2007 Enhancement Plan Cover Sheet
2007 Enhancement Plan Cover Sheet State: Oregon Team Member Identification Identify all members who contributed to the development of the Enhancement Plan, including Name, Jurisdiction, Agency and Sector as appropriate: Stakeholders involved in the Program and Capability Review: First Name James P. Drew N. Larry Craig L. Dean Keith Jason Laurie Michael A. Jerry Shaun John D. George Steven Brian David Eric Tom Chuck Linda Randy Daniel J. Rodger Kelly Jo Mike Michael Mary David L. Tracy Jeanine Kevin Pat Last Name Adams Adams Alexander Amann Bender Berkery Bledsoe Boyce Brace Brown Brown Buchanan Buckingham Bullock Burright Cassel Clark Clemo Cogburn Cook Cote Coulombe Craddock Craigmiles Curry Davidson Davis Davis DePew Dilley Donegan Downing 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan Discipline Emergency Management Public Health Public Works Law Enforcement Emergency Management Emergency Management Law Enforcement Governmental / Administrative Emergency Management Law Enforcement Military Fire Service Emergency Management Emergency Management Fire Service Emergency Management Public Health Fire Service Law Enforcement Emergency Management Military Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Fire Service Emergency Management Public Safety Communications Fire Service Law Enforcement Agency Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Coquille Indian Tribe - Community Health Clinic Boring Water District Medford Police Department Polk County Sheriff's Office Portland Office of Emergency Management Oregon State Police City of Aurora Curry County Emergency Services Hood River County Sheriff's Office 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Siuslaw Valley Fire & Rescue Klamath County Emergency Services Multnomah County Emergency Management Columbia River Fire & Rescue Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Oregon State Public Health Lab Medford Fire Department Oregon Department of Justice Lane County Sheriff's Office 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Hermiston Police Department Coos Bay Police Department Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Jackson County Emergency Management Wasco County Sheriff's Office Washington County Western Lane County, Siuslaw Valley Fire & Rescue HRSA/Douglas County Health and Social Services Klamath County Emergency Communications District Clackamas Fire Dist #1 Coos County Sheriff's Office 1 First Name Last Name Discipline Agency Kerry Steve Ian Don R. Mike Sherrie John B. William F. Rose Dugan Ferrell Finseth Fleck Folkestad Forsloff Gedusky Gent Gentry Emergency Management Military Emergency Management Fire Service Emergency Management Public Health Military Military Public Works Liesbeth Darrell Richard Mike Frank Margrethe Michael S. Gerritsen Gilbert Glasgow Gotterba Grace Gregg Greisen Public Health NGO Public Safety Communications Public Works Law Enforcement Public Safety Communications Fire Service Tom Dan Vicki Cathy David Deborah Groat Gwin Harguth Harrington Harrington Harrison Emergency Management Governmental / Administrative Emergency Management Emergency Management Regional Transit Governmental / Administrative Mike Rebecca Larry L. Andrew Michael Craig Harryman Hassler Hatch Hendrickson Heumann Hogue Holcomb, Ph.D. Jimenez Jones Karatzas Karvoski Katagiri Keim Kennedy Kershaw Ketchum Knowlton Landers Landré Lane Public Health Public Safety Communications Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Public Health Public Health Portland Office of Emergency Management 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Mt. Angel Fire District Jefferson County Sheriff's Office Oregon Health & Sciences University 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Association of Oregon Community Mental Health Programs CERT / Red Cross LinCom 911 Salem Public Works City of Gladstone Oregon State Police, Oregon Emergency Response Scappoose Fire District Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) Criminal Justice Serv ices Division (CJSD) Columbia County City of Gresham Portland Office of Transportation Criminal Justice Services Division (CJSD) Oregon Department of Human Services, Public Health Division Tri County Communications Washington County 9-1-1 FEMA Region X Oregon Public Health Division, DHS Benton County Health Department Public Health Emergency Management Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Public Works Emergency Management Fire Service Public Safety Communications Law Enforcement Public Health Military Environmental Public Health, Public Health Division Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Columbia 9-1-1 Communications District Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Wallowa County Department of Emergency Services Multnomah County Emergency Management Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Tualatin Valley Water District Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Keno Fire Department / OSFM Red Team Columbia 9-1-1 Communications District Lincoln County Sheriff's Office Washington County Dept. of Health and Human Services 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Michael L. Doug Sally Nancy Paul Valerie Ken Neil Abby John Lee Curtis Sue John M. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 2 First Name Last Name Discipline Agency Chuck Keith Dan Thomas E. Matthew Dan Paul John Marty Leonard Lewis Malin Manning Marheine Martinez May McDowell McKillip Agriculture Public Works Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Emergency Management Fire Service Emergency Management Fire Service Emergency Management Dave Carmen Brian Andrea Clay Jacque Kim Steve Michael Terry Ken Rob Steve Susan Peggy A. Ernie Dave Scott Dave Eugene Tobie Darren Bill Dana Krista Ken Mariana Connie Steven Dara Maurice K. Don Pascal Richard Randy Meier Merlo Montoya Moore Moorhead Morgan Morse Muir Mumaw Munro Murphy Myers Noel Otjen Peirson Phelan Phelps Porter Rader Regan Reynolds Rice Riley Robinson Rowland Rueben Ruiz-Temple Saldana Sallé Salmon Sanders Schallberger Schuback Sebens Shaw Shreeve, Ed.D. Fire Service Governmental / Administrative Law Enforcement Law Enforcement NGO Governmental / Administrative Law Enforcement Emergency Management Emergency Management Fire Service Emergency Management NGO Public Safety Communications Fire Service Emergency Management Law Enforcement Public Works Emergency Management Law Enforcement Public Health Emergency Management Public Safety Communications Public Health Emergency Management Emergency Management Law Enforcement Fire Service Emergency Management Law Enforcement Emergency Management Law Enforcement Fire Service Emergency Management Law Enforcement Public Health Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) Washington County Land Use and Transportation Oregon State Police, CJIS Tillamook County Emergency Management Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Warm Springs Fire & Safety Department Yamhill County Emergency Management Springfield Fire & Life Safety Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) West Valley Fire District representing Conf. Tribe of Grand Ronde Criminal Justice Services Division (CJSD) Salem Police Department Beaverton Police Department CDA Consulting Group Inc. / POEM City of Florence Bend Police Department Washington County Emergency Management City of Beaverton Portland Fire & Rescue Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Frontier TeleNet Oregon State Police, OWIN Group Oregon State Fire Marshal Benton County Emergency Management Port of Portland Police Department City of Portland Water Bureau, Emergency Management Office of Consolidated Emergency Management Multnomah County Sheriffs Office Douglas County Health & Social Services Prineville Police Department Salem Police Department DHS PHEP Clackamas County Emergency Management Marion County Emergency Management Oregon Department of Justice Office of State Fire Marshal (OSFM) Seniors & People with Disabilities/DHS St. Helens Police Department Union County Emergency Services Florence Police Department Hillsboro Fire Department Multnomah County Emergency Management Stayton Police Department DHS PHEP Public Safety Communications Umpqua Valley Citizen Corps William E. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 3 First Name Brady R. Chuck Michael Ann Sarah Roger Wayne April Gene Eric Michael A. Jim Darrell Twila Karl F. Bill Dan Tina Tom Byron E. John Steve Don Vernon Kristi Randy Scott Bob Laura Michael Last Name Discipline Smith Solin Soots Steeves Stegmuller Stevenson Stinson Stream Strong Swanson Swinhoe Swinyard Tallan Teeman Tesch Thompson Thornton Toney Turner Vanderpool Vanderzanden Watson Webber Wells Wilde Williamson Winegar Wolfe Wolfe Zollitsch Emergency Management Emergency Management Cyber Security Public Health Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Public Safety Communications Public Health Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Public Health Emergency Management Emergency Management Military Fire Service Law Enforcement Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Law Enforcement Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Emergency Management Law Enforcement Public Safety Communications Emergency Management 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan Agency Confederated Tribes of Siletz City of Eugene Tillamook County Samaritan Health Services Clackamas County Emergency Management City of Salem Douglas County Emergency Management Jefferson County Sheriff's Office Clatsop County Sheriff's Office Tillamook County Emergency Communications District Oregon Public Health Benton County Sheriff's Office Monmouth Police Department Burns Paiute Tribe Hood River Emergency Services Klamath County Emergency Services 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Oregon State Fire Marshal Lane County Sheriff's Office Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) Marion County Columbia 9-1-1 Communications District Deschutes County Sheriff's Office Independence Police Dept. Central Lane Communications/Eugene Police Department Yamhill County Portland Office of Emergency Management Polk County Sheriff's Office Bureau of Emergency Communications Department of Environmental Quality 4 Initiative List: Identify each Initiative included as part of the Enhancement Plan, along with the corresponding National Priority/Capability from the TCL. Initiative Name National Priority/Capability Interoperable Communications Strengthen interoperable communications capabilities; Expanded regional collaboration; Implementation of NIMS and NRP; Implementation of the interim NIPP Planning Expanded regional collaboration; Implementation of NIMS and NRP; Implement interim NIPP Enhance and maintain specialized teams and first responder capabilities to detect and respond to WMD/CBRNE events Strengthen CBRNE detection, response and decontamination capabilities; Expanded regional collaboration Community Preparedness and Participation Strengthen medical surge and mass prophylaxis; Strengthen information sharing and collaboration Information/Intelligence Fusion Implementation Strengthen information sharing and collaboration; Expanded regional collaboration; Strengthen CBRNE detection, response and decontamination capabilities; Implement interim NIPP NIMS/NRP Implementation Implement the NIMS/NRP; Strengthen information sharing and collaboration; Expanded regional collaboration Critical Infrastructure Protection Implement the interim NIPP; Strengthen information sharing and collaboration Medical Surge and Mass Prophylaxis Strengthen medical surge and mass prophylaxis; Strengthen information sharing and collaboration; Expanded regional collaboration; Implement NIMS/NRP Regional Collaboration Expanded regional collaboration; Implement NIMS/NRP; National review of Emergency Operations Plans 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 5 Enhancement Plan Analysis Summary Sheet 1. Discuss the Stakeholders involved in Program and Capability Review and Enhancement Plan development, as well as the subject matter, functional, or regional expertise they brought to these processes. Document the method or medium used to capture and incorporate Stakeholders’ viewpoints and feedback in the Program and Capability Review and Enhancement Plan development. Key Oregon stakeholders participated in a Program and Capability Review Workshop held January 16-18, 2007, in Keizer, Oregon. Co-sponsored by Oregon Emergency Management and the Oregon Criminal Justice Services Division, and facilitated by Integrated Emergency Manage ment (IEM), the workshop involved more than 115 participants from throughout the state representing a myriad of disciplines, as well as various urban and rural interests. Subject matter experts – to include HazMat Teams, Urban Search and Rescue, Bomb Squads, Public Health, Health Care and Communications - were also included, participating in reviews where their in-depth knowledge contributed to a broad understanding of existing capabilities. The stakeholders were brought together to (1) discuss the previo us year’s capability outcomes; (2) identify strengths and weaknesses within the state’s current homeland security program and capabilities in an all- hazard context; (3) establish priority capabilities for the upcoming year (including the established POETE framework: Planning/Organization/Equipment/Training/ Exercise); and overall, (4) contribute to a process based on performance measures that may be tracked and measured. These elements, in turn, will be reflected in the selection of priorities for the future Homeland Security Grant Program for the State of Oregon. Each IEM facilitator was assigned three specific Capabilities groups throughout the event for consistency’s sake. Workshop participants were pre-selected for three specific group assignments each by the State sponsors to promote maximum multi-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional input, close coordination of the target capabilities under consideration, and overall development and capture of strategic and enhancement plan elements important to the State’s funding requests. Day one included capability overviews, 2006 outcomes, and discussion points from the Program and Capability Review Guidebook. Day two included discussion of capability strengths and weaknesses and capability prioritization: challenges, impacts, sustainability, and management. Day three continued the capability prioritization discussion, and followed on with initiative and investment identification. Workshop participants were provided with individual packets of related information from last year’s workshop output, The Program and Capability Review Guidebook, and the Target Capabilities List. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 6 2. List the Target Capabilities and programs on which the State focused its review and analyses, and identify whether they are tied to: the three Program-specific National Priorities; the five Capability-specific National Priorities; the Priority Target Capabilities that align to the five Capability-specific National Priorities; or other Target Capabilities identified as State-specific priorities. Discussions during workshop sessions organized around nine (9) groupings of target capabilities preselected by the State. These included the following: • • • • • • • • • Community Preparedness and Participation Critical Infrastructure Protection/Restoration of Lifelines Information Sharing and Dissemination/Intelligence Analysis/Law Enforcement Investigation and Operations Interoperable Communications Medical Surge/Mass Prophylaxis National Incident Management System/National Response Plan (NIMS/NRP) Planning/Nationwide Plan Review Regional Collaboration WMD HazMat Response and Decontamination/Urban Search and Rescue (US&R)/Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives (CBRNE) Detection/Explosive Device Response Operations These capabilities represent the three program-specific National Priorities, the five capabilityspecific National Priorities; the priority Target Capabilities that align to the five capability-specific National Priorities; and the four Target Capabilities identified as state-specific priorities. 3. List and describe all of the high-level needs (strengths and weaknesses) that were identified as part of the Program and Capability Review/Step 1 of the Enhancement Plan process. Highlight those areas that were eventually included in an Initiative, and those that were not included in an Initiative. Recognized strengths were: • • • • • • Regional specialized CBRNE teams Strong volunteer involvement in Citizen Corps Emergency Management Performance Grant Program State collaborated communication interoperability planning HRSA Statewide collaboration and coordination of training and exercise Recognized weaknesses were: • • • • • • Inconsistent state, county, local guidance and direction Lack of personnel resources Inconsistent funding for planning, training, and exercises Inconsistent statewide collaboration and coordination of planning Regional structure, governance, and coordination Equipment shortfalls, interoperability, and standards 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 7 All of the identified strengths and weaknesses in the above- mentioned areas were included in the initiatives and investment justifications to the extent permissible. 4. Explain the rationale for how the identified needs (strengths and weaknesses) were prioritized. Discuss why those needs are priorities for the State. Describe the processes used to determine State priorities at the program level, how those priorities were put into a regional construct, and how the end-result priorities were agreed upon among the stakeholder group for inclusion in Initiatives. In each of the working sessions facilitated during the program and capabilities review the participants focused on the identification of the strengths and weaknesses, creation of initiatives, and the initial identification of investments to address initiatives. Participants developed this information with neutral facilitation by a contractor. Initiative priorities were identified by allotting each participant nine “votes” that they would then allocate to initiatives to identify their perceived priorities. They could place all nine votes on one initiative, or divide their nine votes among several initiatives. The resulting priorities were in line with the State’s main priorities and therefore easily agreed upon for inclusion in the initiatives. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 8 Interoperable Communications Participants First Name Larry Craig L. Dean Jerry John D. George Brian Eric Tom Rodger Mike Michael Mary Jeanine Kevin Don R. Richard Michael S. Dan Vicki Rebecca Larry L. Andrew Sally Paul Ken Neil John Lee Curtis Keith Thomas E. Matthew Paul Marty Andrea Jacque Kim Michael Terry Rob Steve Last Name Alexander Amann Bender Brown Buchanan Buckingham Burright Clark Clemo Craddock Curry Davidson Davis Dilley Donegan Fleck Glasgow Greisen Gwin Harguth Hassler Hatch Hendrickson Jones Karvoski Keim Kennedy Ketchum Knowlton Landers Lewis Manning Marheine May McKillip Moore Morgan Morse Mumaw Munro Myers Noel 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan Discipline Public Works Law Enforcement Emergency Management Law Enforcement Fire Service Emergency Management Fire Service Public Health Fire Service Law Enforcement Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Public Safety Communications Fire Service Fire Service Public Safety Communications Fire Service Governmental / Administrative Emergency Management Public Safety Communications Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Emergency Management Public Works Fire Service Public Safety Communications Law Enforcement Public Works Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Law Enforcement Governmental / Administrative Law Enforcement Emergency Management Fire Service NGO Public Safety Communications Agency Boring Water District Medford Police Department Polk County Sheriff's Office Hood River County Sheriff's Office Siuslaw Valley Fire & Rescue Klamath County Emergency Services Columbia River Fire & Rescue Oregon State Public Health Lab Medford Fire Department Coos Bay Police Department Jackson County Emergency Management Wasco County Sheriff's Office Washington County Klamath County Emergency Communications District Clackamas Fire Dist #1 Mt. Angel Fire District LinCom 911 Scappoose Fire District Criminal Justice Services Division (CJSD) Columbia County Tri County Communications Washington County 9-1-1 FEMA Region X Columbia 9-1-1 Communications District Wallowa County Department of Emergency Services Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Tualatin Valley Water District Keno Fire Department / OSFM Red Team Columbia 9-1-1 Communications District Lincoln County Sheriff's Office Washington County Land Use and Transportation Tillamook County Emergency Management Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Yamhill County Emergency Management Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Beaverton Police Department City of Florence Bend Police Department City of Beaverton Portland Fire & Rescue Frontier TeleNet Oregon State Police, OWIN Group 9 First Name Last Name Discipline Susan Otjen Fire Service Dave Scott Tobie Darren Dana Krista Dara Don Pascal Richard Michael Ann Roger April Gene Phelps Porter Reynolds Rice Robinson Rowland Salmon Schallberger Schuback Sebens Soots Steeves Stevenson Stream Strong Public Works Emergency Management Emergency Management Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Fire Service Emergency Management Law Enforcement Cyber Security Public Health Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Eric Jim Karl F. Tina Byron E. John Steve Swanson Swinyard Tesch Toney Vanderpool Vanderzanden Watson Public Safety Communications Law Enforcement Emergency Management Fire Service Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Public Safety Communications Kristi Michael Wilde Zollitsch Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Agency Oregon State Fire Marshal City of Portland Water Bureau, Emergency Management Office of Consolidated Emergency Management Prineville Police Department Salem Police Department Clackamas County Emergency Management Marion County Emergency Management Union County Emergency Services Hillsboro Fire Department Multnomah County Emergency Management Stayton Police Department Tillamook County Samaritan Health Services City of Salem Jefferson County Sheriff's Office Clatsop County Sheriff's Office Tillamook County Emergency Communications District Benton County Sheriff's Office Hood River Emergency Services Oregon State Fire Marshal Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) Marion County Columbia 9-1-1 Communications District Central Lane Communications/Eugene Police Department Department of Environmental Quality Interoperable Communications Capability Overview Participants discussed the lack of interoperability of communication equipment and frequencies. One cause of this issue is that there was no guidance or requirements that directed standardization on a regional basis when purchasing communication equipment. This caused inconsistencies with equipment purchases. Participants were concerned with the lack of training regarding interoperable equipment purchases throughout Oregon. The participants expressed a need for larger focus on training and exercising of the equipment along with increased equipment planning on a local and regional basis. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 10 Capability Priority Strengths and Weaknesses Priority Strengths 1. State Interoperability Executive Council/Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network (SIEC/OWIN). The group mentioned the benefits of the SIEC/OWIN. Hospitals are hoping to increase collaboration through these avenues and enhance their communication capabilities. In addition, the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) region and SIEC are talking of a possible partnership while OWIN is acquiring partners that will enhance the communications capabilities within the state. 2. Local planning and collaboration willingness. The group has seen an increase in the desired level of planning and collaboration efforts for interoperable communications. Participants on local, county, and State levels agree that interoperable communications is a high priority. 3. Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES)/Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES)/Civil Support Team (CST)/Oregon Department of Forestry caches (ODF). The group acknowledged the importance and benefits of ARES, RACES, CST, and ODF for statewide backup and/or alternate communications during times of emergency or when other methods or modes are overloaded or disrupted. These organizations have much to offer regarding interoperable communications throughout Oregon. The agencies are a great asset in the areas of equipment and capabilities when called upon. 4. Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) region. The UASI region has developed a strong strategic plan for interoperable communications in their five-county region. As mentioned above, UASI and SIEC are looking to form a partnership and enhance the capabilities of communications within Oregon. Priority Weaknesses 1. Antiquated Public Safety Communications Infrastructure. The Public Safety Communications Infrastructure is antiquated and needs to be updated or replaced in many areas. Lack of funding to absorb such costs creates a major hurdle. 2. Inconsistencies with implementation of narrow banding transition. There are areas that are still using narrow band systems, and it is a tremendous challenge to link these systems with more moderate systems. There are still many standalone systems throughout the state. There is a need for funding to perform the upgrades. Some participants felt the lack of communication technical expertise among policy makers and elected officials may be a cause of some of the inconsistencies. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 11 3. Baseline standard for inoperability, weaknesses in OWIN plan, and lack of information about OWIN to local communities. Although OWIN is an asset when dealing with interoperable communications, some representatives from the local level are not convinced. There is a need for better understanding of the OWIN process which can be accomplished through training or an outreach campaign. Better understanding would result in greater support of the program. 4. Misconception of competition between local funding and SIEC. Local governments in some areas misconceive that the funding received by SIEC is in some way competing against their funding sources. To correct this, there needs to be better communications established between the SIEC and local governments. Local partners need to be better informed and reassured that this will not affect their local funding. Capability Prioritization / Initiative and Investment Identification 1. Development and maintenance of local, State, and regional communications organizations. The regions agreed collectively that the initiative for development and continued support for local, State, and regional communications organizations is a top priority. The initiative will allow for the development of a common structure that will enhance policies and procedures for interoperable communications throughout Oregon. This would greatly increase response capabilities throughout the state, and the additional support of political buy-in would support this initiative. 2. Development and maintenance of interoperability plans including strategic, tactical, COOP/COG, and 700 megahertz (all disciplines). During the planning phase of interoperable communication plans, the regions should include strategic, tactical, COOP/COG and the completion of the 700 MHz system. 3. Development and/or upgrade of local, regional, and statewide communications to meet national and statewide standards. Local, regional, and statewide communications systems, training, and exercise communications plans should meet all the requirements established by State and Federal standards. The enhancement of the communication infrastructure would allow for a more stable networking system. This achievement can reach accomplishment with proper communication plans and the exercising and training of the plan. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 12 Enhancement Plan Initiative Questions 1. Provide the name for this Initiative. Describe how this initiative will address the priority needs and strengths identified through the program and capability evaluation and prioritization analysis. Name: Interoperable Communications This initiative addresses the priority needs and the strengths identified by stakeholders. It emphasizes the need for collaboration with local, tribal, state, and federal stakeholders to improve public safety communications infrastructure and ensure long-term stability by developing plans that provide governance, standard operating policies and procedures, technology guidelines and assistance, training and exercises, and usage protocols for uninterrupted flow of critical information. The initiative to strengthen interoperable communications capabilities will enhance robust interoperability solutions at the local, regional, and state levels. Oregon will continue to expand and enhance local operability and statewide interoperability for voice and data by purchasing and installing infrastructure and hardware ensuring that communications systems are secure, redundant, and fault tolerant. All communication system infrastructure enhancements must ensure system compatibility across disciplines, mutual aid jurisdictions, and levels of government. 2. Regional Construct: briefly describe the geographical context of this initiative. Strengthening Interoperable Communications Capabilities is an initiative of statewide construct intended to enhance the ability of public safety disciplines and jurisdictions to communicate with each other and protect citizens and property throughout all levels of response. 3. Resources processes and tools: Identify the resources, processes and tools that already exist, and those that will need to be leveraged, created, or acquired for this initiative. Briefly consider how these resources, processes, and tools may be attained. Realizing that the state of Oregon must have a comprehensive and coordinated statewide Interoperable Communications Plan, legislation was proposed and during the 73rd Oregon Legislative Assembly - 2005 Regular Session, and House Bill 2101 was approved. The processes and tools identified in HB2101 are clearly defined in Oregon’s enhancement plan for strengthening interoperable communications capabilities. The priority needs and strengths identified through the program and capability evaluation closely mirror the content of HB2101. In association with HB2101, the following processes are either currently underway or in need of development: Oregon Emergency Management is conducting a design and engineering study for the Oregon Wireless Interoperability/Integrated Network (OWIN). This work is phase 1 of a multiphase project that will outline the design and construction requirements, costs, and implementation schedule for a consolidated statewide public safety wireless communications system-of-systems, consisting of local, state, and federal components. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 13 Financial funding is required for additional phases that will include consolidation of existing systems, build out of microwave, radios and facilities, and development of policies, procedures and protocols to ensure enterprise wide compatibility. This is a phased implementation plan that focuses first on State systems and when complete will ensure communications interoperability among all state, local, tribal and federal public safety agencies. Until the system is complete, it will be necessary to continue financial support of local systems providing necessary funds to ensure system reliability. All proposed communication system infrastructure enhancements must be reviewed and approved by the established SIEC governance structure to ensure system compatibility across disciplines, mutual aid jurisdictions, and levels of government. The State Administrative Agency (SAA) is currently working with 15 counties to develop phase two of the county level communications plans that address interoperability within the individual counties as well as regionally. Additional funding will expand this process to encompass all jurisdictions and ensure statewide planning consistency. A statewide inventory and gap analysis of existing systems will contribute to the development of an Oregon Statewide Interoperable Communications Plan as outlined in Section 4 of HB2101. The Portland UASI has three simultaneous projects underway to enhance interoperability within the five county metro area. The first involves installing hardware for linking CAD systems between Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPS); the second is an interoperable voice and radio project for Columbia county VHF and 800 voice radio systems; and the third project is development of interoperable plans for each of five counties and one regional plan. This process will be integrated with the aforementioned to support regional and statewide interoperable communications planning efforts. The Portland UASI will be submitting investment justifications supporting expansion of interoperable projects. Leveraging of the SIEC will provide the necessary governance, organization and leadership for this initiative, and leveraging of the Statewide Wireless Infrastructure Investment Group (SWIIG) will provide technical guidance and expertise to local, regional and state jurisdictions in need of infrastructure enhancements. 4. Governance Structure: Describe the high-level governance structure (e.g., management plan, stakeholder involvement) required for successful implementation of this initiative. As outlined in HB 2101, under the direction of the Governor, the Office of Emergency Management shall coordinate the work of public safety agencies in the state and the State Interoperability Executive Council to: (1) Work with public safety agencies in the state to develop a Public Safety Wireless Infrastructure Replacement Plan as provided under section 2 of this 2005 Act. (2) Develop an Oregon Interoperable Communication Plan. In developing the plan, the council shall: (a) Recommend strategies to improve wireless interoperability among state and local public safety agencies; (b) Develop standards to promote consistent development of existing and future wireless communications infrastructures; (c) Identify immediate short-term technological and policy solutions to tie existing wireless communications infrastructures together into an interoperable communications system; 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 14 (d) Develop long-term technological and policy recommendations to establish a statewide public safety radio system to improve emergency response and day-to-day public safety operations; and (e) Develop recommendations for legislation and for the development of state and local policies to promote wireless interoperability in Oregon. (3) Approve, subject to approval by the Director of the Office of Emergency Management, investments by the State of Oregon in public safety communications systems. 5. Program Management: Explain how this initiative relates to the overall State Homeland Security program, and/or how it helps incorporate the three Overarching National Priorities. The Initiative to Strengthen Interoperable Communication Capabilities supports all three Overarching National Priorities. • • • Implement the National Incident Management System and National Response Plan. Implement the Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan Expanded Regional Collaboration Additionally, this Initiative supports the capability specific priority to Strengthen Interoperable Communications Capabilities, and supports the State homeland security strategy: Goal 1: Enhance communications interoperability among public safety agencies. Goal 2: Increase the ability to investigate, disrupt, deter, and dismantle international and domestic terrorist efforts in Oregon. Goal 4: Enhance Oregon’s statewide ability to plan, prepare for, and respond to CBRNE/WMD and all hazards events. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 15 Planning Participants First Name Last Name Discipline Michael A. Jerry George David Daniel J. Rodger Kelly Jo Mike David L. Jeanine Steve Ian Don R. William F. Brace Brown Buckingham Cassel Coulombe Craddock Craigmiles Curry Davis Dilley Ferrell Finseth Fleck Gent Emergency Management Law Enforcement Emergency Management Emergency Management Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Emergency Management Emergency Management Fire Service Public Safety Communications Military Emergency Management Fire Service Military Liesbeth Gerritsen Public Health Tom Dan Vicki Larry L. Andrew Nancy Neil Dan Matthew Dan Groat Gwin Harguth Hatch Hendrickson Karatzas Kennedy Malin Marheine Martinez Emergency Management Governmental / Administrative Emergency Management Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Emergency Management Public Works Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Fire Service Dave Carmen Andrea Clay Kim Steve Michael Susan Peggy A. Krista Mariana Connie Steven Meier Merlo Moore Moorhead Morse Muir Mumaw Otjen Peirson Rowland Ruiz-Temple Saldana Sallé Fire Service Governmental / Administrative Law Enforcement NGO Law Enforcement Emergency Management Emergency Management Fire Service Emergency Management Emergency Management Fire Service Emergency Management Law Enforcement 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan Agency Curry County Emergency Services Hood River County Sheriff's Office Klamath County Emergency Services Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Hermiston Police Department Coos Bay Police Department Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Jackson County Emergency Management Western Lane County, Siuslaw Valley Fire & Rescue Klamath County Emergency Communications District 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Mt. Angel Fire District 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Association of Oregon Community Mental Health Programs Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) Criminal Justice Services Division (CJSD) Columbia County Washington County 9-1-1 FEMA Region X Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Tualatin Valley Water District Oregon State Police, CJIS Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Warm Springs Fire & Safety Department West Valley Fire District representing Conf. Tribe of Grand Ronde Criminal Justice Services Division (CJSD) Beaverton Police Department CDA Consulting Group Inc. / POEM Bend Police Department Washington County Emergency Management City of Beaverton Oregon State Fire Marshal Benton County Emergency Management Marion County Emergency Management Office of State Fire Marshal (OSFM) Seniors & People with Disabilities/DHS St. Helens Police Department 16 First Name Last Name Discipline Dara Don Brady R. Michael Roger Wayne Salmon Schallberger Smith Soots Stevenson Stinson Emergency Management Fire Service Emergency Management Cyber Security Emergency Management Emergency Management Eric Karl F. Tina Byron E. Steve Don Swanson Tesch Toney Vanderpool Watson Webber Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Fire Service Public Safety Communications Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Kristi Bob Laura Michael Wilde Wolfe Wolfe Zollitsch Public Safety Communications Law Enforcement Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Agency Union County Emergency Services Hillsboro Fire Department Confederated Tribes of Siletz Tillamook County City of Salem Douglas County Emergency Management Tillamook County Emergency Communications District Hood River Emergency Services Oregon State Fire Marshal Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) Columbia 9-1-1 Communications District Deschutes County Sheriff's Office Central Lane Communications/Eugene Police Department Polk County Sheriff's Office Bureau of Emergency Communications Department of Environmental Quality Planning Capability Overview During the Planning sessions, participants expressed concerns regarding regional planning. Most were strongly in favor of a regional approach to homeland security and emergency management planning, though overlaps in current regional structures have created some confusion. The participants stated there is a lack of consistency in the planning process from one county to another and insufficient staffing to accomplish the required planning at the local level. Capability Priority Strengths and Weaknesses Priority Strengths 1. Group projects (Emergency Communications Plan (ECP) and Communication Planning). 2. Though challenging, communications planning is occurring throughout the state. The State Administrative Agency (SAA) is currently working with 15 counties to develop phase two of the county level communications plans that address interoperability within the individual counties as well as regionally, and additional local plans are in development. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 17 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Institutionalized Planning of Hazard Analysis and Emergency Operations Plan. The EMPG grant has provided funding that can be used to address local risks and needs. It allows for funding staff and covers mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. 3. Estimated Consensus and Relationships. All stakeholders are willing to work together to reach a common goal. All of the representatives during the session stated they are conducting planning in some way. 4. Emergency Management Planning Institutionalized. The regions are incorporating planning efforts at every level and are aware that these plans require ongoing maintenance and updates. 5. Examples of Regional Coordination Collaboration Efforts (Regional Emergency Management Group (REMG), UASI, etc.). There is a high interest shown at the local level throughout the state to sustain coordination efforts on a regional basis. For example, REMG is a link between the private and public sectors that outlines the regional requirements and establishes policies for large-scale incidents. Priority Weaknesses 1. Funding or authorization to establish mandates without repercussion. Participants feel that in some areas there may be repercussion from the political side while trying to establish mandates and requirements during the planning processes at the local level. 2. No governance on regional basis (additional guidance is needed). There is a lack of governance. Additional guidance passed down would assist with this weakness and aid the regional planning efforts. 3. Creation of models and templates across the board. Standard templates and models would create an easier and more consistent process at the local level. 4. Need to plan and understand role and participation by all discip lines. While plans are being established, the roles of all disciplines need to be taken into consideration. Some volunteer organizations may be accidentally overlooked. There is a need for assistance in the planning efforts to identify the management and utilization of volunteers. Capability Prioritization / Initiative and Investment Identification 1. Statewide mutual aid agreements and memorandums of understanding. Statewide mutual aid agreements and memorandums of understanding (MOU) need to be developed. Representatives throughout the state feel that statewide mutual aid agreements are lacking. With the development of these agreements, there should be some form of 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 18 standardization and regionalization taken into consideration. With statewide mutual aid agreements and MOU there will be better allocation of resources and less duplication of efforts at the local and regional levels. 2. New or Improved templates and guides to enhance planning and consistency. The development of new or improved templates, guides, and models for planning will increase the regional approach throughout Oregon. This will provide more instruction on how planning activities at the local and regional level should be conducted, while increasing consistency statewide. 3. Increased multi-discipline participation in planning activities. There is a strong need in Oregon for all disciplines with emergency-related responsibilities to participate in planning processes at the local, county, regional, and State levels. This should increase the support and buy- in of elected officials’. 4. Expand use of standard FEMA hazards analysis and Emergency Operations Plans (EOP) development processes. Funding should be allocated to support the conduct of hazards analyses and the preparation of standardized EOPs for cities in addition to those supported by the EMPG 5. Increased planning for volunteer management, special needs population evacuation, and pet evacuation. Planning is needed in the area of volunteer management and utilization. Planning for evacuation and sheltering of special needs populations and research into the development of a statewide special needs population database are also needed. Additionally, more guidance and planning effort is needed to support pet evacuations. 6. Ongoing NIMS maintenance and sustainment. A strong emphasis should be placed on assisting all levels of government and all disciplines with the maintenance and sustainment of NIMS programs. This should include support of training programs and planning activities necessary to address ongoing and new NIMS requirements. 7. Continued support of local and regional planning projects. Support local, regional, and state agency planning projects through hiring of staff/contractors to develop and/or update plans including the following: Continuity of Operations/Continuity of Government (COOP/COG); Emergency Preparedness, Response, and/or Recovery (including Emergency Operations Plans (EOP)); Interoperable Communications Plans; Infrastructure Protection; and Cyber Security. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 19 Enhancement Plan Initiative Questions 1. Provide the name for this Initiative. Describe how this initiative will address the priority needs and strengths identified through the program and capability evaluation and prioritization analysis. Name: Planning This initiative will address the strengths and weaknesses through the enhancement of the planning infrastructure. In coordination with all of the capabilities identified nationally and the four additional state identified capabilities, the planning initiative is the basis for the enhancement of capabilities statewide. This initiative will allow the State to coordinate planning efforts statewide and regionally to address terrorism and all- hazard events both administratively and operationally. 2. Regional Construct: briefly describe the geographical context of this initiative. This initiative is designed to enhance planning throughout Oregon by providing support for developing and implementing local, county, regional, and statewide plans. 3. Resources, Processes, and Tools: Identify the resources, processes and tools that already exist, and those that will need to be leveraged, created, or acquired for this initiative. Briefly consider how these resources, processes, and tools may be attained. This initiative addresses the priority needs and the strengths identified by stakeholders. It emphasizes the need for staffing and/or contracting resources to improve planning infrastructure and to ensure long-term stability. The EMPG and local funding make current staff possible with most over tasked and in dire need of assistance to enhance the total planning infrastructure of the State. The Statewide Hazard Analysis is maintained by OEM and must be updated every five years in conjunction with local jurisdictions. Oregon has established a collective coordination process with counties to work with a contractor to create "All Hazards" Emergency Preparedness Response and Recovery Plans, develop emergency policies and procedures, and incorporate NIMS compliant EOPs for each. The State has required under administrative rule that all State agencies create a Business Continuity Plan or COOP/COG by the end of 2007. OEM has designated five regions to address the all hazard environment in the entire state. Supplies and services for staff such as office space, web services, and other basic needs will be leveraged to enhance planning projects. The establishment of statewide direction, coordination, consistency, standards, and review structures will occur through the creation of work groups to include state, tribal, county, regional, and local representatives. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 20 4. Governance Structure: Describe the high-level governance structure (e.g., management plan, stakeholder involvement) required for successful implementation of this initiative. All planning activities awarded to contractors will be coordinated and monitored by Oregon Emergency Management and the SAA in concert with stakeholders to insure that deliverables are completed on schedule and meet the needs of the requesting agency/jurisdiction/region. All planning activities conducted by local agencies/jurisdictions/regions will be required to involve all stakeholders throughout the process, and provide Oregon Emergency Management and the SAA with periodic reports on progress, to include deliverables. 5. Program Management: Explain how this initiative relates to the overall State Homeland Security program, and/or how it helps incorporate the three Overarching National Priorities. Planning is the basis of all of the 12 national and four state identified priorities. This initiative is the primary baseline to all strategy goals and objectives, and the foundation of all program initiatives. The planning program incorporates all concepts of regional collaboration, NIMS, NRP, and NIPP implementation. State, local, and tribal plans will be better integrated with appropriate departments, agencies, and jurisdictions and provide an improved basis for more effective training and exercise capability. Establishing models and templates will enhance consistency and interoperability to support mutual aid and regional collaboration. More State, tribal, and local agencies will have approved COOP/COG plans with an increased ability to maintain services and capabilities during emergencies. Statewide mutual aid will provide a standard process and capability to utilize resources from other jurisdictions throughout the State to maximize resources and ensure interoperable and integrated synchronization throughout all levels of government. This will also reduce the number and need for individual jurisdiction agreements. Planning products will mitigate and enhance the prevention, protection, response, and recovery of the identified risks in the State. The outcome addressed is the completion of planning projects that will address multiple concerns identified in the States' National Plan Review. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 21 Enhance and maintain specialized teams and first responder capabilities to detect and respond to WMD/CBRNE events Participants First Name James P. Jason Michael A. Shaun Brian Eric Chuck Randy Michael Kevin Don R. Mike John B. William F. Darrell Michael S. Deborah Michael Michael L. Doug Valerie Curtis John M. Chuck John Brian Andrea Kim Terry Susan Ernie Dave Ken Mariana Steven Sarah Gene Darrell Dan Last Name Adams Bledsoe Brace Brown Burright Clark Cogburn Cote Davidson Donegan Fleck Folkestad Gedusky Gent Gilbert Greisen Harrison Heumann Holcomb, Ph.D. Jimenez Katagiri Landers Lane Leonard McDowell Montoya Moore Morse Munro Otjen Phelan Rader Rueben Ruiz-Temple Sallé Stegmuller Strong Tallan Thornton 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan Discipline Agency Emergency Management Law Enforcement Emergency Management Military Fire Service Public Health Law Enforcement Military Emergency Management Fire Service Fire Service Emergency Management Military Military NGO Fire Service Governmental / Administrative Public Health Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Oregon State Police Curry County Emergency Services 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Columbia River Fire & Rescue Oregon State Public Health Lab Oregon Department of Justice 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Wasco County Sheriff's Office Clackamas Fire Dist #1 Mt. Angel Fire District Jefferson County Sheriff's Office 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) CERT / Red Cross Scappoose Fire District Criminal Justice Services Division (CJSD) Oregon Public Health Division, DHS Public Health Emergency Management Emergency Management Law Enforcement Military Agriculture Fire Service Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Fire Service Fire Service Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Fire Service Law Enforcement Emergency Management Emergency Management Law Enforcement Military Environmental Public Health, Public Health Division Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Multnomah County Emergency Management Lincoln County Sheriff's Office 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) Springfield Fire & Life Safety Salem Police Department Beaverton Police Department Bend Police Department Portland Fire & Rescue Oregon State Fire Marshal Port of Portland Police Department Multnomah County Sheriffs Office Oregon Department of Justice Office of State Fire Marshal (OSFM) St. Helens Police Department Clackamas County Emergency Management Clatsop County Sheriff's Office Monmouth Police Department 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) 22 First Name Tina Tom Vernon Last Name Toney Turner Wells Discipline Fire Service Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Agency Oregon State Fire Marshal Lane County Sheriff's Office Independence Police Dept. Enhance and maintain specialized teams and first responder capabilities to detect and respond to WMD/CBRNE events Capability Overview Participants expressed a need for equipment specific training, training facilities, venues, expendables, and props. Costs associated with training are a concern as well as backfill and overtime costs. Another concern was the cost associated with training. Funding would compensate agencies and organizations allowing for backfill and overtime opportunities regarding training. The group collectively stated that smaller departments and agencies struggle with this cost. When the agencies receive reimbursement from the Federal Government, there are concerns with the delays associated with processes. Participants would also like to see continuous support for the established specialized teams throughout Oregon to include updating equipment to meet new standards and requirements. Capability Priority Strengths and Weaknesses Priority Strengths 1. All specialized teams The specialized teams throughout the state that are certified, trained, and/or accredited are a critical resource. The participants agreed that in the event of a real-world incident, these specialized teams could provide additional support and resources where needed. 2. Certified CST Team in the State of Oregon. The Oregon CST team is now certified. This team offers assets and resources that cannot be found anywhere else in the state. Communication, analytical, and reach-back capabilities were mentioned. 3. CSEPP in Oregon. The Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP) is a major strength due to the emergency response capabilities and funding that is allocated. The participants did have concerns regarding how these capabilities would be sustained when the program ends. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 23 4. Good mutual aid agreements among US&R. US&R has excellent formalized mutual aid agreements. As a result of these agreements when additional resources are required, there is a good understanding of what is coming and from where. 5. Good number of search and rescue technicians. Throughout the state, there are many certified search and rescue technicians. This is possible due to the amount of training that has been conducted in conjunction with the funding that has been allocated. Priority Weaknesses 1. Training on equipment already purchased. The responders are allocated funding for the equipment purchases, but there are insufficient funding sources that allow for equipment specific training, or the vendors providing the equipment are unable to conduct the necessary training. 2. Cross-discipline training. The challenge is getting everyone to participate at one time. The participation efforts are held up because of backfill or overtime issues, and smaller agencies or organizations that want to participate are challenged with staffing issues. A second concern mentioned is when multiple players are involved, multiple objectives are injected and specific agency/organizational objectives seem to loose focus. An additional concern is the lack of designated regional base facilities located in the state that will allow for multiple-agency participation at one time. There is a need for regional or State training facilities. 3. Lack of reverse 9-1-1 capabilities. The group discussed the lack of a reverse 9-1-1 system installation and maintenance capability. There are no mandates at the local level or State level that establish requirements in this area. Individual contractors on a regional basis do the installation and maintenance on the reverse 9-1-1 systems. The participants would like to see the State place requirements on and cover the cost of installation and maintenance of the reverse 9-1-1 systems. 