Mountain States Fusion Center

The Mountain States Fusion Center proposal is composed of two parts: Part I describes the evolutionary dynamics of fusion and how fusion centers integrate all available information to interdict terrorist operations; gun, drug and human trafficking; special cases, organized and gang-related crime. An unstable method of information sharing contributed to the events of 9/11 and emphasized a need for fusion. Part II is the Mountain States Fusion Center (MSFC) prospectus which contains a proposal summary, grant fund use, staffing and stakeholder opportunities. MSFC seeks to construct a research and development facility called “City Center” to support conceptual strategic defense, academic and stakeholder projects in a realistic multi-environment setting.

PART I – Fusion Center Overview

BACKGROUND

Fusion Centers began as Regional Intelligence Centers (RIC) acting independently without a uniform model. Cross-jurisdictional crime called for a common center to analyze drug trafficking and terrorism threats. The 1980s created High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area centers (HIDTA) that ATF additionally tasked as Regional Crime Gun Centers. The mission of a HIDTA RIC was to analyze and identify gun and drug traffickers, gun and drug sources and disseminate investigative leads. [Carter]

STOVEPIPING

Stovepiping occurs when an agency doesn’t share it’s collection of data. This forces analysts at other agencies to depend upon the originator’s interpretation and adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. DHS was greatly handicapped without an intelligence mechanism to identify real threats against the US. Prior to DHS, the practice of withholding information could explain why the intelligence grid was unable to ‘connect-the-dots’ prior to 9/11. [Carter] [Wortzel] Information that has been rearranged by one agency’s filtering protocols can lose crucial detail that another agency may need to unravel a terror plot. Although the President requested that all information relating to terrorism be turned over to DHS, Congress re-worded the request so that the CIA and FBI could choose what they passed on, which invalidated the point. [Wortzel]

EARLY ANTI TERRORISM MODELS

LAPD developed a Terrorism Early Warning (TEW) group that bridges intelligence fusion with criminal intelligence to support strategic and tactical users. TEW has liaison officers with police and fire departments, health agencies and the private sector to provide threat early warnings to their fusion center. Fusion centers accelerate the interception of terrorists who operate in multi jurisdictions from tips received by law enforcement and the public. [Carter] [Whaley] Terrorists attempt to ‘blend in’ so that they can purchase materials and equipment or receive training to acquire licenses. NYPD started Operation Nexus so that more information about terrorist activities could be obtained from the private sector. [Carter]

UNIQUE CONSIDERATIONS

Extremist groups, special terrain types and international-border states must adjust their priorities for drug interdiction and human trafficking. It should not be expected for all fusion centers to have an identical product even with an ‘all crime’ approach. E-mail alerts may not be feasible in regions with limited electrical power. Similarly, intelligence alerts and bulletins intended for role call briefings may be impractical for decentralized law enforcement dissemination. Some jurisdictions do not meet 28 CFR Part 23¹ in the Fusion Center Guidelines and would prefer to withhold participation rather than adapt. In those cases, information considered outside of Part 23 guidelines can be truncated to enable participation. [Carter]

DISINFORMATION

The media likes to sensationalize conspiracy theories that fusion centers are next-generation centralized surveillance systems designed to deprive citizens of their privacy. Expanding nontraditional collection methods to increase public involvement could squash pulp fiction rumors. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has a Memorandum of Understanding between the FBI and several State Police departments that detail federally imposed limitations on open government law. There is a misperception that fusion centers block public oversight and enable the government to spy on citizens instead. [Verdi] EPIC’s Executive Director believes that “the FBI is pressuring states to become more secretive and limit even routine oversight of the bureau’s data-sharing arrangements with local police.” [McCullagh] Public figures who denounce fusion create needless controversy and aggravate public misperceptions.

SEPTEMPER 11, 2001

The events of September 11, 2001 created an obvious need for information fusion that utilizes the intelligence process for information management and analysis. Creating a new fusion center can call for extensive re-engineering of an existing framework or the creation of a new entity. Success requires the complete support of public safety leaders at every level. The challenges are:

1. Develop a cooperative and committed relationship between all stakeholders.

2. Establish a process that supports efficient and lawful intelligence operations.

3. “Stay on message” as an analytic center. [Carter]

Fusion Centers are analysis-driven support centers that seek to identify and intercept threats posed by terrorists and criminal enterprises before they occur. An abundance of raw information sources increases the data spectrum for better analysis. According to the Global Intelligence Working Group’s (GIWG) national Fusion Center Guidelines, a Fusion Center provides resources, expertise, and / or information to maximize the ability to detect, prevent, apprehend and respond to criminal and terrorist activity. Nontraditional collectors in public safety and the private sector also provide meaningful intelligence about threats and criminal activity. Fusion Centers can also focus on specific ‘case intelligence’ to resolve additionally dangerous situations. [Carter]

A necessity to successful fusion setup is recruiting competent analysts who can be cleared to access a variety of government databases and make informed decisions.² There is a popular misperception that fusion centers are designed to be information clearing houses and provide investigative support or serve as a meeting center for various agency liaisons to converge. It must be clarified from the start that fusion centers are not emergency operations centers – nobody would get anything done if personnel answered inquiries all day long…notwithstanding that some calls will still be answered. [Carter]

