Critical Infrastructure Resiliency in the Hampton Roads Area of Virginia CIVILIAN-MILITARY INTERACTION

Transcription

1 Critical Infrastructure Resiliency in the Hampton Roads Area of Virginia CIVILIAN-MILITARY INTERACTION (Milestone Report Task III) Prepared for: City of Hampton, Virginia Prepared by: Advanced Research Institute Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Arlington, Virginia NOTE: This document was prepared primarily based on publicly available data and information as well as interviews with officials from local jurisdictions, infrastructure service providers and military organizations. Comments and opinions in this draft report have not been reviewed by any of these organizations.

2 TASK III: Civilian-military disaster planning and response coordination Task Objectives: Task III was initiated to explore the operational aspects, possibilities and constraints affecting military-civilian disaster-related actions, with specific focus on the Hampton Roads study area. The Task included four principal objectives: Identify potential civil/military disaster needs benefiting from shared resources Develop regionally applicable disaster-related civilian-military model agreements Establish transparent protocols for exchange of assets, actions and personnel Codify arrangements for cost recovery for provision of disaster-related services and resources Approach: Past, current and proposed domestic civilian-military disaster-related activities were reviewed in order to establish both their statutory context and efficacy. Local jurisdictions and military facilities were queried regarding their interaction and mutual support efforts before, during and after recent disasters. The Project Team attempted to catalog successes and failures to achieve stated objectives through review of past regional emergency a/o disaster documentation (e.g., lessons learned, after-action reports) and selected disaster scenarios drawn from the study area as well and other domestic venues. The Project Team also sought other noteworthy and successful civilian-military cooperative arrangements with the aim of developing a draft model agreement template for subsequent distribution to, and response from, participating jurisdictions and military facilities. With regard to this specific objective, only one example was identified; the draft agreement is included as an appendix to this report. The Project Team also sought to document shortfalls in military facility disaster-related needs capable of benefiting from regional civilian resources. However, little information was obtained in this regard, which we believe reflects a fundamental lack of coordination and communication mechanisms between local government and military facilities under current protocols. A great portion of the material included in this draft report was distilled directly from public documents, and the Project Team will subsequently endeavor to fully reference or cite those portions of the report that are currently unreferenced. ii

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS National Response Plan... 1 Department of Defense Responsibilities under the National Response Plan... 1 National Incident Management System... 3 Military resources support for civil sector needs... 4 DOD s Directive, Military Assistance to Civil Authorities... 4 Military Assistance to Civil Authorities: DOD Directive Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD Military-Civilian Interface... 7 NORTHCOM... 8 Joint Task Force-Civil Support (JTF-CS)... 9 Navy Region Middle Atlantic...9 Military Treatment Facility Commanders Guidebook... 9 Local Jurisdiction-Military Coordination Individual Jurisdiction Civil-Military Summaries Military and civilian protocols for implementing disaster response initiatives Military Response Protocols The National Guard s Role in Catastrophic Events Virginia National Guard: Hurricane Isabel Trident Warrior ' Joint Agreement Protocols DCMS Onslow County Camp Lejeune Partnership Stafford Act: Title 42 USC, Section Financial Considerations Defense Support of Civil Authorities JP 3-28 (Civil Support): Appendix A: Reimbursement For Civil Support Operations General Reimbursement Process Legal Considerations Operational constraints to disaster-related civilian-military cooperative activities Government Accountability Office (GAO) Hurricane Katrina Task Force Subcommittee Report Additional Reports Appendices... 23

4 National Response Plan Department of Defense Responsibilities under the National Response Plan 1 DoD is an important partner in the overall national effort for incident management and response activities. DoD resources are employed as part of a coordinated incident management approach among Federal, State, and local governments, as well as non-governmental organizations. Title 10, United States Code, and the National Response Plan (NRP), published in December 2004, define the authorities and responsibilities of the Department. Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5 (February 2003) directed the development of an NRP to replace the Federal Response Plan. The NRP aligned Federal coordination structures, capabilities, and resources into a unified, all-discipline and all-hazards approach to domestic incident management. The NRP incorporates best practices from a wide variety of incident management sources and disciplines, including fire, rescue, emergency management, law enforcement, public works, and emergency medical services. The Department s main contribution to the NRP is through Defense Support of Civil Authorities also known as civil support. The NRP provides, When requested, and upon approval of the Secretary of Defense, the Department of Defense (DOD) provides Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) during domestic incidents. DoD s role in the NRP is contingent upon a request for assistance (RFA) from another Federal agency, and upon approval by the Secretary of Defense. In responding to requests from FEMA for Hurricane Katrina operations, for example, DoD acted quickly within the NRP framework. FEMA and the Department of Defense worked closely together to identify and refine requirements, allowing DoD to provide needed capabilities. In all, the Department acted on more than 90 Hurricane Katrina-related RFAs from civil authorities requiring a broad range of military capabilities. Some of these requests were approved verbally by Secretary Rumsfeld or Acting Deputy Secretary England, and were in execution when the approval paperwork caught up days later. The Department felt a sense of urgency and acted upon it, as provided for within the NRP. DoD is the only Federal department with supporting responsibilities for each of the NRP s fifteen Emergency Support Functions (ESFs). Additionally, DoD s U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is designated as the primary agency for Emergency Support Function #3, Public Works and Engineering, operating under separate statutory and funding authority. While the considerable resources of the Department make it feasible that DoD might be asked to contribute resources, personnel, equipment, or expertise in a variety of circumstances, such support is directly contingent on Secretary of Defense approval with the following exceptions: As the primary agency for ESF #3, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers performs emergency support activities under separate statutory and funding authority, including Public Law Derived from statement of Paul McHale, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense before the 109 th Congress Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities and Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, November 9,

5 Military forces responding to an incident under a commander s Immediate Response Authority as outlined in DoD Directives. National Guard forces in State Activity Duty or Title 32 status commanded by the Governor of a State or territory. Military forces responding to an incident under a commander s Immediate Response Authority as outlined in DoD Directives. National Guard forces in State Activity Duty or Title 32 status commanded by the Governor of a State or territory. When Federal military forces are employed in support of domestic civil authorities, they are under the command and control of Commander, U.S. Northern Command, for responses in the Continental United States, Alaska, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia; or Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, for Hawaii and U.S. territories, possessions, and protectorates in the Pacific region. It is important to note that the military chain of command always runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the relevant Combatant Commander. The Department fully supports the Incident Command System of the NRP s National Incident Management System; however, at no time does a supported Federal agency exercise any command and control over DoD forces. The following diagram provides a summary of the military command relationships in a civilian disaster. Additional information regarding the command structure can be found in the footnoted reference, from which the diagram was taken

