Response-Level Communications Workshop

Transcription

1 Response-Level Communications Workshop Addressing National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) Goal 2 Requirements State of Nebraska June 23,

2 Workshop Agenda Introductions and Brief Background on the NECP Goals Response Level Communications Tool Determining County-level Interoperable Communications Capabilities Assessing Response-Level Performance at a Multi- Agency Incident or Event Common Policies & Procedures Responder Roles & Responsibilities Quality & Continuity Submitting Results & Conclusion 2 2

3 Introductions and Brief Background on the NECP Goals 3

4 National Emergency Communications Plan Vision Emergency responders can communicate as needed, on demand, as authorized; at all levels of government; and across all disciplines Released July 2008 Developed in coordination with 150+ representatives from all major public safety organizations and private sector Addresses operability, interoperability, continuity First National Strategic Plan 3 Performance-based Goals 7 Objectives that set priorities 92 Milestones to track progress Implementation Build capability/capacity (governance, exercises, SOP, usage) National Assessments Target resources (funding, technical assistance, training) 4 4

5 NECP Goals Goal 1: Urban Areas By 2010, 90 percent of all high-risk urban areas designated within the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) are able to demonstrate response-level emergency communications within one hour for routine events involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies o All 60 UASIs demonstrated capability at varying levels o OEC providing targeted Technical Assistance to bolster UASI response capabilities and developing compendium of Goal 1 results Goal 2: Counties and County-Equivalents By 2011, 75 percent of non-uasi jurisdictions are able to demonstrate responselevel emergency communications within one hour for routine events involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies Goal 3: All Jurisdictions By 2013, 75 percent of all jurisdictions are able to demonstrate response-level emergency communications within three hours, in the event of a significant incident as outlined in national planning scenarios 5

6 NECP Goal 1 Events at all 60 UASIs were observed and successfully met NECP Goal 1 for response-level communications Over 1,000 Federal, State and local agencies participated More than 100 instances each of Federal and NGO involvement 6

7 NECP Goal 2 Timeline Oct. Dec. Feb. Apr. Jun. Aug. Oct. Dec. NCSWIC Meeting 12/14/ SCIP Implementation Report Methodology Review and Upgrade Data Collection with Counties/County-Equivalents Regional Coordinator and Help Desk Support Response-Level Communication Workshops and Webinars Performance Reporting Capabilities Reporting (2011 SCIP Implementation Report) 9/30/2011 Federal Activity State/Local Activity 7 7

8 NECP Goal 2 Counties and Equivalents Two types of data to be collected: Performance (response-level incident data) Capabilities (based on Interoperability Continuum lanes) County/county-equivalent data Comprehensive look at emergency communications across the U.S. Identify emergency communications needs at the local levels Tribal data OEC will reach out directly to Federally-recognized tribes States do not need to collect NECP Goal 2 data from Tribes 8

9 NECP Goal 2 Capability Data Questions based on past efforts: Interoperability Continuum 2006 Baseline Survey TICP Initiative Results should be generalized for the entire county and county-equivalent Questions focus on Continuum lanes: Governance SOPs Technology Training & Exercise Usage 9

10 NECP Goal 2 Performance Data Counties/county-equivalents can use a variety of methods to measure performance: Real World Incidents Planned Events Exercises States/counties can use incidents, events, and exercises dating back to July 31, 2008 Criteria is same as used for NECP Goal 1 UASI observations and focuses on 3 key areas: Common Policies & Procedures Leadership Roles & Responsibilities Quality & Continuity of Communications 10

11 OEC Support: Regional Coordinators + Help Desk Regional Coordinators High-level Support and Information (NECP Goals specific or General OEC assistance) NECP Goal 2 Questions, Data Collection and Adjudication Relationship Building and Outreach Assistance & Phone Number NECPgoals@hq.dhs.gov or NECP (6327) Help Desk Implementation Support Methodology Enhancement Action/Implementation Planning Data Management and Reporting 11 11

