FEMA National Advisory Council November 2018 Meeting Notes · 2018. 11. 6. · FEMA National Advisory Council November 2018 Meeting Minutes NAC | November 6-8, 2018 PARTICIPANTS NAC

FEMA National Advisory Council November 2018 Meeting Minutes NAC | November 6-8, 2018

PARTICIPANTS

NAC Members 11-6 11-7 11-8

W. Nim Kidd, Chair Yes Yes Yes

Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair Yes Yes Yes

Jeanne Abadie Yes Yes Yes

Gabriele Almon Call-in Call-in No

Sue Anne Bell Yes Yes Yes

Donald Bliss Yes Yes Yes

Donna Boston, P&P, Chair Yes Yes Yes

John Doak No Yes Yes

Paul Downing Yes Yes Yes

August “Dutch” Geisinger Yes Yes Yes

Peter Ginaitt Yes Yes Yes

John Grathwol Yes Yes Yes

Jeffrey Hansen Yes Yes Yes

Eugene Henry, FI&M, Vice Chair Yes Yes Yes

Chris Howell, R&R, Vice Chair Yes Yes Yes

Lisa Jones Yes Yes No

June Kailes Yes Yes No

Emily Kidd Yes Yes Yes

Anna Lang Yes Yes Yes

Linda Langston Yes Yes Yes

Linda Long Yes Yes Yes

Suzet McKinney No No No

Robert Salesses No No No

Jeff Stern, FI&M, Chair Yes Yes Yes

Guy Swan No No No

Tina Titze Yes Yes Yes

James Waskom Yes Yes Yes

DHS and FEMA Personnel

John Allen, FEMA Integration Teams, Resilience Yes No No

Travis Battiest, Policy, Office of Response and Recovery Yes Yes Yes

David Bibo, Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Policy

and Program Analysis Yes No No

Tom Breslin, Office of Response and Recovery Yes No No

Jeff Byard, Associate Administrator, Office of Response

and Recovery Yes No No

Carlos Castillo, Associate Administrator, Resilience Yes No No

Jasper Cooke, Acting Designated Federal Officer (DFO) Yes Yes Yes

Elizabeth Edge, Director, Office of Regional Operations No Yes Yes

Kaili Frye, Resilience Yes No No

NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 2

Pete Gaynor, FEMA Deputy Administrator Yes No No

Jerald “Jay” Harper, Senior Advisor to the Administrator Yes No No

Eric Heighberger, Chief of Staff Yes No No

Marcia Hodges, Director, Office of Executive Operations Yes Yes Yes

Christine Howlett, Policy, Office of Response and Recovery Yes Yes Yes

Paul Huang, Assistant Administrator for Federal Insurance,

Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration Yes No No

Antwane Johnson, IPAWS Division Director and

Subcommittee Chair No Yes No

Patty Kalla, Policy, FIMA Yes No No

Denise “Bambi” Kraus, National Tribal Affairs Advisor,

Office of External Affairs/Intergovernmental Affairs Yes Yes No

Lisa Lofton, Resilience No Yes No

Brock Long, FEMA Administrator Yes No No

Michelle Mallek, ADFO, Office of Chief Counsel Yes Yes Yes

Karen Marsh, Resilience No No Yes

Linda Mastandrea, Director, Office of Disability Integration Yes No No

and Coordination

Bob Nadeau, Director, Intergovernmental Affairs Yes Yes Yes

Jessica Nalepa, Director, Office of External Affairs Yes No No

Leona Osborne, National Capital Region Coordination Yes Yes No

Rick Patrick, USFA No Yes No

Chad Payeur, Resilience No Yes Yes

Tyeshia Roberson, DHS HQ

Tony Robles, IPAWS Subcommittee Alternate Designated

Federal Officer, Resilience Yes Yes Yes

Jacob Rodriguez-Noble, Tribal, Recovery Directorate Yes Yes No

Kevin Smith, Director, DHS Center for Faith and Opportunity

Initiatives Yes Yes No

Kimberly Stephens, Program Specialist, Executive Operations Yes Yes Yes

Rachael Wolff, Analyst, Office of Regional Operations Yes Yes Yes

Other Attendees

Kent Burgess, CohnReznick No No Yes

Matt Chase, CEO/Executive Director, National Association

of Counties Yes No No

Randy Coggin, IPAWS Contractor Support No Yes No

Ed Czarnecki, Monroe/IPAWS Subcommittee Lead No Yes No

Ducati/Adachi Yes No No

Matt Fella, NBEOC POC for Salesforce Yes No No

Roger Fritzel, IPAWS Contractor Support No Yes No

Fior Garay, UDC Law Yes No No

Dr. Gloria Herndon, CB Energy Yes No No

Lindsey Homan, NACo Yes No No

Carter Ivey, IPAWS Contractor Support No Yes No

Stephanie Jerrell-Estep, Nassau County P3 Yes Yes Yes

Benjamin Krakauer, IPAWS Subcommittee Lead No Yes No


Andrew Malin, NAMIC No Yes No

Lillian McDonald, Twin Cities PBS and

IPAWS Subcommittee Lead No Yes No

Dr. Meloyde Batten Mickens, IPAWS Subcommittee Lead No Yes No

Taran Roddy, Atkins Yes No No

Sharolyn Rosier, ISN Corp. No Yes Yes

Ben Shepperd, IPAWS Contractor Support No Yes No

Andy Stern, IPAWS Subcommittee Lead No Yes No

Tafa Tua-Tupola American Samoa UCEDD/

IPAWS Subcommittee Lead No Yes No

Andy Stern, IPAWS Subcommittee Lead No Yes No

Marshall Wallace, IPAWS Contractor Support No Yes No

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY The FEMA National Advisory Council (NAC) met at the National Association of Counties (NACo) from

November 6-8, 2018. On Tuesday, November 6, the meeting included a briefing from Brock Long,

FEMA Administrator, and panel with Jeffrey Byard, Associate Administrator for the Office of Response

and Recovery (ORR); Carlos Castillo, Associate Administrator for Resilience; Jessica Nalepa, Director of

the Office of External Affairs (OEA); Paul Huang, Assistant Administrator for Federal Insurance in the

Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA); and David Bibo, Acting Associate

Administrator for the Office of Policy and Program Analysis (OPPA).

On Wednesday, November 7, the NAC heard from Antwane Johnson, Integrated Public Alert and

Warning System (IPAWS) Division Director and IPAWS Subcommittee Chair. NAC Subcommittees

then reported out and voted on their recommendations.

The meeting concluded on Thursday, November 8, with presentations from Kent Burgess, Principal,

CohnReznick; Karen Marsh, Technical Assistance Branch Chief, FEMA National Integration Center

(NIC); Chad Payeur, Planning Implementation Branch Chief, FEMA NIC and Kyle Pfeiffer, National

Response Framework, Program Executive Office Coordinator, FEMA NIC.

The NAC approved 19 recommendations for the Administrator’s consideration related to 17 issues that

include: preparedness and resilience metrics, increasing social ties, simplifying document collection for

survivors and creating more insurance options. The NAC also approved 14 recommendations from the

IPAWS subcommittee.

Introduction—Tuesday, November 6, 2018 The NAC Leadership Team and individual subcommittees met in the morning. Jasper Cooke, Acting

FEMA NAC Designated Federal Officer (DFO) called the public session to order at 1:00 p.m. Eastern.

NACo Director of Strategic Relations/NAC Subcommittee Chair Linda Langston introduced NACo

Director Matt Chase. Mr. Chase explained the reality of disasters; each of NACo’s counties, parishes or

bureaus had at least one declaration in the past 20 years, with Los Angeles having among the most. He


suggested increasing resilience by forging government partnerships with the private sector and insurance

industry. Mr. Chase also encouraged practitioners and policymakers to work together on clarifying the

role of emergency management. He welcomed the NAC and expressed appreciation for their work.

Recently appointed NAC Chair Nim Kidd and Vice Chair Jeff Hansen also welcomed the NAC and gave

time for the members to introduce themselves before introducing FEMA Administrator Brock Long.

BROCK LONG, FEMA ADMINISTRATOR Operations Update and FEMA Strategic Priorities

Administrator Long introduced Deputy Administrator Pete Gaynor, who recently served as Director of the

Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency (RIEMA). Mr. Long explained that Mr. Gaynor will

oversee internal operations such as hiring and IT infrastructure. Mr. Long expressed confidence in the

Deputy based on his experience improving RIEMA and the Providence Emergency Management Agency.

The Administrator continued that, “We need to change our business enterprise.” Hurricanes Harvey, Irma

and Maria cost the Agency approximately $80 billion in Public Assistance (PA), which is about the same

disaster assistance FEMA provided from the agency’s inception on April 1, 1979 through the end of

2016. FEMA registered 2.3 million people for Individual Assistance (IA) in Irma alone. Super Typhoon

Yutu was one of the strongest storms on record, decimating a third of housing on Saipan and Tinian. Mr.

Long stressed that with all but 17 percent of FEMA staff in the field, the agency is close critical

workforce levels. Because of all these factors, FEMA cannot keep supporting disasters under $41

million.

The Administrator said that the Agency has been learning a lot from recent disasters. During Harvey,

almost 80 percent of homes in Harris County were uninsured, especially since most properties were

outside of flood hazard areas. Mr. Long said there is a need to message flood risk to the correct audience.

To that end, he has met with the National Association of Realtors to encourage that “a mitigated home is a

valuable home.”

