DOCSLIB.ORG

GAO-08-1120 Disaster Recovery: Past Experiences Offer Insights For

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

GAO

September 2008

DISASTER RECOVERY

Past Experiences Offer Insights for Recovering from Hurricanes Ike and Gustav and Other Recent Natural Disasters

GAO-08-1120

September 2008

DISASTER RECOVERY

Accountability Integrity Reliability

Past Experiences Offer Insights for Recovering from Hurricanes Ike and Gustav and Other Recent Natural Disasters

Highlights

Highlights of GAO-08-1120, a report to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

  • Why GAO Did This Study
  • What GAO Found

This month, Hurricanes Ike and Gustav struck the Gulf Coast producing widespread damage and leading to federal major disaster declarations. Earlier this year, heavy flooding resulted in similar declarations in seven Midwest states. In response, federal agencies have provided millions of dollars in assistance to help with short- and long-term recovery. State and local governments bear the primary responsibility for recovery and have a great stake in its success. Experiences from past disasters may help them better prepare for the challenges of

While the federal government provides significant financial assistance after major disasters, state and local governments play the lead role in disaster recovery. As affected jurisdictions recover from the recent hurricanes and floods, experiences from past disasters can provide insights into potential good practices. Drawing on experiences from six major disasters that occurred from 1989 to 2005, GAO identified the following selected insights:

•

Create a clear, implementable, and timely recovery plan. Effective

recovery plans provide a road map for recovery. For example, within 6 months of the 1995 earthquake in Japan, the city of Kobe created a recovery plan that identified detailed goals which facilitated coordination among recovery stakeholders. The plan also helped Kobe prioritize and fund recovery projects, in addition to establishing a basis for subsequent governmental evaluations of the recovery’s progress.

•

Build state and local capacity for recovery. State and local

managing and implementing the complexities of disaster recovery.

governments need certain capacities to effectively make use of federal assistance, including having sufficient financial resources and technical know-how. State and local governments are often required to match a portion of the federal disaster assistance they receive. Loans provided one way for localities to enhance their financial capacity. For example, after the Red River flood, the state-owned Bank of North Dakota extended the city of Grand Forks a $44 million loan, which the city used to match funding from federal disaster programs and begin recovery projects.

GAO was asked to identify insights from past disasters and share them with state and local officials undertaking recovery activities. GAO reviewed six past disasters— the Loma Prieta earthquake in northern California (1989), Hurricane Andrew in south Florida (1992), the Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles, California (1994), the Kobe earthquake in Japan (1995), the Grand Forks/Red River flood in North Dakota and Minnesota (1997), and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf Coast (2005). GAO interviewed officials involved in the recovery from these disasters and experts on disaster recovery. GAO also reviewed relevant legislation, policies, and its previous work.

•

Implement strategies for businesses recovery. Business recovery is a

key element of a community’s recovery. Small businesses can be especially vulnerable to major disasters because they often lack resources to sustain financial losses. Federal, state, and local governments developed strategies to help businesses remain in the community, adapt to changed market conditions, and borrow funds at lower interest rates. For example, after the Loma Prieta earthquake, the city of Santa Cruz erected large pavilions near the main shopping street. These structures enabled more than 40 local businesses to operate as their storefronts were repaired. As a result, shoppers continued to frequent the downtown area thereby maintaining a customer base for impacted businesses.

•

Adopt a comprehensive approach toward combating fraud, waste,

and abuse. The influx of financial assistance after a major disaster provides increased opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. Looking for ways to combat such activities before, during, and after a disaster can help states and localities protect residents from contractor fraud as well as safeguard the financial assistance they allocate to victims. For example, to reduce contractor fraud after the Red River flood, the city of

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making any recommendations in this report.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on GAO-08-1120. For more information, contact Stanley Czerwinski at (202) 512-6808 or

Grand Forks established a credentialing program that issued photo identification to contractors who passed licensing and criminal checks.

[email protected].