4. First Responders. Local first responders are faced with a lack of equipment. The shortage of equipment comes from not having the needed funding and is complicated by difficulties in identifying what is needed. There are concerns with the local response agencies not having the proper equipment for their jobs. It is harder for smaller agencies to purchase what they need and receive the necessary training on the equipment. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 24 5. Consumables and props for training. Agency representatives stated there is a shortage of consumables for training. There is a need for sufficient supply allocation to allow the agencies/organizations the ability to conduct necessary training. Participants would like to see props purchased for training venues and consumables for exercises. Without the appropriate consumables and props, the exercises are less effective. Capability Prioritization / Initiative and Investment Identification 1. Continued support for existing specialized teams. There should be continuous support for specialized teams. a. US&R (Urban Search and Rescue) The US&R team offers strong response capabilities within the state. The team consists of law enforcement, fire, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel, and other first responders. This team is able to respond statewide as needed. b. HazMat There are 15 HazMat teams within Oregon. The teams consist of equipment and personnel with the capabilities to respond to multiple HazMat or WMD incidents as needed. c. Bomb squads Oregon has six bomb squads. These squads are certified and have the capabilities to deploy anywhere within the state. 2. Equipment upgrades within the specialized teams and the ability for first responders to recognize a CBRNE event/incident. With the equipment upgrade, the specialized teams and the local responders will have the proper equipment to respond to and recognize a CBRNE event/incident. The proper equipment will enhance on-scene capabilities. 3. Training and exercise for First Responders. a. Having regional facilities and props for exercises and drills. Having a regional facility with props will facilitate a more realistic approach to large-scale scenarios. A regional facility with props will provide a more realistic exercise environment. By using realistic props, responding personnel will be better prepared during an actual response. b. Cross-discipline/cross-jurisdictional training. The funding for cross discipline and cross-jurisdictional training will allow all responding agencies/organizations the opportunities to conduct crosswalk scenarios. This will also create opportunities for agencies to identify outside weakness and shortfalls and will facilitate recognition during an inc ident. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 25 c. Specialized team training. With the capabilities to train and exercise, the local responders and specialized teams will be able to identify strengths and weaknesses internally and externally. The training will enhance the capabilities of the specialized teams and local first responders. Enhancement Plan Initiative Questions 1. Provide the name for this Initiative. Describe how this initiative will address the priority needs and strengths identified through the program and capability evaluation and prioritization analysis. Name: Special Teams and First Responder WMD Detection, Response and Decontamination. This initiative will enhance the existing capabilities of 15 Regional HazMat Teams, six regional bomb squads, the State Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Team and first responders at local/county levels. The initiative enhances the identified strengths of existing regional teams by addressing weaknesses in planning, training, exercising, and equipment. 2. Regional Construct: Briefly describe the geographical context of this initiative. Oregon currently has 15 Regional HazMat Teams that can respond as a single team or as multiple teams throughout the state. Three of the HazMat Teams are within the Portland UASI boundaries, while the other 12 teams are located in larger cities throughout the state. Of the six existing bomb squads, three are regionally located and under the command of the Oregon State Police, while the other three are under the command of the Portland Police Bureau, Salem Police Department and the Eugene Police Department. All six-bomb squads can respond to incidents anywhere in the state. The State US&R Team is made up of law enforcement, fire service, emergency medical service and other first responders from throughout the state, and is under the supervision of the State Fire Marshal’s Office with a statewide response capability. 3. Resources, Processes, and Tools: Identify the resources, processes and tools that already exist, and those that will need to be leveraged, created, or acquired for this initiative. Briefly consider how these resources, processes, and tools may be attained. All 15 Regional HazMat Teams are fully equipped, manned and capable of responding to a wide variety of HazMat/WMD incidents. Each HazMat Team also provides Outreach Training to fire departments throughout the state, thereby increasing the number of personnel that could be effective in responding to a HazMat/WMD incident. All six bomb squads are fully equipped, to include robots, and can respond to single or multiple incidents. The State US&R Team has established regional caches of equipment to support the deployment of the team to any region of the state. To maintain and enhance the capabilities of the Regional HazMat Teams, Regional Bomb Squads and State US&R Teams, funding is needed for upgrading detection equipment for specialized teams, as well as initial first responders that will need to make the determination that specialized teams will need to respond. A specific equipment concern involves local agencies being able to communicate with specialized teams. Upgrades for existing equipment could be 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 26 completed in one year, while acquiring new equipment for first responders lacking detection equipment could be accomplished in two years. Key to the procurement of enhanced equipment is funding to support the development of multijurisdictional, cross-discipline planning that address shortcomings in: notification, response, responsibilities, and first responder integration during the detection, response or decontamination phase of any CBRNE event. This activity could be accomplished in two years. While on going in-state and residence programs for Awareness, Performance Defensive, Performance Offensive and Planning/Management training have been effective, additional support is needed for backfill/overtime to support the training needs of all first responders at every level of responsibility in CBRNE detection, response and decontamination. As training is an on-going concern, there is no timeframe for this activity. WMD/Terrorism exercises in Oregon are being conducted within every region. An issue of concern however, is the complexity of a WMD/Terrorism event, and many first response agencies not being able to participate in exercises due to budgetary shortfalls. Funding to support planning, backfill/overtime, and training expendables used during exercises would improve Oregon’s WMD/Terrorism response capabilities. 4. Governance Structure: Describe the high-level governance structure (e.g., management plan, stakeholde r involvement) required for successful implementation of this initiative. Oregon Emergency Management oversees funding in support of planning, training and exercises. Funding in support of updated and new equipment for existing specialized teams is the responsibility of the Oregon State Fire Marshal, Oregon State Police and the cities of Portland, Salem and Eugene. Equipment purchased for other first responders is the responsibility of the agency or jurisdiction selected based upon threat, risk, and vulnerability. 5. Program Management: Explain how this initiative relates to the overall State Homeland Security program, and/or how it helps incorporate the three Overarching National Priorities. This combined initiative supports the following Oregon Homeland Security Goals: Goal 1: Enhance communications interoperability among public safety agencies. Goal 2: Increase the ability to investigate, disrupt, deter, and dismantle international and domestic terrorist efforts in Oregon. Goal 3: Enhance Oregon’s capability to recover from CBRNE/WMD and all hazards events. Goal 4: Enhance Oregon’s statewide ability to plan, prepare for, and respond to CBRNE/WMD and all hazards events. Goal 5: Ensure Emergency Management all hazard planning and program infrastructure is maintained and enhance statewide. Goal 8: Enhance Oregon’s state and local public health and healthcare capabilities to respond to chemical, biological, nuclear, explosive terrorism incidents and other public health emergencies, including natural disasters. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 27 This combined initiative supports the following Overarching National Priorities: • • • Implement the National Incident Management System and National Response Plan. Implement the Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan Expanded Regional Collaboration 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 28 Community Preparedness and Participation Participants First Name Last Name Discipline Drew N. Keith Laurie Steven David Linda Kelly Jo David L. Tracy Kerry Ian Sherrie Adams Berkery Boyce Bullock Cassel Cook Craigmiles Davis DePew Dugan Finseth Forsloff Public Health Emergency Management Governmental / Administrative Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Fire Service Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Public Health Liesbeth Darrell Frank Gerritsen Gilbert Grace Public Health NGO Law Enforcement Tom Cathy Groat Harrington Emergency Management Emergency Management Mike Michael Craig Public Health Public Health Public Health Michael L. Doug Nancy Valerie Harryman Heumann Hogue Holcomb, Ph.D. Jimenez Karatzas Katagiri Sue Chuck Dan Landré Leonard Martinez Public Health Agriculture Fire Service Dave Carmen Steve Peggy A. Eugene Bill Mariana Connie Maurice K. Meier Merlo Muir Peirson Regan Riley Ruiz-Temple Saldana Sanders Fire Service Governmental / Administrative Emergency Management Emergency Management Public Health Public Health Fire Service Emergency Management Law Enforcement 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan Public Health Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Agency Coquille Indian Tribe - Community Health Clinic Portland Office of Emergency Management City of Aurora Multnomah County Emergency Management Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Lane County Sheriff's Office Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Western Lane County, Siuslaw Valley Fire & Rescue HRSA/Douglas County Health and Social Services Portland Office of Emergency Management Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Oregon Health & Sciences University Association of Oregon Community Mental Health Programs CERT / Red Cross City of Gladstone Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) City of Gresham Oregon Department of Human Services, Public Health Division Oregon Public Health Division, DHS Benton County Health Department Environmental Public Health, Public Health Division Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Multnomah County Emergency Management Washington County Dept. of Health and Human Services Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) Warm Springs Fire & Safety Department West Valley Fire District representing Conf. Tribe of Grand Ronde Criminal Justice Services Division (CJSD) Washington County Emergency Management Benton County Emergency Management Douglas County Health & Social Services DHS PHEP Office of State Fire Marshal (OSFM) Seniors & People with Disabilities/DHS Florence Police Department 29 First Name Randy William E. Brady R. Chuck Wayne Twila Bill Don Randy Last Name Shaw Shreeve, Ed.D. Smith Solin Stinson Teeman Thompson Webber Williamson Discipline Agency Public Health DHS PHEP Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Public Health Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Umpqua Valley Citizen Corps Confederated Tribes of Siletz City of Eugene Douglas County Emergency Management Burns Paiute Tribe Klamath County Emergency Services Deschutes County Sheriff's Office Yamhill County Community Preparedness and Participation Capability Overview The group discussion focused a great deal on Citizen Corps programs. There has been a lot of success in Citizen Response Teams as well as the “Are You Ready?” program. However, the group had great concerns with funding loss in these programs and that participants have recently had to pay to take part. Though it was generally agreed that preparedness and participation was not simply having everyone prepare a seventy-two hour kit, it was noted that there were many areas of the population who fall greatly below the expected level of preparation and readiness. As such, the group felt that a large amount of effort should be spent in reaching the public and increasing awareness. Community involvement that does not fall under a major umbrella group like Volunteer Organizations Active in Disaster (VOAD), Community Organizations Active in Disaster (COAD), or Citizen Corps is a concern. There is much duplicated effort that could be better limited through a volunteer coordinator. There was some discussion about what level this person sho uld be (State or regional), but the idea of having a coordinator was generally agreed upon by the group at large. Capability Priority Strengths and Weaknesses Priority Strengths 1. Active Citizens Corps Program. The Citizen Corps Program in Oregon is fairly strong, with numerous Community Emergency Response Teams (CERTs) throughout the State. There is continued interest in the program, and with a free orientation class available online, more citizens will be able to begin working in this area. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 30 2. 450 people ha ve gone through classroom “Are You Ready?” training. All 450 participants paid to take the course. Most of the costs went to offset the cost of books and other materials. More people have signed up for the program in the future, and those who already went through it were left satisfied and better prepared. 3. Active VOAD and COAD groups. VOAD and COAD groups have been active in participation and readiness. The groups have been involved in some planning, though to a much lesser extent and to a much less organized extent than the participants wished. 4. Active religious communities in preparedness of their congregations. Religious organizations throughout Oregon have been historically active in preparing and caring for their congregations. This continues to be true, though not well coordinated with the local emergency management community. Priority Weaknesses 1. Lack of funding support for current programs. There was concern throughout the group that there was going to be a lack of funding for current programs and that the first priority should be to continue to fund these programs. 2. Uncoordinated activities by multiple groups. Some groups, including the local religious community, act outside VOAD, COAD, and Citizen Corps. A single person should coordinate these organizations, as well as those under umbrella groups, to stop duplicative effort and better organize preparedness and participation. 3. Lack of public awareness. Public awareness is always an issue and that efforts should be made to increase awareness. This includes awareness of preparation as well as awareness of where citizens can go to participate. 4. Lack of statewide volunteer credentialing. Participants were concerned with the lack of standardization of volunteer credentialing throughout the State. Though certain Federally-accepted training, such as CPR and first aid through the Red Cross, was of little concern, there are some volunteer organizations that do not require widely accepted credentials in order to participate. These credentials may stop a volunteer responder from helping in neighboring counties. 5. Lack of best practices and development guidance from the State. Many participants were looking for assistance in the form of best practices guidance. They looked to the State to help fill this void. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 31 Capability Prioritization / Initiative and Investment Identification Initiatives 1. Support and expansion of existing programs and positions. As stated above, the first initiative the participants want to see filled is supporting programs, like Citizen Corps, over the next few years. Without these base programs, there will not be much left to organize and build upon. 2. Coordination of current grants. Current grants should be coordinated in such a way as to fill holes in participation and limit duplicative activity. Organization of volunteer participation and awareness groups at the regional or State level. 3. Public awareness campaign. This campaign should include analyzing the current status of awareness and expanding into areas that are untouched. This includes all forms of media, State and local fairs and gatherings, and other direct means of transferring information. The participants pointed to various fire department public awareness initiatives as examples of how the message should be put out. 4. Volunteer management 5. State/local development planning 6. Statewide credentialing 7. Planning workgroup and best practices development There should be an overarching way to manage volunteers that would address issues including credentialing, and a planning group to plan at the local, regional, and State level. This planning group should also include best practices from all disciplines that could be used to support the above initiatives. Enhancement Plan Initiative Questions 1. Provide the name of this initiative. Describe how this initiative will address the priority needs and strengths identified through the program and capability evaluation, and prioritization analysis. Name: Community Preparedness and Participation. Enhance and expand Citizen Preparedness and Participation to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from all threats and hazards. This initiative consists of two major components: a focus on increasing individual public preparedness to reach the President’s goal of 100% individual preparedness nationwide, and expanding and enhancing volunteer participation through Citizen Corps Programs for providing assistance to first responders. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 32 The state of Oregon will expand and enhance a statewide program for public education and outreach, including the areas of prevention, protection, response, and recovery for all threats and hazards, including special needs populations to lessen the burden and impact on emergency service providers. The state of Oregon will expand and enhance local, state, tribal, and statewide Citizen Corps programs in a statewide program to facilitate standardization for training in all Citizen Corp program areas, credentialing, and incorporating existing programs into a regional collaborative effort for training and response to assist emergency service providers in times of emergency. 