6 DoD Responsibilities Under the National Response Plan s Catastrophic Incident Annex The Catastrophic Incident Annex (CIA) of the NRP provides for a proactive Federal response in anticipation of, or following, a catastrophic incident to provide critical resources on an expedited basis to assist State and local response efforts. The NRP defines a catastrophic incident as one that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, national morale, and/or government functions. A catastrophic incident would almost immediately overwhelm local or State response capacity and could potentially threaten national security through interruption in governmental operations or emergency services. Implementation of the NRP s CIA is the responsibility of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. When notified by the Homeland Security Operations Center of such an implementation, Federal departments and agencies activate and deploy capabilities in accordance with the Catastrophic Incident Annex and commence relevant Emergency Support Function responsibilities. In response to a catastrophic event, DoD shares primary responsibility, along with the Department of Health and Human Services, for the patient movement functional response area. [The following two paragraphs are excerpted from The Military and Domestic Disaster Response: Lead Role Revealed Through the Eye of Hurricane Katrina? 3 They highlight some of the key deficiencies in moving from DoD organizational design to implementation directed at disaster response.] The National Response Plan provides the essential guidelines for DOD s role in disaster response through Defense Support of Civil Authorities. The details, however, on the specific responsibilities and expected support for various disaster scenarios are lacking. Additionally, there are very few references to the capabilities that DOD can bring to bear for domestic incident management. A general description of available capabilities at the unclassified level could prove useful to both civil authorities and military planners by providing advance visibility to the type of support the DOD could reasonably provide. The information could also be used to assist local and state leadership when they prepare requests for assistance. Knowledge of the general capabilities DOD offers can not only expedite the flow of requests for assistance (RFAs), but streamline the process by reducing inappropriate or unrealistic requests from civil authorities due to ignorance of DOD capabilities. National Incident Management System The NIMS provides the template for incident management regardless of size, scope, or cause of the event. It is a consistent doctrinal framework for incident management at all jurisdictional levels. It includes a core set of concepts, principles, terminology, and technologies covering the incident command system; multiagency coordination systems; unified command; training; identification and management of resources (including systems for classifying types of resources); qualifications and certification; and the collection, tracking, and reporting of incident information and incident resources

7 The incident command system (ICS), multiagency coordination systems, and public information systems are the fundamental elements of the NIMS that direct incident operations; acquire, coordinate, and deliver resources to incident sites; and share information about the incident with the public, respectively. When both local and state resources and capabilities are overwhelmed, governors may request federal assistance; however, the NIMS is designed so that local jurisdictional authorities retain command, control, and authority over response. Adhering to the NIMS will allow local agencies to better utilize incoming coordinated resources. Ultimately, the objective of any Defense Support to Civil Authority (DSCA) operation is to safeguard and protect the population. But while DOD and the military may have the lead in this regard overseas, they take a supporting role when involved in domestic disasters. Specifically, the National Response Plan (NRP) lays out the role of DOD and its subordinate military departments as being in support of the lead federal agency (typically DHS with FEMA as the executive agency). Additionally, a hierarchy of response to disasters is established from local first responders to the state government and then to the federal government based on the size of the event and if it overwhelms the capabilities of any level. DOD, in fact, only acts upon the request of the lead federal agency. While this does not prevent military units from prudent planning and preparation, it does mean that their initiative to act is based on this reality. Interestingly, Hurricane Katrina pointed out that catastrophes can jeopardize this structure and process, particularly when local responders are themselves victims on a large scale. Military Resources Support for Civil Sector Needs DOD s Directive, Military Assistance to Civil Authorities Requests for nonmilitary missions are evaluated against criteria contained in DOD Directive: Military Assistance to Civil Authorities. These requests generally seek DOD support to help alleviate suffering, recover from disasters or assist indirectly with law enforcement.8 DOD s directive specifies that requests for nonmilitary support be evaluated against the following criteria: legality (compliance with laws), lethality (potential use of lethal force by or against DOD forces), risk (safety of DOD forces), cost (who pays, impact on the DOD budget), appropriateness (whether the requested mission is in the interest of DOD to conduct), and readiness (impact on DOD s ability to perform its primary mission). According to DOD, in fiscal years 2001 and 2002, it supported over 230 nonmilitary missions in a variety of settings, such as assisting in fighting wildfires, recovering from tropical storms, providing post-september 11, 2001, assistance to New York City and Virginia, providing support for the presidential inauguration, and for other purposes. 4 Military Assistance to Civil Authorities: DOD Directive The purpose of this Directive is to establish Department of Defense (DoD) policy and assign responsibilities for providing military assistance to civil authorities. 4 GAO T: Homeland Defense: Preliminary Observations on How Overseas and Domestic Missions Impact DOD Forces. April 29, Directive DODD , issued February 18, Available at: 4

8 This Directive Applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Military Departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, and the DoD Field Activities (hereafter referred to collectively as "the DoD Components"). It also governs all DoD military assistance provided to civil authorities within the 50 States, District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, U.S. possessions and territories, or any political subdivision, including DoD responses to civil emergencies under DoD Directive It is DoD policy that the Department of Defense shall cooperate with and provide military assistance to civil authorities as directed by and consistent with applicable law, Presidential Directives, Executive orders, and this Directive. All requests by civil authorities for DoD military assistance shall be evaluated by DoD approval authorities against the following criteria: Legality (compliance with laws) Lethality (potential use of lethal force by or against DoD Forces) Risk (safety of DoD Forces) Cost (who pays, impact on DoD budget) Appropriateness (whether the requested mission is in the interest of the Department to conduct) Readiness (impact on the Department of Defense's ability to perform its primary mission). The Secretary of the Army is the approval authority for emergency support in response to natural or man-made disasters, as specified by this Directive. This Directive does not address non-federalized National Guard assets in support of local and/or State civil agencies approved by the Governor. However, there exists potential for such deployments to result in confrontation, use of lethal force, or national media attention. Therefore, the Director of Military Support (DOMS) shall keep the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense informed of such support. The Secretary of the Army is approval authority for emergency support in response to natural or man-made disasters, as specified by this Directive. The directive does not apply to military service community affairs programs or innovative readiness training (formerly called "civilmilitary cooperative action programs"). The Directive does not address non-federalized National Guard assets in support of local and/or State civil agencies approved by the Governor. However, there exists potential for such deployments to result in confrontation, use of lethal force, or national media attention. Therefore, the Director of Military Support (DOMS) is required to keep the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense informed of such support. The directive states that requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. 5

