Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Section 7. State and Local Evaluation of the Guide The evaluation of the guide was accomplished with the following steps: 1. The guide was sent to state agriculture and DOT agencies. 2. State officials were phoned to get their comments on the guide, and on their advice the guide was sent to local officials in two to five counties. The local officials asked to review the guide included the county emergency manager, the local sheriff, and the public works director. 3. After local officials reviewed the guide, they were contacted and asked for their comments on the guide. They were also asked if they would be willing to host a one-day workshop to discuss the guide. 4. A total of four workshops were held. The locations and dates of the workshops were: ⢠Dodge City, Kansas-December 20, 2007 ⢠Mankato, Minnesota-January 29, 2008 ⢠West Plains, Missouri-February 8, 2008 ⢠Athens, Tennessee- February 29, 2008 The guide was sent to between one and four state agencies in each of ten states. The complete list of state agencies that received the guide is shown in Table 5. Each agency that received the guide was called and asked for their comments. Response to the guide was generally positive and, in many cases, additional copies of the guide were requested and other officials in the state were identified as reviewers of the guide. The most extensive comments on the guide were received from Dr. Janice Mogan of the Nebraska Department of Agriculture. We received many comments from the NCHRP panel also. In many cases, the panel reviewers and state agency reviewers agree, but in some instances, comments were contradictory. Some of the most important comments on the guide from state officials included: 1. Very comprehensive and straight forward. 2. In some cases overstates the role of local agencies. 3. May overemphasize a quarantine area of 3- to 6-mi (4.8- to 9.6-km) radius. This area could easily expand to include an entire county or even an entire state. 4. The Traffic Control Diagram for the cleaning and disinfection station should be modified to ensure that the disinfection takes place in the quarantine area and that clean vehicles and personnel are not exposed to vehicles that have not been disinfected. 55
Table 5. State Agencies Asked to Review âA Guide to Traffic Control of Rural Roads in an Emergency Quarantineâ State agencies California Department of Agriculture Illinois Emergency Management Agency Illinois Department of Transportation Illinois Department of Agriculture Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship Iowa Homeland Security Emergency Management Iowa Department of Transportation Kansas Animal Health Department Kansas Department of Agriculture Kansas Department of Transportation Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency Management Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Board of Animal Health Minnesota Department of Agriculture Missouri Department of Agriculture Missouri Department of Transportation Nebraska Department of Agriculture Nebraska Department of Roads Nebraska State Patrol North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services North Carolina Division of Emergency Management North Carolina Department of Transportation North Carolina Highway Patrol Tennessee Department of Agriculture Tennessee Department of Transportation Wisconsin Department of Transportation 5. The guide should make it clear that the information is not state-specific and that some statements may not be true for every state. 6. Several reviewers recommended that rather than use agroterrorism incident (ATI) that we use the more inclusive term of âagricultural emergency.â This term applies whether the disease was introduced deliberately or accidentally. The research team has made a great deal of effort to provide specific guidance to local agencies while at the same time acknowledging the differences in emergency response procedures between states. While most reviewers from state agencies have provided favorable feedback, the most common concern has been that certain elements of the guide are not applicable to their state or incorrectly describe procedures or responsibilities in their state. Additionally, several states commented that local agencies play little to no role in developing or managing an emergency response plan for a foreign animal disease. State agencies expect to be notified of potential cases of foreign animal diseases immediately and do not envision local agencies managing the response even at the earliest stages. (While this attitude may be shortsighted, it is found in some states.) While the research team believes that the task of traffic control will likely still be left to local law enforcement officials, all other elements of the response will be handled by 56