2. Regional Construct: Briefly describe the geographical context of this initiative. This initiative is intended to enhance and standardize program implementation activities throughout the state by facilitating the integration of local/county agency-based citizen preparedness implementation efforts with those of private industry and non- governmental organizations, emphasizing regional collaboration. 3. Resources, Processes, and Tools: Identify the resources, processes and tools that already exist, and those that will need to be leveraged, created or acquired for this initiative. Briefly consider how these resources, processes, and tools may be attained. A steering committee or task force that includes multi-agency and multi-discipline participation from around the state will guide the process and be supported by the state’s Domestic Preparedness Working Group and Homeland Security Senior Advisory Committee. The committee will coordinate with existing Citizen Corps programs, existing volunteer organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army, faith based organizations, the private sector, and other non- governmental organizations. Additional professional and administrative staff will be required at the state level to successfully and fully implement this initiative. The staff is needed to provide the nucleus of the steering committee or task force, to facilitate the implementation process, and to handle much of the targeted outreach. Possible sources of funding include DHS grants, service organizations, faith based organizations, United Way, foundations, state funds, local governments, the private sector (including insurance companies), and individuals. Department of Homeland Security, Centers for Disease Control, and/or other federal grants may be needed to fund the additional staff needed for this effort. 4. Governance Structure: Describe the high-level governance structure (e.g., management plan, stakeholder involvement) required for successful implementation of this initiative. The Homeland Security Senior Advisory Committee, working in concert with the Director of Oregon Emergency Management, will appoint the implementation steering committee or necessary task force(s) and staff, and provide oversight to and support for, the implementation of a regional and statewide public preparedness campaign. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 33 5. Program Management: Explain how this initiative relates to the overall State homeland security program, and/or how it helps incorporate the three Overarching National Priorities. This Initiative supports all elements of the State Homeland Security Program and supports all National priorities. The involvement of citizens and organized volunteer programs in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery lessens the burden on all levels of government during an emergency or disaster. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 34 Information/Intelligence Fusion Implementation Participants First Name James P. Jason Michael A. Shaun Chuck Randy Daniel J. Pat Steve Mike John B. William F. Rose Mike Margrethe David Deborah John M. Dan John Brian Clay Ernie Dave Ken Steven Sarah Michael A. Darrell Dan Tom Vernon Scott Bob Laura Last Name Adams Bledsoe Brace Brown Cogburn Cote Coulombe Downing Ferrell Folkestad Gedusky Gent Gentry Gotterba Gregg Harrington Harrison Lane Malin McDowell Montoya Moorhead Phelan Rader Rueben Sallé Stegmuller Swinhoe Tallan Thornton Turner Wells Winegar Wolfe Wolfe 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan Discipline Emergency Management Law Enforcement Emergency Management Military Law Enforcement Military Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Military Emergency Management Military Military Public Works Public Works Public Safety Communications Regional Transit Governmental / Administrative Military Public Safety Communications Fire Service Law Enforcement NGO Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Emergency Management Public Health Law Enforcement Military Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Emergency Management Law Enforcement Public Safety Communications Agency Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Oregon State Police Curry County Emergency Services 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Oregon Department of Justice 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Hermiston Police Department Coos County Sheriff's Office 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Jefferson County Sheriff's Office 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Salem Public Works Oregon State Police, Oregon Emergency Response Portland Office of Transportation Criminal Justice Services Division (CJSD) 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Oregon State Police, CJIS Springfield Fire & Life Safety Salem Police Department CDA Consulting Group Inc. / POEM Port of Portland Police Department Multnomah County Sheriffs Office Oregon Department of Justice St. Helens Police Department Clackamas County Emergency Management Oregon Public Health Monmouth Police Department 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Lane County Sheriff's Office Independence Police Dept. Portland Office of Emergency Management Polk County Sheriff's Office Bureau of Emergency Communications 35 Information/Intelligence Fusion Implementation Capability Overview The group discussion centered on law enforcement related activities for obvious reasons, but extended outward to involve other disciplines as well. Ongoing development of the Portland UASI Fusion Center and its many components occupied much of the discussion, as did intelligence analysts’ requirements and various professional development training needs. A plethora of systems and networks were identified largely as strengths, but a strong desire for a centralized information repository and dissemination point was also mentioned often with the group. It is anticipated that the Fusion Center, once fully operational, will serve the Portland Urban Area, the entire State of Oregon, and southwest Washington in this capacity and others. However, concern over the availability of long-term funding for the Fusion Center and its overall sustainability appeared to temper the group’s optimism for the future. Many substantial resources exist within these related target capabilities, presenting some coordination difficulties, but nevertheless offering the homeland security professional a variety of information options. “Information overload” may be a real problem. Capability Priority Strengths and Weaknesses Priority Strengths 1. Recognition that Information Sharing and Intelligence Analysis are important to threat reduction. These Capabilities are generally regarded as essential within the homeland security community, and rate highly in perception among public and private sector leadership. 2. Overall Coordination and Organization. A wide variety of coordination activities and formal/informal organizations coordinating closely and supporting activities within these capabilities were noted. The FBI was credited for its assistance to other agencies. Among others, multi-disciplinary work groups, a fledgling statewide chapter of Department of Justice (DOJ) intelligence analysts, the growing membership of COPLINK (30+ agencies), and the Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) and its international counterpart (IACP) were lauded for support. The International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts (IALEIA) was regularly referenced for providing organization, protocols, and procedures within the discipline. Current funding available through the Portland UASI and the potential for more funds in the future was regarded as a considerable strength. 3. Established Networks and Systems. A variety of established networks and systems were noted as strengths. The Terrorism Intelligence Threat Assessment Network (TITAN) has been successful, with approximately 240 bulletins/advisories now issued. The Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) network has provided excellent vertical information sharing among all State and Federal agencies. The Oregon State 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 36 Intelligence Network (OSIN) has involved both the public and private sectors, demonstrated the ability to rapidly disseminate information, and implemented good working groups. Credit was also given to the Health Alert Network (HAN), Law Enforcement Data System (LEDS), the Transportation Security Operations Center (TSOC)/Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) Alerts, and National Alert and Warning System (NAWAS) as important elements of the information sharing process. 4. Oregon Emergency Response System (OERS)/Law Enforcement Data System (LEDS). The OERS Operations/LEDS Help Desk serve as focal points for all- hazard event identification, and offer access to State resources and the National Response Center. The OERS Council is broad-based, involving 27 State agencies. OERS covers notifications about the Umatilla Chemical Depot, the Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford site, ground spills, suspicious activities, and other incidents within Oregon. 5. Fusion Center. Not restricted to law enforcement, a Fusion Center is being stood up to support the Portland Urban Area, State of Oregon, and southwest Washington. Coordination between TITAN and UASI has already been achieved, according to the group, and the participant s look forward to a law enforcement- focused information center/toll- free information clearinghouse as products of continued cooperation. Priority Weaknesses 1. Potential for terrorist attack. The real potential for terrorist attack within Oregon was determined to be a priority weakness. The group cited the presence of terrorist training camps and cyber security issues related to hacking as major concerns. 2. Absence of a system to consolidate information sharing/notification. While noting various successful systems in existence, the group noted the absence of a single system to consolidate information and notifications as a weakness. “Siloing” of information within individual disciplines, especially law enforcement (but including other agencies), is an unfortunate product of this weakness. The participants expressed a need for all-agency information sharing (e.g., hydrology reports), noting further that the mandated National Incident Management System (NIMS) fits across all disciplines, and that grant funding is attached to NIMS compliance. 3. Fusion Center Limitations. Despite the general support for the Fusion Center, the participants noted various limitations, including the lack of a governance structure and written protocols, as weaknesses. Beliefs that UASI Fusion Center funds have been co-opted for other purposes, that only six staff have been funded when 30 are needed, and that on-going funding will relate to hard-to-prove sustainability were expressed. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 37 4. Lack of appropriate facilities. The group stated concerns regarding the lack of regional training centers, regional emergency operations centers (EOC), and no centralized data location as weaknesses. The funding stability for the State laboratory was also called into question. 5. Failure to communicate. The sessions produced a variety of communication related concerns. Law enforcement’s apparent difficulties in sharing non-crisis related information, as well as the frequent classification of information as “Law Enforcement Only” indicate some of the restrictions on information sharing. The private sector’s unwillingness to release information is common, as is a general lack of trust over politics played among the disciplines and sectors. Information overload, contrastingly, is indeed possible, especially among key stakeholders who may have problems processing the quantity of information delivered to them. Public awareness is questionable, and the group wondered how to engage the public, stating, “Is anybody going to care?” A previous TITAN brochure drew mixed public reaction, and the participants noted weak support from leadership within their organizations. 6. Intelligence analysts needs. The military has drawn away many intelligence analysts, and other analysts are being drawn away for economic reasons, (e.g., better salaries and benefits). There is an observed need for regional analysts, but the positions cannot be funded. Oregon National Guard analysts need the ability to feed info to a central location instead of a regional node. Capability Prioritization / Initiative and Investment Identification 1. Fusion Center. Two Priority Capabilities were selected: the Fusion Center and Training. The Fusion Center, currently in development through UASI sustainable funding (now in the second- year phase) offers prime investment justification fodder. The urban/State information sharing interface available through the Fusion Center, the opportunity to co- mingle staff (i.e., analysts), and its multidisciplinary aspect may help attract a more sustainable funding stream through 2010. The Fusion Center also needs to involve critical infrastructure owners in the information-sharing loop, as well as secure private sector financial support, a potentially challenging aspect in the conflicting use of public funds for private sector critical infrastructure protection. A formal business plan (i.e., mechanisms, protocols, standards across multiple disciplines) and greater political awareness and support for the Fusion Center within the executive and legislative branches are needed, perhaps even inc luding a legislative mandate to compel information sharing within publicly- funded systems. Plugging statewide stakeholders into UASI, pulling working groups together on POETE-related needs, and providing service to other areas of the state are other identified Fusion Center activities. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 38 2. Training Training for analysts is presently focused on law enforcement and needs to be geared more toward intelligence. Presently, there is no set training program for intelligence analysts. A sustainable advanced training facility for law enforcement officers mirroring the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) was determined to be a priority by the group. Currently, DOJ hosts (but does not run) advanced training and the Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST) Training Academy’s new 16-week course, while commendable when brought up to full strength, has not yet addressed the advanced training needs of its clients. Enhancement Plan Initiative Questions 1. Provide the name of this initiative. Describe how this initiative will address the priority needs and strengths identified through the program and capability evaluation, and prioritization analysis. Name: Information/Intelligence Fusion Implementation. This initiative consists of enhancing the information sharing capabilities of law enforcement organizations, utilizing existing capabilities in concert with the planned UASI Fusion Center that will support Information/Intelligence sharing throughout Oregon. This initiative will establish standardization in training and processes among public safety disciplines in Oregon in the areas of intelligence gathering and information dissemination with an all crimes approach and not limited to international and domestic terrorism incidents. 2. Regional Construct: Briefly describe the geographical context of this initiative. The geographical context of this initiative is statewide with support from the planned UASI Fusion Center. It will include all public safety disciplines at the state, tribal, regional, county, and municipal levels, to include the private sector as appropriate. 3. Resources, Processes, and Tools: Identify the resources, processes and tools that already exist, and those that will need to be leveraged, created, or acquired for this initiative. Briefly consider how these resources, processes, and tools may be attained. Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ) operates the Joint State Information Center (JSIC), a law enforcement specific intel/info center. The Terrorism Intelligence and Threat Assessment Network (TITAN) has 51 members from 36 Law Enforcement agencies and continues to grow, is a component of the JSIC. TITAN serves as a regional terrorism liaison officer program between the center and local/state/tribal public safety agencies. TITAN provides semi-annual training on terrorism related subjects to participating agencies. Several Law Enforcement agencies operate intelligence sections within their jurisdictions. Eugene, Oregon, site of the 2008 Olympic Trials, is in the process of standing up a Fusion Center specifically for that event. TITAN will also support the Olympic Trials Fusion Center. A UASI (Portland) Fusion Center is in the initial stages of being established, with a governance model developed. This initiative will provide for awareness, performance, and management/planning training for law enforcement and Intelligence Analysts to recognize all crimes and terrorist related threat 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 39 activities within the state. Key aspects are the development of a statewide fusion system, using the existing JSIC, in partnership with the multi-disciplinary UASI Fusion Center, to include planning for governance structure, and collection, retention, and dissemination of information. 4. Governance Structure: Describe the high-level governance structure (e.g., management plan, stakeholder involvement) required for successful implementation of this initiative. A multi-discipline committee or workgroup will coordinate efforts and enhancements to ensure information sharing systems and Intel gathering/analysis address the needs of the UASI Fusion Center, state, region, county, local, tribal levels of government, and non-government organizations. 