12 OEC Support: Technical Assistance On-Site Workshops Conducted by OEC in coordination with the SWIC Provide SME Training on Capability and Performance questions / tool Participants can use workshop to complete NECP Goal 2 materials or as a train-the-trainer session for regional reps Webinar Response- Level Tool Support SME Training on Capability and Performance questions / tool County participants can use workshop to complete NECP Goal 2 materials Includes question and answer session to address general or county-specific issues Dates/Times (Jan-Sept) and call information for two-hour sessions will be provided to the SWIC for distribution SME support to provide insight on criteria / questions Technical support for problems with tool access, navigation, and trouble-shooting 12 12

13 Response Level Communications Tool 13

14 Response-Level Communications Tool Assist SWICs with NECP Goal 2 data collection from counties Submission Process: o Counties to SWIC o SWIC to OEC Can be used as an emergency communications assessment tool by emergency responders at all levels URL: Response Level Communications Tool (NECP Goal 2) 14

15 Applications Select Response-Level Communications Tool from the list of available applications. 15

16 Security Certificate If the Certificate Error screen appears, click Continue to this Website 16

17 Security Use and Conditions After reviewing the security and use conditions, press the Agree and Proceed button 17

18 First Time Log-In Screen The Initial User Name is your State s name (Note If necessary for your State, use a _ between words). The Initial Password is N3CPt00L! (case sensitive) 18

19 Registration Screen 5) Registration Screen: Select your State and County affiliation from drop down lists. Enter your official government , and confirm. Enter your permanent password and confirm (Note password must have at least 8 characters, 1 uppercase, 1 number, and 1 special character). Press the register button. 19

20 Official Log-In Enter your address as user name and your newly established password to access and begin using the tool (Note upon registration, a copy of your password will be ed to you)

21 21

22 Determining Interoperable Communications Capabilities in Your County 22

23 Capability Evaluation Results should be based on the county as a whole. UASI counties should complete this section based on their individual county capabilities (not UASI region) 23

24 Governance Capability Early Implementation Intermediate Implementation Established Implementation Advanced Implementation Governance Area decisionmaking groups are informal and do not yet have a strategic plan to guide collective communications interoperability goals and funding. Some formal agreements exist and informal agreements are in practice among members of the decision making group for the area. Strategic and budget planning processes are beginning to be put in place. Formal agreements outline the roles and responsibilities of an area-wide decision making group, which has an agreed upon strategic plan that addresses sustainable funding for collective, regional interoperable communications needs. Area-wide decision making bodies proactively look to expand membership to ensure representation from broad public support disciplines and other levels of government, while updating their agreements and strategic plan on a regular basis. 24

25 Governance Factors 25

26 Standard Operating Procedures Capability Early Implementation Intermediate Implementation Established Implementation Advanced Implementation SOPs Area-wide interoperable communications SOPs are not developed or have not been formalized and disseminated. Some interoperable communications SOPs exist within the area and steps have been taken to institute these interoperability procedures among some agencies. Interoperable communications SOPs are formalized and in use by all agencies within the area. Despite minor issues, SOPs are successfully used during responses and/or exercises. Interoperable communications SOPs within the area are formalized and regularly reviewed. Additionally, NIMS procedures are well established among all agencies and disciplines. All needed procedures are effectively utilized during responses and/or exercises. 26

27 Standard Operating Procedures 27

28 Technology Capability Radio Cache/ Gateways Shared Channels Shared System Standards-Based Shared System Technology Interoperability within the area is primarily achieved through the use of gateways (mobile/fixed gateway, console patch), shared radios, or use of a radio cache. Interoperability within the area is primarily achieved through the use of shared channels or talk groups. Interoperability within the area is primarily achieved through the use of a proprietary shared system. Interoperability within the area is primarily achieved through the use of standards-based shared system (e.g., Project 25). 28

29 Technology Procedures 29

30 Training and Exercise Capability Early Implementation Intermediate Implementation Established Implementation Advanced Implementation Training & Exercises Area-wide public safety agencies participate in communications interoperability workshops, but no formal training or exercises are focused on emergency communications. Some public safety agencies within the area hold communications interoperability training on equipment and conduct exercises, although not on a regular cycle. Public safety agencies within the area participate in equipment and SOP training for communications interoperability and hold exercises on a regular schedule. Area public safety agencies regularly conduct training and exercises with communications interoperability curriculum addressing equipment and SOPs that is modified as needed to address the changing operational environment. 30

