Assignment Directions:

Students are required to select one Case Study and write an essay (5-7 pages, double
spaced, 12-point font). This assignment will provide you the opportunity to examine a
Weapons of Mass Destruction incident taken from the National Planning Scenarios,
activate the ICS, and develop an appropriate response using the principles, organizations,
and other tools presented in the module. APA formatting and citations must be used. See
Final Exam Rubric on last page for specific grading criteria.

 Conduct a case study analysis of how you would respond, based on

appropriate National Planning Scenario background, analysis, and respond
actions needed using the resources and information provided throughout the
course.

Steps:

1. Select one of the Cases on WMD response, and carefully read all materials in the
case.

Case Study #1: Case Study #2: Case Study #3: Case Study #4: Case Study #5:

Anthrax attack on Oklahoma City Tokyo subway Jose Padilla case Iran’s suspected
Hart Senate bombing on sarin gas attacks involving development of
Office Building, Murrah Federal conducted by Aum radiological nuclear
October 2001 Offices, April Shinrikyu, March bomb plot, weaponry, 2003
1995 1995 March 2002 to present

2. Select a National Planning Scenario that fits in definition and context for
weapons of mass destruction, review entire document, and refer to the scenario in
your planning efforts.
3. Review the Target Capabilities List under the sections referring to response to
WMD incidents (Pages 361-375).
4. Review the Response Federal Interagency Operational Plan (Pages 1-21) and
utilize the planning format contained in the document as your planning “shell.”

At a minimum you must complete the following:

a. Build a Base Plan for *Incident Level 2; it must address the following:
i. Situation
ii. Mission/scope
iii. Planning assumptions and critical considerations
iv. Concepts of operations
v. Request for federal support
vi. Coordination of federal support
vii. Provision of federal support
viii. Concept of support
ix. Coordinating instructions
 x. Authorities and references

*Incident Level 2- See definition on page B-1-14 of Response FIOP, Table B.1-2

b. Read Appendix 1 to Annex B – Risk Assessment (only address WMD

Response Activities contained in Table B.1-1 in Response Federal
Interagency Operational Plan). Provide a risk assessment based on
operation risk and risk management strategies that are outline on pages B-1-7
to B-1-10.

c. Build Annex C – Operational Coordination (provide the basic component

without Appendices).

d. Utilize THIRA as a guide to validate what you find and use it to determine
where you need to concentrate follow-on efforts. This part of the assignment
must be substantiated in your written assignment.

5. Review ICS 100 to build your Incident Management Command structure.

a. You will serve as the Incident Commander (IC).
b. Describe your role as IC and briefly discuss your Operations, Planning,
Logistics, and Finance/Administration sections.
6. Interagency partners: You will be responsible for developing your plan to ensure
all Interagency partners are considered and included.

GENERAL GUIDANCE
 You are responsible for researching the body of knowledge available for building
an appropriate response to the scenario you selected.
 Be prepared to defend the plan in the Unit 8 Discussion Board as you have
constructed it.
 Research your topic using news stories, multimedia, and reports. Keep in mind
that you need to read, analyze, and select sources that accurately support and
defend your response plan.
 Please keep in mind there is no “school-house” solution to this assignment and
success can be achieved in any number of ways available to you. The key is to
critically analyze and think about/through you plan development, using the
planning principles provided.

Final Exam Rubric

Performance Area Unsatisfactory Competent Exemplary

(below 75) (75-89) (90-100)
Content: Written work does The length of the The length of the
Demonstrates not cover the written work is written work
knowledge of assigned topic; sufficient to cover provides in-depth
topics; thorough assertions are not the topic; assertions coverage of the
discussion of supported by are supported by topics; assertions
concepts; evidence; paper is evidence; does not are clearly
appropriate seriously lacking in meet full required supported by
integration of content and detail; number of pages evidence; paper
topics; scholarly primary resources and content areas. 3 meets required
journal use were not used or primary resources length of pages and
were used were used. content areas; 3 or
improperly. more primary
resources were
used.

Structure: Written work Written work is Written work is

Well-developed inadequate for clear and adequate clear and excellent
paragraphs; college-level work; college-level work; college-level work;
complete paragraphing and paragraphing and paragraphing and
sentences; title transition are transition are transition are clear
page; references inadequate; adequate; and appropriate;
page; body of inappropriate appropriate appropriate
work meets guideline outlined guidelines outlined guidelines outlined
requirements for paper were not for paper were met for paper were met
met with several with a few noted (see assignment
problems (see problems (see directions).
assignment assignment
directions). directions).

Mechanics: Written work had Written work was Written work has
Good use of several major errors generally free of no major errors in
standard written in word selection errors in word word selection and
English; spelling; and use; sentence selection and use; use; sentence
grammar; use of structure, spelling, sentence structure, structure, spelling,
APA style grammar, spelling grammar, grammar,
punctuation was punctuation was punctuation was
inappropriate; adequate; APA appropriate; APA
APA style was style was style was
unacceptable with acceptable with few acceptable with no
several errors. errors. errors or minor
errors.