Canton on Emergency Management

04/25/2024

But That Plan Is Just for Disasters!

Shortly before the recent eclipse, I saw a brief article about several small jurisdictions in Texas who were activating their emergency operations centers during the event. No, this was not in response to the numerous doomsday conspiracy theories that were making the rounds prior to the eclipse. Rather, it was in response to a well-reasoned risk assessment. The jurisdictions were in the path of the eclipse and realized they would be inundated by sightseers who generate a potential for traffic congestion, shortages of food, fuel, and lodging, increased medical emergencies and so forth. In short, while it would not necessarily rise to the level of a disaster, it would provide a risk to the community that could be best handled through a coordinated interagency response.

We sometimes think that emergency management is limited to disasters and that our plans are intended specifically for that purpose. Even if we don’t, this is often the perception that others have. During the after-action review of a major residential hotel fire that displaced just over a hundred residents, I asked why we had not used the shelter plan laid out in the city’s Emergency Operations Plan. The reply I received was that the plan was only for disasters. It took several years and a lot of work to reverse that attitude. Following that painful process, we ended up with a much-improved shelter plan that could be used in both emergencies and disasters.

Closely associated with this attitude is a narrowness of vision. We tend to think that the hazards we deal with are the big-ticket items, things like earthquakes, fires, floods, terrorist attacks, and chemical spills. Yet experience teaches us that disasters, while common in the aggregate, are relatively rare in any given jurisdiction. However, that same jurisdiction daily faces a high risk of an emergency that requires a coordinated inter-agency response. We need to broaden our vision to include any hazard that places those we serve at risk.

Changing your perspective from a focus on disasters to one based on risk can have a positive impact on your relationship with senior officials and their staff. Early in my time at San Francisco, we were faced with a major garbage strike. Since it wasn’t a “disaster,” my office wasn’t privy to the planning being done by the mayor’s staff. At the last minute, I was asked to help by providing maps of the city and, when it was learned I was a native, some advice on potential collection points. As I was about to leave the meeting, there was a discussion on how the city could perform all the necessary inspections of the collection points and identify what city resources would be needed to support them. After eavesdropping for a bit, I suggested that what was needed was an inter-agency team, which was something my office did routinely. My staff wasn’t too happy about this “non-disaster” work but in a matter of hours we had identified and staged the teams using elements of our EOP.

The result of this brief participation in the garbage strike was that my office was acknowledged as a productive member of the mayor’s staff and that we had skills and resources that could be used to support a variety projects. In essence, we were part of the team and not just “plan checkers.” We began to get requests to help support other initiatives. For example, we worked closely with the Mayor’s Office on Homelessness on emergency winter sheltering planning and with the police department on developing a response to child abduction. Our EOC was frequently activated in anticipation of potential civil disturbances, demonstrations, or large civic events. We were the lead for the response to the power emergencies, an event that didn’t pose a great risk but generated a tremendous amount of public concern. Our approach was that if it potentially affected the well-being of our citizens, we were involved, even if only peripherally.

We were not unique in this. One of my colleagues became concerned about rumors of an impending financial crisis and after performing a risk assessment, started developing plans to deal with the potential impact in his jurisdiction. Before it became generally accepted, another colleague began pushing for development of a recovery plan for his jurisdiction. Both met with resistance, both from their own staff and plan stakeholders.

The resistance is understandable. Emergency managers are most comfortable dealing with operational issues and hierarchical organizations. Moving beyond the operational means developing a more strategic viewpoint. It requires developing new skills in uncomfortable areas such a politics and finance. It involves learning to work with a whole range of new stakeholders, many of whom are not used to the hierarchical approach with which we tend to work. Our work on the shelter plan, for example, required working with many small community organizations, many of whom were mistrustful of government.

How do you take on all this additional work with limited resources? You do it by recognizing that this is not in addition to your work but part of your work. Every project you take on is an opportunity to test and improve components of your plan. Every new plan you develop is an opportunity work with new stakeholders and to develop relationships that will be essential in a disaster. Every time you activate an EOC is an opportunity test systems and train first-time attendees.

However, the most important benefit is the visibility these opportunities provide. Ultimately, your goal is to be recognized as something beyond just a type of fire extinguisher that is only used in a disaster. Instead, you need to be able to influence events rather than being controlled by them. You need to be viewed as a key staff member and trusted advisor. Demonstrating you are part of the team of decision makers and advisors is critical to your success.

Posted by Lucien Canton on 04/25/2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

03/26/2024

Do You Really Want a Robot to Write Your Emergency Plan?