state or federal agencies and officials. For this reason, we believe it is important to clearly and specifically describe traffic control planning and procedures in the guide, but we also believe that the remainder of the content is included for context and should remain less prescriptive. The goal of the guide is to complement the emergency response plans and training already in place in state and local agencies, and the review team has worked to avoid including detailed instruction that may contradict these existing plans. The states of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Tennessee recommended local agencies to review the guide. The complete list of local agencies that have received the guide are shown in Table 6. Table 6. Local Agencies Receiving âA Guide to Traffic Control of Rural Roads in an Emergency Quarantineâ Local agencies Bremer County, Iowa Dallas County, Iowa Keokuk County, Iowa Mahaska County, Iowa Story County, Iowa Ford County, Kansas Grant County, Kansas Norton County, Kansas Pratt County, Kansas Saline County, Kansas Scott County, Kansas Blue Earth County, Minnesota Freeborn County, Minnesota Kittson County, Minnesota Stearns County, Minnesota Barry County, Missouri Clinton County, Missouri Howell County, Missouri Jasper County, Missouri Newton County, Missouri Henderson County, Tennessee Jefferson County, Tennessee Lincoln County, Tennessee Monroe County, Tennessee McMinn County, Tennessee Sparta-White County, Tennessee Some of the comments received from the county reviewers of the guide included: ⢠Guide is good resource for a county in making plans for a stop movement due to FAD or other incident. ⢠Procedure for prioritizing roads is a âgeneral guide.â 57
⢠There are three types of stop movement: â Nationwide â Regional â Local ⢠Cleaning and disinfection may need to be discussed further. A vehicle should not be taken to a car wash to clean off mud or manure from an infected site. ⢠Listing products that can be used for disinfecting would add value to the guide. The results of each of the four workshops held are discussed below. 7.1 Ford County, Kansas, Workshop There were seven attendees at the Ford County workshop held in Dodge City on December 20, 2007. Agencies represented were: ⢠Ford County Sheriffâs Office ⢠Ford County Fire Department ⢠A representative of a local slaughter house who coordinated the shipping of cattle to the slaughter house. ⢠Two representatives of the Kansas DOT, one from headquarters and the area emergency coordinator for KDOT that covered eight counties including Ford County. ⢠Two representatives from the Kansas Animal Health Department including the state veterinarian and a livestock inspector who covered western Kansas The agenda used for this and all other workshops is shown in Table 7. The Ford County and Kansas DOT attendees at this workshop had recently worked together in response to the destruction of Greensburg, Kansas by a tornado. They all confirmed the necessity of good channels of communication during an emergency and felt that the first 24 hours were the most critical time of any response. While they thought the guide was very helpful, they also wanted a smaller pocket guide that could be given to personnel who were setting up the traffic control at each site. The emergency manager who was also the fire chief furnished a fire line handbook as an example of this type of pocket guide. The importance of the area office of the DOT was emphasized during the workshop because the DOT has a bigger area of concern and can divert traffic from a much larger distance than local highway departments. DOT representatives also emphasized that traffic check points should be set up at locations where there is room to store vehicles. In Kansas, that might be on a state road that has an asphalt mixing area beside the roadway. The DOT also has changeable message signs that are very valuable for diverting traffic. The benefit of getting producers involved was also evident. The local meat packer representative could divert all trucks hauling cattle to slaughter in Ford 58
County and could also reroute them away from the quarantine area. Discussion during the exercise centered on the fact that some traffic stops or diversion points might be outside the quarantine area. The participants also discussed leaving major roads open but not allowing any local traffic onto or off the route (in other words, creating a controlled access route that could be used for through traffic). The undersheriff of Ford County has written reports on agroterrorism and it was evident that Ford County has a good plan. Even so, all workshop attendees felt that the guide was a good resource and that the workshop was valuable in getting the right group of people together to discuss agricultural emergencies. Table 7. Workshop Agenda A Guide to Traffic Control of Rural Roads in an Emergency Quarantine Task 7 Workshop Agenda 9:00 Welcome and Introductions (Presenters and attendees) (Federal or State Agriculture official) 9:15 Project Overview 9:45 Purpose of Stop Movement and Quarantine Operations 10:00 Break 10:15 Review of âA Guide to Traffic Control of Rural Roads in an Emergency Quarantineâ 11:15 Biosecurity Procedures for Responders 11:45 Introduction to Exercise Scenario 12:00 Lunch 1:00 Team Exercises 1:45 Discussion of Solutions (MRI team) 2:00 Comments about applicable policies specific to the state (State Ag officials) 2:15 Break 2:30 Comments on guide and exercise (Participants) 3:00 Closing 59
