Archived Content Contenu Archivé

ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé

Archived Content Contenu archivé

Information identified as archived is provided for L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche is not subject to the Government of Canada Web ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas Standards and has not been altered or updated assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du since it was archived. Please contact us to request Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour a format other than those available. depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.

This document is archival in nature and is intended Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et for those who wish to consult archival documents fait partie des documents d’archives rendus made available from the collection of Public Safety disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux Canada. qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles by Public Safety Canada, is available upon que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique request. Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.

TS (Proikt#7072eion.miembCceeletofibedzume7tdoesmplAW 1q63 VOLUME .1 eeduse ebe.044g .11 ( s 11 àeuit s d4te dup471 docume or11. d Peat United States/Cana a route wills% du • dozmentdoitt9eekwee contenu leap Joint . du cohtinui" dIpmetee plki,4% eéaleinee "' --- e;Z jRcC Document ele Ref"enc List JRCC Meeting Nd. I held 1117gronto,.,SepteMber 10,42,1963 (14aCkeiie'Fi1e No. 23)

It should be noted that there were no-formal documents presented atthis initial organizational meeting. Some papers are available on the files of the respective national headquarters.and single photostat copies cdtild be made available for distribution if required. They are as fdlloWs:

1. Co-ordination of Radiological Defence. 2. Emergency .Public Information and Btoadcasting. 3. Problems Associated with Evacuation and Movement of People; 4. Resources Classification and Supply. 5. Transportation.. 6. Emergency Communications. 7. Joint United States/Canadian Civil Defense Tests. 8. Warning Problems.

JRCC Meeting No. 2 held in Washington,. February 11 .-12, 1964 (Mackenzie File N'o.

Formal papers were presented at_this meeting, however, a reference numl?ering system had not been adopted.. 'The titles of the papers used are as folltild:

1. Terms of Reference for the JRCC. 2. Report of a.Joint.US/Canada Study Group concerning Emergency. Public Information - 11 February 1964. ' 3. Report of Canada/US Joint Task Force - Public Warning 'dated 19 December,.1963. 4. Summary of United States/Canada Joint Task Force Report - Radiological Defence. 5. United States/Canada Joint Task, Force Report - Radiblogical Defence. 6. Report of the United States/Canada Study Group on Cross- Border Communications - January 6, 1964. 7. Draft Memorandum on Treatment of Refugees - 24 January, 1964. 8. US/Canada Joint Federal Operations Planning Procedures for Guidance at State, Provincial and Municipal or-tocal Levels - - January 7, 1964. 9. US/Canada Joint Federal Operations Planning Procedures for Guidance at State, Provincial and Municipal or Local Levels -" February 12, 1964.

RCC Meeting No. 3 held in Winnipeg, October,7-8-,1964 alackenzie,File

D/ 1-64 List of those in attendance. D/ 2-64, Terms of Reference JRCC. D/ 3-64 Progress Report of Working Group on Public Information - 7 October, 1964. ...I2 -2-

D/ 4-64 Progress Report of Working Group on Communications - 7 October, 1964. D/ 5-64 Canadian Report on Evacuation and Movement of People across the Canada/United States Border - 7 October, 1964. D/ 6-64 Review of Canadian National Planning Since Last Meeting - 7 October, 1964. D/ 7-64 Provincial/State Civil Defence Agreements - 7 October, 19.64. D/ 8-64 Request for information from Germany, etc. - 7 October, 1964. D/ 9-64 Treatement of Refugees - 7 October, 1964. D/10-64 Planning Guidance at Local Levels - Canadian Report -.7 October, 1964. D/11-64 No Border Concept - 7 October, 1964. D/12-64 British Columbia Regional Report - 7 October, 1964. D/13-64 New Brunswick Regional Report - 7 October, 1964 D/14-64 Ontario and Manitoba Regional Report - 7 October, 1964.. D/15-64 United States Civil Defense Highlights - 6 October, 1964. General Review of US National Civil Emergency Planning - 7 October, 1964. D/16-64 Report of OCD and OEP Region 1-7 October, 1964. D/17-64 Report of OCD Regions 4 and 6, and OEP Region 4 - 7 October, 1964, D/18-64 Report of OCD and OEP Region 8-7 October, 1964. D/19-64 US/Canada Emergency Transportation Planning - United States Summary Report - 7 October., 1964. D/20-64 Evacuation and Movement of People Across the United States/Canada Border - US Report - 7 October, 1964. D/21-64 Progress Report of Working Group on Warning - 7 October, 1964. D/22-64. Progress Report of Working Group on Radiological Defence - 7 October, 1964. D/23-64 Treatment of Refugees - 7 October, 1964. D/24-64 Guidance for Planning at State, Provincial'and Municipal or Local Levels ^ 7 October, 1964.

JRCC Meeting No. 4 held in Colorado Springs, March 17-19, 1965

D/ 1-65 Review of Civil'Emergency Planning - Canada - 12 March, 1965. D/ 2-65 Progress Report of OEP - 17 March, 1965. D/ 3-65 General Review - United States Civil Defense Planning - 15 March, 1965. D/ 4-65 Eastern Canada Regional Report - 1 March, 1965. D/ 5-65 Region l- OCD and OEP Report - 15 March, 1965. D/ 6-65 Canadian Western Regions Report - 16 February, 1965. D/ 7-65 Western US Regional Report - 1 March, 1965. D/ 8-65 Transportation - 17 March, 1965. D/ 9-65 Study Group Report on Warnings - 25 February, 1965. D/10-65 Progress Report on Radef - 9 March, 1965. D/11-65 Study Group Report on Cross-Border Communications - 4 March, 1965. D/12-65 Study Group Report on Public Information - 4 March, 1965. D/13-65 Treatment of Refugees - 17 March, 1965. D/14-65 Evacuation and Movement of People - 5 March, 1965. D/15-65 No paper.

.../3 -3- D16/65 Existing State/Province and local Cross-Border Mutual Aid and other • Reciprocal Arrangements D17/65 State-Province Agreement - 25 February 1965 D17A/65 Use of Interstate Civil Defence rompacts or Agreements by the States and Canadian Provinces - 17 March 1965 D178/65 State-Province Agreement - 17 March 1965 D18/65 Report on Cross-Border Planning Activities of Federal Agencies 17 March 1965 , - D19/65 Peacetime Natural Disasters - 1 March 1965 D20/65 Joint Seminars, Tests and Exercises - January 1965 D21/65 Cross-Border Supply - 22 February 1965 D22/65 Control of Fishing Vessels - West Coast - 22 February 1965 D23/65 Report of Planning Conference in Quebec City - 2 March 19.65 D24/65 US/Can Joint Study Groups -11 March 1965.

0 xle =Ci F--. ....4 I I-, MD

■-■ MD a■ Li'

• US /CAN JRCC-R 1/65 April 7, 1965 UNITED STATI;S /cANADA

JOINT REGIONAL CONTINUI'NG COMMITTEE a subcommittee of The JoinY. Civi1 E----,_2ncy Planning Coirnnittee

Record of Decisions

The fourth meeting of the United States/Canada Joint Regional Continuing Committee (JRCC) was held at the Broadmoor Hotel, Colorado Springs, Colorac^^, March 17-19, 1965. Those present were:

CANADA UiïITlfi STATES

Mr. C. R. Boehm Mr. A.-D. O'Connor RMO Regional Director Director (British Columbia) OEP Region 1 Mr. I. H. Deyman Mr. Laurie J, Cormier EMO Regional Director Director (Mânitoba) OCD Region 1 Mr. A. C. Ross Mr. Frank P. Bourgin EMO Regional Director Director .(New Brunswick OEP Regi.on 4

Mr. David G. Harrison ^ Acting Director OCD Region 6

Mr. Charles C. Rails 'Director OCD Region 8

Mr. Creath A. Tooley Director OEP Region 8 I SECRLTARIAT

Mr. J. P. Wallace Mr. Hubert R. Gallagher Assistant Director, LmIO Director Canadian Joint Chairman Liaison & Public Affairs, OEP US Joint Chairman

Mr. M. R. Mackenzie Mr. John W. McConnell External Liaison Officer, EMO Asst. Di-r. of Civil Defense Canadian Joint Secretary Plans and Operations, OCD US Joint Chairman

^^.5:;".n`;^t:^.iro . ,. . . . _. ` . ^+^:^.: ...... • -...... _ . . . ;...... i . ^ r. ,.,_ , CANADA UNITED STATES • .Mr. James W.15aeobson Deputy Dir. Program Div. OCD US Joint Secretary

Mr. Andre Marcellin Asst. for International Organization Affairs, OEP US Joint Secretary

OBSERVERS

Mr. Ian Robertson, representing Mr. Joseph F. Vaughn, representing Department of External Affairs Department of State. Canada . United States

Mr. John J. O'Grady Public Information Officer OCD Region 6

I. INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME

IL GENEKAL REVIEW 01'. NATIONAL CIVIL EMERGENCY PLANNING SINCE THE LAST ME271NC

Reference Documents: J1CC'D-1/65, Mar. 12; D-2/65,Mar717TD=3/65,Mar.1 5 .

The COMMITTEE:

noted the progress reports as presented by the respective Chairmen.

III. REVIEW OF REGIONAL NATIONAL PLANNING OF INTERNATIONAL INTEREST AND OF REGIONAL CROSSBORDER PLANNING

Reference Documents: JRCC D-4/65, Mar. 1; D-5/65, Mar. 12; D-6/65, Feb. 16; D-7/65, Mar. 1.

The COMMITTEE:

1. noted the four regional reports as presented; and

2. directed that for future meetings regional reports should beconsolidated into two joint reports covering developments in eastern and western border areas; the dividing line to be between Ontario and Manitoba in

2 cq Canada and between Region 4 and Region 6 in the US. R In each case a designated regional director in the q& easterr, and western sections of the host country will prepare the reports incorpcrating information provided by the visiting country.

IV. APPROVAL OF FECORD OF DECTSIONS OF JRCC MEETING HELD IN WINNIPEG, MANITOBA, OCÏ'OBER 7:-_8 1954

The COMITTEE:

apprr,ved the record without change, as set out in JRCC R-2/64.

V. TRANSPORTATION

Reference Documencs: •JRÇC D-8/65, Mar. 17.

The COMMZT.CI3E :

1. o^,served with satisfaction that JRCC suggestions have been effective in stimulating action with respect to all modes of transport; and

2: txioted recommendLtions in the memorandum (D-8/65) which will be submitted to the Civil Emergency.Planning Com- mittee (CEPC) by•the joint study group on Civi7. Trans- portation Emergency Planning; particularly those relating to the development of a transport priority listing • applicable to crossborder movements and the requirements for US/Canada agreements to assure facility and compatability in emergency crossborder transport operations.

VI . LIAISON LISTS - FEDERAL AND REGIONAL

Refe:`ence Documents: Existing Lists

The COMMITTEE:

1. Noted that, although the federal list was not up to date due to a pending reorganization in E1110_ there was sufficient current information held by respective headquarters to carry on necessary liaison.

2. Noted that interest in regional lists was developing both as a point of contact for counterpart officers and a general source of information.

3. Agreed that regional lists be revised at least once a year.

77..__r-' ^., ^?.*'e ..^m,. ÿ.^.aé ;•<«^: r^a ^ti ^ta -t: . -^.,r^°: ^u,=r`T't+•T^rx^ F 4. Observed that state/province officials were f interested in developing similar lists. E?

VII. WORKING GROUP PROGRESS'REPORTS

A. WARNING

Reference Document: JRCC D-9/65, Feb. 25.

The COk1MITTEE:

1. nôted with approval the progress report of the working group on warning;

2. observed with interest the trend of thinking toward one warning signal, nationally controlled;

3. agreed that the working group should continue to study the problem of resolving differences in the meaning of signals and report to JRCC at its next meeting;

4. inoted the policy implications in the working group. rècommendatior..3 which were:

a. That the United States Office of Civil Defense begin a program to remove local authorities from the decision to sound sirens and that the warning message include the phrase "sirens should be sounded."

b. That Canada delegate authority to declare and dis- seminatè attack warnings to the Federal Warning Officer on duty at the Federal Warning Centre based on the same information used by the United States for the declaration and dissemination of AIR RAID WARNING; and

5. agreed that th.: only means of resolution of the differences in the two national systems would be for national represen-;, tatives on the CEPC to establish senior level working groups to further analyse the implications of current procedures with a view to resolving the differences which are now apparent in the two systems.

urs^ tt , t.^: ..,17777Si T--> .?i ^^?.-^°m^n ,-•z^-!, r r^ . . 7!` -`777 ^ t^rts.,'x: i `T' 7 ^;`.x`7 Gty B. RADIOLOGICAL DEFENCE

Reference Document: JRCC D-10/65, Mar. 9.

The COMMITTEE :

1. noted.with marked approval the report of the working group on radiological defence;

2. observed that the recommendations of the working group, as appro^^ed in CEPC D-5/64, were being implemented in both countries'; and

,3: noted the working group statement that provinces and states were concerned by the lack of direct communication between them for the exchange of RADEF information (see C. 2. below).

4. relieved the working group of further esponsibility as an element of the JRCC and recommended that the members revert to normal liaison with counterparts; and

5. recommend that the CEPC note the progress report of the working group on radiological defence.

0. CO112^FU-NICAT IONS y^..., t

. ^. ^. F Reference Document: JRCC D-11/65, Mar. 4.

The COMMITTEE:

1. noted the progress report of the working group on communications on the subject of the establishment of landline teletype communications with and without radio hack-up between neighboring Canadian and US regional headquarters; and

2. recommend that the CEPC approve the installation by' June 30, 1966, of landline full duplex (60 WPM) terminal equipment and the leasing of circuits. between the regional headquarters as set forth in XI, (b) of JRCC R-2/64, Nov. 6, 1964.

3. noted that efforts to proceed with plans to meet the requirement for radio back-up between US Region 8 (Everett) and Canadian B.C. Region (Nanaimo) have been delayed'by the study of National_Defense_Com- munications Systems by direction of the Canadian Treasury Board.

. ! . : 7F^ ; 4 7k;;X 771

4. agreed that the working group study of extension of communications between adjacent municipalities and other local areas be suspended pending the findings of an OCD Region 6 pilot study of cross- • border conmmnications entitled ! 10CD Region Six/ Canada Communications" dated 16 March, 1965; this

• • study to be made avrilable to respective national communications planners as it procecds. . . D. PUBLIC INFORMATION AND REORGANIZATION OF WORKING GROUPS

Reference.Document: JRCC D-12/65, Mar. 4 and D-24/65, Mar. 11.

The COMMITTEE:

1. noted the report of the working group; b.s set forth in JRCC D-12/65; the new joint and Canadian Chairman of the Public Ilformation Working Group to be Lt. Col. A. Stirton (ENO);

2. noted and approved the -'.aradian proposal for clarifying the a1loc,2tion of functions among the working groups on Warning, Communications and Public Infor- mation set forth in JRCC D-24/65; _ 3. recommended that the joint chairmen of the three working groups mentioned in 2 above arrange to meet at the same time during Sept. 1965 in Ottawa for the purpose of reaching full understanding of the division of overlapping interests in line with jRCC D-24/65 and for the joint discussion of matters of mutual interest; and

4. agreed that the working group on Public Information should continue its studies of content of emergency information and instructionsto the public by all media as related to crossborder emergency plans and operations.

VIII. TREATMENT OF REFUGEES

Reference Documents: JRCC D-13/65, Mar. 17.

The COMMITTEE:

1. noted the content of the reference prepared by OEP, particularly the delay of approximately one year after entry of any obligation of foreigners to serve on US armed forces; and

m7.77,:my ':eMMP:MMP7e77,,n17Te 2. concurred in the proposal to include agreement on refugee treatment in a revision or supplement to the exchange of notes of Nov. 15, 1963.

IX. EVACUATION AND MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE

Reference Documents: JRCC D-14/65, 3

The COMMITTEE:

• . 1. noted the report of.progress presented by OCD;

2. agreed to the proposal from the floor by the Canadian chairman that EMO carry out further investigation with British Columbia and Quebec to determine whether the forecasted movement of Canadians into the US would in fact take place; and

3. agreed thatthe federal agencies concerned, Emergency Welfare (Canada) and Welfare Administration (US) be relieved.of any_further duties in this respect._

X. . REQUIRENT FOR SUPPLEMENTARY EXCHANGE OF NOTES

Reference Document: JRCC D-15/65 (none Prepared)

• The COMMITTEE:

1. discussed the indications that operating Agencies particularly those dealing with transportation, supplies, etc. would require more definitive US/ Canada negotiating authority and guiding basic prin- )ciples for mutual emergency assistance and cooperation than provided in, or authorized by, the exchange of notes of Nov. 15, 1963 in order to proceed with the development of standby emergency plans which could be put into effect without delay in a war emergency. The exploratory steps being taken by EMO and External Affairs of Canada in conjunction with OEP and Depart- ment of State, US were briefly. reviewed; and

2. noted that the Secretariat would present the problem and alternative approaches for its solution to the CEPC in April.

XI. STATE/PROVINCE PLANNING-EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS

Reference Document: JRCC D-16/65

The COMMITTEE:

7 1. noted the assembled evidence of existing arrangements for crossborder assistance in emergency at the State/Province and local levels, particularly tue spottiness of coverage as indicated by a matrix keyed to the backup material; and

2. agreed that the collated information should be passed to provinces and states and in passing such information Regional Directors should advise them that should they be contemplating development of province/state civil emergency agreements, care should be take n. not to jeopardize eXisting formal or informal agreements which now appear to be working effectively.

XII.. SAMPLE PROVINCE/STATE AGREEMENT

Reference Documents: JRCC D-17/65, Feb. 25; D-17A/65, 'Eke.. 17; . D-17B/65, Mar. .17; and D-23/65, Mar. 2. The COMMITTEE:

1. noted the proposed sample agreement, which came out • of joint deliberations at Boston, Mass., JanuarY -21 Quebec City, Quebec, February 25-26, 1965, under direction of the Working Group comprising the EMO Regional Director, New Brunswick, OEP Director, Region 1, and Mr. Draine representing OCD Director, Region 1;

2. noted that another draft agreement had been prepared by the OEP Joint Chairman in consultation with EMO (D/17B-65) based on the Working Group draft;

3. noted Canadian comments on a background paper produced . by the OEP Joint Chairman and his agreement to - revise the paper in accordance with the comments;

4. discussed the propriety Of covering peacetime disaster and wartime emergency planning and exchange of assistance in the same ,sample joint agreement; and

5. directed the Working Group to:

a. consolidate proposals and revise as necessary to make consistent with CEPC D-8/64;

b. solicit informal comments from EMO, OEP and OCD in consultation with External and State;

c. prepare a sample State/Province agreement for review. at the next meeting of the JRCC. XIZI. CROSSLORDER PLANNING ACTIVITIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES

Reference Document:^ JRCC D-18/65, Mar. 17.

The COMMITTEE:

1. noted the-report of the Secretariat ( OEP) regarding crossborder emergency planning of US.Departments of Agricultuie; Commerce; Health, Education and Welfare; Tnteri.or and labor;

2. noted the comment of the OCD Joint Chairman of the the meetings between the FCC and DOT regarding emerbency radio broadcast interference; and.

3. directed the Secretariat (OCD) to investigate, and report on an arrangement called the ALCANUS Agreement regarding the evacuation of military dependents and other civilians from Alaska through Canada.

XIV. CROSSj3ORDER ASSISTANCE IN PEACETIME DISASTERS

Reference Document: JRCC D-19/65, Mar. 1.

The C06M17.''l'Ek :

1. noted with approval the report of the peacetime disaster working group; and

2. agrc:od to the following recommendations of the working ' group:

a. plans for crossborder assistance in major peacetime disasters should be written and exchanged for information purposes between the political divisions concerned (state/province and local). Of particular importance are the matters of channels of communication, procedures With respect to the requestiing of crossborder aid and financial recovery policies. Copies should be filed ^Lwith OEP, -10,U and OCD.

b. Province/state governments should examine and provide guidance to the next lower levels on legal implications of formal vis a vis informal understandings and the best form of instruments of agreement. This examination• should include aspects of reimbursement for loss of equipment (Federal and local).

c. Legal aspects of the status of emergency workers employed in crossborder disaster work, under direction of government at any level, in event of their injury, death, involvement in crime, etc., in other than their

9 own country should be investigated by states and provinces and all concerned informed. Respective Federal DrTartments of Labor should be asked to investigate matters of compensation for workers of the other country in wartime.

d. A standard procedure should be established for the handling of crossbordér surviver enquiries. The first step being the responsibility of Canada; to develop a peacetime procedure.

e. The respective governments should authorize MO and • • • OEP to be the central coordinating agencies through which crossborder assistance can be coordinated during peacetime disasters having crossborder implications. I . - 'XV CROSSBORDER SEMINARS TESTS AND EXERCISES • • • Reference Document:. JRCC D-20/65, Feb. 15. •

The COMMITTEE:

1. noted with marked approval thc report of the working group which was highly colmnended and relieved from further responsibility;

2. agreed that seminar type exercises for province/state and local governments would contribute substantiialy to the development and evaluation of operating plans; that tests should be deferred until such plans are relatively complete;

3. directed the warning working group to investigate the feasi- biliy of conducting a top to bottom joint warning exercise in US Region 8 and Canadian regions of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan and to report findings to OCD and EMO before June 30, 1965; and

4. recommended that the seminar type exercise shOuld be examined and developed further by the federal training organizations.

XVI. OTHER MATTERS - NEW BUSINESS

A. Document JRCC D-2I/65, Feb. 22 on Crossborder Supply was withdrawn.

B. The committee discussed the possibility that some of the early suggestions and recommendations for JRCC action may have been passed over without appropriate consideration and agreed that. a working group should be designated to:

1. review the recommendations made by the three crossborder conferences of 1963 against subsequent JRCC actions; and

1 0 2. recommend to JRCC by correspondence for consideration at its next meeting such future actions as are.indicated by the review.

The officiating chairman appointed the following working group:

Mx. A. C. Ross, New Brunswick, EMO, Chairman Mr. A. D. O'Connor, US Region 1, OEP Mr. Laurie J. Cormier, US Region 1, OCD

C. Document JRCC D-22/65, Feb. 22, Control of Fishing Vessels - West Coast, was considered by the Committee which agreed that:

1. a Control of Fishing Vessels Working Group be established to develop and report upon necessary emergency plans to control the movement and operation of such craft in wartime . and to provide for the disposal and processing of their catches; and

2. the working group be sponsored by the Canadian Department of Fisheries with membership from other appropriate US/Canada agencies such as: Royal Canadian Navy Canadian Coast Guard f • US Bureau of Commercial Fisheries US Navy US Coast Guard • and others as required.

D. The committee discussed the propriety of distributing JRCC . the states and provinces and agreed that: documents to

1. all documents should be distributed to all regions as attachments to the Record of Decision; and

2. dissemination of information therefrom to states and provinces should be at the discretion of regional directors and coordinated with regional directors across the border.

The committee: noted that the CEPC plans to meet in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1965, and directed the JRCC Secretariat to prepare JRCC recommendations for presentation at that time.

F. Next Meeting - The Committee:

agreed that the next meeting of the JRCC should be held in Canada at a place and date to be determined.

11 aa / %.euV JRCC A 1/65 ' üNl:'L'ED S7'ATTS/CPNADA Joint Regional Continuinf; Co;-.nittee, a Subcommittee of the Joint Civil Emergency Planning Committee AGENDA Fourth Semi-Annual Meeting - The Broadmoor Colorado Springs, Colorado March 17, 18, & 19, 1965

SUi3JE CT US/CAN JRCC Doc. No. P^e I. Introduction and Welcome OCD Chairman

IIXO Chairman D 1/65 13 .II. Review of Civil Emergencÿ Planning.^ OEP Chairman D 2/65 15 OCD Chairman D 3/65 19

IIk. Regional Réports A. Eastern, Canada EMO D 4/65 31 B. Eastern, US . OEP D 5/65 33 C. Western, Canada EMO D 6/65 44 D. Western, US OCD D 7/65 .48

IV. Minutes of Winnipeg Meeting (October.7--8, 1964) "Record of Discussions" R 2/64 60 V. Transportation 0EP D 8/65

VI., Liaison Lists - Federal & Regional Discussion

Vi:I. Working Grcup Progress Reports Discussion 64 ^ A. Warning OCD D 9/65 s' 67 B. Radiological Defense OCD D 10/65 C. Communications EMO D 11/65 69 D. Public Informatit-n n1o D 12/65 71 74 VIIT. Treatment of Refugees OEP D 13/65

IX. Evacuation and Movement of People OCD D .14/65 76

X. Requirement for Supplementary Discussion Exchange of Notes STATE/EXxERNA.I, AFFAIRS -33 Y"r/(^

XI. State/Province Planning Discussion Existing Arrangements OCD D 16/65 78

XII. Sample Province/State Agreement OEP D 17/65 97

XIII. Cross-border Planning Activities of 107 Federal Agencies OEP D 18/65

XIV. Cross-border Assistance in 111 Peacetime Disasters MID D 19/65 D 20/65 116 XV. Joint Seminars, Tests and Exercises OCD -D-21{65- XVI. Other Matters-New Business Control of Fishing Vessels-West Coast D 22/65 136 138 0 Report of Quebec City Conference D 23/65 - -...... __-.^----_------_.------Joint Study Groups Assignments D 24/65 140

^-5 J'258/.5 pPUR0) US CAN March 12, 1965- ., JRCC D/1-65

United States/Canada Joint Ree;ional Continuing Committee

Subject: Review of Civil Emergency Planning - Canada

This review covers the major activities or trends in Canada since the JRCC meeting held in Winnipeg, October, 1964.

At the request of ET-40, the Joint Intelligence Committee carried. planning.out a risk of attack study to serve as the base for civil emergency This has been corn31eted and its implications are now being studïedo ` v

At the request of the Minister of National Defence, a joint EI110/ National Defence study group is working c-at the future direction of survival operations with particular reference to the responsibi].ities of the Lepartment of National Defence,

A new emergency planning order is nearing compl.eti on and subi-nitteû to the gnvernmeni-, for approval be ^, ^ Tni,^This order out the sp..ci^ ^ r; .c re.^}^onsi^lities"i of all federal departmentsÛpell and agencies (Category 1), at the same time will place general responsibilities on other departments of government.

A rederal/Provincial Conference will be held in June 19650

The Emergency Measures Organi.zation has been reviewed by the Civil Service Commission, Subject to formal Ppproval, the organization pattern will be; a Director General, a Directorate of Programme Implementation and a Directorate of Planning.

The pilot survey of fallout protection was completed in Alberta. In brief, the results-were:

(a) PF 10 to 49 1,022,700 spaces (b) 50 to 99 185,600 (c) 100 plus LL2 500

() Total 1,650,8oo spaces

(e) An additional 7409000 spaces with PF in excess of 10 could be improvedo Financial Estimates for fiscal year 1965/66 (April to I.;arch.)

EMO $9,684,000

• Departments (exclusive of 5,269,000 Defence)

7ew programmes: (a) Start on Mational Fallout Shelter Survey - approved.

(b) Start,on a modest shelter improvement programme - tentative. (c) Rebuild of the Canadian Civil Defence College - approved. (d) Start on four remaining REGHWs - tentative. (e) Cross-border communications - tentative.

Canadian Joint Chairman, Joint Regional Continuing Committee. March 179 1965 US/C.AN

J1-2CC D/2-65

United States /Canada

Joint Regional Continuing Committee

Subject: Progress Report of the Office of Emergency Planning for 1964

The following significant developments have occurred during 1964:

A. National Plan for Emergency Preparedness

The National Plan has beerx published and distributed throughout the country.

The National Plan sets forth the basic principles, policies, responsibilities, preparations and responses of civil government to meet any kind of national defense ernergency. The Plan describes•the roles of the Federal. Government, the States and their political. subdivisions and, as appropriate, non-governnlental organizations and ind vidUal citizens.

The role of OEP in developing the Plan has been chiefly that of policy • guidance, coordination, and editorial supervision. Most of the chapters were first prepared by other Federal agencies with primary emergen.cy responsibilities assigned them. by, he Preside.nt.

We also recognize the work and support given to the Plan by officials and 1 orga• nizations throughout the Nation. Their cooperation together with tha.t of the Federal. agencies, makes this truly a National Plan.

B. Four Years of Progress in Civil Emergency Preparedness - A Report to the President

This report is a summary of the progress which has b een made in the . field of civil emergency preparedness during the years 1961 - 1964.

These four years have produced significant improvements in ou.r preparedness. 1 The highlights are these:

--- major orga.nizational changes were accomplished to place the operational civil defense programs .in the Department of Defense.

(1 -2-.

ell MR WO The Secretaries of Federal departments and the Heads of agencies were given clear mandates and specific assignments by the President in a series of Executive Orders.

111. Vi The capability of the Federal Government to respond to emergenc . r in the conditions was substantially strengthened and met the test Cuban crisis. •

all ow va A system for the Federal Government to make and to execute national resource decisions under emergency conditions was developed and approved.

ae M A supporting computer capability to analyze and estimate resource needs under emergency conditions lias been developed and improved.

▪ .11M The Governors of the States have been assisted toward achieving a readiness to manage resources wi.thin their borders should the need arise.

e l. Ian MO More than 7000 leaders from business, industry, labor, agriculture, and the academic community have been introduced into preparedness planning activities at State and national levels.

WO WM de Governmental communications for ernergenCy purposes have been substantially irn.proved.

11.11 .1•1 The strategic and critical stockpiling . program has been re-evaluated, new objectives established for conventional war, and major disposal programs accomplished, with more to come.

MI OD .1 The natural disaster program has been strengthened and improved to give the Federal Government an ability to respond quickly and effectively to meet the needs of stricken areas.

• C. The Alaska Earthquake - A Progress Report on 279 Days of Federal R econstruction Effort

This year-end report chronicles the total national response by Federal • departments and agencies; State and local governments; nongovernmenta l . and the people themselves in bringing recovery to Alaska after organizations,

the earthquake. •

In a companion report, the Federal Reconstruction. and Development Planning Commission for Alaska, established by President Johnson on April 2, 1964, and • ably chaired by Senator Clinton P. Anderson, submitted its recommendations

for legislation which would serve the needs of reconstruction, lead to the • long-term recovery of the State and add to the general improvement of Federal na.tural disaster assistance.

D. Committee on Non-Milita.ry .Assumption Planning

This Com.mittee, consisting of representatives of Departments of State and Defense, CIA and the .Director of OEP as Chairman, has completed -•

• and forwarded to the President revised guidance on nonmilitary assumptions.

E. Evaluation of Federal. Departments and Agencies • A full scale evaluation of the progress in civ il emergency planning made by the Federal Departments and Agencies assigned functions under Executive Orders, has been completed.

The individual agency reports indicate considerable progress. However, many deficiencies have been identified and have been called to the attention of the Department and agency heads.

F. Office of Defense Resources

In the event of a nuclear attack on the U.S. the economic and resource problems facing the country would be unprecedented and extremely complex. In previous mobilization emerge.ncies, we have had an unsha.ttered economy and no loss of physical and human resources; in a nuclear attack situation, the economy wil.1 be severely wounded and distorted, resources will be lost 3 and in short supply, great pressures will have to be exerted to meet the most important post-attack needs. 1 To cope with the chaos of such an emergency the President has approved the concept of an Office of Defense Resources, to be developed on a stand-by basis, for activation when in his opinion, the circumstances call for its activation.