Robot typing keyboard. 3d rendering robot hand working with computer keyboard , #Sponsored, #keyboard, #rendering, #… | Keyboard typing, Keyboard, Computer keyboard
In one of the discussion groups I follow, someone asked about the possibility of using artificial intelligence to write emergency plans. After my initial reaction of, “Are you serious?” I realized it is a reasonable question to ask, given all the hype surrounding AI. Emergency managers are always seeking ways to improve and are quick to embrace new technologies. So, are we missing a bet here?

Let me raise two caveats. The first is that I am by no means an expert in artificial intelligence. My thoughts on the matter are more philosophical than technical. The second caveat is that the field is incredibly dynamic and changing almost daily, both in terms of technology and in terms of legal and economic factors. Whatever I write today could be out of date by the time you read this article.

Part of the problem with AI is the name itself. Despite conjuring science fiction images of the end of society at the hands of intelligent robots, AI is not intelligent, it is imitative. It can acquire vast amounts of data very quickly, recognize patterns and predict associations based on those patterns. This adapts well to things like speech recognition and language translation. However, I get a bit skeptical when its proponents claim AI is capable of decision-making. There is a big difference between the decision-making capacity required for sorting boxes in a warehouse and that for deciding the assignment of resources in a crisis. Since those decisions are based on the input data, I am reminded of the old programmer’s warning, “Garbage in, garbage out.”

Part of this skepticism is based on the overwhelming hype surrounding the use of AI to essentially replicate things that are already in use. Both Google and Bing have incorporated AI into their search functions, with sometime hilarious results. Unfortunately, some of the results have also included potentially serious results, such as incorrect medical advice. AI recognizes patterns; it does not analyze or understand context.

Which brings us to its use in emergency planning. Over the years, I have conducted the review of numerous plans at multiple levels of government and private sector organizations. After a while, they all begin to look much the same. The reason for this is that we have pushed hard to standardize our emergency plans through the development of doctrinal documents such as Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans. This is not a bad thing in itself. Standardization allows for a common approach to operations and the integration of supporting elements. However, we have pushed beyond standardizing concepts to developing way too much minutia in initiatives such as the national qualification system. The end result is that many plans are now written to conform to doctrine rather than for the convenience of the user.

However, between all this doctrinal information and the hundreds of existing plans, there is a large pool of material that would probably be sufficient for Chat GPT or one of the other AI systems to develop an emergency plan for a given jurisdiction that would conform to all existing requirements. The question is, “Why would you want to?”

Several years ago, I was part of a team helping a major city with its evacuation planning. My job was to review their evacuation plan. It was a thing of beauty: the concept was solid, all the elements needed were addressed, and all supporting elements were integrated into the plan. However, it didn’t take much digging to find out that the plan had been written in week by a single individual and that nothing in the plan had ever been coordinated with the supporting agencies or with the host jurisdictions receiving the evacuees. The plan was useless.

Similarly, I once unsuccessfully bid on a multi-jurisdictional project to assist with their emergency plan development. The budget was tight, so I was careful to propose only the minimum process necessary to formulate the plans. When I asked for suggestions on how to improve future proposals, I was told that it looked like I wanted them to do a lot of work. Apparently, they were looking for a fiction writer and not a planning consultant.

My point here is that it is not the writing of the document that is important but the process of developing the plan, something that any emergency manager worth his or her salt understands. I’m not sure that AI offers much beyond the many templates or plan writing programs already available online or the many samples your colleagues are willing to share for free. If AI floats your boat, give it try. Just don’t expect it make decisions for you and don’t expect your plan to be user-friendly. I suspect that the time you save in writing will be eaten up in proof reading and correcting contextual issues. Never forget that the process of planning is important, not the end result.

Posted by Lucien Canton on 03/26/2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

02/27/2024

Who Writes This Stuff Anyway? How Federal Guidance Gets Developed

In a recent article titled Gaps in ICS Doctrine and Documents my colleague Tim Riecker points out the lack of cohesive doctrine in the Incident Management System. He writes that while we have some basic guidance in documents such as the National Incident Management System document and the National Qualification System, there is a lack of definition of key concepts, inclusion of contemporary practices, and continuity from doctrine into supporting documents and training.

As is usually the case, I agree with Tim completely on his assessment. Further, his article sparked some ideas about why this is the case. I suggest that it comes down to three factors: the use of consultants to develop much of our guidance documents, the project managers who oversee their work and our own lack of involvement in the process.