9 The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive Civil authorities shall be informed that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written request. As soon as practical, the DoD Component or Command rendering assistance shall report the fact of the request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall notify the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities' written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD Executive Secretary as soon as it is available. Section Support for Civil Disasters specifies that when the Department of Defense is called upon to respond to civil emergencies (i.e., natural or man-made disasters) other than terrorism, the Secretary of the Army, as the DoD Executive Agent for the Secretary of Defense, functions as the approval authority for emergency support. A request for civil disaster support is first made to the Director of Military Support (DOMS). The DOMS, in coordination with the Director of Operations of the Joint Staff, reviews the support request to determine recommended courses of action that may be taken in response to the request. If approval of the Secretary of Defense is not required, or support can be met by the Military Services or Defense Agency assets, DOMS submit the request for assistance, with recommended execute orders, to the Secretary of the Army for approval and subsequent tasking of the appropriate DoD Components. If based on initial coordination with the Director of Operations, Joint Staff, Secretary of Defense approval is required, DOMS is required to develop and staff recommended execute orders and obtain concurrences or comments from appropriate DoD offices and the Secretary of the Army before forwarding the request, through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the Secretary of Defense for approval. Although the directive anticipates requests for loans of equipment, facilities, or personnel by law enforcement agencies, there are no provisions directly addressing loans in support of response to natural disasters. As noted earlier, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is the lead federal agency for civil non-terrorist disasters. In this instance, requests made by FEMA for disaster support shall be made to the DOMS, who shall promptly notify the Executive Secretary. Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-5 HSPD-5 was implemented to enhance the ability of the United States to manage domestic incidents by establishing a single, comprehensive national incident management system. Under the directive, the Secretary of Homeland Security is the principal Federal official for domestic incident management. Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Secretary is responsible for coordinating Federal operations within the United States to prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. The Secretary is responsible for coordinating Federal Government resources utilized in response to or recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other emergencies if and when any one of the following four conditions applies: a Federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested the assistance of the Secretary; the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed and Federal assistance has been requested by the appropriate State and local authorities; 6

10 more than one Federal department or agency has become substantially involved in responding to the incident; or the Secretary has been directed to assume responsibility for managing the domestic incident by the President. As directed by the President, the Secretary of Defense shall provide military support to civil authorities for domestic incidents, but retains command of military forces providing civil support. The Secretary of Defense and the Homeland Security Secretary, who is designated the principle federal official (PFO) for coordinating domestic incident management, shall establish appropriate relationships and mechanisms for cooperation and coordination between their two departments. In particular, HSPD-5 stresses the importance of utilization of the National Interagency Incident Management System (NIIMS) under a Unified Command structure. Military-Civilian Interface The relationship between military and civilian authority in responding to a disaster, whether natural or man-made, is inherently complex and somewhat ambiguous. As the response to Hurricane Katrina demonstrated (and discussed later), there are several outstanding issues that must be addressed in order to provide effective disaster response. The following graphics, taken from recent military presentations, are included here to provide a conceptual overview of the current and/or desired organizational modes of interaction. The Domestic Response Challenge Severity of Emergency Response Fire /Rescue Law Enforcement Emergency Management Emergency Medicine Time DHS Coordinate Federal Response Specialized Assets Regional Assets National Guard DOD Military Capabilities Mutual Aid HAZMAT Urban Search & Rescue Communications Public Information Public Health Services Federal State Local 7

11 National Security Environment Military Support to Civil Authorities Natural disasters, Counterdrug ops, etc Military support to civil authorities in response to terrorism National Emergency Preparedness Inherent DoD readiness missions COOP, COG Homeland Security Prevent terrorist attacks, reduce vulnerability to terrorism minimize damage/recover from attacks Homeland Defense Deter, Defend, Defeat Military ops against state actors Military Missions Overseas Security Military Ops against nonstate actors Routine Ops Maritime interdiction Air defense alert, Force protection Circumstances for DoD Military Activity in the U.S. Temporary Ops Emergency Ops Special Events Disasters, terrorism Trng 1 st Responders Logistics, mobility, Spt Law Enforcement supply Extraordinary Ops Combat Air Defense Specialize explosive ordnance disposal Military s Evolving Role Homeland Defense Civil Support Aerospace Defense Land Defense Deter & Defeat External Aggression DOD CIP Critical Infrastructure Protection AT/FP Anti-Terrorism & Force Protection Information Assurance Maritime Defense Cyber Defense MACDIS Military Assistance for Civil Disturbance MSCA Military Support to Civil Authorities Disaster Response (Non-CBRNE) Domestic CBRNE CM Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, & Explosive Consequence Management MACA Military Assistance to Civil Authorities DODD MSCLEA Military Assistance to Civil Law Enforcement Agencies National CIP Critical Infrastructure Protection Maritime Security Mass Immigration DODD NSSE Support National Special Security Event Combating Terrorism Counter Drugs Military facilities with specific imperatives related to coordination with the civil sector include the following: NORTHCOM Northern Command and First Army are the supporting DOD headquarters for the coordination and management of DOD assets requested for disaster relief operations. To provide civil 8

12 support, USNORTHCOM generally operates through established Joint Task Forces subordinate to the command. An emergency must exceed the capabilities of local, state and federal agencies before USNORTHCOM becomes involved. In most cases, support will be limited, localized and specific. The mission of the First Army s Crisis Action Team is to help Northern Command coordinate DoD support to civil authorities as requested by FEMA. Joint Task Force-Civil Support (JTF-CS) 6 The JTF is a standing task force headquartered at Fort Monroe in Hampton, Va., within the U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM). It consists of National Guard, active, and reserve military members drawn from all service branches, as well as civilian personnel, who are commanded by a federalized (Title X) National Guard general officer. The JTF-CS focuses on responding to the effects of a chemical, biological, nuclear, or similar incident after civilian resources have been utilized first and fully. Some typical JTF-CS tasks include incident site support, casualty medical assistance and treatment, civilian disaster preparedness and displaced populace support, mortuary affairs support, logistics support, and air operations. In most instances, JTF-CS and its designated forces are deployed only after a state or territorial governor requests federal assistance from the President. Navy Region Middle Atlantic 7 [COMNAVREG MIDLANT] is an echelon III commander, subordinate to Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet (CINCLANTFLT). The mission of COMNAVREG MIDLANT is to perform military command of assigned shore activities; to coordinate the provision of shore activity support to the operating forces of the Navy, other naval activities and tenant commands; to sustain the provision of specified funding, personnel and facilities support to assigned shore activities; to assess and evaluate installation management functions, quality of products, services and readiness of assigned shore activities, and to perform such other functions and tasks as may be assigned by higher authority. As Regional Area Coordinator, COMNAVREG MIDLANT exercises Regional Area Coordination responsibilities over naval shore activities within the region designated by CINCLANTFLT as Area Coordinator. Current regional area of responsibility includes the five-state region of Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Delaware, less those areas assigned to Naval District Washington (the Washington Capital Region) for all functions except environmental. These include acting as Regional Disaster Preparedness Planning and Coordination with civil authorities and area military commands Military Treatment Facility Commanders Guidebook 8 Military Treatment Facility (MTF) commanders may be asked to provide direct medical assistance and support to the civilian community in the absence of a federally declared emergency. MTF commanders have authority to provide emergent response assistance to local and state governments under DoD Instruction Military Support to Civil Authorities. (Appendix B). The Immediate Response authority of DoDINST may be exercised by military treatment facility (MTF) commanders when imminently serious conditions resulting from a civil emergency require immediate action to save lives, reduce suffering, or mitigate great from 8 Commanders Guidebook: Preparedness and Response to Chemical Warfare Terrorism 9

