Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Domestic Disaster Response Operations: Summary and Considerations for Congress

Congressional research reportMay 13, 2015

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting

Domestic Disaster Response Operations:

Summary and Considerations for Congress

(name redacted), Coordinator

Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy

May 13, 2015

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R43560

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

Summary

For most disasters across the nation, the affected local, state, or tribal governments have sufficient

capabilities to respond to the incident. However, for disasters with consequences that require

unique capabilities or that overwhelm the existing capabilities of a respective state or tribal

government, Congress has authorized and appropriated a suite of deployable federal assets to

support domestic disaster response operations. This report reviews several key concepts about

these federal assets, and highlights possible issues Congress may consider when evaluating their

authorization and appropriation.

In this report, a deployable federal asset generally means sets of specially trained federal

employees whose mission is to provide on-scene assistance to communities by supporting their

disaster response. Deployable federal assets can be described as the federal government’s “first

responders” to a disaster. They typically only provide assistance at the request of states or tribes

and in circumstances where the capabilities of non-federal government entities are insufficient.

The federal government also scopes its assistance to provide only the assets that are required by

the situation. The maximum disaster consequences that the federal government is prepared to

address with its full set of response capabilities is largely unknown.

Given the diversity of deployable federal assets, there are many legal authorities and executive

branch policies that guide their use in response operations. Some of the most notable authorities

are the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §5121 et

seq.), Title XXVIII of the Public Health Service Act, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6

U.S.C. §101 et seq.), and the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. §1385 et seq.). Some primary

federal policies guiding the use of deployable federal assets include the National Response

Framework (NRF) and accompanying Federal Interagency Operational Plan (FIOP), the National

Incident Management System (NIMS), and the Defense Support for Civilian Authorities (DSCA).

Congress may consider several policy issues as it evaluates the future authorization and

appropriations for deployable federal assets, and in its oversight of the assets’ response

capabilities. There may be theoretical benefits gained by the provision of deployable federal

assets, including the pooling of disaster risk across the nation and greater efficiency in the supply

of response capabilities. There may also be theoretical disadvantages, including that the provision

of deployable federal assets creates a moral hazard resulting in greater disaster risk for the nation,

and that federal investment may crowd out the investment of non-federal entities in similar

response capabilities. Congress may also assess the various models for staffing these assets,

including the benefits and costs of conditional employments, dedicated staffing versus multiuse

staffing, and “federalizing” staff into temporary federal employment for response operations.

Congress may evaluate whether the provision of deployable federal assets should grant federal

officials greater decision-making authority in the management of response operations. Finally,

there are a number of challenges that may inhibit congressional oversight, such as the small

sample size of incidents available to evaluate the effectiveness of deployable federal assets and

the lack of specificity in many of the authorizations and appropriations for these assets.

This report also provides brief summaries of examples of deployable federal assets. These assets

are managed, either solely or jointly, by a variety of federal departments and agencies, including

components of the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, and Health and

Human Services; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Transportation Safety

Board; and others. A synopsis of these assets is provided in Table 1.

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Key Concepts .................................................................................................................................. 2

What is a deployable federal asset?........................................................................................... 2

When does the federal government provide support to response operations? .......................... 3

What level of support is the federal government prepared to provide and for how

catastrophic a disaster?........................................................................................................... 5

What principal legal authorities permit, and what key executive branch policies guide

the use of deployable federal assets? ..................................................................................... 6

Authorities .......................................................................................................................... 6

Policies ................................................................................................................................ 7

Considerations for Congress............................................................................................................ 9

Policy Benefits and Disadvantages of Deployable Federal Assets ........................................... 9

Benefits ............................................................................................................................... 9

Disadvantages ................................................................................................................... 10

Cost-Effectiveness of Various Models for Staffing Federal Assets ......................................... 10

Financing the Deployment of Federal Response Assets ......................................................... 12

Federalism and Operational Control ....................................................................................... 14

Challenges in Monitoring and Evaluating Deployable Federal Assets ................................... 15

Brief Summaries of Sample Federal Assets .................................................................................. 17

Department of Homeland Security Assets ................................................................................ 1

Federal Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs) ................................................. 1

Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs) and Federal Disaster Recovery

Coordinators (FDRCs) ..................................................................................................... 2

National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Response System Task Forces ..................... 4

Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) Teams ............................................. 7

Protective Security Advisors (PSAs) .................................................................................. 8

Department of Health and Human Services ............................................................................ 10

U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps ............................................................ 10

Strategic National Stockpile .............................................................................................. 11

U.S. Department of Agriculture .............................................................................................. 13

Forest Service Firefighting Assets .................................................................................... 13

Department of Defense ........................................................................................................... 16

General Purpose Forces .................................................................................................... 17

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Response Forces .................. 20

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Assets .............................................................................. 25

Planning and Response Teams .......................................................................................... 25

249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power) ........................................................................... 26

Department of Energy ............................................................................................................. 27

Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response (NCTIR) Program .............................. 27

National Transportation Safety Board Disaster Assistance ..................................................... 29

Jointly Operated Assets ........................................................................................................... 30

National Response System for Oil and Chemical Spills ................................................... 30

National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) ..................................................................... 34

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

Figures

Figure 1. Location of National US&R Task Force Teams ............................................................... 5

Tables

Table 1. Synopsis of Examples of Deployable Federal Assets ...................................................... 18

Table 2. Strategic National Stockpile Appropriations, FY2010-FY2015 ..................................... 13

Table 3. NDMS Administrative Funding, FY2011-FY2015 ......................................................... 36

Contacts

Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 37

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

Introduction

Natural, accidental, or intentional hazards1 produce disasters of varying severity and consequence

in the nation every day. Local, state, or tribal governments respond to the significant majority of

these disasters without support from the federal government. This is especially true in the initial

phase of disaster response—often generalized as the first 72 hours after the originating incident.

However, on an as-needed basis, the federal government can provide significant assistance to

support the local, state,2 or tribal response operation through deployable federal assets.

This report examines a variety of deployable federal assets that can support a disaster response

operation. These assets may be able to support the response to certain types of consequences from

certain disasters (e.g., radiological exposure from a nuclear incident) or consequences common to

all disasters (e.g., command and control support, or communications assistance). This report

provides a general analysis of key concepts involving deployable federal assets, including



what it means to be a deployable federal asset;

when the assets will be used to support response operations;

what the main authorities and policies are that guide the use of assets; and

what level of support the federal government is prepared to provide for response

operations.

This report also examines several issues Congress may wish to consider as it evaluates the future

authorization and funding for various deployable federal assets. Issues examined in the report

include the potential policy benefits and disadvantages of federal investment in deployable

federal assets, the cost-effectiveness of different staffing models for the assets, the methods for

financing the deployment of the assets, whether federal assets should have greater operational

control in response operations, and the challenges Congress may face in its oversight of the use of

the assets. This report concludes by providing summaries of examples of deployable federal

assets, including available information on their authorization, funding, and past uses in disasters.

Brief information on the selected assets is condensed and presented in Table 1.

Using the Department of Homeland Security’s risk lexicon, a natural hazard is a “source of harm or difficulty created

by a meteorological, environmental, or geological phenomenon or combination of phenomena” (e.g., an earthquake or

hurricane); an accidental hazard is a “source of harm or difficulty created by negligence, error, or unintended failure”

(e.g., an oil spill, train derailment, or dam failure); and an intentional hazard is a “source of harm, duress, or difficulty

created by a deliberate action or a planned course of action” (e.g., a terrorist attack, cyber-attack, or other criminal

incident). See Department of Homeland Security, DHS Risk Lexicon: 2010 Edition, September 2010, at

http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-risk-lexicon.

As used in this report, “state” generally includes “any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto

Rico, the [U.S.] Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands” as

defined by the Sec. 102(4) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5122(4).

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

Key Concepts3

What is a deployable federal asset?

A deployable federal asset is not a generally recognized term in the field of domestic emergency

management, but rather is a term developed for the purposes of this report to characterize a broad

swath of federal resources. The term is used to classify sets of specially trained federal employees

whose mission, though not necessarily exclusive mission, is to provide on-scene assistance to

communities by supporting their disaster response.4 To aid a community, these deployable federal

assets may provide unique capabilities not frequently available at a local, state or tribal level;5 or

they may be able to supplement existing capabilities that have been overwhelmed in significant

disasters.6 A capability, as defined in federal law, is “the ability to provide the means to

accomplish one or more tasks under specific conditions and to specific performance standards. A

capability may be achieved with any combination of properly planned, organized, equipped,

trained, and exercised personnel that achieves the intended outcome.” 7 In combination with

specialized personnel and capabilities, a deployable federal asset may provide federally owned

commodities, such as power generation or telecommunications equipment. A deployable federal

asset also operates on an “alert” status so that they can deploy to a no-notice incident in a

community expeditiously, often within the first 24 hours or less. Colloquially, deployable federal

assets can be described as the federal government’s “first responders” to a disaster. However,

even within the confines described above, some of the deployable federal assets summarized later

in the report do not comply with one of the defining elements. For example, the National Urban

Search and Rescue (US&R) Task Forces are not federal employees, though they can be deployed

in a federal capacity at the direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and

receive significant funding to maintain national response capabilities.

This report does not discuss, and the term deployable federal asset does not include, other forms

of federal assistance that can be used to support a domestic disaster response, including



financial assistance, such as numerous grant and loan programs;8

logistics assistance, such as aiding in the delivery of water, food, and medical

commodities;9 and

For more background on how the nation responds to disasters and on federal emergency management, see CRS

Report R41981, Congressional Primer on Responding to Major Disasters and Emergencies, by (name redacted)

and (name redacted)and CRS Report R42845, Federal Emergency Management: A Brief Introduction, coordinated by

(name redacted) .

Response is defined as “actions to save lives, protect property and the environment, stabilize communities, and meet

basic human needs following an incident.” See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Response

Framework, Second Edition, May 2013, p. 1, at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=7371.

Examples discussed later in the report include the 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power) and the National

Transportation Safety Board Disaster Assistance.

Examples discussed later in the report include the Federal Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs) and the

Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) Teams.

Section 641(1) of the Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act of 2006 (Title VI of P.L. 109-295, 6 U.S.C. §741).

For a summary of some of these financial assistance programs, see CRS Report RL31734, Federal Disaster

Assistance Response and Recovery Programs: Brief Summaries, by (name redacted) and (name redacted). There are

also numerous CRS reports available that discuss federal financial assistance programs in greater detail. Tax relief may

also be available following disasters. For information on relief provided through the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), see

CRS Report R42839, Tax Provisions to Assist with Disaster Recovery, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name red

acted).

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations



technical assistance, such as legal counsel, engineering expertise for

infrastructure damage assessments, or scientific expertise on natural hazards.10

The term deployable federal asset also does not include the significant number of federal

government personnel that are already permanently “deployed” throughout the nation. These

federal personnel may support a local, state, or tribal government through their normally

authorized activities, in both normal and disaster situations. For example, Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) air traffic controllers provide a daily public service to a community, and

they strive to continue that service in disasters to support the community. Likewise, the

Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) field personnel, such as Custom and Border

Protection agents, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, and Secret Service agents,

perform essential homeland security and emergency management duties on a regular basis in

communities across the nation. In particular, the U.S. Coast Guard provides significant

emergency management and homeland security capabilities through regionally based personnel

throughout the nation, in fulfillment of its maritime security and safety missions.11 The field

personnel of scientific government agencies can also provide on-scene technical expertise to

support disaster response operations, such as personnel from the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS)12 and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

When does the federal government provide support to response

operations?

When a hazard produces a disaster in a community, the assets and resources needed to address the

consequences of the incident are generally provided by local, state, or tribal governments. This

complies with general principles of federalism found in emergency management policy, and the

often repeated truism that “all disasters are local.” However, due to the magnitude of the disaster,

a local, state, or tribal government may (a) be unable to respond to the unique consequences of a

disaster (e.g., it lacks a capability to eliminate a certain biological contaminant), or (b) have its

capability to respond become overwhelmed by the scale of consequences (e.g., there are too many

survivors requiring temporary shelter assistance). In either circumstance, the community may first

request assistance through an Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) or similar

mutual-aid agreement with a neighboring jurisdiction.13 These mutual-aid agreements allow

(...continued)

For example, the Logistics Management Directorate of FEMA can provide extensive logistics capabilities in support

of national disaster response operations. For more, see the Logistics Management Directorate’s website at

http://www.fema.gov/logistics-management-directorate.

For example, the National Weather Service provides technical expertise on meteorological natural hazards, to include

predictions on the path and magnitude of hurricanes and potential tornado-producing weather systems. Likewise, the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Environmental Health, Health Studies

Branch, studies the epidemiology of disasters, provides a rapid health needs assessment tool to be used by communities

responding to a disaster, and, upon request, provides expertise in disaster epidemiology to local, state, federal, and

international public health partners to help them prepare for and respond to natural and man-made hazards. For more,

see, respectively, the website for the NWS at http://www.weather.gov/, and the website for the CDC HSB at

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hsb/disaster/default.htm.

For examples of the Coast Guard’s capabilities, see a description of “2014 Performance Highlights” in U.S. Coast

Guard, 2016 Budget in Brief, February 2, 2015, at http://www.uscg.mil/budget/docs/2016_Budget_in_Brief.pdf.

For a brief description of how the USGS supports disaster response, see U.S. Geological Survey, USGS Emergency

Response Resources, Fact Sheet 2011-3079, September 2013, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3079/pdf/fs20113079.pdf.

The EMAC is a congressionally ratified compact that provides a legal structure by which states affected by a disaster

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

communities to leverage the resources of the surrounding region before requesting assistance

from a higher level of government, such as how neighboring fire departments may be called upon

to assist during particularly challenging incidents.

In general, to obtain federal assistance to address unmet needs arising from the disaster, an

official request must be made through the jurisdictional chain relevant to the community (i.e.,

from a city to county, county to state, and then state to federal; or from a mayor to county

executive, a county executive to a governor, and a governor to the President). Generally, tribal

governments may appeal for assistance directly to the federal government, but may also seek the

assistance of a relevant state or other local government first. There are many federal laws and

regulations that prescribe how a request for assistance may be made, but the most prominent is

the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §5721 et seq.;

henceforth the Stafford Act).14

The federal government may also provide assistance without a request in more limited

circumstances. For example, a request does not need to be made by a state or tribal government

when the primary responsibility for the response rests with the federal government. This most

frequently occurs because the incident involves an issue or hazard for which, under the

Constitution or a federal law, the President or other federal authority has exclusive or preeminent

responsibility and authority.15 Likewise, there are situations when the federal government or a

federal asset will provide immediate assistance, primarily to prevent the direct loss of life or

significant property damage, without the request rising through the “normal” request

procedures.16 For instance, the Department of Defense (DOD), through its Defense Support of

Civil Authorities (DSCA) regulations and policies, authorizes local DOD officials to provide

immediate assistance without a formal request rising through the state and lead federal officials.

