emergency management emergency management

EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT
May 2009
Presentation
i
in
i the
h Netherlands
h l d
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville District
Presenter: Becky Griffith
Chief of Planning, Jacksonville District
Presentation Overview
• Overview - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
• National Team
• USACE Organic Authority
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
May 2009
Presentation in the Netherlands
Over Two Centuries of Service
to the Army and the Nation
1884 - Construction of
Washington Monument
1775 - Congress
Establishes Corps of Engineers
1942 - 1500 Mile
Alaska Highway
1960 to present - Infrastructure
Development in Middle East
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Organizational Overview
EXECUTES PROGRAMS FOR . . .
PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
Civil Works
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
Civil Works
$4.2B
(35%)
Army
Civil
$1B (8%)
Reimbursed
$2.7B
(22%)
y
Military
Reimbursed
TOTAL $12.2 B
26,000
$3.3B
(27%)
$1B
Secretary of
the Army
(8%)
Air
Force
CAPABILITIES
• Construction Management
• Cost Estimating
• Damage Assessment
• Engineering/Design
• Legal Services
• Planning
• Procurement/Contracts
• Project Management
• Research & Development
• Real Estate
• Value Engineering
U.S. Army
Chief of
Staff
Military Programs
11,000
CIVIL WORKS DIVISION BOUNDARIES
ORGANIZATION BREAKOUT
Mississippi
Great Lakes
Valley
& Ohio River
8 Divisions
41 Districts
Northwestern
North Atlantic
5 Centers
8 Unique Laboratories
South
Pacific
South Atlantic
Pacific Ocean
Southwestern
Largest Engineering
Organization in
the World!
Support to the Army and the Nation
Civil Works Program Activities
800 Coastal
Navigation Projects
24 Million Acres
Public Lands
400 miles
Coastal
Structures
450 Major Lakes
and Reservoirs
385 M Visitors/yr
12,000 miles
Inland
Waterways
275 Locks
4300
Recreation Areas
8500 Miles
of Levees
299 Deep Draft
Harbors
Emergency
Operations
$500M Annual
Dredging Costs
Environmental
St
Stewardship
d hi
Jacksonville District Mission
Navigation
Shore Protection
Flood Damage
Reduction
Interagency and
International
Services (IIS)
Ecosystem
Restoration
Regulatory
Emergency
Management
War on
Terrorism
How Districts Organize
for Emergencies
• Limited full time staff
• Emergency Operations Center
¾ Activated as needed
¾ Augmented
A
t d by
b personnell
from other technical
organizations
¾ Funded by Corps
and/or FEMA
• Deployed personnel
¾ Standing teams
¾ Additional volunteers
What is Emergency Management?
MITIGATION
Activities
c
es that
a
PREVENT
a disaster,
reduce the chance
of it happening,
or reduce its
damaging effects
Actions taken
BEFORE
the impact,
including plans
and preparations
for disaster
PREPAREDNESS
EVENT
RECOVERY
Actions taken
AFTER
the initial impact,
including those
directed toward
a return
to normalcy
Actions taken
DURING
the initial impact
of a disaster,
including those to
save lives and
prevent further
property
damage
RESPONSE
Two Models of USACE Engagement
PL 84-99
Stafford Act,
Act PL 93-288
NATIONAL TEAM
EMERGENCY MANAGMENT
Federal Response Team
• Homeland Security Act establishes the
Department of Homeland Security (FEMA)
as lead agency for Disaster Response
• Assigns
g Responsibility
p
y to the FEMA
Administrator to consolidate existing
g
y response
p
into a single,
g ,
Federal emergency
coordinated national response framework
National Response Framework
( i Principles)
(Five
i i l )
• Engagedd partnerships
h
• Tiered response
• Scalable, flexible, and
adaptable
p
operational
p
capabilities
• Unityy of effort through
g
unified command
• Readiness to act
National Response
Framework Applicability
• Natural Disasters
• Technological
T h l i l Emergencies
E
i
• National Emergencies
g
• Terrorism
Stafford Act
• FEMA continually monitors and may activate
or pre-deploy resources
• Local ggovernments assess and in conjunction
j
with State, request Federal Assistance
• Presidential
es de t a dec
declaration,
a at o , if warranted,
a a ted, spec
specifies
es
the type of assistance to be provided
• Establish a Joint Field Office
National Response
p
Framework
Emergency Support Functions (ESF) and Coordinator Agency
1. Transportation (DOT)
3. Public Works & Engineering (DOD = USACE)
• U.S.
