My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD04420
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
FLOOD04420
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:46:10 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 12:38:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Community
Statewide
Stream Name
All
Basin
Statewide
Title
Flood Fight Operations
Date
8/1/1996
Prepared For
FEMA
Prepared By
FEMA
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
114
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />In addition to debriefing sessions, formal critiques are usually <br />held as the response system and community return to normal. Inter <br />and intra-agency critiques are a valuable feedback source, <br />particularly in dealing with coordination issues. <br /> <br />Notes <br /> <br />Intra-agency critiques may be held at several levels. A critique <br />is more formal than a debriefing session. An agenda is used to <br />guide the critique and topics for discussiQn may be drawn from the <br />suggestions and problem areas identified dwing the debriefing <br />process. While most debriefings are held face to face, some <br />agencies have been experimenting with questionnaires or surveys <br />to broaden the response base. Surveys may also provide for a <br />more definitive review of problem areas. As with debriefing <br />sessions, all information collected from intra-agency critiques <br />should be recorded and collated for future use. <br /> <br />Inter-agency critiques are usually held at the senior stafflevel. <br />The critique leader should strive to set a positive tone for the <br />session and be alert to defensive attitudes that can detract from the <br />information gathering process. While frank discussion should be <br />encouraged, it must be remembered that the purpose of the critique <br />is to find areas for improvement, not to fix areas of blame or fault. <br /> <br />At the completion of the debriefing and critique process, a final <br />report should be drafted. This report should capture key points of <br />information and become part of the response record. After action <br />reports may be used to rank areas or functions for improvement. <br /> <br />Hard data on the response effort should be collected and <br />preserved for future use and reference. Examples of hard data <br />include purchase orders and supply requests, man-hour estimates, <br />- -- -- - -TfnancIaloaTa and illUnage esttmates, legal documents, dIsaster <br />declarations, weather reports and bulletins, injury statistics, and <br />other related paperwork. This information can be used to validate <br />or improve planning assumptions. For example, planning <br />estimates of sand use can be compared with actual sand use figures <br />and, if necessary, adjustments can be made in planning documents <br />and resource lists. <br /> <br />Information on the extent and e.xact nature of the flooding <br />should be gathered. Since information on high water levels may be <br />perishable, provisions should be made to collect this data as soon <br />as the water recedes: . <br /> <br />Surveys are the best way to gather information on high water <br />levels. Survey teams should read still high water levels, which can <br />be obtained from the inside walls of buildings in the flood zone. <br /> <br />Page 10 - 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.