DHS held a “training course” in Sandy Hook Connecticut!
The Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program, (HSEEP), “provides a standardized methodology and terminology for exercise design, development, conduct, evaluation, and improvement planning.” That’s according the HSEEP website.
In plain language, this is the agency that carries out preparedness drills. Like the one that went down in Aurora, Colorado just before the “Dark Knight” shooter event. Now we’ve learned of an HSEEP exercise in Sandy Hook, Connecticut…
Here is the webpage with information about the HSEEP training course, from the State of Connecticut’s website. Scrolling down the page reveals the location of the exercise, and the contact agent, Tom Romano.
Since the “event” in Newtown Connecticut, images of this very suspicious coincidence have gone viral over the internet. I have included scree captures of the relevant web pages. In case the perpetrators of this latest false-flag shooting try to erase their complicity…
Here is the incriminating webpage, from the State of Connecticut’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.
Here are three sections, covering the entire webpage.
Please note: Go to the page and click the link on the bottom marked DEMHS Calender of Events. Enter December 2012, and you see a drill scheduled for 12/14!
The Homeland Security National Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) constitutes a national standard for all exercises. Through exercises, the National Exercise Program supports organizations to achieve objective assessments of their capabilities so that strengths and areas for improvement are identified, corrected, and shared as appropriate prior to a real incident. To learn more about the HSEEP program, click on the About HSEEP tab above.
provided an opportunity to review the Region’s improvement planning action items from the previous year’s “exercises and real-world events” to determine the target capability priorities for the Region.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region X Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plan provides a “roadmap for FEMA Region X” to address its Regional priorities through training and exercises. This document is the result of a two-part process consisting of an
Improvement Planning Workshop (IPW) and a Training and Exercise Planning Workshop
(TEPW); the Region X IPW and TEPW were held on June 23 and 24, 2009.
The IPW provided an opportunity to review the Region’s improvement planning action items from the previous year’s exercises and “real-world events” to determine the target capability priorities for the Region.
During the TEPW, the Region used these priority capabilities to coordinate all training and exercise activities occurring throughout the Region, including activities sponsored by Federal and State agencies and Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) entities, and to define Regional exercises. This process helps the Region ensure that training and exercise schedules are coordinated to prevent duplication of efforts and overextension of resources.
ROLL CALL RELEASE
- 1 page
- For Official Use Only
- March 1, 2013
(U//FOUO) Expressed or implied threats by an individual or a group communicating intent to commit acts of terrorism or violence or advocating violence against a person, population, or to damage or destroy a facility can be an indicator of pre-operational attack planning. For example, in 2010 a Virginia-based US person pled guilty to communicating threats after he posted a video to the Internet encouraging violent extremists to attack the creators of a television show, including highlighting their residence and urging online readers to “pay them a visit.” He also admitted to soliciting others to desensitize law enforcement by placing suspicious looking but innocent packages in public places, which could then be followed up by real explosives.
(U//FOUO) The following SAR incident reported to the NSI shared space provides an example of an implied threat that could be indicative of pre-operational activity and attack planning. Although it was not ultimately linked to terrorist activity, it is cited as an example for awareness and training purposes:
— (U//FOUO) A courthouse building received an envelope, postmarked out of state, in which a smaller envelope marked “white powder” contained an unknown substance. The incident appeared to be related to 17 other similar suspicious letters containing white substance mailed over a period of several weeks to financial institutions, police departments, state and local government offices, and court facilities.
(U) Possible Indicators of Suspicious Expressed or Implied Threats
(U//FOUO) The following are examples of threats that may constitute warning signs of impending acts of violence. Depending on the context—state of mind of the individual, personal behaviors, and other indicators—expressed or implied threats should be reported to appropriate authorities.
— (U//FOUO) Statements by individuals or groups communicated verbally, in writing, or through video recordings stating the intent to commit violence.
