The EOC Incident Support Model

Since the release of the NIMS Refresh in October 2017, a number of jurisdictions have made changes to the organizational structure of their emergency operations center.  While many jurisdictions use a traditional Incident Command System (ICS)-based structure, a structure aligned to the emergency support functions (ESFs), or a hybrid thereof, the NIMS Refresh seems to have popularized an alternative structure called the Incident Support Model.  I’ve been working with some clients who recently have, or are currently making a change to the Incident Support Model.  The general model of that structure can be found below.

ISM

The intent of this model is to provide an EOC with an organizational model that better fits what an EOC does… information management, planning, and resource support.  This model, unlike the more traditional ICS-based model or the ESF-based model really focuses on what EOCs do instead of potentially utilizing an organization and mission that are mis-matched.  As stated by the NIMS Refresh document, this model puts the EOC manager in direct contact with those doing situational awareness/information management, and streamlines resource sourcing, ordering, and tracking.

As someone who has worked in and long advocated for an ICS-based model for EOCs, I’ve grown increasingly comfortable with the Incident Support Model over time.  It certainly makes sense.  Appendix B of the NIMS Refresh document provides some additional detail on this model, but not much.

The Incident Support Model, most prominently, reorganizes some of the major ICS-centered functions we are used to seeing.  It pulls two key functions from the Planning Section, those being situational awareness and resource tracking.  Situational awareness in this model is established as a section.  Those who have managed large and fully staffed Situation Units in an ICS-based model know that the various responsibilities such as information tracking, developing situation reports, addressing requests for information, and information analysis and display can be significant.  Technical specialists, such as meteorologists and other sciences come into the fold of this section, as does Geographic Information Services (GIS).

The function of resource tracking, traditionally from the Resources Unit in the ICS model, is pulled together with all other resource-centered activities in the EOC under the Incident Support Model.  This includes the tasking and assignment of resources, as well as the support of those resources, which functionally has been handled by a combination of Operations and Logistics in the ICS-based model.  Reflecting on how many EOCs have grown comfortable organizing these functions previously, this section may be organized by ESF or other workable function.  The Resource Support Section is also to include Finance/Administration, which I’m not necessarily as keen on.  While I understand it from a contracting and procurement perspective, Finance/Administration is a function that may be best retained as their own section.

Separate from the Resource Support Section is the Center Support Section, which is focused on supporting the EOC itself with IT, admin staff, food, and other needs.  The Center Support Section may also be tasked with providing similar services to other defined facilities, such as a Joint Information Center (JIC) or Family Assistance Center (FAC).  I see this as a smart move as Logistics in the traditional ICS model had to juggle needs internal and external to the EOC.

Lastly is the Planning Support Section.  With information management resource tracking gutted from the Planning Section, you may be left wondering what is left for the Planning Section to do.  The Planning Support Section is still responsible for managing the planning process, which needs a bit of realignment under the Incident Support Model.  With this is overall responsibility to develop the Incident Action Plan (IAP), but there is more.  An astute planning function in an EOC in any sizeable incident should not only be managing the planning process for the next operational period, they should also looking ahead.  They may be pulling together a plan for something like debris management or utility restoration which is expected to be an operational focus in a few days, or perhaps planning for the transition to recovery operations, or even for demobilization.  As such, the Incident Support Model calls for the Planning Support Section to be divided between Current (and next operational period) Planning and Future Planning.  With an organization model underscoring this, we will hopefully see Planning Sections focused on future outcomes as much as they are focused on short-term processes.

The Incident Support Model is certainly a workable structure, which seems to remove some of the awkwardness of the tactically-built ICS-based structure from the EOC.  While we’ve certainly evolved the ICS-based structure to meet our needs in an EOC, I think many, myself included, were reluctant to make the changes needed to make it more functional in an EOC environment and still have it reflect ICS.

Now that jurisdictions are retooling and building this new model into their plans, however, we are in a bit of an awkward position in regard to training and utilization of staff. In the absence of national training program to support this model, jurisdictions are left on their own to train staff how to function in this structure.  Many jurisdictions have invested a great deal of time to have staff trained in the NIMS Position-specific courses.  While I don’t see that training as being wholly wasteful in light of a change to this model, there are obviously some adaptations to be made for those looking to utilize that training in an EOC using the Incident Support Model.  Even established Incident Management Teams (IMTs), which follow the ICS model, will need to determine how they will adjust their deployment to fit EOCs which may use the Incident Support Model.  The functions of this model certainly aren’t foreign, but may require a crosswalk of sorts for personnel who are otherwise trained or qualified to work in an ICS-based environment.