S Army C
Corps off Engineers
i
(USACE) is ESF #3 Coordinator
4. Firefighting (DOA)
• Typical Mission Areas:
2. Communications (DHS)
5 Emergency Management (FEMA)
5.
¾
I /W t
Ice/Water
6. Mass Care, Housing, and Human Services (DHS)
¾
Emergency Power
7. Resource Support (GSA)
¾
Temporary Roofing
8. Public Health and Medical Services (DHHS)
¾
Temporary
e po a y Housing
ous g
9. Urban Search and Rescue (FEMA)
¾
Debris Clearance and Removal
10.Oil and Hazardous Materials (EPA)
¾
Support to Urban Search and Rescue
11. Agriculture and Natural Resources (DOA)
¾
Infrastructure Assessment
12. Energy (DOE)
(
)
¾
Technical Assistance
13. Public Safety and Security ( DHS/DOJ)
14. Long-Term Community Recovery and Mitigation (DHS)
15. External Affairs (DHS)
Defense Coordinating Officer (Department of Defense)
Planning and Response Teams (PRT)
Implementing ESF#3
• Develop and deploy trained teams
USACE
E ESF#3
3
skilled in mission areas:
•
¾
Emergency Power
¾
Temporary Roofing ¾ Water
¾
Debris Removal
¾
Temporary Housing ¾ Ice
¾
Structural Safety
¾
Emergency Access
Deployment procedure:
¾
Standby = normal status; training and exercising
¾
Alert = prepared to deploy to disaster site within 6 hours
¾
Deployed = team moves from home station to
disaster site
USACE
Pl
Planning
i
and
dR
Response T
Teams
Planning and Response Teams by Mission and Number
7 - Combined Commodities (Ice and Water)
8 - Emergency Power
7 - Debris Removal
5 - Temporary Housing
2 - Emergency Access
3 - Temporary Roofing
4 - Structural Safety Assessment
36 TOTAL
Planning and Response Teams
Temporary Roofing Mission
O
Omaha
h
St. Louis
Nashville
h ill
Little Rock
Jacksonville
k
ill
Planning and Response Teams
Temporary Roofing Mission
CASE STUDY: Hurricane Ike
September 13 0200 HRS Landfall
• Landfall as a very strong
Category 2 (110 mph winds –
1 mph short of a Category 3)
• Near Galveston, Texas
• 120 mile radius hurricane
force winds
• 275 mile radius tropical
force winds
• Possible 20-25 feet maximum
storm
t
surge
• Possible 5 -10 inches rain
Source
Sou
ce NHC
C
CASE STUDY: Hurricane Ike
ESF#3 Support
• 1215 truckloads of bottled water
and 1071 truckloads of ice
•
•
•
•
•
436 pre-installation power inspections
179 generators installed at critical public facilities
25, 708 temporary roofs installed
1595 installation inspections for temporary housing
70,000 cubic yards of debris removal
Other Tools and Strategies
• Advance Contracting Initiatives (ACI)
• ESF #3 Team Leader Cadre
• Subject-Matter-Experts (SMEs)
• Pre
Pre-Scripted
Scripted Mission Assignments (MAs)
• Training, Exercises and Workshops
• Remedial / Corrective Action Plan
• ESF #3 Field Guides, Missions, Functional Guides
• Deployable
p y
Tactical Operations
p
System
y
((DTOS))
• ENGlink Interactive
• Field Force Engineering (FFE) Preparation
Other Tools and Strategies
Subject Matter Experts (SME)
• Maintain cadres of subject matter
experts that can be provided
directlyy to State,, Local and other
federal authorities under
technical assistance missions
• USACE workforce allows us to
tap into many different technical
skill sets and apply them to any
given problem
Subject
j
Matter Experts
p
• Power
• Water
• Ice
• Debris
• Structural Safety
• Technical
¾ Civil
¾ Structural
¾ Environmental
¾ Hydraulic
¾ Mechanical
¾ GIS
• Etc.
