⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 17 findings
F1
Sonoma County has embraced SEMS as the standard and consistent methodology to manage major emergencies and disasters effectively (as has the State of California).
No recommendations for this finding
F2
SEMS is designed to standardize emergency responses, and immediate recovery processes, not mid or long-term recovery processes.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Written plans and checklists are not consistent among county, cities, agencies, and departments, and in some cases are non-existent.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1
The County Department of Emergency Services, working with each city in the county, should: • Assist in producing updated disaster plans, based on SEMS, consistent in content, in use and style of checklists. The plans should be completed by December 2005, in support of the 2006-2007 budget cycle • Make clear how the revised city plans relate to the county plan • Propose, by October 2005, new communication methods and media outreach strategies aimed at providing the public with information on what plans and procedures are designed and in place to manage major disasters. • Provide employee guidelines on storing disaster recovery documentation away from the work place, for example, at home, in an employee’s car. The guidelines should be complete by October 2005. 8
R2
The Board of Supervisors should: • Initiate an annual review of the County Emergency Plan. Since this may lead to budgetary outcomes, the event should be included as a part of the budget cycle, starting with 2006-2007. The review should include the following tasks as a minimum: − Examine status of the actions from the previous year’s review. − Review any tests completed during the year and any plan changes required as a result of the tests (“no change” is an unlikely outcome). − Require evidence of detailed changes to the plan occasioned by known state, national or world emergencies that occurred during the year. − Require evidence of detail changes to the plan required by directives from the Department of Homeland Security (with due regard to any security and secrecy requirements). − Concur, by a vote, that the review has been completed successfully.
R3
Each city council should: • Initiate an annual review of its disaster plan, coincident with the budget cycle, starting with the 2006-2007 cycle. These reviews should include the following tasks as a minimum: − Examine status of the actions from the previous year’s review. − Review any tests during the year and any plan changes required as a result of the tests (“no change” is an unlikely outcome). − Request detail of any changes to the plan occasioned by known state, national or world emergencies that occurred in the review year. − Request detail of any changes to the plan required by directives from the Department of Homeland Security (with due regard to any security and secrecy requirements). − Concur, by vote, that the review has been completed successfully.
F4
Where plans and checklists do exist, they are not always stored in multiple safe places for guaranteed access in the event of a disaster. The most common place is ”the office,” notwithstanding that a disaster does not limit itself to regular work hours, and office buildings may not be accessible!
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Recovery processes, especially long power and water outages, are not consistently broken down by time periods, e.g. first 2 hours, first 24 hours, first 3 days, first 3 months.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The county radio system schematic shows sufficient built-in redundancy to withstand an interruption, unless specific “switch-able” radio towers are out of action (there is a study to extend the redundancy). 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The County Dispatch Center manager, working with radio, telephone and data processing management in the Information Systems Department, and with the major vendors, should, by October 2005: • Provide a detailed design showing how all forms of critical communications are duplicated, backed up and/or capable of re-routing, in the event of a disaster. • Explore the use of simple mathematical queuing models to show how quickly the County Dispatch Center telephone set-up becomes overloaded in the event of a major disaster. • Identify the remedial equipment and procedural changes that alleviate overload problems determined by the overload analysis.
F7
The county telephone system and 911 phone line system schematic shows sufficient redundancy built in to withstand any interruption, short of a complete loss of the main SBC building in Santa Rosa.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The County Dispatch Center manager, working with radio, telephone and data processing management in the Information Systems Department, and with the major vendors, should, by October 2005: • Provide a detailed design showing how all forms of critical communications are duplicated, backed up and/or capable of re-routing, in the event of a disaster. • Explore the use of simple mathematical queuing models to show how quickly the County Dispatch Center telephone set-up becomes overloaded in the event of a major disaster. • Identify the remedial equipment and procedural changes that alleviate overload problems determined by the overload analysis.
F8
There is an agreement with the county fuel supplier that provides for priority fuel supplies for generators in the event of prolonged losses of power. While it is not guaranteed, there is an assumption that ”government” will get the highest priority. Even so, among most departments and agencies, there is complacency about the total availability of generators and fuel supplies. This leads to assumptions that the generators themselves would survive the disaster, or that there would be a sufficient amount and duration of power for all purposes and all county buildings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
The County Director of General Services should: • Produce, by year-end 2005, a detailed document showing the location, earthquake preparedness and fuel capacity of all the generators the county and cities expect to commission in the event of a major disaster. The document should include communication with the Board of Supervisors, the County Administrative Officer, and all departments and agencies, as to the amount of power they can reasonably expect to have following a disaster.
