DHS held a “training course” in Sandy Hook Connecticut!

The Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program, (HSEEP), “provides a standardized methodology and terminology for exercise design, development, conduct, evaluation, and improvement planning.” That’s according the HSEEP website.

In plain language, this is the agency that carries out preparedness drills. Like the one that went down in Aurora, Colorado just before the “Dark Knight” shooter event. Now we’ve learned of an HSEEP exercise in Sandy Hook, Connecticut…

Here is the webpage with information about the HSEEP training course, from the State of Connecticut’s website. Scrolling down the page reveals the location of the exercise, and the contact agent, Tom Romano.

Since the “event” in Newtown Connecticut, images of this very suspicious coincidence have gone viral over the internet. I have included scree captures of the relevant web pages. In case the perpetrators of this latest false-flag shooting try to erase their complicity…

Here is the incriminating webpage, from the State of Connecticut’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.

Here are three sections, covering the entire webpage.

Please note: Go to the page and click the link on the bottom marked DEMHS Calender of Events. Enter December 2012, and you see a drill scheduled for 12/14!

HSEEP

The Homeland Security National Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) constitutes a national standard for all exercises. Through exercises, the National Exercise Program supports organizations to achieve objective assessments of their capabilities so that strengths and areas for improvement are identified, corrected, and shared as appropriate prior to a real incident. To learn more about the HSEEP program, click on the About HSEEP tab above.

Improvement Planning Workshop (IPW)

provided an opportunity to review the Region’s improvement planning action items from the previous year’s “exercises and real-world events” to determine the target capability priorities for the Region.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region X Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plan provides a “roadmap for FEMA Region X” to address its Regional priorities through training and exercises. This document is the result of a two-part process consisting of an
Improvement Planning Workshop (IPW) and a Training and Exercise Planning Workshop
(TEPW); the Region X IPW and TEPW were held on June 23 and 24, 2009.

The IPW provided an opportunity to review the Region’s improvement planning action items from the previous year’s exercises and “real-world events” to determine the target capability priorities for the Region.
During the TEPW, the Region used these priority capabilities to coordinate all training and exercise activities occurring throughout the Region, including activities sponsored by Federal and State agencies and Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) entities, and to define Regional exercises. This process helps the Region ensure that training and exercise schedules are coordinated to prevent duplication of efforts and overextension of resources.

http://www.ipainstitute.com/Programs/Work-Process-Reengineering-Workshop

FEMA Region X Multi-year Training and Exercise Plan 2010-2014 | Public Intelligence

(U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Expressed or Implied Threat

April 10, 2013 in Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ROLL CALL RELEASE

ROLL CALL RELEASE

• 1 page
• For Official Use Only
• March 1, 2013

(U//FOUO) Expressed or implied threats by an individual or a group communicating intent to commit acts of terrorism or violence or advocating violence against a person, population, or to damage or destroy a facility can be an indicator of pre-operational attack planning. For example, in 2010 a Virginia-based US person pled guilty to communicating threats after he posted a video to the Internet encouraging violent extremists to attack the creators of a television show, including highlighting their residence and urging online readers to “pay them a visit.” He also admitted to soliciting others to desensitize law enforcement by placing suspicious looking but innocent packages in public places, which could then be followed up by real explosives.

(U//FOUO) The following SAR incident reported to the NSI shared space provides an example of an implied threat that could be indicative of pre-operational activity and attack planning. Although it was not ultimately linked to terrorist activity, it is cited as an example for awareness and training purposes:

— (U//FOUO) A courthouse building received an envelope, postmarked out of state, in which a smaller envelope marked “white powder” contained an unknown substance. The incident appeared to be related to 17 other similar suspicious letters containing white substance mailed over a period of several weeks to financial institutions, police departments, state and local government offices, and court facilities.

(U) Possible Indicators of Suspicious Expressed or Implied Threats

(U//FOUO) The following are examples of threats that may constitute warning signs of impending acts of violence. Depending on the context—state of mind of the individual, personal behaviors, and other indicators—expressed or implied threats should be reported to appropriate authorities.