Working with clients who are adopting this model, I’m looking forward to seeing it in action and further identifying pros and cons.  Knowing that some have been using this model for some time, I’m also interested in reviewing their lessons learned, particularly things like operational flow, adaptations to the Planning P, job action sheets, and other things.

© 2018 – Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC

 

Advertisements

EOC Skillsets and Position Task Books Finalized

Back in April, FEMA released the drafts of EOC skillset documents and position task books for public comment.  A few days ago, the final versions of these documents were released on FEMA’s National Qualification System (NQS) website: www.fema.gov/national-qualification-system.

While the hub of emergency response is the incident command post, the hub of emergency coordination is the Emergency Operations Center.  While life saving tactics, directed from the ICP, are absolutely essential, a comprehensive and long-term response can’t be sustained without the activities of an EOC.  We have gone far too long in emergency management without having good national guidance on the organization and qualification of personnel in the EOC.

When you crack into the website you may be a bit overwhelmed by all the documents you find.  Don’t look to this as something that must be implemented 100% right away.  Take a deep breath and remember that most things done well in emergency management, ironically enough, are an evolution and take time.  Also remember that while this has been established as guidance, it’s not a requirement.  Implement what you can, when you can.  Focus on establishing a foundation you can build from and do what makes sense for your jurisdiction or organization.

The foundation of everything in emergency management is planning, so whatever you do decide to implement should find its way into plans, which may need to be supported by policy.  While implementing a qualification system with task books can be cumbersome, it can also solve some problems when it comes to having less than qualified personnel working in your EOC.  The position task books are a great way for individuals to see what standards they are being held to and allows them to track progress.  If you don’t feel that the use of position task books will work for your jurisdiction or you are on a slower track to implementation, it’s still worthwhile to examine the skillset documents for each position you have identified in your EOC.  These can support your own developed standards, expectations, and plans; serve as a foundation for training course development; and support exercise evaluation.

Lastly, talk about these with your committees and your peers.  It’s easy to forget about them so keep these visible.  These documents offer an abundance of solid guidance which can strongly support your operational coordination.

What are your thoughts on the EOC skillsets? Do you plan on implementing them in your system?  If so, how?  If not, why not?

Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC℠

How to Categorize a Hurricane?

There has been a lot of discussion lately on rethinking how we categorize hurricanes.  At present, we use the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale, which provides a category (numbered 1-5) based on the hurricane’s present sustained wind speed.  While this scale has served as the standard for several decades, it is based only upon one impact of hurricanes – wind.  As such, the Saffir-Simpson scale is not a good universal predictor of potential hurricane impacts.

To better consider how we can categorize hurricanes, we should understand those impacts.

  • Wind is an ever-present threat from hurricanes. The highest reaches of these winds can be utterly devastating, practically leveling an area of built infrastructure and foliage. Wind speeds can be measured throughout the entire life of the hurricane, and wind speeds can be predicted with reasonable accuracy.  While tornadoes are generally expected with hurricanes, their intensity is difficult to predict.
  • Storm Surge is the greatest threat to coastal areas from a hurricane. Storm surge is defined as the rising of the sea as a result of atmospheric pressure changes and wind associated with a storm.  Essentially, the winds of the hurricane push water up on to land creating sudden inundation.  The height and degree of inundation of storm surge is dependent upon several factors including wind speed, tide, natural and built barriers, and distance inland.
  • Rain, like wind, is a sustained threat from hurricanes, potentially causing flooding well inland. The geographic size of hurricanes tends to result in saturation from rain across a wide area, making the management of runoff incredibly difficult.  In coastal areas, rain will obviously contribute to the flooding conditions caused by storm surge.

