Why aren't we using ESFs more?

[RiverAux]

As I'm sure everyone is up to date on their latest FEMA training, I don't have to tell you how important the Emergency Support Function concept is in emergency management circles.  Pretty much everyone has written their Emergency Operations Plan using ESFs as the basic building block.

As a reminder, here are the ESFs and their main duties:
ESF #1 – Transportation
Aviation/airspace management and control
Transportation safety
Restoration/recovery of transportation infrastructure
Movement restrictions
Damage and impact assessment
ESF #2 – Communications
Coordination with telecommunications and information technology industries
Restoration and repair of telecommunications infrastructure
Protection, restoration, and sustainment of national cyber and information technology resources
Oversight of communications within the Federal incident management and response structures
ESF #3 – Public Works and Engineering
Infrastructure protection and emergency repair
Infrastructure restoration
Engineering services and construction management
Emergency contracting support for life-saving and life-sustaining services
ESF #4 – Firefighting
Coordination of Federal firefighting activities
Support to wildland, rural, and urban firefighting operations
ESF #5 – Emergency Management
Coordination of incident management and response efforts
Issuance of mission assignments
Resource and human capital
Incident action planning
Financial management
ESF #6 – Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Housing, and Human Services
Mass care
Emergency assistance
Disaster housing
Human services
ESF #7 – Logistics Management and Resource Support
Comprehensive, national incident logistics planning, management, and sustainment capability
Resource support (facility space, office equipment and supplies, contracting services, etc.)
ESF #8 – Public Health and Medical Services
Public health
Medical
Mental health services
Mass fatality management
ESF #9 – Search and Rescue
Life-saving assistance
Search and rescue operations
ESF #10 – Oil and Hazardous Materials Response
Oil and hazardous materials (chemical, biological, radiological, etc.) response
Environmental short- and long-term cleanup
ESF #11 – Agriculture and Natural Resources
Nutrition assistance
Animal and plant disease and pest response
Food safety and security
Natural and cultural resources and historic properties protection and restoration
Safety and well-being of household pets
ESF #12 – Energy
Energy infrastructure assessment, repair, and restoration
Energy industry utilities coordination
Energy forecast
ESF #13 – Public Safety and Security
Facility and resource security
Security planning and technical resource assistance
Public safety and security support
Support to access, traffic, and crowd control
ESF #14 – Long-Term Community Recovery
Social and economic community impact assessment
Long-term community recovery assistance to States, local governments, and the private sector
Analysis and review of mitigation program implementation
ESF #15 – External Affairs
Emergency public information and protective action guidance
Media and community relations
Congressional and international affairs
Tribal and insular affairs

However, in CAP we haven't really thought that way very much.  For example, take a look at the CAPabilities handbook (e-services left side of page) which is supposed to be the primary document used to interface with local emergency management offiicals.  If ESFs were mentioned, I missed them. 

I would suggest that it would make a lot of sense to CAP to have a document laying out CAP's capabilities to meet local, state, and federal needs in each of the ESFs.  This would be something from which these governments could cut and paste while developing their own management plans.  They've probably already got CAP in their plans under aerial search and rescue and probably disaster damage assessment in most places, but we all know that CAP is much more than that. 

When these folks are writing plans they're not likely to paw through the CAPabilities document trying to figure out what CAP can do, so we probably need to help them out a bit and put it right in front of their noses. 

Incidentally, such an exercise would probably be good for CAP as well since there may be ESFs where we could be an asset that we've never really thought about. 

[arajca]

Another thing CAP needs to do is start typing the resources. There are several CAP specific resource typings in the FEMA documents. CAP needs to start following these and advertising them as such.

[heliodoc]

This is where CAP, instead of operating on its own start working WITH the emergency management agencies to see where our capabilities would operate into the ESF's.

If we are to work with the EMA's, we should not have them guessing on where to "paw" thru, we need to be there, in the actual planning process with the EM's.  That is the whole point of this NIMS ICS "craze" in the last 5 years.  Its been created for MORE INTERAGENCY cooperation rather than some big Guv intrusion, which many a folk, have and continue to accuse of being.

