Communicating with Local Jurisdictions This session was designed to be hosted by the Lead Agency for an agriculture emergency for local jurisdictions that may provide support. Key attendees will be individuals from various local jurisdictions. The session will allow them to provide feedback on what information they would like to receive and when. Ideal group size should be no more than 30 people. This session should take three to four hours to facilitate, depending on the engagement of the audience. This presentation was developed with funding from the Multi-State Partnership for Security in Agriculture following the 2014-2015 response to High Pathogenicity Avian Influenza (HPAI). Developed with funding from the Multi-State Partnership for Security in Agriculture

Workshop Objectives Overview of the Multi-State Partnership for Security in Agriculture project Review lessons learned from the HPAI outbreak Develop a local jurisdiction communication plan Plan will include when and what is communicated to local jurisdictions Determine what role local jurisdictions may fill during a Foreign Animal Disease response This slide provides some general objectives for the workshop. These can be adjusted and modified based on the Lead Agency’s ultimate objectives.

2015 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza December 2014 - June 2015 21 states impacted 211 commercial and 21 backyard premises Depopulation of 7.5 million turkeys and 42.1 million egg- layer and pullet chickens Cost over $950 million This is a general overview of the 2014 - 2015 HPAI response. If your state responded, it would be better to include more specific information about the response in your state and the impact. If your state didn’t respond, the above information will provide a little perspective for participants on the overall impact of the HPAI response and the duration for responding states. Reference: 2016 HPAI Preparedness and Response Plan, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services, January 11, 2016.

Who Responded to HPAI? United States Department of Agriculture State Departments of Agriculture Local Emergency Management Industry Others This slide is intended to give attendees an idea of who responded. Not all entities responded in every state. In some states with smaller outbreaks, the USDA may have been less involved. If your state responded to the outbreak, you should list all the agencies that supported your response.

MSPSA After Action Review Project Lessons learned from 10 states Interviews or reviews of written After Action Reports Focus on state and local challenges that could be addressed through facilitated discussion This project was initiated following the HPAI response, but the discussion and subsequent actions may be applied to a variety of future responses. This project is intended to look specifically at state and local issues that could be addressed through a facilitated discussion format. It is not primarily intended to focus on statefFederal issues.

MSPSA After Action Review Project (cont.) Identified four priority topics ICS structure improvements Local communication State communication State contracting improvements This workshop deals with local communication improvements This slide highlights the four areas that were selected by Partnership survey participants. This presentation addresses one of these areas.

Local Communication Lessons Learned Communicating with local jurisdictions prior to response is critical Some counties were unfamiliar with their role during a response Lead State Agency was not aware of the capabilities of local responders The next series of slides are a general overview of the communication issues mentioned by states during the initial review of this project. Challenges addressed in this discussion involved communication between state and local agencies.

Local Communication Lessons Learned (cont.) Local jurisdictions were not engaged in the response Counties understood they were not the Lead Agency but wanted to be kept in the loop on the response Some counties do have the ability to provide assistance during the response Whether the county is supporting the state’s response or not, there may be a need to communicate some critical information. This information may flow in both directions between state and local officials. Ask participants if they concur or could expand upon these thoughts.

Local Communication Lessons Learned (cont.) Local jurisdictions were not included in incident briefings County Emergency Management received questions from local producers but were unable to answer because they did not have the appropriate information When local jurisdictions were included in the briefings, the briefings did not adequately address questions and concerns of local jurisdictions In the 2014-2015 response to HPAI, many local emergency managers were frustrated that there was a response in their county and they were not aware of what was being done. Many received questions from local elected officials and local residents. It caused issues when they were not able to provide basic information about the response to these individuals or refer them to the appropriate people. Most states did not have a clear outline of what information needed to be included in a local jurisdiction briefing. This included the initial briefing as well as subsequent briefings throughout the response. The lack of appropriateness and thoroughness resulted in extra time being spent by the lead agency answering follow-up questions. Several states mentioned that developing a list of questions about what should be included in the briefings would have improved information sharing and support for agency buy-in. A list of questions could assist responders in preparing an appropriate and thorough brief. One of the objectives for this workshop is to facilitate the identification of critical information needs.

Local Communication Lessons Learned (cont.) Some states were concerned about sharing specifics, including actual farm locations, with local jurisdictions Several states have legal requirements to keep information confidential Some states mentioned that they have strict confidentiality laws that prohibit them from sharing the name of the infected premise with other agencies. This presents a challenge when the lead agency is requesting support but cannot disclose specifics about the response. This is an issue that states need to address prior to an emergency. In some situations, states are asking for modifications to regulations exempting emergency response situations from the confidentiality laws. In other cases, they are developing standard operating procedures and confidentiality statements to address the issue.

Best Management Practices Develop guidelines for communicating with local jurisdictions Communicate with local jurisdictions regarding what they can expect during a response Include local jurisdictions in an initial briefing One state held a briefing with the impacted county along with the surrounding counties to allow local officials to ask questions about the response A few suggestions were provided from some of the responding states interviewed. These are included in the best management practices.