— (U//FOUO) Letters and packages containing suspicious substances accompanied by a note stating that its contents are noxious or intending to communicate threat.
— (U//FOUO) Specific warnings about impending attacks that provide date, time, or place of the threatened attack.
— (U//FOUO) Specific stated threats to individuals or facilities to deter an anticipated action or force compliance with a demand.
(U//FOUO) First Amendment-protected activities should not be reported in a SAR or ISE-SAR absent articulable facts and circumstances that support the source agency’s suspicion that the behavior observed is not innocent, but rather reasonably indicative of criminal activity associated with terrorism, including evidence of pre-operational planning related to terrorism. Race, ethnicity, national origin, or religious affiliation should not be considered as factors that create suspicion (although these factors may be used as specific suspect descriptions).
Related Material From the Archive:
- (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Recruiting
- (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Photography
- (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Observation/Surveillance
- (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Theft/Loss/Diversion
- (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Acquisition of Expertise
- (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Testing of Cybersecurity
- (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Materials Acquisition/Storage
- (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Aviation Flyovers
Regional Training and Program Needs
Region X identified the following training opportunities to address the Regional priorities.
Multi-Year Exercise Schedule Fiscal Years 2010–2014
Region X identified the following exercises as part of the Regional-level calendar. Any HSEEP-based exercise where the host/lead is a State, Federal jurisdiction, or a Federal/State partnership and engages with at least one State and/or Federal agency (primarily Emergency Support Function [ESF] partners) within FEMA Region X may be placed on the Regional-level calendar. In addition, associated training courses available, or needed, to prepare exercise participants for the identified Regional-level exercises are included in the following table.
Fiscal Year 2010
Event Proposed Date Sponsor/Location Training Needs Eastport Border Full-Scale Exercise (FSE) October 2009 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP)/Idaho ICS 300 Alaska Shield Tabletop Exercise (TTX) October 2009 Alaska/Alaska Interagency Biological Restoration Demonstration TTX October 6–7, 2009 Washington, DHS Science and Technology Directorate/Defense Threat Reduction Agency Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) Receiving, Staging, and Storage FSE October 20–21, 2009 Washington State Department of Health/Washington Vigilant Shield FSE November 2009 U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM)/Washingt on, Alaska TTX (Arctic Resolve) 2010 Olympics Prism Functional Exercise (FE) November 4, 2009 Washington, Federal/Washington WebEOC, Independent Study (IS) 701 NDMS (Federal Coordination Center [FCC])Workshop December 2009 FCC/Washington FCC 101 seminars; IS 1900 (NDMS overview); Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) 100, 200, and 300 Cold Weather FE February 2010 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)/Alaska IEMC February 2010 Alaska/Alaska Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield Anti-Terrorism Force Protection (ATFP)/Emergency Preparedness FSE February/March 2010 U.S. Navy/Region NDMS (FCC) TTX March 2010 FCC/Washington NDMS Workshop (December 2009) Event Proposed Date Sponsor/Location Training Needs Alaska Shield TTX April 2010 Alaska/Alaska Alaska Shield/Arctic Edge/Vigilant Guard FSE (linked to NDMS FSE and NDMS [FCC] FE–Arctic Spring) April/May 2010 Alaska, U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)/Alaska NDMS FSE (linked to Alaska Shield/Arctic Edge/Vigilant Guard FSE and NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring) May 2010 NDMS, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)/TBD NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring (linked to Alaska Shield/Arctic Edge/Vigilant Guard FSE and NDMS FSE) May 2010 FCC/Washington Workshop/TTX prior CSEPP FSE May 2010 U.S. Army/Oregon, Washington CSEPP seminar at State level U.S. Department of Energy– Richland (USDOE-RL) FSE June 2010 USDOE/Washington USDOE seminar at