[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Feedback "red" fields on ICS-209 form SitRep example
|
Hi Rich, I understand the wildfire definition, but my understanding is that changes to ICS over time focused on integration across hazards as you mention. Per the latest ICS 209 definition, a flood is used in the definition as an example. This is the form we have used – my understanding was that this is the very latest that DHS-NIMS had recently vetted (and I believe was approved). In that latest definition, they use completed/contained synonymously. • Enter the percent that this incident is completed or contained (e.g., 50%), with a % label. • For example, a spill may be 65% contained, or flood response objectives may be 50% met. Thanks, Tim Grapes SE Solutions, Inc. (703) 304-4829 From: Vandame, Richard [mailto:Richard.Vandame@dhs.gov] Hi, Tim. WFCG defines contained as - The status of a wildfire suppression action signifying that a controlline has been completed around the fire, and any associated spot fires, which can reasonably be expected to stop the fire’s spread. In this sense completed is not the same as contained. The ICS forms should be discipline agnostic, but may not be. I found several very different forms claiming to be form 209. Rich . Richard Vandame "There are 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.” From: emergency-return-2674-Richard.Vandame=dhs.gov@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:emergency-return-2674-Richard.Vandame=dhs.gov@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Grapes, Timothy Folks, My input on the 2 ICS-209 elements in red: 1. Field 8 “Percent contained” “Completed” a. I feel we should simply keep our schema as is and populate only “Percent contained” in the example form. All definitions I had read (and we adopted in the data dictionary) specified that “contained” and “completed” were synonymous. This is the first I have noticed this 209 form field laid out that way – seems confusing to me. 2. Field *15: Primary Location, Organization, or Agency Sent To a. The early decision was that the “sent to” requirement here is met by and mapped to the EDXL-DE “recipientRole”. I suggest we leave this field in the example blank for the moment and run this through public comment. However, in order to meet the ICS need, we probably should plan to add this element to the SitRep schema. Question for Don: How about the resources matrix under field 49? Was that simply an effort issue to come up with example data to populate a handful of rows? Thanks, Tim Grapes SE Solutions, Inc. (703) 304-4829 From: McGarry, Donald P. [mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org] I just uploaded a draft of the ICS209 form that matches the version 7 schema. We can discuss today. I may be 5 min late but will be on. From: Grapes, Timothy [mailto:Timothy.Grapes@sesolutions.com] 800-320-4330 PIN# 663210 Thanks, Tim Grapes SE Solutions, Inc. (703) 304-4829 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]