Called the “immediate response authority,” regulations state that

In response a request for assistance from a civil authority, under imminently serious

conditions and if time does not permit approval from higher authority, DOD officials may

provide an immediate response by temporarily employing the resources under their

control, subject to any supplemental direction provided by higher headquarters, to save

lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage within the United

States.17

(...continued)

may request emergency assistance and aid from other states. The legal model has been replicated by local and tribal

government jurisdictions. The EMAC was ratified in P.L. 104-321. For more on EMAC, see http://www.emacweb.org/.

For more on how requests are managed through the Stafford Act declaration process, see CRS Report R43784,

FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer, by (name redacted)

See, primarily, Sec. 501(b) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5191(b). Most notably, this situation arises when the area

affected by the disaster is on federal property (in national waters, lands, parks, or military installations, etc.) or when

the Federal Bureau of Investigation becomes the lead federal law enforcement agency in response to a terrorism

incident.

See, primarily, Sec. 502(a)(8) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5192(a)(8). This authority allows the federal assistance

to be provided “where necessary to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate severe damage, which may be

provided in the absence of a specific request.... ”

32 C.F.R. §185.4(g).

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

What level of support is the federal government prepared to

provide and for how catastrophic a disaster?

For many reasons, the federal government attempts to scale its support for any disaster response

operation appropriately. Most obviously, the federal government scales its support so as not to

waste federal resources, but also to avoid overwhelming the community with excess assets and

inhibiting an efficient response. This scalability of support by the federal government can include

denying the requests of local, state, and tribal governments for more commitment of resources.

For example, a duly authorized federal official receiving a request may determine that the use of

an asset is not required by the conditions in the relevant incident. Under the Stafford Act process,

this can mean the denial of a request for a major or emergency disaster declaration, or the

provision of certain types of direct federal assistance and not others under a major disaster

declaration. The federal government may also provide a different type of asset than the one

requested to address an unmet need.

In theory, in the most extreme of catastrophic disasters,18 all applicable resources of the federal

government could be directed to support response operations under the authority of the Stafford

Act.19 The full resources of the DOD could also be used to support a disaster response under what

DOD claims is its “inherent emergency power.”20 An exemption in the Antideficiency Act relating

to “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property” may also allow

the use of federal resources, to include deployable assets, without sufficient funding having been

previously provided by Congress.21

It is difficult, if not impossible, to project the magnitude of consequences that the full resources of

the federal government would be able to respond to sufficiently. Additionally, government plans

that provide detailed assessments of a maximum response capacity are likely to be classified,

given the sensitivity of that information for national security. That said, some public information

is available that illustrates the potential magnitude of consequences the federal government is

conceivably planning to address. For example, in a 2011 draft of the National Preparedness Goal,

Possible scenarios range from the impact of a meteor or comet, an attack by a foreign or domestic adversary using a

weapon(s) of mass destruction, a series of catastrophic earthquakes and subsequent tsunamis, or the eruption of a

supervolcano.

See Sec. 402(1) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5170a(1), which authorizes the President, in any major disaster, to

“direct any Federal agency, with or without reimbursement, to utilize its authorities and the resources granted to it

under Federal law (including personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, and managerial, technical, and advisory

services) in support of State and local assistance response and recovery efforts, including precautionary evacuations.”

The legal definition of a major disaster in the Stafford Act confines the types of hazards that can result in a major

disaster declaration, but it is difficult to imagine a scenario where a truly catastrophic disaster would not result in one or

more major disaster declarations. Even if the provoking hazard is not specifically included in the major disaster

definition—such as a terrorist attack or cyber incident—the consequences of the hazard requiring response capabilities

are likely to fall into the scope of the definition. See Sec. 102(2) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5122(2) for the

definition of a major disaster. Some legislative consideration has been given to establishing a formal process in the

Stafford Act to declare a “catastrophic” disaster; for more on that issue see CRS Report R41884, Considerations for a

Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis, by (name redacted) and (name redacted)

For more information on the DOD’s inherent emergency power and other authorizations for the use of federal

military in disaster response, see CRS Report RS22266, The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal

Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted) .

31 U.S.C. §1342. For more information on the Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. §§1341-1342, §§1511-1519) and this

“emergency” and other exemptions, see CRS Report RL34680, Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes,

Processes, and Effects, coordinated by (name redacted) .

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

FEMA described a “meta-scenario” that was used to define the national—not just federal22—

capabilities needed for response and recovery. The meta-scenario was described as

a no-notice event impacting a population of seven million within a 25 thousand square

mile area. The impacted area includes several states across multiple regions. Severe

damage is projected to critical infrastructure including essential transportation

infrastructure. Ingress and egress options are severely limited. The projected number of

fatalities is 195,000 during the initial hours of the event. It is projected that 265,000

survivors will require emergency medical attention. At least 25 percent of the impacted

population will require mass care, emergency sheltering, and housing assistance. 23

This meta-scenario was not mentioned directly in the final version of the National Preparedness

Goal, and appears to have been simplified in text to a “no-notice, cascading incident.”24 Other

planning and exercise scenarios, especially the National Level Exercise 2011,25 provide further

extreme examples of potential capacity requirements.26 Both FEMA and the DOD are currently

developing and revising national and regional catastrophic plans that may improve future

understanding of the maximum capacity to respond to a disaster or series of disasters.27

What principal legal authorities permit, and what key executive

branch policies guide the use of deployable federal assets?

As there is a wide array of deployable federal assets throughout many federal departments and

agencies, this section of the report does not provide a comprehensive list of every authority or

policy that guides the use of the assets for disaster response operations. However, the following

section does discuss a broad legal authority for the provision of federal assistance and executive

branch policies guiding that assistance.

Authorities

The specific authority for each example of a deployable federal asset is discussed later in the

report. Of general importance to all deployable federal assets is the essential assistance authority

provided by the Stafford Act. This authority allows any federal agency, at the approval of the

National capabilities mean the capabilities of the whole of community, including available assets from local, state,

tribal governments, and the private and nonprofit sectors.

See Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Preparedness Goal, National Review Draft, p.6,

August 2011.

Department of Homeland Security, National Preparedness Goal, First Edition, September 2011, p. 4, at

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/prepared/npg.pdf.

In 2011, emergency managers and stakeholders across the nation participated in the annual “National Level

Exercise” (NLE) using the scenario of a catastrophic earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone. The annual NLE is

the centerpiece of FEMA’s National Exercise Program. The National Exercise Program is established to test, evaluate,

and improve national capabilities to prepare for disasters. For more on NLE 2011, see Federal Emergency Management

Agency, National Level Exercise 2011 (NLE): Quick Look Report, June 14, 2011, at https://www.llis.dhs.gov/sites/

default/files/nle11_quick_look_report.pdf.

Numerous other documents provide some indications about the maximum response capabilities of the federal

government, including documents that were produced under a previous version of the National Response Framework,

and the “National Planning Scenarios” developed pursuant to a now-obsolete presidential directive, Homeland Security

Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8). For example, see the Department of Homeland Security, Catastrophic Incident

Supplement to the National Response Framework, For Official Use Only.

For more on these planning efforts, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Civil Support: Actions Are Needed

to Improve DOD’s Planning for a Complex Catastrophe, GAO-13-763, September 2013, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/

660/658406.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

President, to provide “assistance essential to meeting immediate threats to life and property

resulting from a major disaster.”28 Though federal essential assistance is only available during

Stafford Act declared major disasters, the federal government is also allowed to provide

considerable assistance during Stafford Act declared emergencies.29 A Stafford Act emergency

can be declared in “any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President,

Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives

and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a

catastrophe in any part of the United States.”30 These provisions, and others of the Stafford Act,

may provide sufficient legal justification for the use of federal resources, including those

established under more general authority without specific direction on their use in disasters, to

support response operations.

CRS also has a number of available reports that analyze federal authorities for disaster assistance,

including the authorizing legislation for deployable federal assets.31

Policies

The National Response Framework (NRF) is the foremost policy that guides “how the Nation

responds to all types of disasters and emergencies ... [and] describes specific authorities and best

practices for managing incidents that range from the serious but purely local to large-scale

terrorist attacks or catastrophic natural disasters.”32 As a national policy, it is intended to guide

not just federal response operations, but also local, state, and tribal government response

operations, and the response operations of the private and non-profit sectors. The NRF also

establishes 14 different Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) to organize the response

capabilities of the nation.33 Mainly through supplementary documents to the NRF, including a

Sec. 403 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5170b.

Sec. 502 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5192.

Sec. 102(1) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5122(1).

As examples among others, see



CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities,

and Funding, by (name redacted)

;



CRS Report R43990, FEMA’s Public Assistance Grant Program: Background and Considerations for Congress,

by (name redacted) and (name redacted).



CRS Report R43251, Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework, by (name redacted)

and (name redacted);



CRS Report RL33579, The Public Health and Medical Response to Disasters: Federal Authority and Funding,

by (name redacted);



CRS Report R42659, The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian

Law, by (name redacted) and (name redacted); and



CRS Report R42114, Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Overview of Major Issues, Current Laws, and

Proposed Legislation, by (name redacted)

See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Response Framework, Second Edition, May 2013, p. 1, at

http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=7371. For extensive support documents and presentations on the NRF,

see http://www.fema.gov/nrf/.

ESFs group agencies with pertinent authorities, resources, and expertise to accomplish a set of capabilities needed in

disaster response, regardless of disaster type. For instance, ESF #9 is “Search and Rescue,” which unifies agencies with

the appropriate resources and authorities to conduct search and rescue operations following an incident. Each ESF has a

coordinating agency, typically several different primary agencies, and a larger number of support agencies. There were

originally 15 ESFs in earlier versions of the NRF, but one, ESF #14—Long-term Community Recovery, was replaced

by the National Disaster Recovery Framework.

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

Federal Interagency Operational Plan (FIOP), ESF annexes, incident annexes, and other support

annexes, the NRF sets out specific responsibilities of federal agencies involved in the response

operations. At the more detailed level of the Response FIOP, the response requirements and

capabilities of the federal government are identified through a generalized concept of

operations.34 Varying levels of specific information on how the requirements and capabilities will

be fulfilled, often by deployable federal assets, are further discussed in the Annexes to the FIOP. 35

Although the NRF is often closely linked with the Stafford Act, the NRF is always in effect and

does not require a formal Stafford Act declaration to be used. Any disaster requiring federal

coordination, including those declared under other federal authorities, arguably can be managed

through the NRF.

A central guideline of the NRF is the National Incident Management System (NIMS).36 Originally

conceived of in Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5),37 NIMS is now mandated

in law for the federal government and strongly encouraged for state and local governments

through requirements to grant assistance.38 NIMS is a preparedness and response management

model that incorporates the Incident Command System (ICS). ICS is a command and control

system and structure originally developed by firefighters as a means of providing cohesive

response to multijurisdictional (or multidepartment) incidents. ICS standardizes response

operations by using similar terminology, communication systems, and organizational structures to

eliminate or reduce confusion during a unified response.39 NIMS uses ICS concepts to establish a

response structure that is scalable (capable of growing as more organizations come together to

respond to the incident) and that can be used by all jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations to

ensure a unified response to complex events.

Another significant federal policy is set forth by Defense Support for Civilian Authorities

(DSCA) regulations and DOD directives.40 DSCA guides the use of DOD deployable federal

assets in accordance with the Constitution and other legal requirements. There are also many

Department of Homeland Security, Response Federal Interagency Operational Plan, July 2014, at

https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/97362.

For example, see Annex C: Operational Coordination of the FIOP, which has multiple sub-appendixes on key core

capabilities, such as Appendix 4 to Annex C: Fatality Management Services. In this particular appendix, the role of

deployable federal assets of the

National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) are identified and explained. See Department of Homeland Security,

Response Federal Interagency Operational Plan, Appendix 4 to Annex C, July 2014, at https://www.fema.gov/medialibrary/assets/documents/97362.

Extensive information about NIMS is available from FEMA on its website at http://www.fema.gov/national-incidentmanagement-system.

Executive Office of the President, Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5: Management of Domestic Incidents,

February 28, 2003, at https://www.dhs.gov/publication/homeland-security-presidential-directive-5.

See, among others, 6 U.S.C. §314(a)(2)(b). The requirement for NIMS adoption and training is embedded in both the

Homeland Security Grant Program and Emergency Management Performance Grant program.

For example, prior to ICS, a police and fire department responding to the same incident might use different command

structures and communicate with different terms. For instance, a “code blue” for one department might mean

something else for another. The organization’s structure might also be different, as a “chief” in one department might

have a different role and responsibility in another. ICS (and NIMS) is therefore an attempt to eliminate potential

confusion caused by these differences.

DOD regulatory guidance for DSCA is contained in DOD Directive 3025.18, Defense Support of Civil Authorities,

December 29, 2010 (incorporating change 1, September 21, 2012), at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/

302518p.pdf. The joint doctrinal publication on this topic is Joint Publication 3-28, Defense Support of Civil

Authorities, July 31, 2013, at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_28.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

incident-specific planning guidelines, such as the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza,41

which provide critical guidance on the use of deployable federal assets for those incidents.

Considerations for Congress

There are several policy issues that Congress may consider when evaluating future authorization

and funding for various deployable federal assets. Though each deployable federal asset has

unique oversight issues, the following sections of this report discuss cross-cutting matters related

to oversight of these assets as a whole.

Policy Benefits and Disadvantages of Deployable Federal Assets

There are several theoretical policy benefits and disadvantages that may result from authorization

and appropriation of deployable federal assets by Congress. In the following section, several of

these salient benefits and disadvantages, rooted in macroeconomic and social science theory, are

discussed briefly. These benefits and disadvantages are largely a result of the federalism structure

of the nation, and may also apply to the provision of deployable assets by states. In other words,

to a different degree, the authorization and appropriation of deployable assets by state legislatures

may result in similar benefits and disadvantages.

