FEMA's Integration of Preparedness and Development of Robust Regional Offices

In October 2006, Congress enacted major legislation to reform the function and organization of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in response to the recognized failures in preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA) focused national preparedness responsibilities within FEMA and directed additional resources and responsibilities to FEMA's ten regional offices. Directed by Congress, in October 2008 a National Academy Panel began an independent assessment of FEMA's integration of preparedness functions and progress in development of robust regional offices.Main FindingsOver the past three years, FEMA has taken significant steps in an effort to integrate preparedness and develop more robust regional offices. These efforts, undertaken by both the previous and current Administrations, are documented throughout this report and should be recognized and applauded. However, FEMA has yet to define specific goals and outcomes that would permit it, Congress or the public to determine when preparedness has been fully integrated into all aspects of FEMA's work and whether the development and ongoing operation of robust regional offices has been achieved. In the absence of well-defined, measurable outcome indicators, the National Academy Panel relied upon the assessments of FEMA leaders and staff, documentation provided by FEMA, and a review of secondary sources material to inform its findings and recommendations. Based upon this evidence, the Panel has concluded that, while progress has been made: (1) preparedness is not fully integrated across FEMA, (2) FEMA's regional offices do not yet have the capacity required to ensure the nation is fully prepared, (3) stakeholders are not yet full partners with FEMA in national preparedness, and (4) FEMA has ineffective internal business practices, particularly with regard to human resource management. The Panel made seven recommendations for FEMA:Establish a cross-organizational process, with participation from internal and external stakeholders, to develop a shared understanding of preparedness integrationEstablish a robust set of outcome metrics and standards for preparedness integration, as well as a system to monitor and evaluate progress on an ongoing basisWork to eliminate organizational barriers that are adversely impacting the full integration of preparedness across the agencyContinue to build regional office capacity and monitor implementation consistent with the Administrator's recent policy guidanceUndertake steps to improve the ongoing working relationship between headquarters and the regions in accord with Panel-identified principlesTake steps to improve stakeholder engagement and relationships at all levels in accord with Panel-identified principles; andStrengthen internal business practices, especially in the area of human capital planning

Investing in FEMA: A Role for Government in Protecting Opportunity

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) played a central--and often controversial--role in the federal government's response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Subsequent investigations have revealed that the agency made critical missteps during those disasters and was slow to address the basic needs of people in the Gulf Coast region. But the history of FEMA shows that it can be an important and effective component of our country's disaster response and recovery system. The FEMA that responded to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita was weakened by systematic disinvestment over time, which diminished the agency's ability to address national disasters. Unfortunately, FEMA's diminished role is part of a larger pattern of disinvestment in federal agencies responsible for security and opportunity in America. While FEMA is a noteworthy example with dramatic consequences, it is only one of many important federal programs that now lack adequate resources and authority. FEMA's history also shows that reinvesting in our government's capacity to address national problems yields both immediate and long-term benefits for our country. This fact sheet reviews that history and offers recommendations for rebuilding our national infrastructure for safety and opportunity

Spring Break In Puerto Rico: Helping Hurricane Victims 3-7-2018

With FEMA assistance lagging and hundreds of thousands still lacking basic amenities, an intrepid group of RWU Law students heads to San Juan, offering legal assistance to their neediest fellow citizens

The Clash of the Acts: FEMA\u27sImplementation of the National FloodInsurance Program and its Collision with theEndangered Species Act and the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a federal flood insurance program that also aims to prevent flooding in flood-prone areas. However, the structure and implementation of the NFIP has created mixed results. FEMA\u27s implementation of the NFIP has been found to inadvertently incentivize unsustainable floodplain development, which in turn threatens species and their habitats protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Over the years, FEMA has engaged in lawsuits and settlements regarding its implementation of the NFIP. As a result of these lawsuits, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) conducted scientific studies, known as biological opinions (BiOp), which found that three particular components of FEMA\u27s implementation of the NFIP are at the root of FEMA\u27s ESA-noncompliance issues. Additionally, one of these lawsuits resulted in a settlement which required FEMA to conduct a Nationwide Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (NPEIS), a tool that comes from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), evaluating the environmental impacts of the NFIP. The NPEIS was published in November 2017. In the NPEIS, FEMA asserts that its implementation of the NFIP does not impact floodplain development, and that the agency is compliant with the ESA. Accordingly, in the NPEIS, FEMA suggests four alternatives to the way the NFIP is currently implemented. Then, in May 2018, FEMA issued the Record of Decision (ROD), which finalizes FEMA\u27s decision to implement the NPEIS\u27s Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative requires NFIP communities, meaning state and local governments, to obtain and maintain documentation of ESA compliance as a condition to issue floodplain development permits. This Comment provides an overview of the NFIP, the ESA, the litigation and consultation history, the NPEIS, the ROD, and makes three conclusions: (1) FEMA\u27s imposition of ESA requirements on state and local governments is an impermissible shift of its own ESAresponsibilities onto parties who have no legal obligation to comply with the ESA; (2) FEMA lacks the authority to enforce its preferred alternative under the existing regulation; and (3) the ESA compliance requirement of the alternatives is a significant burden on NFIP communities. Based on these conclusions, FEMA\u27s implementation of its Preferred Alternative is unwise

Evaluation of Current Nonlinear Static Procedures for Concrete Buildings Using Recorded Strong-Motion Data

