Deployable Federal Assets Supporting
Domestic Disaster Response Operations:
Summary and Considerations for Congress
Jared T. Brown, Coordinator
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy
May 16, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43560
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Summary
For most disasters across the nation, the affected local, state, or tribal governments have sufficient
capabilities to respond to the incident. However, for disasters with consequences that require
unique capabilities or that overwhelm the existing capabilities of a respective state or tribal
government, Congress has authorized and appropriated a suite of deployable federal assets to
support domestic disaster response operations. This report reviews several key concepts about
these federal assets, and highlights possible issues Congress may consider when evaluating their
authorization and appropriation.
In this report, a deployable federal asset generally means sets of specially trained federal
employees whose mission is to provide on-scene assistance to communities by supporting their
disaster response. Deployable federal assets can be described as the federal government’s “first
responders” to a disaster. They typically only provide assistance at the request of states or tribes
and in circumstances where the capabilities of non-federal government entities are insufficient.
The federal government also scopes its assistance to provide only the assets that are required by
the situation. The maximum disaster consequences that the federal government is prepared to
address with its full set of response capabilities is largely unknown.
Given the diversity of deployable federal assets, there are many legal authorities and executive
branch policies that guide their use in response operations. Some of the most notable authorities
are the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §5721 et
seq.), Title XXVIII of the Public Health Service Act, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. §101 et seq.), and the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. §1385 et seq.). Some primary
federal policies guiding the use of deployable federal assets include the National Response
Framework (NRF), the National Incident Management System (NIMS), and the Defense Support
for Civilian Authorities (DSCA).
Congress may wish to consider several policy issues as it evaluates the future authorization and
appropriations for deployable federal assets, and as it provides oversight of the assets’ response
capabilities. There may be theoretical benefits gained by the provision of deployable federal
assets, including the pooling of disaster risk across the nation and greater efficiency in the supply
of response capabilities. There may also be theoretical disadvantages, including that the provision
of deployable federal assets creates a moral hazard resulting in greater disaster risk for the nation,
and that federal investment may crowd out the investment of non-federal entities in similar
response capabilities. Congress may also assess the various models for staffing these assets,
including the benefits and costs of conditional employments, dedicated staffing versus multiuse
staffing, and “federalizing” staff into temporary federal employment for response operations.
Congress may evaluate whether the provision of deployable federal assets should grant federal
officials greater decision-making authority in the management of response operations. Finally,
there are a number of challenges that may inhibit congressional oversight, such as the small
sample size of incidents available to evaluate the effectiveness of deployable federal assets and
the lack of specificity in many of the authorizations and appropriations for these assets.
This report also provides brief summaries of examples of deployable federal assets. These assets
are managed, either solely or jointly, by a variety of federal departments and agencies, including
components of the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, and Health and
Human Services; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Transportation Safety
Board; and others. A synopsis of these assets is provided in Table 1.
Congressional Research Service
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Key Concepts ................................................................................................................................... 2
What is a deployable federal asset? ........................................................................................... 2
When does the federal government provide support to response operations? ........................... 3
What level of support is the federal government prepared to provide and for how
catastrophic a disaster? ........................................................................................................... 5
What principal legal authorities permit, and what key executive branch policies guide
the use of deployable federal assets? ...................................................................................... 6
Authorities ........................................................................................................................... 7
Policies ................................................................................................................................ 7
Considerations for Congress ............................................................................................................ 9
Policy Benefits and Disadvantages of Deployable Federal Assets ............................................ 9
Benefits ............................................................................................................................... 9
Disadvantages ................................................................................................................... 10
Cost-Effectiveness of Various Models for Staffing Federal Assets ......................................... 11
Financing the Deployment of Federal Response Assets .......................................................... 12
Federalism and Operational Control ........................................................................................ 14
Challenges in Monitoring and Evaluating Deployable Federal Assets.................................... 15
Brief Summaries of Sample Federal Assets ................................................................................... 17
Department of Homeland Security Assets ............................................................................... 20
Federal Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs) ............................................... 20
Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs) and Federal Disaster Recovery
Coordinators (FDRCs) ................................................................................................... 22
National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Task Forces ................................................ 23
Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) Teams ............................................ 26
Protective Security Advisors (PSAs) ................................................................................. 27
Department of Health and Human Services ............................................................................ 29
U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps ............................................................ 29
Strategic National Stockpile .............................................................................................. 30
U.S. Department of Agriculture ............................................................................................... 33
Forest Service Firefighting Assets ..................................................................................... 33
Department of Defense ............................................................................................................ 35
General Purpose Forces ..................................................................................................... 36
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Response Forces ................... 39
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Assets ............................................................................... 44
Planning and Response Teams .......................................................................................... 44
249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power) ........................................................................... 46
National Transportation Safety Board Disaster Assistance ..................................................... 47
Jointly Operated Assets ........................................................................................................... 48
National Response System for Oil and Chemical Spills ................................................... 48
National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) ..................................................................... 52
Figures
Figure 1. National US&R Task Force Teams ................................................................................. 24
Congressional Research Service
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Tables
Table 1. Synopsis of Examples of Deployable Federal Assets ...................................................... 18
Table 2. Strategic National Stockpile Appropriations, FY2010-FY2014 ..................................... 32
Table 3. NDMS Administrative Funding, FY2011-FY2015 .......................................................... 53
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 55
Congressional Research Service
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Introduction
Natural, accidental, or intentional hazards1 produce disasters of varying severity and consequence
in the nation every day. Local, state, or tribal governments respond to the significant majority of
these disasters without support from the federal government. This is especially true in the initial
phase of disaster response—often generalized as the first 72 hours after the originating incident.
However, on an as-needed basis, the federal government can provide significant assistance to
support the local, state,2 or tribal response operation through deployable federal assets.
This report examines a variety of deployable federal assets that can support a disaster response
operation. These assets may be able to support the response to certain types of consequences from
certain disasters (e.g., radiological exposure from a nuclear incident) or consequences common to
all disasters (e.g., command and control support, or communications assistance). This report
provides a general analysis of key concepts involving deployable federal assets, including:
• what it means to be a deployable federal asset;
• when the assets will be used to support response operations;
• what the main authorities and policies are that guide the use of assets; and
• what level of support the federal government is prepared to provide for response
operations.
This report also examines several issues Congress may wish to consider as it evaluates the future
authorization and funding for various deployable federal assets. Issues examined in the report
include the potential policy benefits and disadvantages of federal investment in deployable
federal assets, the cost-effectiveness of different staffing models for the assets, the methods for
financing the deployment of the assets, whether federal assets should have greater operational
control in response operations, and the challenges Congress may face in its oversight of the use of
the assets. This report concludes by providing summaries of examples of deployable federal
assets, including available information on their authorization, funding, and past uses in disasters.
Brief information on the selected assets is condensed and presented in Table 1.
1 Using the Department of Homeland Security’s risk lexicon, a natural hazard is a “source of harm or difficulty created
by a meteorological, environmental, or geological phenomenon or combination of phenomena” (e.g., an earthquake or
hurricane); an accidental hazard is a “source of harm or difficulty created by negligence, error, or unintended failure”
(e.g., an oil spill, train derailment, or dam failure); and an intentional hazard is a “source of harm, duress, or difficulty
created by a deliberate action or a planned course of action” (e.g., a terrorist attack, cyber-attack, or other criminal
incident). See Department of Homeland Security, DHS Risk Lexicon: 2010 Edition, September 2010, at
http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-risk-lexicon.
2 As used in this report, “state” generally includes “any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, the [U.S.] Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands” as
defined by the Sec. 102(4) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5122(4).
Congressional Research Service
1
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Key Concepts3
What is a deployable federal asset?
A deployable federal asset is not a generally recognized term in the field of domestic emergency
management, but rather is a term developed for the purposes of this report to characterize a broad
swath of federal resources. The term is used to classify sets of specially trained federal employees
whose mission, though not necessarily exclusive mission, is to provide on-scene assistance to
communities by supporting their disaster response.4 To aid a community, these deployable federal
assets may provide unique capabilities5 not frequently available at a local, state or tribal level;6 or
they may be able to supplement existing capabilities that have been overwhelmed in significant
disasters.7 In combination with specialized personnel, a deployable federal asset may provide
federally owned commodities, such as power generation or telecommunications equipment. A
deployable federal asset also operates on an “alert” status so that they can deploy to a no-notice
incident in a community expeditiously, often within the first 24 hours or less. Colloquially,
deployable federal assets can be described as the federal government’s “first responders” to a
disaster. However, even within the confines described above, some of the deployable federal
assets summarized later in the report do not comply with one of the defining elements. For
example, the National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Task Forces are not federal employees,
though they can be deployed in a federal capacity at the direction of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and receive significant funding to maintain national response
capabilities.
This report does not discuss, and the term deployable federal asset does not include, other forms
of federal assistance that can be used to support a domestic disaster response, including:
• Financial assistance, such as numerous grant and loan programs;8
3 For more background on how the nation responds to disasters and on federal emergency management, see CRS
Report R41981, Congressional Primer on Responding to Major Disasters and Emergencies, by Francis X. McCarthy
and Jared T. Brown and CRS Report R42845, Federal Emergency Management: A Brief Introduction, coordinated by
Bruce R. Lindsay.
4 Response is defined as “actions to save lives, protect property and the environment, stabilize communities, and meet
basic human needs following an incident.” See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Response
Framework, Second Edition, May 2013, p. 1, at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=7371.
5 A capability is defined as “the ability to provide the means to accomplish one or more tasks under specific conditions
and to specific performance standards. A capability may be achieved with any combination of properly planned,
organized, equipped, trained, and exercised personnel that achieves the intended outcome.” See Section 641(1) of the
Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act of 2006 (Title VI of P.L. 109-295, 6 U.S.C. §741).
6 Examples discussed later in the report include the 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power) and the National
Transportation Safety Board Disaster Assistance .
7 Examples discussed later in the report include the Federal Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs) and the
Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) Teams.
8 For a summary of some of these financial assistance programs, see CRS Report RL31734, Federal Disaster
Assistance Response and Recovery Programs: Brief Summaries, by Carolyn V. Torsell and Jared C. Nagel. There are
also numerous CRS reports available that discuss federal financial assistance programs in greater detail. Tax relief may
also be available following disasters. For information on relief provided through the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), see
CRS Report R42839, Tax Provisions to Assist with Disaster Recovery, by Erika K. Lunder, Carol A. Pettit, and Jennifer
Teefy.
Congressional Research Service
2
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
• Logistics assistance, such as aiding in the delivery of water, food, and medical
commodities;9 and
• Technical assistance, such as legal counsel, engineering expertise for
infrastructure damage assessments, or scientific expertise on natural hazards.10
The term deployable federal asset also does not include the significant number of federal
government personnel that are already permanently “deployed” throughout the nation. These
federal personnel may support a local, state, or tribal government through their normally
authorized activities, in both normal and disaster situations. For example, Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) air traffic controllers provide a daily public service to a community, and
they strive to continue that service in disasters to support the community. Likewise, the
Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) field personnel, such as Custom and Border
Protection agents, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, and Secret Service agents,
perform essential homeland security and emergency management duties on a regular basis in
communities across the nation. In particular, the U.S. Coast Guard provides significant
emergency management and homeland security capabilities through regionally based personnel
throughout the nation, in fulfillment of its maritime security and safety missions.11 The field
personnel of scientific government agencies can also provide on-scene technical expertise to
support disaster response operations, such as personnel from the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS)12 and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
When does the federal government provide support to response
operations?
When a hazard produces a disaster in a community, the assets and resources needed to address the
consequences of the incident are generally provided by local, state, or tribal governments. This
complies with general principles of federalism found in emergency management policy, and the
often repeated truism that “all disasters are local.” However, due to the magnitude of the disaster,
a local, state, or tribal government may (a) be unable to respond to the unique consequences of a
disaster (e.g., it lacks a capability to eliminate a certain biological contaminant), or (b) have its
capability to respond become overwhelmed by the scale of consequences (e.g., there are too many
survivors requiring temporary shelter assistance). In either circumstance, the community may first
9 For example, the Logistics Management Directorate of FEMA can provide extensive logistics capabilities in support
of national disaster response operations. For more, see the Logistics Management Directorate’s website at
http://www.fema.gov/logistics-management-directorate.
10 For example, the National Weather Service provides technical expertise on meteorological natural hazards, to include
predictions on the path and magnitude of hurricanes and potential tornado-producing weather systems. Likewise, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Environmental Health, Health Studies
Branch, studies the epidemiology of disasters, provides a rapid health needs assessment tool to be used by communities
responding to a disaster, and, upon request, provides expertise in disaster epidemiology to local, state, federal, and
international public health partners to help them prepare for and respond to natural and man-made hazards. For more,
see, respectively, the website for the NWS at http://www.weather.gov/, and the website for the CDC HSB at
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hsb/disaster/default.htm.
11 For examples of the Coast Guard’s capabilities, see a list of accomplishments in 2012 in U.S. Coast Guard, Coast
Guard, Snapshot 2012, March 2013, at http://www.uscg.mil/top/about/doc/uscg_snapshot.pdf.
12 For a brief description of how the USGS supports disaster response, see U.S. Geological Survey, USGS Emergency
Response Resources, Fact Sheet 2011-3079, September 2013, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3079/pdf/fs2011-
3079.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
request assistance through an Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) or similar
mutual-aid agreement with a neighboring jurisdiction.13 These mutual-aid agreements allow
communities to leverage the resources of the surrounding region before requesting assistance
from a higher level of government, such as how neighboring fire departments may be called upon
to assist during particularly challenging incidents.
In general, to obtain federal assistance to address unmet needs arising from the disaster, an
official request must be made through the jurisdictional chain relevant to the community (i.e.,
from a city to county, county to state, and then state to federal; or from a mayor to county
executive, a county executive to a governor, and a governor to the President). Generally, tribal
governments may appeal for assistance directly to the federal government, but may also seek the
assistance of a relevant state or other local government first. There are many federal laws and
regulations that prescribe how a request for assistance may be made, but the most prominent is
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §5721 et seq.;
henceforth the Stafford Act).14
The federal government may also provide assistance without a request in more limited
circumstances. For example, a request does not need to be made by a state or tribal government
when the primary responsibility for the response rests with the federal government. This most
frequently occurs because the incident involves an issue or hazard for which, under the
Constitution or a federal law, the President or other federal authority has exclusive or preeminent
responsibility and authority.15 Likewise, there are situations when the federal government or a
federal asset will provide immediate assistance, primarily to prevent the direct loss of life or
significant property damage, without the request rising through the “normal” request
procedures.16 For instance, the Department of Defense (DOD), through its Defense Support of
Civil Authorities (DSCA) regulations and policies, authorizes local DOD officials to provide
immediate assistance without a formal request rising through the state and lead federal officials.
Called the “immediate response authority,” regulations state that
In response a request for assistance from a civil authority, under imminently serious
conditions and if time does not permit approval from higher authority, DOD officials may
provide an immediate response by temporarily employing the resources under their control,
subject to any supplemental direction provided by higher headquarters, to save lives, prevent
human suffering, or mitigate great property damage within the United States.17
13 The EMAC is a congressionally ratified compact that provides a legal structure by which states affected by a disaster
may request emergency assistance and aid from other states. The legal model has been replicated by local and tribal
government jurisdictions. The EMAC was ratified in P.L. 104-321. For more on EMAC, see http://www.emacweb.org/.
14 For more on how requests are managed through the Stafford Act declaration process, see CRS Report RL34146,
FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer, by Francis X. McCarthy.
15 See, primarily, Sec. 501(b) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5191(b). Most notably, this situation arises when the area
affected by the disaster is on federal property (in national waters, lands, parks, or military installations, etc.) or when
the Federal Bureau of Investigation becomes the lead federal law enforcement agency in response to a terrorism
incident.
16 See, primarily, Sec. 502(a)(8) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5192(a)(8). This authority allows the federal
assistance to be provided “where necessary to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate severe damage, which
may be provided in the absence of a specific request....”
17 32 C.F.R. § 185.4(g).
Congressional Research Service
4
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
What level of support is the federal government prepared to
provide and for how catastrophic a disaster?
For many reasons, the federal government attempts to scale its support for any disaster response
operation appropriately. Most obviously, the federal government scales its support so as not to
waste federal resources, but also to avoid overwhelming the community with excess assets and
inhibiting an efficient response. This scalability of support by the federal government can include
denying the requests of local, state, and tribal governments for more commitment of resources.
For example, a duly authorized federal official receiving a request may determine that the use of
an asset is not required by the conditions in the relevant incident. Under the Stafford Act process,
this can mean the denial of a request for a major or emergency disaster declaration, or the
provision of certain types of direct federal assistance and not others under a major disaster
declaration. The federal government may also provide a different type of asset than the one
requested to address an unmet need.
In theory, in the most extreme of catastrophic disasters,18 all applicable resources of the federal
government could be directed to support response operations under the authority of the Stafford
Act.19 The full resources of the DOD could also be used to support a disaster response under what
DOD claims is its “inherent emergency power.”20 An exemption in the Antideficiency Act relating
to “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property” may also allow
the use of federal resources, to include deployable assets, without sufficient funding having been
previously provided by Congress.21
It is difficult, if not impossible, to project the magnitude of consequences that the full resources of
the federal government would be able to respond to sufficiently. Additionally, government plans
that provide detailed assessments of a maximum response capacity are likely to be classified,
given the sensitivity of that information for national security. That said, some information is
available that illustrates the potential magnitude of consequences the federal government is
conceivably planning to address. For example, in a 2011 draft of the National Preparedness Goal,
18 Possible scenarios range from the impact of a meteor or comet, an attack by a foreign or domestic adversary using a
weapon(s) of mass destruction, a series of catastrophic earthquakes and subsequent tsunamis, or the eruption of a
supervolcano.
19 See Sec. 402(1) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5170a(1), which authorizes the President, in any major disaster, to
“direct any Federal agency, with or without reimbursement, to utilize its authorities and the resources granted to it
under Federal law (including personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, and managerial, technical, and advisory
services) in support of State and local assistance response and recovery efforts, including precautionary evacuations.”
The legal definition of a major disaster in the Stafford Act confines the types of hazards that can result in a major
disaster declaration, but it is difficult to imagine a scenario where a truly catastrophic disaster would not result in one or
more major disaster declarations. Even if the provoking hazard is not specifically included in the major disaster
definition—such as a terrorist attack or cyber incident—the consequences of the hazard requiring response capabilities
are likely to fall into the scope of the definition. See Sec. 102(2) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5122(2) for the
definition of a major disaster. Some legislative consideration has been given to establishing a formal process in the
Stafford Act to declare a “catastrophic” disaster; for more on that issue see CRS Report R41884, Considerations for a
Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis, by Bruce R. Lindsay and Francis X. McCarthy.