A scenario specific to Ford County, along with quarantine and traffic volume maps, were used for the exercise at the end of the day. The exercise scenario is shown in Table 8. Exercises in each workshop were similar in format to this workshop, but tailored to the county where the workshop was held. Table 8. Exercise Scenario A Guide to Traffic Control of Rural Roads in an Emergency Quarantine Task 7 Workshop Hypothetical Exercise Scenario A county vet has been called to the Jones Ranch, about 1 mile south of Judge on State Route CC. Dr. Wilson, The vet from the County Extension office, has been called to the Jones Ranch by the Jonesâs vet, Doc Carlson. After Doc Carlson was notified of drooling and lesions on the cattle, he called in Dr. Wilson. They have taken samples and had them rushed to the lab at Ames and at Plum Island, but it will be 24-48 hours before the test is back. Wilson calls the USDA Foreign Animal Disease Officer, Dr. Smith, and gets the samples expedited, as Smith pulled the samples himself yesterday. All are concerned by what they are seeing on the Jones Ranch, and Smith feels that he needs to impose the precautions as outlined in the USDA Protocol, Lockdown of 6 mi (10 km) Radius Maps of the quarantine area are available, along with traffic volume maps for major and minor roads. You are a member of a working group that is responsible for traffic control. Use the maps and information in Section 4 of the guide plus local knowledge to select the type of traffic control to establish at each numbered traffic control point. If time permits, discuss available resources to implement this type of traffic control. 60
7.2 Blue Earth County, Minnesota, Workshop There were eight attendees at the Blue Earth County workshop held in Mankato on January 29, 2008. Agencies represented at this work shop were: ⢠Blue Earth County Emergency Management ⢠Two representatives of the Blue Earth County Sheriffâs office ⢠Blue Earth County Public Works ⢠Nicollet County Emergency Management ⢠Two representatives of the Minnesota DOT ⢠Minnesota Homeland Security-Regional Program Coordinator Blue Earth County has a large poultry processing plant nearby and is therefore concerned with the possibility of avian flu as well as other animal diseases. Those present were also concerned about the prospect of having to hold poultry for several days at a time. The State of Minnesota has different laws than Kansas and therefore slightly different procedures for an agricultural emergency. Minnesota officials were hesitant to use the procedures outlined in Phase 2, as described in the guide, because they felt that warning of a FAD prior to confirmation and proclamation by the governor would depress markets and lead to widespread concern. There was considerable discussion about how the response will be affected by this policy, and despite some disagreement by the county emergency mangers present, the state representative stated that this was how the process would be handled. The law enforcement officers were somewhat skeptical of their ability to enforce quarantine, and based this opinion on the fact that they felt they could not quarantine individuals with contagious diseases. They also felt that there were too few staff in the sheriffâs office to support the stop movement or quarantine efforts. The area office of the DOT was supportive and also felt that they could divert much traffic from the quarantine area. They felt that the use of changeable message signs should be discussed when detours were mentioned, based on their procedures and the usefulness of the signs. The use of a hard card, or pocket-sized traffic control reference book with diagrams, as discussed in Kansas, was presented to the attendees and was deemed to be a good idea to facilitate the fast installation of traffic controls at traffic control points. A comment specific to the Guide was that public health should be added to Table 2-1 that discussed roles and responsibilities of those involved in the response. The exercise was cut short due to inclement weather. One point that came out during the exercise was that the city of Mankato had its own emergency management that would operate separately from the county emergency management. Thus there was another level of government that would be involved in a response; however, there might also be additional resources available in some of the municipal offices. 61
7.3 Howell County, Missouri, Workshop There were eight attendees at the Howell County workshop held in West Plains on February 8, 2008. Agencies represented were: ⢠West Plains Police Chief ⢠West Plains Emergency Manager ⢠Howell County Emergency Manager ⢠Missouri Department of Agriculture (two representatives from agro-security and the district veterinarian) ⢠Missouri DOT (one liaison engineer from the central office and the incident response coordinator from the area office) There was considerable discussion in this workshop about the word quarantine and its use in the title of the Guide and in an emergency response. The district veterinarian furnished a copy of the âOfficial Order of Quarantineâ from the Missouri Department of Agriculture. He stated that these orders are filled out on a routine basis and would be used by a FADD responding to a suspicious disease. Violation of this order is a misdemeanor with a penalty up to $10,000 per violation. Law enforcement attendees were comfortable with the use of the word and thought it should be in the title to the Guide. Overall the attendees at this workshop did not note the difficulties with quarantines that were evident in Minnesota. Jurisdictional issues were also discussed. The City of West Plains has its own emergency manager, and there are two other cities in Howell County that also have an emergency manager. However, unlike Minnesota, where these are separate, the Howell County EMA director has jurisdiction over all cities in Howell County. The importance of the area office of the DOT was again evident and the Missouri DOT personnel stated their willingness to help in a quarantine or stop movement with the request of the county EMA director. They discussed a large scale evacuation plan that covered the response to a severe earthquake in southeast Missouri. This plan called for evacuations and relocation of residents in Howell County and in Springfield. The state agro-security officer discussed many of the on-going efforts of the Department of Agriculture to ensure that local agencies were prepared and that producers were also aware of the threat of an agricultural emergency and what personnel and equipment a response would require. Southern Missouri also has large numbers of poultry farms, and the differences between an avian flu or END response and a Foot and Mouth outbreak were discussed. 