Role of National Strategies in Emergency Operations Plan
Emergency and disaster planning is a process that entails development of a cooperative, coordinated process of dealing with urgent situations using available resources. Generally, this process is exploratory in nature and culminates in development of a plan that offers general procedures for management of unforeseen impacts. According to Alexander (2015), emergency planning basically entails preparing systematically for probable contingencies in the future such as major disasters and incidents. When creating emergency operation plans (EOPs), national strategies like the National Response Framework (NRF) and National Incident Management System (NIMS) should be taken into consideration. These national strategies provide guidance and a framework for creation of emergency operations plan. This paper reviews the NRF, NIMS and NECP in terms of their most useful elements for the county’s emergency management plan.

Brief Review of the NRF, NIMS and NECP

The National Response Framework (NRF) is a national strategy that seeks to enhance homeland security through providing guiding principles and action points for handling future contingencies and hazards regardless of their origin (Lindsay, 2008). This strategy provides a guiding principles and doctrines for unified actions from all governmental levels and communities in response to major incidents and disasters. The major focus on the National Response Framework (NRF) is response and short-term recovery from a disaster, major incident or hazard. This strategy defines the roles and responsibilities of different governmental and non-governmental actors across the different stages of emergency response and management. While the strategy is not an operational plan with step-by-step processes for responding to hazards, it outlines guiding principles for this process.

On the other hand, the National Incident Management System (NIMS) is a detailed, national approach that promotes collaboration between state and non-state actors in prevention, response, recovery, and mitigation of major incidents or disasters. This framework provides guidelines for collaboration between all levels of government, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations in preventing, responding, and mitigating hazards (Federal Emergency Management A, n.d.). These different players work together regardless of the location, size, cause and complexity of the incident or disaster. The framework comprises different components including preparedness, resource management, command and management, communications and information management, and constant management and maintenance.

The other national strategy in emergency planning and management is the National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP), which seeks to enhance the ability of emergency responders i.e. state and non-state actors to continue communicating when dealing with major incidents or disasters. This strategy provides guidelines for strengthening communication capabilities across the nation with regards to emergency management. NECP comprises a list of recommended initiatives to govern communications between emergency response providers and relevant government officials (Chertoff, 2008).

Useful Elements for County Applications

The current Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) for Lake County, California does not incorporate guidance from the three national strategies i.e. NRF, NIMS, and NECP since the county utilizes a County Emergency Management Plan (CEMP). While national strategies are the premise for making emergency management plans and strategies, Lake County’s COP has seemingly ignored these strategies in favor of CEMP. As a result, the county has a relatively ineffective emergency response...…emergency management office. Establishing an ESF#4 coordinator/representative at the emergency management office would benefit Lake County through enhancing collaboration and communication between the different partners in emergency planning and response. The county would also benefit from proper resource allocation since ESF#4 coordinator/representative will make decisions on allocation of resources for emergency management (Lindsay, 2008).

Third, the county should establish ESF#4 points of contact to help in disaster planning and emergency management processes. ESF#4 points of contact are necessary in an Emergency Operations Plan since the coordinator or representative is mandated with the responsibility of conducting assessments before making decisions on resource allocations. Such points of contact would help in ensuring that the public has means of reaching these critical emergency management personnel and responders. These points of contact help to enhance communication and information sharing on disaster planning and emergency management.

In conclusion, national strategies on emergency management such as NRF, NIMS and NECP play a critical role in disaster planning, emergency response, and emergency management. These strategies provide guidelines for development of emergency operations plans for local, county, and state governments. For Lake County, the current Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is ineffective because of failure to incorporate guidelines in these strategies. The county opted to use County Emergency Management Plan instead of these national strategies. This has resulted in relatively ineffective approaches for handling disasters or major incidents, particularly wildland fires that reoccur every year. As shown in this discussion, the county’s emergency management capabilities could be enhanced through incorporating guidelines in national strategies such as NRF’s Emergency Support Function…