State level Citadel Rumble Emergency Preparedness FSE Summer 2010 U.S. Navy/Washington Columbia Generating Station Practice Plume/Ingestion Drill (REP) July 13–14, 2010 REP REP seminar at State level Canada U.S. (CanUS) North FE August 2010 U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)/Alaska ICS 300, TTX prior Columbia Generating Station Graded Exercise Plume/ Ingestion FSE (REP) August 31– September 1, 2010 REP IEMC September 2010 Idaho/Idaho G191, G775, G358, ICS 300 (private sector), Communications Leader, Applied Technology Council (ATC) courses, Rapid Visual Screening class, Preliminary Damage Assessment, Debris Management CanUS Dixon Entrance FE September 2010 USCG/Alaska ICS 300, TTX prior Continuity of Operations (COOP) FSE September 2010 USCG/Alaska Debt Collection Exercise Evaluation 2010 September 2010 U.S. Army/TBD G348, Debt Collection Assistance Officer Anthrax TTX Summer 2010 DHS Office of Health Affairs/HHS
Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2014
Event Proposed Date Sponsor/Location Training Needs Vigilant Shield FSE November 2010 U.S. Army/Alaska Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield ATFP/Emergency Preparedness FSE February/March 2011 U.S. Navy/Region NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring May 2011 FCC/Washington USDOE-RL FSE June 2011 USDOE/Washington USDOE seminar at State level Citadel Rumble Emergency Preparedness FSE Summer 2011 U.S. Navy/Washington Alaska Shield TTX October 2011 Alaska/Alaska Vigilant Shield FSE November 2011 U.S. Army/Alaska Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield ATFP/Emergency Preparedness FSE February/March 2011 U.S. Navy/Region Alaska Shield/Arctic Edge/Vigilant Guard April 2011 Alaska, DoD/Alaska TBD Alaska Shield TTX April 2011 Alaska/Alaska NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring May 2011 FCC/Washington Workshop/TTX prior USDOE-RL FSE June 2011 USDOE/Washington USDOE seminar at State level Citadel Rumble Emergency Preparedness FSE Summer 2011 U.S. Navy/Washington Columbia Generating Station Practice Plume Drill (REP) July 10, 2011 REP REP seminar at State level Columbia Generating Station Graded Exercise Plume FSE (REP) August 28, 2011 REP REP seminar at State level
Event Proposed Date Sponsor/Location Training Needs Alaska Shield TTX October 2011 Alaska/Alaska Vigilant Shield FSE November 2011 U.S. Army/Alaska Puget Sound Regional Earthquake Response FE TBD 2012 FEMA/Seattle TBD, Resource Management, POD Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield ATFP/Emergency Preparedness FSE February/March 2012 U.S. Navy/Region Mt. Rainer Rumbles FE March 2011 USCG Sector Seattle Alaska Shield/Arctic Edge/Vigilant Guard April 2012 Alaska, DoD/Alaska TBD Alaska Shield TTX April 2012 Alaska/Alaska NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring May 2012 FCC/Washington Workshop/TTX prior USDOE-RL FSE June 2012 USDOE/Washington USDOE seminar at State level Citadel Rumble Emergency Preparedness FSE Summer 2012 U.S. Navy/Washington Columbia Generating Station Practice Plume Drill (REP) July 10, 2012 REP REP seminar at State level Columbia Generating Station Graded Exercise Plume FSE (REP) August 28, 2012 REP REP seminar at State level
Event Proposed Date Sponsor/Location Training Needs Vigilant Shield FSE November 2012 U.S. Army/Alaska TBD Nuclear Weapon Accident Exercise 2013 U.S. Navy/Washington (TBD) TBD Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield ATFP/Emergency Preparedness FSE February/March 2013 U.S. Navy/Region NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring May 2013 FCC/Washington Workshop/TTX prior USDOE-RL FSE June 2013 USDOE/Washington USDOE seminar at State level Citadel Rumble Emergency Preparedness FSE Summer 2013 U.S. Navy/Washington
Event Proposed Date Sponsor/Location Training Needs Vigilant Shield FSE November 2013 U.S. Army/Alaska TBD Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield ATFP/Emergency Preparedness FSE February/March 2014 U.S. Navy/Region Alaska Shield/Arctic Edge/Vigilant Guard April 2014 Alaska, DoD/Alaska TBD Alaska Shield TTX April 2014 Alaska/Alaska NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring May 2014 FCC/Washington Workshop/TTX prior USDOE-RL FSE June 2014 USDOE/Washington, Oregon USDOE seminar at State level Citadel Rumble Emergency Preparedness FSE Summer 2014 U.S. Navy/Washington Columbia Generating Station Graded Exercise Ingestion FSE (REP) August 26–27, 2014 REP REP seminar at State level
Related Material From the Archive:
- Arkansas Multiyear Training and Exercise Plan
- National Level Exercise 2010 (NLE 10) Exercise Overview
- Vigilant Guard 08 Full Scale Exercise Plan
- 2007 Colorado Full Scale Mass Vaccination Exercise Plan
- Top Officials (TOPOFF) Exercise Overview Brief
- DHS Coordinates National Level Exercise to Prevent Terrorist Attacks with Federal, State, Local Tribal, Private Sector, and International Partners
- Region XIII+ (MT) MPC Planning Conference
- US prepares major terrorism readiness exercise
Region X identified the following exercises as part of the Regional-level calendar Region X Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plan Fiscal Years
2010–2014. Any HSEEP-based exercise where the host/lead is a State, Federal jurisdiction, or a Federal/State partnership and engages with at least one State and/or Federal agency (primarily Emergency Support Function partners) …
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS Distribution: This plan, and its supporting material, is a controlled document. The plan, by its very nature, is not considered to be available for public consumption. Distribution is based upon regulatory or a functional “need to know” basis. Per PEMA Circular, “Release of Sensitive Documents or Information to the General Public in Light of the Terrorist Threat,” the County Emergency Operations Plan is considered a sensitive document. Copies of this plan are distributed according to an approved control list. A record of distribution, by copy number, is maintained on file by the County EMC. Controlled copies of revisions will be distributed to designated plan holders. Revisions or changes are documented by means of the “Record of Changes”. A receipt system will be used to verify and control the distribution process; a detailed distribution list can be found under the “Record of Distribution” tab of this plan.
Information in the Exercise Overview should be “structured data”—written as a list rather than in paragraph form—in order to facilitate preparation of other parts of the AAR, maintain consistency within AAR/IPs, and facilitate the analysis of AAR/IPs for program reporting. Specifically, the Exercise
Overview should contain the following information:
Formal name of exercise
Type of Exercise The type of exercise as described in Homeland Security Exercise Evaluation
Program (HSEEP) Volume I: seminar, workshop, drill, game, tabletop, functional exercise, or full-scale exercise
Exercise Start Date The month, day, and year that the exercise began
Exercise End Date The month, day, and year that the exercise ended
The total length of the exercise (in day or hours, as appropriate)
Appendix A: After Action Report / Improvement Plan Guidelines
HSEEP Volume III
All applicable information regarding the specific location of the exercise, including the city, State, Federal region, international country, military installation, as applicable
The Federal agency or agencies that sponsored the exercise, as well as any co-sponsors (if applicable)
The name of the program from which exercise funding originated
The entities (e.g., organizations, jurisdictions, agencies) that received funding for the exercise
The appropriate mission(s) of the exercise (e.g., Prevent, Protect, Response, Recovery)
A list of the capabilities addressed within the exercise
The exercise/event scenario (one or more of the following):
- Aerosol Anthrax
- Food Contamination
- Foreign Animal Disease
- Pandemic Influenza
- Blister Agent
- Chlorine Tank Explosion
- Nerve Agent
- Toxic Industrial Chemical
- Improvised Explosive Device
- Natural Disaster
- Major Earthquake
- Major Hurricane
- Improvised Nuclear Device
- Radiological Dispersal Device
Exercise Planning Team
A list of exercise planning team members, including their associated organizations or agencies
Appendix A: After Action Report / Improvement Plan Guidelines
HSEEP Volume III
A list of the individual participating organizations or agencies, including Federal, State, tribal, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and local and international agencies, as applicable
Number of Participants
A list of the total number of each of the following exercise participants (as applicable, depending on the type of exercise and specific design needs):
•Victim role players
Trained Players and Actors Making It Real
The need for advanced leadership training simulation
By Nicholas V. Iuppa (Belmont, CA), Andrew S. Gordon (Marina Del Rey, CA)
