FEMA logo National Advisory Council January 28,2011 MEMORANDUM TO: w. Craig Fugate Administrator, FEMA FROM: James G. Featherstone, Chairman, National Advisory Council SUBJECT: National Advisory Cou cil National Response Framework Revisions Recommendations Report The purpose ofthis memo is to transmit the recommendations of the National Advisory Council to the FEMA Administrator for his consideration as FEMA moves forward with the National Response Framework (NRF) revision process. 1. The NRF should recognize that FEMA should be the federal coordinating entity, regardless of the nature of the disaster or emergency (Stafford Act, National Contingency Plan or other federal response). 2. The NRF should address all disasters and emergencies that require any federal response. 3. The NRF must recognize NIMS/ICS as an integral component and incorporate the Federal Preparedness Task Force's Recommendation #12 -Establish and fund a national, comprehensive mutualaidsystembasedonNIMSandRecommendation #16-Establisha NIMS-typed resource inventory for nationally deployable homeland security and emergency management assets. 4. The NRF must describe not only the "what", but the "who", "how", "where" and "when" of the federal response. The NRF should include a higher level of operational detail by listing the roles and responsibilities of all partners (federal, state, tribal and local, as well as NGOs and the private sector) during an event requiring a federal response. Additionally the RF must articulate the concept of "unity of effort" where all partners, at all levels of government and including NGOs and the private sector, resolve issues in a NIMS/ICS structure, at one location, based upon shared objectives and planning. 5. The NRF should include an additional Emergency Support Function (ESF) to (1) coordinate the brokerage of resources from the private sector; and, (2) to provide assistance to the private sector for their recovery to normal operations. 6. The NRF should incorporate the Administrator's Whole of Community/Maxi mum of Maximums concept. 7. The NRF should provide for a clean hand-off to the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF). Introduction The National Response Framework (NRF) is a guide that details how the nation responds to all types of disasters and emergencies. It establishes a comprehensive, national, all-hazards approach to domestic incident response principals, as well as the roles and structures that organize national response. Since the establishment of the NAC in 2007 the Council has provided input into the development and revision of the NRF. Prior to this report the NAC has put forward three recommendation memos on the NRF document, the NRF resource tools, and the planned stakeholder in engagement in the revision process. These NAC recommendations and FEMA responses can be found in the Appendix to this report. The NRF was published in January 2008 and superseded the National Response Plan (NRP). While the NRF does not specify a formal process or schedule for review and revision of the document, on March 17, 2009 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) promulgated the “National Response Framework Review and Revision Process.” This action, in accordance with the IPG1, instituted a three-year revision cycle for the NRF with the first revision due by the end of Fiscal Year 2011. As stated in the March 17, 2009 FEMA memorandum: [t]he ultimate scope of the NRF revision will be determined by the findings of the review; however, at a minimum, the 2011 revision of the NRF will accomplish the following: 1. Align the NRF with the Integrated Planning System (IPS) and the Comprehensive Preparedness Guides (CPG) 2. Address incidents in the NRF that are not restricted to a single incident site (e.g., cyber attack, pandemic) 3. Address planning gaps and incorporate lessons learned and best practices from the following: a. Actual events and related interagency activities b. Exercises c. Scenarios d. Analyses The role of the National Advisory Council (NAC), and other stakeholders, is delineated throughout the March 17, 2009 memorandum. The Administrator has stressed that the NAC is “key to ensuring this important stakeholder involvement.”2 At the August 5, 2010 NAC Meeting, the NAC Chairman tasked both the Preparedness & Protection and the Response & Recovery subcommittees with review of the NRF revision process. As a result, the chairmen of the Preparedness & Protection and the Response & Recovery subcommittees formed the joint NRF Working Group (WG). The charge to the WG Department of Homeland Security Integrated Planning Guidance (IPG. Fiscal Year 2011-2015. Letter from FEMA Administrator W. Craig Fugate to NAC Chairman Bennett (September 18, 2009). by the chairmen was to look at the NRF from a strategic standpoint concentrating on the broad policy considerations rather than the details of implementation. Since the promulgation of the March 17, 2009 memorandum, the White House has been drafting a new National Preparedness Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)3 relating to the role of FEMA in responding to disasters and emergencies. The WG has been