Chapter II - Domestic CBRN CM (3) Command Relationships: (D) Achieving Unity of Effort Without Unity of Command: (4) Unity of effort is expected at the tactical level. This is because the designated incident commander develops the incident objectives on which subsequent incident action planning is based and integrates all capabilities into the response. The incident commander approves the incident action plan (IAP) pertaining to ordering and releasing of incident resources. (a) Almost all tasks given to DOD are tasks that someone in a civil position normally does, but the disaster conditions have overwhelmed their capacity. The technical knowledge and expertise is still resident with the activity or organization that needs the support (initial state requestor) but they are limited in their ability to cover the sheer magnitude of requirements on their own. Regardless of agency affiliation, newly reporting emergency management and response personnel check in at the designated staging area, base, camp, or location with the incident commander to receive their assignment IAW the established procedures. This direct control of resources at the local/tactical level is sometimes at odds with DOD procedures which require funded mission assignments in support of the federal response. The JFC can facilitate unity of effort with civil authorities at the tactical level by recognizing the incident commander's need to integrate the JFC's resources into his IAP, while remaining cognizant that US law prevents direct tasking by any entity outside the military chain of command. (b) The JFC shapes tactical unity of effort by having a common operating picture with all levels of the local, state, tribal, and federal response where DOD capabilities are being employed. Unity of effort in CBRN response is improved by interoperability with common methods of operation and common training using compatible or comparable equipment. Finally, common control measures reflected in shared and common plans, concepts of execution, and IAPs can provide for civil authority oversight and direction in incident management, coordination of actions, and supervision of tactical effort without requiring a unity of command construct to get unity of effort. The JFC tasked with integrating DOD capabilities at the tactical level into domestic operations improves unity of effort when there is clarity at the tactical level in these four areas: (1) Certainty as to Requirement(s): DSCA policy imposes strict controls for staying within the scope of the FEMA mission assignment process, leaving little latitude for tactical nimbleness in adjusting to quickly changing situations. The JFC should put controls into place to ensure that actual requirements are being met to the satisfaction of the entities closest to the situation. (2) Clarification of Expectations: Ground truth at the work site can often change from the initial situation described in the federal response IAP and mission assignment. Thereafter, adjustments are made by first line leaders during execution to achieve the incident commander's objectives. Direct coordination with the initial in-state requestor closest to the point of execution facilitates measured and reasonable adjustments while staying within the operational and fiscal constraints of the mission assignment. (3) Efficient Resolution of Performance Issues: Even with the best intentions, support efforts sometimes don't satisfy the expectations of the requestor who initially articulated the requirement. During a catastrophic incident, lost productivity or additional rework because of incomplete or improper performance can have a devastating impact on meeting goals and objectives. The JFC should encourage subordinate leaders to request routine checks and oversight by the initial state requestor to permit quick and efficient resolution of issues among requestors and responders closest to the point of performance. (4) Risk Management: Just as in contracting, management of performance risk is allocated by the control measures agreed to by the parties within the contract, with the drafter (in this case the state requestor) initially setting the standards. The JFC should ensure that the initial requestor is part of the controls that are in place to identify and manage performance risk and not rely completely on the ESF coordinator in the JFO. Safety risks can be mitigated by the initial requestor, who routinely does the task, providing oversight over the DOD forces, perhaps even conducting on-site training for non-technical forces