F9
All county employees are listed as disaster recovery resources, as indeed are members of the grand jury, but there is no clear plan on how they will report in for duty, or how they will be used.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The Board of Supervisors, and each city council, should: • Demand that plans be put in place to ensure that all existing employees have been or will be trained in SEMS and the Emergency Recovery Plan for the county, and/or their city. The training should be completed by year-end 2005. • Document the reporting steps employees must take as support individuals in the event of a disaster. • Endorse that the most effective use of most employees is to focus on business resumption.
F10
The city plans are not consistent in scope and detail. The City of Santa Rosa has a well- structured but dated plan, Cotati’s plan is literally a copy of the county plan, Cloverdale is still using the 1989 two volume door-stopper plan that existed before the adoption of SEMS, and Healdsburg’s plan is dated 1987. See Exhibit D for a table comparing the format and date of the county and city plans.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1
The County Department of Emergency Services, working with each city in the county, should: • Assist in producing updated disaster plans, based on SEMS, consistent in content, in use and style of checklists. The plans should be completed by December 2005, in support of the 2006-2007 budget cycle • Make clear how the revised city plans relate to the county plan • Propose, by October 2005, new communication methods and media outreach strategies aimed at providing the public with information on what plans and procedures are designed and in place to manage major disasters. • Provide employee guidelines on storing disaster recovery documentation away from the work place, for example, at home, in an employee’s car. The guidelines should be complete by October 2005. 8
R2
The Board of Supervisors should: • Initiate an annual review of the County Emergency Plan. Since this may lead to budgetary outcomes, the event should be included as a part of the budget cycle, starting with 2006-2007. The review should include the following tasks as a minimum: − Examine status of the actions from the previous year’s review. − Review any tests completed during the year and any plan changes required as a result of the tests (“no change” is an unlikely outcome). − Require evidence of detailed changes to the plan occasioned by known state, national or world emergencies that occurred during the year. − Require evidence of detail changes to the plan required by directives from the Department of Homeland Security (with due regard to any security and secrecy requirements). − Concur, by a vote, that the review has been completed successfully.
R3
Each city council should: • Initiate an annual review of its disaster plan, coincident with the budget cycle, starting with the 2006-2007 cycle. These reviews should include the following tasks as a minimum: − Examine status of the actions from the previous year’s review. − Review any tests during the year and any plan changes required as a result of the tests (“no change” is an unlikely outcome). − Request detail of any changes to the plan occasioned by known state, national or world emergencies that occurred in the review year. − Request detail of any changes to the plan required by directives from the Department of Homeland Security (with due regard to any security and secrecy requirements). − Concur, by vote, that the review has been completed successfully.
F11
Of the plans that exist, almost all of them have dates prior to the events of September 11, 2001.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1
The County Department of Emergency Services, working with each city in the county, should: • Assist in producing updated disaster plans, based on SEMS, consistent in content, in use and style of checklists. The plans should be completed by December 2005, in support of the 2006-2007 budget cycle • Make clear how the revised city plans relate to the county plan • Propose, by October 2005, new communication methods and media outreach strategies aimed at providing the public with information on what plans and procedures are designed and in place to manage major disasters. • Provide employee guidelines on storing disaster recovery documentation away from the work place, for example, at home, in an employee’s car. The guidelines should be complete by October 2005. 8
R2
The Board of Supervisors should: • Initiate an annual review of the County Emergency Plan. Since this may lead to budgetary outcomes, the event should be included as a part of the budget cycle, starting with 2006-2007. The review should include the following tasks as a minimum: − Examine status of the actions from the previous year’s review. − Review any tests completed during the year and any plan changes required as a result of the tests (“no change” is an unlikely outcome). − Require evidence of detailed changes to the plan occasioned by known state, national or world emergencies that occurred during the year. − Require evidence of detail changes to the plan required by directives from the Department of Homeland Security (with due regard to any security and secrecy requirements). − Concur, by a vote, that the review has been completed successfully.
R3
Each city council should: • Initiate an annual review of its disaster plan, coincident with the budget cycle, starting with the 2006-2007 cycle. These reviews should include the following tasks as a minimum: − Examine status of the actions from the previous year’s review. − Review any tests during the year and any plan changes required as a result of the tests (“no change” is an unlikely outcome). − Request detail of any changes to the plan occasioned by known state, national or world emergencies that occurred in the review year. − Request detail of any changes to the plan required by directives from the Department of Homeland Security (with due regard to any security and secrecy requirements). − Concur, by vote, that the review has been completed successfully.
