1. The National Information Sharing Consortium Special Topic Discussion “Canada-U.S. Enhanced Resiliency Experiment (CAUSE II)” June 20, 2013 1

2. Learn about CAUSE II:  CAUSE II objectives, principles, and participants;  Experiment data collection, technologies, experiment scenarios, and information sharing workflows; and  After action observations and CAUSE III. Why We’re Here 2

3. CAUSE II Jack Pagotto, Head, Multi-Agency Crisis Management Science and Technology, Canada Centre for Security Science (CSS) General Defence Research and Development Dr. David Boyd, Director, Office of Interoperability and Compatibility, First Responders Group (FRG), Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Philip Dawe, Portfolio Manager, Emergency Management and Disaster Resilience, Canada CSS General Defence Research and Development Darrell O'Donnell, Special Advisor to Canada CSS, Multi-Agency Situational Awareness System (MASAS) National Implementation Team Alana Buck, Planning and Research Associate, Maine Emergency Management Agency Joel Thomas, CAUSE II Project Manager (Contractor), FRG, S&T, DHS 3

4. 4 Canada - U.S. Resiliency Experiment II (CAUSE II)

5. Agenda Introduction CAUSE Objectives/Principles Experiment Video Approach & Methodology Scenarios 1 & 2 Information Flows Demonstration of CA/US Information Sharing Results & Recommendations Next Steps

6. DR. DAVID BOYD DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTEROPERABILITY AND COMPATIBILITY, FIRST RESPONDERS GROUP, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

7. Cross Border Collaboration Beyond the Border - Action Plan on Perimeter Security... December 2011 Page 25: “The second working group will focus on cross-border interoperability as a means of harmonizing cross-border emergency communications efforts. It will pursue activities that promote the harmonization of the Canadian Multi-Agency Situational Awareness System with the United States Integrated Public Alert and Warning System to enable sharing of alert, warning, and incident information to improve response coordination during binational disasters.” 7

8. Interoperability Continuum

9. JACK PAGOTTO HEAD, MULTI-AGENCY CRISIS MANAGEMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, CANADA CENTER FOR SECURITY SCIENCE (CSS) GENERAL DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

10. CAUSE 2 Objectives Conduct a scenario-based, technology experiment between Canada and the US to demonstrate the capability to enhance situational awareness between nations during a cross-border emergency event. Demonstrate the value of Federal Science and Technology investments with and for the response community. Evaluate the integration of MASAS, IPAWS-OPEN, and Virtual USA; and identify technological and operational challenges and gaps, as well as emerging technological trends. 10

11. CAUSE Resiliency Principles Keep it simple Experiment = Technologically Enhanced Situational Awareness improves resiliency Emerging Operational Technologies only Federal Funding for systems engineering/ integration to bridge cross-border systems Leave behind = – Cross-border trusted Relationships (Ops + Policy + S&T) – Interfaced cross-border SA systems! 11

12. PHILIP DAWE PORTFOLIO MANAGER, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND DISASTER RESILIENCE, CANADA CSS GENERAL DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

13. Experiment Participants Canada: Saint John Fire Department St. Stephens Fire Department Province of New Brunswick Emergency Measures Organization Defence Research and Development Canada’s Centre for Security Science of the Canadian Department of National Defence Public Safety Canada United States: Calais Fire Department Washington County Emergency Management Maine Emergency Management Agency New Hampshire National Guard Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, First Responders Group Federal Emergency Management Agency Kentucky Emergency Management

14. Experiment Scope March 4-6, 2013 Experiment 1) March 4 – Final Dry Run 2) March 5 – Canada-based Scenario 3) March 6 – Maine-based Scenario Two fictional cross-border scenarios: 1) Canada-based Scenario: Explosion at Saint John, NB oil refinery 2) U.S.-based Scenario: Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) truck has ruptured and exploded on roundabout near the border.

