IEM Team to Develop Catastrophic Hurricane Disaster Plan for New Orleans & SE Louisiana

IEM press release ^ | June 3, 2004 | IEM

[FBD]

You are right about the cops being corrupt. My kids lived there. My son and daughter in law had to evacuate. My son in law was also there, in the Coast Guard...he had just transferred out of there in May
They told me last year when I visited how most of the cops were corrupt. Seriously corrupt.

But there are (were) a lot of good people in that city: oil refinery workers, roughnecks, divers (like my son) fishermen, tug boaters, river pilots, chemical and factory workers...plenty of salt of the earth people.

Granted, the city of N.O. had it's criminal and welfare folks, but like anywhere, the workaday folks that you never saw or heard about on the news were there too. They just got in their cars, and left.

--------------------------

---

Jane Austin:
>"21.4% would remain in their homes. That 21.4% of respondents would remain in their homes is a startling and important statistic. This , because it indicates that nearly 1 in 4 New Orleans residents would refuse to leave their homes as a possibly deadly major hurricane approaches the City."<

-They get many hurricane warnings every year, that after awhile, people get jaded, I think. So, that's why many stay.

Last year, during hurricane Ivan, my daughter and son-in-law evacuated, drove a couple hundred miles inland, spent a couple hundred bucks on gas, food and lodging, and Ivan completely missed them.

My son, on the other hand, stayed home, saved two hundred bucks, and nothing happened. Lucikly, this time, he evacuated before Katrina hit... But, after a false alarm happens to people a couple times, they start thinking: "I can weather the storm, and why waste a two to three hundred bucks on evacuating, for food, gas and shelter, when nothing is going to happen? It's the old cry wolf syndrome; people get lackadaisical...

[FBD]

thanks for the link, by the way!
regards

[motogrrl]

It appears that the criticism of Witt -- who was supposedly a partner in this project -- was premature: http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/199284.htm

In May of 2004, IEM included James Lee Witt Associates, LLC in their proposal to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for developing a FEMA Catastrophic Plan for Southeast Louisiana and the New Madrid Seismic Zone.

After the proposal was submitted to FEMA, James Lee Witt Associates was not approached again by IEM, nor did JLWA have any involvement whatsoever in the project.

[American in Israel]

Yeah, throw money at a new plan. They did not follow the old plan, I am sure they will enjoy having a new multi-million dollar plan to ignore.

[Natty Bumppo@frontier.net]

I wrote this on an earlier thread, but it bears repeating and I although I was wrong about the "brother-in-law," James Lee Witt more than proofs the point:

To anyone with a "Been There, Done That" t-shirt, the plan (even at a high level) is not executable on its face. You don't "scout for undamaged or lightly damaged facilities" after the fact, because if you are planning for a major disaster you have to assume there won't be much operable or else it wouldn't be a major disaster.

You need to preplan your recovery and relief centers outside the radius of the disaster.

I am guessing that the government of New Orleans shoveled bushels of money at someone's brother-in-law posing as a consultant to get this piece of dreck.

Every USMC officer and senior noncom I have ever been privileged to serve with would have the following in big, bold, letters on the front page of a real disaster relief plan:

"Assumptions:

1. The environment will be uncertain at best, and may be hostile.

2. Triple all "official" estimates of evacuees and casualties.

3. All basic services will have failed. Otherwise, this wouldn't be a disaster. The operation must be completely self sustaining, and capable of sustaining the number of people determined in bullet number two.

4. Medical services to be provided will include care for cardiac and obstetric emergencies.

5. The official policy may be "No Pets," but the evacuees are going to try and bring them anyway. Pray that someone doesn't own a horse.

6. We will evacuate the dead. No American gets left behind.
7. Plan on establishing a Forward Command Element onsite, as soon as possible.

8. Three courses of action, minimum: One Surface, One Air, One combined Surface and Air.

9. Airlift is the limiting function. 95% of what you need will have to be moved by surface. The other 5% that goes by air had better be limited to the stuff and personnel you absolutely have to have right now.

10. Provide for the ability to dig big and really deep holes for latrines. MREs produce strange results from the human digestive system.

11. Although you have to work with them, at best local authorities won't get in your way. At worst, declarations of hostilities may be needed."

There's more, but someone with more recent experience in rapid response planning for a Marine Expeditionary Unit will have to list them.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you. If you were James Lee Witt you could $500k for something a lot less workable than that, evidently.

[Interesting Times]

Ping.

[zot]

Thanks for the ping.

It's very simple. The present mission of James Lee Witt is to maximize the amount of federal money given to Louisana.

[Petronski]

Now THAT is a GREAT find!

[syriacus]

"The office of Emergency Preparedness and the city decided that the Dome would not be operated as a shelter," he said. "That means we are not equipped as one."

