MSSM 517- Critical Infrastructure
Weekly Assignment 2.2

Weekly Assignment:

Provide a detailed description of the National Response Plan (NRP). How has your local government cooperated with the NRP? Pick a U.S. city if located outside of the U.S.

The government of the United States has experienced and continues to establish consistent, often times comprehensive changes to the way it accomplishes Emergency Response operations. The catastrophic events of both September 11, 2001 and the lingering tragedy of Hurricane Katrina proved to be instantaneous prompts for the evolution of governmental amendment to and eventual restructure of the overarching procedural standard for incident response in the country. One of the many important after-effects would become what was labeled the National Response Framework, or NRF.

A detailed outline of the NRF structure and intent follows. The template is a doctrinal approach to the domestic partnerships and implementation of resources above and beyond those rules set by the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the Incident Command System (ICS) (FEMA, 2012). The sole purpose of the 90-page document is to ensure that government executives, private sector, nongovernmental organization (NGO) leaders, and emergency management practitioners across the nation understand domestic incident response roles, responsibilities and relationships in order to respond more effectively to any type of incident.
General administrators of NRF-specific guidance will typically be policy-level personnel or heads-of-agencies, who directly or strategically coordinate echelon and subordinate agencies at all eventual layers of government emergency response. It is guided mainly by the data and regulatory information offered to emergency managers at the NRF Resource Center, and eventually rests within the realm of the Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA. NRF is generally held to have been the much-needed modification to American disaster response, ultimately superseding what was known as the National Response Plan (2004, under HSPD-5)… in the wake of publicly perceived failures within the United States government’s ability to respond and coordinate incident response measures after Hurricanes Katrina and Irene. In the year 2006, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (S. 3721, 2006) set the stage for NRF and in what would be perhaps one of its most sweeping measures, the government transitioned the authority for national disaster mitigation to the FEMA Administrator for emergency management, who serves in an advisory capacity to the President of the United States. The billet is currently held by Mr. William Craig Fugate (FEMA, 2012).

A key method in which the NRF is kept current is one that is particularly easy to classify as an innovative and an appropriate manner in which to ensure relevance in the NRF’s doctrine. It routinely adds and updates annexes to its charter so as to allow for coordination instructions and specific guidance under various worst-case types of scenarios. As with any evolving (and often times bureaucracy-laden) governmental agency, there are measures of success and shortcoming (s) to be expected. Overall, however, it is obvious that the NRF provides a vastly improved approach to high-level oversight and distribution of subordinate mandates in the wake of a catastrophe. As stated by Senator Joe Lieberman (2012) in his comments on the draft of the NRF:
I am pleased DHS consulted with state and local stakeholders to produce a comprehensive and coherent plan for responding to disasters of all sorts when they occur… I am particularly pleased the final National Response Framework, unlike an earlier draft, recognizes the larger role the Post-Katrina Act gave to the FEMA Administrator for emergency management. (p. 1)
It is clear to understand the urgent need, especially in light of fiscal and specialized capabilities offered by FEMA, to assign the Framework’s primary coordination responsibility to the Administrator. This was clearly an effective and well-based move.

As previously stated, however, there are challenges in the NRF which, to date, have not been brought to light during a real-world national crisis, at least not to the scale of 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina. One would certainly be that of some confusion on certain areas of responsibility and authority for assigned personnel such as Principal Federal Officials (or PFO’s) and Federal Coordination Officers (FCO’s). This disconnect, and other potential shortcomings for the initiative, are echoed by Paul Stockton (2007), a Senior Research Scholar at Stanford University, when he states:

Confusion over those coordination roles undermined federal response efforts in Katrina, and should be further clarified in the Framework. The current draft of the that document is also silent on a number of outstanding issues for structuring the U.S. response to catastrophes, including that of the special circumstances in which the president would designate the Department of Defense (as opposed to FEMA and DHS) to serve as the lead federal agency for response activities. (p. 6)
In all though, it is safe to say that the National Response Framework, or NRF, is an effective- albeit fluid- mandate for the hugely multifaceted issue of American Emergency Management, especially when considering policy-level directives. NRF has clearly demonstrated some successes. Among them would be placing authority at the highest level appropriately under FEMA and the inception of an innovative web-based centralized resource center, complete with updated and extremely concise annexes for consumption by subordinate players in nearly any incident response. Of course, its challenges remain and are likely to be proven when least desired, in the midst of a national or regional crisis. It very well may be the Framework’s likely biggest failure is that it does not seem to prevent the eventual duplication or omission of efforts by certain leaders because of vague guidance.

The National Response Framework establishes a comprehensive all-hazards approach to enhance the ability of the U.S. to manage its domestic incidents. It forms the foundation of how federal branches and agencies will strategize collectively on how the federal government will coordinate with state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector entities during incidents. It establishes procedures to help protect the nation from terrorist attacks and other major disasters. The United States’ national economy is in shambles; this includes many of our States. States should concentrate on using budgetary resources in a manner that will encourage State purpose-capacity and advancement. The NRF will permit the State governments to do just that. It may be best to have the States work their budget instead of actually running into a deficit and having to seek financial help from other entities. The NRF is built on a strong foundation and with continued cooperation between private sector and government officials protecting the citizens will remain an achievable task.
How has your local government cooperated with the NRP? Pick a U.S. city if located outside of the U.S.
Pensacola, Florida
The U.S. Department of Commerce, United States’ Census Bureau estimates Pensacola, Florida to have a population of 52,197 as of 2011 (US Census Bureau, 2011). Historic Pensacola serves as the county seat of Escambia County, Florida and is nicknamed the “City of Five Flags” in recognition of Spain, France, Britain, The Confederacy of the United States and the United States, each who have flown flags of government since the city’s founding in 1559 by a Spanish explorer named Tristán de Luna y Arellano. Pensacola is also considered to be the United States’ first established settlement. This distinction, along with the sandy, white beaches of Pensacola Beach brings with it a tremendous influx of tourists every year. It is estimated that $1.5 billion is spent by flocking tourists each year.

Pensacola sits in what is known as “Hurricane Alley”, in the Northwestern part of the Florida panhandle. Many of the deadliest, most costly and damaging storms to hit the Continental United States have blown right through Pensacola. Major hurricanes that have made landfall at or near Pensacola include Eloise (1975), Frederic (1979), Juan (1985), Erin (1995), Opal (1995), Georges (1998), Ivan (2004), and Dennis (2005) (Hurricane City.com, 2012). This makes adhering to and cooperating with the National Response Framework and absolute requirement. Since Pensacola is part of Escambia County it follows the County Emergency Management Plan (CEMP), which is in full cooperation with the NRF guidelines.
The Escambia County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) dated 2011 states the following:
The Escambia County CEMP is the product of a detailed and focused planning process that: 1) fully incorporates the National Incident Management System (NIMS) concepts, principles, practices and language; 2) capitalizes on the lessons learned from tropical weather incidents, exercises, and other recent disasters; and 3) incorporates plans, programs and policies that have emerged since the last revision of the CEMP. As such, the CEMP describes the basic strategies, assumptions, operational goals, objectives, and mechanisms through which the County will mobilize resources and conduct activities to guide and support emergency management efforts through preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation. (p. 6)

The Local Emergency Operations Center operates on three levels of activation. As stated by The Escambia County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (2011) they are as follows:
Level 1: Full Scale Activation
At this level, all primary and support Emergency Support Functions under the
CEMP are activated. The EOC is activated with all personnel in response to a major incident/disaster and may remain activated at this level for several weeks. Level 2: Partial Activation
At this level, the EOC is activated only with the necessary primary and support Emergency Support Function personnel needed to handle a small or short-term incident. Level 3: Monitoring Activation
Level 3 is typically a “monitoring “phase. Notification will be made to those
Emergency Support Functions and/or Departments who would need to take action as part of their everyday responsibilities. The County Emergency
Operations Center will be staffed with Department of Public Safety Personnel. (app. C)

Although untested by any international terrorist event, the Escambia County Emergency Operations Center has proven itself successful time and again during many natural disasters, especially during the months of June through October, primary hurricane season.

