The Role of the Department of War in U.S. Disaster Relief: A Quantitative Analysis of Federal Emergency Management Agency Mission Assignments

: Under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121) and as described in the Federal Response Plan, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the Executive Agent on behalf of the Department of Defense to accomplish Emergency Support Function #3 (ESF #3), Public Works and Engineering when the President declares a disaster. This effort occurs under the direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This SRP examines how USACE organizes at national and regional/local levels and how it plans, trains and prepares for the ESF #3 mission. It also examines USACE's success during the last nine years in interacting with FEMA and the Interagency to accomplish this function. The SRP evaluates USACE involvement in consequence management for both federally declared natural disasters and terrorist strikes. The SRP concentrates on Stafford Act disasters that occurred after 1992 because FEMA (and, hence, USACE) changed its approach after several poor performances prior to 1993. The SRP notes strengths and weaknesses in USACE's organization, planning, training and other preparations for the ESF #3 mission. It also concludes that USACE's successful approach to the ESF #3 mission can be replicated by government agencies at any level that are charged with other emergency support functions.

Building contractor John Pierciey stands in the gutted interior of a 1950s-era home in Manasquan, New Jersey. Wallboard, two layers of wood flooring, a layer of felt—all of it had to be ripped out to rid the house of mold caused by Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge. “This is the sixth house I’ve gutted in a week,” Pierciey says. “Every one is different. You don’t know what you’re going to find until you take them apart.” Residents and volunteers keep warm by a fire barrel in the New Dorp Beach neighborhood of Staten Island, 5 November 2012. Power outages persisted through a cold snap that put temperatures in the single digits. So it is with the environmental health impacts of Hurricane Sandy. Every layer of society, every type of building, has felt the impact of the storm, which struck the U.S. East Coast on 29 October 2012. Incidences of death and illness, though small in number compared with some storms, have come in many forms, the effects still unfolding as time goes by.

The final version of EC 1110-2-6067, “USACE Process for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Levee System Evaluation” was released on 31 August, 2010. The EC supersedes draft Engineer Technical Letter (ETL) 1110-2-570, “Certification of Levee Systems for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)” which was issued in September, 2007 and all other related policy memoranda related to “certification”. The draft ETL (a) provided interim guidance to Corps offices for their use in supporting the FEMA NFIP, and (b) provided an opportunity to solicit comments and suggestions for improving the content and applicability of the ETL. The review generated more than 1,100 comments which were addressed and incorporated into the EC. This document is applicable for all U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps) riverine, lake, and coastal National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) levee system evaluations. The purpose is to provide a consolidated document that will guide USACE procedures for levee system evaluations in support of the NFIP as administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This EC will supplement and clarify existing policy, procedural, and technical guidance and provide an overview of documentation requirements. Technical and procedural guidance in this EC are intended solely for use in USACE process for NFIP levee system evaluation of existing and new levee systems; it is not intended as design guidance. The EC summarizes existing policy and guidance previously distributed among various USACE documents and provides policy and guidance about topics not previously covered in relation to “levee certifications”, such as (a) use of “NFIP levee system evaluation” rather than “certification” as it emphasizes the complete levee system’s status with regard to requirements of both 44 CFR 65.10 and USACE guidelines, (b) requiring submittal to FEMA of an evaluation report, as opposed to issuing just a “certification” letter, (c) clarification of technical areas to include earthen closures, ice, seismic criteria, channels, and flood fight activities, and (d) requiring a minimum of two feet of freeboard to match FEMA’s minimum requirement. This paper will present background and discussions surrounding the development of this guidance and focuses on topics that generated many of the 1100 comments.

