Hurricane Sandy and Emergency Plan

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Background
Analysis
Course of Action
Reference

Background

Primary Problem

Hurricane Sandy pounded the east coast in October 2012, wreaking havoc on densely populated areas of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut with strong winds, heavy rains, and record storm surge. Consequently, millions lost power, roads flooded, and thousands sought temporary shelter as their homes and businesses were destroyed. In addition, the main problem was that there was no proper level of interaction between the various services. Moreover, the question of how to determine the level of reliability of the coastal infrastructure was raised.

Secondary Problems

To begin with, Sandy highlighted the need to reconsider coastal development methods that favor expansion in susceptible locations. Second, the storm, which had been predicted months in advance, demonstrated the need of having a reliable weather and climate forecasting system during a period of budget cuts (Giles, 2018). Third, when it came to warnings about a particularly intricate severe weather danger, Sandy highlighted a divide between the weather community, disaster management professionals, and the general people.

Main Actors

New York governor Andrew Cuomo
Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
President Barak Obama
the New York City Fire Department (FDNY)
the New York City Police Department (NYPD)
the New York City Office of Emergency Management (NYC OEM)
the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)
the New York National Guard
the New York State Office of Emergency Management

The Stakeholders

In addition to those mentioned above, the main stakeholders are undoubtedly the residents of the state themselves. This is important for them since such events seriously affect the overall standard of living. Residents are interested in being provided with timely assistance and rehabilitation from the current situation. Moreover, another interested party is the government, which is focused on getting the most out of the outgoing situation (Giles, 2018). The use is understood as the desire to explore possible options for action in such situations in order to minimize them in the future.

Analysis

The Sources of the Problem

Hurricane Sandy sent a strong message: the constant pursuit of coastal development must be reconsidered. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates that 39 percent of the United States population lives in counties located on the coast. In the aftermath of Sandy, federal flood insurance policies that encourage expansion in susceptible places, as well as state and municipal rules that have unknowingly put people in danger, are being re-evaluated (Giles, 2018). In New York, one federally financed program allows the government to buy out homeowners whose property has been destroyed in the most disaster-prone areas rather than encouraging them to rebuild.

On several occasions, Andrew Cuomo has underlined the importance of redeveloping the state’s coastline in a more competent, more storm-resistant manner. Cuomo’s message, on the other hand, has done little to alter the existing quo. Policymakers have yet to develop a comprehensive plan to defend New York City against another severe storm surge (Giles, 2018). Projects like constructing a surge barrier at the harbor’s entrance, for example, were still in the planning stages.

Hurricane Sandy was just another example of the escalating costs of natural catastrophes for the insurance business, as well as a warning of the impending repercussions of sea-level rise and extreme weather occurrences. It is worth noting that Hurricane Sandy caused at least $70 billion in total damage, with insured losses of $35 billion (Giles, 2018). Hurricane Sandy served as a stark reminder that the coasts are becoming increasingly susceptible to storm surges as sea levels rise. Low-lying coastal locations with dense property concentrations may no longer be appropriate for construction and reconstruction. Insurers were hiking rates in coastal areas while urging the government to take measures to limit the danger of additional severe storms.

The National Weather Service was operating under a set of restrictions during Sandy that limited its ability to keep hurricane warnings in place when a hurricane transitioned into a post-tropical storm. It is worth noting that these rules have now been altered. Forecasters will have the option of extending tropical storm and hurricane warnings after a storm make the post-tropical transition, according to new standards developed in the aftermath of Sandy (Giles, 2018). Although it is unclear to what extent the lack of hurricane warnings influenced evacuation decisions, some have speculated that it may have influenced New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s decision to delay issuing evacuation orders until just 24 hours before the storm, limiting the number of people who were forced to evacuate.

A big Category 1 or 2 hurricane, such as Sandy, may devastate coastal areas just as severely as a tiny Category 3 storm. Furthermore, due to rising sea levels, any storm, be it a minor or significant hurricane, may be more catastrophic than a similar storm that occurred decades ago. Instead of forecasters emphasizing the category name alone, discussions are ongoing to communicate a broader spectrum of storm hazards.

Important Characteristics of the Actors

Hurricane Sandy was mainly a success story for weather forecasters, as breakthroughs in remote sensing and computer modeling techniques allowed meteorologists to correctly predict the storm’s route about a week ahead of time. Significantly, computer models predicted Sandy’s westward shift after traveling parallel to the East Coast, notably one prepared by the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (Giles, 2018). The storm entered the Mid-Atlantic states at a perpendicular angle, putting locations along and to the north of the storm’s core — all of New Jersey north of Atlantic City and southern New England — in the path of the fiercest winds and highest waves, maximum storm surge.

The federal government – led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – was the key actor in preparing for, and delivering recovery operations after, Hurricane Katrina. They began to position employees and assets in the expected damage regions before the storm made landfall, with help from other federal departments, and coordinated with state counterparts to organize possible disaster response and assistance. President Barack Obama authorized FEMA to establish the National Power Restoration Taskforce, whose mission was to reduce red tape, improve collaboration among government agencies at all levels and the business sector, and restore fuel and power as quickly as possible (Giles, 2018). These measures contrast sharply with how authorities responded to Hurricane Katrina; this time, FEMA was proactive rather than reactive. This is due in large part to legislation approved by Congress after Hurricane Katrina to restructure FEMA, allowing for better access to government resources as well as improved communication and coordination between federal, state, and local agencies.

Course of Action

Models

The National Hurricane Program (NHP) provides data, resources, and technical assistance for hurricane evacuation planning and response to state, municipal, tribal, territorial, and federal government partners. Hurricane evacuation and response planning activities span from steady-state purposeful planning to operational decision support and crisis planning when storms threaten the United States. Along with preparatory actions, the NHP provides emergency management with hurricane preparedness training, operational tools, and risk information to assist in evacuation and response choices. The National Hurricane Program is a collaboration between FEMA, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the NOAA National Hurricane Center.

Possible Courses of Action

Increasing investment in improving infrastructure to create reliable protection in coastal zones.
Creation of a more improved public notification system. To do this, it will be necessary to prepare specially designated areas in which people can be moved during the storm.
Limiting the possibility of settlement in a certain radius to coastal zones, which will avoid serious damage and human deaths.

These strategies can be evaluated according to such criteria as:

total economic costs.
risk factor for residents.
complexity of technical implementation.

Recommended Course of Action

The most optimal way to solve the problem is to create an improved public notification system. Thus, when there is a storm threat, all people within the threat radius will be evacuated and placed in a specially designated area. This zone should be designed and built in advance so that everything is prepared for such cases. Therefore, it will be the easiest way to avoid human casualties. Furthermore, this decision is more logical from the point of view that banning settlements in coastal zones can negatively affect both the economy and residents. The introduction of such structures will allow for more competent interaction with the population in an emergency situation. People will not be afraid that they will be forced to stay without a home for some time. Thus, it will create a greater level of mobility for special services that will be able to regulate the situation more effectively.

Reference

Giles, D. W. (2018). A cascade of emergencies: Responding to superstorm Sandy in New York City. Harvard Kennedy School, 1–13.

Click Here To Order Now!