— (U//FOUO) Statements by individuals or groups communicated verbally, in writing, or through video recordings stating the intent to commit violence.
— (U//FOUO) Letters and packages containing suspicious substances accompanied by a note stating that its contents are noxious or intending to communicate threat.
— (U//FOUO) Specific warnings about impending attacks that provide date, time, or place of the threatened attack.
— (U//FOUO) Specific stated threats to individuals or facilities to deter an anticipated action or force compliance with a demand.

(U//FOUO) First Amendment-protected activities should not be reported in a SAR or ISE-SAR absent articulable facts and circumstances that support the source agency’s suspicion that the behavior observed is not innocent, but rather reasonably indicative of criminal activity associated with terrorism, including evidence of pre-operational planning related to terrorism. Race, ethnicity, national origin, or religious affiliation should not be considered as factors that create suspicion (although these factors may be used as specific suspect descriptions).

Tags: Department of Homeland Security, Domestic Terrorism, Federal Bureau of Investigation, For Official Use Only, Suspicious Activity Reporting
No Comments »

Related Material From the Archive:

1. (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Recruiting
2. (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Photography
3. (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Observation/Surveillance
4. (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Theft/Loss/Diversion
5. (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Acquisition of Expertise
6. (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Testing of Cybersecurity
7. (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Materials Acquisition/Storage
8. (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Aviation Flyovers

http://publicintelligence.net/

FEMA Region X Multi-year Training and Exercise Plan 2010-2014

Regional Training and Program Needs

Region X identified the following training opportunities to address the Regional priorities.

Multi-Year Exercise Schedule Fiscal Years 2010–2014

Region X identified the following exercises as part of the Regional-level calendar. Any HSEEP-based exercise where the host/lead is a State, Federal jurisdiction, or a Federal/State partnership and engages with at least one State and/or Federal agency (primarily Emergency Support Function [ESF] partners) within FEMA Region X may be placed on the Regional-level calendar. In addition, associated training courses available, or needed, to prepare exercise participants for the identified Regional-level exercises are included in the following table.

Fiscal Year 2010

Event	Proposed Date	Sponsor/Location	Training Needs
Eastport Border Full-Scale Exercise (FSE)	October 2009	U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP)/Idaho	ICS 300
Alaska Shield Tabletop Exercise (TTX)	October 2009	Alaska/Alaska
Interagency Biological Restoration Demonstration TTX	October 6–7, 2009	Washington, DHS Science and Technology Directorate/Defense Threat Reduction Agency
Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) Receiving, Staging, and Storage FSE	October 20–21, 2009	Washington State Department of Health/Washington
Vigilant Shield FSE	November 2009	U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM)/Washingt on, Alaska	TTX (Arctic Resolve)
2010 Olympics Prism Functional Exercise (FE)	November 4, 2009	Washington, Federal/Washington	WebEOC, Independent Study (IS) 701
NDMS (Federal Coordination Center [FCC])Workshop	December 2009	FCC/Washington	FCC 101 seminars; IS 1900 (NDMS overview); Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) 100, 200, and 300
Cold Weather FE	February 2010	U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)/Alaska
IEMC	February 2010	Alaska/Alaska
Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield Anti-Terrorism Force Protection (ATFP)/Emergency Preparedness FSE	February/March 2010	U.S. Navy/Region
NDMS (FCC) TTX	March 2010	FCC/Washington	NDMS Workshop (December 2009)
Event	Proposed Date	Sponsor/Location	Training Needs
Alaska Shield TTX	April 2010	Alaska/Alaska
Alaska Shield/Arctic Edge/Vigilant Guard FSE (linked to NDMS FSE and NDMS [FCC] FE–Arctic Spring)	April/May 2010	Alaska, U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)/Alaska
NDMS FSE (linked to Alaska Shield/Arctic Edge/Vigilant Guard FSE and NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring)	May 2010	NDMS, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)/TBD
NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring (linked to Alaska Shield/Arctic Edge/Vigilant Guard FSE and NDMS FSE)	May 2010	FCC/Washington	Workshop/TTX prior
CSEPP FSE	May 2010	U.S. Army/Oregon, Washington	CSEPP seminar at State level
U.S. Department of Energy– Richland (USDOE-RL) FSE	June 2010	USDOE/Washington	USDOE seminar at State level
Citadel Rumble Emergency Preparedness FSE	Summer 2010	U.S. Navy/Washington
Columbia Generating Station Practice Plume/Ingestion Drill (REP)	July 13–14, 2010	REP	REP seminar at State level
Canada U.S. (CanUS) North FE	August 2010	U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)/Alaska	ICS 300, TTX prior
Columbia Generating Station Graded Exercise Plume/ Ingestion FSE (REP)	August 31– September 1, 2010	REP
IEMC	September 2010	Idaho/Idaho	G191, G775, G358, ICS 300 (private sector), Communications Leader, Applied Technology Council (ATC) courses, Rapid Visual Screening class, Preliminary Damage Assessment, Debris Management
CanUS Dixon Entrance FE	September 2010	USCG/Alaska	ICS 300, TTX prior
Continuity of Operations (COOP) FSE	September 2010	USCG/Alaska
Debt Collection Exercise Evaluation 2010	September 2010	U.S. Army/TBD	G348, Debt Collection Assistance Officer
Anthrax TTX	Summer 2010	DHS Office of Health Affairs/HHS

Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2014

Event	Proposed Date	Sponsor/Location	Training Needs
Vigilant Shield FSE	November 2010	U.S. Army/Alaska
Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield ATFP/Emergency Preparedness FSE	February/March 2011	U.S. Navy/Region
NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring	May 2011	FCC/Washington
USDOE-RL FSE	June 2011	USDOE/Washington	USDOE seminar at State level
Citadel Rumble Emergency Preparedness FSE	Summer 2011	U.S. Navy/Washington
Alaska Shield TTX	October 2011	Alaska/Alaska
Vigilant Shield FSE	November 2011	U.S. Army/Alaska
Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield ATFP/Emergency Preparedness FSE	February/March 2011	U.S. Navy/Region
Alaska Shield/Arctic Edge/Vigilant Guard	April 2011	Alaska, DoD/Alaska	TBD
Alaska Shield TTX	April 2011	Alaska/Alaska
NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring	May 2011	FCC/Washington	Workshop/TTX prior
USDOE-RL FSE	June 2011	USDOE/Washington	USDOE seminar at State level
Citadel Rumble Emergency Preparedness FSE	Summer 2011	U.S. Navy/Washington
Columbia Generating Station Practice Plume Drill (REP)	July 10, 2011	REP	REP seminar at State level
Columbia Generating Station Graded Exercise Plume FSE (REP)	August 28, 2011	REP	REP seminar at State level

Event	Proposed Date	Sponsor/Location	Training Needs
Alaska Shield TTX	October 2011	Alaska/Alaska
Vigilant Shield FSE	November 2011	U.S. Army/Alaska
Puget Sound Regional Earthquake Response FE	TBD 2012	FEMA/Seattle	TBD, Resource Management, POD
Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield ATFP/Emergency Preparedness FSE	February/March 2012	U.S. Navy/Region
Mt. Rainer Rumbles FE	March 2011	USCG Sector Seattle
Alaska Shield/Arctic Edge/Vigilant Guard	April 2012	Alaska, DoD/Alaska	TBD
Alaska Shield TTX	April 2012	Alaska/Alaska
NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring	May 2012	FCC/Washington	Workshop/TTX prior
USDOE-RL FSE	June 2012	USDOE/Washington	USDOE seminar at State level
Citadel Rumble Emergency Preparedness FSE	Summer 2012	U.S. Navy/Washington
Columbia Generating Station Practice Plume Drill (REP)	July 10, 2012	REP	REP seminar at State level
Columbia Generating Station Graded Exercise Plume FSE (REP)	August 28, 2012	REP	REP seminar at State level

