Through their committed partnership throughout
the development of the exercise, CUSEC was able to integrate the actions, information, andresponse capabilities that resulted in a full suite of new tools and techniques built upon
the shared visions that results from NLE-11. The Common Operations Picture, geospatial
depictions, and operational synchronization set new standards for future efforts. CUSEC began
its association with DHS-S&T for NLE-11 and looks forward to continuing to work with it torefine the new tools and techniques.
• U.S. Geological Survey: The USGS continues to be a valuable CUSEC partner. The USGS, alongwith state geologists, provide an advanced understanding of the earthquake threat and how tocommunicate potential damage and impacts to partners, citizens, and elected leaders.

One of CUSEC’s primary goals has always been the development and introduction of new technologies
that directly support the response and mitigation efforts of Member States and the greater emergency
management community. Throughout the CAPSTONE-14 cycle, CUSEC worked with federal partners
including FEMA and DHS-S&T to leverage concepts and capabilities.
Beginning with NLE-11 and extending through CAPSTONE-14, CUSEC has sought out private sector
partners to build out additional capabilities. Some of the strongest partners in the implementation oftools tested in CAPSTONE-14 included the following companies.

• Esri: This geospatial technology company has worked with CUSEC for several years toestablish new capabilities to be shared across the multi-state region and the nation. During
CAPSTONE-14, Esri partnered with Kentucky to design and develop a Damage Assessment
application that seamlessly linked into the Common Operating Picture and supported theassessment, ranking, and depiction of impacted facilities and infrastructure. This application
allowed Kentucky local emergency managers to conduct damage assessment operations across(7)

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

six counties and collect 130 reports in only two days of operations. In addition, Esri personnel
worked closely with the CUSEC states to build new functional models for the collection anddepiction of standardized Essential Elements of Information (EEIs).

• G&H International: G&H, a contract partner with DHS-S&T, was led by Mr. Robert Greenberg
and his team of technologists. They provided unilateral support to CUSEC in the efforts leading
to the standardized EEIs, the Common Operations Picture, the geo-spatial depiction of Mission
Ready Packages, and a new technology for senior level managers called the Situation Room.
G&H was instrumental in the coordination and synchronization of exercise play across themulti-state region to accomplish the exercise objectives and provide a platform for analyzing
actions for lessons learned.

(8)

After-Action ReportAfter-Action Report

Six of the top 20 U.S. electricity producers arewithin the projected impact area, and2.6 million households would be without
electricity after initial impact. Hardest hit
areas are expected to lose power completely
for up to six months. Dependent grids will
experience outages and rolling blackouts for
up to eight weeks after event.
Source: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/14810/
ImpactofNewMadridSeismicZoneEarthquakesotheCentral%20USAVol1.pdf?sequence=3

III. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND(9)

After-Action Report

CAPSTONE-14

Central United States
Earthquake Consortium

III. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUNDThis report documents the unique best practices identified as part of the CAPSTONE-14 exercise
process, as well as highlights areas where progress is still needed. The best practices, recommendations,and lessons learned are meant to not only provide a road map for CUSEC and CUSEC Member States,
but also to continue the national dialogue on emerging issues and solutions. Many of the best practices,
recommendations, and lessons learned in this report support an all-hazards approach to mitigating
against, preparing for, responding to, and recovering from all types of disasters, not just earthquakes.
The content of this report was derived through interviews, independent observations during theexercise and during activities leading up to the exercise, exercise documentation, and a facilitatedmeeting following the exercise with the CUSEC Board of Directors.

A. CAPSTONE-14 EXERCISE OVERVIEW

In support of Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD8), and under the direction of the CUSEC Board, theconsortium developed the CAPSTONE-14 exercise. CAPSTONE-14 was a three-year, multi-state scopeof planning and preparedness activities culminating in a major, multi-state earthquake exercise inJune 2014. It was designed to strengthen partnerships between local, state, and federal governments,
while also engaging public and private sector entities in planning response and recovery from a major
earthquake occurring within the NMSZ. CAPSTONE-14 built upon lessons learned during the NMSZCatastrophic Planning Project and NLE-11.
The NMSZ Catastrophic Planning Project was a scenario-based planning effort launched in 2006. It
was designed to increase national readiness in the event of a major earthquake in the NMSZ throughthe development of plans for response and recovery to such events. The Catastrophic Planning Project
ultimately integrated those plans into a single document with all related federal, regional, tribal, state,
and local components. The NLE-11 was the culminating event of the NMSZ Catastrophic Planning
Project.

Armed with lessons learned from NLE-11, the CUSEC Board presented its vision of CAPSTONE-14
to FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate in the fall of 2011. Administrator Fugate endorsed that vision,
which focused on updating state and regional plans, refining and extending the tools and techniques( 10 )CAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

conceptualized in NLE-11. He also provided the name for the
exercise: CAPSTONE.

CAPSTONE-14 was developed using the full DHS Homeland
Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) planning,training, and exercise cycle; it also served as a regional andnational model to the emergency management community.
The effort included mitigation, preparedness, recovery, andresponse planning activities that directly supported legislationin the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program(NEHRP).1 Additionally, CAPSTONE-14 supported plans toimprove post-disaster building inspection capabilities andenhance seismic safety and community resilience in the CUSECMember and Associate States.

“This exercise provides anunprecedented opportunity toleverage our core capabilities
of preparedness, response,
and recovery along with our
Commonwealth partners andour Private Sector group, in a
unified response with our CUSEC
sister states to a catastrophic
New Madrid event.”
Michael Dossett,Kentucky Emergency
Management Director

Prior to the exercise, CUSEC identified four cross-functional capabilities to test through CAPSTONE-14.
These were:• Test improvements to states’ plans since NLE-11• Improve regional response to the NMSZ threat through collaborative solutions• Form stronger partnerships and relationships at the regional and national levels• Solve real-world problems and extend the national dialogue, specifically in the private sector
and concerning information-sharing capabilities

Building the exercise events from scientific data and modeling, the CAPSTONE-14 scenario used anearthquake of 7.7 on the Richter scale, occurring along all three segments of the New Madrid fault line.
The simulated effects from this earthquake were derived from the Mid-America Earthquake Center’s
2009 study and modeling, “Impact of New Madrid Seismic Zone Earthquakes on the Central USA”. These
data show direct impacts in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, andTennessee. For the purpose of this exercise, all earthquake-related damage/impact was limited to theeight primary CUSEC states.
The Member States and exercise stakeholders identified the following multi-state goals:• Demonstration of a multi-state coordinated response to a catastrophic earthquake occurring
within the NMSZ.
• Enhancement of situational awareness between the CUSEC states through the development
and implementation of a Common Operating Picture (COP).

1• Strengthening Public-Private partnerships through the use of a standardized virtual Business
Emergency Operation Center (vBEOC) platform coordination for the sharing of information
and resources.

The mission of the NEHRP is “to develop, disseminate, and promote knowledge, tools, and practices for earthquake risk reduction—
through coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency partnerships among the NEHRP agencies and their stakeholders—that improve the
Nation’s earthquake resilience in public safety, economic strength, and national security.” http://www.nehrp.gov/about/vision.htm.

( 11 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium• Development a regional resource allocation strategy through comprehensive planning andthe creation of standardized Mission Ready Packages (MRPs) to expedite the interstate
deployment of essential teams/equipment.
• Incorporation of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) enterprise into response and resource
planning, while reinforcing the dual-status command concept during a multi-state complex
catastrophe.

• Development a regional resource allocation strategy through comprehensive planning andthe creation of standardized Mission Ready Packages (MRPs) to expedite the interstate
deployment of essential teams/equipment.
• Incorporation of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) enterprise into response and resource
planning, while reinforcing the dual-status command concept during a multi-state complex
catastrophe.

• Acceleration recovery efforts through the implementation of the FEMA Catastrophic Housing
Plan/Regional Hub Reception Center Plan.

B. SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES LEADING UP TO CAPSTONE-14

For the three years leading up to CAPSTONE-14, CUSEC planned and conducted a number of workshops
and events that culminated in the exercise. In addition to the formal meetings, CUSEC facilitatedmonthly and virtual teleconference calls. The following table outlines the most notable workshops andthe specific outcomes that have led to enhanced capabilities within the multi-state area.2
NOTABLE WORKSHOPS AND OUTCOMES LEADING TO ENHANCED CAPABILITIES
Date

Event

Outcome/Goals

14-16 Aug 2012

Private Sector Workshop I

This workshop developed standards for: intelligence(Hoffman Estates, IL)

reporting and dissemination, interoperability voice
and wireless communications plan, transfer ofgoods, services and equipment to disaster stricken
areas, standardized training and exercise platform,

regionalized standard for managing solicited and non-solicited volunteers and donations (good/services),and data collection and sharing across physical andvBEOCs. The session also developed and incorporated
regional priorities for informing and educating the

public on public-private sector partnerships in supportof whole community recovery following disaster as well
as a regionalized system for comprehensive resource2

management and visibility.

“Events Calendar,” http://www.cusec.org/news-a-events/capstone-14-calendar.html, (Last updated: July 27, 2014)( 12 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

NOTABLE WORKSHOPS AND OUTCOMES LEADING TO ENHANCED CAPABILITIES
Date

Event

Outcome/Goals

11 Dec 2012

Building Inspector Framework

This workshop began the development of a common

Workshop II

Technology and GIS experts to identify common,

4-5 Mar 2013
6 Mar 201321-22 Oct 2013

4-5 Nov 2013

Development Workshop I

GIS/Situational Awareness

Building Inspector Framework
Development Workshop II

PRECAP Transportation & GIS
Workshop

Resource Allocation Workshop
IIframework to organize building inspectors into MRPs.
This

workshopbrought

togetherInformation

pertinent data, to share and be graphically displayed.

This workshop helped to build the foundation for

Mission Ready packages organized and trained toinspect damaged buildings post disaster.

This workshop outlined the processes and procedures

needed to define transportation EEIs, corresponding
GIS data, and the information needed to develop a
regional COP.

The Resource Allocation Workshop (RAW) II was
designed to provide visibility of each state’s projectedresource needs and pre-defined assets. This provided

baseline assets that require MRPs. MRPs weredeveloped for 17 baseline assets. These MRPs expanded
11 Feb 201412-13 Feb 2014

6-7 Mar 2014

Building Inspection FrameworkWorkshop III

Resource Allocation Workshop
III

Private Sector Workshop II

beyond state assets to include both the private sector
and the DoD enterprise.

This workshop focused on best practices regarding the“reservist” programs comprised of trained architects,

engineers, and construction professionals. These
groups were developed in order to be deployed postdisaster, to provide structural assessments.

This workshop continued the discussion regarding the
projection of state resource needs. These resourceswere broken down by phased deployment (i.e., 0-24
hours, 24-72 hours, etc.) in partnership with requestingstates and their corresponding FEMA Region. Further,resource adjudication flow was discussed.

This workshop focused on engaging private sector
partners in the CAPSTONE-14 exercise, providing
opportunities

tointegrate

responses,

share

information, and enhance exercise play. In addition,

this workshop provided an opportunity for the private
sector to be exposed to the vBEOC application.

( 13 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

C. HAZARD OVERVIEW: NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE AND WABASHVALLEY SEISMIC ZONE

Earthquake activity in the NMSZ poses a significant threat that could directly affect eight states:
Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. Moreover, theWabash Valley Seismic Zone (WVSZ) in southern Illinois and southeast Indiana, as well as the East
Tennessee Seismic Zone in eastern Tennessee and northeastern Alabama, constitute significant risk ofmoderate-to-severe earthquakes throughout the central region of the United States.

Hazardin totheHeart
The eight-state NMSZEarthquake
earthquake region
continues
preparefor ofan theeventHomelandof this kind in order tominimize risks to the communities they
serve.
wasthreaten
establishedin advanced
recognitionofAlso,thethepotentialany
warning.
processEvidence
thatCUSEC
earthquakes
thees thatcause
earthquakes
work over many
Ohio,
and coordination
Wabash River
impact, coupled with the challenges of Mississippi,
multi-state
and
with
four
FEMA
Regions.
thousands of years and deep beneath thevalleys of the Central United States
abounds. In fact, one of the largest histori- Earth’s surface. Nonetheless, researchduringthe
the last
15 years
has3,000
led to newearthquakes
to strike the every
continental
The USGS records between 150 and 200calsmall
earthquakes
year along
NMSZ
with
since
understanding, particularly with respect toUnited States occurred in the winter of
31974. These earthquakes are a constantreminderthishazard.
In 1811andlastearthquakes
in theNew1812—theMadrid seismic
1811–1812
alongofthe
Newsignificant
Madrid seismic
zone. Not surprisingly, as the understandzone, which stretches from just west oftime major earthquakes hit this region—thisregionwassparsely
populated
hadlittleinfrastructure.
ing of earthquakes evolves, so do the estiMemphis, Tennessee, into southernmates of the hazard that they pose.
Illinois. Several times in the past century,
moderate earthquakes have been widely
During the winter of 1811-12, a seriesofthreefelt in southern
Illinois and southearthquakes, with magnitudes estimatedatwestern Indiana.
“. . . research
approximately 8 on during
the theRichter scale,struckGeologic evidence
for prehistoric
earth15 years Missouri.
northeast Arkansas andlast
southeast(Thesequakes throughout
has led to new
magnitudes were determinedbased theonregion
witness
has been
understanding,mounting since theparticularly
reports at the time of the events, lateliquefaction
1970s. But how
with respectsignificant
thefeatures dated to that toperiodof time,and isfault
earthquakes
threat? How likely
inthestructure.) At the time of these earthquakes,
theare large earthNew Madrid
quakesand,moreCentral U.S. was sparsely
populated,
with
very
few
seismic zone.”
importantly, what is
structures. Of the few buildings constructed
thethe chanceinthat
theshaking they cause
region, most were small wooden structures
forwill be damaging?

residential or agricultural use.

Like many natural
phenomena, how an
Currently, however, the Central U.S.earthquake
is densely
affects
people depends on
populated, with major population centersinthemany factors.
metropolitan areas of Memphis and St.Studying
Louis.earthBoth
quakes is especiallyof these regions are likely to sustain damage
fromachallenging because
theyhappeninfreNMSZ event, and Memphis, in particular, could seequently and without

severe damage.4 Today, almost 50 million peopleof the Interiorof the nation’scall this region home,U.S.
asDepartment
do someU.S. Geological Survey
most prominent businesses. Key business sectors
have made these regions and metropolitan cities
hubs for their operations; supply chains rely ontransportation networks throughout these states.

Map of the New Madrid and Wabash Valley seismic
zones showing earthquakes as circles. Red circles
indicate earthquakes that occurred from 1974 to2002 with magnitudes larger than 2.5 located using
U.S. Geological
Survey Fact Sheet
FS-131-02
modern instruments (Universityof Memphis).
Green
October 2002
circles denote earthquakes that occurred prior to 1974
(USGS Professional Paper 1527). Larger earthquakes
are represented by larger circles. Map courtesy of U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Fact
Sheet FS-131-02, October 2002.
This map of the New Madrid and Wabash Valley seismic zones shows earthquakes as circles.
Red circles indicate earthquakes that occurred from 1974 to 2002 with magnitudes larger than 2.5
located using modern instruments (University of Memphis). Green circles denote earthquakesthat occurred prior to 1974 (USGS Professional Paper 1527). Larger earthquakes are represented
by larger circles.

3

Mid-America Earthquake Center, “Report 08-02, Impact of Earthquakes on the Central USA Final Phase I Report,”(September 2008).

4

Ibid.

( 14 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

Research and modeling conducted by the Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAEC) indicate thatcasualties and fatalities from a magnitude 7.7 quake would approach 86,000, with 7.2 million people
displaced. Direct economic losses would total nearly $300 billion, while indirect losses could total
double that amount. Negative impacts to the regional, national, and global economies would be
expected due to disruptions to supply chains as well as energy infrastructure. For example, models
indicate that damage to the oil and gas pipelines that crisscross this region would interrupt service
nationwide.
According to the USGS the chance of a magnitude 6 or 7 earthquake occurring within a 50-year window
is between 25% and 40%. For a repeat of an 1811-12 type event, with a magnitude 7 or greater, there
is a 7% to 10% chance.

The MAEC’s model used for CAPSTONE-14 indicates that Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri would be
most severely impacted. Illinois and Kentucky would also be impacted, though not as severely. Nearly
715,000 buildings would be damaged in the eight-state study region. About 42,000 search and rescue
personnel working in 1,500 teams will be required to respond.
Damage to critical infrastructure (i.e., essential facilities, transportation and utility lifelines) would
substantial in the 140 impacted counties near the epicenter, including 3,500 damaged bridges andnearly 425,000 breaks and leaks to both local and interstate pipelines. Approximately 2.6 million
households are projected to be without power after the earthquake. Nearly 130 hospitals would be
expected to be damaged, most of these located in the impacted areas near the rupture zone. Extensive
damage and substantial travel delays would be expected to impact both Memphis and St. Louis thus
impeding response.5

The effects of the modeled earthquake would span well beyond the eight state area. A significant
earthquake would cause cascading impacts to national transportation and utility infrastructures.
Hardest hit areas would be expected to lose power completely for up to six months. Complicating thematter, six of the top 20 U.S. electric producers are within the impacted area. These producers export
119.9 million megawatt hours of electricity to Mid-Atlantic, Carolinas, and Southern Power Grids.
Therefore, rolling blackouts would occur on dependent grids for up to eight weeks, impacting much of
the U.S.6

Catastrophic impacts to the water infrastructure would be equally as stark. Major issues will likely
arise from the underground pipeline structures experiencing ground motion and aftershocks. Those
areas within the epicenter of the earthquake would experience destruction to the water systems. The
closer the damaging event is to existing water systems, the more water mains will break, and if themains cannot be isolated, the systems will hemorrhage. Water treatment plants will suffer the samecatastrophic losses, whether from direct structural impacts or cascading impacts due to lack of power.