United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

Letter

1

Results in Brief Background
35

12 17 19
Create a Clear, Implementable, and Timely Recovery Plan Build State and Local Capacity for Recovery Implement Strategies for Business Recovery Adopt a Comprehensive Approach to Combating Fraud, Waste, and

27 28
Concluding Observations Agency Comments

Appendix I Appendix II
Selected GAO Products Related to Disaster Recovery 29 GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

36

Figures

Figure 1: Counties in Gulf Coast States That Received Federal
Major Disaster Declarations as a Result of Hurricanes

Figure 2: Counties in Seven Midwest States That Received Federal
Major Disaster Declarations as a Result of 2008’s Severe

Figure 3: Six Disasters Included in This Review (1989-2005) Figure 4: Excerpt from the Financing Matrix in Grand Forks’
Recovery Plan Which Identified Potential Funding Sources and Target Dates for Recovery Tasks
Figure 5: Temporary Pavilions in Santa Cruz, California, Following the Loma Prieta Earthquake
11 15 22

  • Page i
  • GAO-08-1120 Recovery Insights for 2008 Disasters

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

  • Page ii
  • GAO-08-1120 Recovery Insights for 2008 Disasters

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

September 26, 2008 The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman Chairman The Honorable Susan M. Collins Ranking Member Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate

This month, Hurricanes Ike and Gustav struck the Gulf Coast producing widespread damage and leading to federal major disaster declarations in Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama. Earlier this year, widespread flooding occurred in multiple states in the Midwest covering thousands of square miles, and resulting in billions of dollars in damaged infrastructure and crops. The severity of the impact resulted in federal major disaster declarations in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. Now that the winds have died down and the floodwaters have receded, these affected areas face the challenge of rebuilding damaged physical and economic infrastructure as well as helping their residents to recover.1

Several disaster assistance programs have been activated to help Midwest residents recover from the severe flooding that occurred earlier this year. For example, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) over $400 million in federal assistance has been provided to help Iowa recover from the flooding. As of August 2008, FEMA has approved over $109 million in housing assistance grants for rental or temporary lodging and housing repair. FEMA has also obligated more than $79 million in Public Assistance grants in response to requests from eligible entities that will provide funds for long-term rebuilding efforts, such as restoring public infrastructure and other disaster costs in Iowa. Similarly, the Small Business Administration has also provided assistance with long-term recovery. Over $274 million has been approved in loans for homeowners, renters, and businesses in the affected areas as of midAugust 2008.

1Other recent natural disasters resulting in federal major disaster declarations this year include Hurricane Dolly, which made landfall in Texas in late July, and Tropical Storm Fay, which struck Florida in late August.

  • Page 1
  • GAO-08-1120 Recovery Insights for 2008 Disasters

In contrast to the standardized set of activities and procedures typically associated with the immediate response to a disaster, the recovery process can be much more varied and complex. The particular path a community takes when recovering from a major disaster will differ as a result of several factors, including the scale of the disaster’s impact, specific community needs and conditions, and the amount and type of resources available. While such specifics prevent the development of a “cookbook” for an effective recovery, potentially valuable insights can be learned from the experiences of communities that have already navigated the disaster recovery process.

To assist you in your ongoing oversight of rebuilding in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we briefed your staff on several occasions on the results of our ongoing work regarding recovery lessons from past disasters and how they might inform efforts on the Gulf Coast. Shortly after the Midwest experienced widespread flooding, you requested that we review the information we had collected and determine what insights might be useful to state and local officials. Accordingly, as agreed with your office, this report provides insights from six past disasters that state and local governments can consider as they move ahead with their recovery efforts following natural disasters, such as Hurricanes Ike and Gustav and the Midwest floods. In addition, we expect to issue a report next year that will build upon this framework with additional insights for how federal, state, and local governments can recover from major disasters as well as how these insights could inform ongoing efforts in the Gulf Coast.

To that end, we selected previous disasters based on interviews with academics and practitioners as well as reviews of the disaster recovery literature and our body of work on natural disasters.2 We reviewed recovery experiences related to six major disasters:3 (1) the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in northern California; (2) Hurricane Andrew, which struck southern Florida in 1992; (3) the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles, California; (4) the 1995 Kobe earthquake in Japan; (5) the 1997

2We selected natural disasters that occurred recently enough so that key officials and supporting documentation were still available.