13 property damage. Some examples of approved immediate response activities include, but are not limited to, rescue, evacuation, emergency medical treatment of casualties, maintenance or restoration of emergency medical capabilities, and safeguarding the public health. Current capabilities and military mission requirements will dictate what MTF resources might be made available under the Immediate Response clause. In general, support of military operations will have mission priority over any civil operations, unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of Defense. Additionally, MTF commanders are cautioned that DoDINST prohibits the MTF from developing plans or using its resources strictly for the purpose of providing an immediate response to the civilian community. Local Jurisdiction-Military Coordination Local jurisdictions and military facilities were queried regarding their interaction and mutual support efforts before, during and after Hurricane Isabel. For the most part, the investigations revealed few formal agreements between the two parties. For example, although The City of Hampton is currently home to several military and re-search installations, including the Air Force Global Cyberspace Integration Center, Langley Air Force Base, NASA Langley, NATO s Allied Command Transformation, and the National Institute of Aerospace, the Hampton Hurricane Isabel After-Action report cited no references to military per se, although the following specific instances of support from Air Force, Navy and Army Corps of Engineers were noted. Langley Air Force Base cooperated with the Clean City Commission in organizing, equipping and supervising volunteer efforts in debris clearance and other activities. Also, Hampton Police Division was able to borrow a high water vehicle from Norfolk Navy Base, which provided the Police an additional capability to tow a rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB) into areas otherwise inaccessible when the flood waters rose. Over 40 rescues were conducted during the storm by the Police Division and the Division of Fire and Rescue. The Army Corps of Engineers also worked with the Commonwealth and FEMA to establish a regional ice and water distribution center at the Hampton Coliseum to serve the needs of the peninsula. Virginia s Response to Hurricane Isabel Submitted to Virginia, submitted to Governor Mark Warner in 2003, was similarly lacking in references to military aspects of the response. In similar fashion, the Commonwealth Emergency Response (2006) Plan notes only that the state government organizational staff for emergency operations consists of personnel from the Department of Military Affairs (DMA), Department of Transportation (VDOT), Department of State Police (VSP), VDEM, the American Red Cross, and other state and private organizations as needed, and also merely states that For the purpose of coordination, this Plan assumes that any ordered evacuation of local military bases will precede (or conform to) the timing and routing of the evacuated population of the area in which the base is located. Hampton Roads Emergency Management Committee (HREMC) The objective of the HREMC is to promote the inter-jurisdictional and inter-agency coordination of emergency management issues and foster emergency preparedness in the Hampton Roads area, including the Peninsula communities. The purpose is to provide a working group for the exchange of information, experience and technology among Hampton Roads Emergency Management officials and individuals with responsibilities in emergency management. Participants include community officials, American Red Cross, military liaisons, State and Federal agency representatives, Verizon, Virginia Natural Gas and Dominion Power. 10

14 Hampton Roads Metropolitan Medical Strike Team (HRMMST) The Hampton Roads Metropolitan Medical Strike Team (HRMMST) has been under development for several years, building a cache of equipment, supplies, communications, and transportation capabilities as Department of Homeland Security MMRS grant funds became available. The HRMMST is now deployable and can be activated upon request as a mutual aid asset during a mass casualty incident due to any Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear Explosive (CBRNE) agent or natural disaster. Over 75% of the 242 Strike Team members have completed their pre- deployment training with many having also completed most of the core component training. This provides the ability to stand up one or more 47- member Strike Teams if needed. The equipment and supplies have been packaged in easily deployable containers on the Strike Team trucks and trailers that are now available on both the Southside and Peninsula. As an initial part of the Strike Team s inception and development, all sixteen Hampton Roads jurisdictions signed the HRMMRS Mutual Aid Agreement and the Hampton Roads Metropolitan Medical Strike Team (HRMMST) Memorandum of Understanding committing to sponsor members on this team and facilitate member response when activated. Individual Jurisdiction Civil-Military Summaries Chesapeake Fire Dept/EMT: Formal Mutual Aid Agreements Automatic response with Northwest Base fire department Northwest Base Fire Chief sits on City s emergency management committee Franklin National Guard has facility in City but no other military facilities Hampton Langley Air Force Base is immediately adjacent to the City of Hampton. The base also supports the 284-acre Bethel Manor Off-Base Housing Area. A Mutual Aid Agreement has been signed by the Hampton City Manager, but noncleared civilian disaster personnel (including firefighting personnel) must stop at the security gate and be escorted on to the base. The City of Hampton has provided the Air Force base fire station with radios; the response time for city personnel in the northwest part of the city to reach the base reduced to as few as nine minutes. There is an urgent care facility on the base, which normally would provide emergency room (ER) and intensive care (ICU) services, but the physicians are currently stationed in Iraq. Newport News There are MOUs with Fort Eustis for fire, police and EMT services There are MOUs with Newport News Shipyard for fire, police and EMT services HRPDC also has Navy-related agreements Newport News Waterworks does not have a MOU 11

15 Norfolk Ruth Wright Navy emergency manager contact for Norfolk Naval Base Pat Dixon State Metrological Officer; City very close to Navy Meteorological personnel Fire Dept. has formal mutual aid agreement old (15 yrs) MOU exists. Norfolk Water Department provides service to NNB and Oceana Police Dept has a MOU for military off-base facilities security (e.g., housing areas) Main EOC for NNB is on Portsmouth Naval Base Poquoson Although Langley Air Force Base, which abuts both Poquoson and Hampton, employed 11,200 people in fiscal year 2005 with an annual payroll of approximately $726,398,126, there is no direct link between the jurisdiction and the facility There is a Fire Department mutual assistance agreement, and local officials are able to use the firing range training facility There is a military liaison in the Emergency Management Group As a rule, formal disaster coordination must be routed through the state EOC At present, civilian personnel (including firefighting personnel) without prior clearance must stop at the security gate and be escorted on to the base Southampton There is one significant manufacturer for DOD in Boykins: Narricot Industries makes several varieties of webbing, some with military applications. There is a National Guard armory outside Franklin. The National Guard brought in Humvees during Hurricane Floyd. Surry Surry is on the short list [along with Sussex and Southampton] and seen as a likely site for the US Navy Oceana Outlying Landing Field (OLF) (30,000 acres). The County Board of Supervisors is opposed, but the Commonwealth government is supporting the Navy effort. This would also take land away from the county tax rolls and change the noise profile for the county Virginia Beach Virginia Beach has established relationships with adjacent military bases, Emergency Manager-to-Emergency Manager. Most military Emergency Managers are civilians (with a military support staff). They [military] are not dependent on Dominion s electric transformer outage information: They have real-time SCADA reports of pump outages; they, in turn, have very often called Dominion to fix this. Williamsburg City provides water to Camp Perry and Yorktown Naval Weapons Station Police, Fire, EMS agreements with the two military facilities City supports military facilities more than the reverse 12

