COSTEP Massachusetts

COSTEP Massachusetts

Key Relationship & Goals/Risk Analysis & Mitigation/ Preparing for Response

January 16, 2009

Massachusetts Archives, BostonMA

Present: Gregor Trinkaus- Randall, Nancy Rae Michael Comeau, Martha Clark, Jennifer Fauxsmith, John Warner Jr., Katherine Griffin, Sara Wolf, Aimee Primeaux, Jack Sullivan, Diane LeBlanc, Benjamin Hiltunen, Kate Viens, Nora Donnelly, Michael Steinitz, Mel Klayman, Nanci Young, Veronica Martzahl, Jessica Rowcroft,

Gregor reported that Massachusetts has a June deadline to report back to Aimee Primeaux on the pilot project and that they must move along to discuss how to put things into motion and look at the agenda.He explained that unfortunately the Content Committee is not present except for Veronica. Look to hand out created by Content Committee.

Approval of Minutes

Gregor asked if there were any corrections or additions to be made to the minutes from October 23,2008 meeting. There was a motion to accept, all were in favor.

Michael Comeau gave an update on the MEMA staged Hurricane Zed exercise Michael, Gregor and Martha attended on November 13, 2008 at MEMA Headquarters. It was an “eye opening” chance to sit at the table and have a cultural community presence. He explained the scenario that was given: Hurricane Zed hit. According to MEMA it would be a LEVEL 3 disaster. Initial plan was to get scenarios regarding cultural resources before session: They asked for suggestions of potential hazards of hurricane given statewide. Michael noted that they addressed each one separate without thinking of the other possibilities as things evolved. Coordinators kept giving them scenarios and descriptions that varied in severity. He explained that they might rethink this “gobbling up resources.” The lesson learned is that we must marshal limited resources in case of emergency. Gregor explained that they needed someone on the ground to get an idea of what was being effected, what the impact was. Martha responded saying that compared to other scenarios, we need a higher level of information on the ground. Katherine Griffin asked what about better communication versus having someone on the ground.

Comeau explained that communication is bottom line. We needed to know more about the immediate threat and on-site assets present with which to respond. There is a need for on the ground personnel in a routine response. We need to survey what collections were at risk and how expansive are the risks. We need to let emergency personnel know the terminology we are using when we request things. The Incident Command System (ICS) training is very important for committee members who participate in the training. Even a base level exercise would be helpful.

• Better lines of communication
• Understanding the terms
• Crafting our own specific unique emergency response system is a major step in the development of COSTEP

Jack Sullivan responded to Comeau’s explanation saying “what you described is difficult for people to understand, and its very impressive that you got that much out of your first visit there,” In terms of cultural resources in MA, one track of information over time is training.

• Federal IMAT teams, is it possible to get representation on the team? It’s possible to work with them to let them know what we need.
• FEMA employees will incorporate our needs with specialty people in IMAT (N IMAT in Region One).

Michael explained the importance of what emergency response leader should be told. Sullivan explained that cultural resource people should make themselves available even when they are not impacted. Michael noted at the New England Archivists meeting that emergency management personnel need to know what the cultural community brings to the table and how they can provide assistance for cultural resources. They should be aware of the assets we are bringing.

Griffin explained FEMA with ESF II problem was FEMA was on a different schedule with MEMA, which was plus 24 hours. FEMA was on plus 48. Operating on a different time schedule is less meaningful. We did not request resources for cultural resource emergencies because MEMA did not request it. If MEMA cannot address it then FEMA addresses it.

Kate Viens asked if the other ESFs have mechanisms with what to do with resources? Benjamin Hiltunen explained that things are going to keep coming. One thing you want to do is figure our your priorities. Kate asked if the PeabodyEssexMuseum is part of Salem’s emergency plan? Gregor responded saying that he did not know the status of their plan. Diane LaBlanc asked what resources Michael deployed in the Hurricane Zed exercise. Gregor responded that they used Rescubes, which were limited in number to those, stored in Northampton, Greenfield and Springfield. Michael mentioned that all of the scenarios were water related issues (moisture control). We needed to get trained personnel on-site. We learned that we have available supplies.

Gregor addressed last month’s ice storm. WEB EOC allows emergency managers to request what they need, report on current conditions and developments and to see what else is happening. The Region 3 person in the Berkshire was contacted to learn if she heard of damages to cultural resources. None were reported. Being WEB EOC enabled him to be in contact if something came up with cultural resources.