3The five disasters we studied that occurred in the United States received major disaster declarations from the federal government. The sixth disaster in our study, the Kobe earthquake, was a magnitude 7.3 earthquake that killed over 6,400 people in Japan and is also considered a major disaster.

  • Page 2
  • GAO-08-1120 Recovery Insights for 2008 Disasters

Grand Forks/Red River flood in North Dakota and Minnesota; and (6) the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes.4 We have also published a body of work on the recovery of the Gulf Coast states from the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. For a list of selected GAO reports on disaster recovery, see appendix I.

While the federal government provides significant financial assistance after major disasters, state and local governments play the lead role in disaster recovery. In our review of past disasters, we have identified several actions—both short- and long-term—that state and local governments can take as they prepare to recover after a major disaster. Because each disaster is distinctive and the resources and capacities of every community differ, affected jurisdictions need to consider whether and how to apply these insights to their specific circumstances.

Results in Brief

First, state and local governments have created clear, implementable, and timely recovery plans. Such plans, which the federal government has both funded and helped communities develop, can provide a roadmap for the recovery process. In the aftermath of a disaster, a recovery plan provides state and local governments with a valuable tool to document and communicate recovery goals, decisions, and priorities. In our review of recovery plans we have identified certain shared characteristics. Specifically, these plans (1) identify clear goals for recovery, (2) include detailed information to facilitate implementation, and (3) are established in a timely manner. For example, within 6 months of the 1995 earthquake that hit Kobe, Japan, the city completed a plan that helped Kobe prioritize and fund recovery projects. The plan also established a basis for subsequent governmental evaluations of the recovery’s progress.

Second, state and local governments have strengthened certain capacities—including having financial resources and technical knowhow—to effectively take advantage of federal assistance. When recovering from past disasters, some local governments successfully used loans and special taxes to enhance their financial capacity. For example, after the 1997 Red River flood, the state-owned Bank of North Dakota provided a $44 million line of credit to the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, which the city used to meet FEMA matching requirements. Affected jurisdictions

4In this report, unless otherwise noted, we refer to the 1997 flood in Grand Forks, North Dakota and East Grand Forks, Minnesota, as the “Red River flood.” In addition, “the 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes” refers to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and for the purposes of this report, they are treated collectively as a single disaster event.

  • Page 3
  • GAO-08-1120 Recovery Insights for 2008 Disasters

have also enhanced their technical capacity to navigate federal disaster programs. For example, after the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes, FEMA and Mississippi state officials used federal funding to obtain an on-line accounting system that tracked and facilitated the sharing of operational documents, thereby reducing the burden on applicants of meeting FEMA Public Assistance grant requirements.5

Third, federal, state, and local governments focused on strategies that successfully fostered business recovery after a disaster. Small businesses are vital to a community’s economic health, yet are especially vulnerable to disasters because they often lack resources to sustain financial loss and have less capacity to withstand market changes. We found that some local governments developed strategies to help small businesses survive the disaster and keep them within the community. For example, by creating temporary locations for businesses, the city of Santa Cruz, California, provided businesses that suffered physical damage during the Loma Prieta earthquake with the means to continue operating. The city of Los Angeles provided technical assistance to counsel businesses on how to adapt to the changed market realities after the Northridge earthquake. The city of Grand Forks offered business loans which provided incentives to remain within the community. Further, tax incentives targeted to businesses and projects consistent with long-term recovery goals can provide another tool to help affected businesses recover.

Finally, federal, state, and local governments have looked for ways to adopt a comprehensive approach to combating fraud, waste, and abuse. The influx of financial assistance available to victims after a major disaster provides increased opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. Specifically, disaster victims are at increased risk for contractor fraud. To address this issue after the 1997 Red River flood, the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota established a credentialing program that issued special photo identifications to contractors who passed licensing and criminal checks. Residents were advised to check for these credentials as they hired contractors to rebuild. Also at risk for fraud, waste, and abuse are federal and state disaster assistance programs. The need to quickly provide assistance to victims puts assistance payments at risk to fraudulent applicants who try to obtain benefits that they are not entitled to receive. We have previously testified that with a framework that prevents, detects,

5FEMA’s Public Assistance Grant Program provides funding to state and local governments to repair and rebuild damaged public buildings and infrastructure.

