Federal Emergency Management Agency

A Compendium of

Exemplary Practices in

Emergency Management

PARTNERSHIPS IN

PREPAREDNESS

December 1995
i

PARTNERSHIPS IN

PREPAREDNESS

A Compendium of Exemplary Practices in

Emergency Management

Federal Emergency Management Agency

December 1995
ii

Federal Emergency Management Agency

James Lee Witt

Director

Preparedness, Training, and Exercises Directorate

Kay C. Goss

Associate Director
iii

___________________________________________________________________ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Acknowledgments

Many people contributed to this first edition of the Compendium. Their contributions include the critical executive

support needed to make this initiative a reality; the memoranda, letters, and communications on the Internet

encouraging nominations from throughout the emergency management community; and the administrative tasks

and correspondence involved in the nominations of exemplary practices in emergency management.

Under the policy guidance of Kay Goss, Associate Director, Preparedness, Training, and Exercises Directorate, this

FEMA initiative in Partnerships in Preparedness was implemented in the State and Local Preparedness Division

under the direction of Robert P. Fletcher, Jr., and William B. Wark. The project officers during development of this

first edition were Leonard Oberlander, Vernon Adler, and Maria Mlinarcik, who were major contributors.

However, these names barely scratch the surface. The many ideas, suggestions, and encouraging words of support

received from people throughout the public and private sectors of the emergency management community have

given the effort vitality. All of the individual State and local emergency managers whose support and nominations

are a part of this edition are acknowledged as contact people in the body of the Compendium.

The Compendium is an example of interagency cooperation between FEMA and the U.S. Department of Justice’s

National Institute of Justice (NIJ). NIJ’s assistance was instrumental in establishing and applying a model of

information sharing among local, State, and Federal agencies.

The individuals listed below played direct roles in developing this edition. We wish to thank everyone associated

with launching this initiative and helping it grow.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Headquarters Leadership

Kay C. Goss

Associate Director for Preparedness, Training, and

Exercises Directorate

Richard T. Moore

Associate Administrator for Mitigation

Richard W. Krimm

Associate Director for Response and Recovery

Elaine A. McReynolds

Administrator

Federal Insurance Administration

Carrye B. Brown

Administrator

U.S. Fire Administration

John D. Hwang

Associate Director for Information Technology Services

Bruce Campbell

Associate Director for Operations Support

FEMA Regional Directors

Louis A. Elisa

Region I

Rita Meyninger

Region II

Rita A. Calvan

Region III

Kenneth D. Hutchison

Region IV

Michelle M. Burkett

Region V

Raymond L. Young

Region VI

John A. Miller

Region VII

Michael Armstrong

Region VIII

Shirley Mattingly

Region IX

David L. de Courcy

Region X
iv

Ted Delozier

Information Technology Services Directorate

Cathy Green

Office of Operations Support

Virginia Guzman-Taylor

Region IX

Juanita Harris

Preparedness, Training, and Exercises Directorate

Roy A. Kite

Region IX

Peggy Phillips

Preparedness, Training, and Exercises Directorate

Diana Wade

Preparedness, Training, and Exercises Directorate

Marc Wolfson

Office of Emergency Information and Public Affairs

Allan R. Zenowitz

Operations Support Directorate

FEMA Secretarial Staff

Conchita Whisenton

Preparedness, Training, and Exercises Directorate

Monica Wilson

Preparedness, Training, and Exercises Directorate

National Institute of Justice

Paul Cascarano

Paul Estaver

G. Martin Lively

NIJ’s Information Clearinghouse Staff

(Operated by Aspen Systems Corporation)

Joan Alpert

Nancy Hegle

Amy Quach

Viviana Villafane

___________________________________________________________________ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

State and Local Partners

Elizabeth Armstrong

National Coordinating Council on Emergency

 Management

Garry L. Briese

International Association of Fire Chiefs

Chief Jerry Knight

St. Petersburg, Florida

R. Keith Lough

National Emergency Management Association

Addison Slayton, Jr.

National Emergency Management Association

Andrea Walters

International Association of Fire Chiefs

Alfred K. Whitehead

International Association of Fire Fighters

Richard L. Winsett

National Coordinating Council on Emergency

 Management

FEMA Participants

Bob Adamcik

Region III

Terry Baker

Mitigation Directorate

Donald H. Bathurst

Deputy Administrator

U.S. Fire Administration

Thomas Behm

Office of Operations Support

Leo Bosner

Response and Recovery Directorate

Phillip S. Cogan

Deputy Director

Office of Emergency Information and Public Affairs

Joseph Coughlin

Federal Insurance Administration
v

Table of Contents

Foreword ........................................................................................ Inside front cover

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................... iii

Introduction .............................................................................................................. vi

Exemplary Practices ................................................................................................... 1

Indexes ....................................................................................................................... 67

Program Contacts .................................................................................................. 69

Program Titles ........................................................................................................ 71

Program Subjects ................................................................................................... 73

Program Locations ................................................................................................ 81

Forms .......................................................................................................................... 83

Reader Survey Form ............................................................................................ 85

New Programs/Update Form ........................................................................... 89

________________________________________________ CONTENTS
vi

________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION

Introduction

This first edition of Partnerships in Preparedness: A Compendium of Exemplary Practices in Emergency Management

represents the results of an initial canvassing of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) regional

offices in search of exemplary practices in emergency management. A panel of our partners from the public and

private emergency management community reviewed all the practices included in this volume for their effectiveness and ability to be adopted or adapted elsewhere.

FEMA plans to publish several editions of the Compendium and is constantly searching for innovative practices to be

included. Forms are provided in the back pages of this edition for submitting nominations to be included in future

volumes. The same form can be used to provide updated information on any practices listed in this volume.

Another form is provided for your opinions on the Compendium.

The contents of this and future Compendiums will also be published online. These documents can be accessed

through gopher://www.fema.gov:70/11/pubs or http://www.fema.gov/fema/publicat.html.

How To Use This Compendium

The organization of this document responds to FEMA’s goal to inform all interested individuals of innovative and

promising approaches to emergency management.

This document is organized alphabetically by the State from which the exemplary practice was nominated. Under

each State listing, the programs are organized alphabetically by the name of the contact person because one contact

person may be named for several programs.

Each listing provides data in the following categories: name of the program; contact person’s name, address, and

phone and fax numbers; program type; population targeted for the program; program setting; startup date;

description of the program; evaluation information; annual budget; sources of funding; and in some cases,

additional sources for information.

The categories are highlighted to help the reader peruse each listing for specific data. For example, check the Program Type description to get a quick overview of the program’s purpose. Read the Program Description to learn

more about the program’s goals and operations. Check the Evaluation Information for indicators of its success.

Four indexes enable readers to locate key information:

● Title. The program titles are listed in alphabetical order.

● Subject. Most programs have been indexed to more than a single subject heading. Subject headings include

aspects such as the type of problem being addressed by the program (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes), the program

type (e.g., damage assessment), and solutions to problems (e.g., evacuation routes, emergency response teams).

● Location. This index enhances the Table of Contents by indicating the cities and counties within a State covered

by the program. If a program is multistate, that information is listed first under the name of each involved State.

If the program is operating throughout a single State, that information is provided next.

● Contact. The names of the program contacts are listed in alphabetical order to enable the reader to easily

identify the individuals to write to or call for further information.
1

Exemplary

Practices in

Emergency

Management
3

Contact:

Robert E. Heavilin

Director, Division of

Emergency Services

Department of Military and

Veterans Affairs

State of Alaska

P.O. Box 5750

Fort Richardson, AK 99505

Tel: 907–428–7000

Fax: 907–428–7009

Program Type:

Disaster recovery.

Target Population:

Alaska residents.

Setting:

Statewide.

Project Startup Date:

1994.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

Federal, State, and local

governments.

___________________________________________________ ALASKA

Contractor Management of

Disaster Recovery

Program Description:

On August 28, 1994, the Alaska Division of Emergency Services (DES)

initiated a response to the Koyukuk River flood caused by unusually heavy

rains in the area. State and Federal disaster declarations were issued. More

than 2,000 people and 30 different agencies were involved in response and

recovery efforts.

Fourteen communities suffered damage in a remote and sparsely populated

area bracketing the Arctic Circle. Flood waters destroyed two communities

and severely damaged a third. The recovery effort took place at the onset of

winter, so homes, airstrips, and bridges had to be rebuilt in temperatures as

cold as -68 ̊F.

The magnitude of the disaster arguably presented the greatest complexity

and scope of any disaster affecting the State within the past 15 years. The

DES leadership felt the general and administrative management requirements were far beyond their staff’s capabilities. Consequently, after the

immediate emergency response and near-term recovery activities had been

implemented, DES leadership engaged the services of a general contractor

to manage all subsequent disaster recovery efforts.

This new approach eliminated the necessity for and cost of hiring and

training additional DES staff to manage the disaster. Major operational

decisions, funding, and reporting still required the review and approval of

the State Coordinating Office/Governor’s Authorized Representative, but

the burden of general management and report preparation was removed.

An additional benefit of using a large general contractor was being able to

accelerate reoccupancy and realize a cost savings because of the reduced need

for temporary housing for displaced individuals and families. In addition, the

estimated time to resolve the Koyukuk flood disaster was reduced to 1 year, a

very short time compared with other federally declared major disasters.

Use of a private general contractor also eases and improves the audit trail and

is cost-effective because of economies of scale. If using a private general

contractor becomes a standard procedure in FEMA or at the State level, cost

savings will result from the competitive bid process and, over time, from the

experience contractors will gain in managing and resolving major disasters.

Moreover, the availability of DES personnel to return to their normal nondisaster schedules and requirements represents unquantifiable cost savings.

Evaluation Information:

The Governor of Alaska recognized the success of this measure by presenting

H.C. Price Company with the Governor’s Community Service Award for

outstanding accomplishments during the 1994 Emergency Flood Recovery

Project in completing a cost-effective, zero-accident recovery effort. This

approach has proven to be effective, both in terms of safety and costeffectiveness. The method could easily be adopted throughout the country.
4

Use of National Type I Interagency

Incident Management Teams

Contact:

Robert E. Heavilin

Director, Division of

Emergency Services

Department of Military and

Veterans Affairs

State of Alaska

P.O. Box 5750

Fort Richardson, AK 99505

Tel: 907–428–7000

Fax: 907–428–7009

Program Type:

Interagency coordination for

disaster response and recovery.

Target Population:

Alaska residents.

Setting:

Statewide.

Project Startup Date:

1994.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

Federal, State, and local

governments.

Program Description:

On August 28, 1994, the Alaska Division of Emergency Services (DES) initiated

its response to the Koyukuk River flood caused by unusually heavy rains in

the area. State and Federal disaster declarations were issued. More than 2,000

people and 30 different agencies were involved in response and recovery

efforts. Fourteen communities suffered damage in a remote and sparsely

populated area bracketing the Arctic Circle. Flood waters destroyed two

communities and severely damaged a third. The recovery effort took place at

the onset of winter, so homes, airstrips, and bridges had to be rebuilt in

temperatures as cold as -68 ̊F.

The magnitude of the disaster required a complex response and recovery

effort. The State Coordinating Officer/Governor’s Authorized Representative

decided early on to employ a U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Type I Interagency Incident Management Team (commonly called an Overhead Team) to coordinate immediate and near-term emergency response

activities. These teams have demonstrated experience in employing the

Incident Command System (ICS) to manage large-scale incidents involving

many different agencies. Because DES is required by statute to use the ICS,

requesting a Type I Overhead Team was a logical step (although previously

untried in Alaska).

The value of an Overhead Team lies in their ability to work as an experienced,

cohesive unit when dealing with major disasters. Large Overhead Teams are

ICS professionals, extremely well suited to step in and continue the response

(stabilization) phase and initiate the recovery (restoration) phase.

The potential cost savings are threefold. First, if an Overhead Team is available

locally, the personnel are already on the payroll, although some travel, subsistence, and overtime may be required. If a local Overhead Team is unavailable

(as was the case in the Koyukuk flood), employing an out-of-area Overhead

Team may be cost neutral because payroll costs should balance out with the

payroll reimbursement from the user of the local Overhead Team. Travel costs

will be higher, but subsistence and overtime would be roughly the same for a

local team. Additionally, using either a local or an out-of-area Overhead Team

reduces the need for the State coordinating agency or FEMA to provide

extensive staff to handle these tasks. The second potential cost savings is due

to the shorter time involved, in this case approximately 1 year. Many federally

declared major disasters take 5 years or more to resolve. Finally, there are also

cost savings associated with the availability of the State’s DES personnel to

return to their normal nondisaster schedules and requirements.

Evaluation Information:

Use of the Type I Interagency Incident Management Team following the

Koyukuk River flood accelerated response and recovery activities and also

provided a cost savings. Emergency evacuation of 146 individuals from widely

separated villages was accomplished in 2 days using military aircraft, with no

loss of life or serious injury.

___________________________________________________ ALASKA
5

Initial Response to HAZMAT

Incidents: Basic Concepts

Contact:

Lee E. Collard

Training Manager

State of Arkansas Office of

Emergency Services

P.O. Box 758

Conway, AR 72033

Tel: 501–329–5601

Fax: 501–327–8047

Program Type:

Training using interactive

satellite downlink broadcast.

Target Population:

Emergency first responders

throughout Arkansas.

Setting:

Interactive satellite downlink

broadcast from educational

television studios in Conway,

Arkansas.

Project Startup Date:

1994.

Annual Budget:

$53,500.

Sources of Funding:

Arkansas Office of Emergency

Services, Arkansas Department

of Pollution Control and

Ecology, and administrative

support from the Arkansas

Educational Television Network

and the Arkansas Fire Academy.

_________________________________________________ ARKANSAS

Program Description:

Conducted during October and November 1994, the “Initial Response to

Hazardous Material Incidents: Basic Concepts” broadcast course was a joint

enterprise of the Arkansas Office of Emergency Services, Arkansas Fire Training Academy, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, and the

Arkansas Educational Television Network. This pilot course was designed to

reach emergency management first responders at various facilitator-staffed

locations in 77 local jurisdictions throughout the State. A total of 2,150 emergency first responders completed the course and were issued National Fire

Academy certificates by the Arkansas Fire Academy.

This learning program, divided into five 3-hour segments and broadcast via

satellite downlinks, is credited with improving response capabilities throughout Arkansas communities in a cost-effective manner (in comparison to a

traditional classroom in which an instructor teaches 20–30 students). Volunteer

downlink facilitators at the 92 downlink sites registered participants and

provided them with student manuals. To enhance the interactive component

of the course, an 800 number was provided so that participants could call in

with questions. Plans are underway to adapt additional hazardous materials

course components for presentation to Emergency Management personnel in

Arkansas through the interactive communications satellite classroom.

The unexpected benefit of the satellite training is that this hazardous material

awareness course is still being conducted on a weekly basis throughout the

State using videotapes and training packets. Each of the 77 local jurisdictions

were provided with training videotapes for use by fire and emergency services

coordinators. When awareness training is needed, county officials can contact

the Arkansas Fire Academy for a training packet for each student along with

videotapes and a final test so that students can complete the course. Approximately 1,000 students have been trained using the instructional videotapes.

Each student who successfully completes the course can be certified by the

State Emergency Response Commission.

The Arkansas Emergency Management Agencies have scheduled the hazardous material operational training, level II, for March 1996.

Evaluation Information:

Endorsement of Governor Tucker and the program’s use by the Arkansas

Educational Television Network as a model for other State agencies. The

satellite training program has proven to be cost- and time-effective for the

State of Arkansas.
6

State of Arkansas Hazard

Mitigation Program

Contact:

Terry Gray

State Hazard Mitigation Officer

State of Arkansas Office of

Emergency Services

P.O. Box 758

Conway, AR 72033

Tel: 501–329–5601

Fax: 501–327–8047

Program Type:

Hazard mitigation assistance.

Target Population:

Arkansas residents.

Setting:

Publicly owned facilities in both

urban and rural areas for the

benefit of local government.

Project Startup Date:

1995.

Program Description:

The Arkansas Hazard Mitigation Program provides mitigation assistance to

local governments and other eligible political entities in the emergency reconstruction and improvement of vital components of publicly owned infrastructures damaged or destroyed as a result of a natural or manmade disaster. The

program’s goal is to identify and provide funding for the reconstruction of

repetitively damaged structures and to implement mitigation measures that

will substantially reduce disaster damages in the future. State hazard mitigation funds, made available under a Governor’s executive order, are applied to

reduce damages to key public facilities and loss of life from future floods,

tornadoes, earthquakes, and any other natural or manmade calamity that

might occur within the State.

To be eligible for program participation, county, city, and State entities must

meet several criteria. All funding is based on available funds in the program’s

appropriation and on project priority factors concerning human health, safety,

and welfare.

Evaluation Information:

A total of 70 projects funded since program’s inception.

Annual Budget:

$1,000,000. Total grant dollars awarded to date: $895,000.

Sources of Funding:

Arkansas State Act 511 (1973), as amended by Act 1997.

_________________________________________________ ARKANSAS
7

Arkansas Governor’s Earthquake

Advisory Council (AGEAC)

Program Description:

The advisory council, formed by Governor Bill Clinton in December 1984,

meets twice a year. Its 45-person membership allows for a wide cross-sectional

representation of career and professional areas. Members take information

back to inform others in their profession about earthquake preparedness and

mitigation. All members are volunteers, serving free of charge.

AGEAC has worked diligently to:

● Gain passage of Act 247 of 1989, the act establishing the Arkansas Earthquake Preparedness Program and its companion Act 174 of 1989 establishing a 50-50 match of State funds to support the Arkansas Earthquake

Preparedness Program.

● Gain passage of a State building code. In 1989 the council had written a

State Seismic Building Code Bill. They ardently lobbied the building,

construction, and engineering firms as well as the legislators to win its

passage as Act 1100 of 1991. The uniqueness of this bill is that changes are

automatically tied to seismic changes of the Southern Building code and a

fine of $1,000 per day will be levied against owners who do not comply

with the code.

● Provide 189 presentations and lectures to 18,288 attendees during 1990.

Print and distribute 4,000 FEMA 45, 32,000 FEMA 46, 4,000 FEMA 49, and

13,000 Home & Family Earthquake Preparation Guidebooks.

● Provide preparedness and mitigation presentations to groups and radio

and television interviews when necessary.

● Provide donations for refreshments at workshops, mitigation courses, and

meetings.

Evaluation Information:

Successful passage of seismic building codes Act 247 (1989) and Act 1100

(1991).

Annual Budget:

$2,500.

Sources of Funding:

Federal funds from the Arkansas Earthquake Preparedness Program, as well

as State funds.