The U.S. government has debated eliminating the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and redirecting its funds to state immigration enforcement efforts, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), despite FEMA’s ongoing support for states in building resilience and speeding up disaster recovery, technically and financially. This study examines how FEMA assists states through three disaster phases: before (mitigation), during (response), and after (recovery), using a qualitative approach that highlights intergenerational environmental justice and equity, including vulnerable groups, environmental protection, and climate change. The study’s findings show FEMA’s effectiveness in reducing losses and the need for recovery funding, which not only lowers current disaster risks but also helps create a safer and more sustainable environment for future generations. The findings demonstrate FEMA's ongoing efforts to enhance its policies, promoting equity and inclusivity, and ensuring that minority and low-income communities receive equal assistance in disaster recovery. The analysis also reveals that FEMA helps protect local ecosystems and preserve wildlife habitats through its buyout program, which converts disaster-prone land into open space. This research contributes to the ongoing debate about integrating climate change considerations into disaster mitigation plans, thereby helping to safeguard future generations from the increasingly severe effects of disasters. Recommendations include passing new laws, dividing duties and funding between FEMA and ICE, creating an alternative funding source for ICE, and improving oversight and transparency in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It is essential to maintain FEMA because disaster funding continues to be a joint effort between FEMA and the states

Over the past four decades, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has evolved into the lead federal agency for disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation in the United States. This review traces the history and emergence of U.S. emergency management, the organizational structure and governance mechanisms across federal, state, and local levels, and FEMA’s specific role therein. Drawing on official reports, policy analyses, and academic studies, it assesses FEMA’s performance through multiple perspectives and models. Early shortcomings, notable reforms (such as those following Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina), and its all-hazards approach are discussed. FEMA’s major achievements – including strengthening hazard mitigation, professionalizing emergency management, and managing large-scale disaster responses – are highlighted alongside enduring challenges like coordination gaps, resource constraints, and evolving threats (e.g., climate change). We argue that despite criticisms, FEMA has significantly improved U.S. emergency management capacity and remains indispensable for national resilience. The paper concludes with evidence-based recommendations for reform: elevating FEMA’s authority, better integrating disaster programs across agencies, enhancing performance management, and preparing for future hazards. These reforms are grounded in scholarly analysis and reinforce the central thesis that a robust FEMA is both relevant and necessary for effective disaster management in the U.S.

Over the past decade, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has taken steps to strengthen its ability to plan and coordinate the U.S. government’s response to disasters, while the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has worked to improve its support to FEMA. This research reviews and analyzes how DoD and FEMA work together to plan and execute disaster response activities, and recommends areas for improvement.

Introduction, theoretical constructs, and conceptual foundations Development and Disaster Preparedness: The Delusion of Preparedness in the Face of Overwhelming Forces, J. Pinkowski Rising Disasters and their Reversal: An Identification of Vulnerability and Ways to Reduce It, R. Misomali and D. McEntire The Politics of Disaster Management: The Evolution of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, M.R. Daniels Katrina and her Waves: Presidential Leadership, Intergovernmental Disaster Management, and Hurricane Response and Recovery, B. Gerber and D.B. Cohen The Role of Coordination in Disaster Management, R. Prizzia CASE STUDIES AND LESSONS LEARNED: U.S. NATURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS A Different Approach to Disaster Recovery: Alaskan Earthquake Disaster Recovery, D. Ink Hurricane Hugo: Two States' Responses to the Disaster, N.S. Lind and P. Lafeber Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: The Critical Role of the Nonprofit Community in the San Antonio Disaster Response, S.A. Palomo-Gonzalez and D. Rahm Small Town Disaster Management: Lessons Learned from Katrina in Mississippi, J. Pinkowski and G. Bass Emergency Contracting for Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans Gulf Area, M.M. Dickens Johnson Debris Disposal and Recycling for the Cedar and Paradise Wildfires in San Diego, O. Debraal and W.T. Williams CASE STUDIES AND LESSONS LEARNED: INTERNATIONAL DISASTERS Disaster in the United States and Canada: The Case of the Red River, D.R. Kemp Variability of Natural Hazard Risk in the European Alps: Evidence from Damage Potential Exposed to Snow Avalanches, S. Fuchs and M. Keiler Disaster Management Structure in Turkey: Away from a Reactive and Paternalistic Approach? N.E. Ganapati HIV/AIDS in Africa: Botswana's Response to the Pandemic, K.C. Sharma and T. Seleke Toward Disaster Resilient Communities: A New Approach for India, Africa, and South Asia, U. Medury FIRST RESPONSE AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT National Incident Management System: Bringing Order to Chaos, B.J. Moeller Hospital Emergency Preparedness, N.V. Cagliuso, E.J. Lazar, A.N. Lazar, and L.J. Berger Media Relations and External Communications during a Disaster, M. Lee Responding to Natural Disasters: An Increased Military Response and Its Impact on Public Policy Administration, D.S. Miller, M. Pavelchak, R. Burnside, and J.D. Rivera Military Involvement in Disaster Response, J. Levinson HUMAN, PERSONAL, AND INTERPERSONAL ISSUES Disaster Management and Populations with Special Needs, S.J. Penner and C. Wachsmuth Disaster Psychology: A Dual Perspective, G. Coultman-Smith Managing the Spontaneous Volunteer, B.J. Gallant First Responders and Workforce Protection, P.J. Havice-Cover Disaster Rehabilitation: Towards a New Perspective, A. Dhameja The Half-Full Glass: How a Community Can Successfully Come Back Better and Stronger Post-Disaster, D.W. Sears and J.N. Reid PLANNING, PREVENTION, AND PREPAREDNESS The Role of Training in Disaster Management: The Case of Hawaii, R. Prizzia Disaster Management and Intergovernmental Relations, P. LaFeber and N.S. Lind Issues in Hospital Preparedness, R. Powers Strategic Planning for Emergency Managers, R. Sturgis Index