  • Page 4
  • GAO-08-1120 Recovery Insights for 2008 Disasters

and monitors issues of fraud, waste, and abuse, government programs should not have to make a choice between the speedy delivery of disaster recovery assistance and effective fraud protection.6

We provided a draft of this report to the Federal Coordinator of Gulf Coast Recovery in the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, we provided drafts of the relevant sections of this report to officials involved in the particular practices we describe, as well as experts in disaster recovery. They generally agreed with the contents of this report. We have incorporated their technical comments as appropriate.

Overview of the disaster recovery process. According to the

Department of Homeland Security’s National Response Framework, once immediate lifesaving activities are complete after a major disaster, the focus shifts to assisting individuals, households, critical infrastructure, and businesses in meeting basic needs and returning to self-sufficiency. Even as the immediate imperatives for response to an incident are being addressed, the need to begin recovery operations emerges. The emphasis on response gradually gives way to recovery operations. During the recovery phase, actions are taken to help individuals, communities, and the nation return to normal.

Background

The National Response Framework characterizes disaster recovery as having two phases: short-term recovery and long-term recovery.7

•

Short-term recovery is immediate and an extension of the response phase in which basic services and functions are restored. It includes actions such as providing essential public health and safety services, restoring interrupted utility and other essential services, reestablishing transportation routes, and providing food and shelter for those displaced by the incident. Although called short-term, some of these activities may last for weeks.

6GAO, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Disaster Relief: Prevention Is the Key to Minimizing Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Recovery Efforts, GAO-07-418T (Washington,

D.C.: Jan. 29, 2007). 7The National Response Framework, issued by the Department of Homeland Security in January 2008, is a guide for how federal, state, local, and tribal governments, along with nongovernmental and private entities, will collectively respond to and recover from all disasters, particularly catastrophic disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, regardless of their causes.

Recommended publications
  • Hurricane and Tropical Storm

    Hurricane and Tropical Storm

    State of New Jersey 2014 Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5. Risk Assessment 5.8 Hurricane and Tropical Storm 2014 Plan Update Changes The 2014 Plan Update includes tropical storms, hurricanes and storm surge in this hazard profile. In the 2011 HMP, storm surge was included in the flood hazard. The hazard profile has been significantly enhanced to include a detailed hazard description, location, extent, previous occurrences, probability of future occurrence, severity, warning time and secondary impacts. New and updated data and figures from ONJSC are incorporated. New and updated figures from other federal and state agencies are incorporated. Potential change in climate and its impacts on the flood hazard are discussed. The vulnerability assessment now directly follows the hazard profile. An exposure analysis of the population, general building stock, State-owned and leased buildings, critical facilities and infrastructure was conducted using best available SLOSH and storm surge data. Environmental impacts is a new subsection. 5.8.1 Profile Hazard Description A tropical cyclone is a rotating, organized system of clouds and thunderstorms that originates over tropical or sub-tropical waters and has a closed low-level circulation. Tropical depressions, tropical storms, and hurricanes are all considered tropical cyclones. These storms rotate counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere around the center and are accompanied by heavy rain and strong winds (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2013a). Almost all tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic basin (which includes the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea) form between June 1 and November 30 (hurricane season). August and September are peak months for hurricane development.
  • US Energy Industry Response to Recent Hurricane Seasons