advised that the likely role of FEMA will be to coordinate emergency and disaster response efforts. The implementation of the March 17, 2009 memorandum has been suspended until the final release of the PPD. FEMA staff4, in consideration of the draft PPD, has requested the NAC provide comments to the following six (6) questions relevant to the NRF: 1. The NRF will likely be significantly affected by the anticipated receipt of a new National Preparedness PPD as outlined in the attachment. Does the NAC see other potential policy or legislative developments that will impact the revision of the NRF? 2. One possible structure for a revised NRF is to elevate it to the role of a concise overarching document-not more than 10 pages – accompanied by specific plans as attachments. These plans could include the National Contingency Plan as well as plans from other Federal entities such as the Department of Interior and Department of Energy. What are the pros and cons of this approach? 3. Should the NRF be expanded to include other sources of statutory authority? Is the NRF unnecessarily Stafford Act-centric? 4. How can the NRF be improved to ensure unity of voice among operational and technical personnel and elected officials? 5. How should the NRF address these requirements [outlined in the May 2010 National Security Strategy]?5 How should the NRF incorporate the Administrator’s intent regarding the Whole of Community/Maximum of Maximums concept? 6. How should a series of frameworks be constructed and unified? How can the NRF be designed to connect to series of frameworks? As of the date of this report the PPD has not been released and has not been reviewed by the WG. 4 National Integration Center National Response Framework (NRF) Questions for the National Advisory Council. (October 8, 2010). 5 Referring to the May 2010 National Security Strategy requirement to effectively manage emergencies, improve resilience through public-private partnerships, and to engage communities and citizens. NAC Responses to Questions 1. The NRF will likely be significantly affected by the anticipated receipt of a new National Preparedness PPD as outlined in the attachment. Does the NAC see other potential policy or legislative developments that will impact the revision of the NRF? The WG acknowledges that release of the pending PPD is critical to the revision of the NRF and may, upon release, require the WG to review its recommendations. Additionally, it was noted that legislation relating to the reauthorization of the Stafford Act should be closely monitored for potential impacts on the NRF. The work of the Local, State, Tribal, and Federal Preparedness Task Force6 was also reviewed. Specifically, the WG felt that any revision to the NRF incorporate Recommendation #12 – Establish and fund a national, comprehensive mutual aid system based on NIMS and Recommendation #16 – Establish a NIMS-typed resource inventory for nationally deployable homeland security and emergency management assets. It was concluded by the WG that NIMS is an integral component of the NRF. There was also significant discussion regarding the role of NGOs, including faith-based organizations, and the private sector needs which should be addressed in any NRF revision. The WG noted that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has made a significant effort to incorporate NGOs into the response framework, but there remains a gap with regard to the private sector [this will be further discussed in the response to question 5]. 2. One possible structure for a revised NRF is to elevate it to the role of a concise overarching document-not more than 10 pages – accompanied by specific plans as attachments. These plans could include the National Contingency Plan as well as plans from other Federal entities such as the Department of Interior and Department of Energy. What are the pros and cons of this approach? The WG believes that the NRF revision should be developed as a simple, straight forward document that provides a general description of the roles and responsibilities of all federal agencies and the interactions between the federal, state, tribal and local players. There must be a consistent coordination effort for the federal response to all incidents. It is imperative that the NRF recognize that FEMA should be the federal coordinating entity, regardless of the nature of the disaster or emergency (Stafford Act, National Contingency Plan or other federal response). This will ensure that the unity of effort is maintained across all jurisdictions and levels of government. Whether the NRF can be reduced to a document of “not more than 10 pages” resulted in considerable discussion by the WG. The NRF, as a document, must be written to reflect the wide diversity of it readers – from very small communities with little or no professional emergency management staff to large metropolitan organizations with a sophisticated emergency management systems (e.g., NYC OEM) -from states and tribal governments to 6 Perspective on Preparedness: Taking Stock Since 9/11 Report to Congress of the Local, State, Tribal, and Federal Preparedness Task Force (September 2010). federal partners. Regardless of the length of the document, the WG felt strongly that the NRF must be a simple and concise (but not small) document that, at a minimum, answered the following questions: • Who is responsible for the federal response? • How will interaction with the federal partners work? • What type of federal and state response will occur? • What resources will be available for the response? 