Benefits

The authority and funding for deployable federal assets can be considered a form of risk pooling.

It allows the nation, as a whole, to combine or “pool” uncorrelated hazard risk (such as from

earthquakes and terrorist attacks), and the response capability requirements associated with those

risks (such as mass care and power generation capabilities). Essentially, not every local, state, or

tribal government may use the response capabilities provided by a certain deployable asset within

a given time frame (a year, or decade), but each may be attempting to manage the risk of needing

such an asset from a variety of hazards. For example, consider the federal government’s

resourcing of DOD Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Response (CBRN) Forces.

Every community in the nation faces some low level of risk (though not uniform) that a hazard

will produce consequences that these assets have a capability to address. If communities are able

to pool their risk through the centralized federal capability, each may be able to ensure they have

access to the capability when required without maintaining the asset wholly on its own. Risk

pooling also occurs at a local, state, and tribal government level through emergency management

mutual-aid agreements.

An associated benefit of this risk pooling is that the federal government may be able to provide

the response capabilities of deployable federal assets at a lower cost than smaller governments,

due to economies of scale.42 For example, the per unit “production” cost of the capabilities

provided by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Planning and Response Teams may be significantly

less at the federal level than at a state or local level. Reductions in the cost of production may

occur because the federal government gains efficiencies in the costs of training and equipping the

larger number of units the nation requires instead of the one or two units that might be required at

the state or local level.

Executive Office of the President, Homeland Security Council, National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza, November

2005, at http://www.flu.gov/planning-preparedness/federal/pandemic-influenza-strategy-2005.pdf.

An economy of scale is “A situation in which the average cost of production decreases as production increases.” See

Dictionary of the Social Sciences, ed. Craig Calhoun (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002).

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

Disadvantages

There are also possible disadvantages with the establishment of deployable federal assets. The

mere existence and use of federal response capabilities provided by deployable federal assets may

produce a type of moral hazard.43 The moral hazard may occur if and when non-federal actors,

including other government entities and private citizens, increase their risk exposure to hazards

under the reasonable expectation that the federal government will provide sufficient response

capabilities when needed to address disaster consequences. Observers have argued that moral

hazard may result from most forms of federal disaster assistance, especially financial assistance.44

In the context of deployable federal assets, for example, the establishment of federal firefighting

capabilities may deter other governmental actors and private individuals from mitigating their

wildfire risk, or encourage potentially risky development in the wildland-urban interface.45

Another theoretical disadvantage is that federal provision of response capabilities may crowd

out46 investment in those same capabilities by other actors, including the private sector. As such,

other actors may be less likely, or even unable, to develop their own response capabilities due to

federal investments. For example, the federal government’s investment in the capabilities

provided by the 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power) may raise the cost of similar energyrelated response capabilities for non-federal actors. Or, the federal government’s investment in

Federal Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs) may crowd out the investment of other

actors in highly trained and skilled emergency managers, because the federal government is both

dominating the supply of a potentially limited resource and driving up its cost to other potential

purchasers. The crowding out may be less problematic if it only decreases the investment of nonfederal government entities, but does not reduce the investment from the private sector or

individual citizens. If true, local governments may be simply transferring the financial

responsibility to the federal government for the investment in a capability, though such

commitment is still coming from the national tax base. However, if the government’s spending

crowds out private sector investment (e.g., critical infrastructure owners and operators) in

response capabilities, it may be more problematic for the nation’s risk profile as the investment

may reduce the nation’s aggregate supply of capabilities and increase the taxpayer’s proportional

burden for providing those capabilities. For example, if the private sector provides less of a

capability because of the crowd-out effect, the nation may have less of the capability in total. To

compensate for the loss of private sector investment, either partially or entirely, the resulting

government expenditure on the capability may increase, thus increasing taxpayer costs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Various Models for Staffing Federal Assets

As deployable assets continue to be resourced, Congress may wish to evaluate the costeffectiveness of various models of staffing deployable federal assets. These models are not

A moral hazard “refers to the possibility that policies or decisions may create incentives for undesirable behavior.

Moral hazards often arise where the monitoring of contracts is difficult or where policies diminish the risks associated

with certain kinds of behavior.” See Dictionary of the Social Sciences, ed. Craig Calhoun (New York, NY: Oxford

University Press, 2002).

See, for example, discussion of the potential moral hazard of disaster assistance at Raymond J. Burby, “Hurricane

Katrina and the Paradoxes of Government Disaster Policy: Bringing about Wise Governmental Decisions for

Hazardous Areas,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 604 (March 2006).

For more on wildfire protection, see CRS Report RS21880, Wildfire Protection in the Wildland-Urban Interface, by

(name redacted) and (name redacted)

Crowding out is “the fall in private consumption or investment resulting from a rise in government expenditure.” See

Dictionary of the Social Sciences, ed. Craig Calhoun (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002).

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

mutually exclusive. Even within the selection of samples of deployable federal assets covered in

this report, there is considerable diversity in how personnel are employed by the federal

government—if they are employed by the government directly at all. Below are a few short

examples of how deployable assets are staffed.



Conditional employment: In this model, assets are significantly staffed by

federal employees on term-limited, seasonal, or reserve appointments. For

example, personnel of Forest Service Firefighting Assets are often seasonal

employees, typically only working as temporary agency employees during the

length of the fire season. This conditional employment model may accrue savings

in salaries and benefits, but may decrease the effectiveness of the capability by

reducing the available training time for employees or discouraging highly

qualified employees from continuing their service. It may also generate a higher

turnover employment ratio in the asset.

Dedicated versus multiuse staffing: A dedicated staffing model means that the

sole mission and job description of the employee revolves around their

participation and responsibilities with the deployable federal asset. A multiuse

staffing model means the employee has one or more additional responsibilities,

and is only dedicated to the mission of the deployable asset during activations or

trainings. As examples, personnel of the Transportation Security Administration’s

(TSA’s) Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) Teams may be

multiuse staff, as the team may be comprised of various different DHS/TSA staff

elements with other, primary assigned duties, such as Federal Air Marshals. In

contrast, Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs) and Federal Disaster Recovery

Coordinators (FDRCs) are full-time employees dedicated exclusively to their

deployable mission. Much of the assessment on cost-effectiveness of the two

models has to do with frequency of use for the capabilities of the asset, and the

level of specialized training that is required to maintain their operational

readiness. An additional disadvantage that should be considered when evaluating

the multiuse model is the impact deployments have on the execution of their

alternate missions, and whether those missions could continue to be performed if

the employees were deployed at greater than expected lengths of time.

“Federalization” or “Activation” employment model: This staffing model

generally means that a majority or all of the employees of a deployable federal

asset are not regularly employed or paid by the federal government. Rather, the

employees may be public employees of other government entities (e.g., state or

local agencies), or even private citizens with specialized skills (e.g., physicians).

The President or other federal government official has the authority to

“federalize” or “activate” the asset, and in doing so, may pay the salaries of the

employees while deployed, and grant the employee many of the benefits and

protections afforded to permanent federal employees. Typically, these assets also

receive some level of regular federal funding for training, equipment, and other

needs. The National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Task Forces and

components of the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) use variations of

this staffing model. Benefits of this model include that it may leverage nonfederal expertise in national response operations from citizens that otherwise

would not be interested or incentivized to join the federal government. This

model may also be the most cost-effective, as it may limit federal expenditures

when the asset is not being used nationally. However, disadvantages of this

model include a restricted ability to manage the quality of training and

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

capabilities of personnel staffing in the asset, and greater challenges integrating

the asset into the ICS structure with other assets.

Financing the Deployment of Federal Response Assets

In general, costs to maintain a deployable federal response asset—such as rostering and training

of personnel and maintenance of equipment—are predictable, and are provided through a

standing funding mechanism, typically the annual appropriation to the responsible agency.

Deployment costs, or those costs related to using the asset to provide direct assistance to a

community, may not have regular funding mechanisms. For some types of incidents and

deployable assets, Congress has provided, or agencies have developed, various mechanisms to

bear the largely unpredictable costs of deployments. For other types of incidents and deployable

assets, there is no such established mechanism. In these cases, Congress may provide

supplemental appropriations, or responsible agencies must bear deployment costs through other

funds available in their annual budgets. Specific mechanisms to fund maintenance and

management costs are discussed in the summaries of specific deployable assets later in this

report. Selected types of funding mechanisms and challenges in funding deployments are

discussed in general below.

The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) is a common source of deployment funding for direct federal

assistance authorized by the Stafford Act.47 When an emergency or major disaster is declared

under the Stafford Act, FEMA officials, through the delegated authorities of the President, may

direct other federal agencies to provide assistance to the affected communities through mission

assignments. Mission assignments are formal work orders for specific activities and/or assets

under Stafford Act authority. Typically, mission assignments are provided to federal agencies with

the promise of reimbursement of costs through the DRF.48 Depending on the details of the disaster

declaration, some of these costs may be shared by the state or tribal government, with a minimum

of 75% of the cost being covered by the federal government.49

Although the DRF, via mission assignments, is a significant source of funding for many

deployable federal assets, not all federal activities during Stafford Act declared incidents may be

paid for through the DRF. In practice, FEMA generally avoids paying for the deployment of

assets through the DRF when the capability of the asset is a normally authorized activity of the

agency, or when the agency has a more specific authority to provide emergency assistance for a

particular disaster consequence than is written in the Stafford Act. For example, FEMA, as a

matter of policy, has determined that it generally will not provide funding to the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers or the Natural Resources Conservation Service to provide emergency protective

measures50 related to the rehabilitation of levees and other flood control works.51 Therefore, in

For more on the DRF, see CRS Report R43537, FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund: Overview and Selected Issues, by

(name redacted) .

Mission assignments rely on the President’s authority to direct federal agencies to support disaster response and

recovery operations, namely found at Sec. 402, 403, and 502 of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. §§5170a, 5170b, and

5192). See Federal Emergency Management Agency, Financial Management Support Annex, National Response

Framework, May 2013, at http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/32264?id=7387. Specific examples of

mission assignments are available through daily mission assignment activity reports published on FEMA’s website at

http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/30824?id=6984.

See, primarily, Sec. 403(c)(4) of the Stafford Act, (42 U.S.C. §5170b(c)(4). For more on disaster cost-shares in

Stafford Act declarations, see CRS Report R41101, FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis, by (name re

dacted)

Emergency protective measures is generally defined by FEMA as activities necessary to “eliminate or reduce an

immediate threat to life, public health, or safety; or eliminate or reduce an immediate threat of significant damage to

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

such circumstances, federal agencies may require another source of funding to pay for these

activities during deployment in Stafford Act declared incidents.

There are also many types of incidents where a Stafford Act declaration is not made and certain

federal response assets may still be deployed. This most regularly occurs when assets are

deployed in a preventive or precautionary role at National Special Security Events (NSSEs), such

as presidential inaugurations and major sporting events. Although these events are predictable

and, barring an incident, deployment costs may be modest, NSSEs do not trigger assistance

through the Stafford Act and do not have any other blanket funding mechanism to cover asset

deployment costs.52 Often the responsible agencies cover deployment costs through the

administrative budgets for the specific assets.

Generally, federal agencies are not allowed to augment their funding from outside sources unless

specifically authorized by Congress. These issues are covered by the general area of law called

augmentation of appropriations,53 and can inhibit federal agencies from using any source of

funding other than direct appropriations from Congress to pay for the cost of deployments.

Absent statutory authorization, federal agencies are generally restricted from accepting private

funding to pay for the deployment of federal assets or other federal activities (e.g., accepting

money from a private company for the use of an asset to restore electrical power to the company’s

facilities).54 Federal agencies are also generally restricted from receiving unreimbursed assistance

from employees of deployable federal assets, or from receiving the volunteer assistance of the

general public to serve in any official federal capacity.55

As an example of how Congress may address these funding challenges, consider the 2009

influenza pandemic. When an incident results in a Stafford Act declaration, reimbursement is

often available through the DRF to reimburse agencies for many activities carried out as part of

ESF #8—Public Health and Medical Services, coordinated by the Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS).56 However, a Stafford Act declaration was not made in response to the

2009 influenza pandemic, and there is no precedent for a major disaster declaration in response to

an infectious disease incident, whether naturally occurring, or bioterrorism.57 Furthermore, there

is no standing federal mechanism to cover the costs of health care that is provided as part of a

disaster response. Congress provided supplemental appropriations to fund the response to the

(...continued)

improved public or private property through cost-effective measures.” See Federal Emergency Management Agency,

Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 322, 2007, p. 71, at http://www.fema.gov/public-assistance-policy-and-guidance.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Rehabilitation Assistance for Levees and other Flood Control Works,

RP9524.3, September 23, 2011, p. 2, at https://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/pa/9524_3.pdf.

For more on NSSEs, see CRS Report R43522, National Special Security Events: Fact Sheet, by (name redacted).

For a full discussion of augmentation of appropriations, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Principles of

Federal Appropriations Law, Third Edition, Volume II, GAO-06-382SP, February 2006, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/

210/202819.pdf.

31 U.S.C. §3302.

31 U.S.C. §1342.

Even when there is a Stafford Act declaration, FEMA does not reimburse for health care costs except for such care

required to provide immediate emergency care, evacuation, and stabilization. See FEMA Recovery Policy 9525.4,

“Emergency Medical Care and Medical Evacuations,” February 3, 2014, at http://www.fema.gov/9500-series-policypublications.

CRS Report RL34724, Would an Influenza Pandemic Qualify as a Major Disaster Under the Stafford Act?, by

(name redacted)

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

2009 influenza pandemic,58 and to cover unreimbursed healthcare costs associated with the

response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.59

Congress has also established two dedicated trust funds—managed by the U.S. Coast Guard and

the Environmental Protection Agency respectively—to finance the costs of a federal response to a

discharge of oil or release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Each agency is

responsible for disbursing monies from these trust funds to other federal departments and

agencies, states, and local entities that may be involved in a federal response. The federal

government may recover its response costs from the liable party (or parties) and may use these

funds to replenish the respective trust fund, with the exception of the costs of responding to

pollutant or contaminant incidents for which liability is not established. These funding

mechanisms are discussed further in the “National Response System for Oil and Chemical Spills”

section of this report.