Recent United States Army studies have indicated that the leadership requirements of the modern war fighting force involve several significant differences from historical experience. Some factors of particular importance to the new generation of military leaders include: (i) the broad variety of people-centered, crisis-based military missions, including counter-terrorism, peacekeeping, operations in urban terrain and the newly emphasized homeland defense, in addition to more conventional warfare; (ii) the command of and dependence on a number of complex weapon, communication and intelligence systems involving advanced technology and specialized tasks; (iii) increased robotic and automated elements present on the battlefield; (iv) distributed forces at all echelons, requiring matching forms of distributed command; and (v) increased emphasis on collaboration in planning and operations.
The demographics of the military leadership corps is changing in several ways. Among the positive features of this change is a high level of sophistication and experience in computer use, including computer communication gaming and data acquisition. This means that modern training simulations should be as motivating and as well-implemented as commercial gaming and information products in order to capture and hold the attention of new military trainees.
There are currently highly developed aircraft, tank and other ground vehicle virtual simulators that realistically present military terrain and the movement of the vehicles within the terrain. Such simulators are very effective at teaching basic operational skills. Networks of virtual simulators, including SIMNET, CCTT and the CATT family, are also available to teach leader coordination of combined arms weapons systems during conventional and MOUT (Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain) warfare in highly lifelike settings. Likewise, constructive simulations such as BBS, Janus, WARSIM, WARSIM 2000 and others are very effective in focusing on the tactical aspects of leadership, i.e., representing movement of material, weapons and personnel particularly for higher echelon maneuvers.
But the same level of developmental effort has not been directed toward equally effective virtual and/or constructive simulators for training leadership and related cognitive skills in scenarios involving substantial human factor challenges. For example, driving a tank does not require the background knowledge, the collaboration or the complex political, diplomatic and psychological judgments that must be made in a difficult, people-centered crisis leadership situation. These judgments depend largely on the actual and estimated behavior of human participants, both friend and foe, in the crisis situation. Unfortunately, the complete modeling of complex human behavior is still beyond current technical capabilities.
As a result, these kinds of leadership skills have routinely been taught in the classroom through lectures and exercises featuring handouts and videotapes. It is possible for a good instructor to build the tension needed to approximate a leadership crisis, but sustaining the tension is difficult to accomplish. Showing the heartbreak of the crisis and the gut-wrenching decisions that must be made is not the strong suit of paper-and-pencil materials or low budget, home-grown videos.
Large classroom exercises such as “Army After Next” and “The Crisis Decision Exercise” at the National Defense University have attempted to give some sense of the leaders’ experience through week-long exercises that involve months of planning. These exercises are effective, but they cannot be distributed widely or easily recreated without significant effort. Also, they are not easy to update and modify, and they require a large contingent of designers and developers, as well as on-site operators, to run them after months of planning time.
Story-based simulations, on the other hand, increase participant attention and retention because story-based experiences are more involving and easier to remember. Participants are also able to build judgmental, cognitive and decision-making leadership skills because the simulations provide realistic context in which to model outstanding leadership behavior. Story-based simulations can teach innovation because they are able to challenge participants by providing dramatic encounters with unexpected events and possibilities. Also, story-based simulations overcome the limitations of current constructive and virtual simulations in modeling complex human behavior, which is an increasing aspect of today’s leadership challenges.