16 Military and Civilian Protocols for Implementing Disaster Response Initiatives Military Response Protocols The National Guard s Role in Catastrophic Events DoD uses the Total Force concept the right forces for the right jobs to execute its missions. The National Guard provides unique capabilities in every U.S. State, territory, and the District of Columbia. The National Guard is a critical component of the military s role in responding to catastrophic events. Today s National Guard serves effectively in two distinct roles. First, it is an operational force for military missions; and second, it stands ready to answer no-notice calls by the President, the Secretary of Defense, or the Governors to respond to natural or man-made catastrophic incidents. The National Guard provides significant capabilities to U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Pacific Command, including situational awareness capabilities, intelligence and information feeds, chemical-biological weapons of mass destruction response force packages, and forwarddeployed command and control apparatuses and joint logistics bases, as needed. National Guard forces provide combatant commanders flexibility to tailor their response based on specific scenarios encountered in managing a contingency. Title 10 (United States Code) Status. When National Guard forces are ordered or called to active duty in a Federal or Title 10 status (Federal control, Federal funding), the President or the Secretary of Defense may authorize employment of activated National Guard forces along with other active duty forces. In this instance, the Commanders of U.S. Northern Command or U.S. Pacific Command would have direct command and control authority over those forces assigned for employment in the Commander s area of responsibility. State Active Duty Status and Title 32 (United States Code) Status. National Guard forces can serve in State Active Duty (State control, State funding) or in Title 32 status (State control, Federal funding) under the command of a State Governor. In either status, National Guard members are not subject to the provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act and may engage in activities related to law enforcement if authorized to do so under applicable State law. In the event of a catastrophic incident, forces under State command and control, and Federal forces under U.S. Northern Command or U.S. Pacific Command s command and control could find themselves operating within a common operating area. Although they are not part of the same command structure, unity of effort requires coordination and cooperation among all of these forces toward a commonly recognized objective. Unity of effort is critical to a successful response to catastrophic events. Virginia National Guard: Hurricane Isabel In September 2003 Governor Mark Warner ordered Soldiers and Airmen of the Virginia National Guard to state active duty in support of recovery operations in the wake of Hurricane Isabel. At the height of the recovery operation over 1,100 Soldiers and Airmen 13

17 were on state active duty. The men and women of the Virginia National Guard assisted with recovery operations by clearing over 400 miles of primary and secondary roads and distributing over 2 million pounds of ice and 1 million gallons of water. They also provided security and traffic control assistance to local law enforcement agencies affected by the destruction of Hurricane Isabel. UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters were used to conduct damage assessment missions as well as transport cargo and personnel. Trident Warrior '07 Trident Warrior '07 held March 16th through March 30 th 2007 included an initiative focused on Defense Support to Civil Authority (DSCA). Trident Warrior '07 staged scenarios included fires, riots, car bombs and terrorist activities. Participants included 10 international, inter-agency and industry mission partners. The First Responder Interoperability component of the 2007 experiment addressed military support for civilian authority in a marine-based terrorism scenario. The DHS supported the exercise to evaluate capabilities that support data interoperability and information sharing across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions. The cities of Virginia Beach, Norfolk and Hampton, Virginia participated in the local first responder demonstration. Trident Warrior '07 included a DSCA scenario involving local first responders from the cities of Virginia Beach and Norfolk. The exercise integrated local data into the U.S. Navy Common Operational Picture (COP) for dissemination to all participants. The integration was viewed as a significant step in interoperability between DoD and civilian technologies and is a great improvement since hurricanes Katrina and Rita, especially as it pertained to geospatial data. "By supporting the interoperability efforts of local, tribal, state, and federal emergency responders, the Trident Warrior '07 provides an excellent forum for the Disaster Management E- Gov Initiative to test the Open Platform for Emergency Networks. It also furthers the mission of DHS by helping create better military to civilian response and coordination efforts," said Chip Hines, Disaster Management Program Manager at the DHS. 9 Joint Agreement Protocols Duval County Medical Society Duval County Medical Society (DCMS) met with Rear Admiral Steven E. Hart, Navy Medicine Inspector General, and Commander Miguel Cubano, President of the Medical Staff at Naval Hospital Jacksonville. The purpose of this visit was to review the successes that the DCMS and the Naval Hospital have had in joint endeavors. Dr. Peters began the meeting by highlighting the history of the DCMS. Founded in 1853, DCMS currently has a membership which includes approximately 65% of local physicians among its 1600 active members. The DCMS has long had an open door policy for physicians stationed at the Naval Hospital, and the President of the Naval Hospital medical staff traditionally sits as a member of the DCMS board. In addition, a Navy physician was recently named to the editorial board of /Jacksonville Medicine/. Admiral Hart, a board certified family physician and highly experienced Navy Flight Surgeon with an MPH degree, was most impressed with the collaborative plan for homeland security that exists in Jacksonville. Through efforts of the DCMS, local public health officials, and the Navy, disaster preparedness has evolved as a truly cooperative and broad community endeavor. 9 SYS Technologies Demonstrates Critical Real-Time Military and Civilian Information Connectivity Solutions Business Wire, April 4,