The mission of the Office of Defense Resources will be to:

a) .Assi.st the President in the formulation of policies and objectives for the use of the Nation's resources to meet emergency requirements.

b) Develop and adn-yinister an overall system for reaching central programming decisions for the most effective c) utilization of resources during an emergency.

19 -4-

c) Current Regional Offices would become OPR Regional Offices and would be responsible for central programming decisions on the regional level.

G. The Comprehensive Program

Program has been gaining momentum. Thirty-two States have ratified Continuity of Governments amendments.

All 50 States have Emergency Planning Directors; 40 of the States have Emergency Resources Planning Committees.

An appropriation of $3 million was made to assist State and local governments in planning for emergency use of resources. Forty States are under contract and we expect by the end of the fiscal year to have 50.

The announcement by the Président at the time of the appointment of former Governor Buford Ellington as Director of OEP, that Governor Ellington will participate in Cabinet meetings, in addition to serving on the National Security Council will benefit the agency and add to its stature.

O-Ep 56929 e^ -r-, US/CAN JRCC D 3/65

March 15, 1965

GENERAL REVIEW

. UNITED STATES • NATIONAL CIVIL DEFENSE PLANNING

OCTOBER 1964 -SARCR 1965

\ at NATIONAL FALLOUT SHELTER PROGRAM

..hc!11' Survey - Identification of space suitable for use as fallout shelters was initiated on a national basis in late 1961. As of February 25, 1965, 148,837 facilities meeting Federal criteria and containing 127,046,000 spaces had been located. It is anticipated that an additiqnal three million spaces will have been located by June 30, 1965. • • he survey process is being expanded to include for each facility: An pstimate of tranned water-and sewerage system capacity; an estimate of modification costs - necessary to ensure availability of trapped water; availability of telephone instrument or jack; feasibility and cost estimate for a well; obtaining ownerts signature on trapped water modification agreement; determination of the requirements for. water containers for potable water and sanitation purposes; determinution of the amount of equivalent food stocks available; determination of the number of radiological monitoring kits required;.fallout shelter-sign inspection, maintenance and replacement; and obtaining ownerts signature on shelter license at the request of the local civil defense director. This expanded survey will be conducted in 57 locations in which community shelter planning studies are being nonducted, in 25 standard metropolitan statistical areas having large numbers of facilities with 3,000 or more spaces, and in normal updating. On a limited scale a survey of structures with PF 40 or more and fewer than 50 spaces is being conducted. This will be limited to shelter deficient areas in the 57 locations of the community shelter plans. During the spring a test survey will be conducted to determine the feasibility of a combination of a mail question- naire and automatic data processing equipment to evaluate the fallout protection factor of individual dwellings. • . Shelter LicensinE - The responsibility for obtaining the written permission of the owner or manager of a building for its use as a public fallout shelter rests with the local government. The license permits public use of the shelter facility, the affixture and maintenance of fallout shelter signs, storage and maintenance of supplies, and right of inspection. There were 78,453 licensed facilities having 71 ) 141,000 spaces as of February 25, 1965. • • Shelter Marking -. The marking of fallout shelters with signs furnished by the Federal Government and the maintenance and removal of such signs are responsibilities of the local government. As of February 25, 1965, 86,o47 facilities with 70,990,000 spaces had been marked with fallout shelter signs. . Shelter Stocking - The Federal Government will provide local governments with . supplies designed to provide shelter occupants with the austere items essential for their survival for fourteen days. These supplies will be provided only for those facilities which have been identified and licensed as fallout shelters. Essential survival items are water containers and food rations, as well as kits for sanitation, medical and -radiation detection purposes. Supplementary provisions to improve the comfort of shelterees and special foods or medications may be supplied locally if desired. A total of 56,862 facilities with 49 ) 463,000 shelter sPaces have been stocked with 14 days of shelter supplies for 30,160 ) 000 persons. • iflielter Development - The Office of Civil Defense provides a variety of opportunities for members of the architectural and engineering professions to d,..:velop and maintain a capability for planning and designing protective construction and for incorporating fallout protection in buildings. ProfessionDl development courses are taught at-several universities and professional schools, as well as by traveling instructor teams where the demand exists. Faculty members from approximately 100 architectural *and engineering institutions have participated in faculty development activities and have qualified to teach Fnllout Shelter Analysis. • New architectural and engineering design techniques that provide for incorporating fallout protection features in new "construction have been developed. Incorporation of these design and construction features with little or no increase in cost and without sacrifiCing the functional or esthetic qualitles of the building is cnlled "slanting." This includes the geometrical arrangement of structural elements, such as windo;.s and walls, to provide maximum fallout protection. Use of slanting techniques will enhance the inherent fallout protection capability of a structure, or it may- facilitate later improvenmts in this capability. It is anticipated that the concept of slanting, as it is introduced to architects and engineers, will become an important basis for developing fallout shelter space in future construction. Arrangements have been made with individual faculty members of severnl universities to serve as consultants to private architectural firms engaged in design projects in which it is desired to incorporate fallout protection features. In 1962 a program was initiated to provide for incorporating Shelters in new and existing Fuleral.buildings. This program is a means of (1) stimulating local and private shelter construction by Federal example; (2) acquiring cost and technical data on public shelter construction; (3) developing less expensive methods of incorporating shelters in public buildings; and (4) acquiring practical experience in protective designing which may be applied nationwide.

A program to provide a lqw coat portable packaged ventilation .kit for each shelter. area that requires additional ventilation and is adoptable to kit use to increase the number of habitable shelter spaces by ventilation improvement in in the devel- opmental stage. A portable packaged ventilation kit has been developed. • The unit is compact, may be stored until needed, and will provide sufficient fresh air for approximately 100 persons. A pilct procurement will be made to permit a study of manufacturing and packaging problems.

-2-

IJ March 15, 1965

STATUS OF EMERGENCY BROADCAST SYSTEM ‘ (E.',13S)

' Forty-nine State EBS Plans have been approved by the Regional Industry Advisory Committees (RIAC's) and submitted to National Industry Advisory Committee (NIAC) and FCC for final approval. As of this date, EBS Plans for New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands are not completed. Although the general concept of the 49 EBS Plans vvere approved by the RIAC's, a number of States have to be asked to provide additional or revised • details.

The OCD Broadcast Station Protection Program will provide a capability of giving emergency information to the gen.eral public during a fallout environment. This program includes • the provision of a fallout shelter for minimum radio station operating personnel, and emergency source of power, certain programming communications equipment and a radio remote pickup set between the station and an approved point of entry in a civil defense EOC.

Through FY 1962-64 there were 310 radio stations in the OCD Broadca.st Station Protection Program, including four stations completed at no cost to the Federal Government. During FY 1965, it is expected 220 additional radio stations will be completed. An additional 128 radio stations are programmed for FY 1966 making a total of approximately 658 stations to be protected.

The average cost per station is approximatel.y- $15,500; Through FY 1964 about 4.8 million was expended with another 3.4 million during the current FY 1965. Approximately 2:0 million in FY 1966 will complete the programmed 10.2 million project.

658 stations will provide a National and State programming capability during a fallout environment and local area prograrnrnin.g for the more populated areas of the country. March 15, 1965

F CC MEETING WITH CANADA - MARCH 1-2, 1965

The Federal Communications Commission (F CC) held meetings on

March 1-2, 1965, in Washington, D. C. , with representatives of the

-Canadian Department of Transport which controls broadcasting in Canada.

OCD had two representatives at these meetings. Neither the Emergency

Measures Organization or the Canadian Armed Forces were represented.

The purpose was to discuss Emergency Broadcast Systerris (EBS) in

the United States and Canada and any proposed deviation of selected

stations from normal operation that might affect the other country.

Canada has selected radio stations for their EBS so that there are no

deviations from normal operation. Programming is not contemplated at

this time below the Provincial levels.

In the total State FBS Plans in the United States, there are over 400

proposed deviations from normal that could affect the Canadian stations.

Approximately 80 percent of these were cleared so that if they are approved

by FCC they will be consistent with United States and Canada agreements.

Approximately 20 percent of the stations are being further studied to

determine if tney will affect the Canadian EBS stations.

Another meeting will be held at. an early date after the evaluation by the Department of Transport is completed. Ma.rch 15, 1965

DEVELOPMENT OF A RADIO WARNING SYSTEM

OCD has em.barked on a program to study in depth the possibilities of using radio for warning. This.was brought about by changes in the rules for the emer.. gency operation of radio stations—specifically the lifting oi CONELRAD restric- tions--and the fact that NEAR would provide only an indoor alarm. It would not provide follow-on information or instructions. We would still have to Use radio, telephone or some other means to verify warning and instruct the public as to what action they should take.

The warning study was based on the following requirements:

1. The output at the National level mast be fast and sure.

Z. The system must have the highest degree of reliability and•security.

3. There must be an. input of reliable information and this information must be available from more than one source.

4. The system must have credibility to assure public reaction to a warning.

5. The system must have survivability under attack conditions.

There is a conact for about a million dollar progra m underway- to finish the proLotype construction, production of test units, field testing and evaluation of a variety of configurations which could be used for Radio Warning. We expect to construct, test and evaluate home-owners receivers, low cost receiver designed based on AM, FM, UHF, and low frequencies. We have on order now, and will order, addition i....1 designs of low frequency receiving command and control units. We will buy small quantities of standard. teletype and special tape transmission equipment so .hat all of the building blocks to install a system nation-. wide will be availa.ble for tests. We will construct a prototype control console to be installed at the National Warning Center and wherever standard items are involved, we will use them or eliminate them as not being essentia l for tests.

• Thé timetable or all of this activity. is: Contracts are being written now. Most of the specifications for the individual building blocks have alrea.dy been developed by our contractors, although some additional performance details in some cases still need development.

:Construction of the equipment for tests will take place during the spring, summer and fall. Installation of these units in selected places for ca.refully designed tests, subsystem tests, will take place in the fall; testing will commence late fall and winter so that at this time next yea.r we expect to have sufficient information to pre sent some basic alternatives and recommendations. March 15, 1965

COMMUNITY SHELTER PLANNING

I The purpose of Community Shelter Planning is to make the most effective use of shelter space identified by the National Fallout Shelter Survey and of future additions to the shelter inventory which will be identified in the continuing survey.

The Community Shelter Planning program has been in the process of develop-• ment for about two years. During this period, the Office of Civil Defense experi- mented with various planning techniques and methods of program management in some 75 communities throughout the United States. Final reports on the final field test project, involving 5 ï communities, are now being received and evaluated.

The Office of Civil Defense is now preparing to go nationwide with a CSP program. This program may be defined as those elements. of the total local civil defense emergency operations plan that are required to maximize the life saving potential of fallout shelters. OCD believes the CSP effort is the mechanism to encompass all planning necessary to assure adequate warning, make shelter assignments, and provide for additional development where required, provide for the control of movement to shelter, communications between shelters and points of control, shelter management and 'information to the public. .^ a The fede rally•nfunded portion of the CSP program will result in each üommua ^ nity having a"She].ter Capabilities Plan" rriatching people to the best sheltèr , now available, using locally acceptable criteria on movement time, space per person andpzo • t ection factors. Usrng this basis, each community will then develop a; method or methods for disseminating the shelter assignments and other advice to the public. i In addition, each community will have a"Shelter Objective Plan" setting forth assignments made on OCD criteria and identifying residual shelter requirements (deficits) to be met by future shelter development.

.'S t March 15, 1965

ACTIONS FOR INCREASED CIVIL DEFENSE READINESS

The Office of Civil Defense has prepared guidance for State and local governments concerning actions which will be taken to increase civil defense readiness during periods of increased tension..

This increased readiness document suggests a number of actions for which State and local governments should develop a capability, pre-emergency, to carry out during a crisis. These actions relate to increasing readiness'in the areas of Direction and Control. (activating State and local government Emergency Operating Centers), Shelter, CD Personnel (e. g. , activating shelter managers and radio'•- logical moni.tors),incl Accelerated Training, This document does not discuss the means by which the Federal Government would instruct State and local governments to trigger these actions.

A revision of the increased readiness document is now being prepared which does include a discussion of the means by which the Federal Government would provide guidance to State and local governments. In addition, the revised document includes a list of emergency public information actions which were not contained in the previous document.

Upon analysis it was found to be impractieable to fie civil. defense art*ions to military Defense Conditions (DEFCONS) or postua.•es. After further study, it has also been decided that no attempt would be made to combine civil defense actions into groups or packages, since this would limit flexibility in the choice of specific actions which might be desirable in special circumstances. These actions 'have therefore been arranged in "ladders" which allow individual actions to be selected as appropriate to the nature of the crisis situation, without implementing other actions in the same list which might not be desirable in that situation.

It would be imperative in periods of crisis that State and local chief execu- tives and their staffs refrain from taking unilateral or precipitate actions. This is because decisions or actions to increase civil defense readiness could be made with full knowledge of all factors involved only by persons at the highest level of the Federal Government. Such decisions will be made, as appropriate and when required, and guidance will be provided to State and local governments accordingly. ' March 15, 1965

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

The objective of the Emergency Operations System Development program is to develop civil defense systems from the concept stage to readiness for operational deployment. The systems under development include: Direction & Control-Emer- gency Operating Centers; Maximizing Survivors with Available Shelter; Shelter Management and Operations; Movement to Shelter; Maintenance of Law and Order; Rescue; Remedial Movement; Increased Readiness; Warning; Local Communications; Radiological Defense; Engineering and Debris Clearance; Welfare; Integrated Manage- ment Information System; Fire Defense Systems; Health and Medical Services. In these and other functional areas the role of military support as related to civilian emergency operations must be clearly defined and requirements established for civil support of Continental United States military installations.

The Emergency Operations System Development program includes bringing together the results of applicable Office of Civil Defense research programs, field ; tests, operations analyses, and cost requirements, as well as legal and fiscal considerations, and in the light of field experiece developing doctrine, techniques and systems for practical use in Federal, State and local civil defense program.s. Cost- effectiveness techniques are applied wherever possible.

The end products of this program are the publications which make up the Federal Civil Defense Guide. A key part of the Guide describes local and State . Program-Papers, submitted annually by States and localities participating in Fed- eral financial assistance programs. Program Papers are a management tool defining with precision the things each Sta.te or locality will do to build a balanced • civil defense program during each fiscal year. Program Papers are based on Office of Civil Defense guidance as to which progra,m areas should re.ceive emphasis, .1 (e. g., shelter, warning, and radiological defense). Other parts of the Federal Civil Defense Guide describe how to do these things, and comprise an up-to-date body of civil defense knowledge and doctrine for use by Federal, State and local officials.

Fiscal Years 1962 to 1964 saw the development and initial application of the concept of operational systems development to serve as the link between general concepts and research results on the one hand and practical field deployment of operational systcms on the other. Significant results included the development of the Program Paper, described above, and of techniques and systems for Commu- nity Shelter Planning, now nearly ready for nationwide deployment. In addition, a computer-based management information system is being designed. .1

•••-: \ March 15, 1965

OCD TRAINING AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Civil defense training and education for a nation of 190 million people requires a large and complex effort. The main thrusts of OCD's training activities are toward the officials and cadre essential to initiating and sustaining a successful civil defense program. In its training and education activities the Office of Civil Defense makes maximum use of existing training resources in the nation. All federally supported instruction

is oriented toward protection through fallout shelters.

As indicateà on the table attached, civil defense instruction is directed

at four principal groups: (I) state and local officials, (2) professional

civil defense personnel, (3) personnel and groups with essential skills or knowledges, and (4) the public. •

OCD's chief means of conducting this work are the: (l) three OCD schools,

(2) Civil Defense University Extension Program, (3) Civil Defense Adult Education

Program, (4) Medical Self-Help Program,.(5) Architect and Engineer Development

.Program, and (6) training of civilian radiological monitors by Army CER teams.

The scope of these activities is indicated by the numbers instructed given on

the table.

Civil defense training has advanced significantly since the total civil

defense function was placed in the Depariment of Defense in 1962. While there

are still not enough trained people to staff a complete civil defense system,

a mechanism has been established which cannot only instruct professionals in

depth, but also has the capability te train people by tens- and hundreds o

thousands as may be required by future events. STATUS PAPER

Training and Education Program

FY 1964 ' FY 1965 Activity Accomplishment- Thru Jan. 1965

State and Local Officials:' UE Conferences...... 25,125 . 17,790

CD Professionals: (0CD School. Courses)_ Civil Defense Management...... 594 254 Advanced CD Management...... ^ 75 Plans and Operations ...... 184 74 Community She:l.ter Planning...... 246 . 84 Radef. Officer - 1 ...... 289 110 Radef..Officer - 11 ...... 91 70 OCD Extension Courses...... 78

I Civil Defense Skills: University Extension) Shelter Manager :Znstr•,.cCor...... 5,155 - 1,268 Radef. Monitor Znstructor...... 3,364 1,723 Shelter Manager ...... 156 2,386 Radef. Monitor lnstructor Refresher 36 55

(OCD Schools) ^ Shelter Manager.Instructor...... 833 261 Radef. Monitor Instructor...... 912 365 !.t . (Army Teams) ' I'.adef. Monitor ...... 3,609 2660

_(Adult Education Program) Radef. Monitor ...... ° 237.

(Architect and Engineer Development) *A&E Instructors Institute...... 194 262 **Fallout Shelter Analysis...... 6,739 7,659 ^ Environmental Engineering...... 200 . 380 ^

Education of Public: Adult Education Classes...... 187,626 90,122 Medical Self-Help Classes...... 1;035,687 222,443

Qualified Instructors Certified Analysts ./ As of 3/11/65 2/ As of 1/1/65

^ • • /Vlarch 15, 1965

NATIONAL EMERGENCY ALARM REPEATER (NEAR) •

AT COLUMBIA, MISSOURI

A National Emergency Alarm Repeater (NEAR) converter at the municipal owned power p1n facilities at Columbia, Missouri, is in process of being turned oVer to the city for the establishment of a permanent warning system. •

OCD will probably make a Federal grant of the equipment and in return expect Columbia, Missouri, to furnish OCD information on

operating and maintenance expenses, and methods of testing, marketing, and recording of data. •

- 0CD has 13,000 NEAR receivers on hand and 7,000 more to be

delivered which will be Made available to Columbia, Missouri, for their use. These receivers have a five-year warranty.

Consideration being given to the interconnection of the city's

present civil defense siren system so that it would be activated by the

NEAR unit. US/CANADA "March l e 1965 JRCC D/4,-.65

U-lited States/Canada

oint Regional Continuing,Committee

Sublec.t:_ Regional •••••■■•••••■••••••••••••■■• Report - Eastern Canada, Period Sept. 1 1964 to Feb. 1, 1965.

1 , A. E. Cooney, Regional Director, as a Canadian 'MCC Member, attended the JRCC Meeting in Suptember in Winnipeg. At the meeting ho was given two -assignments - (a) Member of Working Group for Cross-Border Seminars, Tests and Exercises (JRCO.Item XXI). (b) Attendance at the National SLate Civil Defence Directors! Con- •ference at Miami, Florida, in No vember, - 2. A report on the NASGDD Conference was prepared and submitted to Director, EMO, Canada. 3. The first meeting of the Working Group for Cross-Border Seminars, Tests and Exercises wa2 hold at the concluelon of the 'MCC September Meeting and the second meeting at the NASCDD Conferunce. The third meeting at Minneapolis in Janllary 1 9C5 roviewed . the first report of a sub-Working Group.

4. Mr. I. H. Deyman has replaced A. E. Cooney on the (MCC and attended the Minneapolis Working Group meeting,

5. Provincial cross-border activities have included: (a) Briefing of the Provincial Co-ordinator on JRCC plans and programmes. (b) Circulation to provincial departments of government and municipal governments JRCC papers on terms of reference, guides and planning papers.

(c) Fort Erie, Ontario, held a "Civil Defence" Week. Officials from • Buffalo Civil Defence and government attended some of the activities. (d) Sarnia, Windsor, and Sault Ste. Marie have continued their established

• liaison. •

. .. 6. A U.S. Reginn 4 and Ontario Region conference to officially commence New York Sto.1.0 and navince of.Ontario liaison and fllanning was arranged for February 2, 1965, but hal:beon ps,.:4,oned to a later date. . , . 7. A survey has been made of Drovincial government Departments and Municipal Government Departments to determine what formal understandings, undertakings, agreements or interests are in existence on cross-border matters. Only one formal agreement has been brour;ht to light on forest matters. A formal. pact between the two Sault Ste. Maries is nearing completion. There appears to be many informal. understandings with respect to cross-border aid for fire, welfare, and health.

8. Ontario Region will be represented at the ^,Liebec Conference on Cross-Border planning to be held at Quebec City February 25, 26 and 27, 1965.

90 The State-Province emergency planning programme should get impetus when JRCC has prepared a sample State/Province agreement.

10. A. C. Ross, the New Brunswick Regional Director, EMO, attended a meeting of the U.S.A. Region I Working Group on the drafting of a sample Memorandum of Understanding between a State and a Province. He was accompanied by the EMO Regional Director for Q.iebec. It was a good meeting, held in Boston January 21, 1965a T-ie was able to give them.the Canadian view on the matter, and they came up with a draft Memorandum of Understanding. It will be submitted to the JRCC meeting in March at Colorado Springs.

^• US /CAN March 15, 1965 *MCC D5/65

FOURTH SEMIANNUAL MEETING OF UNITED ST.ATES/CANA.DA JOINT REGIONAL CONTINUING COMMITTEE

EASTERN REGIONAL REPORT ON CIVIL EMERGENCY PLANNING • by A. D. O'Connor, Director Office if Emergency Planning Regional Office 1 • Harvard, Massachusetts .

At the *request of the Secretariat I am reporting on the activities of ' Regions 1, 2 and 4, both 0C17.. and CEP. This sounds like a large order but When I wentihrough the re7orts and the records of activities. items were of necessity allocated to other since October 1964, rnan.y sections of the agenda for this meeting,. Region 2 has no activity to report. The. U. S. /Canada Cross-Border Sen-iinar. Exercise held in Minneapolis on January 27, 28, 1965, even though held in Region 4 and participated in by Dir::ctors of OCD and CEP Region 4, will be covered in the Western Rejonal Report to be given by the Acting Director, OCD Region Six. Region 4 has had activity concerned with a mutual aid compact between the municipalities of Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, and Sault Sainte Marie, Ontario. This will be considered later in the agenda.

We have, in all three Regions, distributed to border States and to Regional Federal aencies having liaison respensibilities the U. S. / Canada document "Guidance for Planning at State/Provincial and Municipal or Local Levels."

In Region 4 the Minnesota USDA State Defense Board and the Province of Manitoba held a preliminary meeting on February 11 to make arrangements for an informal meeting in May to discuss sorne of the problems of food management. Harry Anderson, Region. 4 Emergency Program Coordinator, USDA, is also planning to attend. This should be a fruitful beginning for the development of individual resource plans between the related resource agencies in Canada and our Federal Government, out of which might emerge a program somewhat comparable to Part .B of the State resource management plans. • US /CAN March 15, 1965 MCC D5/65

FOURTH SEMIANNUAL MEETING OF UNITED STATES/CANADA JOINT REGIONAL CONTINUING COiviMITTEE

EASTERN Y- EGIONA.i.., REPORT ON CIVIL EMERGENCY PLANNING • by A. D. O'Connor, Director Office Of Emergency Planning .Regional Office 1 Harvard, Massachusetts

At the • request of the Secretariat I am reporting on the a.ctivities of • Regions 1, 2 and 4, both OCD and OEP. This sounds like a large order but, When I went throui.Y.,h the re ?orts and the records of activities since 'October 1964, many items were of ne.cessity allocated to other sections of the agenda for this meeting. Region 2 has no activity to report. The U.S. /Canada Cross-Border Seminar Exercise held in Minneapolis on :anuary 27, 28, 1965, even though held in Region 4 and participated in by Dilectors of OCD and CEP Region 4, will be covered In the Western Regional Report to be given by the Acting Director, • OCD Region Lax. Region 4 has had activity conce.rned with a mutual aid compact between the municipalities of Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, and Sault Sainte Marie, Ontario. This will be considered la.ter in the agenda.

1,,Ife have, in all three Regions, distributed to border States and to Regional Federal agencies having liaison responsibilities the U. S. / Canada document "Guidance for Planning at State/Provincial and . Municipal or Local Levels."

In Region 4 the Minnesota USDA State Defense Board and the Province of Manitoba held a preliminary m.èeting on February 11 to make arrangements for an informal meeting in May to discuss some of the problems of food management. Harry Anderson, Region 4 Em.ergency Program Coordinator, USDA, is also planning to attend. This should be a fruitful beginning for the development of individual resource plans between the related resource agencies in Canada and our Federal Government, out of which might emerge a program somewhat comparable to Part.13 of the State resource management plans. 2

Under the authority given by Section XVI, Record of Decisions, U. S. / Canada Joint Regional Continuing Committee, November 6, 1964, which established a Working.Group to draft a sam.ple State/Provincial civil emergency agreement or statement of intent, the Chairman of the Working Group, Mr. Richard P. Dralae, CCD Region. One, organized a Cross-Border Planning Conference, held in Boston on January 21, 1965. It was attended by the Emergency Measures Orgazation Regional pirectors of Quebec and New Brunswick; State Civil Defense/Em.ergency Planning Directors from Maine, New Hampshire, .and Vermont; the • Director of 'Planning of the New York State Civil Defense Commission; other representatives from State Civil Defense r.1;affs; staffs of OEP and OCD, Region 1; representatives of Regional Offices of the U. S. Depart- ment of Labor; Departrnent of Health, Education, and Welfare; Interstate Commerce Commission; and the Emergency Program. Coordinator, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington. The purpose of the conference was stated to:

1. Stimulate State level planning with Provinces;

Z. Develop a uniform m_unorandum of understanding or statem.ent • of intent to be used a -d- a standard Sta,te/Province Civil Emergency Agreement;

Discuss existing agreements and special reports due;

' 4. Bring States up to date on JRCC work reports and the "Guidance for Planning."

In the general review of U. S. /Canada Joint Regional Continuing Committee Meetings and Regional Cross-Border Planning, Mr. Ross and I reviewed the significant developm.ents of the past two years. The functions of the JRCC in the compilation of ...--,ports of cross-border planning problems, along with pertinent information from Regional, Provincial, and State levels, were discussed. It was emphasized that recornmendatons for solutions must, of course, be ba.sed upon mutual consideration of problems at State and Provincial levels and that this requires continuing active liaison work withi n. specific program areas according to an a.greed upon priority of interest. •

Guidance documents reviewed were the Joint Civil Emergency Planning Agreement of November 15, 1963, and the Federal Civil Defense Guide, Part G, Chapter 2, "Guidance for Planning at State/Provincial Levels. " 3

In a review of State Civil Defense Cross-Border Planning each State CD representative briefly summarized the status and scope of existing formal and informal agreements or standard operating procedures. In general, it was indicated that:

1. Documentation and scope of existing cross-border arrangements are deficient;

2. Thère is a long cross-border history of mutual intent to extend maximum cross-border assistance in time of disaster; and

3. Each State Civil Defense Office agrees to cooperate by reporting fully all current information with respect to cross-border arrangements for rnutual assistance in emergencies.

Progress reports were made by OCD Regional staff on interim reports of the U. S. /Canada Joint Civil Defense Study Groups and brief summary comments were made by cognizant Federal agency personnel on the following:

1. Warning and Emergency Communications

2. W elfar e, Evacuation and Movement

3. Health Services

4. Food

5. Transportation I

6. Manpower

7. Tests and Exercises

One of the chief purposes of the meeting was the production of a sample draft of a State/Province Memorandum of UnderstandinÛ. This was done during the day and was approved by the State Civil Defense/ Emergency Planning Directors and the Chairman and members of the JRCC Working Group. The final draft was referred to the Chairman for transmittal to the Secretariat of the JRCC for consideration at this present meeting. After the Boston meeting changes were made by the Secretariat in Washington. The proposed memorandum with these changes was considered at the State/Provincia]. Joint, Civil Defense Planning Conference held at Quebec City, Pebruary 25 and 26, 1965. The final revision approved at this meeting was sent to the Secretariat of the JRCC, and it will be presented as part of the agenda of the meeting here. q q 4

It was the consensus of the meeting in )^oston that there should be a • continuing effort to formalize the evolving civil defense plans and agreements beyond the oral expression at the various local levels of government. The written agreements should follow the pattern of the proposed State/Province Memorandum of Underescanding.

I.think that we have, in the Eastern Regions, a renewed interest in mutual planning, but we must all project our interest from talk to action, - EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Office of Emergency Planning .Regional Office 1 Harvard, Massachusetts 01451 and DEPARTMENT OF THE AMY Office of the Secretary of the Army Office of Civil Defense -- Region One Harvard, Massachusetts 01451

January 28, 1965

TO : State, Commonwealth and Territorial Civil Defense Directors FROM : Director, OEP Regional Office 1 Regional Director, OCD Region one SUBJECT: Region One Cross-Border Planning Conference

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

The first in a new series of meetings was held January 21, 1965 at Boston sponsored jointly by the Office of Civil Defense and the Office of Emergency Planning. Directors,.or their representatives, of the State Civil Defense Offices of Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont met with the Regional Directors for New Brunswick and Ouebec, Emergency Measures Organization, as well as representatives of Regional Offices of federal agencies. Those present were:

nmercielUM221M211rM.2nU2n.5-zation Bernatchez, H. J. EMO Regional Director, (Quebec) Ross, A. C. EMO Rogiona1 Director (New Brunswick) 2 state Civil Defense Offices Baumann, W. H. Director, Vermont Civil Defense Delorn, M. - Staff, Vermont Adjutant General's Office Hail , W. Operations & Planning Officer, New Hampshire Civil Defense Folmes, R. Deputy Director, Vermont Civil Defense nenswick, C. Director of Planning, New York State CD Commission McSwincy, F. B. Director, New Hampshire Civil Defense . Packard, R. Public Affairs Officer, Maine Civil Defense Rowe, K. O. Training Officer, Maine Civil Defense Stanley, L. H. Director, Maine Civil Dafense Truland, W. D. Communications Officer, Maine Civil Defense Yeaton, S. S. Plans & Operations Officer, Maine Civil Defense Pffi.g.19_91IlLu.=.9m_21.EnaLag. Bassett, P. D. Regional Representative, CEP Regional Office 1 Dolben, J. Regional Representative, OEP Regional Office 1 Mastroianni, J. Regional Representative, OEP Regional Office 1 O'Connor, A. D. Director, CEP Regional Office 1 Office of Civil Defense Black, W. J. Tests and Exercises Officer, OCD Region One Draine, R—P-e, Director, i Training and Education, OCD Region One Jeffreys, L: Resources Analyst, OCD Region One Michos, T. F. *Regional Field Officer, OC]) Region One Moloney,f,T. S. _Regional Field Officer, OC]) Region One Oleson, F. D. • Radiological Defense Officer, OC]) Region One Rote, M. W. Director, Field Operations, OC]) Region One Wiegand, R. E. e Regional Field Officer, OC]) Region One 3

Cernes, A. Regional Director, Office of Mobilization Planning & Coordination U. S. Department of Labor, Boston Hunt, G. Regional Program Director, Division of Health Mobilization U. S. Public Health Service, New York mcFague, W. M. Regional Program Director, Division of Health Mobilization U. S. Public Health Service, Boston Mitchell, D. Emergency Program Coordinator U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington Quane, Miss Rita Family Services Technician, Bureau of Family Services . , Department of Health, Eduzation and Welfare, Boston Thayer, H. District Director, Bureau of Motor Carriers Interstate Commerce Commission, Boston Tracy, P. Defense Mdbilization Manpower Adviser U. S. Department of Labor, Boston The foll..,wing points were covered during the conference: X. Chairman's Report The purpose of the conference was stated to: A. Stimulate State level planning with Provinces; • B. Develop a uniform memorandum of understanding or statement of intent to be used as a standard State/Province Civil Defense Agreement; • C. Discuss existing agreements and special reports due; • D. Bring States up to date on JRCC work reports and the "Guidance for Planning." 4

II General Review of U.S./Canada Joint Regional continuing Committee Meetings and Regional Cross-Border Planning A. Mr. Ross and Mr. O'Connor reviewed the significant developments of , the past two years. The functions of the jRCC in the compilation of reports of cross-border planning problems, along with pertinent information from Regional, Pr3incial, and State levels were discussed. It was emphasized that recommendations for solutions must, of course, be based upon mutual , consideration of problems at State and Provincial - levels and that this req.uires continuing active . liaison wor]z within specific program areas according •• to an agreed upon priority of interest.