Crisis-based leadership training requires an awareness of human factors that has been especially difficult to teach through printed materials or the classroom. Giving complexity to an adversary’s personality or turning a political confrontation into a battle of wits and will (things that, in fact, represent much of today’s military decision making) are easier to discuss than to practice or simulate.
From a computational perspective, the term simulation is commonly used to refer to computational systems that compute subsequent states of a modeled environment by applying some transformational rules to the current model state. For example, weather simulations are computed in this manner–by first describing the current meteorological conditions and then applying knowledge about atmospheric conditions to make a prediction about what will happen in the future. Likewise, the U.S. military uses simulations to make predictions about the outcomes of battles and to give soldiers experience in simulations of potential future battles. The phrase `constructive simulations` has been used to describe simulations that compute subsequent states by applying transformational rules to the current state. Constructive simulations easily accommodate run-time interaction on the part of human participants. That is, at any moment in the simulation, a trainee can make a decision that changes the state of the modeled world and causes a change that will be propagated by transformational rules, and which may ultimately cause drastic changes in the final outcome of a simulated warfare environment.
The important disadvantage of the use of constructive simulations in military training is the surrender of pedagogical and dramatic control. While it may be desirable to use a simulation to provide pedagogically valuable experiences to trainees, there is little that an instructional designer can do to ensure that certain experiences will occur within the environment. As the trainees have free will and control over the course of the outcome of the simulation, it is impossible to ensure that a specific situation or set of situations will arise once the simulation has begun. The only direct control that instructional designers are given over the simulation is its starting state. Accordingly, there has been an increasing amount of interest in the notion of scenario development, where this has come to mean the specification of initial states for constructive simulations that are likely to lead to pedagogically valuable experiences for trainees.
While well-crafted initial states have a certain utility, particularly when training tactical skills for force-on-force warfare, other types of skill training suffer greatly due to the lack of pedagogical control. This is particularly true of military leadership skill training, where the lessons to be learned by trainees have less to do with timing and positioning of troops, and more to do with complex interrelationships among superior and subordinate officers and enlisted soldiers. In short, it is much easier to ensure that a tactical problem will arise given an initial simulation state than a leadership problem.
Given the autonomy of the actors’ characters in a storyline, the story composer is additionally faced with numerous critical problems: how can the composer prevent the actor from taking actions in the imagined world that will move the story in a completely unforeseen direction, or from taking actions that will derail the storyline entirely? How can the composer allow the actors to make critical decisions, devise creative plans, and explore different options without giving up the narrative control that is necessary to deliver a compelling experience? Also, in the case of interactive tutoring systems, how can the composer understand enough about the beliefs and abilities of the actors to create an experience that has some real educational value, i.e., that improves the quality of the decisions that they would make when faced with similar situations in the real world?
Therefore, what is needed is a method and apparatus for advanced leadership training simulation that allows the participants to make real-time critical decisions, devise creative plans and explore different options without relinquishing the composer’s narrative control and while allowing the composer to create an experience that improves the quality of leadership decision-making and delivers a compelling experience, preferably using story-driven simulation.
Story-driven simulation is a technology that expands on previous research efforts to create interactive experiences in virtual worlds where the outcomes are known and specified in advance by instructional designers (e.g., Cleave, 1997). This approach allows instructional designers to work with storyline writers to create a training experience that is dramatically engaging and includes a specific set of training experiences, but to do so in a manner that allows for a high degree of interactivity.
|Exercise Technical Assistance|
HSEEP Policy and Guidance
- National Exercise Schedule (NEXS) System
- Design and Development System (DDS)
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN X
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN X
X. PLAN DEVELOPMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND DISTRIBUTION
A. References Pennsylvania Emergency Management Services Code, 35 PA C.S Sections
7701-7707, as amended
1. State Law: The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Services Code, 35 PA C.S Sections 7701-7707, as amended, requires each county and municipality to prepare, maintain and keep current an emergency operations plan (EOP). Further, the plan must be available for inspection in the EOC, along with applicable emergency management plans, procedures and directives of PEMA and the Commonwealth.