Contact:

John David McFarland

Chairman, AGEAC

Arkansas Geology Commission

3815 West Roosevelt Road

Little Rock, AR 72204

Tel: 501–296–1877

Fax: 501–663–7360

Program Type:

Earthquake preparedness and

mitigation.

Target Population:

Arkansas residents.

Setting:

Statewide professional and

residential communities.

Project Startup Date:

1984.

_________________________________________________ ARKANSAS
8

Contact:

Al Aramburu

Director

California Conservation Corps

1530 Capitol Avenue

Sacramento, CA 95814

Tel: 916–445–0307

Fax: 916–323–4989

Program Type:

Natural resources conservation,

community service, and emergency assistance and disaster

response.

Target Population:

California residents.

Setting:

CCC works in a variety of

settings throughout the State,

ranging from wilderness sites to

inner-city neighborhoods.

Project Startup Date:

1976.

Annual Budget:

Approximately $50 million.

Sources of Funding:

One-third of funding is reimbursed from Federal, State, and

local government and nonprofit

organization projects. The other

two-thirds is from State special

funds and the general fund.

Source for Additional

Information:

Walt Auburn, Emergency

Manager, 916–323–6596.

________________________________________________ CALIFORNIA

California Conservation

Corps (CCC)

Program Description:

The California Conservation Corps is a work ethic program with a dual

mission: youth employment and development and the conservation and

enhancement of the State’s natural resources. To carry out this mission, CCC

has established residential centers and nonresidential facilities throughout

California. CCC has responded to virtually every disaster to strike California

since its inception in 1976, and it provides a trained and dedicated labor force

that can work safely during emergencies.

CCC provides more than 3 million hours of public service conservation work

and emergency assistance each year. Corps members may be found planting

trees, cutting trails, or clearing streams; building playgrounds, restoring

historic buildings, or revitalizing downtown centers; and conducting energy

audits. During emergencies, CCC crews sandbag levees, fight forest fires and

mudslides, help eradicate pests, and provide cleanup assistance following

earthquakes and oil spills.

CCC not only provides support during the response and recovery phases of

an emergency, it also spends a considerable amount of its time performing

mitigation and preparedness work prior to and following a disaster. This work

includes building check dams, reseeding and tree planting after a wildland

fire to reduce erosion and speed revegetation, clearing stream channels and

strengthening levees to reduce the potential for flooding, seismic retrofitting to

reduce the earthquake damage to buildings and their occupants, and participating in large-scale oil spill exercises to increase response efficiency when an

oil release occurs.

CCC works for Federal, State, county, city, and other local project sponsors,

as well as for nonprofit agencies. California’s businesses are engaged in

partnerships with CCC to promote the employability of corps members; local

CCC Community Advisory Boards have been established to actively involve

community leaders, public officials, and other key citizens in the Corps

mission. Besides CCC, 11 nonprofit local corps are now operating in California.

The State monies they receive are matched with local funds to provide a CCCtype experience to greater numbers of high school dropouts and youths in

urban areas.

Evaluation Information:

CCC employed more than 4,225 young men and women in 1994. In 1994

accomplishments in the area of emergency assistance and disaster response

include some 310,000 hours devoted to earthquake cleanup, firefighting, fire

camp support, Mediterranean fruit fly (medfly) infestation work, and oil spill

cleanup. In the storms of January and March 1995, the Corps had more than

500 corps members and staff involved in floodfighting activities.
9

Southern Area Fire Equipment

Research (SAFER)

________________________________________________ CALIFORNIA

Contact:

Don DeYoung

President

Southern Area Fire Equipment

Research

Los Angeles County Fire

Department

Fire Suppression Camp 9

21521 North Sand Canyon Road

Santa Clarita, CA 91350–2719

Tel: 818–367–1310

Fax: 818–364–6181

Program Type:

Information dissemination.

Target Population:

General public through fire

protection agencies.

Setting:

Communities and rural areas of

various sizes in southern

California.

Project Startup Date:

1970.

Program Description:

Many fire agencies conduct studies and evaluation of equipment and operational activities, which are often duplicated with little sharing of information.

In 1970 a small group of fire officials formed SAFER to develop a method of

sharing information and to arrange methods of joint purchasing. The group

decided to extend membership and participation to all fire agencies in southern California and interested manufacturers and vendors. Members are those

who actually purchase, test, and use the various pieces of fire and safety

equipment. The group meets monthly, publishes an informational monthly

letter/bulletin, and provides input to State and national regulatory agencies.

SAFER activities are designed to:

● Minimize duplication of efforts.

● Identify and correct problem areas.

● Increase cost savings through group purchasing.

● Provide greater safety to responders and residents through improved

techniques and equipment.

Evaluation Information:

The SAFER program has had documented success in cost savings and technological and operational improvement. In addition, the organization membership has grown to 500, and similar chapters have been formed in northern

California, central California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and North Carolina.

Annual Budget:

Approximately $5,000.

Sources of Funding:

Self-supporting.
10

Contact:

William J. Patterson

Natural & Technological

Hazards Specialist

FEMA Region IX

Building 105, Presidio of

San Francisco

San Francisco, CA 94129

Tel: 415–923–7187

Fax: 415–923–7214

Program Type:

Fire protection improvement.

Target Population:

Residents of the

U.S.-managed Pacific islands.

Setting:

Pacific Trust Territory

governments and current

U.S. possessions in the Pacific

Ocean.

Project Startup Date:

1980.

Fire Safety in the Pacific

________________________________________________ CALIFORNIA

Program Description:

In 1980 the Pacific Trust Territory governments were expected to choose either

independent status or join the United States. In an effort to ensure that adequate fire safety could continue to be provided, a study was conducted and

recommendations were made regarding the status of and suggested improvements in fire safety. It was determined that substantial improvement was

needed in the areas of planning, equipment, and training.

Many Federal agencies have responsibilities in the Territorial governments.

Through the initiative and leadership of FEMA Region IX, a coalition was

developed to improve fire safety. Fire master plans were developed. Through

the surplus program, fire apparatus were provided by the U.S. Department

of the Interior (DOI), United States Forest Service (USFS), Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), and State of Hawaii. The Honolulu Fire Department

and others donated specialized equipment of various kinds. Through identification of a common goal, communication, and cooperation of a number of

Federal and State agencies with various programs, substantial improvement

was made in fire safety in these remote Pacific islands.

Evaluation Information:

There has been substantial improvement in fire safety equipment and training.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

DOI, FEMA, USFS, FAA, State of Hawaii.
11

Program Description:

Although many conferences and workshops on hazardous materials have been

conducted, few—if any—have been directed to emergency responders. In 1990

through FEMA Region IX, such a conference/workshop was initiated. Funds

were provided by FEMA for startup, and it was decided that future programs

would be paid for through registration tuition. Because a number of agencies

and disciplines have roles and responsibilities in the hazardous materials

arena, the conference/workshop was started through a cooperative effort of

Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector.

The workshop has included classroom and hands-on field activities involving

railcars, tank trucks, various chemicals, and foam. More than 80 class sessions

ranging from 2 to 8 hours in length have been conducted by 100 instructors

over a 4-day period. Attendance has grown from 250 to 630 over a 6-year

period.

Through this conference/workshop, emergency responders have been able to

interact, share information, and improve their skills.

Evaluation Information:

This annual conference has grown and generated excellent comments and

feedback from participants.

Annual Budget:

Startup costs of $15,000.

Sources of Funding:

Self-supporting; FEMA provided startup funds.

________________________________________________ CALIFORNIA

Contact:

Dennis Smith

Deputy Fire Chief

Sacramento City Fire

Department

1231 I Street, Room 401

Sacramento, CA 95814

Tel: 916–264–5266

Fax: 916–264–7079

Program Type:

Hazardous materials

educational conference.

Target Population:

Emergency responders to

hazardous materials

emergencies.

Setting:

Sacramento, California.

Project Startup Date:

1990.

Continuing Challenge Hazardous

Materials Conference
12

Southwest Florida—Together

Emergencies Are Managed

Successfully (SWF TEAMS)

Contact:

John D. Wilson

Director

Lee County Division of

Public Safety

Emergency Management

Program

P.O. Box 398

Fort Myers, FL 33902

Tel: 813–337–2323

Fax: 813–338–3141

Program Type:

County intergovernmental

partnership.

Target Population:

Southwest Florida counties of

Charlotte, Collier, De Soto,

Glades, Hardee, Hendry,

Highlands, Lee, Manatee, and

Sarasota.

Setting:

Statewide.

Project Startup Date:

March 1992.

Program Description:

SWF TEAMS is an intergovernmental partnership among 10 counties committed to assisting one another—and other Florida counties—during emergencies.

The program offers a forum for discussion of the four phases of emergency

management: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Quarterly

meetings are held at sites within the 10-county area, and cities with emergency

management programs are invited to attend.

Shortly after its inception, SWF TEAMS mobilized to provide assistance in the

aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. Together, participating counties assisted Dade

County in assessing damage and rebuilding infrastructure. SWF TEAMS also

helped Florida residents in another disaster, the flooding caused by Tropical

Storm Alberto on the State’s panhandle.

Evaluation Information:

Recognition awards by the Florida Governor, the State Division of Emergency

Management, and the Florida Emergency Preparedness Association.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

Vary.

___________________________________________________ FLORIDA
13

TTY Alert—An Emergency Warning

and Communications System for

the Deaf and Hard of Hearing

Contact:

John D. Wilson

Director

Lee County Division of

Public Safety

Emergency Management

Program

P.O. Box 398

Fort Myers, FL 33902

Tel: 813–337–2323

Fax: 813–338–3141

Program Type:

Emergency warning and

communications system.

Target Population:

55,000 deaf and hard-of-hearing

residents of southwest Florida.

Setting:

Home teletypewriter (TTY)

machines.

Project Startup Date:

January 1995.

Program Description:

TTY Alert is an emergency warning system for deaf and hard-of-hearing

residents in southwest Florida—the first system of its kind in the United

States. When an emergency occurs, the Lee County Emergency Operations

Center sends out an alert to the TTY machines with details. Every registered

TTY user in the county can receive the message. TTY Alert can even target a

specific area; for example, if a brush fire threatens one area of the county,

residents in that area would receive a message. If the emergency causes a

power outage, TTY Alert can still be accessed at county libraries, which have

backup power.

The program also allows TTY users to access TTY Alert to obtain headline

news, weather bulletins, and family disaster preparedness information.

Evaluation Information:

The program has been well received by its target audience and was the only

project recognized at the closing session of the National Institute on Disabilities Rehabilitation Research 1994 Project Director’s Meeting in Washington,

D.C.

Annual Budget:

Initial startup costs were $60,000; annual expenses are estimated to be $3,000.

Sources of Funding:

U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute on Disabilities

Rehabilitation Research.

___________________________________________________ FLORIDA
14

Donated Goods

Contact:

Gerald Abbott

Emergency Management

Agency (EMA) Director

EMA–Macon County

501 Hamilton Road

Montezuma, GA 31063

Tel: 912–472–5645

Fax: 912–472–5643

Program Type:

Distribution of donated goods

to disaster victims.

Target Population:

15,000 Georgia residents

affected by a flood.

Setting:

Large warehouse in

Montezuma, Georgia.

Project Startup Date:

1994.

Program Description:

The Donated Goods program was initiated to help victims of a flood.

Volunteers working out of a large warehouse near Montezuma Airport in

Montezuma, Georgia, distributed a wide range of items, from clothing to

building materials for reconstruction of damaged homes. All items were

inventoried, and spot checks were made to ensure that they were being used

to help flood victims recover from the disaster.

This effort set the standard for Donated Goods operations during disasters in

Georgia.

Evaluation Information:

Positive feedback received from Federal, State, and local governments as well

as residents helped by the program.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

FEMA and State disaster funds.

__________________________________________________ GEORGIA
15

Georgia Flood Recovery

Coordination Committee (FRCC)

Contact:

Mike Sherberger

Assistant Director

Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA)

935 East Confederate Avenue S.E.

Atlanta, GA 30316–0055

Tel: 404–624–7042

Program Type:

Inventive coordination and

innovative practices in

mitigation.

Target Population:

Residents, counties, and

communities in central and

southwest Georgia affected by

Tropical Storm Alberto.

Setting:

Central and southwest Georgia.

Project Startup Date:

1994.

Program Description:

In the aftermath of Tropical Storm Alberto, Georgia Governor Zell Miller

recognized that a sustained response was needed to help rebuild and restore

the devastated portions of Georgia, while providing a mechanism to reduce

the probability that such damage would occur again in the river basins

affected by Alberto. The Governor appointed the members of the Georgia

Flood Recovery Coordination Committee (FRCC) and gave them the charter

to provide a “one-stop shop” for recovery and mitigation actions for local

communities. FRCC was charged with making sure that recovery money

coming into the State was used to its fullest extent by mixing and matching

wherever possible. An important part in full use of recovery money was the

unified approach of determining each community’s need and applying to the

Office of Management and Budget for Presidential release of congressional

emergency supplemental appropriations in whole rather than piecemeal to

each Federal agency, a first in the Nation.

Another crucial step in this coordinated approach was to include FEMA’s

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which was designed to reduce

future disaster losses and to be an integral part of the partnership among

Federal, State, and local governments and agencies. By including all participants and restructuring the application process to the familiar Community

Development Block Grant application procedure, FRCC made it easier for

local governments to join in the mitigation effort. The State also made matching funding available for the non-Federal share of HMGP grants.

Evaluation Information:

Local communities praised the FRCC’s flexibility and short turnaround times

in implementing HMGP grants.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

State agency budgets and FEMA HMGP grants.

Source for Additional Information:

Jim Wilbanks, Deputy State Coordinating Officer, GEMA, at address above.

__________________________________________________ GEORGIA
16

Contact:

Mike Taylor

Communications/

Warning Officer

Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA)

P.O. Box 18055

Atlanta, GA 30316

Tel: 404–624–7222

Fax: 404–624–7205

Program Type:

Warning system for public

schools.

Target Population:

1,800 public schools in Georgia.

Setting:

Statewide.

Project Startup Date:

October 1994.

First Alert

Program Description:

The First Alert program will enable GEMA and the Georgia Department of

Education, in conjunction with the National Weather Service and Georgia

Public Television, to transmit weather warnings directly to 1,800 public schools

in Georgia. GEMA will also be able to quickly transmit nonweather threats

(HAZMAT or nuclear-related threats) to the schools.

Evaluation Information:

System received positive feedback during a statewide tornado drill.

Annual Budget:

$2,100.

Sources of Funding:

State funds.

__________________________________________________ GEORGIA
17

Damage Assessment Assistance

Contact:

Lee T. Takushi

Disaster Response Committee

Structural Engineers

Association of Hawaii

P.O. Box 3348

Honolulu, HI 96801

Tel: 808–531–1308

Fax: 808–521–7348

Program Type:

Damage assessment for State

civil defense.

Target Population:

Residents of Hawaii.

Setting:

Honolulu, Hawaii.

Project Startup Date:

1995.

Program Description:

The program uses a pool of volunteer structural engineers ready to assist in

performing damage assessments of structures as part of a Federal, State, and

county joint assessment team. The engineers have attended a training session

sponsored by the State of Hawaii Civil Defense office on postearthquake safety

evaluation of buildings that is based on manuals published by the Applied

Technology Council (ATC–20–1).

Evaluation Information:

The program was set up recently and has yet to be tested.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

Services are provided by volunteer engineers.

____________________________________________________ HAWAII
18

Upgrade Seismic Zonation Building

Code on the Island of Hawaii

Contact:

Brian S. Yanagi

Earthquake Program Manager

Department of Defense—

Civil Defense Division

State of Hawaii

3949 Diamond Head Road

Honolulu, HI 96816–4495

Tel: 808–734–2161

Fax: 808–737–4150

Program Type:

Mitigation—upgrade building

codes.

Target Population:

Residents of Hawaii County,

second most populous county

in the State of Hawaii (pop.

120,317).

Setting:

Island of Hawaii (county of

Hawaii), State’s largest county

in land area (4,028 square

miles).

Project Startup Date:

1994.

Program Description:

A major earthquake mitigation initiative is being undertaken by the Hawaii

State Earthquake Advisory Board (HSEAB), sponsored by Hawaii State Civil

Defense (SCD). Recent U.S. Geological Survey studies, plus research and

analysis by volunteer engineers and seismologists of HSEAB, indicate the

island of Hawaii (referred to as the county of Hawaii) is underzoned in its

earthquake building code standards. The county of Hawaii is currently in

Seismic Zone 3 of the 1991 Uniform Building Code (UBC), but scientific

studies indicate that the county clearly falls within Seismic Zone 4. (There are

six seismic zones: 0, 1, 2A, 2B, 3, and 4.) The high-risk, ground motion acceleration levels measured within Seismic Zone 4 are comparable to those near

the San Andreas fault in California. Structures built in Seismic Zone 4 should

be designed to the highest earthquake resistance levels in the United States.

In the interest of public safety, HSEAB recommended that the State of Hawaii

Department of Defense submit an application to upgrade the county of Hawaii

to Seismic Zone 4 in the 1997 edition of the UBC. The Department of Defense

will submit such an application to the International Conference of Building

Officials (ICBO), administrators of the UBC. If the ICBO adopts this recommendation, the county of Hawaii would officially implement Seismic Zone 4

activities after passing the 1997 UBC into county ordinance.

SCD has coordinated this proposal with relevant Hawaiian organizations, as

well as Federal, State, and county government agencies. Although questions

have been raised about the economic impact on future construction projects, it

should be noted that the UBC is written for life-safety purposes. Consequently,

the criteria for seismic zonation are based on expected ground motion rates,

not construction costs.

Evaluation Information:

Questions raised by other organizations have been addressed and the Structural Engineers Association of Hawaii (SEAOH) has endorsed the proposal to

upgrade the building code.

Annual Budget:

$80,000 (Hawaii Earthquake Program).

Sources of Funding:

Federal (50 percent) and State (50 percent).

____________________________________________________ HAWAII
19

Idaho Hazardous Material

Regional Response Teams (RRT)

Program Description:

The Idaho Hazardous Substance Emergency Response Act of 1991 directed the

Idaho Emergency Response Commission to create, implement, and administer

HAZMAT response teams to respond to the most serious incidents involving

hazardous materials. The commission determined that the best strategy

involved creating three State teams to cover southeast, southwest, and north

Idaho and headquartering these teams in local fire departments to use existing

resources and personnel. Fire departments in each of the regions responded to

a request for proposals and a commission panel made the selections.

The first team, headquartered in the Pocatello Fire Department, was implemented for the southeast in 1992. The geography of southwest and north

Idaho, however, required two Commission Task Forces to address and

meet the provision of quick response (less than 2 hours). Designating

multidepartment headquarters as segments of the overall team has made

quick response possible.