The Administrator continued that Hurricane Michael was one of the worst disasters he has seen. Its 14-

foot sea rise and 150+ mile per hour winds obliterated infrastructure. Some city managers executed

debris contracts during the response, but we need to encourage that work in advance. In response, FEMA

is pushing out pre-event contract toolkits.

The Agency is also using seven community lifelines to prioritize response efforts. They use common

terms so are a better way to communicate with the public. One Emergency Support Function (ESF) can

also function in multiple lanes, so the lifelines should be more clear and allow more private sector

involvement.

The Administrator then discussed the Strategic Plan and some new initiatives at FEMA:

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) passed in September 2018 and is transformational with

over 60 provisions for the Agency. The management costs interim policies cover PA management costs

up to 12 percent and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) management costs up to 15 percent.


These changes will supplement the provision on pre-disaster mitigation (PDM), which frontloads 6

percent of mitigation dollars (estimated $2 to $2.5 billion available in 2017).

FEMA Pitch is a single-entry point for the private sector into FEMA. The dashboard will track contracts

and assets belonging to FEMA, other federal agencies and the private sector. This initiative seeks to

reduce disaster costs. Future initiatives may encourage private and insurance coverage of public

buildings and contents. FEMA spent $16.62 billion on uninsured public assets from 1992 – 2016.

FEMA Integration Teams (FIT) continue rolling out based on jurisdictional needs and national hazards.

FEMA’s Region X established the first tribal FIT team on November 6, 2018. This partnership aligns

with EMI updating its tribal curriculum and the Agency requirement for employees to complete tribal

training by January 2019.

Mr. Long concluded by saying there are over 700 disasters open nationwide. FEMA is also rewriting the

National Response Framework (NRF) to include ESF-14 on infrastructure and cross sector partnerships.

FEMA will push forward to transform emergency management, even though its budget may not increase.

Discussion

Ms. Bell asked about what FEMA is doing to increase diversity in its hiring practices and professional

emergency management.

The Administrator responded that FEMA was rocked internally. FEMA hired a new Equal Rights

Director to handle, among other things, the harassment and inappropriate hiring practices. FEMA also

established an Office of Professional Responsibility. There has been mandatory training for all members

of the Senior Executive Service. Mr. Long said that FEMA needs to rebuild its entire approach for a safe

work environment.

Still, Mr. Long said that FEMA struggles with diversity in its higher positions. Assistant Administrator

for Federal Insurance Paul Huang added that FEMA Employee Resource Groups met with FEMA’s

Diversity Management Council and FEMA’s Crisis Action Planning Team to focus on hiring practices

and diversity and inclusion, which resulted in some policy actions to improve hiring.

The Administrator said that FEMA is trying to change holistically. Most of FEMA’s employees are not

involved with incident command but are project managers. He hopes to move toward an academy-style

hiring process at the GS 10/11 level. FEMA also needs bilingual staff. Mr. Long said that fundamental

changes are needed, and the DRRA helps with the consistency problem and the revolving door at lower

levels. FEMA has many types of employees, but only Permanent Full-Time employees earn credit for

their time to apply for other competitive positions. Another big gap in emergency management is the lack

of women, minorities and tribal members owning and operating emergency management consultancy

firms.

Mr. Bliss asked about the prognosis of FEMA’s IT infrastructure.

The Administrator said that FEMA has a long way to go. Over 50 percent of FEMA’s infrastructure is no

longer vendor supported. Over the years, FEMA had no life cycle planning. There are 93 major

computer systems and many more sub-systems, and FEMA cannot afford to build anymore.


Ms. Boston explained that California is employing mapping to reach out to community members. She

observed that local and national advancements are not plugged in together.

The Administrator responded that emergency management has been fragmented, and it shows on the Hill.

He mentioned Linda Mastandrea, Director of the Office of Disability Integration and Coordination

(ODIC) and explained that even this sub-community is so fragmented that some groups are protesting,

despite FEMA’s effort to be inclusive. Mr. Long said that FEMA is working on building unity through

planning, especially in the health/medical field by trying to mitigate and provide power to dialysis

centers. The emergency management community needs to identify and target those chronic problems.

Mr. Downing questioned the unfunded mandate of the state-funded preparedness report: What is the

statistical data value to FEMA when looking at about 12-15 tribes or 2.6 percent of tribes in the nation?

Associate Administrator for Resilience Carlos Castillo responded that it is difficult to get information

from the tribes, especially in a coordinated effort. In general, FEMA seeks input for Threat and Hazard

Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA), so states/locals can learn from their capabilities as well.

The Administrator added that grant funding depends on capabilities and FIT Teams help to close that gap.

Ms. Long asked how FEMA could use private companies to craft memorable campaigns. Ms. Boston,

P&P Subcommittee Chair, suggested involving different groups in preparedness messaging.

The Administrator said that External Affairs Director Jessica Nalepa is leading a reorganization of the

Office of External Affairs. Disaster financial resilience is at the core of FEMA’s problems. FEMA has

collaborated with the Small Business Administration, NACo, financial advisors, real estate and others to

tell FEMA’s story and continues to try to improve the message.

Mr. Ginaitt proposed that the private sector would be integral to change. He recommended

professionalizing the industry, since people often identify fire and police as their emergency managers.

The Administrator agreed that it’s time for emergency management 2.0, beyond the lights and sirens. An

emergency manager’s role is informing city/county managers of funding opportunities and building

partnerships.

Mr. Grathwol discussed Community Development Block Grant Disaster grants six years after Sandy. He

would like to see conversations on the culture of preparedness and capacity building, such as long-term

financial preparedness and grant management. Ms. Langston added that we need to shape continuity

by engaging with local elected officials. Mr. Waskom asked about the life cycle of large disasters.

The Administrator is a huge believer of 428 or "outcome driven recovery” and said, “if you expect

traditional recovery, expect traditional results.” Mr. Long also added that FEMA needs to focus on fixed-

cap grant recovery. Mr. Grathwol said that 428 grants in New York were simpler and provided cost

effective, mitigated design.

Mr. Howell mentioned Native American contractors. FEMA should hire some marketing firms that are

Native American-based, so some publications can be reviewed before going to print.

The Administrator agreed with this suggestion.

Mr. Henry noted some data gaps in the flood insurance program. He suggested that FEMA impose a few

higher standards for land use and construction to hold local communities accountable.


The Administrator responded that the only way he could do that is to start incentivizing it.

Ms. Jones shared that city council meetings often discuss the need for more fire and police responders.

She asked for an estimate of how many emergency managers are needed per capita.

The Administrator is trying to help state and local governments by providing a toolbox of grant

opportunities, PDM, FIT Teams, pre-event contracts, etc. He did not know if there has been a study on

right-sizing emergency management. According to Mr. Long, FEMA must do more hard work on that

front; bigger emergency management may not be the answer. When Ms. Jones followed-up about

county-level funding and incentives, Mr. Long suggested meeting with elected officials and risk

managers.

Mr. Long also recommended John Hope Bryant of Operation HOPE, whose research encourages financial

resiliency by raising the collective credit score of a community and turning renters into homeowners.

Ms. Kailes explained there had been a change in ODIC’s focus with unintended effects on those with

disabilities and others with access and functional needs (AFN). In the past, Ms. Kailes said the

community had “go to” people to troubleshoot problems during response, but now there are gaps in the

field.

Ms. Mastandrea responded that FEMA still has Disability Integration (DI) Advisors staffing disasters, as

well as people on the phone calls to which Ms. Kailes alluded. The new focus is for disability

organizations to fold into Voluntary Organizations After Disasters and Voluntary Agency Liaisons.

Mastandrea envisions DIs serving as resources/advisors rather than case managers.

Mr. Byard mentioned embedding a DI into the ORR Front Office as part of a FEMA-wide effort.

The Administrator continued that we’re not thinking big enough when it comes to AFN. He mentioned

the legal changes in DRRA which stop penalization of disability needs from the maximum grant. He also

said that while FEMA is being criticized for not mentioning people with disabilities and others with AFN

in the Strategic Plan, cultural diversity, inclusion and ADA are already laws and part of FEMA’s DNA.

Dr. Kidd asked about the role of FEMA in unprepared dialysis centers, mental health facilities and

nursing homes. She also questioned whether local leaders should be given more responsibility for these

plans instead of their relying on Emergency Medical Services.

Mitigation is the only topic that came to mind. FEMA doesn’t have the legal authority to address the

issue now, and this really is a Health and Human Services issue, which FEMA inherited due to its

evacuation role.

Ms. Lang discussed the apparent duplicative resilience efforts by National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) and DHS. She questioned the complexity and goals of FEMA’s “resilience” plan.

Mr. Byard discussed infrastructure resilience and power. He would like to use data on housing and water

to expedite grants. Power already has a seat at the table.

Mr. Castillo mentioned the Resilience reorganization at FEMA composed of National Preparedness

Division (NPD), National Continuity Programs (NCP), Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) and FIMA.

He said that while resilience has been a buzz term, it does describe FEMA’s goals.


JEFFREY BYARD, Associate Administrator, Office of Response and Recovery; CARLOS CASTILLO, Associate Administrator, Resilience; PAUL HUANG, Assistant Administrator, Federal Insurance, Resilience; JESSICA NALEPA, Director, Office of External Affairs; and DAVID BIBO, Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Policy and Program

Analysis

FEMA Leadership Dialogue—discussion, questions and comments

Office of Response and Recovery

Mr. Byard began by stating his appreciation to sit in front of the NAC. He addressed “outcome-based

recovery” and Section 428, which has evolved since Sandy. National guidance will promote large

projects with fixed cost estimates, requiring jurisdictions to “opt-out” if they do not wish to participate.