Through recurrent disasters, both natural and man-made, the US government has developed a sophisticated emergency and disaster response system, ranging from local to federal government responses. But in large-scale disasters, the number of professional responders and the response times may be inadequate both for the physical magnitude of the disaster area involved and the number of victims. With that experience in hand, the Los Angeles City Fire Department promoted the concept of citizen response and training in 1985, which is now known as the Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT). The CERT program seeks to educate the lay public in disaster preparedness and train volunteers in basic disaster response skills. Training has been made available through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Emergency Management Institute, and the National Fire Academy (http://www.citizencorps.gov/cert/). These teams can be used to promote awareness programs in the community and to be readily available in the event of a local incident. Their proximity to the event and knowledge of the area can be a valuable asset both prior to and after the arrival of professional responders. But building such a team from scratch can be a daunting challenge. Known more for their football program, this article describes the system built by the undergraduate student body of the University of Miami Hurricanes.

Excess CMS morbidity and FEMA declarations: Phenome Wide Association Study of Generalized Linear Model interactions between CMS diagnostic code utilization and FEMA Incident types, 1999-2020.

The quantification of coastal hazards caused by tropical cyclones (TCs) faces challenges due to insufficient historical observations, particularly for intense hurricanes, and other data limitations. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, a hybrid probabilistic/process-based modeling approach known as the Joint Probability Method (JPM) went through in-depth scruntinity and significant improvements, spurred by the Interagency Performance Evaluation Taskforce (IPET 2009). As a result of this forensic study, IPET developed the JPM with Optimal Sampling (JPM-OS) technique for the analysis of extreme coastal flooding resulting from hurricanes. This collaborative effort involved several U.S. federal agencies, the private sector, and academic researchers. The IPET’s JPM-OS became a standard for U.S. federal agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), for assessing coastal storm risks in areas susceptible to hurricanes. However, this led to the development of two distinct JPM-OS variants, each with different advantantages and limitations. Since then, JPM has informed numerous storm surge and hurricane hazard studies led by the federal government, academia, and private sector. During the last decade, considerable effort was made to address limitations of existing JPM-OS approaches. Advancements in multi-variate statistics and machine learning (ML) led to the development of a more robust version of the JPM called JPM Aided by Metamodel Prediction (JPM-AMP).

Major disasters continue to occur in Appalachian Kentucky with devastating consequences. A major disaster, defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as an event too large for a community to manage without outside help, involves emergency responders from the local, state, and federal disaster agencies, plus national volunteers. This paper reports on recent disasters in eight southeast Kentucky counties, the changing nature of these disasters, and the behavioral health impact on the people affected. In this large-scale disaster survey in the Appalachian counties in Southeast Kentucky, over 3,500 people were asked about their recent disaster experiences in 2021 and 2022. The Disaster, Impact, and Screening Survey (DISS) was used to explore the respondent's disaster history as a behavioral health client, general community member, or behavioral health professional, and how these views differed. Respondents reported a higher rate of disaster experiences and requests for assistance than U.S. population surveys. Behavioral health clients and general community members disaster were not significantly coordinated but comparisons between behavioral health professionals clients were. Types of disasters and their impacts showed COVID pandemic caused the most widespread stressors such as school closings and missed work. Disasters such flooding caused the respondents property damage and homelessness Combining how widespread types of stressors and disaster severity ratings showed property damage, school closing, and home damage as the stressors with the greatest behavioral health impacts. Academic researchers and policymakers have expressed a desire to better integrate behavioral health services into the national emergency response system. To translate research into practice, health professionals need to better understand the disasters that have occurred in their service area, the types of impacts of those disasters, and how people have reacted. Local health providers should be involved in disaster preparedness, response, and long-term recovery as part of community resilience teams.

