GITA ’ s GECCo Program

1. GITA’s GECCo Program

2. GECCo Overview In 2002 GITA created the GECCo Program to respond to Presidential Directive 7, “…reduce and/or eliminate the vulnerability of the infrastructures of society’s complex technology systems that increase the difficulty for attacks on US systems 85% of critical infrastructure privately owned and operated User driven, bottom-up versus top down Supports/enables ongoing F-S-L emergency management and infrastructure protection

3. Critical Infrastructure and Their Interdependencies Cross Local, Regional, and National Boundaries

4. Gas/Oil Infrastructure Interdependencies Example Generators and Facilities Communications Heat for Facilities Water Treatment and Heat for Facilities Water/Waste Pumps, Lift Stations,and Facilities Transportation Electric Heat for Facilities Transport of Goods and Material Generators and Lubricants for Facilities EmergencyResponse Transportation Health and Safety Services Heat for Facilities Source: GITA 2008 Research Committee

5. Critical Infrastructure Cascading Consequences Example Third Order Effects Second Order Effects First Order Effects Source: GITA 2008 Research Committee Communications EmergencyResponse Network OpsCenters Response Disruption for Emergency Services Limited Communication Disruption to Communication Facilities Disaster Causes Water Supply EmergencyResponse Health & Safety Lose of Water Supply Limited Fire Protection Disruption of Water Treatment ElectricDistribution GenerationFacilities Electric Supply Disruptions ofPower Generation Lose of Electricity Reduced Supply Oil/Gas Supply Disruption Transportation GoodsDelivery ShippingFacilities Fuel Disruption Financial Losses Limited Shipping ofGoods/Materials

6. The GECCo Event

7. GECCo Objectives To provide a framework by which public and private organizations can better collaborate and share information to protect critical infrastructure and relate interdependencies To assist infrastructure owners with: Identifying and accessing the interdependencies of critical infrastructure Building an actionable plan for mitigating and protecting those critical infrastructures Establishing procedures and standards

8. GECCo Process Find organizations willing to take on leadership role to bring stakeholders together to support critical infrastructure protection Hold a “kick-off” interactive regional workshop to raise awareness and facilitate networking Design and conduct an infrastructure protection and interdependencies tabletop exercise Identify gaps and recommend solutions Develop a prioritized action plan of activities Define project requirements, assist with securing funding and technical assistance for implementation

9. Past GECCo’s City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii City of Denver and the Front Range, Colorado Western New York State, Southern Tier West Regional Planning Agency, New York City of Seattle and King County, Washington Greater Tampa Bay Area, Florida Greater Phoenix Area, Arizona

10. Greater Phoenix Area GECCo

11. Greater Phoenix Area GECCo

12. Phoenix Blackout Scenario Tabletop Exercise Example Attendees participated in a tabletop exercise and identified: Potential products and services to support both responders and decision makers within the selected Emergency Support Functions Data sets that was required for responding the scenario and the “owners” of those data sets Collaboration challenges/barriers when planning for and responding to an event

13. Tampa Bay Example Tampa Bay AreaNormal Time Tampa Bay Area Category 3 Hurricane Storm Surge

14. Identified Needs Collaboration and Support Theme Data and Database Management Theme Interoperability and Accessibility Theme Practices and Processes Theme Barriers to Collaboration Keys to Collaboration and Data Sharing Success Summary of Past GECCo Findings

15. Upcoming GECCo’s Greater Dallas/Fort Worth Area, Texas Washington D.C. Twin Cites?

16. Twin Cities GECCo

17. Twin Cities Objectives Significantly expand the horizontal and vertical audience of past GECCo events by: Building on the substantial Minnesota collaborative geospatial environment Using Emergency Response as the door opener toward NSDI realization – a symbiotic relationship proven during the RNC Drawing policy makers into the process Creating a collaborative effort spanning the public-private sectors and geospatial-emergency services communities

18. Twin Cities End State Minimum: Increased information flow between units of government Increased information flow from private industry Benchmark report Maximum (Definitively solving the “What Next Question?”): Tampa = GITA expansion and some data sharing efforts Phoenix = EM-private industry working group Minnesota potential = State HIFLD like organization (Execution - with potential follow-on DHS funding) National cookie cutter model supporting NSDI

19. Efforts to Date Coordination: NGAC side meetings One-on-one’s with Justin Sherin, HIFLD GITA Board approved “consideration” Extensive outreach to Minnesota geospatial and emergency response communities per interest in potential event

20. Efforts to Date Local Organizations Contacted Via Email and Phone Through Mid-July 2010 • Association of Minnesota Emergency Managers • Department of Homeland Security – Federal Security Director Office - Minneapolis • Federal Executive Board • FBI’s InfraGard Program • Metropolitan Emergency Management Association • Metropolitan Emergency Service Board • MetroGIS • Minnesota Chapter of GITA • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources – Firewise/ICS • Minnesota E911 • Minnesota GIS/LIS Consortium • Minnesota Geospatial Information Office • Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency Management • Minnesota National Guard • Minnesota Sheriffs Association • Minnesota State Fire Chiefs Association • United States Geological Survey – Minnesota Office • Wisconsin Chapter of GITA

21. Efforts to Date Formal Letters of Support (4): Federal Executive Board FBI’s InfraGard Program Minnesota National Guard U.S. Geological Survey Verbal Endorsements (3): Minnesota GITA Chapter Wisconsin GITA Chapter NSGIC – via Will Craig

22. “Tentative” Plan Third quarter 2011 Event to host 125-175 individuals Each area is different = Local planning team to shape the agenda and goals – built on volume of materials and experience Access for Wisconsin and other state observers per request of HIFLD

23. Budget Considerations Estimated $15,000 – $20,000 budget Used to pay for facilities, presenter travel and lodging, event materials, etc. Early planning effort may reduce costs SharedGeo has approved a $500 contribution MetroGIS budget item understood to be a contingent commitment GITA alone can’t foot the bill anymore Working with DHS toward GECCo financial support Will look at other sources if DHS support not realized Oddly enough, contingent financial commitment at this time may ensure MetroGIS won’t pay anything

24. Thank You