20 For more information on the DOD’s inherent emergency power and other authorizations for the use of federal
military in disaster response, see CRS Report RS22266, The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal
Issues, by Jennifer K. Elsea and R. Chuck Mason.
21 31 U.S.C. § 1342. For more information on the Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. §§1341-1342, §§1511-1519) and this
“emergency” and other exemptions, see CRS Report RL34680, Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes,
Processes, and Effects, coordinated by Clinton T. Brass.
Congressional Research Service
5
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
FEMA described a “meta-scenario” that was used to define the national—not just federal22—
capabilities needed for response and recovery. The meta-scenario was described as:
a no-notice event impacting a population of seven million within a 25 thousand square
mile area. The impacted area includes several states across multiple regions. Severe
damage is projected to critical infrastructure including essential transportation
infrastructure. Ingress and egress options are severely limited. The projected number of
fatalities is 195,000 during the initial hours of the event. It is projected that 265,000
survivors will require emergency medical attention. At least 25 percent of the impacted
population will require mass care, emergency sheltering, and housing assistance.23
This meta-scenario was not mentioned directly in the final version of the National Preparedness
Goal, and appears to have been simplified in text to a “no-notice, cascading incident.”24 Other
planning and exercise scenarios, especially the National Level Exercise 2011,25 provide further
extreme examples of potential capacity requirements.26 Both FEMA and the DOD are currently
developing and revising national and regional catastrophic plans that may improve future
understanding of the maximum capacity to respond to a disaster or series of disasters.27
What principal legal authorities permit, and what key executive
branch policies guide the use of deployable federal assets?
As there is a wide array of deployable federal assets throughout many federal departments and
agencies, this section of the report does not provide a comprehensive list of every authority that
permits, or policy that guides their use for disaster response operations. However, the following
section does discuss a broad legal authority for the provision of federal assistance and executive
branch policies guiding that assistance.
22 National capabilities mean the capabilities of the whole of community, including available assets from local, state,
tribal governments, and the private and non-profit sectors.
23 See Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Preparedness Goal, National Review Draft, p.6,
August 2011.
24 Department of Homeland Security, National Preparedness Goal, First Edition, September 2011, p. 4, at
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/prepared/npg.pdf.
25 In 2011, emergency managers and stakeholders across the nation participated in the annual “National Level
Exercise” (NLE) using the scenario of a catastrophic earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone. The annual NLE is
the centerpiece of FEMA’s National Exercise Program. The National Exercise Program is established to test, evaluate,
and improve national capabilities to prepare for disasters. For more on NLE 2011, see Federal Emergency Management
Agency, National Level Exercise 2011 (NLE): Quick Look Report, June 14, 2011, at https://www.llis.dhs.gov/sites/
default/files/nle11_quick_look_report.pdf.
26 Numerous other documents provide some indications about the maximum response capabilities of the federal
government, including documents that were produced under a previous version of the National Response Framework,
and the “National Planning Scenarios” developed pursuant to a now-obsolete presidential directive, Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8). For example, see the Department of Homeland Security, Catastrophic Incident
Supplement to the National Response Framework, For Official Use Only.
27 For more on these planning efforts, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Civil Support: Actions Are Needed
to Improve DOD’s Planning for a Complex Catastrophe, GAO-13-763, September 2013, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/
660/658406.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Authorities
The specific authority for each example of a deployable federal asset is discussed later in the
report. Of general importance to all deployable federal assets is the essential assistance authority
provided by the Stafford Act. This authority allows any federal agency, at the approval of the
President, to provide “assistance essential to meeting immediate threats to life and property
resulting from a major disaster.”28 Though federal essential assistance is only available during
Stafford Act declared major disasters, the federal government is also allowed to provide
considerable assistance during Stafford Act declared emergencies.29 A Stafford Act emergency
can be declared in “any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President,
Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives
and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in any part of the United States.”30 These provisions, and others of the Stafford Act,
may provide sufficient legal justification for the use of federal resources, including those
established under more general authority without specific direction on their use in disasters, to
support response operations.
CRS also has a number of available reports that analyze federal authorities for disaster assistance,
including the authorizing legislation for deployable federal assets.31
Policies
The National Response Framework (NRF) is the foremost policy that guides “how the Nation
responds to all types of disasters and emergencies ... [and] describes specific authorities and
best practices for managing incidents that range from the serious but purely local to large-
scale terrorist attacks or catastrophic natural disasters.”32 As a national policy, it is intended to
guide not just federal response operations, but also local, state, and tribal government response
operations, and the response operations of the private and non-profit sectors. The NRF also
establishes 14 different Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) to organize the response
capabilities of the nation.33 Mainly through supplementary documents to the NRF, including a
28 Sec. 403 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5170b.
29 Sec. 502 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5192.
30 Sec. 102(1) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5122(1).
31 As examples among others, see:
• CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities,
and Funding, by Francis X. McCarthy;
• CRS Report R43251, Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework, by David M. Bearden
and Jonathan L. Ramseur;
• CRS Report RL33579, The Public Health and Medical Response to Disasters: Federal Authority and Funding, by
Sarah A. Lister;
• CRS Report R42659, The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian
Law, by Charles Doyle and Jennifer K. Elsea; and
• CRS Report R42114, Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Overview and Discussion of Proposed Revisions,
by Eric A. Fischer.
32 See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Response Framework, Second Edition, May 2013, p. 1, at
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=7371. For extensive support documents and presentations on the NRF,
see http://www.fema.gov/nrf/.
33 ESFs group agencies with pertinent authorities, resources, and expertise to accomplish a set of capabilities needed in
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Federal Interagency Operational Plan (FIOP), ESF annexes, incident annexes, and other support
annexes, the NRF sets out specific responsibilities of federal agencies involved in the response
operations. Although the NRF is often closely linked with the Stafford Act, the NRF is always in
effect and does not require a formal Stafford Act declaration to be used. Any disaster requiring
federal coordination, including those declared under other federal authorities, arguably can be
managed through the NRF.
A central guideline of the NRF is the National Incident Management System (NIMS).34 Originally
conceived of in Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5),35 NIMS is now mandated
in law for the federal government and strongly encouraged for state and local governments
through requirements to grant assistance.36 NIMS is a preparedness and response management
model that incorporates the Incident Command System (ICS). ICS is a command and control
system and structure originally developed by firefighters as a means of providing cohesive
response to multijurisdictional (or multidepartment) incidents. ICS standardizes response
operations by using similar terminology, communication systems, and organizational structures to
eliminate or reduce confusion during a unified response.37 NIMS uses ICS concepts to establish a
response structure that is scalable (capable of growing as more organizations come together to
respond to the incident) and that can be used by all jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations to
ensure a unified response to complex events.
Another significant federal policy is set forth by Defense Support for Civilian Authorities
(DSCA) regulations and DOD directives.38 DSCA guides the use of DOD deployable federal
assets in accordance with the Constitution and other legal requirements. There are also many
incident-specific planning guidelines, such as the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza,39
which provide critical guidance on the use of deployable federal assets for those incidents.
(...continued)
disaster response, regardless of disaster type. For instance, ESF #9 is “Search and Rescue,” which unifies agencies with
the appropriate resources and authorities to conduct search and rescue operations following an incident. Each ESF has a
coordinating agency, typically several different primary agencies, and a larger number of support agencies. There were
originally 15 ESFs in earlier versions of the NRF, but one, ESF #14—Long-term Community Recovery, was replaced
by the National Disaster Recovery Framework.
34 Extensive information about NIMS is available from FEMA on its website at http://www.fema.gov/national-incident-
management-system.
35 Executive Office of the President, Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5: Management of Domestic Incidents,
February 28, 2003, at https://www.dhs.gov/publication/homeland-security-presidential-directive-5.
36 See, among others, 6 U.S.C. § 314(a)(2)(b). The requirement for NIMS adoption and training is embedded in both
the Homeland Security Grant Program and Emergency Management Performance Grant program.
37 For example, prior to ICS, a police and fire department responding to the same incident might use different command
structures and communicate with different terms. For instance, a “code blue” for one department might mean
something else for another. The organization’s structure might also be different, as a “chief” in one department might
have a different role and responsibility in another. ICS (and NIMS) is therefore an attempt to eliminate potential
confusion caused by these differences.
38 DOD regulatory guidance for DSCA is contained in DOD Directive 3025.18, Defense Support of Civil Authorities,
December 29, 2010 (incorporating change 1, September 21, 2012), at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/
302518p.pdf. The joint doctrinal publication on this topic is Joint Publication 3-28, Defense Support of Civil
Authorities, July 31, 2013, at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_28.pdf.
39 Executive Office of the President, Homeland Security Council, National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza, November
2005, at http://www.flu.gov/planning-preparedness/federal/pandemic-influenza-strategy-2005.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Considerations for Congress
There are several policy issues that Congress may consider when evaluating future authorization
and funding for various deployable federal assets. Though each deployable federal asset has
unique oversight issues, the following sections of this report discuss cross-cutting matters related
to oversight of these assets as a whole.
Policy Benefits and Disadvantages of Deployable Federal Assets
There are several theoretical policy benefits and disadvantages that may result from authorization
and appropriation of deployable federal assets by Congress. In the following section, several of
these salient benefits and disadvantages, rooted in macroeconomic and social science theory, are
discussed briefly. These benefits and disadvantages are largely a result of the federalism structure
of the nation, and may also apply to the provision of deployable assets by states. In other words,
to a different degree, the authorization and appropriation of deployable assets by state legislatures
may result in similar benefits and disadvantages.
Benefits
The authority and funding for deployable federal assets can be considered a form of risk pooling.
It allows the nation, as a whole, to combine or “pool” uncorrelated hazard risk (such as from
earthquakes and terrorist attacks), and the response capability requirements associated with those
risks (such as mass care and power generation capabilities). Essentially, not every local, state, or
tribal government may use the response capabilities provided by a certain deployable asset within
a given time frame (a year, or decade), but each may be attempting to manage the risk of needing
such an asset from a variety of hazards. For example, consider the federal government’s
resourcing of DOD Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Response (CBRN) Forces.
Every community in the nation faces some low level of risk (though not uniform) that a hazard
will produce consequences that these assets have a capability to address. If communities are able
to pool their risk through the centralized federal capability, each may be able to ensure they have
access to the capability when required without maintaining the asset wholly on its own. Risk
pooling also occurs at a local, state, and tribal government level through emergency management
mutual-aid agreements.
An associated benefit of this risk pooling is that the federal government may be able to provide
the response capabilities of deployable federal assets at a lower cost than smaller governments,
due to economies of scale.40 For example, the per unit “production” cost of the capabilities
provided by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Planning and Response Teams may be significantly
less at the federal level than at a state or local level. Reductions in the cost of production may
occur because the federal government gains efficiencies in the costs of training and equipping the
larger number of units the nation requires instead of the one or two units that might be required at
the state or local level.
40 An economy of scale is “A situation in which the average cost of production decreases as production increases.” See
Dictionary of the Social Sciences, ed. Craig Calhoun (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002).
Congressional Research Service
9
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Disadvantages
There are also possible disadvantages with the establishment of deployable federal assets. The
mere existence and use of federal response capabilities provided by deployable federal assets may
produce a type of moral hazard.41 The moral hazard may occur if and when non-federal actors,
including other government entities and private citizens, increase their risk exposure to hazards
under the reasonable expectation that the federal government will provide sufficient response
capabilities when needed to address disaster consequences. Observers have argued that moral
hazard may result from most forms of federal disaster assistance, especially financial assistance.42
In the context of deployable federal assets, for example, the establishment of federal firefighting
capabilities may deter other governmental actors and private individuals from mitigating their
wildfire risk, or encourage potentially risky development in the wildland-urban interface.43
Another theoretical disadvantage is that federal provision of response capabilities may crowd
out44 investment in those same capabilities by other actors, including the private sector. As such,
other actors may be less likely, or even unable, to develop their own response capabilities due to
federal investments. For example, the federal government’s investment in the capabilities
provided by the 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power) may raise the cost of similar energy-
related response capabilities for non-federal actors. Or, the federal government’s investment in
Federal Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs) may crowd out the investment of other
actors in highly trained and skilled emergency managers, because the federal government is both
dominating the supply of a potentially limited resource and driving up its cost to other potential
purchasers. The crowding out may be less problematic if it only decreases the investment of non-
federal government entities, but does not reduce the investment from the private sector or
individual citizens. If true, local governments may be simply transferring the financial
responsibility to the federal government for the investment in a capability, though such
commitment is still coming from the national tax base. However, if the government’s spending
crowds out private sector investment (e.g., critical infrastructure owners and operators) in
response capabilities, it may be more problematic for the nation’s risk profile as the investment
may reduce the nation’s aggregate supply of capabilities and increase the taxpayer’s proportional
burden for providing those capabilities. For example, if the private sector provides less of a
capability because of the crowd-out effect, the nation may have less of the capability in total. To
compensate for the loss of private sector investment, either partially or entirely, the resulting
government expenditure on the capability may increase, thus increasing taxpayer costs.
41 A moral hazard “refers to the possibility that policies or decisions may create incentives for undesirable behavior.
Moral hazards often arise where the monitoring of contracts is difficult or where policies diminish the risks associated
with certain kinds of behavior.” See Dictionary of the Social Sciences, ed. Craig Calhoun (New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, 2002).
42 See, for example, discussion of the potential moral hazard of disaster assistance at Raymond J. Burby, “Hurricane
Katrina and the Paradoxes of Government Disaster Policy: Bringing about Wise Governmental Decisions for
Hazardous Areas,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 604 (March 2006).
43 For more on wildfire protection, see CRS Report RS21880, Wildfire Protection in the Wildland-Urban Interface, by
Kelsi Bracmort.
44 Crowding out is “the fall in private consumption or investment resulting from a rise in government expenditure.” See
Dictionary of the Social Sciences, ed. Craig Calhoun (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002).
Congressional Research Service
10
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Cost-Effectiveness of Various Models for Staffing Federal Assets
As deployable assets continue to be resourced, Congress may wish to evaluate the cost-
effectiveness of various models of staffing deployable federal assets. These models are not
mutually exclusive. Even within the selection of samples of deployable federal assets covered in
this report, there is considerable diversity in how personnel are employed by the federal
government—if they are employed by the government directly at all. Below are a few short
examples of how deployable assets are staffed.
• Conditional employment: In this model, assets are significantly staffed by
federal employees on term-limited, seasonal, or reserve appointments. For
example, personnel of Forest Service Firefighting Assets are often seasonal
employees, typically only working as temporary agency employees during the
length of the fire season. This conditional employment model may accrue savings
in salaries and benefits, but may decrease the effectiveness of the capability by
reducing the available training time for employees or discouraging highly
qualified employees from continuing their service. It may also generate a higher
turnover employment ratio in the asset.
• Dedicated versus multiuse staffing: A dedicated staffing model means that the
sole mission and job description of the employee revolves around their
participation and responsibilities with the deployable federal asset. A multiuse
staffing model means the employee has one or more additional responsibilities,
and is only dedicated to the mission of the deployable asset during activations or
trainings. As examples, personnel of the Transportation Security Administration’s
(TSA’s) Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) Teams may be
multiuse staff, as the team may be comprised of various different DHS/TSA staff
elements with other, primary assigned duties, such as Federal Air Marshals. In
contrast, Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs) and Federal Disaster Recovery
Coordinators (FDRCs) are full-time employees dedicated exclusively to their
deployable mission. Much of the assessment on cost-effectiveness of the two
models has to do with frequency of use for the capabilities of the asset, and the
level of specialized training that is required to maintain their operational
readiness. An additional disadvantage that should be considered when evaluating
the multiuse model is the impact deployments have on the execution of their
alternate missions, and whether those missions could continue to be performed if
the employees were deployed at greater than expected lengths of time.
• “Federalization” or “Activation” employment model: This staffing model
generally means that a majority or all of the employees of a deployable federal
asset are not regularly employed or paid by the federal government. Rather, the
employees may be public employees of other government entities (e.g., state or
local agencies), or even private citizens with specialized skills (e.g., physicians).
The President or other federal government official has the authority to
“federalize” or “activate” the asset, and in doing so, may pay the salaries of the
employees while deployed, and grant the employee many of the benefits and
protections afforded to permanent federal employees. Typically, these assets also
receive some level of regular federal funding for training, equipment, and other
needs. The National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Task Forces and
components of the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) use variations of
this staffing model. Benefits of this model include that it may leverage non-
Congressional Research Service
11
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
federal expertise in national response operations from citizens that otherwise
would not be interested or incentivized to join the federal government. This
model may also be the most cost-effective, as it may limit federal expenditures
when the asset is not being used nationally. However, disadvantages of this
model include a restricted ability to manage the quality of training and
capabilities of personnel staffing in the asset, and greater challenges integrating
the asset into the ICS structure with other assets.
Financing the Deployment of Federal Response Assets
In general, costs to maintain a deployable federal response asset—such as rostering and training
of personnel and maintenance of equipment—are predictable, and are provided through a
standing funding mechanism, typically the annual appropriation to the responsible agency.
Deployment costs, or those costs related to using the asset to provide direct assistance to a
community, may not have regular funding mechanisms. For some types of incidents and
deployable assets, Congress has provided, or agencies have developed, various mechanisms to
bear the largely unpredictable costs of deployments. For other types of incidents and deployable
assets, there is no such established mechanism. In these cases, Congress may provide
supplemental appropriations, or responsible agencies must bear deployment costs through other
funds available in their annual budgets. Specific mechanisms to fund maintenance and
management costs are discussed in the summaries of specific deployable assets later in this
report. Selected types of funding mechanisms and challenges in funding deployments are
discussed in general below.
The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) is a common source of deployment funding for direct federal
assistance authorized by the Stafford Act.45 When an emergency or major disaster is declared
under the Stafford Act, FEMA officials, through the delegated authorities of the President, may
direct other federal agencies to provide assistance to the affected communities through mission
assignments. Mission assignments are formal work orders for specific activities and/or assets
under Stafford Act authority. Typically, mission assignments are provided to federal agencies with
the promise of reimbursement of costs through the DRF.46 Depending on the details of the disaster
declaration, some of these costs may be shared by the state or tribal government, with a minimum
of 75% of the cost being covered by the federal government.47
Although the DRF, via mission assignments, is a significant source of funding for many
deployable federal assets, not all federal activities during Stafford Act declared incidents may be
paid for through the DRF. In practice, FEMA generally avoids paying for the deployment of
assets through the DRF when the capability of the asset is a normally authorized activity of the
45 For more on the DRF, see CRS Report R43537, FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund: Overview and Selected Issues, by
Bruce R. Lindsay.