    US Energy Industry Response to Recent Hurricane Seasons

    Hardening and Resiliency U.S. Energy Industry Response to Recent Hurricane Seasons Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability U.S. Department of Energy August 2010 For Further Information This report was prepared by the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability under the direction of Patricia Hoffman, Assistant Secretary, and William Bryan, Deputy Assistant Secretary. Specific questions about information in this report may be directed to Alice Lippert, Senior Technical Advisor ([email protected]). Contributors include Mindi Farber-DeAnda, Matthew Cleaver, Carleen Lewandowski, and Kateri Young. Cover photo sources: Lineman photo: David H. Lewis/istockphoto.com Pipeline photo: Christian Lagereek/istockphoto.com Refinery photo: Erik de Graaf/istockphoto.com Mobile transformer photo: Deltastar, reproduced with permission. OE/ISER Final Report 8/16/10 i Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ v Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Focus of the Study .......................................................................................................................... 3 Aging Infrastructure and Hurricane Hazards .............................................................................. 5 Storm Surge and Flood Damage ............................................................................................
  • Lessons Learned: Evacuations Management of Hurricane Gustav

    Lessons Learned: Evacuations Management of Hurricane Gustav

    4th Symposium on Policy and Socio-Economic Research, American Meteorological Society, Phoenix, AZ, 2009. 2.5 LESSONS LEARNED: EVACUATIONS MANAGEMENT OF HURRICANE GUSTAV Gina M. Eosco1, Mark A. Shafer2, and Barry Keim3 1Department of Communications, University of Oklahoma 2Oklahoma Climatological Survey, University of Oklahoma 3 Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University Experience is what you get when you don’t get what you want. The experience of Hurricane Katrina was not what anyone in New Orleans wanted, yet three years after New Orleans was struck by Hurricane Katrina, the city proved they were ready for the next big one. As the National Hurricane Center forecasts started indicating a possible category 3 or stronger hurricane heading towards Louisiana, the city began preparations for evacuation. Gulf coast residents responded with the largest evacuation in U.S. history. Given the contrast with Katrina, why was the response to Gustav so much better? It is true that government officials learned from Katrina, but Katrina was just one milestone along the way toward making New Orleans safer. This paper examines prior recent experience with hurricanes in Louisiana, events surrounding Hurricane Gustav, and Figure 1. Track of Hurricane Georges, September how we have learned from other disasters. Not only 20-27, 1998 (Image source: Unisys did Louisiana officials learn from prior hurricanes, http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/). but those far-removed from the area of impact learned from their own disaster experiences to hurricane Georges was uncoordinated and chaotic. manage the influx of evacuees. The progression of Each parish had its own separate response plan.
  • Federal Disaster Assistance After Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike

    Federal Disaster Assistance After Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike

    Federal Disaster Assistance After Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike Updated February 26, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R43139 Federal Disaster Assistance After Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike Summary This report provides information on federal financial assistance provided to the Gulf States after major disasters were declared in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas in response to the widespread destruction that resulted from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005 and Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008. Though the storms happened over a decade ago, Congress has remained interested in the types and amounts of federal assistance that were provided to the Gulf Coast for several reasons. This includes how the money has been spent, what resources have been provided to the region, and whether the money has reached the intended people and entities. The financial information is also useful for congressional oversight of the federal programs provided in response to the storms. It gives Congress a general idea of the federal assets that are needed and can be brought to bear when catastrophic disasters take place in the United States. Finally, the financial information from the storms can help frame the congressional debate concerning federal assistance for current and future disasters. The financial information for the 2005 and 2008 Gulf Coast storms is provided in two sections of this report: 1. Table 1 of Section I summarizes disaster assistance supplemental appropriations enacted into public law primarily for the needs associated with the five hurricanes, with the information categorized by federal department and agency; and 2.
  • Hurricane & Tropical Storm