15. CAUSE 2 Video

16. PHILIP DAWE PORTFOLIO MANAGER, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND DISASTER RESILIENCE, CANADA CSS GENERAL DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

17. Data Collection Tools Demographic Instrument: descriptive data on operational experience and perceptions of integrated SA technology. Participant Instrument: assessed the participants’ experiences regarding the impact of integrated software tools on information exchange. Workload: The NASA Task Load Index (NASA TLX) measured the participants’ apparent workload level across six dimensions moderate level of demand.

18. Local and State Alerts TV Field Reports – MASAS Mobile Radio SMS Alerts New Brunswick Canada US/CANADA MASAS Virtual Maine

19. Enabling Technologies (ALL)

20. Technology Breakthroughs MASAS integration – Model tools and workflows now exist for U.S. agencies to consume/publish Canadian MASAS-X data from within their native geospatial applications IPAWS TDL integration – Capabilities were developed to integrate alerts and warnings aggregated by IPAWS TDL into the native geospatial application of any U.S. state or local agency. Virtual USA integration – The vUSA library use was extended to include Canadian participants for the very first time and integrated map services from MASAS-X, IPAWS TDL, and state and provincial incident management systems.

21. Technology Breakthroughs International mutual aid – Cross-border mutual aid resource requests were accelerated through the MRP geospatial tool, which enabled U.S and Canadian systems to directly access and query available resources from MASS. Local, municipal, state, provincial, and federal interoperability – Integration of 12 systems and toolsets was achieved at various levels of government across the border. Mobile integration – The use and integration of MASAS Mobile and the On-The-Go Alerting TM applications by first responders to support creation and sharing of SA and alert and warning information across the border through enhanced field to headquarters reporting.

22. Experiment Highlights

23. Scenario 1 - Information Workflow

24. What Data Was Shared? Mobile incident reports Significant event reports EOC activations Mobile alert creation Public Alerts and Warnings (via text) Requests for Mutual Aid Mission Ready Packages Etc.

25. Incident Report Generated on MASAS Mobile by Saint John Fire

26. Incident Report Received NB EMO

27. Incident Report Generated by NB EMO in Sentinel

28. Government of Canada responds to Incident Report from New Brunswick Emergency Measures Organization

29. U.S. Constituents Access Canadian Incident Reports via Virtual USA

30. Maine EMA Receives Incident Report in Virtual Maine

31. JOEL THOMAS PORTFOLIO MANAGER, G&H INTERNATIONAL SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

32. 13:30 INJECT#12 – (ACTION) NB EMO queries MASS (MRP system) for foam resources then issues IEMAC request to MEMA for resources it has found. PEOC personnel search MASS MRP for Foam Resources, locate them, and then contact MEMA to start IEMAC request (phone). NB Local NB EMO Sentinel CDN Fed OCIP ME Local MEMA On The Go Alerting Virtual Maine vUSA IPAWS MASAS MASS MRP CAUSE2 Viewer Create/Use Exchange Receive MASAS Mobile CAUSE2 Viewer WebEOC

33. NB EMO Requests Foam Trailers

34. Mission Ready Package Query from the Mutual Aid Support System

35. Mission Ready Package Geospatial Tools Web App Flex Widget

36. Maine Accesses MRP Data

37. Maine Uses MRP Data

38. Maine Updates MRP Record in MASS

39. MRP Deployed/Status Change

40. NB EMO Uses MRP Tool

41. Scenario 2 - Information Workflows

42. Maine Generates & Shares Incident Report

43. Maine Incident Data

44. NB Receives Maine Incident Data

45. MEMA and Canada Send Mobile Alerts iPad App IPAWS Feed in vUSA Collaborative Operating Group (COG) Specific Alerts in Virtual Maine

46. Alert Received at MEMA at NB EMO Virtual Maine depicts IPAWS Alerts MASAS / NB EMO receives IPAWS Alerts

47. PHILIP DAWE PORTFOLIO MANAGER, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND DISASTER RESILIENCE, CANADA CSS GENERAL DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

48. Results The use of integrated situational awareness tools enabled the sharing of information to a wider, cross-border EM community and enhanced SA within and among all EM organizations at all governmental levels and between nations. The participants’ perception of technology as an enabler for developing shared SA will be important in determining whether this technology will be adopted and implemented effectively within an EM organization Integrated SA tools enhanced the participants’ initial understanding of the emergency event and continued to enhance their understanding as the emergency event unfolded over time.