Mr. Grathwol then discussed eligibility, while Mr. Waskom discussed appeals and arbitration. Mr. Byard

clarified regional appeals and second appeals, but Mr. Waskom encouraged FEMA to come up with

solutions for deobligations. In turn, Mr. Byard charged the NAC to create this recommendation, with Mr.

Bibo suggesting that it acknowledges oversight concerns. When Chair Kidd focused further on this, Mr.

Byard responded that FEMA does not agree with the NAC recommendation that the first appeal be sent to

an RA outside of the Region. The revised process should clarify that the person who wrote the project

cannot sign the appeal. FEMA also needs to give better reasoning behind its denial of appeals.

To conclude, Mr. Byard mentioned that the NAC’s recommendations on IA declaration factors (18-34)

are under discussion. Mr. Grathwol discussed cost estimate validation (Recommendation 18-31),

referencing data sampling in 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 200. FEMA did not agree with

using auditing tools to validate cost estimates. Mr. Byard also addressed underruns; FEMA legally

cannot carry over management costs since they are tied to a disaster.

Office of Resilience

Mr. Castillo shared some recommendations that were implemented: PDM (Recommendations 18-15 and

18-16) and integrating children into exercises (Recommendations 18-26 to 18-28). He reminded the

audience that FEMA’s new Resilience re-organization aims to achieve a culture of preparedness.

Priorities include quadrupling mitigation investment by 2022, closing the insurance gap and increasing

financial preparedness. Innovating and learning from past disasters using the THIRA and Stakeholder

Preparedness Report are also important, as the assessments can be used to close the funding gap at the

local level. Castillo also emphasized DRRA and the approval of creating a tribal FIT Team in Region X.

Ms. Langston raised the idea of documenting local mitigation through a portal, since some locals feel

underappreciated for their investments. The National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration has a

fellow documenting the work of coastal counties, so Langston would like to increase partnerships with

similar agencies. She proposed that states own this portal and collect local information to inform best

practices.


Mr. Castillo responded that the challenge would be getting people to use the portal. FEMA was asking

fire departments to report similar information. Mr. Huang added that FEMA has baselined the federal

contribution of mitigation, but it is up to the private sector and local communities to do more. He liked

the idea of sharing best practices and mentioned FIMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) as an

example of how to celebrate and incentivize communities. Perhaps FEMA could work with the State

Association of Floodplain Managers or other partners to create a portal or wiki page.

Chair Kidd proposed reframing Issue 4 on Model Building Codes (Recommendations 18-18 to 18-22).

Ms. Lang inquired about tracking the adoption of model building codes at the state and local level and the

impact of the Federal Alliance for Safe Homes (Recommendations 18-18 to 18-22). Mr. Bibo discussed

the Cost Share Adjustment Initiative and the DRRA requirement that FEMA reward states with forward-

leaning building codes. He said that the Administrator never misses an opportunity to talk about the

effectiveness of local land use decisions. However, there needs to be a platform for local engagement.

Mr. Huang then presented on FIMA’s work to close the insurance gap. From September 2017 to

September 2018, FEMA saw a 5 percent increase in flood insurance coverage. Through trips with the

claim’s insurance team, he observed that the dialogue in communities is shifting to individuals buying

insurance. After all, the average IA award is only $4,000 to $6,000. Home values drop when flooding is

constant. Still, there are people who do not have flood insurance. Huang mentioned FEMA’s efforts to

apply behavioral science on marketing ads in communities adjacent to those that flood. As a result,

FEMA saw a 25 percent growth in insurance policies in Harris County last year. He asked for the NAC’s

input and ideas. He also acknowledged the NAC’s input on Letter of Map Amendments

(Recommendation 18-17), which requires a statute change. Huang concluded by addressing data sharing,

especially policy data with states. He suggested that NAC Members work with their Region to make the

request for emergency management purposes (though there are some restrictions). When Ms. Langston

asked for data at the census block level, Huang replied that FEMA is working on public access via

OpenFEMA.

Mr. Grathwol mentioned that New York is floating a property tax exemption for income-means tested

people to have mitigation. Huang replied it was a great idea, since a homeowner would not be penalized

if their home value increased.

Mr. Hansen stated he was refreshed to hear about the increase in policies. Yet, he asked about risk and

wondered whether the increase in flood insurance policies was due to disasters or messaging. Mr. Huang

said that both are correct. Targeted marketing in shoulder areas had a 75 percent uptick in buying flood

insurance. Risk messaging was not as effective as focusing on the financial impacts such as “one inch of

water costs ‘x’ dollars.”

Chair Kidd commented that IA and insurance averages should be targeted to specific disasters. In

Harvey, for example, 895,000 people went online or called FEMA. 610,000 people received some sort of

FEMA inspection. 5,275 people received the maximum grant. The average IA grant for Texas was only

around $2,000, while NFIP policies paid out $93,000 on average. Ms. Kailes suggested talking about the


“why,” so that the public understands the difference between the maximum and average payouts, and

delivering the message in a timely manner, to which Castillo agreed.

Office of External Affairs

Ms. Nalepa said working in EA taught her that there is a lack of understanding about FEMA’s role. EA is

focused on representing FEMA as a grant-giving Agency that supports SLTT efforts. Nalepa explained

that while there used to be a disconnect between components, relationships have improved. EA includes

Congressional Affairs, Intergovernmental Affairs (IGA), Public Affairs and Strategic Communications.

EA has partnered with the Individual and Community Preparedness Division to transform the Ready

Campaign into a systematic, national, year-round effort for all of FEMA’s preparedness messaging.

There has been buy-in from communities who had the opportunity to provide feedback. State-level

Program Information Officers also helped FEMA design graphics. Nalepa is encouraging a more data-

driven approach to social media. In 2016, the Ready Campaign published preparedness kit videos on

Facebook that did not resonate well. Instead, EA is testing geotargeted ads, as Mr. Huang mentioned,

with partners such as Facebook, Twitter, Pandora, Spotify, the National Ad Council (reached 12 million

viewers in 24 hours) and Apple News. FEMA recently hosted its largest Preparedness Month tour,

broadcasting over 116 senior leadership interviews and engaging members of Congress.

Ms. Nalepa also addressed P&P’s Recommendation 18-23, sharing that the Administrator wants to

consider non-traditional stakeholders. FEMA has reached out to HGTV to find a program fit for

education about resilience. BBC America conducted a tri-part series on FEMA. HBO Vice also attended

the National Response and Coordination Center (NRCC) during the 2018 hurricane season. Nalepa said

that FEMA is learning new ways to tell its story and make emergency management accessible.

Ms. Nalepa concluded with National Tribal Advisor Denise “Bambi” Kraus and mentioned updates to

tribal courses. She agreed with Recommendation 18-35 on conducting a national capability assessment

for tribal nations. Recommendation 18-37, which suggested including tribal positions on the National

Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs), may be a challenge. In the meantime, FEMA has

dedicated a second EA position tied to IGA in the IMATs which can also support tribal nations. Both EA

representatives on N-IMAT are expected to have advanced tribal training.

Mr. Stern observed that FEMA employees were not displaying the logo during recent emergency work in

Virginia. Mr. Byard responded that employees can wear FEMA gear anywhere they deem appropriate.

Ms. Nalepa added that FEMA and emergency management at large has not had a cohesive brand.

Mr. Ginaitt suggested using pictograms during emergencies. There are a lot of things associated by

images, so it would help to standardize hazards. Ms. Nalepa responded that FEMA is working to distill

its disaster guidance down to one page and has created graphics for concepts such as the community

lifelines. In general, Ms. Nalepa wants FEMA to speak in plain language.

Ms. Kailes commented that while financial resilience is good, the emergency management community

does not focus on those who cannot afford preparedness. She continued that the “You Are the Help Until

Help Arrives” is a misnomer, since individuals help throughout the disaster. EA agreed with expanding


its messaging. Mr. Byard responded that there has been similar messaging in the past (e.g. “First 72 is on

you”) but agreed such messaging does not matter if people cannot buy 14 days’ worth of supplies.

Ms. Langston asked about messaging and engaging local communities. Mr. Castillo said that it can be

impossible for emergency responders to react within three days if a large community is affected, such as

in Hurricane Andrew. The challenge is finding inexpensive ways to prepare. Mr. Byard emphasized that

first responders are neighbors, not necessarily police or fire. Ms. Boston said that many locals cannot

fund the targeted messaging that might be required.

Ms. Boston then asked about the Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) test. Mr. Castillo responded that the

event occurred during the National Emergency Managers Association’s Annual Forum and went well.

Ms. Nalepa added that there was some confusion since the message came from the President. Still,

emergency management is learning to test these different alerting capabilities; a similar tool was used in

Florida and Georgia during Hurricane Michael for points of distribution. Ms. Bell asked about mandates

on the name. Mr. Castillo responded that it is in statute. The alert is supposed to be serious enough to

rise to the national level.

Vice Chair Hansen commented on the tribal curriculum. He appreciated the update but requested yearly

funding for a true refresh. Ms. Kailes chimed in that the curriculum issue extends beyond tribal. Mr.

Hansen also asked for clarification on the tribal role on IMAT Teams. Ms. Nalepa responded that FEMA

is training existing members before bringing new people on board.

Mr. Downing cited 6 U.S.C § 317, which requires that state, local, and tribal governments be consulted in

appointing each Regional Administrator. Ms. Nalepa said an internal working group is addressing these

provisions. Ms. Kraus serves as a resource in the National Tribal Advisory Group/IGA and advises Ms.

Nalepa and the Administrator.