31 Training and Exercise Procedures 31

32 Usage Capability Early Implementation Intermediate Implementation Established Implementation Advanced Implementation Usage First responders across the area seldom use solutions unless advanced planning is possible (e.g., special events). First responders across the area use interoperability solutions regularly for emergency events, and in limited fashion for day-today communications. First responders across the area use interoperability solutions regularly and easily for all dayto-day, task force, and mutual aid events. Regular use of solutions for all dayto-day and out-of-theordinary events across the area on demand, in real time, when needed, as authorized. 32

33 Usage Procedures 33

34 Communications Equipment Use 34

35 Communications Equipment Use 35

36 Assessing Response-Level Performance at a Multi- Agency Incident 36

37 FOCUS: Response-Level Emergency Communications Response-level emergency communication refers to the capacity of individuals with primary operational leadership responsibility to manage resources and make timely decisions during an incident involving multiple agencies, without technical or procedural communications impediments. (As reflected in organization chart structure and defined in the NECP) 37

38 38

39 39

40 40

41 41

42 42

43 43

44 44

45 45

46 46

47 47

48 How to Determine Your Answer None of the time During the event/incident the sub-element did not occur and was not noted. Some of the time- During the event/incident the sub-element either occurred or was noted up to, and including, 50% of the time. Most of the time - during the event/incident the sub-element occurred or was noted more than 50%, but less than 100% of the time. All of the time - during the event/incident the subelement occurred or was noted 100% of the time. 48

49 Element 1 Sub-Elements 1.1 & 1.2 Did policies and procedures exist for interagency communications among the involved jurisdictions, agencies, and disciplines? Were they written? 49

50 Element 1- Sub-Element 1.1 Policies and/or procedures existed which address interagency communications, either event-specific or standing procedures o Event-specific policies and procedures include IAPs, Incident Briefing (ICS Form 201), operational orders o Standing procedures include TICPs, agency-specific procedural documents, regional procedures, interagency communications plans, etc. Were interagency communications procedures written, verbal (informal procedure) 50

51 Success Factors - Examples A single public safety IAP that included information from private organizations involved with the event Contingency plans incorporated into the IAP (plans included good, actionable procedures for how to respond to various emergencies or failures) Used current versions of the ICS forms o o o o Each form fully completed Information on all forms matched Operational time period specified Forms signed and approved, etc. 51

52 Challenges - Examples Lack of written interagency communications procedures, including a TICP or regional communication plans o Not having written copies of plans available at all key event locations Failure to collaborate with private organizations closely associated with running the event 52

53 53

54 54

55 55

56 Element 2 Sub-Element 2.1 Were established interagency communications policies and procedures followed throughout the event? 56

57 Element 2 Sub-Element 2.1 Followed applicable interagency communications procedures Followed the channel/talkgroup assignments listed in ICS Form 205 Activated resources (e.g., patches, etc.) called for in the IAP, in accordance with established procedures 57

58 Success Factors- Examples Conducted thorough briefings with incident/event personnel, to include an explanation of the IAP (or equivalent operational/procedural document) and a review of participant roles and responsibilities during the event 58

59 Challenges - Examples Plans and/or procedures looked good on paper but did not accurately reflect how response personnel operated Plans and/or procedures contained numerous errors or conflicting information among various documents or within portions of the same document A previous or outdated procedural document, IAP or communications plan was used that did not match the current event scenario and needs 59

60 Element 2 Sub-Elements 2.2 & 2.3 Did established policies and procedures exist between responding agencies for request, activation, accountability, deactivation, and problem resolution of deployable interagency communications resources, such as mobile communications centers, gateways, and radio caches? If so, were they followed? 60

61 Element 2 Sub-Element 2.2 There were documented policies and procedures for: o Radio caches o Mobile Communications Vehicles o Mobile Gateways o Other mobile assets used (mobile repeaters, satellite phones, etc.) If equipment was used in the event/incident, were applicable policies and/or procedures followed? 61