In recognition of the hazards, there have been proposals for categorizing hurricanes based upon hazards other than wind.  While I’m no meteorologist, I can certain identify that these will provide even less valuable data than wind alone.  While it’s true that storm surge is often the most impactful hazard of hurricanes, the extent of potential damage from storm surge varies so wildly based upon a variety of factors, there are few general statements that can be made about it to establish any kind of categorization.  Further, how will the storm threat be categorized to those too far inland to be impacted by storm surge?  Rating a hurricane based upon rain is even less of a full picture than those who argue against wind.

The Saffir-Simpson scale begins to approach the problem by also defining the types of damage that can be caused by hurricanes of different intensities.  These defined impacts, however, are limited to wind damages.  Certainly the ideal model provides categories which define expected levels of damage from wind, rain, and storm surge combined.  Such models may be more informative to the public, elected officials, first responders, and emergency managers.  There are efforts under way to examine some potential new models.  Be alert to what gets proposed and be sure to provide feedback.

Have I missed anything here?  Are there any other considerations for how we should be categorizing hurricanes?

Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC℠

 

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018

It’s challenging at times to keep track of legislation relevant to any industry, especially when unrelated items are included in bills.  HR 302 is titled the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, so logically it starts off with a section on sports medicine licensure.  Luckily, the bulk of the bill is centered on aviation, but also happens to include substantial content on emergency management, titled the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018.

Sticking to the aviation side for a moment but also relevant to emergency management folks within that industry, there are a variety of provisions on both airport and airline safety.  There is also a small section on UAS/UAV.  Most notably a provision related to FAA emergency authorizations for drone use as well as one ordering the FAA to conduct a study on fire department and emergency service agency use of drones (§359).  The term for the study, as noted in the bill, is only 180 days, which isn’t a whole lot of time for government, directly or through a contract, to cover every one of the areas they are looking for in this study.  Hopefully the final time frame of this, if it passes, will be extended.

Most applicable to the emergency management community is Division D of this bill (§1201), titled the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018.  This is an important piece of legislation as it is actually an amendment to the Stafford Act.  The Stafford Act has, of course, been amended many times, but it’s worth while for all of use to keep a keen eye on these planned changes to ensure that the writings of political staffers are grounded in reality.  A few of the key points:

  • Authorization for 404 mitigation funding absent a disaster declaration for wildfire mitigation efforts
  • Providing building code and floodplain ordinance support following a disaster (402). This seems to dovetail in with 1241 on post-disaster building safety assessments.  1241 also includes a provision for having NIMS typed resources for these activities.
  • Public and non-profit facilities receiving a contribution fully equal to the federal share of the federal estimate of repair/replacement costs (406)
  • Various provisions related to flood insurance (406)
  • (1208) An interesting provision on providing guidance and annual training to governments and first responders on ‘the need to prioritize assistance to hospitals, nursing homes, and other long-term care facilities…’ as a matter of what is essentially continuity of operations. This also includes guidance and training to these facilities on how they can prepare for their own continuity of operations, as well as a need to coordinate response plans across stakeholder organizations for same.
    • This seems partially to step on the toes of health care preparedness regulations from CMS, but also helps connect the dots necessarily to the whole community. I’m not sure about the need for ‘annual training’, as the administration and tracking of such is a nightmare (and likely unnecessary), but guidance would certainly be welcome.  Perhaps we will see a new Comprehensive Preparedness Guide come from this?
  • (1209) Guidance on evacuation routes in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration. The bill stresses consideration for resiliency of identified routes, special needs populations, public notification regarding these routes, and access to sheltering locations from the evacuation routes.
  • (1218) Establishes National Veterinary Emergency Teams based out of accredited veterinary colleges. Specifically, they are to deploy with USAR resources to provide care for canine search teams as well as animals impacted by the disaster.
  • (1228) Guidance to be issued in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration on the repair, restoration, and replacement of inundated and submerged roads.
  • (1236) A training requirement for governments, first responders, and facilities that store hazardous materials on the coordination of emergency response plans in the event of a local disaster.
    • This is an interesting requirement that is also, perhaps intentionally vague. It seems this would be directed at regulated SARA Title III facilities, but doesn’t specify them.  Is this intended to include community locations like pool supply, auto part, and painting stores?  Hopefully this gets fleshed out more to better communicate who it is intended to apply to. 
  • Increasing efficiency and reducing duplication of grant programs
  • (1244) A relevant provision directing FEMA to contract with the National Academy of Medicine to conduct a study and submit a report regarding best practices in mortality counts as a result of major disasters.
  • There were also a variety of other provisions making adjustments to IA, PA, and Hazard Mitigation programs in addition to what I had already listed.