49. Results The most valuable types of data that were shared included location, size/scope of problem, live shots of incidents, Twitter TM feeds and Twitter TM monitoring system, information mapped with symbols, potential impacts at the CA/U.S. border, and details of the ongoing responses. Participants indicated that the highest workload during the experiment was associated with the performance and mental dimensions. Operational personnel would benefit greatly from practicing the actual tasks that will be executed using this technology to increase their familiarity with the systems.

50. Lessons Learned Usability of the system must be optimized for users; including developing a clear, concise governance framework for cross-border activities, policies, and standard operating procedures on how the systems are to be used and when information is to be shared. Further, all parties should use symbology consistently when exchanging information. The strength of existing partnerships among EM organizations on both sides of the border will determine the likelihood that operational personnel will rely on and trust shared information. To support this trust, a consistent Identity (authentication) and Access Management (authorization and audit) System should be considered.

51. Lessons Learned Enhanced SA may support the enhanced quality of decision making and risk management processes, but it will not necessarily reduce the time required to complete these activities. Decisions often must be made based on exigencies beyond the mandate of the operational personnel using the integrated SA tools. The production-level integration of IPAWS and MASAS must continue to be considered a high priority. Currently, other than agreements between FEMA and CSS for exploratory work, there is no signed agreement between the U.S. and Canada to allow for sharing of operational incident alerting information

52. People Focused Recommendations Recommendation 1 – Define Training Requirements Recommendation 2 – Develop and Maintain Partnerships. Recommendation 3 – Manage Personnel Expectations for Technology Adoption.

53. Process/Policy-Focused Recommendations Recommendation 4 – Establish Governance and Guidance Recommendation 5 – Generate Relevant Architectures Recommendation 6 – Develop & Implement Applicable Standards. Recommendation 7 – Adopt Common Symbology Framework

54. Process/Policy-Focused Recommendations Recommendation 8 – Role Based Information Recommendation 9 – Generate Usage Reports Recommendation 10 – – Resolve Authentication Issues

55. Dr. David Boyd Director, Office of Interoperability and Compatibility, First Responders Group, Science and Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Jack Pagotto Head, Multi-Agency Crisis Management Science and Technology, Canada Center for Security Science (CSS) General Defence Research and Development

56. For More Information "Our Government continues to work with our partners to advance the Beyond the Border Action Plan," said the Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety. "Interoperable technology improves cross border communications and therefore contributes to building safety and security on both sides of the border. The CAUSE demonstration highlights the important progress for harmonizing cross border response capacity." News http://www.dhs.gov/interoperable-communications-across-borders http://www.marketwatch.com/story/technology-demonstration-focuses-on-harmonizing-cross-border-emergency- communications-efforts-2013-03-06 Beyond the Border Info http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/04/declaration-president-obama-and-prime-minister-harper-canada-beyond-bord http://www.dhs.gov/beyond-border-shared-vision-perimeter-security-and-economic-competitiveness http://actionplan.gc.ca/en/page/bbg-tpf/2012-beyond-border-implementation-report

57. Contact Us Dr. David Boyd Director, Office of Interoperability and Compatibility First Responders Group, Science & Technology Directorate Department of Homeland Security David.boyd@hq.dhs.gov Jack Pagotto Section Head, Head/Multi-Agency Crisis Management S&T Defence R&D Canada – Centre for Security Science (CSS) Department of National Defence Jack.pagotto@drdc-rddc.gc.ca

58. Questions? Group Discussion 58

59.  National Information Sharing Consortium – Launched: June 2012 ◦ Emergency Management, IT, GIS Communities ◦ Federal, Regional, Tribal, State, and Local Government ◦ Voluntary Information Sharing o Governance documents, information sharing plans, standard operating procedures, and software code/documentation, etc. ◦ Founding Members (June 2012) ◦ State of Oregon; Commonwealth of Virginia; State of California; City of Charlottesville, VA; City of Charlotte, NC 59 About the NISC