    Hurricane & Tropical Storm

    5.8 HURRICANE & TROPICAL STORM SECTION 5.8 HURRICANE AND TROPICAL STORM 5.8.1 HAZARD DESCRIPTION A tropical cyclone is a rotating, organized system of clouds and thunderstorms that originates over tropical or sub-tropical waters and has a closed low-level circulation. Tropical depressions, tropical storms, and hurricanes are all considered tropical cyclones. These storms rotate counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere around the center and are accompanied by heavy rain and strong winds (NOAA, 2013). Almost all tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic basin (which includes the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea) form between June 1 and November 30 (hurricane season). August and September are peak months for hurricane development. The average wind speeds for tropical storms and hurricanes are listed below: . A tropical depression has a maximum sustained wind speeds of 38 miles per hour (mph) or less . A tropical storm has maximum sustained wind speeds of 39 to 73 mph . A hurricane has maximum sustained wind speeds of 74 mph or higher. In the western North Pacific, hurricanes are called typhoons; similar storms in the Indian Ocean and South Pacific Ocean are called cyclones. A major hurricane has maximum sustained wind speeds of 111 mph or higher (NOAA, 2013). Over a two-year period, the United States coastline is struck by an average of three hurricanes, one of which is classified as a major hurricane. Hurricanes, tropical storms, and tropical depressions may pose a threat to life and property. These storms bring heavy rain, storm surge and flooding (NOAA, 2013). The cooler waters off the coast of New Jersey can serve to diminish the energy of storms that have traveled up the eastern seaboard.
  • Summary of 2002 Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Activity And

    Summary of 2002 Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Activity And

    SUMMARY OF 2002 ATLANTIC TROPICAL CYCLONE ACTIVITY AND VERIFICATION OF AUTHORS' SEASONAL ACTIVITY FORECAST An Early Summer Successful Forecast of an Inactive Hurricane Season - But the Many Weak, Higher Latitude Tropical Storms That Formed Were Not Anticipated (as of 21 November 2002) By William M. Gray1, Christopher W. Landsea,2 and Philip Klotzbach3 with advice and assistance from William Thorson4 and Jason Connor5 [This verification as well as past forecasts and verifications are available via the World Wide Web: http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/] Brad Bohlander or Thomas Milligan, Colorado State University Media Representatives (970-491-6432) are available to answer questions about this verification. Department of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 Phone Number: 970-491-8681 2002 ATLANTIC BASIN SEASONAL HURRICANE FORECAST Tropical Cyclone Parameters Updated Updated Updated Updated Observed and 1950-2000 Climatology 7 Dec 5 April 2002 31 May 2002 7 Aug 2002 2 Sep 2002 (in parentheses) 2001 Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Totals Named Storms (NS) (9.6) 13 12 11 9 8 12 Named Storm Days (NSD) (49.1) 70 65 55 35 25 54 Hurricanes (H)(5.9) 8 7 6 4 3 4 Hurricane Days (HD)(24.5) 35 30 25 12 10 11 Intense Hurricanes (IH) (2.3) 4 3 2 1 1 2 Intense Hurricane Days (IHD)(5.0) 7 6 5 2 2 2.5 Hurricane Destruction Potential (HDP) (72.7) 90 85 75 35 25 31 Net Tropical Cyclone Activity (NTC)(100%) 140 125 100 60 45 80 VERIFICATION OF 2002 MAJOR HURRICANE LANDFALL FORECAST 7 Dec 5 Apr 31 May 7 Aug Fcst.
  • A Classification Scheme for Landfalling Tropical Cyclones

    A Classification Scheme for Landfalling Tropical Cyclones

    A CLASSIFICATION SCHEME FOR LANDFALLING TROPICAL CYCLONES BASED ON PRECIPITATION VARIABLES DERIVED FROM GIS AND GROUND RADAR ANALYSIS by IAN J. COMSTOCK JASON C. SENKBEIL, COMMITTEE CHAIR DAVID M. BROMMER JOE WEBER P. GRADY DIXON A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science in the Department of Geography in the graduate school of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2011 Copyright Ian J. Comstock 2011 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT Landfalling tropical cyclones present a multitude of hazards that threaten life and property to coastal and inland communities. These hazards are most commonly categorized by the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Potential Disaster Scale. Currently, there is not a system or scale that categorizes tropical cyclones by precipitation and flooding, which is the primary cause of fatalities and property damage from landfalling tropical cyclones. This research compiles ground based radar data (Nexrad Level-III) in the U.S. and analyzes tropical cyclone precipitation data in a GIS platform. Twenty-six landfalling tropical cyclones from 1995 to 2008 are included in this research where they were classified using Cluster Analysis. Precipitation and storm variables used in classification include: rain shield area, convective precipitation area, rain shield decay, and storm forward speed. Results indicate six distinct groups of tropical cyclones based on these variables. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the faculty members I have been working with over the last year and a half on this project. I was able to present different aspects of this thesis at various conferences and for this I would like to thank Jason Senkbeil for keeping me ambitious and for his patience through the many hours spent deliberating over the enormous amounts of data generated from this research.
  • Behavioral Analysis for Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Events

