Developing a Regional Recovery Framework

Abstract

A biological attack would present an unprecedented challenge for local, state, and federal agencies, the military, the private sector, and individuals on many fronts, ranging from vaccination and treatment to prioritization of cleanup actions to waste disposal. To prepare for recovery from this type of incident, the Seattle Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) partners collaborated with military and federal agencies to develop a regional recovery framework. The goal was to identify key information that will assist policymakers and emergency managers in shortening the timeline for recovery and minimizing the economic and public health impacts of a catastrophic anthrax attack. Based on discussions in workshops, tabletop exercises, and interviews with local, state, federal, military, and private sector entities responsible for recovery, the authors identified goals, assumptions, and concepts of operation for various areas to address critical issues the region will face as recovery progresses. Although the framework is specific to a catastrophic, wide-area biological attack using anthrax, it was designed to be flexible and scalable so it could also serve as the recovery framework for an all-hazards approach in other regions and jurisdictions. Benefits from this process include enhanced coordination and collaboration across agencies, a more thorough understanding of the anthrax threat, an opportunity to proactively consider long-term recovery, and a better understanding of the specific policy questions requiring resolution.

Risk‐Based Decision Making for Reoccupation of Contaminated Areas Following a Wide‐Area Anthrax Release

“…As discussed above, the duration of evacuation in this second case is assumed to be six months for the base case. The approach taken here is generally in line with the framework suggested by Lesperance et al . and the results of the Seattle Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI).…”

An Epidemic Recovery Framework to Jump-start Analysis, Planning, and Action on a Neglected Aspect of Global Health Security

“…While benefiting from the extant natural disaster literature, the model also recognizes that infectious diseases are biological hazards, and therefore, outbreaks present recovery challenges and opportunities distinct from events involving geological or meteorological hazards—for example, decontamination efforts to remove and/or render pathogens nonviable [ 30 ]; enhanced MCM research, development, and production to prevent and treat future infection [ 23 ]; heightened vulnerability of the health sector to outbreak impacts [ 12 , 13 ]; potential secondary chronic health conditions and their socioeconomic effects that require longer-term support and intervention [ 11 ]; primary prevention and mitigation in the form of fewer risky practices at the human-animal-environment interface that lead to pathogen emergence [ 7 ]; and heightened biosecurity and biosafety measures to offset the risk of accidental or deliberate release of a dangerous pathogen [ 3 ].…”

Regional Collaboration Among Urban Area Security Initiative Regions: Results of the Johns Hopkins Urban Area Survey

“…16,17 Formal and informal infrastructure, as well as activities and accomplishments, in preparedness-related regional collaboration have been preliminarily explored in a small number of case studies. [18][19][20] A comparative look across case studies found regionalization to be preceded by a variety and combination of impetuses, including enhancing local public health capacity, a perceived need for a coordinated response, or to more efficiently coordinate federal preparedness funding.…”