60. New Members (As of June 2013) 6.American Red Cross 7.New York Fire Department 8.Kentucky Emergency Management 9.Washington Military Department 10.Oregon Office of Emergency Management 11.New Hampshire National Guard 12.Miami-Dade Emergency Management 13.Florida Division of Emergency Management 14.State of Washington - CIO Office 15.Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (representing 22 local government members in the Washington DC area) 16.National Alliance for Public Safety GIS (NAPSG) Foundation 17.GeoGuard (representing the National Guard in each of the 54 US States and Territories) 18.Golden Gate Safety Network 19.Orange County Fire Authority 20.National States Geospatial Information Council 21.Maryland Department of Information Technology 22.Maine Emergency Management Agency 23.Lake County (OH) GIS Department 24.Esri 25.Applied Geographics, Inc. 60 About the NISC (cont.) 26.Vermont Center for Geographic Information, Inc. 27.Pacific Disaster Center 28.Mercer Island (WA) Fire Department 29.Hawaii Office of Information Management and Technology 30.Hawaii Department of Defense 31.Carnegie Mellon Disaster Management Initiative 32.DC National Guard 33.Delaware Department of Technology and Information 34.National Guard Bureau Installation and Mission Support Directorate 35.General Defence Research and Development Canada’s Centre for Security Science 36.Delaware Emergency Management Agency 37.Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security 38.Montana State Library 39.Nashua, New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management 40.Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 41.Wisconsin Department of Administrative Services 42.Charles County Volunteer Firemen’s Association/Charles County Association of Emergency Medical Services 43.Geospatial Information and Technology Association

61. MISSION & GOALS Bring together data owners, custodians, and users involved in the fields of emergency preparedness, management, and response to drive an ongoing dialogue on how to best leverage efforts related to the development, sharing, and governance of technology, data, and best practices. Enhance situational awareness Save time and money (resources in short supply on both state/local levels) Utilize and maximize data already paid for Influence national policy around public safety and emergency management Standardize information sharing efforts on a global scale Improve community resilience 61 About the NISC (cont.)

62. ELIGIBLE MEMBERS (Focus on Diversity) First responders GIS practitioner State/local emergency management information and communications officers Mission-critical NGOs Private partners Civic leaders Federal agencies 62 About the NISC (cont.)

63. NISC BOARD & ADMIN 63 Member Portal in Development Interim – Sharing occurring among NISC members Monthly Special Topic Discussions NISC Annual Summit – July 2013 Virtual USA® Transition Working Group in partnership w/DHS FRG NSDI Leadership Forum U.S.-Canada cross-border initiatives What the NISC Brings to You

64. PERSPECTIVE —as a practitioner, no one is better positioned to convey the needs, experiences, and priorities of our sector. You are the voice of the NISC. KNOWLEDGE —as a practitioner, no one is better positioned to provide lessons learned, case studies, and best practices to other stakeholders. You are the subject matter experts. SENSE OF COMMUNITY —as a practitioner, no one is better positioned to support other stakeholders who are vested in a universal, shared interest. You comprise the culture. What You Bring to the NISC 64

65. NISC Annual Summit: July 9, 2013, San Diego, CA Upcoming Topics: GeoGuard ArcGIS Online Pilot for Shared Situational Awareness Virtual USA® Transition Other member driven topics—TBD 65 Coming Up

66. Members join on behalf of their organization Members are required to sign the NISC Memorandum of Agreement Note: The sharing of any resource, data set, or technology code is completely voluntary Join Us! 66

67. Join Us! (cont.) TO JOIN Request a copy of the MOA Submit your request during this meeting Send an e-mail request to info@nisconsortium.org, orinfo@nisconsortium.org Submit a request through our web site: www.nisconsortium.org Sign and submit your MOA Submit to sean.mcspaden@nisconsortium.org and info@nisconsortium.orgsean.mcspaden@nisconsortium.org info@nisconsortium.org 67

68. Questions? Group Discussion 68

69. Thank you! For more information about joining… visit www.nisconsortium.org 69