F12
There are no consistent plans to inform the public ahead of time of what information will be available at the time of a disaster, nor is there a consistent plan to make use of media, or the City Watch system in the event of a disaster. (The City Watch system is a software program that allows for sending informational or alert messages to a given geography of telephone subscribers).
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
The County Department of Emergency Services, working with each city in the county, should: • Assist in producing updated disaster plans, based on SEMS, consistent in content, in use and style of checklists. The plans should be completed by December 2005, in support of the 2006-2007 budget cycle • Make clear how the revised city plans relate to the county plan • Propose, by October 2005, new communication methods and media outreach strategies aimed at providing the public with information on what plans and procedures are designed and in place to manage major disasters. • Provide employee guidelines on storing disaster recovery documentation away from the work place, for example, at home, in an employee’s car. The guidelines should be complete by October 2005. 8
R4
The Sonoma County Sheriff should: • Clarify and document, by year-end 2005, the common procedure for invoking the City Watch alert system. • Institute, by year-end 2005, a periodic public test of the system, similar to the periodic testing of the TV and radio emergency alert system. • Relocate the County Mobile Communications Vehicle to be at least five miles from the Dispatch Center/Sheriff’s Office. This should be done by October 2005. • Provide, by October 2005, a written procedure detailing how county law enforcement expects to meet its commitment as a primary resource agency to EOC in the event of a major disaster. 9
F13
There is an agreement dated 1997, between the cities and the county, promising help from the county for the construction of, training in, and testing of city-based disaster plans. This assistance is not provided, nor sought on a continually consistent basis, despite the payment of a $2000 annual fee by the cities.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
There are no consistent disaster response checklists for law enforcement and public safety personnel, the two major agencies involved in every disaster. While law enforcement acknowledges SEMS, it relies on its normal critical incident skills to sustain its disaster response efficacy. There is too much reliance on a disaster being just another critical incident, basically “all in a day’s work.” As a result, there are no written policies and/or procedures that describe the responsibilities of the Sheriff’s Department as part of the County Emergency Operations Plan.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
The County Mobile Communications Vehicle, funded by Homeland Security, is parked within 200 feet of the County Dispatch Center for which it is the backup.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The Sonoma County Sheriff should: • Clarify and document, by year-end 2005, the common procedure for invoking the City Watch alert system. • Institute, by year-end 2005, a periodic public test of the system, similar to the periodic testing of the TV and radio emergency alert system. • Relocate the County Mobile Communications Vehicle to be at least five miles from the Dispatch Center/Sheriff’s Office. This should be done by October 2005. • Provide, by October 2005, a written procedure detailing how county law enforcement expects to meet its commitment as a primary resource agency to EOC in the event of a major disaster. 9
F16
The Sonoma County Law Enforcement Consortium (SCLEC) system comprises Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), Records Management System (RMS) and Mobile Data Computer (MDC). All of the Sonoma County law enforcement agencies, except Healdsburg and Sebastopol, use SCLEC for dispatching, tracking, and communicating with mobile units. The SCLEC computer system is housed in one county building with no backup if the building were destroyed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The Director of County Information Services, working with the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Consortium (SCLEC), should: • Propose, by October 2005, a plan to provide immediate backup to the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Computer System, presently a single point of failure.
F17
There is little in the county and city plans to indicate how long term losses of infrastructure will be managed, e.g. roads, freeways, and bridges. Conclusions The County has adopted the SEMS approach to developing disaster recovery plans. The County signed an agreement in 1997 to assist all of the principal cities with their SEMS-based plans. The plans as assembled are inconsistent in content and with each other. Some of the plans are seriously out of date, and in none of the plans is there evidence of post “9/11” updating. It is difficult to believe that the events of September 11, 2001 did not cause significant reviews of disaster plans. It is even more difficult to believe plan revisions would not have been indicated as a result of such reviews. The smaller cities have the least complete and (typically) the oldest plans, and are relying far too much on the County EOC to “rescue” them in the event of a disaster within their own boundaries. Consider the heavy dependency in the county on a minimal number of North/South, East/West access roads, and it is not difficult to imagine the central EOC having major problems in assisting a disaster in for example, Cloverdale or Sonoma. The small cadre of mid-level staffers involved in the design and drafting of the plans demonstrated a good deal of understanding and enthusiasm; the same could not be said for their managers and supervisors. Some of that may just be the way such plans are developed. The grand jury’s fear is that in the event of a major disaster too much recovery dependency will be placed on these staffers. Most of the senior management and elected officials interviewed were well distanced from, and in some cases ignorant of, salient pieces of the plans. In almost every case, procedures from law enforcement, as they related to their role in an emergency, or a disaster within