III. Review of Guidance Documents A. Joint Civil Emergency Planning Agreement - November 15, 1963 D. Federal Civil Defense Guide, Part G, Chapter 2, "Guidance for Planning at State/Provincial...Levels,"

IV. Review of State Civil Defence Cross-Border Planning A. Each State CD representative briefly summarized the status and scope of e;cisting formal and informal , __agreements or stanCard e-Terating procedures. In • general, it was indicated that:

1. Documentation and scope of ezzisting cross-border arrangements are deficient; 2. There is a .long cross-border history of mutual intent to ezrtend mw:imum cross-border assistance . in time of disaster; and 3. Each State Civil Defense Office agrees to . cooperate by ;eporting fully all current information with respect to cross-border arrangements fOr mutual assistance in. emergencies.

(-/ •, 5

V. Progress Reports were made by OCD Rerionai staff on interim report; of the U.S./Canada Joint Civil Defense Study Groups and briei surraaary comments were made by cognizant Federal Agency personnel on the following:

A. Y]arning and* Einerdency Coyianunications

B. 47elfare, Evacuatior). and Movement

C. Health services

D. Food

E. Transportation

P, Idanpowe r

G. Tests and E:ce•rcà.ses Vï. Sample State/Provinc:e Civil DefenUe Agreement

A. • The wor7.shop session producec' a Cira:ft me;uorandu;rr>- of understai.di.ng ^Aiich was agreed upon by the State Civiâ. De; en,se D? rC.ct:or..^a and the Chairmen and mer.L)ers of . the JRCC 7orJ<

VII. Preparations now being made by State Civil Defense Directors for attendance at the State/Provinci_al Joint Civil Defense Planning Conference at Quebec, February 25-26, 1965, were : timulated by the diversity of topics covered at this conference. it was indicated by the conferees that subsec^uent to the Quebec meeting the date for. a fo3.loty^-uP meeting will be clarified and e3.nressed to the r.egi onal Directors of OEP and OCD by Mr. Stanley, acting for the other three State Civà.J. Defense Directors.

Ci 1 ^} L ' C... A. D. O'Connor

, ^`^âuric . Cormier (Proposed Memorandum approved by Cross-Bor6er Planning Conference - January 21, 3.965, Boston, Mastiac*husetts )

I•^:T.IOT'1^NDUA2 OF UI,TDLi SâAI\TDID7G BET17FLN THE STATE OF AND THE PP.OVxI^7CP OD Z2EGIIRDIIVG MIrTUAL 77_1D IN CIVIL DEF-EI7aD 27-^CT:iVIT;CBS

With a full u1dars-k:anding of the rautL:al ties of interest and ..r.ienclship which exist between the people of the State of and the Province oî , this memorandum is written to document the ri;utua:t intent of both goveriunents to extend maximum assistance in ernergencies,'

By virtue of the provisions of Section of Chap'cer , Itevised Statutes of general direction and con^crol of the civil defense -agency are vested. in the Governor, and by virtue of Chapter , staûtrtes o.- the Province of direction and control o£' civil protection and defense measures are vested in the minister. Acting under the provisions of said s tatutes and with the ^^esiwe to imple,aeiï^: the ^.n'^en^: of the U.S./Canada Joint Civi7. L'r.nergency Planning Agreement datece 1lover^ber 15, 1963, between the United States of America and Canada regarding mutual aid • in civa.l defense activities, -t:his memorandum `^.^ ^•. 1 ï.. ^^,^.,,^.cu^-,•'^^ the Wl. ."L },,, I.i1îc^ 7eNs on the Io d r i;.' O rr the S cate of and the Province of to approve in the .L-ti l1.owing terms in:iormal plans and procec,ures Le3.ating to mutual. aid and assistance in the event of a civil defense emergency.

The Governor and the Minister will c'esi;nate personnel within respective jurisdictions to confer and wor?; out the details of items contained in this memoLandu.rn of understanc,ing, such details being subject to the final approval of the Governor and the î•iinister.

The State and Province will keep each o uher inforrned of their current civil defense resources and will ma;;e such resources available to each other to combat any major di ,ast.er in the State or Province whether from man-made or natural causes. To this end, the S:ate and Province will:

(a) cause the police forces of the State and Province to extencl maximum cooperation in civil defense matters, with special attention to control of emergency traî£ic;

(b) prepare and develop plans for the solution of transportation problems which might arise in carrying out the terms and in-Lent oi.this agreement; 2 (c) prepare and coOrdinate the uelfare services in the State and Province so that nym:iinta assistance may be rendered each other in this phase of civil defense; • (d) cause the fire services of the State and Province to be organized for coordinated effort; (e) wr)rk out a. plan for mutual assistance in the field of all health .ervices; (f) coordinate State-Province communication plans within the framework of the respective National Plans; (g) plan for the coordinated use of municipal, State and Provincial engineering and rescue facilities - and resourr.:es; (h) provide for the exchange of, and coordinated use of, radiologieal in-formation within the framework of the respective National Plans; (i) arrange for the exdhange of observers at exercises, tests and study groups in which there is a mutual interest. It is inter.ded that this general memorandum of understanding will bn made immediately effective, sUbject to termination upon six - onths' notice by either government. As further detailed planning ensues, it is expected that supplementing annexes will be prepared and mutually vgreed upon in specific functional program areas in accordance with Fedral Planning Guidance and based upon appropriate consultation with the Federal. Regional Planning authorities.

Director, Office of Civil Defense Director, Civil Defense State of Province of - US CAATADA

16 February, 1965 JRCC D-6/65

United States Canada

Joïnt Rerional Côntinuing-Committee

u, ect: Consolidated Western Regional Report for Canadian Regions British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba for ...the period 1 September, 1964 to 1 February, 1965

Reference: CEPC D-1/64, 15 June, 1964-

1. rGENERAL.._.__.^..^ (a) Umbrella Planning Agreements

(i) on 15 - 16 October, 1964 at Edmonton, Alberta,

a meeting was held t o familiarize Canadian

planning officials With US OCD and OEP p.lalln-

ing and procedures, with particular emphasis

on the State of Montana and the Provinces of

Alberta and Saskatchewana This meeting was

, attended by: a US delegation from Reg.ion 8 -

UjKffXj-')ffa OCD, and Montana State representatives;

and a Canadian delegation from Alberta and

Saskatchewan, including federal and provincial

EMO and departmental representatives. This

resulted in an improved knowledge of US plann-

ing, and the establishment of personal liaison.

(ii) On 7 January, 1965 at Victoria, British Columbia

a preliminary informal meeting was held by British Columbia Provincial and Washington

State Civil Defence officials, to discuss

the points to be raised on Guidance Docu--

ment CLP.C D-8/64. Also present were repre-

sontatives of the Canadian Army and EMO.

(iii) January, 196s - the Cross-Border Liaison

List Mani.toba/Saskatchewan - fiegion 6 was

amended to date.

(iv) During February, 1965 the British Columbia,

Alberta, and Saskatchewan amendments to the

Liaison List will be subnlitted to Region 8-

OEP. • •

(b) Peacetime Disaster, Planning

(i ) The Working Group on Ass i9tanae in Peace-

time Disasters, under the chairmanship of

the Regional Director -- EMO (Manitoba) met

at a sôriès of meetings in the United States,

at Denver, Colorado; Olympia, Washington; and

Minneapolis, Minnesota. The results of theàe • , meetings will-be côvered in a separate report . (D-19/65).'

(ii) A Regional/Provincial review has been under-

taken t o determine the ©xtent of formal and

inf ormal :"Understandings" t o facilitate inter-

departmental cross-border co-operation; The

, results of this review are being compiled at

EMO Head Office from separate regional reportso 3 -

(iii) The Regional Director OEP - Region 8 has accepted an invitation to address a group of federal and provincial officials at Victoria, British Columbia on 25 February, 1965 on the Subject of the Alaskan Earth- . quake Disaster. 2. RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Nil 3. CIVIL DEFENCE (a) Warning November, 1964 - Through EMO and OEP the US Coast and Geodetic Survey extending the system of Seismic Sea Wave (Tsunami) Warning to include the Provincial Civil Defence Co-ordinator for the province of British Columbia as a "Disseminating. Agent". This established officially an important • means of warning the public of the danger of earthquake generated sea waves which occur at intervals and cause loss of life and damage to shore settlements on the P.acific Coast. The official procedures add increased reliability and replace the informal ad-hoc arrangements that had been established as an interim measure. The new system will be tested regularly. (h) Tests or Exercises • Alberta and Montana have agreed to.invite • members of Provincial EMO and State Civil Defence organizations to Provincial/State Exercises during . 1965. (0) . Evacuation and Movement of People . The results of a meeting in Regina, Saskatche- . wan on 5 October, 1964 between federal and provincial officials of EMO and Provincial Health and Welfare departmental representatives, on the subject of m.ovement-of evacuees, will lead to cross-border consultation. 4. SUMMARY Following the introduction, during the review period, of guidelines for planning cross-border co-operation, it is anticipated that there will be a decided increase in activity . at the provincial/ state ljvel. - ,

US/CAN March 1, 1965 JRCC D 7/65

Western US Regional Report to United States/Canada Joint Regional Continuing Committee, a Subcommittee of the Joint Civil Emergency Planning Committee on Cross-border Emergency Planning Activities <7 The following report covers.cross-border emergency planning activities .of the US in the OEP/OCD Regions 6 and 8 since October 1964. This .report is compiled from material from the US, but is concerned with joint US/Canada activities and refers to certain joint reports. This US report should be considered along with the Western Canadian Regional Report (D 6/65.)

Since last October there have been two US/Canadian meetings to explore •civil defense and resource management problems. One was at Everett, Washingtoa. The other was at Minneapolis. No specific plans or agreements have as yet resulted. Understanding of cross-border emergency problems was advanced. Clarification of plan-ling needs resulted , particularly in the areas of warning, emergency information and broad-

casting both before attack and after attack, exchange of fallout infor - mation, and the communication - available or needed. A joint western committee on peac_timè disaster planning also explored cross-border history e problems, practices and needs. That report (D 19/65) should lead to future planning and agreement.

The remainder of this report follows: •

1. GENERAL •

A. Umbrella Planning Agreements

1. Activities since October 1964

Negotiations Undertaken

(1) Regional, Provincial and State officials from- Saskatchewan and Montana to the Pacific, including ' Alaska, met at Everett, Washington January 22, 1965, to identify and discuss mutual cross-border problems. These were basic negotiations. No new agreements were reported. (Sec Attachment 1, Minutes of January 22 Planning Conference.) 2

(2) Regional, Provincial and State officials from Saskatchewan and Manitoba, North Dakota, Minneapolis, Regions 4 and 6 held a seminar exercise at Minneapolis January 27n2£3 to identify and explore cross-border problemse No new agreements were. reporteda (See D 20/65 on Joint Seminars, Tests & Exercises which will be repoited latero)

b, Conferences Held (See Attachment on Everett Conference and D 20/65 on Minneapolis seminar exercise referred to above.)

C. Tests or Exercises Conducted (See D 20/65 on Minneapolis seminar exercise.)

do Accomplishmentsa Some•problems and planning needs were explored and clarified (See Attachment 1, D 19/65 and D 20/654)

eo New Problems ldentifieda No new problems were identified but perhaps some new facets or details were clarifiedo (See same referenceso)

20 Plans For Future Activitiesp None were.specifically agreed upon, but the need for further crossnborJer meetin.gs and exercises, part:cularl, at Statc%Province and local levels was understoo3.

B. Peacetime Disaster Planning',, Some history and cross-border agreements were uncovered and suggestions for further study and planning were developeda (See Attachment 1 and D 19/65,) xxo RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

A. . Transportation No activity.

BU Other

1o • Acti.vities since October 1964

ao` Not applicablep

bd Conferences Held® General discussions of resources management were held by Washington and British Columbia, and by Montana, Alberta and Saskatchewano Problems for future conferences were recognized„ (See AtL-achmenL- 1) 3

c. Tests or Exercises Conducted. Resources management problems postattack were discussed in some detail.at . the Minneapolis exercise (See D 20/65.) d. and e. (See 1). and c. above.) III, CIVIL DEFENSE A. Warning -- Problems were considered at Minneapolis exercise. Although the siren warning sounds have different meanings - and are likely to come at Somewhat different times on each side of the border, this should be no problem in the sparsely pepulated areas of the west. (See D 20/65). b. Radiological Defense

• 1. Activities since October 1964

a. Not applicable. 'r b. (See AttPchment I wider I. GENERAL.)

C. This was MUCA discussed at the Minneapolis exercise but little agreement on what to do (See D 20/65.)

d. OCD Region 8 gave the border states copies of the irternational agreement regarding RADEF and NUDET exchanges. Information on NUDETs crosses the border over NAWAS and on UF wind data over weather circuits. e. Not applicable.

2. Plans for Future Activities a,. OCD Region 8 requested that each state meet with border provinces Soon to plan exchange of information as approved by the JRCC. • • b. OCD Region 6 will work on plans with North Dakota and neighboring areas.

CI '0»

C. Communications

1. Activities since October 1964

a.. Negotiations. Washington and Idaho met with Canadian counterparts and identified basic cross-border communications requirements. Alaska and Montana have held prel:_minary discussions with Canadians but requirements are not yet clear.

None

c.. Communications probleffl and facilities were discussed in Minneapolis exercise (See D 20/65.)

d. Accomplishments. (See a. above.) Region Six and its one border state, North Dakota, have good understanding of facilities available. A start toward clarifying emergency requiremLats lias been made. North Dakota has arranged a link with Manitoba via Minot and

• Estevan. Region Six lias listed recommendations to . propose for Canadian considuationo

N&.7 Problems Identified.'

- (1) Amateur radio communications in war emergency would be blocked because Canadiun amateurs would have to go off the air. Even if this were changed, there still would be incompatibility between RACES in the US and amateur radio in Canada.

(2) There has been no interchange of day and night coverage patterns for US and Canadian broadcast_ facilities within 100 miles or so of the border.

These stations might possibly , back up any stations across the border unable to continue broadcasting in an emergency. •

2. Plans for Filture Activities.> Explore with and through the . states.' Clarify emergency requirements and develop plans and recommend facilities to be obtained. •

• L: 5

D. Public Information

l. Activities since October 1964

a0 and b. None

Minneapolis exercise considered pre-attack and postattack emergency information problems.. (Sea D 20 / 6 5.)

d. Accomplishments. Problems clarified. Understanding of broadcasting practices was increased. It is suggested to avoid confusion citizens be instructed to listen to their own stations. Governmental monitoring of stations across the border was suggested as a good means to keep officials informed of cross- border problems and actions.

eT." None

E. Evacuation and Movement of People -- None

F. Other -- None .. •

• Charles C. Rails Creath L Tooley Regional Director Regional Director • OCD Region Eight OEP Region Eight

Harrison J. F. Sullivan, Jr.. • Actg. Regional Dire' Regional Director OCD Region Six OEP Region Six

• L3 JOINT US/CAIIADA CIVIL DLI'C1dCL l'.I1D ril1;l;C1;HCX PL2-,Ili•Ix1IG CONFM,L?I1CE

OCD/OEP ; eBion L'^^.Bht lIeadquarteLs - Everett, L'Ia3i1. January 22, 1, G5

Roster of attendees attached.

Purpose of Meet in;: To cliacuss and icleni i fy mutual cross-border p:'oÛleraa at the State and Provincial level.

-The meeting was ^ointly chaired by Arthur L. Brown, Assistant P.eBional Director, FrIO (British Colui,wia), Creath A. Tooley, l;erional Director, OEP P.erjion. Eight, and Charles C. ILalls, Regional Director, OCD Region Fi8:1l:.

IIr. P.alla called the r:ieet:i nU to order at ;:..v a, ,u, He welcomeci the visitors and as;ced each person present to intcoduce himself. IIr. Arthur Brown extended t•Ir, Carl Loel.m's regrets that he could not attend.

History of US/Canada Cross-border a-;rcer,ient was presenL-ed by I•ïr. Brown staxti n; with the 1951 agreement and its replacement in 1963 by a new agreement, Mr. Tooley and 11r. Rails e:>plained further that this agreement established two corvnii:tees: (1.) the Joint United States/Canada Civil Emergency Planning Conmiittee (JCEPC) whose members are the Secre- tary of the Cabinet and Director of 1,-ilr10, Canada; and the Directors of Civil Defense and Br^:eruency P"_anni r.B, United States, and (2) the US/ Canada Joint 1teCional Continuing Coin-iiit.tee (Jl:CC) whose mertfbersllip is composed of nine membe;:3; tilrP,n each fr c, rIÎ0 Canacla, OCD and OEP U.S, The JT'.CC is iezponsiûZe for identifying cross-border e.,ie;:êncy planning problems and making Leconmrendations to the senior Corulittee. (I•Iessrs, l:-:lls, Tooley and Boehm of the We_::ern US/Can P,eîon are members of the JRCC) The Senior Comnittee (JCûP) then passes upon tl.ese reconnnenclations and makes its recor,unendations to the two governments for implementation.

Guidance for Planninry at S::ate/nrov _ncial and ilunicipal or Local Level. This cocuraent, CT:iicn hacl r ecently been distributed to States and Provinces, was developed by the J.',CC and approved by the JCBPC. It sets forth those areas of planning tha',•, are within the province of the respective federal governments and tllose within the State, Province and local planning area. It was stressed that joint draft plans within the federal area sliould be suû;:titteci through t-he respective national offices to the JRCC for review and recommendation to the JCEPC. It was further su-üested tliat these plans be as uniform as possible.

'Discussion of this document followed with the following points made:

1. General Llewellyn-- in Beneral liked the document, but felt too many areas were under the control of the federal Bovernment. For e.cample, public information. 2. The question r;ised that si.nce the Cluidance document was L:2sed on war caused emergencies, were they Loui.iû by th:is document in planning for natural disasters.

3. The explanation was given that this document was intended for war-time disaster plnnning orrly. It does not, houever, prevent discussions and agreements covering natural disasters ancl^ other areas not cuv^_,_ed, Agreements in these fields could be made as long as they were not in viol^tion of any le;al'barriers.

The differences Lettoeen Canadian and U.S. customs and t.ernlinology which miÛht lead to misuncierstanrling were discussed. Mr. Brown explained that under Privy-Council Orders (similar to U.S. i,:cec.utivo Orders) which assign functions to Deptwtments of Canadian Federal Government, the Department of National Defense was assigned certain functions, one of uhich was re-entry oper^.t•ions into any Canadian area.which had been subject to nuclear strike or heavy fallout. Un- der such circunlstancen, the Army would ta;.ce over all opercL-iorls for restoring facilities in that area. This incluùes fire fighting services and others that are excluded in the Guidance Document. This function by the Army is only carried on while there is a need, and then authority is returned to the civilian authorities.

The need for uniformity in marking maps was also brought up. Some .markings can be interpreted differently by the two countries.

Discussions and •Plannins

Bl ltiûh COli1filbi^, ^tnd th_ J^$te of 1]iiS'Cl:+_11^ ^On have a i StOry of close cooperation. Some aôrei_ment's made in the past are still in effect: (1) fire hydrant adapters so that adj::cent US/Can. conununities can help each other in the event of fire and (2) evacuation sign•s for British Columbia posted in i•dhntcom County. It- 1^1,,.s recognized that other governmental agencies with mutuc.l -responsibi.lities .,nd problems had developed some sort of cross-border agreement for reciprocal assistance or communications t:ihich with preplanning could be utilized in an emergency.

Washingtonton and British Columbia have held two joint meetin^s, one on each side of the border. They felt they were mutua.lly beneficial, and out of them identified the fol].o(•]ing; l. There is a need for more telephone circuits across the border. This is a densely populated area and during times of emergencies the lines Set ja;line& quic::ly. It X.2.,s brought out that other states and provinces in the region c+id not have this prob- leni because they were sparsel;^ populated; also, that there was an agreement between the telephone companies of the two countries to reroute calls when circuits are loaded.

2. Lad: of radio communication. Military netuork only one available. B.C. presently making e survey of all communications. • 3, They uould exchange , exercise material es well as have more. cross-border meetings; Recommended a joint exercise.

4. B.C. has made a canvass of some government departments asking them to anticipate their cross-border requirements.

5, Peace time cross-border arrangements might develop into the type of agreement that could also be used for uar disasters.

6. There wls a lack of coordination on information as to resources availnble through various governmental agencies.

7. As a result of these meetings they were exploring the possibility of utilizing other governmentql agency cross-border net- uorks or tying into them.

Montana, AlLerta, and Sasatcheuan have also had tuo meetings, one in Helena and one in Edmonton. These were primarily for the purpose of orienting each other on their organizations and operating procedures and capabilities. They felt these meetings accomplished a great deal and laid a . basis for future planning. '

Because of the nparse population along the borders in this area they ' had no real problems. To their knowledge no cross-border agreements between the provinces and state had been made for civil defense purposes. It was mentioned that the telephone companies had an international agreement for rerouting traffic uhen it uns heavy. There vas also an informai agreement between the bordering touns of Coutts and Sweetgrass for mutual assistance. Although it uas felt that present communications uere adequate, in the event of a real disaster (especially uar) direct communication between the SCDO Montana and EMO Alberta would be recommended. A need for an agreement on resource management uns also recognized.

Alashl and Yukon. Two meetings hnd been held with the Yukon EMO and Alaska SCDO at which they discussed the interchange of emergency plans . and explored the problem of communications Letween Alaska and the Yukon. There are communications already from the Yukon into Alaska uhich would be easy to tie into. Discussed feasibility of using high- uay frequency between Whitehorse lnd other parts of Alask a . Also, there is a radio station on the Canadian Highway. Since Whitehorse area received their freight through Skagway, there is a great deal of coordination between them. In many areas, such as forest fires, there is an interchange of equipment and services. Alaskan police meet regularly uith Canadian Mounted Police in an exchange of dises-ter training, etc. A meeting had just been held uith representntives of BC Telephone Company on hou Alaska could tie into their communication netuork--primnrily through Prince George area. They uere also exploring the possibility of using both the B.C. and Yukon radio stations. It was pointed out that even though there could Le a certain ?mount of communication across the border on different frequencies, during war or an emergency this might not work.

For future plans, special emphasis would be placed on field of communications. Alaska plans to purchase a long range radio communication system which will be set up in three locations in the State, and possibly tie into the Whitehorse system. After Alaska's new State CD Plan has been published, a copy will be provided EMO in Whitehorse.

Explanation was made that until last April Emergency Operations in the Yukon were under the jurisdiction of the Army. This responsibility has since been transferred to the Federal EMO in Alberta, but the federal departmlnts in Whitehorse report to British Columbia. It was felt that a joint meeting of officials from the Whitehorse EMOi the federal EMO's of British Columbia and Alberta, Alaska Disas- ter Planning Office, and OEP/OCD Region Eight would be advisable. A desirable time would be during the summer months, and it was decided that arrangements for such 'a meeting would be made.

Idaho and British Columbia. Idaho had also participated in the joint meeting held at Bellingham. The border areafis very small and in a sparsely populated area so that they do not have the problems of the • Washington/British Columbia border. Out of the joint Bellingham meeting celtair frequencies ,eere chosen and presented to FCC for approval. . To date they have not received advicn on disposition of the request: The point was brought out that communications systems must be used, preferably daily, in order to be effective in an emergency. The State of Idaho ià working closely with the State of Washington on this and until they get a direct setup they can route'through Washington State.

Each State and Province then outlined briefly their internal plans for the future. As to cross-border planning, they were all in agreement that special emphasis should be placed on the field of communications, as this was one area which was vital and one which could not be solved without the help of the federal governments; It was recognized that their specific needs in this field had to be identified and presented to the JRCC. It was also the concensus that future planning would follow along the lines already laid down-- that they would work together to come up with joint agreements. The problem of public information was another that was agreed upon as needing special study and attention at all levels. mr. Tooley commented on the necessity for agencies to talk to their counterparts across the border, and the establishment of federal agency lines. He asked if the group felt this would be desirable at the State and Provincial level. It was felt by the group.that this possibility should be explored. Cenera7. Llewellyn sugSested that Point Roberts, which is in the State of Washington but canrot be reached by lrnd except by going into British Coluvnbia, might be a good spot for an EOC, and to tic into Canadian communications.

Mr. Ralls remarked that it was difficult to always find the time to arrange these meetings with our counterparts, but urged States and Provinces to do so in an effort to solve cross-border emergency problem areas by mutu..l agreements. He advised that their respective federal governments stood r2ady to help in any way possible. He gave the following problem areas as havin; been identified in this meeting.

1. Field of Public Information.

2. Communications--from standpoint of States,. Provinces and local governments.

3. Maps which can be interpreted differently by the two coantries.

Mr. Ralls then restated the reconnen^ation made that because of the dual federal responsibility for the Yukon Territory by British Columbia and Alberta, a joint meeting be held to discuss mutual Alaska/Yukon cross-border planning with officials involved. The meeting would include officials of the Yukon EMO, federal EMO of Alberta and British Columbia, Alaska State Disaster Office, and OCD/OEP Region Eiüht:

In closing, Mr. Rails c_oinneni:ed that if we build a civil defense organization, we have built a capability for handling natural disasters. He also poiuted out the fact that this is the first region in the United States to have every State in its area declared a national disaster during the saine year. He ur.aed the participants to keep their respective re.,ional offices advised of any developments or recommendations they came up with, especially in the field .of federal authority, so that these recommendations could be passed on to the JRCC and the Senior Committee for consideration.

Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m., c•iith an invitation to tour Region Eight facilities.

Distribution: Ec•I0, British Columbia (1.:)' . EIIO, Alberta (1^) EPiO, Sasl,atchewa,,a (7: ) SCDO, Alaska (10) - SCDO, Idaho (1:?) SCDO, ^ion^ana W O SCDO, Washington (1G )

J'-654/65 PP(PRO)

I ,^ :^^.O^1L"k. 0 L? i1TLiIDL1i • . JOINT US/CA1•I CIVIL D'^,lUI;IISS ^:•r 1;l;.D ;C;aI^ICY PZ,AIdIIII,IG COIT1^i,:`:i:TICI: Jl!INA?;' .:ï, ^;G5

CANADA

D1- :i:'i cil Colura t.:-t11 u;^,, I;3-o^rn, f^csis^nnL l:eC'_onal D:irector, LTIO Lionel Itart, Assistant Provincial Civil Deiense COord:_naior W. S. I;c?r.:ondson, Provincial î;nlerCency Planning 0£fI.ce).

L^^ I}ei.'ta E. Atkins, T'.er•_onal D'"_ï ect:or , I;I'iO • R. L. iIcAlpine, P;'ovinc:.al Itepre-Sent:ative

Saskatchewan D. J. Burke, T'.euryi.onal Director, Bi-IO

UNITED STATES

Alaska Don Lowell, Director, Alaska DisasZer Office David Fulton, Assistant State Colar.lunications Director C. L. Puck, CD Coordinator, State Dept. of Public [.lori-.s, Div. Communications

Idaho Brig. Gen. Stewart S. I•Iaxey, Director, Disaster Relief and CD Office Paul Barton, Chief, Support Requirements If t . ir 11 ► it Merlin E. TeLbs, Chief of Resources, of It . If 11 If Thomas G. Boc2]'Clitlan, Bl?lerüency Planning Officer David Bayless, Radio Chief, State Police. U- Jack IIcGinnis, State Police Supvr., Coeur d'Alene District

Montana Gèneral. R. C. Itendall, Director of Civil Defense Larry 1Cincïleloe, Deputy Direccoz of Civil DeLense, Henry Z. iloltel-, Lr:lerÛency Planning Oiiice•r , E. Silubat, Cllairman, Cascade County Co;-mi iys^ oners

T'Ia$Ilillc,ton Gen. E. M. Llewellyn, Director, T)epartillent of C2.vil Defense C-?m. P. Roberts, Chief Support Services, Dept. of Civil Defense Harry Sr. Amand, Public Information Oîcr.

I:eT;ion Di;*ht Creath A. Tooley, ;eCional Director, 0;°r5_ce of DmerCency Planning Loren G. Strawn, Deputy Regional Director, OEP C°1m. U. Martin, I'.eSional Emergency Planning Coord., Dept. of Commerce

Charles C. P.alls, Regional Director, Office of Civil Defense Lisle C. Pratt, Jr., Deputy ;egional Director

11. Rooter of Attendees Pace 2

neon Ei_ht (0CD) contd. • Don A. 'ero, Director, Field Operatons Paul U. Eccert, Mrector, Traininc and Education Dan U. Caulpbell, Directo-,:, Support P,equirements Louis Henke, Jr., Act. iirector, Technical Operations Wilke E. Cruse, Communications Officer n. L. Cooper, State Chief (Uaska) • . „ G. L. Foster, State Chief (Idaho) I. S. Minnihan, State Chief . (Washington) Claude D. Albricht, Field Officer Millard Ireland, Public Information Officer L. W. Neatherlin, Red CroJs. 4:Visor

• i

• y US/CAN March 17, 1965 JRCC D-8/65

United States - Canada Joint Be

Subject : Transportation

Befelences; JRCC D-19/64, October 7, 1964 and JRCC B.-1/64, Part III, Section B dated February 28, 1964

; Attached for JR CC review is a memorandum dated March 5, 1965 to

the Joint US/Canada Civil Emergency Planning Committee frorn the

-Joint US/Canada Study Group on Civil Emergency Transportation Planning.

U. S. joint Secreta.ry

• n,

•..•

• r I .1 March 5, 1965

MEMORANDUM TO THE JOINT U.S./CANADA CIVIL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE

THROUGH: The Joint Regional Continuing Committee .

FROM: The Joint U. S. /Canada Study Group on Civil. Transportation Emergency Planning.

• SUBJECT: Joint U.S. /Canada Civil Emergency Planning.

Terms of Reference:

1. In the Minutes of the first meeting of the U.S. /Canada Joint Regional Continuing Committee dated September 18, 1963, at Section XII, paragraph 22, it was stated that there appea.red to be five basic problem areas requiring Canada/U.S. agreement in the field of transportation emergency planning. These were:

(a.) Common procedures for determining the availability of equipment.

(b) Common procedrrer. for determining transportation requirements and priorities, including procedures for requesting transportation capabilities of other nation to move high priority traffic.