46 Mission assignments rely on the President’s authority to direct federal agencies to support disaster response and
recovery operations, namely found at Sec. 402, 403, and 502 of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 5170a, 5170b, and
5192). See Federal Emergency Management Agency, Financial Management Support Annex, National Response
Framework, May 2013, at http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/32264?id=7387. Specific examples of
mission assignments are available through daily mission assignment activity reports published on FEMA’s website at
http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/30824?id=6984.
47 See, primarily, Sec. 403(c)(4) of the Stafford Act, (42 U.S.C. § 5170b(c)(4). For more on disaster cost-shares in
Stafford Act declarations, see CRS Report R41101, FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis, by Francis
X. McCarthy.
Congressional Research Service
12
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
agency, or when the agency has a more specific authority to provide emergency assistance for a
particular disaster consequence than is written in the Stafford Act. For example, FEMA, as a
matter of policy, has determined that it generally will not provide funding to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers or the Natural Resources Conservation Service to provide emergency protective
measures48 related to the rehabilitation of levees and other flood control works.49 Therefore, in
such circumstances, federal agencies may require another source of funding to pay for these
activities during deployment in Stafford Act declared incidents.
There are also many types of incidents where a Stafford Act declaration is not made and certain
federal response assets may still be deployed. This most regularly occurs when assets are
deployed in a preventive or precautionary role at National Special Security Events (NSSEs), such
as presidential inaugurations and major sporting events. Although these events are predictable
and, barring an incident, deployment costs may be modest, NSSEs do not trigger assistance
through the Stafford Act and do not have any other blanket funding mechanism to cover asset
deployment costs.50 Often the responsible agencies cover deployment costs through the
administrative budgets for the specific assets.
Generally, federal agencies are not allowed to augment their funding from outside sources unless
specifically authorized by Congress. These issues are covered by the general area of law called
augmentation of appropriations,51 and can inhibit federal agencies from using any source of
funding other than direct appropriations from Congress to pay for the cost of deployments.
Absent statutory authorization, federal agencies are generally restricted from accepting private
funding to pay for the deployment of federal assets or other federal activities (e.g., accepting
money from a private company for the use of an asset to restore electrical power to the company’s
facilities).52 Federal agencies are also generally restricted from receiving unreimbursed assistance
from employees of deployable federal assets, or from receiving the volunteer assistance of the
general public to serve in any official federal capacity.53
As an example of how Congress may address these funding challenges, consider the 2009
influenza pandemic. When an incident results in a Stafford Act declaration, reimbursement is
often available through the DRF to reimburse agencies for many activities carried out as part of
ESF #8—Public Health and Medical Services, coordinated by the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS).54 However, a Stafford Act declaration was not made in response to the
48 Emergency protective measures is generally defined by FEMA as activities necessary to “eliminate or reduce an
immediate threat to life, public health, or safety; or eliminate or reduce an immediate threat of significant damage to
improved public or private property through cost-effective measures.” See Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 322, 2007, p. 71, at http://www.fema.gov/public-assistance-policy-and-guidance.
49 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Rehabilitation Assistance for Levees and other Flood Control Works,
RP9524.3, September 23, 2011, p. 2, at https://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/pa/9524_3.pdf.
50 For more on NSSEs, see CRS Report R43522, National Special Security Events: Fact Sheet, by Shawn Reese.
51 For a full discussion of augmentation of appropriations, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Principles of
Federal Appropriations Law, Third Edition, Volume II, GAO-06-382SP, February 2006, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/
210/202819.pdf.
52 31 U.S.C. § 3302.
53 31 U.S.C. § 1342.
54 Even when there is a Stafford Act declaration, FEMA does not reimburse for health care costs except for such care
required to provide immediate emergency care, evacuation, and stabilization. See FEMA Recovery Policy 9525.4,
“Emergency Medical Care and Medical Evacuations,” February 3, 2014, at http://www.fema.gov/9500-series-policy-
publications.
Congressional Research Service
13
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
2009 influenza pandemic, and there is no precedent for a major disaster declaration in response to
an infectious disease incident, whether naturally occurring, or bioterrorism.55 Furthermore, there
is no standing federal mechanism to cover the costs of health care that is provided as part of a
disaster response. Congress provided supplemental appropriations to fund the response to the
2009 influenza pandemic,56 and to cover unreimbursed healthcare costs associated with the
response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.57
Congress has also established two dedicated trust funds—managed by the U.S. Coast Guard and
the Environmental Protection Agency respectively—to finance the costs of a federal response to a
discharge of oil or release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Each agency is
responsible for disbursing monies from these trust funds to other federal departments and
agencies, states, and local entities that may be involved in a federal response. The federal
government may recover its response costs from the liable party (or parties) and may use these
funds to replenish the respective trust fund, with the exception of the costs of responding to
pollutant or contaminant incidents for which liability is not established. These funding
mechanisms are discussed further in the “National Response System for Oil and Chemical Spills”
section of this report.
Federalism and Operational Control
As previously discussed, the federal government generally provides disaster assistance, including
deployable federal assets, at the request of a state or tribal government. In addition, the federal
government almost always operates in a support role in the affected communities. While federal
assets, especially federal troops, generally remain in the control of the federal officials, the set of
unmet needs they are tasked with addressing is largely dictated by the incident commanders at the
local or state level. In other words, federal resources are provided at the discretion of the affected
entities, in deference to federalism principles, with a lesser degree of executive decision-making
on their use being made by federal officials.
This can create situations where the federal government is providing considerable support with
limited authority to direct the overall management of the incident. For example, this could result
in disagreements over tactical decisions such as where to prioritize search and rescue operations,
the best way to triage and manage mass care requirements of survivors, and what critical services
should or can be restored before other services. Congress may wish to consider whether the
provision of federal assistance should grant the federal government more decision-making power
if disagreements arise in the incident management. On the positive side of the argument, greater
federal authority may more easily allow the application of lessons learned from other disasters to
the current incident if the state or local incident command has less experience to draw on. It may
also increase regional coordination of a response by allowing federal officials to influence
decisions across a unified command structure. Further, federal assets may be able to place greater
priority on addressing the consequences of a disaster that have national implications versus more
55 CRS Report RL34724, Would an Influenza Pandemic Qualify as a Major Disaster Under the Stafford Act?, by
Edward C. Liu.
56 See the Supplemental Appropriations Act, FY2009 (P.L. 111-32). For discussion of the supplement funding required
and the overall H1N1 incident, see CRS Report R40554, The 2009 Influenza Pandemic: An Overview, by Sarah A.
Lister and C. Stephen Redhead.
57 For discussion, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Hurricane Katrina: Allocation and Use of $2 Billion for
Medicaid and Other Health Care Needs, GAO-07-67, February 28, 2007, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-67.
Congressional Research Service
14
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
localized implications.58 On the negative side, any changes to federal authority that allow the
federal government to have greater operational control over state and local response management
may dissuade such entities from requesting assistance in the first place. Further, local knowledge
and expertise on the unmet needs of the affected population may be sidelined or underappreciated
by federal officials, to the detriment of the survivors. Also, the possibility that the federal
government could “overrule” a local command decision may lead to breakdowns in the NIMS
structure that would have negative impacts on all response operations.
Challenges in Monitoring and Evaluating Deployable Federal
Assets
In Congress’s oversight of federal operations, Congress may face numerous challenges when
attempting to monitor and evaluate the benefits of deployable federal assets in supporting
response operations.
These challenges include:
• The use of deployable federal assets is a relatively rare occurrence, though some
are used much more frequently than others.59 Also, reporting by the federal
government on the use of its assets, even in raw numbers, is limited,60 making it
difficult to assess the percentage of incidents that result in the provision of one or
more deployable federal assets.61
• Analyzing the benefits of deployable federal assets based on a roughly
comparable counterfactual scenario62 may be difficult because of the uniqueness
of each disaster and the particular capabilities of each local government.63
58 For example, federal assets may be more likely to restore nodes of critical infrastructure systems needed to avoid or
remediate cascading impacts outside the immediately affected area (e.g., pipelines transporting natural gas through the
affected region that do not provide service to the immediate area, or a local dam that provides regional power
generation) instead of focusing on the restoration of critical infrastructure providing end service of the community (e.g.,
power transmission lines to residential or commercial areas, or reducing flooding in local transportation hubs).
59 Some assets, such as Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs) and Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinators (FDRCs)
are used far more frequently than others, such as the Department of Defense Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and
Nuclear (CBRN) Response Forces.
60 As an example statistic on usage, National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) assets have been used more than 300
times since 1984. However, it is unclear what incidents provoked these deployments, what kinds of NDMS assets were
deployed, for how long, and where the assets deployed. As another example, it is clear that for every emergency or
major disaster declaration under the Stafford Act, a Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) and Federal Disaster Recovery
Coordinator (FDRC) will deploy. However, it is unclear how many times, and for what circumstances, a Federal
Disaster Recovery Coordinator (FDRC) will deploy.
61 Further, in order to calculate a percentage of incidents resulting in the assistance of a deployable federal asset, one
must be able to determine the number of incidents that non-federal government entities respond to and manage without
such support. For example, one might argue that all multi-car accidents should be counted as incidents, or that every
five alarm fire is an incident, etc. Depending on where the consequence threshold is set for what constitutes an incident,
the percentage of incidents that involve federal assets will change significantly.
62 In other words, evaluating the benefit of a federal asset by comparing the results of incidents where federal assistance
was provided versus incidents where assistance was not provided.
63 For example, consider the following hypothetical scenarios. Incident A, where federal assets were deployed, involves
a tornado that destroyed public infrastructure including schools and hospitals in a community but had limited impact on
residential areas. Incident B involves another tornado of relatively equal magnitude that hit a residential area resulting
in greater casualties and housing needs but less damage to public infrastructure. The Incident A community has
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
15
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
• The authorizations and appropriations for many deployable federal assets have a
low degree of specification. For example, many assets draw their authority from
broadly worded provisions in statute,64 and others are appropriated by Congress
in large, unspecific accounts.65 Without a higher degree of specification in
authorization or appropriation, the existence and use of the deployable asset may
not generate significant oversight attention. This may also lead to limited
reporting by the executive branch on the activities of the asset through the annual
budgeting and appropriation process, to include a lack of detailed information in
documents like agency budget justifications.
Thus, in general, the limited use of deployable federal assets and the unique circumstances of
each disaster result in a small sample size that Congress and others can use to evaluate the
benefits of the capabilities provided by the asset. This sample size may be expanded, however,
when it includes numerous national, regional, and local discussions-based and operations-based
response exercises.66
Given the above challenges, the recommendations of after-action reports (AARs) and the
implementation of subsequent after-action report improvement plans (AAR-IPs), for both real
incidents and exercises, may help inform Congress in its oversight of the use of deployable
federal assets. AARs and AAR-IPs are generally developed by both the respective state and
federal governments after significant real-world incidents and full-scale exercises, and frequently
by the affected local governments as well. However, these evaluations often tend to be produced
by the responding or exercising agency—either directly or by contract to a third party—and
therefore may lack independent objectivity. Through these documents, Congress may discover
general thematic issues that limit the effectiveness of deployable federal assets, or be able to
highlight shortcomings with the capabilities of a particular asset. For example, following
Hurricane Sandy, both FEMA and the White House produced AARs that highlighted federal
challenges requiring improvement, including some on the use of deployable federal assets.67 Of
(...continued)
significant pre-existing capabilities for mass care of survivors, but limited capabilities for essential infrastructure
restoration; and in Incident B, the community had the reverse strengths and capabilities. Evaluating the effectiveness of
using deployable federal assets in Incident A by comparing the results of not using the assets in Incident B would
involve controlling for the divergence in both the consequences of the “comparable” tornados and the pre-existing
community capabilities.
64 For example, most of the deployable federal asset assistance provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
broadly authorized by the Flood Control and Coastal Emergency Act, P.L. 84-99 (33 U.S.C. § 701n), which may
obscure the full scope and importance of the assets to domestic emergency management.
65 For example, Incident Management Assistance Teams are explicitly authorized in law (42 U.S.C. § 5144), but
receive funding through the Disaster Relief Fund account at FEMA. No specific information regarding their budgetary
cost was included in any of the agency’s FY2015 budget justification documents.
66 As defined by the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP), discussion-based exercises
include “seminars, workshops, tabletop exercises (TTXs), and games. These types of exercises can be used to
familiarize players with, or develop new, plans, policies, agreements, and procedures. Discussion-based exercises focus
on strategic, policy-oriented issues.” Operations-based exercises “include drills, functional exercises (FEs), and full-
scale exercises (FSEs). These exercises can be used to validate plans, policies, agreements, and procedures; clarify
roles and responsibilities; and identify resource gaps. Operations-based exercises are characterized by actual reaction to
an exercise scenario, such as initiating communications or mobilizing personnel and resources.” See the Department of
Homeland Security, Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP), April 2013, pp. 2-4 and 2-5, at
https://www.llis.dhs.gov/HSEEP/Documents/homeland-security-exercise-and-evaluation-program-hseep.
67 For example, in a FEMA-specific AAR for Hurricane Sandy, it was noted that the deployment of so many FEMA
employees to the response had a negative impact on the ability of many FEMA components to continue their normal
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
16
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
note, Congress’s ability to use AARs and AAR-IPs in its oversight may be hindered—but not
stopped—by the security classification of some documents, given their sensitivity to national
security.68
Brief Summaries of Sample Federal Assets
This section of the report provides brief summaries of examples of deployable federal assets that
can support disaster response operations. This section of the report is not comprehensive, and
does not provide an exhaustive list of every federal asset that may be used to address a multitude
of unique needs that can arise when responding to the plethora of hazards facing the nation. For
instance, this section does not contain summaries of an array of specialized, law enforcement
response assets provided by the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security to
respond to the consequences of intentional hazards, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s
Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG).69 Also, cyber-related response teams, such as DHS’s
United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) are not summarized below.70
Table 1 reviews the basic information provided in each summary of sample deployable federal
assets. Each summary begins with the contact information of the relevant CRS expert available to
answer further questions from Congress on the asset. Additional CRS expertise is available to
address questions on other assets not summarized in the report.71
(...continued)
functions (and could have had a worse impact if another incident arose). Thus, FEMA noted it needed to incorporate
the impact of deploying federal personnel has on its continuity of operation plans. Likewise, an interagency AAR led
by the White House made a number of recommendations on how the federal response to future disasters could be
improved based on lessons learned during Hurricane Sandy. Respectively, see Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Hurricane Sandy FEMA After-Action Report, July 1, 2013, p. 34, at http://www.fema.gov/media-library/
assets/documents/33772; and Executive Office of the President, Federal Interagency Sandy After-Action Review Team,
The Federal Response to Hurricane Sandy After-Action Report, For Official Use Only, June 1, 2013.
68 This is especially true for documents related to intentional hazards (e.g., terrorist attacks).
69 For more information on the Critical Incident Response Group, see the FBI’s website at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/
cirg.
70 Given the nature of a cyber-related hazard and disaster, the US-CERT and other federal assets may not, but
potentially could, physically “deploy” but instead support response operations remotely. For more information on the
United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team, see DHS’s website at http://www.us-cert.gov/.
71 Requests can be directed to the coordinator of this report for any unlisted asset, at jbrown@crs.loc.gov or 7-4918.
Congressional Research Service
17
Table 1. Synopsis of Examples of Deployable Federal Assets
Managing
Department(s)/
Example of Asset
Agency(s)
Primary Authority
Brief Description of Duties
Incident Management Assistance Teams
DHS/FEMA
42 U.S.C. §5144
Provide on-scene incident command capabilities and identify and satisfy
(IMATs)
initial requirements for federal assistance. Serve in core responsibilities
in ICS structure for federal assistance to local disasters and for
federally led incidents.
Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs)
DHS/FEMA
42 U.S.C. §5143
Coordinate al federal assistance to affected state(s)/tribe(s) in Stafford
Act declared emergencies or disasters.
Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Teams
DHS/FEMA
6 U.S.C. §722
Provide specialized assistance locating and rescuing victims after
buildings or other structures collapse, or in response to natural
hazards such as landsides or earthquakes.
Visible Intermodal Prevention and
DHS/TSA
6 U.S.C. §1112
Deploys transportation security assets (e.g. security inspectors, air
Response (VIPR) Teams
marshals, and canine teams) to specific locations and events as needed.
Protective Security Advisors (PSAs)
DHS/NPPD
6 U.S.C. §121(d)(6)
Anticipate and assess damage to the area’s critical infrastructure
assets, including assessing the potential for cascading effects due to
interdependencies among those assets. They also can help prioritize
re-entry and recovery efforts related to critical infrastructure.
U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned HHS/ASH
42 U.S.C. §§202-233
Provide medical and public health workforce surge capacity in
Corps
response to mass casualty incidents and other public health
emergencies.
Strategic National Stockpile
HHS/CDC
42 U.S.C. §247d-6b
Provide medicine and medical supplies when a public health emergency
has overwhelmed local supplies. Also contains unique supplies to
respond to certain chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological
agents.
Forest Service Firefighting Assets
USDA/FS
16 U.S.C. §551
Response assistance can be delivered in many forms, including
firefighting support, fire suppression and assistance planning, command
and control support, emergency road clearing, logistics facility support,
radio/communications system support, and cache support for mass
care shelters.
CRS-18
Managing
Department(s)/
Example of Asset
Agency(s)
Primary Authority
Brief Description of Duties
General Purpose Forces
DOD
Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S.
Units of the Armed Forces possess capabilities that can be used during
Code
disaster response missions, such as transportation, medical,
communications, engineering, and logistics units.
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and
DOD/National
Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S.
Provide specialized response capabilities to major domestic CBRN
Nuclear (CBRN) Response Forces
Guard
Code, general y, plus 50 U.S.C.
incidents.
§2314, and other provisions of
law.
Planning and Response Teams (PRTs)
DOD/USACE
33 U.S.C. §701n
Perform Army Corps emergency response functions, which include:
provision of ice, water, emergency power, debris removal, temporary
housing, temporary roofing, and structural safety assessments.
249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power)
DOD/USACE
33 U.S.C. §701n
Provide technical expertise and operational assistance in all aspects of
power and electrical systems generation and distribution in support of
contingency and emergency response operations to assist with power
emergencies especially for life-saving and life-sustaining facilities like
hospitals, shelters, water and sewer facilities, and police and fire
stations.
National Transportation Safety Board
NTSB
49 U.S.C. §1136 and §1139
Provide assistance to families of passengers involved in major aviation
Disaster Assistance
and passenger rail disasters.