The teams provide statewide, 24-hour, 7-day coverage and are called into

action when a request for assistance is received from a local incident commander or by direction of the commission. The teams work under the direction

of the local incident commander, who may also consult by phone with the

team to receive technical guidance or information if no direct assistance is

required.

Evaluation Information:

The program was recognized by the Governor, received positive feedback

from local response organizations, and was endorsed by State and Federal

organizations in Idaho.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

One-time legislative appropriation; costs recovered from HAZMAT responses.

Contact:

Margaret Ballard

Chief of Staff

Idaho Emergency Response

Commission

4040 Guard Street, Gowen Field

P.O. Box 83720

Boise, ID 83720–3401

Tel: 208–334–3263

Fax: 208–334–3267

Program Type:

Level A hazardous materials

(HAZMAT) response through

interagency coordination.

Target Population:

Idaho residents.

Setting:

Headquartered in local fire

departments.

Project Startup Date:

1991.

____________________________________________________ IDAHO
20

Idaho Hazardous Materials

Training Center (IHMTC)

Contact:

Margaret Ballard

Chief of Staff

Idaho Emergency Response

Commission

4040 Guard Street, Gowen Field

P.O. Box 83720

Boise, ID 83720–3401

Tel: 208–334–3263

Fax: 208–334–3267

Program Type:

Hazardous materials

(HAZMAT) training.

Target Population:

Idaho’s HAZMAT planning and

response communities.

Setting:

Pocatello, Idaho.

Project Startup Date:

1994.

Program Description:

IHMTC was founded in 1994 as a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing standardized, performance-based classroom and hands-on training to

local, State, tribal, Federal, and private industry emergency responders

throughout the intermountain West.

IHMTC is based on the concept that hands-on, short-term emergency response

training for the region is needed, and that funding should come from those

who create the hazard for which the training is needed. Since the required

training is basically the same whether an organization is a local, State, tribal,

or Federal agency or a private industry, the IHMTC developed as a unique

collaboration of all affected agencies to provide effective solutions without

duplicating efforts.

Evaluation Information:

IHMTC has received positive feedback from attendees, local government, and

HAZMAT response team members, as well as endorsement from the Association of American Railroads’ Transportation Test Center. IHMTC was also

recognized by the Waste Policy Institute.

Annual Budget:

$192,000.

Sources of Funding:

Local, State, Federal, and industry donations and appropriations contracts.

____________________________________________________ IDAHO
21

Contact:

Arlinda McKeen

Project Director

State Public Policy Group

200 10th Street, 5th floor

Des Moines, IA 50309

Tel: 515–243–2000

Fax: 515–243–5941

Program Type:

Damage assessment.

Target Population:

Iowa residents.

Setting:

State Emergency Management

Division offices, county offices.

Project Startup Date:

1994.

Annual Budget:

$20,000.

Sources of Funding:

State and Federal funds.

Source for Additional

Information:

Ellen M. Gordon, Administrator, Emergency Management

Division, Hoover Building,

Des Moines, Iowa 50309

Tel: 515–281–3221

Fax: 515–281–7539

A Guide to Local Damage

Assessment

Program Description:

This program was developed to provide county emergency management

agencies with the tools they need to gather, compile, and deliver information to

the State Emergency Management Division (EMD) following an emergency,

disaster, or catastrophic event. Accurate, consistent, and timely information is

needed by EMD to proceed with requests for assistance from the State and

Federal Government. To begin this process, a focus group was formed composed

of local emergency management coordinators, economists, agricultural specialists, environmentalists, and business and industry representatives. The focus

group identified information needed to do the following:

● Measure the impact of an emergency or disaster in the community.

● Measure the economic impact of such an occurrence immediately and over

a period of time.

● Assess damages resulting from a disaster to qualify for State and Federal

assistance.

The purpose of this damage assessment process is also to establish baseline

data documenting damages from disasters in Iowa that do not meet the

minimum criteria to continue the process to apply for assistance as well as

those that could qualify for State and Federal assistance.

The Book: A Guide to Local Damage Assessment outlines a detailed process to

enhance the consistency and accuracy of the information collected. Use of

objective damage criteria, guidelines for reporting damages, qualified damage

assessment teams, and standard training programs will result in data that

provide a reliable record of damages throughout the State. The guide was

developed to be a resource, a workbook, and a step-by-step guide for local

damage assessment. It is designed for use by county emergency management

coordinators in preparing for and implementing a damage assessment process.

In addition, State and local emergency management officials will join to review

the data and determine opportunities for cooperative action. Regional or

multiagency efforts will be encouraged by using the data to develop creative

solutions to problems faced in specific regions of the State.

To facilitate a comprehensive damage assessment program, a “Train-the-Trainer”

program based on the process detailed in The Book was also developed. The

Trainer’s Guide allows county emergency management coordinators and others

responsible for damage assessment to be prepared to effectively, consistently,

and accurately gather the data needed to obtain disaster aid.

Evaluation Information:

Premises and procedures were enthusiastically received by local emergency

management coordinators. The process was embraced by agencies such as

FEMA, the Small Business Administration, Rural Economic and Community

Development (REDC) (formerly FmHA Farmer’s Home), and the Red Cross.

_____________________________________________________ IOWA
22

_________________________________________________ LOUISIANA

Hurricane Evacuation Instructions

Contact:

Henrietta T. Alleman

Hurricane Program Manager

Louisiana Office of Emergency

Preparedness

625 North Fourth Street,

Basement

Baton Rouge, LA 70804

Tel: 504–342–5470

Fax: 504–342–5471

Program Type:

Public education and State and

local emergency preparedness.

Target Population:

Southern Louisiana parishes

(counties).

Setting:

Louisiana Office of Emergency

Preparedness.

Project Startup Date:

July 1994.

Program Description:

Numerous requests were received from southern at-risk parishes for a pamphlet on hurricane evacuation. In response, Hurricane Evacuation Guidelines

was prepared; it is a condensed version of the Southeast and Southwest Hurricane Evacuation and Sheltering Plan and includes a map of the evacuation routes

throughout the State. The pamphlet has been issued to all parishes in the

southeast risk area. However, because of the large demand, additional funding

is being sought to reprint the pamphlet for the southwest at-risk parishes.

One-page evacuation route maps are also being created to appear in telephone

books throughout Louisiana, especially in smaller rural areas.

Evaluation Information:

Numerous requests have been received for copies of Hurricane Evacuation

Guidelines.

Annual Budget:

$5,000.

Sources of Funding:

Pamphlet funded with Federal Hurricane Program funds. Maps in telephone

book funded with assistance from local telephone company.
23

Contact:

Henrietta T. Alleman

Hurricane Program Manager

Louisiana Office of Emergency

Preparedness

625 North Fourth Street,

Basement

Baton Rouge, LA 70804

Tel: 504–342–5470

Fax: 504–342–5471

Program Type:

State and local emergency

preparedness.

Target Population:

Residents of 12 Southeast and

12 Southwest Louisiana

parishes (counties).

Setting:

Louisiana Office of Emergency

Preparedness.

Project Startup Date:

The Southeast Task Force was

established in 1986 and the

Southwest Task Force in 1993.

Program Description:

Both task forces were established prior to the Southwest Sea, Lake and Overland Surge from Hurricanes (SLOSH) study. The original purpose of the task

forces was to bring together the appropriate agencies and organizations

involved in handling all phases of a hurricane affecting the southeastern region

of the State. These task forces assisted the Corps of Engineers in preparing the

SLOSH study for this area as well as setting up a permanent mechanism

through which important decisions concerning such matters as evacuation and

sheltering could be made on a regional basis. Since the study was completed,

this group has continued to meet regularly to discuss current situations that

may affect the results of the study and to keep the lines of communication

between other agencies and organizations open and operating on a daily basis.

Since the Southeast Task Force was so successful, it was decided that the

Southwest would benefit more if it were formed earlier with fewer people

involved at its inception. This task force is in the process of assisting the Corps

of Engineers in developing the Southwest SLOSH study. The task force is

meeting on a semimonthly basis and will continue to do so until the study is

completed.

As a result of the meetings between the Southeast and Southwest Hurricane

Task Forces, a Shelter Task Force was created in 1994 with the goal of providing

the necessary shelter after an evacuation.

Evaluation Information:

Other States have requested information on how to establish a task force, and

two other task forces have been established. Task forces coordinated efforts

during Hurricanes Andrew and Erin.

Annual Budget:

$5,000 from the Hurricane Program is supplemented by local funding.

Sources of Funding:

Meetings of the Task Force are held in areas where little or no funding is

required. If required, meetings are funded with a portion of the Hurricane

Program funding for local governments.

Southeast–Southwest Hurricane

Task Force

_________________________________________________ LOUISIANA
24

Contact:

Peggy Case

Executive Director

Terrebonne Readiness &

Assistance

1220 Aycock Street

Houma, LA 70360

Tel: 504–851–2952

Fax: 504–876–7751 or

504–851–1401

Program Type:

Disaster preparedness,

individual mitigation, and

response.

Target Population:

183,000 residents of Louisiana’s

Terrebonne and Lafourche

parishes.

Setting:

Catholic Social Services Center

in downtown Houma,

Louisiana.

Project Startup Date:

1992.

Annual Budget:

$74,835.

Sources of Funding:

Catholic Social Services,

Diocese of Houma-Thibodaux;

Evangelical Lutheran Church

in America, Inter-Lutheran

Disaster Relief; The Presiding

Bishop’s Fund for World Relief,

the Episcopal Church; United

Methodist Committee on Relief;

Church World Services; and

Louisiana Office of Emergency

Preparedness.

Disaster Recovery, Education &

Mitigation (DREAM)

Program Description:

Through the DREAM program, Terrebonne Readiness & Assistance (TRAC)

provides services in three phases of disaster response. During the emergency

phase, TRAC acts as liaison among Federal, State, and local governments and

its member agencies to ensure public safety. TRAC has its own seat at the

Emergency Operations Center when a state of emergency is declared in

Terrebonne Parish.

During the aftermath phase, TRAC serves as the liaison among the three levels

of government mentioned above and the victims of the disaster in the process

of assessing damage. This service eliminates duplicate and uncertain coverage

of basic survival needs in every disaster area.

During the recovery phase of a disaster, TRAC’s Unmet Needs Committee

serves as an advocate for victims and assists in funding their recovery. Following Hurricane Andrew (August 1992), TRAC administrators recruited 28 local

community organizations, including emergency management associations,

religious groups, civic groups, hospitals, and local government to serve as

partners in rebuilding the community and preparing residents for future

emergencies. The TRAC approach became a model for similar relief efforts for

victims of flooding in Missouri, Hurricane Alberto in Georgia, and the May 8

floods of Louisiana. TRAC has also paid to elevate homes and trailers to

comply with Federal Base Flood Elevation standards and provided storm

shutters for the elderly.

DREAM’s disaster preparedness education has included extensive outreach

activities during Hurricane Preparedness Month in the spring of 1993, 1994,

and 1995. As the coordinating agency, TRAC held preparedness meetings for

geographic communities, civic groups, businesses, nursing homes, home

healthcare providers, senior citizens, church groups, daycare centers, elementary schools, and the construction and oil field industries. TRAC also published

a 40-page Natural Disaster Preparedness Guide and distributed 59,000 copies.

In addition, the organization produced two videos: a 45-minute disaster

preparedness video using local authorities and addressing local and State

issues and a 30-minute cooking show on disaster survival cooking and the

proper preparation of food supplies.

DREAM’s education efforts continue. They currently include development of a

disaster plan for each household, an overall neighborhood plan for hurricane

preparation, and incorporating cross-training emergency education in local

school districts.

Evaluation Information:

Letters of support from local organizations; testimony before U.S. Senate

Hurricane Preparedness Hearing; and invitation to FEMA’s National Emergency Training Center hearings in 1994 and 1995.

_________________________________________________ LOUISIANA
25

St. Mary’s Parish Disaster

Preparedness Program

Contact:

Julie Fields Delaune

President, Morgan City VISION

415 Union Street

Morgan City, LA 70380

Tel: 504–385–0770

Fax: 504–384–7176

Program Type:

Disaster planning.

Target Population:

Residents of St. Mary’s Parish,

estimated population 58,000.

Setting:

Central meeting place—Sager

Brown Center for Enabling

Ministries, Baldwin, Louisiana.

Project Startup Date:

1992.

Program Description:

The disaster preparedness concept is to develop partnerships at all levels of

preparedness, with all agencies and organizations, using the State plan. The

State plan provides a chart showing emergency functions and responsibilities.

Using this chart, the Morgan City VISION Disaster Preparedness Program

requires each city and organization in St. Mary’s Parish to develop its own

counterpart to the State plan.

Each civic and church organization is required to develop such charts for each

of the areas of preparedness mentioned in the State plan (outlining who is

responsible for mass feeding, shelter operation and control, communications,

and transportation) and then to network throughout St. Mary’s Parish and the

State. This gives consistency to the State plan throughout the parish, and

organizations can act as resources for each other. This line of responsibility also

provides for accountability and allows the executors of the plan to remain in

touch at a grassroots level with the residents of St. Mary’s.

Evaluation Information:

Success of the program is reflected by several activities. Program representatives have been invited to develop emergency preparedness partnerships

throughout St. Mary’s Parish; to participate in Morgan City’s development

and preparedness programs; and to address the FEMA Disaster Awareness

Preparedness Conference in Emmitsburg, Maryland. The program has also

partnered with various local officials, the American Red Cross, service organizations, and church organizations; and has produced a hurricane preparedness

brochure for St. Mary’s Parish with Rotary International and Kiwanis.

Annual Budget:

No budget for disaster preparedness program, although Morgan City VISION

has a $25,000 annual budget. Disaster preparedness is operated by volunteers

with the cooperation of mayors, the Office of Emergency Preparedness director, and parish officials.

Sources of Funding:

Not applicable for disaster preparedness program. Morgan City VISION

funding sources are Young Fund (local); Catholic Social Services, Diocese

Houma Thibodaux; Sacred Heart Thrift Store; and other churches.

_________________________________________________ LOUISIANA
26

Louisiana Mass Fatalities

Task Force

Contact:

James H. Hamler

Chairperson

St. Tammany Parish

Coroner’s Office

Fairway Center 5000, Suite B–5

Covington, LA 70433

Tel: 504–892–9252

Fax: 504–893–1828

Program Type:

Mass fatalities preparedness.

Target Population:

Louisiana State and local

response personnel and other

responsible agencies and

professionals in Louisiana.

Setting:

Statewide.

Project Startup Date:

1994.

Program Description:

The mission of the Louisiana Mass Fatalities Task Force is to render disaster

assistance when called on to recover, identify, and return remains of disaster

victims to their families. The task force trains local and State response personnel and other responsible agencies and professionals to handle mass fatalities

effectively and to work with survivors in an emergency or disaster.

An incident involving mass fatalities is complex and requires teamwork. The

task force endeavors to help all participating agencies understand the need for

planning and cooperation before and during a mass fatalities incident.

Evaluation Information:

All agencies that have been involved in the training exercise have given

positive feedback. The State Office of Emergency Preparedness has received

many requests to enroll in the course.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

State funds.

_________________________________________________ LOUISIANA
27

Local Emergency Management/

Local Industry Partnership

Contact:

John “Ikey” Lucas

Director of Emergency

Preparedness

St. Charles Parish Department

of Emergency Preparedness

P.O. Box 303

Hahnville, LA 70057

Tel: 504–783–6266

Fax: 504–783–6357

Program Type:

Telephone hotline system.

Target Population:

Employees of the 26 participating companies as well as the

residents of St. Charles Parish.

Setting:

Throughout St. Charles Parish.

Project Startup Date:

1986.

Program Description:

This program offers a telephone hotline system to coordinate response to

disasters and emergencies. It was established by the St. Charles Parish Emergency Operations Center in cooperation with 26 petrochemical companies.

The system serves as a 24-hour warning system, an emergency information

exchange, and a link between the companies and the Parish Department of

Emergency Preparedness for support during emergencies.

Evaluation Information:

The Chemical Manufacturers Association has recognized the system as a

model of government and industry cooperation. Participating companies

have shown their satisfaction with the program by continuing their financial

support.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

St. Charles Parish and participating companies.

_________________________________________________ LOUISIANA
28

Block Captain Project

Contact:

Paul Wayne Rainwater

Emergency Manager

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury

1015 Pithon Street

Lake Charles, LA 70602

Tel: 318–437–3512

Fax: 318–437–3583

Program Type:

Community and neighborhood

coordination of evacuations.

Target Population:

Small communities and

neighborhoods.

Setting:

Mossville, Louisiana, initially.

Project Startup Date:

October 1994.

Program Description:

The block captain program was instituted by the Environmental Justice Panel

and the Office of Emergency Management. The project began in Mossville,

Louisiana, with a course in hazardous materials awareness for block captains.

All of the designated team members participated in canvassing their neighborhood to identify persons such as the handicapped and elderly who have

special needs during emergency evacuations. Block captains are notified by

the Office of Emergency Management when such situations arise.

Evaluation Information:

Positive community response was received following a drill.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

All volunteer and in-kind share from local government.

_________________________________________________ LOUISIANA
29

Generic Emergency Plan Creation

Contact:

Ruth B. Mascari

Planner

Maryland Emergency

Management Agency

2 Sudbrook Lane East

Pikesville, MD 21208

Tel: 410–486–4422

Fax: 410–486–1867

Program Type:

Emergency planning.

Target Population:

Residents of Maryland, local

jurisdiction emergency

management planners, State

departments and agencies, and

private organizations.

Setting:

Statewide.

Project Startup Date:

1994.

Program Description:

The Maryland Emergency Management Agency uses the concept of creating

generic emergency plans because local jurisdictions, State agencies, and some

private entities have the need for emergency plans and do not always have

the time, money, or personnel to accomplish all the planning they would like.

A generic plan may be customized for a specific purpose or subject by the

jurisdiction or entity. Plan users can “fill in the blanks” and tailor a generic

plan sent to them on computer disk.

Thus far subject areas include hurricanes, prisons, hazard mitigation, school

emergencies, and standard operating procedures, with others in the development stage. Each hurricane jurisdiction, for example, has taken the generic

hurricane plan and incorporated information and details specific to the area.

This information may include geographic detail, demographic data, and local

internal procedures. Having a prototype allows for efficient use of resources

and creates an opportunity for groups to interact in a purposeful,

nonemergency environment.

Planners are available to provide technical assistance to participating entities.

Sample plans already in use may be sent, upon request, as further technical

assistance.

Evaluation Information:

The program has been well received and adopted by all to whom it was

offered. The program has also received national and international recognition.

Annual Budget:

The program is part of regular planner duties and activities. The budget for

travel to assist local jurisdictions is $4,000.

Sources of Funding:

Comprehensive Cooperative Agreement—Federal funds.