Best Management Practices (continued) Develop an information distribution list to keep local jurisdictions included One state developed an email distribution list from the initial briefing; individuals on the list were provided a daily situation update Distribution of the information reduced the number of additional questions A few suggestions were provided from some of the responding states interviewed. These are included in the best management practices.

Best Management Practices (continued) Address any legal requirements surrounding emergency response information prior to the event This issue may be the same challenge addressed in the presentation in this series titled, Communicating with State Agencies.

Sharing Information The next series of slides give examples of questions that the facilitator should ask to explore how these challenges may be overcome. There may be questions to change, add or delete. The facilitator should make whatever changes are necessary to meet the needs of the agency.

Notifying Local Jurisdictions What is the trigger for the Lead Agency to notify supporting local jurisdictions of a response? Does this timing meet the needs of the local agencies? How will this notification be implemented? What is the scope of the notification? Will it include the impacted jurisdiction or a larger area? How is this notification dependent on the disease? The next series of slides give examples of questions that the facilitator should ask to explore how these challenges may be overcome. There may be questions to change, add or delete. The facilitator should make whatever changes are necessary to meet the needs of the agency.

Notifying Local Jurisdictions (continued) What is the best method to share information with local jurisdictions? How will this change after the initial briefing? Who is the audience for the initial briefing and how does that shift for subsequent briefings? How frequently should information be shared? The next series of slides give examples of questions that the facilitator should ask to explore how these challenges may be overcome. There may be questions to change, add or delete. The facilitator should make whatever changes are necessary to meet the needs of the agency.

Notifying Local Jurisdictions (continued) What information should be included in the initial notification? Is the scope of information different in the initial notification vs. briefings during the response? The next series of slides give examples of questions that the facilitator should ask to explore how these challenges may be overcome. There may be questions to change, add or delete. The facilitator should make whatever changes are necessary to meet the needs of the agency. For question; What information should be included in the initial notification? The group should be asked to develop a list of questions that should be answered in the notification. These questions will assist the responsible individual at the lead agency in putting together the notification.

Notifying Local Jurisdictions (continued) What ICS position or Lead Agency position is responsible for making the initial notification and subsequent local briefings? How could local jurisdictions interface with a Multi-Agency Coordination (MAC) Group? The next series of slides give examples of questions that the facilitator should ask to explore how these challenges may be overcome. There may be questions to change, add or delete. The facilitator should make whatever changes are necessary to meet the needs of the agency.

Critical Information Requirements What are the critical information requirements for local jurisdictions? How does this change from the initial briefing to subsequent briefings? Are briefings the same for each local jurisdiction? How is information sharing different between impacted and non-impacted counties? The first question should elicit a lengthy discussion. Participants should be asked to develop a list of questions that should be addressed in each briefing and/or update. These items should be recorded on a flip chart. A more detailed list of critical information requirements will prompt a more thorough, detailed brief of information requested.

Incorporating Local Jurisdictions in the ICS Structure This section of the presentation will facilitate a discussion on how local jurisdictions could be integrated into a state’s ICS structure to enhance communication.

Lead Agency ICS Structure Insert an example of the Lead Agency ICS Structure On this slide, the facilitator should briefly review the ICS structure utilized by the Lead Agency. The slides that follow include questions on how the local agencies may or may not be incorporated into this structure. It will be helpful to have the Lead Agency’s planned organizational chart illustrated on a separate poster so it can be referenced throughout the session.

Local Jurisdictions in the Lead Agency’s ICS Structure What support can each local jurisdiction provide? How does the Lead Agency request this support? Does this support depend on a State Emergency Declaration? Does this support vary by county/region? The next series of slides give examples of questions that the facilitator should ask to explore how these challenges may be overcome. There may be questions to change, add or delete. The facilitator should make whatever changes are necessary to meet the needs of the agency.

Local Jurisdictions in the Lead Agency’s ICS Structure How can local jurisdictions provide support for the Lead Agency’s ICS Structure, including task forces and/or strike teams? Which roles can be filled by a local jurisdiction? For what period of time can a local jurisdiction provide assistance? The next series of slides give examples of questions that the facilitator should ask to explore how these challenges may be overcome. There may be questions to change, add or delete. The facilitator should make whatever changes are necessary to meet the needs of the agency.

Local Jurisdictions in the Lead Agency’s ICS Structure Which agencies, including the Lead Agency, are able to support the response with needed Just-In-Time training? Just-in-Time training on Incident Command System, cleaning and disinfection, livestock handling, biosecurity, etc., may be needed for personnel from supporting agencies. Is it possible that this training may be provided by both lead and/or supporting agencies to increase the number of trained and available personnel?

Additional Discussion This presentation is intended to facilitate a discussion to improve communication and engagement across state and local agencies in response to an animal disease emergency. It is recommended to assign tasks that are designed to improve this communication through collaboration of the state and local agencies and organizations.