National Response Framework

[isuhawkeye]

the National Response plan has been rewritten in favor of the National Response Framework.  This new document encompasses many lessons learned in the post Katrina world.  Get ready to learn about the changes to this document. 

Unlike the National Response Plan the NRF breaks out federal response based upon resource discipline.  Emergency Support Function #9 outlines the federal response to Search and Rescue. 

Enjoy the read, and feel free to speculate as to weather or not this will affect your Search and rescue entity.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-esf-09.pdf
http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nrf/

[isuhawkeye]

Wow,  no interest in the one document that has been published redefining SAR roles at the federal level.  Why am I not surprised

[IceNine]

Things like this pass in time... How many times has the NRP been tried now?

P.S- I'll give you a non-cynical response once I have time to read through this, most certainly riveting document

[_]

It looks like as far as CAP is concerned it'll be business as usual.  We go after lost airplanes and if there is something civilian teams or local government entities need help with we can go help.

[Tubacap]

Although I haven't had time to go through and look at the NRF, it is the Feds response to an incident of national significance.  I think the only areas that would be of interest to us would be the DSCA and VOAD type sections. 

BTY  which one of the above do we usually fall under?

[BillB]

It almost looks like FEMA is trying to put AFRCC under their control.

[RiverAux]

The framework calls for putting all federal response to wilderness SAR under the National Park Service?  Just how in the heck is that going to be feasible?  They don't have any national response capability that I'm aware of.  While they may have some great SAR teams in a few of their premier parks, its not like they've got people standing by to run missions for the entire government.  Supposedly they'll be doing it from a regional office.  Hopefully this won't mess up our ability to respond to land sar through AFRCC. 

[Tubacap]

Hmmm. from your posts, it looks like I need to go and read the NRF as it differs greatly from the NRP

[Tubacap]

The framework calls for putting all federal response to wilderness SAR under the National Park Service?  Just how in the heck is that going to be feasible?  They don't have any national response capability that I'm aware of.  While they may have some great SAR teams in a few of their premier parks, its not like they've got people standing by to run missions for the entire government.  Supposedly they'll be doing it from a regional office.  Hopefully this won't mess up our ability to respond to land sar through AFRCC. 

Can you cite this please?  I did a quick search and couldn't find it.  Also, structure and function wise, this seems to be just a streamlined NRP.  But again, only a quick glance.

[isuhawkeye]

read the Search And Rescue supplement.  They break SAR down between 4 entities

FEMA (All USAR functions)
Coast Guard (Anything involving water, flooding, etc)
Department of the Interior (All wilderness)
Fir Force (Only Aviation Centered missions)

As I read things the Air force takes a big mission cut

[RiverAux]

The framework calls for putting all federal response to wilderness SAR under the National Park Service?  Just how in the heck is that going to be feasible?  They don't have any national response capability that I'm aware of.  While they may have some great SAR teams in a few of their premier parks, its not like they've got people standing by to run missions for the entire government.  Supposedly they'll be doing it from a regional office.  Hopefully this won't mess up our ability to respond to land sar through AFRCC. 

Can you cite this please?  I did a quick search and couldn't find it.  Also, structure and function wise, this seems to be just a streamlined NRP.  But again, only a quick glance.

From the document cited at the beginning of this thread.

[Tubacap]

Got it, I haven't had a chance to read the annex's and supporting documentation yet. 

Isn't inland non-aviation SAR still designated to the state level to respond?  This is only on a federal level and just in the coordination of the ESF.  I do not know how it will impact on AFRCC giving a mission number xxxxA, but I don't think it will be any different than now because the request still has to come through the state.

[RiverAux]

yes, this outlines how the feds (including us) respond to emergencies.  The way I read it, if a local or state agency wants federal help with a wilderness SAR they're the National Park Service is supposed to coordinate that response.

Now, will these agencies still be able to call AFRCC directly for CAP help or will they have to call the NPS? Or can they call the AFRCC and then is the AFRCC supposed to get NPS approval?  If it is the latter, expect major problems getting AFAMs for such missions as adding another layer of bureaucracy, especially one that has no experience in it, is unlikely to speed things up.

[Tubacap]

I'd like to state again, that this is just my opinion, but I'm fairly certain that this will not impact our missions, the ESF structure is an organizational structure for Incidents of National Significance.  Anything declared a disaster by the President, or an INS by the Secretary of Homeland Security.  I'm not sure how many times the NRP was used, but your typical lost hunter does not qualify for an INS status.  The NRF differs from the NRP here in that it IS intended to be used at all organizational levels for guidance, however the ESF structure is still only a coordination level for INS services as stated in the first section of the NRF.