(c) Common procedures to expedite essentia l traffic crossing national boundaries by either mutually suspending or. modifying existing regulations.

(d) Agreed arrangernerts to suspend or modify existing regulations and licensing procedures.

(e) Agreement for the utiliza.tion of equipment and transport manpower of one nation when temporarily located within the boundaries of the other.

2. • The Committee agreed to recommend that the Canadian Department of Transport (D.O.T.) and the U.S. Office of Emergency Transportation (O. E. T.) be requested to study, consultation, the five problems outlined above and any others in this area of a similar nature and to submit a report for presentation at the next meeting of the Sen'..or Committee on the methods and xneans whereby co-ordination of the arrangements might be achieved. -2-

3. In the Minutes of the second meeting of the U.S. /Canada Joint egional Continuing Committe, dated Februa.ry 28, 1964, at Part III, Sedtion B Transportation - the Committee:

(a ) .Agreed that attention of appropriate U.S. and Canadian authorities should be called to the problem of reciprocal use of ports and other related emergency transportation matters;

(b) Recommended that OET and DOT officials meet at the earliest • possible date to initiate studies of all emergency transportation • problems of mutlial concern and that the question of the reciprocal use of ports in emergencies should be studied with the possible objeCtives of effecting a joint agreement.

Meeting of the OET./DOT Study Group:

4. On December 14-15, 1964, a rneeting of United States and Canadian Government transportation officials, representing all modes/services of transportation, was held in Canadian Government offices in Ottawa, Canada.

5. The names of representatives at the meeting, the agenda and procedures of the mee.ting, and the detailed findings and recommendations of the Study Group are contained in the enclosure to this memorandum., entitled "Report 01 the Joint U.S. /Canada Study Group Meeting on Transportation Emergency Planning, " dated December 14-15, 1964.

6. This report has been compiled in a format which is considered suitable for use as a basic document from which further planning activity can progress in the Study Gioup and its services/modal working groups. As such, the detail contained therein is unlikely to be o£ prima.ry interest to the Senior Committee. It has been decided, .however, that the document -should now be forwarded as a progress report to provide a definition of some problems of mutual interest, and to indicate lines on which future . . work will be carried on towards their resolution.

Summary of Becommendations:

From the deliberations of the U.S. /Canada Study Group, and • as recorded in the attached report, the Study Group recommends that the Joint Civil Emergency Planning Committee:

(1) Note the report of the first meeting of the U.S. /Canada Transportation Study Group on December 14 and 15, 1964.

C. -3--

(2) Direct the Sturly Group to continue its work in coordinating emergency transportation planning between United States and Canadian counterpart services/modes of transport.

(3) Approve the use of the U.S. Office of Emergency Planning document, Defense Mobilization Order 8500.1, "Guidance on Priority Use of EesourceS in Immediate Pest-attack Period," as a ba.sis for the development of a joint U. S. /Canada transportation priority listing applicable to cross-border movexnents.

(4) Direct the Study Group to consider in its future • • deliberations the necessity for the eventual development and approval of U.S. /Canada agreements • between counterpart transportation agencies, to provide for facility and c oripatibility in emergency cross-border operations.

LS/ C.K. FÀUGHT /S/ GILLES SICOTTE Faught, Jr. Gilles Sicotte Acting Director Assistant Deputy Minister, Office of Emergency Transportation General, U.S. Department of Commerce Departmerit of Transport •• Canada

I f 111 i \ US MAN JRCC D9/65

UNITED STATES /CANADA • JOINT TZEr:IONAL CONI'I:ïTü:ZNG CM,IITTEr A SUT3-COT^M1.TEE OF THE JOINT CIVIL L1,21RGii,NCY P"t,!`,MNING CO;vii•SITTE',S

A J'G.^.^^x S1, 1, I^Y'GkiGUT ÎCaYFOr`.I' Q:r WAi^i';1^:iG

Since the 1r;,st report Of th^--' Uza:ttcd S^r.tE: /Cr^nz,cis, ^ joint Study ^raup on. ^tiFeâ°r ô-7s, Wingg Cc. nârz3c:^^ .^Yx<â^lc 1^ . oLï'l i; ^à^nrô has replaced Lt. Colonel^ Roney as the Cana,?wt;cn

The and ^^, ^^?vj, for ^..i^^;.^u ;r..ï:oc, On û-u-uc^ taî^ou^ oper, wi;;toiz and. cross border NM.nii1:.9 l)ro'olc:,:ts . Since all but one of the n3.c^-ai14i a vo.re x'ecerrG f',PPo i.rai:ce.3, cc:nl-a:Lete b-rief;.:aa ;o e7aZ -;,,je ;r,'^re cnin; syu ec am of the two countries PM-,Mted to 1.)rovâ.d

FreTZously, the Joint St:ra?y Group 'eo:;i-,,-ose;d of a di.efe nenfi, Liz-ziWrsh:ip) ex^,^V- ^.,fXd its 0141nioli that de-;al].od rë:r^o°^tv would be w0:4àitte:0. to the senior ca, ,iJ.-t;tee rat'raar tl^•.^.a to the jR.CàC, The 70rOSe:mt Study GxouP ui7ttni- Mous:L,y r.8,.tv_:ca •L•},r.1t reports wYl.d âe su:b27ti-cted to the JRCC.

T^.r. P. A. F,,!,,my, Dir ecto.c, T kaergenc f I,o?.c;ures in a letter to Coloraol. R. 1. Kea.ne, Director of Su,° vI, vwl A .,k...`.,a a.t. r.c. - ,*azü ^,^,.rgea,.cy^°'^ C p ::r..^^^tS.ons ^saQ ïac`1.ts :i.âl'Vi:st:l. j^,t:i.:^1" the of ^. c..scrg r L , h u^i2c- Y^-::,,G^'d,•ry"tj ...,.^.., ^ ri^ %rÿ ^1.c.^t for ^?^lûc:^ V.^^4 CL? »"., tC°° i :i . io ië'ïu 1%i1aiï ^;.n1^T11 L1£,Y 6 j2"eLl£3 w1glyL be used to alert the public to Zir3t:*n to the raf1l,o in such an eve;2t^ A copy of this 1; ;;ter was t,ru:arrm3ttcxl. to the Study Group on ^Tvxn^ ia^ for

In the United States, civil dox'cnse s'ir.or_„ ê used for nratuz^^ dissster 170-1,11:Lr:g an:ty •tJi^^,a the fIction to be ta1LL4n 3o the s01;: as it -wou1.d be in Mc.:: Of nyn attack. The "IM.i;Za" sJ.^w1. in the ^13tcc1 States has no standard raeanin" throuj^^hout the country since local nutlzorities psM.fitLed to the action to be to?sen in their o.r4vs. *rn C^nwcz^, the "1^^,tT" rs^.Gna.]. njGh-t be used for t^,âs ^;^?ÿ^,ose s1^^co -^:^c public L.s been l î?3ì rL{c tC Cl '4o tune to a local radio f3 ++1:,tiori and iaY; ;J.t instructions t'r`^,:n this signal 3.s soi^nûeii. 1•t c7.oaF not .w-7l)uO-1° fewsialC to a:.a;,^t such a procwz^tuc°e in both countric€3 o,.^.tL;;,zZ,y it a. ay be possible to do so in Cemda. If CCM^cba were to use sirona for this vus,o„ia, it ni^;h^ cause co2inâdc:rabl.e co=û:;ion in vureus t,i:...^.re C;suns.dicra Nixtins could be hrard across the border. The Study Grcu;p 'chc2oibre concludcd that should Cana -da elect to orjprovt^: this propoua1., such use of sirens should be prohibited in ccx=unities vd°Vhin ton miles of the border.

The 6-Wdy Group reco3,lized the tr,rniz,,g v,: obl.oms delineated by the jRCC and the preceding Study Groi;o. The jfol1.oving area,,. o:° differences betwven Canada and the Ma3.tod States selected for discussion and recca^encltttion. a. The national authority to sound sirens. In Canada the authority for souniing sirens i-S. tiTnânr eUera1 co-Aral-while in the United States, it in local option In Canada the Federal Warning Officer on duty at the Federal Warning Centre diss:trlinates marning to the Provin- cial Warning Centres who, in t=1, sound or cause to be sounded by telephone fan-out, the sirons in •heir respective provinces. In the United States the Werning Officer OA duty at the 1- ationa1 Warning Center disseminates the 1.;arning to Warning Points throughout the United States. The sounding of sirens is then a decision of local authorities. It is considered possible, at this time, for the United States to Ted the phrase "sirens should be sounded ° to the warning message. This, while not ostabli shing. complete national contrai, v111 briug the United States and Canadianprocedurus closer together.

b. The difference in the mcaniny, of slipals between the two countries. In Canada the "ALUTe sie;nal means that attack is probable or that radioactive fallout from an attack elsewhere is expected. The public lim; been informed that on hearing this signal they should tune to a local radio station and auait further instruetions. In the .United States the "ALERT" signal means that attack le probable end that the public abould take action in accordence with local plans. The "TAKE COUR" signal means ensentially the seme In both countries. The Study Group concluded that the sligbt difference in the meaning of the "ALERTn signal ià the tua countries was not significant at this time. 'However the Group will continue to study this matter as well as the possibilities 1 for using only one tactical warning signal.

c. The authority for deciarInr, and clissendnatinr.; tnrninr.,!4', The . difference in decision making authority between the two countries could be a major cause of having sirens obi:L:1 at different times in adjoining cross bordor .metroDolitan areas. In Canada the Prime Minister mnkes the decision to warn mhile in the United States a tactical warning is declared and disseminated bythe Warning Officer on duty in the National .17re-fling Conter based under conditions 7)1=er:1:bed by COD. In this missile era when the warning time misy be loos than thirty:minutes, it in not advisable to nand the time to contact a control authority for a decision. This decision should be reduced to a policy directive and an SOP. The Study Group took notice of the JRCO agreement that the Study Group on Warning should continue its study, concentrating on the areas of differende and considering matters of emergency broadcasts and public inforaation in consultation with the Joint Study Groans on Public Information and Bo=uni- cations. The Study Group concluded that matters of emergency broadcasto and public information were of primary concern to other Study Groups and that basic recommendations should come fraa them with the Study Group on Warning making any input requested of them.

• r----- In iig.ht of the above the Joint Study Group on 1•7o.i°n:inr; x-ecca'smends:

a. That the United StL.•t::^ Office of Civil 7)afLnse begin a proZwum to aamov1: local fu.xtho:e it3.ea fra-a the c?ecird.os; to eGUnd izlr,•enc and that the v,ar,a;Lng mesec:ge include the pl-wrare. "s3.xw:s should be acwa.de:cl.,"

b. Tb.{-,t Cmr..da dcS.c(a•^e raztho•ri-L-y to and dirmmin4ta attack traml.nus to the Vieder.al Wo.z-xz^-,3 Officer on dûty ot the Fed'z:x&,l 17^^.^^^.ing Cen-rcr baced on the rü,:,.:: infomation u; ed by th,., United States for the declmmt3.on and diosmJ,nat9.on of KM

W3.'LlS.cim E. Skinner Joint and U. S. Chairman - U.5 . f Cnsada Joint Study Group on Warning -c. Dateelm ZJaôhingL•ons D.C. 20310 Fcbra.m,y 25, 1965

,7442/65, PP(PRO) US/CAN ' JRCC D10/65

UNITED STATES/CANADA JOINT REGIONAL CONTINUING COMMTEE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE JOINT CIVIL EMERGENCY PLANNING COIYIIITTEE RADEF STUDY GROUP PROGRESS REPORT

• 1 . iliLviW.:1!?,1: . • The Joint United States/Canada Regional Continuing Committee recommended establishment of a joint task force at its September 1963 meeting in Toronto, Ontario to study the adequacy and compatibility of the fallout monitoring, reporting, and evaluating systems of the United States and Canada.

The Radiological Defense Joint Task Force, which was formed, prepared and coordinated a report at Ottawa, Canada December I 0-11, 1963. The report . contained proedures for the cross-border exchange of radiological defense information between neighboring U.S./Canadian communities . , States and provinces, and between Canada and the United States National and Regional • levels. The Joint United States/Canada Civil Emergency Planning Committee approved the recommendations on June 15, 1964 and further approved the implementation of the report by the authorities concerned, and reconwiended that a Study Group on Radiological Defense continue the joint efforts and report progress to the U.S./Canada JRCC. ()CD Regions ONE, TWO e FOUR, SIX.. and EIGHT have been supplied with copies of the approved Radiological Defense Joint Task Force Report and have been requesi:ed to assist the States having common borders with Canadian Provinces to plan and implement the exchange of radiological defense information at the State/Province and Community levels.

The Task Force was reconstituted as a Study Group.on Radiological Defense . . with Mr. Marlow J. Stangler, Chief, RADEF Branch, Plans and Operations, as the U.S. Chairman. The Study Group's first-progress report was submitted in September 1964 and continuatien of its activities was recommended by the JRCC at the October 1964 meeting in Ottawa, Canada.

M. Progress:

Meetings have been held with Canadian Regional Directors and OCD and OEP . Regional Directors, with bordering U.S. and Canadian Provinces and State • . Directors attending. In addition, several bordering States and Provinces have held additional meetings. As pointed out in these meetings, of concern to RADEF was the lack of direct communications between Statbs and Provinces for the exchange of RADEF'information.

3 On January 21, 1965, OCD and OEP (Region ONE) met with Regional Directors for New Brunswick and Qunbec, and representatives of the bordering states in Region ONE. A workshop session produced a draft memorandum of understanding (sample State/Province CD agreement) which was agreed updil by the State Civil Defense Directors and the chairmen and members of the jRCC Working Group. This memorandum includes a statement that ° . . • the - State and Province will provide for the exchange of, and Coordinated use of, radiological information within the framework of the respective National Plans, . . • ." This draft was referred to the chairman for translaittal and report to the JRCC at its next meeting, March 17, 1965, at Colorado Springs, Colorado. A memorandum of :understarding,-such as - above, is required at the State and Province level before detailed RADEF plans can be implemented at the State and Province or Community levels. To accomplish this, it has been proposed to ,stablish a Regional., Provincial and State RADEF Planning Group. • To implement this, they would develop an "Example Regional/State/Drovincial RADEF Reporting Plan," including resources (communications and personnel) necessary for implementatic,n.

. • A cross-border seminar eXercise was held on January 27-28, 1965 in Minneapolis, Minnesota and included the area of RADE]?. • A State and local RADEF ccnference was held at Albany, New York on - February 24-25, 1965 to turther develop working relationships between OCD Region ONE State RArEF Officers. Major Neame, Canadian Director of Aadiological Services, participated in the conference and spoke on the subject of "Canadian RADE]? Operations." A recommendation from this 'conference is to convene , a formal meeting with the RADEF Officers of Canadian Provinces adjacent to OCD Region ONE and those'of the States of New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. This group will further study communication requirements, which at this time indicate that a linkage between Harvard, Massachusetts and Valcartier, Quebec might . provide for the most efficient exchange of Adiological information.

The OCD Federal Civil Defense Guide, Part E, Chapter 5, Appendix 5, "Radi-ological Reporting Procedures," was printed and distributed during February 1965. This document provides OCD guidance for the . exchange of radiological information between the U.S. and Canada. • •727j ' • L3 , • . • Marlow J(Stanglej Joint Chi rman ' • • March 9, 1965

J492/65 PO(E0) March 4, 1965. US/CAN JRCC D 11/65

REPORT • • TO • JOINT REGIONAL CONTINUING COMMITTEE

REFIMENCE:

Record of Decisions, US/CAN JRCC R/2-64„ Item XI, dated November 6, 1 96/1-

SUBjECT:

Cross-border Communications: Study Group on the feasibility and cost of establishing landline and radio communications b -vtween neighbouring Canadian and United States Regional Headquarters and adjoining political divisions at lower levels. -

,oe.,,,e.tra.,,,e.s.11.0.1....,1i.e • • • e . ,—• • .1•••••••••• ■ ••,...... ,•1.....,..n...1.••••3.• t • US/CAN JRCC D 11/65

REPORT OF STUDY GROUP ON CROSS-BORDER COMMUNIC;ATIONS

1. Meetpgs • No formal meetingsyere held. It was considered that the material collected was not sufficient to support agenda; and the time and displacement af personnel for a meeting of the two national sections could not be justified. Consulta- tion was done through correspondence. 2. Landlino tete to link Regional HeadquIlrters Although the implealentation of the recommendations (JRCC R/2-64, Item XI (b)) does not fall within the province of this Study Group, it is here noted that, anticipating . approval by the Senior Cormittee, financial action has been initiated to pracurethe necessary equipment. 1 3. Radio back-up-for the landline connection between Everett ] and Nanaimo rJRCd-R/2-64_, Item XT—TUTT------As stated in our last report, the Nanaimo radio installation in its present configuration does not lend itself to North- South transmission. The cost of additional arrays is estimated at e3,000. National Defence Communications Systems aro the object of an intensive study undertaken at the direction of the Treasury Board. Requirements for emergency cross-border communications are included in this work. Communications between ad lacent munici alities and other subdivision No additional information has been received on the requirement for direct communication links at levels below regional headquarters. US/CAN MARCH 4, 1965. JRCC D 12/65.

REPORT TO

JOINT REGIONAL CONTINUING COMITTEE

REFERENCE:

Record of Decisions, US/CAN JRCC R/2-64, Item XII, Page 7, dated November 6, 1964

SUBJECT:

Public Information: - Working Group study of problem areas in cross-border arrângements.

' 1' US/CAPd

JRUC D 12/65

- REPORT OF -WORKING^...... _.._ GROUP._._. -- - 01T PUBLIC_ IrrFORr1ATI0r.1

The Working Group has not had a formal meeting since the last report to the JRCC because its work and deliberations are long term and there has not been completion of progresÛ in any one ar.ea. to warrant a meeting.

The progress that is continuing and the actions takeri is as follows:

1. The Canadian authorities feel a need to review all the material that has at present been recorded for broadcasting or is held on a prepared script or pro forma.

2. Many Government Departments have made planning and may now have new materialtooginclude.theirp â. As this work is done, area identification will be included in recordings, scripts and pro forma.

The feasability of one country using the other's broadcasting stations is the subject of a study.

5. The Canadian posit' àll Canadian Regionsntosascertainevqewsyasatoctheuareas to where this might be required." Replies have been received and studied by the Canadian members (0,1O, DOT and CF3C ).-

rtwas felt in general that there was little requiremEnt, though a few areas required further study, which is being carried out by the CBC, who are looking into the coverage provided by alternate Canadian stations.

The US position was discussed between-Mr. Roderick of OCD and Ivlr. Holmes of 040. The former explained that the State plans for emergency broadcasting had only recently been received by the FCC from State lndustrial Advisory Committees (SZAC 's). . 8 The FCC were consulting with Canadian authorities (DOT and ÇBC) in order to ensure that th with Canada and until these plansew^^^nâ were co-ordinated OCD were not in a position to proceed furpthered by the FCC, 9 The field of Public Information was discussed between Mr. Arnold of OCD, the US Co-chairman and Mr. Holmes and Mr. Arnold considered that until. US plans had developed further, OCD were not ready to consider co-ordination of plans.

K.E. Holmes, Canadian and Joint Chairman, US/Can Working Group on Public Information.

I March 17, 1965 JECC D/13-65

United States - Canada Joint Regional Continuing Committee

Subject : Treatment of Refugees

Reference: US/CAN CEPC D/6-64, June 15, 1964 and JRCC 1R /2-64, November 6, 1964, item XEV

At its October 1964 meeting in Winnipeg, the Committee

(a) agreed that the U.S. Secretariat, in consultation with the U.S.

Department of State, prepare the first draft of a joint agreement on the equal

treatment of persons from each country in a war emergency; and

(b) recommended that, once an agreed draft had been prepared, the

Secretaria:t consult with the Canadian Department of External Affairs and the

U.S. Department of State on the best met1-_3d of implementing the agreement.

Acting on the decisions of the Committee, the U.S. Secreta.riat consulted the

'Department of State for further guidance. It was agreed that before drafting

the "Refugee Agreement" we should ascertain what the military obligations of

such refugees rnight be under U.S. laws and statutes, since the JRCC had

recommended in February 1964 that exemption from impress/ment into U.S.

or Canadian forces be provided for them.

Consultations with the legal adviser of the U.S. Selective Service System

revealed that a refugee would not be required to register with a Draft Board . _ for 6 months following the date of his entry into the United States. Further,

such a registrant could not be inducted into the U.S. Armed Forces for another

6 months following registration. Therefore, since persons considered in the proposed agreement would be temporary refugees for a period of probably less than 6 months, no obligation nor demand of any kind would be placed on them for service in the U.S.

'Armed Forces. On that basis, it appeared unnecessary to consider incorporating a military service exemption clause in the draft agreement.

In January 1965, having received informal proposals from several U. S. agencies for exchanges of notes between the two countries, the Canadian Desk of the Department of State became aware that the 1963 Civil Eznérgency

Planning Agreement was deficient in that it did not provide sufficient or clear authority nor the basic principles for emergency coopera.tion to permit the development of stand-by cooperative interagency resource arrangements which would be fully valid in a war emergency, particularly regarding modes of transportation, industrial supplies and other rnaterial resources, including food and drugs.

In order to minimize the number of notes to be exchanged between the two

countries, and in order to provide the required enabling authority, the

Department of State took the position that an "umbrella" agreement setting

forth basic principles and broad policy for emergency cooperation should be

achieved.

Consequently, since such an 'umbrella agreement will contain also a policy

article dealing with the reciprocal treatment of refugee, the development of

a separate agreement was thought unnecessary. Only implementing US/Canada

interagency arrangements would be developed as required.

U. S. Secretariat US/CAN March 5, 1965 • • • JRCC D 14/65 • UNITED STATES/CANADA JOINT REGIONAL CONTINUING COMMITTEE • a Subcommittee of the • Joint Civil Emergency . Planning Committee •

Evacuation and Movement of feoph

Since the JRCC meeting in Winnipeg, the planning of emergency' measures for the protection and care of refugees or evacuees has not progressed appreciably.

• You will recall that four steps were accepted by both countries in December 1963 as the proper approach, namely; .

1. Analysis - particularly estimation of the magnitude of the problem.

2. Joint policy and planning for compatability.

3. Development of enabling border regulations.

4. Development of coordinated plans for actual protection and care of displaced persons.

At Winnipeg,separate repOrts of separate actions on step one were presented. While conclusions scemed to be compatible, the basic assumptions were not and the comtittee recommended further coordination on step one.

EMO informed the Director of Emergency Welfare Services, Canada of the committee's recommendation on October 26, 1964 and CEP urged the US Depart- ment of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW) to take action on November 3, 1964. On December 15, 1964 OCD prepared a set of US assumptions which are compatible with those used by Canada in its Study of Possible Movement of Canadian Refugees.

On January 29, 1965 HEW called a conference,at which OEP and OCD were represented, to discuss the US position. It was the consensus that findings set forth in the US Summary, Evacuation and Movement of People Across the US/Canadian Border Under Emergency Conditions, dated September 24, 1964 were not inconsonant with the compatible aSsumptions and could serve as the basis for joint action with Canada on steps two, three and four.

EMO in the person of Mr. M.R. Mackenzie heard a report of the HEW conference on February 1, 1965 and offered no objection to the proposal that the US Welfare Administration and the Canadian Emergency Welfare Services should proceed with joint planning. HEU conveyed the US proposal ' to the Director of Emergency Welfare Services who responded February 11, 1965 agreeing with respect to some border areas but making a point, which by definition was not touched upon in his study, that the Canadians -expect a very considerable movement of persons from the US into B.C., Alta and Sask.

1," 2

In Chat region the US de' not anticipate more than a normal 20 to 150 thousand US citizens to be found in Canada depending upon the season. However, this may be a matter with respect to which the Cammittee members concerned can reach a working agreement here and now.

Recommended SRCC finding:

The COMMITTEE:

1. Considers the protection and care of foreign refugees and evacuees a Subject requiring joint cross border planning.

2. Noted the report of delays resulting from difficulties encountered in attempting to produce a joint report on the magnitude of the problem.

3. •Recommends that US/Canadian welfare counterparts proceed jointly with the planning steps two, three, and four and prepare a joint progress report for the Fall 1965 meeting of the JRCC.

4 (c. J491/65 PP(PRO),

US/CAN JRCO D 16/65 UNITED STATES/ CANADA Existing State/Province and local Crossborder Mutual Aid and other Reciprocal Arrangements

1 e-Qt e [ Western ' Eastern r -i Type Yuk BricishColumbia• -lal_1,.sk 1.. .Man f Ontario f .Ouebec .. f. UFçl Arr9.11.1nIMUI.11-2' AlpskafRidlIIda Montana 1oDal

1 1 2 2 5 6 6 1 6 1 •• l 13 S - '171 Total 59 Numbers in the matrix squares refer to pages in the supporting .Material.

- OCD

' BRITISH COLUMBIA

The following departMents and branches report that no formal (provincial) arrangements exist: Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce • . Health Services and Hospital Insurance Agriculture Mines nnd PeLeleum Resources . Education Recreation and Conservation Municipal Affairs Attorney-General Royal Canadien Mounted Police Forets Service reports as followst •

To avoid placing matters on a treaty level we have an informal agreement between the U. S. Forest Service and this Forest Service that covers forest fires originating one mile on either side of the border on lands held in the name of the Crown or in a National Forest. The arrangement is that either Service takes initial action within the zone and the affected Service can take over in due course with its own forces or the Service taking initial action can extinguish the fire and bill the other country .for its cosus„ as per an agreed schedule. This agreement does not extend to state lands.

Department of Commercial Transport reports as hereunder: Reference yeur memorandum of lhth Januarye 1965, this mill advise that a reciprocll licencing agreement currently exists between the Province of British Columbia and sixteen States of the United States. The States of Washington, Idaho and Montana are all participating members of this agreement, which is known as the Uniform Vehicle Registration Proration and Reciprocity Agreement, • In essence, the prorate licence agreement provides for the issuance of commercial vehicle licenses at fees based upon the percentage of miles operated in each State or Province, and after three years of operation has proven to be of considerable help to the trucking industry and the Province,

At the present time, 75 British Columbia Companies and 252 United States Companies are operating under the terms of this Agreement. This represents a total of 2,357 tractor units and 4;084 trailer units operating on an international basis, A complete list of participating Companies is available, if required.

A Mop Alaska, Yukon conference is held from time to time to discuss problems of mutual interest as they may concern Industrial Devaopment,

q(A.. TzRI'ÏTSH CODUI,IBIA contd)

N,ines and Petroleum Resources has a Mines Rescue capability, and its resources have, in the past' been made available to the Province of Idberta.

The R.C.M.P. at present has a temporary arrangement for commiu.nication between Cloverdale and Blaine.

;fianicipal Affairs report inforrial arrangements (Fire and Police particularly' between Delta, Surrey, White Rock9 Sum.as, ifatsqui, Langley District and cross-border communities do exista

Working arrangements are known to exist between the B.C. HycLro and Power Authority, and the Bonneville Power Authority. ANNEX G SOVE2.;ENT • APPENDIX 4

EVACUATION OF THE GREATER VANCOUVER B.C. TARGET AREA

I. MISSION AND CITUATION A. MISSION To incorporate into the civil defense plans of the Province of British Columbia and the State of Washington across-the-border arrangements to facilita :t the evacuation of the Greater Vancouver l'arget Area. This plan amplifies and . becomes a part of mutual assistance agreements already in effect between British Columbia and Washington.

B. SITUATION Ji 1. The evacuation plan for the Vancouver Target Area envisages approx- . imately 218,500 people leaving the area via the DEAS ISLAND TUNNEL under the • SOUTH ARM of the FRASER RIVER. This could mean that approximately half of .these will enter WASHINGTON STATE via BLAINE using US 99e: ( 2 lane Black Route), • i.e. the two right-hand lanes of the eastern exit road from the pas TUNNEL.' 2. In order for evacuees to re-enter Canada, it is necessary that certain road space in northern Whatcom Couaty be made available for their movement. In the event of a fallout hazard developing to the eastward of Vancouver, it would be necessary to retai evacuees in bhatcom County for a period of time. (Refer to Map - Fig. 24) • XI. ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES A. THE GENERAL PLAN • The holding of Canadian evacuees on a temporary basis in the northwest corner ofl'Alatcom County, if such becomes necessary due to predicted or actual' fallout pattern; the area to be used being bounded on the north by the U.S./ Canada border from Puget Sound to Sumas, thence southward along the general . line of the Northern Pacific Railway Co. to Eversôn, thence westward along the Nooksack River to Puget Sound, thence northward to the U.S./Canada border. B. ORGANIZATION 1. The Civil Defense Coordinator, Greater Vancouver Mutual Aid Area, ; will organise a mobile headquarters to be responsible to him for all Canadian civil defense activities in the State of Washington resulting from operations • under this plan. 2. This mobile headquarters will move to the vicinity of the City Hall, Lynden, Washington as soon as practicable and operate from that location.. (The City Hall, Lynden, is the operating headquarters for Zone 4 of the Whatcom County Civil Defense organization.) 3. The Civil Defense Coordinator, Greater Vancouver Mutual Aid Area, will insure that all chiefs of services involved prepare detailed plans in cooperation with appropriate U.S. state and county civil defense officials for the orderly and controlled implementation of the plan.

I • . .^.m..^•mn;.K..^...... u.^..^,^v ^ . .,.^

111^•• ^Y11ry /^ .tt/l^/ ^.a T /^ 1 ^ 1^ ll,?1^1,h as --,1 . •

!: • 4y,• a ^ .."1/i • ° to iY V- cacTuï.Q the ^l c^.a:iY' ^ l1 Z7:1 a ch :1,"°^^1:,r . ^"^^•^'. G: ^ +. t,o 7, t.. be 1^ti:Cdt3 in U^ûCë° to Ct^^C^:L Ci03.î-^JOl^46Y° alàiû^G.2^`1G0 (ÀL2'1,^^ 7::^:dGâ ; 4âcoâj.L:C9 C13SA.ciüo4â 2. r^^Pxxcxâar; r .^

C. ::. aoo?ef .• ,c, , "oral Diruatar,. PcZ;i.cn 8 (CaIz:::L1:toe 2•.c..bcr, • • • . ..^^^^,^.ti :i... /. Dicasi;er Co«•ordi n 4Cr.J ::+3^ D .c4.^j^olâ'^•„ G^ 0 14uL'.c.Zal liiâ l'•cLOI'y • Y t .•i.^ (i^, Co') J.. ii• Iiv^iw..2 "' RcLional Lircctore L.ôlU (C07--ûitvGO

^• Par'l".:LC:L^)&:ît0 r c`V7.CT C:i ,, u ,^ •rrkn;;c;acn^s bett•:ccn Uo ke U.^ ^or. £3 `•;,c.', ' ^c ^ 0,',.:bOiZ111(-'toil,, Idaho i^l:..^ •.JnT.ar-a) and I:'s^J.'l'ri.3I1 !.^.Clliï.2eti7i:,so 1,0 .l"olzüll C.4i itCllClél:C. of any âort are kno;•-n to e,r.i3lj. Ti-,c only cor.c•rct,c cv3.cicnco of cro0:3-4JorCIGr 1..:.si:i lvaYlcc is the pl.LteC1aCa1t of adapter COLtql:d12rr^.3 'or f 1ro I3owu^ at cc3'i.4Jn l,^rCiQk' points. 7rtovGa of CoursOa Cilâ.Gfl;f Cnv3.:iat;G the voissbia.';ÿ of homo or property .^].X°G£7 (i.119X1jcl?'J^.) L':izét'd"(, p^,.^3:ïUlZ°G3 i9v"sï,Ci s:^ro av..b^,^,abJ.o.