Other Tools and Strategies
Subject
j
Matter Experts
p
((SME)) – GIS Specialists
p
Crystal Beach: Pre and Post Ike
Other Tools and Strategies
Subject Matter Experts (SME) – GIS Specialists
Crystal Beach
Deployable Tactical
Operations Systems
ENGlink Interactive
• Situation Reporting
• Tasking/Tracking
System
• Training Portal
• Document Library
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Secondary Support Functions
The National Response Plan Emergency Support Functions (ESF):
1. Transportation (DOT)
2. Communications (NCS)
3 Public Works & Engineering (DHS/DOD = USACE)
3.
4. Firefighting (DOA)
5. Emergency Management (DHS/FEMA)
6. Mass Care (Red Cross)
7 Resource Support (GSA)
7.
8. Public Health and Medical Services (DHHS)
9. Urban Search and Rescue (FEMA)
10. Oil and Hazardous Materials (EPA)
11 Agriculture and Natural Resources (DOA)
11.
12. Energy (DOE)
13. Public Safety and Security (DHS/DOJ)
14. Long Term Community Recovery and Mitigation (DHS/FEMA)
15 External
15.
E t
l Affairs
Aff i (DHS/FEMA)
USACE is a Support Agency for
these Emergency Support
Functions
CASE STUDY: Hurricane Ike
FEMA Urban Search and Rescue (US&R)
• Location, rescue, initial medical
stabilization of disaster victims
trapped in confined spaces
• Rapid response to:
¾
Structure collapses
¾
Earthquakes
¾
Hurricanes and tornadoes
¾
Floods
CASE STUDY: Hurricane Ike
SEPT 13 0210 HRS
Landfall
SEPT 11 1200 HRS
Call to deploy
A Mad Dash
Against Time
Cajun Dome
Lafayette
Red Incident Support Team
CASE STUDY: Hurricane Ike
SEPT 12
Task Forces Begin to Arrive
SEPT 13 0210 HRS
Landfall
Task Force Area Readied
and Task Forces Arrive
CASE STUDY: Hurricane Ike
Local-State-Federal US&R Underway
•
•
•
•
•
2 000 sq miles flood zone in TX and LA
2,000
2.3 million evacuated TX and LA
Estimated 100,000 did not evacuate
Beginning
g
g Sept
p 12 reports
p
of flooding
g
Local, State, Federal rescue
operations underway
¾
Local fire, police
¾
LA Department Wildlife
and Fisheries
¾
National Guard
¾
USCG
¾
greater than 1,000 rescues made
Source Christian Science Monitor
CASE STUDY: Hurricane Ike
LA Task Forces Hit the Streets – September 14
FEMA US&R Task Forces deployed to
Lake Charles and Terrebonne Parish
Lake
Charles
Parrish
Lafayette
Terrebonne
Parrish
CASE STUDY: Hurricane Ike
Door to Door Search - September 14 to15
• Conduct safe searches:
Watch out for snakes and gators,
gators
search dogs not allowed
¾ Watch water depth
¾ Look out for other US&R
t
team
members
b
¾
• Non-invasive search
methods used
Knock on door, look inside
Do not break open a door
without local official approval
¾ Non invasive marking used
¾
¾
• Data collected: each house
searched logged, GIS tracks
recorded
CASE STUDY: Hurricane Ike
Door to Door Search - September 14 to15
• Most residents had
evacuated
• A few rescues/assists
were made
• Most
M t residents
id t had
h d been
b
without power for weeks
• Neighbors helped
each other
• Some pets left behind
• Heartbreaking property
loss for many