their own infrastructure, were provided to the grand jury as a secondary offering, in some cases not a direct match to the question the grand jury had asked. The jury is left with a very real impression that law enforcement is relying too much on a disaster simply being just another (maybe larger) critical incident, for which their personnel are trained. Too often law enforcement quoted street disturbances, or Russian River floods, as examples of their emergency-handling prowess. The jury does not believe that either of these examples is a good basis for a major (unexpected) disaster plan. The grand jury has no expectation that all of the personnel involved in a disaster recovery will actually work from the plan manual. However, the spasmodic, in some cases zero, use of checklists misses a great opportunity to put effective planning into action at times of great personal stress and confusion. SEMS certainly encourages use of checklists. After-action reports from major disasters elsewhere also stress the value of checklists. The senior management commitment to the various disaster plans, at the Board of Supervisors level, County Administrator, the city council level, the city manager level, and the public safety level, is demonstrably inconsistent and does not bode well should the county experience a major disaster. Commendations The jury commends the Department of Emergency Services for a well-written, digestible County Emergency Operations Plan, so much better than its predecessor. Its focus on people safety is especially commendable, as is the dedication of the staff group that produced it. Both the Sonoma County Water Agency and the City of Santa Rosa developed well-constructed plans and in particular, made good use of checklists. Both plans had dates that are not recent; in both cases the jury understands updates are in progress. The grand jury would like to thank all of the people who gave valuable time for interviews and willingly provided many examples of written material.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
The County Director of Public Works should: • Produce, by year-end 2005, a document outlining the realistic alternatives in the event that major sections of North/South and East/West roadways are disrupted. Required responses to Findings Director – County Department of Emergency Services –F2, F3, F4, F5, F9, F10, F11,
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 7The County has adopted the SEMS approach to developing disaster recovery plans. The County signed an agreement in 1997 to assist all of the principal cities with their SEMS-based plans. The plans as assembled are inconsistent in content and with each other. Some of the plans are seriously out of date, and in none of the plans is there evidence of post “9/11” updating. It is difficult to believe that the events of September 11, 2001 did not cause significant reviews of disaster plans. It is even more difficult to believe plan revisions would not have been indicated as a result of such reviews. The smaller cities have the least complete and (typically) the oldest plans, and are relying far too much on the County EOC to “rescue” them in the event of a disaster within their own boundaries. Consider the heavy dependency in the county on a minimal number of North/South, East/West access roads, and it is not difficult to imagine the central EOC having major problems in assisting a disaster in for example, Cloverdale or Sonoma. The small cadre of mid-level staffers involved in the design and drafting of the plans demonstrated a good deal of understanding and enthusiasm; the same could not be said for their managers and supervisors. Some of that may just be the way such plans are developed. The grand jury’s fear is that in the event of a major disaster too much recovery dependency will be placed on these staffers. Most of the senior management and elected officials interviewed were well distanced from, and in some cases ignorant of, salient pieces of the plans. In almost every case, procedures from law enforcement, as they related to their role in an emergency, or a disaster within their own infrastructure, were provided to the grand jury as a secondary offering, in some cases not a direct match to the question the grand jury had asked. The jury is left with a very real impression that law enforcement is relying too much on a disaster simply being just another (maybe larger) critical incident, for which their personnel are trained. Too often law enforcement quoted street disturbances, or Russian River floods, as examples of their emergency-handling prowess. The jury does not believe that either of these examples is a good basis for a major (unexpected) disaster plan. The grand jury has no expectation that all of the personnel involved in a disaster recovery will actually work from the plan manual. However, the spasmodic, in some cases zero, use of checklists misses a great opportunity to put effective planning into action at times of great personal stress and confusion. SEMS certainly encourages use of checklists. After-action reports from major disasters elsewhere also stress the value of checklists. The senior management commitment to the various disaster plans, at the Board of Supervisors level, County Administrator, the city council level, the city manager level, and the public safety level, is demonstrably inconsistent and does not bode well should the county experience a major disaster. 7
Commendations 1
-
CM1 Page 8The jury commends the Department of Emergency Services for a well-written, digestible County Emergency Operations Plan, so much better than its predecessor. Its focus on people safety is especially commendable, as is the dedication of the staff group that produced it. Both the Sonoma County Water Agency and the City of Santa Rosa developed well-constructed plans and in particular, made good use of checklists. Both plans had dates that are not recent; in both cases the jury understands updates are in progress. The grand jury would like to thank all of the people who gave valuable time for interviews and willingly provided many examples of written material.
No Responses Found 3
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
County of Sonoma
Agency
Sonoma County Auditor-Controller
Elected County Office
Sonoma County Sheriff
Elected County Office