5. Program Management: Explain how this initiative relates to the overall State Homeland Security program, and/or how it helps incorporate the three Overarching National Priorities. This initiative supports the following State Goal and Objectives: Goal 2: Increase the ability to investigate, disrupt, deter, and dismantle international and domestic terrorist efforts in Oregon. Objective: Coordinate, fund and encourage the acquisition of Law Enforcement investigative tools, equipment, and resources. Objective: Coordinate training and exercise needs of law enforcement organizations to use investigative tools, equipment, and resources. Objective: Ensure preventative measure components are exercised and evaluated in all state, local, and regional CBRNE/WMD exercises Objective: Maintain the process for acquisition, analysis and distribution of investigative and intelligence information pertaining to homeland security. Objective: Expand capabilities to alert, warn, and facilitate information sharing to the local jurisdictions. This initiative will provide for advanced training for law enforcement and Intelligence Analysts to recognize all crimes and terrorist related threat activities within the state. The investment would also allow for the development of a statewide fusion system, using the existing JSIC, in partnership with the multi-disciplinary UASI Fusion Center, to include planning for governance structure, and collection, retention, and dissemination of information. This initiative supports all three Overarching National Priorities: • • • Implement the National Incident Management System and National Response Plan. Implement the Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan Expanded Regional Collaboration 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 40 NIMS/NRP Implementation Participants First Name Last Name Discipline Laurie George Steven Linda Daniel J. Kelly Jo Mike Mary David L. Steve Rose Boyce Buckingham Bullock Cook Coulombe Craigmiles Curry Davis Davis Ferrell Gentry Governmental / Administrative Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Law Enforcement Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Fire Service Military Public Works Liesbeth Frank Margrethe Gerritsen Grace Gregg Public Health Law Enforcement Public Safety Communications Mike Craig Paul Lee Paul Carmen Michael Harryman Hogue Karvoski Knowlton May Merlo Mumaw Public Health Public Health Emergency Management Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Governmental / Administrative Emergency Management Dave Scott Eugene Bill Krista Dara Maurice K. Don Randy Chuck Michael Roger John Don Michael Phelps Porter Regan Riley Rowland Salmon Sanders Schallberger Shaw Solin Soots Stevenson Vanderzanden Webber Zollitsch Public Works Emergency Management Public Health Public Health Emergency Management Emergency Management Law Enforcement Fire Service Public Health Emergency Management Cyber Security Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan Agency City of Aurora Klamath County Emergency Services Multnomah County Emergency Management Lane County Sheriff's Office Hermiston Police Department Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Jackson County Emergency Management Washington County Western Lane County, Siuslaw Valley Fire & Rescue 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Association of Oregon Community Mental Health Programs City of Gladstone Oregon State Police, Oregon Emergency Response Oregon Department of Human Services, Public Health Division Benton County Health Department Wallowa County Department of Emergency Services Columbia 9-1-1 Communications District Yamhill County Emergency Management Criminal Justice Services Division (CJSD) City of Beaverton City of Portland Water Bureau, Emergency Management Office of Consolidated Emergency Management Douglas County Health & Social Services DHS PHEP Marion County Emergency Management Union County Emergency Services Florence Police Department Hillsboro Fire Department DHS PHEP City of Eugene Tillamook County City of Salem Marion County Deschutes County Sheriff's Office Department of Environmental Quality 41 NIMS/NRP Implementation Capability Overview The main thread that permeated the NIMS/NRP sessions was that of compliance. Many jurisdictions were concerned with the State’s level of scrutiny for compliance measures at the local level as well as the local emergency manager’s liability for local agencies. Though some of these issues were alleviated through explanation from the State, there was a call for a document that could be regularly updated and would convey minimal requirements for local NIMS/NRP compliance as the State interprets it. The discussion about training requirements uncovered a second concern. Local communities identified a weakness in the online education system that is currently being offered by the Emergency Management Institute’s Independent Study Program. The concern was not of the content or the class structure but the loss of face-to-face contact and networking that occurs in the absence of classroom education. The group recognized that changing the compliance regulations at the Federal level to include classroom education was out of the question. However, they did identify a possible solution in having a State level education system that required both online compliance to satisfy Federal concerns and discipline specific classroom education to facilitate statewide networking and better educate the Oregon responding community to State operations and procedures. Capability Priority Strengths and Weaknesses Priority Strengths 1. Current ICS implementation at the local level. Along with a large increase in certified trainers, local jurisdiction personnel are being trained in ICS in order to stay compliant. Another factor in ICS implementation is the ease of access to FEMA Emergency Management Institute (EMI) online classes. 2. County compliance of more than 50%. As reported by Oregon’s Office of Emergency Management, 50% of the local jurisdictions have been found to be compliant with NIMS/NPR training as of the conference. Of the remaining 50%, a few counties were found to be non-compliant and the remainder had yet to report. 3. Fire departments meeting training requirements. A large number of fire department trainers have been teaching NIMS, NPR, and ICS classes with specific examples and case studies involving fire response issues. 4. NIMS/NRP training included in police academy curriculum. In an effort to institutionalize NIMS/NRP training, the police academy has included Independent Study courses in their curriculum. Police cadets graduate NIMS/NRP compliant. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 42 Priority Weaknesses 1. Counties unsure of compliance guidelines as interpreted by the State. County representatives expressed some confusion with the compliance guidelines as interpreted by the State. They further stated that they had little to no time to read and distill the Federal guidance while attempting to engage in other activities. 2. Loss of face-to- face and performance based training due to online class format. Some participants felt that a strong point with classroom training was the face-to-face time between agency representatives. This allowed for people to network created familiarity between responders. The new online classes take this away, as well as performance based training. 3. Lack of Government officials buy in for training and exercise programs involving day-to-day employees. Local government officials may have difficulty understanding why training and exercise events should involve day-to-day employees. Due to a lack of knowledge and understanding, this group tends to be overlooked in the training and exercise process. 4. Large Multi- Agency Coordination (MAC) planning deficit. Lack of standardized regional planning has fostered the question “How does MAC work in Oregon?” 5. Lack of JIC/JIS. There is a large number of local public information officers who have had little to no training in Joint Information Center (JIC)/Joint Information System (JIS) operations. The participants felt that this was an area of weakness that could be covered through increased training opportunities at the State level. Capability Prioritization/Initiative and Investment Identification Initiatives 1. State Expectations Guidelines Document. A living document that is easily accessible by county and local officials and includes distilled lists of necessary actions for compliance as interpreted by the State. This guidance should describe the documentation and evidence necessary for an audit and how the audit would take place. 2. Statewide administered NIMS training program. This initiative started with a JIC/JIS training program and expanded to include all NIMS/NPR training. The belief is that a statewide administered training program will bring back classroom education through a two-step program. The first step is online prerequisite certification through the FEMA-EMI Independent Study Program. The second step is classroom training that focuses on the performance of students. In addition, the State program would compliment and support other local/regional program development for maintenance and sustainment of NIMS. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 43 Government Official educational outreach program. To address the concerns of government buy- in, establish a government official education outreach program. By educating government officials on the necessity of training and exercising, these officials may be more open to committing day-to-day staff in support. The outreach program should be brought to the government officials rather than the officials being brought to the briefings. 3. MAC planning and implementation for incidents of national significance. Look beyond regionalization when discussing MAC planning. Focus on how MAC will work specifically in Oregon. Include high- level planning that will define it for Oregon and then continue with regional and county planning. Enhancement Plan Initiative Questions 1. Provide the name of this initiative. Describe how this initiative will address the priority needs and strengths identified through the program and capability evaluation, and prioritization analysis. Name: NRP Implementation and NIMS Sustainability This initiative will provide for: State guidance detailing actions to maintain compliance at every level of government; a robust training program that includes on- line and classroom training; support for a government outreach program the educates local officials on the importance of NIMS/NRP compliance and the importance of training and exercises to maintain proficiencies; and planning for MAC activities during incidents of national significance within Oregon. 2. Regional Construct: Briefly describe the geographical context of this initiative. This initiative is intended to enhance, standardize, and sustain NIMS implementation throughout the state. The required standardized planning components of the NIMS will enhance NRP implementation at all levels. Oregon is comprised of 36 counties and seven confederated tribes. The state’s emergency services responsibilities are housed throughout 27 agencies designed as such by Governor’s Executive Order. As a result, this initiative will have a statewide impact. 3. Resources, Processes, and Tools: Identify the resources, processes and tools that already exist, and those that will need to be leveraged, created, or acquired for this initiative. Briefly consider how these resources, processes, and tools may be attained. Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) has assigned a staff person as the state’s NIMS point of contact. Requests for assistance and information related to the NRP and compliance with the NIMS, are directed to this staff person, however, with limited resources the provided guidance consists mainly of how to meet minimum compliance standards. Oregon’s 36 counties have been mandated through the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) process to provide hard copy documentation/proof of the status of their NIMS compliance. This is tracked at OEM. There are currently no official tracking requirements for the state agencies or tribal nations outside of the DHS grant application process. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 44 A full time person at the state level dedicated solely to NIMS and NRP implementation and sustainability is needed. Standardized and consistent ICS training, as well as a solid, qualified instructor base is limited in the state. NIMS templates and other planning tools which could assist agencies in developing or enhancing NIMS Implementation Plans, ICS training and implementation, and enhancing NIMS compliant EOPs and annexes need to be created. 4. Governance Structure: Describe the high-level governance structure (e.g., management plan, stakeholder involvement) required for successful implementation of this initiative. The Director of Oregon Emergency Management would be responsible for hiring and supervising a full time NIMS/NRP staff person. The Domestic Preparedness Working Group (DPWG) of the Homeland Security Senior Advisory Committee would oversee the implementation of this initiative and activities of the employee which would have statewide impact related to the implementation and sustainability of the NIMS in Oregon. The membership of the DPWG is a representation of local, state, and tribal stakeholders who are impacted by the NIMS. 5. Program Management: Explain how this initiative relates to the overall State Homeland Security program, and/or how it helps incorporate the three Overarching National Priorities. This initiative supports all elements of the State Homeland Security Program and specifically addresses two of the three natinal priorities, implementatin of the NIMS and NRP. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 45 Critical Infrastructure Protection Participants First Name Last Name Discipline James P. Larry Craig L. Dean Jason Shaun Steven Tom Chuck Linda Michael Mary Pat Mike John B. Rose Richard Mike Frank Margrethe David Deborah Rebecca Sally Paul Lee Curtis Chuck Keith Marty Brian Jacque Rob Steve Ernie Adams Alexander Amann Bender Bledsoe Brown Bullock Clemo Cogburn Cook Davidson Davis Downing Folkestad Gedusky Gentry Glasgow Gotterba Grace Gregg Harrington Harrison Hassler Jones Karvoski Knowlton Landers Leonard Lewis McKillip Montoya Morgan Myers Noel Phelan Emergency Management Public Works Law Enforcement Emergency Management Law Enforcement Military Emergency Management Fire Service Law Enforcement Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Law Enforcement Emergency Management Military Public Works Public Safety Communications Public Works Law Enforcement Public Safety Communications Regional Transit Governmental / Administrative Public Safety Communications Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Public Safety Communications Law Enforcement Agriculture Public Works Emergency Management Law Enforcement Governmental / Administrative NGO Public Safety Communications Law Enforcement Dave Scott Dave Tobie Darren Phelps Porter Rader Reynolds Rice Public Works Emergency Management Law Enforcement Emergency Management Public Safety Communications 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan Agency Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Boring Water District Medford Police Department Polk County Sheriff's Office Oregon State Police 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Multnomah County Emergency Management Medford Fire Department Oregon Department of Justice Lane County Sheriff's Office Wasco County Sheriff's Office Washington County Coos County Sheriff's Office Jefferson County Sheriff's Office 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) LinCom 911 Salem Public Works City of Gladstone Oregon State Police, Oregon Emergency Response Portland Office of Transportation Criminal Justice Services Division (CJSD) Tri County Communications Columbia 9-1-1 Communications District Wallowa County Department of Emergency Services Columbia 9-1-1 Communications District Lincoln County Sheriff's Office Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) Washington County Land Use and Transportation Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Salem Police Department City of Florence Frontier TeleNet Oregon State Police, OWIN Group Port of Portland Police Department City of Portland Water Bureau, Emergency Management Office of Consolidated Emergency Management Multnomah County Sheriffs Office Prineville Police Department Salem Police Department 46 First Name Dana Ken Maurice K. Pascal Richard William E. Chuck Sarah April Gene Jim Darrell Twila Bill Dan Tom John Vernon Scott Last Name Robinson Rueben Sanders Schuback Sebens Shreeve, Ed.D. Solin Stegmuller Stream Strong Swinyard Tallan Teeman Thompson Thornton Turner Vanderzanden Wells Winegar Discipline Agency Emergency Management Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Emergency Management Law Enforcement Clackamas County Emergency Management Oregon Department of Justice Florence Police Department Multnomah County Emergency Management Stayton Police Department Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Public Health Emergency Management Military Law Enforcement Emergency Management Law Enforcement Emergency Management Umpqua Valley Citizen Corps City of Eugene Clackamas County Emergency Management Jefferson County Sheriff's Office Clatsop County Sheriff's Office Benton County Sheriff's Office Monmouth Police Department Burns Paiute Tribe Klamath County Emergency Services 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Lane County Sheriff's Office Marion County Independence Police Dept. Portland Office of Emergency Management Critical Infrastructure Protection Capability Overview These sessions commenced with a discussion of the Oregon Critical Asset Team Survey (OCATS) process used to identify infrastructure to be protected within the State. It quickly became apparent that important critical infrastructure information obtained by law enforcement generally has not been shared with other homeland security and emergency management disciplines in Oregon, creating a variety of problems for emergency planning and operations. Similarly, the private sector (which holds about 85 percent of the State’s critical infrastructure) has been hesitant to share information with the public sector. Overall, the participants acknowledged considerable frustration with current “broken” processes and systems to plan, protect, prepare, respond, and recover from critical infrastructure/lifeline-related events; a thread of discussion that continued throughout the workshop. A representative of the Oregon State Police pledged to do what he could to improve matters from the law enforcement perspective, and a desire to work together was expressed by many participants. The group also quickly identified the need for comprehensive, statewide critical infrastructure planning that will integrate all necessary elements and bridge the gaps between public and private sector efforts, as well as intergovernmental disconnects. Numerous important sub-elements within the POETE framework were identified, and a call for action by State leadership was well voiced. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 47 Capability Priority Strengths and Weaknesses Priority Strengths 1. Focus on Critical Infrastructure Protection. The group believed that the perceived importance of critical infrastructure protection is one of its greatest strengths. Public and political awareness of infrastructure vulnerabilities and impacts of service loss is high. 2. Strong UASI process. The Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) is among the most highly regarded homeland security programs, and involves multiple jurisdictions in a coordinated regional approach. Planning is one of the UASI region’s strongest elements. Some participants expressed a desire to see UASI concepts implemented statewide. 3. Public Works agreements. Statewide public works mutual aid agreements and public works agency resource planning agreements set a precedent for effectiveness within the discipline. 4. Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP). The BZPP was viewed by the group as a success carried over from the previous year. 5. Target hardening. Oregon has experienced success in target hardening, though much of this activity is not readily visible or reportable beyond a few closed circles. The private sector has assumed responsibility for much of its infrastructure protection requirements, and set about to harden its own facilities and resources. Similarly, public sector agencies have made strides in target hardening (e.g., water systems). Priority Weaknesses 1. Lack of interagency collaboration in the planning process. There is absolute need for a coordinated, comprehensive statewide Critical Infrastructure Protection Plan. At present, this plan does not exist, perhaps, as some suggested, because agencies have not joined together to earnestly request it be developed, nor to invite each other’s participation in the process. 