Progress in Developing the National Asset Database

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$J1L(lO~ \~ ~~ - Center for Investigative Reporting$

across this larger database of 28,000 sites.” 25 IP will gather additionalinformation on those assets it determines to be nationally significant. Per theNIPP, examples of this information include vital system components,dependencies and interdependencies, existing protective measures, worstreasonable case consequences, and quantitative consequence analysis.Out-of-place assets make resource allocation decisions more challenging;every possible target is not going to rise to the level of national significance.IP plans on filtering those assets from the NADB with the individual analysesfor each program or sector. However, having more assets may obscuredesired data, making such prioritizations more difficult. Additionally, assetsthat will never be used in an analysis will have to be filtered out repeatedly.Both of the department’s recent data calls generated many assets now in theNADB whose national significance is questionable and IP might waste timeand resources trying to prioritize them.State Responses to Criticality Question Were InconsistentDHS also requested states to designate those assets that “met national levelcriteria.” In deciding which assets to submit, states had considerable latitudein interpreting what DHS meant by a nationally critical asset. States assessedpotential catastrophic loss, economic impact, public confidence or nationalsymbolism, and replaceability to identify the assets. The NADB currentlyshows that 11,018 assets (14 percent) rise to the level of nationally significant,while 32,631 assets (42 percent) do not. The question of national significanceis undetermined for another 33,419 assets (43 percent). 26 IP officialsacknowledge that many assets will never be analyzed in depth or used tosupport any program activity.Some states submitted assets that they knew were critical to the state butwere not sure about their national importance, and some did not. States thatadopt an all-hazards approach to infrastructure protection consider schoolsas critical to the general public’s safety during a natural disaster becausethey function as emergency shelters. However, states did not consistentlysubmit schools because they did not know whether they warranted inclusionin the NADB. The lack of guidance on whether questionable categories of25 General Frank Libutti, testifying before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security on DHSFY2005 Appropriations, April 1, 2004.26 To the best of our knowledge, the question of national significance was not incorporated into ODP’s data collectionefforts in 2003. While these figures suggest otherwise, DHS is in the process of filling these fields for each asset.Progress in Developing the National Asset Database10
assets (such as schools) should be included led to significant variation insubmissions, and decreases the value of comparisons across states.In addition, the NADB contains general categories because DHS did notprovide guidance for naming assets by level of specificity. For example,states were not sure whether to simply identify a subway system by name, orname each important facility or station within that system. Instead of aspecific school, some locations listed schools in general. Other generalitiesinclude restaurants and churches. There are inherent challenges in capturingsystems and asset data simultaneously. At present, the NADB is notstructured in a way that enables it to capture information about systems.Even if the categories above are reasonable, the NADB requires a consistentapproach listing the specific assets to be a useful tool. The NADB taxonomyis the first step in delineating and creating a consistent approach to listingassets, systems and networks across the SSAs and down to the local level.Portion of NADB Populated by First Data Call Lacks CredibilityThe 2003 ODP-led data call generated 28,368 assets. The presence of largenumbers of out-of-place assets taints the credibility of the data (see examplesin Table 1). The states’ unfamiliarity with identifying CI/KR, and DHS’ lackof direction contributed to the poor quality of the data.Table 1: Examples of Out-of-Place Assets(ODP 2003 Data Call)Old MacDonald’s petting zooMall at SearsBean FestNix’s Check CashingAmer. Society of Young MusiciansTrees of MysteryCar DealershipsKennel Club and Poker RoomHistorical Bok Sanctuary4 Cs Fuel and LubeDPW LandfillKangaroo Conservation CenterAssyrian American Association[state] Right to Life CommitteeAssociation for the Jewish Blind[university] Insect ZooBourbon FestivalTheological SeminaryJay’s Sporting GoodsNestle Purina Pet food PlantAuto ShopVeterinary ClinicGroundhog ZooSweetwater Flea MarketHigh Stakes BingoPetting Zoo[state] Community College[a] RestaurantFrontier Fun Park[a] Travel StopMule Day ParadeBeach at End of [a] StreetAmish Country Popcorn[a] Pepper and Herb CompanyProgress in Developing the National Asset Database11
Page 1 and 2: DRAFTDEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURIT
Page 3 and 4: ContentsExecutive Summary..........
Page 5 and 6: Executive SummaryOn December 17, 20
Page 7 and 8: such as prominent national, state,
Page 9 and 10: Chart 1: NADB Totals by SectorAgric
Page 11 and 12: Chart 2: NADB Totals by Stages of D
Page 13: IP officials view the new taxonomy
Page 17 and 18: all but Indiana) and identified sev
Page 19 and 20: mortuaries, 571 nursing homes, and
Page 21 and 22: capability to be queried in a varie
Page 23 and 24: eports and reluctance of the privat
Page 25 and 26: development in other sectors, and a
Page 27 and 28: that not only does the department n
Page 29 and 30: Recommendation #3: For ongoing and
Page 31 and 32: Appendix APurpose, Scope, and Metho
Page 33 and 34: Appendix BPreparedness Response to
Page 39 and 40: Appendix CRoles/Responsibilities wi
Page 45 and 46: Appendix DCritical Infrastructure a
Page 47 and 48: Appendix EGuidelines for Identifyin
Page 49 and 50: Appendix EGuidelines for Identifyin
Page 51 and 52: Appendix FCritical Infrastructure/K
Page 53 and 54: Appendix HReport DistributionDepart

Progress in Developing the National Asset Database

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?