While a great many bills die on the vine, HR 302 is certainly expected to move forward as it contains some pretty critical legislation.  Modifications, of course, are expected as this bill moves through the House, its sister piece of legislation moves through the Senate, the two versions are resolved, then eventually signed by the President.  The DRRA is something to keep an eye on, though, as it seems to impact all facets of emergency management as well as our relationships with stakeholders.

What are your thoughts on this bill?

Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC℠

Airport Emergency Planning

Through my career I’ve had the opportunity to work with a number of airports on preparedness efforts.  In the past couple of years, that interaction has been greatly amplified through a contract my company successfully completed involving the development of exercises for airports.  As part of this effort, we designed, conducted, and evaluated exercises at ten airports of varying sizes across the nation, from Georgia to Alaska, Massachusetts to California.  Since the primary intent of exercises is to validate plans, we of course requested and reviewed airport emergency plans (AEPs) from each location as part of our preparation for each exercise.

For those not in the know, the requirement for AEPs originates with Federal Aviation Regulation 14 CFR Part 139, which wholly establishes the standards for the certification of airports.  The requirements for AEPs are further refined in DOT/FAA Advisory Circular 150-5200-31C published in May of 2010.   The Advisory Circular is largely implementation guidance.  It’s quite comprehensive and outlines a planning structure, references emergency management doctrine and standards of practice such as NIMS and the National Response Framework, and models a planning process, which mirrors that of CPG-101.  The NFPA also provides guidance in NFPA 424: Guide for Airport/Community Emergency Planning, which reflects on all these as well.

Just like any community emergency operations plan (EOP), AEPs I’ve reviewed run the full spectrum of quality.  Some plans are thorough and comprehensive, while other plans are so focused on meeting the letter of the regulation that they fall short of meeting real needs and being implementation-ready, even though they technically meet the requirements set forth in §139.325.  Regulated industries, which airports largely are, often have a challenge when it comes to emergency planning.  We see this same challenge in radiological emergency plans as well.  The laws and regulations seem to provide so much structure that it is perceived that local variables and subjective analysis aren’t allowed.  As an example, §139.325 states:

“the plan must contain instructions for response to:

  1. Aircraft incident and accidents
  2. Bomb incidents, including designation of parking areas for the aircraft involved
  3. Structural fires
  4. Fires at fuel farms or fuel storage areas
  5. Natural disaster
  6. Hazardous materials/dangerous goods incidents
  7. Sabotage, hijack, or other unlawful interference with operations
  8. Failure of power for movement area lighting
  9. Water rescue situations (as appropriate)”

While the planning process isn’t prescribed in §139.325, nor does it specify if other hazards can be included in the AEP, the Advisory Circular (AC) does expound on this and prescribes a planning process, including a hazard analysis.  The AC states “Through the hazards analysis program, guidance has been provided to assist in the identification of those hazards and disasters specific to an airport that warrant planning attention”.  That phrasing indicates that airports should be planning for hazards beyond what is required by §139.325, yet I’ve seen many that do not.

Obviously ‘natural disaster’ covers a considerable amount of proverbial territory.  Jurisdictions undergo extensive hazard analysis and hazard mitigation planning to identify the breadth and scope of these hazards (which should include all hazards, not just natural disasters).   Many jurisdictions develop very comprehensive EOPs and annexes to address the response needs of each of their primary hazards.  I saw this as a significantly missing component in many AEPs, which treated ‘natural disasters’ as a single hazard.  Further, as many airports stick to the minimum requirement for planning, they fail to address other hazards which could impact them, ranging from dam failure, and nuclear power facility incidents, to currently hot topics such as active shooter/hostile event response (ASHER) and communicable diseases.

Some airports have thankfully recognized the need for expanding beyond the required hazards and have developed plans that better address all of their needs.  On the unfortunate side, again as a regulated industry, I’ve also seen some airports having two sets of plans… one that meets regulation and the other that they feel is more practical for implementation.  Clearly this isn’t the way to go either.  A single, consolidated plan can be developed that meets all needs.

