In September 2018, the Louisiana Urban Search and Rescue Program (USAR) sent a NIMS Type 2 incident support team (IST) and tactical USAR and water rescue assets to support the state of South Carolina’s response to Hurricane Florence.
During that response, the respective state fire marshals (Chief Jonathan Jones of South Carolina and Chief H. Butch Browning of Louisiana) had several meetings to discuss methods of improving out-of-state responses. The marshals developed the concept of a USAR standing agreement between the two states.
The particulars
There were several issues that the concept would address: the major lag time that exists between requesting and receiving out-of-state assets; the lack of certainty as to the true quality of incoming out-of-state assets; and the “blind period” prior to deployment during which tactical assets sit and wonder what their missions will be while waiting on an overworked IST to produce an incident action plan (IAP).
Another consideration was the great distance between the requesting and responding agencies. This would be of true benefit to both agencies. Should an area suffer a tornado or Category 1 hurricane, then an agreement with a nearby agency would suffice. On the other hand, say for Louisiana, should another Katrina slam into the Gulf Coast or should the New Madrid fault line trigger, an agreement with the state of Texas won’t be of much help, because they will be on the bull’s-eye as well.
Once the marshals established the concept, they turned it over to a planning team for development. The team consisted of IST personnel from both agencies. The concentration mainly was on the ISTs, because the tactical organization for USAR task forces is determined by the NIMS Resource Typing Library Tool (RTLT), and tactical operations would be too unpredictable to be planned.
Items considered for development included organization, training, documentation, deployment and operations. It was believed that, in regard to organization and training, the ISTs should be parallel to, rather than a mirror of, each other. It was believed that the ISTs would be deployed locally or on other state assignments in which they would not be married with their agreement counterparts and, therefore, should be similar enough to meld smoothly but capable of standing alone.
Each team was assigned documents to create to include a policy and procedures manual, various standard operating guidelines (SOGs) and a training program administration manual. This documentation would serve both ISTs when they deployed together and would be guiding rather than binding. Each state also sent a mission ready package (MRP) for an Advanced IST, a Type 2 IST, and NIMS Type 2 and Type 3 USAR task forces.
For deployment, a tiered response was believed to be the most effective. The affected state would request an Advanced IST at the first sign of an impending incident. The Advanced IST would consist of the command and general staffs. This element would begin joint planning with the affected state’s full IST. As the impending incident became more certain, the unaffected state’s full IST would be deployed. They would help to generate an IAP for both in-state and out-of-state incoming USAR resources. Joint operations would be enhanced by each state, inviting the other state’s IST members to major training exercises rather than having the teams handcuffed by strict operations SOGs.
Applied in the field
The concept of operations was put into practice twice in 2019. South Carolina sent an Advanced IST to Louisiana for Hurricane Barry, and Louisiana reciprocated for Hurricane Dorian. In both instances, the teams merged fairly seamlessly, and activities were able to be coordinated with a FEMA IST.
One big lesson learned during the two events was that having a standing MRP was helpful, but having a standing memorandum of understanding (MOU) would speed the process through the bureaucratic complications that are necessary to our existence but time consuming in an emergency. Legal teams reviewed the concept and noted the fact that, although the in-place emergency management assistance compact (EMAC) process would ensure that the state would be reimbursed for salaries that were paid during a deployment, the MOU might not—the concern being that this might be viewed in some circles as wasting taxpayer money. Given that, it was decided that the predetermined EMAC process would be utilized.
As an aside, the EMAC is an excellent tool for bringing emergency response resources of any type into a state. Basically, it is a governor-to-governor business agreement. An agency can, for want of a better term, advertise itself through an MRP. The agency can use the MRP to explain kind and type of resources to a requesting agency. The kind-and-type system was developed by NIMS to allow a requesting agency to tailor a requested resource to its incident. Kind of resource is what you are: fire, hazmat, law enforcement, etc. Type indicates the number of personnel that you will bring, the personnel’s level of training and what equipment you will have. Resources are listed under a numbered system, running NIMS Type 1 up to NIMS Type 5: the lower the number, the more advanced the resource. A detailed document that outlines the various kinds and types under the NIMS system is the RTLT, which easily can be accessed on the internet.
So, if your state is hit by a major hurricane and you wish to bring in USAR assets, the RTLT will tell you that the only difference between a NIMS Type 1 USAR task force and a NIMS Type 2 USAR task force is that a Type 1 is trained and equipped to handle a CBRNE event and a Type 2 isn’t. Why would you make your state pay for training and equipment that will not be used in the incident?
As with most concepts, this one is and always will be a work in progress. One of the objectives of a FEMA-assisted IST tabletop exercise in August 2020 was testing of the concept. Starting the very next week, Mother Nature gave the state of Louisiana five chances—named Marco, Laura, Sally, Delta and Zeta—to test the concept under actual conditions. South Carolina responders not only helped to tackle the issues that were brought by the storms in a timely manner, as an IST should, but they, and FEMA partners, assisted in improving Louisiana’s game a great deal.
The state of Louisiana also worked with a small IST from Oklahoma. The program worked so well that work to form a similar agreement between these two states is underway.
The idea certainly appears to have great possibilities, and not just for USAR. Indeed, the possibilities are limitless.
If you would like scrubbed copies of the MRPs that were used in this concept, email [email protected]. A short explanation on how to fill them out will follow.
