"The Initial 30 Days of Response and Recovery
              Activities at the World Trade Center."
      by Ronald J Langhelm, Technical Services Branch Chief,
       FEMA ERT-N Red Team GIS Coordinator, FEMA Region X.
 
A Case Study:
 
It is impossible to accurately predict every requirement of a GIS
following a catastrophic event due to the dynamics that develop
during disaster response. However, examination of the 9/11
response demonstrates how GIS can be used aggressively in this
type of environment. A chronology (on the URISA website)
highlights staffing considerations and significant actions taken
by the primary GIS entities supporting the operations at Ground
Zero in New York. The information is intended to assist local
governments to gain a better understanding of the available GIS
technology, but also the level of human interaction required to
maximize use and efficiency of the technology.
 
There was an immense feeling of camaraderie amongst the response
and recovery staff working in New York City. The products
developed by the various GIS teams supported decision-making at
the highest level. The Incident Commander and others were able to
see the disaster site from a completely different perspective.
Responders were able to track mobile offices, medical support
teams, heat from the fires, hazards, debris, and the daily
progress of the search teams using GIS technologies. GIS staff
relied upon Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) data, Forward
Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR) data, and Global Positioning
Systems (GPS). My daily work with the federal, city, and state
staff gave me a significant vantage point from which to examine
mo st of the GIS activities supporting various agencies and
response and recovery elements and subsequently, to develop a
chronology of events.
 
In June 2002, I met with my GIS counterparts in New York to
develop an accurate chronology of the GIS and remote sensing
support activities during the initial 30 days of response and
recovery in New York City. There were 4 primary GIS entities
suppor ting this operation, New York Fire Department (FDNY),
New York City (NYC), New York State (NYS), and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The basic GIS roles for each
organization are/were as follows:
 
  FDNY: Support the needs of the FDNY
  NYC:  Collect information and use data to develop products for
        the Mayor and city agencies.  Products and information
        was posted to the web and could be accessed anywhere in
        the world.
  NYS:  Support the Governor, all state agencies, and NYC.
        NYS Office for Technology (OFT) was primarily responsible
        for contracting and overseeing remote sensing support for
        the overall response. The NYS Department of
        Transportation (DOT) Photogrammetry Unit also assisted in
        review and analysis of the data for the state.
  FEMA: Assist New York State in dealing with the impacts of the
        terrorist act. FEMA supported Urban Search and Rescue
        (US&R) with the products required by the Incident Support
        Team.  In addition, FEMA disaster field office (DFO)
        staff provided produc ts for recovery efforts.
 
Mobilizing GIS Staff and Assets:
 
Immediately following the attacks on the World Trade Center,
the City's Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in Building 7 of the
World Trade Center complex was evacuated and subsequently
destroyed when the building collapsed. Within hours of the
evacuation, the city began operation of a temporary GIS operation
to support their emergency management needs. In addition, public
and private GIS resources from around the city dedicated their
services to supporting rescuers, local, state, and federal
governments response efforts. The GIS capabilities at FEMA's
office in New York were temporarily relocated. Within 4 days,
FEMA had two temporary GIS entities running in New York City with
a combined staff of 25+ covering twenty-four hour operations.
Initially, FEMA's GIS primarily supported the US&R mission.
Over the following three weeks, the GIS mission transitioned from
response to recovery as the emphasis in the field changed.
 
Staffing large disaster response and recovery operations is very
difficult. The sudden and immediate need for information far
exceeds the capabilities of day-to-day personnel.  NYC pulled
people from several city offices to meet the initial demands.
They received support from local universities and tapped into
existing contracts with private companies. Even with all this
support, NYC struggled to keep up with the mounting workload and
eventually sent out an email message through a local GIS Users
Group soliciting volunteers. The city received a tremendous
response to its request. In addition, NYS began to increase their
staffing to meet the needs of the Governor and then brought in
contract support to collect, process, and distribute their
remotely sensed imagery. FDNY was unable to add support staff to
their GIS and shifted to submitting requests to NYC, NYS, and
FEMA.
 