Office of Policy and Program Analysis

Mr. Bibo discussed DRRA. FEMA is faced with implementation without funding. The executive and

working levels are convening to remain consistent with the Strategic Plan and the Administrator’s intent.

However, it will be important to manage expectations since some aspects of DRRA will complicate

FEMA’s execution and engagement, especially in open disasters. FEMA will try to balance these needs

through interim guidance. Still, Mr. Bibo said that DRRA is a significant change on topics such as

management costs, PDM, granting authority for housing missions and parity pay for people with

disabilities and other AFN. Most, if not all, of the provisions would be retroactive, but states and local

governments will have choices along the way. Mr. Bibo went on to address disaster costs. FEMA needs

to lessen the burden of covering public buildings or have the private sector cover some risk.

Mr. Stern requested a toolkit from FEMA by January 1, 2019 to inform newly elected officials and

emergency management staff about this changing context of risk, tradeoffs and proactive investment. Ms.

Langston agreed, bolstering the role of governors as trusted advisors.

CONCLUSION


Vice Chair Jeff Hansen and Chair Nim Kidd thanked the panel for their participation. Jasper Cooke,

Acting FEMA NAC DFO, adjourned the NAC meeting at 5:00 p.m. Eastern.

Introduction—Wednesday, November 7, 2018 Jasper Cooke, Acting FEMA NAC DFO, called the public session to order at 8:30 a.m. Eastern. He

reviewed safety protocols and introduced the day's agenda. Chair Nim Kidd welcomed everyone to the

NAC Meeting and allowed time for NAC member introductions to kickoff day two.

ANTWANE JOHNSON, IPAWS Division Director and Subcommittee Chair IPAWS Overview and Update Mr. Johnson introduced his team and began with a video on the IPAWS mission, which covers weather

alerts, AMBER (America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) and Child Abduction Emergency

(CAE) alerts and Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA). There are over 1,170 active emergency alerting

authorities using IPAWS services. IPAWS processes an average of 40,000 messages each month.

During his presentation, Mr. Johnson explained the history of U.S. public alerting from 1951 to present.

National alert and warning capabilities are governed by policy, law and regulation, including Executive

Order (EO) 13407 and Public Law (PL) 114-143 which established the IPAWS Subcommittee for three

years. IPAWS has not yet been used for a national-level alert, but the War Powers Act of 1934 grants the

President access and authority to emergency communications.

Federal and SLTT agencies use IPAWS and IPAWS Open Platform for Emergency Networks (IPAWS-

OPEN) to issue messages as Emergency Alert System (EAS) broadcasts on radio and television, WEA on

cellphones, NOAA All Hazards Weather Radio and warnings on applications/websites. There are 74

physical stations covering up to 90 percent of the population. Up to 69.1 percent of the population is

covered by local alerting authorities with IPAWS access, but the entire population is covered by an

alerting system, usually managed by the state. Most stations are electromagnetic pulse protected and

equipped with backup generators. Presently, there are three tribal alerting authorities: Cocopah Nation,

Navajo Nation and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. IPAWS was used during the Southern

California wildfires, issuing 20 WEA alerts and two EAS alerts between December 5-16, 2017, as well as

during Hurricane Michael, issuing 222 WEA alerts and 26 EAS alerts between October 8-15, 2018.

Discussion—questions and comments

Mr. Howell said that the Navajo Nation has its own language broadcast. Would IPAWS messages be

disseminated in Navajo language as well?

Mr. Johnson was not aware of Navajo’s broadcasting. The language is usually determined by the alert

originator. Places such as Echo, Minnesota use English, Spanish, Hmong and Somali.

Ms. Lang inquired about the population not covered by a local alerting authority with access to IPAWS.


Mr. Johnson said that there are challenges with outreach and funding. States are eligible for grant

programs but there are competing priorities. Locals have difficulty funding alerting applications to

interface with IPAWS. Both have governance challenges managing the services and alert types.

Mr. Ginaitt proposed that with every alert, the retraction of that alert is as important as the alert itself.

How do we retract something that went wrong, and how quickly can we prevent a delay like in Hawaii?

Mr. Johnson agreed that September 13 was unfortunate. He said that one aspect which is overlooked was

how Hawaii was actively training and refining their contingency plans. However, they had not completed

everything by the time the alert went out. Within the IPAWS systems, states have the authority to take

immediate corrective action. This needs to be accurately captured in preparedness plans so that they can

react immediately. The IPAWS report also includes recommendations on false or erroneous alerts. Mr.

Ginaitt asked a follow-up question on alerting ahead of time, such as tornadoes. Mr. Johnson said

messages need to be improved for severe weather warnings.

Ms. Bell inquired about only three territories [District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands]

having IPAWS public alerting authorities. Were there concerns with the hurricane center that hit the

Marianas?

Mr. Johnson and the IPAWS team explained that FEMA is encouraging existing carriers to leverage the

IPAWS system. Territories in the Pacific region have not requested access to use IPAWS. A big

incentive for using IPAWS is the ability to send WEA, but there are no wireless carriers in Guam,

American Samoa, or the CNMI that participate in sending WEA. Carriers in the pacific territories are

also not U.S.-based carriers that fall under FCC regulation. Radio and TV stations in the pacific

territories do participate in EAS, but each of the territorial governments has local coordination plans for

use of EAS outside of the IPAWS connections.

The U.S., Australia, Germany and Italy have adopted the Carrier Alerting Protocol (CAP), which is a

standard information format for all IPAWS system messages. There are also several International

Telecommunication Union (ITU) technical implementation recommendations that adopt CAP.

Even more countries can use SMS Cell Broadcast – the same technology used for WEA – to send alerts to

cell phones. How the carriers and cell phone manufactures implement WEA is based on industry

technical standards developed and published by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions

(ATIS), and the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA).

Ms. Lang noted that some people did not receive alerts during the California wildfires and asked for

improvements to speed up the process for the local level to issue messaging.

Mr. Johnson said that outreach and awareness of the system would improve speed. Once local authorities

understand the system, they can make informed decisions on when to use it and notify the local

populations. Many people are hesitant since they are not familiar with the technology and are afraid to

over-alert. The FCC adopted rules for carriers in 2016 to increase messaging from 90 to 360 characters

and to geo-target messages. All phones should receive the message with no more than one-tenth of a mile

of overreach. In the California wildfires, some areas did not use the system because they did not want to


over-alert outside of the immediate danger area. However, with these improvements and multi-language

ability, fewer reasons exist not to use this system in the threat of public safety.

Ms. Boston agreed, sharing that Southern California/Orange County used WEA for two years in a row.

They knew they were going to over-alert. The first fire occurred at the same time as Santa Rosa, so there

were no lessons learned yet. Feedback from Camp Fire and Holy Fires was more helpful. Boston said

that we should not be driven by fear. They are now moving into complex coordination and plans for

WEA, IPAWS and local alerting systems. For example, the Holy Fire split two counties and required

simultaneous alerting. It made a big difference that they could blanket information, but they needed

strong information and staff to do it.

Chair Kidd said that there is no “one size fits all” perspective. Texas was concerned with coordination

and execution of messaging across jurisdictions. IPAWS was just one messaging tool, since sometimes

the first alerting authority is the first responder. Ms. Lang, Mr. Johnson, Chair Kidd and Mr. Waskom

then discussed national, state and local alerts, especially for evacuations and little to no notice events.

Ms. Boston inquired about reliance on cellphone towers, especially 12 hours after a power outage when

circuits are de-energized and battery power is ineffective. Ms. Kailes asked if there was an FCC or other

standard about cell tower backup power.

Mr. Johnson said that while there are some reserve communications systems and backup power to cell

sites, there is no standard for operational sites. Chair Kidd spoke to the fact that wildfires burned some

areas with towers before they could broadcast, stressing again that alert and warning is only one tool.

Vice Chair Hansen commented that there are 573 tribes. Has the pattern of county-level authority

stemmed from outreach or state direction? What outreach mechanisms have been successful?

Mr. Johnson said that state directors have pulled in local emergency managers at state conferences to

leverage and use these services. This has impacted legislation in California and an initiative to fund a

state-wide alerting tool that will be pushed to local governments in Florida. Governance is also critical.

Ms. Jones said that funding and staffing are local challenges. She noted Ms. Lang’s point on how to

increase efficiency. How about reverse 911?

Mr. Johnson reported that Dave Simpson, FCC Chief of Public Safety, took a road trip to public-safety

answering points (PSAPs) and the 911 Community. Many state directors put these services into PSAPs.

Most facilities were staffed 24/7 if they had the messaging capacity, funding and transition of 911

services. Chair Kidd shared that the surcharge for 911 fees in Texas pays for reverse 911 fees.

Other comments

Mr. Stern complimented IPAWS’ improved alerts around tornados and sheltering. Ms. Jones reminded

the group that state directors rely on emergency managers, so never get too comfortable to act alone.

SUBCOMMITTEES REPORT OUT AND VOTING

IPAWS, Chair Antwane Johnson presenting


Mr. Johnson presented 17 recommendations sorted into five themes, which were all passed in the

Subcommittee by majority vote. The Subcommittee was composed of 45 members form SLTT and

industry partners, as well as eight standing federal officials.

Theme 1: Improving Alerting Authorities’ Ability to Transmit Effective Alerts

The problem statement argued that Alert Originators (AOs) need standard training and certification.

• Recommendation 1: FEMA should identify, develop, promote, and provide education, guidance

(including message templates and message handbook), and best practices on modern and

accessible alert/warning message content to enhance AOs emergency messaging using IPAWS

capabilities (e.g., 360-character long format for Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) messages).