3. Should the NRF be expanded to include other sources of statutory authority? Is the NRF unnecessarily Stafford Act-centric? In keeping with the premise that the NRF “is a guide to how the Nation conducts all-hazards response”7, the WG believes that the NRF should address all disasters and emergencies that require any federal response. This would include the federal response to events normally covered under the Stafford Act (natural disasters) as well as other significant events (e.g., Deepwater Horizon, Quran burning in Gainesville, FL). Consistent with the WG’s responses in the questions above, the WG sees FEMA’s role as the federal coordinating entity. For example, during a pandemic FEMA would coordinate the federal response with the Department of Health and Human Services in the role of incident commander. Again, the NRF should recognize the NIMS/ICS system as an integral component of the federal response. The WG recognizes that there may be some incidents which remain outside the scope of the NRF such as cyber attacks or military strikes against the homeland; but, these events should be limited to events of national security and should be the exception rather than the rule. However, in those particular events, it is likely that FEMA would coordinate the management of the consequences, though not coordinate the response. The NRF should reflect that modified role for FEMA. 4. How can the NRF be improved to ensure unity of voice among operational and technical personnel and elected officials? There is an expectation from the public and their elected officials that any federal response will be consistent; essentially translating to the structural management of an event having little variance from one incident type to another. In order for that expectation to be met, there must be “unity of voice” from all levels of government which can be obtained from an effective implementation of the NIMS/ICS system. In that regard, the WG believes the NRF must describe not only the” what”, but the “who”, “how”, “where” and “when” of the federal response. The NRF should be revised and expanded to include a higher level of operational detail by listing the roles and responsibilities of all partners (federal, state, tribal and local, as well as NGOs and the private sector) during an event requiring a federal response. Department of Homeland Security National Response Framework (January 2008), page 1. However, recognizing our previous statement of the need to keep the NRF as a simple and concise (but not small) document, the WG recognizes the additional (and perhaps conflicting) need to not have a document that lacks sufficient detail to be rendered useless or insignificant. At a minimum the NRF must describe how all the partners will achieve shared situational awareness (i.e., one situation report) and work together on a common set of incident objectives. To emphasize conciseness, the NRF would show the partners in one organization chart and one floor plan, clearly defining the “who” of the response effort. Again, the WG emphasizes that we believe that the NRF should recognize FEMA has the responsibility as the coordinating agency, regardless of whether or not the event is covered under the Stafford Act, to bring the federal support agencies to the response and into a one NIMS-compliant organizational structure. 5. How should the NRF address these requirements [outlined in the May 2010 National Security Strategy]?8 How should the NRF incorporate the Administrator’s intent regarding the Whole of Community/Maximum of Maximums concept? A key component of the National Security Strategy is the improved resilience through increased public-private partnerships. 9 As stated before, this is an area where the WG believes that there remains a gap in an effective federal response. Specifically, one of the primary barriers to an effective public-private partnership has been the inability for the private sector to find the appropriate entry point to support disaster response and recovery operations. While the NRF currently addresses private sector participation through the Private Sector Coordination Support Annex, it’s vague on many issues, especially regarding the entry points for engagement by the private sector. The NRF should provide a mechanism for greater participation of private industry starting with the planning process, enabling government to anticipate the private sector’s participation and resources in a federal response. It is clear that the private sector must be engaged and capable to participate in order to have a successful response and recovery. In this regard, the WG believes that the role of the private sector in a federal response is of such significance as to warrant to creation of an Emergency Support Function (ESF) to (1) coordinate the brokerage of resources from the private sector; and, (2) to provide assistance to the private sector for their recovery to normal operations. As to the how the NRF should incorporate the Administrator’s Whole of Community/Maximum of Maximums concept, the WG believes that concept should be fully described within the NRF. The WG does, however, note that the NRF is a “response” framework and the elements of the concept relating to preparedness and recovery should be referenced, but discussed in detail in other documents. Referring to the May 2010 National Security Strategy requirements to effectively manage emergencies, improve resilience through public-private partnerships, and to engage communities and citizens. 