_________________________________________________ MARYLAND
30

New England States Emergency

Consortium (NESEC)

Contact:

Edward S. Fratto

Executive Director

New England States Emergency

Consortium

607 North Avenue, Suite 16

Wakefield, MA 01880

Tel: 617–224–9876

Fax: 617–224–4350

Program Type:

Multistate coordination.

Target Population:

The 13 million residents of

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode

Island, and Vermont.

Setting:

NESEC, which is located in a

small town outside of Boston.

Project Startup Date:

1991.

Program Description:

NESEC is a nonprofit, multihazard mitigation and emergency management

organization—the only one of its kind in the United States. NESEC, which

began operating in 1991 as an Earthquake Consortium but changed to a

multihazard consortium in 1994, is governed by a Board of Directors composed of the Board of Directors of the State Offices of Emergency Management

of the six New England States: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. NESEC employs a full-time Executive

Director, a part-time Administrative Assistant, interns from local universities,

and contracts for other services as needed. NESEC works in partnership with

government and private organizations to reduce losses of life and property

resulting from natural disasters that occur in New England.

NESEC searches for creative, innovative, and cost-effective ways to enhance

emergency management practices in New England. A recent NESEC accomplishment was the development of a videotape on emergency management

entitled “Mitigation Makes $en$e,” which has been distributed throughout the

region and in New York through 140 local hardware stores. This videotape was

produced through a NESEC partnership with Federal and State governments,

the insurance industry, a local business owner, and the American Red Cross.

Other NESEC services include publication and distribution of informational

fliers on mitigation and sponsorship of conferences on a variety of emergency

preparedness topics.

Evaluation Information:

The change from a single-hazards focus to an all-hazards focus has been very

well received throughout the New England area. In 1994 NESEC won a

national media awards contest of the National Coordinating Council on

Emergency Management (NCCEM) for the video “New England’s Next

Earthquake: The Writing on the Wall.”

Annual Budget:

$150,000.

Sources of Funding:

FEMA, State governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations.

_____________________________________________ MASSACHUSETTS
31

Hazard Minimization Program

Contact:

David Rodham

Director

Massachusetts Emergency

Management Agency

400 Worcester Road

P.O. Box 1496

Framingham, MA 01701

Tel: 508–820–2000

Fax: 508–820–2030

Program Type:

Hazard mitigation.

Target Population:

Residents of coastal

Massachusetts.

Setting:

Small coastal communities in

Massachusetts.

Project Startup Date:

November 1991.

Program Description:

The Hazard Minimization Program is part of Region I’s ongoing program for

hazard minimization. Examples of minimization projects include installation of

interior flood wall doors, construction of exterior flood walls, and replacement

of basement windows. For example, following a 1991 storm, one family’s

appliances were destroyed. The family was then eligible to participate in the

hazard minimization program, and a $1,500 flood wall was built to house their

utilities in the basement. Although a 1992 storm flooded the basement with

saltwater, their utilities were not affected and the family was able to remain in

their home.

An important point to remember is that minimization is a one-time expense;

future storms should generate even greater cost savings because minimization

will be in place. Above and beyond the cost-saving benefits of minimization,

there is a positive psychological impact on people who change from being

victims to survivors.

Evaluation Information:

Following the December 1992 northeaster storm, a survey measured the

success of the minimization program. Approximately 90 percent of the

program’s participants were located in neighborhoods affected by the December storm. Of the 71 individuals who replied to the survey, 49 indicated they

had homes exposed to floodwaters, while only 3 had homes affected by

floodwaters.

Of the three homes affected by floodwaters, only one case related to a failed

minimization project, which involved a faulty gasket on an interior wall door.

During a followup survey, most participants said they would have been

affected by the storm had minimization measures not been undertaken. These

survey results indicate the program could have a major impact on reducing

future storm losses, both in terms of human suffering and taxpayer dollars

saved. Additionally, media coverage of the minimization program has been

positive.

Annual Budget:

$182,000.

Sources of Funding:

FEMA’s Individual Family Grant Program.

Source for Additional Information:

Richard Thibedeau, Hazard Mitigation Director, Department of Environmental

Management, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02109; Tel: 617–727–3267;

Fax: 617–727–2630.

_____________________________________________ MASSACHUSETTS
32

Contact:

Peter Locke

Emergency Management

Coordinator

Dearborn City Civil

Preparedness

3750 Greenfield Road

Dearborn, MI 48120

Tel: 313–943–2016

Fax: 313–943–3027

Program Type:

Family protection and school

disaster preparedness.

Target Population:

Suburban Detroit community of

approximately 80,000.

Setting:

Dearborn, Michigan.

Project Startup Date:

1993.

Family Protection Plan/School

Disaster Preparedness

Program Description:

The Family Protection Plan/School Disaster Preparedness program disseminates family protection and disaster preparedness information through public

and private school systems in Dearborn, Michigan. The Emergency Management Coordinator developed family protection presentations and introduced

the programs to all schools in the city of Dearborn.

To this end, the coordinator met with principals of all public schools in

Dearborn and outlined the family protection program. In addition, plans for

inspections and drills were introduced. Inspections and drills were conducted

to determine whether schools under scrutiny would be prepared if disaster

struck. Following these visits, the coordinator:

● Revised school inhouse warning systems.

● Updated instructions on the emergency instruction cards located in every

schoolroom.

● Made changes to the school emergency fan-out system, which uses a

telephone relay alert to notify all school buildings and school buses of an

impending disaster. The system can be set in motion by the Emergency

Management office, fire headquarters, weather alert radio, the Emergency

Broadcast System, or a school employee.

● Presented the Family Protection Plan to approximately 6,500 students and

teachers.

To foster the implementation of a more formalized schedule of disaster drills

in the Dearborn school district, the coordinator contacted State legislative

representatives and requested that legislation be drafted that would mandate

a minimum of three disaster drills for each school year. The coordinator also

contacted the editor of the Michigan Emergency Management Newsletter, requesting that local emergency management coordinators in Michigan contact their

State representatives to promote mandated disaster drills.

Evaluation Information:

The program has received positive feedback from teachers and administrators.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

City revenues and Federal monies from FEMA.

_________________________________________________ MICHIGAN
33

Michigan Hazardous Materials

(HAZMAT) Training Center

Contact:

Lt. Gerald A. Wheeler

Michigan State Police—

HAZMAT Training Center

7426 Osborn Road

Lansing, MI 43913

Tel: 517–322–1942

Fax: 517–322–6442

Program Type:

Public and privately funded

HAZMAT training facility and

programs.

Target Population:

HAZMAT personnel (planners,

responders) in Region V.

Setting:

Lansing, Michigan.

Project Startup Date:

1991.

Program Description:

The HAZMAT Training Center represents a partnership of public and private

industries and associations. Created to train HAZMAT personnel to address

issues relative to HAZMAT materials, the center is a $1 million facility built by

private industries on State land. It was donated to the Michigan State Police in

1991 for training public and private HAZMAT personnel. The center offers

more than 40 programs that focus on HAZMAT issues. The center operates

with the help of continuous donations of equipment and instructional

expertise.

Evaluation Information:

The demand for programs presented by the facility is now surpassing availability. In 1992, its first year, the HAZMAT training center trained 850

HAZMAT personnel; in 1995, they expect to train 3,400 students.

Annual Budget:

$550,000.

Sources of Funding:

Private-sector tuition and fees, public-sector tuition, public and private in-kind

assistance, and private donations.

_________________________________________________ MICHIGAN
34

Hazard Mitigation

Program Description:

The Borough of Avalon, Cape May County, New Jersey, exemplifies a coastal

community that has acknowledged and experienced the benefits of long-term

emergency management planning. The community’s efforts to minimize the

impact of storm damage include state-of-the-art structural and nonstructural

mitigation projects. Examples include:

● Developing flood-level maps and installing flood-level indicators at

specific points in the borough. (The borough has mass-mailed these maps

along with a letter of explanation to residents.)

● Preparing and distributing a quarterly newsletter to inform residents of

emergency management proposals such as evacuation routes, dredging

and beach-fill projects, and shelter locations.

● Installing a breakwater off the coast to mitigate sand loss and reduce the

rate of beach erosion.

● Preparing a hazard mitigation plan for the borough, including goals and

objectives, proposed strategies, programs, and actions to avoid vulnerability to hazards and overall beach protection strategies.

● Conducting educational seminars in the borough on measures, procedures,

and problems related to severe weather emergencies; distributing informational material; and creating an instructional videotape.

● Adopting land use and development ordinances and funding appropriations for property development restrictions; maintaining beaches, which

includes performing beach surveys, installing sand fencing, planting dune

grass, and implementing beach renourishment projects.

● Installing a geotextile sand tube along the Townsend Inlet shoreline to

protect adjacent property against scour.

● Elevating the municipal building, police headquarters, and public works

garage above base flood elevation.

● Installing a boroughwide public address warning system that includes

television access through the local cable television company.

Evaluation Information:

Awarded 1993 First Place Municipality by the National Coordinating Council

on Emergency Management.

Annual Budget:

$13,000.

Sources of Funding:

Local, State, and Federal funds, including CCA-EMA funding and Section 404,

House Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds.

Contact:

Harry deButts

Emergency Management

Coordinator

Borough of Avalon

3100 Dune Drive

Avalon, NJ 08202

Tel: 609–967–8200

Fax: 609–368–5777

Program Type:

Shore protection.

Target Population:

Residents of a seaside

community.

Setting:

Mid-Atlantic coastline (New

Jersey).

Project Startup Date:

1992.

________________________________________________ NEW JERSEY
35

Spring Runoff Conference

Contact:

Robert Grieve

State Coordinating Officer

New Mexico Department of

Public Safety

4491 Cerrillos Road

Santa Fe, NM 87505

Tel: 505–827–9235

Fax: 505–827–3456

Program Type:

Informational—weather and

mountain runoff advisory.

Target Population:

New Mexico residents.

Setting:

Local jurisdictions at risk from

excessive spring runoff and

rainfall.

Project Startup Date:

Pre-1990.

Program Description:

Each year, the New Mexico Disaster Assistance Office hosts a Spring Runoff

Conference to prepare at-risk communities for possible flooding. Personnel

from the National Weather Service, National Resources Conservation Service,

Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and

Interstate Stream Commission provide pertinent information to attendees.

Through coordination, exchange of ideas, and discussion of mitigation issues,

local coordinators are better equipped to alert their local governments and to

integrate preparedness into their daily emergency management activities.

Evaluation Information:

This program has received positive feedback from local government officials

across the State.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

Vary.

_______________________________________________ NEW MEXICO
36

Floodplain Manager Certification

and Continuing Education

Contact:

D.M. Purcell

Floodplain Administrator

New Mexico Department of

Public Safety

2606 Cerrillos Road

Santa Fe, NM 87504

Tel: 505–827–9247

Fax: 505–827–3381

Program Type:

Training, testing, and certification of floodplain managers.

Target Population:

Floodplain managers statewide.

Setting:

Statewide.

Project Startup Date:

1994.

Program Description:

Training sessions are held twice annually—one basic and one advanced.

Applicants are certified upon successful completion of a posttraining examination. Training sessions are held in conjunction with meetings of the Floodplain

Managers Association. Local government officials who have completed

Emergency Management Institute training assist in conducting the sessions.

Evaluation Information:

This program has received positive feedback from local government officials.

Annual Budget:

Negotiation with Emergency Management Training (EMT) grant program

manager.

Sources of Funding:

Community Assistance Program-State Support Services Element and

EMT grants.

_______________________________________________ NEW MEXICO
37

National Center for Earthquake

Engineering Research (NCEER)

Contact:

Donald J. Goralski

Senior Public Relations Officer

National Center for Earthquake

Engineering Research

State University of New York

(SUNY) at Buffalo

118 Red Jacket Quadrangle

Box 610025

Buffalo, NY 14261–0025

Tel: 716–645–3391

Fax: 716–645–3399

Program Type:

Interdisciplinary approach to

earthquake preparedness and

mitigation focusing on engineering research on buildings,

civil infrastructure, and socioeconomic systems.

Target Population:

Informed professionals,

policymakers, academicians, as

well as the general public

throughout the United States

and abroad.

Setting:

Headquartered at SUNY

Buffalo, with researchers at 20

institutions and organizations

throughout the United States.

Project Startup Date:

September 1986.

Program Description:

NCEER is a research organization that annually involves nearly 80 researchers

in a systematic and multidiscipline-integrated Research and Implementation

Plan. The program includes fundamental and problem-focused research,

knowledge transfer to technical and nontechnical audiences, and technology

implementation activities. The plan is organized to coordinate a sustained

effort to solve problems in earthquake engineering and is based on four focal

areas: buildings, nonstructural components, lifelines, and highways and

bridges. Research teams address critical knowledge gaps in these four areas,

with the involvement of experts in seismology, geotechnical engineering, risk

assessment, and socioeconomics. The common goal of the plan is to minimize

loss of life and to reduce property damage caused by earthquakes.

In addition to its research programs, NCEER is also involved in the broadbased dissemination of information and technology. The center publishes

technical reports, newsletters, and special topic reports and sponsors a

computer-based Information Service. The Information Service maintains an

accessible interactive online data base, QUAKELINE®, as well as traditional

reference materials on the many interrelated aspects of earthquakes and

earthquake engineering. QUAKELINE® is available on the Internet (via the

University at Buffalo’s BISON system) and through NCEER’s gopher and

anonymous ftp, in addition to a CD-ROM version. Information Service staff

serve a wide audience of information seekers and perform literature and data

base searches on a variety of topics. NCEER also maintains involvement in

educational activities for audiences that range from elementary school students to college students and practicing professionals, and activities include

conferences, public meetings, and training programs.

Evaluation Information:

NCEER has successfully passed three independent site reviews (1989, 1990,

1994) conducted on behalf of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the

center’s primary sponsor. Its annual research program is evaluated and

approved by an external technical advisory committee and the NSF.

Annual Budget:

NCEER’s annual support averages $11.5 million, with approximately one-third

provided by NSF.

Sources of Funding:

The primary source is the NSF, with matching funds from New York State.

Additional funding comes from the Federal Highway Administration, FEMA,

academic institutions, public corporations, private industry, and other State

agencies and foreign governments.

_________________________________________________ NEW YORK
38

Pruning Program for

City-Owned Trees

Contact:

Andrew Planing

City Forester

330 Colfax Street

Rochester, NY 14606

Tel: 716–428–7581

Fax: 716–458–0565

Program Type:

Mitigation through

intergovernmental partnership;

pooling resources.

Target Population:

Residents of the city of

Rochester.

Setting:

Throughout the city of

Rochester, Monroe County,

New York.

Project Startup Date:

Summer 1995.

_________________________________________________ NEW YORK

Program Description:

Consistent with the Urban Forestry Annex to New York State’s Hazard Mitigation Plan, the city of Rochester received approval for a 404 Hazard Mitigation

Project to prune 12,000 trees over a 2-year period. These trees are all on public

rights-of-way or in city parks. After completion of the project, the city will

continue to prune its trees on a 5-year cycle. The city will provide an annual

allocation to maintain the pruning program. As of January 1995, the city’s

Forestry Division operating budget (for pruning, etc.) was $761,800.

The purpose of the project is to increase the strength and vigor of city trees,

rendering them less susceptible to damage from high winds and ice storms.

This should reduce future expenditures for debris removal as a result of

downed trees. In addition, local utilities can expect reduced power outages

and electricity restoration costs, and residents can anticipate increased health

and safety and reduced disruption of electric service.

A severe ice storm in 1991 demonstrated the need for a project of this type.

The majority of public assistance funding went for debris clearance. Electric

service was not fully restored to the city until 2 weeks after the storm.

Evaluation Information:

Program results will be determined by the level of impact of future severe

weather events on the city’s trees, the amount of debris clearance required

from downed trees, and the extent of power outage caused by falling tree

limbs. The commitment to maintain the public trees in Rochester is exemplary.

The Hazard Mitigation Section in the State Emergency Management Office

uses Rochester’s experience to promote a proactive tree maintenance program

among other municipalities. Many with well-developed urban forests are

following Rochester’s lead.

Annual Budget:

$900,000 (total project cost).

Sources of Funding:

Federal ($450,000); city ($450,000).
39

CAMEO Conferences/Courses

Contact:

Jack Bossert

Hazardous Materials

Supervisor

Ohio Emergency Management

Agency

2855 West Dublin-Granville

Road

Columbus, OH 43235–2206

Tel: 614–889–7178

Fax: 614–889–7183

Program Type:

Hazardous materials planning.

Target Population:

Local Emergency Planning

Committees (LEPCs), emergency management agencies,

industry representatives in

Ohio.

Setting:

Statewide.

Project Startup Date:

1992.

Program Description:

Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations (CAMEO) is a plan

modeling system in use in many counties in Ohio; all counties may eventually

use the system. To assist counties, the Ohio Emergency Management Agency

(EMA) seeks grants to teach four regional conferences annually. EMA receives

more requests each year for regional and local courses. Currently Ohio EMA

has two certified instructors. Ohio has also started CAMEO user groups in the

northeast, southwest, and southeast portions of the State, which meet monthly

to discuss CAMEO training, concerns, updates, problems, etc.

Evaluation Information:

All courses are overbooked, well received, and requested at the local level. The

Ohio EMA teaches four regional conferences per year and now teaches 20–25

local courses each year.

Annual Budget:

Depends on the number of requests received.

Sources of Funding:

Ohio Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III grant,

FEMA 305A, and Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) grants.

_____________________________________________________ OHIO
40

Hazardous Materials Plan Development and Evaluation Document

(also known as HAZMAT Plan Cross Reference)

Program Description:

NRT-1 was vague and difficult to use as a plan development document and its

format was awkward. The State Emergency Response Commission (SERC)

Planning and Exercise Committee (chaired by the Ohio Emergency Management Agency and Huron County Emergency Management Agency) developed

this document (a cross-reference) and listed all “shall and should be included”

items to be used in developing a HAZMAT plan. The committee and

HAZMAT planners worked with counties to further fine tune the “shalls and

shoulds” to eliminate confusion over what goes into a plan and eliminate

individual evaluations of plans. The document was adopted by SERC and

distributed at the 1995 statewide LEPC Conference.

Evaluation Information:

Ohio LEPCs applaud the development and revision of the Ohio Hazardous

Materials Plan Development and Evaluation Document (HAZMAT Plan Cross

Reference) because NRT-1 (National Response Team) was vague. Ohio LEPCs

wanted to know specifically what went into a HAZMAT plan. They are even

happier with the shortened and updated versions. All LEPCs in Ohio use it,

and Ohio has a record number of plans that correspond with this document.

Many surrounding States and Canada have asked to examine or use the

document.

Annual Budget:

The costs involved are for printing and photocopying.

Sources of Funding:

Ohio Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Title III grant and

general revenue funds as necessary.