2. Continuity of Operations/Continuity of Government (COOP/COG). As above, statewide efforts to coordinate COOP/COG planning have been sporadic concerning critical infrastructure and lifeline restoration. Mindful of the needs, the group still ultimately deferred COOP/COG planning to the workshop’s Planning group. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 48 3. Criticality vs. vulnerability assessment of threat and risk with emphasis on protective measures (relates to weakness #1). Assessments conducted in the state range from highly classified, complex efforts by law enforcement agencies to mere inclusions of the obvious within local Emergency Operations Plans. Little coordination of these efforts appears to have taken place. 4. Network communication. The general sense of the group was that in the absence of a well-coordinated, statewide approach to critical infrastructure protection, no effective network of functional participants has been developed, and that communication among the various stakeholders and agencies was impeded. Groups such as Infragard, which have met for years, now meet bi- monthly with opportunities for attendance, which was encouraged. Capability Prioritization / Initiative and Investment Identification 1. Statewide Critical Infrastructure Plan. This plan was identified as a priority to ensure consistency throughout Oregon’s critical infrastructure protection efforts. Overseen by an OEM Senior Advisory Committee appointed by the Governor, the plan should stress the interdependency among infrastructure elements and establish priorities for them (e.g., service restoration and replacement of existing infrastructure capabilities) as necessary. Work groups and regional teams, multi-agency steering groups, and a specialized Critical Infrastructure Incident Management Team should be identified and fielded to provide a more robust response. Avoiding the common CARVER methodology (Criticality, Accessibility, Recoupability, Vulnerability, Effect, and Recognizability), studies to consider interdependency among critical infrastructure systems should be conducted to guide the process. The State agency-owned and managed plan should also consider the following: a. Public outreach; b. Mutual aid and memoranda of agreement; c. Mitigation needs (e.g., risk assessment, prioritization based on impact, threat assessment, threat mitigation project identification and funding; a definition of “Critical Infrastructure Protection” for Oregon; a regulatory effort to exempt facilities lists and protect private sector assets); d. Detailed functional activities (e.g., non-catastrophic debris, water, ice strategies, etc.); e. Caches of public works equipment and an equipment deployment plan; f. Referencing the State Recovery and Continuity of Government/Continuity of Operations Plans which exist separately; g. Bridging the gap between the public and private sector in critical infrastructure protection efforts. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 49 2. Development and maintenance of a Comprehensive Resource Directory. Primarily viewed as a public works resource document, the need for this directory to facilitate service restoration in the event of a major critical infrastructure failure created by a natural or man-caused emergenc y was recognized. Regional locations of State-owned heavy equipment (e.g. National Guard armories, Oregon Department of Transportation facilities, etc.), appropriate supplies, and vendors should be included in the directory and regularly updated. 3. Cyber Protection. Model plans, training, and exercise, including response components, were determined to be capability priorities. Noting that the diversity of systems impedes planning, the participants expressed a need to include information technology groups into cyber protection initiatives and the need to develop generic protections and response strategies. Enhancement Plan Initiative Questions 1. Provide the name of this initiative. Describe how this initiative will address the priority needs and strengths identified through the program and capability evaluation, and prioritization analysis. Name: Critical Infrastructure Protection. Develop and implement a comprehensive statewide CI/KR plan that facilitates business and government continuity that recognizes the need for one comprehensive standard baseline assessment tool; stresses the importance of BCP, COOP, COG and standardizes CI/KR definitions and inventories while allowing flexibility in implementation. This initiative will provide the necessary direction for public and private entities in Oregon to develop and implement comprehensive plans to prepare and protect both physical and virtual systems and assets critical to the well being of the citizens of Oregon. 2. Regional Construct: Briefly describe the geographical context of this initiative. This initiative is statewide in its construct but is intended to enhance and standardize program planning and implementation activities at the county level, with an overall intent of regional collaboration in these efforts. 3. Resources, Processes, and Tools: Identify the resources, processes and tools that already exist, and those that will need to be leveraged, created, or acquired for this initiative. Briefly consider how these resources, processes, and tools may be attained. Critical Infrastructure Protection encompasses both physical and virtual systems and assets. The Program and Capability Review process revealed a number of processes in progress, however there is no manner of standardization to ensure that a consistent methodology is applied across sectors. Additionally, the most comprehensive program, OCATS, is proprietary in nature and will need to be sanitized so it can be made available to county emergency managers. It is evident that the magnitude of the scope of critical infrastructure protection is larger than the resources and funding currently available within Oregon. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 50 As noted previously, several processes are in progress, but there is no single repository or means of access to that information. There is a need to consolidate disparate information and create a comprehensive list of CI while protecting proprietary and sensitive information. This information could be co- located with a law enforcement fusion center, also outlined in the State of Oregon’s Enhancement Plan. Cyber security issues and concerns were expressed by the majority of the stakeholders participating in the review. Basic user awareness to potential problems is needed at all levels, as is the maintaining of technical system expertise, software and hardware to deter exploitation of virtual capacities. 4. Governance Structure: Describe the high-level governance structure (e.g., management plan, stakeholder involvement) required for successful implementation of this initiative. The Homeland Security Senior Advisory Committee, working in concert with the Director of the Oregon Emergency Management, should appoint the implementation steering committee or necessary task force(s) and provide oversight to and support for the implementation process. The Senior Advisory Committee would be accountable to the Governor’s Security Council. 5. Program Management: Explain how this initiative relates to the overall State Homeland Security program, and/or how it helps incorporate the three Overarching National Priorities. This Initiative supports all three Overarching National Priorities. • • • Implement the National Incident Management System and National Response Plan. Implement the Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan Expanded Regional Collaboration Additionally, it supports the capability specific priority to Strengthen Information Sharing and Collaboration Capabilities, and supports the following goals of the State homeland security strategy: Goal 2: Increase the ability to investigate, disrupt, deter, and dismantle international and domestic terrorist efforts in Oregon. Goal 7: Enhance cyber security capabilities. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 51 Medical Surge and Mass Prophylaxis Participants Drew N. Keith Laurie John D. Brian Eric Randy Tracy Kevin Kerry Sherrie Darrell Michael S. Cathy Last Name Adams Berkery Boyce Buchanan Burright Clark Cote DePew Donegan Dugan Forsloff Gilbert Greisen Harrington Public Health Emergency Management Governmental / Administrative Fire Service Fire Service Public Health Military Emergency Management Fire Service Emergency Management Public Health NGO Fire Service Emergency Management Mike Michael Craig Michael L. Doug Valerie Ken John Harryman Heumann Hogue Holcomb, Ph.D. Jimenez Katagiri Keim Ketchum Public Health Public Health Public Health Public Health Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Fire Service Sue John M. Thomas E. Paul John Terry Eugene Bill Randy Ann Michael A. Randy Landré Lane Manning May McDowell Munro Regan Riley Shaw Steeves Swinhoe Williamson Public Health Military Emergency Management Emergency Management Fire Service Fire Service Public Health Public Health Public Health Public Health Public Health Emergency Management First Name 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan Discipline Agency Coquille Indian Tribe - Community Health Clinic Portland Office of Emergency Management City of Aurora Siuslaw Valley Fire & Rescue Columbia River Fire & Rescue Oregon State Public Health Lab 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) HRSA/Douglas County Health and Social Services Clackamas Fire Dist #1 Portland Office of Emergency Management Oregon Health & Sciences University CERT / Red Cross Scappoose Fire District City of Gresham Oregon Department of Human Services, Public Health Division Oregon Public Health Division, DHS Benton County Health Department Environmental Public Health, Public Health Division Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Multnomah County Emergency Management Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Keno Fire Department / OSFM Red Team Washington County Dept. of Health and Human Services 102nd Civil Support Team (WMD) Tillamook County Emergency Management Yamhill County Emergency Management Springfield Fire & Life Safety Portland Fire & Rescue Douglas County Health & Social Services DHS PHEP DHS PHEP Samaritan Health Services Oregon Public Health Yamhill County 52 Medical Surge / Mass Prophylaxis Capability Overview The conference began with concerns about equipment that had been bought under various grants but had not been utilized in either planning or exercises. This grew to a concern that encompassed all training in Emergency Support Function #8 (ESF-8). This was particularly true in collaboration at the county level, as a majority of current exercises are being run by individual agencies and do not include a multi- agency approach. Staffing was a second major concern. There is a large deficit in response planning that included all areas of mass prophylaxis and surge response. This includes doctors, nurses, medical technicians, administrative support, communication and information technology support, and transportation support. One reason for this may be a lack of buy- in from political and government officials. As such, certain areas that could have been included in planning and exercising, such as administrative support, were not. A third major area of concern was the identification and response planning for special needs populations. The conversation began at the definition of special needs and continued into the identification of the population and the sustainability of a special needs list. Capability Priority Strengths and Weaknesses Priority Strengths 1. Local collaboration of training and planning. Local- level collaboration of training and planning has improved over the past year. The group cited multiple exercises that included operations shared with local and State agencies. Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) distribution exercises were of particular interest. 2. Local Mutual Aid Agreements. Local mutual aid agreements, particularly those across counties, were listed as a strength. In doing so, the group identified an area of improvement in taking the existing local mutual aid agreements and expanding them to include regional areas and eventually an Oregon State mutual aid agreement. Though the group felt that this should cross all boundaries, they focused on ESF8 and the medical and rescue community. 3. SNS Planning and Exercises. As stated above, SNS planning and exercising has been a major focus over the past year. The group stated that this is because of funding increases. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 53 4. CDC/HRSA Funding. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA) funding has helped in terms of equipment purchasing. There was some concern over the lack of training involving the new equipme nt, as well as preparing the new equipment for response. 5. Military Collaboration. Military support through the Oregon Guard has been a positive factor in terms of State readiness. Priority Weaknesses 1. Communication and collaboration between State and local jurisdictions. There are issues with collaboration between State and local entities, including fire and rescue, police, health departments, and military support. This, combined with a movement towards a State mutual aid agreement, should be a priority initiative. 2. Medical surge and mass prophylaxis staffing. Though planning and exercising has increased in the past few years, there was an identified lack of personnel to staff an acute care or prophylaxis distribution center. However, one participant was able to identify a recent incident that shows there is a capability to stand up a prophylaxis distribution center. Due to flooding, a tetanus distribution center was set up at a local fair and 250 people were inoculated in under a day. 3. Isolated agency exercise planning. A number of required exercises occurred in individual agencies per the requirements for their particular grant. The group wanted to expand exercises in such a way that multidiscipline exercises can take place. Another weakness in this area involves local hospitals and public health standing up an emergency operations center apart from the county center. This causes confusion and duplication of efforts that can hamper responses. 4. Special needs identification and tracking. This weakness covered two areas. First, there is no standard definition of special needs populations. The group decided that the definition should include the medically ill or disabled, the elderly, the homeless, and others who are unable to evacuate, as well as people with pets who would otherwise not be able to enter a general population shelter. The second issue concerned tracking. The group stated that multiple organizations and churches, as well as social security and veterans affairs, all have lists of special needs. The group decided that an area of improvement would be to collect, compile, and add to these lists as a starting point to a special needs database. 5. Political and public awareness. Political and public awareness is lacking. The group felt that this may be a cause for the lack of political and public support for unfunded exercise initiatives. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 54 Capability Prioritization / Initiative and Investment Identification Initiatives 1. Local Collaboration Planning (Law Enforcement, Emergency Management, Public Health, NGO, Military, etc.). There is a strong need to bring all disciplines together for long-term planning, training, and exercising and this collaboration should continue indefinitely. Doing this would greatly increase response capabilities at the local level. 2. Statewide Mutual Aid Agreement. Have a statewide medical mutual aid agreement by expanding mutual aid and reciprocity agreements through the regional level. This should be a common theme throughout disciplines, including those outside of ESF-8. 3. ESF-8 Training and Exercise. As previously discussed, multi-jurisdictional training and exercising should be a priority initiative. 4. Special Needs Identification and Classification Database. Little had been done at the county level in terms of identifying special needs populations. Some counties had begun an attempt to collect data but the process was in its infancy. As multiple organizations currently have various levels of lists, the first step is to tap the organizations for data. Secondly, acquire lists from government agencies that have specific information, such as Social Security, then compare and compile the data into a master list for each county. 5.Capability and Capacity Building. Public health and health care staff at the local, regional, and state levels should work closely with their emergency management and public safety counterparts to coordinate implementation of the CDC, HRSA, and Homeland Security Grant Programs and make best use of all funding sources to strengthen statewide medical surge and mass prophy capabilities and capacities, including equipment, plans, training, and exercises. Enhancement Plan Initiative Questions 1. Provide the name of this initiative. Describe how this initiative will address the priority needs and strengths identified through the program and capability evaluation, and prioritization analysis. Name: Medical Surge and Mass Prophylaxis. This initiative consists of two major components: Medical Surge and Mass Prophylaxis. These two components share many common goals and objectives and are highly integrated in many respects. This initiative will address the needs in planning, organization, equipment, training, and 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 55 exercise by building on the strengths of each program as well as improving on the weaknesses combining common programs and creating new programs to enhance both programs as a whole. 2. Regional Construct: Briefly describe the geographical context of this initiative. This initiative is statewide in its construct, it is intended to enhance and standardize program planning and implementation activities at all levels of government in the state. It will also facilitate the integration of governmental Public Health efforts with those of the health care industry and non-governmental organizations. 