FEMA Structures / Hazard Marking

[pjdohertygis]

Merge with https://github.com/pjdohertygis/SARandFirstResponderSurvey/issues/76

This could be part of the RST-1/2 Survey?

More work? We have been asked to add these as new waypoints, but feel this would add complexity, requiring multiple surveys to be filled out for one location.

Specialty? Can anyone make these determinations or only structural engineers? If so then maybe it could be a separate Survey pointing to the same service.

Another form? Should this be a separate survey? ATC-20 form?

[pjdohertygis]

Alternatively it may be simpler to just host the ATC-20 form or CUSEC Form for structural evaluations in the future and skip the structural hazard question altogether.

ATC-20 https://www.atcouncil.org/pdfs/DETAIL.PDF CUSEC https://safety-assessment-cusec.opendata.arcgis.com/

Regarding ATC-20 - actually no, this is not an ESF9 function and we should count on local hosting agencies to utilize this form. More on this below.

Brian –

Thank you for filling in some of the gaps! I’ve always wondered if the CUSEC template the same as ATC-20. We faced a similar issue in NZ with MBIE and their building inspection form, but eventually overcame this.

So I think a good strategy for now is – FEMA US&R and the National SAR Geospatial Coordination Group will not host an ATC-20/45 form or the CUSEC template. We will be aware of these and how they fit into the overall process and work with State and Locals who may host the templates (https://safety-assessment-cusec.opendata.arcgis.com/) themselves. For example, those using the CUSEC forms might want access to US&R wide area search or RST-1 data for situational awareness and prioritizing resources. The CUSEC Safety Assessment site is a great resource and I think the StS Sub Group and Plans Team Managers should make sure members are aware of it, but we need not confuse the majority of task force members with a form they’ll not likely use.

Does this sound like a good course of action?

• Paul

Paul Doherty, PhD Emergency Management Specialist Geospatial Office | HQ Response Mobile: 202-230-7438 paul.doherty@fema.dhs.gov

Federal Emergency Management Agency fema.gov

From: Brian Blake bblake@cusec.org Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 11:30 AM To: Dave Weber DWeber@allstateconsultants.net; Doherty, Paul paul.doherty@fema.dhs.gov Cc: Jared Doke (jdoke@publicsafetygis.org) jdoke@publicsafetygis.org; Jonathan Glassman jglassman@exponent.com Subject: RE: Survey123 Feedback and Questions

Hi Dave and Paul - just getting caught up here after being out of the office on vacation. Dave, thanks for looping me in. A few notes on our side, regarding ATC-20.

About five years ago, CUSEC began developing a “safety assessment app” based on Esri’s Collector, dashboard, and geoform apps. We originally replicated the ATC-20 (earthquake) and 45 (flood/wind) rapid and detailed forms but were swiftly told that duplication of their form into a digital format such as Collector/Survey123 was a violation of their intellectual property. We were not issued a cease and desist but, being a long standing partner of ours, we understand and respect their position.

So, we re-tooled the data model and design of the forms, to capture only the basic information most relevant to situational awareness for safety assessment, not the nitty gritty details. This was done after receiving feedback and from significant testing through exercises and real-world deployments with states having post-disaster safety assessment/ATC-20 programs (those include Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Indiana). The re-tooling of our forms speeds the data entry process, which was something exercise and testing field inspectors complained about being too long (the ATC forms are long and the inspectors tended to skip many of the fields).

Eventually, each of those states mentioned installed the tools we developed (and later refined) into their ArcGIS Online and are now using them, should the need for a deployment arise. Those tools have been used in Missouri and Tennessee in recent deployments.

For your review, you can get an idea of the data we are capturing by visiting our Safety Assessment App webpage at: https://safety-assessment-cusec.opendata.arcgis.com/

Specifically, there is a GeoForm: https://bit.ly/2H9bYE8 -- we also have a Survey123 version of all of this.

We developed this page so others could try the app out, access training documents, and be able to transition it to their own organization. The page was recently featured on one of the NAPSG webinars for earthquake response.

All of this is done in the spirit of sharing and we’re happy to help others adopt the application or provide additional details.

Hope this helps some and thanks very much,

Brian Blake CUSEC

[pjdohertygis]

The structure hazard symbols are needed for “sudden collapse” events (e.g. earthquake, large blast, etc.) and should be available all the time not turned on and off by event. We think the RST and Structure Hazard Rating processes are tactical in nature which don’t necessarily need to be tallied for reporting. In other words, RST is used for narrowing in on most productive locations to commit US&R resources and hazard ratings (typically done by STS) are for the safety of our possible sustained operations. We think it best to have a WAS Form with only PDA and an RST-Hazard Form that combines these two tactical functions. Our thought is that we could have one survey that requires the user to choose to expand the RST or Structure Hazard Rating options (possibly RST expanded by default). Only one or the other function should be able to be completed by the user. The Structure Hazard Rating option should produce the three symbols discussed below in item 2.e. and the RST option should produce one of the nine symbols discussed in 1.c. We envision the RST and Hazard options be based on appropriate (for phone app) highlights of the RST-1 and HAZ-1/3 forms (http://www.disasterengineer.org/, library, forms, corrected – all 17…) Also, we envision the RST option to have two pulldowns providing three options each which would yield one of the nine symbols if that makes sense. One important question we have is the home for the GIS data for RST-Hazard symbols. Does this information show up on the same applications as the WAS symbols or is there a separate “home” (e.g. web map, dashboard, etc.) for this information. We assume that if the RST-Hazard symbols show up on the overall applications, there will need to be a separate tally. Our preference would be to have the RST-Hazard information in a different viewing location than the WAS symbols to keep this clean. - Dave Weber

[pjdohertygis]

Implemented as part of RST/HAZ