Before you think I’m going to hammer on consultants, let me remind you that I have been a consultant for over twenty years and have been fortunate to work with exceptional individual consultants and with several reputable firms. The issue is not necessarily the consultants but the government’s system of breaking initiatives into multiple projects. This means that frequently consultants are called on to build on work done by a previous consulting team, whether they agree with the previous approach or not. Often you find yourself working on a project that might affect or be affected by one handled by another consulting team without knowing that project exists. There is also the problem with changes to the project management team where the new project manager may want to take things in a different direction or chooses not to accept your advice on how best to achieve the project goals.

As a consultant I usually perform one of two roles. I may be part of a team as a subject matter expert because of my knowledge of an issue or possession of a specific technical skill. As a solo consultant, I am what is known as a process consultant. I guide clients through the development of policies and procedures to achieve their desired goals. Understanding this will help you understand why we are weak in the development of ICS doctrine.

As I’ve pointed out in the past, we can define three very broad categories when dealing with disaster response planning: strategic, operational, and tactical. Strategy provides the overall context in which other plans function. The operational level translates strategy into action by coordinating the resources needed to achieve goals and objectives. The tactical level is where the actual provision of services takes place. In terms of emergency response, the tactical level is the on-scene response, the operational the emergency operations center, and the strategic the Multiagency Coordination Group or policy group. Problems arise when you mix up the roles of the various levels in plans or guidance documents.

If we look at documents such as the National Response Framework, these are strategic documents. They establish the operational context that will drive the development of supporting plans and documents. They deal with concepts rather than specifics. For a process consultant, this is the type of project we love. While it can be complex and challenging depending on the stakeholders involved, the methodology and end product are similar to previous projects.

Jumping ahead to the purely tactical, we have an excellent example in the National Qualification System. This type of project is also one that consultants enjoy because a lot of the work is repetitive and can be done by entry-level consultants or clerical staff with work laid out and verified by subject matter experts. Like strategic projects, the work can be complex and sometimes tedious but is well within the capabilities of consulting teams and plays to their strengths.

The operational becomes more problematic, however. A strategic document is by nature a “one size fits all” document. The same can be said of a tactical document like the NQS where the intent is to standardize the requirements for anyone filling a specific position. An operational document does not share this “one size fits all” trait. It must be generic enough to provide for the standardization called for in NIMS yet flexible enough to allow modifications to adapt to local circumstances. Developing these documents usually involves significant input from subject matter experts, which increases the cost and complexity of the project. It is no wonder then that we see a gap within operational guidance.

Given these limitations on consultants, the role of the program managers overseeing their work becomes extremely important. However, one cannot assume that these program managers always have sufficient knowledge and experience to guide these complex programs. Practical field experience in emergency management is not a qualification a position in FEMA. There are exceptions, of course, and this is not intended to denigrate the hard work done of these projects by agency staff who are forced to learn on the job. It is instead an acknowledgement of problems in the system.

How do we correct this? Actually, the approach that FEMA uses is a good one - ask those who will use the product. FEMA releases draft documents for public comments. However, my experience is that many emergency managers are not signed up to receive notifications and those that do are frequently too busy to take the time to read and comment on drafts. We need to do better at pushing back on proposed guidance or doctrine that do not tally with our practical experience.

More importantly, we need to recognize that much of what we assume is doctrine is, in fact, guidance. Many existing documents provide principles rather specific direction and provide a degree of flexibility in following those principles. Slavishly conforming to a guidance document to the detriment of your ability to adequately respond to a crisis does no one any good.

Posted by Lucien Canton on 02/27/2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

01/30/2024

The Evolving Emergency Operations Center

One of the common questions I get asked is, “What is an emergency operations center (EOC)?” It’s usually a variation on one of two themes:

Is it the facility or the people?
Is its main function command or coordination?

While the questions seem simple, the answers are not. Like so many things in emergency management, the EOC is a moving target that is constantly evolving based on operational experience and shifting policies and strategies. Redefining terms also contributes to the confusion. Finally, the ultimate defining factor of the EOC is operational context, the environment in which it operates. To understand how these three factors influence the EOC, let’s consider the evolution of the EOC.

The earliest document I have on hand relating to EOCs is Civil Preparedness Guide 1-20 Emergency Operating Center (EOC) Handbook dated May 29, 1984. Here is how it defines the EOC:

A central facility--from which all local emergency efforts can be coordinated and directed--is essential for emergency response and recovery. This means that government must prepare for the possibility of an emergency that will significantly change operating procedures. Government must be ready to direct and control emergency operations. This facility is referred to as an Emergency Operating Center (EOC).

Notice the emphasis here on direction and control. Also note that it specifically refers to the EOC as the facility. This document is an artifact from the Cold War and based on the mistaken belief that strong central control was essential in relief operations as people could not be expected to respond appropriately and in their own best interest. The organization was extremely simple with only three groups – Disaster Analysis and Coordination, Operations and Operational Response, and Rescue – overseen by the emergency management director supported by a small group of liaison officers. The chief executive was in overall charge, of course, supported by a policy group consisting of department heads and other executives.