FEMA can provide support to state and local emergency management
GIS capabilities. FEMA disaster staffing is heavily reliant upon
a cadre of on-call employees as well as use of other Federal
agencies' resources. The Federal GIS team working at the New York
Disaster Field Office (DFO) and the US&R facility consisted of
staff from five federal agencies:  FEMA, National Air and Space
Agency (NASA), National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA),
National Park Service (NPS), US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE);
four state agencies from around the country provided US&R
support: California Office of Emergency Management (CA OES),
Colorado Bureau of Land Management (CO BLM), Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources (MN DNR), Utah Bureau of Land Management
(UT BLM); and one private company: MapInfo Corporation.
Many of the problems encountered in NYC (office space, power
availability, web connectivity, adequate staffing) are fairly
common to disaster operations. However, once these issues are
addressed, the massive number of requests for assistance must be
filled. FEMA GIS support and technical assistance may be useful
in disaster operations but it is usually short-term, immediate
assistance.
 
Long-term recovery work is primarily the responsibility of the
state and local governments. How the state and local governments
can support both response and recovery operations should be a top
planning priority.
 
Dealing with a Dynamic GIS Disaster Operations:
 
Where can hardware and software be obtained? NYC and FDNY were
able to accept equipment and software donations as well as making
immediate purchases.  Many of the initial responding GIS groups
brought their own hardware and software from their offices.
FEMA deploys hardware to the field to support its operations. 
The "go-kits" includes pre-configured GIS Suites preloaded with
software and base data.
 
What is required to fill all the requests? There are two parts to
this: request submission and tracking. Staff in the NYC offices
quickly realized that a request tracking system was needed to
ensure that requests were completed and the products delivered.
A paper system soon evolved into an automated system that
assigned projects to individuals and confirmed their completion.
FEMA staff use a paper-based request system that is recorded in a
database once the project is completed. The biggest hurdle in
delegation is learning each team member's strengths and
weaknesses so that the manager can make efficient project
assignments. In addition, an open floor plan allows staff to
freely ask questions and solicit help when needed. To keep a
large operation running smoothly, it is important to staff
someone for administrative support.
 
Where is data obtained? Together, the local, state, and federal
GIS teams resolved to minimize duplication of efforts in both
data and printed products. There was constant interaction between
the GIS teams, sharing data and discussing products and projects.
The most significant bottleneck in data sharing revolved around
connectivity. Teams were forced to pass around large quantities
of data on CDs. Several meetings were devoted to data collection
and availability issues, with a focus on remotely sensed data.
The group worked to identify the needs of each team and keep each
team informed of projects that were underway.
 
Are air photographs really necessary?  Imagery was a very
important data source at Ground Zero. Conditions and field
operations changed daily. The first images available to the New
York City rescue staff were collected by FDNY using a handheld
camera in a New York Police Department helicopter. NYS OFT
quickly organized a plan and contract to collect digital
imagery, thermal imagery, and LIDAR data from a fixed-wing
aircraft with less than 12-hour turnaround. Imagery was used to
verify field oper ations, identify hazards, measure surface
temperatures, identify surface elevations, estimate debris
volumes, and sample for hazardous conditions. Due to limited
access to the disaster site, imagery was the only view some
disaster operations staff ev er saw. Initially, the distribution
of this data was a problem.  Connectivity to the Internet was not
very stable, making it difficult to download large files.  For
the first couple weeks, the data was hand delivered by police
officers from Albany to NYC as soon as it was processed.
Later, the data was posted to an ftp site for download by the
offices in NYC.
 
Planning for Disasters:
 
When evaluating how the emergency management community and/or
local government can support disaster events, especially
catastrophic events, keep in mind the following recommendations:
 
  * Establish a baseline of disaster capabilities, i.e. determine
    the level(s) of disaster response the government agency or
    agencies have resources to address.  Creating a system to
    draw qualified people from within or from outside of the
    response organization(s) is one means for meeting staffing
    requirements.
  * Maintain good relations with and current contact lists of
    GIS resources in your area.
  * Remain open to new ideas and methods of data collection,
    analysis, and display.
 
Taking preparedness measures and creating partnerships will allow
for increased disaster support and efficiency versus a static
product list.  It is critical that the emergency management
community as a whole, and decision makers specifically,
understand what GIS and remote sensing capabilities exist and how
they can be used daily as well as what may be required in a worst
case scenario. Exercises and conversations with potential
requesters can aid in the development of a comprehensive GIS
needs assessment and strategy.
 
The GIS groups supporting Ground Zero had numerous opportunities
to assess new technologies. The midst of a crisis is certainly
not the best environment for experimentation, but in some cases,
it may be the only credible field test. For most GIS staff
working on the disaster in New York, it was the first time we had
used LIDAR, thermal data, and oblique imagery. This experience
strongly demonstrated the need for emergency management to
include in its arsenals and use new technologies as soon as
possible in order to minimize staff downtime during response due
to staff unfamiliarity with available technologies.