7.4 McMinn County, Tennessee, Workshop There were eight attendees at the McMinn County workshop held in Athens, Tennessee on February 29, 2008. Agencies represented were: 62
⢠McMinn County emergency management (three representatives including the director) ⢠McMinn County Highway Department ⢠Tennessee Highway Patrol ⢠Tennessee Emergency Management Agency ⢠Tennessee DOT-HQ Emergency Management Coordinator ⢠Tennessee Department of Agriculture-Disaster Animal Response Coordinator The Department of Agriculture representative, a veterinarian, had been at the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak in England and discussed his experiences with that emergency. Also, the Tennessee DOT representative had recently been on duty in Macon County, Tennessee, where the DOT had removed debris from roads and fields after several tornados had crossed Tennessee. He stressed the need for flexibility in planning and said that many things come up in an emergency that cannot be foreseen. The DOT engineer was also a farmer, so he had a unique perspective on the nature of animal quarantines. Disposal of dead animals was discussed at some length. Burial is not practical in this area due to a high water table, and burning was seen as too slow for disposing of a large number of carcasses. The Tennessee Department of Agriculture representative recounted how a large landfill was used in England, and warned that it might be necessary to haul carcasses some distance if euthanasia and disposal were necessary. There were several specific comments on the Guide, including a suggestion to remove the ATI acronym, and to substitute âemergency equipmentâ for vehicles rather than discussing âflashing lights.â There was some discussion of the need to control wild animals and a suggestion to add state wildlife agencies to the list of agencies that should be notified. There was also a request that Table 2-1 in the guide use a larger font to be more readable. The comment was made that large piles of gravel could be used to block roads in an emergency. The county highway department had reviewed the Guide prior to the workshop and said that their county commissioner had said that no roads could be blocked in the county. He also felt that it would be hard to fund a quarantine within the county highway budget. There was a nearby nuclear plant and a great deal of planning had been done in regard to a potential incident at this plant. The differences between a nuclear and an agricultural disaster were discussed. The representative of the Tennessee Highway Patrol was the first state law enforcement person who had attended a workshop and the research team learned that the aid that could be provided by the state highway patrol would be very beneficial to local law enforcement agencies. 7.5 Summary of State and Local Comments on the Guide Overall there were many helpful comments on the Guide. More comments were received from State agencies than local agencies and many of those were incorporated into the revised version of the Guide published as NCHRP Report 525 Volume 13: A 63
Guide to Traffic Control of Rural Roads in an Agricultural Emergency. The comments on the workshop could be best summarized by the message received from Dr. Robert Linnabary of the Tennessee Department of Agriculture: âFrom what I heard from others attending, they also felt it was valuable and time well spent. â¦. I can see a real need for bringing county and state people together to work through some of the issues with traffic stoppages.â During each of the workshops, it was mentioned that the use of volunteers was absolutely necessary and that training for these personnel was needed. The attendance at the workshops was not as large in numbers as hoped, and there were few county personnel who attended from counties outside the county hosting the workshop. Some state personnel felt that the county emergency managers would need to be reimbursed for travel to get many of them to attend a meeting outside their county. The agencies represented at the workshops felt that most local officials could probably choose the level of traffic control without the priority procedure presented in the Guide, but that it was valuable to have a more formal way to choose the level of traffic control. They liked the traffic control diagrams and felt that they should be summarized in a small field booklet or hard card. In most of the workshops, the county emergency staff, the area DOT office, local public works, and local law enforcement had worked together in other emergencies and had established relationships. The state agricultural officials, while very knowledgeable about agricultural emergencies, were not as accustomed to working with local law enforcement and highway agencies. 64