Contact:

Jack Bossert

Hazardous Materials

Supervisor

Ohio Emergency Management

Agency

2855 West Dublin-Granville

Road

Columbus, OH 43235–2206

Tel: 614–889–7178

Fax: 614–889–7183

Program Type:

Hazardous materials planning.

Target Population:

Statewide.

Setting:

Used by all Ohio counties and

Local Emergency Planning

Committees (LEPCs).

Project Startup Date:

1990; updated in 1992, 1994,

and 1995.

_____________________________________________________ OHIO
41

Local Emergency Planning

Committee (LEPC) Handbook and

Sample Hazardous Materials Plan

Program Description:

The handbook helps train new LEPC members and refresh existing members

on jobs, roles, duties, laws, rules, planning, and exercises—the entire SARA

Title III program. It is a quick reference handbook on what to do and where to

find information on the program. The Sample Plan assists LEPCs in developing their own plans (whether a stand-alone or an annex to the emergency

operations plan), provides the topics to address, and a format.

Evaluation Information:

The handbook has been distributed to all Ohio LEPCs as a quick reference

guide to SARA law and requirements. It is viewed by members as a great

training tool for new and old LEPC members. In 1992 there were 38 concurredwith plans, and LEPCs who wanted to know in more detail how to develop a

plan requested a sample plan. The State Emergency Response Commission

adopted this sample plan. Currently there are 67 plans, and more counties

have developed annexes (plans) to their Emergency Operating Plans since the

start of SARA Title III.

The goal of the Sample Plan was to assist counties, and it is now used by most

counties in Ohio.

Annual Budget:

The costs involved are for printing and photocopying.

Sources of Funding:

LEPCs pay for plan development from Superfund Amendments and

Reathorization Act (SARA) Title III and Hazardous Materials Transportation

Act (HMTA) grants from the State of Ohio.

Contact:

Jack Bossert

Hazardous Materials

Supervisor

Ohio Emergency Management

Agency

2855 West Dublin-Granville

Road

Columbus, OH 43235–2206

Tel: 614–889–7178

Fax: 614–889–7183

Program Type:

Hazardous materials/

Emergency Planning

Committee Right-to-Know Act.

Target Population:

All LEPC members in Ohio

(2,700 people).

Setting:

Statewide.

Project Startup Date:

Sample Plan initiated in 1992

and updated in 1994; handbook

developed in 1995.

_____________________________________________________ OHIO
42

Local Emergency Planning

Committee (LEPC) Public Education

Program

Program Description:

The State Emergency Response Commission/LEPC Relations Committee is

developing an 8- to 10-minute video to introduce LEPC and its goals, roles,

and basis. The accompanying public education package will include

overheads and slides of the video, a script, and brochures in a speaker’s kit.

The video will be specifically geared to making all audiences, whether industry, government, or the general public, aware of hazardous materials, problems associated with them, and LEPC and how it can help the community.

Specific scripts will be produced locally to use, according to the audience,

following the showing of the video. The video speaker’s kit will be distributed

to each LEPC in Ohio.

Evaluation Information:

The program will be in place not later than December 1995. All LEPCs in

Ohio are in favor of the program.

Annual Budget:

There will be an initial production cost of approximately $24,000 for the

speaker’s kits. The only additional costs would be for duplication of

videotapes.

Sources of Funding:

Ohio Hazardous Material Transportation Act grant from the U.S. Department

of Transportation.

_____________________________________________________ OHIO

Contact:

Jack Bossert

Hazardous Materials

Supervisor

Ohio Emergency Management

Agency

2855 West Dublin-Granville

Road

Columbus, OH 43235–2206

Tel: 614–889–7178

Fax: 614–889–7183

Program Type:

Hazardous materials

planning–intergovernmental

coordination.

Target Population:

General public, public

education officials, government

officials, emergency responders,

LEPCs, and industry representatives in Ohio.

Setting:

Statewide.

Project Startup Date:

December 1995 (anticipated).
43

Local Emergency Planning

Committee (LEPC) Recognition

Program

Contact:

Jack Bossert

Hazardous Materials

Supervisor

Ohio Emergency Management

Agency

2855 West Dublin-Granville

Road

Columbus, OH 43235–2206

Tel: 614–889–7178

Fax: 614–889–7183

Program Type:

Hazardous materials planning.

Target Population:

All Ohio counties and LEPCs.

Setting:

All Ohio counties and LEPCs.

Project Startup Date:

1994.

Program Description:

Ohio was striving to achieve full compliance with the Superfund Amendments

and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III program by having all LEPCs meet

the legal requirements of Federal and more stringent State laws. To accomplish

this, a recognition award program was started by the Ohio State Emergency

Response Commission (SERC), with the Ohio Emergency Management

Agency and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency as the lead agencies.

Evaluation Information:

All counties fully appreciated the award, including LEPCs, EMAs, and county

commissioners. All said they will strive to earn one each year, which will

improve the SARA program in Ohio. In the first year of this program, Ohio

saw the highest number of plans adequately completed, exercises done,

enforcement and compliance programs initiated, and legal requirements met

since SARA Title III started in 1986.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

Ohio SARA Title III grants.

_____________________________________________________ OHIO
44

The Ohio Hazardous Materials

Exercise/Evaluation Manual

Contact:

Jack Bossert

Hazardous Materials

Supervisor

Ohio Emergency Management

Agency

2855 West Dublin-Granville

Road

Columbus, OH 43235–2206

Tel: 614–889–7178

Fax: 614–889–7183

Program Type:

Hazardous materials exercises.

Target Population:

All Ohio counties and Local

Emergency Planning

Committees (LEPCs).

Setting:

Statewide.

Project Startup Date:

1990; updated in 1992 and 1995.

Program Description:

This document meets all Federal exercise requirements but is more stringent.

It is “Ohioized” to address State Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization

Act (SARA) law/rules and matches the requirements as listed in the Ohio

Hazardous Materials Plan Development and Evaluation Document, which is

based on NRT–1 (National Response Team).

Evaluation Information:

The original Federal evaluation document was difficult to use. This project

aimed to provide user-friendly guidelines. The State Commission adopted this

document in its rules, and all 87 LEPCs in Ohio use it. Ohio is seeing a record

number of exercises being conducted (73 of 87 LEPCs in 1994).

Annual Budget:

No annual budget; costs involved are for printing and photocopying.

Sources of Funding:

Ohio SARA Title III grant; Ohio Emergency Management Agency publishes

and photocopies as needed.

_____________________________________________________ OHIO
45

Contact:

Jack Bossert

Hazardous Materials

Supervisor

Ohio Emergency Management

Agency

2855 West Dublin-Granville

Road

Columbus, OH 43235–2206

Tel: 614–889–7178

Fax: 614–889–7183

Program Type:

Hazardous materials planning.

Target Population:

All 87 Local Emergency

Planning Committees (LEPCs)

in Ohio and Emergency

Management Agency offices.

Setting:

Statewide.

Project Startup Date:

1990; updated in 1992, 1994,

and 1995.

Plan-Exercise Guide

Program Description:

The counties commented that they did not understand Ohio’s laws and

rules on hazardous material plans and exercises. The Ohio Emergency

Management Agency, in coordination with the State Emergency Response

Commission, developed this guide in layman’s language to assist counties’

understanding.

Evaluation Information:

Most counties state they use the guide and are pleased with it, and it is easier

to understand because it does not read like a law. Record numbers of exercises

are being performed each year.

Annual Budget:

The costs involved are for printing and photocopying.

Sources of Funding:

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Title III grants from Ohio.

_____________________________________________________ OHIO
46

Contact:

Walter Michael Duzzny

Director

Mahoning County Emergency

Management

120 Market Street

Youngstown, OH 44503

Tel: 216–740–2200

Fax: 216–740–2006

Program Type:

Emergency preparedness

education.

Target Population:

Girl Scouts and their families

and communities (750,000

people).

Setting:

Urban and rural communities in

Mahoning County and three

other counties.

Project Startup Date:

Fiscal year 1995–96.

Program Description:

The local Emergency Management Office, in conjunction with the Board of

Mahoning County Commissioners, identified the first 72 hours of an emergency as the most critical time for obtaining information on matters such as

sources of shelter and medical attention. Critical items needed for emergencies

include items such as a flashlight, first aid kit, blankets, emergency food, and

lists of relatives or friends. To reach the family and the community, the local

Emergency Management Director and the Lake-To-River Girl Scouts Council

Chief Executive agreed to identify “Emergency Preparedness, the First 72

Hours” as a merit badge and patch for the local scout council. Since the

Lake-To-River Council encompasses four counties and close to half a million

residents, the initial impact should involve approximately 10,000 scout

members.

Evaluation Information:

Direct input and feedback were provided by the Lake-To-River Girl Scout

Council, as well as troop and other organization-level users. The scouting

community accomplished predesignated emergency preparedness tasks.

Annual Budget:

$2,000.

Sources of Funding:

Local in-kind funding sources.

“The First 72 Hours”—

Plans for Survival

_____________________________________________________ OHIO
47

Contact:

Walter Michael Duzzny

Director

Mahoning County Emergency

Management

120 Market Street

Youngstown, OH 44503

Tel: 216–740–2200

Fax: 216–740–2006

Program Type:

Use of multidepartmental

task force and university

engineering students to

mitigate clear surface water

flooding and water infiltration

into sewer lines.

Target Population:

286,000 people.

Setting:

Urban and agricultural portions

of Mahoning County.

Project Startup Date:

March 1994.

Program Description:

The long-term goal is to eliminate the infiltration of sewage and surface water

flooding of neighborhoods through use of a multidepartmental county task

force and development of a corrective action plan for 12 areas of concern.

Concerns addressed include the need for installation of sump pumps and

television scanning of sewer and storm lines for breaks and ruptures, soil

makeup, construction methods, and maintenance programs by the Mahoning

County Sanitary Engineer’s Department and Mahoning County Engineer’s

Department.

The corrective action plan identified concerns and developed a strategy

detailing timelines, department responsibilities, and cost factors. Specific

drainage plans, subdivision regulations, and other information were generated

through in-kind existing staff or resources but became part of the integral

corrective action plan concept.

Multiphased mitigation through identification of chronic flooding areas was

one of the tasks set forth for fiscal year 1995. This task is being accomplished

by using Youngstown State University engineering students and the

Mahoning County Engineer’s Department, as well as the County Board of

Health, to initiate an onsite survey of those areas establishing a data base to

support additional funding and operational programs.

Interaction between landowners and government for purposes of flood

identification and cost sharing was a notable feature of the corrective action

plan. This was further expanded by coordination through the Mahoning

County Voters Association and development of a “How To Develop” guide.

The strategy was formally adopted by the Board of County Commissioners

and political subdivisions, providing a specific focus for the continuation of

the task force’s recommendations and their implementation.

Evaluation Information:

Provisions for both internal and external evaluations of the program were

included in the corrective action plan. Feedback was channeled through local

subdivision townhall meetings and countywide neighborhood gatherings.

Annual Budget:

$280,000 (1994); $200,000 (1995).

Sources of Funding:

Local taxes.

Mahoning County Clearwater/

Flood Action Program

_____________________________________________________ OHIO
48

Tulsa Stormwater Management

Program

Contact:

Carol Williams

Community Involvement

Coordinator

Tulsa Department of

Public Works

200 Civic Center, Suite 515

Tulsa, OK 74103

Tel: 918–596–7807

Fax: 918–596–7265

Program Type:

Stormwater and floodplain

management.

Target Population:

Tulsa residents.

Setting:

The city of Tulsa.

Project Startup Date:

1977.

Program Description:

The Tulsa Stormwater Management Program is a comprehensive flood management program refined from experience and community input following

a disastrous 1984 flood in which the city suffered heavy losses. The Tulsa

program includes postflood mitigation programs and strict building and use

regulations in floodplains and throughout entire watersheds. The plan aims

to keep buildings out of the floodplain or to move them out, when possible;

when it is not possible to retain floodplains as open space, management

strategies take a comprehensive and sophisticated approach, recognizing

that “nature bats last.” Postflood mitigation strategies include acquisition of

flooded or flood-prone buildings, with approximately 875 properties cleared

from Tulsa floodplains since the city’s 1984 flood.

Evaluation Information:

Tulsa’s comprehensive flood management program has been recognized as

a national model by FEMA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the

Association of State Flood Plain Managers. Other communities are benefiting

from the lessons learned by Tulsa after a major 1984 flood.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

Stormwater utility fees, taxes, bond issues, and State and Federal funding.

________________________________________________ OKLAHOMA
49

Contact:

George Houston

Division Chief

Portland Fire Bureau

Training and Emergency

Management

4800 Northeast 122d Street

Portland, OR 97230

Tel: 503–823–3736

Fax: 503–823–3893

Program Type:

Emergency management

planning.

Target Population:

1.3 million people in four

Oregon counties and Clark

County, Washington.

Setting:

Portland metropolitan area.

Project Startup Date:

1994.

Regional Emergency Management

Group (REMG)

Program Description:

In 1994 jurisdictions in the Portland, Oregon, region created REMG by intergovernmental agreement (IGA) among counties; cities; the Oregon Trail

Chapter of the American Red Cross; and Metro, the regional government for

the area. REMG is composed of elected officials and emergency managers from

participating jurisdictions. IGA includes a workplan identifying 22 elements of

regional emergency management relevance.

In fiscal year 1994–95, significant progress was made in seven elements of

the Regional Emergency Management Work Plan: administration, alert and

warning, damage assessment, debris removal, incident command management, public education, and resource management.

Tasks related to these elements were selected by the elected officials of the

Regional Emergency Management Policy Advisory Committee (REMPAC) as

recommended by the region’s emergency managers. Among the criteria for

selection were the following: selected work priorities had already been budgeted in at least one participating jurisdiction’s budget; and the tasks identified

would improve the capability of regional emergency management to perform

mitigation, response, recovery, or preparedness activities.

REMG is in its formative stages but has already been recognized by local, State,

and Federal officials as a powerful tool in developing a truly integrated and

comprehensive emergency management system.

Evaluation Information:

REMG participant jurisdictions received the Oregon Emergency Management

“Director’s Award” as the exemplary program of 1994. Positive responses were

received from participant jurisdictions and allied agencies working on subcommittees in pursuit of the REMG workplan elements.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

Funds obtained from participating jurisdictions and nominal subscription fees

for a shared computer bulletin board.

Source for Additional Information:

Michael McGuire, Emergency Management Analyst, Metro, 600 Northeast

Grand Avenue, Portland, OR 97232; Tel: 503–797–1823; Fax: 503–797–1791.

___________________________________________________ OREGON
50

Contact:

Dr. Donald Hull

State Geologist and Head of

DOGAMI

Oregon Department of Geology

and Mineral Industries

(DOGAMI)

800 Northeast Oregon Street, #28

Portland, OR 97232

Tel: 503–731–4100

Fax: 503–731–4066

Program Type:

Legislative initiatives to require

tsunami education in coastal

schools and to prohibit locating

critical facilities in tsunami

inundation zones.

Target Population:

Coastal residents (including

schoolchildren) and tourists.

Setting:

Coastal Oregon.

Project Startup Date:

1995.

State Legislative Initiatives To

Require Tsunami Education and

Prohibit Siting of Critical Facilities

in Tsunami Inundation Zones

Program Description:

To save children’s lives, legislation is being enacted that would require coastal

schools to instruct their students on tsunami emergencies and hold tsunami

drills. Funds are being sought to enable DOGAMI to develop educational

materials for coastal schools.

Legislation has also been passed to prevent locating critical facilities in

tsunami inundation zones. Under the legislation, developers will be able to

contact DOGAMI for assistance in mitigating the impact of tsunamis.

Evaluation Information:

Parents, school administrators, and emergency managers in coastal communities support the education initiative legislation. No evaluation information is

available yet for the proposed legislation prohibiting the placement of critical

facilities in tsunami inundation zones.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

Vary.

___________________________________________________ OREGON
51

DOGAMI/Metro Risk Assessment

Partnership

___________________________________________________ OREGON

Contact:

Dr. Matthew Mabey

Geographical Earthquake

Specialist

Oregon Department of Geology

and Mineral Industries

(DOGAMI)

800 Northeast Oregon Street, #28

Portland, OR 97232

Tel: 503–731–4100

Fax: 503–731–4066

Program Type:

Earthquake hazard mitigation.

Target Population:

Portland metropolitan area

residents.

Setting:

Portland metropolitan area; will

be applied to other parts of the

State.

Project Startup Date:

1993.

Program Description:

The DOGAMI/Metro Risk Assessment Partnership program was created to

develop ground response maps for the Portland metropolitan area. Products

include maps showing liquefaction, ground motion amplification, and slope

instability; these maps are combined to create relative hazard maps. Digital

products are also available.

The program is conducted in partnership with Metro (a regional government),

which is using the data to develop a Geographic Information System-based

inventory of buildings and lifelines. This inventory is being used with geologic

hazard information to make risk assessments, prioritize retrofit programs,

develop emergency response plans, and minimize risk in future development.

Seven quadrangle maps in the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area have

been published (five in Oregon and two in Washington). Another Oregon map

will soon be completed, and work has commenced on an additional seven

quadrangles and parts of others. Similar methodology has been applied to a

pilot project on the Oregon coast and to the Salem, Oregon, area. Work is now

beginning in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area of Oregon. Two maps

have been published, four will soon be published, and nine will be in process

soon.

In addition to the Metro Risk Assessment Partnership, DOGAMI is working

with the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) and Metro in a pilot

program to test several earthquake scenarios to forecast the number of casualties, need for emergency shelter, potential for utility outages, demand for

healthcare facilities, costs to repair and replace buildings, and economic losses

that might occur during an earthquake. Portland was selected as the pilot for

the NIBS program (Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology Study) because

of the availability of geologic maps, related expertise, and relative earthquake

hazard maps.

For more information on the NIBS Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology

Study, see the entry under that program name.

Evaluation Information:

The products are in demand by the public and the technical community and

are being used in earthquake mitigation activities.

Annual Budget:

$950,000 (1995).

Sources of Funding:

FEMA, with additional funds from the State of Oregon. FEMA is also funding

NIBS; DOGAMI receives no funds.
52

Regional Earthquake Hazard

Identification

Contact:

Gerry Uba

Emergency Planning Program

Coordinator

Metro

600 Northeast Grand Avenue

Portland, OR 97230

Tel: 503–797–1737

Fax: 503–797–1794

Program Type:

Regional earthquake hazard

identification and preparedness.

Target Population:

Regional emergency

management planners, city and

utility officials, and others.

Setting:

Portland metropolitan area.

Project Startup Date:

1992.