Starting in the late 1980’s we begin to see a shift away from this simple structure to reflect emerging doctrine based on two concepts. The first was the adoption of the Incident Command System developed in the early 1970’s to address the need for interagency coordination during California wildfires. ICS was adopted as a major component of the National Incident Management System in 2004. The other was the Emergency Support Function concept developed by FEMA Region IX to support interagency coordination during major earthquakes and incorporated into the National Plan for Federal Response To a Catastrophic Earthquake in the mid-1980s. There had been several largely unsuccessful attempts to merge the two systems, such as the National Response Plan in 2004. The interim version of Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 Producing Emergency Plans: A Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning for State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal Governments in July 2008 included the ESF system as an emergency operations plan format while including a full discussion on ICS with little specific guidance on how to integrate the two. However, this has always been a bit of a forced marriage.

Note that these concepts were originally intended to support either federal needs or on-site event management and were not specifically intended for use in EOCs. However, there has always been a tendency for state and local plans to mirror federal level plans and both concepts were adapted for local use. The result of this is that there is no standard EOC organization and jurisdictions are free to use whichever system works best. I see this as a good thing as I think we are in danger of becoming overly standardized with the push for resource typing. I mentioned earlier that operational context is the deciding factor and that includes corporate culture. Corporate culture is the basis on which people within an organization interact with each other and how decisions. While the hierarchical approach inherent in ICS might work well for some, the ESF concept or some other format may work better for others.

There is another important shift that has taken place over time. The National Incident Management System Emergency Operations Center How-To Quick Reference Guide published August 2021 slightly modifies the definition of the EOC:

An EOC is a physical or virtual location from which leaders of a jurisdiction or organization coordinate information and resources to support incident management activities (on-scene operations).

This definition is echoed in the current version of CPG 101, published in 2021.

Note the shift from direction and control to coordination of information and the provision of support to on-scene operations. This reflects our better understanding of how people will react in disaster situations and our emphasis on community involvement. It clearly delineates the difference between the tactical and operational levels in response and clearly defines the relationship between the EOC and field ICS structures. Is the EOC confined to coordination only? Definitely not. Again, operational context drives response. I have seen EOC used as area commands and even as incident command posts. Generally, these have been smaller jurisdictions or very specific events. Generally, the larger the incident, the more the EOC will need to focus on resource coordination and information analysis.

Another key point in the definition is the acknowledgement that we are becoming more technologically dependent. Emergency management software, mapping programs, drone surveillance - all of these are increasing our ability to respond effectively. Virtual EOCs that allow for participation from multiple locations can solve a lot of issues that we currently have with physical EOCs. However, they do have their own set of problems and we need to be cognizant about them.

To answer the questions I posed earlier, “the EOC” refers to the physical location. How that location is used and how it staffed is hasn’t really been defined and the guidance we do have also for tremendous flexibility. Keep that in mind and keep your focus on the operational context.

Posted by Lucien Canton on 01/30/2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

12/30/2023

12/29/2023

Volcanoes: The Ultimate Cascading Event

One of the basic concepts in emergency management is the cascading event, an event that occurs as the result of an initial event. A good example can be found in Hurricane Katrina where the hurricane missed making landfall in New Orleans but led to the failure of floodwalls and levees in over 50 locations. The result was major flooding in 80% of the city up to 10 feet in some locations. We saw the same in San Francisco in 1906 where the earthquake did significant initial damage but then sparked a series of fires that burned for several days and destroyed over 80% of the city.

The problem with examples like these is that they tend to make us think of disasters as strictly localized events. In Managing for Long-term Community Recovery in the Aftermath of Disaster, authors Daniel Alesch, Lucy Arendt and James Holly identify ripple effects that affect the external environment as well as the affected community. These ripple effects have consequences for the external environment and in turn produce ripple effects that can have consequences for the affected community. For example, Hurricane Katrina produced problems for communities hosting refugees from the disaster which in turn had an impact on New Orleans as many of these people opted to make new lives in the host communities. Likewise, insurance payments following the 1906 earthquake and fires in San Francisco led to a market contraction that in turn contributed to the financial Panic of 1907.

