Advisory Panel on Department of Defense Capabilities for Support of
Civil Authorities After Certain Incidents
SUBPANEL 3: OPERATIONAL PLANS FOR DSCA RELATED TO CBRNE
MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 23, 2009
LOCATION: U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND, PETERSON AFB, COLORADO
PERSONS PRESENT:
Dennis Reimer (Advisory Panel, Subpanel Chairman)
Jerry Grizzle (Advisory Panel)
Steve Abbot, (full Advisory Panel Chairman)
Gary Cecchine (RAND, co-project leader)
Manuel Aponte (Alternate Designated Federal Officer )
NORTHCOM Participants: J3, J4, J8, ARNORTH/JTF-CS
The meeting commenced at 11:15 am. The Advisory Panel members and U.S. Northern
Command (NORTHCOM) staff discussed issues relating to planning coordination
between DoD, other Federal agencies and states; Emergency Management Assistance
Compacts; identification and deployment of response assets; command and control; and
funding for plans and operations.
The Advisory Panel asked about planning between DoD and civilian authorities
(particularly states) for emergencies that involve a chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear or explosive (CBRNE) incident. Key discussion points with NORTHCOM
officials:
 The degree of planning and preparation among states varies, based upon their
resources and threat posture. The states that experience recurring natural disasters
are generally the best prepared and receptive to coordination with NORTHCOM.
However, the differences among states’ posture makes determining capability
gaps difficult.
 NORTHCOM has an outreach program to interact with states and the National
Guard Bureau, and defense coordinating officers (DCO) are the key leaders.
 The Integrated Planning System (IPS) was ordered by Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8), but civilian Federal planning is essentially
halted while the HSPD is under review. The Task for Emergency Readiness
Planning (TFER) program in DHS is currently in pilot testing and shows promise.
 Planning between DoD and civilian agencies has been hampered by classification
issues and the lack of common planning tools.
The Panel asked about the role of Emergency Management Assistance Compacts
(EMAC) in planning and response for CBRNE incidents. Discussion:
 EMAC has been successful in responding to natural disasters, but its utility for
CBRNE is untested and unclear, particularly for no-notice incidents.
 NORTHCOM is not involved in EMAC and therefore lacks visibility about what
capabilities are available, have been requested, or are responding during an
incident. Planning based on EMAC is complicated by the reality that some
capabilities may already be committed to deployments or reset requirements.
 CBRNE poses different challenges than natural disasters. For example,
capabilities may have to be rotated through contaminated areas, increasing the
size of the entire capability pool needed.
The Panel asked about the identification, availability, training, and deployment of Title
10 response assets, particularly the CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force
(CCMRF) and Joint Task Force-Civil Support (JTF-CS). Discussion:
 Component elements of JTF-CS come from as many as 80 different units that
deploy from different installations. With the lack of in-transit visibility for the
domestic theater, this can result in uncoordinated deployment and sub-optimal
order of arriving capabilities. Dedicated air lift has not been identified for all
potential deployment scenarios, particularly into contaminated areas. CCMRF
readiness to deploy is largely untested.
 In practice, the JTF-CS commander contacts component elements directly when
they are identified for the rotation. These elements are trained and certified by
ARNORTH. Most elements are primarily assigned missions in the global
employment force, so they rotate unevenly through train, deploy, and reset cycles
(e.g., ARFORGEN), resulting in a continuously changing mix of elements
identified for JTF-CS.
 Forces are allocated to CCMRF; as such the commander does not have training
oversight over them. This is currently being addressed by component elements
reporting readiness to JTF-CS. The command relationships appear to be adequate
with the exception of issues that require funding allocation.
The meeting adjourned at 1:00 pm.
[Approved]
Dennis Reimer
Chairman, Subpanel, Operational Plans for DSCA Related to CBRNE
Advisory Panel on Department of Defense Capabilities for Support of Civil Authorities
After Certain Incidents
2