National Response System assets (for oil
EPA, DHS/USCG
33 U.S.C §1321(j); 33 U.S.C.
Coordinate federal actions and deployment of federal assets to
spills and releases of hazardous
§2701 et seq.; and 42 U.S.C.
respond to discharges of oil into U.S. waters and adjoining shorelines,
substances, pol utants, or contaminants)
§9601 et seq.
and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants into
the environment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) serves as the lead federal
agency in the inland zone, and the U.S. Coast Guard serves as the lead
federal agency in the coastal zone.
The lead federal agency also coordinates participation of state and
local governments, and non-governmental entities, including the party
(or parties) liable for the incident.
National Disaster Medical System assets
HHS, DOD, and
42. U.S.C. §300hh-11
Provide on-scene and local medical care, patient evacuation, and
VA
definitive medical care in response to mass casualty incidents.
Source: CRS.
CRS-19
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Department of Homeland Security Assets
Federal Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs)
Jared T. Brown, Analyst in Homeland Security and Emergency Management Policy
(jbrown@crs.loc.gov, 7-4918)
Purpose and Responsibilities
Federal Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs) are a relatively new federal asset
managed by FEMA, though they evolved from a previous deployable federal asset called
Emergency Response Teams (ERTs). The IMATs’ primary mission is to provide on-scene incident
command capabilities and to work with the affected community to identify and satisfy initial
requirements for federal assistance. In practice, IMATs form the core command structure guiding
and managing federal assistance to the response operation. In doing so, an IMAT is able to assist
the state and local management of a response operation. FEMA also trains IMATs in the
management of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives (CBRNE) incidents.72
In addition to major disasters and emergencies declared under the Stafford Act, IMATs may
deploy in advance of an incident (e.g., before landfall of a hurricane), for special events (e.g., a
Super Bowl or national political convention), and for national level exercises.
The structure and concept of operations for IMATS are currently being revised by FEMA, and
thus are subject to change in the future. The new revisions to the design of IMATs have been
made, in part, because of lessons learned from the large-scale deployment during Hurricane
Sandy.73 As currently envisioned by FEMA, there will be 3 national IMATs and 13 regional
IMATs. Each national IMAT will have an Incident Command System (ICS) structure filled by 33
term-appointed FEMA employees74 and will be led by a member of the Senior Executive Service
(SES, who could possibly be a current or former Federal Coordinating Officer, described below).
FEMA is also seeking one team member each from nine different departments/agencies.75 Each of
the regional IMATs will be staffed by 12 term-appointed FEMA employees. All personnel will
have specialized training and experience in the key areas of an ICS structure, to include
72 Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Disaster Relief Fund Fiscal Year 2015
Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8. The full DHS Congressional budget justification is available at
http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS-Congressional-Budget-Justification-FY2015.pdf.
73 Executive Office of the President, Federal Interagency Sandy After-Action Review Team, The Federal Response to
Hurricane Sandy After-Action Report, For Official Use Only, June 1, 2013.
74 These employees are called “CORE” employees, which stands for Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery Employees.
According to FEMA, these employees “are hired to work for a specific, limited period, between two to four years.
These positions may be renewed if there is ongoing disaster work and funding is available....” and “are generally
eligible for the same benefits as [full-time] employees, but do not gain competitive status nor career tenure during their
term.” See FEMA’s website on employment options, at http://www.fema.gov/career-paths-fema.
75 In their capacity as Emergency Support Function (ESF) coordinators under the NRF, FEMA is seeking
representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ESF #3—Public Works and Engineering), the Department of
Health and Human Services (ESF #8—Public Health and Medical Services), the Environmental Protection Agency
(ESF #10—Oil and Hazardous Materials), and the Department of Energy (ESF #12—Energy). In addition, FEMA is
seeking the expertise of representatives from the U.S. Coast Guard and the Office of Infrastructure Protection in DHS,
the National Weather Service, the American Red Cross, and a Department of Defense Planning Officer. It is unclear
whether and how these additional departments and agencies have committed employees to the national IMATs.
Congressional Research Service
20
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
operations, planning, and logistics. IMATs are being designed to deploy within 2 hours and arrive
at an incident within 12 hours to support the response operation. The revised IMAT structure has
been implemented for several of the teams, including two national teams and approximately six
regional teams, and is projected to be fully implemented by FY2016.
Authorization and Appropriations
National and regional IMATs are designed to fulfill the roles of specifically authorized assets
called, in statute, an “Emergency Response Team”76 and “regional office strike team,”
respectively.77 Both of these named assets were authorized by the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act (PKEMRA, Title VI of P.L. 109-295), which added the underlying
authorizing language for the concept of IMATs to both the Stafford Act and the Homeland
Security Act of 2002.
Maintenance and operational funding for the salaries of IMAT staff derive from appropriations
made to the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), also administered by FEMA. The DRF is the primary
source of funds for Stafford Act response and recovery operations.78 Current, specific budget
figures from the DRF appropriation for the IMATs are not publically available, though they have
been available in prior years.79 However, when the new IMAT structure is fully implemented in
FY2016, FEMA estimates that the recurring annual costs of maintaining the IMATs will be about
$31.6 million, with an additional, cumulative $19 million in spending as one-time capital costs in
their development.80
Examples of Past Use in Disaster Response Operations
During Hurricane Sandy, FEMA deployed all three national IMATs and nine of the regional
IMATs to support incident management in the large geographic area of affected states and
communities. However, the IMATs used during Hurricane Sandy were constructed and staffed
differently than is currently being designed by FEMA. Since Hurricane Sandy, FEMA has
deployed some of the newly constructed IMATs, especially regional IMATs, to incidents across
the nation. For example, a national IMAT was deployed to assist in the response to the
Washington State, Snohomish County mudslide in March 2014.
76 See Sec. 303 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5144; as added by Sec. 633 of PKEMRA, 120 Stat. 1421.
77 See Sec. 507 of the HSA of 2002, 6 U.S.C. § 317(f); as added by Sec. 611 of PKEMRA, 120 Stat. 1402.
78 For more on the DRF, see CRS Report R43537, FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund: Overview and Selected Issues, by
Bruce R. Lindsay.
79 For example, the Administration requested a total of $13.8 million and 102 positions (95 full time equivalents) for
IMATs in FY2011. See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FY2011 Congressional Justification, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Operations, Management and Administration, 2010, p. 26.
80 Telephone consultation and email correspondence with the Response Directorate, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, April 17, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
21
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs) and Federal Disaster Recovery
Coordinators (FDRCs)
Jared T. Brown, Analyst in Homeland Security and Emergency Management Policy
(jbrown@crs.loc.gov, 7-4918)
Purpose and Responsibilities
A Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) is responsible for the overall coordination and
management of all federal resources and assistance being provided to support a disaster response
operation. In a fashion, the FCO is the “leader” of the federal government’s response and is
tasked with efficiently facilitating the delivery of assistance from a wide array of federal
departments and agencies, including other deployable federal assets. If there are defense assets
involved in the response, DOD may use a Defense Coordinating Element (DCE) led by a Defense
Coordinating Official (DCO) to support the FCO’s coordination of all federal assets. A formal
cadre of FCOs was first established in 1999. Prior to that, FCOs, or officials acting in a similar
capacity to the FCO, were assigned to disasters on an ad hoc basis. There are now approximately
40 FCOs, each of whom is a full time employee of FEMA.81
The role of the FCO has considerable history relative to the more recently established position of
the Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator (FDRC), which was first established by policy in the
National Disaster Recovery Framework.82 The FDRC may serve as a deputy under the FCO when
in the response phase of a disaster, but serves a similar coordinating purpose as the FCO relating
to the provision of federal disaster recovery assistance in the long-term recovery process. There
are approximately 10 FDRCs, each of whom is a full time employee of FEMA.
Authorization and Appropriations
FCOs are directly authorized by the Stafford Act.83 By statute, the President must appoint an FCO
for every Stafford Act emergency and major disaster declaration.84 This requirement does not
apply to FDRCs, who are deployed more selectively based on long-term disaster recovery needs
of the community. FCOs have also been delegated many of the authorities of the President in the
Stafford Act, namely those relating to the coordination of federal resources. Any state or tribe
receiving a Stafford Act declaration is also encouraged, but not required, to appoint a
Coordinating Officer to fulfill similar roles and duties as the FCO, but at the state/tribal level. For
multi-state/tribal incidents producing more than one Stafford Act declaration, the President may
appoint a single FCO and deputy FCOs for affected states/tribes, or appoint one FCO to each
state/tribe.85
81 FCOs and FDRCs are hired as Schedule A, Excepted Service appointments. For a description of this authority, see 5
C.F.R. § 213.3101.
82 Department of Homeland Security, National Disaster Recovery Framework, September 2011, at
http://www.fema.gov/national-disaster-recovery-framework.
83 See Sec. 302 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5143. The role is further described in 44 C.F.R. § 206.42.
84 FCOs may also be used in non-Stafford Act declared incidents to assist communities and coordinate other federal
assistance, but in such situations they would not be vested with the authorities of the Stafford Act.
85 See Sec. 302(c) and (d) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5143.
Congressional Research Service
22
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
The cost of maintaining and deploying FCOs and FDRCs is funded by appropriations to the DRF.
For FY2015, FEMA is requesting funding sufficient for 55 full-time equivalent FCOs/FDRCs
through the DRF. As with IMATs, current, specific budget figures for the FCOs/FDRCs have not
been publically reported by FEMA in recent congressional justification documents. However,
FEMA estimates that the cost of maintaining and deploying 55 FCOs/FDRCs is approximately
$12.9 million in a fiscal year.86
Examples of Past Use in Disaster Response Operations
As an FCO is assigned to every Stafford Act declaration, they regularly support disaster response
operations across the nation. In addition, when an IMAT is deployed to support a response
operation, the FCO will serve as the lead of that team (or the leader of the IMAT will serve in the
capacity of the FCO). However, FCOs may not deploy when an incident first occurs, rather they
may only arrive on-scene, at least in official capacity, after a declaration is made. However,
significant incidents often precipitate Stafford Act disaster declarations by a few hours or a day,
and therefore the FCO cadre is prepared to respond and deploy to a disaster promptly.
National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Task Forces
Bruce R. Lindsay, Analyst in American National Government (blindsay@crs.loc.gov, 7-3752)
Purpose and Responsibilities
National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Task Forces are designated by DHS, and
administered by FEMA, to provide specialized assistance locating victims after buildings or other
structures collapse, or in response to natural hazards such as landsides or earthquakes. Maritime
search and rescue capabilities are generally provided by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Although the national US&R Task Forces are formally state or local government entities, they
may be considered a deployable federal asset because they receive funding, training, and
accreditation from the federal government to provide a national capability. In general, when
deployed, national US&R Task Forces work to stabilize damaged structures, locate and extricate
victims, identify risks of additional collapses, provide medical care for the victims, and meet
other needs at disaster sites. Task Forces are provided as necessary and on request to support the
response to disasters, and may be pre-positioned for certain incidents (such as hurricanes).
National US&R Task Forces may integrate and work in conjunction with other search and rescue
teams/operations. National US&R Task Forces are designed to be ready for deployment in 4 to 6
hours, and on-scene in 24 hours.
There are currently 28 national US&R Task Forces throughout the United States (see Figure 1).
Each Task Force can deploy as either a Type I configuration (with 70 personnel, with an
additional 10 support personnel) or Type III configuration (with 28 personnel, with up to 4
support personnel). However, to ensure that a full Type I team can deploy on short notice, each
Task Force is encouraged to maintain a full roster of 210 personnel (a three-deep roster for a 70-
person Type I team configuration). Each Task Force has unit members with expertise and training
86 Telephone consultation and email correspondence with the Response Directorate, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, April 17, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
23
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
in a variety of skillsets, including engineering, emergency medicine, canine handling, firefighting,
hazardous material handling, communications, logistics, and other areas. There are also three
national Incident Support Teams (ISTs) that are comprised of highly qualified specialists readily
available for rapid assembly and deployment to a disaster area. ISTs provide advice, management
and logistics assistance, and coordination of US&R Task Forces, to the on-scene incident
command. The Task Forces also include specially trained canine units. When activated by FEMA,
Task Force members are appointed as temporary excepted federal volunteers, which is a
designation intended to provide them with liability protection and worker’s compensation.87
Figure 1. National US&R Task Force Teams
Source: FEMA website on US&R Task Forces, at http://www.fema.gov/task-force-locations.
Note: There are no National US&R Task Forces in Hawaii or Alaska.
Authorization
The federal role in urban search and rescue efforts has developed slowly over time. Its roots may
be traced to congressional enactment of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-
124) to stimulate research and planning related to preparation for, and response to, the devastation
of earthquakes. Following establishment of the FEMA in 1979, Congress amended the 1977
statute to require FEMA to serve as lead agency for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program (NEHRP).88
As a consequence of the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989, Congress and FEMA revisited the
scope of the NEHRP. FEMA established the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System
that same year. Also, in the aftermath of that earthquake, Congress passed the National
87 44 C.F.R. § 208.11.
88 94 Stat. 2257.
Congressional Research Service
24
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 1990.89 These amendments to the
1977 statute expanded the federal response authority to include the following charge:
develop, and coordinate the execution of, federal interagency plans to respond to an
earthquake, with specific plans for each high-risk area which ensure the availability of
adequate emergency medical resources, search and rescue personnel and equipment, and
emergency broadcast capability.90
The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA) authorizes the
FEMA Administrator to “lead the nation’s efforts to prepare for, protect against, respond to ... the
risk of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters, including catastrophic
incidents.”91 In addition, the PKEMRA statute established in FEMA the Urban Search and Rescue
Response System.92 Under this authority the FEMA Administrator, and delegates, coordinate the
activities of US&R task forces when called into federal service.
Appropriations
Comprehensive information on US&R funding, to include federal and non-federal sources, is not
readily available. Federal funding for the deployment of the Task Forces in response to Stafford
Act declared major disasters or emergencies is frequently provided through the DRF. In general,
the federal government and sponsoring agencies of national Task Force members (either a state or
local government entity) evenly share the cost of maintaining the Task Force, though the exact
terms of compensation are subject to an agreement negotiated by FEMA and the sponsoring
agency.93 FEMA also provides funding for costs incurred when Task Forces are deployed to
respond to disasters.94 The federal funding to maintain the National US&R System and the Task
Forces is generally directly designated in appropriation bills. Congress appropriated
approximately $41.3 million in FY2012,95 $35.2 million in FY2013,96 and $35.2 million in
FY2014 for the National US&R System and Task Forces.97 For FY2015, FEMA has requested
approximately $27.5 million.98 However, deployment costs for Task Force teams are not
accounted for in these amounts, as these costs are generally provided through the Disaster Relief
Fund when applicable for a Stafford Act declaration.
89 104 Stat. 3231-3243.
90 104 Stat. 3234, 42 U.S.C. § 7704(b)(2)(A)(iv).
91 P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1396, 6 U.S.C. § 313(b)(2).
92 Section 634, P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1421, 6 U.S.C. § 722.
93 44 C.F.R. § 208, Subpart B on Preparedness Cooperative Agreements outlines the allowable expenses covered by
FEMA for maintaining the Task Force.
94 44 C.F.R. § 208, Subpart C on Response Cooperative Agreements outlines the allowable expenses covered by FEMA
for various stages of deployment.
95 P.L. 112-74, 125 Stat. 959.
96 P.L. 113-6, 127 Stat. 357.
97 P.L. 113-76.
98 Department of Homeland Security, FY2015 Congressional Budget Justification, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Salaries and Expenses, Budget Request and Supporting Information, p. 37, at http://www.dhs.gov/publication/
congressional-budget-justification-fy-2015.
Congressional Research Service
25
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Examples of Past Use in Disaster Response Operations
National US&R Task Forces have deployed after the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, the terrorist attacks of 2001, Hurricane Katrina, the Haiti
Earthquake, the Japan earthquake and tsunami, and Hurricane Sandy, among many other notable
disasters. National US&R Task Forces responded to an estimated 53 incidents between 1992 and
2010, accounting for over 316 individual Task Force deployments in both Type I and III
configurations during the time period.99
Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) Teams
Bart Elias, Specialist in Aviation Policy (belias@crs.loc.gov, 7-7771)
Purpose and Responsibilities
Responding to the 2005 terrorist train bombings in Madrid, Spain, the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) developed the Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) team
program. The VIPR program is intended to enhance security across all modes of transportation by
providing TSA assets and capabilities to augment federal, state, and local law enforcement and
security agencies in protecting national assets, critical infrastructure, and facilities in the
transportation domain. VIPR teams may include any combination of DHS assets including
Federal Air Marshals, surface transportation security inspectors, explosives detection canine
teams, and TSA screeners and behavior detection officers. The Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO) may provide these teams with nuclear and radiological detection equipment. The
program is jointly managed by TSA’s Office of Law Enforcement and Federal Air Marshals
Service, which serves as a program lead, and TSA’s Office of Security Operations. VIPR
deployments are coordinated through TSA’s joint coordination center, located at TSA
headquarters in Arlington, VA. The VIPR program uses threat and vulnerability assessments of
transportation infrastructure developed by TSA’s Office of Transportation Sector Network
Management as guidance to inform VIPR field operations regarding the prioritization and
scheduling of deployments.
Authorization and Appropriation
Initially, VIPR teams were deployed under TSA’s broad general authority promulgated in the
Aviation and Transportation Security Act (P.L. 107-71) to protect against threats to all modes of
transportation. Subsequently, the VIPR teams were specifically authorized under the
Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53). Section 1303
of the Act allowed TSA to develop and deploy VIPR teams to augment the security of any mode
of transportation at any location within the United States at times and for durations determined by
TSA.100 Under the legislation, TSA must consult with local security and law enforcement officials
in jurisdictions where the VIPR teams deploy to agree upon operational protocols and collaborate
on mission information as appropriate. Additionally, TSA must consult with all transportation
entities affected by the deployment, including railroad carriers, air carriers, airports, bus and
99 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Review of the National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Response
System, For Official Use Only, March 2012.
100 6 U.S.C. § 1112.
Congressional Research Service
26
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
motor carrier operators, maritime vessel owners and operators, public transportation agencies, and
transportation facility owners and operators. According to DHS, Congress appropriated $89.7
million in FY2013, and $77.2 million in FY2014, for 37 VIPR teams. DHS is requesting $60.6
million for the VIPR program in FY2015, and is planning on reducing the number of VIPR teams
to 33 through the consolidation of previous teams.101
Examples of Past Use in Disaster Response Operations
VIPR teams are often deployed to specific high-profile events that may be targeted by terrorist
groups and to key transportation facilities based on threat assessments and through random
targeting in order to provide an element of unpredictability to potentially disrupt terrorist
activities. VIPR teams thus are intended to operate primarily as a deterrent rather than a critical
incident response resource. DHS estimates that the teams conducted over 15,260 actual
operations in FY2013, though almost entirely as a deterrent—not as a response to a real
incident.102 Nonetheless, in the context of disaster response operations, the VIPR teams may
provide DHS with a coordinated, targeted surge capability to respond to escalating threats or
specific incidents, including possible natural disasters and terrorist attacks that degrade
transportation infrastructure or potential terrorist attacks in which perpetrators may attempt to use
transportation systems to flee, by deploying law enforcement and security screening assets to
transportation facilities.