Event	Proposed Date	Sponsor/Location	Training Needs
Vigilant Shield FSE	November 2012	U.S. Army/Alaska	TBD
Nuclear Weapon Accident Exercise	2013	U.S. Navy/Washington (TBD)	TBD
Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield ATFP/Emergency Preparedness FSE	February/March 2013	U.S. Navy/Region
NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring	May 2013	FCC/Washington	Workshop/TTX prior
USDOE-RL FSE	June 2013	USDOE/Washington	USDOE seminar at State level
Citadel Rumble Emergency Preparedness FSE	Summer 2013	U.S. Navy/Washington

Event	Proposed Date	Sponsor/Location	Training Needs
Vigilant Shield FSE	November 2013	U.S. Army/Alaska	TBD
Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield ATFP/Emergency Preparedness FSE	February/March 2014	U.S. Navy/Region
Alaska Shield/Arctic Edge/Vigilant Guard	April 2014	Alaska, DoD/Alaska	TBD
Alaska Shield TTX	April 2014	Alaska/Alaska
NDMS (FCC) FE–Arctic Spring	May 2014	FCC/Washington	Workshop/TTX prior
USDOE-RL FSE	June 2014	USDOE/Washington, Oregon	USDOE seminar at State level
Citadel Rumble Emergency Preparedness FSE	Summer 2014	U.S. Navy/Washington
Columbia Generating Station Graded Exercise Ingestion FSE (REP)	August 26–27, 2014	REP	REP seminar at State level

Tags: Department of Homeland Security, For Official Use Only, Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program, National Exercise Program
5 Comments »

http://info.publicintelligence.net/Final_Region_X_Training_and_Exercise_Plan.pdf

http://publicintelligence.net/fema-region-x-multi-year-training-and-exercise-plan-2010-2014/

Region X identified the following exercises as part of the Regional-level calendar Region X Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plan Fiscal Years

2010–2014. Any HSEEP-based exercise where the host/lead is a State, Federal jurisdiction, or a Federal/State partnership and engages with at least one State and/or Federal agency (primarily Emergency Support Function partners) …

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS Distribution: This plan, and its supporting material, is a controlled document. The plan, by its very nature, is not considered to be available for public consumption. Distribution is based upon regulatory or a functional “need to know” basis. Per PEMA Circular, “Release of Sensitive Documents or Information to the General Public in Light of the Terrorist Threat,” the County Emergency Operations Plan is considered a sensitive document. Copies of this plan are distributed according to an approved control list. A record of distribution, by copy number, is maintained on file by the County EMC. Controlled copies of revisions will be distributed to designated plan holders. Revisions or changes are documented by means of the “Record of Changes”. A receipt system will be used to verify and control the distribution process; a detailed distribution list can be found under the “Record of Distribution” tab of this plan.

HSEEP II

 Exercise Overview

Information in the Exercise Overview should be “structured data”—written as a list rather than in paragraph form—in order to facilitate preparation of other parts of the AAR, maintain consistency within AAR/IPs, and facilitate the analysis of AAR/IPs for program reporting. Specifically, the Exercise

Overview should contain the following information:

Exercise Name

Formal name of exercise

Type of Exercise The type of exercise as described in Homeland Security Exercise Evaluation

Program (HSEEP) Volume I: seminar, workshop, drill, game, tabletop, functional exercise, or full-scale exercise

Exercise Start Date The month, day, and year that the exercise began

Exercise End Date The month, day, and year that the exercise ended

Duration

The total length of the exercise (in day or hours, as appropriate)

Appendix A: After Action Report / Improvement Plan Guidelines

A-2

HSEEP Volume III

Location

All applicable information regarding the specific location of the exercise, including the city, State, Federal region, international country, military installation, as applicable

Sponsor

The Federal agency or agencies that sponsored the exercise, as well as any co-sponsors (if applicable)

Program

The name of the program from which exercise funding originated

Funding Recipient

The entities (e.g., organizations, jurisdictions, agencies) that received funding for the exercise

Mission

The appropriate mission(s) of the exercise (e.g., Prevent, Protect, Response, Recovery)

Capabilities

A list of the capabilities addressed within the exercise

Scenario

The exercise/event scenario (one or more of the following):