18 Onslow County Camp Lejeune Partnership The US Marine Corps has entered a charter with Onslow County, North Carolina designed to improve safety, security, and emergency response. Objectives of the Camp Lejeune Onslow County partnership include cooperative efforts in the areas of fire and rescue, law enforcement, and hospital and medical services, as well as in other important areas such as common/interoperable communications capabilities and school safety concerns. 10 The charter states in part that Military-Civilian Task Force for Emergency Response, under mutual leadership of its partners and shareholders, is hereby authorized to continue to develop and execute inter-operative mutual aid agreements, schedule appropriate emergency services exercises and training and promote public safety. It is further understood that any agreements will be executed within state and regional civil regulations as well as within the guidelines of the Department of Defense Directive (Immediate Emergency Response to Civil Authorities). Stafford Act: Title 42 USC, Section 5121 Federal disaster assistance, including military assistance, is governed by existing statutes including the Stafford Act (Title 42 USC, Section 5121). Under the Act, the President may find that a major disaster exists and authorize major disaster assistance, and grants the President authority to utilize DoD on an emergency basis for 10 days prior to a Presidential declaration of a major disaster or emergency to preserve life and property. The Stafford Act represents a significant exception to the underlying principle of the Posse Comitatus Act, which excludes the military from functioning as a domestic police force auxiliary. The Stafford Act establishes programs and processes for the Federal Government to provide disaster and emergency assistance to States, local governments, tribal nations, individuals, and qualified private nonprofit organizations. All hazards, from natural disasters to terrorist events are covered in the provisions, as well as instructions for State Governors to request federal emergency disaster assistance. The Stafford Act basically allows the President to make a wide range of federal aid available to states that are stricken by a natural or manmade disaster. This aid can come from multiple sources and may be in the form of critical goods and services, financial or technical assistance. A major disaster or emergency declaration may be given by the President when the combined local and State response capacities are exceeded and a joint Federal, State and local preliminary damage assessment (PDA) finds that assistance under the Stafford Act is warranted. This Act allows the President to unilaterally direct the provision of emergency assistance in an affected area which the Federal Government exercises exclusive or preeminent responsibility and authority. Advance deployment of Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR), DHS and FEMA representatives and equipment is also authorized under the Act to expedite assistance and reduce immediate threats to life, property, and public health and safety. Additionally, the Stafford Act is the legal mechanism that allows presidential appointment and DHS Under- Secretary of EPR designation of an FCO to coordinate Federal disaster assistance. All Stafford Act authorities granted to the DHS Secretary have been delegated to the Under Secretary of EPR. 10 See Naval Forces' Defense Capabilities Against Chemical and Biological Warfare Threats, National Research Council, ISBN: , 212 pages, 6 x 9, (2004)) 15

19 An emergency declaration under the Stafford Act requires the affected state governor to provide a detailed definition of the type and amount of federal aid required. They must also implement the state s emergency response plan, for example, by activating the state s National Guard units under state control and provide information regarding the resources that have been committed. For a major disaster declaration, the governor need not specify which forms of assistance are needed. However, the resources committed must still be disclosed and emergency response plans implemented. In addition, the governor must also certify that the state will comply with cost sharing provisions under the Stafford Act. One important point to highlight is the fact that according the NRP, all Presidentially declared disasters and emergencies under the Stafford Act are considered Incidents of National Significance. This means the DHS Secretary does not need to declare an event an INS as outlined in the NRP if the President has already made an emergency or major disaster declaration. Immediately following a domestic emergency that would likely qualify for Stafford Act assistance, the Governor of the affected State may request that the President direct the SecDef to utilize DOD personnel, equipment, technology, etc., to perform emergency work that is essential for the preservation of life and property. Unlike the PCA, the Stafford Act does not authorize the use of federal military forces to maintain law and order. If a state governor keeps National Guard troops under their control, then those forces may engage in law enforcement activities. Once the Guard is federalized for an emergency or major disaster, they fall under the same rules as active duty troops and their role is restricted to the disaster relief operations authorized under the Stafford Act. If the President concurs with the Governor s request for assistance under the Stafford Act, DOD resources can be directed to perform emergency work for a maximum of 10 days before a major disaster declaration is issued by the President. The following operations may be performed by U.S. armed forces: Debris removal Road clearance Search and rescue Emergency medical care and shelter Provision of food, water and other essential needs Dissemination of public information Assistance regarding health and safety measures Provision of technical advice to state and local governments on disaster management and control. DOD forces may also be called upon to assist civil authorities during a variety of emergency situations. A general knowledge of all three statutes discussed above is helpful in understanding the legal limitations that exist for use of DOD resources during emergencies or major disasters. DOD forces can play an invaluable support role in civil emergency management, as long as their use is understood and complies with all legal statutes. Financial Considerations Civil support operations normally are conducted by DOD units under a cost reimbursement basis from either the primary agency, the local or state civil governmental authority requesting assistance, or under a cost share of both of the previous. Service comptroller should provide cost data capturing requirements and forwarding procedures to all installations and units supporting the civil authority. Installations and units should be prepared to gather cost data and submit their 16

20 Service comptroller for proper reimbursement under the Stafford Act, Economy Act, or other reimbursement vehicle. Additional information pertaining to financial management can be found in JP 1-06, Financial Management Support in Joint Operations. Defense Support of Civil Authorities In cases of a Defense Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA) event (e.g., national disaster), a federal agency such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency may request assistance from DOD. When approved by the SECDEF or CCDR, the assistance will be reimbursable under the appropriate authority, usually the Economy Act or the Stafford Act. The federal agency will provide a funding document to DOD that provides reimbursable budget authority (RBA) to cover DOD expenses incurred in rendering the requested support. In the case of USNORTHCOM, the OSD Comptroller has authorized the use of a DSCA FM process to distribute, track, and manage RBA to performing DOD organizations. USNORTHCOM may task one of its components or activate a financial management augmentation team (FMAT) to manage RBA and financially close-out the federal partner s funding document. The JTF Comptroller should understand the DSCA FM process, how DOD operations are funded, and how the Services are reimbursed. DOD Joint Publication JP 3-28, Civil Support, Appendix A, Reimbursement for Civil Support Operations, provides additional details on DSCA cost reimbursement. Relevant information from the publication is included in the following section. JP 3-28 (Civil Support): Appendix A: Reimbursement for Civil Support Operations 1. General a. Authorities and funding are main issues that impact DOD s ability to respond to and provide CS. All CS is provided on a reimbursable basis unless otherwise directed by the President or reimbursement is waived by the Secretary of Defense. Cost reimbursement for CS is usually IAW Title 31 USC, Section 1535 (commonly called the Economy Act), which mandates cost reimbursement by the federal agency requesting support. The Stafford Act sets the guidelines for reimbursements to federal agencies and states from federal funds set aside to support missions in response to a Presidential declaration. 11 b. DOD components are not funded to train, equip, and exercise specifically for CS operations, and therefore, ordinarily provide CS on a cost reimbursable basis. c. DOD components shall comply with legal and accounting requirements for the loan, grant, or consumption of DOD resources for CS, as necessary, to ensure reimbursement of costs to the DOD components under the Stafford Act, as amended; the Defense Emergency Response Fund established by Public Law No ; or other applicable authority. (1) Reimbursable Activities. Commanders use automatic reimbursements to augment available funds using a special accounting program code. Incremental costs that directly result from disaster relief are considered eligible for reimbursement. (a) Pay of personnel hired specifically for disaster relief. (b) Overtime. (c) Travel and per diem. 11 See JP 1-06, Financial Management Support in Joint Operations, for more information 17