3. Resources, Processes, and Tools: Ide ntify the resources, processes and tools that already exist, and those that will need to be leveraged, created, or acquired for this initiative. Briefly consider how these resources, processes, and tools may be attained. Current resources are tracked at various levels of government throughout the state, as well as by private industry and non-governmental organizations. This effort needs to be coordinated and moved to a central access point allowing all shareholders to report available assets as well as identify where resources may be acquired in the event of major catastrophe. Technology, as well as program staff and Public Health staff, will be required to attain the desired level of coordination. Planning needs to be coordinated at all levels to ensure tha t all shareholders are aware of their own and other’s capabilities and responsibilities. Planning will also need to be coordinated with agencies and organizations outside the Public Health system in order to support this initiative. Security/law enforcement, transportation, volunteers, special needs populations, public information and media, and agriculture have roles in the implementation of these programs and should be partners in the planning process. Creation of a steering committee or task force consisting of multi-agency and multi-discipline members will guide the integrated planning process to a successful conclusion. Additional program and administrative staff will be required to coordinate this planning effort. Training and exercise programs are not coordinated from the federal level down to the local level. The need to leverage all training and exercise programs into a combined program at state, regional, and local levels will enhance inter-agency cooperation and provide a greater understanding of the abilities and resources system wide. Program and administrative staffing as well as funding to conduct training and exercises will be required to achieve this function. 4. Governance Structure: Describe the high-level governance structure (e.g., management plan, stakeholder involvement) required for successful implementation of this initiative. Oregon Department of Human Services, Office of Health Services working in conjunction with Oregon Emergency Management would lead governance of this initiative. Statewide working groups will be formed from state, regional, tribal, and local level health care professionals as well as private industry and non-governmental organizations to insure that all levels are working together towards a common goal. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 56 5. Program Management: Explain how this initiative relates to the overall State Homeland Security program, and/or how it helps incorporate the three Overarching National Priorities. This combined initiative supports the following Oregon Homeland Security Goals: Goal 3: Enhance Oregon’s capability to recover from CBRNE/WMD and all hazards events; Goal 4: Enhance Oregon’s statewide ability to plan, prepare for, and respond to CBRNE/WMD and all hazards events; Goal 5: Ensure Emergency Management all hazard planning and program infrastructure is maintained and enhance statewide; Goal 8: Enhance Oregon’s state and local public health and healthcare capabilities to respond to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive terrorism incidents and other public health emergencies, including natural disasters. This combined initiative supports the following Overarching National Goals: • • Implement the National Incident Management System and National Response Plan. Expanded Regional Collaboration 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 57 Regional Collaboration Participants First Name Last Name Discipline Drew N. Larry Craig L. Dean Keith Jerry John D. David Tom Rodger Tracy Jeanine Pat Kerry Ian Sherrie Richard Mike Adams Alexander Amann Bender Berkery Brown Buchanan Cassel Clemo Craddock DePew Dilley Downing Dugan Finseth Forsloff Glasgow Gotterba Public Health Public Works Law Enforcement Emergency Management Emergency Management Law Enforcement Fire Service Emergency Management Fire Service Law Enforcement Emergency Management Public Safety Communications Law Enforcement Emergency Management Emergency Management Public Health Public Safety Communications Public Works Tom Dan Vicki Cathy David Rebecca Larry L. Andrew Sally Nancy Ken Neil John Groat Gwin Harguth Harrington Harrington Hassler Hatch Hendrickson Jones Karatzas Keim Kennedy Ketchum Emergency Management Governmental / Administrative Emergency Management Emergency Management Regional Transit Public Safety Communications Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Emergency Management Public Works Fire Service Sue Keith Dan Thomas E. Matthew Dan Marty Landré Lewis Malin Manning Marheine Martinez McKillip Public Health Public Works Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Emergency Management Fire Service Emergency Management 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan Agency Coquille Indian Tribe - Community Health Clinic Boring Water District Medford Police Department Polk County Sheriff's Office Portland Office of Emergency Management Hood River County Sheriff's Office Siuslaw Valley Fire & Rescue Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Medford Fire Department Coos Bay Police Department HRSA/Douglas County Health and Social Services Klamath County Emergency Communications District Coos County Sheriff's Office Portland Office of Emergency Management Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Oregon Health & Sciences University LinCom 911 Salem Public Works Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) Criminal Justice Services Division (CJSD) Columbia County City of Gresham Portland Office of Transportation Tri County Communications Washington County 9-1-1 FEMA Region X Columbia 9-1-1 Communications District Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Tualatin Valley Water District Keno Fire Department / OSFM Red Team Washington County Dept. of Health and Human Services Washington County Land Use and Transportation Oregon State Police, CJIS Tillamook County Emergency Management Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) Warm Springs Fire & Safety Department Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) 58 First Name Dave Clay Jacque Steve Rob Steve Peggy A. Tobie Darren Dana Connie Pascal Richard Last Name Discipline Fire Service NGO Governmental / Administrative Emergency Management NGO Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Emergency Management Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Emergency Management Emergency Management Law Enforcement William E. Brady R. Ann Wayne April Eric Michael A. Jim Karl F. Bill Byron E. Steve Meier Moorhead Morgan Muir Myers Noel Peirson Reynolds Rice Robinson Saldana Schuback Sebens Shreeve, Ed.D. Smith Steeves Stinson Stream Swanson Swinhoe Swinyard Tesch Thompson Vanderpool Watson Kristi Randy Scott Bob Laura Wilde Williamson Winegar Wolfe Wolfe Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Emergency Management Law Enforcement Public Safety Communications Public Safety Communications Emergency Management Public Health Emergency Management Emergency Management Public Safety Communications Public Health Law Enforcement Emergency Management Emergency Management Public Safety Communications Public Safety Communications Agency West Valley Fire District representing Conf. Tribe of Grand Ronde CDA Consulting Group Inc. / POEM City of Florence Washington County Emergency Management Frontier TeleNet Oregon State Police, OWIN Group Benton County Emergency Management Prineville Police Department Salem Police Department Clackamas County Emergency Management Seniors & People with Disabilities/DHS Multnomah County Emergency Management Stayton Police Department Umpqua Valley Citizen Corps Confederated Tribes of Siletz Samaritan Health Services Douglas County Emergency Management Jefferson County Sheriff's Office Tillamook County Emergency Communications District Oregon Public Health Benton County Sheriff's Office Hood River Emergency Services Klamath County Emergency Services Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) Columbia 9-1-1 Communications District Central Lane Communications/Eugene Police Department Yamhill County Portland Office of Emergency Management Polk County Sheriff's Office Bureau of Emergency Communications Regional Collaboration Capability Overview Most of the participants were strongly in favor of some form of regional approach to homeland security and emergency management, though overlaps in current regional structures among multiple disciplines have created some confusion. The group observed that regional boundaries are generally arbitrary and that there is substantial precedent in Oregon for defining regions using natural, geographic, demographic, and economic 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 59 features. The group also acknowledged that there are certain historic precedents and practical considerations necessarily applied in implementing various regional organization concepts. Regardless, a consensus that “less may be more, but more is better” was readily apparent. More regional groupings “weaves us all together” in “a fabric of cooperation” as one participant put it. Supplanting defined boundaries (e.g., the State’s Homeland Security Regions), makes the various stakeholders stronger. Capability Priority Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths 1. Strength in numbers. Regional collaboration has helped increase local response capabilities through mutual aid. An increase in equipment capability (e.g., US&R) has promoted regional equipment sharing and a better understanding of services. Also, implementing a regional perspective helps advance information sharing across the State. 2. New opportunities due to regional thinking. Regional collaboration has afforded an opportunity to bring cross-discipline work groups together to define roles and responsibilities. A heightened awareness of what others are doing has resulted. Regional thinking also improves opportunities for standardization and interoperability through the region; standardized training improves fluidity (e.g., “Conflagration Act”). 3. Well-organized regional collaboration. Various formal organizations support regional collaboration including the Regional Emergency Management Group and Technical Committee (REMG/REMTEC), the Portland Urban Area Working Group and discipline Working Groups, the Portland Metropolitan Area Transportation coalition (PMAT), and the Regional Water Providers Consortium, among others. Cohesive and collaborative efforts such as regional communications, the UASI Fusion Center, transportation management, and utilities coordination and debris management planning indicate the level at which multiple capabilities have benefited through a regional approach. More formal mutual aid agreements across the State (e.g., HRSA model projects adopted by others) create cost savings and reduced effort. 4. Additional successes because of regional successes. Regional and/or district success in obtaining funding for various programs and activities were noted, promoting the attainment of capabilities and pooling of resources. More experience in implementing regional projects has helped to obtain more benefits from them. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 60 Weaknesses 1. No statewide guidance or direction regarding regionalization. There is no statewide- focused regional collaboration plan that includes functions and disciplines, which is a major weakness. No statewide Mutual Aid Agreement (or “Master Agreement”) presently exists. Regional collaboration lacks governance and structure. Some regions meet; some do not. Political governance at the regional level is unavailable. Moreover, the participants wondered, “Who’s in charge?” Debating command and control vs. coordination issues creates confusion and insecurity. Command and control is not well established outside the wildland fire-related disciplines, but is viewed as the “heart of regional governance” by some group members. A need to work together to define regional structure and identify regiona l leadership within both the public and private sectors was brought forward, as was a need for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and businesses to participate regionally. Crafting support for regional structure is necessary. 2. Lack of Regional Collaboration history. The need to find base information on regional collaboration was discussed. In the absence of historical data, it is hard for newcomers to the disciplines to find information. At present, no library or database for agreements exist. 3. More challenges due to multiple regions. More regions create a greater need for relevant information sharing; multiple efforts create communication challenges. Language differences were noted among regions; common language would improve understanding. Better information transfer is needed, and there is a need for better inter-regional coordination. Few regions have dedicated staff. The group noted that HRSA has some regional staff; might OEM partner with HRSA to field regional representatives? Multiple partnerships may (or may not) provide real benefits. Primary and secondary relationships need to be identified, as do potential duplications of effort and gaps among regional groups’ capabilities. The size of regional partners may create fairness issues, and how to share regional resources remains unresolved. One participant observed, “Think regionally, but stop at the state border,” prompting discussion about joint funding for two-state projects (UASI and CSEPP excepted). 4. “Regional Identity Crisis” Based on the variety of regional divisions in various disciples, some overlapping, few being consistent (e.g., OEM vs. HRSA regions), the group expressed the need for a clear definition of what constitutes a “region,” and clear regional definitions to reduce confusion. Capability Prioritization / Initiative and Investment Identification 1. Creation of an Advisory Work Group of regional/local stakeholders to promote regional collaboration. The participants voiced their desire to see OEM (with contactor support), establish an Advisory Work Group for regional collaboration. This group will study regional overlays, regional 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 61 planning needs, local/regional/State staffing requirements, and public/private sector partnership opportunities. A regional governance structure, including a Master Mutual Aid System and Statewide Mutual Aid Agreement, would be an obvious product of this work. This will benefit regional cooperative assistance, response/incident management (regional Emergency Operations Centers/MultiAgency Coordinating Groups); overall regional information sharing/situational awareness; and resource management. A mechanism for delegating jurisdictional authority through regions (e.g., the California State Emergency Management System - SEMS) was also identified as a governance issue to resolve. Balancing formal and informal regional relationships, and collaboration beyond jurisdictional borders, both previous intentions, now may approach formalization. They acknowledged that some regional collaboration aligns more toward functions than geography, giving rise to support for the creation of ad hoc groups. To think and act regionally, a loose coalition of regional partners mixed with formal organizations may be the best possible outcome to develop trust and promote establishment of agreements. 2. Sharing of funding and resources. Encourage flexibility while formalizing funding relationships to meet specific regional requirements. HRSA may serve as a model for homeland security and emergency management. Noting that CDC liaisons and HRSA representatives already have been assigned to regions, advocate the expenditure of available funds, or the establishment of some funding partnership permutation to help OEM field their own Regional Liaisons to coordinate with other regional representatives. The absence of OEM Regional Liaisons is a major missing element within regional collaboration. 3. Promotion of regional collaboration. Inter-regional collaboration (both functional and geographical) should be encouraged overall, as should development of a mission and framework for a statewide regional collaboration effort, including a task list and goals (see Initiative #1). Enhancement Plan Initiative Questions 1. Provide the name of this initiative. Describe how this initiative will address the priority needs and strengths identified through the program and capability evaluation, and prioritization analysis. Regionalization initiatives have been rolled into all previous Initiatives (Interoperable communications, Planning, CBRNE, Community Preparedness, Intel/Info Sharing-Fusion, Critical Infrastructure and Medical Surge) and will not be developed as a separate initiative. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 62 2. Regional Construct: Briefly describe the geographical context of this initiative. Regional Collaboration capabilities is an initiative of statewide construct intended to enhance the ability of public safety disciplines and jurisdictions to coordinate with each other at all levels in responding to an event and to protect citizens and property. 3. Resources, Processes, and Tools: Identify the re sources, processes and tools that already exist, and those that will need to be leveraged, created, or acquired for this initiative. Briefly consider how these resources, processes, and tools may be attained. OEM has established five regions addressing the entire State and has incorporated regional requirements into EMPG work plan process. REGION 1 Benton Lincoln Linn Marion Polk Yamhill 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan REGION 2 Columbia Clackamas Clatsop Multnomah Tillamook Washington REGION 3 Douglas Coos Curry Jackson Josephine Lane REGION 4 Lake Crook Deschutes Gilliam Hood River Jefferson Klamath Sherman Wasco Wheeler REGION 5 Baker Grant Harney Malheur Morrow Umatilla Union Wallowa 63 HRSA: Seven regions throughout State based on EMS trauma advisory board. Each Region has established a regional governance board that has multi discipline participation. This board addresses funding for planning, training, exercise, and equipment capabilities to enhance medical surge and mass prophylaxis. There are currently 9 coordinators at the region level and 3 State program managers. Several regions have also hired assistance due to the size of the regional requirements. CDC Regional Coordination has been established with five regions with coordinators to work with local public health departments to address preparedness for all hazards and to coordinated POETE. The Portland UASI jurisdictions have established a focused regional effort that encompases the City of Portland, Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington, and Clark County Washington. HazMat, Bomb Squad, and Urban Search and Rescue teams are established in a regional structure to provide service and regional collaboration and coordiantion. 4. Governance Structure: Describe the high-level governance structure (e.g., management plan, stakeholder involvement) required for successful implementation of this initiative. The Homeland Security Senior Advisory Committee, working in concert with the Director of the Oregon Emergency Management, should appoint the implementation steering committee or necessary task force(s) and provide oversight to and support for the implementation process. The Senior Advisory Committee would be accountable to the Governor’s Security Council. 5. Program Management: Explain how this initiative relates to the overall State Homeland Security program, and/or how it helps incorporate the three Overarching National Priorities. This combined initiative clearly supports the National Priority of Expanding Regional Collaboration and the following Oregon Homeland Security Goals: Goal 1: Enhance communications interoperability among public safety agencies. Goal 3: Enhance Oregon's capability to recover from CBRNE / WMD and all hazards events. Goal 4: Enhance Oregon’s statewide ability to plan, prepare for, and respond to CBRNE/WMD and all hazards events. 2007 Oregon Enhancement Plan 64
© Copyright 2024