The official comment period is open for the proposed National Response Framework.

I had some time to review the document this morning, and I think we are headed in the right direction. It is apparent in reading that the CGs success during Hurricane Katrina was a significant foundation for the proposed changes.

They recommend doing away with an "incident of national significance" declaration. I would have to agree in that many agencies wait for this to begin ramping up.

At this same time, I disagree with it because that declaration gives the all first responders nation wide a notification that an event may require national response.

Here is your opportinity for comment. Any other thoughts?

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

T

quote:

Originally posted by militia1:
The official comment period is open for the proposed National Response Framework.

I had some time to review the document this morning, and I think we are headed in the right direction. It is apparent in reading that the CGs success during Hurricane Katrina was a significant foundation for the proposed changes.

They recommend doing away with an "incident of national significance" declaration. I would have to agree in that many agencies wait for this to begin ramping up.

At this same time, I disagree with it because that declaration gives the all first responders nation wide a notification that an event may require national response.

Here is your opportinity for comment. Any other thoughts?

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

T

I don't see any substantive changes to the existing NRP except for the one that you noted. As for that change, I think the costs outweigh the benefits from not declaring an incident of national significance.

The NRP as it exists designates the Principal Federal Official for every different type of incident that might occur.... that is, IF the incident requires a federal response.

In my opinion, state political leadership will likely have some serious issues with taking a backseat to federal officials under the NRF by default.

I know that the NRF claims to be a national "framework" where federal assets can be deployed to help state officials once state assets are overwhelmed. However, that's not how it will play out in reality.

The federal leadership will be eager to show that it's "doing something", so FEMA (or whoever the PFO is) will decide that they're in charge. The state leadership, under the NRF, will be powerless to stop it if it's no longer necessary to declare an incident "of national significance".

I know what this is trying to remedy-- namely, the wake of Katrina, when the federal government was crucified for "doing nothing" while the state government (arguably) sat there with their thumbs you know where.

This has the potential to seriously impact states' autonomy to handle incidents that occur within their own borders. Knowing many of the people involved in emergency response in my state, I can assure you that they'll have a lot of concerns about that.

In the Unified command framework, the state will be involved....yes the federal will have 51% of the vote, but a good federal command will bring in assets and let the state handle the response operations until such time as they are overwelmed and then step in to help more or take over......

ICS 101

quote:

Originally posted by SacraficialMetal:
In the Unified command framework, the state will be involved....yes the federal will have 51% of the vote, but a good federal command will bring in assets and let the state handle the response operations until such time as they are overwelmed and then step in to help more or take over......

ICS 101

No, ICS 101 is to ramp up resources when needed-- the Federal government shouldn't ride herd over the whole thing if it's a state issue to begin with. 51% of the vote violates states' rights. That's all I'm saying.

ICS is more about command structure then ramping up resources.....and a good unified command will listen to all concerned instead of building a kingdom....

quote:

Originally posted by SacraficialMetal:
ICS is more about command structure then ramping up resources.....and a good unified command will listen to all concerned instead of building a kingdom....

....and the states rights are waived when it comes to national concerns......it's the federal goverment's obligation to look at the big picture when managing a response.