Hurricane Katrina raised public awareness of the vulnerability of our nation's levees to failure, due either to deficiencies or an event exceeding design capacity. Prior to Katrina, however, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) formulated a program to better understand the location and condition of levee systems currently accredited as providing protection on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Following the formation of a Levee Coordination Committee, FEMA issued Procedure Memorandum 34 (PM 34) on August 22, 2005, just prior to Katrina (August 29, 2005), as an interim guidance on the levee policy. PM 34 established guidance for inventorying levee systems and establishing levee review protocol. As part of the levee review protocol, FEMA would provide an inventory of the levee systems. However, the owning agency requesting accreditation of the levee on the FEMA flood maps would be responsible for providing the levee certification and supporting analyses. In September 2007, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) released a draft Engineering Technical Letter (ETL) 1110-2-570, Certification of Levee Systems for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) (USACE, 2007) , which provides technical procedures for levee certification under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In September 2008, ETL 1110-2-570 was superseded by EC 1110-2-6067 (USACE, 2008) . To allow more time for the agency to complete levee certifications, FEMA issued PM 43 on September 25, 2006 allowing for the establishment of Provisionally Accredited Levees (PALs) whereby additional time is given to submit certification information. During that time, the levee can be shown on the FEMA flood maps as providing protection on a provisional basis. All existing levees accredited by FEMA as providing protection against a flood having a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (i.e. 1% annual chance, 100-year, or Base flood) must be certified or loose accreditation. Certifying the flood protection system requires conformance to 44 CFR 65.10 of the NFIP Regulations, Mapping of Areas Protected by Levee Systems (CFR 65.10, 1986) , and involves the evaluation of several major components, including: (1) Freeboard; (2) Closures; (3) Embankment Protection; (4) Embankment and Foundation Stability (Stability and Seepage); (5) Settlement; (6) Interior Drainage; and (7) Operations and Maintenance. Failure to submit requested documentation in the required timeframe, 2-years from the date of the PAL agreement, or studies indicate the system does not meet the requirements of CFR 65.10 results in previously protected areas being shown within the 100-year floodplain on FEMA's FIRMs. Refer to Figure 1 and Figure 2 for example FIRMs with and without accreditation, respectively. The same CFR 65.10 requirements apply to floodwalls. This paper addresses an overview of the hydrologic/hydraulic requirements for certification, including freeboard, uncertainty, and interior drainage .

The Dallas Floodway System (DFS) consists of 37 km of earthen levees, pump stations, gravity sluice gates, and pressure storm sewers along the Trinity River in Dallas, Texas. Construction of the original system was completed in the 1930s after the region experienced catastrophic flooding from the Trinity River in 1908. The DFS was strengthened in the 1950s by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In 2009, the USACE, through the Levee Safety Program, rated the DFS as Unacceptable during Periodic Inspection No. 9. As a result of this inspection, the USACE rescinded their letter of support for accreditation from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The City of Dallas worked with HNTB Corporation (HNTB) and the USACE to assess the levees anddesign improvements to the levees, including over 5,700 m of seepage cutoff walls. In March of 2012, the City of Dallas awarded Magnus Pacific Corporation (Magnus Pacific) the 100-year Levee Remediation - Cutoff Wall Improvement project, a critical step toward regaining the FEMA 100-year accreditation. Magnus Pacific was the prime contractor for the project, supported by specialty subcontractors Layne Geo and SMB Enterprises, Incorporated. This paper presents a case study of the levee assessment, design, and construction of over 5,700 m of seepage cutoff wall.