This paper evaluates current Nonlinear Static Procedures (NSPs) specified in the FEMA- 356, ASCE-41, ATC-40, and FEMA-440 documents using strong-motion data from reinforcedconcrete buildings. For this purpose, peak roof (or target node) displacements estimated from the NSPs are compared with the value derived from recorded motions. It is shown that: (1) the NSPs either overestimate or underestimate the peak roof displacement for several of the buildings considered in this investigation; (2) the ASCE-41 Coefficient Method (CM), which is based on recent improvements to the FEMA-356 CM suggested in FEMA-440 document, does not necessarily provide better estimate of roof displacement; and (3) the improved FEMA-440 Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) generally provides better estimates of peak roof displacements compared to the ATC-40 CSM. However, there is no conclusive evidence of either the CM procedures (FEMA-356 or ASCE-41) or the CSM procedure (ATC-40 or FEMA- 440) leading to better estimate of the peak roof displacement when compared with the value derived from recorded motions

FEMA versus local governments: Influence and reliance in disaster preparedness

This study uses an experimental approach to examine whether disaster information sourced to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) influences intentions to adopt hazard adjustments. Survey questions are also used to determine whether individuals rely more on FEMA or local governments when preparing for disasters. Using an online sample of 2008 US employees, the results indicate that information sourced to FEMA is no more influential than information sourced to local governments and that individuals rely less on FEMA than on local agencies during disaster preparedness. These results have significant implications for practice and future research on natural hazard preparedness

The Interaction of FEMA with Air Force Stateside Contingency Contracting Operations

Natural disasters can strike the U.S. at any time without warning. When an Air Force base is struck with disaster, the base as well as the surrounding area must interact with FEMA to initiate and sustain emergency relief operations. Policies and procedures must be in effect to ensure that affected personnel know what agencies to coordinate with to conduct relief efforts. This research explores how the Air Force interacts with FEMA in a natural disaster situation that affects an Air Force base. A case study investigates how FEMA interacted with Grand Forks AFB during the 1997 flooding to determine the policies and procedures used by FEMA to coordinate the relief efforts. This thesis analyzes the process of how the Air Force interacted with FEMA during an emergency response operation. It details the actual procedures of emergency relief operations between the Air Force and FEMA and analyzes differences between the stated procedures and the actual processes used in the emergency operations

Lif, the lysostaphin immunity factor, complements FemB in staphylococcal peptidoglycan interpeptide bridge formation

The formation of the Staphylococcus aureus peptidoglycan pentaglycine interpeptide chain needs FemA and FemB for the incorporation of glycines Gly2-Gly3, and Gly4-Gly5, respectively. The lysostaphin immunity factor Lif was able to complement FemB, as could be shown by serine incorporation and by an increase in lysostaphin resistance in the wild-type as well as in a femB mutant. However, Lif could not substitute for FemA in femA or in femAB-null mutants. Methicillin resistance, which is dependent on functional FemA and FemB, was not complemented by Lif, suggesting that serine-substituted side chains are a lesser substrate for penicillin-binding protein PBP2′ in methicillin resistanc

A HEDONIC PRICE APPROACH TO FLOOD RISK AND PROPERTY VALUE IN THE GREATER MIAMI AREA

This study investigates the relationship between property value and flood risk in Miami-Dade County Florida. Miami-Dade County has gained a lot of attention in the media for its high risk of catastrophic flooding. As climate change predictions have grown more severe, flood risk is a factor property buyers may want to consider. This study uses hedonic pricing to see if the flood risk in the county affects the price of the home. In Miami-Dade County, properties near a public beach are considered desirable. This paper specifically looks at the interaction between distance from the beach and flood risk. This paper found Low flood risk homes have significantly lower prices than high flood risk homes if they are close to the beach (less than 45 miles), but have significantly higher prices than high risk homes that are far from the beach (at least 45 miles away). Specifically, when a home is that far away from the water, being flood safe adds a positive value to a property by around 14%. Similarly, being in a high flood risk (FEMA AE) has a positive marginal effect on the price of a home if it is close enough to a public beach

FEMA’s Public Assistance Grant Program: Background and Considerations for Congress

[Excerpt] The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq., henceforth the Stafford Act) confers upon the President a broad set of authorities “to alleviate the suffering and damage” of affected tribal, state, and local governments, as well as individual citizens, from disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been given the responsibility of administering almost all of the President’s Stafford Act authorities through other law, a series of Executive Orders, and a DHS delegation. FEMA has established the Public Assistance (PA) Grant Program by combining the authority of multiple sections of the Stafford Act. The PA Program provides financial grant assistance to states, tribes, and local communities both in the response to and recovery from significant disasters. Between FY2000-FY2013, the PA Program has provided $52.6 billion in grant assistance to help communities pay for an array of eligible response and recovery activities, including debris removal, emergency protective measures, and the repair, replacement, or restoration of disaster-damaged, publicly owned facilities and the facilities of certain private nonprofit (PNP) organizations. The authorities of the PA Program were most recently significantly amended by the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (Division B of P.L. 113- 2, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013; henceforth SRIA). For a brief legislative history of PA Program authorities, see Appendix A. This report provides background on key elements of the PA Program, such as the eligibility of applicants, the types of assistance available, and the methods FEMA uses for awarding grant assistance. Summary analysis of federal obligations for PA Program assistance is also provided along important variables, such as the distribution of federal obligations across the PA Program eligible categories of work assistance. The report concludes with discussion of several policy issues that Congress may wish to consider when evaluating the PA Program in the future, including considerations of significant prospective changes to the PA Program and the role of the PA Program in the context of other federal agency disaster assistance authorities