5

Mid-America Earthquake Center, “Report 09-03, Impact of Earthquakes on the Central USA, Volume 1,” (October 2009).

6

Corbet, Ellison, Jordan, & Taylor, “NISAC Infrastructure Analysis: Impact of a Large Earthquake in the New Madrid Earthquake Zone on
National Energy Infrastructure,”(December 2007).

( 15 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

All told, a magnitude 7.7 earthquake would have devastating impacts on the region. The affects would
have significant repercussions nationally and globally. CUSEC recognizes that such a scenario would
easily overwhelm individual states, and that it therefore requires a multi-state preparedness effort.
This recognition of the potential catastrophic effects to the region from a regional earthquake is thebasis of CAPSTONE-14.

( 16 )

After-Action ReportAfter-Action Report

Approximately one million people would be
without water due to pipeline breaks. This
does not account for water shortfalls due tothe lack of power supply.
Source: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/14810/
ImpactofNewMadridSeismicZoneEarthquakesotheCentral%20USAVol1.pdf?sequence=3

IV. CAPSTONE-14 OBJECTIVESAND RECOMMENDATIONS( 17 )

After-Action Report

CAPSTONE-14

Central United States
Earthquake Consortium

IV. CAPSTONE-14 OBJECTIVESAND RECOMMENDATIONSThe CAPSTONE-14 exercise outlined six multi-state objectives focused on the following capabilities:• Private Sector Integration• Communications• Shared Situational Awareness• Regional and National Resource Allocation• Regional Transportation Coordination• Department of Defense, National Guard Mobilization Support to Civil Authorities

The following recommendations were identified throughout the three-year planning process andevaluation of the CAPSTONE-14 exercise. These recommendations were derived from interviews,
independent observations during the exercise and the activities leading up to the exercise, exercise
documentation, and a facilitated meeting following the exercise with the CUSEC Board.

A. PRIVATE SECTOR INTEGRATION

A robust partnership between the public and private sector is essential for responding to andrecovering from disasters. During a crisis, the private and public sectors are interdependent for realtime information, legal and legislative support, area access, and many other aspects of emergency
management.

In a large-scale seismic event, public resources will be stretched thin. Additionally, many facets ofcritical infrastructure, such as cellular networks and water supply, depend heavily or completely, on
the private sector. Coordination must take place between the business community and government toensure operational coordination of private sector skilled personnel, information, equipment, supply
chains, and critical infrastructure.

CUSEC has led the effort in developing and implementing novel programs, tools, and technologies tofoster the private sector integration in a government-lead emergency response. Several CUSEC states
conduct regular Private Sector Workgroup meetings, which have been recognized by NEMA as a bestpractice.
( 18 )CAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

CUSEC’s efforts to integrate the private sector started with the incorporation of key private sector
partners into the NMSZ Catastrophic Planning Project in 2006. During the NLE-11, Kentucky exercisedan early version of the vBEOC using existing tools and capabilities. Building on the 2011 successes,
CUSEC continued to develop public-private sector relationships through workshops, exercises, andworking groups throughout CAPSTONE-14.

In 2012, CUSEC kicked-off the CAPSTONE-14 exercise program with a Private Sector Integration
Workshop to build and nurture lasting partnerships with the business community. This workshop
brought together over 70 companies. Participants prioritized key emergency management issues andneeds within the private sector community. This feedback has provided government at all levels agreater understanding of how to approach disaster response and recovery in a way that involves theneeds of the whole community.7

In 2014, CUSEC conducted a second Private Sector Workshop focusing on integrating the private sector
into the CAPSTONE-14 exercise. It also provided opportunities to become familiar with situationalawareness and resource management tools developed based on the needs identified in the 2012
Workshop. These efforts supported 40 private sector partners, exercising alongside government
counterparts throughout the CAPSTONE-14 exercise.
During CAPSTONE-14, participants validated that many of the tools developed through the Private
Sector Integration Workshops I and II were successful. These initiatives included the establishment ofa Business Emergency Operations Center (BEOC) within a State Emergency Operations Center and theimplementation of the vBEOC emerging technology, which provides a platform to enhance situationalawareness between public and private entities. The vBEOC also provides a mechanism to request
resources and support. Integration of the private sector in substantial resource deployments was
also enhanced through the development of MRPs and deployment using the Joint Reception Staging,
Onward Integration (JRSOI) concept.

To evaluate these new programs, tools, and concepts, CAPSTONE-14 included the following objective:“In accordance with jurisdictional plans, policies, and procedures demonstrate the ability to manage
and assure critical resources are available to support response and personnel upon request in a costeffective and timely manner.”
To accomplish this objective, CUSEC identified the following critical tasks:

7• Developing usable solutions to fully integrate private sector capacity and capabilities• Implementation and testing an access control concept• Implementation and testing of a vehicle/convoy placarding solution• Implementation of the vBEOC concept• Providing business centric situational awareness information• Providing mission support requests

Comprehensive findings from that workshop are posted on the CUSEC website at www.cusec.org.

( 19 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK: OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF
THE vBEOC SYSTEM DESIGN AND CONDUCT
Strongly
Agree

Strongly
DisagreeOver 100 survey respondents from state, local, federal, military, and private sector participants.

The vBEOC
was userfriendly andeasy to use.

Criticalsituationalawareness to
private sector
entities wasprovided.

vBEOC was aneffective forrequests ofprivate sector
resources.

vBEOC helped
public/private
resource andinformation
sharing.

Public/private
partnerships
werestrengthened
throughvBEOC.

Integrated
private sector
and provided
situationalawareness forprivate sector.

vBEOC isapplicablenationwide
for promoting
private sector
integration.

CUSEC demonstrated success in nearly all of these objectives during CAPSTONE-14. The integrationof private sector capabilities into the planning and exercise response set a new standard for CUSEC
preparedness efforts, both in terms of expectation and performance.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations have been identified to support the continued enhancement ofprivate sector integration. These recommendations provide ongoing development of public-private
solutions and establish regional standards for nationwide application. Implementation of the following
recommendations will form the foundation for a truly integrated, whole-community approach tocommunity resiliency.

Continue to engage private sector partners in every facet of emergency management,
including planning. The 2012 Private Sector Integration Workshop highlighted opportunities

to integrate better private entities to support community resiliency, bringing private sector
representatives to discuss expectations and the exercise at the start of the design process. Workshop
participants discussed topics including: developing mechanisms to allow the private sector to quickly
access their affected sites after a disaster, identifying strategies to utilize employees as volunteers, anddefining processes to donate cash and supplies in the aftermath of a disaster. Private sector partners
commented that prior to CAPSTONE-14, they often lacked the ability to integrate their capabilities androles in the state emergency operations plans.

( 20 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

Through extensive efforts since the initial 2012 Private Sector Integration Workshop, partnerships
have flourished and integration between the public and private sector has substantially improved.
However, work remains. Chairman of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) Terrorism
Task Force Donald Kauerauf noted that even though
great progress has been made since 2012, “CUSEC
needs to continue to pursue heavy engagement of
the private sector to ensure communication and
expectations are clear. There is a need to clearly alignthe capabilities of the private sector within responseplans.” Deno Perdiou of AT&T Illinois highlighted anationwide gap that CUSEC and Member States havebeen working to improve—the need for the “private
sector to be more fully integrated into the emergency
management process. Having private industry
separate and apart from the public sector emergency
Donald Kauerauf (left), Chairman,
management process needs to change.”
Illinois Terrorism Taskforce

As a national best practice, it is recommended that state emergency management integrate theprivate sector into preparedness efforts to support a whole-community approach to resiliency.8
CAPSTONE-14 marked the one of the first times that private sector businesses conducted multiple,
independent internal exercises aligned with a public sector
exercise. During CAPSTONE-14, more than 40 private-sector
As a national best practice,companies participated alongside state officials. For example,
it is recommended that state
private sector participants provided people in the exercise’s
emergency management
Master Control Cell. In addition, companies developed theirintegrate the private sector into
own parallel exercises utilizing the CUSEC scenario and regional
preparedness efforts to support
injects, driving simultaneous play for the companies. This levela whole-community approachto resiliency.8
of private sector involvement in an exercise on this scale wasunprecedented.
Efforts like these help to engage the private sector as well as provide opportunities for both public andprivate entities to work alongside each other, learning and training together. Training, planning, andexercise between public and private entities is required to continue progress.

Continue to develop virtual Business Emergency Operations Center capabilities. The
vBEOC is a custom technology developed recently by Argonne National Labs, working in conjunction
with the Illinois Emergency Management Agency and integrated into CAPSTONE. It provides a virtual
platform to integrate the public and private sector situational awareness, information on response
activities, and objectives during a disaster. Developed in response to challenges in sharing informationand integrating response efforts that were identified by both private and public sectors, the vBEOC
provides chat and geospatial mapping to provide a consolidated view of impacts to a multi-state area.
8“Public-Private Partnerships,” FEMA, www.fema.gov/public-private-partnerships, (November 22, 2013).

( 21 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

Before vBEOC, the private sector did not have a single source or contact for communicating and sharing
information with government agencies in a disaster. The private sector did not have the ability to viewthe impacts of the disaster beyond state or local jurisdictional boundaries.
The sharing of information and resource
needs supports a unity-of-government
approach that has been highlighted
as a gap in past events and exercises,
since NLE-11. In addition to providing
improvedsituationalawareness,the vBEOC technology includes chatboards for coordinating volunteer anddonations management, the ability for
private sector partners to share facility
status (e.g., open/closed/damaged), a
real-time and interactive depiction ofassets through mapping technology, andsupports access control efforts.

Views of state data integrated in the vBEOC
for private sector engagement at the MCC.

The vBEOC is a promising new technology for bridging the information gap between the public andprivate sectors. Though exercise participants noted specific technical challenges with the current beta
version (many due to lack of user training), the benefits of enhanced information-sharing were clear.
Further refinement of the beta version and a commitment to using this technology are necessary.
CUSEC should continue to develop and document the benefits of this vBEOC, support Member Statesin the implementation of the vBEOC into plans, policies, procedures, and training programs, as well asshare this new capability with NEMA for national review and potential implementation.

Edie Casella, Project Manager of
Public-Private Partnerships at IEMA/ITTF

The vBEOC was not the only method of communication
during the CAPSTONE-14 exercise. The BEOC alsoutilized phone, email, and WebEOC. CUSEC should
integrate WebEOC with vBEOC to avoid duplicationof efforts. According to Edie Casella, Project Manager
of Public-Private Partnerships at IEMA/ITTF, “ThevBEOC could be the sole means of communication
with private sector partners within a year.” Doingso would result in the accomplishment of the private
sector’s top priority: identifying and practicing asingle place to view or exchange information andinteract with all levels of government, regardless of
geo-political boundaries.

( 22 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

The exercise also outlined challenges in current technologies, most notably WebEOC, of which Mike
Marx of Ameren noted provided too much information and lacked filters and analytics within thetechnology itself to streamline information in order to focus issues. Mr. Marx commented, “Sometimes
too much information can slow down decision-making.” Public and private sectors should work together
to discuss and prioritize the types of information that the private sector needs in an emergency
Moving forward, it will be vital for CUSEC and its private sector partners to continue to sharecompany and infrastructure specific data through developed tools and mechanisms. The impacts ofan earthquake along the NMSZ will be catastrophic and cascading into all sectors. Therefore, specificdata will be required to not only outline situational awareness but to provide vital information to makecritical decisions regarding resource prioritization.

Sharing and Protecting Private Sector Information. The status of private sector systems andinfrastructure can directly impact response and recovery efforts. For example, the loss of pipelines,
electrical grid segments, and generation capability, or fuel prioritization efforts could all have cascading
impacts on a community. Sharing information on the current status and projected availability of
infrastructure and resources will inform decision-making and help with the prioritization of response
efforts.

Information sharing and protection goes well beyond response. Information sharing in the planning
process can support the identification of potential complicating factors, resource needs, and overall
support required from both the public and private sectors. Information sharing before the disaster canlead to enhanced coordination and more accurate threat and vulnerability metrics.

The models of the vBEOC, the virtual public-private platform for coordination, and the Business
Emergency Operations Center (BEOC), the physical Business Emergency Operations Center
location, encourage information sharing across public and the private sectors. However, early in the
CAPSTONE-14 planning process, the Private Sector Working Group identified challenges and concernswith sharing and protecting proprietary and sensitive information. As a result, CUSEC updated vBEOC
to include permissions-based data feeds only visible to those selected by the provider. Information
sharing concerns remain an issue for comprehensive integration efforts, especially in the preparedness
phase when partners do not feel the pressure from a disaster to share information. Building on thediscussions from CAPSTONE-14, CUSEC and its private sector partners should continue refine theirapproach to sharing and protecting private and public sector information before, during, and followinga regional disaster.

Continue to document and understand public and private sector interdependencies.

Private and public sector partners rely on each other for resources, response activities, and situational
information in a disaster. The various parties should therefore continue to discuss the types of
information and resources that each partner will likely need in a disaster. These conversations help
to define processes for collecting and sharing specific data, streamlining the coordination process( 23 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortiumin a disaster. Although CUSEC members have spent nearly a decade on disaster response planning,
including the 2011 and 2014 exercises, much work on identifying and documenting interdependencies
remains.
Accomplishment of this recommendation will depend heavily on continuing to promote a wholecommunity approach to planning, training, and exercising. Especially through exercising, partners will
improve their understanding of each other’s needs and priorities.

Develop and document a process for access control. In the aftermath of a disaster, emergency

response resources, both public and private, must mobilize to provide response and recovery support
to impacted areas. For the public sector, responders must work quickly and efficiently to restore criticalservices and prevent cascading impacts to life and property. Public officials must determine when andhow to permit access for repair crews and businesses.

In the workshops, participants from the private sector discussed three scenarios under which theywould want the ability to transport personnel or resources: companies would want to their assessment
teams coming from outside the impacted area to travel to the disaster and provide specialized
assistance; they would want their logistics personnel to be on-scene, typically for a short duration;and their local employees may need to travel to work (if safe to do so). CUSEC recognizes that it must
continue to work on developing processes to manage the unique public and private sector needs forre-entry into an affected area following a disaster.

A formal, region-wide access control process will aid in routing response personnel and vehicles
through affected areas, state borders, and regional boundaries. Because the private sector will betransporting resources across state lines, the access control should be coordinated throughout the
CUSEC region, as well as have support from NEMA to inform the development of a national process
and model.

Build upon the successes of the CUSEC Private Sector Workgroup. CUSEC has been on theforefront of public and private sector integration. CUSEC recognizes that private sector involvement
in emergency management is essential to a comprehensive response and recovery capabilities. The
working groups, planning efforts, and partnerships developed over the past decade have built processes
and technologies where none existed.
The private sector partners who have engaged in this three-year process should continue their efforts
by establishing user groups to act as representatives of their peers and provide detailed feedback ofpolicies, strategies, tools, and preparedness opportunities. Implementing the user group model willallow CUSEC to harness its accomplishments and continue progress with a broader base of private
sector collaborators.

( 24 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

B. COMMUNICATIONS

Operational Communications is one of the core capabilities identified by DHS.9 Operational
Communications supports security, situational awareness, and operations with timely communications
among affected communities and emergency responders in an area impacted by a disaster. Operational
Communications focuses on the technology and ability to transfer information using voice, text, and/or
email via the fastest and most reliable and available means. On a daily basis, communications are mostoften completed via landline telephone, cellular phone, and email. During an emergency, those meansof communications may not be available.
CUSEC recognizes that a large seismic event orother large-scale, regional disaster could interrupt
conventional means of communication. CUSEC
has consistently emphasized the need for effective
communication technologies and capabilities. The
CUSEC Board re-emphasized this requirement
after NLE-11, ensuring the follow-on exercise—
CAPSTONE-14—pushed the coordinated multistate capabilities forward. Member States also
understand that the need to communicate among
emergency operations centers and field locations
within individual states and across the CUSEC
region during a large-scale emergency creates
challenges for security, situational awareness, andoperational progress.

Arkansas DEM MARS and RACES operators support
operations via voice and data communications
via HF radio capabilities.

Satellite communications, for example, provide an effective communications channel, but they are
costly to acquire and operate. This option also comes with its own set of challenges, such as maintaining
satellite visibility, avoiding voice bleed-over, and sustaining clear reception. Other means of alternate
communications include the National Warning System (NAWAS), and amateur radio (ham radio)
operations.

Recently, FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate commented, “Radio is one of the most resilient
communications technologies we have. When the power is out and telecommunications are down,
the Amateur Radio community can serve as a vital resource in support of emergency responders andsurvivors during a disaster.”10
But both NAWAS and ham radio have challenges too: NAWAS is limited to voice communications overa party line platform, and ham radio also requires operators to know and work on pre-identified
frequencies and may be limited by such factors as atmospheric and space weather conditions.
9“FEMA Core Capabilities,” http://www.fema.gov/core-capabilities#Opcomms, (May 6, 2013).

