BY GARY SEIDEL
As we are aware, our response to emergencies as it relates to all-hazard incident management and command of emergencies has been changing to a comprehensive national approach of incident management known as the National Incident Management System (NIMS). NIMS encompasses a core set of doctrine, principles, terminology, and organizational processes established to enable effective, efficient, and collaborative incident management at all levels. Now, with the adoption of NIMS through Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5, we really need to look at the systems and the processes and their effects on emergency responders at the federal level.
NIMS was created to resolve long-standing issues within the emergency response community relative to how disasters and emergencies should be managed. The resultant work on this issue is based on an all-hazards approach where span of control, operational design, planning, leadership, all-risk approach, logistics, finance, administration, communications, training, and information and intelligence tenets are coordinated and addressed. In evaluating previous response plans and presidential directives, it was realized that new legislation was needed. Therefore, the emergency response community was brought together to develop and establish comprehensive criteria that will address a system that provides a national framework for preparing for, preventing, responding to, and recovering from national disasters. These components are to cover command and management, preparation, resource management, communications, information management, supporting technologies, ongoing management, and maintenance.
HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE 5 (HSPD-5)
On February 28, 2003, President Bush issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5). It directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and administer NIMS, a consistent approach to all-hazard nationwide emergency management. This initiative requires that all government, nongovernment, and private-sector organizations work together during domestic disasters and emergencies. The primary stakeholders for public safety agencies are fire, law, EMS, hazardous materials, and urban search and rescue.
The events of September 11, 2001, underscored the need for and importance of national standards in all-hazard incident management. As realized, emergencies happen every day across the United States. Whether large or small, we need to deal with them in a holistic and synergistic manner. As we know, each incident requires notification and a response; this response starts in the local arena and expands through mutual-aid agreements, from state-to-state agreements, and then through our federal partners.
Until now, there have been no consistent standards for domestic response that reach across all levels of government and all emergency response agencies.
In 1970, the State of California recognized the need to organize response measures because of the devastation of numerous wildland fires. The result was the creation of Firefighting Resources of California Organized for Potential Emergencies (FIRESCOPE). FIRESCOPE provided the new technology, command and control management, and coordination for wildland emergencies. Over the years, we have seen numerous variations of this approach. Each incident management system was specific to the agency that developed it. The majority of agencies using this system were fire department-based; very few law enforcement agencies adopted any system initially. Since there was no consistent approach to incident management, we found that emergency resources that crossed jurisdictional boundaries had to modify their approach in emergency management to that of the jurisdiction in charge. As you can imagine, confusion ensued.
To enhance the country’s ability to manage domestic incidents, existing polices were evaluated. This included looking not only at incident management, as was done in the FIRESCOPE document, but also the reviewing of the existing Presidential Decision Directives 39, 62, and 63.
PRESIDENTIAL DECISION DIRECTIVE 39 (PDD 39)
Presidential Decision Directive 39 (PDD 39), established in June 1995, was the first document of its kind to define policies regarding the federal response to threats or acts of terrorism involving biological, etiological, nuclear, incendiaries, chemicals, or explosives (BE-NICE). This directive added the Terrorism Annex to the Federal Response Plan. The purpose of this document was to describe the federal concept of response to terrorist incidents within the United States. It divided the response into two categories: crisis response and consequence response. Lead agencies were identified: the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) would be the lead on the crisis side, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would be the lead on the consequence side.
PRESIDENTIAL DECISION DIRECTIVE 62 (PPD 62)
On May 22, 1998, President Clinton signed into effect Presidential Decision Directive 62 (PPD 62), designed to provide a more systematic approach to fighting the terrorist threat. It was supposed to reinforce the mission of numerous agencies charged with defeating terrorism. It codified and clarified their activities in the wide-range counterterrorism realm, which includes transportation security, apprehension, prosecution, response capabilities, and computer-based security programs. This directive was an attempt to achieve the President’s goal of ensuring that we meet the threat of terrorism in the 21st century with the same rigor that we have met military threats in this century. Thus, it established the office of the national coordinator for security, who works within the National Security Council.
PRESIDENTIAL DECISION DIRECTIVE 63 (PDD 63)
Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD 63) was established in May 1998. This document focused on the need to harden our physical and cyber-based critical infrastructures within the domestic United States. These infrastructures include telecommunications, energy, banking/finance, transportation, water systems, and emergency services. In an effort to meet this directive, public-private partnerships were formed to reduce vulnerability.
HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE 8 (HSPD-8)
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8) was established in October 2004. Its objective was to strengthen the NIMS directive (HSPD-5) by establishing a national preparedness for an all-hazards response to meet and improve our national service delivery. This service delivery is the National Response Plan, which approves disaster declarations and mobilizes federal assets. HSPD-8 uses the foundations from previous document PDD 39 for mobilizing federal resources, as well as the coordination of all local, state, and federal resources.