Most of search conducted on foot
CASE STUDY: Hurricane Ike
Door to Door Search - September 14 to15
Some homes damaged from
Gustav and Ike
CASE STUDY: Hurricane Ike
Door to Door Search - September 14 to15
Mandatory
Decontamination
CASE STUDY: Hurricane Ike
Door to Door Search - September 14 to15
Summary:
• Flooding was widespread
• Good preparation by local, state,
and other officials prevented
many deaths
d th
• Most citizens complied with
evacuation orders
• Multi-agency
M l i
search
h and
d rescue
efforts saved many lives
• FEMA US&R door to door search
successful in LA, hundreds of
homes searched
• Neighbors helped each other
USACE
R
Response
C
Conceptt
FEMA Coordination Cell
On Site Corps Management
Urban Search and
Rescue Support
Ice Team
Disaster
Site
Temp Housing Team
Emergency Power Team
Debris Removal Team
Functional Teams/Cadre
USACE ORGANIC AUTHORITY
EMERGENCY MANAGMENT
Emergency
e ge cy Missions
ss o s Under
U de
USACE Authority
• Authorities come from:
¾
PL 84-99
84 99 (Flood
(Fl d Control
C t l
and Coastal Emergencies)
¾
IIndividual
di id l study/project
d / j
authorizations
What is Emergency Management?
MITIGATION
Activities
c
es that
a
PREVENT
a disaster,
reduce the chance
of it happening,
or reduce its
damaging effects
Actions taken
BEFORE
the impact,
including plans
and preparations
for disaster
PREPAREDNESS
EVENT
RECOVERY
Actions taken
AFTER
the initial impact,
including those
directed toward
a return
to normalcy
Actions taken
DURING
the initial impact
of a disaster,
including those to
save lives and
prevent further
property
damage
RESPONSE
Disaster Preparedness
• Staffing for Readiness/Emergency Management organization
• Train and exercise teams
• Develop response plans for emergencies and disaster assistance
Prep
paredn
ness
• Dedicated facility for Emergency Operations Center (EOC)
• Equipment and supplies for Readiness/Emergency Management
personnel and Planning and Response Teams
CONUS Scenario Part 1
Prep
paredn
ness
Time Line 96 Hours Before
CONUS Landfall (L-96)
CURRENT SITUATION:
The National Hurricane
Center is reporting that
Hurricane Nicole is a
Category 2 hurricane on the
Saffir-Simpson scale with
maximum sustained winds of
105 mph, tracking to the
north-northwest with further
inten-sification expected.
Nicole is located north of
Puerto Rico and 180 miles
east of Florida.
Prep
paredn
ness
Time Line
Ti
Li 72 Hours
H
Before
B f
CONUS Landfall (L-72)
CURRENT SITUATION:
The storm is expected to
continue to intensify as it
moves closer to landfall;
forecasts project landfall along
the South Carolina coast.
Nicole is currently classified as
a strong Category 3 hurricane
with maximum sustained
winds of 130 mph. The
barometric pressure has
dropped to 945 mb.
mb A
hurricane warning has been
issued from Georgia to North
Carolina. A hurricane watch is
in effect for the east coast of
Fl id Residents
Florida.
R id t have
h
been
b
advised to expect evacuation
orders, though none have
been issued at this time.