Program Description:

In 1992 Metro and the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries

(DOGAMI) signed a partnership to collect, publish, and distribute seismic risk

data for the Portland metropolitan area. DOGAMI collected specific information concerning geologic hazards that resulted in the production of a Relative

Earthquake Hazard Map of the Portland 7 1/2-minute quadrangle depicting

ground motion amplification, liquefaction susceptibility, lateral spread displacement, and dynamic slope instability. Geologic hazard identification and

mapping has been expanded into 5 additional quadrangles and will be completed for the rest of the 13 quadrangles in the region in 1996.

Metro is collecting data on buildings showing their structural classification

systems, age, occupancy, size, height, use, and performance modifiers depicting

quality of design and construction. Other data are also collected for lifeline

systems and critical facilities: transportation facilities, the water supply, sewers,

electric power, gas lines and gas facilities, telecommunications facilities,

hospitals, etc., and facilities storing or using hazardous materials. DOGAMI

and Metro’s goal is to make seismic risk information electronically available to

public agencies and the private sector.

The below- and above-ground data has been used to assess earthquake damage

and loss in a 60-block pilot area. Currently, these data are being used to evaluate the FEMA and National Institute of Building Sciences methodology for

earthquake loss estimation. Metro is also using the hazard information to

develop earthquake mitigation tools such as model land use and development

regulations and regional emergency transportation corridors that will be used

to encourage local governments to retrofit bridges and other structures on a

priority basis. In coordination with the Portland area Regional Emergency

Management Group, public and private utility agencies, Oregon Emergency

Management, and FEMA, this program will create additional mitigation,

response, recovery, and preparedness tools for use in the evolving regional

emergency management system.

Evaluation Information:

Feedback from emergency managers at the local, State, and Federal levels and

private industries in the region, particularly utilities, has been very positive.

Annual Budget:

Approximately $800,000.

Sources of Funding:

FEMA.

___________________________________________________ OREGON
53

Tsunami Brochures, Signs, and

Markers

Contact:

Beverly F. Vogt

Geologist/Publications

Manager

Oregon Department of Geology

and Mineral Industries

(DOGAMI)

800 Northeast Oregon Street, #28

Portland, OR 97232

Tel: 503–731–4100

Fax: 503–731–4066

Program Type:

Public information and

education about tsunami

hazards.

Target Population:

Coastal residents and tourists.

Setting:

Oregon coast.

Project Startup Date:

1994.

Program Description:

The brochure was developed to provide tsunami information for coastal

residents and tourists because nothing specific to Oregon was available. The

brochure describes tsunami preparedness and provides information on what

to do in the event of a tsunami. The brochure was distributed through emergency managers’ offices, the Red Cross, private companies, tourist information

centers, and a variety of other groups.

Markers that describe tsunamis and present information on what to do in the

event of a tsunami were installed in highly visible spots at Reedsport, Newport, and Seaside. The markers include photographs and text.

Several State agencies were involved in developing the sign concept. Initially,

representatives from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT),

DOGAMI, Oregon Sea Grant, Oregon State Parks and Recreation, and the

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development met to create a

distinctive tsunami symbol using blue and silver reflective signs. An Oregon

Sea Grant artist executed the design for signs to be installed along tsunami

inundation zones and tsunami evacuation routes. ODOT will manufacture the

signs. Others States are being encouraged to use the design to improve recognition of the tsunami symbol.

Evaluation Information:

The brochure is popular and in high demand. The first press run was 100,000;

about half of the second printing of 100,000 has also been distributed. The

markers are viewed by thousands of tourists annually and noted by press and

other media. No evaluation information for the signs is available yet.

Annual Budget:

$14,000 in printing costs for brochures donated by Portland General Electric

Company; one-time cost of $11,800 for markers; not applicable for signs.

Sources of Funding:

Printing costs donated by Portland General Electric with other costs funded by

the State of Oregon (brochures); DOGAMI, Travel Information Council, ODOT,

FEMA, and Oregon Coast Aquarium (markers); not applicable for signs.

Sources for Additional Information:

For more information on the markers, contact Angie Karel, executive support

specialist for DOGAMI at the address above. Queries regarding brochures and

signs should be directed to Beverly Vogt, publications manager.

___________________________________________________ OREGON
54

Community Emergency

Preparedness

Contact:

Park Owens

Coordinator

Rapid City-Pennington County

Emergency Management

315 Saint Joseph Street, B–31

Rapid City, SD 57701

Tel: 605–394–2185

Fax: 605–394–6812

E-mail:

powens@silver.sdsmt.edu

Program Type:

Community emergency and

disaster preparedness.

Target Population:

Residents of western South

Dakota and eastern Wyoming.

Setting:

Western South Dakota and

eastern Wyoming.

Project Startup Date:

1991.

Program Description:

US West Direct, publisher of US West telephone directories in western South

Dakota and eastern Wyoming, has placed a two-page spread of Community

Emergency Preparedness Information in its telephone directories. US West

performed this service in the interest of having a prepared public and for good

US West-community relations.

Evaluation Information:

Residents and tourists have found the information extremely useful in

preparing for and understanding the emergencies that could occur in this

area.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

US West Direct.

_____________________________________________ SOUTH DAKOTA
55

Contact:

Captain Jim Schneider

Rapid City Fire Department

10 Main Street

Rapid City, SD 57701

Tel: 605–394–4180

Fax: 605–394–6754

Program Type:

Emergency and disaster

preparedness; hazard

mitigation.

Target Population:

Residents of the State of

South Dakota.

Setting:

Seven counties in western

South Dakota.

Project Startup Date:

May 1993.

Program Description:

Rapid City and Pennington County have one of only two constituted hazardous materials (HAZMAT) emergency response teams in the State of South

Dakota. To extend HAZMAT expertise to neighboring jurisdictions, a regional

HAZMAT Emergency Response Program was created. In addition to Rapid

City-Pennington County, other members of the regional program include the

counties of Butte, Custer, Fall River, Harding, Lawrence, and Meade, and the

Rosebud Sioux Tribe.

Rapid City-Pennington County charges other counties a $1,500 annual

subscription fee to belong to the program. The fee entitles members to the

following HAZMAT services:

● On-scene response, if required (additional equipment and labor charges are

incurred).

● Telephone and fax responses of Computer-Aided Management of

Emergency Operations (CAMEO) stored chemical and Material Safety

Data Sheet (MSDS) information for first responders.

● HAZMAT awareness training for first responders.

● Listing of the Rapid City-Pennington County HAZMAT Emergency

Response Team in jurisdictional HAZMAT emergency response plans.

Evaluation Information:

More counties are joining each year—a total of seven thus far.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

Local government.

Western South Dakota Regional

Hazardous Materials Emergency

Response Program

_____________________________________________ SOUTH DAKOTA
56

Professional Volunteer Disaster

Survey Team (PRO-V-DST)

Contact:

Danny Moss

Building Official

Building Officials Association

of Texas (BOAT)

P.O. Box 157

Bedford, TX 76095–0157

Tel: 817–952–2140

Fax: 817–952–2210

Program Type:

Provision of professional

damage survey resources to

State and local governments.

Target Population:

Texas residents.

Setting:

Statewide.

Project Startup Date:

1993.

Program Description:

This program provides a network of professional building inspectors, structural engineers, and architects who form damage survey teams used by State

and local governments in need of help surveying damage and evaluating

structures following a disaster.

Evaluation Information:

In assessing postdisaster flood damage to structures in Montgomery County,

PRO-V-DST impressed the county engineer—overwhelmed by the number of

structures requiring a determination of substantial damage—by completing its

evaluation in just 2 days.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

Teams provide volunteer labor, and FEMA provides the funding for meals,

lodging, and travel expenses.

_____________________________________________________ TEXAS
57

_____________________________________________________ TEXAS

Program Description:

Through a Non-Commercial Sustaining Announcement campaign entitled

“Don’t Gamble with a Hurricane,” the Texas Division of Emergency Management (DEM) sought to heighten preparedness awareness and thus reduce loss

of life and property during a hurricane. Bilingual announcements focusing on

evacuation and family disaster preparedness were broadcast along the gulf

coast. To supplement this effort, Austin-area Scouts prepared informational

mailing packets containing Family Protection Program materials, Texas coastal

hurricane evacuation maps, and a storm warning brochure.

To reach the largest audience, the Texas Association of Broadcasters was

contracted to distribute the announcements to top coastal television and radio

markets. Participating stations guaranteed prime-time message broadcast,

with message saturation occurring during the hurricane months of August

to October. The spots referenced a toll-free number belonging to the Texas

Department of Insurance (TDI) that allows callers to request information, in

Spanish or English, specific to their area. TDI harvests the calls, prepares

address labels, and forwards them to DEM. In this way DEM can track

responses and forward information to local coordinators to send out other

region-specific materials.

Evaluation Information:

The initiative has received wide support from broadcasters and the public. The

program has received affidavits from broadcasters certifying broadcast times

during prime listener and viewer hours and numerous inquiries to the toll-free

information line. In addition, the initiative has resulted in coalitions between

FEMA and Texas broadcasters and between the Boy Scouts of America and

TDI. The public information officer was invited to participate in the Texas

Association of Broadcasters’ annual conference to share information about this

partnership.

Annual Budget:

$80,000 and donations.

Sources of Funding:

Federal hurricane funds, volunteer labor from the Boy Scouts of America, and

donated toll-free telephone access from TDI.

Contact:

Jo Schweikhard Moss

Public Information Officer

State of Texas, Division of

Emergency Management

5805 North Lamar Boulevard

Austin, TX 78752

Tel: 512–465–2138

Fax: 512–465–2444

Program Type:

Public education and

awareness.

Target Population:

People living in hurricane

hazard areas of Texas.

Setting:

Texas’ hurricane-prone areas.

Project Startup Date:

1994.

Hurricane Preparedness Public

Awareness Campaign
58

Trinity River Greenway

“Common Vision”

Contact:

Jack Tidwell

Project Planner

North Central Texas Council

of Governments

616 Six Flags Drive

Centerpoint Two

P.O. Box 5888

Arlington, TX 76005–5888

Tel: 817–640–3300

Fax: 817–640–7806

Program Type:

Intergovernmental, multipurpose flood plain management.

Target Population:

Residents in the tricounty area.

Setting:

Trinity River Corridor in

North Central Texas.

Project Startup Date:

1990.

Program Description:

Trinity River Greenway “Common Vision” is a multipurpose planning and

management project involving 14 local governmental bodies. The North

Central Texas Council of Governments and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

are currently working with nine cities, three counties, and two special districts

to cost-share a more detailed assessment of specific projects relating to flood

damage reduction, recreation, environmental enhancement, and water quality

associated with the Trinity River Corridor. Both structural and nonstructural

flood damage reduction options, based on concordant floodplain development

permitting criteria, are being pursued.

The vision of the Trinity River Greenway includes a network of interconnected

trails and bikeways that link parks, schools, neighborhoods, cultural and

interpretive areas, historic sites, and other locations along the 200-mile river

corridor running through a 2,773-square mile area.

Evaluation Information:

The corridor development permit is in place, and a 6-year feasibility study is

near completion. The study’s success to date includes development of a stateof-the-art FEMA Regulatory Modeling and Mapping Implementation Plan and

identification of 81 preliminary structural flood control alternatives along with

cost-benefit analyses for further indepth investigation. State, Federal, and 14

local government agencies are coordinating floodplain-related programs.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

Federal, State, and local government funding for $8 million feasibility study.

_____________________________________________________ TEXAS
59

Earthquake Education Resource

Group (EERG)

Contact:

Bob Carey

Earthquake Program Manager

Utah Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management

State Capitol Office Building,

Room 1110

Salt Lake City, UT 84114

Tel: 801–538–3400

Fax: 801–538–3770

Program Type:

Public education through

intergovernmental

partnerships.

Target Population:

Utah residents.

Setting:

Statewide.

Project Startup Date:

1993.

Program Description:

In 1993 EERG—an information partnership among the Earthquake Preparedness Information Center (EPICENTER), the University of Utah College of

Mines, the Department of Geography, the Utah Geological Survey, and the

Utah Chapter of the American Red Cross—was created to help make resources

available for earthquake education in Utah. This group coordinates with other

university entities involved in community outreach to help Utah residents

successfully handle earthquake risk by increasing their understanding of

earthquakes—their causes, effects, and evidence of local risk—and safety

measures that make a difference.

EERG’s public education efforts involve coordinating resources and forming

workshops and training sessions. EERG-coordinated workshops include:

● “Earthquakes: How To Prepare Utah’s Schools,” which covers topics such

as assessing damage, first aid, and search and rescue, is one of the most

popular and most attended workshops.

● “Tremor Troops,” which targets elementary school teachers and provides

them with Utah-specific earthquake risk information to develop their

students’ understanding of the causes and effects of earthquakes, as well as

appropriate safety measures. It also provides instructional materials for

K–6 teachers with grade-level breakout groups, activities, and discussions.

Third- and fifth-grade teachers will find the materials especially relevant to

the new science core curriculum for their grade levels.

● “Seismic Sleuths,” which is the secondary school-level version of “Tremor

Troops.”

Evaluation Information:

An evaluation form was given to all participants of EERG-coordinated workshops to comment on the content, quality, and usefulness of the information

being presented. The instructors were also evaluated for their presentation

skills and knowledge of the subject matter. This information was used to

improve workshops and help develop other related workshops to meet the

needs of the participants.

Annual Budget:

Monetary contributions for workshops vary according to the partners’ ability

to pay.

Sources of Funding:

Federal, State, and local governments.

_____________________________________________________ UTAH
60

Interagency Technical Teams

Contact:

Fred May

State Hazard Mitigation Officer

State of Utah Department of

Public Safety

Division of Comprehensive

Emergency Management

State Office Building,

Room 1110

Salt Lake City, UT 84114

Tel: 801–538–3400

Fax: 801–538–3770

Program Type:

Emergency and disaster preparedness; hazard mitigation

(rapid pre- and post-event

hazard and risk analysis).

Target Population:

Utah residents.

Setting:

Statewide.

Project Startup Date:

November 1987.

Program Description:

The Utah Interagency Technical Team is an expansion of the State Hazard

Mitigation Team, and includes a Federal and university technical resource pool

(called the Field Advisory Support Team) that assists with pre-event hazard

and risk analysis. The team is coordinated by the State Hazard Mitigation

Officer. The purpose of the expanded team is to quickly evaluate pre-event,

nontechnical threats and risks perceived by local residents and governments to

establish actual risk.

The team provides technical expertise to local governments that alert it about a

possible hazard. The team represents 11 State agencies and an additional 17

Federal and university technical agencies or programs necessary to evaluate

the perceived threat and risk from Utah hazards. Once a local government has

expressed concern about a possible threat, the team rapidly evaluates the

threat to determine whether the perceived risk is real. This is accomplished by

either activating the team in phases for an onsite field evaluation or by gathering needed information through telephone or interpersonal interviews,

subsequently preparing and distributing a written hazard analysis.

Recent team activities addressed concerns about high-water levels in dams

prior to spring runoff, spring debris flow potential, above-normal snowpacks

and potential spring flooding, river conditions prior to spring runoff, and

other perceived threats.

The technical team also assists local governments with rapid postevent, onsite

evaluations to determine the potential for ongoing threat and risk, and for

additional future threat and risk.

Evaluation Information:

Teams have received letters of appreciation and positive feedback from county

commissioners and city councils.

Annual Budget:

It is expected to be about $5,000 for 1995.

Sources of Funding:

Federal, State, and local governments.

_____________________________________________________ UTAH
61

Community Emergency Response

Teams (CERT)

Contact:

Dr. Stephen P. Rundquist

Chief, Utah Training and

Exercise Section

Utah Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management

State Capitol Office Building,

Room 1110

Salt Lake City, UT 84114

Tel: 801–538–3400

Fax: 801–538–3770

Program Type:

Community-based disaster

preparedness and citizen

response training program.

Target Population:

Residents of the State of Utah

through community-based or

organization-based groups.

Setting:

Statewide.

Project Startup Date:

1993.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

The statewide CERT program is

managed by a Volunteer State

CERT Advisory Board, which

provides program guidance at

no charge. CERT “Train-theTrainer” courses are funded out

of Emergency Management

Training funds. Weekly CERT

field courses are funded at the

local level by a variety of

mechanisms.

_____________________________________________________ UTAH

Program Description:

Utah was one of the first States in the Nation (outside of California, where the

program originated) to recognize the value of CERT. The Utah Division of

Comprehensive Emergency Management (CEM) Training Team saw in CERT

not only an outstanding vehicle to enable a population-at-risk to take care of

itself in the hours immediately following a major disaster, but also a program

to bridge the gap between the lay public and the emergency management

communities.

After CERT training at the Emergency Management Institute (EMI), CEM

trainers began training others throughout Utah via a series of “Train-theTrainer” courses. As of March 1, 1995, more than 200 individuals representing

more than 40 jurisdictions and organizations throughout the State had undergone CERT training and had qualified to teach the CERT program in their

communities; nearly 1,000 Utah residents had participated in local CERT

training.

The program trains participants in the areas of disaster preparedness, light fire

suppression, disaster medical procedures, light urban search-and-rescue,

human behavior in disasters, and community team organization and operation. Participants who complete the course are organized into community and

neighborhood teams that take care of their immediate areas during a disaster

and then become available to “stage” as paraprofessional responders under

the Incident Command System.

After completing the initial 7-week training course, CERT members receive

refresher training conducted by their sponsoring organizations and may also

participate in CERT disaster simulation exercises sponsored by both State and

local jurisdictions. They may also participate in a CERT certification program

sponsored by Utah CEM.

Evaluation Information:

No formal mechanism yet exists for the evaluation of the overall program

throughout the State. Programs in some areas are stronger than those in others,

depending on the availability of financial resources and the quality of instruction. Perhaps the program’s phenomenal growth gives the strongest evidence

that the program is succeeding because it is fulfilling a widely perceived need.

Every jurisdiction that has begun the CERT program has quickly been faced

with the challenge of how to keep up with the demand. For example, Salt Lake

City has a waiting list of more than 1,400 citizens and has requested two more

full-time CERT instructors. Salt Lake County has a similar waiting list.
62

Partnership for Community

Disaster Preparedness

Program Description:

The Vermont Community Disaster Preparedness Program, which involves

government, educators, industry, and citizens, is a partnership to increase

hazard awareness and develop emergency preparedness and mitigation

strategies for minimizing the effects of disasters in Vermont. The strategy

incorporates a multifaceted, all-hazards approach that will provide risk

information to facilitate risk-based planning and decisionmaking by families

and local jurisdictions. Involvement of utilities, school systems, the University

of Vermont, and the media is essential to heighten awareness and raise preparedness and mitigation to a higher priority.