The 4-step summary of fusion operations:

1. Access government databases, including regulatory and law enforcement.

2. Integrate database information with tips and reports from stakeholders.

3. Make independent judgments based on all available information.

4. Provide warnings to stakeholders and all affected parties.

Data-mining technology helps to capture information that would ordinarily appear insignificant. Those pieces, added together, can describe a threatening sequence of events. [Wortzel] Secure two-way information systems such as RISSNET, LEO, HSIN, JRIES or ATIX³ can enable non-law enforcement entities to participate as demonstrated by NYPD’s Operation Nexus program. The private sector develops most of the technology that law enforcement uses and maintains their own security operations. Counter terrorism experts consider industrial espionage to be of critical importance. Sometimes, it is the industrial information that adds the most significant insight to a body of information being analyzed. Since the private sector owns 85% of the critical infrastructure, tips from the private can greatly assist the fusion objective. [Carter]

ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES

When analysis determines that a threat exists against a specific type of target, steps can be taken to harden the target or intercept the threat. If analysis indicates that terrorists intend to use a Vehicle-Based Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED), street officers and security personnel can be apprised of the vehicle types and materials used in a VBIED attack. Analysis factors include financial information, association matrices, deconfliction, case correlation and an array of visual and threat pattern analysis that can affect multi jurisdictions and criminal enterprises. [Carter]

THE STAKEHOLDERS INCENTIVE TO BUY-IN

EDUCATE stakeholders to understand that their participation is vital to create the best product. Without their participation, the effort to interdict terrorism and organized crime is reduced. Everyone from executives to line personnel must receive awareness training.

DEVELOP a mission with goals and objectives that answer what a fusion center does; how it operates and what it produces. Stakeholders want to know what the fusion centers priorities are and how they connect to other stakeholders. [Carter]

CLARIFY what the fusion center does and does not do and how those changes are realigned once the fusion center is operational. The fusion center will not be an information clearinghouse or an investigative support center. [Carter]

ESTABLISH relationships to ensure that everyone understands their function. Distribute assignments for operations management, information gathering, documentation, dissemination, stakeholder relations and operational support. [Carter]

PRODUCE time tables for the distribution of tactical and strategic reports and establish the protocols for disseminating bulletins, summaries and advisories. Determine who will receive these reports and how often. [Carter]

OPERATE by staffing the facility; establish logistics, develop a Memoranda of Agreement, create quality control, auditing and accountability. Afford the time necessary to fuse the intelligence process into a single entity. [Carter]

PART II – MOUNTAIN STATES FUSION CENTER PROSPECTUS (a proposal)

OVERVIEW

This prospectus summarizes a 10-year, $2.8 Billion initiative to create a Mountain States Fusion Center collaborative (MSFC), describes the MSFC purpose and invites all affected state, federal and private enterprises to become stakeholders.

The initiative will:

- Create high-paying jobs in precision, technical and specialized fields.

- Develop an unsurpassed, state-of-the-art research facility called “City Center.”

- Build a capital base through the development of new products.

- Sponsor technological development that maximizes production and attracts participants.

The MSFC collaborative offers an attractive range of programs to facilitate industrialization, technical research, product commercialization, training and information management systems built to maximize stakeholder growth and increase jobs throughout the Mountain States. MSFC is administered by the newly created Mountain States Department of Development and is governed by the Mountain States Board of Regents. MSFC provides guidance and funding to academic institutions for research excellence.

MSFC will:

- Aggressively recruit scholarly research scientists, build facilities and buy equipment.

- Promote alliances to sustain scientific exploration and commercially lucrative research.

- Organize a corps of scientists and engineers who focus on technical mission priorities.

The offer is extended to all applicants living within the United States.

PROPOSAL INTRODUCTION

The US has experienced natural and catastrophic man-made disasters with repeated unsatisfactory performance by the responding personnel. The poor evaluations were not due to a single cause, but to an array of causes that MSFC seeks to address and remedy. MSFC will develop scientific solutions to improve response and recovery during future contingencies. Because the Mountain States possesses an abundance of rural, undeveloped land, MSFC will erect a mock city center to test experimental equipment under threatening conditions in an authentic setting. The proposed center will enable researchers, students and practitioners a real-world environment to validate their research and market new technologies. The facility will include convention space, on-site lodging and demonstration grounds for all types of research to include lakes, waterways, desert and all-terrain platforms. Scientists, engineers, law enforcement and medical personnel can convene to stage, demonstrate, assess and promote integrated response plans for disaster contingencies. Currently, a facility of this magnitude does not exist which impairs the evaluation of high-density based disaster technologies.

PROPOSAL SUMMARY

The combined multi-university contribution will approximate $82 million. The Mountain States Board of Regents will coordinate the academic R&D curriculum with MSFC’s agenda. MSFC will facilitate academic objectives by providing real world training platforms to test and evaluate university research. In exchange, the participating universities will assist in real world projects that facilitate the advancement of MSFC mission objectives. MSFC will make its training platforms available for academic use nationwide in exchange for shared products. DoD R&D facilities within the Mountain States area are expected to participate in MSFC operations and benefit from the same. New intellectual property will be shared with stakeholders and used to leverage commercial partners who have a vested interest in science and technology projects. [Hamilton]

GRANT FUNDS USE

MSFC will:

- Offer competitive packages to the most ideally suited research personnel.