62 Success Factors - Examples Maintained radio cache inventory, distribution, accountability, and training procedures Provided instructions for using cache radios Supplied a quick reference radio guide with each cache radio Provided COML/Communications Unit contact information Followed gateway activation, testing and monitoring procedures Ensured patch(es) were working correctly Conducted roll-calls and testing on patch(es) before activation Announced patch activation and deactivation 62

63 Challenges - Examples No policies and procedures regarding interoperable communications equipment Individual agency plans and/or procedures contained conflicting information, and did not reflect how assignments were actually performed Not all agencies were aware of the policies and procedures for equipment use COML (or equivalent) was not involved in coordinating activation or mobile assets leading to conflicting or unknown equipment activation 63

64 64

65 Element 3 Sub-Element 3.1 Were interagency communications policies and procedures across responding agencies consistent with NIMS? 65

66 Element 3 Sub-Element 3.1 Applicable policy and procedural documents (IAP, TICP, other SOPs, etc.) contained NIMS-consistent information such as: o Establishing Incident/Unified Command o Establishing a Communications Unit and filling the COML position o Policies and procedures requiring the use of plain language/common terminology and agency specific unit identification Appropriate differentiation in use of ICS Form 201 Incident Briefing form versus an IAP with the applicable ICS forms and attachments o Sufficient documentation (ICS Forms 203, 204, 207) regarding the ICS structure and personnel assignments for the event that depict a clear chain of command 66

67 Success Factors - Examples Briefings for field and command personnel included distinct reminders/ just in time training regarding NIMS principles and how to work within the established structure TICP includes pre-populated ICS Forms, such as ICS Form 217A Communications Resource Availability Worksheet and ICS Form 205 Incident Radio Communications Plan templates 67

68 Challenges - Examples Policies and procedures documents were not consistent with NIMS guidance No IAP or Incident Briefing form used Incorrect, incomplete, or outdated ICS forms used No policies and procedures provided relating to plain language or use of agency specific unit identification No single organized command structure 68

69 69

70 Element 4 Sub-Elements 4.1 & 4.2 Does a priority order exist for use of interagency communications resources (e.g., life safety before property protection)? Was this prioritization of communications resource use followed? 70

71 Element 4 Sub-Element 4.1 Policies and procedures contained in the TICP (or other procedural document) reflected a detailed and clear hierarchy for utilization of communications resources (e.g., large scale life threatening incidents listed as the top priority with smaller scale training or exercises listed as the lowest priority) Policies and procedures contained contingency planning for obtaining and utilizing additional communications resources if needed 71

72 Success Factors - Examples If competing requests were received for the same resources, priority order was utilized in accordance with established policies and procedures and alternate solutions were identified for the lower priority request Went beyond the standard TICP template language developing region-specific policies and procedures that detailed the hierarchy for utilization of communications resources 72

73 Challenges - Examples No policies or procedures establishing priorities for utilization of communications resources TICP or policies/procedures delegated responsibility to the Incident Commander, but provided no details or guidelines (this approach would only address a single incident, but not multiple simultaneous incidents or events) Written policies and procedures do not match current practices in the region 73

74 74

75 Element 5 Sub-Elements 5.1 & 5.2 Was a primary interagency communications talk path clearly established by procedures used during the event? If not, was such a talk path established ad hoc and communicated to responders early in the event? 75

76 Element 5 Sub-Element 5.1 The ICS Form 205 (or equivalent communications assignments) clearly identified at least one talkpath designated for interagency communications, and included the intended or authorized users (e.g., primary operational leadership, Command and General Staff, response-level personnel, etc.) All communications assignments, including the designation of interagency talkpaths, were identified and documented For larger scale incidents or events, an interagency talkpath intended to serve as a Command Net was established, documented, and briefed to participants, whether or not command personnel were co-located 76

77 Success Factors - Example The intended and proper use of the interagency talkpath(s) was briefed to appropriate personnel by the COML or designee A Response Coordination channel or talkgroup was designated (on the ICS Form 205) for use across disciplines (e.g., EMS and Law Enforcement) when responding to a common incident 77