The project includes family emergency preparedness; school emergency plans;

an eight-part instructional video that includes information on hazards, family

emergency preparedness, and mitigation tips for homeowners; newspaper

articles on preparedness and mitigation; public service announcements (PSAs);

and targeted outreach, including a followup on Interagency Hazard Mitigation

Team Report recommendations and cosponsorship of a mitigation conference

with the University of Vermont.

Vermont Emergency Management Agency personnel, State Police public

information officers, fire chiefs, and the American Red Cross are teaching

family emergency preparedness classes in public schools using segments of the

instructional videos and other preparedness materials. “Master of Disaster”

certificates signed by the Governor are distributed to students who have

completed their pledges to have their families develop emergency preparedness plans. Vermont electric utilities are including preparedness materials in

250,000 mailings.

In fall 1995 the Vermont Emergency Management Agency is scheduled to

present its model school emergency plans before the State’s School Superintendent. The plan has extensive input from school superintendents. Two additional segments for the instructional video will be completed, including

mitigation tips for schools and an explanation of the emergency planning

process.

Evaluation Information:

Of the 5,000 students visited in Vermont schools by the Partnership for

Community Disaster Preparedness, 2,000 have returned the necessary forms

required to receive the Governor’s “Master of Disaster” certificate, which

indicates that the students have completed family emergency preparedness

plans. Three county cable stations are airing preparedness and mitigation

videos, with pledges to run them frequently and to establish the means to use

viewer feedback to improve the videos. The Vermont Association of Broadcasters has also pledged to contribute $4 for every $1 the Department of Public

Safety invests in PSAs. Four newspaper articles about the program have been

published, and Vermont electric utilities are including preparedness materials

in 250,000 mailings.

__________________________________________________ VERMONT

Contact:

Michael Gilhooly

Staff Assistant

Vermont Department of

Public Safety

103 South Main Street

Waterbury, VT 05671

Tel: 802–244–8718

Fax: 802–244–1106

Program Type:

Disaster preparedness.

Target Population:

Vermont residents.

Setting:

Statewide.

Project Startup Date:

1994.

Annual Budget:

Total cost for the 2-year Hazard

Mitigation Grant Program

(HMGP) project is $174,400.

Sources of Funding:

The match to the HMGP funds

includes services in-kind from

the State. Vermont Emergency

Management Agency staff are

supporting the project with

Comprehensive Cooperative

Agreement-funded activities.
63

American Red Cross Community

Disaster Education

Contact:

Rocky Lopes

American Red Cross

Disaster Services

8111 Gatehouse Road

Falls Church, VA 22042

Tel: 703–206–8805

Fax: 703–206–8848

Program Type:

Development and dissemination of national disaster

education materials.

Target Population:

Residents of communities

nationwide.

Setting:

Local Red Cross chapters,

government agency locations,

and public and private facilities

nationwide.

Project Startup Date:

1991.

Program Description:

National collaborators from the American Red Cross, FEMA (including the

United States Fire Administration), the National Weather Service, the U.S.

Geological Survey, the National Fire Protection Association, and The Weather

Channel have developed a series of print and video materials to educate the

public about how to prepare for, minimize the effects of, respond to, and cope

with disasters. What makes this initiative exemplary is that when representatives of the participating agencies use these materials with the public, everyone receives the same message. Consistency is important because research

shows that when people receive consistent information, they are more motivated to respond appropriately.

In short, current and future Community Disaster Education materials

produced in partnership with myriad organizations further strengthen the

American Red Cross’ commitment to helping mitigate the effects of disasters

on people and property.

Evaluation Information:

Since the first national disaster education materials were introduced in 1991,

more than 400 million copies of videos, brochures, posters, and other educational materials have been distributed to the American people through local

Red Cross units and partner agencies. The demand for these materials has

shown an eightfold increase each year since 1992. Public reaction to the

materials has been extremely positive. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration awarded this effort a Silver Medal.

Annual Budget:

Participating agencies support endeavors to differing degrees with staff time,

development, and reproduction costs. Red Cross units and community sponsors absorb expenses incurred locally, including costs related to presentations

and shipping of materials. There is no definitive figure that can be attributed

to this activity, but it is estimated that in Fiscal Year 1994, the American Red

Cross contributed $3.2 million to this effort at the national level in both in-kind

and financial commitments.

Sources of Funding:

Each agency contributes its own resources. Federal Government agencies,

including FEMA and the National Weather Service, commit government

funds. The American Red Cross uses donated funds collected by chapters

nationwide.

__________________________________________________ VIRGINIA
64

Earthquake Loss Estimation

Methodology Study

Contact:

Philip J. Schneider

Director

Earthquake Loss Estimation

Methodology Study

National Institute of Building

Sciences

1201 L Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

Tel: 202–289–7800

Fax: 202–289–1092

Program Type:

Development of a nationally

applicable standardized methodology for estimating potential

earthquake losses on

a regional basis.

Target Population:

Emergency managers; utilities;

public works and relief

agencies; State and regional

planners; State building and fire

code officials; and medical and

insurance personnel.

Setting:

A pilot study is being

conducted in Portland, Oregon.

Project Startup Date:

1992.

___________________________________________ WASHINGTON, DC

Program Description:

The National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), under a cooperative agreement with FEMA, is developing a nationally applicable, standardized methodology for estimating potential earthquake losses on a regional basis. The goal is

to develop and test a method for making earthquake loss estimates to be used

by local, State, and regional officials for planning and stimulating mitigation

efforts to reduce losses from earthquakes and preparing for emergency response and recovery following an earthquake. The methodology may also be

used to prepare a rapid-loss estimate following an earthquake.

The methodology will use earthquake scenarios to model ground motion,

landsliding, liquefaction, and surface faults; produce estimates of damage to

commercial, residential, and industrial buildings, lifelines (for example, highways, water lines, power transmission stations), and essential facilities; and

project the extent of seismically induced problems such as fires, floods, and

debris. Damage estimates will then be used to forecast casualties, the number

of people needing shelter, and economic losses for repair and replacement,

income and rental, and other losses. It will also map the location of hazardous

materials sites, dams, nuclear facilities, and military installations with potential

high losses.

Evaluation Information:

In addition to 2 standing review committees, more than 80 technical and user

experts have volunteered to review drafts of the methodology. A presentation

before a technical audience and a workshop for a user audience drew both

strong participation and favorable responses. A workshop on the pilot study

drew more than 70 participants from the Portland area and surrounding States.

A pilot study is being conducted in Portland, Oregon, to evaluate and refine

the methodology.

Annual Budget:

$1,000,000.

Sources of Funding:

FEMA.
65

_____________________________________________ WEST VIRGINIA

Tyler County Equestrian Search

and Rescue Team

Contact:

Terry Anderson

Director, Tyler County Office of

Emergency Services

P.O. Box 238

Middlebourne, WV 26149–0238

Tel: 304–758–5155

Fax: 304–758–5188

Pager: 1–800–832–8786,

pager ID 4905

Program Type:

Search and rescue volunteer

partnership.

Target Population:

Residents of Tyler County,

West Virginia, and surrounding

counties.

Setting:

Throughout Tyler County,

West Virginia, and surrounding

States, but mostly in wooded

areas.

Project Startup Date:

1994.

Program Description:

Tyler County Office of Emergency Services and Shiloh Saddle Club in Tyler

County have formed an equestrian search and rescue (SAR) unit. The unit is

designed to assist in incidents such as searches for missing persons and plane

crashes. Because most team members live in Tyler County, response time is

estimated to be between 30 and 60 minutes.

The mounted team has portable radios connected to the mobile emergency

operations center for continuous communication with the Tyler County Office

of Emergency Services. All Saddle Club members who participate in SAR are

also members of the Office of Emergency Services. The majority of the 50 club

members have been trained in rescue procedures. In addition, some of the

emergency services personnel have been trained in horseback riding.

The equestrian SAR team is supported by an integral part of the team, foot

SAR personnel, as well as the K–9 SAR group, which currently consists of

three dogs trained in air scent and tracking.

Evaluation Information:

Although relatively new, the team has already located one missing person in

Farmington, West Virginia.

Annual Budget:

Varies.

Sources of Funding:

Tyler County Office of Emergency Services budget and donations.
66

_________________________________________________ WISCONSIN

Relocation of Soldiers Grove

Contact:

William S. Becker

Assistant for Communications

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue N.W.

Washington, DC 20585

Tel: 202–586–8252

Fax: 202–586–9260

Program Type:

Multipurpose flood mitigation.

Target Population:

Residents and businesses in

Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin.

Setting:

Commercial downtown of

rural village.

Project Startup Date:

1978.

Program Description:

Soldiers Grove, a village of 500 in southwestern Wisconsin, suffered decades of

flooding from the Kickapoo River. In the mid-1970’s, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers proposed a $3.5 million levee, but the community could not afford

its share of the costs. The village in turn proposed that the Federal Government spend the same money to help relocate floodprone properties, including

the entire central business district.

Because of an environmental controversy over a proposed dam upriver from

Soldiers Grove, Congress forced the Corps to stop work in the Kickapoo Valley

in 1975. Soldiers Grove sought other Federal funds without success. In July

1978, the village was hit by a flood that destroyed much of its business district.

The community received funding under a variety of Federal programs and

constructed a new business district half a mile from the floodplain. The old

downtown became a riverside park.

Soldiers Grove, one of the first communities to voluntarily choose relocation

over structural solutions, used the project to solve a number of longstanding

water, sewer, and transportation problems. To slow the leak of money from the

community, the village passed stringent energy efficiency requirements for

new buildings and the Nation’s first ordinance requiring that all new commercial structures receive at least half their heat from solar heating systems. The

community became known as the Nation’s first “solar village.” Twelve years

after dedicating its new downtown, the community remains untouched by

flooding, is more economically stable, and is generally satisfied with the

results of the move.

Evaluation Information:

The relocation of Soldiers Grove has been 100-percent effective in preventing

any further flood damage in the community. While some elderly villagers

miss their old community, all recognize that the community could not have

survived further flooding. Relocation provided many additional benefits,

including improvement in sewer and water systems, opening of a new development area, modernization of energy systems, and a revitalized tax base.

Annual Budget:

The project was completed in 1983.

Sources of Funding:

In addition to local funding, including bond revenues and investments of

individual property owners, funding was provided by U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block

Grants, the Community Services Administration, Economic Development

Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior, and State and local agencies.
67

Indexes
69

Program Contacts Index

The program contacts in this Compendium are listed alphabetically below.

____________________________________ PROGRAM CONTACTS INDEX

Gerald Abbott, 14

Henrietta T. Alleman, 22, 23

Terry Anderson, 65

Al Aramburu, 8

Margaret Ballard, 19, 20

William S. Becker, 66

Jack Bossert, 39–45

Bob Carey, 59

Peggy Case, 24

Lee E. Collard, 5

Harry deButts, 34

Julie Fields Delaune, 25

Don DeYoung, 9

Walter Michael Duzzny, 46, 47

Edward S. Fratto, 30

Michael Gilhooly, 62

Donald J. Goralski, 37

Terry Gray, 6

Robert Grieve, 35

James H. Hamler, 26

Robert E. Heavilin, 3, 4

George Houston, 49

Dr. Donald Hull, 50

Peter Locke, 32

Rocky Lopes, 63

John “Ikey” Lucas, 27

Dr. Matthew Mabey, 51

Ruth B. Mascari, 29

Fred May, 60

John David McFarland, 7

Arlinda McKeen, 21

Danny Moss, 57

Jo Schweikhard Moss, 56

Park Owens, 54

William J. Patterson, 10

Andrew Planing, 38

D.M. Purcell, 36

Paul Wayne Rainwater, 28

David Rodham, 31

Dr. Stephen P. Rundquist, 61

Captain Jim Schneider, 55

Philip J. Schneider, 64

Mike Sherberger, 15

Dennis Smith, 11

Lee T. Takushi, 17

Mike Taylor, 16

Jack Tidwell, 58

Gerry Uba, 52

Beverly F. Vogt, 53

Lieutenant Gerald A. Wheeler, 33

Carol Williams, 48

John D. Wilson, 12, 13

Brian S. Yanagi, 18
71

Program Titles Index

The programs in this Compendium are listed alphabetically below.

American Red Cross Community Disaster Education, 63

Arkansas Governor’s Earthquake Advisory Council (AGEAC), 7

Block Captain Project, 28

California Conservation Corps (CCC), 8

CAMEO Conferences/Courses, 39

Community Emergency Preparedness, 54

Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT), 61

Continuing Challenge Hazardous Materials Conference, 11

Contractor Management of Disaster Recovery, 3

Damage Assessment Assistance, 17

Disaster Recovery, Education & Mitigation (DREAM), 24

DOGAMI/Metro Risk Assessment Partnership, 51

Donated Goods, 14

Earthquake Education Resource Group (EERG), 59

Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology Study, 64

Family Protection Plan/School Disaster Preparedness, 32

Fire Safety in the Pacific, 10

First Alert, 16

“The First 72 Hours”— Plans for Survival, 46

Floodplain Manager Certification and Continuing Education, 36

Generic Emergency Plan Creation, 29

Georgia Flood Recovery Coordination Committee (FRCC), 15

A Guide to Local Damage Assessment, 21

Hazard Minimization Program, 31

Hazard Mitigation, 34

Hazardous Materials Plan Development and Evaluation Document

 (also known as HAZMAT Plan Cross Reference), 40

Hurricane Evacuation Instructions, 22

Hurricane Preparedness Public Awareness Campaign, 57

Idaho Hazardous Material Regional Response Teams (RRT), 19

Idaho Hazardous Materials Training Center (IHMTC), 20

Initial Response to HAZMAT Incidents: Basic Concepts, 5

Interagency Technical Teams, 60

Local Emergency Management/Local Industry Partnership, 27

Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Handbook and Sample

 Hazardous Materials Plan, 41

Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Public Education Program, 42

Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Recognition Program, 43

Louisiana Mass Fatalities Task Force, 26

Mahoning County Clearwater/Flood Action Program, 47

Michigan Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) Training Center, 33

National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), 37

New England States Emergency Consortium (NESEC), 30

The Ohio Hazardous Materials Exercise/Evaluation Manual, 44

Partnership for Community Disaster Preparedness, 62

_______________________________________ PROGRAM TITLES INDEX
72

Plan-Exercise Guide, 45

Professional Volunteer Disaster Survey Team (PRO-V-DST), 56

Pruning Program for City-Owned Trees, 38

Regional Earthquake Hazard Identification, 52

Regional Emergency Management Group (REMG), 49

Relocation of Soldiers Grove, 66

Southeast–Southwest Hurricane Task Force, 23

Southern Area Fire Equipment Research (SAFER), 9

Southwest Florida—Together Emergencies Are Managed Successfully

 (SWF TEAMS), 12

Spring Runoff Conference, 35

St. Mary’s Parish Disaster Preparedness Program, 25

State Legislative Initiatives To Require Tsunami Education and Prohibit Siting

 of Critical Facilities in Tsunami Inundation Zones, 50

State of Arkansas Hazard Mitigation Program, 6

Trinity River Greenway “Common Vision,” 58

Tsunami Brochures, Signs, and Markers, 53

TTY Alert—An Emergency Warning and Communications System for the

 Deaf and Hard of Hearing, 13

Tulsa Stormwater Management Program, 48

Tyler County Equestrian Search and Rescue Team, 65

Upgrade Seismic Zonation Building Code on the Island of Hawaii, 18

Use of National Type I Interagency Incident Management Teams, 4

Western South Dakota Regional Hazardous Materials Emergency

 Response Program, 55

_______________________________________ PROGRAM TITLES INDEX
73

Program Subjects Index

Alert programs. See Emergency warning and communications systems;

 School alert and drill programs

Awards programs

Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Recognition Program, 43

Broadcasting systems. See Emergency warning and communications systems

Building codes

Arkansas Governor’s Earthquake Advisory Council (AGEAC), 7

Upgrade Seismic Zonation Building Codes on the Island of Hawaii, 18

Coastal regions. See Flood management and mitigation; Hurricane

 preparedness and mitigation; Hurricane recovery; Shore protection

Communications systems. See Emergency warning and communications

 systems

Community disaster preparedness. See Family disaster preparedness;

 Public education; School alert and drill programs

Community service. See also Volunteer services

California Conservation Corps (CCC), 8

Computer use. See also Mapping and modeling

CAMEO Conferences/Courses, 39

Generic Emergency Plan Creation, 29

Mahoning County Clearwater/Flood Action Program, 47

National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), 37

Conferences. See Training

Conservation. See Natural resources conservation

Contractors. See Private contractors

Damage assessment

Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology Study, 64

Professional Volunteer Disaster Survey Team (PRO–V–DST), 56

Damage assessment training

Damage Assessment Assistance, 17

A Guide to Local Damage Assessment, 21

Data bases. See Computer use

Deaf and hard-of-hearing persons

TTY Alert—An Emergency Warning and Communications System for the

 Deaf and Hard of Hearing, 13

Disaster preparedness and mitigation. See also Earthquake preparedness and

 mitigation; Emergency preparedness and mitigation; Family disaster pre-

 paredness; Flood management and mitigation; Hazard preparedness and

 mitigation; Hurricane preparedness and mitigation; Public education;

 School alert and drill programs

_____________________________________ PROGRAM SUBJECTS INDEX
74

Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT), 61

Louisiana Mass Fatalities Task Force, 26

Disaster recovery. See Flood recovery; Hurricane recovery

Disaster response. See Emergency response teams; Hazardous materials

 response teams

Donated goods distribution

Donated Goods, 14

Earthquake loss estimation

Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology Study, 64

Earthquake preparedness and mitigation

Arkansas Governor’s Earthquake Advisory Council (AGEAC), 7

Damage Assessment Assistance, 17

DOGAMI/Metro Risk Assessment Partnership, 51

Earthquake Education Resource Group (EERG), 59

National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), 37

Regional Earthquake Hazard Identification, 52

Upgrade Seismic Zonation Building Codes on the Island of Hawaii, 18

Education. See Damage assessment training; Fire safety training; Hazardous

 materials training; Public education; School alert and drill programs

Elderly persons

Block Captain Project, 28

Emergency first responders. See Emergency response teams; Hazardous

 materials response teams

Emergency personnel. See also Emergency response teams; Hazardous

 materials response teams; Search and rescue teams; Volunteer services

California Conservation Corps (CCC), 8

Emergency planning. See also Hazardous materials plans and exercises

Generic Emergency Plan Creation, 29

Regional Emergency Management Group (REMG), 49

Emergency preparedness and mitigation. See also Disaster preparedness and

 mitigation; Earthquake preparedness and mitigation; Family disaster

 preparedness; Flood management and mitigation; Hazard preparedness

 and mitigation; Hurricane preparedness and mitigation; Public education;