Federalism and Operational Control

As previously discussed, the federal government generally provides disaster assistance, including

deployable federal assets, at the request of a state or tribal government. In addition, the federal

government almost always operates in a support role in the affected communities. While federal

assets, especially federal troops, generally remain in the control of the federal officials, the set of

unmet needs they are tasked with addressing is largely dictated by the incident commanders at the

local or state level. In other words, federal resources are provided at the discretion of the affected

entities, in deference to federalism principles, with a lesser degree of executive decision-making

on their use being made by federal officials.

This can create situations where the federal government is providing considerable support with

limited authority to direct the overall management of the incident. For example, this could result

in disagreements over tactical decisions such as where to prioritize search and rescue operations,

the best way to triage and manage mass care requirements of survivors, and what critical services

should or can be restored before other services. Congress may wish to consider whether the

provision of federal assistance should grant the federal government more decision-making power

if disagreements arise in the incident management. On the positive side of the argument, greater

federal authority may more easily allow the application of lessons learned from other disasters to

the current incident if the state or local incident command has less experience to draw on. It may

also increase regional coordination of a response by allowing federal officials to influence

decisions across a unified command structure. Further, federal assets may be able to place greater

priority on addressing the consequences of a disaster that have national implications versus more

localized implications.60 On the negative side, any changes to federal authority that allow the

federal government to have greater operational control over state and local response management

may dissuade such entities from requesting assistance in the first place. Further, local knowledge

See the Supplemental Appropriations Act, FY2009 (P.L. 111-32). For discussion of the supplement funding required

and the overall H1N1 incident, see CRS Report R40554, The 2009 Influenza Pandemic: An Overview, by (name red

acted) and (name redacted)

For discussion, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Hurricane Katrina: Allocation and Use of $2 Billion for

Medicaid and Other Health Care Needs, GAO-07-67, February 28, 2007, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-67.

For example, federal assets may be more likely to restore nodes of critical infrastructure systems needed to avoid or

remediate cascading impacts outside the immediately affected area (e.g., pipelines transporting natural gas through the

affected region that do not provide service to the immediate area, or a local dam that provides regional power

generation) instead of focusing on the restoration of critical infrastructure providing end service of the community (e.g.,

power transmission lines to residential or commercial areas, or reducing flooding in local transportation hubs).

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

and expertise on the unmet needs of the affected population may be sidelined or underappreciated

by federal officials, to the detriment of the survivors. Also, the possibility that the federal

government could “overrule” a local command decision may lead to breakdowns in the NIMS

structure that would have negative impacts on all response operations.

Challenges in Monitoring and Evaluating Deployable

Federal Assets

In Congress’s oversight of federal operations, Congress may face numerous challenges when

attempting to monitor and evaluate the benefits of deployable federal assets in supporting

response operations.

These challenges include the following.



The use of deployable federal assets is a relatively rare occurrence, though some

are used much more frequently than others.61 Also, reporting by the federal

government on the use of its assets, even in raw numbers, is limited,62 making it

difficult to assess the percentage of incidents that result in the provision of one or

more deployable federal assets.63

Analyzing the benefits of deployable federal assets based on a roughly

comparable counterfactual scenario64 may be difficult because of the uniqueness

of each disaster and the particular capabilities of each local government.65

The authorizations and appropriations for many deployable federal assets have a

low degree of specification. For example, many assets draw their authority from

broadly worded provisions in statute,66 and others are appropriated by Congress

Some assets, such as Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs) and Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinators (FDRCs)

are used far more frequently than others, such as the Department of Defense Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and

Nuclear (CBRN) Response Forces.

As an example statistic on usage, National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) assets have been used more than 300

times since 1984. However, it is unclear what incidents provoked these deployments, what kinds of NDMS assets were

deployed, for how long, and where the assets deployed. As another example, it is clear that for every emergency or

major disaster declaration under the Stafford Act, a Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) and Federal Disaster Recovery

Coordinator (FDRC) will deploy. However, it is unclear how many times, and for what circumstances, a Federal

Disaster Recovery Coordinator (FDRC) will deploy.

Further, in order to calculate a percentage of incidents resulting in the assistance of a deployable federal asset, one

must be able to determine the number of incidents that non-federal government entities respond to and manage without

such support. For example, one might argue that all multi-car accidents should be counted as incidents, or that every

five alarm fire is an incident, etc. Depending on where the consequence threshold is set for what constitutes an incident,

the percentage of incidents that involve federal assets will change significantly.

In other words, evaluating the benefit of a federal asset by comparing the results of incidents where federal assistance

was provided versus incidents where assistance was not provided.

For example, consider the following hypothetical scenarios. Incident A, where federal assets were deployed, involves

a tornado that destroyed public infrastructure including schools and hospitals in a community but had limited impact on

residential areas. Incident B involves another tornado of relatively equal magnitude that hit a residential area resulting

in greater casualties and housing needs but less damage to public infrastructure. The Incident A community has

significant pre-existing capabilities for mass care of survivors, but limited capabilities for essential infrastructure

restoration; and in Incident B, the community had the reverse strengths and capabilities. Evaluating the effectiveness of

using deployable federal assets in Incident A by comparing the results of not using the assets in Incident B would

involve controlling for the divergence in both the consequences of the “comparable” tornados and the pre-existing

community capabilities.

For example, most of the deployable federal asset assistance provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is

broadly authorized by the Flood Control and Coastal Emergency Act, P.L. 84-99 (33 U.S.C. §701n), which may

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

in large, unspecific accounts.67 Without a higher degree of specification in

authorization or appropriation, the existence and use of the deployable asset may

not generate significant oversight attention. This may also lead to limited

reporting by the executive branch on the activities of the asset through the annual

budgeting and appropriation process, to include a lack of detailed information in

documents like agency budget justifications.

Thus, in general, the limited use of deployable federal assets and the unique circumstances of

each disaster result in a small sample size that Congress and others can use to evaluate the

benefits of the capabilities provided by the asset. This sample size may be expanded, however,

when it includes numerous national, regional, and local discussions-based and operations-based

response exercises.68

Given the above challenges, the recommendations of after-action reports (AARs) and the

implementation of subsequent after-action report improvement plans (AAR-IPs), for both real

incidents and exercises, may help inform Congress in its oversight of the use of deployable

federal assets. AARs and AAR-IPs are generally developed by both the respective state and

federal governments after significant real-world incidents and full-scale exercises, and frequently

by the affected local governments as well. However, these evaluations often tend to be produced

by the responding or exercising agency—either directly or by contract to a third party—and

therefore may lack independent objectivity. Further, the Government Accountability Office

(GAO) has identified that opportunities exist to enhance the oversight, primarily provided by

DHS and FEMA, of how capability gaps identified in selected exercises, real-world incidents, and

other assessments are resolved.69 In other words, though problems are regularly identified in

AARs and AAR-IPs, how and if those problems have been resolved is not always tracked.

However, through after action reviews, Congress may discover general thematic issues that limit

the effectiveness of deployable federal assets, or be able to highlight shortcomings with the

capabilities of a particular asset. For example, following Hurricane Sandy, both FEMA and the

White House produced AARs that highlighted federal challenges requiring improvement,

including some on the use of deployable federal assets.70 Of note, Congress’s ability to use AARs

(...continued)

obscure the full scope and importance of the assets to domestic emergency management.

For example, Incident Management Assistance Teams are explicitly authorized in law (42 U.S.C. §5144), but receive

funding through the Disaster Relief Fund account at FEMA. No specific information regarding their budgetary cost was

included in any of the agency’s FY2015 budget justification documents.

As defined by the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP), discussion-based exercises

include “seminars, workshops, tabletop exercises (TTXs), and games. These types of exercises can be used to

familiarize players with, or develop new, plans, policies, agreements, and procedures. Discussion-based exercises focus

on strategic, policy-oriented issues.” Operations-based exercises “include drills, functional exercises (FEs), and fullscale exercises (FSEs). These exercises can be used to validate plans, policies, agreements, and procedures; clarify

roles and responsibilities; and identify resource gaps. Operations-based exercises are characterized by actual reaction to

an exercise scenario, such as initiating communications or mobilizing personnel and resources.” See the Department of

Homeland Security, Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP), April 2013, pp. 2-4 and 2-5, at

https://www.llis.dhs.gov/HSEEP/Documents/homeland-security-exercise-and-evaluation-program-hseep.

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Interagency Assessments and

Accountability for Closing Capability Gaps, GAO-15-20, November 2014, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-1520.

For example, in a FEMA-specific AAR for Hurricane Sandy, it was noted that the deployment of so many FEMA

employees to the response had a negative impact on the ability of many FEMA components to continue their normal

functions (and could have had a worse impact if another incident arose). Thus, FEMA noted it needed to incorporate

the impact of deploying federal personnel has on its continuity of operation plans. Likewise, an interagency AAR led

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

and AAR-IPs in its oversight may be hindered—but not stopped—by the security classification of

some documents, given their sensitivity to national security.71

Brief Summaries of Sample Federal Assets

This section of the report provides brief summaries of examples of deployable federal assets that

can support disaster response operations. This section of the report is not comprehensive, and

does not provide an exhaustive list of every federal asset that may be used to address a multitude

of unique needs that can arise when responding to the plethora of hazards facing the nation. For

instance, this section does not contain summaries of an array of specialized, law enforcement

response assets provided by the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security to

respond to the consequences of intentional hazards, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s

Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG).72 Also, cyber-related response teams, such as DHS’s

United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) are not summarized below.73

Table 1 reviews the basic information provided in each summary of sample deployable federal

assets. Each summary begins with the contact information of the relevant CRS expert available to

answer further questions from Congress on the asset. Additional CRS expertise is available to

address questions on other assets not summarized in the report.74

(...continued)

by the White House made a number of recommendations on how the federal response to future disasters could be

improved based on lessons learned during Hurricane Sandy. Respectively, see Federal Emergency Management

Agency, Hurricane Sandy FEMA After-Action Report, July 1, 2013, p. 34, at http://www.fema.gov/media-library/

assets/documents/33772; and Executive Office of the President, Federal Interagency Sandy After-Action Review Team,

The Federal Response to Hurricane Sandy After-Action Report, For Official Use Only, June 1, 2013.

This is especially true for documents related to intentional hazards (e.g., terrorist attacks).

For more information on the Critical Incident Response Group, see the FBI’s website at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/

cirg.

Given the nature of a cyber-related hazard and disaster, the US-CERT and other federal assets may not, but

potentially could, physically “deploy” but instead support response operations remotely. For more information on the

United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team, see DHS’s website at http://www.us-cert.gov/.

Requests can be directed to the coordinator of this report for any unlisted asset, at [redacted]@crs.loc.gov

or 7-.....

Congressional Research Service

Table 1. Synopsis of Examples of Deployable Federal Assets

Managing

Department(s)/

Agency(s)

Primary Authority

Brief Description of Duties

Incident Management Assistance Teams

(IMATs)

DHS/FEMA

42 U.S.C. §5144

Provide on-scene incident command capabilities and identify and satisfy

initial requirements for federal assistance. Serve in core responsibilities

in ICS structure for federal assistance to local disasters and for

federally led incidents.

Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs)

DHS/FEMA

42 U.S.C. §5143

Coordinate all federal assistance to affected state(s)/tribe(s) in Stafford

Act declared emergencies or disasters.

Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Teams

DHS/FEMA

6 U.S.C. §722

Provide specialized assistance locating and rescuing victims after

buildings or other structures collapse, or in response to natural

hazards such as landsides or earthquakes.

Visible Intermodal Prevention and

Response (VIPR) Teams

DHS/TSA

6 U.S.C. §1112

Deploys transportation security assets (e.g. security inspectors, air

marshals, and canine teams) to specific locations and events as needed.

Protective Security Advisors (PSAs)

DHS/NPPD

6 U.S.C. §121(d)(6)

Anticipate and assess damage to the area’s critical infrastructure

assets, including assessing the potential for cascading effects due to

interdependencies among those assets. They also can help prioritize

re-entry and recovery efforts related to critical infrastructure.

U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned

Corps

HHS/ASH

42 U.S.C. §§202-233

Provide medical and public health workforce surge capacity in

response to mass casualty incidents and other public health

emergencies.

Strategic National Stockpile

HHS/CDC

42 U.S.C. §247d-6b

Provide medicine and medical supplies when a public health emergency

has overwhelmed local supplies. Also contains unique supplies to

respond to certain chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear

agents.

Forest Service Firefighting Assets

USDA/FS

16 U.S.C. §551

Response assistance can be delivered in many forms, including

firefighting support, fire suppression and assistance planning, command

and control support, emergency road clearing, logistics facility support,

radio/communications system support, and cache support for mass

care shelters.

General Purpose Forces

DOD

Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S.

Code

Units of the Armed Forces possess capabilities that can be used during

disaster response missions, such as transportation, medical,

communications, engineering, and logistics units.

Example of Asset

CRS-18

Example of Asset

Managing

Department(s)/

Agency(s)

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and

Nuclear (CBRN) Response Forces

Primary Authority

Brief Description of Duties

DOD/National

Guard

Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S.

Code, generally, plus 50 U.S.C.

§2314, and other provisions of

law.

Provide specialized response capabilities to major domestic CBRN

incidents.

Planning and Response Teams (PRTs)

DOD/USACE

33 U.S.C. §701n

Perform Army Corps emergency response functions, which include:

provision of ice, water, emergency power, debris removal, temporary

housing, temporary roofing, and structural safety assessments.

249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power)

DOD/USACE

33 U.S.C. §701n

Provide technical expertise and operational assistance in all aspects of

power and electrical systems generation and distribution in support of

contingency and emergency response operations to assist with power

emergencies especially for life-saving and life-sustaining facilities like

hospitals, shelters, water and sewer facilities, and police and fire

stations.

Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident

Response (NCTIR) Program

DOE/NNSA

50 U.S.C. §2404

Provide rapid response in the event of a radiological or nuclear

incident, whether predetonation or postdetonation, as well as

technical support for other first responders.

National Transportation Safety Board

Disaster Assistance

NTSB

49 U.S.C. §1136 and §1139

Provide assistance to families of passengers involved in major aviation

and passenger rail disasters.

National Response System assets (for oil

spills and releases of hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants)

EPA, DHS/USCG

33 U.S.C §1321(j); 33 U.S.C.

§2701 et seq.; and 42 U.S.C.

§9601 et seq.

Coordinate federal actions and deployment of federal assets to

respond to discharges of oil into U.S. waters and adjoining shorelines,

and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants into

the environment.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) serves as the lead federal

agency in the inland zone, and the U.S. Coast Guard serves as the lead

federal agency in the coastal zone.

