The Diva is on vacation this week, so postings will be intermittent.

FEMA has issued a new document that titled Guide for Developing High-Quality Emergency Operations Plans for Houses of Worship, issued in June 2013. The full text (38 pp.) is available here.

On July 25, the agency provided an hour plus audio webinar on the report. The Diva attended, but was rather bored with the lengthy introduction of the document and the people involved in its preparation. The report is helpful, but not as useful as it might be in my opinion. I would like to see more specifics and some actual examples (some reality grounding); perhaps this can be accomplished in future editions of this document.

The Diva has had some first-hand experience with such a plan, having helped her place of worship obtain a small grant in order to write a plan and do staff training. Since the institution is in Washington, DC, it is not a problem getting the clergy, administration, and staff already were well aware of the need and were willing to get engaged.

Both the briefing and the Guide make some faulty assumptions, in my opinion. Much of what is offered does not get to the essentials of what houses of worship need – they need far less info on the FEMA approach to planning. The audience addressed consists of people whose focus is not emergency management primarily – so they will not get the nuances of emergency management jargon, engage in formal processes, and they not have a lot of time and help to get a plan written.

From my friend Pierre Picard in Toronto, some additional details re the posting yesterday. He writes that the  2013 Alberta floods recovery process will be long and challenging.

As stated in the article: “the Redford government unveiled a recovery plan for homeowners that bans new developments in floodways, but will pay for expenses to repair or rebuild damaged houses. However, future disaster assistance will not be offered to homeowners who rebuild in these designated floodways.” The Alberta Government new government policies will support homeowners’ rebuilding choices: building in flood risk areas, extra money for flood mitigation, future coverage, and future development in floodways. This Alberta Government chart summarizes the flood choices for Albertans.  For an example of flood hazard study and mapping: Alberta Flood Hazard and Identification Program.

This is in line with Public Safety Canada’s Guidelines for the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements Chapter III – General eligibility criteria, Section 3.6 flood damage eligibility, and the Financial Support to Provinces and Territories for 2011 Flood Mitigation Investments which established a costs share on a 50-50 basis between the Government of Canada, Provinces and Territories affected by flooding in 2011, and consisted of investments in permanent flood mitigation measures that are not otherwise eligible under the Federal Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA).  These mitigation measures included structural mitigation and non-structural mitigation: Federal Financial Support to Provinces and Territories for 2011 Permanent Flood Mitigation Investments Guidelines.

A June 24, 2013 article in the  Globe and Mail mentioned Alberta Shelved major flood report for six years includes a 2006 report (Provincial Flood Mitigation Report: Consultation and Recommendations) that identified 36 communities that required flood risk studies. In recommendations 10 of the 2006 report, the Chair states: “we recommend that the flood mitigation strategy include a cessation of the sale of crown lands in known flood risk areas.”  Additionally, the recommendation stipulates that “the sale of flood-prone crown lands creates the potential for increased financial liability for the province in terms of Disaster Recovery Program funding that must outweigh the short-term financial benefits of the sale,” is in line with your article.

In addition to your post “In Calgary, a call for a review of the Province’s role”, the Elliot Lake Inquiry mandated Mr. Justice (Ret’d) Paul R. Bélanger to inquire into and report on the collapse on June 23, 2012, of the Algo Centre Mall in Elliot Lake, Ontario, the two deaths and injuries to others as part 1, but also, the emergency management and response as part 2: “the events and relevant legislation, regulations and bylaws, policies processes and procedures of provincial and municipal governments and other parties in respect of the emergency management and response.  The public hearings began on March 4, 2013.  Although Canada’s Transportation Safety Board in holding off any comments in support of a public inquiry, the Quebec provincial government “hasn’t ruled out the possibility of a public inquiry into the derailment and explosion in Lac-Mégantic,” meanwhile, recovery will remains a long term challenge.

The recovery process will indeed be long and challenging. As stated in the article: “the Redford government unveiled a recovery plan for homeowners that bans new developments in floodways, but will pay for expenses to repair or rebuild damaged houses. However, future disaster assistance will not be offered to homeowners who rebuild in these designated floodways.” The Alberta Government new government policies will support homeowners’ rebuilding choices: building in flood risk areas, extra money for flood mitigation, future coverage, and future development in floodways. This Alberta Government chart summarizes the flood choices for Albertans.  For an example of flood hazard study and mapping: High River, Alberta.

This is in line with Public Safety Canada’s Guidelines for the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements Chapter III – General eligibility criteria, Section 3.6 flood damage eligibility, and the Financial Support to Provinces and Territories for 2011 Flood Mitigation Investments which established a costs share on a 50-50 basis between the Government of Canada, Provinces and Territories affected by flooding in 2011, and consisted of investments in permanent flood mitigation measures that are not otherwise eligible under the Federal Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA).  These mitigation measures included structural mitigation and non-structural mitigation: Federal Financial Support to Provinces and Territories for 2011 Permanent Flood Mitigation Investments Guidelines.

A June 24, 2013 published article from The Globe and Mail: Alberta Shelved major flood report for six years includes a 2006 report (Provincial Flood Mitigation Report: Consultation and Recommendations) that identified 36 communities that required flood risk studies. In recommendations 10 of the 2006 report, the Chair states: “we recommend that the flood mitigation strategy include a cessation of the sale of crown lands in known flood risk areas.”  Additionally, the recommendation stipulates that “the sale of flood-prone crown lands creates the potential for increased financial liability for the province in terms of Disaster Recovery Program funding that must outweigh the short-term financial benefits of the sale,” is in line with your article.

In addition to your post “In Calgary, a call for a review of the Province’s role”, the Elliot Lake Inquiry mandated Mr. Justice (Ret’d) Paul R. Bélanger to inquire into and report on the collapse on June 23, 2012, of the Algo Centre Mall in Elliot Lake, Ontario, the two deaths and injuries to others as part 1, but also, the emergency management and response as part 2: “the events and relevant legislation, regulations and bylaws, policies processes and procedures of provincial and municipal governments and other parties in respect of the emergency management and response.  The public hearings began on March 4, 2013.  Although Canada’s Transportation Safety Board in holding off any comments in support of a public inquiry, the Quebec provincial government “hasn’t ruled out the possibility of a public inquiry into the derailment and explosion in Lac-Mégantic,” meanwhile, recovery will remains a long term challenge.

A new report, featured in an article with a less than cheerful title: Due to Global Warming, End Is Virtually Certain for NYC, Boston, Miami, Holland

A new article in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), is headlined “The Multimillennial Sea-Level Commitment of Global Warming,” and it reports that because of carbon emissions that are virtually certain, on the basis of the lack of policy-response to global warming thus far, sea levels are now set to rise anywhere from around 8 inches to 7 feet within 100 years, and around 5 yards to 10 yards within 2,000 years.

The projections are clearer (within a narrower range) for the longer time-frame than for the shorter one. That’s because even if the short-term consequences of heat-rise turn out to be relatively slight, the longer-term consequences are clearer, and will be considerably larger, as delayed impacts kick in.

While reading the Economist magazine, I see a sizable no. of positions are available with the UN Development Program. The direct link is here.