Based on research into alert message effectiveness, such message guidance should stress the

inclusion of source, hazard, location personalization, consequences, protective action, protective

action time, how protective action reduces consequences, expiration time, style (e.g., specific,

clear, and accessible), and dissemination to AOs across the nation.

Ms. Jones shared that after recently testing their IPAWS system with a new user, there is a need for tools,

guidance and support of this recommendation. Members decided to remove language on the Emergency

Management Institute in case it lacks funding. The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

• Recommendation 2: FEMA should develop simple alert and warning jurisdictional and multi-

jurisdictional plan templates and tools to provide guidance and best practices for emergency

alerting. FEMA should also assist state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) governments to

implement and coordinate alert and warning jurisdictional and multi-jurisdictional plans. The

development and adoption of clear functional plans that specify public alert triggers based on

risk, recommended public action, and alert types will increase audience penetration and

understanding.

The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

• Recommendation 3: FEMA should work with the SLTTs to increase broad awareness and

knowledge of IPAWS by preparing and implementing a multi-media alert and warning campaign

to target potential authorized alerting authorities.

Members changed language in the recommendation to align with the intent of increasing adoption beyond

emergency management. The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

• Recommendation 4: FEMA will provide SMEs to develop training, testing, credentialing, and re-

credentialing of AOs including message writing and emergency warning planning. FEMA shall

update the IPAWS MOA to require SLTTs and AOs (credentialed individuals or system

operators) to complete continual comprehensive training. Methods of instruction should include

distance learning, coursework, and practical applications requiring initial credentialing and re-

credentialing terms to access IPAWS systems. Such training should fit into the NIMS framework

and be accessible through existing NIMS education and training resources.


Members discussed the grants structure and funding availability, especially for the tribes. The intent of

the recommendation was to expand continuous training. After debating existing mandates, Vice Chair

Hansen deemed the recommendation valid for FEMA to “encourage” training, especially in MOAs. The

recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

• Recommendation 5: Establish 24/7 FEMA IPAWS Help Desk to support AOs in the use of the

system. These resources will provide staffed support, subject matter expertise, and online content

when problems or questions arise.

Mr. Johnson explained that FEMA does not have 24/7 capability, so the proposed solution lets FEMA

handle questions from local jurisdictions. After Chair Kidd inserted language on “FEMA IPAWS Help

Desk,” and Mr. Ginaitt suggested “FAQs” online, the recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

• Recommendation 6: FEMA should work with the National Weather Service (NWS) and SMEs to

evaluate the costs, feasibility and rationale of delayed dissemination of certain weather, non-

weather, and non-imminent hazard alerts. FEMA should share the results with the appropriate

stakeholders.

Mr. Johnson explained that NWS wants to discuss messaging hazards with emergency managers and

states. This recommendation would begin that conversation, but substantial change would require

investment and technological change. While members agreed there is a need to refine this process, a

motion passed to delete this recommendation and move the language to Recommendation 16.

Theme 2: Improving Public and Congressional Understanding of Emergency Alerting

The problem statement outlined building public trust in the IPAWS system. IPAWS should also push for

legislation to emphasize the importance of its lifesaving capabilities.

• Recommendation 7: FEMA should work with the necessary partners including but not limited to

the Federal Communications Commission, AOs and IPAWS distributors to effectively

differentiate authentic IPAWS-distributed alerts from authorized originators so they stand out

from other non-IPAWS distributed alerts.

Ms. Lang compared push notifications to subscriber-based alerts. Ms. Langston suggested broadening the

recommendation to include “necessary partners” beyond the FCC, while Mr. Hansen noted that the FCC

is the only federal authority for rulemaking changes on this decision. Ms. Bell suggested “differentiate”

wording instead of “brand.” Overall, the recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

• Recommendation 8: FEMA should engage and educate lawmakers on needed improvements to

the Nation’s emergency alerting systems by:

o Clarifying the need for multiple and redundant cellular, broadcast radio and television,

data-cast alerting technologies in mobile devices, vehicles, smart cities infrastructure, and

future alerting devices to maximize reliability;

o Highlighting the lack of WEA access in Pacific U.S. territories and other underserved

communities to encourage adoption; and


o Encouraging use of public media broadcast capabilities to expand alert, warning, and

interoperable communications capabilities to fill gaps in rural and underserved areas.

Mr. Johnson clarified that FEMA intends to build a concerted effort on educating Congressional staff on

new technologies. Ms. Abadie noted gaps involving tribal languages, to which Mr. Johnson agreed and

added that there are territorial gaps as well. Mr. Waskom debated on whether this recommendation

should involve a 25-year contract with rural areas, but Mr. Johnson said the buildout for that would be too

long to keep up with technology. The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

• Recommendation 9: FEMA should support legislation to remove subscriber opt-outs for

imminent threat alerts from WEA to support a comprehensive public warning system (reference

H.R. 5785, “Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act of 2006”) consistent with other alert and

warning platforms.

The NAC softened the original language of this recommendation after lengthy discussions on the software

requirements, public perception and legal framework. Ms. Mallek, ADFO and Attorney with FEMA’s

Office of the Chief Council, stated that FEMA cannot lobby, but it can create legislative proposals. The

framing of this recommendation would also depend on educating lawmakers. Ms. Titze suggested that

NEMA may be a more appropriate body to lobby for this change. While some IPAWS Subcommittee

members explained that IPAWS is the only alert-system of which the user can opt-out, members agreed

that there needs to be better education on the implications. The recommendation was put up to a vote: 10

members for and 10 against. While this recommendation failed, it will be included at the transmittal level

with information on its context and importance.

Theme 3: Optimizing Technology

The problem statement specified that “IPAWS needs to update, maintain, and create standards and

technologies that are identified, tested, validated, and planned” to address “diverse populations, such as

those with disabilities, access and functional needs, and those for whom English is not a first language.”

The statement also detailed privacy implications and agreements.

• Recommendation 10: FEMA should lead the development of a comprehensive standard set of

visual symbols/pictograms, transcripts, and captioning so diverse populations receive and

understand alerts.

While Mr. Ginaitt suggested the correct term is “pictographs,” members agreed the existing language had

the same spirit of intent. The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

• Recommendation 11: FEMA should work with the Federal Communications Commission,

Federal Trade Commission, and any other SMEs to determine guidelines and requirements to

ensure consumer protection and individual privacy. FEMA should develop enforcement actions,

informed by consultation with relevant SMEs to address potential misuse and/or breach of

IPAWS for consumer fraud and/or abuse with updates to policies and procedures.

After changing the language to designate that FEMA is not the lead agency to recommend or enforce these

actions, the recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.


Public Comment

Nobody raised any comments.

Theme 4: Identifying and Adopting Current and Future Technologies

The problem statement encouraged using technology: “accessibility of messages, message compatibility

on phones, establishment of an alternate alert origination capability, sending linked information through

WEAs including multimedia, and enhancing geotargeting.”

• Recommendation 12: FEMA should establish a technology solutions lab and/or partner with key

and non-traditional alert and warning stakeholders to support the display and delivery of IPAWS

messages through as many pathways as possible, including emerging technologies.

Ms. Bell questioned the necessity and Ms. Kailes questioned the strength of this recommendation. When

Mr. Johnson clarified the intent to justify resources needed to explore emerging technology, NAC

members proposed a “technology solutions lab.” The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

• Recommendation 13: FEMA should develop the capacity and policy(s) for redundant alert

origination capability to issue alerts at the request of alerting authorities or when they are unable

to do so based on established SOPs (e.g., delegation/succession of authority).

Vice Chair Hansen asked to expand upon “unable to do so” as a capacity/mission essential function issue

including delegation and lines of authority. The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

• Recommendation 14: FEMA should deploy a high-availability, high-capacity capability to host

and permit the retrieval of files containing multimedia content material or resources referred to

within CAP messages provided by AOs.

Mr. Johnson said that while FEMA’s infrastructure is inadequate today, an east-west coast presence in a

secured cloud is the future. The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

• Recommendation 15: FEMA should provide guidance, specifications, and best practices to make

alert and warning more effective by doing the following:

o Provide guidance to Alert Origination Software Providers (AOSPs) to apply social science

research and best practices to deliver alerts to the public, including people with disabilities

and others with access and functional needs.

o Provide guidance for alerting tools to ensure tools are designed to minimize potential for

unauthorized access, errors, or willful sending of errant messages.

o Engage standards-development organizations to define the range of multimedia formats for

alert messages and to provide guidance on which multi-media formats are most useful, and

what can be included/not included.

o Work with standards-development organizations to update standards to ensure

interoperability and compatibility across devices and other channels like social media to

support user experience.


o Explore how alert origination applications can use FirstNet to have a more resilient and

reliable ability to send alerts to IPAWS.

o Work with dissemination systems operators, developers, and consumer device manufacturers

to enable consistency and personalization of messages using the device’s capabilities (e.g.,

geo-targeting, text-to-speech, and symbology).

The recommendation was moved, seconded, and passed.

Theme 5: Initiate Cross-Functional Management and Administration of IPAWS

The problem statement said that “there is currently insufficient communication and coordination” to plan

for IPAWS. The last recommendation proposes a cross-functional body of experts sharing best practices.