The lead federal agency also coordinates participation of state and

local governments, and non-governmental entities, including the party

(or parties) liable for the incident.

National Disaster Medical System assets

HHS, DOD, and

42. U.S.C. §300hh-11

Provide on-scene and local medical care, patient evacuation, and

definitive medical care in response to mass casualty incidents.

Source: CRS.

CRS-19

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

Department of Homeland Security Assets

Federal Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs)

(name redacted), Analyst in Homeland Security and Emergency Management Policy

([redacted]@crs.loc.gov

, 7-....)

Purpose and Responsibilities

Federal Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs) are a relatively new federal asset

managed by FEMA, though they evolved from a previous deployable federal asset called

Emergency Response Teams (ERTs). The IMATs’ primary mission is to provide on-scene incident

command capabilities and to work with the affected community to identify and satisfy initial

requirements for federal assistance. In practice, IMATs form the core command structure guiding

and managing federal assistance to the response operation. In doing so, an IMAT is able to assist

the state and local management of a response operation. FEMA also trains IMATs in the

management of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives (CBRNE) incidents.75

In addition to major disasters and emergencies declared under the Stafford Act, IMATs may

deploy in advance of an incident (e.g., before landfall of a hurricane), for special events (e.g., a

Super Bowl or national political convention), and for national level exercises.

The structure and concept of operations for IMATS are currently being revised by FEMA, and

thus are subject to change in the future. The new revisions to the design of IMATs have been

made, in part, because of lessons learned from the large-scale deployment during Hurricane

Sandy.76 As currently envisioned by FEMA, there will be 3 national IMATs and 13 regional

IMATs. Each national IMAT will have an Incident Command System (ICS) structure filled by 33

term-appointed FEMA employees77 and will be led by a member of the Senior Executive Service

(SES, who could possibly be a current or former Federal Coordinating Officer, described below).

FEMA is also seeking one team member each from nine different departments/agencies.78 Each of

the regional IMATs will be staffed by 12 term-appointed FEMA employees. All personnel will

have specialized training and experience in the key areas of an ICS structure, to include

operations, planning, and logistics. IMATs are being designed to deploy within 2 hours and arrive

at an incident within 12 hours to support the response operation. The revised IMAT structure has

Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Disaster Relief Fund Fiscal Year 2015

Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8. The full DHS Congressional budget justification is available at

http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS-Congressional-Budget-Justification-FY2015.pdf.

Executive Office of the President, Federal Interagency Sandy After-Action Review Team, The Federal Response to

Hurricane Sandy After-Action Report, For Official Use Only, June 1, 2013.

These employees are called “CORE” employees, which stands for Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery Employees.

According to FEMA, these employees “are hired to work for a specific, limited period, between two to four years.

These positions may be renewed if there is ongoing disaster work and funding is available.... ” and “are generally

eligible for the same benefits as [full-time] employees, but do not gain competitive status nor career tenure during their

term.” See FEMA’s website on employment options, at http://www.fema.gov/career-paths-fema.

In their capacity as Emergency Support Function (ESF) coordinators under the NRF, FEMA is seeking

representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ESF #3—Public Works and Engineering), the Department of

Health and Human Services (ESF #8—Public Health and Medical Services), the Environmental Protection Agency

(ESF #10—Oil and Hazardous Materials), and the Department of Energy (ESF #12—Energy). In addition, FEMA is

seeking the expertise of representatives from the U.S. Coast Guard and the Office of Infrastructure Protection in DHS,

the National Weather Service, the American Red Cross, and a Department of Defense Planning Officer. It is unclear

whether and how these additional departments and agencies have committed employees to the national IMATs.

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

been implemented for several of the teams, including two national teams and approximately six

regional teams, and is projected to be fully implemented by FY2016.

Authorization and Appropriations

National and regional IMATs are designed to fulfill the roles of specifically authorized assets

called, in statute, an “Emergency Response Team”79 and “regional office strike team,”

respectively.80 Both of these named assets were authorized by the Post-Katrina Emergency

Management Reform Act (PKEMRA, Title VI of P.L. 109-295), which added the underlying

authorizing language for the concept of IMATs to both the Stafford Act and the Homeland

Security Act of 2002.

Maintenance and operational funding for the salaries of IMAT staff derive from appropriations

made to the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), also administered by FEMA. The DRF is the primary

source of funds for Stafford Act response and recovery operations.81 Current, specific budget

figures from the DRF appropriation for the IMATs are not publically available, though they have

been available in prior years.82 However, when the new IMAT structure is fully implemented in

FY2016, FEMA estimates that the recurring annual costs of maintaining the IMATs will be about

$31.6 million, with an additional, cumulative $19 million in spending as one-time capital costs in

their development.83

Examples of Past Use in Disaster Response Operations

During Hurricane Sandy, FEMA deployed all three national IMATs and nine of the regional

IMATs to support incident management in the large geographic area of affected states and

communities. However, the IMATs used during Hurricane Sandy were constructed and staffed

differently than is currently being designed by FEMA. Since Hurricane Sandy, FEMA has

deployed some of the newly constructed IMATs, especially regional IMATs, to incidents across

the nation. For example, a national IMAT was deployed to assist in the response to the

Washington State, Snohomish County mudslide in March 2014.

Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs) and Federal Disaster Recovery

Coordinators (FDRCs)

(name redacted),Analyst in Homeland Security and Emergency Management Policy

([redacted]@crs.loc.gov

, 7-....)

Purpose and Responsibilities

A Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) is responsible for the overall coordination and

management of all federal resources and assistance being provided to support a disaster response

See Sec. 303 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5144; as added by Sec. 633 of PKEMRA, 120 Stat. 1421.

See Sec. 507 of the HSA of 2002, 6 U.S.C. §317(f); as added by Sec. 611 of PKEMRA, 120 Stat. 1402.

For more on the DRF, see CRS Report R43537, FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund: Overview and Selected Issues, by

(name redacted) .

For example, the Administration requested a total of $13.8 million and 102 positions (95 full time equivalents) for

IMATs in FY2011. See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FY2011 Congressional Justification, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, Operations, Management and Administration, 2010, p. 26.

Telephone consultation and email correspondence with the Response Directorate, Federal Emergency Management

Agency, April 17, 2014.

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

operation. In a fashion, the FCO is the “leader” of the federal government’s response and is

tasked with efficiently facilitating the delivery of assistance from a wide array of federal

departments and agencies, including other deployable federal assets. If there are defense assets

involved in the response, DOD may use a Defense Coordinating Element (DCE) led by a Defense

Coordinating Official (DCO) to support the FCO’s coordination of all federal assets. A formal

cadre of FCOs was first established in 1999. Prior to that, FCOs, or officials acting in a similar

capacity to the FCO, were assigned to disasters on an ad hoc basis. There are now approximately

40 FCOs, each of whom is a full time employee of FEMA.84

The role of the FCO has considerable history relative to the more recently established position of

the Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator (FDRC), which was first established by policy in the

National Disaster Recovery Framework.85 The FDRC may serve as a deputy under the FCO when

in the response phase of a disaster, but serves a similar coordinating purpose as the FCO relating

to the provision of federal disaster recovery assistance in the long-term recovery process. There

are approximately 10 FDRCs, each of whom is a full time employee of FEMA.

Authorization and Appropriations

FCOs are directly authorized by the Stafford Act.86 By statute, the President must appoint an FCO

for every Stafford Act emergency and major disaster declaration.87 This requirement does not

apply to FDRCs, who are deployed more selectively based on long-term disaster recovery needs

of the community. FCOs have also been delegated many of the authorities of the President in the

Stafford Act, namely those relating to the coordination of federal resources. Any state or tribe

receiving a Stafford Act declaration is also encouraged, but not required, to appoint a

Coordinating Officer to fulfill similar roles and duties as the FCO, but at the state/tribal level. For

multi-state/tribal incidents producing more than one Stafford Act declaration, the President may

appoint a single FCO and deputy FCOs for affected states/tribes, or appoint one FCO to each

state/tribe.88

The cost of maintaining and deploying FCOs and FDRCs is funded by appropriations to the DRF.

For FY2016, FEMA is requesting funding sufficient for 55 full-time equivalent FCOs/FDRCs

through the DRF. As with IMATs, current, specific budget figures for the FCOs/FDRCs have not

been publically reported by FEMA in recent congressional justification documents. However,

FEMA estimates that the cost of maintaining and deploying 55 FCOs/FDRCs is approximately

$12.9 million in a fiscal year.89 The FCOs and FDRCs are also supported by an Office of the

Federal Disaster Coordinating Officer (OFDC) in FEMA, which is responsible for hiring,

training, equipping, managing and evaluating the FCOs/FDRCs. FEMA estimates that the OFDC

will cost $5.9 million in FY2016.90

FCOs and FDRCs are hired as Schedule A, Excepted Service appointments. For a description of this authority, see 5

C.F.R. §213.3101.

Department of Homeland Security, National Disaster Recovery Framework, September 2011, at

http://www.fema.gov/national-disaster-recovery-framework.

See Sec. 302 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5143. The role is further described in 44 C.F.R. §206.42.

FCOs may also be used in non-Stafford Act declared incidents to assist communities and coordinate other federal

assistance, but in such situations they would not be vested with the authorities of the Stafford Act.

See Sec. 302(c) and (d) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5143.

Telephone consultation and email correspondence with the Response Directorate, Federal Emergency Management

Agency, April 17, 2014.

Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Disaster Relief Fund Fiscal Year 2016

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

Examples of Past Use in Disaster Response Operations

As an FCO is assigned to every Stafford Act declaration, they regularly support disaster response

operations across the nation. In addition, when an IMAT is deployed to support a response

operation, the FCO will serve as the lead of that team (or the leader of the IMAT will serve in the

capacity of the FCO). However, FCOs may not deploy when an incident first occurs, rather they

may only arrive on-scene, at least in official capacity, after a declaration is made. However,

significant incidents often precipitate Stafford Act disaster declarations by a few hours or a day,

and therefore the FCO cadre is prepared to respond and deploy to a disaster promptly.

National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Response System Task Forces

(name redacted), Analyst inHomeland Security and Emergency Management Policy

([redacted]@crs.loc.gov,-....)

Purpose and Responsibilities

National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Responses System Task Forces are designated and

administered by FEMA to provide specialized assistance locating survivors after buildings or

other structures collapse, or in response to hazards such as landsides, earthquakes, or terrorist

attacks. Maritime search and rescue capabilities are generally provided by the U.S. Coast Guard.

Although the national US&R Task Forces are formally state or local government entities, they are

a deployable federal asset that receives funding, training, and accreditation from the federal

government to provide a national capability. In general, when deployed, national US&R Task

Forces work to: stabilize damaged structures; identify risks of additional collapses; locate,

extricate, and provide medical care for survivors; and meet other needs at disaster sites. Task

Forces deploy as necessary and on request to support the response to disasters, and may be prepositioned for certain incidents (such as hurricanes). National US&R Task Forces may integrate

and work in conjunction with other federal and local search and rescue teams/operations. National

US&R Task Forces are designed to be ready for deployment in 4 to 6 hours, and on-scene in a

significant portion of the continental United States in 16 hours.

There are currently 28 national US&R Task Forces throughout the United States (see Figure 1).

Each Task Force can deploy as either a Type I configuration (with 70 personnel, with an

additional 10 support personnel) or Type III configuration (with 28 personnel, with up to 4

support personnel). However, to ensure that a full Type I team can deploy on short notice, each

Task Force is encouraged to maintain a full roster of 210 personnel (a three-deep roster for a 70person Type I team configuration). Each Task Force has unit members with expertise and training

in a variety of skillsets, including engineering, emergency medicine, canine handling, firefighting,

hazardous material handling, communications, logistics, and other areas. There are also three

national Incident Support Teams (ISTs) that are comprised of highly qualified specialists readily

available for rapid assembly and deployment to a disaster area. ISTs provide advice, management

and logistics assistance, and coordination of US&R Task Forces, to the on-scene incident

command. The Task Forces also include specially trained canine units. When activated by FEMA,

(...continued)

Congressional Budget Justification, p. 17. The full DHS Congressional budget justification for FY2016 is available at

http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-budget.

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

Task Force members are appointed as temporary excepted federal volunteers, which is a

designation intended to provide them with liability protection and worker’s compensation.91

Figure 1. Location of National US&R Task Force Teams

Source: CRS adaptation of FEMA figures on the locations of Task Forces in the National Urban Search and

Rescue Response System.

Note: There are no National US&R Task Forces outside the contiguous United States.

Authorization

The federal role in urban search and rescue efforts has developed slowly over time. Its roots may

be traced to congressional enactment of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (P.L. 95124) to stimulate research and planning related to preparation for, and response to, the devastation

of earthquakes. Following establishment of the FEMA in 1979, Congress amended the 1977

statute to require FEMA to serve as lead agency for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction

Program (NEHRP).92

As a consequence of the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989, Congress and FEMA revisited the

scope of the NEHRP. FEMA established the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System

that same year. Also, in the aftermath of that earthquake, Congress passed the National

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 1990.93 These amendments to the

1977 statute expanded the federal response authority to include the following charge:

44 C.F.R. §208.11.

94 Stat. 2257.

104 Stat. 3231-3243.

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

develop, and coordinate the execution of, federal interagency plans to respond to an

earthquake, with specific plans for each high-risk area which ensure the availability of

adequate emergency medical resources, search and rescue personnel and equipment, and

emergency broadcast capability.94

In 2006, Congress formally authorized the establishment of the Urban Search and Rescue

Response System in FEMA.95 Under this authority the FEMA Administrator, and delegates,

coordinate the activities of US&R Task Forces when called into federal service.

Appropriations

Task Forces are funded both by the federal government and their respective sponsoring agency

(either a state or local government entity, most commonly a city fire department). In order to

participate, each of the Task Forces is required to have both a Preparedness and a Response

Cooperative Agreement with DHS/FEMA that govern the responsibilities and reimbursement of

expenses for the Task Force. In general, the federal government and sponsoring agencies of

national Task Forces share the cost of maintaining the capability, though the exact terms of

compensation are subject to the Preparedness Cooperative Agreement negotiated by FEMA and

the sponsoring agency.96 FEMA also provides funding for costs incurred when Task Forces are

deployed to respond to disasters, as negotiated in the Response Cooperative Agreement.97 Federal

funding for the deployment of the Task Forces in response to Stafford Act declared major

disasters or emergencies is provided through the DRF.

