Hurricane Ike Facts - Essay Example

Hurricane IKE Introduction According to the data from the Hurricane center track, the National and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Hurricane Ike refers to an active tropical-weather system that hit the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico between august 28th and september13th, 2008. At 0600 Universal Time Coordinated (UTC) on September 1st 2008, a tropical wave about 1,250 kilometers west of the Cape Verde Island was recognized as a tropical depression. On the same day at 1200 UTC, Tropical storm Ike was officially declared as the 9th storm to have been witnessed during the 2008 hurricane season (UDHS, 2009). Moving to September 4th, at 0600 hurricane Ike had intensified and reached category -4 storm levels with winds of 231km.hr. On September 7th, Ike spread to parts of salty cay, grand turkey, and south Caicos Islands and made later on the same day made another landfall on the great Inagua islands in the southern Bahamas. On September 8th, there were subsequent landfalls near Cuba, Cabo Lucrecia, and on September 9th near San Cristobal in Cuba before the storm was finally witnessed at the Gulf of Mexico. From the Gulf of Mexico, Ike crossed the Gulf and at 0700. On September 13th it made a landfall alongside the northern end part of the Galveston Island, as strong type 2 storms with optimum constant winds of 175km/hr. this paper will highlight the general facts about Hurricane Ike and then analyze it in terms of mitigation, response, preparedness, and recovery measures. Finally, the paper will identify whether there any interpersonal or organizational conflict present in this scene. Hurricane Ike Facts Extent of Hurricane-Force Winds As per the statistical data provided by the accredited research division, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory Hurricane, hurricane Ike-force winds affected about 180km of coastline. However, the maximum wind-speeds were witnessed at the east parts of Galveston, Texas. The Ike Hurricane-force winds moved further, extended to the Texas-Louisiana border, and influenced much of the coast of Louisiana. Offshore Wave Climate Several of the moored buoys operated by the NOAA National data Buoy Center, captured the heights and periods of the Hurricane-Ike waves. At around 33 hours before the landfall, hurricane Ike was travelling within 28kilometers of Buoy 4200 in the Gulf of Mexico which is about 330 kilometers south of parts of southern, Louisiana (UDHS, 2009). The highest and significant wave height that was recorded at this point was 9.2 meters. Buoy 42035, moored in 13.7 meters of water east of Galveston, Texas, went adrift on September 12th and later on the day it travelled through the eye of hurricane Ike. On September 13th at 0400 UTC, the buoy recorded an optimum significant wave of 6.0 meters, 3 hours before hurricane Ike reached ashore in Galveston in Texas. Impact in the Gulf of Texas Moving towards the US Gulf Coast across the Gulf of Mexico, hurricane Ike was projected to reach the coast of Texas by the end of the week. From these projections, the state government announced mandatory evacuations for all residents living the in and near the areas projected to be affected. For further measures of preparedness, the Texas governor commissioned a number of 7, 5000 National Guard members standby incase of any casualty. In spite of all these measures, surveillance reports indicated Hurricane Ike killed 74 people in the gulf of Texas. Despite the government issuing vacation notice to the residents in the gulf of Texas, residents in the Galveston decided to stay put (Wen-Yao, Knox, & Hite, 2013). Residents were of the opinion that the place had been through so many hurricanes in the past. It was unfortunate that when they were realizing that they would be affected by the hurricane, all the escape routes to the mainland had already been cut off by Ike. The true danger of Ike was not based on its category, but it was accompanied by unusually large wind field, with its tropical storm force winds exceeding 275 miles out from the center. Additionally, the hurricane force winds of Ike exceeded 120 miles out. As a result, there was a formation of a storm surge comparable to a more intense type 4 hurricane. It impacted torrential rainfall, huge flooding, wind damage, as well as tornadoes. Right even after the eye of the storm passed, Galveston was already pelted by heavy rainfall and strong winds. Though not as severe as in Galveston, the damage of Ike spread to most parts of Texas, Louisiana, and parts of Arkansas. The aftermath of hurricane Ike was the true representation of the impact Ike had caused in the region. In terms of property destruction, it is estimated that property worth $29 billion were damaged as a result of hurricane Ike. Though this as the official estimation, it is generally believed that the true economic impact of hurricane Ike was bigger than this figure. It is estimated that 2.6 million homes were cut off from electricity. Harbors, beaches, houses, and roads were damaged. There were reports of destruction of several oil refineries, causing a sharp increase in the price of gas. Conclusively, hurricane Ike is the third costliest ever witnessed in western Hemisphere (Wen-Yao, Knox, & Hite, 2013). Thousands of livestock were destroyed as a result of Ike, and those few livestock that remained could not survive because there was no food. Residents were forced to sell them and buy other ones were grazing fields had grown grass. At the height of the hurricane, it was very difficult to evacuate the animals together with the people. Industries were among biggest causalities, as they were affected on a myriad of fronts. Due to power cut off, industries could not continue with production services for some time for a while. Analysis Mitigation The FEMA sent a Mitigation Assessment Team (MAT) tasked with the responsibility of assessing and evaluating the damage caused by Hurricane Ike (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009). The team also provided observations, conclusions as well as recommendations on the performance of structures affected by the flood force and wind. The team found out that Texas community has adopted floodplain management regulations that meet or surpasses minimum National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements. In addition, as part of mitigation efforts, Texas community has implemented model-building codes that either meet or exceeds NFIP requirements (FEMA, 2009). However, adherence to NFIP design and construction requirements were absent in some building. The MAT also noted that damages caused by wind was a result of lack of maintenance o buildings by the property owners, lack of or inadequate design guides during construction, insufficient standards and codes during construction as well as lack of understanding and adoption of wind-resistant construction and design practices (FEMA, 2009). As part of mitigating devastating effects of hurricanes, MAT recommended that all new manufactured homes should be elevated above the Base Floor Elevation (BFE) using flood and wind-resistance foundations like those specified by FEMA. Local governments and state should employ coastal restorations to mitigate erosion impacts and prohibit construction of properties on the shorelines (Cigler, 2009). FEMA should compel engineers to set the entire floor system at or above the BFE. Preparedness Preparedness is an important component of disaster management. The state communication personnel were adequately prepared to tackle Hurricane IKE. In particular, resources and extra relief were quick to arrive to areas that needed the assistance (Public Safety Communication, 2008). The state Telecommunicator Emergency Response Taskforce (TERT) played an integral in organizing and deploying relief teams. The TERT staff was adequately trained on disaster management. Various teams were deployed to support numerous agencies such as the Seabrook Police Department, the Galveston Sheriff’s Office, and Catastrophic Medical Operation Center. Since electricity cables were destroyed, relief team could not charge their radios and so they communicated using cell phones until backups arrived (Giammanco, 2013). In Texas, the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CPD) offers a broad range of training courses designed for healthcare professionals, firefighters and law enforcement that goes past classroom instructions. In addition, Mobile Training Teams (MTTs) offers a plethora of training opportunities such as public works, public safety communication, public health, law enforcement, health care, hazmat, governmental administration, fire, EMS as well as emergency management. Response By no doubt, response to disaster is an important ingredient of disaster management aimed at salvaging lives and property about to be lost. Immediately after the strike of Hurrikane Ike, first responders converged at the affected areas in the form of medical team, police, paramedics and search and rescue team. After sometime, well-established non-governmental organizations started mobilizing their volunteer teams and resources with expertise to assist the affected areas (FEMA, 2009). After evaluating the damage caused by Hurrikane IKE, volunteer networks, churches and local citizen groups coalesce to provide a broad range of aid to affected local residents. It took several days for responders to reach certain areas or before necessary service and supplies arrive. FEMA’s response following Hurricane Ike was commendable. In particular, FEMA and its partners were effectively prepared for this disaster (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2009). However, despite its response, FEMA demonstrated its weaknesses in handling disaster. For instance, FEMA failed to communicate to state its decision to send ice and water to affected areas and failed to adhere to tiered response principle that demands emergency top management officials to manage disaster at the lowest jurisdiction level possible. Besides, in some cases, base camp capacity outweighed demand, ice and water purchase far outweighed local requirements. Recovery Measures Recovery is a critical process when it comes to disaster management. There ought to be immediate mechanisms put in place to help recover property after disaster has stricken. There was a myriad of disaster recovery programs aimed at providing housing assistance t those individuals impacted by Hurricane Ike. One such a program was the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program (CDBGDRP) whose focus was to provide secure, sanitary and safe housing for low to moderate-income renters (The State of Texas, 2013). Seven weeks after Hurricane Ike, FEMA had disbursed $326 million for housing and other important needs, installed manufacturing housing for more than 300 families, had completed 359 housing inspections and had registered more than 700, 000 hurricane victims(UDHS, 2009). More than 100,000 hurricane victims were also assisted by FEMA. Other partners like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (UACE) also responded well to hurricane Ike. In particular, UACE temporary repaired more than 27,000 roofs and cleared more than 16 million cubic yards of debris. By the end of three months, FEMA had provided sheltering in motels and hotels for more than 26,000 families and opened 128 DRCs serving more than 128,000 hurricane victims (UDHS, 2009). Organizational Conflicts Effective response to a disaster demands close cooperation and coordination among individuals, the private sectors, non-profit organizations as well as all levels of government. Nevertheless, in this particular hurricane there were reports of various organizations having issues with each other when it came to management of the disaster. There was organizational conflict between Texas Governor’s Division of Emergency Management (GDEM) and FEMA when responding to Hurricane Ike. In April 2008, FEMA had announced that it would cease to provide ice to victims of disasters because it considered ice as not a life saving community (UDHS, 2009). This message was coordinated to GDEM, after which the Texas state decided it would provide its own ice water. Nevertheless, FEMA decided to send ice and water to victims of Hurricane, contrary to its earlier decision not to do so. The GDEM, on the other hand, had purchased and deployed ice and water to victims of Hurricane Ike. FEMA’’s decision to send ice and water to victims without informing GDEM led to organizational conflict between the two responders. Although GDEM asked FEMA to stop sending ice and water to the affected areas, it was too late and FEMA was compelled to melt the remaining ice because it was too expensive to store. Conclusion Hurricane Ike is accredited to a myriad of destruction that range from deaths to property destruction. By analysis the aftermath of this storm, the true picture of the kind of destruction it caused is better understood. In terms of property destruction, it is estimated that property worth $29 billion was damaged as a result of hurricane Ike. Though this is the official estimation of the damage this storm impacted, it is generally believed that the true damage of hurricane Ike was extremely huge bigger than reported. It is estimated that 2.6 million homes were cut off from electricity. Harbors, beaches, houses, and roads were damaged. There were reports of destruction of several oil refineries, causing a sharp increase in the price of gas. In terms of disaster management, the state Telecommunicator Emergency Response Taskforce (TERT) played an integral in organizing and deploying relief teams. The TERT staff was adequately trained on disaster management. Various teams were deployed to support numerous agencies such as the Seabrook Police Department, the Galveston Sheriff’s Office, and Catastrophic Medical Operation Center. Immediately after the strike of Hurrikane Ike, first responders converged at the affected areas in the form of medical team, police, paramedics and search and rescue team. After sometime, well established non-governmental organizations started mobilizing their volunteer teams and resources with expertise to assist the affected areas. There was a myriad of disaster recovery programs aimed at providing housing assistance to those individuals impacted by Hurricane Ike. One such a program was the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program (CDBGDRP) whose focus was to provide secure, sanitary and safe housing for low to moderate-income renters. There was a myriad of disaster recovery programs aimed at providing housing assistance t those individuals impacted by Hurricane Ike. One such a program was the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program (CDBGDRP) whose main focus was to provide secure, sanitary and safe housing for low to moderate-income renters. Though the government and other agencies tried to manage the situation hurricane Ike remains to be one of the hurricanes that have caused huge damage in the history of the southern hemisphere. References Cigler, B. (2009). Post-Katrina hazard mitigation on the Gulf Coast. Public Organization Review, 9(4), 325-341. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2009). Mitigation Assessment Team Report: Hurricane Ike in Texas and Louisiana. Retrieved 17th June, 2015, from http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1648-20490-2912/757_toc_execsum_final.pdf Giammanco, I. M. (2013). Lessons from hurricane IKE. Bulletin Of The American Meteorological Society, 94(9), 1413-1414. Public Safety Communication. (2008). Prepared Dispatchers: The TERT response to Hurrikane Ike. Retrieved 17th June, 2015, from http://www.njti-tert.org/pdf/PublicBroadcast_Nov2008.pdf U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2009). Management advisory report. FEMA’s response to Hurricane Ike. Retrieved 17th June, 2015, from https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_09_78_June09.pdf The State of Texas. (2013). Galveston County Landlord Assistance Program: Single Family Rental Guidelines. Retrieved 17th June, 2015, from http://www.galvestoncountytx.gov/hd/Documents/Single%20Family%20Rental%20Guidelines_Final%204-12-13.pdf Wen-Yao, G.W., Knox, K. J., & Hite, G. E. (2013). the impact of historical designation on Property values before and following hurricane Ike: the case of Galveston Texas. Journal of real estate portfolio management, 19(3), 225-234. Read More