10

FEMA and ARRL Sign Agreement; FEMA Administrator Calls Ham Radio “Resilient,” http://www.arrl.org/news/view/fema-and-arrlsign-agreement-fema-administrator-calls-ham-radio-resilient, (July 19, 2014).

( 25 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

During CAPSTONE-14, CUSEC members exercised Operational Communications, using the following
objective to guide their efforts: “In accordance with jurisdictional plans, policies, and procedures
demonstrate the ability to maintain a continuous flow of critical information between state, federal
and private sector partners.”11
To accomplish this objective, CUSEC identified the following critical tasks:• Establish
voice/data
communications
between State Emergency Operations
Centers (SEOCs), FEMA Region Coordination
Centers (RCCs) and the National Earthquake
Information Center (NEIC) to sharesituational awareness information.
• Establish lines of communications withprivate sector partners to strengthen bidirectional information sharing.
• Utilize amateur radio assets to establish
communications with local, state, federal,and private sector partners.

Satellite phone communications (MSAT)
testing during CAPSTONE-14.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Ensure satellite communication capabilities are consistent, manageable, and readily
available for emergency operations among key public and private sector partners. CUSEC

should continue to investigate emerging technologies that would support back-up communications
capabilities. These technologies should be evaluated to determine if they best support the overall
communications needs and project impacts to the communication infrastructure.

Satellite communication is a common alternate form of communications used during disasters whenconventional communications are disrupted. It is a proven means of information-sharing in areas whereconventional communications are unavailable. Emergency responders perform more effectively when
they have access to instant, reliable communications technology to aid in disaster management andcoordination. When cellular or hardwire communications are unavailable, satellite communications
are often the primary back-up option.
During CAPSTONE-14, states successfully tested satellite phone communications (MSAT) as a means toreceive mission requests from local communities to SEOCs. States successfully used satellite technology
to receive damage assessment reports and mission requests. State Emergency Management Directors
also conducted a roll-call using the satellite telephone push-to-talk feature on the first day of exercise.
Communication transmissions were audible from state to state, but some inherent delays in the satellite
11

Central United States Earthquake Consortium, “CAPSTONE-14 Exercise Overview,” (2014).

( 26 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

technology caused occasional communications gaps and frustration among the users. For example,
typical delays of the push-to-talk satellite communications caused some missed transmissions andinstances where users talked over each other.

In Arkansas, private sector participants noted that information sharing and resource requests were
nearly impossible to address from the SEOC due to a lack of alternative communications capabilities
compatible with the technologies used in the private sector.12 SEOCs were unable to convey resource
and mission requests to the private sector because those entities did not have satellite or amateur
radio communications capabilities.

During the exercise, the Arkansas Geological Survey indicated that it did not have access to satellite
or amateur band radio communications in the event that conventional communications become
inoperable.13  Additionally, in states where the EOC, Joint Information Center (JIC), Joint Operations
Center (JOC), and Joint Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and Integration (JRSOI) were not colocated, a lack of redundant or alternate communications (e.g., satellite, radio, etc.) was reported. This
created communications gaps between these operations.
The satellite technology currently used by CUSEC Member States only provides voice and “push-to-talk”
capabilities. However, updated satellite technology is now available that provides broadband Internet
access, voice, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), and integration of terrestrial-based networks.

CUSEC Member States should consider standardizing equipment and capabilities to include readily
available Internet, voice, and integrated networking capabilities that can be immediately operational
during conventional communications failure.

States should also continue to work with their governmental and private sector partners to identify
communications capability gaps, and work to remedy those gaps through the acquisition and utilizationof satellite telecommunications for all strategic partners. In addition to other issues outlined above,
having only a limited number of phones available to operate from locations such as the SEOC, JIC, JOC,
or Radio Room has resulted in limited ability to consistently and expeditiously transfer messages.
Additionally, satellite technology must be able to keep up with the needs and requirements of local,
state, and federal response. For example, FEMA requires Resource Request Forms (RRF) to be submittedwith a signature. During the initial response phase, FEMA requires states to email, fax, mail, or handdeliver the RRF until an Incident Management Assistance Team (IMAT) is established on-site. When
hardline and cellular capabilities fail, emergency managers are currently resigned to sending RRFs via
amateur radio services. This technology is functional, but not secure. Newer satellite technology has
Internet and email capability.

12

Most private sector partners rely on cell, landline, and internet communications. Most companies have not identified an alternatemeans of maintaining communications.

13

Arkansas was the Communications Lead for CAPSTONE-14. Communications observations were based from there.

( 27 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

Work with private sector partners to develop communications resource push packages
in support of emergency response resource needs. Push packages, pre-identified sets ofresources, such as communications equipment or bottled water, are automatically deployed whencertain thresholds are met during an emergency. When triggered, push packages are deployed to preidentified logistics staging areas.
In recent years, local and state emergency managers in the CUSEC region have begun working closelywith private sector partners to identify ways the private sector can support response operations,such as provision of resources. The private sector may provide support to disaster areas throughagreements with government entities and through resource management. However, when conventional
communications are unavailable, resource requests cannot be issued to private sector partners unlessthey maintain satellite or amateur-band radio communications capabilities.
In lieu of urging private sector partners to obtainand maintain unconventional communications
equipment, CUSEC Member States should work
together to identify specific push packages, staging
areas, and/or points of distribution that private
sector partners could utilize to automatically deploy
resources to given areas in the event of a major disasterthat compromises communication capabilities. Pushpackages may be limited to essential equipment
and supplies, but their use would expedite resource
allocation by bringing the resources in to centralized
locations.

Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Services (RACES)
operator during CAPSTONE-14

CUSEC public and private sector partners should identify the triggers required to initiate push packages
to prevent incidental and unnecessary delivery of resources to a given area. In addition, CUSEC should
continue to work towards voice and data integration, allowing current systems to be integrated
together for effective response efforts.

Establish standards for various electronic resource request forms that meet the filesize limitations of email and amateur band radio capabilities. During CAPSTONE-14, states

initiated interstate communications utilizing Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Services (RACES)14 andsuccessfully communicated via voice (audible communications), chat (text communications) and RMS
Express/Winlink radio email system (email communications).

Winlink communications ultimately proved as a successful means to share RRFs and Emergency
Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) request forms (REQ-A), even though initial attempts to send
RRFs and REQ-A forms via Winlink were unsuccessful, due to file size. Communications operators
14

FCC licensed civilian low-band radio network trained to support emergency operations.

( 28 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortiumand support teams determined they could successfully send these file attachments if the forms wereconverted to a .jpeg image with minimal resolution, and then compressed, making the file small enoughto attach and send over the RACES and Military Affiliated Radio Systems (MARS).15
There were also occasional issues with the RACES and MARS Winlink files. For example, when a stateprovided a resource request via Winlink, the message would typically be labeled “RACES request” within
the message content. That message was received at Arkansas Department of Emergency Management(ADEM) and forwarded on to the appropriate FEMA Region via MARS. However, since the “RACES
request” was noted in the original (and subsequently forwarded) email, FEMA would respond with astatement noting that RRFs could not be accepted from RACES, only from MARS. Once the respective
FEMA Region understood that the requests may have originally been generated via RACES but werevetted and forwarded via MARS, the requests were accepted and addressed.
Though all tested communications systems operated properly for the participating states, issues suchas the ones described above were noted. For emergencies where RACES and MARS are the only meansof submitting and receiving RFFs and REQ-As, the states, FEMA, and EMAC should determine and agree
upon a file type that can be attached and sent via Winlink.

Whereas RFFs require a signature from the requesting agency before they can be approved, FEMA andthe states should work to identify the criteria for a low-resolution scan within the limits of the Winlink
capabilities. For consistency, EMAC REQ-As should utilize the same format. Furthermore, all RRF files
submitted through RACES should omit the term “RACES Request” from the text file to avoid confusionand possible delays in receiving approval from the FEMA Region.
Regularly scheduled training and functional exercises conducted by RACES and MARS operators will
improve speed and understanding during real world emergency operations.

Establish procedures and tools to prioritize communications restoration efforts. A regional

earthquake will likely cause catastrophic losses to terrestrial radio. A loss to radio infrastructure would
severely impact the region’s ability to deliver emergency alerts and notification to the public. For hardhit areas, the public would hear only static on the AM dial due to structural damage to towers.
CUSEC and state broadcasters associations should consider a two-part approach to prepare for apotential loss of terrestrial radio infrastructure. First, CUSEC Member States should develop and adopt
a system to prioritize communications restoration efforts. This system would provide guidance toemergency managers and senior elected officials as how best to identify, community by community,
what specific communications infrastructure should be re-established based on impact and benefit. In
addition, Public Information Officers (PIOs) should develop plans and procedures outlining how best
to communicate with the public when traditional methods are inoperative.
15

FCC licensed, military affiliate, civilian low-band radio network trained to support emergency operations.

( 29 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

Establish standardized practices and procedures for Integrated Public Alert andWarning operations. The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) technology was

not tested or observed across the multi-state region during CAPSTONE-14. The federal standards and
IPAWS capabilities have not been consistently implemented within CUSEC. IPAWS was not functionalin Arkansas due to “software issues.” However, representatives of the State of Tennessee stated theyutilized IPAWS without any concerns.
CUSEC Member States should continue to work with FEMA to identify software and/or operational
issues with IPAWS, then test the functionality of the system to ensure operational readiness. CUSEC
should make this a priority within their Member States and publish lessons learned and issues toimprove the national model.

Ensure watch officers are able to monitor and operate the FEMA National Radio System16
radio capabilities at all times. Communications among states was also conducted via the FEMA
National Radio System (FNARS); both voice and chat capabilities were tested successfully. The tablebelow summarizes the types of inter-state communications using the FNARS system that the states
had during the exercise.

AL

AL

AR

N/C

KY

N/C

IL

IN

MS

MO
TN

AR

LV

N/C

LVC

L

N/C

LC

N/C
LV

LVC

IL

LCV

LCV

LCV

IN
L

LC
V?

N/C

N/C

LCV

LVC

LCV

LCV

LC

L

LCV

LCV

LVC

L

LCV

LV

N/C

KY

LC

LCV
LC

LCV

MS

OOS

MO
LC

TN

LV

OOS

LC

LCV

OOS

LC

LCV

OOS
OOS
OOS

OOS

LC
LC

N/C
LC

LCV
LCV

Legend

L = Linked
C = Chat

V = Voice

OOS = Out of Service
N/C = No Contact? = Marginal

L N/C
LC

According to FNARS operators, Mississippi’s FNARS Radio was out of service at the time of the test.
Operators further concluded, “While radio propagation conditions were not optimal for this exercise,they were consistent with those to be expected during summer.”17
Excluding Mississippi, of the 49 possible contacts between states; 42 were successful via either voiceor text (an 86% success rate).18
16

FEMA-owned and managed low-band radio system

17

Sunspots and solar flares, which are heightened in the summer, affect FNARS operational capabilities. Arkansas Department ofEmergency Management, “FNARS Test Results”, (no date available)

18

Arkansas Department of Emergency Management, “FNARS Test Results”, (no date available)( 30 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

Several states do not monitor the FNARS radio as part of the 24-hour watch operations. Some attributed
the limitation to the location of the radio in a separate room, while other attributed it to technologicalissues (e.g., equipment maintenance). CUSEC states should work with FEMA to ensure the FNARS
radios are working, are installed in locations where watch officers can easily monitor them, and thatwatch officers are trained and licensed to use the equipment.

C. SHARED SITUATIONAL AWARENESS

Successful shared situational awareness addresses Member
States’ need to assess the comparative impact of a regional
earthquake. One of the greatest success stories from NLE-11
was the progress in the ability to share dynamic data across themulti-state region. NLE-11 used the DHS prototype program,
Virtual USA, to connect data feeds from all eight states anddisplay a multi-state geospatial picture. Building on thissuccess, CUSEC partnered with DHS-S&T for CAPSTONE-14 toexpand the vision and capabilities of Virtual USA to support avariety of projects for enhanced situational awareness withina tool called Common Operating Picture (COP). COP allows forstates to share critical information and provides a platform tocollect empirical data to support critical decisions related toresource allocation at a regional and national level.

CAPSTONE-14 Situational
Awareness Accomplishments:• 450 counties in 7 states
reported live status of
18 Essential Elements ofInformation (EEIs)• Player provided 13,104 EEI
status updates• Players shared more than
2,000 data layers

During CAPSTONE-14, CUSEC members exercised Shared Situational Awareness using the following
objective to guide their efforts: “In accordance with jurisdictional plans, policies, and procedures,
demonstrate the ability to effectively gather and disseminate disaster intelligence to all key
stakeholders.”
To accomplish this objective, the CUSEC GIS/Information Technology Working Group and the CUSEC
Board identified the following critical tasks:• Develop and disseminate a COP to all local, state, federal, and private sector partners.

• Upload organization specific situational awareness information into the regional COP, allowing
all local, state, federal, and private sector partners to readily view regional impacts.

CUSEC Member States addressed the objectives by participating in the following activities:• Developing and communicating a regional COP• Implementing and standardizing common tools across the multi-state region• Identification and publication of agreed-upon Essential Elements of Information (EEI) data
elements• Publication of a Common Operational Report outside the multi-state region( 31 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

These objectives were met and, in some cases, exceeded.   For the first time, the region was able toshare information across multiple functional areas. A large part of CUSEC’s success can be attributed
to Member States’ recognition that situational awareness should be focused on data standardization,rather than platform standardization. Member States identified what information to share, and acommon format for generating data. They shared resource and operational information to drive
regional and local decision-making, displaying information in a geospatial depiction. Once theinformation was mapped, it could be effectively visualized and evaluated. These accomplishments insituational awareness were the result of months of training and partnership-building efforts across theprivate and public sectors.
The success of this exercise objective was the product of dedicated professionals in all eight CUSECMember States and the partnership between the dynamic DHS-S&T team, G&H International, and Esri.
Their work exceeded the original vision of the CUSEC Board.
“The Common Operating Picture (COP) has been a huge positive outcome of this exercise. The ability
to map situational awareness information from multiple sources has greatly improved the decision
making ability for emergency management within Tennessee. The challenge now is to take theseessential elements of information (EEI’s) for an earthquake threat and develop EEI’s for all the state
threats and map them into the COP to support all emergency management response activities.”
Dave Nock MEP, Planning Section Supervisor and State Exercise Officer, Planning and Exercises
Branch, Response Division, Tennessee Emergency Management Agency

PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK: OVERALL ASSESSMENTOF MULTI-STATE COORDINATION EFFORTS
Strongly
AgreeOver 100 survey respondents from state, local, federal, military, and private sector participants.

Strongly
DisagreeMulti-State
coordination
supported
response.

Felt informed
about multistate impacts totransportation.

Felt informed
about multistate impacts tocommunication.

( 32 )

Communications
was effective
throughout
exercise.

Multi-State
coordination
efforts have
improvedsince 2011.

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK: OVERALL ASSESSMENT
OF COMMON OPERATING PICTURE
Strongly
AgreeOver 100 survey respondents from state, local, federal, military, and private sector participants.

Strongly
Disagree
COP was userfriendly andeasy to use.

COP provided
status ofresources andresponse.

COP assisted
in timelyand effective
decisionmaking.

COP waseffective
tool forRegional COP,
as scenario
evolved.

COP allowed
my stateto sharesituational
status withCUSEC.

Softwareenhancedmulti-statesharedsituationalawareness.

Softwaresatisfied multistate objectiveof shared
situationalawareness.

Software isapplicablenationwide
for sharing
situationalawareness.

RECOMMENDATIONSContinue to test, formally adopt, and promote theRegional COP platform and the Essential Elementsof Information. The goal of CUSEC’s shared situational

For the first time, the region wasable to share information acrossmultiple functional areas.

awareness efforts has been to develop a real-time regional
operating picture utilizing 18 pre-established EEIs. EEIs cover
topics such as emergency management, military forces status,
health and mass care status, and infrastructure. Through CAPSTONE-14 workshops and planningmeetings, the partners agreed on the types of information to compile, share, and communicate via theregional COP Platform. States collect data on these EEIs then upload the data to the Fusion WebEOC
EEI Board. WebEOC can aggregate the data from the individual states to populate an ArcGIS map witha regional, shared COP, although the platform does not require the use of WebEOC.

The CAPSTONE-14 exercise demonstrated CUSEC’s success with this approach. The Regional COP
used the newly developed tools and EEIs to substantially enhance regional situational awareness. In
addition, the CUSEC GIS/Information Technology Working Group published guidance for all CUSECRegional COP platform users on timing for situational awareness updates, specific criteria that triggers
for sharing of situational status information regionally, and the level of detail for situational status
updates. This guidance should be shared nationally to inform similar initiatives in other regions.

( 33 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

A significant obstacle for the continued implementation of a fully integrated Regional COP platform
is funding. Partnerships should be used to address gaps in capabilities. Maintenance of the platform
could be supported through the prioritization of limited federal funds.
Establishing common EEIs significantly supported regional information sharing and situationalawareness. To promote the EEIs as a best practice, CUSEC should work with NEMA and NISC to sharewith other states the successes of the EEIs used in CAPSTONE-14. In the future, DHS may consider
adapting these EEIs for data sharing as a best practice and part of the National Incident Management
System (NIMS) accreditation.