• Recommendation 16: FEMA should establish a Standing IPAWS Advisory Committee charged

with providing advice regarding the current and prospective management and administration of

IPAWS. The Committee would be comprised of participants from various stakeholders, including

Federal, SLTT agencies, private-sector, non-profit, and alerting end users. The Advisory

Committee should identify and resolve alerting challenges as reported by working groups or

actual events to provide timely guidance and resolution, exchange ideas and experiences, address

access and functional needs, and review successes and failures in testing and operation. The

Standing IPAWS Advisory Committee will, at a minimum:

o Make recommendations to apply and improve current capabilities and practices for

development and distribution of alerts reaching people with disabilities and access and

functional needs;

o Regarding false or erroneous alerts, identify capabilities and procedures to send

cancellations, corrections, and clarifications to targeted groups;

o Leverage existing public, private, non-profit partnerships to improve outreach and

awareness;

o Appoint a working group responsible for working with existing stakeholders to propose

remedies for existing problems within the bounds of current technology and procedures that

require interactions with multiple sectors and consult with individuals and entities not

represented on the Advisory Committee. Some of these recommendations may come to the

Standing IPAWS Advisory Committee from other working groups (e.g., future technology)

and/or reports from any IPAWS Help Desk activity (per recommendation 5); and

o Work with the National Weather Service (NWS) and SMEs to evaluate the costs, feasibility

and rationale of delayed dissemination of certain weather, non-weather, and non-imminent

hazard alerts.

The language from Recommendation 6 was added to this one, but the recommendation failed the vote.

NAC Committee and IPAWS Subcommittee members had a lengthy discussion on committee creation

and funding implications. Mr. Ginaitt and others advised against creating another Advisory Committee


and instead proposed collaborating with the NAC, NEMA and IAEM. Ms. Langston advocated keeping

the IPAWS group in existence but as a NAC subcommittee. Ms. Titze, Ms. Kailes and Ms. Jones

questioned if the NAC would have the capacity to take on these issues from a subcommittee.

Mr. Johnson responded that 45 IPAWS subcommittee members seems like a lot, but some positions were

mandated by Congress. Mr. Johnson argued that the breadth of knowledge and expertise must evolve.

Ms. Lillian McDonald, IPAWS Subcommittee Lead, explained the intent was to provide FEMA a nimble,

agile working group to continue dialogue on training, certification, emerging technologies, etc.

Mr. Stern warned that the standup committee may still be siloed. FACA Committees also carry burdens

and constraints. He suggested engagement through an open conference, NAC, RISC and RAC.

Ms. Mallek clarified that while it is legally possible to create an IPAWS Committee separate from the

NAC, it would be a cumbersome process. The IPAWS Subcommittee has a formal sunset in April 2019,

but they could continue with the NAC if its members agreed unilaterally.

• Recommendation 17: FEMA should determine a preferred way to continue engagement with

stakeholders involved in alert and warning notification systems to include IPAWS to ensure that

the following areas are addressed:

o Technology, strategic planning, standards development, research, resilience and end to end

interoperability;

o Seek non-consensus input from stakeholders to apply and improve current capabilities and

practices for development and distribution of alerts reaching people with disabilities and

access and functional needs;

o False or erroneous alerts, identify capabilities and procedures to send cancellations,

corrections, and clarifications to targeted groups;

o How to leverage existing public, private, non-profit partnerships to improve outreach and

awareness; and

o Work with the National Weather Service (NWS) and SMEs to evaluate the costs, feasibility

and rationale of delayed dissemination of certain weather, non-weather, and non-imminent

hazard alerts.

Members agreed to include the NWS language from Recommendation 6. Ms. McDonald explained that

while Recommendation 16 was focused on alert system policies, problems and partnerships, this

recommendation focuses on technology. The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

Preparedness and Protection, Chair Donna Boston presenting

Charge: How can FEMA leverage communities to build a culture of preparedness?

Issue 1: Engaging and leveraging diverse communities requires a multi-lingual approach

Not all communities can access preparedness materials in a language or format they can understand.


• Recommendation 1: FEMA should ensure that preparedness materials are readily available for

distribution and download, where appropriate, in multiple languages and alternative formats for

people with disabilities and others with access and functional needs ensuring the needs of the

whole community are being met. This may include braille, large print, ASL, national pictograms,

etc.

The NAC inserted language to include “multiple languages and alternative formats” and discussed

existing requirements for accessible documents. The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

Issue 2: Preparedness Metrics

Engaging and leveraging diverse communities requires inclusive surveying techniques.

• Recommendation 2: FEMA should reexamine the design of the National Preparedness Survey

and ensure it is representative of the nation’s population, including multi-lingual, underserved,

under-represented, and marginalized communities.

Members reported that the survey is not reaching underserved communities, and they suggested FEMA

conduct the survey face-to-face in populated areas. The existing format is a landline and cellphone

survey of 5,000 respondents around August. The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

• Recommendation 3: FEMA should partner with other national organizations to conduct inclusive

surveys and share preparedness survey results. Organizations such as the American Red Cross,

Indian Health Services and others also survey community members on topics related to

emergency preparedness.


• Recommendation 4: FEMA should identify and provide their definition of “resilience” with

consideration to infrastructure, assets and human needs to develop standard metrics for

consistent measurement. FEMA should draw on existing resources and knowledge bases to align

with current national efforts.

Members recommended defining “resilience” based on NIST’s Community Resilience Planning guide. A

definition would help evaluate grants and measure “resilience” across jurisdictions. Mr. Henry suggested

that FEMA consider “infrastructure and human needs.” However, as the discussion continued, members

questioned how “resilience” has been defined over time (e.g. Rockefeller’s Resilience Effort) and whether

FEMA should survey how “resilience” is being defined across the emergency management community,

rather than setting the definition. They added in language that “FEMA should draw on existing resources,

knowledge bases to align with current national efforts.” This recommendation was passed.

Issue 3: Building a Culture of Preparedness with Local Communities and Partners

Communities with the strongest social ties recover the fastest after disasters. FEMA can support local

communities in building social ties in preparedness and recovery.

• Recommendation 5: FEMA should work with relevant external stakeholders, such as NACo,

National League of Cities (NLC), the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS)


and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), to create social cohesion and

groups focused on long-term recovery that enhance resiliency.

Members expressed that “community ties” includes best practices, innovations and survivors’ stories.

The goal is to bring a “humanness” to the messaging and reach groups outside emergency management.

Mr. Henry said planners need to be engaging with emergency managers, especially as density increases.

Mr. Downing commented that tribes should also be included, and not just as “stakeholders.” Members

also said FEMA should lead this outreach. The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

Issue 4: Leverage Digital Communities to Expand the Culture of Preparedness

This is a clarification of preparedness messaging proposed in recommendations 18-23, 18-24, and 18-25.

• Recommendation 6: FEMA should engage with large scale digital communities, online

influencers and other private partnerships to co-brand and echo emergency preparedness

messaging. The Ad Council and Ready.gov preparedness strategy should be enhanced further by

partnering with successful media outlets and non-traditional influencers, i.e. YouTube’s Creators

for Change, Yellow Co.

This recommendation focuses on non-traditional partners and was moved, seconded and passed.

Response and Recovery, Chair Jeff Stern presenting

Charge: How can FEMA better engage the Whole Community in planning and response?

Issue 1: Inconsistent and Inaccurate Flood Mapping

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) relies on flood mapping and data that can be inconsistent.

Lack of standards weaken FEMA’s ability to assess actual flood risk for the ~22,000 NFIP communities.

• Recommendation 1: FEMA should partner with the Whole Community (universities, insurance

industry and risk modelers, NOAA/NWC, USGS, National Academies, etc.) to create a set of

standards and uniform approach of identifying flood hazards and producing flood risk maps.

Members clarified that this recommendation refers to the standard, scientific approach to flood analysis.


Issue 2: Redundant and Inefficient Document Collection for Housing Assistance

FEMA, HUD, other federal agencies, and private entities often provide post-disaster housing assistance

but there is no centralized data collection mechanism. Departments and Agencies need to efficiently share

household data (demographic, damage assessments, structural data) to minimize the survivor’s burden.

• Recommendation 2: FEMA should develop a pilot program case management information system

to streamline data/document collection across federal agencies, private, and private non-profit

entities that provide housing assistance. This pilot program could use newer technology – such

as blockchain – to centrally manage case files that can be accessed by multiple entities providing

disaster housing assistance. Blockchain can allow a shared ledger to be used to eliminate

redundant work across federal programs with requisite security features for access rights.


Members discussed developing a pilot program to streamline data input similar to blockchain. The

recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

Issue 3: Multiple DHS Agencies, including FEMA, collect similar information from the private sector

The Department of Homeland Security has multiple agencies offering similar services to private sector

partners with little or no collaboration on the information collected.

• Recommendation 3: FEMA should identify those employees with “right to know” or “need to

know” for PCII information and require they take the requisite training.


Issue 4: Needs of Disability Community

The needs of the disability community are negatively impacted while FEMA implements a new approach

to service delivery and accommodations.

• Recommendation 4: While the new disability integration approach is implemented, FEMA should

designate knowledgeable FEMA staff to work with and problem solve with disability community

responding partners in current and future response events.

FEMA should integrate just-in-time training competencies regarding accommodating people with

disabilities and others with access and functional needs into pre-deployment training

requirements as well as easily refer to “how to” checklists.


Issue 5: Data Needs

There is a lack of data-supported evidence to guide and improve emergency management. FEMA’s

publicly available databases are limited in scope. Opportunities exist to advance data science and

technology in emergency management, to supplement after action reports, hot washes and ‘lessons

learned’ compendiums. Controversies in emergency management (e.g. Hurricane Maria death toll) can be

addressed by working with established researchers to develop and support data measurement methods.