Protective Security Advisors (PSAs)
John D. Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy (jmoteff@crs.loc.gov, 7-1435)
Protective Security Advisors (PSAs) are field operatives that interact with state Homeland
Security Advisors, state and local law enforcement officials, the owner/operators of critical
infrastructure assets, and other critical infrastructure stakeholders in their district of responsibility.
PSAs are part of the Office of Infrastructure Protection, in the National Protection and Programs
Directorate, of DHS. As of 2010, there were 94 advisors, with at least one advisor for each state
and one in Puerto Rico. In addition to establishing relationships with these stakeholders, PSAs
help to inventory and evaluate critical infrastructure assets and provide DHS with situational
awareness as it relates to critical infrastructure.
Purpose and Responsibilities
PSAs have three primary responsibilities—to help enhance the security of critical infrastructure
assets (primarily by coordinating stakeholder requests for DHS training, grants, and vulnerability
assessments), to provide advice and expertise in response to an emergency or disaster, and to
facilitate information sharing between state and local stakeholders and DHS. The PSA role in
101 DHS is also proposing to consolidate funding for the VIPR program under TSA’s Surface Transportation Security
appropriation, whereas it had previously been funded from three different sources, the Federal Air Marshals (FAMS),
Aviation Security, and Surface Transportation appropriations. See, Department of Homeland Security, FY2015
Congressional Budget Justification, Transportation Security Administration, Surface Transportation Security, Budget
Request and Supporting Information, pp. 23-25, at http://www.dhs.gov/publication/congressional-budget-justification-
fy-2015.
102 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
27
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
disaster response operations is to act as the Infrastructure Liaison between the state/local
emergency operations center(s) and FEMA’s Joint Field Office. In this role, PSAs can help
anticipate and assess damage to the area’s critical infrastructure assets, including assessing the
potential for cascading effects due to interdependencies among those assets. They also can help
prioritize re-entry and recovery efforts related to critical infrastructure.
Authorization and Appropriations
The Protective Security Advisors program is broadly authorized by the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (P.L. 107-296) which gave DHS the authority, among others, to “recommend measures
necessary to protect the key resources and critical infrastructures of the United States in
coordination with State and local government agencies and authorities, the private sector, and
other entities.” In addition, Presidential Policy Directive 21—Critical Infrastructure Security and
Resilience, which updated and replaced the earlier Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7,
assigns the Secretary of Homeland Security the responsibility of coordinating the national effort
to promote the security and resilience of the nation’s critical infrastructure.103
According to the FY2015 budget justification for the National Protection and Programs
Directorate, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security Program, the PSA program
received $11.4 million in FY2013 (after sequestration) and $15.7 million in FY2014. The request
for FY2015 is for $14.6 million.104
Examples of Past or Potential Use in Disaster Response Operations
Examples of how PSAs have been used to support disaster response operations include assisting
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prioritize private sector requests for generators to allow
critical assets to be brought back on line more quickly, and working with Custom and Border
Protection officials to organize helicopter flights to assess damage to power transmission lines.
During Hurricane Sandy, 34 PSAs deployed to federal, state, and local emergency operations
centers in the Northeast region to assist in the communication with critical infrastructure owners
and operators, as well as to help prioritize and coordinate the restoration of critical
infrastructure.105 In general, PSAs may apply their expertise to reduce or prevent damages to
critical infrastructure, thereby enabling the rapid restoration of critical systems during response
operations.
103 Executive Office of the President, Presidential Policy Directive 21—Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience,
February 12, 2013, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-directive-critical-
infrastructure-security-and-resil.
104 Department of Homeland Security, FY2015 Congressional Budget Justification, National Protection and Programs
Directorate, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security, Budget Request and Supporting Information, pp. 23-28,
at http://www.dhs.gov/publication/congressional-budget-justification-fy-2015.
105 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations for 2014, Part 2, 113th Cong., 1st sess., March 20, 2013, 82-379 (Washington: GPO,
2013), p. 661.
Congressional Research Service
28
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Department of Health and Human Services106
U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps
Sarah A. Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology (slister@crs.loc.gov, 7-7320)
Purpose and Responsibilities
The U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Commissioned Corps is a branch of the U.S. uniformed
services, but is not one of the armed services.107 The Corps is based in HHS under the authority of
the U.S. Surgeon General (SG), who is, in turn, under the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH).
USPHS commissioned officers are physicians, nurses, pharmacists, engineers, and other public
health professionals who serve in federal agencies, or as detailees to state or international
agencies, to support a variety of public health activities. Officers may, for example, conduct
biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health or the Environmental Protection Agency.
They may provide healthcare services at Indian Health Service facilities, or at DHS Immigration
and Customs Enforcement facilities. Founded more than 200 years ago, the Corps now employs
more than 6,500 health professionals.
In addition to their routine postings, Corps officers may also participate in short- or long-term
deployments in support of a variety of public health activities. These activities may include
domestic or international disease outbreak response, public health campaigns such as the global
vaccination effort to eradicate polio, and domestic and international disaster response.108
A portion of USPHS commissioned officers are predesignated to participate in incident response
teams under the USPHS Office of Force Readiness and Deployment.109 These teams provide
rapid deployment, incident support, applied public health, mental health, and additional
capabilities.
Authorization and Appropriations
Authority for the Corps is found in Title II of the Public Health Service Act.110 As uniformed
services officers of the United States, Corps officers are subject to more stringent requirements
than are civil service employees. For example, they are considered to be on call 24 hours a day, 7
days per week, unless on leave. They can be reassigned and relocated as needed, and are subject
to involuntary deployment. They may be required to meet certain fitness standards, and to accept
medical treatments and immunizations to assure their continued fitness. Although they are
sometimes deployed to provide public health support for combat operations, they can also be
armed by order of the President to serve in war or an emergency.111 Militarization occurred most
106 Unless otherwise noted, information in this section is drawn from HHS, USPHS Commissioned Corps, at
http://www.usphs.gov/default.aspx.
107 5 U.S.C. § 2101.
108 Such deployments are not generally limited to USPHS commissioned officers, although some may be. HHS
employees in civil service positions also typically participate in such deployments.
109 USPHS Office of Force Readiness and Deployment, at http://ccrf.hhs.gov/ccrf/.
110 Public Health Service Act Secs. 201-224, 42 U.S.C. §§ 202-233.
111 Public Health Service Act Sec. 216, 42 U.S.C. § 217.
Congressional Research Service
29
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
recently during World War II.112 USPHS commissioned officers are entitled to many military and
veterans benefits.
Salaries and benefits for commissioned officers are paid by employing agencies. Additional costs
for deployments, such as travel expenses, may be borne by HHS or may be reimbursed by another
responsible party. For example, deployment costs are generally reimbursed from the DRF if
Corps officers are deployed due to a FEMA mission assignment under authority of the Stafford
Act.
When USPHS commissioned officers are deployed for the response to an incident, they become
unavailable to carry out their routine duties. To remedy this, Congress has provided authority to
establish a USPHS “Ready Reserve Corps,” similar to the Armed Forces reserves; that is,
individuals who are not necessarily federal employees, but who can be “federalized” as members
of the Corps in order to augment existing personnel.113 The HHS Secretary has not received
appropriations for this purpose and to date has not established this reserve component.
Examples of Past or Potential Use in Disaster Response Operations
Deployment of Corps officers in response to disasters is common, usually but not exclusively
involving teams with the Office of Force Readiness and Deployment. In 2005, more than 2,400
officers were deployed for the responses to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, for which they set up
and staffed field hospitals, treated sick and injured evacuees, and conducted disease surveillance,
among other tasks.114 More than 300 officers were involved in the response to Hurricane Sandy in
2012.115
Strategic National Stockpile
Frank Gottron, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy (fgottron@crs.loc.gov, 7-5854)
Purpose and Responsibilities
The federal government maintains a supply of medicine and medical supplies to respond to a
public health emergency (e.g., a terrorist attack, flu outbreak, or earthquake) severe enough to
deplete local supplies. This supply, known as the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS),116 includes
antibiotics, intravenous fluids, and other medical supplies. Additionally, the SNS contains some
medicines, such as anthrax and smallpox vaccines and treatments, which may not be otherwise
112 Executive Order 9575, “Declaring the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service To Be a Military Service
and Prescribing Regulations,” 10 Federal Register 7895, June 29, 1945. See also John Parascandola, “History of the
Militarization of the PHS Commissioned Corps,” Commissioned Corps Bulletin, vol. XV, no. 10 (October 2001), p. 5,
at http://dcp.psc.gov/ccbulletin/articles/CCBulletin_02_2014.aspx.
113 Public Health Service Act Sec. 203, 42 U.S.C. § 204. This authority was provided in the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health reform law, P.L. 111-148, as amended, section 5210, March 23, 2010.
114 Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service, “Commissioned Corps in Action,” at
http://www.usphs.gov/newsroom/features/action/default.aspx.
115 Ibid.
116 Unless otherwise cited, information in this section is available at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Strategic National Stockpile, at http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/stockpile/stockpile.htm.
Congressional Research Service
30
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
available for public use. The value of the assets in the SNS is nearly $6 billion.117 The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
manages the stockpile.
By statute, both the Secretary of HHS and the Secretary of Homeland Security may deploy the
SNS.118 CDC guidelines allow governors or their representatives to request supplies from the
SNS.119 The CDC intends the initial deliveries from the SNS to arrive in the affected area within
12 hours of the decision to deploy, with additional deliveries following later as needed.
Critical to the successful use and deployment of the SNS commodities is the CDC’s Stockpile
Service Advance Group (SSAG) and other federal personnel devoted to managing current
supplies and procuring future resources. The CDC’s SSAG is a team of technical experts that
helps state and local authorities properly use and maintain the commodities for the incident.120
Once delivered, local authorities assume stewardship of the supplies, although the federal
government retains ownership. The SNS supplies are provided free of charge; however, local
authorities must pay for costs associated with storing locally, distributing, and dispensing of the
supplies.
Authorization and Appropriations
In 1999, Congress required the CDC to create a pharmaceutical and vaccine stockpile.121 The
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-188)
changed the name of the stockpile from the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile to the current
SNS. This act also further defined the contents and purpose of that stockpile to include
drugs, vaccines and other biological products, medical devices, and other supplies in such
numbers, types, and amounts as are determined by the [HHS] Secretary to be appropriate and
practicable, taking into account other available sources, to provide for the emergency health
security of the United States, including the emergency health security of children and other
vulnerable populations, in the event of a bioterrorist attack or other public health
emergency.122
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred budget authority for the SNS to
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Project BioShield Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-276)
transferred this authority back to HHS. The program was recently reauthorized through FY2018
in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-5).
Currently, the Division of the Strategic National Stockpile in the CDC Office of Public Health
117 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Justification of Estimates for Appropriation Committees Fiscal Year
2015, p. 312, at http://www.cdc.gov/fmo/.
118 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6b (a)(2)(F) and 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6b (a)(2)(G).
119 Todd Piester, Branch Chief, Division of Strategic National Stockpile, CDC, “Strategic National Stockpile
Overview,” CDC Clinician Outreach and Communication Activity conference call, July 1, 2008, at
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/coca/summaries/SNS070108.asp.
120 In addition, CDC has a Receiving, Staging and Storing (RSS) Task Force available to assist in the transportation and
logistical processing of the SNS, and Federal Medical Station (FMS) Strike Team to help community officials re-
supply and recover medical commodities after an incident.
121 H.Rept. 105-825, to accompany Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999
(P.L. 105-277).
122 Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 § 121 (P.L. 107-188).
Congressional Research Service
31
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Preparedness administers the stockpile program.123 Funding levels for the SNS reflect
maintenance costs as well as procurements, for which annual needs vary. Table 2 displays recent
SNS funding.
Table 2. Strategic National Stockpile Appropriations,
FY2010-FY2014
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal Year Amount
2010 $595.749
2011 $591.001
2012 $533.792
2013 $493.150
2014 $550.817
Source: CDC, Justification of Estimates for Appropriation Committees Fiscal Year 2015, at http://www.cdc.gov/fmo/.
Notes: The FY2013 amount reflects rescission and sequestration. Amounts for FY2013 and later reflect a CDC
budget accounting change and thus are not directly comparable to amounts in earlier fiscal years.
Examples of Past or Potential Use in Disaster Response Operations
The SNS is configured to be deployed in a flexible manner. Some of the stockpile is held in
ready-to-transport containers called Push Packs. These contain pharmaceuticals, antidotes, and
medical supplies designed to respond rapidly to a wide variety of needs in the early hours of an
event when the precise nature of the emergency may still not be known. Push Packs are
positioned in strategically located, secure warehouses ready for immediate deployment to a
designated site within 12 hours of the federal decision to deploy SNS assets.
Other parts of the stockpile are maintained as vendor-managed inventory, that is, caches of
commercial products maintained in rotation by the manufacturers, in order to assure freshness.
This part of the stockpile can arrive between 24 and 36 hours after a request and can be
specifically tailored to respond to a defined need or to supplement deployed Push Packs.
The SNS is often deployed in response to major disasters, and SNS assets may be pre-positioned
for National Special Security Events and hurricanes. For example, the CDC deployed assets from
the SNS to help 62 jurisdictions respond to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. The stockpile
was able to replenish critically short local supplies of antiviral medication and N95 respirators.124
The CDC includes examples of SNS asset deployments in their annual congressional budget
justifications.125
123 Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Strategic National
Stockpile,” at http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/stockpile.htm.
124 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Justification of Estimates for Appropriation Committees Fiscal Year
2011, p. 295.
125 See the CDC’s Chief Financial Officer website for budget justifications, at http://www.cdc.gov/fmo/.
Congressional Research Service
32
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service Firefighting Assets
Kelsi Bracmort, Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
(kbracmort@crs.loc.gov, 7-7283)
Purpose and Responsibilities
The Forest Service (FS)—an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—may assist
federal and state efforts during and following a disaster.126 Many times, this assistance stems from
the agency’s wildland fire management expertise. FS emergency response assistance is delivered
in many forms, including firefighting support, fire suppression and assistance planning, command
and control support, emergency road clearing, logistics facility support, radio/communications
system support, and cache support for mass care shelters.127
FS disaster response assistance may be carried out with the use of wildfire suppression crews and
Incident Management Teams (IMT), among other means. A wildfire suppression crew is any type
of wildland firefighting hand crew, generally consisting of 18-20 career or temporary agency
employees. There are five different levels of wildfire suppression crews: Type 1 Interagency
Hotshot Crews (IHC), Type 1, Type 2-Initial Attack (IA), Type 2, and Type 3. A Type 1 IHC is the
most intensively trained crew.128 A Type 1 IHC also has a larger number of full-time career
firefighters with the highest level of expertise and fitness than the other types of crews. IHCs are
generally placed in the most rugged terrain on the most active and difficult areas on wildfires.
There are 110 Interagency Hotshot Crews, with the Forest Service being the federal agency with
the largest number of crews (67).129 The Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and the National Park Service also have Interagency Hotshot Crews. There are a small
number of crews that are nonfederal, including crews operated by states and local governments.
All crews, federal and nonfederal, must meet the standard for interagency hotshot crew operations
and be certified in order to be recognized as an IHC.130
An IMT manages serious, complex, and costly incidents with qualified personnel. Management
entails coordinating the personnel, equipment, and supplies necessary to address significant
incidents, and providing information to the media and the public. For example, a Type 1 or Type 2
IMT responding to a fire should be able to manage the most complex fire situations for any fuel
126 The FS is granted such authority under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act when
FEMA requests FS assistance. Disaster assistance should not be confused with emergency wildfire assistance, which
the FS also has the authority to conduct.
127 E-mail correspondence with the Forest Service, April 11, 2014.
128 U.S. Forest Service, Fire and Aviation Management: About Handcrews, at http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/people/
handcrews/about_handcrews.html.
129 A list of National Interagency Hotshot Crews is available at http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/people/hotshots/
IHC_index.html
130 Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Standards for Interagency Hotshot Crew Operations,
February 14, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
33
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
type in the United States. There are three types of federal-sponsored IMTs: Type 1 IMTs, Type 2
IMTs, and the National Incident Management Organization (NIMO) IMTs.131
Authorization and Appropriations
Under the National Response Framework (NRF), the FS serves as the co-coordinator and primary
agency for Emergency Support Function (ESF) #4—firefighting.132 ESF #4 provides federal
support for the detection and suppression of wildland, rural, and urban fires resulting from, or
occurring coincidentally with, an all-hazard incident requiring a coordinated national response for
assistance.133 As the ESF #4 primary agency, the FS coordinates federal firefighting activities, and
provides personnel, equipment, and supplies in support of local, state, tribal, territorial, and
insular area agencies involved in wildland, rural, and urban firefighting operations.134 The FS
works closely with at least six other federal agencies. For instance, the Environmental Protection
Agency identifies critical water systems that require priority restoration for firefighting. Further,
the State Department occasionally coordinates with foreign governments to identify and transfer
firefighting assistance assets and resources to the United States. Funding spent by the FS to
respond to such disasters is dependent on the size and type of disaster.
The FS has several broad authorities that allow it to manage wildfires on federal, state, and
private lands, regardless of whether the agency is responding to a disaster declaration. One of the
primary statutes authorizing the FS to manage wildfires on National Forest System (NFS) lands is
the Organic Administration Act of 1897.135 Further, the FS has a number of cooperative
agreements with states and other countries (e.g., Canada, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand)
that allow the agency to provide wildfire protection,136 to perform approved severity activities,
and to respond to states of emergency or disaster under FEMA authorities. Additionally, the FS—
as outlined in an MOU with the USDA Farm Service Agency—assists with the Emergency Forest
Restoration Program (EFRP), to help the owners of non-industrial private forests restore forest
health damaged by natural disasters.137 The FS received wildfire management appropriations of
more than $2 billion dollars for each of the last five years.138
131 For more information on IMTs and a proposal that could alter how wildfire incidents are managed, see National
Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG), Evolving Incident Management: A Recommendation for the Future, October
17, 2011. The NWCG reported on September 23, 2013, that there will be a multi-year transition from Type 1 IMTs and
Type 2 IMTs to Complex IMTs.