As stated above, FIRESCOPE was the precursor to incident command. However, it was mainly fire-based and, therefore, used only by limited agencies. Several derivatives of FIRESCOPE ensued over the years. As stated, this led to a chaotic approach to incident management across jurisdictional boundaries. In the late 1980s-early 1990s, a new approach was again identified in California, called the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). This approach allowed all agencies: fire, law, public works, emergency management, water, and so on, to follow the principles of FIRESCOPE in an all-risk/all-agency management approach. Again, it was limited in use across the nation.
In 1995, the adoption of PDD 39, which was the precursor to the initiatives relating to terrorism within the domestic United States, was adopted. In 1998, the signing of PDD 62 identified a systematic approach to fighting terrorism, And then came PDD 63, which focused on hardening our infrastructure protection in the domestic United States. However, these documents were specific to terrorism and had nothing to do with all-hazard emergency management.
EVALUATION FORCED BY 9/11
The devastation of September 11, 2001, forced the United States to take a look at emergency response and emergency scene management. Not only did these areas have the attention of all politicians, but public service groups were behind issues that would provide a systematic, national, holistic approach to command and management, preparation, resource management, communications, information management, supporting technologies, ongoing management, and maintenance.
The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) addressed the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response of the Selection Committee on Homeland Security. In its response, the IAFC endorsed the creation of NIMS, stating that NIMS would provide an efficient and effective way to bring resources together at large-scale emergencies, as well as a coordinated means for controlling and managing incidents. The IAFC also addressed some of its concerns related to NIMS, including timelines for implementation, lack of funding for the NIMS mandate, the types of training being offered, communications interoperability, funding for mutual-aid systems, and private sector response.
In addition, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) emphasized that it was important for the nationwide fire service, 1.1 million firefighters from 30,000 fire departments, to adopt NIMS. The IAFF also outlined the same concerns as the IAFC.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) addressed the need for all agencies to work together and comply with the principles outlined in NIMS. As outlined in NIMS, states and territories will have to certify that they and the local and tribal jurisdictions within their boundaries have completed the fiscal year 2006 NIMS requirements to receive fiscal year 2007 federal preparedness funding.
As previously noted, the real trigger was the events of September, 11, 2001. However, as was seen last year with the disastrous Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, there is an urgent need to work through the six components outlined in NIMS. This summer (2006), we will start to see results, since agencies must have completed their initial training to receive 2007 federal grant monies.
The public has continuously seen and felt the results of disasters in their communities. Whether directly affected by the disaster or connected through the media, everyone has been affected. Every public service agency has an impact on the public: through emergency scene management, we directly impact approximately 15 to 20 percent of our constituents. Through our community-relations events, we can pick up approximately 50 to 60 percent more of our citizens. The rest of the community becomes affiliated with public safety agencies through the media (television, radio, Internet, or newspapers). The public, which still feels the effects of September 11, 2001, which now have been coupled with the devastation of the 2005 hurricanes, is crying out for more effective and efficient public safety agencies. Therefore, as public safety agencies, we must make it a high priority to include our citizens, private businesses, and other stakeholders when we develop our strategic plans and improve our service delivery models.
Public opinion continues to be a valuable tool for support of public service agencies. Last year as an evaluator for TOPOFF (Top Official Exercises) in New London, Connecticut, I had the opportunity to witness public opinion support firsthand. As the disaster scenario for this exercise was conducted, priority was placed on working with the citizens in the communities affected by the training exercise. Full local, state, and national resource mobilization occurred during this exercise. The same resource commitment also occurred in the political realm. As was seen, the exercise’s success necessitated that the citizens who would be affected were made fully aware of the exercise through the media. Therefore, as we have seen in real disasters, there is also the need to ensure that all public safety responders, emergency management, and the affected citizens work together.
The lessons learned from September 11, 2001, highlighted the need for improvement in our domestic response to all-hazard incidents within the U.S. Now is the time to demonstrate that we can all work together in disaster mitigation and management.
GARY SEIDEL, a 29-year veteran of the fire service, is chief of the Hillsboro (OR) Fire Department. He retired as an assistant chief with Los Angeles (CA) Fire Department, where he served for 26 years. He has served on incident management teams and responded to the Sacramento (CA) floods, the Northridge (CA) Earthquake, the World Trade Center Terrorist Attack; the Jefferson County (CO) Columbine High School Shooting (USFA investigator), the 2002 Utah Winter Olympics Park City (incident management team; and numerous major wildland fire incidents. He has a bachelor of arts degree in environmental biology and an associate of arts degree in fire science and is working on his master’s degree in organizational development. He has authored many courses and has been an international keynote speaker in the realms of command and control of emergency operations, incident command, incident management teams, urban search and rescue, swift water rescue, fire investigation, special operations, weapons of mass destruction, wildland fires, and leadership and management. Seidel is a member of the FDIC associate advisory board.