• Biological
• Aerosol Anthrax
• Food Contamination
• Foreign Animal Disease
• Pandemic Influenza
• Plague
• Other
• Chemical
• Blister Agent
• Chlorine Tank Explosion
• Nerve Agent
• Toxic Industrial Chemical
• Other
• Explosives
• Improvised Explosive Device
• Natural Disaster
• Major Earthquake
• Major Hurricane
• Nuclear
• Improvised Nuclear Device
• Other
• Agriculture
• Cyber
• -Pollution
• •Radiological
• Radiological Dispersal Device
• Other

Exercise Planning Team

A list of exercise planning team members, including their associated  organizations or agencies

Appendix A: After Action Report / Improvement Plan Guidelines

A-3

HSEEP Volume III

Participating Agencies

A list of the individual participating organizations or agencies, including Federal, State, tribal, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and local and international agencies, as applicable

Number of Participants

A list of the total number of each of the following exercise participants (as applicable, depending on the type of exercise and specific design needs):

•Players

•Victim role players

•Controllers

•Evaluators

•Observers

•Facilitators

Crisis Actors – Trained Players and Actors Making It Real

By  Nicholas V. Iuppa (Belmont, CA), Andrew S. Gordon (Marina Del Rey, CA)

Recent United States Army studies have indicated that the leadership requirements of the modern war fighting force involve several significant differences from historical experience. Some factors of particular importance to the new generation of military leaders include: (i) the broad variety of people-centered, crisis-based military missions, including counter-terrorism, peacekeeping, operations in urban terrain and the newly emphasized homeland defense, in addition to more conventional warfare; (ii) the command of and dependence on a number of complex weapon, communication and intelligence systems involving advanced technology and specialized tasks; (iii) increased robotic and automated elements present on the battlefield; (iv) distributed forces at all echelons, requiring matching forms of distributed command; and (v) increased emphasis on collaboration in planning and operations.

The demographics of the military leadership corps is changing in several ways. Among the positive features of this change is a high level of sophistication and experience in computer use, including computer communication gaming and data acquisition. This means that modern training simulations should be as motivating and as well-implemented as commercial gaming and information products in order to capture and hold the attention of new military trainees.

There are currently highly developed aircraft, tank and other ground vehicle virtual simulators that realistically present military terrain and the movement of the vehicles within the terrain. Such simulators are very effective at teaching basic operational skills. Networks of virtual simulators, including SIMNET, CCTT and the CATT family, are also available to teach leader coordination of combined arms weapons systems during conventional and MOUT (Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain) warfare in highly lifelike settings. Likewise, constructive simulations such as BBS, Janus, WARSIM, WARSIM 2000 and others are very effective in focusing on the tactical aspects of leadership, i.e., representing movement of material, weapons and personnel particularly for higher echelon maneuvers.

But the same level of developmental effort has not been directed toward equally effective virtual and/or constructive simulators for training leadership and related cognitive skills in scenarios involving substantial human factor challenges. For example, driving a tank does not require the background knowledge, the collaboration or the complex political, diplomatic and psychological judgments that must be made in a difficult, people-centered crisis leadership situation. These judgments depend largely on the actual and estimated behavior of human participants, both friend and foe, in the crisis situation. Unfortunately, the complete modeling of complex human behavior is still beyond current technical capabilities.

As a result, these kinds of leadership skills have routinely been taught in the classroom through lectures and exercises featuring handouts and videotapes. It is possible for a good instructor to build the tension needed to approximate a leadership crisis, but sustaining the tension is difficult to accomplish. Showing the heartbreak of the crisis and the gut-wrenching decisions that must be made is not the strong suit of paper-and-pencil materials or low budget, home-grown videos.

Large classroom exercises such as “Army After Next” and “The Crisis Decision Exercise” at the National Defense University have attempted to give some sense of the leaders’ experience through week-long exercises that involve months of planning. These exercises are effective, but they cannot be distributed widely or easily recreated without significant effort. Also, they are not easy to update and modify, and they require a large contingent of designers and developers, as well as on-site operators, to run them after months of planning time.