Prep
paredn
ness
Prep
paredn
ness
Prep
paredn
ness
Res
sponse
Disaster Response
Res
sponse
Other Response
Activities
• Emergency Water Assistance
• Technical Assistance
Res
sponse
• Operational Assistance
Disaster Recovery
• Emergency repairs
¾ Levees
¾ Streambanks
(to protect public facilities)
¾ Shoreline or hurricane protection projects
Rec
covery
• Repairs to Corps facilities
• Longer term structural and nonstructural
efforts
ff
to protect h
homes and
d property
Disaster Mitigation
• National Levee Safety Program
• Risk based Planning
• Combined
C b d structurall
Mitiigation
n
and nonstructural flood control
Mitiigation
n Levee
e Safety
y
Levee Safety Program Mission
Assess the integrity and viability
of levees and recommend actions
to assure that levee systems
do not present unacceptable
risks
i k to
t th
the public,
bli property,
t
and the environment
West Columbus, Ohio
Program
Objectives
•
•
•
•
•
Hold Public Safety Paramount
Reduced Economic Impacts
Maximize Cost Effectiveness
Develop Reliable and Accurate Information
Build Public Trust and Acceptance
Mitiigation
n Levee
e Safety
y
Levee Safety Program
K M
Key
Messages
• Public safety is the top priority
• Levees do not eliminate flood risk
• It’s
It’ a shared
h d responsibility
ibilit
• The 1% event is not a safety standard
• It’s no longer business as usual
• Need to be transparent –
make informed decisions
Mitiigation
n Levee
e Safety
y
USACE Program Levees
• 14,000 miles identified (USACE program levees)
• 9,800 mi detail inventory FY08 (USACE Fed levees)
• No information on private/other
Inspections
spect o s a
and
d Assessments
ssess e ts
Mitiigation
n Levee
e Safety
y
Routine Inspections:
Verifies O&M
O&M, More Rigorous Standards
Standards, Improved
Communication, System-based, Every Year
Periodic Inspections:
Verifies O&M
O&M, Evaluates
E al ates Structure
Str ct re Stability,
Stabilit
Compares Constructed Criteria to Current
Criteria, Every 5 Years
Periodic
P
i di Assessments:
A
Periodic Inspection + Potential Failure Mode and
Consequences Analysis, Every 5 Years
Risk Assessments:
Data Intensive, Determine Likelihood and
Consequences of Failure, Every 10 Years
Mitiigation
n Levee
e Safety
y
Routine Inspections
•
•
•
•
Use of new checklist – 12 June 2007
Use of Inspection Tool – FY 2008
Rate Individual Items/Rate Segment
Gi an overallll “S
Give
“System”
t ” rating
ti
¾ Document judgment for Unacceptable
It
Items/MA
/MA S
System
t
(2 years tto correctt it
items))
• For U ratings all segments of the system are
removed from PL 84
84-99
99
Mitiigation
n Levee
e Safety
y
Current Status of Activities
•
•
•
•
ETL for Vegetation
•
Levee Safety CoP Workshop
EC for Periodic Inspections
EC for Certification
Policy memoranda – certification/routine
inspections/ARRA/Flood Risk Management Program
Mitiigation
n Risk B
Based P
Plannin
ng
Mitiigation
n Risk B
Based P
Plannin
ng
Risk and Uncertainty
i Technical
in
T h i l Evaluations
E l ti
• Uncertainty in Hydrologic Factors
(Surge & Wave Heights)
• Uncertainty
U
t i t iin Design
D i
(Use of “95% Confidence” Values)
• Risk in Physical Parameters that Affect Economics
(FFE, Structural & and Content Damage)
• Risks in Cost Estimating
Mitiigation
n Risk B
Based P
Plannin
ng
Assessment and Communication
off Risk
Expressed in Terms that Everyone can Understand
• Depth of surge & waves
• Extent
E t t off iinundation
d ti
• Layman’s terms for frequency of inundation
• Qualitative
Q li i potential
i l for
f loss
l
off life
lif
• Environmental damage
• Health and safety
Based P
Plannin
ng
Mitiigation
n Risk B
Added “Metrics”
in System of Accounts
• (NED) emergency costs, recreation,
i
regional
i
l $ benefits;
b
fi
total and annual costs; O&M (local costs)
• (EQ) air,
air water,
water noise; cultural and historical; “TQ”
TQ
• (RED) sales, income, employment, tax changes