2. County Resolution: Resolution number __________ dated _______ charges the County Emergency Management Coordinator to develop the County Emergency Operations Plan and coordinate the preparation of supporting standard operating checklists.
3. Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA): This plan conforms to various Federal agency requirements and the format prescribed by PEMA to facilitate review and cross reference to PEMA, FEMA and Department of Homeland Security Documents.
C. Development and Maintenance Responsibilities
1. EMC Responsibility: The County EMC will coordinate development and maintenance of the plan. Plan components will be reviewed and updated consistently. Incident Specific Annexes require an annual review based upon legislation or regulation. Whenever portions of this plan are implemented in an emergency event or exercise, a review will be conducted to determine necessary changes.
2.Primary and Support Agencies to the Emergency
Support Functions (ESFs) of this plan are responsible for the development and maintenance of their respective ESFs as well as carrying out their roles and responsibilities outlined in Section V.,
Direction and Control.
Written reviews will be provided to the EMC annually indicating concurrence or comments.
They will recommend changes, as necessary, and keep the EMC abreast of changes in personnel, information and available resources.
This plan is enforceable under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Services Code and County Resolution Number _____________.
This plan will be executed upon order of the County Commissioners or their authorized representative, the County Emergency Management Coordinator.
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN
Plan Development EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN X
This plan, and its supporting material, is a controlled document. The plan, by its very nature, is not considered to be available for public consumption. Distribution is based upon regulatory or a functional “need to know” basis. Per PEMA Circular, “Release of Sensitive.”
Documents or Information to the General Public in Light of the Terrorist Threat, the County Emergency Operations Plan is considered a “sensitive document.”
Copies of this plan are distributed according to an approved control list.
A record of distribution, by copy number, is maintained on file by the County EMC. Controlled copies of revisions will be distributed to designated plan holders. Revisions or changes are documented by means of the “Record of Changes.”
A receipt system will be used to verify and control the distribution process; a detailed distribution list can be found under the “Record of Development.”
|Program Management ( 3 )|
|The HSEEP Toolkit is an interactive, on-line system for exercise scheduling, design, development, conduct, evaluation and improvement planning. The HSEEP Toolkit includes the National Exercise Schedule (NEXS) System, Design and Development System (DDS), and Corrective Action Program (CAP) System.The HSEEP Toolkit supports the current version of the most common web browsers, which include Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Safari, and Google Chrome. There may be some variation in performance across browsers and browser versions that may affect the end user experience.|
|ATTENTION: You are about to access a Department of Homeland Security computer system. This computer system and data therein are property of the U.S. Government and provided for official U.S. Government information and use. There is no expectation of privacy when you use this computer system. The use of a password or any other security measure does not establish an expectation of privacy. By using this system, you consent to the terms set forth in this notice. You may not process classified national security information on this computer system. Access to this system is restricted to authorized users only. Unauthorized access, use, or modification of this system or of data contained herein, or in transit to/from this system, may constitute a violation of section 1030 of title 18 of the U.S. Code and other criminal laws. Anyone who accesses a Federal computer system without authorization or exceeds access authority, or obtains, alters, damages, destroys, or discloses information, or prevents authorized use of information on the computer system, may be subject to penalties, fines or imprisonment. This computer system and any related equipment is subject to monitoring for administrative oversight, law enforcement, criminal investigative purposes, inquiries into alleged wrongdoing or misuse, and to ensure proper performance of applicable security features and procedures. DHS may conduct monitoring activities without further notice.|
Volume IV Help