78 Challenges - Example Talkpaths identified for an event were not readily accessible by all designated users (e.g., not programmed in their radios; or end user did not know location in radio; or outside the coverage footprint for the talkpath) Interagency talkpath established, but due to the large number of users assigned would have become useless had it been needed Incident Command and other primary operational leadership personnel co-located in a Unified Command Post assumed that they did not need to identify a shared talkpath (Command Net) in the event personnel become physically separated 78

79 79

80 Element 6 Sub-Elements 6.1, 6.2, & 6.3 Was plain language used throughout the event? Did any communications problems arise amongst the primary operational leadership due to a lack of common terminology? Did any communications problems arise amongst other response-level emergency personnel during the event due to a lack of common terminology? 80

81 Element 6 - Sub-Element 6.1 Plain language was used exclusively throughout the event (i.e., no codes or signals were heard during interagency communications) All county agencies and disciplines have policies and procedures requiring the use of plain language during multi-agency, multi-discipline events/incidents IAP and/or other event related policies and procedures directed the use of plain language for the duration of the event/incident 81

82 Element 6 Sub-Elements 6.2 & 6.3 Primary operational leadership and response-level members representing multiple agencies, disciplines, and jurisdictions were able to communicate with each other by multiple means (face-to-face, radio, electronically, etc.) without communications impediments caused by lack of common terminology 82

83 Success Factors - Examples Agencies which use plain language on a day-to-day basis had no difficulty using plain language and common terminology during the event IAP documents contained policies and procedures requiring the use of plain language Radio codes and signals retained/used for the event were specifically retained for safety purposes; were used to pass information that needed to be conveyed discretely; and were universally understood by all responders involved 83

84 Challenges - Example Different versions of signals/codes were used by the agencies participating in the incident/event, not universally understood among agencies 84

85 85

86 Element 7 Sub-Elements 7.1 & 7.2 Were clear unit identification procedures used amongst the primary operational leadership? Were clear unit identification procedures used amongst other response-level emergency personnel throughout the event? 86

87 Element 7 Sub-Elements 7.1 & 7.2 When using radio communications, primary operational leadership personnel utilized a consistent unit identification protocol for both staff members and for key event locations SOPs and TICPs contained policies and procedures requiring agencyspecific identification during interagency communications ICS position titles for Command and General Staff, as well as the primary operational leadership, were used in place of agencyspecific unit identifiers when managing an incident or event ICS position titles (or tactical call signs) for certain response-level personnel (e.g., Branch Directors, Division/Group Supervisors, Strike Team/Task Force/Unit Leaders, etc.) are used in place of agency specific unit identifiers when managing an incident or event 87

88 Success Factors - Examples IAP or other procedural documents listed radio identifiers for all personnel assigned to incident/event Proper method for unit identification explained to all participating personnel during pre-event briefings Utilized function- or location-specific unit IDs (tactical call signs) within the confines of the event/incident (e.g., South Gate Medical Team, Traffic Post 4, etc.) 88

89 Challenges - Examples Agencies used a variety of inconsistent unit identifiers during the event (e.g., names, ICS position titles, post number, apparatus identifiers) Agency-specific identifiers not used during interagency communications as specified in TICP or other procedural documents Similar/repetitive names used to refer to multiple locations within the event venue (e.g., multiple command posts for different agencies, multiple communications centers for dispatch, etc.) 89

90 90

91 Element 8 Sub-Elements 8.1 & 8.2 Were common names used by all responding agencies for interagency communications channels? Were standard names as identified in the National Interoperability Field Operations Guide (NIFOG) used for Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-designated interoperability channels? 91

92 Element 8 Sub-Element 8.1 Common channel and/or talkgroup names are used when statewide, regional, or countywide radio systems used as primary communications system(s) supporting the incident/event Shared/common interagency channels or talkgroups in the county/region (not necessarily part of a common or shared radio system) are named identically Interagency channels and/or talkgroups are named identically in the following locations/mechanisms/documents: o Programmed into portable and mobile radios o Programmed into dispatch center radio consoles and control stations o Listed in the TICP, SOPs, plans, MOUs/MOAs, or other documentation o Listed in IAP documents, ICS Forms (e.g., ICS Form 201, 204, 205, or 217A), or in other event specific documents o When referred to verbally 92