• (OSE) community cohesion,
cohesion tax values,
values growth,
growth property
values, displacement of businesses
• ((OSE)) risks to life,, mental health,, safety;
y; risk of failure;;
reliability; response to sea level rise; risk of overtopping
(personal and societal consequences)
Mitiigation
n Risk B
Based P
Plannin
ng
Residual Risk
and
d Vulnerabilities
l
bili i
•
Vulnerability
V
lne abilit under
nde existing,
e isting future
f t e “without-project”
“ itho t p oject”
and “with-project” conditions
• Potential
P t ti l ffor continued
ti
d ecosystem
t
d
damage
• Generalized risks of loss of life
(
(most
t diffi
difficult
lt to
t quantify
tif and
d express tto public)
bli )
• Generalized risks to mental and community health –
(
(next
t mostt diffi
difficult
lt tto quantify
tif and
d express))
Mitigatio
on Integrating Sttructural/
/Non-Stru
uctural Me
ethods
Upper St. Johns River Basin Project
Combined Flood Control and Ecosystem Restoration
Mitigatiion Integ
grating Sttructural/
/Non-Stru
uctural Methods
Upper
U
St. Johns River
Basin Project
j
Mitigation Integ
grating Sttructural/
/Non-Stru
uctural Me
ethods
Upper St. Johns River Basin Project
What the Project
j
Does Do
•
Accommodates flooding events for 250+-year frequency
rain events
•
Restores river functions and ecological values in the historic
river valley floodplain
•
•
•
Reduces freshwater discharges to the Indian River Lagoon
Enhances public recreational opportunities via access and use
Vastly improves flood protection to adjacent land and
property upstream of US 192 and around Lake Washington
Mitigation Integ
grating Sttructural/
/Non-Stru
uctural Me
ethods
Upper
St. Johns
River
Basin
Project
j
Mitigatiion Integ
grating Sttructural/
/Non-Stru
uctural Methods
Upper St.
St Johns River Basin Project
Benefits
Flood Damage
Reduction:
d
i
Provides
SPF-level flood
protection to
adjacent areas
Mitigation Integ
grating Sttructural/
/Non-Stru
uctural Me
ethods
Upper St.
St Johns River Basin Project
Benefits
Water Quality Improvement: Massive off-line reservoirs treat
agricultural
ag
cu tu a runoff
u o from
o adjacent
adjace t muck
uc farms
a s
Mitigatiion Integ
grating Sttructural/
/Non-Stru
uctural Methods
Upper St.
St Johns River Basin Project
Benefits
Water Quality Improvements: TMDL goal of 0.09 mg/L phosphorus
i projected
is
j
d to be
b met
Mitigation Integ
grating Sttructural/
/Non-Stru
uctural Me
ethods
Upper St. Johns River Basin Project
Benefits
Wetland Creation and Enhancement: 150,000 acres of wetlands
restored and/or enhanced
Mitigatiion Integ
grating Sttructural/
/Non-Stru
uctural Methods
Upper St. Johns River Basin Project
Benefits
Fish and Wildlife:
Wading birds up 15%;
Wood Stork nesting up 78%
Mitigati
ion Integ
Mitiigation
ngrating Sttructural//Non-Struuctural Methods
Upper
pp St. Johns River Basin Project
j
Inte national Thiess River
International
Ri e Prize
P i e
The Thiess Riverprize is awarded by Australia’s International River
foundation — a leading advocate and catalyst for the protection and
restoration of the world
world’s
s rivers
Mitigation Integ
grating Sttructural/
/Non-Stru
uctural Me
ethods
Application
in Coastal Louisiana
Mitigatiion Integ
grating Sttructural/
/Non-Stru
uctural Methods
Application in Coastal Louisiana
Strategic Natural Lines of Defense
Marsh Retention
Marsh Restoration
a e S o e e Restoration
esto at o
Barrier-Shoreline
Mitigatiion Integ
grating Sttructural/
/Non-Stru
uctural Methods
Application in Coastal Louisiana
Multiple Lines of Defense Approach
(Graphic from www.mlods.org )
Elements include:
• Coastal restoration/protection
• Structural measures
• Non-structural
N
t t l ffeatures
t
Conclusions
• Authorities are broad for USACE
Emergency Management
• “Tools and Training” have improved
our ability to respond effectively
• With Homeland Security, USACE roles
g
are evolving
Thank You !