    Behavioral Analysis for Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Events

    *** This Page Intentionally Left Blank *** Behavioral Analysis for Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Events National Hurricane Program Final Draft Report Prepared for: Federal Emergency Management Agency Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland National Hurricane Program Security and Emergency Preparedness Prepared by: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: National Planning Center of Expertise for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans District And Dewberry Stephenson Disaster Management Institute 2835 Brandwine Road, Suite 100 Louisiana State University Atlanta, Georgia 30351 Louisiana Emerging Technology Center 340 E. Parker Street, Suite 366 Baton Rouge, LA 70803 May 2017 *** This Page Intentionally Left Blank *** Behavioral Analysis for Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Events FINAL REPORT – May 2017 Executive Summary The goal of this analysis is to understand previous evacuation behavior and potential evacuation behavior during future hurricanes for the approximate 1.8 million people who reside in southeast Louisiana. To evaluate this behavior, the Stephenson Disaster Management Institute (SDMI) at Louisiana State University (LSU) partnered with LSU’s Public Policy Research Lab to conduct a telephone survey of over 2,600 people in the 13 parishes that comprise southeast Louisiana. The study was conducted between May 2016 and January 2017, then submitted through Dewberry, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. In August 2016 many of the participating parishes in the study area were severely affected by the historic 1,000 year rain event in the Greater Baton Rouge area. In consideration for those affected, calling in the most severely affected parishes was put on hold immediately after the event and resumed in October 2016.
  • Tropical Cyclone Report Hurricane Gustav (AL072008) 25 August – 4 September 2008

    Tropical Cyclone Report Hurricane Gustav (AL072008) 25 August – 4 September 2008

    Tropical Cyclone Report Hurricane Gustav (AL072008) 25 August – 4 September 2008 John L. Beven II and Todd B. Kimberlain National Hurricane Center 22 January 2009 Revised 15 September 2009 for peak intensity and to add new data Revised 9 September 2014 for U.S. damage Gustav moved erratically through the Greater Antilles into the Gulf of Mexico, eventually making landfall on the coast of Louisiana. It briefly became a category 4 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale and caused many deaths and considerable damage in Haiti, Cuba, and Louisiana. a. Synoptic History Gustav formed from a tropical wave that moved westward from the coast of Africa on 13 August. The wave continued westward across the tropical Atlantic, with the associated shower activity first showing signs of organization on 18 August. Westerly vertical wind shear, however, prevented significant development for the next several days. The wave moved through the Windward Islands on 23 August with a broad area of low pressure accompanied by disorganized shower activity. Organization increased late on 24 August as the system moved northwestward across the southeastern Caribbean Sea, and it is estimated that a tropical depression formed near 0000 UTC 25 August about 95 n mi northeast of Bonaire in the Netherland Antilles. The “best track” chart of the tropical cyclone’s path is given in Fig. 1, with the wind and pressure histories shown in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. The best track positions and intensities are listed in Table 11. The depression formed a small inner wind core during genesis with a radius of maximum winds of less than 10 n mi.
  • Natural Disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean

    Natural Disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean

    NATURAL DISASTERS IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN 2000 - 2019 1 Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) is the second most disaster-prone region in the world 152 million affected by 1,205 disasters (2000-2019)* Floods are the most common disaster in the region. Brazil ranks among the 15 548 On 12 occasions since 2000, floods in the region have caused more than FLOODS S1 in total damages. An average of 17 23 C 5 (2000-2019). The 2017 hurricane season is the thir ecord in terms of number of disasters and countries affected as well as the magnitude of damage. 330 In 2019, Hurricane Dorian became the str A on STORMS record to directly impact a landmass. 25 per cent of earthquakes magnitude 8.0 or higher hav S America Since 2000, there have been 20 -70 thquakes 75 in the region The 2010 Haiti earthquake ranks among the top 10 EARTHQUAKES earthquak ory. Drought is the disaster which affects the highest number of people in the region. Crop yield reductions of 50-75 per cent in central and eastern Guatemala, southern Honduras, eastern El Salvador and parts of Nicaragua. 74 In these countries (known as the Dry Corridor), 8 10 in the DROUGHTS communities most affected by drought resort to crisis coping mechanisms. 66 50 38 24 EXTREME VOLCANIC LANDSLIDES TEMPERATURE EVENTS WILDFIRES * All data on number of occurrences of natural disasters, people affected, injuries and total damages are from CRED ME-DAT, unless otherwise specified. 2 Cyclical Nature of Disasters Although many hazards are cyclical in nature, the hazards most likely to trigger a major humanitarian response in the region are sudden onset hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes and flash floods.
  • A Sure Presence

    A Sure Presence

    A Sure Presence The American Red Cross Response to Hurricanes in 2008 A Message From the President and CEO The 2008 hurricane season was one of the most destructive and costliest seasons in history. Eight named storms struck the U.S. coast, with powerful winds and surging floodwaters forcing millions of residents to abandon their homes and cherished possessions. Your generosity enabled the American Red Cross to help them with shelter, food and other essentials. As we prepare for the 2009 hurricane season, which begins June 1, we want to acknowledge the generous individuals, corporations and foundations that supported our emergency response this past year. We have prepared this report to let you know how your dollars made a difference. Not long after the back-to-back onslaughts of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike last September, I traveled to Texas to witness the amazing work of the Red Cross. In response to the eight named storms, more than 26,000 Red Cross employees and volunteers deployed to help those affected by the storms. Thanks to your support, the Red Cross provided relief and replenished spirits by— Opening more than 1,000 shelters and providing more than 497,000 overnight stays. Serving more than 16 million meals and snacks to first responders and affected residents. Offering more than 54,000 mental health contacts. Distributing more than 232,000 clean-up and comfort kits. Partnering with the more than 100 government representatives stationed in various local, state and federal emergency operation centers. A humanitarian relief effort of this magnitude was a beautiful thing to behold, and it would not have been possible without you.
  • ANNUAL SUMMARY Atlantic Hurricane Season of 2008*

    ANNUAL SUMMARY Atlantic Hurricane Season of 2008*

    MAY 2010 A N N U A L S U M M A R Y 1975 ANNUAL SUMMARY Atlantic Hurricane Season of 2008* DANIEL P. BROWN,JOHN L. BEVEN,JAMES L. FRANKLIN, AND ERIC S. BLAKE NOAA/NWS/NCEP, National Hurricane Center, Miami, Florida (Manuscript received 27 July 2009, in final form 17 September 2009) ABSTRACT The 2008 Atlantic hurricane season is summarized and the year’s tropical cyclones are described. Sixteen named storms formed in 2008. Of these, eight became hurricanes with five of them strengthening into major hurricanes (category 3 or higher on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale). There was also one tropical de- pression that did not attain tropical storm strength. These totals are above the long-term means of 11 named storms, 6 hurricanes, and 2 major hurricanes. The 2008 Atlantic basin tropical cyclones produced significant impacts from the Greater Antilles to the Turks and Caicos Islands as well as along portions of the U.S. Gulf Coast. Hurricanes Gustav, Ike, and Paloma hit Cuba, as did Tropical Storm Fay. Haiti was hit by Gustav and adversely affected by heavy rains from Fay, Ike, and Hanna. Paloma struck the Cayman Islands as a major hurricane, while Omar was a major hurricane when it passed near the northern Leeward Islands. Six con- secutive cyclones hit the United States, including Hurricanes Dolly, Gustav, and Ike. The death toll from the Atlantic tropical cyclones is approximately 750. A verification of National Hurricane Center official forecasts during 2008 is also presented. Official track forecasts set records for accuracy at all lead times from 12 to 120 h, and forecast skill was also at record levels for all lead times.