Due to Escambia County having several different organizations, people, and jurisdictions, coordinating for an incident requires a unified command structure to bring all parties together in one command structure that coordinates all aspects of disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. The Public Safety Bureau (2011) states the following:

In any terrorism incident in Escambia County, State and federal assets will play a significant role; therefore a unified command structure under the Incident Command System (ICS) is of vital importance in the management of any incident. Escambia County promotes the use of incident or unified command on scene for any type of response, as well as, the management structure utilized in the County Emergency Operations Center. (p. 17)

The NIMS Incident Command Structure (ICS) provides the needed structure. Within the ICS, the Emergency Support Function (ESF) groups help bridge the gap between political and geographical boundaries for a more seamless response. The chart below depicts the current structure of Escambia County’s Incident Command Structure. Figure (1) The Escambia County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (2011)

Although the above chart details Escambia County, the city of Pensacola adheres to and falls within this command structure. This command structure is created in accordance with the NRF Resource Center’s requirements.
Within the NRF are five key principles, (1) engaged partnerships, (2) tiered response, (3) scalable, flexible, and adaptable operational capabilities, (4) unity of effort through unified command and (5) readiness to act (DHS, 2008). In support of these five key principles are the fifteen Emergency Support Functions (ESF). The city of Pensacola lists the following ESFs: Fire Service, Health and Medical, Search and Rescue, Hazardous Materials, Military Support, Law Enforcement, Transportation, Communication, Public Works, Energy, Mass Care, Food and Water, Volunteers and Donations, Animal Protection and Business and Industry (Public Safety Bureau, 2011).

With Pensacola having the ESFs that clearly follow the guidelines set forth by the NRF in place, goals and objectives properly identified, competent and qualified personnel in position and a monitoring system to measure the effectiveness of the overall plan, the citizens and business’ in the area can rest assured that their safety and wellbeing are first priority of both the public and private sectors.

References:

(2011). State & County Quick Facts. United States' Census Bureau. Retrieved February 19, 2013 from U.S. Department of Commerce. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1255925.html

(2012). Pensacola, Florida's history with tropical systems. Hurricane City.com. Retrieved February 19, 2013 from http://www.hurricanecity.com/city/pensacola.htm

DHS. (2008). National Response Framework. (P-682). 8. Washington D.C. http://www.fema.gov/NRF.

FEMA. (2012). National Response Framework Fact Sheet. Retrieved February 18, 2013, from Department of Homeland Security website: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/NRFOnePageFactSheet.pdf FEMA. (2012). William Craig Fugate. Retrieved February 18, 2013, from fema.gov website: http://www.fema.gov/about/bios/wfugate.shtm

Lieberman, J. (2008). National Response Framework Represents a Good Start. Retrieved February 18, 2013, from US Senate website: http://lieberman.senate.gov/index.cfm/news-events/news/2008/1/national-response-framework-represents-a-good-start

Public Safety Bureau. (2011). Escambia County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. 6. Pensacola, Florida. Retrieved February 18, 2013 from http://myescambia.com/sites/myescambia.com/files/CEMPEntirePlan.pdf

S. 3721--109th Congress: Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006. (2006). In www.GovTrack.us. Retrieved February 18, 2013, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s3721

Stockton, P. N. (2007). Hearing on Readiness in the Post Katrina and Post 9/11 World: An Evaluation of the new National Response Framework [Testimony]. Retrieved February 18, 2013, from Stanford University website:
http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/21979/Stockton_T&I.pdf