 School alert and drill programs

Community Emergency Preparedness, 54

“The First 72 Hours”—Plans for Survival, 46

Louisiana Mass Fatalities Task Force, 26

Emergency reconstruction. See Infrastructure reconstruction and improvement

Emergency recovery. See Flood recovery; Hurricane recovery

_____________________________________ PROGRAM SUBJECTS INDEX
75

Emergency response

Contractor Management of Disaster Recovery, 3

Emergency response teams. See also Hazardous materials response teams

Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT), 61

Continuing Challenge Hazardous Materials Conference, 11

Southwest Florida—Together Emergencies Are Managed Successfully

 (SWF TEAMS), 12

Use of National Type I Interagency Incident Management Teams, 4

Emergency warning and communications systems

First Alert, 16

Hazard Mitigation, 34

Local Emergency Management/Local Industry Partnership, 27

TTY Alert—An Emergency Warning and Communications System for the

 Deaf and Hard of Hearing, 13

Engineers. See Structural engineering

Environmental programs. See Natural resources conservation

Equestrian search and rescue teams

Tyler County Equestrian Search and Rescue Teams, 65

Evacuation routes and sheltering

Block Captain Project, 28

Hurricane Evacuation Instructions, 22

Southeast-Southwest Hurricane Task Force, 23

Family disaster preparedness. See also Public education; School alert and

 drill programs

Family Protection Plan/School Disaster Preparedness, 32

“The First 72 Hours”—Plans for Survival, 46

Partnership for Community Disaster Preparedness, 62

Fire and safety equipment

Fire Safety in the Pacific, 10

Southern Area Fire Equipment Research (SAFER), 9

Fire safety training

Fire Safety in the Pacific, 10

Flood damage assessment

Professional Volunteer Disaster Survey Team (PRO–V–DST), 56

Flood management and mitigation

Floodplain Manager Certification and Continuing Education, 36

Hazard Minimization Program, 31

Hazard Mitigation, 34

Interagency Technical Teams, 60

Mahoning County Clearwater/Flood Action Program, 47

Relocation of Soldiers Grove, 66

Spring Runoff Conference, 35

_____________________________________ PROGRAM SUBJECTS INDEX
76

State Legislative Initiatives To Require Tsunami Education and Prohibit

 Siting of Critical Facilities in Tsunami Inundation Zones, 50

Trinity River Greenway “Common Vision,” 58

Tsunami Brochures, Signs, and Markers, 53

Tulsa Stormwater Management Program, 48

Flood recovery

Contractor Management of Disaster Recovery, 3

Donated Goods, 14

Georgia Flood Recovery Coordination Committee (FRCC), 15

Use of National Type I Interagency Incident Management Teams, 4

Girl scouts

“The First 72 Hours”—Plans for Survival, 46

Group purchasing cooperatives

Southern Area Fire Equipment Research (SAFER), 9

Handicapped persons. See also Deaf and hard-of-hearing persons

Block Captain Project, 28

Hard-of-hearing persons. See Deaf and hard-of-hearing persons

Hazard preparedness and mitigation. See also Disaster preparedness and

 mitigation; Earthquake preparedness and mitigation; Emergency pre-

 paredness and mitigation; Family disaster preparedness; Flood manage-

 ment and mitigation; Hurricane preparedness and mitigation; Public

 education; School alert and drill programs

Georgia Flood Recovery Coordination Committee (FRCC), 15

Hazard Minimization Program, 31

New England States Emergency Consortium (NESEC), 30

Pruning Program for City-Owned Trees, 38

State of Arkansas Hazard Mitigation Program, 6

Western South Dakota Regional Hazardous Materials Emergency

 Response Program, 55

Hazardous materials plans and exercises

CAMEO Conferences/Courses, 39

Hazardous Materials Plan Development and Evaluation Document, 40

Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Handbook and Sample

 Hazardous Materials Plan, 41

Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Public Education Program, 42

Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Recognition Program, 43

The Ohio Hazardous Materials Exercise/Evaluation Manual, 44

Plan-Exercise Guide, 45

Hazardous materials response teams

Hazardous Materials Plan Development and Evaluation Document, 40

Idaho Hazardous Material Regional Response Teams (RRT), 19

Initial Response to HAZMAT Incidents: Basic Concepts, 5

_____________________________________ PROGRAM SUBJECTS INDEX
77

Western South Dakota Regional Hazardous Materials Emergency Response

 Program, 55

Hazardous materials training

Block Captain Project, 28

CAMEO Conferences/Courses, 39

Continuing Challenge Hazardous Materials Conference, 11

Idaho Hazardous Materials Training Center (IHMTC), 20

Initial Response to HAZMAT Incidents: Basic Concepts, 5

Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Handbook and Sample

 Hazardous Materials Plan, 41

Michigan Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) Training Center, 33

Hotlines. See Telephone hotlines

Hurricane preparedness and mitigation

Disaster Recovery, Education & Mitigation (DREAM), 24

Hurricane Evacuation Instructions, 22

Hurricane Preparedness Public Awareness Campaign, 57

Southeast-Southwest Hurricane Task Force, 23

St. Mary’s Parish Disaster Preparedness Program, 25

Hurricane recovery

Disaster Recovery, Education & Mitigation (DREAM), 24

Incident management teams. See Emergency response teams

Information dissemination. See Public education

Infrastructure reconstruction and improvement

State of Arkansas Hazard Mitigation Program, 6

Interagency cooperation

Georgia Flood Recovery Coordination Committee (FRCC), 15

A Guide to Local Damage Assessment, 21

Idaho Hazardous Material Regional Response Teams (RRT), 19

Idaho Hazardous Materials Training Center (IHMTC), 20

Interagency Technical Teams, 60

New England States Emergency Consortium (NESEC), 30

Use of National Type I Interagency Incident Management Teams, 4

Intergovernmental cooperation

Earthquake Education Resource Group (EERG), 59

Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Public Education Program, 42

Pruning Program for City-Owned Trees, 38

Regional Emergency Management Group (REMG), 49

Southwest Florida—Together Emergencies Are Managed Successfully

 (SWF TEAMS), 12

 Trinity River Greenway “Common Vision,” 58

_____________________________________ PROGRAM SUBJECTS INDEX
78

Loss estimation. See also Damage assessment

Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology Study, 64

Mapping and modeling

DOGAMI/Metro Risk Assessment Partnership, 51

Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology Study, 64

Hurricane Evacuation Instructions, 22

Regional Earthquake Hazard Identification, 52

Trinity River Greenway “Common Vision,” 58

Mass fatalities preparedness

Louisiana Mass Fatalities Task Force, 26

Modeling. See Mapping and modeling

Natural resources conservation

California Conservation Corps (CCC), 8

Overhead teams. See Emergency response teams

Planning. See Emergency planning; Hazardous materials plans and exercises

Printed educational materials. See Public education

Private contractors

Contractor Management of Disaster Recovery, 3

Public education

American Red Cross Community Disaster Education, 63

Arkansas Governor’s Earthquake Advisory Council (AGEAC), 7

Community Emergency Preparedness, 54

Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT), 61

Disaster Recovery, Education & Mitigation (DREAM), 24

Earthquake Education Resource Group (EERG), 59

Family Protection Plan/School Disaster Preparedness, 32

“The First 72 Hours”—Plans for Survival, 46

Hazard Mitigation, 34

Hurricane Evacuation Instructions, 22

Hurricane Preparedness Public Awareness Campaign, 57

Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Public Education Program, 42

New England States Emergency Consortium (NESEC), 30

Partnership for Community Disaster Preparedness, 62

St. Mary’s Parish Disaster Preparedness Program, 25

State Legislative Initiatives To Require Tsunami Education and Prohibit

 Siting of Critical Facilities in Tsunami Inundation Zones, 50

Tsunami Brochures, Signs, and Markers, 53

Public schools. See School alert and drill programs

Recognition programs. See Awards programs

Relocation programs

 Relocation of Soldiers Grove, 66

_____________________________________ PROGRAM SUBJECTS INDEX
79

Risk assessment. See Disaster preparedness and mitigation; Earthquake

 preparedness and mitigation; Emergency preparedness and mitigation;

 Flood management and mitigation; Hazard preparedness and mitigation;

 Hurricane preparedness and mitigation

Runoff advisories. See Weather warnings

Safety assessment. See Building codes; Damage assessment

Safety equipment. See Fire and safety equipment

School alert and drill programs

Family Protection Plan/School Disaster Preparedness, 32

First Alert, 16

Partnership for Community Disaster Preparedness, 62

State Legislative Initiatives To Require Tsunami Education and Prohibit

 Siting of Critical Facilities in Tsunami Inundation Zones, 50

Search and rescue teams

 Tyler County Equestrian Search and Rescue Teams, 65

Seismic building codes. See Building codes

Seismological studies. See Earthquake preparedness and mitigation

Sheltering. See Evacuation routes and sheltering

Shore protection

Hazard Mitigation, 34

Stormwater management. See Flood management and mitigation

Structural engineering. See also Building codes

Damage Assessment Assistance, 17

Mahoning County Clearwater/Flood Action Program, 47

National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), 37

Professional Volunteer Disaster Survey Team (PRO–V–DST), 56

Telephone hotlines

Local Emergency Management/Local Industry Partnership, 27

Teletypewriter machines

TTY Alert—An Emergency Warning and Communications System for the

 Deaf and Hard of Hearing, 13

Televised public education announcements. See also Videotapes

Hurricane Preparedness Public Awareness Campaign, 57

Televised training courses. See also Videotapes

Initial Response to HAZMAT Incidents: Basic Concepts, 5

Training. See also Damage assessment training; Fire safety training; Hazardous

 materials training; Public education; School alert and drill programs

_____________________________________ PROGRAM SUBJECTS INDEX
80

Floodplain Manager Certification and Continuing Education, 36

Louisiana Mass Fatalities Task Force, 26

Tree maintenance

Pruning Program for City-Owned Trees, 38

Tsunami education

State Legislative Initiatives To Require Tsunami Education and Prohibit

 Siting of Critical Facilities in Tsunami Inundation Zones, 50

Tsunami Brochures, Signs, and Markers, 53

TTY machines. See Teletypewriter machines

Utilities

Pruning Program for City-Owned Trees, 38

Videotapes

American Red Cross Community Disaster Education, 63

Disaster Recovery, Education & Mitigation (DREAM), 24

Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Public Education Program, 42

New England States Emergency Consortium (NESEC), 30

Partnership for Community Disaster Preparedness, 62

Volunteer services. See also Community service

Block Captain Project, 28

Damage Assessment Assistance, 17

Donated Goods, 14

Professional Volunteer Disaster Survey Team (PRO–V–DST), 56

St. Mary’s Parish Disaster Preparedness Program, 25

Tyler County Equestrian Search and Rescue Teams, 65

Warning systems. See Emergency warning and communications systems

Weather warnings

First Alert, 16

Spring Runoff Conference, 35

Workshops. See Public education; Training

_____________________________________ PROGRAM SUBJECTS INDEX
81

Program Locations Index

___________________________________ PROGRAM LOCATIONS INDEX

Following is a list of locations where exemplary practices and/or their contacts

can be found. States and regions (e.g., New England) are listed in bold in

alphabetical order. Under each, the entries “statewide,” “multistate,” or

“nationwide” may be found, indicating that programs are found throughout a

State or region; cities and counties follow in alphabetical order.

Alaska, 3, 4

statewide, 3, 4

Fort Richardson, 3, 4

Arkansas, 5–7

statewide, 5–7

Conway, 5, 6

Little Rock, 7

California, 8–11

statewide, 8

Pacific Trust Territory governments

 and current U.S. possessions in

 the Pacific Ocean, 10

Sacramento, 8, 11

San Francisco, 10

Santa Clarita, 9

Southern California, 9

Connecticut

see Massachusetts, 30

District of Columbia, 64

see Wisconsin, 66

Florida, 12, 13

statewide, 12

Charlotte County, 12

Collier County, 12

De Soto County, 12

Fort Myers, 12, 13

Glades County, 12

Hardee County, 12

Hendry County, 12

Highlands County, 12

Lee County, 12, 13

Manatee County, 12

Sarasota County, 12

Southwest Florida, 12, 13

Georgia, 14–16

statewide, 16

Atlanta, 15, 16

Central Georgia, 15

Montezuma, 14

Southwest Georgia, 15

Hawaii, 17, 18

Hawaii county, 18

Honolulu, 17, 18

Idaho, 19, 20

statewide, 19

Boise, 19, 20

Pocatello, 19, 20

Iowa, 21

statewide, 21

Des Moines, 21

Louisiana, 22–28

statewide, 22, 26

Baldwin, 25

Baton Rouge, 22, 23

Covington, 26

Hahnville, 27

Houma, 24

Lafourche Parish, 24

Lake Charles, 28

Morgan City, 25

Mossville, 28

St. Charles Parish, 27

St. Mary’s Parish, 25

Southeast Louisiana, 23

Southern Louisiana, 22

Southwest Louisiana, 23

Terrebonne Parish, 24

Maine

see Massachusetts, 30

Maryland, 29

statewide, 29

Pikesville, 29
82

____________________________________ PROGRAM LOCATION INDEX

Massachusetts, 30, 31

multistate (Connecticut, Maine,

 Massachusetts, New Hampshire,

 Rhode Island, and Vermont), 30

statewide, 30

Boston, 31

Framingham, 31

Wakefield, 30

Michigan, 32, 33

Dearborn, 32

Lansing, 33

New England

see Massachusetts, 30

New Hampshire

see Massachusetts, 30

New Jersey, 34

Avalon, 34

Cape May County, 34

New Mexico, 35, 36

statewide, 35, 36

Santa Fe, 35, 36

New York, 37, 38

multistate, 37

Buffalo, 37

Monroe County, 38

Rochester, 38

Ohio, 39–47

statewide, 39–45

Columbus, 39–45

Mahoning County, 46, 47

Youngstown, 46, 47

Oklahoma, 48

Tulsa, 48

Oregon, 49–53

Portland, 49–53

see District of Columbia, 64

Rhode Island

see Massachusetts, 30

South Dakota, 54, 55

statewide, 55

Butte County, 55

Custer County, 55

Fall River County, 55

Harding County, 55

Lawrence County, 55

Meade County, 55

Pennington County, 55

Rapid City, 54, 55

Western South Dakota, 54

Eastern Wyoming, 54

Texas, 56–58

statewide, 56

Arlington, 58

Austin, 57

Bedford, 56

Utah, 59–61

statewide, 59–61

Salt Lake City, 59–61

Vermont, 62

statewide, 62

Waterbury, 62

see Massachusetts, 30

Virginia, 63

nationwide, 63

Falls Church, 63

West Virginia, 65

multistate, 65

Middlebourne, 65

Tyler County, 65

Wisconsin, 66

Soldiers Grove, 66

Wyoming

see South Dakota, 54
83

Forms
✁

85

Reader Survey Form

To improve future editions of the Compendium, we would appreciate receiving your comments on this edition.

Please use the back of this form if you need more space.

Please reply to the questions below and return this form to:

 Mail to: Compendium of Exemplary Practices in Emergency Management

PT-SL-PL, Room 616

FEMA

500 C Street S.W.

Washington, DC 20472

Attention: Compendium Survey

Please check boxes, as appropriate.

❑ I have seen the Compendium.

My general goals in using the Compendium were to:

❑ Become aware of new disaster mitigation strategies.

❑ Identify programs around the country that are similar to ones I use.

❑ Locate specific sources of information.

❑ Locate specific sources of training and technical assistance.

❑ Locate specific sources of funding.

❑ Others; please specify: __________________________________________________

Overall, I thought the Compendium was:

❑ Very useful ❑ Somewhat useful ❑ Not useful

Please indicate the usefulness of the following:

Very useful Somewhat useful Not useful

Programs that address:

Damage assessment/reconstruction ________________ ________________ ________________

Disaster preparedness ________________ ________________ ________________

Emergency personnel ________________ ________________ ________________

Evacuation ________________ ________________ ________________

Hazardous materials ________________ ________________ ________________

Training/technical assistance ________________ ________________ ________________

Additional comments:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Optional)

Name ____________________________________________________________________________________________

Address __________________________________________________________________________________________

City________________________________________ State ______________________ ZIP ___________________

Telephone ( ) _____________________________ Fax ( ) _____________________________________
87

An Invitation for Nominations of

Exemplary Practices

In keeping with its goals for building a strong and effective emergency management system, FEMA continues to search for creative ways and means to

better utilize the resources that are available at the Federal, State, and local

levels of government, as well as in the private and volunteer sectors.

With “Partnerships in Preparedness” as its theme, FEMA’s new initiative,

the Compendium of Exemplary Practices in Emergency Management provides an

avenue for forging cooperation and leveraging emergency management talent

and resources throughout the public and private sectors, and pays tribute to

those who have developed such practices.

Criteria. An exemplary practice in emergency management is any practice,

project, program, technique, or method that works in one place and is worthy

of copying and can be copied elsewhere. It includes initiatives such as inventive coordination among organizations, volunteer projects and resource

sharing, and other innovative and highly effective emergency management

activities. Each nomination should include names of knowledgeable individuals who can provide further information on any practice described in the

Compendium.

Your nominations and suggestions are welcome at any time. Reproduced on

the next page is the “New Programs/Update Form.” This format is preferred

for your nominations, which may be sent to: Compendium of Exemplary

Practices in Emergency Management, PT–SL–PL, Room 616, FEMA, 500 C

Street S.W., Washington, DC 20472. All submissions will be reviewed by a

screening panel representing the broad spectrum of the emergency management community.

__________________________________________________________
✁

89

New Programs/Update Form

Please use this form to correct or add information to programs that appeared in the Compendium or to nominate

new programs for the next edition. To update, simply fill in the title of the program and the lines on which

information has changed.

Name of person filling out this form ________________________________________________________________

Telephone number ( ) _________________________________________________________________________

Exemplary Practices in Emergency Management

Name of Exemplary Practice and Acronym __________________________________________________________

Full Name of Contact Person _______________________________________________________________________

Title _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Name of Agency or Association ____________________________________________________________________

Street Address ___________________________________________________________________________________

City _____________________________________ State ______________________ ZIP ______________________

Telephone number ( ) __________________ Fax number __________________ E-mail _________________

Type of Exemplary Practice ________________________________________________________________________

Population Served (who will use this practice) _______________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Setting (where is this practice located, e.g., in “downtown” commercial area of a small city)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Startup Date (calendar year) ________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation Information (signs of success such as independent evaluations of the program and results, awards,

special recognition, and/or feedback from participants or community)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Annual Budget ___________________________________________________________________________________

Sources of Funding (be specific if they are foundations and/or Federal sources)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Program Description (goals and operation); please limit to 200 words on a separate page.

Mail to: Compendium of Exemplary Practices in Emergency Management

PT–SL–PL, Room 616

FEMA

500 C Street S.W.

Washington, DC 20472

Please also enclose a brochure or any other backup information that provides detail about the practice.