The city previously provided shelters for those unable to leave when storms threaten. Now, the Red Cross will not set up shelters for a storm larger than a Category 2, saying New Orleans -- much of which is below sea level -- is not safe in bigger storms. Because of that, the city concentrates on evacuation first.

From a planning standpoint, Nagin said he did not regret keeping the Superdome from use until the last minute. "As far as an empathy standpoint," he conceded, "we could have moved a little quicker."

Is it me, or is this a lot of doubletalk?

[Howlin]

It is not you; in fact, it might be triple talk.

[Freedom is eternally right]

http://www.lepa.org/Newsletter/Spring_2005.pdf

Louisiana Catastrophic Hurricane Planning Workshop
Brad Tiffee, IEM, Inc.
Sean R. Fontenot, LOHSEP

From July 16–23, 2004, over 300 participants from Federal, State, local, and volunteer agencies participated in the Louisiana Catastrophic Hurricane Planning Workshop at the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (LOHSEP) in Baton Rouge. The purpose of the workshop was to develop functional plans for response to and recovery from a catastrophic hurricane striking southeast Louisiana, including the City of New Orleans.

Driven by a predetermined scenario, entitled Hurricane Pam, the participants developed 15 functional plans over the course of the week, including: pre-landfall activities; unwatering of leveeenclosed areas; hazardous materials; billeting of response personnel; distribution of power, water, and ice; transport from water to shelter; volunteer and donations management; external affairs; access control and re-entry; debris; schools; search and rescue; sheltering; temporary housing; and temporary medical care.

The scenario involved a slow-moving Category 3 storm making landfall near Grand Isle in the early morning. In the scenario, the storm, sustaining winds of 120 mph at landfall, spawned tornados, destroyed over 75% of the structures in its path, and left the majority of New Orleans under 15–20 feet of water. The workshop was sponsored by FEMA and LOHSEP, with a weather scenario designed by the National Weather Service and damage and consequences developed by IEM, Inc. of Baton Rouge. IEM, Inc. also facilitated the workshop sessions.

From November 29–December 3, over 90 participants met in New Orleans to continue planning for three topics: sheltering, temporary housing, and temporary medical care. These three topics were chosen by the workshop’s Unified Command as areas that needed continued group planning.

The outcome of these workshops is a series of functional plans that may be implemented immediately. Along with these plans, resource shortfalls were identified early, saving valuable time in the event an actual response is warranted. It is because of the dedication of every workshop participant that Louisiana is much better prepared for a catastrophic hurricane.

[syriacus]

Driven by a predetermined scenario, entitled Hurricane Pam, the participants developed 15 functional plans over the course of the week,

I'd love to see the what the "functional plans" of the workshop actually said about evacuation, and what they actually said about the use of the Superdome and the Convention center.

Maybe someone's already posted these details from the "functional plans."

[Freedom is eternally right]

Pam Exercise

Preliminary data from the survey are now available. Overall, 68.8% of respondents would leave the area, 9.8% would leave their homes but remain in the area, and 21.4% would remain in their homes. That 21.4% of respondents would remain in their homes is a startling and important statistic. This , because it indicates that nearly 1 in 4 New Orleans residents would refuse to leave their homes as a possibly deadly major hurricane approaches the City.
[SNIP]
Air evacuations by helicopter will ensure the evacuation of thousands a day, but at the same time there will have to be mechanisms set up to get food, water and medicines to those trapped. An “Operation Dunkirk” effort will have to be launched from the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain, utilizing sport fishing and recreational boats to collect stranded New Orleans residents from the levees on the north side. On the south side, barges and commercial vessels will do their own river evacuations to centers such as Baton Rouge. Within the flooded city, where water levels in many areas will reach the eaves of houses, another small craft operation will have to be set up moving people and supplies to and from their places of refuge to the levees (high ground) and vice versa. This “Operation Dunkirk” evacuation and supply operation, using mostly volunteers, is going to require significant planning. Each crew will need emergency supplies and radio/cellular phone communications, a stock of medicines, and medical experts with whom to communicate. Insurance issues and waivers will have to be negotiated.

From another research paper:

We described many of our results in our last report. Particularly interesting was the finding that individuals who had lived in the area longer and those who had experienced a major storm are actually less likely to leave than those with shorter tenure in the area and residents who had not “ridden through” a major storm. As we have explored those findings, anecdotal evidence suggests that a “culture” of sorts may exist in New Orleans which encourages residents not to evacuate, even in the face of a major storm.
We have extended these preliminary analyses in two ways. First, we are now exploring the health correlates of evacuation. We find that individuals who are in “good,” “excellent,” and even “fair” health are much more likely to report that they would evacuate than those who are in “poor” health: 73 % of those in “excellent” health, 70% of those in “good” health, 68% of those in “fair” health, but only 43% of those in “poor” health report that they would leave the area. We find similar patterns for mental health and disability. Of those with low levels of depression, 72% would evacuate, whereas 65% of those at middle levels and 56% of those at high levels would do so. Only 53% of those with a disability, compared to 71% of those without would leave the area. Psychological resources also appear to be consequential, with individuals with better coping skills more likely to say that they would leave the area than those with lower levels of mastery. Individuals reporting higher levels of social support are more likely to say that they would evacuate than those with lower levels of support.