93 Success Factors- Examples Statewide, regional, or countywide radio systems use common nomenclature for interagency channels/talkgroups for all radios (across all agencies) on the system Agencies on separate systems programmed the same interagency channels/talkgroups in their radios in the same place and order and with the same name 93

94 Challenges - Examples Common channels not listed consistently on documents (e.g., TICP naming did not match naming on the ICS Form 205) Common channels named differently in various radios Names programmed into radios did not match event documents 94

95 Element 8 Sub-Element 8.2 If FCC-designated interoperability channels were used during the event as primary or alternate channel assignments, channel naming matched standard NPSTC nomenclature in all locations: o All documents - TICP, IAP, 204, 205, 217A, other related SOPs o Programmed into all radios/consoles o Verbal reference FCC-designated interoperability channels were not used during the event, but they were named identically system-wide as described in first bullet above 95

96 Success Factors - Examples Channel naming for FCC-designated interoperability channels was common countywide and aligned with the NPSTC standard nomenclature Channels programmed into radios (800 MHz primarily) with old and new names, (pre and post rebanding), including both sets of frequencies to allow communications regardless of the environment 96

97 Challenges - Examples Re-banded vs. non re-banded sites Lack of awareness Differences in radio display capabilities Lack of resources precluded necessary reprogramming of radios (waiting for opportunities such as rebanding, narrowbanding, or other maintenance contact with the radio) 97

98 98

99 Element 9 Sub-Element 9.1 Did a single individual carry out the Operations Section Chief responsibilities in each operational period? 99

100 Element 9 Sub-Element 9.1 A single individual was responsible for directing the tactical functions during the incident or event A single Operations Section Chief was designated for each operational period and clearly functioned in the appropriate role o During smaller scale incidents or events, the Incident Commander may be performing the duties of Operations Section Chief as well as other ICS positions For larger scale incidents or events, organized in compliance with NIMS/ICS Guidance, a single Operations Section Chief was supported by Branch Directors, Division/Group Supervisors, and other subordinate Units/Strike Teams/Task Forces as appropriate to manage the event Responders were always aware of and identified the appropriate individual serving as the Operations Section Chief 100

101 Success Factors - Examples A single Operations Section Chief assigned and directed all agencies, disciplines, or jurisdictions associated with the event (the Incident Commander may function in this role during smaller scale incidents/events) Organization response was structured in compliance with NIMS/ICS guidelines 101

102 Challenges - Examples No individual responsible for directing the tactical functions during the incident or event A single Operations Section Chief was designated, but did not exercise their responsibilities across all agencies Multiple Operations Section Chiefs were appointed representing separate disciplines and/or agencies 102

103 103

104 Element 10 Sub-Elements 10.1 & 10.2 Did the Operations Section Chief directly manage more than seven subordinates at any time? Did first-level subordinates to the Operations Section Chief directly manage more than seven subordinates at any time? 104

105 Element 10 Sub-Elements 10.1 & 10.2 Did Operations Section Chief or subordinate supervisor exceed NIMS recommended span of control Event structure consistent with NIMS guidelines, with a single Operations Section Chief directly managing no more than seven subordinates (e.g., Deputies, Branch Directors, Division/Group Supervisors) Span of control documented on standard ICS forms (e.g., 203, 204, 207) with chain of command clearly reflected from the Incident/Unified Command Level down to the response level tactical functions 105

106 Success Factors -Examples Incident/event management structure was consistent with the organizational structure depicted in the IAP and/or other related documentation, and the NIMS recommended span of control ratio was maintained IAP and associated ICS forms were comprehensive and accurately depicted the organizational structure, clearly illustrating chain of command and span of control 106

107 Challenges - Examples Incident management structure did not include sufficient Branches, Divisions/Groups, etc., to support the incident/event and were unable to maintain a reasonable span of control In some cases, the names used for position titles did not follow NIMS/ICS Guidance, making it difficult to identify and determine how the incident team was organized and the lines of authority and span of control Organizational structure listed in event documentation was not consistent with actual practice making it difficult to determine the ICS/IMT structure 107