Airports are an interesting animal.  Regardless of governance structure, they are part of the communities which surround them.  Larger airports are also communities of their own, having significant capability, sometimes more than the surrounding jurisdictions.  Airport emergency planning should acknowledge and involve their community relationships and must address all hazards, not just the ones required by Part 139.  Just as with any other type of emergency plan, they must be implementation-ready.  To do so typically requires the added development of standard operating guidelines (SOGs) and job aids, such as check lists and forms.  Plans should also be developed to address recovery issues and business continuity, not just response.  An airport, regardless of governance structure, operates like a business, with many other stakeholders dependent upon their stability and ability to address and rapidly recover from incidents.  They are also obviously transportation hubs, dealing with large volumes of people and significant dollar figures in freight and commerce.

Airport emergency managers have many of the same challenges as the emergency managers of any other community.  Staffing and funding rarely line up with requirements and other priority matters.  I encourage community emergency managers to reach out to their local airports and coordinate, as many hands make easier work for everyone.  Of course, if any airports are seeking assistance in enhancing their preparedness, please contact us as we would love to work with you!

© 2018 – Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC™

 

 

Emergency Management and Succession

Earlier this month, Emergency Management Magazine posted an article by Jim McKay titled ‘Is a Lack of Institutional Knowledge Plaguing Emergency Management?’.  It’s a thought-provoking article on a topic that is relevant to a great many professions.  This is an issue that deals primarily with retirements, but broadly any matter that involves a line of succession.  Not only might someone retire, which is usually, but not always an anticipated event, but they may take or get transferred to a new position, require an extended sick leave, get fired, or even have an untimely death.  In any event, I’m a firm believer that succession should be planned for any situation, and for nearly every position – especially one that’s grown and evolved over time with the individual occupying that position.

If it’s anticipated that someone will be retiring or otherwise leaving, organizations may have the ability to hire or identify a replacement while the person is still there, providing an opportunity for a mentorship.  For as rare as this is, it’s even more rare for that mentorship to be structured or anything but throwing a bunch of paperwork, files, and brain-dumping knowledge at the replacement.  If the departure of the individual isn’t planned, the organization can be left in the lurch.  People hopefully know what that person does, but likely not how they do it.  What are the priority tasks?  How often do they need to be completed?  What is the standard of performance for these tasks?  Who are the primary contacts?  Where can critical files be found?  What do I do if…???

Organizations have an opportunity to hedge against this.  Just as we prepare for disasters, we can prepare for someone vacating a position.  We know it will inevitably happen, so there is no excuse to not prepare for it.  Organizational leadership should promote this effort, spearheaded by human resources.  Checklists and guidance should be developed that cover all aspects of transferring institutional knowledge – from the mundane and practical, to the applied work.  This is a deliberate effort, just like developing an emergency operations plan, and an effort that nearly all positions should be involved in.

For a planned departure, two viable options are a job-share or a structured mentorship.  Both obviously require the organization to commit to overlapping staffing for this position for a period of time since the outgoing and incoming individuals need to work together.  This provides the most effective means of transferring institutional knowledge.  As indicated earlier, these efforts need to be structured, not just a daily data dump.  Use the ‘crawl, walk, run’ concept, giving the incumbent foundational information at first and building from there.  While process is important, there may be some processes that really fall to individual style, so the focus should be more on intent, sources of information, deliverables, and collaboration.  Hands-on experience, as many of us know, is extremely valuable.  The new individual should be going to meetings with the outgoing person, conducting site visits, and participating in other activities.  This also offers an opportunity for introductions to be made to important colleagues and other contacts.

The incumbent should also have face time with their new boss, direct reports, and other interested parties.  This is important to ensuring that expectations of these important stakeholders are communicated directly to the person who will be working with them.

An important tool that should be developed by almost every position is a job book.  This is a written document that outlines every critical aspects of a position.  Starting with the job description and working forward from there.  Fundamentally, this is a simple task, but can take some time over a period of months to develop, and of course it should be kept up to date.  It should identify priority tasks and how they are accomplished, key interactions and contacts, reporting relationships, standards and templates, information sources, deliverables, and due dates.  Each individual should step outside their position and imagine that someone new, who knows little about the position, will walk in tomorrow to take over.  This document should take that person through all important tasks.