21 (d) Cost of consumables requisitioned for issue to support disaster operations. (e) Transportation of personnel, supplies, and equipment. (f) Cost to pack and crate supplies and equipment. (g) Cost of petroleum, oils, and lubricants, to include aviation fuel. (h) Cost of supplies and equipment lost, destroyed, or damaged as a result of CS operations, (except aircraft, motor vehicles, and water craft). (i) Cost of aircraft flight hours. (j) Cost of port (air, ocean, inland-waterway) loading, off-loading, and handling. (k) Cost to repair or recondition nonconsumable items returned. Allocate the percentage of repair costs attributable to the support provided. (l) Replacement costs of supplies and equipment furnished and not returned. (m) Cost of parts used to repair end-items used in disaster relief (excluding depot or field maintenance on a time compliance basis). (2) Nonreimbursable Activities (except under the authorities of the Economy Act). The following items are not considered reimbursable expenses in the context of providing CS: (a) Regular pay and allowances of military and civilian personnel. (b) Charges for use of military vehicles and watercraft. (c) Aircraft, vehicles, or watercraft damaged, lost, destroyed, or abandoned. (d) Administrative overhead. (e) Annual and sick leave, retirement, and other benefits. (f) Cost of telephone, telegram, or other transmissions used to requisition items in a disaster area to replenish depot stocks. d. DOD components shall not procure or maintain any supplies, materiel, or equipment exclusively for providing CS, unless otherwise directed by the SecDef. e. DOD components shall not perform any inherently governmental function of civil government unless directed by the President. Any commander who is directed to perform such functions shall facilitate the reestablishment of civil responsibility at the earliest time possible. 2. Reimbursement Process All DOD support is provided on a reimbursable basis, unless otherwise directed by the President or reimbursement is waived by the SecDef. In most cases, state, local, and federal agencies provide reimbursement for assistance provided by DOD. The reimbursement process requires the DOD components to capture and report total and incremental costs IAW applicable DOD financial management regulations. Supported agencies should also maintain records of support received from DOD. To distinguish these costs from those related to training or normal operating expenses, which are not reimbursed, resource managers must maintain accountability throughout an operation for equipment and material costs associated with operational support. Reimbursement for Civil Support Operations Organizational record keeping needed to support cost-capturing must begin at the start of the operation and at the lowest functional level Legal Considerations The Stafford Act. While the Stafford Act does not require reimbursement, DOD is usually reimbursed by FEMA for the incremental costs of providing support. Approval authority and reporting requirements vary, depending upon the duration and type of support requested. 12 Additional guidance can be found in DOD R, Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation. 18

22 Operational Constraints to Disaster-Related Civilian- Military Cooperative Activities Government Accountability Office (GAO) Considerable analysis of the potential for civilian-military joint activities resulted in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The following commentary, taken from Homeland Security Insight & Analysis, reflects the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concern that the Department of Homeland Security s (DHS) preparedness for catastrophic, potentially masscasualty disasters, continues to lag seven years after 9/11 and three years after Hurricane Katrina. In my view, America is not ready for the next catastrophe' 13 The Department of Homeland Security s (DHS) preparedness for catastrophic, potentially masscasualty disasters, continues to lag seven years after 9/11 and three years after Hurricane Katrina, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress investigative arm. At the recent House Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight hearing, "Ready to Lead? DHS and the Next Major Catastrophe," Congress learned about other crucial DHS catastrophic preparedness efforts that have been floundering. William O. Jenkins, Jr., director of GAO homeland security and justice issues, told lawmakers that while DHS has taken several actions to define national roles and responsibilities and capabilities for preparedness and response in key policy documents concerning preparedness for catastrophic disasters, the department s efforts to develop operational plans to guide other federal agencies response efforts and metrics for assessing federal capabilities are incomplete and that the department is still establishing a process to measure the nation s overall preparedness based on the Target Capabilities List (TCL) and has not yet developed a complete inventory of all federal response capabilities. Previous GAO work on the Department of Defense s civil support plans and the administration s national pandemic response implementation plan revealed the need for participation of state and local jurisdictions in emergency planning. GAO said especially in view of a new administration, the experience of the previous revision process illustrates the importance of collaborating with stakeholders in revising a plan that relies on them for its successful implementation. But Jenkins testified that in reviewing the Department of Defense s (DOD) coordination with DHS DOD s Northern Command (NORTHCOM) has difficulty identifying requirements for capabilities it may need in part because NORTHCOM does not have more detailed information from DHS on the specific requirements or capabilities needed from the military in the event of a disaster. The measures and metrics associated with targeted capabilities are not standards, but serve as guides for planning, training, and exercise activities, Jenkins stated. However, DHS policy 13 Fed Disaster Readiness Gets Mixed Reviews byanthony L. Kimery, Tuesday, 17 June

23 does not direct development of these capabilities to address national priorities for federal agencies. Hurricane Katrina Task Force Subcommittee Report 14 The immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina saw a loss of public confidence in government and demonstrated significant vulnerabilities in all facets of national, state, and local emergency preparedness. As a result, the American Bar Association formed the Task Force on Hurricane Katrina in early September of It called upon the Standing Committee on Law and National Security as well as the Section on State & Local Government Law and the Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice to form a working group responsible for evaluating current legal authorities available to meet this and other national disasters and emergencies. The working group report noted that four questions should guide an examination of the adequacy and use of state and local government authority to respond to catastrophic incidents: how did the state express or clarify its authority through statutes or executive orders; how was that authority implemented through plans, procedures, and protocols; in what manner did the state execute that authority during incidents; and how did the state delegate its authority to local units of government? In the case of Katrina, the public seemed confused as to who was in charge, what the involvement of federal active-duty military meant with respect to civilian control, and what the involvement of a Principal Federal Official meant with respect to concepts of state control. Third, the public seemed concerned that confusion over the role of the federal government, and the perceived lack of ability of the federal agencies to act, slowed down the arrival of federal life-saving assistance and security forces, and thus exacerbated the impact of the incident on the affected populace. In the Hampton Roads region, as noted earlier, this problem will be made even more difficult when one noted that DOD spending in the region accounts for approximately one-third of the regional GDP (2005 HRPDC study), and military employment accounts for more than one-tenth of the total. Ultimately, the objective of any Defense Support to Civil Authority (DSCA) operation is to safeguard and protect the population. But while DOD and the military may have the lead in this regard overseas, they take a supporting role when involved in domestic disasters. Specifically, the National Response Plan (NRP) lays out the role of DOD and its subordinate military departments as being in support of the lead federal agency (typically DHS with FEMA as the executive agency). Additionally, a hierarchy of response to disasters is established from local first responders to the state government and then to the federal government based on the size of the event and if it overwhelms the capabilities of any level. DOD, in fact, only acts upon the request of the lead federal agency. While this does not prevent military units from prudent planning and preparation, it does mean that their initiative to act is based on this reality. Interestingly, Hurricane Katrina pointed out that catastrophes can jeopardize this structure and process, particularly when local responders are themselves victims on a large scale. 14 Hurricane Katrina Task Force Subcommittee Report, prepared by American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on Law and National Security, ABA Section of State & Local Government Law, and ABA Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice. February Available at: %202.pdf 20