Gregor explained the Libraries Disaster Recovery Center (DRC) project began last spring in MEMA’s Region II. What role could libraries play in the event of a disaster? DRC’s set up subsequent to disaster. FEMA is prescreening public libraries to determine which ones can serve as a DRC. If not they can serve as an information source. There have been 3-4 training sessions in Region II. FEMA has completed surveying libraries in Region II. Have to figure out a date to meet with FEMA to review the project.

Gregor explained that he met Allen Philips at MEMA in December with Michael and Aimee, to discuss the possibility of developing a Cultural Emergency Response Team in Massachusetts. MEMA staff explained the Community Response Team concept.

• There are a number of required for the community CERT (Two other ideas evolved)

1. Possible training ½ dozen people to served as initial response team similar to national program, but on a state level.
2. Creating a module for community CERT dealing with cultural resources i.e. The Disaster Response and Salvage Wheel and the Field Guide to Emergency Response could served as basis for this module

• Exploring possible funding for training and creation of module. In touch with Jane Long who got funding from Fidelity for Alliance for Response.
• Pilot project for VT and MA is an idea.
• Need funding to start the training
• Who in FEMA would be the contact to talk to about creating the module?
• Allow people on the ground who are trained to deal with cultural resources

Comeau explained that it ties back to CEMT group. What can we produce? Additional expertise. Taken side steps to add to COSTEP. This is the type of thinking that can localize and expand upon what already exists. Try to craft an emergency framework. Goes back to funding. Aimee Primeaux explained that MJ Davis and Barbara Moore will do the training. They sent a proposal for a two-day and a full week training program. Allen Philips asked them to provide “white paper,” describing the concept. Look at funding available for optional modules. Allen noted that getting equipment for trained personal is generally easier than funding for training.

Comeau said Don Boyce, Director of MEMA, thinks that the idea of cultural community is proactive. He loved this initiative and supports and encourages the program. He sees the benefit of MEMA’s involvement.

Mel Klayman asked what were the lessons learned for cultural institutions after the ice storm? Gregor responded that he did not hear anything back in regards to that. They learned a lesson a few years ago (Four years ago) there were extreme dropping temperatures and the AC of a new building froze.

Gregor said the DRC project is working directly with EMDs to begin communication Klayman explained that in many cases facilities maintenance and management that needs to be factored in and be mobilized during these types of situations. Comeau emphasized we needs facilities staff to provide us access. Klayman added that new facilities have sophisticated monitoring in terms of communication. There are videos and phone technology that can be used in these situations. Local people can post or send these images if they know where to post them

Viens gave an update on the November MEMA’s Emergency Management Directors Advisory Council meeting. It was very informative. They explained their own process of data collection on-line. It addressed concerns of time demands and the redundancy of information collection. We looked at this in our context. She asked the question: Why emergency managers should be concerned about cultural collections during a disaster? She explained that as this project progresses we should try to get on different agendas and keep a presence in front of MEMA, etc.

Gregor introduced Benjamin Hiltunen’s Power Point presentation. Hiltunen presented MEMA 101. The presentation gave an overview of MEMA explained its mission, the four phases of emergency management (preparedness- response- recovery- mitigation) addressed the four MEMA emergency levels: Day to Day, Minor, Major, and Catastrophic. He explained the history of the headquarters building, located in Framingham.

Gregor explained that there are a lot of cultural resources they can plug into data sets and indicate where library, town halls, museums, etc. are located on the SLOSH maps Comeau said mitigation is the most valuable asset.

Gregor gave an update on Content Committee. Spoke with Sarah Zingarelli the other day. She said that not much had occurred since the last presentation. We need to start thinking of how to use the information. We want to know what we expect from the Content Committee. Our initial thoughts were that the Content Committee would take the information provided by the two other committees, Hazards, Vulnerability, Mitigation Committee and the GISPlanning Committee, and bring in together as a message that the Outreach Committee could use in designing ways to disseminate the information. He then opened the discussion and addressed the entire committee asking what things they think should be added to the list. Griffin thought acronyms should be added. They are missing: EOC, WEBEOC, GIS, ESF, EMD, EMAC. Martha asked how many acronyms should we really include? Viens thought there should be a top 10 list of types of at-risk collections for museums and libraries. We should also add to the list the top hazards for libraries and museums. We need to take the assessment of the hazards and create a message to be used by the Outreach Committee to museums, archives, and libraries, and other cultural resources. Comeau suggested that we start using common terminology. It is best to find points of cross-reference.

Primeaux described a phone meeting with Beth Patkus about the glossary to boil down framework and glossary and write definitions (adapted from FEMA glossary) instead of citations. The Content Committee should be in contact with Beth Patkus and or Aimee. She explained the final framework: “ Go to Website” including a Power Point so people within states can adapt it as their own. Develop a glossary.