The job book has several benefits.  First, it helps provide structure to any possible mentorship or job share that might take place for a planned departure.  It strongly supports an unplanned departure as well as an organization that might not be able to provide for any type of overlap between the outgoing and incoming individuals.  Job books are something I recommend not just for managers, but for most staff, even administrative support staff – It’s amazing how many organizations come to a screeching halt when a key administrative specialist leaves.

Lastly, beyond the process-driven and official things, never underestimate the value of social interactions.  There is a great deal of knowledge transfer that comes from the time of enjoying a meal or a beverage with someone.  While this time might be ‘off the books’, it should absolutely be encouraged and shouldn’t be a single occurrence.  These offer good opportunity for some ‘war stories’ and open conversations outside of the office environment in which a great deal can be learned.

Bottom line – organizational succession should be viewed as an aspect of continuity of operations.  It requires planned and deliberate activities to be most successful.

What kind of program does your organization have?

© 2018 – Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC™

Expanding Hazard Mitigation Plans to Truly Address All Hazards

Planning efforts and documents are incredibly central to everything we do in preparedness.  When we look at the spectrum preparedness elements of Planning, Organizing, Equipping, Training, and Exercises (POETE), ‘planning’ being first should be a reminder that everything goes back to planning.  Our organizations, equipment, training, and exercises should all reflect back on plans.  These aren’t just emergency operations plans, either, but should include all plans.

A fundamental plan for many jurisdictions is the hazard mitigation plan.  Most responders tend to ignore this plan as it’s not about response, but it has a great deal of valuable information.  Hazard mitigation plans are built on a lot of research and data analysis, trends, and science behind a variety of hazards that could impact the area.  For as much as hazard mitigation plans can get neck-deep into science, they are not only good references but can be built into good, actionable plans.  The leadership of practically every agency in a jurisdiction should be involved in the development and update of hazard mitigation plans and be knowledgeable of what they contain.  That said, there are a couple of issues I have with how hazard mitigation plans are done.

First of all, they should be developed to be more than a catalog of information, which is how many are built.  We should be able to do something with them.  FEMA’s standards for hazard mitigation planning have gotten better and better through the years, thankfully.  While their standards include the identification of potential projects for a jurisdiction to address hazards, I’ve seen many plans (and the firms that develop them) cut this section particularly short.  I’ve seen plans developed for major jurisdictions having only a handful of projects, yet I’ve had experience developing plans for much smaller jurisdictions and identifying a significant list of prioritized projects.  While the onus is ultimately on the stakeholders of the jurisdiction to identify projects, consulting firms should still be actually consulting… not just regurgitating and formatting what stakeholders provide them.  A good consultant will advise, suggest, and recommend.  If your consultant isn’t doing so, it’s probably time to find someone else.

The second issue I have with hazard mitigation plans is that so many truly aren’t ‘all-hazard’.  Many hazard mitigation plans address natural hazards and some human-caused hazards, such as damn failures and hazardous materials incidents.  Rarely do we see hazard mitigation plans addressing hazards such as cyber attacks or active shooter/hostile event response (ASHER) incidents.  There are some obvious issues with this.  First, the hazard mitigation plan is generally looked upon to have the best collection of data on hazards for the jurisdiction.  If it excludes hazards, then there is no one good place to obtain that information.  This is particularly dangerous when other plans, such as EOPs, may be based upon the hazards identified in the hazard mitigation plan.  As I mentioned at the beginning, if something isn’t referenced in our planning efforts, it’s likely not to be included in the rest of our preparedness efforts.  Second, if these other hazards aren’t in our hazard mitigation plans, where are we documenting a deliberate effort to mitigate against them?  While hazards like cyber attacks or ASHER incidents are generally seen to be mitigated through actions labeled ‘prevention’ or ‘protection’, they should still be consolidated into our collective mitigation efforts.  Those efforts may transcend traditional hazard mitigation activities, but why would we let tradition impede progress and common sense?  A fire wall should be listed as a hazard mitigation project just as flood control barrier is.  And bollards or large planters are valid hazard mitigation devices just as much as a box culvert.

Let’s be smart about hazard mitigation planning.  It’s a foundational element of our comprehensive preparedness activities.  We can do better.

© 2018 – Timothy Riecker, CEDP

Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC