Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:56:30.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Utilization of Military Support in the Response to Hurricane Marilyn: Implications for Future Military-Civilian Cooperation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Michael Weddle  and
Hugo Prado-Monje
Michael Weddle*
Affiliation:
Emergency Health Services, University of Maryland-Baltimore County Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Hugo Prado-Monje
Affiliation:
Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Relief Coordination Program, Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC, USA.
*
Assistant Professor for Research Emergency Health Service University of Maryland Baltimore County 1000 Hill Top circle Baltimore, MD 21250 Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

The past decade has been a period of evolution for the Federal disaster response system within the United States. Two domestic hurricanes were pivotal events that influenced the methods used for organizing Federal disaster assistance. The lessons of Hurricane Hugo (1989) and Hurricane Andrew (1992) were incorporated into the successful response to Hurricane Marilyn in the U.S. Virgin Islands in 1995. Following each of these storms, the Department of Defense was a major component of the response by the health sector. Despite progress in many areas, lack of clear communication between military and civilian managers and confusion among those requesting Department of Defense health resources may remain as obstacles to rapid response.

Methods:

This discussion is based on an unpublished case report utilizing interviews with military and civilian managers involved in the Hurricane Marilyn response.

Results:

The findings suggest that out-of-channel pathways normally utilized in the warning and emergency phase of the response remained operational after more formal civilian-military communication pathways and local assessment capability had been established.

Conclusion:

It is concluded that delays may be avoided if the system in place was to make all active pathways for the request and validation of military resources visible to the designated Federal managers located within the area of operations.

Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 1999 , pp. 49 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Morrow, BH, Ragsdale, AK: Early Response to Hurricane Marilyn in the US Virgin Islands. Quick Response Report #82. National Hazards Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. 1996.Google Scholar
2. Weddle, MG: Health Sector Military-Civilian Cooperation in Disaster Response. A Case Study of the Response to Hurricane Marilyn in the U.S. Virgin Islands, September, 1995. Regional Disaster Information Center for Latin America and the Caribbean, Pan-American Health Organization. 1998.Google Scholar
3. The Department of Defense: Department of Defense Manual for Civil Emergencies. Report No. Department of Defense 3025. 1-M.June 1994.Google Scholar
4. U.S. Public Health Service, Office of Emergency Preparedness and the National Disaster Medical System: ESF#8 Health and Medical Services Hurricane Marilyn After Action Study. March 1996.Google Scholar
5. Robert, T. Stafford Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief Act. Public Law 93–288, as amended by Public Law 100–707, 42 U.S.C. 5121, et seq. 23 November, 1988.Google Scholar
6. Gabordi, R: Governor Says he requested Federal troops. The V.I. Daily News. 25 September, 1989; p 3.Google Scholar
7. Hevesi, D: Bush dispatches troops to island in storm's wake. The N.Y. Times. 21 September, 1989; p A1, B19.Google Scholar
8. Associated Press: St. Croix residents start picking up pieces. The V.I. Daily News. 26 September, 1989; p 5.Google Scholar
9. The Federal Response Plan, for Public Law 93–288, as amended. April 1992.Google Scholar
10. Andrews, EL: Urgency is growing. The N.Y. Times. 28 August, 1992; pp A1, A14.Google Scholar
11. The National Disaster Medical System: The National Disaster Medical System Strategic Vision. 27 July, 1994.Google Scholar
12. Pear, R: Breakdown seen in U.S. storm aid. The NY. Times. 29 August, 1992; pp A1, A8.Google Scholar
13. U.S. Public Health Service, Office of Emergency Preparedness and The National Disaster Medical System: Hurricane Andrew Health and Medical Response Demobilization Debriefing Conference. January 1993.Google Scholar
14. U.S. General Accounting Office: Disaster Management. Recent Disasters Demonstrate the Need to Improve the Nation's Response Strategy. GAO/TRCED-93-4. 27 January, 1993.Google Scholar
15. The Department of Defense: Military Support to Civil Authorities. Department of Defense Directive 3025.1. 15 January, 1993.Google Scholar
16. Center for Army Lessons Learned: Operations other than war. Vol. II, Disaster Assistance. Newsletter 93-6. Ft. Leavenworth, KS. CALL; Last Update:17 January, 1997.Google Scholar
17. Air Land Sea Application Center, Department of Defense: Multi-Service Procedures for Foreign Humanitarian Assistance Operations. Draft Version 2. 24 September, 1993.Google Scholar
18. The National Academy of Public Administration: The Role of the National Guard in Emergency Preparedness and Response. Washington, D.C. NAPA; January 1997.Google Scholar
19. United States Code, Statute 10 U.S.C. 331, et seq.Google Scholar
20. Hurricane Marilyn Chronology: Minutes of the daily Emergency Response Team meetings at the Disaster Field Office. Unpublished. September-October, 1995.Google Scholar
21. Claxton, M: Devastation: Islands begin rebuilding. The V.I. Daily News. 18 September, 1995; p 1.Google Scholar
22. Grapinski, D: Department of Defense Response to Disaster Relief. U.S. Army Engineer Center, Engineer Personnel Proponency Office. Unpublished. 1995.Google Scholar
23. Director of Military Support: Chief of Plans Branch telephone log. Unpublished. September-October, 1995.Google Scholar
24. Centers for Disease Control: Surveillance for injuries and illness and rapid health as Needs assessment following Hurricane Marilyn and Opal, September-October 1995. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1996;45:81–85.Google Scholar
25. Centers for Disease Control: Deaths associated with Hurricanes Marilyn and Opal æ United States, September-October 1995. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1996;45:32–38.Google Scholar
26. Officials, CM: Relief in days. The V.I. Daily News. 19 September,1995; pp 1,2.Google Scholar
27. Director of Military Support: Director of Military Supports Mission Assignment Log. Unpublished. September-October, 1995.Google Scholar
28. Deal, VT: Interview by Cynthia Hayden, Command Historian, XVIII Airborne Corps. The Center for Army Lessons Learned. Ft. Leavenworth, KS. CALL; 31 October, 1995.Google Scholar
29. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Emergency Support Team Situation Report #18P. St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. Federal Emergency Management Agency; 26 September, 1995.Google Scholar
30. Gunn, SW: Humanitarian, noncombat role for the military. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1994;9:S46–48.Google Scholar
31. Sharp, TW, Yip, R, Malone, JD: Military forces and emergency international humanitarian assistance. JAMA 1994;272: 386–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Byrd, TR: Disaster medicine: Toward a more rational approach. Milit Med 1980;145:270–273.Google Scholar
33. Gibbs, T: Impact of hurricanes on health facilities: a Case Study. International Conference on Disaster Mitigation in Health Facilities. Mexico, D.F. 26-28 February, 1996.Google Scholar