Encourage day-to-day utilization of the Regional COP
platform. In CAPSTONE-14, CUSEC demonstrated progressto enhance regional situational awareness. States shared
information on the impacts of the disaster with far greater
effectiveness than in any previous exercise or incident.
It is important for valuable technology solutions, like theRegional COP, to be used regularly so that users are familiar
with the tools and understand their nuances and capabilities.
States should strive to fully integrate tools, like the Regional
COP, into daily operations. They can be used for day-today damage assessment, status reporting, and resource
management. For these reasons, Member States should
embed the Regional COP platform into their emergency
operations centers across the region.

Continue work with Member States, AssociateStates, and federal partners to further refine theEssential Elements of Information and processes forcollecting detailed information from local agencies.

In a disaster, state emergency management officials require
up-to-date, detailed information from local agencies on thestatus of critical sectors (e.g., energy, roads, etc.). Detailed
information is necessary to develop a Regional COP thatallows states to fully analyze the situation, allocate resources,
and make high-level decisions. Currently there is no central
repository of information that effectively supports thepre-disaster preparedness requirements or a mechanism
to support data collection during emergency response.
CUSEC and the emergency management community should
develop a comprehensive system to map and integrate local
planning requirements, local organizations, and local criticalinfrastructure for planning and response.

( 34 )

Essential Elementsof Information (EEIs):• Electricity grid
• Natural Gas grid
• Public water grid
• Road Status (including bridges)• Rail network (including bridges)• Navigable waterways• Air Transportation
Infrastructure• Area Command Locations• Staging Areas• Points of Distribution JRSOI• Evacuation Orders• Injuries and Fatalities• Shelters• Private Sector Infrastructure• US Geological Survey Data
• Communications (Public Safety
and General Public)• Hospital Status

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

During CAPSTONE-14, the Regional COP platform provided color-coded maps with a broad overview
of situational status, but participants commented that the maps did not always provide the necessarylevel of detail for decision-making. Member States should review the EEIs and further refine the criteria
for collecting information. CUSEC should also support states as they identify solutions for documenting
detailed information at the local level.

The CUSEC GIS/Information Technology Working
Group should develop a training and exercise program
designed to enhance familiarity of the Regional COP
platform for all partners. Leadership at these eventsshould be shared between partners, including theprivate sector. CUSEC should facilitate discussion on
refining the list of EEIs before the next cycle of training
and exercises.

Partner with the NISC to develop a Situational Awareness Plan. As noted above, sharedsituational awareness has advanced significantly since NLE-11. CUSEC tested situational awarenessplatforms during CAPSTONE-14, and the Situation Awareness Working Group developed guidelines for
the Regional COP. However, CUSEC has not integrated expectations for regional situational awarenessand information on the systems and their uses into a regional plan.
The National Information Sharing Consortium (NISC) acts as the point of convergence for federal, state,
local and private sector information sharing. CUSEC should partner with NISC to further enhance thecurrent planning and operational outcomes of CAPSTONE-14 and ensure that this proof-of-concept
can be successful at all levels of government. This planning effort should involve all essential partners
and identify what information is needed, as well as what information is available by source, collection
mechanisms, and phase of the operations. This plan should also address depiction capabilities andauthorization standards.

Engage the National Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Emergency
Management Assistance Compact in reviewing the situational assessment criteria. The
Regional COP provides FEMA, EMAC, and National Guard Bureau with significant capabilities forsituational assessment and awareness. This information is especially valuable for prioritizing resource
allocation and deployment. CUSEC should invite representatives from the National Guard, FEMA,
and EMAC to review guidance for collecting situational assessment criteria and disseminating status
information. CUSEC should incorporate federal feedback and expectations as it updates its guidance
documents and processes.

Define a Common Critical Information Reporting structure. The Common Critical Information
Reporting (CCIR) structure should focus on decisions commonly made in response and recovery andshould address:( 35 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium• Identifying information as critical,• Communicating information to leadership, and• Integrating the information into the Regional COP platform.

The CCIR structure should have an operational application that supports decision-making through a
Common Operating Picture. For example, if a state is prioritizing communications and transportation
infrastructure and identifies specific routes, the system would report on which critical infrastructure
to prioritize for restoration and any potential obstacles to restoration.
The CUSEC Board of Directors and representatives from the Emergency Support Functions (ESFs)
across the multi-state region should be involved in discussions on the structure. CUSEC should invite
stakeholders, including the DoD and private sector representatives, to provide input on additional
CCIRs.

Continue to make improvements to the Regional
COP platform developed for CAPSTONE-14. As

impressive as the new situational awareness tools wereduring CAPSTONE-14, there are additional items CUSEC
should consider to further integrate capabilities, such as:• Provide decision-makers with a dashboard view,and have the ability to filter information by ESF.

“The value of the multi-state tool
[COP] is that it reduces the amountof time for resource requests.”
Doug Eades, Systems Integration
Manager, Kentucky Emergency
Management• Augment systems with analytics capabilities tosupport identification of relevant and essential information for decision-making.
• Render all of the critical information in a geospatial manner.

• Support front- and back-end reporting capability to feed other systems and repositories
without forcing changes to legacy system.
• Establish active reporting overlays for Mission Essential Elements such as Transportation andCommunications.

Information that is required to populate the Regional COP platform is data that Member
States are currently collecting. Automating the collection of this data from multiple states into a
multi-state COP platform is critical for success. In addition, the aggregation and sharing of information
should be standardized to ensure commonality in the automation process. CUSEC should encourage
Member States to automate data collection processes, specifically mechanisms for aggregating andsharing data. When states automate data collection, users spend less time on data entry and more timeon using the data to make decisions.

Identify ways to enhance integration of existing technology to share situational
information regionally. CUSEC Member States currently use different platforms for incident

management, GIS, and viewing situational awareness. CUSEC, states, federal, and military partners( 36 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

should work together to identify a solution to make the platforms compatible and integrate statespecific technology platforms. In order for situational awareness to be input and disseminated to allstate, federal, and private sector partners in multiple states, consensus on a compatible system must
be built to support clear communication of valuable essential elements of information among all users.

Member States should assess their internal situational awareness systems to ensure integration with theRegional COP platform. CUSEC must work to ensure the Regional Common Operating Picture platform
integrates with states’ existing internal common operating picture capabilities and regional andnational programs such as vBEOC,
EMAC Operations System (EOS),
and Mutual Aid Support System(MASS) to minimize duplicationof effort. (Currently data entry
regarding situational status must
be separately updated into various
un-integrated common operating
picture systems.)

Expand the use of the Regional COP to Associate States. CUSEC neighboring states, as wellas other states providing resource support through pre-identified mission assignments, should haveaccess to the Regional COP platform. Associate States should have visibility for all EEIs for purposesof resource allocation, deployment, and staging. CUSEC should involve Associate States in training andexercises using the Regional Common Operating System platform. By including Associate States, wellover one-third of the country would be utilizing common EEIs and accessing critical information frommultiple states through a Common Operating Picture.

Document and build on the success ofdamage assessment operations conductedduring CAPSTONE-14. Most states currently

Damage Collector App Reports in KY

collect damage assessments via paper forms.
Technology solutions have enhanced this process.
Kentucky, working with Esri, developed aregional model for collecting damage assessment
information with a geospatial depiction capability.
This online application can be used to conduct
damage assessments more efficiently than using
traditional paper forms.

The virtual damage assessment tool was tested in CAPSTONE-14 and proved successful. With minimal
training, multiple impacted counties were able to collect detailed damage assessment across the region,
report findings, remotely update the geospatial maps, and provide essential information to influence( 37 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

disaster operations. CUSEC should continue to support and enhance this effort so that the region canbuild upon these successes and adopt this technology for damage assessment processes across theeight-state CUSEC region.

D. REGIONAL AND NATIONAL RESOURCE ALLOCATION

Emergency management and incident response activities require carefully managed resources(including personnel, teams, facilities, equipment, and/or supplies) to meet incident needs. Being able
to manage resources during an emergency requires an understanding of resource availability, location,and capabilities. CUSEC Member States demonstrated significant progress during CAPSTONE-14
in identifying resources. During an emergency, responders must have access to enough resources
to mitigate and improve the overall situation. CUSEC members recognize that efficient resource
management requires an assessment of resource capabilities before the disaster occurs.
CUSEC has an appreciation for the complexities and issues that would underpin resource managementin the event that a disaster should require states to mobilize simultaneously. This recognition lead tothe first national Resource Allocation Workshop (RAW), conducted in December 2010. Two subsequent
workshops were held. The goal of the RAW was to work through the process of de-conflicting resource
requirements in direct support for a multi-state mobilization. The RAW was ground-breaking inconcept and scope. It identified a number of areas that needed additional work and the creation of new
tools to support the effort for resource planning and synchronization.
Moving forward from NLE-11, members of CUSEC coordinated with NEMA and FEMA to create newtools and develop new techniques to support resource allocation. One of these tools, MASS, supports
the documentation of Mission Ready Packages (MRPs) that work with the EOS. Pre-scripting MRPs
minimizes the likelihood of states over allocating resources during an emergency.
CUSEC made significant advancements   in CAPSTONE-14
in regional resource allocation, yet much work is required
to ensure the region has a fully realized, de-conflicted, andintegrated approach and plan for a response to a major disaster.

States deployed 143 Mission
Ready Packages through MASS
during CAPSTONE-14.

The exercise design identified the following eight Regional and National Resource Allocation objectives
for CAPSTONE-14:• Creation and publication of a multi-state phased resource synchronization matrix to support
the planning, response and resource management goals.
• Conduct of a Resource Allocation Workshop II focusing on MASS and MRPs.

• Conduct Resource Allocation Workshop III with Associate States and federal ESFs.
• Integration of state-level mutual aid.

( 38 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium• Integration of EMAC including mobilization and de-mobilization.

• Inclusion of CUSEC Associate States in exercise inject play via real world request and tabletop
exercise execution.

• Include the execution of the Joint Reception Staging and On-ward Integration (JRSOI) and
EMAC Personnel Accountability Program on a state-by-state basis.
• Integration of private sector capabilities in the response phase.

The objective was to establish multi-state resource management among the eight CUSEC Member States
and the Supporting States, in order to enhance emergency management coordination and allocation of
resources. Specifically, the exercise goals and objectives were to establish a common operating picture
and to manage the request and delivery of needed resources across the multi-states utilizing MASS. The
resources were managed through several processes and systems including the EOS and integration of
the Regional COP with GIS capability.

RECOMMENDATIONSPartner with the National Emergency Management Association to add Mission Ready Packages to theEmergency Management Assistance Compact through the Mutual Aid Support System. CUSEC Member
States collaborated on identifying potential disaster scenarios, determining likely resource needs atthe state and local levels, and integrating this information into templates to pre-identify and pre-assign
resources to meet specific emergency response demands.19 When an agency uses one of the templates
to pre-assign resources to support emergency operations, the grouping of resources is an MRP.
MASS is a GIS-based platform that allows states to:• Easily access templates to develop and upload MRPs.
• Store contact information and other acquisition information about MRPs.
• Pre-determine logistics, including costs, to specific MRPs (to speed deployment in a disaster).
• Show a pre-assigned MRP as “active” and assign a location to the MRP when it is deployed.
• Track resources by displaying a map of all deployed resources.

When pre-assigning resources, agencies should consider establishing agreements, such as Mutual
Aid or Memorandum of Agreements with agencies that own the requested resources. Pre-assigning
MRPs, using MASS before a disaster to upload resource details, and establishing agreements withother agencies have streamlined CUSEC’s emergency response activities. Pre-scripted MRPs limited
the duplication of EMAC requests and significantly decreased response time.
In addition to continuing to populate the MASS platform with information about MRPs, CUSEC should
partner with NEMA to establish MRP templates and pre-assigned packages in the EOS MASS model.
State operations plans should address how these systems (MASS and EMAC) integrate. Linkages andintegration among the MASS, MRPs, and JRSOI processes should be established and formalized.
19

Emergency resources may include a certain number of staff with specific skills, typed equipment, or other resources from the public
and private sectors.

( 39 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

Several private sector companies also added MRPs into MASS, but partners agreed that a better
understanding of the structure and function of company-specific MRPs would be helpful. Partners
should have further discussions, for example, on how the private sector MRPs interact with JRSOI.

Additionally, the Association of CUSEC State Geologists noted that EMAC had not identified a MRP
to support state geological survey offices during disaster response. During CAPSTONE-14, the stategeologists produced and had accepted three MRPs for use during an earthquake response, including:• Personnel to assist with running a field clearinghouse (Support Team for Operation of PostEarthquake Technical Clearinghouse),• Field personnel to record earthquake-related deformations (Support Team for Operation of
Post-Earthquake Technical Clearinghouse), and• Personnel to assist in data and map generation at a geologist’s headquarters or assist ageologist in the emergency operations center (Post-Earthquake Field Reconnaissance Teamand Assistance for State Geological Survey’s EOC Representative).

Continue to refine the Mutual Aid Support System tool and develop a process for keeping
the pre-identified information in the system current. During CAPSTONE-14, MASS delivered

a new capability that did not exist previously identifying MRPs, rendering these resources on a map
to support operational planning, response activities, and resource allocation activities. This geospatial
capability was groundbreaking. States were able to identify resources quickly and use the platform tobrief senior management officials (whether through the MASS application or the Situation Room, asoftware).

MASS also supported impacted states as they reached out to other states for resources. The templates
for MRPs in MASS helped organize states’ requests for resources and mutual aid. Many of the advanceson MASS were the result of the numerous workshops and training sessions that CUSEC engaged insince NLE-11, when this capability was originallyenvisioned.
“MASS reduces the time of resource requests.”
Since CAPSTONE-14, states have pre-identified
Greg Shanks, Internal Policy Analyst, KY
and uploaded resource information to MASS to
Emergency Management
create more than 500 MRPs. It is critical that stateskeep the resource information current in MASS,
so it is relevant and useful in an emergency. CUSEC should work with NEMA to develop the plansand protocols for keeping the data in MASS current. CUSEC should then work with Member States torefine and implement an approach for updating and uploading new resource information into MASS.
MASS requires active participation from planners and resource managers to fully take advantage of its
capabilities.
The federal Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 outlined requirements for thedevelopment of pre-scripted mission assignments as part of an essential planning process to enhance
response efforts. Furthering this recommendation to apply to all emergency support functions and( 40 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK: OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF MASS AND EMAC SYSTEMS

Strongly
Agree

Strongly
DisagreeOver 100 survey respondents from state, local, federal, military, and private sector participants.

MASS wasuser-friendly
and easy touse.

MASS allowed
tracking of
inventory
and resource
requests.

MRP
informationin MASS
uploaded to
EMACE easily.

MASS allowedeasy IDof MRPs,enhancing
EMAC
efficiency.

MASS allowed
tracking of
inventory andassistancerequests.

MASS satisfied
the multi-state
objectiveof Regionaland National
Resource ID.

MASS isapplicablenationwide.

the private sector would only enhance efficiency and operational coordination in times of response.
NEMA-EMAC are essential partners in this effort as the tools and techniques that are now part of theEOS can provide a high level of transparency and integration.

Fully Integrate MASS into the EMAC Operations System. MASS was helpful in supporting

resource management in CAPSTONE-14. For example, Kentucky’s State EOC in Frankfort used MASS to
identify, deploy, and track the Virginia EMAC A Team. In addition, MASS was used to identify Kentucky
Search and Rescue Teams (SAR) and Mobile EOC teams. During the exercise, the Kentucky SEOC
deployed these teams to staging areas in western Kentucky. Through the MASS platform, the SEOC
requested Louisville Gas and Electric (LG&E) Debris Clearing Teams from Louisville to respond toaffected areas in western Kentucky.

Currently, however, the pilot version of
MASS does not integrate with the EOS
efficiently. For example, MASS should be
able to auto-populate an EMAC REQ-A
form. By making MASS and MRPs part of
the EOS, the process to request resources
through EMAC will be much more efficient.
As a part of this integration, states will haveto commit time and resources to keeping
the database of MRPs current and will needto integrate EOS into real-time operations.

( 41 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

Develop a plan for regional resource management. CUSEC should develop a regional
resource management plan that incorporates discussions and lessons learned from the NLE-11 and
CAPSTONE-14 exercise processes, including the RAWs and the implementation of MASS and the EOS.
This plan should provide a framework to implement resource management operations across theeight-state region.

Planning discussions should address Catastrophic Planning, MASS, EOS, Resource Phased
Synchronization Matrix, along with Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that clearly define what is
expected and required of personnel to activate, mobilize, and function within the regional framework.
CUSEC has developed a universal planning tool and concept—the “Phased Synchronization
Matrix”—that has direct applicability to any large scale, multi-state disaster response. The Phased
Synchronization Matrix concept facilitates the identification of resource requirements and matches
them with the pre-planned solutions—such as MRPs, federal support or contractor support—and
therefore offers emergency management increased ability to address the complexity of resourceintensive, geographically-dispersed disaster situations.

The resulting resource management plan will support improved state, private sector and federal resourcealignment in a regional disaster. While the MASS tool will support the development and documentationof MRPs available for response, in order to continue to advance the resource management efforts thatface the NMSZ states, CUSEC should continue to create a plan for resource prioritization.
CUSEC is best suited to move this work forward, building from the momentum from the 2010
Catastrophic Response Plan and the three RAWs. CUSEC should develop a comprehensive, de-conflicted
plan that includes every likely response mission set and its corresponding solution for the initial 30-day
planning period. The planning process should involve discussions on mutual aid, EMAC, and Federal
ESFs (including military and contract support).