108 108

109 Element 11 Sub-Element 11.1 Was the ICS Communications Unit Leader (COML) position specifically filled during the event? 109

110 Element 11 Sub-Element 11.1 Was COML position specifically filled The COML was clearly identified as the COML in all event related documentation, and was the author of the ICS Form 205 for the event The COML had completed All Hazards COML training 110

111 Element 11 Sub-Elements 11.2, & 11.3 Were COML roles and responsibilities carried out, either by the Incident Commander (or Unified Command), the COML, or another designee? Who by position or function carried out the responsibilities? 111

112 Element 11 Sub-Element 11.2 All COML roles and responsibilities were carried out by the designated COML or delegated to other Communications Unit (or incident/event) personnel Communications Unit functioned in a centralized manner with all communications related roles and responsibilities coordinated through a single COML 112

113 Success Factors - Example COML position was filled with a trained/qualified All Hazards COML; additional COMLs/COML Trainees were assigned to the event to support the primary COML 113

114 Success Factors - Example When unexpected communications issues or problems surfaced the COML or designee was able to quickly come up with appropriate solutions and methods for resolution The COML briefed operational personnel on how to execute communications for the event, not just what was in use (did not simply distribute an ICS Form 205) 114

115 Challenges - Examples A COML was not designated or involved with the planning responsibilities A COML was not designated or involved with the planning responsibilities until late in planning phase COML was designated (on the IAP and ICS forms), but did not appear to be functioning as a COML in practice Multiple agency-specific individuals designated as COMLs, with no clarification as to the primary COML (if any) 115

116 116

117 Element 11 Sub-Elements 11.4, & 11.5 Were necessary communications resources effectively ordered? Were they ordered using documented procedures? 117

118 Element 11 Sub-Element 11.4 Established policies were in place (e.g., in the TICP or other procedural documents) to obtain and utilize the desired communications equipment The communications personnel and resources necessary to support the incident or event were either in place or ordered In the case of pre-planned events, the necessary communications resources were identified during the planning phase 118

119 Success Factors - Examples Additional communications resources were staged on site (Mobile Comm Vehicles, transportable towers, cache radios) or in the vicinity, if needed Contingencies/backup or additional resources (cache radios and radio accessories) were staged in multiple locations throughout the event venue to facilitate quick access by personnel 119

120 Challenges - Examples Policies or procedures did not exist, or did not clearly document owning agency procedures for deployment of resources The COML or incident planners needed to identify contingency or back-up communications resources, and include a plan for rapid access, if required 120

121 121

122 Element 11 Sub-Elements 11.6, & 11.7 Was a communications plan established by procedure or developed early in the event? Did the communications plan meet the communications needs of the primary operational leadership? 122

123 Element 11 Sub-Element 11.6 In the case of a planned event, a communications plan was developed prior to the event In the case of unplanned emergency incidents, a communications plan was rapidly established to sufficiently support the incident The Communications Plan was disseminated to all applicable sites (including public safety communications centers, EOCs, Mobile Comm Vehicles, etc.) ICS Form 205 was completed correctly, all appropriate information was included, data on ICS Form 205 matched other applicable ICS forms The Communications Plan included all primary and backup RF channel/talkgroup assignments for all participating agencies associated with the event Gateway or patch connections were listed and cross-referenced properly for each applicable channel or talkgroup associated with the patch 123

124 Element 11 Sub-Element 11.7 Using the established Communications Plan, Command and General Staff, primary operational leadership, and response level emergency personnel were able to communicate effectively in order to manage the incident or event 124

125 Success Factor - Examples Quick reference sheets containing the talkgroup/channel assignments were distributed to response-level personnel COML verbally briefed personnel on the specifics on the (ICS Form 205) Communications Plan The Communications Plan designated sufficient RF resources to support primary operations, as well as to expand or activate back-up options if needed 125

126 Challenges - Examples Multiple ICS Form 205s used, which appeared to be developed by individuals from multiple agencies and placed together in the IAP; did not produce a cohesive, over-arching, event-wide communications plan ICS Form 205 was incomplete, contained errors, was missing information, or did not match information on the ICS Form 204(s) Changes to the ICS Form 205 not always distributed and briefed appropriately 126

