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
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 3
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
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 4
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.
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 5
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.
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 6
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.
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 7
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.
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 8
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.
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 9
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
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 10
“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
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 11
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
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 12
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.
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 13
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
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 14
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
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 15
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.
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 16
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
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 17
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.
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 18
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.
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 19
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
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 20
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.
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 21
• 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.
The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.
• 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)
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 22
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.
The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.
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.
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 23
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.
The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.
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.
The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.
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.
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 24
• 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.
The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.
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
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 25
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).
The recommendation was moved, seconded and passed.
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).
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 26
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.
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 27
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.
Discussion—questions and comments
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.
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 28
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.
Discussion—questions and comments
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.
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 29
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.
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 30
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.
Discussion—questions and comments
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.
NAC Meeting Minutes | November 6-8, 2018 | Washington, DC | Page 31
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