[RiverAux]

Then why did they even bother including wilderness SAR in it?  I can't think of any possible wilderness SAR situation that would ever be an incident of national significance. 

[Tubacap]

Honestly, me neither.  Like I said, I don't have the answer to this, although I'm not sure it's a huge deviation from what we have now.  It very well could be though.

I have only worked on one incident where the ESF numbering system was used, and that was a major planned event of national scale, and then it was only to organize agencies in the EOC according to their natural response tendencies.

That being said, the ESF support Annex does seem to indicate that wilderness SAR will become the responsbility of the DOI.  I don't know why, I just don't think this will be a major issue for us though.

[sardak]

Then why did they even bother including wilderness SAR in it?  I can't think of any possible wilderness SAR situation that would ever be an incident of national significance. 

The shuttle Columbia search, which started five years ago this week.  The then "Federal Response Plan" was activated for it.

On to the NRF
The National Response Framework is always in effect, and elements can be implemented at any level at any time.  The Framework describes what we do and how we respond. In short, the National Response Framework explains how, at all levels, the Nation effectively manages all-hazards response consistent with the National Strategy for Homeland Security.
This Framework, therefore, eliminates the Incident of National Significance declaration. No such declaration is required by the Framework and none will be made.

That being said, the NRF does include: A catastrophic incident is defined as...
However, there still is no declaration of an such an incident, just that this is the new govermentese for "the big one."  The National SAR Committee, made up of the federal SAR agencies and responsible for the National SAR Plan (NSP), now uses the term "Catastrophic Incident SAR" (CIS).

As for ESF #9
The Department of the Interior has been a signatory to the NSP as far back as I can easily find (my earliest copy, dated 1986).

From ESF-9 - "For incidents where DOI/NPS is the primary agency, ESF #9 will follow the SAR response structure as outlined in the NSP and NSS and other relevant DOI/NPS SAR procedures and SAR manuals."

So the only thing "new" is that the National Response Framework spells out a clear policy that has been buried in the NSP for years - that the Department of the Interior, specifically the National Park Service, will be the lead federal agency for land SAR incidents which require federal assistance. 

This didn't happen on the shuttle search because it wasn't looked at as a land SAR incident (after the astronauts were recovered), but as an environmental cleanup.  If one goes back and looks at the overall unified command structure, the ICs were from NASA, the Texas Forest Service and the US Environmental Protection Agency.  FEMA was only the overall coordinating agency.  The US Forest Service managed the actual search for debris at the incident base level so had IC status at that level.

As for AFRCC, nothing in ESF #9 nor the NRF changes its role as the inland Rescue Coordination Center, which is defined in the NSP.  AFRCC remains the contact point for requests for SAR resources whether land or air.

For aviation related incidents, "DOD/USAF/AFRCC serves as the primary agency for ESF #9 during SAR operations for aviation-related incidents requiring a coordinated Federal response both in open and wilderness areas and in the vicinity of airports and urban areas..."  So no change here from what happens today.  DOI doesn't take charge of aviation related SAR even in "wilderness" areas.

Bottom line, business as usual for CAP.

Mike

[isuhawkeye]

For aviation related incidents, "DOD/USAF/AFRCC serves as the primary agency for ESF #9 during SAR operations for aviation-related incidents requiring a coordinated Federal response both in open and wilderness areas and in the vicinity of airports and urban areas..."  So no change here from what happens today.  DOI doesn't take charge of aviation related SAR even in "wilderness" areas.

Bottom line, business as usual for CAP.

Mike

The group consensus seems to be that since CAP doesn't actually do any SAR outside of aviation, that mans that this document doesn't affect CAP

Tags -DCP

[RiverAux]

The shuttle Columbia search, which started five years ago this week.  The then "Federal Response Plan" was activated for it.

That was not a SAR situation.  That was debris and evidence recovery. 

My comments were not related to aviation SAR, but lost person wilderness SAR, which is really the only area of possible mission growth widely available to CAP at this time. 

[sardak]

^^I concur, as my post said, that the shuttle search wasn't a SAR incident but a huge cleanup effort.  I mentioned it because it's the only national level incident that resembled a wilderness or land SAR event.  I'm with you and can't imagine a true land SAR incident that would require a federal response.

The group consensus seems to be that since CAP doesn't actually do any SAR outside of aviation, that means that this document doesn't affect CAP

I don't know how that conclusion can be drawn from the thread.   Nothing in the NRF changes how CAP is used or activated, aviation related or not,  that's why it doesn't affect CAP.

Mike