Duxbury Beach is a 5.5 mile long barrier beach system owned by Duxbury Beach Reservation. The barrier beach protects the landward harbors and shorefronts of the Towns of Duxbury, Kingston and Plymouth, Massachusetts and is the only land access to the isolated communities of Gurnet and Saquish in the Town of Plymouth. A critical aspect of the storm protection function of Duxbury Beach is the sacrificial dune which was constructed in 1992 after the October 1991 No Name storm (also called the Halloween nor'easter). As a result of a Presidential declaration of disaster, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) concluded that the very low post-storm elevation of the barrier posed a significant public safety concern and urged the Duxbury Beach Reservation to take immediate action to restore the barrier and raise the dune elevation. After consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), FEMA, based on its regulations, recommended that a sacrificial dune consisting of sand should be constructed to a consistent elevation of 16 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum). This is the peak elevation that would be reached during a hypothetical 5-year storm (an event predicted to occur, on average, once every five years), which includes wave run-up. Following its construction, winter storms eroded and overwashed some of the sacrificial dune; however, most sand from that dune is believed to be contained within the Duxbury Beach barrier system.

<p>In last decades, the importance of flood damage and loss estimation systems has increased significantly because of its social and economic outcomes. Flood damage and loss estimation systems are useful to understand possible impacts of flooding and prepare better resilience plans to manage and allocate resources for emergency decision makers. Recent web-based technologies can be utilized to create a system that can help to analyze flood impact both on the urban and rural area. With taking advantage of web-based systems, decision makers can observe effects of flooding considering many different scenarios with requiring less effort. Most of the emergency management plans have been created using paper-based maps or GIS (Geographical Information System) software. Paper-based materials generally illustrate floodplain maps and give basic instructions about what to do during flooding event and show main roads to evacuate people from their neighborhood. After the development of GIS (Geographic Information System) software, these plans have been prepared with giving more detail information about demographics, building, critical infrastructure etc.</p><p>With taking advantage of GIS, there are several software have been developed for the understanding of disaster impacts on the community. One of the widely-used GIS-based software called Hazus-MH (Multi-Hazard) which is created by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) can analyze disaster effects on both urban and rural area. Basically, it allows users to run a disaster simulation (earthquake, hurricane, and flood) to observe disaster effects. However, its capabilities are not broad as web-based technologies. Hazus-MH has some limitations in terms of working with specific software requirements, the ability to show a limited number of flood scenarios and lack of representing real time situation. For instance, the software is only compatible with Windows operated computers and specific version of ArcMap rather than other GIS software. Users must have GIS expertise to operate the software. In contrast, web-based system allows use to reduce all these limitations. Users can operate the system using the internet browser and do not require to have GIS knowledge. Thus, hundreds of people can connect to the system, observe flood impact in real time and explore their neighborhood to prepare for flooding.</p><p>In this study, Iowa Flood Damage Estimation Platform (IFDEP) is introduced. This platform is created using various data sources such as floodplain maps and rasters which are created by IFC (Iowa Flood Center), default Hazus-MH data, census data, National Structure Inventory, real-time USGS (United States Geological Survey) Stream gage data, real time IFC bridge sensor data, and flood forecast model which created by IFC. To estimate damage and loss, damage curves which are created by Army Corps of Engineers are implemented. All of these data are stored in PostgreSQL. Therefore, hundreds of different flood analyses can be queried with making cross-sectional analyses between floodplain data and census data. Regarding to level analyses which are defined by FEMA as three level, Level 3 type analysis can be done on the fly with using web-based technology. Furthermore, better and more accurate results are presented to the users. Using real-time stream gauge data and flood forecast data allow to demonstrate current and upcoming flood damage and loss which cannot be provided by current GIS-based desktop software. Furthermore, analyses are visualized using JavaScript and HTML5 for better illustration and communication rather than using limited visualization selection of GIS software.</p><p>To give the vision of this study, IFDEP can be widened using other data sources such as National Resources Inventory, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. census data, Tax Assessor building data, land use data and more. This can be easily done on the database side. Need to address that augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technologies can enhance to broad capabilities of this platform. For this purpose, Microsoft HoloLens can be utilized to connect IFDEP, real-time information can be visualized through the device. Therefore, IFDEP can be recruited both on headquarters for emergency managers and on the field for emergency management crew.</p>