• Recommendation 5: The Administrator should partner with relevant organizations such as NIH,

CDC, NIST, NSF, NAS, academia, and others to develop a suite of standardized metrics for

disaster impacts.

o These partnerships, and the products they produce, have the dual purpose of reducing

complexity and preparing for catastrophic disasters by better understanding and predicting

the impacts of disasters on communities.

Members added “academia” to the recommendation and discussed plans for housing the data and phased

approach for implementation. The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

Issue 6: Critical Recovery Concerns with New PA Delivery Model

The new PA delivery model may be slowing overall recovery efforts.


• Recommendation 6: FEMA should conduct a 1-year post-2017 Hurricane Season diagnostic to

evaluate the New PA Delivery Model and seek ways to make the Model more effective.

o FEMA should solicit feedback on Model improvements from SLTTs using the New Model.

o This should include assessing the staffing, turnover, and training of the Consolidated

Resource Center (CRC) staff, and Program Delivery Managers (PDMGs), to identify areas

needing extra support.

o FEMA should consider options to restructure the CRCs to make document review and PW

processing more efficient. This could include consistent assignment of teams within the CRC

to specific regions or states, allowing specialization in local construction and disaster types.

o FEMA should provide access to the Emergency Management Mission Integrated

Environment (EMMIE) external system as a standard practice for all Sub-Applicants.

EMMIE external system access will allow Sub-Applicants to identify errors and to better

understand the status, damages, scopes of work, eligibility determinations, costs, and

attachments while FEMA works to improve the New PA Delivery Model and the PA Grants

Portal user experience.


Issue 7: Obstacles Exist to Merging Hazard Mitigation Funding for the Same Project

There is no formal guidance from FEMA encouraging integration of Section 404 and 406 funds for the

same hazard mitigation SOW. This is despite FEMA policy that allows coordination of both programs.

• Recommendation 7: FEMA should clarify policy and provide better guidance on how Section 404

and 406 funds can be combined in order to advertise and encourage the proposal of a single

hazard mitigation SOW to be jointly paid for with Section 404 and 406 funds. FEMA should

empower Regions and JFOs to do joint Sections 404 and 406 benefit-cost analyses (BCAs) to

evaluate cost-effectiveness and encourage states to include these projects in their priority

projects list.

Members amended language to say, “provide guidance to.” The recommendation was moved, seconded

and passed.

Issue 8: Procurement Rules Constrain Effective and Prompt Recovery

There is no clear FEMA guidance on securing pre-disaster emergency work contracts, except for debris

removal. As a result, localities often hastily procure emergency contracts immediately after a disaster.

• Recommendation 8: FEMA should better define and standardize emergency procurement periods

post-disaster to include greater flexibility for SLTTs.

o These guidelines should incorporate disaster type, magnitude, and complexity in order to

provide SLTTs a reasonable timeline for the use of emergency procurements. The guidance

should also clarify when and why SLTTs must re-procure contracts for their emergency

procurements. The guidance should take into consideration that stopping work to re-procure


a contract might not be in the financial and general welfare of the community, SLTTs and

federal government.

o FEMA should develop specific guidance promoting and clarifying how to procure eligible

pre-disaster contracts for all types of eligible emergency work -- not just debris. FEMA

should also incentivize pre-disaster contracts (e.g. pre-disaster grant funding for

procurement preparedness).

Members said that the CFR is the only clear guidance on some of these issues, so this recommendation

would allow FEMA some flexibility. The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

Tribal, Chair Chris Howell presenting

Mr. Howell reported that the subcommittee had no recommendations to put forward.

Federal Insurance and Mitigation, Chair Linda Langston presenting

Charge: How can FEMA help close the insurance gap?

Issue 1: Expand Ready.gov with Risk Data Sets

One reason individuals do not take adequate preparedness actions is that they do not understand the risks

to which they are vulnerable.

• Recommendation 1: The Administrator should encourage additional partnerships to expand

Ready.gov. The expansion should include location-based data sets to allow citizens easy access

to accurate, applicable and historical information about their specific threats and hazards.

Mr. Bob Nadeau, FEMA Intergovernmental Affairs, asked if people should be using local tools. Ms.

Langston proposed that this solution could foster a renewed level of trust. Ms. Titze said many towns

hide their risks, so Ready.gov would be an area for transparent datasets. Mr. Henry emphasized that this

solution would act as a central repository. The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.

Issue 2: Federal Facility Risks & Historic Data

Communities are unwilling to publicize the risks to which they are vulnerable. FEMA and its federal

partners should lead by example.

• Recommendation 2: The Administrator should partner with other federal agencies to publish a

view of the current risk across federally owned or managed assets and encourage additional

partnerships with federal entities that demonstrate hazards (such as high watermark projects).


Issue 3: Tiered Insurance Options

Current insurance options do not meet consumers’ needs. Varied options would help close the gap.

• Recommendation 3: The Administrator should explore the facilitation of tiered micro or

parametric insurance for both homeowners and renters. These tiered policy options should

clearly explain their intent and limitations while explaining local, state and federal recovery

responsibilities and the family role in recovery (i.e. to purchase an appropriate level of flood

insurance).


The recommendation was moved, seconded, and passed.

Issue 4: Resiliency Tax Credit

Tax credits are an effective incentive for behavior and should be applied to disaster resilience efforts.

• Recommendation 4: The Administrator should explore and promote the concept of a state-based

Resiliency Tax Credit (similar to the Residential Energy Efficiency Property Credit) for

mitigation measures and the purchase of flood and potentially for fire or other insurance policies

by homeowners, renters and businesses. This concept should be explored for use at the state level

for feasibility for all hazard mitigation and flood policy purchases.

Mr. Doak and Mr. Grathwol agreed on this recommendation. Mr. Doak explained that communities

created disaster savings accounts in the past, but people thought they were too expensive. He emphasized

that this recommendation should not be at the congressional level, but instead should focus on state or

local tax/mitigation credits. The recommendation was moved, seconded, and passed.

Issue 5: Mitigation Investment

Currently, there is no way to capture local mitigation, especially for investments outside of traditional

emergency management. This makes it impossible to track mitigation and much harder to incentivize it.

This is a clarification of recommendation 18-14 on centralized mitigation investment documentation.

• Recommendation 5: FEMA should work with SLTTs and private partners to launch a portal to

encourage local, state and tribal governments to upload their mitigation projects. Potential

incentives might be considered for those governments documenting mitigation projects.

Ms. Langston clarified that the portal would be led by states and developed by private partners. Chair

Kidd said the system should be like FEMA’s Grants Manager, with nobody “owning” it per say, but

FEMA managing it. The recommendation was moved, seconded, and passed.

• Recommendation 6: The FEMA Administrator should request a meeting with insurance industry

thought leaders and stakeholders, such as the NAIC, for the purpose of providing discussion and

non-consensus advice regarding how to close the insurance gap. This will bring thought leaders

and insurance professionals together to provide information in 2019—for the FI&M

subcommittee to review.

Mr. Doak proposed this recommendation during the report out and voting session. Ms. Langston

wondered if there may be legal issues with consulting a singular group. The recommendation was tabled.

CONCLUSION Jasper Cooke, Acting FEMA NAC DFO, adjourned the NAC meeting at 5:30 p.m. Eastern.

Introduction—Thursday, November 8, 2018 The subcommittees attended planning meetings for an hour before Jasper Cooke, Acting FEMA NAC

DFO, called the public session to order at 9:45 a.m. Eastern. He reviewed post-meeting travel closeout.


Chair Nim Kidd led the discussion on risk, grant funding and inefficiencies in emergency management.

He offered a solution through private sector contracting and introduced Kent Burgess to continue the

discussion.

KENT BURGESS, Principal, CohnReznick State and Private Sector Engagement to Support FEMA’s Strategic Goals: One Approach

Mr. Burgess explained that Texas and FEMA Region VI decided to pilot the new delivery model for PA

in August 2017 after Hurricane Harvey. There had been tests of the model since 2015, but Harvey was

the first large-scale disaster with 945 eligible sub-recipients. In line with the Strategic Plan, Mr. Burgess

said that the model reduces complexity and aims to “build a culture of preparedness” by using data

analytics to learn from past disasters. Texas also worked to align private and public interests through

incentive-based performance closeout, which has been more efficient than by-the-hour consultants.

Mr. Burgess continued that the Direct Administrative Costs (DAC) pilot incentivized performance,

awarding back 4 percent of capped funds and up to 5 percent for timely closeouts. The result was

synchronization in the Texas Recovery Office and Consolidated Resource Center (CRC). While there

had been some Office of the Inspector General compliance issues, analyzing data from over a thousand

reviews helped target common issues. FEMA worked with sub-recipients on corrective action plans.

CohnReznick built a resource library to guide sub-recipients based on the stage and types of projects.

They also compiled emails and Grants Portal data to improve daily operations or automate work.


Mr. Grathwol shared that New York is receiving 4 percent of its $10 billion back form DAC. He believed a

consultant with aligned interests who is managed effectively ensured attention to their sub-grantees.

Mr. Burgess agreed and gave an example to show that performance-based work encourages innovation.

Mr. Waskom shared that time and space contracts are one solution. Mr. Burgess responded that it’s a

good challenge for consultants to be their best since they become more profitable. There is nothing but

incentive to invest in technology. Chair Kidd said that is difficult to manage money after disasters, but

Texas was at risk for $0 in deobligations based on how they implemented the new PA model.

Mr. Stern talked about surging and scaling during large disasters and asked about different models.

Mr. Burgess addressed scalability. He found it effective to hire staff out of graduate school, provide them

rigorous training for two weeks and assign them routine work. They would rotate people into more

permanent positions with simple work, such as learning force account labor, where they would have an

important role. Such a position was a stepping stone to procurement, then interfacing with sub-recipients.