Utilize Joint Reception Staging, On-ward
Integration to process, account for, andcredential public (including military) andprivate sector emergency response teams.

During the 2012 Private Sector Integration
Workshop, participants identified the need todevelop processes and plans for:• Identifying private sector response
personnel and their contact information ina disaster,• Identifying potential logistical support toprivate sector personnel, and• Providing access and credentials to employees in affected areas to sustain operations when it
is safe to do so.
( 42 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

CAPSTONE-14 used the Joint Reception Staging, On-ward Integration (JRSOI) to provide access control
and accountability to all emergency response teams, including the private sector. When it is integrated
into disaster response operations, the JRSOI manages ingress and egress into the disaster area forboth government and private sector responders. For example, the JRSOI, as demonstrated in Illinois,
successfully accounted for and tracked response personnel from both the public and private sector
during the exercise.
To build on the successes with the JRSOI in the exercise and continue to integrate the model into state
operations plans:• Public and private sector joint training is needed on JRSOI operations.

• Policies should be developed in conjunction with private sector that outline how JRSOI sites
will be selected in a disaster.
• Identify resources for JRSOI sites (e.g., food, water, etc. to response teams).

• Commercial communications solutions should be integrated for non-government and nonDoD responders.

• CUSEC should ensure the JRSOI process for civilian and military personnel is fully integrated.
For example, a guardsman should be able to in-process a firefighter; a police officer should be
able to in-process a Title 10 reservist.

Promote standardized Mission Ready Packages as part of the new Emergency
Management Accreditation Program standards. The EMAP standards have become theessential driver for advances and national standardization of baseline processes across the emergency
management community. Working with EMAP, FEMA, NEMA, CUSEC should promote this capacity
being directed and facilitated toward establishing a carefully constructed number of standard MRPs
that can be universally achieved (in all states) and shared through EMAC and published in the MASS.

This standard should focus on basic common emergency management capabilities like, for example,
EOC Support Teams, Recovery Assistance Teams (PA), PIO Support Teams. The identified MRPs should
become part of the EMAC portfolio of shared MRPs. This would encourage states that desire to achieve
national accreditation to have a minimum number of shareable resources. Over time this process could
be used to include other essential MRPs.

Develop a process for reviewing and prioritizing resource requests. In a disaster, there can be
multiple demands on the same resources. A critical component to successful emergency management
is the ability to align available resources to those with the most need.

In coordination with NEMA, CUSEC hosted three Resource Allocation Workshops (RAWs) to-date to
discuss and develop expectations and procedures for how resources would be dispersed when there
were multiple requests for the same resource. Workshop participants identified potential resource( 43 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

needs, practiced matching available resources to meet state needs, and practiced effectively aligning
and allocating resources.
CUSEC should incorporate the lessons learned in the workshop discussions to develop plans andprocesses for identifying, prioritizing, and allocating resources in an actual disaster. FEMA, as well asother federal agencies with statutory authority to prioritize and provide resources, should work withCUSEC to document and refine the processes that will be used to prioritize resources.

Similarly, in a major regional disaster, it is likely that multiple government agencies will call upon thesame private sector resources through pre-event contracts. CUSEC should develop a tool or matrix
that illustrates resource needs, current contracts, and resource availability. States and private sector
partners should discuss and de-conflict assigned resources, identifying a process and procedures tode-conflict pre-contracted resources across the region. This tool and these discussions would greatly
assist other regions in their own planning process and should be shared nationally and have an ongoing
maintenance plan.

Coordinate with FEMA to create an updated policy on Disaster Management for Resource
Adjudication with process and procedures. In times of disaster there can be conflicting requests

for resources, especially at the federal level. Without a process in place for resource adjudication,
allocating resources can be delayed and/or inappropriately assigned based on the needs of therequestor. Without a policy that provides transparency and aids in coordinating issues across stateboundaries, FEMA might prioritize and assign resources, leaving states without direct involvement in
the decision-making process. The entire community is at risk of failing to support the process. CUSEC
should engage NEMA and NISC to help facilitate the discussion and maintain the planning tools andtechniques that will support the final process.

Continue to progress the Building Inspector Resource Deployment program. An earthquake

requires the rapid deployment of trained building inspectors to inspect and certify that buildings canbe occupied. According to the Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAEC) models, more than 700,000
buildings could sustain damage and need to be inspected prior to reoccupation.

To prepare for this staggering caseload, CUSEC Member States developed a framework to deploy
these types of resources through EMAC support a coordinated and efficient post-disaster building
inspections. Two workshops were conducted to outline the framework to codify and deploy building
inspectors. Trainings, such as FEMA 154 Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic
Hazards were also provided to cadres of professionals.

Following these efforts, CUSEC states developed a standardized framework for multi-jurisdictional
pre/post-earthquake inspection programs, were able to document resource typing requirements,
package and type building inspection teams for EMAC deployment, and recruit and training volunteer
inspectors. It is recommended that these efforts be formalized and continued, as a Building Inspector( 44 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

Resource Deployment (BIRD) program. Refresher training
and exercise opportunities should be provided at least
annually to encourage and support the building inspector
cadre. In addition, this program should be promoted
nationwide to enhance and sustain standardization efforts.

Identify and train In-state EMAC A-Teams to utilize
the EMAC Operations System. Improvements havebeen made since NLE-11 regarding the implementation andtraining of EMAC. NEMA deserves great credit for advancing
the EOS and providing both just-in-time and ongoing EMAC
training for states. States need to execute the EMAC selfassessment checklist and ensure that they have:“The benefits of CAPSTONE-14
go well beyond this exercise. Not
only can states now improve plansand procedures for implementing
EMAC, they had the opportunity toutilize the Mission Ready Packages
that they developed with Resource
Providers within the states. ”
Angela Copple,
EMAC Program Director• A fully capable, trained EMAC A-Team.

• Multiple EMAC Authorized Representatives to approve EMAC missions.
• National Guard representation on their EMAC A-Teams.

• Multiple members of the EMAC A-Team and Operations/Logistics trained on the EMAC
Operations System.
• Completed a training session for the state Senior Elected Officials on how EMAC works and its
requirements.

E. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION
During NLE-11, CUSEC focused on regionaltransportation capabilities, developing tools built
on the DHS—Virtual USA platform. The October
2013 Transportation and Communications
Workshop hosted by Tennessee Emergency
Management under the leadership of Major General
Jim Bassham continued to lay the groundwork forcommunicating the status of transportation during
an emergency. Leading up to the CAPSTONE-14
exercise, CUSEC members worked together tobegin to standardize the process for gathering andsharing regional transportation information.
CUSEC members developed a list of EEIs fortransportation and other areas, such as criticalinfrastructure. In an emergency, Member States use( 45 )

I felt informed about impacts to the multi-statetransportation network outside of my state. I felt
informed about impacts to the multi-statetransportation network outside of my state.

Strongly Disagree

DisagreeIndifferent

Agree

Strongly Agree

N/A

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

the EEI list as a guide to collect status information
within their own jurisdictions. Then states sharethe information with each other to build a Regional
Common Operational Picture (COP). The list of
EEI encourages states to assess and share status
information on all transportation modes including
highways, rail, waterways, air, as well as fuel.

To evaluate transportation information sharing
and other regional transportation capabilities andtools, the CAPSTONE-14 exercise design committee
identified the following objectives:• Coordination on the opening and closing ofshared avenues of approach and airspace• Closure of major ground transportation
avenues like shared interstates• Opening and closing of ground transportation avenues to response only traffic• Communication of Air Mobility Operations• Provide standardized situational awareness via ESF-1 (Transportation)

RECOMMENDATIONSContinue to refine and prioritize the list of transportation-related Essential Elementsof Information. CAPSTONE-14 demonstrated that timely and accurate regional information

on transportation infrastructure and components is a valuable resource. During CAPSTONE-14
exercise planning, Member
States agreed on a set oftransportation-related
EEIs. Each state collected
information on the list of
EEIs and shared the status
information
acrosstheregion.

WebEOC screen capture displaying full EEIs, including those for transportation.

( 46 )For example, during theexercise, the Tennessee
Emergency
Management
Agency (TEMA) assessedtransportation status using
the list of 18 EEIs. TEMA

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

worked with the State GIS team to periodically
update the EEI status maps, which were thenintegrated into the maps shared regionally.

TEMA utilized two screens in its SEOC, which
projected the 18 common EEIs, rotating status
maps of each EEI every ten seconds. Some of the
18 EEI were found to be more valuable than others.
For example, in a regional earthquake scenario,
the status of highways—especially roads to andfrom major metropolitan areas—would be ofsignificant value, whether used for transporting
supplies or routing evacuations. However, exercise
participants noted that the level of detail or type oftransportation information within the EEI list was
not always useful, and there is a need to review
the list of transportation-related EEIs, refining andprioritizing the types of information gathered andshared.

Although the Member States made significant progress in practicing shared situational awarenessfor transportation during the exercise, additional improvements can be made. The Member States,
including their Departments of Transportation, should work together to review and prioritize the listof EEIs.

CUSEC should conduct an annual or semi-annual Transportation Workshop to continue to evaluate
and prioritize transportation coordination efforts for ground, air, rail, and water-borne transportation.
During these workshops, state emergency managers and transportation network partners should
engage in scenario-based discussions to prioritize EEIs. EEIs should be re-evaluated and prioritized

Damage assessment data shown in the Common Operating Picture.

( 47 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

based on all-hazards, as well as likely regional hazards and threats. As discussed in the section of thisreport on Shared Situational Awareness, a revised list of EEIs should be an outcome of the workshop
and the list should be shared with each Member State.

Continue to integrate damage assessment processes and create tools for damage
assessments. CUSEC should continue the progress made during the CAPSTONE-14 exercise andbuild technology tools to standardize inspections of bridges and other mission critical infrastructure.
Currently each state has its own certification requirements for inspection teams. Additionally, eachstate has its own set of required inspection criteria for a specific pathway to be considered passable.
States should crosswalk the transportation data depicted in the Common Operating Picture and thedata in MASS with potential operational impacts. For example, if—after a disaster—a state assesses a
bridge as usable but with an updated weight restriction, this bridge might show in the Regional COP
as “inaccessible to a standard utility truck” or “unusable to a technical rescue team”, based on what is
in MASS.
CUSEC should work with private sector partners such as Esri, G&H International, and Intermedix
to build consistent geospatial damage assessment tools. Member states should be involved in thedevelopment process. For example, states should identify common codes that designate the status ofcritical infrastructure, so Common Operating Pictures can be easily understood throughout the region.
Federal partners like FEMA and the U.S. Department of Transportation should support this effort withfunding as available. Private sector partners should be included to build cooperation and support for
improved situational awareness.

Integrate railway companies into preparedness efforts for regional disasters. In the eventof a large-scale disaster, trains may be able to quickly transport goods, personnel, equipment, andother resources to an impacted area. Trains have a greater capacity to move more resources in a single
trip than trucks can on roads. Railroads are owned by the private sector, and most railroad information
is proprietary, including trains’ movement and status.

Relationships developed prior to an emergency lead to effective and efficient flow of information
during an incident. Building relationships specifically with railroad operators aids in the exchange ofrailroad information between state and private sector. CUSEC should consider dedicating a segment of
the multi-day Transportation Workshop to public-private partnerships with railways.

Coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide waterway transportation
data. During the exercise, players from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) commented that theywould be able to collect comprehensive data on fueling sites and boat access points. This information
would be valuable to support emergency operations. CUSEC should identify a liaison in the USACE
and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to provide this data for the Regional COP in real time. CUSEC should( 48 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

also identify partners at National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/the National Weather
Service (NWS) and state Departments of Natural Resources to incorporate existing river gauge data.

Standardize waterway status processes, symbology, and distribution of information. As

a part of reviewing the full list of EEIs, states should consider adding EEIs to collect status informationon landslide/ground failure, river mile status, ports, locks, bridges, and other crossings, boat ramps,
navigation recovery boats, and fueling points; rivers’ mile status addresses which river networks areoperational. River status is vital to the transportation of goods and services. Rivers may be utilized tosupport evacuation if land routes are inaccessible.

By adding these EEIs, CUSEC members would communicate when waterways are open or closed fornavigation. Closure of the Mississippi River, Ohio River, or other significant waterways would haltcommerce down the middle of the country and has the potential to severely cripple the U.S. economy.

Continue to develop the multi-state Catastrophic Air Multi-State Response Plan withparticipation from each individual Member State and the Federal Aviation Administration.

During the Catastrophic Planning Project, CUSEC identified the need for a multi-state Catastrophic Air
Response Plan. At the October 2013 CUSEC Transportation Workshop, participants discussed the needfor such a plan, although a plan has not yet been developed. CUSEC should continue to work towards
plan development, ensuring participation and buy-in from each Member State. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) should review and approve the plan as well, providing insight on expectations
for federal support and coordination.

Engage the U.S. Transportation Command and its technology tools to enhance response
efforts. As part of CAPSTONE-14, the DoD’s U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) supported

the eight-state region by providing air-space management support. It demonstrated a beta versionof the Coalition Mobility System (CMS) and WebADAPT. These platforms provide a Regional COP
for air operations during an inter-agency, multi-state disaster response. The CMS provides a virtualinternational information sharing system that supports logistics, planning, and response decisionmaking.
Though the CMS/WebADAPT was effectively demonstrated, there was an information gap between the
Army National Guard and Air National Guard participants, such as a lack of integration of planned andactual FAA route schedules. Further integration is needed to improve multi-state shared situationalawareness.

In addition, CUSEC should continue to facilitate discussions among USTRANSCOM and statetransportation departments on the capabilities of CMS/WebADAPT to support disaster response
operations. CMS presents a robust solution for a multi-modal transportation planning and response
capability. CUSEC Member States should incorporate CMS into their air response plans. For example,( 49 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

the Illinois State Joint Task Force Headquarters (JTF-HQ) aviation cell, located at the Springfield Capital
Airport, received a combined WebADAPT and CMS demonstration of live-fly events on June 18, 2014.
The JTF-HQ aviation cell all obtained CMS accounts and looked to procure WebADAPT to monitor livefly missions for future events. This was the first time they had seen U.S. Army Aviation (rotary wing)
and civil air patrol flights together with Air National Guard scheduled flights.

Develop and draft policy and procedural standards to streamline processes across all
Member States for access to a disaster area or to move resources quickly across statelines in direct support of a declared state of emergency or disaster. CUSEC should use
its unique position—as a multi-state coordinating entity that crosses multiple local and state road
networks, state boundaries, U.S. and Interstate highways, waterways, and rail networks—to produce acomprehensive solution for quickly waiving restrictions so Member State agencies and partners havethe ability move resources in direct support to an impacted area. A system of information-sharing,access permissions, waivers, and acknowledgments must be part of the solution.

This effort should include all elements from transportation, state attorneys general, law enforcement,
and of course the governors of potentially impacted areas. Properly designed, this solution would haveapplicability in any region in response to any significant declared disaster.

F. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, NATIONAL GUARD MOBILIZATIONSUPPORT TO CIVIL AUTHORITIESWhen the DoD responds to requests for assistance from the governors of affected states to support
emergency response, this support is called Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA). It is provided
by U.S. military forces, DoD employees and contractors, and National Guard forces.20
Military support can be an important asset
to local and state response capabilities,
particularly in a catastrophic incident.
However, because the military is not typicallyused to support civilian emergencies,
efficient integration of military support canbe a challenge. Preparedness activities—
planning, training, and exercising—can help
establish realistic expectations for militaryand civilian responders to work together ina disaster.

CAPSTONE-14 focused on six major objectives related to various aspects of military support. These
included:
20

U.S. Code: Title 32 – National Guard( 50 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium• Establishing the initial military support within each state via deployment or functional tabletop
exercise in accordance with the State Response Plan
• Developing and documenting MRPs for Critical Guard Elements• Establishing and reporting the status of the Joint Task Force Command• Identifying and requesting EMAC Title 32 or State Active Duty Forces through the EOS and the
MASS• Requesting and receiving Title 10 support through the Defense Coordinating Officers (DCOs)
in the FEMA Regions• Requesting and integrating Reserve Component Forces, like the U.S. Army Reserve and the U.S.
Air Force Reserve

CUSEC also identified the need to better incorporate the Immediate Response Authority (IRA) into
response plans and the National Response Framework.
The integration efforts outlined in theobjectives focuses on identifying, andwhere possible codifying, processes forgovernors to request and integrate militaryforces. Specifically, the exercise sought totest processes for mobilizing the National
Guard, establishing a Joint Task Force tosupport disaster operations, and testing themobilization of specialized National Guardand “Title 10” forces [e.g., National Guard Civil
Support Teams (CSTs) and Active Component
Deputy Dual Status Commanders].21

In August 2012, the CUSEC Board of Directors met with FEMA Administrator Fugate for a progress
report on the planning for CAPSTONE-14. The Administrator asked the Board to add an additionaloverarching objective to the original exercise objectives. The additional objective was to work withthe eight-state Adjutants General, the National Guard Bureau, and the U.S. Northern Command(USNORTHCOM)—the military command assigned to support civil authorities in the U.S—to outline
the best and most direct approach to integrating military forces into a major disaster operation under
the statutory authority of the affected governors.
In December 2012, all eight Member States’ Adjutants Generals, or their designees, as well as
many of their principal deputies, met in Louisville, Kentucky for a two-day workshop to discuss the
CAPSTONE-14 exercise design and to provide their support for the effort.
21

U.S. Code Title 10 includes laws that govern Armed Forces, including laws related to the administration of the National Guard.

( 51 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

RECOMMENDATIONS

Review and update plans to address military support. Conduct training and exercisingin coordination with military partners. During CAPSTONE-14, military roles and responsibilities
were not always clearly understood by civilians; nor were expectations for resource management. Most
state plans did not address military support at all.
Each CUSEC Member State should review annually its emergency operations plan or comprehensive
emergency management plan to address incorporation of military support roles and operational
concepts. The planning process should address how National Guard and DoD capabilities and resources
can support a state’s challenges in a disaster.

Resource planning should address assessing resources
needs, identifying likely mission areas for military support,
and defining triggers for requesting or demobilizing military
assets.

Despite training in recent years,
CAPSTONE-14 revealed that roles
and responsibilities were notclearly understood in advance.

As part of plan updates, states should identify ways to work with the National Guard in gaining initialsituational awareness in an incident. Since the Guard in many situations will have a major presence in
the impacted areas, the Guard can be an excellent source of intelligence and direct liaison with local
civic leaders. This information can help shape the follow-on response effort.

CUSEC and the Member States should work to develop and document the process and procedures fora governor to request the authority to mobilize military Reserve Component forces that are resident
in their state. This immediately available military capacity could serve side by side under a National
Guard command structure and become part of a State Active Duty force on a voluntary mission basis.
This would have a positive impact and reduce the overall costs of the response and decrease, in somecases, the need for Title 10 Active Component forces. The solution to this effort should be publishedand shared with NEMA for adoption nationwide.

States should plan and conduct a state-level EMA and (Joint Forces Headquarters) JFHQ EQ Workshop
to share and discuss existing plans, identify resource gaps, and discuss how the state and military can
jointly address issue identified during the exercise. The state’s National Guard leadership, including
operations leadership, and representatives from state ESFs should participate in the workshop.
Topics should include capacity and capability thresholds, and mission assignments. This process
should include a review of resources and current formal and informal agreements between states’
national guards to provide aid. In a few instances during the CAPSTONE-14 process, when participantscross-walked the pre-scripted MRPs involving National Guard resources, they identified conflicting
agreements for the same resources.

( 52 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

In each State EMA and JFHQ EQ Workshop, representatives from state emergency management agencies,
Adjutants General, Governors, and other state leaders should share their pre-planned primary andalternate physical locations (i.e., for operational response) with other emergency response agencies.
At least one exercise per year should test communications and coordination from the designatedalternate locations.
Based upon the outcomes of these state-level workshops, states should continue to modernize andrefine their plans. Once each state has reviewed and updated its plans, it should work with military
personnel within the JFHQ and subordinate commands to train and exercise plans. Despite training
in recent years, CAPSTONE-14 revealed that roles and responsibilities were not clearly understood in
advance. CUSEC should facilitate the development of a regional training schedule and exercise series
that provide opportunities to train, exercise and rehearse military support for emergency response.
These opportunities should include all aspects including mobilization, requests for EMAC Guard Forces,
requesting and integrating Reserve Component forces, requesting Dual Status Command authority andintegrating Active Component Title 10 Forces.

Once each Member State has held a State EMA/ JFHQ EQ Workshop, a CUSEC-Multi-State Joint MilitaryWorkshop should be conducted to share the states’ plans and to discuss common issues and interjurisdictional issues. The FEMA Region’s Defense Coordinating Officer (DCO) and members of the
Defense Coordination Element (DCE) should be participants.
Annual CUSEC multi-state training and exercises should be designed to ensure that conflicts pertaining
to resource needs and deployments be resolved and involve participants from each state emergency
management agency, USNORTHCOM, and USTRANSCOM, National Guard, and National Guard special
teams such as Search and Rescue.

Continue to build partnerships with the National Guard and support further military
understanding of and integration into EMAC operations. CAPSTONE-14 demonstrated thatstates should bring National Guard team members into EMAC A-Team implementation, and National
Guard personnel should have training on EMAC operations. This process reinforces the preference forstate-to-state guard assets to flow through EMAC rather than 502(f), to streamline resource allocationand maintain unity-of-command. (502(f) places the forces under federal authority and thus undercuts
the state’s ability to manage the response.)
EMAC has a proven track record to meet the needs at a greater savings and reinforces the Governor’s
statutory authority. Resource managers, members of the EMAC A-Teams and members of the Joint Forces
Joint Operations Center identified the need for improved state process for requesting, validating, andprovisioning National Guard forces received via EMAC. CUSEC should discuss resource prioritization
between the Adjutants General and the National Guard Bureau to avoid duplication of efforts.

( 53 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake ConsortiumStates should consider including National Guard personnel in EMAC deployments, when possible, tobuild National Guard experience in working within an EMAC deployment.

Regularly test communications between the military and emergency management.

Communications were tested as part of CAPSTONE-14; however, validation of communications network
functionality was limited to connecting and performing basic radio checks between both civilian andmilitary elements. CUSEC has an excellent record of scheduling and complete routine communications
checks to ensure operability. This practice should be continued.

Twice annually, on a regional basis, states should host integrated communications drills with organic
military elements. Member States should also emphasize the full spectrum of the communications
network (equipment, personnel, and robust meaningful messaging) into upcoming exercises. Military
assets and capabilities should be fully integrated into functional operational tests. Military capabilities
in some cases exceed State EMA communications assets and the integration of these resources into the
response plan must be exercised collectively.

Inform senior state elected officials and cabinet staff on the status of military support
capabilities, responsibilities, plans, and activities. This exercise identified a need for additional

planning and coordination between state military forces that fall under the command of the Adjutant
General (and thus of the governor) on  one hand, and state-level senior elected officials (including thegovernors) on the other.

During CAPSTONE-14 exercise play, governors were provided some information, such as the statusof military forces, the flow of EMAC support, the request for Dual Status Command authority, and theneed to request Active Component Title 10 Forces. However, more thorough information sharing, andto a wider audience, is required to provide for rapid decision-making on the civilian side. In somestates, although the governor is clearly the final decision-maker, others, such as the governor’s chiefof staff, lieutenant governor, or head of public safety should be kept informed of the situation as it
develops. Military support is an important supplemental resource for state disaster response that is
not always thoroughly understood by state-level senior elected officials and key executive staff. A lackof understanding of the military’s capabilities and the requirements and processes to engage support
from military forces could lead to unrealistic expectations or an inefficient use of the military as aresource.
To help support a shared understanding of military support in a disaster, emergency management
agencies should work with the National Guard to provide an overview to state senior elected officials
and key executive staff, key state legislative leadership, and representatives of each of the state’s ESFs
(or equivalent functional areas) of how state plans address military support.

Continue to foster a good working relationship with the National Guard work to codify
coordination with Active Component forces. CUSEC should continue to foster a good working

relationship with the National Guard Bureau through the eight state Adjutants General and work

( 54 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

to codify coordination with to request and integrate Active Component (Title 10) forces through
USNORTHCOM. National Guard and Title 10 forces participated in CAPSTONE-14, though the exercise
was not designed to fully test states’ capacity to coordinate military resources and mission assignments.
States should meet with the Adjutants General and National Guard Bureau to discuss likely military
deployment protocols, mission assignments, resource availability, communications, and responsibilities
during a regional disaster.

In future exercises, CUSEC should include injects that reflect a realistic level of resources and mission
assignments for a catastrophic incident. CUSEC should consider developing a virtual tabletop exercise
on obtaining military support forces through a combination of EMAC, mobilization of in-state Reserve
forces, and additional Title 10 forces. CUSEC should partner with NEMA and the National Guard Bureau
to share best practices and lessons learned with other regions.

Develop relationships between the National Guard and civilian officials, as partof preparedness activities. CUSEC and the State Emergency Management Directors should

develop a plan and template to for coordinating the efforts of a state’s National Guard, to develop a
relationship with civilian state and local officials’ as part of the pre-event preparation activities. During
CAPSTONE-14 local government participants identified the need for a deeper understanding of how
they would work alongside the National Guard in a major disaster. National Guard representatives ineach state should reach out to county emergency management agencies to identify primary points ofcontact for emergency response and elected officials. National Guard representatives should meet withrepresentatives to discuss how National Guard resources are deployed and how the National Guard
would communicate and coordination with local responders.

Encourage FEMA regions to expand the Defense
Coordinating Officer and Defense Coordinating
Element concepts to support catastrophic response.

CUSEC should establish dedicated coordinating elements for
Title 10 and National Guard assets. Once large quantities ofout of state Title 32 and Title 10 assets begin to respond to
the disaster, there will be a need for military coordinating
elements for force flow and allocation.  

“The Joint Task Force concept for
managing the National Guard
forces was a success.”
Brigadier General Richard Hayes,
Assistant Adjutant General

Given the level of mobilization required for a catastrophic earthquake along the NMSZ, the challenges
associated with identifying, tracking, and deploying military assets on this scale will be immense.
Many states had a Defense Coordinating Officer (DCO) and Defense Coordinating Element (DCE)
participating in CAPSTONE-14; however the exercise was designed to act as though the positions werestaffed, without assigning actual exercise players to them. The DCO/DCE concepts should be exercisedthoroughly in future scenarios.

( 55 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

CUSEC members should request that FEMA regional offices support catastrophic disaster preparedness
through additional training and exercise. An annual tabletop exercise and functional exercises should
focus on DCO/DCE coordination.
Additionally, CUSEC Member States should work with FEMA, USNORTHCOM, and the National Guard
Bureau to clearly identify organizational structures for coordination with the states, joint field offices,
FEMA National Response Coordination Center, and others).

Coordinate with DoD to fully examine, clarify, and integrate the Immediate Response
Authority in direct support of Member States’ emergency response plans. A 2012 DoD

Policy Directive 3025.1822 specifically provides guidance for the execution and oversight of DSCA whenrequested by civil authorities or as directed by the President.

Under this directive, U.S. military commanders have “immediate response authority” (IRA), meaningthat under certain conditions, they can act on their own authority once activated.23 In response to arequest for assistance from a civil authority, if time does not permit approval from higher military
authority, DoD officials may temporarily employ
the resources under their control (subject toany supplemental direction provided by higher
military headquarters) to save lives, prevent
human suffering, or mitigate great property
damage within the United States.
The IRA directive has tremendous potential forleveraging DoD resources and capabilities indisaster response. However, it also raises serious
concerns.

To begin to address these issues, CUSEC should first develop a clear position paper stating that Reserve
Component forces within each state shall not offer services to local officials, or use IRA, without direct
coordination with the state emergency management agency EMA. This position is consistent with the
National Response Framework (NRF) and National Incident Management System (NIMS). Requests
for DoD services should follow established protocols for resource requests, such that civilian unity ofcommand is maintained.

The ability of U.S. military installation commanders to use IRA to extend their resources outside of
their boundaries in support of civilian disaster response, when properly coordinated, can be of greatvalue. These operations should therefore follow normal ICS processes, procedures, and chain-ofcommand. The length of time, the level of effort, and integration of military resources into an overall
22

Originally issued on December 29, 2010 with change 1, dated September 21, 2012.

23

IRA power is limited to executing the mission for which the military was activated; it does not permit actions that would subject
civilians to the use of military power that is regulatory, prescriptive, proscriptive, or compulsory.

( 56 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

civilian response for a catastrophe requires significant pre-event discussion and planning. The overall
goal must be to provide a fully coordinated solution.

In order to ensure unity of command and to support cost-effective use of state resources, requests fromlocals for military IRA support should be coordinated through the State EMA. Under IRA, a statementof intent to reimburse for services is required. Failure to coordinate cost issues related to IRA with thestate EMA undermines the state’s authority and its ability to manage the response.
CUSEC should hold additional workshops to examine the impact of IRA so that it can be fully integrated
and provide optimal outcomes. The solution should offer the greatest degree of military flexibility to
the mission assignment process, in direct support of the governor’s authority.

CUSEC should continue efforts to fully document and share the policy on use of IRA by militarycommanders. Attention should be given to coordination and integration efforts, which should beclearly defined and should be part of a state (civilian) disaster response plans.
CUSEC should describe and define the activation and integration of this military capability under astate or FEMA-generated mission assignment, and it should be fully integrated into states’ responseplans.

CUSEC should request clarification to the policy regarding Dual Status Commanders
and the use of Title 10 forces. CUSEC should work with NEMA, the Adjutants General Associationand the National Governor’s Association to request clarification and possible updates to the existing
policy regarding the implementation of Dual Status Commanders and the use of Title 10 forces undera Dual Status Command. The concepts of scope-of-work and the mission assignment process need tobe codified for these.

For example, a Title 10 unit should be assigned to an area or incident commander with a defined scopeof work (e.g., security) for a pre-determined timespan. The incident or area commander may assign theunit if it is still in their scope of work. The scope of work should be broad enough to give flexibility but
narrow enough to keep them effective and working in support of the mission.
The policy governing Dual Status Command needs to be updated to provide greater clarity on
implementation. There are significant differences of opinion on the relationship between DSCs and
JTF commanders and the number of DSCs needed to manage a catastrophic incident. The Office of theSecretary of Defense, USNORTHCOM and NGB should jointly work to address this.
CUSEC should also continue to work with NEMA and FEMA to establish a framework for allowing
a greater degree of mission-assignment flexibility for Title 10 support. Incident Commanders and/or Unified Command needs the ability to shift mission and operational resources without a lengthy
request and approval process.

( 57 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

Revisit and publish the process for obtaining and provisioning military support. CUSEC
should work with NEMA to request a special DSCA conference or workshop session to revisit andpublish the process by which civilian authorities obtain and provision military support. This effort will
highlight the relationship between the National Guard, the Defense Coordinating Officer/Coordinating
Element, the National Guard Joint Force Headquarters—Joint Operations Center, the EMAC A-Team,and the National Guard Bureau Joint Coordinating Element State.
Document the request process for Reserve Component forces. CUSEC should continue towork through the Adjutants General, the National Guard Bureau, and USNORTHCOM to fully document
the process and request protocols for governors to utilize Reserve Component forces with a state insupport of disaster operations. These trained forces are locally available, cost effective, and ready todeploy for routine military missions (i.e., those utilizing everyday soldier/airman skills, albeit underunusual circumstances and on U.S. soil). NEMA support is recommended, possibly including proposing
the issue for consideration by the National Governors Association.

Build on the processes identified for requesting and integrating military support into
response operations. Over the course of nearly three years of exercise planning, the integrationof military forces became a primary objective in CAPSTONE-14. The table below contains the current
recommendation for the how military and defense forces would likely act to support disaster response.
CUSEC should use this process as a starting point for future discussions and exercises that integrate
military support.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTEGRATION OF MILITARY AND DEFENSESUPPORT INTO STATE LEVEL DISASTER RESPONSE ACTIVITIES
Step

Lead Organization/Notes

Action1

Emergency Management and Joint Force Initiate Disaster Operations

3

Adjutant General, when warranted

2

4

5

Headquarters – Joint Operations Center
Adjutant General

Mobilize the State National Guard (partial to full)Appoint a State Joint Task Force Commander (Commander
has full responsibility for all direct disaster operations within
the area of operations)

Emergency Management in conjunction Seek additional National Guard forces under EMAC
with

state

EMAC

A-Teamwith

Guard representation until National

Guard resources are constricted orunidentified

Adjutant General request to Chief Request National Guard Bureau Joint Coordinating Element
National Guard Bureau; Coordination State to identify and provision additional National Guard
with EMAC Task Force & NEMA

support through EMAC for validated missions( 58 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTEGRATION OF MILITARY AND DEFENSESUPPORT INTO STATE LEVEL DISASTER RESPONSE ACTIVITIES
Step
6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Lead Organization/Notes

ActionAdjutant General

Request to mobilize in-state Reserve Component Forces(ARNG) (procedures and policy need to be clarified) in aState Active Duty Status (proximity to the Response; costeffectiveness)

Task Force Commander to Adjutant Request Title 10 Forces for mission specific support
General; coordinated with Emergency

Management to Chief National Guard
Bureau to Secretary of Defense

Adjutant General; coordinated with Request Dual Status Command Authority for State Joint Task
Emergency

Management

toChief Force Commander

National Guard Bureau to Secretary of
DefenseTask Force Commander to Adjutant Request Title 10 Deputy to Augment Joint Task Force
General to Chief National Guard Bureau Operations
to Secretary of Defense for approval;
USNORTHCOM provisions

Joint Task Force Commander
Missionassigned

From

USNORTHCOM, as warranted
DCO/Task Force Commander

FEMA

Assign Title 10 Forces to Disaster Operations Areas under a
Joint Task Force structure (full flexibility for tasking authority).

to Request Additional Title 10 Forces (Federal Support Roles)

Title 10 Task Forces are stationed on federal installations for
operational coordinated through the DCO/DCO and the FEMA

Joint Field Office (JFO). When aligned under the Dual Status

Command they operate and are positioned as a resource
under the Joint Task Force.

CUSEC should continue to prioritize the integration of military support. By the end of 2014, CUSEC
should host a workshop with the Adjutants General and their designees to review and finalize thisrecommended table. Following the workshop, CUSEC should share its recommendation with NEMA,
FEMA, the National Guard Bureau, and the National Governor’s Association.

Crosswalk National Guard domestic mission areas with civilian Emergency Support
Functions. CUSEC should continue to work through the States Adjutants General to complete acomprehensive crosswalk between the National Guard Bureau’s essential ten domestic operations andits cyber mission on one hand, and corresponding federal and state ESFs on the other. This will improvevisibility and mutual understanding. CUSEC should partner with NEMA to share and document thiseffort to apply it to EMAC A-Team operations, which will allow states to develop MRPs for military
assets.

( 59 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

G. ADDITIONAL LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONSIn addition to the lessons learned and recommendations associated with the overarching objectives,
the CUSEC Board and its partners documented other lessons learned throughout the planning andexercising process. Many of these observations and lessons are tactical, impacting various aspects ofthe emergency management, but a few havestrategic implications and should be part ofa holistic process leading to future efforts toimprove policy, processes, and procedures.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Prepare for and mitigate against
catastrophic impacts to utilities. A

catastrophic earthquake along the NMSZ willcause devastating impacts to public utilities
that may make areas within impacted areas
inhabitable. Furthermore, cascading impacts
to power and water systems will cause longlasting effects well outside the areas of impact.

Electric Power Outages at Day 1
for Eight-State Study Region24

Utility owners and operators should be encouraged to plan and mitigate against these impacts,
working hand-in-hand with emergency managers to identify resource requirements for restoration.
Furthermore, CUSEC should support the Member States in developing a decision-support matrix todetermine how best to triage restoration and align scarce resources to support the most critical needs
within the communities impacted.

Support innovate mass care strategies that reflect the expected resource shortfalls.

Structural impacts, along with impacts to power, water, transportation, and communications
infrastructure, will severely challenge the implementation of traditional sheltering and mass care plans
and strategies. Locating shelters within the impacted areas may be unsustainable due to structural
damage and/or to power and water limitations. Even with the use of generators, the transportation
networks required to transport fuel and food to the shelters will be considerably impacted. In somecommunities, shelters may need to be established 75-100 miles away, based on damages to theinfrastructure.
Therefore, a novel approach to mass care must be considered to support these hardest hit communities.
CUSEC should support continued workshops and planning efforts to identify address these key issues.
Exploration of the use of Reception Centers as part of an overall sheltering methodology should be
24Electric Power Outages are based solely on the likelihood of any structural damage to electric substations and do not include impact
due to damage to electric power plants or distribution networks. Graphic courtesy of “New Madrid Seismic Zone Catastrophic
Earthquake Response Planning Project” report.

( 60 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

considered. These Centers would provide a centralized location within hardest hit communities toprovide food, water, and transportation to the nearest available shelter.

Fully integrate the USGS and State Geological Surveys in emergency management efforts.

The impacts of an earthquake to a community are complex, due to cascading impacts on infrastructure.
Advanced modeling can provide information as it evolves in a disaster to enhance state, local, andnational response efforts. This scientific data for modeling, provided by the USGS, informs decisionmaking in a response, as well as supports critical mitigation and preparedness initiatives. CUSEC
should continue to engage the USGS and state geological surveys in preparedness activities.

Engage Member States in Continuity of Operations planning, training, and exercising.

Catastrophic impacts from an earthquake of this size and magnitude could cause significant issues forstate and local governments in terms of continuity of operations and even continuity of government.
Impacts to government buildings, government leaders and employees (and their families), and criticalsystems required to support essential functions will be disrupted—even as the disaster response
will be placing new stresses on existing government systems and resources. While these continuity
challenges and the corresponding capabilities to meet them were not a focus of CAPSTONE-14, CUSEC
should provide additional coordination to support continuity planning, training, and exercising efforts
at the state and local level.

Refine, codify, publish, train, and integrate tools, policies, and procedures into response
and recovery operations. The tools and procedures developed as part of the CAPSTONE-14 exercise

series were extremely successful. These projects must now be refined based on the lessons learnedin the exercise, and fully integrated into Member States’ response and recovery operations. Statesshould incorporate the tools and procedures into plans, training programs, exercise, and real-world
emergency responses.
CUSEC and its partners should continue to push forward and develop new capabilities and capacities.
Federal agencies that have the mission to improve emergency response operations and preparedness
for all ESFs, should also prioritize support CUSEC’s ongoing efforts. Congress should seek to highlightthese success stories, directing resources whenever possible to these efforts that have demonstrated
results.

CUSEC should continue to partner with NEMA to share successes and lessons learned with other states
and regions. CUSEC should partner with the NISC to extend and document processes, procedures, andpolicies for national review, comment and adoption.

( 61 )

After-Action ReportAfter-Action Report

HAZUS modeling software indicates that a
7.7 magnitude earthquake along the New
Madrid fault would cost approximately $300
billion with a projected 3,500 deaths. By
comparison, Hurricane Katrina is the costliest
disaster on record, with an estimated $88
billion in losses and 2,500 deaths.
Source: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/14810/
ImpactofNewMadridSeismicZoneEarthquakesotheCentral%20USAVol1.pdf?sequence=3

V. OPERATIONAL ADVANCESOF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE( 62 )

After-Action Report

CAPSTONE-14

Central United States
Earthquake Consortium

V. OPERATIONAL ADVANCESOF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

A. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COMPACT

A significant part of the overarching objective for resource management had to do with extending andexpanding the capabilities of the EMAC national interstate mutual aid framework. CUSEC, through its
partnership with NEMA, sought to fully embed and test the new capabilities within EMAC focusedaround the EOS, pushing forward and testing the mission essential capabilities of the internal andexternal Advance Team (A-Team) that provides the efficiency and standardization that underpins
EMAC and the new concepts that were envisioned in the MASS.

EMAC Operations System. NEMA’s commitment to modernizing and seeking new techniques toaddress issues identified through the NLE-11, Irene, and Sandy After-Action Reports is without parallelin emergency management. The EOS was utilized across the multi-state region with outstanding
success. The tools and reports that are now part of the EOS
give the emergency management community its first real
NEMA’s commitment toexperience with across-the-nation visibility into the flow ofmodernizing and seeking new
mutual aid request and offer processing; this added efficiency,
techniques to address issues
effectiveness, and a new level of transparency. Since NLEidentified through the NLE-11,
11, CUSEC, in cooperation with the NEMA-EMAC training
Irene, and Sandy After-Action
Reports is without parallel inelement, has trained teams capable of not only supporting
emergency management.
internal operations but able of assisting other states with thismission-critical phase of disaster operations. EMAC remains
the central key to interstate mutual aid.

EMAC Advance Teams. The A-Team concept has been part of emergency management for over a
decade now. However, in CAPSTONE-14, NEMA and CUSEC pushed the concept to a new level. CUSEC
and NEMA documented the training and A-Team capabilities by involving members from the ESFs.
The highlight of CAPSTONE-14 is the advancement of the addition of members of the state National
Guards on the internal and external A-Teams to solidify the linkage between emergency management( 63 )CAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

responsibilities for provisioning National Guard resources. This concept was effectively demonstrated
by the Virginia A-Team that deployed to Kentucky and the Wisconsin A-Team that deployed to Illinois.
This model will serve to expand the A-Team training and configurations going forward. NEMA has
identified this accomplishment as a best practice, is working to provide additional EMAC training for
the National Guard, and opening training slots in future A-Team training sessions for National Guard
personnel.

Mutual Aid Support System Pilot Program. MASS was envisioned as a solution to numerous
observations coming out of NLE-11. NEMA funded a pilot effort to design a system that would support
the development of MRPs and depict them in a geospatial environment and to support the advancedplanning concept of a resource synchronization matrix that could depict the requirement and flow of
supported MRPs and resources into the disaster operations area. The concept for MASS was originallydemonstrated in 2012 and CUSEC began the effort to populate the application in 2013.
CAPSTONE-14 was the first exercise to demonstrate the geospatial location of MRPs across theregion—including Associate States’ and private sector resources—and to facilitate the provisioning ofthese resources into the disaster operations area. This capability points the way for future advances.

CUSEC continues to lead in this area with refinement and documentation of the resource synchronization
matrix concept. This effort will take disaster response and recovery operations to the pinnacle ofproactive planning and is sure to add a new level of efficiency. NEMA has selected the MASS concepts
demonstrated during CAPSTONE-14 for addition into the EMAC Operations System furthering thecapabilities of this national support system. Following the proof of concept in CAPSTONE-14, CUSEC
should encourage broader adoption of the MASS system and encourage states to adopt MASS into theirpolicies and procedures.
Mission Ready Packages. Through CAPSTONE-14, CUSEC partnered with NEMA-EMAC to movethe concept of MRPs forward with new tools (i.e., MASS) and techniques (i.e., geospatial depiction of
resources and resource status). MRPs, coupled with advances in the EOS, have the potential to greatly
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the resource provisions through state supported mutual
aid operations and EMAC – the nation’s premier interstate mutual aid system. CUSEC should refine andexpand the current number and type of identified MRPs. These tools were instrumental in international
emergency operations exercises in the spring of 2013 on the Canadian border.

Pre-Scripted Mission Assignments. CUSEC, working with NEMA and the CUSEC Associate States,
added a new enhancement to the concept of pre-scripted mission assignments. CUSEC Member States,
using the resource allocation workshop formats, were able to arrange and align essential mission setsthat would be executed in a pre-planned mode in the event that a New Madrid earthquake occurred.
This effort and the planning concepts that supported it have the potential to change how emergency
planning for regional disaster response is conducted. So far, CUSEC has completed three very successful
RAWs, with the support of NEMA.

( 64 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

Building Inspectors Resource Deployment. After an earthquake, there is an immediate need to
rapidly deploy trained building inspectors. Though thousands of individuals are trained in the U.S.
in safety inspections, there is currently no standard mechanism to deploy these resources following
a major disaster within the emergency framework. As part of CAPSTONE-14, the CUSEC Member
States developed a framework to deploy these resources under EMAC by developing specific MRPs forpost-disaster building inspection team deployments. This concept was validated in both Missouri andTennessee as part of the CAPSTONE-14 exercise.
Phased Sync Matrix for Resource Planning and Execution. This developed concept holds great promisefor resource alignment and pre-event resource adjudication. CUSEC has develop a specific set of steps,
supported by an automated planningcapability with MASS, that supports thealignment of resource requirements atthe community and response elementlevel, spanning a pre-planned length oftime. This planning technique supports
the alignment of MRPs from local Mutual
Aid, EMAC, Federal ESFs, contractordriven solutions, and other potential
resource providers. For the decisionmaker or the EMAC A-Team, this process
affords visibility on situations where
no solution is planned or viable; it also
provides and a play book of resources
Graphical display of Mission Ready Packages tracked in MASS.
that can be coordinated.

Joint Catastrophic Planning Effort. CUSEC has established a new baseline for joint planning forlarge-scale disaster response operations. This effort has involved hundreds of response elements
across the CUSEC region, involving partners in all areas of response and recovery. This effort should besustained and modeled and receive FEMA’s highest priority for funding based on the lessons learned
and commitment to practice the emergency management principles espoused.

B.  JOINT RECEPTION STAGING, ON-WARD INTEGRATIONAND EMAC PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING PROCESSING PACKAGECUSEC first tested the concept of the Joint Reception Staging, On-ward Integration (JRSOI) during NLE11. JRSOI is an operational element that ensures the status of personnel and equipment as it flows intoand out of the disaster area. This concept, based on lessons learned from Katrina, where the flow andvisibility of provisioned and voluntary forces was suboptimal. This was an area where CUSEC believedthat additional modeling and testing was required.

( 65 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

Since NLE-11, NEMA-EMAC have documented and provided support for a capability that works with
the JRSOI concept called EMAC Personnel Accounting Processing Package (EPAPP). EPAPP works with
the EOS to assist with the personnel processing for personnel in an EMAC status.

During CAPSTONE-14, The Illinois Emergency Management Agency and the Illinois National Guard
partnered to advance the concepts and refine the JRSOI processes and procedures. The results of these
efforts can be found on the EMAC web site, along with support documents on establishing a JRSOI site
and the conduct of EPAP.
This effort has the potential to drastically reduce the mobilization and deployment time of inbound andoutbound mutual aid resources, while limiting redundancy and speeding up reimbursements. CUSEC
recommends that these elements be planned in great detail and exercised periodically as a functional
element in preparation for a major disaster operation.

C. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING CYCLE(RESOURCE SYNCHRONIZATION MATRIX)CUSEC pioneered the first RAW in support of the NLE-11, to quantify and document resources thatwould be needed in a large-scale regional disaster. CUSEC, using the initial data from the workshop,
created the vision for the MASS, which represented a new concept for advance resource planning andsynchronization. The steps and principles that underpin this advanced planning concept are describedin the table below.
ADVANCED PLANNING CONCEPT STEPS AND PRINCIPLES
Step

Action1

Each County, Community and the State should be part of a specific Catastrophic Response Plan (CRP).

3

Sequence Response and Resource requirements based on planned levels of effort to meet emergency

2

Analyze the CRP at the community level identifying all of the response capabilities and resource neededover the initial timeline (recommend 30 days for Catastrophic Response).
management priorities across ESFs.

4

Each identified requirement becomes a source requirement.

6

Document the requirement and project it forward by response period (daytime is most likely, although

5

7

Identify locations where requirements should logically be grouped to facilitate a realistic response
capability (municipality, county or other jurisdiction).
for some elements hours might work) and location.

Evaluate likely response capabilities (mutual aid, EMAC, FEMA Mission Assignment, other federal ESF

with their own statutory capabilities, contract, and then international aid) and make a time on stationassessment.

( 66 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

ADVANCED PLANNING CONCEPT STEPS AND PRINCIPLES
Step
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15
16

17

ActionIdentify overlap requirements and document the updated response plan.

Create a Synchronization Matrix listing the requirements on the vertical axis and the potential solutions
across the horizontal axis broken by days on station. The MASS pilot program has a tool to support thiseffort in a database effort tied to know MRPs and resources.
Apply known or potential solutions into the matrix.

Pre-script Mutual Aid or EMAC solutions and document with a Mutual Aid Agreement or Memorandumof Understanding.

Identify gaps where mutual aid or EMAC is not going to be available or can be pre-scripted.

Apply the most likely solution in order of preference to the remaining requirements (FEMA Mutual Aid,other federal, or contract).

Work the matrix until all requirements have been identified and matched to a projected, agreed upon,solution.

Document contract solutions for contract de-confliction efforts across the state, region, or country.
Coordinate efforts with federal partners to ensure that there are not duplications or overlaps thatwould nullify a contract solution.

Coordinate with adjacent states or regional elements to de-conflict.

Use the developed Phased Resource Synchronization Matrix to update the Catastrophic Response Plans,

ESF partners, providing mutual partners, first responders and Senior Elected Officials (SEO) on theplan.

D. PRIVATE SECTOR INTEGRATION

Following any disaster, private sector entities are pivotal players in emergency response and recovery.
The CAPSTONE-14 exercise series enhanced private sector integration in the emergency planning,
mitigation, and response/recovery arenas. A Private Sector Workgroup was formed to provide key input
into areas such as resource distribution, transportation, communications, and long-term recovery.

Key to the success of the private sector integration efforts was the first Private Sector Integration
Workshop. The purpose of this workshop was to enhance public–private working alliances throughout
the eight-state CUSEC region. Facilitated by a series of outcome-based track sessions and two topicalplenary sessions, public and private partners worked together to determine protocols for critical issuesof mutual concern. Areas for improvement were identified jointly by the public and private sector,
and in the years between the 2012 Workshop and the CAPSTONE-14 exercise significant progress was
made.

Below is a list of key findings from the 2012 workshop and the corresponding advancements that weremade and implemented in CAPSTONE-14 to showcase specific and quantifiable growth.

( 67 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

Disaster Intelligence: The overall need to have information sharing mechanisms as well as sharedsituational awareness throughout the disaster life-cycle was identified as a critical need at the 2012
Workshop. The development of a collective information gathering and management platform using
cloud technology was identified as a remediation technique along with a system of shared, realtime information to generate a Common Operating Picture (COP) that shares vetted and confirmed
information. The CUSEC States, led by the Private Sector Working Group and supported by key
technology-based partners, developed the vBEOC to support this information sharing and flow.
Communications: In 2012, the ability for communication and collaboration on a common platform toenhance interoperability among public and private sector partners was identified as a core issue. Since
that time, technology—such as the vBEOC—has supporting coordination efforts, along with WebEOC
boards, and ArcGIS online. Relationships developed through working groups and user groups havesupporting information sharing and continued collaboration.

Transportation: Current variances in existing laws and authorities governing access to impacted
areas, stifle the effective movement of private sector critical resources to impacted communities.
Effective solutions to this critical issue is still required. Though the implementation of the JRSOI
concept supporting the credentialing of private sector responders, transportation issues related tostate-specific transportation waivers must still be resolved. Although USDOT may provide weight
restriction waivers, based on the need for disaster response, these waivers are not recognized fromstate to state. The ability to coordinate transportation waivers across state lines is still required.

Joint Training and Exercises: In order to sustain and enhance capabilities, joint training and exercising
is required. Effective ways to integrate these efforts were identified as an area for improvement. Throughthe CAPSTONE-14 exercise series multiple opportunities for collaboration were identified. The Private
Sector Integration Workshop II focused solely on identifying opportunities for the private and public
sectors to exercise together. Due to those efforts, over forty private sector companies participating in
CAPSTONE-14.
Volunteers and Donations: From a regionalized perspective, a standard system for managing
volunteers and donations must be considered. The 2012 Workshop uncovered that additional
examination is required to address variances in laws and rules surrounding direct donations.

Physical and Virtual Business Emergency Operation Centers: Participants from the 2012
Workshop identified the multiple strengths and weaknesses of physical and virtual operations centers.
Advancements since that time in the implementation of a physical business operations center andthe development of the vBEOC have shown great advancements in communication and collaboration
mechanisms. The CAPSTONE-14 exercise demonstrated both effectively and solidified the need forboth a physical and virtual presence.

( 68 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

Recovery: Public private partnerships that promote business continuity and whole community recovery
are the cornerstones to community resilience. The establishment of a long-term community recovery
sub-committee was suggested as an effective technique to support and promote these initiatives. To
foster future partnerships in a long-term recovery initiative, a Recovery Tabletop was held as part of
CAPSTONE-14.
Resource Identification And Resource Management: The private sector maintains critical resources
essential for response and recovery. Standardized resource management procedures are required
to activate and codify these resources. Developing MRPs to standardized resource management
procedures was recommended during the 2012 Workshop. In CAPSTONE-14, private-sector MRPs
were tasked throughout the exercise. In addition, resources were allocated and operationalized jointly
through the JRSOI.

( 69 )

After-Action ReportAfter-Action Report“The concepts tested and validated during
this exercise have the potential tofundamentally change the way we
do emergency management. However, thatchange only comes if we continue to buildon the work of the last seven years.”
Jonathon E. Monken, Director, Illinois Emergency Management Agency

VI. THE WAY AHEAD( 70 )

After-Action Report

CAPSTONE-14

Central United States
Earthquake Consortium

VI. THE WAY AHEAD

For more than three decades, CUSEC has addressed the unique threat of the New Madrid Seismic Zone
by bringing together its Member State emergency management agencies to develop collaborative
solutions to prepare for and respond to regional earthquakes. New Madrid is a real threat, one thatwould present a national catastrophe if and when an earthquake strikes. It is a serious threat of thegreatest magnitude and worthy of the best efforts from those that share the public trust.
With the publication of this report, CUSEC has completed the full cycle of the emergency management
planning, training, and exercise process. This effort began with New Madrid Seismic Zone Catastrophic
Planning Initiative in 2006 and continued through the National Level Exercise in 2011. During thistime, CUSEC and its Member States developed a series of after-action items and lessons learned. They
then applied these during CAPSTONE-14, creating an innovative set of programs, tools, and techniques
to address the earthquake risk.
CAPSTONE-14—which may well have been the largest decentralized exercise in modern emergency
management history—signifies a major milestone for a multi-state organization such as CUSEC. The
need for disaster preparedness and planning is ongoing, however, and CUSEC has identified a boldpath forward to ensure that its Member States and the rest of the country reap the benefits of the
CAPSTONE-14 initiative. CUSEC remains committed to leveraging its unique working relationships toimprove emergency management capabilities at all levels of government and in partnership with theprivate sector.

A. CONTINUATION OF PLANNING, TRAINING, EXERCISE, AND
EVALUATION APPROACHES TO ADDRESS THE EARTHQUAKE RISK IN
THE CENTRAL U.S.

The experience and lessons learned from the NMSZ Catastrophic Planning Project, NLE-11, and
CAPSTONE-14 have validated the need to continue following the emergency management cycle ofplanning, exercising, and evaluation. Programs, such as the Building Inspection Resource Deployment( 71 )CAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium(BIRD), require refresher training and opportunities for volunteers to practice these learned skills.
Exercise and training opportunities across state lines help to share best practices, identify critical gaps,
and provide realistic challenges that can be overcome collectively.
CUSEC is an integral partner in supporting its Member and Associate States as they collaboratively
prepare together. This collaboration provides for greater synchronization and collective growth.

B. SUSTAINING AND ENHANCING PARTNERSHIPSCUSEC’s success within the CAPSTONE-14 exercise series can be attributed in no small part to thepartners who supported key initiatives and programs. Continuing these partnerships will support theenhancements of many programs such as BIRD, the vBEOC, MASS, COP, and others. Identifying key
partnerships and harnessing them will support the ongoing implementation of these programs, as wellas the identification of solutions to critical challenges. For example, engaging USGS is just one way a
program like BIRD can be advanced.

CUSEC will work to promote newly developed capabilities, processes, and best practices throughNEMA, NISC, and other avenues. This information sharing will support the continued effort of these
programs, which should in turn yield nationwide benefits. Engaging the identified CUSEC AssociateStates will also develop a larger audience to distribute key lessons learned and best practices.
Engaging and embedding the private sector into mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery
efforts is essential to maintain community resiliency. However, the decentralized mechanisms inplace make this process difficult. Building on past successes, CUSEC will continue to serve as a model
for public and private sector partnerships through information sharing, resource deployment, andcommunication strategies.

C. RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION AND PACKAGING

Moving well beyond the National Incident Management System’s 120 typed resources, CUSEC has
made significant progress in packaging resources throughout the public and private sectors to enhance
response efforts. Even trained volunteers have been organized into Mission Ready Packages as part ofthe BIRD initiative. Further, the identification of these needed resources came through an intensive needassessment and identification process facilitated by the Resource Allocation Workshops, resulting in
the development of the Resource Synchronization Matrix. The matrix process should be re-addressedannually, identifying additional needs, and refreshing resource allocation requirements.
Encouraging this process throughout the CUSEC Associate States and among other federal, state, andprivate sector partners will enhance the country’s overall preparedness posture and ultimately support
a response to a catastrophic New Madrid Earthquake—or other catastrophes.

( 72 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

D. ENHANCING SHARED SITUATIONAL AWARENESS

When a disaster strikes, sharing information across agencies and state lines, and between the public andprivate sectors is critical to understanding impacts and prioritizing restoration efforts. Mechanisms toeffectively share real-time information, however, have long been out of reach. Many programs establish
for platforms to post and share information, but they lack the ability to standardize and prioritize
information shared. The process to develop EEIs provided the framework to standardize criticalinformation points for sharing within a state or across a multi-state area. This foundation supports thegeospatial depictions of impacts
through the Common Operating
Picture. This capability—meaning
the technology as well as theinformation-sharing
protocolsand framework that support it—
represents a major advancement inemergency management.
Furthering this process by refining
the EEIs and codifying the level ofimpact are concrete next steps toadvance this initiative.

EEIs as displayed in Kentucky during CAPSTONE-14.

E. ENHANCING BACK-UP COMMUNICATIONS

A major earthquake along the New Madrid Seismic Zone will have catastrophic impacts to U.S.
infrastructure, including the primary and back up communications systems that cities and states rely on.
Landline, cell phone, and radio towers will be significantly impacted, causing daunting communications
challenges among responders and hampering the government’s efforts to communicate with the public.
First responders currently rely on ham radio operators, organized through RACES, as well as satellite
communication capabilities. Though these technologies have advanced in recent years, emerging
technologies exist that—if implemented—could overcome some of the limitations identified through
CAPSTONE-14. CUSEC will encourage the investigation and procurement of technologies to enhanceback-up communications capabilities. In addition, CUSEC will work through existing working groups
to standardize information sharing among these back-up communication systems.
Public safety communications with the public have advanced significantly over the past decade,utilizing technologies to email, text, and call individuals directly with specific and targeted information.
Unfortunately, these systems may not be widely effective during a catastrophic earthquake along
the NMSZ. In fact, even terrestrial radio frequencies will be impacted. CUSEC will establish a PublicInformation Working group to identify innovative solutions for communicating with the public when
traditional channels are impacted.

( 73 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

F. COORDINATION WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR

It is often said that disasters know no boundaries. However, when a disaster strikes, boundaries matter.
For example, waivers needed to move personnel and supplies to impacted areas may not be observed inevery state. CUSEC will continue working with the Member States and the USDOT to outline strategies
to establish an efficient and effective authorization and approval process that does not hinder response
efforts.
Impacts to the transportation infrastructure for an event of the magnitude of a New Madrid quake would
be staggering, halting the movement of responders, resources, and the general public. Though systems
to outline state-specific transportation impacts have been developed, prior to the CAPSTONE-14 effort,
there was no multi-state system to share impacts to transportation network. Through an intensiveplanning process to develop and categorize EEIs within the transportation sector, this information
was effectively shared in CAPSTONE-14. CUSEC will continue this effort and work within the existingtransportation working groups to refine the transportation EEIs.

G. INTEGRATION OF MILITARY INTO PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSEEFFORTSThe National Guard has long been an embedded partner in supporting communities during disasters.
However, the integration of the military enterprise into planning and response efforts remains achallenge. Many working group meetings and workshops have uncovered great benefit in integrating
military resources and coordination capabilities within the state and/or federal response. But challenges
remain in effectively harnessing this great resource at the state level. CUSEC will continue to support thecollaboration and integration between the military and civil authorities through workshops, trainings,
and exercises. Innovative solutions to organizational problems impacting effective collaboration are
the ultimate goal.

( 74 )

After-Action ReportAfter-Action Report

The Central US is an important “hub” of the national transportation
system. According to the 2002 Commodity Flow Survey by the Bureau ofTransportation Statistics (BTS), more than 968 billion ton-miles, or about 31%of the total US commodities originate, pass through, or arrive in the Central
U.S. region. In terms of cargo traffic volume, the Memphis International
Airport is the world’s busiest airport. St. Louis is also the home of the nation’s
second-largest inland port by trip ton-miles and the nation’s third-largest
rail center. With regard to general travel, the Central U.S. is home to millions
of people, including two major population centers in the St. Louis 19 andMemphis metropolitan areas. If an earthquake occurred similar in scale as
the 2011-12 earthquakes, roadways in the Mississippi Valley of Arkansas andMissouri (such as Interstate 55) could become impassable because of bridge
failures and fissuring of road surfaces, crippling this transportation hub.
Source: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/14810/
ImpactofNewMadridSeismicZoneEarthquakesotheCentral%20USAVol1.pdf?sequence=3

VII. APPENDICES( 75 )

After-Action Report

CAPSTONE-14

Central United States
Earthquake Consortium

VII. APPENDICES

A. CAPSTONE-14 PARTICIPANTS
B. ACRONYMS( 76 )CAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

A. CAPSTONE-14 PARTICIPANTS

Participants included the eight CUSEC Member States and Associate States. The CUSEC Associate States
act as support and information resources to the CUSEC Member States in the event of a damaging
central United States earthquake. While they may not be directly impacted by an earthquake, theAssociate States can provide valuable resources to Member States, if necessary.
CUSEC CAPSTONE-14 PARTNERS AND PARTICIPANTSCUSEC Member States
Alabama Emergency Management Agency

Kentucky Division of Emergency Management

Indiana Department of Homeland Security
CUSEC Associate & Partnering States

Tennessee Emergency Management Agency

Florida Division of Emergency Management*

North Carolina Division of Emergency Management

Arkansas Department of Emergency Management
Illinois Emergency Management Agency

Georgia Emergency Management Agency
Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency
Management Division

Kansas Division of Emergency Management
Louisiana Office of Homeland Security andEmergency Preparedness

Michigan Emergency Management and Homeland
Security*

Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency
Management*

Nebraska Emergency Management Agency

Mississippi Emergency Management Agency

Missouri State Emergency Management Agency

Ohio Emergency Management Agency

Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management
South Carolina Emergency Management Division
Virginia Department of Emergency Management

West Virginia Division of Homeland Security andEmergency Management*

Wisconsin Emergency Management**CAPSTONE-14 Partnering State
Government
Argonne National Laboratory

U.S. Department of Energy

Federal Emergency Management Agency

U.S. Department of Transportation

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Guard Bureau

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM)( 77 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

CUSEC CAPSTONE-14 PARTNERS AND PARTICIPANTSCUSEC Member State Working Groups and Associations
Association of CUSEC State Geologists

CUSEC Public Information Officers

CUSEC GIS Working GroupCUSEC State Exercise Officers

CUSEC Communications Officers
CUSEC Operations Officers

CUSEC State Earthquake Program Managers

Associations/Non-Profit/Volunteer

CUSEC State Transportation Task Force

American Red Cross

Missouri S.A.V.E. Coalition

Illinois Facility Assessment Support Team (FAST)

National Volunteers Active in Disaster Council

Emergency Management Assistance Compact
Illinois Volunteers and Donations (VOAD)
Indiana I-BEAM TeamNational Emergency Management Association
Tennessee S.A.V.E. Coalition

Private Sector Companies
Alabama Power

Illinois Municipal Electric Agency (IMEA)

Alton Southern RailIntermedix

Allstate Insurance
Ameren, MO

American Institute of Architects - Illinois
American Red Cross

American Water - Illinois

Association of Illinois Electric Coops (AIEC)
AT&T

Bank of America

Baxter Healthcare

Blue Cross Blue Shield

Collaborative Healthcare Urgency Group (CHUG)
Commonwealth Edison (Com Ed)
Deployed Resources

Electronic Tracking Systems Inc.

Environmental Systems Research Institute (Esri)
Fed Ex Corporation
First Citizens Bank

Frontier Communications

Illinois Water/Wastewater Response Network(ILWARN)

Integrys Energy Group

Laborers International Union of North American(LiUNA)Louisville Gas & Electric (LG&E)/KY Utilities
Marathon Petroleum Corporation

McLean County Area EMS System (Ambulance Strike
Force Team)
Monsanto

Morningstar Inc.
Motorola

Phillips 66/Wood River Refinery

Prairie State Generating Complex (PSGC)
Sears Holdings Corporation
SprintState Farm Insurance
Target Corporation

Terminal Railroad Association
Time Warner Cable

United Parcel Service (UPS)( 78 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

CUSEC CAPSTONE-14 PARTNERS AND PARTICIPANTS
G & H International Services, Inc.

U.S. Steel/Granite City, IL

Home Telephone Company

Walgreens

Harrisonville Telephone Company
Honeywell

VerizonWalmart( 79 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

B. ACRONYMS
AcronymDefinition

A-TeamAdvance TeamANG

Air National Guard

ADEM
AG

AR

ARNG
BEOC
CCIR
CMS
COG
COP
CRP

CUSEC
DCE

DCOs
DHS

DHS-S&T
DoD

DOT

DSCA
EEIs

EMAC
EOC
EOS

EPAPP
ESF

ETA

FAA

FEMA

FNARS
GIS

IEMA
IMAT

IPAWS

Arkansas Department of Emergency Management
Adjutant General

Authorized Representative
Army National Guard

Business Emergency Operation Center

Common Critical Information Reporting
Coalition Mobility System

Continuity of Government

Common Operating Procedure
Catastrophe Response Plan

Central United States Earthquake Consortium
Defense Coordinating Element
Defense Coordinating Officers

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Homeland Security Science &Technology

Department of Defense

Department of Transportation

Defense Support of Civil Authorities
Essential Elements of Information

Emergency Management Assistance Compact
Emergency Operations Center
EMAC Operations System

EMAC Personnel Accountability Processing Package
Emergency Support Functions
Estimated Time of Arrival

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA National Radio System

Geographic Information System

Illinois Emergency Management Agency
Incident Management Assistance Team

Integrated Public Alert Warning System( 80 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

AcronymDefinition

ITTF

Illinois Terrorism Task ForceJFO

Joint Field Office

JIC/JOCJRSOI

JTF-HG
LG&E
LLIS

MAEC
MARS
MASS

MOU/MOA
MRPs

MSAT

NAWAS
NEHRP
NEIC

NEMA
NGB

NISC

NLE-11
NMSZ

NOAA
PPD8

RACES
RAW

RCCs

REQ-A
RRFs
SAR

Joint Information Center/Joint Operations Center
Joint Reception Staging, On-ward Integration
Joint Task Force Headquarters
Louisville Gas & ElectricLessons Learned Information Sharing
Mid-America Earthquake Center

Military Associated Radio Systems
Mutual Aid Support System

Memorandum of Understanding/Memorandum of Agreement
Mission Ready Packages
Mobile Satellite

National Warning System

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
National Earthquake Information Center

National Emergency Management Association
National Guard Bureau

National Information Sharing Consortium
National Level Exercise

New Madrid Seismic Zone

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Presidential Policy Directive 8Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Services
Resource Allocation Workshops
Region Coordination Centers
EMAC Request Forms

Resource Request Forms
Search and Rescue

SEO

Senior Elected Officials

SOPs

Standard Operating Procedures

SEOCs
TEMA

USACE

State Emergency Operations Center
Tennessee Emergency Management Agency
United States Army Corps of Engineers( 81 )

After-Action ReportCAPSTONE-14

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

AcronymDefinition

USCG

United States Coast Guard

USNORTHCOM

United States Northern Command

USGS

USTRANSCOM
vBEOC
VoIP

WVSZ

United States Geological Survey

United States Transportation Command

Virtual Business Emergency Operations Center
Voice over Internet Protocol

Wabash Valley Seismic Zone

( 82 )

After-Action ReportPREPARED BY:®

Witt O’Brien’s is a global leader in risk management withthe depth of experience and capability to provide services
through the disaster and crisis life cycle.

www.wittobriens.com