Story-based simulations, on the other hand, increase participant attention and retention because story-based experiences are more involving and easier to remember. Participants are also able to build judgmental, cognitive and decision-making leadership skills because the simulations provide realistic context in which to model outstanding leadership behavior. Story-based simulations can teach innovation because they are able to challenge participants by providing dramatic encounters with unexpected events and possibilities. Also, story-based simulations overcome the limitations of current constructive and virtual simulations in modeling complex human behavior, which is an increasing aspect of today’s leadership challenges.

Crisis-based leadership training requires an awareness of human factors that has been especially difficult to teach through printed materials or the classroom. Giving complexity to an adversary’s personality or turning a political confrontation into a battle of wits and will (things that, in fact, represent much of today’s military decision making) are easier to discuss than to practice or simulate.

From a computational perspective, the term simulation is commonly used to refer to computational systems that compute subsequent states of a modeled environment by applying some transformational rules to the current model state. For example, weather simulations are computed in this manner–by first describing the current meteorological conditions and then applying knowledge about atmospheric conditions to make a prediction about what will happen in the future. Likewise, the U.S. military uses simulations to make predictions about the outcomes of battles and to give soldiers experience in simulations of potential future battles. The phrase `constructive simulations` has been used to describe simulations that compute subsequent states by applying transformational rules to the current state. Constructive simulations easily accommodate run-time interaction on the part of human participants. That is, at any moment in the simulation, a trainee can make a decision that changes the state of the modeled world and causes a change that will be propagated by transformational rules, and which may ultimately cause drastic changes in the final outcome of a simulated warfare environment.

The important disadvantage of the use of constructive simulations in military training is the surrender of pedagogical and dramatic control. While it may be desirable to use a simulation to provide pedagogically valuable experiences to trainees, there is little that an instructional designer can do to ensure that certain experiences will occur within the environment. As the trainees have free will and control over the course of the outcome of the simulation, it is impossible to ensure that a specific situation or set of situations will arise once the simulation has begun. The only direct control that instructional designers are given over the simulation is its starting state. Accordingly, there has been an increasing amount of interest in the notion of scenario development, where this has come to mean the specification of initial states for constructive simulations that are likely to lead to pedagogically valuable experiences for trainees.

While well-crafted initial states have a certain utility, particularly when training tactical skills for force-on-force warfare, other types of skill training suffer greatly due to the lack of pedagogical control. This is particularly true of military leadership skill training, where the lessons to be learned by trainees have less to do with timing and positioning of troops, and more to do with complex interrelationships among superior and subordinate officers and enlisted soldiers. In short, it is much easier to ensure that a tactical problem will arise given an initial simulation state than a leadership problem.

Given the autonomy of the actors’ characters in a storyline, the story composer is additionally faced with numerous critical problems: how can the composer prevent the actor from taking actions in the imagined world that will move the story in a completely unforeseen direction, or from taking actions that will derail the storyline entirely? How can the composer allow the actors to make critical decisions, devise creative plans, and explore different options without giving up the narrative control that is necessary to deliver a compelling experience? Also, in the case of interactive tutoring systems, how can the composer understand enough about the beliefs and abilities of the actors to create an experience that has some real educational value, i.e., that improves the quality of the decisions that they would make when faced with similar situations in the real world?

Therefore, what is needed is a method and apparatus for advanced leadership training simulation that allows the participants to make real-time critical decisions, devise creative plans and explore different options without relinquishing the composer’s narrative control and while allowing the composer to create an experience that improves the quality of leadership decision-making and delivers a compelling experience, preferably using story-driven simulation.

Story-driven simulation is a technology that expands on previous research efforts to create interactive experiences in virtual worlds where the outcomes are known and specified in advance by instructional designers (e.g., Cleave, 1997). This approach allows instructional designers to work with storyline writers to create a training experience that is dramatically engaging and includes a specific set of training experiences, but to do so in a manner that allows for a high degree of interactivity.

http://crisisactors.org/

____

Sample Exercise Materials

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN X

MONTOUR COUNTY

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN

Plan Development

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN X

X. PLAN DEVELOPMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND DISTRIBUTION

A. References Pennsylvania Emergency Management Services Code, 35 PA C.S Sections

7701-7707, as amended

B. Requirements

1. State Law: The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Services Code, 35 PA C.S Sections  7701-7707, as amended, requires each county and municipality to prepare, maintain and keep current an emergency operations plan (EOP). Further, the plan must be available for inspection in the EOC, along with applicable emergency management plans, procedures and directives of PEMA and the Commonwealth.