The federal funding to maintain the National US&R Response System and the Task Forces is

generally directly designated in appropriation bills for the Salaries and Expenses account in

FEMA. Congress appropriated approximately $41.3 million in FY2012,98 and $35.2 million each

in FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015 for the National US&R Response System and Task Forces.99

For FY2016, FEMA has requested approximately $27.5 million.100 However, deployment costs

for Task Force teams are not accounted for in these amounts, as these costs are generally provided

through the Disaster Relief Fund when applicable for a Stafford Act declaration.

Examples of Past Use in Disaster Response Operations

National US&R Task Forces have deployed after the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal

Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, the terrorist attacks of 2001, Hurricane Katrina, the Haiti

Earthquake, and Hurricane Sandy, among many other notable disasters. National US&R Task

Forces responded to an estimated 53 incidents between 1992 and 2010, accounting for over 316

individual Task Force deployments in both Type I and III configurations during the time period.101

104 Stat. 3234, 42 U.S.C. §7704(b)(2)(A)(iv).

Section 634, P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1421, 6 U.S.C. §722.

44 C.F.R. §208, Subpart B on Preparedness Cooperative Agreements outlines the allowable expenses covered by

FEMA for maintaining the Task Force.

44 C.F.R. §208, Subpart C on Response Cooperative Agreements outlines the allowable expenses covered by FEMA

for various stages of deployment.

P.L. 112-74, 125 Stat. 959.

See P.L. 113-6, 127 Stat. 357 for FY2013; P.L. 113-76, 128 Stat. 60 for FY2014; and P.L. 114-4, 129 Stat .53 for

FY2015.

100

Department of Homeland Security, FY2016 Congressional Budget Justification, Federal Emergency Management

Agency, Salaries and Expenses, Budget Request and Supporting Information, p. 37, at http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-budget.

101

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Review of the National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Response

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) Teams

(name redacted)

, Specialist in Aviation Policy ([redacted]@crs.loc.gov

, 7-. ... )

Purpose and Responsibilities

Responding to the 2005 terrorist train bombings in Madrid, Spain, the Transportation Security

Administration (TSA) developed the Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) team

program. The VIPR program is intended to enhance security across all modes of transportation by

providing TSA assets and capabilities to augment federal, state, and local law enforcement and

security agencies in protecting national assets, critical infrastructure, and facilities in the

transportation domain. VIPR teams may include various combinations of DHS assets including

surface transportation security inspectors, explosives detection canine teams, Federal Air

Marshals, and TSA screeners and behavior detection officers. The Domestic Nuclear Detection

Office (DNDO) may provide these teams with nuclear and radiological detection equipment. In

FY2015, TSA realigned the VIPR program with Surface Transportation Security Inspectors.

VIPR deployments are coordinated through TSA’s joint coordination center, located at TSA

headquarters in Arlington, VA. The VIPR program uses threat and vulnerability assessments of

transportation infrastructure developed by TSA’s Office of Transportation Sector Network

Management as guidance to inform VIPR field operations regarding the prioritization and

scheduling of deployments.

Authorization and Appropriation

Initially, VIPR teams were deployed under TSA’s broad general authority promulgated in the

Aviation and Transportation Security Act (P.L. 107-71) to protect against threats to all modes of

transportation. Subsequently, the VIPR teams were specifically authorized under the

Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53). Section 1303

of the act allowed TSA to develop and deploy VIPR teams to augment the security of any mode

of transportation at any location within the United States at times and for durations determined by

TSA.102 Under the legislation, TSA must consult with local security and law enforcement officials

in jurisdictions where the VIPR teams deploy to agree upon operational protocols and collaborate

on mission information as appropriate. Additionally, TSA must consult with all transportation

entities affected by the deployment, including railroad carriers, air carriers, airports, bus and

motor carrier operators, maritime vessel owners and operators, public transportation agencies, and

transportation facility owners and operators.

According to DHS, Congress appropriated $89.7 million in FY2013, and $77.2 million in

FY2014, for 37 VIPR teams. DHS requested $60.6 million for the VIPR program in FY2015,

with plans to reduce the number of VIPR teams to 33 through the consolidation of previous

teams.103 Under the realignment plan, TSA proposed to transfer 257 full-time equivalent positions

(...continued)

System, For Official Use Only, March 2012.

102

6 U.S.C. §1112.

103

DHS is also proposing to consolidate funding for the VIPR program under TSA’s Surface Transportation Security

appropriation, whereas it had previously been funded from three different sources, the Federal Air Marshals (FAMS),

Aviation Security, and Surface Transportation appropriations. See, Department of Homeland Security, FY2015

Congressional Budget Justification, Transportation Security Administration, Surface Transportation Security, Budget

Request and Supporting Information, pp. 23-25, at http://www.dhs.gov/publication/congressional-budget-justificationfy-2015.

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

from Aviation Security and the Federal Air Marshals Service to Surface Transportation Security

in a move to consolidate Surface Inspectors and multi-modal VIPR teams under one program.

The FY2015 appropriation (see P.L. 114-4) for surface transportation security inspectors was set

at $3 million less than the request and TSA was directed to further reduce the number of VIPR

teams to 31.

Examples of Past Use in Disaster Response Operations

VIPR teams are often deployed to specific high-profile events that may be targeted by terrorist

groups and to key transportation facilities based on threat assessments and through random

targeting in order to provide an element of unpredictability to potentially disrupt terrorist

activities. VIPR teams thus are intended to operate primarily as a deterrent rather than a critical

incident response resource. DHS estimates that the teams conducted over 15,260 actual

operations in FY2013, though almost entirely as a deterrent—not as a response to real

incidents.104

In the context of disaster response operations, the VIPR teams may provide DHS with a

coordinated, targeted surge capability to respond to escalating threats or specific incidents,

including natural disasters and terrorist attacks, by deploying law enforcement and security

screening assets to transportation facilities.

Historically, VIPR teams have concentrated on surface modes, particularly transit systems and

intercity rail. TSA estimated that more than 10,000 of the FY2013 operations were in surface

modes of transportation, of which about 9,000 were in mass transit. Following the November

2013 shooting incident at LAX, however, TSA modified its VIPR deployment strategy to split

deployments roughly evenly between surface and aviation modes. Subsequently, the realignment

of VIPR teams in FY2015 has resulted in a formal split between aviation operations and other

modes, with the VIPR program formally aligned with surface transportation security. Moving

forward, this would suggest that VIPR teams would continue to support non-aviation modes,

while FAMS, in coordination with airport law enforcement authorities, would provide critical

incident response for aviation.

Protective Security Advisors (PSAs)

(name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy ([redacted]@crs.loc.gov

, 7-....

)

Protective Security Advisors (PSAs) are field operatives that interact with state Homeland

Security Advisors, state and local law enforcement officials, the owner/operators of critical

infrastructure assets, and other critical infrastructure stakeholders in their district of responsibility.

PSAs are part of the Office of Infrastructure Protection, in the National Protection and Programs

Directorate, of DHS. As of 2015, there were 94 advisors in the field, with at least one advisor for

each state and one in Puerto Rico, and 7 additional advisors at DHS headquarters.105 In addition

to establishing relationships with these stakeholders, PSAs help to inventory and evaluate critical

infrastructure assets and provide DHS with situational awareness as it relates to critical

infrastructure.

104

Ibid.

Department of Homeland Security, FY2016 Congressional Budget Justification, National Protection and Programs

Directorate, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security, Budget Request and Supporting Information, p. 24, at

http://www.dhs.gov/publication/congressional-budget-justification-fy-2016.

105

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

Purpose and Responsibilities

PSAs have three primary responsibilities—to help enhance the security of critical infrastructure

assets (primarily by coordinating stakeholder requests for DHS training, grants, and vulnerability

assessments), to provide advice and expertise in response to an emergency or disaster, and to

facilitate information sharing between state and local stakeholders and DHS. The PSA role in

disaster response operations is to act as the Infrastructure Liaison between the state/local

emergency operations center(s) and FEMA’s Joint Field Office. In this role, PSAs can help

anticipate and assess damage to the area’s critical infrastructure assets, including assessing the

potential for cascading effects due to interdependencies among those assets. They also can help

prioritize re-entry and recovery efforts related to critical infrastructure.

Authorization and Appropriations

The Protective Security Advisors program is broadly authorized by the Homeland Security Act of

2002 (P.L. 107-296) which gave DHS the authority, among others, to “recommend measures

necessary to protect the key resources and critical infrastructures of the United States in

coordination with State and local government agencies and authorities, the private sector, and

other entities.” In addition, Presidential Policy Directive 21—Critical Infrastructure Security and

Resilience, which updated and replaced the earlier Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7,

assigns the Secretary of Homeland Security the responsibility of coordinating the national effort

to promote the security and resilience of the nation’s critical infrastructure.106 According to DHS,

the anticipated cost of the PSA program, to include the salaries and expenses of the PSAs

themselves, is $33.3 million in FY2015.107

Examples of Past or Potential Use in Disaster Response Operations

Examples of how PSAs have been used to support disaster response operations include assisting

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prioritize private sector requests for generators to allow

critical assets to be brought back on line more quickly, and working with Custom and Border

Protection officials to organize helicopter flights to assess damage to power transmission lines.

During Hurricane Sandy, 34 PSAs deployed to federal, state, and local emergency operations

centers in the Northeast region to assist in the communication with critical infrastructure owners

and operators, as well as to help prioritize and coordinate the restoration of critical

infrastructure.108 In general, PSAs may apply their expertise to reduce or prevent damages to

critical infrastructure, thereby enabling the rapid restoration of critical systems during response

operations.

106

Executive Office of the President, Presidential Policy Directive 21—Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience,

February 12, 2013, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-directive-criticalinfrastructure-security-and-resil.

107

Email correspondence with NPPD budget staff, May 1, 2015. Annual budget justification documents from DHS do

not provide the salaries and benefits costs specifically for the PSAs, but instead provide those costs for the all “regional

field operations.” Thus, the line item programmatic costs for PSAs presented in budget documents do not include an

isolated cost of salaries and expenses for the PSAs. See Department of Homeland Security, FY2016 Congressional

Budget Justification, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security,

Budget Request and Supporting Information, pp. 21-25, at http://www.dhs.gov/publication/congressional-budgetjustification-fy-2016.

108

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of

Homeland Security Appropriations for 2014, Part 2, 113th Cong., 1st sess., March 20, 2013, 82-379 (Washington: GPO,

2013), p. 661.

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

Department of Health and Human Services

U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps109

(name redacted), Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology [(redacted]@crs.loc.gov

, 7-....)

Purpose and Responsibilities

The U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Commissioned Corps is a branch of the U.S. uniformed

services, but is not one of the armed services.110 The Corps is based in HHS under the authority of

the U.S. Surgeon General (SG), who is, in turn, under the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH).

USPHS commissioned officers are physicians, nurses, pharmacists, engineers, and other public

health professionals who serve in federal agencies, or as detailees to state or international

agencies, to support a variety of public health activities. Officers may, for example, conduct

biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health or the Environmental Protection Agency.

They may provide healthcare services at Indian Health Service facilities, or at DHS Immigration

and Customs Enforcement facilities. Founded more than 200 years ago, the Corps now employs

more than 6,500 health professionals.

In addition to their routine postings, Corps officers may also participate in short- or long-term

deployments in support of a variety of public health activities. These activities may include

domestic or international disease outbreak response, public health campaigns such as the global

vaccination effort to eradicate polio, and domestic and international disaster response.111

A portion of USPHS commissioned officers are predesignated to participate in incident response

teams under the USPHS Office of Force Readiness and Deployment.112 These teams provide

rapid deployment, incident support, applied public health, mental health, and additional

capabilities.

Authorization and Appropriations

Authority for the Corps is found in Title II of the Public Health Service Act.113 As uniformed

services officers of the United States, Corps officers are subject to more stringent requirements

than are civil service employees. For example, they are considered to be on call 24 hours a day, 7

days per week, unless on leave. They can be reassigned and relocated as needed, and are subject

to involuntary deployment. They may be required to meet certain fitness standards, and to accept

medical treatments and immunizations to assure their continued fitness. Although they are

sometimes deployed to provide public health support for combat operations, they can also be

armed by order of the President to serve in war or an emergency.114 Militarization occurred most

109

Unless otherwise noted, information in this section is drawn from HHS, USPHS Commissioned Corps, at

http://www.usphs.gov/default.aspx.

110

5 U.S.C. §2101.

111

Such deployments are not generally limited to USPHS commissioned officers, although some may be. HHS

employees in civil service positions also typically participate in such deployments.

112

USPHS Office of Force Readiness and Deployment, at http://ccrf.hhs.gov/ccrf/.

113

Public Health Service Act Secs. 201-224, 42 U.S.C. §§202-233.

114

Public Health Service Act Sec. 216, 42 U.S.C. §217.

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

recently during World War II.115 USPHS commissioned officers are entitled to many military and

veterans benefits.

Salaries and benefits for commissioned officers are paid by employing agencies. Additional costs

for deployments, such as travel expenses, may be borne by HHS or may be reimbursed by another

responsible party. For example, deployment costs are generally reimbursed from the DRF if

Corps officers are deployed due to a FEMA mission assignment under authority of the Stafford

Act.

When USPHS commissioned officers are deployed for the response to an incident, they become

unavailable to carry out their routine duties. To remedy this, Congress has provided authority to

establish a USPHS “Ready Reserve Corps,” similar to the Armed Forces reserves; that is,

individuals who are not necessarily federal employees, but who can be “federalized” as members

of the Corps in order to augment existing personnel.116 The HHS Secretary has not received

appropriations for this purpose and to date has not established this reserve component.

Examples of Past or Potential Use in Disaster Response Operations

Deployment of Corps officers in response to disasters is common, usually but not exclusively

involving teams with the Office of Force Readiness and Deployment. For example, in 2005, more

than 2,400 officers were deployed for the responses to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, for which

they set up and staffed field hospitals, treated sick and injured evacuees, and conducted disease

surveillance, among other tasks.117 In 2014, Corps officers set up and ran a treatment center for

Ebola patients in Liberia.118

Strategic National Stockpile

(name redacted)

, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy ([redacted]@crs.loc.gov

, 7-....