The answer, may or may not be simple.  As to resource typing, ask the emergency manager of the community, to incorporate CAP's resources into the resource typing section of the Local Emergency Operating Plans (LEOP's).  CAP should ALREADY be resouce typing there equipment in their Wing Operating plans reflecting what is available and that information should  be available to all.  This stuff isn not FOUO either.  Just like a LEOP, everyone working interagency can review during  a table top, drill , whatever to see who and what is available during an event

This stuff isn't rocket science. it's designed to get all the players together BEFORE somethin' actaullay happens

[FW]

Everything mentioned above is correct.  However, this is a responcibility of the wing/cc.  The interface between CAP and the most EMA's are at the state level.  It is also where all MOU's are held.  The NOC can only do so much.  However, do you think it is necessary for NHQ to publish a "model form" for the wings to use?

[LTC Don]

Everything mentioned above is correct.  However, this is a responcibility of the wing/cc.  The interface between CAP and the most EMA's are at the state level.  It is also where all MOU's are held.  The NOC can only do so much.  However, do you think it is necessary for NHQ to publish a "model form" for the wings to use?

Not in totality.  IAW 20-1, the job duties of the ES Officer are not command level specific, but spans all levels.  Note the first bullet statement.  That's the crux of the whole ES Officer job, and the one that requires the most work.  Those that think their job duties only come about once a week at the squadron meeting are sadly mistaken:

Emergency Services (ES) Officer
Manages and directs emergency services activities. They shall:

• Develop agreements with agencies responsible for search, domestic emergencies, and civil defense.
• Develop and maintain an adequate emergency service force.
• Develop training programs to ensure that highly qualified ES personnel are available for search and rescue, and disaster relief missions.
• Develop plans and standard operating procedures to support the wing's emergency services program.
• Maintain records to determine the status of resources (personnel, vehicles aircraft, radios and other emergency equipment) available for ES missions.

The rubber really meets the road at the local, unit level.  It is incumbent upon the local ES officer to develop the relationships necessary with their local EM folks to develop MOUs.  The operative tone being not to overextend what a squadron can provide locally.   Any event that can overwhelm a local entity has probably affected multiple entities like a hurricane so the local MOU has to contain the necessary caveats to mission/incident commitment in relation to the type of incident and whether a Federal Declaration has been made.

This letter put out in 2007 outlines MOUs in detail and that the local option for MOUs is still in the language.

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/2007_11_16_MOUs.pdf

Cheers,

[RiverAux]

However, do you think it is necessary for NHQ to publish a "model form" for the wings to use?

Exactly.  There is no need for 53 wings to reinvent the wheel.

[SarDragon]

When did we get the 53rd wing? 

[BillB]

Pineda did it, he annexed Cuba and made it a wing

[Short Field]

The rubber really meets the road at the local, unit level.  It is incumbent upon the local ES officer to develop the relationships necessary with their local EM folks to develop MOUs. 

What happens when you have six squadrons in the same jurisdiction?  Who makes the decision on who has the lead or do all six squadrons make their own MOUs?  We don't have groups in our wing and the wing staff has no interest in developing MOUs.

[SarDragon]

Looks like you're kinda SOL. MOUs are not in the realm of individual units. Taking it to region through someone sympathetic might be an option.

[RiverAux]

MOUs aren't really needed anymore given that the NOC is available to answer specific local requests 24/7.  In your situation, I would suggest that the 6 squadrons get together and jointly come up with a way to approach the appropriate local agencies to make sure they know what CAP can do for them.   Of the 6 at least one will have a member who will do that role well.

[ammotrucker]

I totally disagree with the statement that MOU's are out of the realm of a squadrons.  I have 10 squadrons within my Group, 4 of those squadrons have MOU's with the County that they reside.  Any of these MOU's can be filled by any other squadrons if the home unit is unable.