127 127

128 Element 12 Sub-Element 12.1 Were more than one out of every 10 transmissions repeated due to failure of initial communications attempts amongst the primary operational leadership? 128

129 Element 12 Sub-Element 12.1 Little to no instances where radio transmissions had to be repeated for any reason Radio system(s) used provided effective coverage, transmissions consistently clear, good audio quality on all talkgroups/channels used Personnel were properly equipped with the necessary accessories (full over-the-ear noise canceling headsets/microphones, headsets for tactical dispatchers, etc.) to match the environment, particularly in high noise settings 129

130 Success Factors - Example Tactical dispatch locations were separated in an area conducive to a dispatch operation: restricted access, low background noise or distraction Personnel were equipped with the necessary accessories (full over the ear noise canceling headset, headsets for tactical dispatchers, etc.) Field personnel communications were all funneled through team leaders, as opposed to individual personnel, to minimize radio traffic 130

131 Challenges - Examples Operations conducted in noisy or crowded environment, making it difficult for tactical dispatchers or other personnel to effectively hear radio transmissions Multiple radios operating in close proximity and using external speakers that competed with each other Individual monitoring multiple radios or channels/talkgroups overloaded with radio traffic and unable to always hear some channels 131

132 132

133 Element 13 Sub-Elements 13.1, 13.2, & 13.3 Was a back-up resource available for communications amongst the primary operational leadership in case of failure of the primary mode? Did the primary mode fail during the event at any time? If so, was a back-up effectively provided? 133

134 Element 13 Sub-Elements 13.1 & 13.2 Backup options (using radio communications) were identified for critical command level and tactical channels/talkgroups Backup options were thoroughly documented on the ICS Form 205 for the event, and/or briefed to personnel Backup options were sufficient to restore communications for the given functions in the event of a failure (capacity, coverage) Backup options could be rapidly implemented if needed 134

135 Success Factors - Examples Backup options (using radio communications) were identified, listed on the ICS form 205 and were sufficient to restore communications for the event County-wide trunked radio system had multiple conventional backup repeaters which were completely separate and independent of the trunked system and programmed into all user radios Personnel briefed on a comprehensive loss of radio communications plan Transportable tower/repeater site with cache radios staged at the venue as a back-up command net 135

136 Challenges - Example No back-up options were identified Reliance on commercial cellular providers as a primary means of communications due to loading, priority, capacity problems Back-up options not sufficient to restore or provide comparable communications capabilities as the primary system (inadequate coverage, simplex channel, result in overloaded channels/talkgroups) Back-up options did not account for users across multiple frequency bands, addressed single-band solution only 136

137 137

138 Element 14 Sub-Element 14.1 Overall, was the primary operational leadership able to communicate adequately to manage resources during the incident or event? 138

139 Element 14- Sub-Element 14.1 Members of primary operational leadership were able to communicate and manage resources without any noted impediments relating to operable or interoperable communications capabilities during the event/incident Command and Operations components were managed using a cohesive unified approach representative of all jurisdictions, disciplines, and agencies participating in the event A coordinated, effective, and efficient means of communications was consistently used when needed to manage resources (e.g., least complicated, direct communications as opposed to multiple relay points, least prone to error/failure) 139

140 Success Factors - Examples At the end of each operational period primary leadership conducted a short hot wash session prior to demobilization to discuss areas for improvement, and included communications-related issues For pre-planned events, all participants were involved in event planning to include operational leadership, event staff, communications personnel, NGOs, etc. 140

141 Challenges - Examples All participating agencies not included in pre-event planning functions (local, state, federal, tribal, NGOs.) Unified Command approach following the NIMS compliant ICS structure not implemented to manage the event/incident No mechanism for communications and connectivity with outside participants having significant responsibilities during an event (e.g., NASCAR, air operations, maritime operations, Public Works, etc.) 141

142 142

143 Submitting Results & Conclusion 143

144 144

145 145

146 Discussion, Questions? & Phone Number or NECP (6327) 146