Comeau explained how committee should start looking locally and start educating people. Emergency managers should be educated about our top concerns. Gregor added that the Content Committee should take information from Ben and Sarah and identify what is important as they move along. We need core of information that they use. Veronica Martzahl asked Gregor to clarify the difference between the Content Committee and the Outreach Committee Gregor responded explaining that the Content Committee is the message that needs to be disseminated and the Outreach Committee develops the mechanism on how to disseminate the information. Viens explained that we should divide the labor between the two committees. However “this is where the rubber meets the road.” In response to Viens, Comeau said it has been a helpful process in the division of labor and delegating tasks. It helps us to move forward.

Viens stated that the June 30th is the deadline for a successful pilot in MA. New England Museum Association offering summer workshops and some of those topics could be the subject of these workshops. Gregor our goal is to take away information provided and distill it in a way that makes sense. We must focus on what is crucial and what content we need to expand.

Gregor addressed the attendees and asked what we should send back to this committee? Comeau asked what elements are missing? LeBlanc made suggestions that.

• Bullets 2,3,4 would not translate to federal level
• The list should be tightened up
• Make a distinction between temporary and historic records
• Terms are different, what vital records mean to local versus federal committees.

Gregor noted that the initial charge is the starting point. The Content Committee has been looking at it through a “tunnel vision” the view needs to be much more broader. Comeau asked if the Content Committee has connected with Aimee and Beth Patkus.

Gregor said that we need to get the information out before February 20th. We need to look at “What we need to communication to museums and libraries.” What is our overall message? Make changes to Kate Veins’ Outline:

• Cultural custodians institutions
• Information from Hazards Committee

Sullivan explained that we should be hesitant to list defined hazards because they vary case by case. Viens wants to define enough about hazards to let them know they are real. What are the statewide hazards to which you are vulnerable? Discussed the internal issues cultural institutions have: Difference between facility hazards vs. area hazards. COSTEP cannot force institutions to think regionally because there are various tiers.

Gregor asked that if we pass off the rough brainstorm that Viens made do you think it would be helpful to the Content Committee? All agreed.

Gregor then updated the people in relation to MEMA. He is trying to set up a meeting to create Annex to state CEMP in relation to cultural resources. Michael, Lori, Andrew Grilz of the Andover Historical Society, Cathy, Mike Philbin, Ben Hiltunen and Sara Wolf will volunteer to work on this. They need to let Gregor know which days they are available in February to meet.

Gregor explained the last component in the framework under Objective Section for preparing for response numbers 4,6,9, and 10 (see agenda) He asked attendees how are we going to do this? In an event of disaster, we will be working with MEMA, but how are we going to respond ourselves? Comeau noted they will operate in the ICS command structure. It is vital on the cultural side to understand the operation. Until outreach and training are established, they’ll be a local response until there is a structure for cultural resources.

Gregor asked within the system, what are the suggestions you have to work within the community? Comeau responded that command and control is necessary. We must create a coordinated approach, Griffin added, “Comeau responded that this was not necessary, we need to get stakeholders involved. Sullivan said these are not institutionalized. Things change. The seats at state and local level need to get institutionalized. You need to make them aware of cultural institutions. It has to be institutionalized and in the structure.

Primeaux said that a list of protocols and workflow is necessary. Hiltunen noted that on a local, state and federal level there needs to be a “concept of operation” as to what they are expected to do. Who do they call? Fauxsmith suggested that there should be a form available on line that institutions can fill out depending on their needs and then fill out contact information. Comeau added, “Consistency eliminates vast confusion”

Clark suggested that a model of local EMD form would be used for local and national disasters.

Gregor explained that we should work more with MEMA. If there is something wrong with a cultural institution they should contact Michael, Gregor, or Kate.

Hiltunen raised the issue of a need for someplace an institution can go to get the assistance for their local plan. Gregor responded by noting that they will work with Ben and Jeff to get that together (Information Management System Project). The calls that I have been receiving have been mostly internal issues. Library and cultural institutions should become familiar with their EMDs. They will call the Archives. However, in a larger situation, they will contact their EMD. Must be made into a consistent structure and put into annex.

Comeau explained that a large-scale disaster would overwhelm the system. However, if we implement an emergency apparatus this would prevent this from happening and prevent “flooding the system” Gregor suggested working with MEMA to make sure this suggestion fits into their protocol. Comeau added that there should be a template created with a steering committee.