132 The other co-coordinator for ESF#4 is the U.S. Fire Administration.
133 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Response Framework, May 2013; U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, and U.S. Fire Administration, Reference Guide Emergency Support Function #4
Firefighting, December 2013.
134 U.S. Forest Service, Fire and Aviation Management Briefing Paper, May 6, 2013.
135 16 U.S.C. § 551.
136 The agreements are available in chapter 40 of the National Interagency Coordination Center 2014 National
Mobilization Guide.
137 EFRP is codified in 16 U.S.C. Section 2206 and is permanently authorized subject to appropriations. For more
information on EFRP, see CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation, by Megan
Stubbs.
138 For more information, see CRS Report R43077, Wildfire Management: Federal Funding and Related Statistics, by
Kelsi Bracmort. In addition to annual WFM appropriations, the FS may also receive supplemental appropriations for
WFM.
Congressional Research Service
34
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Examples of Past or Potential Use in Disaster Response Operations
In addition to being used regularly to fight fires, these assets also support the response to other
hazards. For example, following Hurricane Sandy, the FS sent 10 IMTs and 41 interagency
wildfire suppression crews to assist with emergency response.139 Approximately 1,100 personnel,
950 of which were FS employees, were stationed throughout five states in the northeast that were
affected by the hurricane. Two of the primary activities carried out by the FS were emergency
road clearing and support for power restoration. The FS deployed more than 100 chainsaw crew
teams to storm-affected states to assist with debris removal and road clearance, clearing fallen
trees from more than 900 miles of road for power personnel and search and rescue missions.140
Other tasks included assisting at FEMA logistics facilities that provide water and other
commodities needed to sustain life, providing communications equipment and support to local
emergency response agencies, and supporting command and control operations for emergency
response agencies.141
Department of Defense
The Department of Defense (DOD) has a broad range of capabilities that can be deployed in
support of civil authorities in emergency situations, including transportation assets, medical
personnel and supplies, security forces, and communications equipment. The National Response
Framework (NRF) and DOD refer to this type of assistance as Defense Support of Civil
Authorities (DSCA).142 DSCA is defined by DOD as
Support provided by US Federal military forces, Department of Defense civilians,
Department of Defense contract personnel, Department of Defense component assets, and
National Guard forces (when the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the governors of
the affected states, elects and requests to use those forces in Title 32, United States Code,
status) in response to requests for assistance from civil authorities for domestic emergencies,
law enforcement support, and other domestic activities, or from qualifying entities for special
events.143
DOD does not provide assets in response to requests from civil authorities in all cases. For
example, DOD might decline to provide certain assets if doing so would degrade its ability to
fulfill the department’s national security obligations. Before providing assets to support civil
authorities, DOD evaluates each request based on the following six criteria:
139 U.S. Forest Service, “US Forest Service Wildland Firefighters and Interagency Crews Mobilized to Assist with
Hurricane Sandy Response,” press release, November 1, 2012, and update November 7, 2012; U.S. Forest Service,
“Update: US Forest Service Wildland Firefighters and Interagency Crews Mobilized to Assist with Hurricane Sandy
Response,” press release, November 7, 2012; and email correspondence with the U.S. Forest Service, June 20, 2013.
140 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Hurricane Sandy: Timeline, at http://www.fema.gov/hurricane-sandy-
timeline; and email correspondence with the U.S. Forest Service, June 20, 2013.
141 National Interagency Fire Center, “Firefighters Mobilize to Assist with Hurricane Sandy Response,” press release,
October 31, 2012.
142 In the past, DOD referred to DSCA by other names including Civil Support (CS) and Military Assistance to Civil
Authorities (MACA). DOD regulatory guidance for DSCA is contained in DOD Directive 3025.18, Defense Support of
Civil Authorities, December 29, 2010 (incorporating change 1, September 21, 2012), at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/
directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf, and the joint doctrinal publication on this topic is Joint Publication 3-28, Defense
Support of Civil Authorities, July 31, 2013, at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_28.pdf.
143 Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, as amended through
February 15, 2014, at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
35
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
(1) Legality (compliance with laws);
(2) Lethality (potential use of lethal force by or against DoD Forces);
(3) Risk (safety of DoD Forces);
(4) Cost (including the source of funding and the effect on the DoD budget);
(5) Appropriateness (whether providing the requested support is in the interest of the
Department); and
(6) Readiness (impact on the Department of Defense’s ability to perform its other primary
missions).144
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, an agency within the Department of Defense, is discussed
later in this report.
General Purpose Forces
Lawrence Kapp, Specialist in Military Manpower Policy (lkapp@crs.loc.gov, 7-7609)
Purpose and Responsibilities
The Armed Forces are organized, trained, and equipped primarily to conduct prompt and
sustained combat operations on land, sea, and air;145 and this is, in practice, the way in which they
are principally employed. However, many units of the Armed Forces possess capabilities that can
be of use during disaster response missions. For example, military aircraft that transport soldiers,
rations, and ammunition during combat operations can also transport doctors, food, and medical
supplies to a disaster zone.
Authorization
The U.S. Armed Forces, including the Reserve Components, are governed by Title 10 of the U.S.
Code. The sections of Title 10 most relevant to the organization and employment of U.S. military
forces are Chapter 2 (Department of Defense), Chapter 5 (Joint Chiefs of Staff), Chapter 6
(Combatant Commands), Chapter 303 (Department of the Army), Chapter 503 (Department of the
Navy), and Chapter 801 (Department of the Air Force). Due to its unique status as both a federal
reserve component and the organized militia of the states, additional statutory authority for the
National Guard is codified in Title 32 of the U.S. Code.
All active component units are organized, trained, equipped, and employed under the authorities
contained in Title 10. These forces are always under the operational control of the President of the
United States. The chain of command for active component forces extends down through the
Secretary of Defense, to the Combatant Commander (for example, the Commander of United
States Northern Command or USNORTHCOM), to the Joint Task Force Commander (for
144 DOD Directive 3025.18, Defense Support of Civil Authorities, December 29, 2010 (incorporating change 1,
September 21, 2012), paragraph 4(e), at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf.
145 See 10 U.S.C. §§ 3062, 5063, and 5062.
Congressional Research Service
36
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
example, the Commander of Joint Task Force—Civil Support, a subordinate to
USNORTHCOM), and then to lower echelon commanders.
Reserve component forces other than the National Guard are also governed exclusively by the
provisions of Title 10 and are organized to meet the requirements of the military service to which
they belong (for example, Army Reserve units are designed to meet the requirements of the
Army). These forces are always under the operational control of the President of the United States
as well.
National Guard forces are part of the organized militia of their respective state or territory.
Simultaneously, they constitute a reserve component of the Army or Air Force and are
“organized, armed, and equipped wholly or partly at federal expense.”146 They are structured to
meet the requirements of the Department of the Army, in the case of the Army National Guard,
and the Department of the Air Force, in the case of the Air National Guard. Owing to this unique
aspect of the National Guard as both a state and a federal organization,147 it may be employed
under state law, under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, or under Title 32 of the U.S. Code.
• As members of the militia of their state or territory, National Guardsmen can be
called up by their governor for full-time duty. When employed in this capacity,
referred to as state active duty (SAD), National Guardsmen are considered state
or territorial employees, not active duty military. Typical missions performed
under SAD include responding to disasters and civil disorders.
• As members of the Reserve Component, National Guardsmen can be called to
federal active duty, also referred to as Title 10 status. When this happens, control
of the affected units and personnel passes from the governor to the President of
the United States. When in federal service, Guard units and personnel typically
perform military training or participate in military operations.
• A third form of duty for National Guardsmen involves duty under state control
but with pay and benefits provided by the federal government. This is sometimes
referred to as Title 32 status in reference to the relevant part of the U.S. Code.
Title 32 (T32) status is typically used for training, but it can also be used for
other duties, including disaster response.
Thus, a distinctive feature of National Guard units is that, while organized and largely funded by
the federal government, they can be employed by either governors or the President. Typically, the
chain of command for National Guard forces in SAD or T32 status extends from the Governor to
the Adjutant General (the highest ranking National Guard officer in the state or territory) to lower
echelon National Guard commanders. While under the control of a governor, National Guard
personnel are not subject to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act (that is, they can perform
law enforcement functions). If National Guard forces are ordered to federal active duty (Title 10),
146 10 U.S.C §§ 101(c)(2)(C) and (c)(4)(C); 32 U.S.C. §§ 101(4)(C) and (6)(C).
147 The National Guard of the United States is made up of 54 separate National Guard organizations: one for each state,
and one each for Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. While the District of
Columbia National Guard is an exclusively federal organization and operates under federal control (Title 10) at all
times, the other 53 National Guards operate as state or territorial organizations most of the time. In this capacity, each
of these 53 organizations is identified by its state or territorial name (e.g., the California National Guard or the Puerto
Rico National Guard), and is controlled by its respective governor.
Congressional Research Service
37
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
control is transferred from the governor to the President and they then become subject to the
restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Examples of Past or Potential Use in Disaster Response Operations
The most notable use of the Armed Forces to respond to a disaster occurred as a result of
Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Roughly 72,000 military personnel participated in the response,
including about 50,000 National Guard personnel serving in a Title 32 status. Some of the major
activities conducted by these forces included search and rescue; evacuations from flooded areas
and evacuations to medical treatment facilities; transportation and distribution of water, ice, food,
and fuel; crowd control; local security; debris removal; medical treatment; and restoration of
flood control systems. More recently, the Armed Forces assisted with the response to Hurricane
Sandy. Some of the major activities conducted by active, reserve, and National Guard personnel
in response to Sandy included removal of water from flooded areas and buildings; transportation
and distribution of water, food, and fuel; search and rescue; security; provision of temporary
shelter and blankets; generation and restoration of power; and debris removal.
Based on the tasks contained in the National Response Framework’s Emergency Support
Function Annexes, potential uses of DOD assets in disaster response operations are listed in the
text box below.
Some Potential Uses of DOD Assets Under the National Response Framework148
•
Transportation: Providing military transportation capacity to move essential resources; providing assets to
complement temporarily degraded or disrupted air navigation services; providing support in the emergency
operation and restoration of inland waterways, ports, and harbors, including dredging operations; restoring
transportation infrastructure.
•
Communications: Providing communications resources and capabilities.
•
Public Works and Engineering: Providing expertise and construction management resources and support;
conducting specialized salvage/wreck removal operations.
•
Firefighting: Conducting firefighting activities on DOD installations and supporting firefighting operations on
nonmilitary lands with personnel, equipment, and supplies; assisting urban and rural firefighting forces to obtain
heavy equipment and/or demolition services as needed to suppress incident-related fires.
•
Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Temporary Housing: Providing construction, engineering, and project
management expertise and support for temporary housing and sheltering; inspecting mass care shelter sites to
ensure suitability and accessibility of facilities; constructing temporary shelter facilities in the affected area.
•
Logistics: Providing planning support, subsistence, administrative supply, petroleum product, engineering and
construction supply, water and mobile units, medical material, telecommunications management, and
transportation management support; providing bottled and bulk drinking water, construction materials, and
engineering services; providing commodities distribution assistance and expertise to include, points of
distribution training and state-level project management support for commodities missions; hauling, installing,
operating, and maintaining generators for critical public facilities.
148 The text in this shaded box is an edited version of DOD “Actions” and “Functions” listed in the National Response
Framework Emergency Support Function Annexes 1 through 12, all of which are available here: http://www.fema.gov/
national-preparedness-resource-library. Some of the listed actions and functions are the responsibility of the Army
Corps of Engineers, discussed in a separate section of this report.
Congressional Research Service
38
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
•
Public Health and Medical Services: Conducting medical evacuations; coordinating patient reception,
tracking, and management of patients evacuated on DOD assets; deploying medical, surgical, and behavioral
health personnel for casualty clearing and staging, patient management, and treatment; augmenting civilian
hospital staff and deployable federal teams; deploying chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical
subject matter experts for technical consultation and medical support; providing epidemiological and
occupational health support, telemedicine, and other specialized medical support; providing military medical
personnel to assist in the protection of public health; providing available DOD medical supplies and materiel for
use at points of distribution, hospitals or clinics, or medical care locations; assisting local, state, tribal, territorial,
and insular area officials in the provision of emergency medical, surgical, and behavioral healthcare; providing
public health and medical surveillance, laboratory diagnostics, and confirmatory testing.
•
Search and Rescue (SAR): Coordinating facilities, resources, and special capabilities to conduct and support
air, land, and maritime SAR; coordinating and managing the satellite imagery; providing expert analysis of imagery;
deploying special y trained and equipped structural engineers during structural col apse incidents and other
disaster response missions; providing technical support and advice to assess damage, mitigate hazards, and enable
rescue and lifesaving operations.
•
Oil and Hazardous Materials Response: Providing response assistance for incidents involving contaminated
debris, including waste sampling, classification, packaging, transportation, treatment, demolition, storm water
management, and disposal; providing technical, operational, and emergency support in the ocean engineering
disciplines of marine salvage, pollution abatement, and diving services.
•
Agriculture and Natural Resources: Providing military specialists trained in foreign animal disease diagnosis,
epidemiology, microbiology, immunology, entomology, pathology, and public health.
•
Energy: Conducting power system stabilization and reestablishment activities.
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Response Forces149
Lawrence Kapp, Specialist in Military Manpower Policy (lkapp@crs.loc.gov, 7-7609)
Purpose and Responsibilities
The Department of Defense has forces organized, trained, and equipped to respond to major
domestic CBRN incidents, as well as general purpose forces assigned to support CBRN response
efforts. These units make up the DOD CBRN Response Enterprise (CRE). The CRE includes the
Defense CBRN Response Force (DCRF), two Command and Control CBRN Response Elements
(C2CRE), and 10 regionally based National Guard Homeland Response Forces (HRFs), which
are built around state-based National Guard CBRN Enhanced Response Force Packages
(CERFPs) and Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD-CSTs).150 Additionally,
149 The acronym CBRN is used today, although previously the acronym CBRNE was used in relation to many of these
units. The additional “E” stands for high yield explosives. CBRNE Command, discussed later, has retained the “E” in
its name because it includes explosive ordnance disposal units.
150 DOD’s CBRN response structure was changed in 2011-2012 in an attempt to address gaps in capabilities that were
identified prior to and during the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. Prior to the change there were three overarching
constructs for DOD CBRN response forces: CBRN Consequence Management Response Forces (CCMRF), National
Guard CBRN Enhanced Response Force Packages (CERFPs), and National Guard Civil Support Teams (CST). The
previous organizations were assessed to be less than ideal in terms of response time, lifesaving capabilities in the early
arriving forces, and the ability to respond to a catastrophic event or multiple simultaneous events. The Quadrennial
Defense Review Report explained this restructuring as follows:
[T]he Department will begin restructuring the original CBRNE Consequence Management
Response Force (CCMRF), to increase its ability to respond more rapidly to an event here at home.
To address the potential for multiple, simultaneous disasters, the second and third CCMRFs will be
replaced with smaller units focused on providing command and control and communications
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
39
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
other units within DOD have significant CBRN response capabilities, such as the Marine Corps’
Chemical Biological Incident Response Force (some elements of which are part of the DCRF),
the Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s Consequence Management Advisory Teams, and the U.S.
Army’s CBRNE Command. All of these units are discussed below. All of these units can be used
for disaster response missions other than CBRN-related ones if the situation warrants.
Defense CBRN Response Force (DCRF)
The DCRF is composed of various military units, which together have approximately 5,200
active component personnel. When activated, its capabilities include command and control,
CBRN assessment, search and rescue, decontamination, emergency medical care, security,
engineering, logistics, transportation, aviation lift, and air and ground medical evacuation. On
order, it deploys in phases, with the first “force package” of approximately 2,100 personnel meant
to begin deployment within 24 hours of notification and the second force package of
approximately 3,100 personnel meant to begin deployment within 48 hours of notification. If
activated, the DCRF would include elements of the Marine Corps’ Chemical Biological Incident
Response Force (CBIRF), discussed below.
Command and Control CBRN Response Elements (C2CRE)
Each C2CRE has approximately 1,500 personnel. In addition to having a core element that can
provide immediate response capabilities, it is designed to provide command and control and
logistical support for up to 20,000 follow-on forces. The intent of this is to allow it to provide
additional support to the DCRF for a single catastrophic event, or to be used separately in the case
of multiple events. It is meant to begin deployment within 96 hours of notification, although its
posture can be adjusted by the commander of U.S. Northern Command.
Homeland Response Force (HRF)
The 10 HRFs are regionally oriented National Guard units aligned with each of the 10 FEMA
regions. Each HRF is made up of about 577 National Guard personnel and is made up of a
command and control element (180 personnel), a CBRN Assistance and Support Element (CASE;
200 personnel), and a task force element (197 personnel). The command and control element can
control additional National Guard CERFPs and WMD-CSTs. The CASE provides site security,
force protection, and assistance with the movement of casualties. The task force element has the
same structure and capabilities as a CERFP, discussed below. HRFs are expected to be ready to
deploy six hours after notification.
(...continued)
capabilities for Title 10 follow-on forces. Complementing the evolution of the first CCMRF, the
Department also will draw on existing National Guard forces to build a Homeland Response Force
(HRF) in each of the ten Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regions. These ten
HRFs will provide a regional response capability; focus on planning, training and exercising; and
forge strong links between the federal level and state and local authorities.
Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, February 2010, p. 19, at
http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
40
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
CBRNE Enhanced Response Force Package (CERFP)151
National Guard CERFPs provide the following capabilities: “... incident site search of collapsed
buildings and structures, conducting rescue tasks to extract trapped casualties, providing mass
decontamination, performing medical triage and initial treatment to stabilize patients for transport
to medical facilities ... and the recovery of CBRN incident fatalities.”152 At present, there are 17
CERFPs. Each CERFP is made up of 197 personnel, drawn from existing National Guard units,
who are assigned to one of five teams within the CERFP: command and control, search and
extraction, decontamination, medical, and fatalities search and recovery. They are meant to begin
deployment within six hours of notification.
Weapons of Mass Destruction—Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST)
The mission of the National Guard WMD-CSTs (sometimes referred to as Civil Support Teams or
CSTs) is:
To support civil authorities at a domestic site during specified events, which include use or
threatened use of a weapon of mass destruction; terrorist attack or threatened terrorist attack;
intentional or unintentional release of nuclear, biological, radiological, or toxic or poisonous
chemicals; natural or manmade disasters in the United States that result, or could result, in
the catastrophic loss of life or property by identifying hazards, assessing current and
projected consequences, advising on response measures, and assisting with appropriate
requests for additional support.153
At present there are 57 WMD-CSTs, each made up of 22 National Guard personnel who serve on
full-time duty under Title 32. Each team is divided into six sections: command, operations,
communications, administration/logistics, medical/analytical, and survey. Team members receive
over 600 hours of specialized training and are all certified as hazardous materials technicians.