)

Purpose and Responsibilities

The federal government maintains a supply of medicine and medical supplies to respond to a

public health emergency (e.g., a terrorist attack, flu outbreak, or earthquake) severe enough to

deplete local supplies. This supply, known as the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS),119 includes

antibiotics, intravenous fluids, and other medical supplies. Additionally, the SNS contains some

medicines, such as anthrax and smallpox vaccines and treatments, which may not be otherwise

available for public use. The SNS contains assets valued in excess of $6.3 billion.120 The Centers

115

Executive Order 9575, “Declaring the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service To Be a Military Service

and Prescribing Regulations,” 10 Federal Register 7895, June 29, 1945. See also John Parascandola, “History of the

Militarization of the PHS Commissioned Corps,” Commissioned Corps Bulletin, vol. XV, no. 10 (October 2001), p. 5,

at http://dcp.psc.gov/ccbulletin/articles/CCBulletin_02_2014.aspx.

116

Public Health Service Act Sec. 203, 42 U.S.C. §204. This authority was provided in the Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health reform law, P.L. 111-148, as amended, section 5210, March 23, 2010.

117

Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service, “Commissioned Corps in Action,” at

http://www.usphs.gov/newsroom/features/action/default.aspx.

118

Gregg Zoroya, “U.S. Uniformed Officers to Treat Ebola Patients in Liberia,” USA Today, November 6, 2014.

119

Unless otherwise cited, information in this section is available at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

Strategic National Stockpile, at http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/stockpile/stockpile.htm.

120

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Justification of Estimates for Appropriation Committees Fiscal Year

2016, p. 368, at http://www.cdc.gov/fmo/.

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS) manages the stockpile.

By statute, both the Secretary of HHS and the Secretary of Homeland Security may deploy the

SNS.121 CDC guidelines allow governors or their representatives to request supplies from the

SNS.122 The CDC intends the initial deliveries from the SNS to arrive in the affected area within

12 hours of the decision to deploy, with additional deliveries following later as needed.

Critical to the successful use and deployment of the SNS commodities is the CDC’s Stockpile

Service Advance Group (SSAG) and other federal personnel devoted to managing current

supplies and procuring future resources. The CDC’s SSAG is a team of technical experts that

helps state and local authorities properly use and maintain the commodities for the incident.123

Once delivered, local authorities assume stewardship of the supplies, although the federal

government retains ownership. The SNS supplies are provided free of charge; however, local

authorities must pay for costs associated with storing locally, distributing, and dispensing of the

supplies.

Authorization and Appropriations

In 1999, Congress required the CDC to create a pharmaceutical and vaccine stockpile.124 The

Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-188)

changed the name of the stockpile from the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile to the current

SNS. This act also further defined the contents and purpose of that stockpile to include

drugs, vaccines and other biological products, medical devices, and other supplies in such

numbers, types, and amounts as are determined by the [HHS] Secretary to be appropriate

and practicable, taking into account other available sources, to provide for the emergency

health security of the United States, including the emergency health security of children

and other vulnerable populations, in the event of a bioterrorist attack or other public

health emergency.125

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred budget authority for the SNS to

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Project BioShield Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-276)

transferred this authority back to HHS. The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness

Reauthorization Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-5) reauthorized the SNS through FY2018. Currently, the

Division of the Strategic National Stockpile in the CDC Office of Public Health Preparedness

administers the stockpile program.126 Funding levels for the SNS reflect maintenance costs as

well as procurements, for which annual needs vary. Table 2 displays recent SNS funding.

121

42 U.S.C. §247d-6b(a)(2)(F) and 42 U.S.C. §247d-6b(a)(2)(G).

Todd Piester, Branch Chief, Division of Strategic National Stockpile, CDC, “Strategic National Stockpile

Overview,” CDC Clinician Outreach and Communication Activity conference call, July 1, 2008, at

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/coca/summaries/SNS070108.asp.

123

In addition, CDC has a Receiving, Staging and Storing (RSS) Task Force available to assist in the transportation and

logistical processing of the SNS, and Federal Medical Station (FMS) Strike Team to help community officials resupply and recover medical commodities after an incident.

124

H.Rept. 105-825, to accompany Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999

(P.L. 105-277).

125

Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 §121 (P.L. 107-188).

126

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Strategic National

Stockpile,” at http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/stockpile.htm.

122

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

Table 2. Strategic National Stockpile Appropriations,

FY2010-FY2015

(in millions of dollars)

FY2010

FY2011

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

$595.661

$591.001

$533.792

$477.577

$549.343

$534.343

Source: CDC, Justification of Estimates for Appropriation Committees Fiscal Year 2016, p. 354, at

http://www.cdc.gov/fmo/.

Notes: The FY2013 amount reflects rescission and sequestration. Amounts for FY2013 and later reflect a CDC

budget accounting change and thus are not directly comparable to amounts in earlier fiscal years.

Examples of Past or Potential Use in Disaster Response Operations

The SNS is configured to be deployed in a flexible manner. Some of the stockpile is held in

ready-to-transport containers called Push Packs. These contain pharmaceuticals, antidotes, and

medical supplies designed to respond rapidly to a wide variety of needs in the early hours of an

event when the precise nature of the emergency may still not be known. Push Packs are

positioned in strategically located, secure warehouses ready for immediate deployment to a

designated site within 12 hours of the federal decision to deploy SNS assets.

Other parts of the stockpile are designed to arrive between 24 and 36 hours after a request and can

be specifically tailored to respond to a defined need or to supplement deployed Push Packs. Some

of these assets are maintained as vendor-managed inventory, that is, caches of commercial

products maintained in rotation by the manufacturers, in order to assure freshness. Products with

limited markets may be stored and maintained in federal caches.

The SNS is often deployed in response to major disasters, and SNS assets may be pre-positioned

for National Special Security Events and hurricanes. For example, the CDC deployed assets from

the SNS to help 62 jurisdictions respond to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. The stockpile

was able to replenish critically short local supplies of antiviral medication and N95 respirators.127

In response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak, the SNS increased its supply of personal protective

clothing that could be rapidly deployed to hospitals caring for Ebola patients.128

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service Firefighting Assets

(name redacted), Analyst Natural

Resources Policy ([redacted]@crs.loc.gov

, 7-....)

Purpose and Responsibilities

The Forest Service (FS)—an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—may assist

federal and state efforts during and following a disaster.129 Many times, this assistance stems from

127

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Justification of Estimates for Appropriation Committees Fiscal Year

2011, p. 295.

128

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p1107-ebola-ppe.html.

129

The FS is granted such authority under the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. §5121 et seq.), upon a request from FEMA.

Disaster assistance as discussed in this report should not be confused with emergency wildfire assistance, which the

federal government also provides.

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

the agency’s wildland fire management expertise. FS emergency response assistance is delivered

in many forms, including firefighting support, fire suppression and assistance planning, command

and control support, emergency road clearing, logistics facility support, radio/communications

system support, and cache support for mass care shelters.

FS disaster response assistance may be carried out with the use of wildfire suppression crews and

Incident Management Teams (IMT), among other means. A wildfire suppression crew generally

consists of 18-20 career or temporary agency employees trained as professional wildland

firefighters. There are five different levels of wildfire suppression crews: Type 1 Interagency

Hotshot Crews (IHC), Type 1, Type 2-Initial Attack (IA), Type 2, and Type 3. A Type 1 IHC is the

most intensively trained crew, with the highest level of expertise and fitness than the other types

of crews, and are generally placed in the most rugged terrain on the most active and difficult areas

on wildfires.130 There are 113 Interagency Hotshot Crews, with the Forest Service sponsoring the

largest number of crews (89), although the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian

Affairs, and the National Park Service also have Interagency Hotshot Crews.131 IHCs are a

“national shared resource,” meaning that they may be assigned to work outside of their

sponsoring agency and are coordinated through the National Interagency Fire Center.132 There are

a small number of crews that are nonfederal, including crews operated by states and local

governments. All crews, federal and nonfederal, must meet the standard for interagency hotshot

crew operations and be certified in order to be recognized as an IHC.133 In addition to IHCs, the

other suppression crew levels may also be sent to provide disaster assistance.

An IMT provides qualified personnel to manage serious, complex, and costly incidents.

Management entails coordinating the personnel, equipment, and supplies necessary to address

significant incidents, and providing information to the media and the public. Similar to the IHCs,

there are different levels of federally-sponsored IMTs: Type 1 IMTs, Type 2 IMTs, and the

National Incident Management Organization (NIMO) IMTs.134

Authorization and Appropriations

Under the National Response Framework (NRF), the FS serves as the co-coordinator and primary

agency for Emergency Support Function (ESF) #4—firefighting.135 ESF #4 provides federal

support for the detection and suppression of wildland, rural, and urban fires resulting from, or

occurring coincidentally with, an all-hazard incident requiring a coordinated national response for

assistance.136 As the ESF #4 primary agency, the FS coordinates federal firefighting activities, and

130

U.S. Forest Service, Fire and Aviation Management: About Handcrews, at http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/people/

handcrews/about_handcrews.html.

131

A list of National Interagency Hotshot Crews is available at http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/people/hotshots/

IHC_index.html

132

Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Standards for Interagency Hotshot Crew Operations,

February 14, 2011.

133

Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Standards for Interagency Hotshot Crew Operations,

February 14, 2011.

134

For more information on IMTs and a proposal that could alter how wildfire incidents are managed, see National

Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG), Evolving Incident Management: A Recommendation for the Future, October

17, 2011. The NWCG reported on September 23, 2013, that there will be a multi-year transition from Type 1 IMTs and

Type 2 IMTs to Complex IMTs.

135

The other co-coordinator for ESF#4 is the U.S. Fire Administration.

136

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Response Framework, May 2013; U.S. Forest Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior, and U.S. Fire Administration, Reference Guide Emergency Support Function #4

Firefighting, December 2013.

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

provides personnel, equipment, and supplies in support of local, state, tribal, territorial, and

insular area agencies involved in wildland, rural, and urban firefighting operations.137 The FS

works closely with at least six other federal agencies. For instance, the Environmental Protection

Agency identifies critical water systems that require priority restoration for firefighting. Further,

the State Department occasionally coordinates with foreign governments to identify and transfer

firefighting assistance assets and resources to the United States. Expenditures made by the FS to

respond to such disasters is dependent on the size and type of disaster.

The FS has several broad authorities that allow it to manage wildfires on federal, state, and

private lands, regardless of whether the agency is responding to a disaster declaration. One of the

primary statutes authorizing the FS to manage wildfires on National Forest System (NFS) lands is

the Organic Administration Act of 1897.138 Further, the FS has a number of cooperative

agreements with states and other countries (e.g., Canada, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand)

that allow the agency to provide wildfire protection,139 to perform approved severity activities,

and to respond to states of emergency or disaster under FEMA authorities. Additionally, the FS—

as outlined in an MOU with the USDA Farm Service Agency—assists with the Emergency Forest

Restoration Program (EFRP), to help the owners of non-industrial private forests restore forest

conditions after damage caused by natural disasters.140 The FS received wildfire management

appropriations of more than $2 billion dollars for each of the last five years.141

Examples of Past or Potential Use in Disaster Response Operations

In addition to being used regularly to fight fires, these assets also support the response to other

hazards. For example, following Hurricane Sandy, the FS sent 10 IMTs and 41 interagency

wildfire suppression crews to assist with emergency response.142 Approximately 1,100 personnel,

950 of which were FS employees, were stationed throughout five states in the northeast that were

affected by the hurricane. Two of the primary activities carried out by the FS were emergency

road clearing and support for power restoration. The FS deployed more than 100 chainsaw crew

teams to storm-affected states to assist with debris removal and road clearance, clearing fallen

trees from more than 900 miles of road for power personnel and search and rescue missions.143

Other tasks included assisting at FEMA logistics facilities that provide water and other

commodities needed to sustain life, providing communications equipment and support to local

137

U.S. Forest Service, Fire and Aviation Management Briefing Paper, May 6, 2013.

16 U.S.C. §551.

139

The agreements are available in chapter 40 of the National Interagency Coordination Center 2014 National

Mobilization Guide.

140

EFRP is codified in 16 U.S.C. Section 2206 and is permanently authorized subject to appropriations. For more

information on EFRP, see CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation, by (name

redacted)

141

For more information, see CRS Report R43077, Wildfire Management: Federal Funding and Related Statistics, by

(name redacted) and (name redacted)

. In addition to annual WFM appropriations, the FS may also receive supplemental

appropriations for WFM.

142

U.S. Forest Service, “US Forest Service Wildland Firefighters and Interagency Crews Mobilized to Assist with

Hurricane Sandy Response,” press release, November 1, 2012, and update November 7, 2012; U.S. Forest Service,

“Update: US Forest Service Wildland Firefighters and Interagency Crews Mobilized to Assist with Hurricane Sandy

Response,” press release, November 7, 2012; and email correspondence with the U.S. Forest Service, June 20, 2013.

143

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Hurricane Sandy: Timeline, at http://www.fema.gov/hurricane-sandytimeline; and email correspondence with the U.S. Forest Service, June 20, 2013.

138

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

emergency response agencies, and supporting command and control operations for emergency

response agencies.144

Department of Defense

The Department of Defense (DOD) has a broad range of capabilities that can be deployed in

support of civil authorities in emergency situations, including transportation assets, medical

personnel and supplies, security forces, and communications equipment. The National Response

Framework (NRF) and DOD refer to this type of assistance as Defense Support of Civil

Authorities (DSCA).145 DSCA is defined by DOD as

Support provided by US Federal military forces, Department of Defense civilians,

Department of Defense contract personnel, Department of Defense component assets, and

National Guard forces (when the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the

governors of the affected states, elects and requests to use those forces in Title 32, United

States Code, status) in response to requests for assistance from civil authorities for

domestic emergencies, law enforcement support, and other domestic activities, or from

qualifying entities for special events. 146

DOD does not provide assets in response to requests from civil authorities in all cases. For

example, DOD might decline to provide certain assets if doing so would degrade its ability to

fulfill the department’s national security obligations. Before providing assets to support civil

authorities, DOD evaluates each request based on the following six criteria:

(1) Legality (compliance with laws);

(2) Lethality (potential use of lethal force by or against DoD Forces);

(3) Risk (safety of DoD Forces);

(4) Cost (including the source of funding and the effect on the DoD budget);

(5) Appropriateness (whether providing the requested support is in the interest of the

Department); and

(6) Readiness (impact on the Department of Defense’s ability to perform its other

primary missions).147

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, an agency within the Department of Defense, is discussed

later in this report.