Annual Report
These papers also have info about traffic flow during evacuation and the problems New Orleans will have. Haven't found anything yet about specific shelters except from the plan that is on the OHSLA website.

[syriacus]

You are good

9.8% would leave their homes but remain in the area, and 21.4% would remain in their homes. That 21.4% of respondents would remain in their homes is a startling and important statistic.

That 9.8% mentioned in the study, as remaining someplace else in the area, is also important.

People who evacuated to "stronger" homes of friends and family in New Orleans, thought they were safer, but still were at great risk.

Here's another study that Nagin should have been aware of...which also discussed the reluctance of people to evacuate, and/or to evacuate at a safe enough distance.

Citizen Hurricane Evacuation Behavior in Southeastern Louisiana: A Twelve Parish Survey Released by The Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Taskforce, July 2005.

The study concluded (page 6) that

The number of low income residents who remain in harm’s way illustrates the need for both education about the need to
[1] travel far enough
and
[2] providing evacuation assistance to those without means

1. I don't think Nagin emphatically told his poorer constituents that they needed to evacuate at a distance, to high land, rather than take shelter in a friend's "stronger" home.
2. I know I don't have to ask if Nagin sent buses to evacuate his poorer constituents.

[alrea]

One blog reports that after Katrina hit, IEM removed the press release announcing their contract from their website

journalists and a few hundred lawyers are already making this complicated enough so blame can be obscured before elections

[BallparkBoys]

save for later

[Darnright]

In addition, lookee here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/law/news/wdl20041129.html


November 29, 2004


(FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE)



THREE STATE OFFICIALS INDICTED FOR
OBSTRUCTING FEDERAL AUDIT

Shreveport, Louisiana . . . A federal grand jury has returned two separate indictments charging three members of the State Military Department with offenses related to the obstruction of an audit of the use of federal funds for flood mitigation activities throughout Louisiana, United States Attorney Donald W. Washington announced today.

Two of the individuals charged, MICHAEL C. APPE, 51, of Mandeville, Louisiana, and MICHAEL L. BROWN, 61, of St. Francisville, Louisiana, are senior employees of the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. Both APPE and BROWN are charged with conspiracy to obstruct a federal audit; BROWN is additionally charged with making a false statement.

The Hazardous Mitigation Grant Program is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and is designed to fund mitigation projects to prevent future flood losses or flood claims made upon the National Flood Insurance Program. BROWN was responsible for overall management the program in Louisiana; APPE was responsible for managing employees who perform fiscal transactions regarding these funds.

The indictment alleges that during an audit of the program being conducted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security-Office of Inspector General, a State Military Department employee realized that $175,000 in expenditures of federal monies was improper in that the money was not used for purposes authorized by the federal program and would therefore have to be re-paid to the federal government. This employee notified APPE, who in turn directed the employee to provide false documents to the federal auditors.

Specifically, the indictment alleges that APPE directed an employee to contact an assistant to BROWN and have them prepare a false, backdated memo to make it appear that the expenditures were proper. The false document was created and was subsequently signed by BROWN. APPE and BROWN then sent the false, backdated memo to federal auditors. The indictment alleges that BROWN told federal auditors that he signed the document in May 2000, when in fact he knew he had signed the document in January 2004.

Also indicted was DANIEL J. FALANGA, 53, of Folsom, Louisiana, for committing perjury before a federal grand jury. FALANGA was an employee of the State Military Department in charge of the State Mitigation Office. The indictment charges him with testifying falsely before the grand jury concerning his access to a “repetitive loss list.” The repetitive loss list is a listing of properties that have suffered two or more flood losses in a ten year period.

An indictment is merely an accusation and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. Defendants are entitled to a presumption of innocence under the law, and the government has the burden of proving every element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sentencing in federal court is governed by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, actual sentences are based upon a formula that takes into account the severity and characteristics of the offense, and a defendant’s criminal history, if any. Parole has been abolished in the federal system.

If convicted, APPE and BROWN face a maximum sentence of up to 5 years in prison, a $250,000 fine, or both, on each count. If convicted, FALANGA will face a maximum penalty of up to 5 years in prison, a $250,000 fine, or both.

This case was investigated by Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander C. Van Hook.

For further information, please contact United States Attorney Donald W. Washington at 337-262-6618 or First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Flanagan at 318-676-3600.

This and other press releases issued by the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Louisiana can be found at our website at www.usdoj.gov/usao/law.

[Tunehead54]

Reference - reminder bump = Thanks! ;-)