WMD-CSTs are required to deploy within 90 minutes of notification and can conduct continuous
operations for 72 hours without additional support. Each WMD-CST deploys with vehicles
equipped with sophisticated communications capabilities and laboratory equipment to facilitate
analysis of chemical, biological, and radiological hazards.
Marine Corps’ Chemical Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF)
The CBIRF has a mission to “respond to a credible threat of a Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, Nuclear, or High Yield explosive (CBRNE) incident in order to assist local, state, or
federal agencies and Unified Combat Commanders in the conduct of consequence management
operations,”154 and consists of about 500 Marines. Its capabilities include command and control,
detection and identification, search and extraction, personnel decontamination, technical rescue
(for example, collapsed structure or vehicle rescue), medical, explosive ordnance disposal, and
logistics. The CBIRF has a 12-person assessment team on standby to begin deployment within
151 See footnote 149. While the official title still includes the acronym CBRNE (rather than CBRN), CERFPs do not
have explosive ordnance disposal capabilities. They can identify chemical precursors of explosives.
152 National Guard Fact Sheet at http://www.nationalguard.mil/Portals/31/Features/Resources/Fact%20Sheets/pdf/
CBRNE-CERFP%20-%20March2013.pdf.
153 According to National Guard Bureau staff, this mission statement has been formally approved and will be published
shortly in a new manual, Army Techniques Publication 3-11.46. See also 10 USC 12310(c).
154 Chemical Biological Incident Response Force website, at http://www.cbirf.marines.mil/.
Congressional Research Service
41
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
one hour of notification, a 130-person team that is expected to begin deployment within two
hours, and another 130-person team that is meant to begin deployment within six hours. Elements
of the CBIRF would fall under the DCRF if it were activated.
Defense Threat Reduction Agency Consequence Management Advisory Teams (CMAT)
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) has approximately a dozen CMATs. These
CMATs “provide task-organized, deployable, and technical expertise support, advice, and hazard
prediction assistance for the U.S. Department of Defense and other Federal agencies during all
phases of accidents or incidents of a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear nature.”155 They
may also have specialists with expertise in other areas, such as radiobiology. When needed,
CMATs augment the DCRF.
U.S. Army CBRNE Command
CBRNE Command, formerly called the 20th Support Command (CBRNE), is a subordinate
element of the U.S. Army’s Forces Command. Its mission is to provide “highly-trained, properly-
equipped, disciplined and well led forces to counter the entire range of chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear, and explosive ordnance hazards for our nation. It consolidates command
and control of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosive assets under
one operational headquarters”156 and contains three major subordinate organizations: the 48th
Chemical Brigade, 52nd Ordnance Group (Explosive Ordnance Disposal), and the 71st Ordnance
Group (Explosive Ordnance Disposal). The 20th Support Command capabilities include the ability
to “operate in a variety of environments, from urban areas to austere sites across the spectrum of
military operations. CBRNE operations detect, identify, assess, render-safe, dismantle, transfer,
and dispose of unexploded ordnance, improvised explosive devices, and other CBRNE
hazards.”157 The 20th Support Command is not a part of the DCRF. However, in the event of a
significant CBRN incident, it could be tasked to provide support to a DCRF or other CBRN
response unit.
Authorization
In general, DOD’s CBRN response forces do not operate under special statutory authority, but
under the general statutory authority for the organization, training, and employment of military
forces found in Title 10 of the U.S. Code and, for National Guard forces, under the provisions of
Title 32 and state law (see previous section on general purpose forces). However, there are two
exceptions to this. Specific statutory provisions are tied to both the Marine Corps Chemical
Biological Incident Response Force (now part of the DCRF) and the National Guard WMD-
CSTs.
Marine Corps Chemical Biological Incident Response Force
Section 2314 of Title 50, enacted in 1996, directed the Department of Defense to establish at least
one CBRN rapid response team. Subsection (a) of this statute originally stated:
155 Defense Threat Reduction Agency website, at http://www.dtra.mil/Missions/ConsequenceManagement/
ConsequenceManagementHome.aspx.
156 U.S. Army webpage for the 20th Support Command, at http://www.army.mil/20thcbrne.
157 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
42
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Department of Defense Rapid Response Team—The Secretary of Defense shall develop and
maintain at least one domestic terrorism rapid response team composed of members of the
Armed Forces and employees of the Department of Defense who are capable of aiding
Federal, State, and local officials in the detection, neutralization, containment,
dismantlement, and disposal of weapons of mass destruction containing chemical, biological,
or related materials.158
This statute was fulfilled by the Marine Corps Chemical Biological Incident Response Force,
which became operational in 1996. A subsequent amendment replaced the phrase “or related
materials” with “radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosives.”159
National Guard WMD-CSTs
The National Guard’s WMD-CSTs originated as part of a DOD proposal to enhance domestic
preparedness against weapons of mass destruction, but Congress has provided statutory language
to expand the number of teams and specify their location.
In 1998, DOD requested funding from Congress to establish 10 National Guard Rapid
Assessment and Initial Detection (RAID) teams, the forerunners of WMD-CSTs. This funding
was provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999. The conference report accompanying the act provided that the funds
were to be used to establish the teams and to “establish and equip small organizations in each of
the 44 states not receiving an initial RAID element in 1999 to provide limited chemical/biological
response capabilities….”160 The following year, the conference report accompanying the FY2000
Defense Appropriations Act noted that “The conferees support the establishment of 17 Rapid
Assessment and Initial Detection (RAID) teams. Accordingly, the conferees provided funding for
an additional 198 Army National Guard and 66 Air National Guard full-time (AGR) personnel to
facilitate this mission.”161
The next year, RAID teams were renamed Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams.
H.Rept. 106-644, the Appropriations Committee report on the Defense Appropriations Act for
FY2001, used this new terminology when it stated “The Department of Defense has currently
fielded 10 Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams. Last year, the Congress directed
the establishment and organization of an additional 17 teams, for a total of 27 teams.”162
Subsequently, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2001 included a provision in law
that specified, “During fiscal year 2001, the Secretary of Defense shall establish five additional
teams designated as Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (for a total of 32 such
teams).”163 Two years later, in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2003, Congress
158 P.L. 104-201, section 1414.
159 P.L. 109-163, section 1033.
160 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999, Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 4328, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., October 19,
1998, pp. 1527-8.
161 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Making Appropriations for the Department of Defense for the
Fiscal Year Ending September 30,2000 and for Other Purposes, Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2561, 106th
Cong., 1st sess., October 8, 1999, pp. 96-97.
162 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2001, Report of
the Committee of Appropriations to Accompany H.R. 4576, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., June 1, 2001, p. 41. Note that this
language specifies that the previous year Congress had directed 17 additional teams, rather than a total of 17 teams.
163 P.L. 106-398, section 1032.
Congressional Research Service
43
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
again directed the expansion of the WMD-CSTs with the following statutory language: “The
Secretary of Defense shall: (1) establish 23 additional teams designated as Weapons of Mass
Destruction Civil Support Teams, for a total of 55 such teams; and (2) ensure that of such 55
teams, there is at least one team established in each State and territory.”164 Funding for two
additional teams was provided in the 2007 Defense Appropriations Act, bringing the total to 57.165
Examples of Past or Potential Use in Disaster Response Operations
DOD’s CBRN response elements have been used to respond to a variety of disasters. The Marine
Corps CBIRF responded to the presence of anthrax and ricin on Capitol Hill in 2001 and 2004,
respectively. It has also supported major events such as the Olympics, political conventions, and
presidential inaugurations.166 WMD-CSTs have also responded to CBRN events. For example, in
2014 a major chemical leak contaminated the Elk River in West Virginia. Seven WMD-CSTs
supported the response effort by analyzing water samples and assessing the scope of the incident.
In 2013, a WMD-CST provided analytical support to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies
investigating a ricin letter in Spokane, WA, while another WMD-CST provided air toxicology
testing and assessments in the aftermath of an ammonium nitrate explosion that occurred in West,
TX. Perhaps most visibly, several WMD-CSTs were at the Boston Marathon in 2013 providing
on-site monitoring. In the aftermath of the terrorist attack there, they assisted with command and
control of the response.167
The potential uses of DOD CBRN response forces include command and control;
communications; CBRN monitoring, detection, assessment, and identification; decontamination;
search and rescue; explosive ordnance disposal; emergency medical care; transportation,
including medical evacuation; security; and logistics. These units can be used for disaster
response missions other than CBRN response if the situation warrants. For example, four WMD-
CSTs provided communications support to the Hurricane Sandy response (2012), and CERFP
search and extraction elements provided support during a flood evacuation in Colorado (2013)
and a mudslide in Washington (2014).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Assets
Planning and Response Teams
Nicole T. Carter, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy (ncarter@crs.loc.gov, 7-0854)
Purpose and Responsibilities
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers performs its emergency response activities through more than
40 planning and response teams (PRTs). These deployable teams have been specifically trained to
perform Corps emergency response functions, including provision of ice, water, emergency
164 P.L. 107-314, section 1403.
165 H.Rept. 109-676, p. 89.
166 Examples of CBIRF usage taken from CBIRF website, at http://www.cbirf.marines.mil/About/History.aspx.
167 Examples of CST usage provided by staff at the National Guard Bureau in an email correspondence, March 18,
2014.
Congressional Research Service
44
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
power, debris removal, temporary housing, temporary roofing, and structural safety assessments.
The Corps also has 20 deployable tactical operating systems; these function as mobile command,
control, and communication units during a disaster.
Authorization, Appropriations
Under the National Response Framework, the Army Corps of Engineers coordinates emergency
support for public works and engineering. This includes technical assistance, engineering, and
construction management, emergency contracting, and repair of power systems, public water and
wastewater, and solid waste facilities. The Corps also assists in monitoring and stabilizing
damaged structures and demolishing structures designated as immediate hazards to public health
and safety. It also provides technical assistance in clearing, removing, and disposing of
contaminated and uncontaminated debris from public property, and establishing ground and water
routes into affected areas. Contaminated debris management is coordinated with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Implementation of Corps emergency activities also typically
requires close coordination with FEMA. The Corps’ funding for these activities is provided
through FEMA appropriations, often through supplemental appropriations. The annual funding
level highly depends on the scale and nature of the disaster. For a larger disaster, these Corps
assignments can reach billions of dollars.
In addition to work performed as part of the National Response Framework, Congress has given
the Corps its own emergency response authority. This authority is commonly referred to as the
Corps’ P.L. 84-99 authority, based on the act in which it was originally authorized, the Flood
Control and Coastal Emergency Act, P.L. 84-99 (33 U.S.C. §701n). This law authorizes the Corps
to perform disaster preparedness, advance measures, emergency operations (disaster response and
post-flood response), rehabilitation of flood control works threatened by floods, protection or
repair of federally authorized shore protection works threatened by coastal storms, emergency
dredging, and flood-related rescue operations. These activities are limited to actions to save lives
and protect improved property (public facilities/services and residential or commercial
developments). Most of the disaster response work performed under this authority generally is
funded through supplemental appropriations provided directly to the Corps. Until supplemental
appropriations are available, Congress has provided the Corps with authority to transfer money
from ongoing Corps projects to emergency operations. The emergency response activities
performed under this authority rarely exceed $1 billion except for the largest of flood disasters. In
recent years, emergency appropriations for these activities were provided through supplemental
appropriations in FY2010 ($20 million under P.L. 111-212), FY2012 ($388 million under P.L.
112-77), and FY2013 ($1.01 billion in emergency funding for Hurricane Sandy response and
recovery under P.L. 113-2). Funding for preparedness to support these activities has occasionally
been provided during regular appropriations. While funding for preparedness was not provided in
enacted appropriations bills from FY2008 to FY2011, it was provided in FY2012 at $112 million,
FY2013 at $25.6 million, and FY2014 at $28 million. The Administration has requested $32
million for FY2015.
Examples of Use in Disaster Response Operations
After Hurricane Sandy, the Corps delivered 8.9 million liters of water over a three week period
(or enough water for 2.5 million people), refurbished 115 housing units, and provided more than
218,000 sandbags and cold-weather gear to local first responders. The Corps also teamed with
federal, state, city, and regional agencies to provide temporary power and unwater flooded areas.
Congressional Research Service
45
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
For example, almost 500 million gallons of seawater were trapped in New York City’s mass
transit system after the storm. The Corps’ relevant PRTs were organized into an Unwatering Task
Force which had pumps of various types and sizes sent to points around the transit system,
including the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, World Trade Center/PATH Train, and South Ferry
Subway Station. The pumps relatively quickly removed about 116,000 gallons of saltwater per
minute and in nine days, 475 million gallons of saltwater had been drained from the city’s
subways and tunnels.
In addition to supporting FEMA-assigned missions throughout the region, the Corps’ New York
and Philadelphia districts also carried out their own regular missions following the storm,
including work under P.L. 84-99. These included helping the port of New York and New Jersey
reopen, closing barrier island breaches in Long Island, and assessing damages to federally
authorized and constructed shoreline projects while developing short-, mid-, and long-term
alternatives for coastal storm damage risk management.
249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power)
Nicole T. Carter, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy (ncarter@crs.loc.gov, 7-0854)
Purpose and Responsibilities
The 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power) can rapidly deploy and provide technical expertise
and operational assistance in all aspects of power and electrical systems generation and
distribution in support of contingency and emergency response operations. While this battalion
performs military functions for the U.S. Army abroad and assists in international disaster relief,
the Corps can deploy the battalion domestically to assist with power emergencies. It focuses its
emergency activities in restoring power to life-saving and life-sustaining facilities like hospitals,
shelters, water and sewer facilities, police and fire stations, command centers, fueling stations,
and public housing developments. The focus of the battalion, which was created in 1994 by
consolidating existing Army detachments, focuses on low to medium voltage electricity. One of
the battalion’s companies generally is standing ready to respond to domestic disasters under the
National Response Framework.
Appropriations
Under the National Response Framework, the Army Corps of Engineers coordinates emergency
support for public works and engineering. This includes repair of power to public infrastructure.
The battalion is funded primarily through Department of Defense appropriations, with its
domestic response mission assignments funded through FEMA. The annual funding level highly
depends on the scale and nature of the disaster.
Examples of Use in Disaster Response Operations
The battalion and the Corps’ power-related PRTs often work together in response to power
emergencies. In response to Hurricane Sandy, the battalion and power PRTs helped restore the
regional power systems and priority facilities in the 13 affected states, completed 567 power
assessments, and installed 211 generators. They provided power to a wide range of facilities
including mass transit systems like the Hudson ferry, New Jersey’s PATH trains, and the Long
Congressional Research Service
46
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Island railroad as well as petroleum terminals critical to regional fuel availability. The battalion
also was deployed in response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane Irene in 2011.
National Transportation Safety Board Disaster Assistance
Bart Elias, Specialist in Aviation Policy (belias@crs.loc.gov, 7-7771)
Purpose, Responsibilities, and Authorization
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) serves primarily as an independent federal
investigative agency in the aftermath of transportation disasters.168 NTSB accident investigators
are not directly involved in disaster assistance, and in fact must remain impartial to disaster
response activities that may come under investigative scrutiny. However, NTSB was mandated
under the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act of 1996 (Title VII of P.L. 104-264; 49 U.S.C.
§1136) to coordinate disaster resources to provide information and assistance to victims’
families169 in the aftermath of major air carrier accidents. The Rail Safety Improvement Act of
2008 (P.L. 110-432; 49 U.S.C. §1139) expanded the NTSB role to include coordination of family
assistance following rail passenger accidents resulting in major loss of life. Although not formally
mandated to do so, NTSB may also provide support to family, friends, and survivors of certain
general aviation accidents, commuter rail and transit accidents, mass casualty highway accidents,
marine accidents, and pipeline disasters that are investigated by NTSB. While the NTSB often
participates in investigations of overseas transportation accidents, particularly major aviation
accidents, the U.S. Department of State’s Office of American Citizen Services and Crisis
Management coordinates crises and emergency situations, including transportation disasters,
involving large numbers of U.S. citizens traveling abroad.
Examples of Use in Disaster Response Operations
Statutorily, NTSB has primary federal responsibility for facilitating the recovery and
identification of fatally injured passengers and communicating with the families of passengers
involved in major airline and passenger rail accidents. The NTSB Transportation Disaster
Assistance division functions in the capacity of a facilitator to coordinate federal, state, local, and
volunteer agency assets following major airline and passenger rail disasters. In this capacity, it
establishes family assistance centers near accident sites. Major functions of the disaster assistance
division and the family assistance centers include dissemination of accident and accident
investigation information to family, friends, and survivors; coordination of victim identification;
management and reclamation of personal effects; coordination of crisis counseling resources; and
arrangement of a memorial service in coordination with the families. NTSB statutory
responsibility includes the requirement to designate an independent nonprofit organization with
experience in post-trauma communications with families to have primary responsibility for
coordinating the emotional care and support of victim’s families. NTSB coordinates with the
168 The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (Chemical Safety Board or CSB) is the complementary
investigative federal agency that examines root causes of incidents at stationary sources involving “accidental releases”
of regulated substances into the ambient air. For more information, see the CSB website at http://www.csb.gov/.
169 In regulation and policy, NTSB has generally broadened the scope of “family” to include the family members and
close friends of victims and the survivors of transportation disasters falling under the scope NTSB’s statutory
responsibility.
Congressional Research Service
47
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
American Red Cross to provide this capability by working through its local chapters to partner
with mental health providers trained in disaster response.
Jointly Operated Assets
National Response System for Oil and Chemical Spills
David M. Bearden, Specialist in Environmental Policy (dbearden@crs.loc.gov, 7-2390)
Jonathan L. Ramseur, Specialist in Environmental Policy (jramseur@crs.loc.gov, 7-7919)
Purpose and Responsibilities
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, commonly referred to
as the National Contingency Plan (NCP), is the federal government’s principal plan for
responding to oil spills and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The
NCP delegates federal authorities for responding to such incidents to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and numerous other federal
departments and agencies with relevant expertise. It provides the framework for coordinating the
federal, state, and local roles in responding to such incidents and notifying the relevant
departments and agencies.
The NCP is authorized in three federal statutes, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA),170 the Clean
Water Act (CWA),171 and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA, often referred to as Superfund).172 The NCP is codified in federal
regulation at 40 C.F.R. Part 300. Unlike many other federal emergency response plans that are
administrative in nature, NCP regulations have the force of law and are binding and enforceable.