I would like to see all of the 10 Counties in my Group have an MOU that is active.  I would like to see all of the squadrons making an effort to reach out to the County and any other SAR organization and get an SOP or MOU.

Each of the MOU's that are currently in this  group where initiated by the squadron, all of them are actively used.

With the shift coming within CAP away from AF missions we all must look at other avenues of being active.  If that means MOU's, HLS or CD or whatever.   IMHO

[arajca]

MOU's may not be necessary, but they do help ease the paperwork and discussions to request CAP support. A well written MOU will cover such things as insurance, liability, costs, etc. The requesting agency just has to tell the NOC they are requesting CAP support IAW CAP-MNW Sheriff's office MOU 05-8745214 and what they want.

[RiverAux]

The requesting agency just has to tell the NOC they are requesting CAP support

Or the requesting agency just has to send an email or fax requesting support without the need for an MOU in the first place.  Check out the CAPabilities pamphlet and that is what CAP is encouraging locals to do.

MOUs are totally unnecessary at the local level from an operational point of view.  The agency is still going to have to go through the NOC to get a mission going and having a local MOU won't speed that process up one bit.

However, from a public relations point of view, MOUs can be helpful in at least making the agencies aware of what CAP can do for them.  However, the same information can be gotten across without having to do a legal agreement. 

In the old days local MOUs really were needed, but not anymore.

However, none of this has anything to do with ESFs....

[Short Field]

Looks like you're kinda SOL. MOUs are not in the realm of individual units. Taking it to region through someone sympathetic might be an option.

You missed the point.  Our MOUs are handled at Wing.  The point was that the Squadron ESO is not always the POC for developing MOUs with the county.  It might work in a CAP-scarce area, but not in an area with multiple CAP units.

[Short Field]

I would like to see all of the 10 Counties in my Group have an MOU that is active.  I would like to see all of the squadrons making an effort to reach out to the County and any other SAR organization and get an SOP or MOU.

How many squadrons do you have in each county?   We have seven squadrons in one county - and moving toward eight. 

[ZigZag911]

MOUs are the ideal; however, CAP can do a great deal on the local level (squadrons & groups) to work with municipal and county level EMs -- which would probably already be covered if your wing has a "general" MOU with your state government.

The issue of six squadrons in one area sounds like an instance in which the unit CCs (supported by wing ES staff) need to get together and reach an internal agreement before approaching outside agencies.

[Larry Mangum]

MOU's are a good way of detailing for the local authorities, just what CAP can do for them locally and just as importantly what we cannot be used for.  But do keep, in mind that all MOU's have to be approved at the national level and that only the Wing Commander has the authority to sign off on one, once national has approved the MOU.

[davidsinn]

How many squadrons do you have in each county?   We have seven squadrons in one county - and moving toward eight.

I wish I lived there. Here we have 3 or 4 counties per unit.

[SarDragon]

My county, 1.8 times the size of DE, has 12 units, and about 700 members.

Now back to our regular program, before someone slams the door.

I'm still not sure what an ESF is.

[RRLE]

ESF = Emergency Support Function

FEMA ESF Annexes Introduction


These will also be found in state and local emergency plans.

[sardak]

ESFs are discussed in Unit 5 of IS-800.

Each ESF also has it's own IS course matching the ESF number. IS-809 for example, covers ESF #9, which is Search and Rescue. One more cert to stick in a file folder.

Our state's emergency ops plan has annexes for each ESF. CAP is currently written into ESFs 2,5 and 9.

Mike

[isuhawkeye]

Many states are in the middle of converting Annexed plans over to the ESF format.  If you have good relationships with your states this transition time would be a great opportunity to shore up those relationships

[RiverAux]

All the recent discussions about Haiti reminded me of this thread and how many opportunities there are for CAP to assist in many of the ESFs for disasters in this country that we are probably missing.  Unfortunately, this particular discussion got side-tracked onto MOUs pretty fast and we never discussed that point very much.