2. County Resolution: Resolution number __________ dated _______  charges the County Emergency Management Coordinator to develop the County Emergency Operations Plan and coordinate the preparation of supporting standard operating checklists.

3. Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA): This plan conforms to various Federal agency requirements and the format prescribed by PEMA to facilitate review and cross reference to PEMA, FEMA and Department of Homeland Security Documents.

C. Development and Maintenance Responsibilities

1. EMC Responsibility: The County EMC will coordinate development and maintenance of the plan. Plan components will be reviewed and updated consistently. Incident Specific Annexes require an annual review based upon legislation or regulation. Whenever portions of this plan are implemented in an emergency event or exercise, a review will be conducted to determine necessary changes.

2.Primary and Support Agencies to the Emergency

Support Functions (ESFs) of this plan are responsible for the development and maintenance of their respective ESFs as well as carrying out their roles and responsibilities outlined in Section V.,

Direction and Control.

Written reviews will be provided to the EMC annually indicating concurrence or comments.

They will recommend changes, as necessary, and keep the EMC abreast of changes in personnel, information and available resources.

3. Enforceability:

This plan is enforceable under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Services Code and County Resolution Number _____________.

4. Execution:

This plan will be executed upon order of the County Commissioners or their authorized representative, the County Emergency Management Coordinator.

MONTOUR COUNTY

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN

Plan Development EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN X

5.Distribution:

This plan, and its supporting material, is a controlled document. The plan, by its very nature, is not considered to be available for public consumption. Distribution is based upon regulatory or a functional “need to know” basis. Per PEMA Circular, “Release of Sensitive.”

Documents or Information to the General Public in Light of the Terrorist Threat, the County Emergency Operations Plan is considered a “sensitive document.”

Copies of this plan are distributed according to an approved control list.

A record of distribution, by copy number, is maintained on file by the County EMC. Controlled copies of revisions will be distributed to designated plan holders. Revisions or changes are documented by means of the “Record of Changes.”

A receipt system will be used to verify and control the distribution process; a detailed distribution list can be found under the “Record of Development.”

http://www.montourema.org/images/Chapter_10_-_Plan_Development.pdf

__

Program Management ( 3 )

Exercise Planning

Multi-media Library

References

https://hseep.dhs.gov/hseep_Vols/HSEEP_Vol4/IVIntro.pdf

The HSEEP Toolkit is an interactive, on-line system for exercise scheduling, design, development, conduct, evaluation and improvement planning. The HSEEP Toolkit includes the National Exercise Schedule (NEXS) System, Design and Development System (DDS), and Corrective Action Program (CAP) System.The HSEEP Toolkit supports the current version of the most common web browsers, which include Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Safari, and Google Chrome. There may be some variation in performance across browsers and browser versions that may affect the end user experience.

ATTENTION: You are about to access a Department of Homeland Security computer system. This computer system and data therein are property of the U.S. Government and provided for official U.S. Government information and use. There is no expectation of privacy when you use this computer system. The use of a password or any other security measure does not establish an expectation of privacy. By using this system, you consent to the terms set forth in this notice. You may not process classified national security information on this computer system. Access to this system is restricted to authorized users only. Unauthorized access, use, or modification of this system or of data contained herein, or in transit to/from this system, may constitute a violation of section 1030 of title 18 of the U.S. Code and other criminal laws. Anyone who accesses a Federal computer system without authorization or exceeds access authority, or obtains, alters, damages, destroys, or discloses information, or prevents authorized use of information on the computer system, may be subject to penalties, fines or imprisonment. This computer system and any related equipment is subject to monitoring for administrative oversight, law enforcement, criminal investigative purposes, inquiries into alleged wrongdoing or misuse, and to ensure proper performance of applicable security features and procedures. DHS may conduct monitoring activities without further notice.

Volume IV Help