The NCP most often is applied as a stand-alone regulatory authority, but also may be invoked as
the operable response plan under the National Response Framework as part of a larger federal
response.
The NCP established a coordinated National Response System (NRS) that uses a multi-tiered,
top-down framework.173 Key components of the NRS include:
• National Response Team (NRT): composed of representatives from 15 federal
departments and agencies with duties assigned in the NCP. A USCG official
chairs the NRT for federal responses in the coastal zone, and an EPA official
chairs the NRT for federal responses in the inland zone and during non-response
activities. As defined in the NCP, the coastal zone includes U.S. waters and
adjoining shorelines, the Great Lakes, and specified ports and harbors on inland
170 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et. seq.
171 33 U.S.C. § 1321.
172 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et. seq.
173 As a practical matter, local emergency teams (e.g., fire departments) are often the first to respond to an incident. The
NCP regulations envision that state and local officials typically would initiate public safety measures (40 C.F.R. §
300.180(f)) in the earliest stage of a response. However, once an incident is elevated for federal attention, a designated
federal official would oversee the federal response pursuant to the NCP and would be responsible for making ultimate
decisions about the use of federal resources to carry out the response.
Congressional Research Service
48
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
rivers, and the inland zone conversely is the environment inland of the coastal
zone.174
• Regional Response Teams (RRTs): composed of regional representatives of each
NRT member agency, state governments, and local governments. The Coast
Guard leads each RRT for federal responses in the coastal zone; EPA leads each
RRT for federal responses in the inland zone.
• Area Committees (ACs): includes qualified personnel from federal, state, and
local agencies. The primary function of each AC is to prepare an Area
Contingency Plan (ACP) for its designated area.
• On-Scene Coordinator (OSC): directs federal response efforts and coordinates all
other related federal efforts at the scene. The OSC is a USCG official in the
coastal zone175 and an EPA official in the inland zone. The OSC is broadly
empowered to direct and coordinate all response and recovery activities of
federal departments and agencies that are members of the NRT, and state, local,
and private entities that may participate in a federal response (including the
parties responsible for the incident). When an incident occurs, the OSC may draw
upon the resources identified in the appropriate ACPs and RRTs.
The framework of the NCP primarily uses existing resources of the federal departments and
agencies that are members of the NRT to call upon those resources as needed when an incident
occurs. The resources that may be needed to respond to any one specific incident would depend
upon the scope and nature of the incident and the associated hazards. Some of the resources may
be maintained specifically for response purposes, whereas others more broadly are associated
with a department or agency’s primary mission. Many of the federal departments and agencies on
the NRT also maintain specialized resources to respond to incidents at federal facilities or vessels
under their own jurisdiction, such as the Department of Defense or Department of Energy. These
departments and agencies may be called upon to contribute their respective resources to
participate in a federal response to an oil spill or a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant
incident at a non-federal facility or vessel. Much of the work performed under a federal response
also may be accomplished through private contracting to augment federal assets.
As co-chairs of the NRT, EPA and the Coast Guard also maintain certain dedicated response
resources to fulfill their respective roles in leading federal responses to oil spills and hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant incidents. Under the Superfund program, EPA maintains an
array of specialized personnel and other emergency response resources across its 10 regional
offices. The Coast Guard National Strike Force Coordination Center (NSFCC) maintains a
comprehensive list of Coast Guard-owned oil spill response equipment. Some of these assets also
may be used to respond to releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants in the
coastal zone. The NSFCC also maintains the Response Resource Inventory (RRI), which includes
equipment inventories maintained by the private sector that may be drawn upon through
contracting. According to the Coast Guard,176 it maintains the following assets:
• 9 District Response Advisory Teams, which typically comprise between 4 and 6
personnel;
174 40 C.F.R. § 300.5.
175 In general, Coast Guard Captains of the Port serve as OSCs for their particular area.
176 Personal communication with the U.S. Coast Guard Office of Congressional Affairs, May 6, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
49
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
• 3 National Strike Force Strike Teams, comprised of approximately 40 active
duty/civilian and 40 reserve personnel; and
• specialized spill response personnel and equipment in each Coast Guard Sector
office.
Authorization and Appropriations
Congress has authorized two dedicated trust funds to finance the costs of a federal response to a
discharge of oil or release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.177 Through its
National Pollution Funds Center, the U.S. Coast Guard administers the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund (OSLTF) to finance the costs of responding to a discharge of oil.178 EPA administers the
Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund to finance the costs of responding to a release of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.179 Respectively, each agency is responsible for
disbursing monies from these trust funds to other federal departments and agencies, states, and
local entities that may be involved in a federal response taken under the NCP.
A limited amount of funding from the OSLTF is available each fiscal year (up to $150 million) as
mandatory (i.e., permanent) appropriations that are directly available for obligation and are not
subject to discretionary appropriations.180 In addition, the OSLTF is subject to a cap of $1 billion
on total expenditures per incident.181 Monies from the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust
Fund are subject to discretionary appropriations before they are available to respond to an
incident. To enable emergency response capabilities, Congress annually appropriates monies out
of this trust fund to EPA’s Superfund account, and reserves a portion of these funds for emergency
response actions. These funds remain available indefinitely until they are expended.
In contrast to natural disaster responses, oil spills and hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant incidents may involve one or more entities who caused or contributed to the
incident, referred to as the responsible parties. These parties are liable for federal response (i.e.,
cleanup) costs and related damages within certain limitations. OPA established liability for
response costs, natural resource damages, and certain categories of economic or property
damages.182 The scope of liability for releases of hazardous substances under CERCLA includes
177 Neither of these trust funds is available to cover the costs of responding to a discharge of oil or a release of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant from a federal facility or vessel. Congress appropriates separate funding
directly to the departments or agencies with jurisdiction, custody, or control over the facility or vessel from which the
discharge or release occurred to pay the response costs of the federal government.
178 26 U.S.C. § 9509. The vast majority of the revenues for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund are derived from a
dedicated eight cents per-barrel tax on domestic and imported oil. The tax is scheduled to terminate at the end of 2017.
See the “Federal Funding for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund” section in CRS Report RL33705, Oil Spills in U.S.
Coastal Waters: Background and Governance, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
179 26 U.S.C. § 9507. The Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund is financed mostly with revenues transferred
from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury, since the taxes on domestic and imported oil, chemical feedstocks, and
corporate income that once financed this trust fund expired at the end of 1995. See the “Hazardous Substance
Superfund Trust Fund” section in CRS Report R41039, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act, by David M. Bearden.
180 33 U.S.C. § 2752. The U.S. Coast Guard may “advance” (i.e. withdraw) up to $150 million each fiscal year from the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to respond to discharges of oil. Once advanced, the monies remain available until
expended.
181 26 U.S.C. § 9509(c)(2).
182 33 U.S.C. § 2702.
Congressional Research Service
50
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
both response costs and natural resource damages, but not other economic or property
damages.183 Such other damages stemming from releases of hazardous substances generally may
be pursued under tort law instead. Although CERCLA authorizes federal actions to respond to
pollutant or contaminant incidents, it does not establish liability for the costs of responding to
these incidents.
Under the liability provisions of OPA and CERCLA, the federal government may recover its
response costs from the responsible parties (with the exception of pollutant or contaminant
incidents noted above), which are to be deposited back into the respective trust fund that financed
the federal response.184 Responsible parties also are often directly involved with federal response
efforts to help satisfy their liability, and may use or obtain their own resources for these purposes.
In such instances, the OSC is responsible for directing and overseeing response actions taken by a
responsible party to ensure that applicable requirements are met. For incidents at federal facilities
or vessels, the federal department or agency with jurisdiction over the facility or vessel serves as
the responsible party on behalf of the United States.
Examples of Use in Incident Response
Thousands of oil and chemical spills of varying size, magnitude, and impact occur in the United
States each year. State and local governments may respond to many of these spills using their own
authorities and resources, with little or no federal involvement. As a practical matter, the level of
federal involvement of the National Response Team under the NCP depends in large part upon the
desire of state and local governments for federal resources to carry out a response or to enforce
the liability of the parties responsible for a spill.
For example, West Virginia requested federal assistance from EPA and other federal agencies
under the NCP in responding to a spill of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol into the Elk River in
early January 2014. This chemical spill had led to a temporary shutdown of a public water supply
in Charleston, WV, and illustrates the potential magnitude of such incidents that can have broad
impacts on local populations. At the request of the governor of West Virginia, the President also
had declared a state of emergency under the Stafford Act, under which FEMA provided
alternative water supplies when the public water supplies were not in operation.
The 2010 Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico offers an example of an oil spill of
broad magnitude and impact for which federal resources were deployed under the NCP. The
subsurface oil discharge continued for 87 days, resulting in the largest oil spill in U.S. waters.
During the height of the response, approximately 47,000 people from federal, state, and local
governments, and the responsible parties and their contractors, were conducting response
operations in the Gulf. Pursuant to the NCP, an OSC from the Coast Guard directed these
activities. The spill was classified as a Spill of National Significance and a National Incident
Commander was appointed—both first-time events under the NCP—to facilitate collaboration
and coordination among federal, state, and local emergency response officials.185
183 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a). Liability under CERCLA also includes the costs of federal public health studies.
184 The Internal Revenue Code directs recovered costs to be deposited back into the Hazardous Substance Superfund
Trust Fund (26 U.S.C. § 9507) or the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (26 U.S.C. § 9509), respectively.
185 For more details on this incident, see CRS Report R42942, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Recent Activities and
Ongoing Developments, by Jonathan L. Ramseur and Curry L. Hagerty.
Congressional Research Service
51
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
National Disaster Medical System (NDMS)186
Sarah A. Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology (slister@crs.loc.gov, 7-7320)
Purpose and Responsibilities
The National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) is a nationwide cadre of medical and public
health personnel who can be “federalized” in pre-trained teams for the response to mass casualty
incidents and/or the loss of local healthcare infrastructure. It is a partnership of HHS with the
Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The system
leverages federal and non-federal resources to support two general missions; first, to respond to
requests for medical assistance from states or other federal agencies, and second, to assist the
DOD medical system in the event of a large-scale wartime conflict. To date, NDMS has not been
called upon to serve the latter mission. NDMS provides three capabilities:
• Medical, mortuary, and veterinary response, which includes needs assessment,
primary and emergency medical care, equipment and supplies, victim
identification, and other services. HHS is responsible for this component, which
is composed of more than 7,000 team members across nearly 90 teams. Teams
include Disaster Medical Assistance Teams (DMATs), Disaster Mortuary
Operational Response Teams (DMORTs), National Veterinary Response Teams
(NVRTs), and International Medical/Surgical Response Teams (IMSURTs).
• Patient movement from the disaster area to facilities where patients can receive
definitive medical care. This includes communication with federal, state, and
local authorities; medical transportation; patient tracking; and medical care
during evacuation. DOD is responsible for this component, in coordination with
HHS.
• Definitive medical care, that is, medical care provided by NDMS-affiliated
federal and non-federal hospitals for conditions that result directly from the
incident, or for pre-existing conditions for which care cannot be deferred. This
component is managed by Federal Coordinating Centers (FCCs), a nationwide
network of DOD and VA hospitals. Non-federal hospital participation is
voluntary.
Authorization, Appropriations, and Contributing Departments/Agencies
NDMS was begun administratively in 1984. It was first explicitly authorized in the Public Health
Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-188).187 This
authority was most recently revised and extended through FY2018 in the Pandemic and All-
Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (PAHPRA, P.L. 113-5).
186 Unless otherwise cited, information in this section is from the HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and
Response (ASPR) NDMS website at http://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/responders/ndms; and HHS, Fiscal Year 2015
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, NDMS
narrative, pp. 35 ff., at http://www.hhs.gov/budget/.
187 Section 2812 of the Public Health Service Act; 42. U.S.C. § 300hh-11.
Congressional Research Service
52
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
PAHPRA also extended VA’s responsibility to maintain readiness to coordinate the NDMS
definitive medical care component.188 In addition, VA is allowed, during specified emergencies, to
provide medical care in its facilities to NDMS patients who are not eligible veterans.189 VA is
authorized to seek reimbursement for these services.
NDMS is not explicitly mentioned in DOD’s statutory authorities. However, DOD policy
regarding Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA), discussed elsewhere in this report, states
that DOD assets (such as vehicles for emergency medical transport) may be provided to assist in
the response to emergencies. DOD normally seeks reimbursement for the costs of deployment.190
The Secretary of HHS has broad latitude in her authority to deploy NDMS components. No
specific statutory trigger or threshold is required. Generally, NDMS operates in support of two
Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) in the National Response Framework (NRF), which are
ESF #8—Public Health and Medical Services, coordinated by HHS, and ESF #6—Mass Care,
Emergency Assistance, Temporary Housing and Human Services, coordinated by FEMA.
While deployed, NDMS personnel are designated as intermittent federal employees, and are to be
paid for their service by the federal government. They are also entitled to three statutory
protections. They are protected from liability for their official actions (except in cases of
negligence);191 they are eligible for compensation for work injuries;192 and they are protected
from loss of employment and benefits.193
Administrative costs for the NDMS program are provided in HHS appropriations to the Assistant
Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). Table 3 presents recent funding levels. DOD
and VA budgets do not present specific information for NDMS administrative costs.
Table 3. NDMS Administrative Funding, FY2011-FY2015
Dollars in millions. Does not include deployment costs.
FY2011 FY2012 FY2013a FY2014
FY2015
Request
$52.4 $52.7 $49.7 $50.1 $50.1
Source: HHS, Fiscal Year 2015 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Public Health and
Social Services Emergency Fund, p. 36, at http://www.hhs.gov/budget/.
a. Amount reflects across-the-board-rescission and sequestration.
188 38 U.S.C § 8117.
189 38 U.S.C § 1785; and 38 C.F.R. § 17.86. These emergencies include major disasters declared under the Stafford Act
or when the NDMS is activated by the Secretary of HHS for public health emergencies.
190 DOD Directive 3025.18, Defense Support of Civil Authorities, December 29, 2010 (incorporating change 1,
September 21, 2012), at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf.
191 By reference to such protections under the Federal Tort Claims Act or other law for employees of the U.S. Public
Health Service, Section 224 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 233.
192 By reference to 5 U.S.C. Ch. 81, the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA). See CRS Report R42107, The
Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA): Workers’ Compensation for Federal Employees, by Scott D.
Szymendera.
193 By reference to 38 U.S.C. Ch. 43, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
See Department of Labor, USERRA, at http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-userra.htm.
Congressional Research Service
53
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
Some NDMS deployment costs may be paid by the federal entity that is chiefly responsible for
the costs of the federal response to the specific incident. For example, for emergencies or major
disasters declared under the Stafford Act, HHS, VA, or DOD may receive reimbursement for
certain deployment activities through the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund. For international
deployments, HHS, VA, or DOD may receive reimbursement from the Department of State or the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). For some other situations, such as National
Special Security Events (NSSEs) or other public health responses that do not involve a Stafford
Act declaration,194 HHS must assume the costs of deployment of NDMS response teams.
Recently the ASPR annual budget has included between $5 million and $10 million each fiscal
year to cover unreimbursed incident response costs, including costs for NDMS deployment.195
The NDMS definitive medical care component, which is rarely activated, relies on participating
hospitals (principally non-federal) that volunteer to accept NDMS disaster evacuees on a space-
available basis. Participating hospitals receive reimbursement for services they provide at 110%
of the usual Medicare rate for such services. Reimbursement for specific incidents is time-limited,
and does not extend beyond hospital care to longer-term services such as rehabilitation or
outpatient care. FEMA policies implementing the Stafford Act do not allow assistance for medical
care costs except for such care required to provide immediate emergency care, evacuation, and
stabilization;196 and no other routine federal mechanism exists to pay disaster-related hospital
costs. As a result, when the NDMS definitive medical care component was activated for the
responses to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the Haiti earthquake in 2010, Congress provided
supplemental appropriations to reimburse hospitals.197
Examples of Use in Disaster Response Operations
NDMS has deployed one or more of its three components more than 300 times since the system’s
launch in 1984, for a variety of types of incidents. Deployment of the medical response
component is the most common, and is often used for the response to major disasters declared
pursuant to the Stafford Act. For example, approximately 2,300 NDMS personnel, representing
26 DMAT teams, were deployed for the response to Hurricane Sandy in 2012.198 The medical
response component also may be deployed for non-Stafford domestic public health incidents
(e.g., the H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009 and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in
Connecticut in 2012) and for international aid missions, as well as for NSSEs and other incidents
for which there is a risk of a public health emergency.
194 The Stafford Act major disaster authority has not been invoked for infectious disease incidents (e.g., the 2001
anthrax attacks and the 2009 influenza pandemic). See CRS Report RL34724, Would an Influenza Pandemic Qualify as
a Major Disaster Under the Stafford Act?, by Edward C. Liu.
195 These funds are provided in the ASPR Preparedness and Emergency Operations account.
196 FEMA Recovery Policy 9525.4, “Emergency Medical Care and Medical Evacuations,” February 3, 2014, at
http://www.fema.gov/9500-series-policy-publications.
197 For more information, see CRS Report RL33579, The Public Health and Medical Response to Disasters: Federal
Authority and Funding, by Sarah A. Lister.
198 HHS, Fiscal Year 2014 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Public Health and Social Services
Emergency Fund, p. 35, at http://www.hhs.gov/budget/.
Congressional Research Service
54
Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations
The NDMS patient movement and definitive medical care components are deployed less often.
All three components, including all DMAT teams (87 at the time), were deployed in response to
Hurricane Katrina in 2005.199
Author Contact Information
Jared T. Brown, Coordinator
Lawrence Kapp
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Security Policy
lkapp@crs.loc.gov, 7-7609
jbrown@crs.loc.gov, 7-4918
David M. Bearden
Bruce R. Lindsay
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Analyst in American National Government
dbearden@crs.loc.gov, 7-2390
blindsay@crs.loc.gov, 7-3752
Kelsi Bracmort
Sarah A. Lister
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology
Resources Policy
slister@crs.loc.gov, 7-7320
kbracmort@crs.loc.gov, 7-7283
Nicole T. Carter
John D. Moteff
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
ncarter@crs.loc.gov, 7-0854
jmoteff@crs.loc.gov, 7-1435
Bart Elias
Jonathan L. Ramseur
Specialist in Aviation Policy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
belias@crs.loc.gov, 7-7771
jramseur@crs.loc.gov, 7-7919
Frank Gottron
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
fgottron@crs.loc.gov, 7-5854
199 CRS Report RL33096, 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes: The Public Health and Medical Response, by Sarah A. Lister.
Congressional Research Service
55