U.S. Senator Ken Salazar Member of the Agriculture, Energy and Veterans Affairs Committees 2300 15^th Street, Suite 450 Denver, CO 80202 | 702 Hart Senate Building, Washington, D.C. 20510
For Immediate Release June 20, 2005		CONTACT: Cody Wertz – Press Secretary 202-228-3630 Jen Clanahan – Deputy Press Secretary 303-455-7600
SEN. SALAZAR RELEASES FINAL RESULTS OF HOMELAND SECURITY SURVEY Colorado Emergency Officials Feel Unprepared for Major Attack, Frustrated by Conflicting and Inconsistent Federal Assistance. WASHINGTON D.C. – Despite intense efforts to improve local security, Colorado’s first responders and emergency officials feel largely unprepared for a major terrorist incident and frustrated by inconsistent direction from the federal government, results of Senator Ken Salazar’s homeland security survey reveal. Earlier this year, Senator Salazar asked police, fire, and medical workers as well as state and regional emergency planners around Colorado to share their experiences and concerns with him. Since then, more than 60 officials from all corners of the state have responded with valuable insights and suggestions for reform. “Emergency officials across Colorado are doing everything they can to protect their communities, but in many ways they are on their own when it comes to help from the federal government,” Senator Salazar said. “I appreciate Colorado officials taking the time to share their concerns and guide my efforts in Washington.” Colorado’s emergency officials reported a variety of concerns: 59 percent believe federal grants are not going to the right priorities. 66 percent face significant problems using their radio equipment to communicate with other agencies. By a four-to-one margin, officials feel unprepared to handle a weapon of mass destruction attack. By a three-to one margin, responders feel that antiterrorism information they receive from the federal government is insufficient or not actionable. Nearly all departments have developed regional partnerships but they report mixed results. Emergency medical responders are largely out of the loop for homeland security funding and antiterrorism information. In May, Senator Salazar announced preliminary results of the survey which were widely publicized across Colorado. Since then, more than twenty additional responses came in. These responses largely mirrored previous entries, but there were some shifts. More respondents believed federal grants were being spent wisely and fewer reported problems with interoperable communications. On the other hand, the second wave of responses included more complaints about regional cooperation and guidance from federal entities. Below are excerpts from the responses in the survey and explanations of many of the issues facing local law enforcement agencies. Grants Over the last few years, the federal government has required states to take a much more active role in managing grants without providing a whole lot of guidance and resources. The result is that many state systems including Colorado’s have gone through growing pains. Many of Colorado’s first responders are frustrated. 59 percent of our survey respondents feel that federal grants are not going to the right priorities. Rural and small communities feel too much money is going to large cities. Large cities feel that smaller towns get too much say in setting priorities during regional planning meetings. Beyond wanting more grants to end up in their own jurisdictions, many officials expressed that they wanted a system that was more transparent and consistent. “The personnel we have dealt with regarding applying for and managing grants have been very helpful. . . . However the system runs into major problems by the time it comes down to the local level. . . . What remains is unclear priorities, how do we determine who gets funding, is it based on population, threats, critical infrastructure or politics.” --Kelly Arnold, City Manager, Grand Junction “Priorities have been inconsistent and confusing at every level. This has resulted in various amounts of misdirection and improper planning.” --Glenn Grove, Coordinator, Adams & Jefferson County Hazardous Response Authority Officials wanted more guidance from federal and state officials about what projects to apply for and how to set priorities. They wanted a more expedited and consistent way to get grant funds so they can plan rationally from year to year instead of waiting many months to get reimbursed. Others want simpler application forms and fewer reporting requirements. Some small departments complained that matching fund requirements are a significant barrier. Interoperable Communications Two-thirds of responders reported significant problems using their radio equipment to communicate with other agencies. “We are many light years away from being able to purchase enough radio equipment let alone all of the repeater towers needed for effective coverage.” --Frank Cavaliere, Chief, Lower Valley Fire District Colorado’s state government has taken important steps to create a statewide system. However, individual departments are having an extremely difficult time getting online to that system. Departments use a wide array of communications frequencies and have different name-brand equipment. Small departments often cannot afford to upgrade their equipment to higher frequencies. 800 MHZ systems do not work well in mountainous terrain. In Denver, where the metro area has received large federal grants to purchase equipment, communications channels are often clogged. Preparedness By a four-to-one margin, officials feel unprepared to handle a weapon of mass destruction attack. The biggest fear was a lack of ability to provide medical care in the case of a mass-casualty incident. “The greatest concern I have with a WMD event or the medical needs following is our distance from hospitals with specialized units. . . .That concern keeps me awake at night. What do we do with those injured until we can get them to a bigger hospital? The sheer transport needs following such an event would be overwhelming to our small hospital and community.” --Jodi Ricker, Director, Baca County Office of Emergency Management Among the problems cited by smaller departments is lack of training and equipment and lack of expertise in identifying a major threat. Many rural areas cited long distances to adequate medical care as a major concern in the case of a major attack. Suburban Denver officials expressed concern that area hospitals could not handle a major surge of injuries and needed more training to coordinate emergency response. Terrorism Intelligence By a three-to-one margin, responders feel that antiterrorism information they receive from the federal government is insufficient. “A duplicity in sharing information . . . exists between state and federal agencies, this overwhelms our ability to efficiently sift through the information and forward what is relevant to the officers on the street.” --Lowell Richardson, Chief of Police, Estes Park Police Department “We probably hear it on the news before we get the info e-mailed to us.” --Julie Geiser, Director, Alamosa County Nursing Service Law enforcement personnel largely complained that they were being inundated with antiterrorism information from a variety of sources, but that very little of it was useful to them. Despite the many sources of information, many reported they heard about real threats from the media first. Many complained that federal officials were obsessed with secrecy rather than with sharing good information. Fire departments generally had access to a wide array of antiterrorism information, but complained that it was geared towards law enforcement rather than to them. Emergency medical officials have very little access to intelligence that would help them prepare for an emergency event. Despite the recent federal effort to expand the number of emergency officials with security clearance to review classified documents, by a two-to-one margin, responders would prefer more focused and actionable unclassified intelligence to greater security clearances. “Both my investigation sergeant and I have secret clearances and have never received any information that . . . . was considered secret.” --Dwight Henninger, Chief of Police, Vail Police Department Responders had suggestions for reform. Many wanted consolidated antiterrorism information from one source. Responders wanted more detailed information, such as photos of suspects rather than a list of names. They wanted more specific information about how to increase security rather than general threats. Regional Coordination Nearly all departments have joined forces with other departments to share emergency personnel, training and equipment on a regional basis. However, they report mixed results. “We have multiple mutual aid agreements with surrounding jurisdictions. We also have the district defined by the EMS group (RETAC). The State Patrol has another district. The Department of Transportation has a different district. The Department of Emergency Management has me in another district. All told, I think we are in about 13 different regions.” --Carl Hasselbrink, Director, Chaffee County Office of Emergency Management Departments were split about how well these regional partnerships worked. The largest barrier to good cooperation was lack of time and resources to train and plan together. Many officials complained that it was difficult to train and prepare for a terrorist attack when they also have to handle day-to-day activities of their departments. The other main barrier to regional cooperation is the lack of interoperable radio communications. Another barrier was overlapping regional ties. Colorado’s state government and the federal government have multiple conflicting ways of dividing the state into regions. Fire, Police and EMS have different regional systems. The result can be redundancy and confusion. Chaffee County is a member of 13 different regional emergency partnerships. Agencies also reported different levels of success in working together during major emergencies. One responder likened joint responses to “a three-ring circus,” while many others said operational control during emergencies was generally successful and that turf battles were not an issue. All agreed that training together was the key to success. The National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the Incident Command System (ICS), the federal government’s effort to coordinate disaster response between multiple agencies was widely praised as a successful model. Federal Entities Colorado’s first responders reported wide differences in their level of interaction with the federal government, but several comments were frequently repeated. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and its Joint Terrorism Task Forces were often the first point of contact for many of Colorado’s first responders. The FBI’s field offices in the state received very high marks for being responsive and working well with local law enforcement. However some said the FBI was too busy and that local offices did not have enough independent authority to share information or coordinate with local departments without approval from Washington. The U.S. Forest Service was widely praised in rural areas for its ability to handle wildfires. Several respondents suggested its incident management system as the ideal model for federal intervention. # # #