Most THIRAs are built by sitting a planning team in a room and asking how bad a flood could be. Fenix EM builds them by pulling NOAA, USGS, FEMA, state climatology, and historical loss data, then quantifying impacts against actual demographic and infrastructure exposure. Plans that survive auditor scrutiny because they were built that way from the start.
Cities, counties, and Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) regions facing THIRA/SPR cycles, EMAP accreditation, federal grant compliance, or planning documents inherited from prior administrations that won't survive scrutiny.
Tribal emergency management, water districts, school districts, transit authorities, and other special-purpose governments needing planning documents aligned to federal preparedness frameworks and grant-eligibility requirements.
State-level emergency management, public health preparedness offices, and agency-specific COOP programs requiring updated planning documents that reflect current doctrine and post-COVID lessons learned.
Hospital systems, utility operators, and critical infrastructure protection programs applying the same risk-based methodology to enterprise emergency operations planning, regulatory compliance, and continuity programs.
Large industrial operations, distribution networks, and corporate campuses needing rigorous, data-grounded hazard analysis to drive emergency planning, insurance documentation, and board-level risk reporting.
Most THIRAs and hazard plans get built one of two ways. The lazy way: stakeholders sit in a room and rate threats on a 1–5 scale based on what they remember and what they fear. The compliance way: a consultant copies last year's document, updates the dates, and submits it. Both produce documents that fail under any meaningful review.
Fenix EM builds them differently — and the methodology is the differentiator.
Every planning engagement follows the same disciplined arc — assess what's on paper today, build documents grounded in real data, and stand them up so they actually drive program operations.
We start by reviewing every plan, annex, MOU, and supporting document currently in force. We map them against current FEMA doctrine (CPG 101, CPG 201, NIMS, EMAP standards) and identify what's expired, contradictory, or hollow. Most engagements surface significant gaps in this phase alone.
This is the core of the engagement — building the actual documents. Hazard analysis grounded in authoritative data, capability targets calibrated to real scenarios, plans written in plain language that staff can actually use during an event. Cross-referenced and cited end-to-end.
Plans that get adopted but never read are nearly as useless as no plan at all. We support actual adoption — leadership briefings, staff orientation, exercise validation, and a year-one sustainment plan that makes sure documents stay current as conditions change.
Engagement scales to the scope of the planning effort and what your funding cycle allows. Most jurisdictions begin with the document review and decide on the larger build from there.
A structured review of existing planning documents against current doctrine. The right entry point when leadership needs an honest read on plan currency before committing to a full rebuild.
End-to-end planning rebuild — THIRA, EOP, hazard annexes, continuity plans, and IPP. Scope adjusts to jurisdiction size, plan inventory, and the depth of hazard analysis required.
Ongoing plan currency support after a major build. Doctrine monitoring, annual updates, post-incident plan revisions, and on-call advisory for novel planning questions.
The test of a plan isn't whether it gets adopted — it's whether it holds up when EMAP arrives, when a federal grant audit asks for substantiating analysis, when a council member asks how a capability target was set, or when an after-action report has to be written against it.
Fenix EM builds plans designed to pass those tests, because the principal has been on the other side of them.
Active EMAP Assessor credentials. The plans we build are designed by someone who knows what accreditation reviewers actually look for — and what they fail.
Authoritative-data methodology that produces THIRAs and hazard annexes with traceable citations to NOAA, USGS, FEMA, and state-level data sources for every quantitative claim.
Plans informed by sixteen years of actual deployments — Kerrville, Helene, Milton, Hawaii, COVID, Route 91. The work reflects how plans actually fail under stress, not how they're supposed to perform.
Active FEMA Adjunct Instructor and HSEEP Instructor credentials. Plans align to current FEMA doctrine because we teach it.
Below are the questions that come up most often in pre-engagement conversations. If yours isn't here, the discovery call is the right place for it.
Thirty minutes, no pitch deck, no contract pressure. We talk through what plans you have, what condition they're in, what's driving the need to address them, and whether a Fenix EM engagement is the right fit. If a plan review is the right next step, we'll discuss it. If not, you'll leave with a clearer view of what should come next regardless.
Download a Fenix EM diagnostic — both surface planning currency as a domain. Free, immediate.
Municipal Preparedness Audit (PDF) → Business Continuity Risk Snapshot (PDF) →