24 Although the above questions have yet to be answered ex post in the context of Hurricane Katrina due to the difficulty in compiling all the relevant facts relating to federal, state, and local government responses are still being gathered, they can usefully be employed ex ante in the Hampton Roads region to facilitate coordination between local governments, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the private sector, and the several military facilities. The key issues to consider in advance include the following: 1. Do states and local jurisdictions clearly understand the scope and depth of their legal authority to respond to catastrophic incidents? Has that authority been sufficiently expressed or clarified through statutes, executive orders, and other documentation? How can the federal government play a stronger role in helping to educate states and local governments as to the scope and depth of emergency response authority, and ensure it is adequately clarified? 2. Have states adequately made operational the legal authority they possess, through plans, processes, and protocols for responding to catastrophic events? Have the states adequately evaluated the effectiveness of that authority through exercises designed to test the actual execution of authority during a catastrophic incident? How can the federal government play a stronger role in enforcing this requirement on state and local governments? 3. Have states properly delegated authorities to local units of government to respond to catastrophic incidents? Are such delegations appropriate and sufficient to permit timely action by local units of government? Are such delegations adequately related to potential circumstances that may arise, so as not to impede the state from appropriately exercising its authority, on its own, if necessary? 4. Do state and local government elected officials have the necessary understanding of disaster and emergency authorities, plans, processes, and protocols? Can the federal government play a stronger role in ensuring that education of elected officials concerning emergency and disaster response authorities is a required element of catastrophic incident preparedness? 5. Do state and local government attorneys and affected private attorneys as well (such as those representing private operators of critical infrastructure) have the necessary understanding of disaster and emergency authorities, and the best practices for making operational those authorities through plans, procedures, and protocols? How can the federal government play a stronger role in ensuring that education of state and local government as well as private sector attorneys for critical infrastructure includes training on the use of clearly expressed authorities, and the evaluation of plans, procedures, and protocols for executing authority through exercises and audits? 6. In order to ensure a proper level of understanding of legal authorities concerning catastrophic incident response, and the ability to effectively execute those authorities, should homeland security, emergency management, and emergency services positions at the state and local government level be restricted to professionals who meet certain standards for training and expertise? What frequency and quality of education of these actors occur and how should it be mandated and enforced? 21

25 Additional Reports GAO, Hurricane Katrina: Better Plans and Exercises Needed to Guide the Military s Response to Catastrophic Natural Disasters.GAO (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2006). GAO, Testimony Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives: Homeland Security: Observations on DHS and FEMA Efforts to Prepare for and Respond to Major and Catastrophic Disasters and Address Related Recommendations and Legislation, Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr., Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues GAO T (July 31, 2007). Disasters and the Law: Katrina and Beyond GAO Military Support to Civilian d019.pdf: Appendix II: Compendium of Major Legal Authorities Authorizing DOD Support to Civil Organizations An Assessment: Virginia s Response to Hurricane Isabel, submitted to The Honorable Mark R. Warner, Governor of Virginia by the Hurricane Isabel Assessment Team. December Available at 22

26 Appendices United States General Accounting Office, GAO-01-9 Military Personnel: Full Extent of Support to Civil Authorities Unknown but Unlikely to Adversely Impact Retention, Appendix II. Report to the Chairman and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate. January 2001 OFFICIAL CHARTER: Military-Civilian Task Force For Emergency Response between Onslow County, North Carolina and Camp Lejeune and New River Air Station 23

27 OFFICIAL CHARTER MILITARY-CIVILIAN TASK FORCE FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE WHEREAS/ we, the undersigned, have determined that it is in the best interest of all parties to continue the productive relationship that has developed in the areas of emergency services mutual aid, cooperation, team building and professionalism. This official Charter, in support of the continuation and development of this concept, is hereby provided to give an effective framework for this effort. WHEREAS/ the Military-Civilian Task Force for Emergency Response, under mutual leadership of its partners and shareholders, is hereby authorized to continue to develop and execute inter-operative mutual aid agreements, schedule appropriate emergency services exercises and training and promote public safety. It is further understood that any agreements will be executed within state and regional civil regulations as well as within the guidelines of the Department of Defense Directive (Immediate Emergency Response to Civil Authorities). Emergency responders, public and private, act in a selfless manner while daily facing personal risk to save lives, prevent suffering, and mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions. Their contributions to the safety of our Marines, Sailors, and family members and the citizens of our community are hereby confirmed and recognized. WHEREAS, military and civilian emergency response agencies, under the umbrella of the Military Civilian Task Force for Emergency Response, have worked diligently on behalf of the citizens of Onslow County, and the Marines and Sailors aboard Camp Lejeune and New River Air Station to create a safe environment for all our citizens, and these effort have made a significant impact on the quality of life for our combined community. THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that we, the undersigned, do hereby grant this Charter for the continuation of the Military-Civilian Task Force for Emergency Response until such time that it may be dissolved by the parties.

28 - MIlIT ARY-CIVILIAN TASK FORCE FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE We, the undersigned shareholders, accept the MCTFER Charter and support its ongoing efforts to continuously improve the cooperation and coordination among area emergency service providers. Approved this t., th day of Se.p~r, 2002 ~7-~ Mayor City of Jacksonville D M/~~<-- Major General David M. Mize, USMC CommandingGeneral Marine Corps Base, CampLejeune _-----~-T~/V/ The Honorable Marvin Trott Mayor, Town of Richlands ~~~~c Mayor, Town of North Topsail Beach Colonel Dennis T. Bartels, USMC CommandingOfficer Marine Corps Air Station, New River The Honorable Paul Bggerton Mayor, Town of Swansboro cr~~ The Honorable Kenneth Howard Mayor, Town of Holly Ridge 1~ CommandingOfficer Naval Hospital, Camp Lejeune Dr. Ed Piper f Chief xecutive Officer Onslow Memorial Hospital 2

29 MILITARY-CIVILIAN TASK FORCE FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE We, the undersigned partners, accept the MCTFER Charter and support its ongoing efforts to continuously improve the cooperation and coordination among area emergency service providers. Approved this 6th day of September, 2002 /C. Dr. Ronald Lin~e, President Coastal Carolina Community College Dr. Ronald Sin~1 Onslow County Public Sc. 3