However, the recent eruption of a volcano on Iceland’s Reykjanes peninsula should serve as a warning that these examples pale in comparison to the cascading events that can be created by volcanoes. We tend to think of volcanoes as localized events. Volcanoes certainly can produce horrific local events due to pyroclastic flows (a dense, fast-moving flow of solidified lava pieces, volcanic ash, and hot gases) and lava but these affect a limited area. The real potential for widespread cascading events lies in the volcanic ash produced in explosive eruptions. Unlike normal wood ash, volcanic ash is composed of sharp angular particles of rock. This has a detrimental effect when inhaled by humans or animals, can contaminate food and water supplies, and affect machinery and electronic devices. Volcanic ash clouds can reflect solar radiation and absorb land radiation, leading to cooling temperatures and, in extreme cases, volcanic winter.

An example of the potential impact of a volcanic eruption is the 2010 eruption of Eyjafjallajökull, Iceland. The resulting ash cloud spread over parts of Europe and forced the cancellation of approximately 100,000 flights, costing the aviation industry some $2.6 billion. Note that this was not a particularly significant eruption. There have been far worse.

There have been five significant mass extinction events or “die-offs” in pre-history that had significant impact on life on earth. Largely considered the worst was the third occurring in the Permian – Triassic Period some 250 million years ago. This event saw the extinction of 81% of all marine species and 70% of all terrestrial species. Overall, estimates of the extinction rate have been as high as 95%. The cause? Increased volcanic activity leading to volcanic winters.

While this is an extreme example, there are numerous and more recent examples of how volcanic eruptions have the capacity to change history. The volcanic eruption of the island of Thera in 1628 BCE may have contributed to the end of the Minoan and there are suggestions in Chinese records that it may have produced a volcanic winter. The eruption of the Samalas volcano in Indonesia in 1257 CE altered the world’s climate, causing damp, cold winters in 1258-59 that resulted in widespread crop failures and famine. A similar situation occurred in 1816 when the eruption of Mount Tabor in 1815 caused what became known as the “Year Without Summer” with resulting crop failures and famine. As recently as 1991, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines caused a global temperature decrease of .9°F (.5°C) for roughly 3 years. There are many more examples of the effect of volcanic ash on climate that in turn produces social change.

Of even greater concern are the roughly 60 “supervolcanoes” scattered around the globe. A supervolcano is a volcano that has had a past eruption with a volcanic explosivity index (VEI) of 8. A VEI of 8 is the highest recorded magnitude on the scale and the eruption creates a volume of 240 cubic miles (1000 cubic kilometers). The magnitude of such eruptions would cause significant impacts to climate, technology, and health. A 2014 paper by the United States Geological Survey demonstrated that the ash cloud from an eruption of the Yellowstone volcano would cover most of the United States within a month.

Clearly, such events will require major response on both the national and international level. So, what can a local emergency manager do? The answer is simple: we do what we have always done: assess risk and mitigate what we can.

One of the biggest things we can do is to be cognizant of the facts and share them with the public. For example, while the Yellowstone supervolcano has received a lot of play in the doomsday media, the USGS website points out that the volcano is behaving within historical norms and there is no indication of an imminent eruption. Furthermore, an eruption would most likely consist of lava flows. If you have a risk of volcanic activity in your jurisdiction, liaising with volcanologists is essential.

With regards to mitigation, there are lessons to be learned from the events such as Mount St. Helens about the impact of ash deposits on emergency vehicles and personnel and the unique demands on recovery operations. For example, volcanic ash tends to harden with the consistency of concrete when wet. It can affect transportation, as we saw in 2010, agriculture, electrical and telecommunications systems, water treatment facilities, and anything that relies on air filtration: vehicles, furnaces, air conditioners, etc. Like any other risk, there are things that can be done to protect our capacity to respond and to limit harm to the public.

Like any other risk we deal with, volcanic activity must be considered but it must also be put into context. We cannot plan for every disaster in detail, but we can be cognizant of its risk and factor it into our all-hazards planning as appropriate. Remember that all-hazards planning doesn’t mean “plan for everything;” it means “be prepared to respond to anything.” There’s a big difference between the two.

Posted by Lucien Canton on 12/29/2023 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Canton on Emergency Management

Categories

Search

Follow Me

04/25/2024

But That Plan Is Just for Disasters!

03/26/2024

Do You Really Want a Robot to Write Your Emergency Plan?

02/27/2024

Who Writes This Stuff Anyway? How Federal Guidance Gets Developed

01/30/2024

The Evolving Emergency Operations Center

12/30/2023

12/29/2023

Volcanoes: The Ultimate Cascading Event

Disaster Preparedness Video Series

Search

Follow Me

04/25/2024

Featured Articles

03/26/2024

Featured Articles

02/27/2024

Featured Articles

01/30/2024

Featured Articles

12/30/2023

Featured Articles

12/29/2023

Disaster Preparedness Video Series