- Hire expert support staff, a program manager, chief research officer, a finance / contract officer, technical support specialists, marketing and commercial release specialists.

- Complete the Tactical Research City Center and fusion control center.

- Continue to fund research scholarships par excellence.

- Host oversight committees and tours to foster good public relations and attract talent.

STAKEHOLDER OPPORTUNITIES

A world-class staff capable of managing an infinite array of dynamic possibilities is paramount to successful City Center operations. Our program manager candidate will have demonstrated knowledge and experience with a solid grasp on fusion innovation and a keen ear to stakeholder priorities. The chief research officer will energize a world-class staff of engineers and scientists to set unprecedented new benchmarks in technology. There will be technical analysts and traditional support staff to ensure trouble-free operations 24/7. Stakeholders will be expected to interact with the research and development team, test-market MSFC solutions and develop certification courses for product usage.

Stakeholders will have:

- Access to the Tactical Research City Center as an experimental test platform in a real-world setting.

- Certified medical personnel and first responders, on-hand as needed. [Hamilton]

- Scholarly and commercial assessments with technical experts to help refine ideas.

- Access to the stakeholder database with academic, commercial and government sources.

- The ability to cross-link with similar agencies that have similar real-world concerns.

Stakeholders will be asked to assess MSFC projects within their areas of expertise as part of the refinement process. Mountain-States based businesses will be invited to test market MSFC products, sit on an advisory board and obtain fast track licensing to manufacture MSFC-tested products. Stakeholder memberships are extended to any party domiciled within the United States since we are collectively unified against terrorism.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE

Please send a Letter of Intent to the project administrator:

MSFC Project

Ty E. Narada

POB 3121

Page, AZ 86040

The letter is a non-binding affirmation of commitment to participate in the MSFC project and should be created electronically in military or business block style. Please include your contact information. The letters will be submitted in a formal Statement of Intent to the assembled Governors of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho on 9 SEP 2009.

Please e-mail statements of intent to ty.narada@dhs.gov and snail mail a hard copy not later than 31 DEC 2008. The Cost Share Consideration is matched by MSFC 1 to 1. In-kind contributions, barter arrangements and alternative ideas will be considered so that financial constraints do not inhibit participation.

ENDNOTES

¹ 28 CFR Part 23 is the Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating policies defined by section 1(b) of Executive Order No. 12291, 3 CFR part 127 (1981), because they do not result in: (a) An effect on the economy of $100 million or more, (b) a major increase in any costs or prices, or (c) adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation among American enterprises.

² Databases in addition to NCIC can include INS, the Bureau of Consular Affairs and the FAA. [Wortzel]

³ RISSNET is the Web-based Regional Information Sharing System. LEO is Law Enforcement on-line. HSIN is Homeland Security Information Network. JRIES is Joint Regional Information Exchange System and ATIX is the Automated Trusted Information Exchange.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carter, David L., Ph.D. (May 2006)

The Intelligence Fusion Process for State, Local and Tribal Law Enforcement

http://www.ise.gov/docs/privacy/IntelFusionProcess.pdf

(accessed 3 August 2008)

Hamilton, Glenn C., M.D., MSM

Fusion Center Project Prospectus for Proposed Ohio Research Scholars Program

http://www.emhelpcenter.org/calamityville/pdfs/FusionCenterProspectus.pdf

(accessed 3 August 2008)

McCullagh, Declan (10 April 2008)

FBI Nudges State ‘Fusion Centers’ Into the Shadows

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9916599-38.html

(accessed 3 August 2008)

Verdi, John, Staff Counsel, 11 April 2008

Electronic Privacy Information Center Open Government Project

http://epic.org/press/041108.html

(accessed 3 August 2008)

Whaley, Sean, Review-Journal Capital Bureau

Funding OK’d For ‘Fusion Center’ with Focus on Terrorism

http://www.lvrj.com/news/13557322.html

(accessed 3 August 2008)

Wortzel, Larry M., Ph.D. Executive Memorandum #828 (23 August 2002)

Creating an Intelligent Department of Homeland Security

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/EM828.cfm

(accessed 3 August 2008)

GLOSSARY

Information bulletins – information on new or emerging threats, including threat indicators and methodologies.

Intelligence assessments – comprehensive analysis, usually of a strategic nature, about a threat.

Raw intelligence – information that is derived from a source deemed to be reliable but has not been corroborated or analyzed. Typically the threat is time critical and potentially severe, hence the dissemination of the information.

Situational awareness reports – the current status of known threats or changes in the status of known threats.

Summary briefs – incidents and activities, globally or locally, that may have some correlation to threats, particularly if the incidents reflect a trend.

Threat assessment – a detailed description of threats, targets, the likelihood of an attack against a defined target, and the potential methods of attack. [Carter]