144

National Interagency Fire Center, “Firefighters Mobilize to Assist with Hurricane Sandy Response,” press release,

October 31, 2012.

145

In the past, DOD referred to DSCA by other names including Civil Support (CS) and Military Assistance to Civil

Authorities (MACA). DOD regulatory guidance for DSCA is contained in DOD Directive 3025.18, Defense Support of

Civil Authorities, December 29, 2010 (incorporating change 1, September 21, 2012), at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/

directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf, and the joint doctrinal publication on this topic is Joint Publication 3-28, Defense

Support of Civil Authorities, July 31, 2013, at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_28.pdf.

146

Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, as amended through

February 15, 2014, at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf.

147

DOD Directive 3025.18, Defense Support of Civil Authorities, December 29, 2010 (incorporating change 1,

September 21, 2012), paragraph 4(e), at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

General Purpose Forces

(name redacted), Specialist in Military Manpower Policy ([redacted]@crs.loc.gov

, 7-....

)

Purpose and Responsibilities

The Armed Forces are organized, trained, and equipped primarily to conduct prompt and

sustained combat operations on land, sea, and air;148 and this is, in practice, the way in which they

are principally employed. However, many units of the Armed Forces possess capabilities that can

be of use during disaster response missions. For example, military aircraft that transport soldiers,

rations, and ammunition during combat operations can also transport doctors, food, and medical

supplies to a disaster zone.

Authorization

The U.S. Armed Forces, including the Reserve Components, are governed by Title 10 of the U.S.

Code. The sections of Title 10 most relevant to the organization and employment of U.S. military

forces are Chapter 2 (Department of Defense), Chapter 5 (Joint Chiefs of Staff), Chapter 6

(Combatant Commands), Chapter 303 (Department of the Army), Chapter 503 (Department of the

Navy), and Chapter 801 (Department of the Air Force). Due to its unique status as both a federal

reserve component and the organized militia of the states, additional statutory authority for the

National Guard is codified in Title 32 of the U.S. Code.

All active component units are organized, trained, equipped, and employed under the authorities

contained in Title 10. These forces are always under the operational control of the President of the

United States. The chain of command for active component forces extends down through the

Secretary of Defense, to the Combatant Commander (for example, the Commander of United

States Northern Command or USNORTHCOM), to the Joint Task Force Commander (for

example, the Commander of Joint Task Force—Civil Support, a subordinate to

USNORTHCOM), and then to lower echelon commanders.

Reserve component forces other than the National Guard are also governed exclusively by the

provisions of Title 10 and are organized to meet the requirements of the military service to which

they belong (for example, Army Reserve units are designed to meet the requirements of the

Army). These forces are always under the operational control of the President of the United States

as well.

National Guard forces are part of the organized militia of their respective state or territory.

Simultaneously, they constitute a reserve component of the Army or Air Force and are

“organized, armed, and equipped wholly or partly at federal expense.”149 They are structured to

meet the requirements of the Department of the Army, in the case of the Army National Guard,

and the Department of the Air Force, in the case of the Air National Guard. Owing to this unique

aspect of the National Guard as both a state and a federal organization,150 it may be employed

under state law, under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, or under Title 32 of the U.S. Code.

148

See 10 U.S.C. §§3062, 5063, and 5062.

10 U.S.C §§101(c)(2)(C) and (c)(4)(C); 32 U.S.C. §§101(4)(C) and (6)(C).

150

The National Guard of the United States is made up of 54 separate National Guard organizations: one for each state,

and one each for Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. While the District of

Columbia National Guard is an exclusively federal organization and operates under federal control (Title 10) at all

times, the other 53 National Guards operate as state or territorial organizations most of the time. In this capacity, each

of these 53 organizations is identified by its state or territorial name (e.g., the California National Guard or the Puerto

(continued...)

149

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations



As members of the militia of their state or territory, National Guardsmen can be

called up by their governor for full-time duty. When employed in this capacity,

referred to as state active duty (SAD), National Guardsmen are considered state

or territorial employees, not active duty military. Typical missions performed

under SAD include responding to disasters and civil disorders.

As members of the Reserve Component, National Guardsmen can be called to

federal active duty, also referred to as Title 10 status. When this happens, control

of the affected units and personnel passes from the governor to the President of

the United States. When in federal service, Guard units and personnel typically

perform military training or participate in military operations.

A third form of duty for National Guardsmen involves duty under state control

but with pay and benefits provided by the federal government. This is sometimes

referred to as Title 32 status in reference to the relevant part of the U.S. Code.

Title 32 (T32) status is typically used for training, but it can also be used for

other duties, including disaster response.

Thus, a distinctive feature of National Guard units is that, while organized and largely funded by

the federal government, they can be employed by either governors or the President. Typically, the

chain of command for National Guard forces in SAD or T32 status extends from the Governor to

the Adjutant General (the highest ranking National Guard officer in the state or territory) to lower

echelon National Guard commanders. While under the control of a governor, National Guard

personnel are not subject to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act (that is, they can perform

law enforcement functions). If National Guard forces are ordered to federal active duty (Title 10),

control is transferred from the governor to the President and they then become subject to the

restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act.

Examples of Past or Potential Use in Disaster Response Operations

The most notable use of the Armed Forces to respond to a disaster occurred as a result of

Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Roughly 72,000 military personnel participated in the response,

including about 50,000 National Guard personnel serving in a Title 32 status. Some of the major

activities conducted by these forces included search and rescue; evacuations from flooded areas

and evacuations to medical treatment facilities; transportation and distribution of water, ice, food,

and fuel; crowd control; local security; debris removal; medical treatment; and restoration of

flood control systems. More recently, the Armed Forces assisted with the response to Hurricane

Sandy. Some of the major activities conducted by active, reserve, and National Guard personnel

in response to Sandy included removal of water from flooded areas and buildings; transportation

and distribution of water, food, and fuel; search and rescue; security; provision of temporary

shelter and blankets; generation and restoration of power; and debris removal.

Based on the tasks contained in the National Response Framework’s Emergency Support

Function Annexes, potential uses of DOD assets in disaster response operations are listed in the

text box below.

Some Potential Uses of DOD Assets Under the National Response Framework151

(...continued)

Rico National Guard), and is controlled by its respective governor.

151

The text in this shaded box is an edited version of DOD “Actions” and “Functions” listed in the National Response

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations



Transportation: Providing military transportation capacity to move essential resources; providing assets to

complement temporarily degraded or disrupted air navigation services; providing support in the emergency

operation and restoration of inland waterways, ports, and harbors, including dredging operations; restoring

transportation infrastructure.

Communications: Providing communications resources and capabilities.



Public Works and Engineering: Providing expertise and construction management resources and support;

conducting specialized salvage/wreck removal operations.



Firefighting: Conducting firefighting activities on DOD installations and supporting firefighting operations on

nonmilitary lands with personnel, equipment, and supplies; assisting urban and rural firefighting forces to obtain

heavy equipment and/or demolition services as needed to suppress incident-related fires.



Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Temporary Housing: Providing construction, engineering, and project

management expertise and support for temporary housing and sheltering; inspecting mass care shelter sites to

ensure suitability and accessibility of facilities; constructing temporary shelter facilities in the affected area.

Logistics: Providing planning support, subsistence, administrative supply, petroleum product, engineering and

construction supply, water and mobile units, medical material, telecommunications management, and

transportation management support; providing bottled and bulk drinking water, construction materials, and

engineering services; providing commodities distribution assistance and expertise to include, points of

distribution training and state-level project management support for commodities missions; hauling, installing,

operating, and maintaining generators for critical public facilities.

Public Health and Medical Services: Conducting medical evacuations; coordinating patient reception,

tracking, and management of patients evacuated on DOD assets; deploying medical, surgical, and behavioral

health personnel for casualty clearing and staging, patient management, and treatment; augmenting civilian

hospital staff and deployable federal teams; deploying chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical

subject matter experts for technical consultation and medical support; providing epidemiological and

occupational health support, telemedicine, and other specialized medical support; providing military medical

personnel to assist in the protection of public health; providing available DOD medical supplies and materiel for

use at points of distribution, hospitals or clinics, or medical care locations; assisting local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area officials in the provision of emergency medical, surgical, and behavioral healthcare; providing

public health and medical surveillance, laboratory diagnostics, and confirmatory testing.

Search and Rescue (SAR): Coordinating facilities, resources, and special capabilities to conduct and support

air, land, and maritime SAR; coordinating and managing the satellite imagery; providing expert analysis of imagery;

deploying specially trained and equipped structural engineers during structural collapse incidents and other

disaster response missions; providing technical support and advice to assess damage, mitigate hazards, and enable

rescue and lifesaving operations.

Oil and Hazardous Materials Response: Providing response assistance for incidents involving contaminated

debris, including waste sampling, classification, packaging, transportation, treatment, demolition, storm water

management, and disposal; providing technical, operational, and emergency support in the ocean engineering

disciplines of marine salvage, pollution abatement, and diving services.

Agriculture and Natural Resources: Providing military specialists trained in foreign animal disease diagnosis,

epidemiology, microbiology, immunology, entomology, pathology, and public health.

Energy: Conducting power system stabilization and reestablishment activities.



(...continued)

Framework Emergency Support Function Annexes 1 through 12, all of which are available here: http://www.fema.gov/

national-preparedness-resource-library. Some of the listed actions and functions are the responsibility of the Army

Corps of Engineers, discussed in a separate section of this report.

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Response Forces152

(name redacted), Specialist in Military Manpower Policy ([redacted]@crs.loc.gov

, 7-....

)

Purpose and Responsibilities

The Department of Defense has forces organized, trained, and equipped to respond to major

domestic CBRN incidents, as well as general purpose forces assigned to support CBRN response

efforts. These units make up the DOD CBRN Response Enterprise (CRE). The CRE includes the

Defense CBRN Response Force (DCRF), two Command and Control CBRN Response Elements

(C2CRE), and 10 regionally based National Guard Homeland Response Forces (HRFs), which

are built around state-based National Guard CBRN Enhanced Response Force Packages

(CERFPs) and Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD-CSTs).153 Additionally,

other units within DOD have significant CBRN response capabilities, such as the Marine Corps’

Chemical Biological Incident Response Force (some elements of which are part of the DCRF),

the Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s Consequence Management Advisory Teams, and the U.S.

Army’s CBRNE Command. All of these units are discussed below. All of these units can be used

for disaster response missions other than CBRN-related ones if the situation warrants.

Defense CBRN Response Force (DCRF)

The DCRF is composed of various military units, which together have approximately 5,200

active component personnel. When activated, its capabilities include command and control,

CBRN assessment, search and rescue, decontamination, emergency medical care, security,

engineering, logistics, transportation, aviation lift, and air and ground medical evacuation. On

order, it deploys in phases, with the first “force package” of approximately 2,100 personnel meant

to begin deployment within 24 hours of notification and the second force package of

approximately 3,100 personnel meant to begin deployment within 48 hours of notification. If

activated, the DCRF would include elements of the Marine Corps’ Chemical Biological Incident

Response Force (CBIRF), discussed below.

Command and Control CBRN Response Elements (C2CRE)

152

The acronym CBRN is used today, although previously the acronym CBRNE was used in relation to many of these

units. The additional “E” stands for high yield explosives. CBRNE Command, discussed later, has retained the “E” in

its name because it includes explosive ordnance disposal units.

153

DOD’s CBRN response structure was changed in 2011-2012 in an attempt to address gaps in capabilities that were

identified prior to and during the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. Prior to the change there were three overarching

constructs for DOD CBRN response forces: CBRN Consequence Management Response Forces (CCMRF), National

Guard CBRN Enhanced Response Force Packages (CERFPs), and National Guard Civil Support Teams (CST). The

previous organizations were assessed to be less than ideal in terms of response time, lifesaving capabilities in the early

arriving forces, and the ability to respond to a catastrophic event or multiple simultaneous events. The Quadrennial

Defense Review Report explained this restructuring as follows:

[T]he Department will begin restructuring the original CBRNE Consequence Management

Response Force (CCMRF), to increase its ability to respond more rapidly to an event here at home.

To address the potential for multiple, simultaneous disasters, the second and third CCMRFs will be

replaced with smaller units focused on providing command and control and communications

capabilities for Title 10 follow-on forces. Complementing the evolution of the first CCMRF, the

Department also will draw on existing National Guard forces to build a Homeland Response Force

(HRF) in each of the ten Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regions. These ten

HRFs will provide a regional response capability; focus on planning, training and exercising; and

forge strong links between the federal level and state and local authorities.

Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, February 2010, p. 19, at

http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations

Each C2CRE has approximately 1,500 personnel. In addition to having a core element that can

provide immediate response capabilities, it is designed to provide command and control and

logistical support for up to 20,000 follow-on forces. The intent of this is to allow it to provide

additional support to the DCRF for a single catastrophic event, or to be used separately in the case

of multiple events. It is meant to begin deployment within 96 hours of notification, although its

posture can be adjusted by the commander of U.S. Northern Command.

Homeland Response Force (HRF)

The 10 HRFs are regionally oriented National Guard units aligned with each of the 10 FEMA

regions. Each HRF is made up of about 577 National Guard personnel and is made up of a

command and control element (180 personnel), a CBRN Assistance and Support Element (CASE;

200 personnel), and a task force element (197 personnel). The command and control element can

control additional National Guard CERFPs and WMD-CSTs. The CASE provides site security,

force protection, and assistance with the movement of casualties. The task force element has the

same structure and capabilities as a CERFP, discussed below. HRFs are expected to be ready to

deploy six hours after notification.

CBRNE Enhanced Response Force Package (CERFP)154

National Guard CERFPs provide the following capabilities: “... incident site search of collapsed

buildings and structures, conducting rescue tasks to extract trapped casualties, providing mass

decontamination, performing medical triage and initial treatment to stabilize patients for transport

to medical facilities ... and the recovery of CBRN incident fatalities.”155 At present, there are 17

CERFPs. Each CERFP is made up of 197 personnel, drawn from existing National Guard units,

who are assigned to one of five teams within the CERFP: command and control, search and

extraction, decontamination, medical, and fatalities search and recovery. They are meant to begin

deployment within six hours of notification.

Weapons of Mass Destruction—Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST)

The mission of the National Guard WMD-CSTs (sometimes referred to as Ci

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.