Chair Kidd highlighted that Burgess has qualified applicants that are not interfacing with government

officials right away, which is good because it does not change points of contact for the state. However,

Chief Kidd observed that, over time, the consultant’s workforce was more constant than FEMA or the

state.


Mr. Grathwol asked for some successes or difficulties working with the new recovery model. He also

agreed with Mr. Burgess’ comments on taking some “calculated risk” or finding the best answer for the

sub-applicant despite some contradictory regulations.

Mr. Burgess said there were major damages to roads in Texas in 2015-16. Immediately after the briefings

and prior to PA kickoffs, his team engaged with applicants to set expectations and plan immediate actions

(e.g. surveys, maintenance records, etc.). Some applicants required corrective action plans. The overall

process let the team familiarize and trust FEMA counterparts in the Region. They were able to provide

recommendations to auditing reports instead of shying away from issues.

Chair Kidd added that since CohnReznick was paid by the project, it was in their best interest to help sub-

applicants receive the maximum return. Mr. Burgess continued that his team relied on the state to deliver

the right messages and involve the right people. There were also sprints to update reporting suites.

Mr. Ginaitt asked if industry and the private sector are well-positioned to support transitions.

Mr. Burgess said that it depends on capturing the right information. Chair Kidd noted that the new

system allowed for better document retention than relying on paper, Excel and email tied to individuals.

KAREN MARSH, Technical Assistance Branch Chief, FEMA National Integration Center (NIC) Community Resilience Technical Assistance

Ms. Marsh explained that collaborative technical assistance (TA) involves a cohort of jurisdictions in the

same or different states. TA includes FEMA’s new PrepTalks series, for example. One of the gaps in TA

was a data-driven way to prioritize its delivery. Consequently, Ms. Marsh explained the NIC’s work with

Argonne National Labs to create a Community Resilience Indicator Analysis which prioritizes TA

locations independent of hazards. Research revealed 11 population- and nine community-focused

indicators. Results will be available on the FEMA GeoPlatform, with rollout on TA implementation

within one year.


Chair Kidd requested clarification that the results were from the literature review and not FEMA.

Ms. Marsh responded affirmatively. The teams looked at 73 methodologies and filtered by specific

inclusion criteria. They found over 100 indicators, then selected the ones common to three or more

studies.

Chair Kidd commented on the role of religious affiliation post-disaster.

Ms. Marsh said the appendix would explain why this indicator was used in their study. Ms. Boston said

that at the local level, their indicators are released at the county level.

Ms. Lang requested clarification that the results were not post-disaster and instead were a snapshot in

time.

Ms. Marsh replied that yes, the data are collected annually.


Ms. Langston shared that NACo has a robust “County Explorer.” Most are public datasets, though some

were purchased. She suggested doing a quick write-up of a recommendation but did not know if they

could ask for concurrence without quorum.

Acting DFO Jasper Cooke said that he agreed, the group should not put recommendations forward today.

Additionally, two recommendations already publicly approved echo the sentiment.

Ms. Bell asked if the NIC used a formal definition for “community resilience.”

Ms. Marsh said the report outlines the definitions of eight methodologies used.

Mr. Henry asked if this data was used with anything else, such as the number of flood insurance policies.

Mr. Doak also inquired if the data considered repetitive flood losses and existing FEMA data.

Ms. Marsh said the data did not include that information. Mr. Kyle Pfieffer, National Response

Framework (NRF) Program Executive Office Coordinator and Argonne expert, added that the data was

hazard-agnostic, though it could be interesting to apply the data in the context of regions or states.

Ms. Lang admitted that she understood the all-hazards idea, but earthquakes only occur so often. What

was the timeframe of these studies?

Ms. Marsh said they referenced published papers within the last five years.

Mr. Stern asked for benefits of the tool and how it can be used.

Ms. Marsh said the tool prioritizes where to spend money and on which indicators.

Ms. Boston asked about next steps in the process.

Mr. Pfeiffer said that adding regional hazard conditions makes sense. They would look to demonstrate

this concept at the county and sub-county level.

Chair Kidd noticed that areas considered vulnerable in Texas are very resilient from his perspective.

Acting DFO Cooke said that the data is just a potential link to resilience. It still needs to be tested to see

whether it correlates with actual disaster impact metrics. Mr. Henry said he liked that the data gives a

baseline without hazards because they inform indicators of good, healthy communities.

Vice Chair Hansen asked if FEMA will aggregate data specific to tribes, which is missing in academia.

Ms. Marsh said that they just had a great conversation with Region VIII on this topic, and they are

supporting Headquarters tribal resilience efforts.

Ms. Lang expanded on Mr. Kidd’s perception. As the study rolls out, there will be a perception at the

state and county level of the same idea, while the data may indicate otherwise. That can be a trap for

people implementing TA. Adaptation and resourcefulness may not be the same as resilience.

Mr. Hansen agreed that this is where the community struggles with “resilience.” Sometimes what is

defined in academia does not translate well in the real world and vice versa. He thought it would be

interesting to see if there is any correlation with hazard data. Ms. Bell stressed that this was a theoretical,

descriptive study. Mr. Ginaitt said that Ms. Lang’s message should be a caveat to the public because

resilience will likely become political. Chair Kidd agreed with the politics. His decision-making relies

on “POPS” or potential consequences that are philosophical, operational, political and scientific.


CHAD PAYEUR, Planning Implementation Branch Chief, FEMA NIC and KYLE PFEIFFER, National Response Framework, Program Executive Office Coordinator, FEMA NIC National Response Framework Revisions

Mr. Payeur mentioned that the fourth edition of the NRF would reflect the relationship between business,

industry and infrastructure, most notably by creating ESF-14. The new community lifelines were used

during Hurricanes Michael, Florence and Lane during NRCC response to connect public sector ESF

concerns with the National Business Emergency Operations Center. Mr. Payeur then outlined the NRF

update timeline, inviting NAC Members to attend the National Summit in DC on November 14, 2018.

Other outreach included webinars (less than 30 percent federal audience) and the FEMA podcast.

Document review and national engagement/adjudication is scheduled for January through April of 2019.


Mr. Ginaitt said that ESF-1 is led by the Department of Transportation (DOT), but their scope does not

include the movement of people nor mass transit as part of evacuations. Is this an oversight?

Mr. Payeur responded that no decisions have been made on these topics. In the Situational Awareness

Section of the NRCC, there have been some conversations with safety and security, but the location of

evacuations has not been decided. Mr. Ginaitt replied that mass transit seems to be low-hanging fruit that

is underutilized. When he reached out to the Federal Transit Administration, there were no white papers

on how to use a system that unifies the nation. Chair Kidd also expressed interest in this topic.

Referencing Hurricane Katrina’s National Response Plan, he said there are regulations that lack

operational capability. Mr. Payeur agreed that FEMA wants to publish better guidance. Under the

DRRA, for instance, DOT and FEMA are required to provide guidance on evacuation and on how to

conduct a needs assessment. The NIC is working on umbrella guidance, but it may not address that

specific aspect of ESF-1.

Mr. Stern said the NRF is logical and allows pure functional groups like UN response clusters. However,

is time to look beyond the ESF structure? The 1970s model is siloed, and EOCs follow the Incident

Command System. He asked if there was an opportunity to field that question, collect stakeholder

feedback and move towards something more agile and flexible at the state and local levels.

Mr. Payeur said that those conversations are happening. It would be transformative to replace ESFs with

lifelines, but that probably will not happen yet. Learning from the lifelines approach will provide more

answers. Mr. Stern recommended clarifying who is responsible for outcomes during implementation.

Mr. Stern also commented on “NRF fatigue” or the catch-up of state and locals having to rewrite their

plans with each new edition of the NRF.

Mr. Payeur explained that FEMA’s timeline is typically every five years. Since 2016 was the last

revision, they were going to publish in 2021, but that shifted forward after the 2017 Hurricane Season.

He reminded the NAC that the NRF changes were in an update, not a full-scale revision. ESF-14 would

be the bigger change that would take time for states to incorporate, but at a national level, FEMA thought

it was important. Mr. Stern described Virginia’s ESF-14 as military affairs.


Mr. Payeur opened the floor to feedback on the lifelines concept.

Mr. Stern said that the new process is about aligning horizontally. While his team had heard about

lifelines last season, the first official document with good, plain language on integrated capabilities was

published in November 2018. Stephanie Jerrell-Estep from Nassau County Public-Private Partnerships

said she was familiar with the lifelines in Mexico Beach. They were being used in the Incident Action

Plans and other reporting. She thought the lifelines trickled down to all levels of government. Mr.

Waskom shared that his team built reports in alignment with the lifelines, and he would share this

WebEOC concept with the group. Mr. Payeur agreed that dependencies appear when bucketing the

lifelines. FEMA has received positive feedback so far during press conferences with the White House

and public.

CONCLUSION Vice Chair Jeff Hansen thanked the NAC for exceptional work done by a very eclectic group of people.

Jasper Cooke, Acting FEMA NAC DFO, adjourned the NAC meeting at 12:40 p.m. Eastern.

I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing summary of the FEMA National

Advisory Council meeting from November 6-8, 2018, is accurate and complete.

__________________________________

Nim Kidd

Chair

FEMA National Advisory Council

Documents

FEMA National Advisory Council November 2018 Meeting Notes · 2018. 11. 6. · FEMA National Advisory Council November 2018 Meeting Minutes NAC | November 6-8, 2018 PARTICIPANTS NAC