In the, case o^f °1orQriŸ J..^..1pLN^^ .A.GC%îe^t .,v,.{^ L ^ Ld11Gai:1^.? L lidiiJ..^7"'VtJd44Cr CLxii^..ilû^:.1L1ZvJ û PiC.,e° to Oxist or :^tltual, s..^^^... ° "°' ^ i;anco ti•ra^h ry ^ theth o main .^..;^•^..^, ,.,^ e wnc p°ll';JOoCPe lii0 actL.1.L. 1..Y2ciGCntCi involV;Â.i7i; for veit Lira in C2"Gûw"^ûG^ì:CI• citt:,:tio'ras can be xccaJ.lod by the 5-uai,c D.ir cc;,or of Civil Dc.fcn:,o -: asl^^,âCôn. lie h4,, at his das,oo„aZ a vez'y ^,rrc,a•u riar

4- )''JC?OCIs present the 1;o$t frCOllCrtt civil ,,)1'ob.i.w,l to Bu Co w`1d border States of U. â. r.egion 8. Cross-border :U::):ticGi.i.o nd involve the fo^Lc::ârl; water 4 j7$ UCl"'.^v^ : •

D.C. -- :rka.shàxlgton Mano,r.,an Colu,iuia B.C. - Idaho Kootcrcà B.C. - 2-;onis.na i1,o0i•Gb7G f

.ULLo.rm-al arralAUJm1Gn11s over 7ikaaV û oa^..rl.^i have 1.:a:Jtccj b`.l3i•rL\ili I.JOVp l':rtl.L 1.)vrQC•r • Statc;, on intorcl:an,;c of :m."or.r^tion xaüar^^i7û ,Y:;rto;:-r^^cI;"^ rntcoro'.c^79 run-off a sûossr^,ent 9 otc. No c.Labor::tc r.pcc:,,al rira i:.vo^veu (or nnGCYGd) and QVCn at critical cQ:w'1LU::l.cai';ioil:r 11::vc ,:;:X'vvî,n ratz.si'act.ob-j. No cross-border exc;: ^.^^cs of ci;uila;acnt and personnel can be • • x©ca^l.ccâo ,• . , ^.-, • • z . . . . . LLBERTA

Tho following provincial departmnts or agoncics cnd municipclitiea have infor=1 azren,,,7emnts a3 followst

C . COIr7e3 PHYnICWIS ene7.71 e•à iàtmlt of e,Unemelaio'à tb 10 cmd 5tE>t3p emtece fr oc 2.:Iberetâ vloe ocnatirno. This ViGuld app2y to nnelel.ca. trent.nnnt by n•..-1,1r GZ.M 81&''''il.CfP..1rJ 1C.'..r(p of 12..*;oploo em • tint1101 b t îwscît Po-,y Uitc ,e..:;tatc3 rizotwo aoze7..pnying tle\Piolx3 .of 1.-Uff:ir own nationality in Cciae...cla Cad vioo vo`e_me› b. 1077.121PARIT 0? P4JBLIC WErfal • • • • • non, Lrt1 tnii ttZ L1bo -.1)a UI ontanm to • o@r;I:trAt octh nt;'.:%r.c coneewrang coto involvod in ccring and rateen'Ime, e.`•`-1td..I'd.tterà Va.-CM:43 or run..-away chi2.dro.n ovfao may c:.-c\opo either . bortkree gsil•ruàit nun es.a ifoL.acecozant concerning th o pamago • of zul'aptica fimfolezntic.rt. •

.0. • 7D jNT

ThOevl in e21 informn1 acîmorezmt for policcmcr.. of Morta End Mont= T.::â0 'VD:1Mb ruei.je ap430 tO ai".:t- rue2a.ea.2- .czo. to .) GIU:,'Z'', ,;•' C,,in`i_.`,,c; . . . . . , . .. .. . i do feemA covEnr.rIT 5.M.E.PHOMS . • • • . , . . . . , it.1115Q•ptâ per-eoLzre=t ,TeloplIcaoa has fo=a1:....--atn •.d.th other 1.: tolreffizob cou•p.-..n.i.os of both Ce=.2....a erad the United fi31:,atos for the E-'0,-?ontinc,. of -i'VJ---laphons circuits. •. • :; . . . . • . . . • . • o. IMICXPAL • . - « . • . ; • . • 1 • • Tao= is an inforr.al. rant-A aid tiro fietine, ar.v,c.ct botrzcn the . . , Plunioipality of &;;Doteati3 D Yleat- Ema end theli'mut-e'cd.polity a Geatto s. ,.• . 0 . i . Alberta . . . . . . . • • -

•

! 1 .

• .,.^.>_^..^SASU'l'CI-1^t^TAN

Wor.v of the Province of Saaltatchat•xan DepartumcWco or A^tiracl^o^ have any formal or :i.n^,.°oxvi-im1. iaox^ldng agr,3o^2.nts with States Depaei,m,ez;to or .A.goncies. I

Thox°$ is practically no liaison bet.wean them and the ors.ly co^,.ts,;c, ; are iaolatarlo

The Provincial Daparct•aent of Agrr.^cu;^^^^: has ^âL^.rzê^s 3n^ tation on the Joint Intei r.ationaï watoi .••rAya Cormtf.^civin Sàz3.cÂ Ls a, Agarnoyo

The RD1P have a very infonnal llrivon wIth the rnxn the nepartmoai, and the Border P'atrol but this i s all in the Fe-d-araZ field mi'd rslate3 only :112fi3rectZy to their rosponsibilit:i.es as P-rovinc:ia7. Mi?cFaa

. ,NITOBA Agriculturo (yater Control and Conservatioal Informal arrangements exist between the Flood Forceasting Committees of Manitoba, Minnesote, North Dakota and the U. S. Army Corpo of Enelnoerao No formal arrangements or plans with regard to flood control, but theeo is an informal oputting together" or rather exchange of information, between this Department and tho Conservation Branch with the Corps of Engineers in the U.S. and the U.S. Weather Bureau. They co-oporate with regard to forecnets en flood control. Labour (Fire Commiulmml This doPartment is auare of either vritten or verbal agreements for Mutual Aid Assietanco between Emerson? Gretna and Unkler and neigh. boring tame and villages in the U.S. Mines and Natural Resources This department has a strictly informal agreement with the Forest Service of the State of Minnesota. This agreement is solely between the fire protection employees of the two departments. The base of the Agreement is that the first agency to see a Lire border will take action. If it is acroes the International near the Boundary a bill for out-of.pooket oxpenees is sent to the other departmentt To facilitnto this croee-border work, pormiecien hee been ebteind from the two Customs Services for fire fighter, and equipment to crous the border.without prior chocking. There has also been an exchaego of radio equipment so forestry towers can get cross-shots on fires and notify each other. • This loose arrangement has worked well to date and this department is quite happy with the two way co-operation aeeoss the border in thee areas of responsibilities. The matter of emergency communications tie.in between the etato concerned and this provincegs radio natuork which actually is the Manitoba E.M000 caergency radio natvork used on a dayto day working basis, in a facility which could be most important under disaster conditions. Manitoba Woloohono Svatem **6...se..autme.,menj.farys*ea. Informal arrangements with American Telephone and Telegraph Company..

. These arrangements are baeicollyucod for roerouting toll services and private line telephone facilities as required. MANITOBA (cont.) • R.C.M.P0

Informal agreement on border patrol co-operation and general liaison with other forces are required.

HEALTH

. No arrangementà made at Provincial love], with the Heal,h Services of the adjoining states. Considered to be advantageous to make contact with the State represaatative to review their medical plans, their medical potential, their supply organization and capability, and to review measures which maybe required to provide mutual support for Americans and Canadians who may be effected in any major disaster° '

MUNICIPAL • • There are a nuMber Of arrangements existing at the Municipal level in Fire ane AMbulance Service mutual support. The water supply of the Town of Gretna is purchased from the Town of Neche, N. D. An example of an existing agreement and there are otherà along the same lines.

.1 p').1.TARIO

A rearlem of ou.r records indicates that the only agreement be-'1/4w.un the departm.ent and an American jtiriGdiction is the agrz,,eme.nt for the construction and maintenance of the international bridge crossing the Pigeon River, made with the - Stato of lif,nnesota o

(a) Provincial Goverr - ent Denartmnts No provincial doparl;ents of government, have entured into any agreements or undortakings.

(b) ' Ni dual Governments •

no offleal ag-z-c_,..ementa or undertaldngs have bcertà • reached., it appears that all have had frequcnt unoffj.cl.a.1 discussions on planning training End oporationalrwocz.,d.tvX7,2‘..• • • In additionp •

(a) Laeibton-Sarnia have an ars.-angement vhereby they and Michigan rautrally ans'ist one 47:ether in inav.o-d cnal mi* (RADE? td.th Goii.‘„We & C 0110R 0 ). 0 • ney aleo liaise Goillmunications end Meecal-Trannrportatio -a. I on further undorstand that Mr. Ske?. ton hns basa in-srited to. ba an asr'ociate to the Michigan Eergency Group o • (b) Essex. Comaty )1;•.vv.; mixtual a9:reeme,,n.t 1.th Detroit to work. together (pea.cetime op,eratione) in each mz.ittiors as l'ire fidating and Police protection. •

(0 ) As you are aware (sec your letter 22 December e 1964) letter of intent has boon exchanged between Sault St,0 0 1.1En.,ie.9 Ontario and Sault Ste. Marie Michigan.

pfit NEW :CRUNSUIC K

Provincial e?epai tments and agencies have been coi-izmun.icated with and the k`o1;Lrec=rin; information regarding crons-border agreements has been o-^tainvd:-

(a) nepartment of Transport «. Uo S. jyeather Burcau,, Treie is an .international agreement at the Federal level for exchange of weather information.

(b) The U. S. CLo1o(.ri.ca1. Survcy, Dcpartr•:ent of Interior cad Province of New Brunswick - a stuOy of river flow relationships by the U. S. I•7eather Bureau^ River Forecast Centre at ;Jind or Locksv Connacticut9 is being cot;^gl.etcd on the Aroostook River v,n.ich flows into Now Bru.na,^rick. This study and others uLir^3.ar to it v:i.ll enable the U. S. autazoritie s•to produce foz^ecas ts of river î:i ow,a which -vrI.11 be a majoro,, contribution toward flood forecasting in Now Brunsz•r.ïck, 1lrrangerrwnts have been made for the results of this study to be made available to the S'-rovinceo

(c) The I:i.:ce Marshallb s Office states that there 3.s m unwrittcxi mutual agreenn-ntt, between all bordor toL•ns and those opposite them in the State of Maine for aui:o7datic response to ; acond alarrs in either corr,munity and to all special alarma (these arewAutual.ly agreed upon and include those t3nich lncid.cate that the fir 3is in a business section, an indusceial plas1'a., c^tc ^) o There as9 in addition., a mutual agreement be c;,acen -4:ovms a short distance from the border to assist each othcr on request. ILU hoses and hose connections in those border and near border toti,ms are interchanpeab3.a A

.(ci) ì'hoie is an agreement bvttŸen the New Brun^,^wick Water Autho-rity and the 11aine I-Joter lmprover~uont Co°r.:_..iÿsio.n on pollution and sewage control. This ag-°cowciit involves a nnz -Gua1. e..chmge of îôrma tion rather than actual mu-cua:L aid in errargencym

(©) The Ncw BrZrns=3ck Electric Power Commission states that there are. no Provinoial=wS tate azYx^angu^.ents !?egard:t.ng water ( eï:cept he Arao;;i,ook River stud)men-,,ion-,Id abovr;.9 t-rhâ.ch will beco:^.s avn:3.lab'i o•Lhrougi the Fod•eral L>later R,esou,°cEs Branch ) o Reports on water flow9 hotyeve_.r9 are received daily i-roin such points as Fort Kent in Maine and thcso assist niateriall.y in flood forecasting. Theao are arrangements under the NaUonal Enorgy Board authority for the purchaa3o and/or sale of power o Copies of this for mal agreement tTJ.th the State of Maine are on.file with the Energy Boardo Foi^mal arrangements e;:3st ui^-,,h the Maine Pifolic Service Company ''- m:Lted for Aroostook County and i•e.th the Eastern Maine I:i.ecûric Co-operativz for the Southeastern part of the State of Maine.

^ l!^ (

NEW BRUNSwIn....(1mL,,,),

(f) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which constitutes the Provincial Police Force in New Brunswick, has informal arrangements with the State of Maine Police to extend mutual aid and to exchenge .information on police matters. There are communications between a transceiver in Houlton, Maine and rt. C. M. P. Headquarters in Fredericton, N. B, These nbase stations relay information to . points concerned.

(g) Department - of Health has an agreement uith the State of Maine to exchange medical information particularly on emergency situatione, Duch as communicable disenees, oto. There appears to bc an unwritten agreement for mutual aid in the event of disaster, in which case the Minieter of the Provincial Department of Health . would determine what reeources of personnel and material ho could offer to assist the State of Maine.

(h ) 'Department of Lands and Mines . the Forest Protection Branch hes an informal agreement with an organization known as the North- eastern AreelFire Compact of the New England States for mutual aid tplbe extended in the event of forest fires of major propor- tions particularly those near the border. New Brunswick has been invited to join this compact but for various reasons has not done so, up to the present.

The N. D. Telephone Company has infoleaal arrangements with the ( I) Teriphone Companies operating in the Stete of Maine for mutual aid in time of emergency. Thee() informal agreements include personnel, material and tobbhical advice. These mutual assistance arrangements have, in fact, been imp]emented in the past. There is also an agrecelent in certain border areas whereby.one Telephone Company handles toll calls for its cross-border nsighbour. This agnx,m.ent„ however, is not of an emergency nature, but is rather an operating procedure under which arrangements for cash settlements, etc., have been maàe on al mutually agreeable basis.

(k) Many other Provincial government departnents have informal arrangements for exchange of information in special fields of endeavour, but these are not peace-time emergency arrangements.

The Province of New Brunswick has a mutual aid agreement with the State of Maine dated November 23, 3.955. This agreement was implemented by means of an exchange of notes rather than by formel agreement and was signed for the Province of Now Brunswick by the Minister of Municipal Affairs the ,had been given the authority to execute a mutual aid agreement with the State of Maine. • This exchange indicated a willingness of both parties to approve informal plans and procedures relating to mutual aid and assistance including exchenge of information on Civil Defence resources and their use in emergency, co-

•

( .,.^ ^^ rl operation botum e^ z1 police force on C^.v-13Dcfc^^ce t:^ztt^3r^ and •^^cn°;^^;t^.on r^n

C'v^^dG.iY.d.^./•IimtiV W.1+.th? if .^.4^îqW1d.4^4p 3 o1^.av.C VLoaÛ.3.S:g UY^^4.:^Glu..iS ♦ VvS^ ^.iC+•-0s3.Ulÿ3 0o;-ricesa fâ.re ^;;^r1.cos, hoo:.r^11 Jcl^ro1.cc^sa ca;;u îcai,^.ono and c^^;z;3.âca:^.:^:vo ^"ne notClu^ FiLr^.rzvd that ttii?G11 the State or 11^CGV7.71cCZ or viâ^ f^Ê ^3 to the other party to combat a major diûa^ï,ore 'cFi.3 party rccoivà.n,rv^ ^Dzdzt,ancm tcâ.ll ae:iuburaQ the other for expansc^s inoLwrcd. 7'hic agrovi'amt is atilâ. in (^.^.'^¢tYê o . ,

I I ^ EXIiIEIT "B"

INTERNATTOr3 #L AGREn`! ► TS ON FOREST PROTECTION

Province of Manitoba

Mr. A.W. Firaint?, Al?.rector of Forest ProtL 'Nat•ural Resources, Province of L•;anitoba, Canada, s tat:es :

'We ► have three (3) agreements in effect with Ontario, ^^stcatcizec^a:aH and the State of. Minnesota. All three are tnfor-n;al agreements between the iire protection peoplc concerned and have r_ot been written out and signed as officia^. goverr:^nent documents.^^

"All three agreements have the s4r„e terims and are to cover f.-Ires a long our cormwaon boundary. The bas ir; of each' agreement 7,, that the first agency to detect a fire will st-art- suppression regardless of which side of the boundary it is. The agency hiring the fire fighters pays them and't-hen bills the other agency for all out-of-pocket cost-- on a fire across the boundary.

"To assist in the smooth,working of the agreements we have brief meetings each spring. At thes^ meetings there is an exchange of tower maps, names, addresses and phone numbers of affected personnel, etc. There is usually an exchange of radios, so the tower networks each side of the boundary can be tied together.

"In our opinion, these agreements have worked extremely well. Quito a number of fires hâve been extinguished across boundary lines before the home agency has been able to take action and others have been followed across the boundary to give the most dffectivel, possibl.e action."

There are also verbal agreements involving the I^ôvinces of Quebec, New Drunswick, and Ontario, Manitoba, and their respective neighboring United States of Maine, New T-Ia,-r,pshire, Vermont, New York, Minnesota, and the U.S. Forest Service.

i'rovinçe of Ontario

Mr. W.T. Foster, Acting Chief of Forest Protection, Department of Lands and Forests, Province of Ontario, writes:

°f7.'he agreements with Manitoba and Quebec are unwritten and arrangements are confirmed usually each season by staff meetings' along the borders and by the exchange of memoranda outlining detection, communication and suppression arrangements.

^ ^ I ^r r3 "A more formal type of arrangement is in effect between Ontario and Minnesota and the United Staten Forest Service. This arrangement is certainly a joint agreement and han no official sanction by the Federal government in Ottawa. We have, however, received • clearance from Lmmigration and Customs to permit men and equip- • ment to cross the International Border for fire fighting duty: . A liaison co=ittee is appointed representing rembere of our, - local district staff at Fort Frances and Port Arthur and representing the State of Minnesota and the United StateS Forest Se:rvice. This. committee arranges for the exchange of infortion . on duty resters, detection facilities and suppression erre.;ngements each seaeen. . Every other year a joint meeting is held of all key staff concerned p ,)ssibly involving 30 or 40 people. This meeting alternates between Canada and the United States.

"The arrangement has been extremely successful in ths.t a number of fires are reported each year to Co-operating agencies and in 'possibly three or four instances a year, fire fighting crews actually cross the border to take initial action on fires. There have been indirect benefits as well in that through close contact we have been able to exchange information on equipment and training programs. We have also exchanged visits betmeen the co-operating agencies."

Province of British Columbia

There is a Fie Protection Agreement between the Canadian Province of British Columbia. :nul the US Forest Service. Thia includes International Boundary areas in our States of Washington, Idaho and Montana. It applies to lands a mile on each side of the International Boundary, which are protected from fire by the parties to the agreement and constitute a common zone for suppression action. In this zone it is mutually agreed that:

1. The party first diseovering an unattended fire in this zone shall, if practicLble, immediately notify the proper officer of the party responsible for suppression of the fire, giving the location and size of the fire and such other pertinent information as is available. A list of the officers concerned in operations under this agreement, and a map showing their areas of responsibility are attached. If the.proper officer cannot be reached, or cannot take immediate action, the party discover- ing such fire . shall at once proceed to suppress it; provided that no reimbursable expense in excess of $2,000.00 shall be incurred without the express authority of the responsible officer, his agent or superior. The officer or agent of the • responsible party shall assume charge of the fire as soon as practicable, and the responsible party shall reimburse the other party for fire suppression expenses incurred. 2. When a fire on both sides of the International Boundary is wholly within the common zone, the officers of both parties are present, authority and responsibility for suppression action may be vested in one party, by mutual agreement and on written concurrence of the officer of the other party.

1r7 runic HEALTH suvxce

DATE: JAN d •

•

. sumecT: State-Provincial Diaaster Agreements

-As requeated, our Regional and State DUM program representatives have queried State healtn officers of the States along the Canadian border

. concerning disaster agreements with the adjacent Provinces.

Ve I Although no formal agreements have been consummated to date some Statee and Provinces have worked together along informal linee. Currently, most of the agreement:6 between the State of Maine and the Canadien Provinces" of Quebec and New Brunswick consist of informal proceduree resulting from practices that . have existed for many years. uring the past two yeara two meetings have been held between officials of the State • of Maine and these Provinces and another meeting ie'scheduled for February ' 1965 with Quebec.

The attached letter, signed by tha Governor of Maine, has been sent to authorities in bo"eh of the adjoining Provinces and expresses areas of mutual interest that may be included in formal agreements.

In Maine, eeveral of the Public Health Service -Packaged Disaster Hoepitale are placed near the Canadian border, particularly where the population of the Canadian Provinces is greater than that on the State side. Plans are thet Canadian•personnel will become part of the staffing pattern in the event it becomes necessary to use these.hospitals. Hence, personnel from Maine and the Provinces part:cipate in joint exercises and training activities. Conversely, there are plans to oefer assistance to the Canadians in.the event of disastere in the cities along the border.' • Information has been interchanged and meetings held by Civil Defenae officials and their Canadian counterparts in the Sault Ste. Marie area, howeyer, it is uncertain whether joint health plans have been considered.

Emergency health representatives in Washington State and the adjacent Canadiaa — •Provinces have . maintained frequent contacts with each other and, in several cases, attended training coursee ecross the border. Working relationships • are excellent, however, no health agreements have been reached tg date. Appai.ently . there hlis been some effort to standardiee equipment by the State and Province to facilitate the mutual support in firefightinz in the cities. DATE: March' 3, 1965

I"10" : Regional Directort. ()CD Region one

sU^Jr-'cr: Report on 'Cross- •]3order Arrangements

In re'0ly to your meznorandum dated January 15, 1965 regarding the b^bj`c-L reparts, the following information is submi.tedo tUn«rit.ten understandings between border cxtiC2s of Rlegion one States. and adjoinirig Provinces xega,rd:b).g mutual assist^-:•rice in fire fxghti r,.g efl!oxus are c.onmzon and cities and toem.s respond with apparatus and manA ower ircanediû.i:e1.y when called. In emergency tl-,are is no delay at the I-o; der sta^` ions based on r2,cticC's g n -cs Stence be^.ween t.-.he nea.gh`^oring conununi ta.eso In addition,, the informal or social bonds have { been stzengthened by the gr.owth of economio interdependency. These u^.^.dc:r c;tandzngs, being oral and local in extent, are not •backc:d u.0 by any wrÿtûen rtiemoranda but are exemplified in the • Lraditxonary observance of neighborïy h^^lp in time of disaster.

There has also been a traditional mutual, recognition and C^'.C h<^.^;g^ O^ ïî^iî%ic:a,qs. personnel and services in disaster and dependen.re up.on unrestricted use of hospitals and doctors o

The exchas^ge of civil defense planning information, technical data and ptxhlications between the States and Provinces of New B:cu,nswicks Quebec and. Ontario has occurred s^orwd^.caï^.y on part^.cu^.ar points or occasions and passed between the EmO Regional Directors.

All States report tha-E, most state departments of fire, police, forestry, f ishing, heall4h., public works, etc., have long had unwritten peacetime-arrangements for mutual operations not of an emergency tyjpe, and tha-G 'these traditional conanon understandings• hava assured :bot.,.h parties of a working basis for any emergency operationa1, needs which might arise. .. • The only current written agreement beftween a State and Province which can be cited is that Letween Aaine and New Brunswick which has been in effect since October 10, 1 955, signed by Governor E. S. Muskie for the State of Maine, and Deputy Minic1 4:or r7. Municipal Affairs L, J. X.eeman. for. the Province of New Brunswick. Copies of t:his agreement and attachments are included as a part of this report. The State/Provincial joint Civil Defense Planning Conference held at Quebec City February 25 ani 26, 1965 ap;?roved a final revision of the proposed Memorandun of Understanding drafted at the Cross-Border Planning Conference Canuary 21, 1965 at Boston. Copies of the latest draf:, are included as a part of this report. • It is now the expressed intention of the State Civil Defense Directors and the Provincial DireetorÉ of Civil Protection to initiate an exchange of eorres:pndence leading to the early execution of this agreement betwehn the respective parties. Based upon this, the attached 2/26/65 draft of the proposed Memorandum of Understanding may be conveyed to the jRCC for comment.

Test exercises held in past years at Niagara Falls involved the free passage of perso. nel and vehicles into Canada as prearrarjed by correspondence with Immigration Oeficials at Border Stations. This authorization was effective and limited to the date and time of the scheuled exercise.

Exercise observers from Ontario and New Brunswick•were authorizedfor ExercisesStep Three and Step Four at Albany, New York, 'and Augusta, Maine to'extend the development of SOP's where possible. From this summary analysis we conclude that:

1. Other than the Maine-New Brunswick letter attached, there is no available collection of obsolete or extant written agreements between major or minor units of governmen. 2. There are traditional practices of mutual aid across the border based on oral understanding and strong social and economic bonds.

There should be a continuing effort made to formalize the evolving.civil defense plans and agreements beyond the oral expression at the various local levels of government. The written agreements should follow:the pattern of the proposed State/Province Memorandum of Understanding. •

J48I/65 PP(PRO) JRCC D 17/65

STATE-PROVINCE AGt.^.r;TMBiT

(Proposed Meilloranctum approved by State/P.4ovïncial Joint Civil Defense Planning Con:i7erence -- February 25-26, 1965, Quebec City, P. 0.)

MEMMANDUM 0^.^ UMDERS`'ANDIN•G ^iE7^C^LEP7 THE STATE OF AND THE PROVINCE OF' REGAV.DING MAUY.I'UAJG AID IN CIVIL DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

With a full understanding of the r^l^atual ties of interest and I iriendship which exist between the people of the State of and the Province this mertlo.Gt^ndu111 is wr^.ttvn to document- the mutual intent of both governments to extend maximura assistance in emergencies, irre^S^ecL ^ve o^= tAze ;x^J ^ t^ ca1. bound__^^ . which eXi s ts between the State and 4he Province. _.^

By virtue of the provisions of 'cct-1on__c^ C^âryte^ Revised Statutes of , genera:l. direction and co^.'^Û^ of the cx.vi], defense agency are vested in. ^ the Governor, and by vwr tue of Chapter_-_- -__--, statutes of the Province of direction and control of civil protection and defense measuresâre vested in the mz.nister responsible. Acting unc;ex the provisions of said statutes and with the desire to implement the intent of the U.S./Canada Joint Civil. Emergency Planning Agreement dated Novenber 15, 1963, between the United States of 2^.Ter;i.ca and Canada regarding mutual, aid in cz.vil defense and emergency use of resources activities, this meraorandum wi1:l indicate the willingness on the part of the State of and the Province of to approve in tize ôllowà.ng terms informai plans and proce6ures relating to mutual aid and assistance in the event of a civil defense emergency or a naturaï, disaster.

The Governor and the Minister wi1.l. designate per.°sonne., witîzir respective jurisdictions to confer and work out the details of items contained in this memorandum of understanding, such details being subject to the final approval of the Governor and the nâ.nister responsible or their authorized representatives.

p} 1 The State and Province will make resources available to each other to combat any major disaster in the State or province ...,..... • •• whether from man-made or natural causes. To this end, the State and Province will: 1111! (a) cause t'le police forces of the State and Province to extend m - :zimum cooperation in civil defense matters, with special attention to control of emergency traffic; (b) prepare and develop plans for the solution of transportation problems which might arise in carrying out the terms and intent of this agreement; (c) prepare and coordinate the welfare services in .. the State and Province so that maximum assistance may be rendered; • (d) cause the fire services of the State and Province .to render a coordinated effort; (e) work ont a plan for mutual assistance in the field of all health services; (f) coordinate state-Province communication plans . within the framework of the respective National Plans; (g) plan for the coordinated use of municipal, state and Provincial engineering equipment, rescue facilities, and resources from any other area of mutual interest; (h) provide for the exchange of, and coordinated use 1 of, radiological information within the framework of the respective National Plans; (i) arrange for the exchange of observers at exercises, tests and study groups in which there is a mutual interest. It is intended that this general memorandum of understanding will be made immediately effective, subject to termination upon six months notice by either government. As further detailed planning ensues, it is expected that supplementing annexes will be prepared.

Governor • Premier State of Lieutenant Governor ge*ropeem.eenempwatmareeameIr Province of

N •

de' Ivzarch 17, 1965 US/CAN

JRCC D/17A-65

United States/Canada

Joint Regional Continuing- Committee

Subject . Use of Interstate Civil Defense Compacts or Agreements by the States and Canadian Provinces

Reference: JRCC D/7-64, October 7 and Item XVI JRCC R/2-64, I November 6, 1964. I

The Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended (PL 920 - 81st

Congress, 50 USC App. 2251-2297), authorizes the Administrator -^

(novci the Director) -- in Sectiôn 201(g) to "assist and encourage the States

to negotiate and enter into interstate civil defen.se compacts ...; assist

and coordinate the activities thereunder; aid and assist in encouraging

reciprocal civil defense legislation by the states which will permit the

furnishing of mutual aid for civil defense purposes in the event of an

attacic...FO The law requires that...... the consent of the Congress

. shall be granted to each such compact providing Congress does not pass

a concurrent resolution objecting to the compact during the period of

60 days following the date on which the compact is transmitted to it.

Section 203 provided that*11the Administrator -- (now the Director) --

shall give all practical assistance to states in arranging thrflugh the

^ ^^^ Department of State, mutual civil defense aid between the states and

neighboring countries."

The Model Civil Defense and Disaster Compact which was drafted

by the Council of State Governments and the National Security Resources b' Board in 1950, and recommended by the Federal Civil Defense Admin-

istration has been adopted by all of the States except Iowa. Article 10

of the compact provides that "this compact shall be available to any

State, Territory or possession of the United States, and the District

of Columbia. The term "State" ma.y also include any neighboring

foreign country or province or State thereof."

United States authorities on the interstate compact device have long

felt that the language in Section 203 of the Federal Civil Defense Act

by iMplication indicates Congress approval of efforts by those states

• which have adopted the compact to make similar mutual aid arrange-

ments with Canadian Provinces. As noted above, Article 10 of:the

compact makes the Compact available to any neighboring foreig n

or province thereof. country

Over the years a number of agreements or arrangements have been

made between our states and occasionally between the states and

Canadian Provinces without obtaining the consent of Congress and . Efeerningly without objection or interference by Congress. These

wwee_ements have been mainly of an administrative nature or having

tecle, with boundaries, bridges, etc., and "other internal regulations

esYr the mutual comfort and convenience of states bordering on each

• .A.›..iecsen.-t4ieoposal developed at the Cross-Border Planning Conference

Boston, january 21, 1965, is similar to an informal.administrative

age-eel-no/it rather than the formal Model Interstate Compact and it is

ai-e-refe-re- believed that Congressional consent probably would not be

-..elrUci-ve:mber- 1951, British Columbia and the State of Washington informally

eu1,(1-ed•in10 a Civil Defense and Disaster Compact somewhat similar te

,t111-e »fecfel_Interstate Compact. This cornpa:ct was.never formally

ratilied. because- o£ the objection of the Canadian National Government

at: Ottawa . At various Canadian and US. meetings from 1950 to 1958,

th-e:Canadians took the view that their laws did not give provinces the

eglit te enter into compacts,. Their.attorneys questioned whether a

greivince: can execute a decument wherein it agrees to do an act outside

ceCana.dian territory, since this would involve it in the field of inter-

..• national relations ... ; any activity in such field being exclusively under

are. jurisdiction of the Canadian National Government and n.of the province. While the U.S. Congress in 1950, empowered the individual states to enter into mutual aid compacts with each other, the same right apparen.tly at that time had not been extended by the Canadian Federal

Government to its provinces. On this point, the leadin.g authorities . on

Interstate Compacts wrote in 1951:

It In recent years, however, there have been instances in which use of the compact has been considered, particularly in

relation to Canada and the Canadian Provinces. Its application • to adjustment of affairs between. the American States and the Canadia.n Provinces is handicapped by the fact that Canada has no similar constitutional clause. In fact, the dominion govern.- ment seems to oppose direct participation of the provincial governments in international agreements. However, there seems to be no specific provision in the British North America Act to prevent a province from entering into such a compact provided the subject falls within provincial jurisdiction. And it may be possible within Canadian federalism, to effectuate participation of provinces in such compacts by the well-known rneth.od of Federal-Provincial Agreements..." (frorn'The interstate Compact Since 1925" by Frederick L. Zimmermann and Mitchell Vic. defl, Co -ancil of State. Governments, 1951. p.78-79).

There' has been a change in Canadian viewpoint in recent years. At meetings of U. S. /Cana.dian officials held in 1960 and later, it was • indicated that the Canadian Federal Government would not objet to the provinces :making agreements or arrangements with the States.

Recommendation

It is therefore recommended that the US/Canada Joint Regional Continuing

,Committee develop a Proposed State-Province Mutual Aid Agreement for the consideration of the Joint US/Canada Civil Emergency P.Eanning Committee. If approved, such agreement. would then be recommended to the states

and provinces along the border. A proposed State-Province Agreement

of this type was drafted bythe US/Canada Cross-Border Planning

Conference which met in Boston, Ja.nua.ry 21, 1965. This draft has been. *

in Washington and Ottawa and to members of jRCC circulated inforrnally

Minor revisions have been incorporated in .it and the attached Proposed

State-Province Agreement (Document JRCC D-17B/65) for the consideration

of the jRCC. It is believed that this type of agreement or informal arrange-

ment, if approved by the US/Canada Civil Ernergen.cy Planning Committee

and then adopted where needed, by the appropriate officials of provinces • and states would probably be valid without having to be approved by the

U. S. Congress. However, if the U.S. Department of State thought

Congress should be asked to consent, then it would be e.asy to submit

the compact to Congress for approval.

Consideration should also be given by Canadian Dominion and Provincial

officials to adopting provisions of the Model Interstate Civil Defense

Compact which has been adopted by all of the states along the border.

The Provinces should s find this compact device useful in bringing about

interprovincial cooperation in time of attack or other emergency.

é March 17, 1965 JRCC D/17B-65

STATE-PRO -VINCE AGREEMENT

(Proposed Memorandum approved by Cross-Border Planning Conference January 21, 1965, Boston, Massachusetts -- Revised March 4, 1965: Broken line underscoring indicates EMO, proposed amendments - solid line underscoring indicates OEP proposed amendments)

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE STATE OF AND THE PROVINCE OF • REG.ARDING MUTUAL AID IN CIVIL EMERGENCIES

With a full understanding of the mutual ties of interest and friendship which exist between the people of the State of and the Province of , this memorandum is written to document the mutual intent of both governments to extend maximum assistance in ernergencies, and to facilitate as far as poss;ble the movement of such assistance across the border.

By virtue of the provisions of Section of Chapter , Revised Statutes of , general direction and control of the civil defense agency are vested in the Governor, and by virtue of Chapter , statutes of the Province of , direction and control of civil emergency measures are vested in the Minister. Acting under the provisions of said sta.tutes and with the desire to implement the intent of the U.S. /Ca..iada Joint Civil Emergency Planning ..Agreement dated November 15, 1963, between the United States of America and Canada regarding mutual aid in civil emergencies and emergency use of resources activities, this memorandum will indicate the willingness on the part of the State of and the Province of to approve in the following terms informal plans and procedures relating to mutual aid and assistance in the aevent of a wartime emergency.

It is further provided that similar mutual aid arrangements will a.pply in the event of a major natural disaster.

The Governor and the Minister will designate personnel within respective jurisdictions to confer and work out the details of items contained in this memorandum of understanding, such details being subject to the final approval of the Governor and the Minister. •

The State and Province will keep each other informed of their current standby civil emergency resources and will make such resources within thefr controi –aTicr which are not subject to control by higher authority available to each other to combat any major disaster in the State or Province whether from war— or natural causes. To this end, the State and Province will;

(a) cause the police forces of the State and Province to extend maximum cooperation in civil emergency matters, with special attention to control of emergency traffic; (b) prepare and develop plans for the solution of transportation problems which might arise in carrying out the terms and intent of this agreement in respect to peacetime disasters.

(c) prepare and coordinate the welfare services in the State and Province so that maximum assistance may be rendered each other in this phase of civil defense;

(d) cause the fire services of the State and Province to be organized for coordinated effort;

(e) work out a plan for mutuaf as sistance in the field of all health services, including the adoption of legislation permitting the reciprocal cross-border licensing or certification of doctors or nurses at a time of emergency or disaster.

(f) coordinate State-Province communication plans within the framework of the respective National'Plans;

(g) plan for the coordinated use of municipal, State and Provincial engineering and rescue facilities and resources;

(h) provide for the exchange of, and coordinated use of, radiological information within the framework of the respective National Plans;

(i) arrange for the exchange of liaison officers asre:luire_d_an_d fo_r_ observers at exercises, tests ar_d study groups ïn which thexe is a mutual interest;

(J) P'rôvide for mutual assistance agreement between border municipalities;

(k) Arrange for the exchange of information on all phases of civil emergency planning.

I It is intended that this general memorandum of understanding will be made immediately effective, subject to termination upon six months' notice by either government. As further detailed planning ensues, it is expected that supplementing annexes for either_w_artirne_or peac_etim_e_em_cr. gencies as appropriate will be prepared and mutually agreed upon in specific functional progxam axeas in accordance &ith Federal Planning Guidance and based upon appropriate consultation with the Federal Regional Planning authorities.

Director, Office of Civil Defense Director, Civil Defense * State of Province of 13t US/CAN March 17, 1965 jRCC D-18/65 United State s /Canada

Joint Regional Continuing Committee

Subject: Report on Cross-border Planning Activities of Federal Agencies

• This report covers activities of Federal Agencies since the last meeting

• of the JRCC in Winnipeg, October 7-8, 1964. •

_Activities of OEP, OCD and EMO are excluded since they were the subject

of special reports reflected in documents D-1/65, D-2/65 and D-3/65. Also

excluded are the activities of transportation agencies which are reflected in

Document D-8/65. • •

• ,Department of Labo: I •

At a Meeting in Ottawa on December 16, 1964, Mr. Bill Thompson,

Director of the Canadian National Employment Service, and Mr. Edward L.

Keenan, OEP, agreed to a Meeting between U.S. and Canadian manpower

authorities to discuss mutual emergency manpower plans, border crossing

arrangements with reference to personnel movements on a priority basis,

cooperatiVe arrangements regarding the use of skills in short supply and any

other matter of mutual concern. The purpose of this initial meeting is to

develop specific joint planning proposals with reference to areas needing priority

attention. 'Consultations were held between' OEP, the Department of Labor and

other U.S. manpower agencies in January and February. A proposed agenda

has been developed and an invitation to Canadian manpower authorities will be

forwarded this week suggesting a meeting be held in Washington, D. C. in late

.April or early May. Health, Educz.tion and Welfare:

The U. S. Public Health Service reports as follows with respect to emergency health ser'vic::s:

"There has been developed a first US-Canadian draft of a Memorandum of Understanding between the DI-IEW and the Department of National Healtn and Welfare on the ekchange of health manpower in a national emergency.

"As soon as Canadian officials have decidcd upon the desired nomenclature for ;3rofessional and technical titles equivalent to the U.S. list of Hezlth Manpower Occapations, a review draft of the document will be cirrulated for comment to interested agencies of both countries. The final draft will be submitted to the US/Canada Joint Regional Continuing Co:nmitte.e for approval by the Civil Emergency Planning Committee.

The U.S. Welfare Administration concerned with emergency welfare services ma.ke;• the following report.

";n November 1964, tne Acting Chief of Emergency Welfare Services, Bureau of Family Services, and the Defense Planning Officer, Office t;f the U. S. Commissioner of WelfarL, participated in the Canadian :Tederal--Provincial Continuity of Government Conference at the invitation ,)f Mr. Stehelin, Director of Emergency Welfare Services in Canada. -This Conference provided an excellent opportunity for exchange of .information on the current status of emergency welfare services planning in the two countries.

"Representatives of the Welfare Administration have participated in discussions with the Defense Coordinator of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Office of Emergency Plan.xling, and the Office of Civil Defense, with respect to cross-border movements between Canada and the United States. The Welfare Administration concurs with the conclusions of these discussions that further analysis of movement that would take place is not necessary at this time and that next steps in planning related to this movement should be carried on by the emergency welfare counterparts of the two countries, paralleling the joint planning that has been carried on regarding emergency health services,."

N.B. - The emergency welfare services program of the U.S. Welfare Administration has been in a process of reorganization. On July 1, 1964, the emergency welfare staff of the Bureau of Family Services was transferred to the office of the Assistant Director of the Bureau who is chief of the Division of Program Operations. This change was made in order to bring the staff into closer, continuing relationship with the field operations of the Bureau and to enable greater emphasis on increasing readiness in

^^^ . the States. Certain aspects of the re,organization have not yet been fully completed, partidularly with respect to further clarification of the roles of the various units of the Welfare Administration, in addition to the Bureau of Family Ser.vices, in the over-all emergency planning of the Welfare Administration as a whole.

It is anticipated that in the future, tne office of the U.S. Commissioner of Welfare will maintain a closer, direct relationship wi'h Canadian emergency welfare officials, augmenting the previous cooperative relationships of emergency welfare staff of the two countries. '

The reMaining aspects of the reorganization P.re expected to be completed in the near future, at which time the U.S. Welfare Administration plans to ini .ate a joint discussion with Canadian emergency welfare officiais for the purpose of developing next steps in cooperation relating to emergency planning.

Agricue lture

Meetings were held October 15 and 16, 1964 in Penhold, Alberta -

October 29, 1964, in Allarnburg, Ontario - February 4, 1965, in St. Catherines,

Ontario 4. February 11, 1965, in Winnipeg, Manitoba - February 20-21 in Peter- borough, Ontario - February 23, 1965, in Montreal and February 25, 1965, in •

Minot, North Dakota. USDA State and County Board Chairmen attended these meetings designed prix-narily to establish specific procedures to be followed by

USDA County Defense Boards and Canadian Zone officials in solving mutual food problems under emergency conditions. 'USDA officials were guided in their discussions by specific instructions issued to them in December 1962 (copy attached) and agreement reached on August 10, 1964 re the movement of food stuffs across the border in the event normal supplies should be cut off as a result of nuclear attack. • • • Other meetings are planed this Spring in Vermont and Minnesota. - 4 - • •

Interior - Bureau of Commercial Fisheries:

Mr. J. S. Beeman, Emergency Planning Officer, Department of Fisheries,

Canada, viSited Washington on the 28th and 29th of October to discuss U.S.

emergency operations plans. The discussion covered such topics as organization,

procedures, the collection and treatment of essential re•source data and other

matters governed by classified actions. • . .

Other than continued correspondence to exchange information and coordinate

.operations, there is no plan to initiate new acti:vities in the near future.

•Commerce:

A US/Canada conference deVoted to the problems of highways in a war • - „ emergency is being planned. • . • . . . .

Tirne and place have not been set. U.S. participation tentatively would

include representation from national headquarters of the U.S., Interstate Corrirnerce•

Commission and the Bureau of Publie Roads and from BPR Regional Offices

for Regions 1,, 4, 5 and 8. Each State along the border would be represente d

by officials from State highway Departments, law enforcement agencies,

Civil Defense, ICC Boards, etc.

U.S. Secretariat

• in I

Yar•ch 1; 1965. US/CANT

JRCC D 19/65

REPORT

JOINT REGSONt1L COïJTT??U7NG COiiI;ST! E

13.EF.^^RI^^,'CE:•---._.._..

Record of Decisions, US/CEiTd JRCC

R/2-61+, Item XZv, Page .1._0, dated November 6; 1964.

SUBJECT:

Peacetime 111atural Disasters:

Working Group investigation of areas in t•rhich arrangei.lents rnibht be made in order to effect cross-border assistance during major peacetime disasters.

^^ ^Z us/cAN JRCC D 19/65 REPORT OF WORKING CROUP

PEACETIME NATURAL DISASTERS

1. Authority • Item XIX, page 10,-Record of Decisions, US/CAN JRCC R/2-64, .dated November 6, 3964.

2. Working Group •

Chairman - I. H. Deyman EMO (Manitoba) Members - D. G. Harrison CCD, Reginn 6 .

C. A. Tooley OEP, Region 8

To investigate the areas in which arrangements might be made in orde- to effect cross' -border assistance during major peacetime

. disaster,).

4. Considerations a. State/Provincial

Members reviewed existing arrangements.; insofar as information was available, between border States and Provinces. Areas of mutual interest include: Fire - Health forest Seismic Sea Waves . municipal . Earthquake Flood . Welfare • Police Other natural disaster forms investigated but not found significant from a standpoint of joint State/Provincial consideration are: Crop Failure Tornadoes Shipwreck Slides Mine Disaster Transport Power Telephones No evidence appears that in the past ten years has there occurred a major peacetim.e disaster along the border which would hav-^ been alleviated in significant degree by assistance from the adjacent State/Province.

Incidents are frequent in regard to cross-border assistance in municipal fires but they could.by no means be classified as major. So far as forest fires are concerned, most States and Provinces having-contiguous tree belts have informal agreements with regard to mutual aid. Cross-border fire spotting and relay of information is common but no single factual• case of cross-border fire fighting has been discovered. • ^ . . , Cross-border assistance in cases.of flooding river basins is limited in all cases :i.nvestif;a ted to oxchangos, of information. Yeur:, of experience have resulted in well-developed and coordinated cross -border planning at State/Provincial level. Exceedingly close liaison and total co-operat:ion h^7.ve been achieved without the need for formal instruments of agreement.

These two, fire and flood, are judged to be by far the most frequent and serious potential ')order disaster threats. On the West Coast and in the St. Iawrence Valley there are zones of high earthquake probability and also on the ":Test Coast ever presènt risk of seismic sea waves ( T.S.11NnT,I.TS) .•. Those are potential major disaster threats but normally infrequei... Incidence of other natural disasters is small and of rèla`ively minor or local character. Arrangements with regard'to rerouting of. power, communibation and transport lines are viewed as normal business arrangements rather t han special disaster planning.

Most frequently informal State/ e Province agreements exist between only directly concerned ofl'icers and governmental agencies. Recent investigation of these cross-border "understandings" initiated at federal level, in many cases has pointed up the fact that State Directors of Civil Defence and Provincial Co- ordinators of Brnergency Measures were not aware of their existence.

It is quite obvious that no two provinces or states have exaçtly similar potential cross-border natural disaster problems. Saskatchewan and North Dakota, by way of example, are not concerned with possibility of tidal waves, forest fires, or mountain slides but Washington and British Columbia certainly are. Population density, forestation or its absence, incidence of cross-border major water courses, ocean coastlines and other geographic considerations have special implications in disaster planning. No uniform yardstick can therefore be applied to assess the completeness or o-cherwise of State/Provincial cross- border arrangements. b. Federa7_ .

Enquiry Was made and information screened t,r.i,th regard to: Flood Iolice Conununications Agriculture Transport.-.tion Forestry Làrthquake Seismic sea waves Health - human livestock

Weather -- ocean storms land storms.

As in the case of S+,ates/l_^rovinces arrangements F deral level are ^^unders•tandingsT^) usually betweenthere^pehtive departments or agencies of government concerned. These are frequently given effect by use of exactly similar regulatory or legislative orders à.ncorporated in each country's governmental system; for example, embargo regulations in event of animal epidemic.

There is understood to be some fbrmal, agreements between US/Canada agencies 1)2 multi-national character which are published in Ifthe Treaty Series.rl

At the Region.a.l le,.-cl, there is some doubt that all senior officers representing departments and agencies are alrrare of or familiar with emergency arrangements of their organizations. It is evident too, that in the event of natural disaster, most regional officers would be likely to deal.with cross-border implications to and through their respective national headquarters, at the outset, rather than directly to their "opposite number" in the other country. These circumstances appear to exist for two reasons - lack of knowl.edge of the other country's disaster regulations, plans and procedures and unfamiliarity with direct cross-border counter-.part personnel. in the U.S., pEP is in a position to advise and in fact direct as well as provide a regional co-ordir.ating service. l01o such function is assigned any Canadian federal agency.

The Alaska disaster brought to light the fact that no clear cross-border procedure exists to handle survivor enquiries. lkperience at•that time would seem to indicate that the American Red Cross and Provincial Departments of t,Jelfare should be the points of reference with OEP and Bi,:0 Regional Directors establishing the necessary channel in the first instance, as required.

I !+ ^) 4 Conclusions C All levels of goVernment appear to have 'identified the areas in which disasters of mutual concern might develop.

. . Most arrangements to deal with disasters whether major or minor, ••..«-tf widespread or local, have been negotiated on an informal basis. Little, if any, recordod information appoars to exist, in plan form, with regard to cross-border disaster arrangements. Reconnendatlons

a. Plans for, cross-border assistance in major peacetime disasters àhould be written and exchanged for information purposes between the political divisions concerned. Of particular - importance are the matters of channels of communication, procedures with respect to the reouesting of cross-border aid and financial recovery policies. Copies should be filed with OEP and EMO.

b. Senior governments should investigate and provide guidance to the next lower levels on legal implications of formal vis a vis informal understandings and the best form of instruments of agreement.

c. Legal aspects of the status of emergency workers employed in cross-border disaster work, under direction of government at any level, in event of their injury, death, involvement in crime, etc., in other than their own country should be investigated and all concerned informed.

• d. A standard procedure should be established for the handling of cross-border survivor enquiries.

e. A channel fôr matters of cross-border assistance between OE? and EMO, at least of federal departments and agencies, should • be recognized immediately as an interim measure pending more formal authorization. R F P 0 R T

C R O S S B O R D E R S E M I N A R E X E R C I S E

January 27-28, 1965 Minneapolis, Minnesota

•AU?:`(IOR1 Ti' P'OR. LXERC1:ji?

Section XXI, Record of Decisions, U.S./Canada Joint Regional Continuing Côimnittee, November 6, 1964.

.PARTICIPATION

1. A.r.^p.a

Saskatchewan, Manitoba North Dakota, Mintiesota

2. Government Representatives

EMO Saskatchewan, D. J. Burke, Regional Director EMO Manitoba, I. H. Deyman, Regional Director OEP Ragion IV, Frank P. Bourgin, Regional Director .Oi P R.E^gion VI, J. F. Sullivan, Jr., Regional Director OCD Region Four, Paul K. MacDonald, Regional Director 00D Region Six, D. C. Harrison, Regional Director North Dakota, Colonel Robert W. Carlson, State Director• Mi.nnesota, Roy V. Aune, State Dirèctor . Manitoba, A. Bentley, Co-ordinator, Manitoba

3. Observers

Jack W. Coulter, OEP Region VI R. Douglas Trites, OCD Region Four C. Darw:,.n Middelton, OCD Region Four John J. O'Grady, OCD Region Six

PUR.POSE

The purpose was limited.exploration of cross-border problems, to ^evaluate plans and ca.pabilities, and recommend improvements. Also, to determine the usefulness of the seminar exercise technique and ascertain how such exercises may be improved and whether they should be held in the future.

/ ^A Î " 2

•EMERGENCY FUNCTIONS CONSIDERED

1. Warning

2. Emergency Public Information and Broadcasting

3. Radiological Defense

4. Communications

GENERAL SYAPY. •

The'exercise material consisted of a foureeen page Workbook with four exercise situations established for use in a day and a half session. Questions and problems relating four emergency functions to the conditions were presented for discussion. The material was prepared to stimulate thought and provoke an exchange of facts and information.

Discussion moderators were: .Exercise Condition One (attack *likely in two days) D. G. Harrison Exercise Condition Two (air raid warning) I. H. Deyman; Exercise Condition Three (two nudets reported) D. J. Burkand Exercise Clndition. Four (postattack) J. F. Sullivan, Jr. • The.exercise format required discussion of four emergency functions under each condition. Discussion developed well, participants became interested and conversation. went deeply into the functional areas. Interest was sustained and carried the discussion beyond the•artificial boundaries set by the exercise.

An important asset was the fact that the participants were all professionals in the field of emergency planning and emergency measures. Tney brought this kind of background to the exercise. Consequently it was not necessary to lay much groundwork or do any advance briefing as Might be necessary u_ th a different group.

• CONCLUSION

The exercise produced interesting discussion, exchange of ideas .and information and established a basis for cross-border planning in areas discussed. It did a better job of stimulating participation -and eliciting comments than the usual meeting or conference would do. In this respect the exercise was successful.

The.exercise needs redesigning to eliminate sections which made for repetitious discussion. For example, it might be well to have only three exercise situations, before attack, attack, and post-attack. It would also be well to vary the emergency functions discussed under each situation. Some emergency functions are more pertinent under certain situations than others. By changing emphasis in this fashion •it would be possible to all but eliminate repetitious discussion. 114 . 3

This pilot exercise demonstrated that the seminar approach can'be of great value as a technique for exploring cross-border problems. Its wider adoption and use,should be considered by the JRCC.

Z. H. 'Deym Rarrs son Region.a7, rector Acti^ag Regional Director EMO' (Manitoba) -OCD Regior. Six

Attachments

Ni ,.‘1 EWIZATION OF 12 PARTICIPANTS

• Cross-Border Seminar Exercise January 27-28,' 196 5 . Minneapolis

A principal objective of ,:he exercise is to determine its usefulness as a technique for discussion of cross-border operations and problems.

It would be valuable to . have your candid opinion. • 1 1. What did you think of the Workbook?

1 a. Is the format simple enough or too involved? . (circle simple or involved).

b.. Was too much text.Wnted on each page?

2. What did you think of the exercise conditions? • • .1 a. Did they provide sufficient background for the discussion? Yes 12 No •

• • -. b. Were they spelled out in.sufficient detail? Yes 12 No

• ,c, — Where would you place most emphasis writing ezercise conditions,' preattack post.-_ttack 4 both 8 • • d. Do you think these exercise conditions•would he useful as • background for discussion on the local or municipal level? Yes 11 No (One - Probably Not) • • 3. What did you think of the questions and problems .?

a. Were there generally enough questions and problems or too • •many? Enough 11 Too many 1

b. .Were the questions generally thought provoking? . Yes 12 No

C. • If you were dissatisfied with the questions posed,.what would be your recommendation for improving them?

frç

2 411 4. What, did you think of the discussion --- ›u" 1 a. Did you receive anyhew inforination or facts? Yes 12 No

b. Did you learn of-any crnss-border problems about which you were not alrearly aware? Yes 11 No 1

i c. Did the discussions stay on the subject or •. stray too much? OK 12 Strayed .i 1 « . › 5. *Would you be in favor of more exercises of . 1 this type 'covering oth ,..r subject areas? Yes 12 No I ' 6. - Would you recommend exercises of this type to lower levels of government (cross-border)? Yes 10 No 2,

7. What single recommendation would you make to improve the seminar exercise in the future?

8. Please sign below or check category

EMO OEP OCD State Province - Comments on Questions

"Revision as required based n initial trial run discussion at senior . level. Should also be reviewed from a standpoint of relevancy for. ' state/municipal seminars."

"1 would suggest fewer subjects with more time to explore each."

Recommendations for imnrovement

."Have a local official (one from each side of border) attend and participate in conference to be certain our thinking is logical from a strietly local viewpoint."

"Very few comments but I would appreciate have my deputy sit in with .1 me if Province is invited to future seminars."

"None--very•good as prepared and presented. As time goes-on you may want to increase discussions cri resource management."

"Watch out for too much repetition ... could expand on representatives 'attending sucn seminars, i.e. selected local directors (very select).

"More study on differnnt questions on varying situations of a particular area in radef, conmunications, many questions were too closely related."

"Preissue of working papers to participants for study and assembly of appropriate reference documents."

"Avoid repetition" •

."1 don't know if this can be changed by the nature of the problem .1 but we found that exercises 2 and 3 were repetitious of exercise 1. Maybe this can be corrected in another seminar."

"Group limited to 10 or

"There would appear to be a future need for such seminars - in more specific fields or at least briefing in specific fields, i.e. telecommunications."

"Expand subjects to include health, welfare service, fire, police, .public . works...send out seminar exercise prior to the meeting as . was done in this.case." U.S./Canada Cross-Border Seminar Exercise January 27-28, Minneapolis

AUTHORITY

. Section XXI, Record of Decisions, U.S./Canada Joint Regional Continuing Committee, November 6, 1964

PARTICIPATION • • * • 1. Area

1 .Saskatchewan, Manitoba North Dakota, Minnesota

2. Goverament Representatives

EMO Saskatchewan, D. J. Burke, Regional Director EMO Manitoba, I. H. Deyman, Regional Director OEP Region IV, Frank P. Bourgin, Regional Director OEP Region VI, J. F. Sullivan, Jr., Regional Director OCD Region Four, Paul K. MacDonald, Regional Director OCD Region Six, D.C. Harrison., Regional Director North Dakota, Colonel Robert W. Carlson, State Director Minnesota, Roy V. Aune, State Director •k„ Saskacchewan, A. Auser, Co-ordinator, Saskatchewan Mc,nitoba, A. Bentley, Co-ordinator, Manitoba

3. Observers

Jack W. Coulter, Region Six CEP R. Douglas Trites, CCD Region Four C. Darwin Middelton, OCD Region Four John J. O'Grady, OCD Region Six

EMERGENCY FUNCTIONS

Warning 2. Emergency Public Information and Broadcasting 3. Radiological Defense . 4. Communications puRPosz.

The purpose is to explore cross-border problems in the above ' subject areas, to evaluate present plans and capabilities, and recommend improvem2nts. To determine the usefulness of the seminar exercise technique and ascertain how such . exercises may be changed, improved and whether they.should be held in the future.

(_5 2 EXERCISE CONCEPT

To stimulate thoucht and discussion, crisis situations are presented here. The idea is to focus on each of the subject areas under circumstances of crisis and ferret Out by 'brainstorming' the cross-border problems likely to arise in real crisis. Your exercise starts here.

Exercio Condition On P - Attack on the North American Continent is Likely Within Days. The U. S. • • Government has declared its 'highest state of readiness.

imptions 1. The international situation has worsened • to such a degree that heads of both nations have discussed the matter'. Official word e of top level estimates that attack is likely within.days, has been communicated • to Provincial 'and State government.

2. This crisis meeting on cross-border problems has been called.

o 3. Prepar'ations and actions taken now will save the most lives should attack come.

Emergenu_Function WARNING

' Questions and Problems Estimate percentage of population that could receive warning with present system,

What actions should warning personnel take at this time---check circuits periodically---check standard operating procedures---check telephone fan-out lists for accuracy.---All warning points •àb on 24-hour operation---Brief warning personnel?

Should refresher training of warning 'point personnel be held? 3

Could warning coverage be extended by improvisin,- outdoor warninry systems and advise public of improvised i,ieans?

Could commercial broadcast stations function as indo:,r warning systems if the public is alerted to stay . tuned to stations arounl the clock during crisis? (Receiver set volume turned low at night and station output turned up high if warning cQmes.)

Emçrnency Itlt1ction c RM1s^4GLNC^' PULl.,TC TNLOr?;ATIO^1 -- 3ROADCASTXNG ucstionsand 2rob].ems Most people do not know where to seek safetya

Cris news hus created a tidal wave of demand for information.

The action now to save most lives is to inform people of the need for shelter or how otherwise to seek sarety from fallout.

US civil defense should be^in telling people how and where to find shelter. j7lzat impact will tize instructions have on Et-i0 and people of Saskatchewan and Manitoba?

What media should be used now to carry whatevar "overnment instructions are issuod?

How can people be informed and urged to prepare quickly for possible attaci, without causing panic, hysteria or rattle-^brair.ed activity?

Are local and municipal authorities prepared with newspaper mats, tapes, pictures, draft releases to inform th3 public? IC^^ 4

I'mer^ency I'unction I2ADi01,OGICAL DGI'LNSL'

^uesrionh and Prablems Are sufficient radiological monitoring stations established in the provinces and states to measure fallout radiation intensities?

Are su;ficient trained'monitors assigned to stations and should crash refresher training be initiated?

Should crash instrument checks be initiated at this time?

Are reporting procedures establi.shed and understood?

Have arr.angc:,,innts been made for e_._nhanne of Radef rea -inôs cross-border between locali.ties, 7»tween states and provinces, between US and Canadian Regions?

rmeî °,e^1^•Funçtion COMMITIICATIONS

Questions and Problems Is official comsnunication likely to be more difficult because of an.increase in private communication traffic tying up telephone lines?

Are any special back•-up radio facilities available to local ;overnment for official communication cross-border?

rli.^ht amateurs be called in noSaY to help f4.1' the gap which could develop later? 1 5

Are cross-border lines for warning and Radef reports adequate to the need?

Have communications technicians on the local or state and provincial level exchanged infOrmation and frequencies on which they operate? .. .1

Should,test message traffic be relayed cross-border?

• Is sabotage a threat at .this time?

C . (General Question) In addition to communication in the narrow sense of the word (equipment) woUld there be a need for more s communications in the broad sense of the term----meetings such as this one?

t.. If so, ut what levels should meetings be held?

i 6

Exercise Condition Two AIR RAID WARNING A.milanilL2n1 1, CINC NORAD has issued Air Raid Narning. Officials have . been alerted according to plan. In the US only Emergency Broadcast System radio stations are on the air.

2, Many people did not hear air raid sirens, or did not knov that what they heard were air raid sirens, or do not know what to do,

3. In the U.S. many people are moving toward recently publicized fallout shelter. In Canada people are following instructions issued by EMO.

. 4. Urny people are calling government officials, broad-- stations and other news media asking what casting to do.

Egeeng Function , MARNING

• Questims and Problems None

EMERGENCY PUBLIC INFORMATION & BROADCASTING

' None Little Much

1. Mat kinds of messages should be broadcast

a. Where to take shelter

b.. Hbw to improvise shelter? • c. What supplies to take? .

• , d. Avoid rumors-listen for officials instructions Ilmaail• e. Prepare to evacuate on order

f. Assembly point for area.

2. Will Canadians listening to U. S. stations and U. S. citizens listening to Canadian stations cause problems and confusion. •

3. Should listeners be frequently asked to tune. to their oWn national stations?

gemency_l?unction RADIOLOGICAL DEFENSE

9uestions and Problems 1. •Would any additional special • - • ...instructions be issued to subordinate • 'organizations regarding Radef at • this time? •

2. Would Upper Fallout data provided by. the US Weather Bureau have any articular value at this time?

nnel=n--.7.51.1.q.a2a COMMUNICATIONS gestions and Problems 1. If lan&line service in the two states and provinces fails for ' any reason, is there enough local • . government radio to carry on essential operational communications?

2. Can local government radio nets talk to one another? ' To higher echelons of government? - • Cross-border?

3.. Would amateur operation's be likelY to become an important factor in . the communications picture?

4. Communications from government to the public will be essential in , the days to come. Are alternate means of communication from government operating centers to broadcast • stations available? C Nxeréise Condition Three Two NUDETS are reported: -1 . 25 miles. SW of Regina. i•;inds are from N[•J 30 mph, fallout is carried into North Dalkota.

b. 25 miles E of 141inot. Winds are from 1•7 at. Pf1-•ZoL and t•fajJ at Grand Forks, 30 i,ipii. Fallout is carried into Minnesota and Manitoba. Assumnt3ons 1.. People are still movinS, either to shailter or to areas designated by government.

2. Unless people are living in a target area they will have from a half hour to several hours• before fallout arr-.ves.

3. Some conmuniL-ies have projects under» way us1n^ earth movin^.equipment to build crude community shelters.

. The tidal wave of demand for inrormaw tion has slacked off, people are awaitinÛ information and instructions from their governments. Many believe it is too lare to do anythin; nowo

Emeraencv Function ZJARNING

Questions and Problems • 1, Would the reportod_NUDET nlaa r Regina become known to Manitoba via the •-. war.ning system?

2. Would the same NUDET be known to North Dakota and Minnesota as they monitor the National Warnin; System? If not, how would they Set the information? - 9

3. Would the NUDET near Minot become known to Saskatchewan and Manitoba. by the warning system? If not, how would the information be relayed?

4. Would Minnesota know about the ' NUDET near Minot by monitoring the NAWAS? If not, how can they find out?

Emergency Function EMERGENCY PUBLIC INFORMATION & BROADCASTING

— 2mellIons and Problems 1. Would the CC and EBS inform the public of the location of NUDETS on • both sides of the border?

. "How would the stations get the inform:- :ion?

3. If available, would a prediction of the path fallout is taking be broadcast? Where does it come ' from and how would it reach the EBS station?

4. What should people in the path of fallout be told to do? Who is responsible to instruct there

5. What should people not in the path- of fallout be told to do?

a. Go about normal activity?

b. Improvise shelter?

c. Move to a safer place? • 10

6. If people are told they are -fn the path of fallout, would they be likely to panic and leave their homes for another area?

7. -What Should people in the path of. fallout be told about the advantages . and disadvantages of moving to .another area?

. _ O. Would US or Canadian 'government • . policies as announced by CBC and • EBS be likely to ae>ree on what• ''people should do at-this point or . £1.:.Um20

Emerf,,ency Function RADIOLOGICAL DEFENSE • Queséions and Problems 1.. .re there sufficient radiological monitor stations downwind from Regina . in Sask,_:chewan to obtain measurement of radiation intensities as fallout tomes down?

2. How would information of this fallout hazard reach Saskatchewan farms, • -ranches and communities downwind? • Ard there.plans for officially • • informing downwind communities of - -their danger?

3 . Are there sùfficient monitor stations • downwind from the Minot area strike • to measure radiation intensity. Would.reports of these intensities reach Manitoba and Minnesota? How:). 1 1 • , 4. 'Would reporting methods and procedures uaed in each country provide readily usable Radef information to localities cross- border or would the information • require conversion or interpretation?

5. Would localities cross-border directly exchange Radef information - or would they depend upon higher 'echelons o2 government for the . information?

rgeicyF o n COMIIMIICLTIONS

OueStions and Problems 1. Are communication facilities cross- •- border adequate to enchange fallout • prediction and Radef intensity • readings that would be vital to • saving lives threatened by approaching' fallout?

• Have standard procedures been devised for cross-border communication or are they necessary?

3. If amateur radio is to be used,are these operators familiar with Radef traffic they would be transmitting? ` 12

Exerc;Lse Condition Four Emergence from Shelter and Early Recovery Period. Early Recovexy Period D;- 15 for Several Weeks. (P.ecoi^r.nended if time permi Cs )

.A.rsurapt3.oris 1. That tl:ere have been no additional nuclear st-rilces on the North Anmerican continent.

2. That government plans for rationingIj and controls are in force and a people are cooperatin,,,,,.

3. That law and order is being maintained trf_thout undue problems.

4. That civil government is' functioning and is in control of the situation.

That US plans for use of military .support for civil authorities have bc-n impXemented to a limited extenY: in North Dakota and Kinnesota.

6. That aerial Radef monitoring is still available by military and civil sources to the ^overnments of provinces and states.

7. That radio broadcastin; in the US is no longer limited to the EBS and television stations are back in operat3.on.

Emergency Function C•]AR^TïNC

questions and Problems None

l ^- ^^^ 13

Fa-Jerre2m- 211..2.2cUen. EMEP.G2NCY PUBLIC INFORMATION E: BflOADC STING 2use122.1. and Problems 1. What public information would be most vital to the well being and public morale at this time?

2. .What demand on the time of all government officials would information • activities be likely to make, little or a great deal?

3. Would government censorship of news ,be necessary? •

4. If censorship is necessary,would eoMmon cross-border policies on . release'of information be necessary?

Frnergencv Function • • .. RADIOLOCAL DEFENSE •

2uestions and Problems 1. What seL,ices could Radef trained persons best carry on at this time?

Woilld continuing monitor activities be necessary?

• 3... Uculd frequent reports to the pubnc on the nadef situation 114, 1.31 ;ed?

4. - What ae the priorities for . •decontamination within cities?

t(,(' 14 nnimr. Function CO1MIT.CKSIONS and Problems 1. Would limitations on public use . of communications facilities be imposed?

2. Is there a priority system in force for the use of public . . communications systems if limitations are necessary?

3. Are priorities established for the rehabilitation of communications facilities public and private vhich .have been destroyed or.damaged?

I G(0 NA DA February 22, 1965 JRCC D-22/65

United States2.2anada Joint Regicinal Continuing C .cmmittee

Sublect: Control of Fishing Vessels - West C -:ast 'Reference: CEPC D-1/6.4,• 15 June, 3-964.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM • ' • • There are large numbers of fishing vessels of both Canadian and US reedtry,.oPerating outside the territorial waters of each country off the coaSt of both the United States an( Canada. These are - Canadian halibut vessels fishing in the Bering Sea,

• along the Aleutlan.Chain e and in the Gulf of Alaska; and'United States . trollers, trawlers and halibut vessels operating off the west coast of Vancouver

• Island, in the Queen Charlotte Sound, and in Hecate Strait. •

In an emergency these vessels would put into the near- est port. If this port Is of the other nationality,

there would be a need to control the immediate movement, operations, and the disposal and processing of the catches.

These would involve the special authority that_would

\L-1

mal .•••••

be assumed in a war-time emergency by the appropriate

United States or Canadian• Government agencies..

2. RECOMMENDATIONS . • ' • •

' (a) A Control of Fishi.ng Vessels Working droup.. .be 'established to develop and report upon.

. the necessary emergency plans to meet-the •

situation . atated in paragra:lh. 1 above.: (ID). This Working Group be under the sponsorship of the Canada Department of Fisheries, • C • (C) Tho composition of the Work:ng Group be as

. . • follows: ' • . . . - . ... ... : • . . . .

Canada Department of FisheriLs .„ .• .•' - . .

. . . ,. • Royal Canadian Navy, . . ' . . . . . . . . .. . ' . .Canadian Coast Guard, . . United States Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,

United States Navy, . . . , • • . .

. . United States Coast Guard and . • . •

..other departMent and agencies as required. . US/CANADA

',march 2, 1965 JRCO D 23/65

G". United Statelmla Joint Re ional Continuine: Committee 1 j

Sub:Lull Report on th à US/Canada Joint Civil Deense Planning Conference, Quebec City, Canada, yebruary.25. and 26, 1965. •

1.. The following attended: Mx. Jean . Bernatchez e Mr. Maurice R. Harries, Regional Director (Quebec), Acting Regional Director (Ontario), Emergency Measures Organization, Emergency Measures Organization, 3 Evade St., 1213 Mackenzie Bldg., QUEBEC, P. Q. 30 Adelaide St. E., TORONTO 1, Ont, •Mr. Walter J. Black . Tests and Evaluation Officer, ' Mr. Arah W. Hicken, Office of the Secy. of the Army, Department of Public Safety, Office of Civil Defense — Region One, Vermont Civil Defense Division, HARVARD, Mass. MONTP—LIER, Vt. Mr. Fernand Caron, Mr. Richard C.,Holmes e Director General, Department of Public Safety ; Civil Protection of Quebec, Vermont Cival Defense Division, • 356 Jackson St.., MONTPELIER, Vt. QUEBEC 8, P. Q. Mr. Casimir A. Kenswick, Mr. Marcel Dame, N.Y. State Civil Defense.Commission e Deputy Director General (West Area), . Public Security Bldg., Civil Protection of Quebec, State Campus, 201 Cremazie Blvd. West, ALBANY, N. Y. • MONTREAL 11, P. Q. Mr. .ilbert D. O'Connor, Mr. Richard P. Draine, Office of Emergency Planning Director, Director, Training & Education, Regional Office l e Office of the Secretary of the Army, HARVARD, Mass. Office of Civil Defense — Region One, HARVARD, Mass. Mr. Robert Packard, Office of Maine Civil Defense and Colonel Hall, Public Safety, New Hampshire State Civil De- State House e fense A.ency, AUGUSTA, Me, New Hampshire Military Reservation, Airport Road, C. Ross, CONCORD, N. H. Regional Director (New Brunswick), Emergency Measures Organization e Federal 31Cg., Queen St., P. O. Box 177, FREDERICTON, N. B. P

Mr, Leslie H. Stanley, Director, Office of Maine Civil Defense and Public Safety, State House, AUGUSTA, Me. 4

Brigadier W. 'E ' . H. Talbot, Provincial Civil Defence Directôrj, i Department of Municipal Affairs) 6314. Queen St., FREDERICTON, N. B.

2. The delegates went to the Regional Emergency Government Headqûarters for the Quebec Region at Valcartier on the fi-rst morning, and had.a tour of the headquarters with brief explanations of the facilities. i 3. At 11:00 a.m. the Director Genera.l of Civil Piotection of Quebec, Brig. Fernand Caron, gave an opening address, welcoming the del,;gates and outlining the way in which he saw the conference proceeding. This was followed by reviews of•JRCC planning by A. D. O'Connor of OEP and A. C. Ross of EMO,

At 2:00 p.m. the question of the guide to a memorandum of understanding between a^andState a P).-ovince was taken up by L. P.P Draina'ne of ^ Or V LT . Teh__ ^ excellent discussion on .he 4rholematter, and these discussions are ir^corpor- ated in the draft that is to be presented to the JRCC meeting at Colorado Springs in March 1965.

5. Weather conditions made it impossible to return to Quebec City that night. (Thursday), and the delegates had to spend the night in the REGHQ.

6. On Friday morning, February 26, the meeting was held at the REGHQ when further discussion took place about many of the matters•that are currently being worked on between States and P:•ovinces, and a tentative date was set for a meeting in ,°pril 1965 among the P-oovince of Clzebac and the bordering Sta.tés. Thus, a good start has'bcon made. Thcy propoNe to set up State/Province liaison lists, and to exchange their operational plans. .lt'tar that they will got on with the items that are considered to have priority in this important field of State/Province planning.

7. The conference wound up with a splendid luncheon given the delegates by the Minister responsible for Civil Protection in Quebec. This was at the restaurant in the historic old Legislature Building. Latero we visited the i.amous Citadel of Quebec.

8. All told, a splendid macting, and one at which good headway was-made on cross-border planning at the State/':,ovince level.

i ys/cha, rarch. , 11 4 1965 JRCC D/24-65

United States/Canada Joint Regional Continuing Committee

Subject: US/Can Joint,Study Groups

The following memorandum received from the Joint Chairman of the Working Group on Public Information is submitted to the Committee for consideration: "1 submit for your consideration some suggested changes in the Working Group established by the JRCC and if you • agree, you may wish to discuss . them at the next JRCC meeting. • • "The background that prompts these suggestions is that the Public Information Working Group is concerning itself with such matters aa:

a. the use of broadcasting stations; • • • • b. co-ordination of emergency brbadcasting; • • • c. 'identification of stations. • • • Thene matters are more in the nature of the mechanics of the emergency broadcasting plans for each country... • • "In OCD, the Communications Division handles all communica- . .tiens matters (including broadcasting) and communications for warnings, • • "This has been discussed with *Mr. Roderick, head of the Communications DivibiOn,• and Mr. Arnold, D/Director of the Public Information'Division;'they agree and it would suit , us if emerp,ency boradcasting plans were to be taken out of the Public Information Working Group and put under the Communications Working Group. "The suggested re-arrangement of Working Groups is therefore: 1. Warning (Operations) - to include Warnings and related • operations concepts. . • c 2. Communicationb tb.include communications and' • emergency broadcasting. 2. Public Information - to include•content of all information by all media.

(, . . . . . K. .1?,. Ifolmes,, . . . . .Joint Chairman, • c . . Working Group on Public, Information."'

Canadian Joint Chairman,' Joint Regional Continuing 'Committee ,

fs.

• 0 November 6, 1964

UNITED STATESAANADA JOINT REGIONAL CONTINUING COMMITTEE

Record of Decisions

The third meeting of the United Stateè/Canada Joint Reeonal Continuing Committee (JRCC) was held at the Fort Garry Hotel, Winnipeg, Manitoba, October 7 - 8, 1964. Those present were

Members

United States:' Mr , A. D. O'Connor Director OEP Region 1 Mr. R. P. Draine representing Director OCD Region 1 Mr. Frank P. Bourgin Director OEP Region 4 ; Mr. David G. Harrison Acting Director OCD Region 6 Mr. Charles C. Rails Director OCD Region 8 Mr. L. Strawn representing Director OEP Region 8

Canada: Mr. C. R. Boehm EMO Regional Director (British Columbia) Mr. A. E. Cooney EMO Regonal Director (Ontario) Mr. A. C. Ross EMO Regional Director (New Brunswick)

/2. 2

Secretariat

United States;

Mr. Hubert R. Gallagher Director Liaison and Public Aff.airs9 OEP U.S. Joint Chairman

Mr, John W. McConnell Assistant Director of Civil Defense Plans and Operations, OCD U.S. Joint Chairman

Mr, James W. Jacobson Deputy Director Programme Division, OCD U.S. Joint Secretary

Mro Andre L. Marcellin .Assistant for International Organization Affairse OEP U.S. Joint Secretary .^ ^ Canada:

Mr. J. F. Wallace Assistant Directcr. EMO Canadian Joint Chairman Mro M. R. Mackenzie External Liaison Officer9 EMO Canadian Joint Secretary Observers;

Mra D. J. Burke EMO Regional Director (Saskatchewan)

Mr. I. H. Deyman EMO Regional Director (Manitoba) I. INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME O GENERAL REVIEW OF NATIONAL CIVIL EMERGENCY PLANNING Min -TEE LAST- MEETING 11 Reference Documents: JRCC D/6-64, D/15-64, Oct. 7 The COMMITTEE: noted the progress reports as presented by the respective Chairmen.

III... REVIEW OF REGIONAL NATIONAL PLANNING OF INTERNATIONAL INTEREST AND OF REGIONAL CROSS -BORDER PLANNING Reference Documents: JRCC D/12-D/14-64, D/16-D/18-64, Oct. 7 The COMMITTEE: (a) noted the regional reports as presented; and

• (b) suggested that for future meetings regional reports should be consolidated into one report for each • country covering, separately, developments in the eastern, middle and western border areas.

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF JRCO HELD IN WASHINGTON D.C., FEBRUARY 11-12, 1964: The COMMITTEE: ,„. approved the minutes, without change, as set out in JRCC R/1-64.

V. TRANSPORTATION 1 Reference Documents: JRCC D/19-64 - DOT paper "Brief for meeting of JRCC, February 1964 DOT Responsibilitiese The COMMITTEE: noted with approval the progress report on cross- border discussions in the general planning areas concerned with Transportation. • -i VI. EVACUATION AND MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE Reference Document3: JRCC D/5-64, D/20-64, Oct. 7 The COMMITTEE: (a) noted the reports of the Canadian Emergency Welfare Services and of OCD on the evacuation and movement of people in a war emergency as set out in the above-referenced documents; (h) agreed that in paragraph 11.(1) of the Canadian report "jRCC" should be deleted and "respective authoritiesw be inserted; and

(c) recommended that in the light of the discussions recorded above, the respective authorities involved convene a meeting to produce a joint report and recommendations for consideration at the next meeting of the JRCC.

VII. REGIONAL LIAISON LISTS The COMMITTEE: (a) agreed that the Regional Liaison Lists were serving a useful purpose in establishing recognized counterpart officers; (h) agreed that the lists should be amended at least once a year; and (c) agreed that the development of state/provincial liaison lists should be encouraged butS not actively promoted until the U.S./Canada guidelines paper (CEPC Doc. 8/64) was distributed to states and provinces.

VIII. TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE JRCC Reference Document: JRCC D/2-64, Oct. 7 The COMMITTEE: (a) noted with approval minor changes made in the Terms of Reference of the JRCC as set out in JRCC D/2-64 prior to its approval by the United States/Canada Civil Emergency Planning Committee; and (h) recommended that the Terms of Reference be given the widest circulation in regions, states and provinces.

IX. WORKING GROUP ON WARNING - PROGRESS REPORT Reference Document: JRCC D/21-64, Oct. 7 The COMMITTEE: (a) noted the progress report of the Working Group on Warning as set out in JRCC D/21-64: (h) noted that Mr. W. E. Skinner, OCD Chief of Warning Branch, Plans and Operations, was now the Joint and U.S. Chairman; (c) agreed that the Working Group continue its studies and report progress to the JRCC at its next meeting.

X. WORKING GROUP ON RADIOLOGICAL DEFENCE - PROGRESS REPORT

Reference Document: JRCC D/22-64, Oct, 7

The COMMITTEE :

(a) noted the report of the Working Group on Radiological Defence as set out in JRCC D/22-64;

(b) noted that Mr. Marlow J. Stangler, OCD Chief of Radiological Defense, Field Branch, Plans and Operationsy had been appointed the new Joint and U.S. Chairman and that Mro S. N. White, ENIO, continued to be Canadian Chairman;

(c) noted that the recommendations of the Working Groupn as approved in CEPC D/5m64 , were being implemented in both countries; and

(d) recommended that the Working Group continue its joint implementation of the terms of CEPC D/5m64 _1 and report progress to the JRCC at its next meeting,

iA^" 1^T(^ ('?nnTTT Tnx^wRfT T \(^ T{l ^ T^ SL ^ S ^iLVIJl ONVly (vVl°ll^1UlÛ1^;111'I^J^I.^ PROGRESS REPORT

Ref erenc e Document: JRCC D/4-64 and Annexes A and B. Oct. 7 The COMMITTEE:

(a) noted with approval the progress report of the Working Group on Communications as set out in JRCC D/4m64 on the subject of the establishment of landline teletype communications with and without radio b ack-up between neighbouring si Canadian and United States Regional Headquarters;

(b) recommended that the United States/Canada Civil Emergency Planning Committee approve the following on a programme basis:

Installation of landline full duplex (60wpm) terminal equipment and the leasing of circuits between the regional headquarters as shown below:

(i) U.S. Region $(Everett) to Canadian B.C. Region (Nanaimo) serving the border States of Alaska, Washington, Idaho and Montana'- and the Provinces and Regions of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, at a cost of approximately -

/6. U.S. - $3,960 annually Canada - $2,000 annually plus equipment $11,000 (ii) U.S. Region 6 (Denver) to Canadian Manitoba Region (Camp Shilo); serving the State of North Dakota and the Provinces and Regions of Manitoba and Saskatchewan; at a cost of approximately -

U.S. - $3,774 annually Canada - $3,100 annually plus equipment $11 9 000 (iii) U.S. Region 4 (Battle Creek) to Canadian Ontario Region (Camp Borden); serving the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and the Provinces and Regions of Manitoba and Ontario; at a cost of approximately --

U.S. - $1,956 annually Canada - $5,800 annually plus equipment $11 9 000 (iv) U.S. Region 1 (Harvard) to Canadian Quebec Region (Camp Valcartier); serving the States of New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine and the Provinces and Regions of Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick; at a cost of approximately - U.S. - $2 9 460 annually Canada - $5,250 annually plus equipment $11,000 Note: The total of estimated costs shown above are: U.S. - $12 9 150 annually Canada - $16 9 150 annually plus equipment $44,000 (c) recommended that, because of the lack of alternate routes for land-line communications on the West Coast and the interdependence of these regions, the Working Group on Communications investigate the requirment for radio back-up communications between the headquarters of U.S. Region 8 (Everett) and Canadian B.C. Region (Nanaimo); in studying this requirement, the Group might consider the problem of co-ordination with the NACOM II Pro- gramme for radio communications between Everett and the border States of Washington, Idaho, Montana and Alaska and the Canadian Forces systen of radio communication between the Regions of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan; and (d) noted that Mr. H. Roderick, OCD Chief of Communica- tions Branch, Plans and Operations, was the new U.S. Chairman of the Working Group and that Lt.-Col. P. Amyot remained the Joint and Canadian Chairman.

XII. WORKING GROUP ON PUBLIC INFORMATION - PROGRESS REPORT Reference Document: JRCC D/3-64 9 Oct. 7 The DIMMITTEE: (a) noted the progress report of the Working Group as set out in JRCC D/3 -64; (h) noted that there had been changes in the U.S. personnel on the Group but that Mr. K. E. Holmes, Joint and Canadian Chairman, and Mr. C. J. Arnold, U.S. Chairman 9 continued in the same positions; and (c) noted that progress in the areas of broadcasting was slow and recommended that the Working Group show progress by the next meeting of the JRCC. 0 JOINT_ REPORTS - APPROVAL FOR NATIONAL CONTENT The COMMITTEE: (a) observed that in the compilation of joint reports, care should be taken to ensure that national content should be approved by the national chairman prior to submission to the JRCC; and (h) agreed that this observation be drawn to the attention of all concerned.

XIV. TREATMENT OF REFUGEES Reference Documents: JRCC D/9-64, D/23-64, Oct. 7 The COMMITTEE: (a) noted the reports of the Joint Secretaries on consultations with federal departments and provincial and state governments as set out in JRCC D/9-64 and D/23-64, (b) noted that there had been agreement in principle, by federal departments, provinces and states consulted, to Document CEPC D/6-64; (c) agreed that the U.S. Secretariat, in consultation with the State Department, prepare the first draft of a joint agreement on the equal treatment of persons from each country in a war emergency; and (d) recommended that, once an agreed draft had been prepared, the Secretariat consult with the Canadian External Affairs Department and the U.S. State Department on the best method of implementing the agreement.

XV% PLANNING GUIDANCE AT LOCAL LEVELS Reference Document; JRCC D/10-64 9 D/24-64 9 Oct. 7 The COMMTTTE? (a) noted the reports of the Joint Secretaries on consultation.with the provinces and states as set out in JRCC D/10-64 and D/24-64; (b) noted that there had been agreement, in principle, by the provinces and states consulted, to the document contained in CEPC D/8-64; (c) agreed that certain amendments to clarify the language be made in CEPC D/8-64 9 paragraph 4. A. (i), (page 2) and paragraph E. (page 5) as follows; (1) paragraph 4A(i) last item to be made into two main items? (ii) Foreign Exchange, etc. (iii) Customs, etc. (2) paragraph E 9 after "guidelines" add "within the areas of their own jurisdiction"; (d) recommended that OCD„ OEP and EMO officially bring the amended document to the attention of provincial and state civil emergency authorities through the appropriate Regional Directors; and

/9. (e) recommended that the Joint Secretariat co-ordinate procedures so that the document will be presented to state and provincial authorities at approxi- 1 mately the same time.

XVI. SAMPLE PROVINCE/STATE CIVIL DEFENCE AGREEMENT - ESTABLISHMENT OF WORKING GROUP Reference Documente JRCC D/7-64, Oct. 7 The COMMITTEEe (a) agreed that a Working Group be established to draft a sample province/state civil defence (civil emergency) agreement or statement of intent; the Canadian nominees to the Working Group to be Mr. A. C. Ross, Regional Director, New Brunswick, Canadian Chairman, Mr. H. J. Bernatchez, Regional Director, Quebec; the United States nominees to be Mr. A. D. 0 9 Connor, OEP Director Region 1, and Mr0 R P0 Draine, OCD Region 1; U.S. nominees to initiate action of the Group and also to be responsible for produc- ing a joint report to the JRCC at its next meeting; and (b) agreed that the Working Group consult provincial and state civil emere:ency authorities in the drafting of the agreement.

XVII. REQUEST FROM GERMANY DENMARK AND BELGIUM FOR INFORMATION ON CANADA/U.S. CROSS-BORDER PLANNING Reference Documente JRCC D/8-64„ Oot. 7 The COMMITTEEe noted the joint reply prepared by the Joint Secretaries, as set out in JRCC D/8-64 9 to a ' request from the civil defence authorities in Germany, Denmark and Belgium for information on Canadian/United States refugee cross-border planning.

XVIII. DEPARTMENTAL OR AGENCY ACTIVITIES IN CROSS-BORDER PLANNING The COMMITTEEe noted that the Health Services and Resources and ...1 Supplies civil emergency planning authorities in both countries had initiated a number of discussions on mutual cross-border plans, and that such discussions would continue.

/10. .w J_U m

XIXO PEACETIME NATURAL DISAST},RS: CANADIAN STUDIES: REPORT ON ALASKADISASTER: U.S. PROCEDURES FOR ACTIVATING PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: ESTABLISHMENT OF WORKING GROUP

The COMMTTTEE.-

recommended that a Working Group be established to investigate the areas in which arrangements might be made in order to effect cross-border assistance during major peacetime disasters; the Canadian nominee to be Mr. I. H. Deyman, Regional Director Manitoba; the United States nominees to be Mr. David G. Harrison, OCD Acting Director Region 6 and Mr. Creath Tooley, OEP Director Region 8; the Canadian nominee to initiate action of the Group and produce a joint report for the JRCC at its next meeting.

XX. BORDER COmOPERATION CONCEPT

Reference Document: JRCC D/11=64y Oct, 7

The COMMITTEE:

(a) approved the proposal set out in JRCC D/llm64 that in the area of Canadian/United States cross- border planning the ter.^.: ''No Border Concept'* be no-t; used since it gives rise to misunderstandings and differences of 1 r^terpretation; and

(b) recommended that the term 1tBorder Co-operation Concept" be used to interpret the spirit of the United States/Canada Agreement on Civil Emergency Planning of November 15, 1963.

XXIo CROSS-BORDER SEMINARS, TESTS AND EXERCISES

The COMMITTEE;

(a) agreed that it was most necessary that all cross- border plans should be tested as often as possible;

A (b) agreed that certain procedural tests in a few I areas, such as communications, warning and radef, should be undertaken forthwith at the regional level and on the initiative of Regional D%rectors;

(c) recommended that a Working Group be established to investigate which areas of planning should be tested and the form in which such tests should take place; the United States nominees to be

/il. Mr, David Harrison, OCD Acting Director Region 6 (Joint Chairman) and the Canadian nominee to be Mr, A. E. Cooney, EMO Ontario Regional Director,

XXII, NEXT MEETING

The C014MITTEE:

agreed that the next meeting of the JRCC should be held in the United States at a place and date to be determined,

., •

•

• U.S. /CANADA

nacc It /1 - 64 February Z8, 1964 U.U S. /CANADA JOINT BEGION.AL CONTINUING COMMIT TE

The second meeting of the U , 5, /Canada Joint Regional Continuing Committee (JR CC) was held at National Headquarters, Oiïfte of Civil Defense, Washington D. C., Februayy 11.1 2, 1964. Thore present were:

Members: ..»VeMeoreu ed.•

Canada:

IvIr. Denis Amyot EMO Regional Director (Quebec)

Mr. Carl B. Boehm EMO Regional Director (British Columbia)

Mr. A. E Cooney EMO Regional Director (Ontario)

United States: . -- Mr. A, D, O'Connor Dir. OEP Region I

Mr. B. P. Draine representing Dir. OCD Region I

M.r. David Harrison Acting Dir. OCD Region 6

Mr. Charles C. Rails Dir, OCD Region 8

Ivir. Creath Tooley Dir. OEP Region 8

Secretariat:

Canada:

Mr. John Wallace Assistant Director, EMO -2

Secretariat: • ■■••••••■•■.i

Canada (coned)

Mr, M. R. Mackenzie Extèrnal Liaison Officer, EMO

United States:

Mr. Hubert R. Gallagher Dir. Liaison (k Public Affairs, OEP

• Mr. John W. McConnell Regional Coordinator, OCD

Mr. James W. Jacobson Deputy Director, Program Division, OCD

Mr. Andre L. Marcellin Assistant for International Organization Affairs, OEP

Others:

Mr. Raymond J. Barrett, Department of State Mr. Joseph R ornm, Dir. for Plans and Programs, OCD - Mr. Hubert A. Shon, Dir. for Federal Assistance, OCD Mr. Pen F. Read, Dir. for Technical Operations, OCD Mr. John F. Grady, Government Readiness Office, OEP Mr. Paul Revelle, Chief, Transportation Resources, OEP Mr. C. K. Faubht, Jr.., Deputy Dir. Office of Emergency • Transportation, DOC Mr. Howard J. Iviarsden, Chief, Division of Roads, U.S. Maritime «Administration Mr. Charles J. Arnold, Deputy Dir. J:or Public Information, OCD Mr. Donald S. Hudson, Director, Plans Division, OCD . Mr. Harry E. Roderick, Director, Warning Division, OCD Mr. Charles K. Shafer, Dir. Radiological Monitoring Division, OCD Mr. Robert H. Arrowsmith, Ch'..ef, Communications Branch, OCD Mr. Sam Wilson, Chief, Program Guidance Branch, OCD Mr. Wilfred M. Minton, Emergency Information Specialist, OCD Miss Henrietta L. Parker, Foreign Liaison Officer Mr. Michael A. Benedict, Regional Coordinator, OCD

•:7) -3-

1. Pending approval of the organizational recommenda.tions of the JR CC by the Joint U.S. /Canda Civil Ernergerr.jr Planning Committee, Mr. Hubert I. Gallagher, assumed the position of Acting Chairman and designated Mr. Andre L. Marcellin Acting Secretary, IvIr. Gallagher subsequently shared the chairmanship With Mr. McConnell.

2. Mr. Gallagher introduced Mr. Joseph Romm, Director of Plans and Programs, Office of Civil Defense, who welcomed the Canadian Delegates on behalf of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Civil Defense).

3. Messieurs Wallace, McConnell and Gallagher briefly reviewed their respective agencies activities since last meeting for the purpose of bringing the conference up to date on significant developments. .Accomplishrnents of particular importance were the ratification on November 15, 1963 of the new Civil Emergency Planning Agreement between the two countries and the issuance on Jan. 14, 1964 of an OEP-OCD Memorandum of Understanding clarifying the . relationship and roles of the two agencies in providing guidance and assistance to States in the development of statewide emergency plans and emergency management of resources and services.

4. Minutes of the 1st meeting of the JR CC were approved as written.

• TERIvIS OF PEFEPENCE FOR THE JPCC . Mi'. Mackenzie called on Mr. Cooney to introduce the Canadian draft paper setting forth terms of reference for the JRCC and its secretariat. While in full agreement with the contents and s :bstance of an earlier U.S. draft, Canadian members thought it was a: bit too formal and that it would be better to adopt a more topical format. This was agreed and discussion opened on the Canadian draft, section by section. It was agreed that language changes were necessary to further clarify the functions of the Committee and its secretariat and to allcw diJ:ferences of opinion that might arise among national delegations within the Committee to be brought to the attention df the U.S. /Canada Civil Emergency Planning Committee. At the reques of the Committee, the Canadian and 75,S, co-secretaries incorporated recoMmendationc of the Committee in a new draft (attached) which was .adopted unanimously. The motion was made and 'c.arried that the JR k2C approved tr:rms of reference be presented to . the U.S. /Canada CEP (3 at ità next meeting for approval.

II. STUDY GROUP REPORT

A - WARNING • The Committee unar.imously objected to the tone of the report and the stated intention to bypass the JR CC. Since the study group had been established by the JRCC, the Committee was the only channel through which its recommendations could reach the Senior Committee. It was stateri that the JECC has the -4-

• right to be informed and the obligation to re.view stich reports and submit comments and recommendations based on such reports to the U,S, /Canada CEPC.

•The Committee went on to discuss briefly the basic problem areas identified in the report. It appeared that the major difficulty in trying to remedy the current situation lies in reconciling differences in national policies. It was felt that in its present form the brief report on Warning problems should not be forwarded for consideration of the US/Canada CEPC and that the final and detailed report to be submitted by the study group should result from an exhaustive study of all elements of the problem.

The Committee therefore:

(a) Agreed to accept the brief report of the Study Group on Warning as a progress report;

(b) Agreed that the Study Group should continue i4- s study, concentrating on areas of difference 1 through 3 and arrive at final recommendations re areas 4 and 5 in consultation with other-appropriate joint study groups, i.e. Public Information and Communications;

(c) Agreed that the final report should be submitted to the Secretariat • for JECC considera.tion and for appropriate action.

B - RADIOLOGICAL DEFENSE

The Study Group was commended for the thoroughness of its report.

The Committee:

(a) Approved the report as presented;

.(b) Recommended that the US/Canada CEPC note recommendations of the Study Group and approve their internationïl implementation;

(c) Agreed that such implementation be the responsibility of the Study Group and that the Group should continue its joint efforts and report progress at the next meeting of the JR CC.

C CROSS-BORDER COMMUNICATIONS

The Study Group was commended for its report. The Committee reviewed the report submitted by the Study group and.discussed budgetary miimplications for providing the envisaged communications links. It was recognized W that the major problem is one of determining anticipated type, volume and routing of traffic in order to arrive at a valid estimate of communication technical requirements. The Committee also a.greed that initial efforts should be concentrated on providing the necessary telecommunications links between OEP-OCD and EMO Regional Headquarters. The Committee was informed that

C • meetinga is proposed in February to examine means of determining the requirementsa

With regard to funding a communication system between regional headquarters it was stated that this was taken into account in U.S. budget planning and that funds for establishing such a system would be available. There was some indication that Canada might have a problem kvith funding its portion of the system.

The Comrnittee:

(a) Accepted the report and its annexes;

(b) Recognized the difficulties involved in establishing the required system, particularly those stated in paragraph 6 of the report;

(c) Recommended that the study group now turn its attention to determining the cost of establishing land-line teletype methor's of communication,• with and without radio back-up between neighboring Canadian and U.S. regional headquarters;

(4) Recommended that the work of the study group be continued as Op utlined in its report and that a progress report be submitted W the next meeting.

D - EMERGENCY PUBLIC INFORMATION

The study group was commended for its réport. Problem areas due to differences between Canadian and U.S. policies and plans were briefly discussed. Changes were made in the tg-,port as follows:

1. In line 6 of the recommendation under para.. 5 Censôrship delete 11OCD1' and substitute "OEP";

2. Delete the first sentence of para. 7 at the bottom of page Z, and substitute the following language: In the United ; 'ates emergency bro4dcasting wo^ld come into, force.if directed by the President or automatically on the declaration of an Air Raid Warning";

3. Delete line 1 of sub-section a. of paranraph 7, page 3,^ and substitute: I I The U.S. Aii Raid Warning and the ...... 11

4. Revise the recommendation at the enC of. para:gra.ph 7, page '3hto read: "It is recommended that:

• a) These problems be referred to the Warn.ing. Study Group;

b) In view of the interdependence and ki. iiterrelationship between ;?- SI

the issuance of emérgency information and the issuance of warning to the public, the Emergency Public Information Study Group and thr- Warning Study Group each should be _epresented at meetings of the othe r" .

5, Amend the recommendation in paragraph 8, page 3 to read:

"The requirement for nation to nation and region to region civil emergency command communication channels between the two countries should be referred'to the Communications Study Group",

6.: Insert the word "broadcast" between the words "A11 instructions" in line 1, sub-section a. of the recommendation under paragraph 10, page 4.

7. Add the following sub-section to the recommendation under para. 10, page 4;

"c. Continuous study'of the standardization of instructions in auch fields as resource conservation and rationing should be encour- âged".

In view of the changes 2 and 3 approved by the Committee, it was proposed that the classification of the amended report be changed to •"Restricted" (Canada) and to "F or Official Use On..f+" (United States).

The Cornmittee;

(a) Agreed that the seeurity classification of the report as amended could be reduced to "Restricted" (Canada) and "'For Official Use Only" (U.S.);

(b) Approved the tra:nsmission of the report as amended to the US/Canada CEPC, ,a

III. PR OGR.ESS R EPOR TS 13,

A-> R ESOUR CES CLASSIFICATION AND SUPPLY

The Committee:

(a) Adopted the progress report prepared jointly by the -Economic Affairs Office, OEP, and the Economic Planning Section, EMO, and urged them to pro;.eed with fôrmal inquiries as stated in para. 4;

(b) Stated the desirability of hav4.ng a complete report with recommendaw .,tiona on thia subject for discussion at next meeting of the JRCC.

B TRANSPORTATION

Mr. C. K. Eaûght, Jr., repres.,.nting the Office,cof Emergency

,.;..,` ^,_.

-7- • Transportation (Commerce) briefly reported on initial meeting between representatives of OET and the Cana.dian Department of Transport, following recommendations of the JRCC at its first meetirs. Mr. Howard J. Mar sden on the matter of concluding a joint agreement on the reciprocal use reported of ports und.er em.ergency conditions. He :7, tated that informal negotiations have been underway since 1961 between elements •r-f. the Canadian Department of Transport and the U.S. Maritime Administration and that general technical agreement on the desirability and feasibility of the proposal was reached. However, no further progress was made toward the necessary formalization of this agreement. He stressed that only when this has been done can the local people involved begin to work out the details. Mr. Marsden also cautioned that the problem of reciprocal use of ports will require Coordinated planning for the use of road and rail transport.

Cana.dian views indicated that understanding between the two countries should be formally recorded in legal terms. It was also pointed out that there exists a NATO commitment to clear the St. Lawrence River of high tonnage vessels and that this implies a possible conflict which may necessitate a reconciliation of NATO and U.S. /Canada plans.

Mr. Barrett, U.S. Department of State, commented that he appreciated the need for moving ahead in this area; the Department of State felt this subject ir ame within the.purview of the recently established -Joint U.S. /Cap.ada Civil e mergency Planning Committee and that the Committee's views should be obtained. The type of arrangement desired would require a formal agreement between the two governments through an Exchange of Notes. The agreement could authorize technical agreements between the a.ppropriate authorities of the two countries to arrange mo..- e detailed matters. A formal agreement requires specific negotiating authority on the U.S. side. It may be feasible to obta.in fairly broad negotiating authority to seek agreements related to various aspects of civil emergency planning (e. g. em.ergency transportation, in this instante, reciprocal treatment of refugees) to implement recommendations made by the Joint Committee. Once the new Committee ha.s P:"xt and its pattern of ope rations .and recommendations is clear., the Departrxient of State would b.--; prepared to seek such authority. „

The Comrrittee:

(a) Agreed that attention of approPriate U.S. and Canadian authoritieS should be called re the problem of reciprocal use of ports and other related emergency transportation matters; . . - -. - • . , (b) Recommended that OET and DOT officials meet a,. the earliest possible -date to initiate studies of all emergency transportation problems of mutual cont.:ern and that the question of the reciprocal use of ports in erner- ekiencies shoup be studied with the possible objective of effecting a joint agreement. • Jr- - 8 -

C EVACUATION AND MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE

Mr. Wallace and Mr. Gallagher rer orted on steps taken by Canadian and U.S. welfare authorities as a result of the recommendations of the JRCC.

The CoMmittee:

(a) Noted the progress made to date;

(b) Urged that the specialized agencies in both countries continue their activities in cooperation with OCD and EMO, as agreed at a meeting held on December 9, 1963, in Washington between Mr. Paul Stehelin of the Canadian National Department of Health and Welfare and representatives of the U.S. Departn-ient of Health, Education and Welfare, OCD and OEP, and that a report be prepared for consideration of the committee at its next meeting.

IV. COMMON POLICY ON THE TREATMENT OF REFUGEES

The Chairm.an (Mr. Gallagher) referred to a joint draft paper on thia matter entitled "Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Canada - Treatment of Refugees". The paper noted that both Canada and the U.S. have agreed to NATO basic principles governing the treatment of refugees Ani by the host country, and out of concern for the welfa - -e of our respective qp nationals who might becon.ie. refugees in the U.S. or Canada during a war emergency, our two governments should formally 'state their intent that U.S. and Canadian refugees would be treated as the nationals of the host country. During the discussion it was noted that such a bilateral understanding, in the preliminary opinion of the representative of the Department of State would necessitate a formal Exchange of Notes between the two countries. It was also noted that although provincial, state and local governments cannot be compelled to accept the terms and implications of such an agreement, they should have an opportunity to comment on it before approval. Following agreement, appropriate directives could be „incorporated in their emergency plans and local operati.ng officials made fully cognizant of the 'principes and facts involved.

Dis cussion of a draft proposed Mem.orandum of Understanding between the U.S. and. Canada led to the conclusion that there should be first a recommendation of the Joint U.S. /Canada cr,pc re a common policy .on the treatment of refugees.' This recommendation wouH n turn proba.bly lead•to the aforex-nentioned. Exchange of Notes between the two...i,..)verninents,. The x••epre- sentative 'of the Department of State called the attention • the conferees to the legal problems 'involved which should be studied before an officia -, proposa.1 could be considered by appropriate Fecieral authorities and.an Exchange of Notes made. He felt this was necessary due to- the problem of Federal-State relationships involved and also because of the exemption from conscription clause contained subpa.ragraph a, of the draft under discussion. While not an expert in this matter, it wa.s his impression that this exempting provision is not in a.ccordance with U.S. statutes. It was also agreed to amend subparagraph c. of the draft by deleting the Words "proceeding to .a. third country". -9-

(a) Approqved in principle the draft me-.^orandum of understanding as amended;

(b) Recommended that the U.S. /Canada CEPC agree in principle to the draft memorantluyn.;

(c) Recommended that the draft rnerxiôrandum be studied in detail from a legal point of view and redrafted by State and External Affairs in consultation with the Secretariat and that these departments advise the Secretariat on ratification procedurea .

V. THE COMPREIi:.ENSIVE PROGRAM

Mr. -Edward L. Xeenan, Director, R e source R eadine s s Office, OEP, outlined for the information of the participants the objectives of the Comprehensive Program for Continuity of Government and Emergency Management of Resources, the guidance developed for State and local governments in implementing the p.rogram and the progress so far achieved. -

W Tn PLANNING AREAS OF PROVINCIAL, STATE AND MUNICIPAL LEVELS OF GiOVER NPvtENT

Mr. Carl Boehm introduced a draft revision of the March 1959 Standing Planning Group paper entitled "U,S. /Canada Joint Federal Operations Planning Procedures for Guidan--e at State, Provincial and Municipal or Local Levels"^ Committee discussion of the draft paper ; (dated January 7, 1964) resulted .in the revised draft dated February 12, 1964o (Copy attached)

The Committee adopted the revised draft and agreed that it should be. submitted to the U.S. / Canada CEPC for approval. ^y -

- ;^ VII REGIONAL LIAISON LISTS 7

Following an informative éxchange of views on regi^,na1 1;^4i.son and coordination arrangements, thQ Committee agreed thatt

(a) Frequency of revision of regional liaison lists should be left to the discretion of regional directors concernecï, However, revised lists should be is sued at least once a year o

(b) No attempt should be made at this time to establish liaison 6:hannels at the State /Provincial levelo I - 10-

VIII. NEXT MEETING

The Conimittee agreed:

(a) That the next meeting of the J1RCC should be held in Canada at a place and date to be determined, howelbrr, no later than early September.

(b) That meetings of the JRCC should precede meetings of the U. S, /Canada CEPC by at least four weeks to prOvide s'llficient time for the preparation of reports and other documentation for consideration of the., latter Committee.

• MP 54542 0 JRCC R/1-63 September 18, 1963

U.S./CANADA JOINT REGIONAL CONTINUING COMMITTEE

The first meeting of the U.S./Canada Joint Regional Continuing Committee (JRCC) was held in the Federal EMO Regional Offices, Toronto, Ontario, September 10-12. Those present were Members United States: Mr. R. P. Draine, Deputy Regional Director, OCD Region 1, Harvard, Mass. Mr, Homer Lyon, Deputy Regional Director, OCD Region 8, Everett, Wash. Mr, L. D. O'Connor, Director, CEP Region 1, Harvard, Mass , Mr. Ren F. Read, Regional Director, OCD Region 6, Denver, Col , Creath Tooley„ Regional Director, OEP Region 8, . Everett, Wash. Mr. Charles S. Woods, Deputy Regional Director, OEP Region 4, Battle Creek, Mich, Canada: Mr. Denis Amyot, Regional Director (Quebec), Emergency Measures Organization, Quebec City, P. Q. Mr. Carl R. Boehm, • Regional Director (British Columbia), Emergency Measures Organization, Victoria, B. C. Mr. k. E. Cooney, Regional Director (Ontario), Emergency Measures Organization, Toronto, Ontario.

/2 2.

Others United States: Mr. Hubert R. Gallagher, Director, Federal, State and International Relations, OEP, Washington, D. C. Mr. James W. Jacobson, Deputy Director, Program Division, Directorate for Plans and Programs, OCD, Washington, D. C. Mr. Andre Marcellin, Assistant to Director, Federal, State and International Relations, OEP, Washington, D. C. Mr. John W. McConnell, Regional Co-ordintor, OCD, Washington, D. C. Canada: Mr. M. R. Mackenzie (Acting Secretary), External Liaison Officer, Emergency Measures Organization, Ottawa Ontario, Mr. J. F. Wallace (Acting Chairman), Assistant Director, Emergency Measuces Organization, Ottawa, Ontario.

1 0 Pending approval of the organizational recommendations of the JRCC by the Joint U.S./Canada Civil Emergency Committee (hereafter referred to as the Joint U.S./Canada Committee), Mr. J. F. Wallace, as official host , assumed the position of Acting Chairman and designated Mr. M. R. Mackenzie Acting Secretary.

I. OPENING REMARKS 2. The Actin°. Chairman welcomed the U. S. Delegates to Canada and expressed the hope that the deliberations of the Committee would provide the basis for further action in U.S./ Canada cross-border planning and operational activity. He went on to say the sense of the Resolution adopted at the Eastern Border Regions Conference indicated that the function of the JRCC was not to solve cross-border problems, but rather to determine the problems from Border Conference reports and other sources, to set them up in order of priority and to recommend machinery for solution. The immediate task of the Committee was to do this on four or five problems which could be acted upon and perhaps solved in a relatively short time.

/3 n J 0

II. STATUS OF PROPOSED NEW UoSo/CA.NADA_AGREEMENT

3o Mro GallaFher reported that the new Agreement, which updated the J_9 51 Âgreement s was now in the process of ratification by the two countries. It was expected that the exchange V 3 of notes would take place within the next few weeks. (Copies of the draft Agreement were circulated for infoïr.iation purposes.)

III0 ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROCEDURAL ARRANGEMENTS

4. Mro Gallj.&her introduced proposals concerning organization and administrative procedures for the Committee. These proposals would be submitted to the Joint U.S./Canada Committee for approval o As amended by Mr°. McConneJ_1. y the proposals were:

A Joint Secretariat to JRCC will be established by the Executive Heads of Federal. EMO, OEP and OCD to include one or more representatives of the respective national. officesa These representatives will, in consultation, provide:

(a) Arrangements for the administrative requirements of joint meetings or conferences,

(b) Advice and guidance concerning current national developments,

(d) Follow-up by monitoring developments of the activities which take place as a result of the recommendationso

(e) Periodic reports to keep the members of the JRCC apprised of signif'icant developments.

5o During the course of discussion., it was suggested that the Joint Secretariat, in making their administrative arrangements, consider the following points:

•s (a) Two co-Chairmen and two co-Secretaries be appointed one of each from either country,

(b) The JRCC meet alternatively in Canada and the United States, possibly once a year in each country,

(d) Where unanimity cannot be achieved in the Committeen individual national reports may be submitted to the Joint U.S./Canada Committee by the respective national Co- Chairmen.

/^,. If.

(e) Pursuant to the Resolution at the Eastern Conference e the membership of the Committee consist only of the nine designated Regional Directors. (f) The Joint Secretariat be not official members of the JRCC and not have a voe on formal decisions. 6. The Committee agreed to recommend to the Joint U.S./ Canada Committee for approval, the establishment of a Joint Secretariat of the JRCC with functions as outlined in para. 4 above.

IV. TERMS OF REFERENCE

7 0 Mr. Coorifx introduced a paper outlining a draft Terms of Reference for the JRCC. 8. The Committee agreed to recommend to the Senior Committee for approvar e the following Terms of Reference for the JRCC: (a) To provide a forum for consideration of cross- border problems likely to arise in the event of a war emergency. (b) To receive from time to time such recommendations as may be forthcoming from normal regional liaison and from the Eastern e Middle and Western Border Regions meetings. (c) To establish among the recommendations the priority in which they will be handled. (d) To recommend to the joint U.S./Canada Committee procedures, methods and suggested target dates for completion of the problems.

V. PRIORITY PROBLEMS

9 0 The Committee: (a) Agreed to recommend to the Joint U.S./Canada Committee that, of the cross-border problems identified by the three Border Conferences, four be designated as being of a first priority nature and requiring immediate study. They are:

- :- Whrning Emergency Communications Emergency Public Information Radiological Defence. -

/5 (b) Agreed that the Joint Secretariat, in preparing recommendations to the Joint U.S./Canada Committee on joint studies e will also recommend the names of the officers or agencies to be involved in the studies, the name of the officer or agency in each case who will be responsible for seeing that a report is produced and, wherever suitable, a target date for report.

VI. WARNING

10 0 Nir. R. F. Read presented a paper on warning problems. He said that the Border Conferences this summer brought out the following problems in this area: (a) Metropolitan areas on the Canadian/U.S. Border receive both Alert and Take Cover declarations from different decision-making sources by different means and routes, and very possibly at quite - different times - perhaps as much as 10-20 minutes apart for the Alert and less for the Take Cover. (b) The public response and reaction to the Alert and Take Cover signals could differ materially on either side of the border due to the new U.S. shelter programme as opposed to the Canadian lack of this programme, coupled with its plan of evacuation of more likely target areas. He was proposing a joint task force to study this problem made up of Operations Planners and Warning Technicians. The role of the Operations Planners would be to: (a) 'Survey the present situation at border metropolitan areas. (b) Recommend an overall operations plan for these areas which would be consistent in all its major parts. (c) Suggest the warning policy whieh would support and activate this plan. The role of the Warning Technicians would be to recommend the circuitry and other hardware necessary to carry out the plan together with the estimated first costs and recurring costs thereof. 11 0 The Committee agreed to recommend to the - joint U.S./ Canada Committee that a joint task force be established to study in depth U.S./Canadian border warning problems and recommend both operations planning and "hardware" solutions thereon; the task force to be composed of an OCD (National) Operations Planner a Warning Technician, a Canadian Army Operations Planner a Warning Technician, an EMO (National) Operations Planner and an OEP (National) Operations Planner. The target date for submission of the special task force finding to the JRCC to be 30 days following activation by the Senior Committee. t.i

VII. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS 12. Mr. C. R. Boehm presented a paper on amergency communications. He explained that there were in existence regulations relating to the operation of radio stations and equipment agreed to by each country under a bilateral Convention of February 8, 1951. Technical aspects of emergency communications had also been considered by the U.S./Canada Standing Planning Group in May, 1959, and certain types of communications planning were recommended as appropriate for local and state/ provincial government levels. Recent Border Conferences had also recognized emergency commianications problems. The Middle Border Regions . Conference recommended the development of standard guidance instructions for use of border municipalities, counties, states, provinces and regions as to both peacetime and wartime communications. The Western Border Regions Conference recommended the establishment of communications for the coordination of emergency operations between the border regions in the two countries and the preparation of a SOP to facilitate coordination between regions while they were still in communication with their central facilities. It was the general consensus of 'these conferences that present cross-border communications links were inadequate for the passage of emergency essential operational and technical information and additional links were required. 13. The Committee agreed to recommend to the Joint U.S.! Committee that the Executive Heads of EMO, OEP and OCD Canada . authorize: (a) Feasibility and cost-studies of U.S./Canada emergency communication links between Canadian and U. S. regional headquarters (these links might be an extension of the U.S. NACOM I or NACOM II systems e both landline and radio backup). (b) Similar feasibility and cost studies between adjacent .border municipalities and political or command subdivisions (regions will be requested to indicate their cross-border requirements).

VIII. EMERGENCY PUBLIC INFORMATION (INCLUDING RADIO AND TV BROADCASTING') 14 , Mr. A. D. CPConnor presented a paper on Emergency Public Information. He stressed the following points for consideration: (a) Radio and TV broadcasts from either country can be heard on both sides of the border. There is a need to co-ordinate identification of instructions to reduce confusion. (b) Instructions can be standardized in such fields as health and radef; there may be a possibility of - using such standardized instructions in both countries.

1,5 (c) Standardization of instructions in such fields as resource conservation and rationing would require continuous studye

(d) Censorship plans must be similar. No great difficulties were encountered in co-ordi nating national efforts during Wor-Ld War II. Canadian censorship authorities might look at the new U.S. plans for wartime censorship, Plans for release of information to the Press should be co-ordinated,

15, The Committee agreed to recommend to the joint U.S./ Canada Committee.,

(a) That national technical officers be directed to study the question of ensuring that broad-n casting stations are identified as to general locality and that to the greatest extent possible instructions to the public are similar in wording and content o

(b) That national technical officers consider the bFst means of encouraging all news media to assist in mai.nr,aining public morale in the post®attack environmente

(c) That when decisions (a) and (b) have been implemented at the national level.9 similar action be taken at the regionalg state/provincial and municipal levelsQ

XXa CO-ORDINATION OF RADIOLOGICAL DEFENCE

l6o Mro R. P. Draine presented a paper on radiological defence. He said the successful. coaord.ination of civil defence A, I emergency operatïoi:s between Canada and the U.S. in the event of a nuclear war depends on the exchange of technical information needed to forecast or describe fallout areas. This may ;., require the development of a'common understanding of terminology and coding techniques. New channels of communications may also be required for the exchange of such data between regional (or state control centres) and the provinces (or groups of provinces) in order to provide the civil defence authorities on both sides of the border with this vital intelligenceo Unless our terminology and methods of evaluation of the potential health hazards are compatable9 local emergency broadcasting of fallout warnin;s and advice along border areas might cause confusion and alarmo Postmattack fallout conditions might require movement of people across our borders as a life-saving measure. Decontamination 3 of essential industrials agricultural and institutional facilities and housing may require that radiological special-ists and instruments be sharedo

17. Çommlitte6The agreed to recommend to the Joint U.S./ Canada Ccmmittee that special task fores of operations planning analysLs and technicians be assigned f rom national and r egional levels of Canada and the United States to study the respective national. ra.def and reportir...b systems for compatability and adequ.acy, (Such studies should result in a mutual underst•anding of codes and techniques and the development of mutually under- stood9 specific and practical working plans for the exchange of technical radef intelligence,) 9 uu government officials, as well as to the industries concerned with these resources, irrespective of their geographical location. There was some uncertainty whether current, US./ Canada economic studies and conferences now underway already covered these problem areas, Respective national authorities should attempt to clarify and ço-grdinate.sugh studies. 21. The ,Committee: (a) Agreed that the respective national and state/ provincial authorities should report to the Cômmittee what studies were now underway in the subject area. (b) Agreed that, if necessary » in the light of the report under (a) above, to recommend to the Senior Committee that a task force comprising membership from OEP » OCD, EMO and ESPB'be constituted to çonsider classification, nomenclature and normal flows of commpdities and services which in turn would rely on the teehnical support of ether departments and agencies with respect to specifics.*

XII. TRANSPORTATION 22. Mr. C. A. Toolez introduced the subject of transportation and said there were five basic problems in this area which required Canadian/U.S. agreement. They were; (a) Common procedures for determining the availability of equipment. (b)• ommon procedures for determining transportation requirements and priorities, including procedures for requesting transportation capabilities of Other nations to move high priority traffic. (c) Common procedures to expedite essential traffic crossing national boundaries by either mutually suspending or modïfYing existing regulations. (d) Agreed arrangement's tp suspend or modify existing regulations and licensing procedures. (e) Agreement for the utilization of equipment and ;.! transport manpower of one nation when temporarily located within the boundaries of the other.

/1 0 ••• .*

* Footnote For example, on the U.S. side, after a general policy decision: the U.S. Depaxtment of Agriculture Would be brought in for specific procedures conforming to this decision concerning food planning; the U.S. Department of the Interior would concern itself with the specific conforming with the general policy on emergency oil and gas distribution, solid fuels distribution etc.

X. EVACUATION AND MOVE1UNT OF PEOPLE 18. Mr. Do E. Amyot introduced the subject of evacuation and movement of people. He said that despite any firm plans by either country to restrict the movement of people, there is a good probability, under certain circumstances, that there woUld be movement of refugees across the border in either direction. It should be remembered that there are many problems related to the movement of refugees, such as the use of international bridges, waterways and roads customs, immigration and health regulations, etc. However, betore dealing with specific problems, it is necessary to agree to some common policy on the treatment of refugees. 19. The Committee agreed to recommend to the Senior Committee for approval the issuance of an exchange of notes or a statement of intent by both countries that nationals who choose to cross the international boundary between Canada and the United States during a period of national war emergency will be treated in the same manner as the nationals of the host country. In conjunction with this statement, it iS understood: (a) That when a mutually satisfactory statement of policy has been issued by both countrieS the JRCC will turn its attention to specific problems that might hinder movement of refugees. 1 - (b) That such refugees will not be conscripted into the armed forces of the host country. (c) That the agreement will remain in force only until the host country considers that evacuees can be returned to _their own country. (d) That the agreement is not intended to cover 5 situations where the government of one country ) requests the other to receive and care for .i evacuees who are directed to proceed to another country for prolonged periods of time.

XI. RESOURCES CLASSIFICATION AND:SUPPLY 20. Mr. C. S. Woods introduced the subject of resources classification ancUsupply. He said that there is an orderly and regular flow oedommodities and materials across the border in all regions. This flow includes pipelines carrying petroleum and gas, farm products, fish, tobacco, electrical energy and all kinds of labour. Because of our concern with the survival of normal economic systems, as well as of people, cohsideration should be given to what would result if any of these commodity and service flows were interrupted by a war emergency. Study should also be made of the problem of classifying survival items into categories and standardizing, if possible, nomenclature and common denominators. A task force should be established to investigate these problems. It should not becOme immersed in details, but should confine itself to developing a broad picture of regular cross-border flows of commodities and services and general terminology which would have the same meaning to laymen 23. The Committee agreed to recommend.that the Canadian Department of Transport (DOT) and the U.S. Office of Emergency Transport (OET) be requested tb. study e in consultation, the five problems outlined above and any Others in this.drea Of, a similar nature and to submit a.repOrt for, presentation at the next meeting of the Senior Committee on the methodsand meanS whereby co-ordination of arrangements might be achieved.

XIII. TESTS AND EXERCISES Mr. HomerLuns intrôdueed trie subject of tests and exercises. He said there were a number of problems in thiS area requiring resolution before successful joint tests and exercises could be held. These included lack Of uniformity of organization and policy at all- leVels Of governffient, different approaches to exercise problems, differing nOmenclature,and inadequate emergency . communications. 25. The Committee: (a) Agreed to recommend to the Joint U.S./Canada Committee that Where exercises are planned in either country serious consideration be given to the exchange of national observers and that such observers bé given every opportunity to view.the exercise in all its phases. - (b) Agreed that the study of problems of joint teSts and exercises, particularly those of a, and practical nature, was desirable, simple but felt that such studies coU1d not proceed until:basic problems related tà this field had been solved (the most important basic problems were in the areas of warning and emergency communications). Agreed that when the studies of basic problem areas mentioned in (b) above had been sufficiently completed, it was most important that they be tested by joint tests and exetcise,s.

XIV. LIAISON AND ACCREDITATION AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL 26. The Actine Chairman said that joint arrangements made in 1960 for Regional'Directors to discuss ciasSified matter8 of mutual concern needed reviSion and updating. - It -might also be of some value to Regional Directors to establiàh liaiSon lists between the regions similar to that issued at the national The Canadian B.C. RegiOn . and U.'S. Region 8 had already level. drafted a liaison list. 27. The Committee:, , (a) Agreed that the joint Secretariat review and revise the accreditation directive of March 20, 1960, and issue new instructionà'to border Regional Directors

/11 (b) Agrecd. that border Regional Directors be advised to set up an int'cr-regional liaison list along the hiles of that developed between Region $ and B.C. Region and provide such coordination between agency representatives as ma,y be expedient o

XV,:_ TLANNING AREAS OF PROVIiVCIALj'STATE AND MUNICIPAL.LEV^,S OF GOVERNMENT

2$, The Commi ttee agreed that the Regional Director (B0Co) and Region $ Directors of 0^P and OCD review and redraft recommendations of the Standing Planning Group in 1959s entitled qJoint Federal Operations Planning Procedures for.Guidance at Lower LevelsQ ; such drafts t^o be reviewed at the f'cderal level and subsequently by other Border •Regional Di-rectôrs and a. n agreed text be submitted to the next meeting of the JRCC for review before proceeding to the Senior Committee,

XVIo OTHER BU^INESS

29o The Committeè ag.reed that the attention of the Senior Committee be called to the value if this meeting in bringing.- about an ïnterchangs of information among the Regional Directors of our two nations, in reaching a better understanding of our mutual problems and in furthering co-operation and goodwill among those working acftss the border on problems of nonmilitary defenco,

:KŸIIe FUTURE PROGRAMME PREPARATION OF REPORT

30a ,The Committes agreed:

(a) that the report of the meeting bë completed at the national level without further ref eren ce to Règiôriâl Directors;

(b) that wherdVer possible the res.pective Exécutive Heads of ËMMO.n OEP and OCI} initï.ate immedïate action on the priority problems outlined under preced'irig subject headings so that reports on the four priority items and other pressing problems be ready for submission to the next meeting, of the Ser_iôr Committee;

(.,G): that the next meeting of the JRCC be held' at least two weeks before the next Joint U.S./ Canada Cômmittee Meeting to review recommendations and reports to the latter Committeeo

,' F. Wallace Acting Chairman Joint Regional Continuing Committee