9 The White House National Security Strategy (May 2010), page 19. 6. How should a series of frameworks be constructed and unified? How can the NRF be designed to connect to series of frameworks? The WG makes seven (7) recommendations (see “WG Recommendations” below) which it believes will serve to allow the NRF to connect a series of frameworks. It is important to recognize that the WG supports the revision of the NRF to reflect FEMA as the coordinating federal partner in all federal responses. The NRF must set forth the “what”, “who”, “how”, “where” and “when” of the federal response. Additional Discussion The WG also discussed the need for the NRF to provide for the definition of the conclusion of the response effort and the commencement of the recovery effort. In essence, the NRF should provide for a clean hand-off to the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF). The WG recognizes that the point where the hand-off might occur is nebulous at best and encourages that maximum flexibility in that determination be maintained. NAC Recommendations After much discussion and deliberation the NAC would like to provide the following recommendations to Administrator Fugate for his consideration as FEMA moves forward with the NRF revision process. 1. The NRF should recognize that FEMA should be the federal coordinating entity, regardless of the nature of the disaster or emergency (Stafford Act, National Contingency Plan or other federal response). 2. The NRF should address all disasters and emergencies that require any federal response. 3. The NRF must recognize NIMS/ICS as an integral component and incorporate the Federal Preparedness Task Force’s Recommendation #12 – Establish and fund a national, comprehensive mutual aid system based on NIMS and Recommendation #16 – Establish a NIMS-typed resource inventory for nationally deployable homeland security and emergency management assets. 4. The NRF must describe not only the “what”, but the “who”, “how”, “where” and “when” of the federal response. The NRF should include a higher level of operational detail by listing the roles and responsibilities of all partners (federal, state, tribal and local, as well as NGOs and the private sector) during an event requiring a federal response. Additionally the NRF must articulate the concept of “unity of effort” where all partners, at all levels of government and including NGOs and the private sector, resolve issues in a NIMS/ICS structure, at one location, based upon shared objectives and planning. 5. The NRF should include an additional Emergency Support Function (ESF) to (1) coordinate the brokerage of resources from the private sector; and, (2) to provide assistance to the private sector for their recovery to normal operations. 6. The NRF should incorporate the Administrator’s Whole of Community/Maximum of Maximums concept. 7. The NRF should provide for a clean hand-off to the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF). Conclusion The WG has completed its review of the NRF utilizing the questions posed to the NAC by FEMA staff responsible for the NRF revision process. It is the conclusion of the WG that the NRF be revised to reflect a framework for all federal response to disaster and emergencies that is based upon FEMA as the coordinating federal partner in a NIMS-centric system. The NRF must describe not only the “what”, but the “who”, “how”, “where” and “when” of the federal response. The end result of the NRF revision process must be a framework for a federal response that is a clear, concise and predictable from event to event. Acknowledgements The WG would like to acknowledge the efforts of FEMA staff, particularly National Preparedness Assistant Administrator Corey Gruber, Acting Director of the National Integration Center Don Grant and Deputy Designated Federal Officer Breese Eddy for their assistance in the review of the NRF. Additionally, we would like to thank New York City Office of Emergency Management Deputy Commissioner for Planning and Preparedness Kelly McKinney for his input in this process. Appendix A. August 17, 2009 NAC Memo on the Role of the NRF and the Revision Process & September 18, 2009 FEMA Response B. January 21, 2009 NAC Memo on the National Response Framework & March 3, 2009 FEMA Response C. December 19, 2007 NAC Memo on Formal Comments on the Revised National Response Framework (Pre-release) & February 29, 2008 FEMA Response