Disaster Debris Management and the Maine Floods of 2023

Publication Date: 2024

Abstract

A severe storm and subsequent flooding struck parts of Maine in December of 2023. The event devastated communities with record high flood levels, with significant damage to buildings and infrastructure. Specifically, debris generation made up a notable portion of these damages in the form of fallen trees and construction and demolition waste. This study examines disaster debris management in the preparedness, response, and recovery phases of the floods by conducting structured interviews with emergency management personnel involved with debris management. Interview transcriptions were analyzed through open and focused coding to generate four themes: debris management planning, resource constraints, home rule, and concerns over more extreme weather events. This research uses these themes to develop recommendations for providing resources to Maine localities to create debris management plans. This involves the development of partnerships between state and local emergency management agencies and academics to assist with grant writing to address resource constraints. Additionally, coalitions of stakeholders with diverse backgrounds in debris management should be formed to develop guidelines to tailor debris management plans to a given area’s needs.

Introduction

A severe storm and flood occurred in Maine in December of 2023 when the Androscogin River in Rumford reached historic levels (Wight, 2023¹). The National Weather Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association classified this event as central Maine’s most severe flood since the colossal floods of 1987 (Lowell, 2023²). The record high rains and winds resulted in flood damage to buildings and infrastructure, widespread power outages, and vegetative debris from downed trees (Riccitelli, 2023³). In the days following the floods, residents struggled with cleanup efforts as temperatures began to fall below freezing (Miller, 2023⁴).

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) granted a major disaster declaration to Maine on January 30, 2024, to provide federal assistance for the flood damage (FEMA, 2024a⁵). This included Individual and Public Assistance to designated counties (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 2024a). Individual Assistance provides federal financial assistance and other services to eligible individuals and households that are impacted by disasters, and have uninsured or underinsured essential needs (FEMA, 2024b⁶). Public Assistance provides funds for public damage following a major disaster declaration and consists of seven different types of damage categories (FEMA, 2023⁷). Category A Public Assistance covers public damage costs pertaining to debris removal (FEMA, 2023). FEMA designated 10 counties in Maine as eligible for Category A Public Assistance (FEMA, 2024a), including Oxford County, which incurred an estimated $5.7 million in damages (Budion, 2024⁸).

Past studies detect a positive correlation between frequent debris generating events and robust debris management planning (Crowley, 2020⁹). However, there is a dearth of studies that examine disaster debris management in areas that do not have a history of frequently experiencing debris generating events. This research aims to fill this gap by examining debris management in the preparedness, response, and recovery phases for the Maine floods of December 2023. The subsequent literature review section will provide a detailed overview of debris management with an emphasis on the role of debris in each of the emergency management phases.

Literature Review

FEMA (2012)¹⁰ formally defines disaster debris as the “scattered items or materials either broken or misplaced by a disaster” (p. vii). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2019)¹¹ further specifies that common types of disaster debris include, but are not limited to, vegetative debris, construction and demolition waste, vehicles and vessels, household hazardous waste, white goods (large home appliances), putrescent waste (waste that decomposes or rots), oil-contaminated waste, municipal solid waste, and commingled debris. The process of debris management consists of the clearing and disposal of disaster-generated items (McEntire, 2006¹²). Debris clearance aims to remove disaster debris from main roads so that emergency vehicles can access the disaster sites (Çelik et al., 2015¹³). Debris disposal involves removing mixed debris from temporary debris management sites to an approved landfill (FEMA, 2012).

Moving from debris clearance to disposal typically requires several additional steps, with common examples including the establishment of temporary debris management sites for staging and sorting (Habib & Sarkar, 2017¹⁴), recycling salvageable materials (FEMA, 2012), and mulching eligible vegetative debris (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2019). Furthermore, the complexity of debris management typically calls for several different agencies and levels of government in the entire process (Luther, 2017¹⁵). Examples include the county emergency management agency, local public works and waste management departments, the state emergency management agency, FEMA, and voluntary disaster relief organizations like the Red Cross.

Disaster Debris Management in the Preparedness Phase

Debris management challenges from large-scale disaster events like Hurricane Katrina prompted discussions on the importance of pre-disaster debris management planning (Brown & Milke, 2009¹⁶), such as the development of federal incentive programs for debris management planning. The original Public Assistance Pilot Program for Debris Removal began in 2007 and provided an additional five-percent federal cost share following a major disaster declaration for localities with FEMA-approved debris management plans (Skinner, 2009¹⁷). While the original program was discontinued at the end of 2008 (Skinner, 2009), a new debris management planning incentive program called the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal was developed in 2013 as part of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (FEMA, 2021¹⁸). This program also involved the development of FEMA-approved debris management plans, but the incentive was a onetime 2% increase in federal cost share following a major disaster declaration (FEMA, 2021). Crowley (2021)¹⁹ evaluated this program’s effectiveness for a select set of hurricanes and concluded that the overall outcomes of the guidelines were effective (many of the program’s planning incentives are discontinued). Effectiveness in this context refers to the extent to which programmatic goals are met (Ne’eman et al., 2009²⁰; Perez-Nordtvedt et al. 2008; Quade, 1975²¹; Silva Villanueva, 2011)²². The most recent version of the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal only mentions the incentive of FEMA reimbursements for base and overtime wages when applicants use their own labor force to perform debris operations (FEMA, 2019²³). The applicants would be the impacted state and local governments.

Past research confirms the importance of planning for disaster debris in the preparedness phase. For example, Crowley (2017)²⁴ found that, between 2012 and 2015, U.S. counties that had debris management plans prior to receiving a major disaster declaration were more effective and efficient in the overall debris management process compared to counties who did not have such plans. Moreover, Zawawi et al. (2018)²⁵ concluded that many developing countries lack proper landfill restrictions in the preparedness phase, which often delays the recovery phase. For debris management plans, best practices include the establishment of prequalified contracts (Crowley, 2020; Swan, 2000²⁶), the consideration of a given area’s geography and hazards (Trivedi et al., 2015²⁷), and the selection of temporary debris management sites for staging (Cheng & Thompson, 2016²⁸; Grzeda et al., 2014²⁹; Ismail et al., 2018³⁰). Temporary debris management sites refer to designated areas where debris is initially transported for sorting and reduction.

Disaster Debris Management in the Response and Recovery Phases

Disaster debris often plays a significant role in the response phase when communities are working to address imminent, lifesaving needs immediately after a disaster. Examples of debris-related impediments to response include road blockage, miscommunications on the prioritization of debris clearance for connector roads (Çelik et al., 2015), and the disruption to residents living near temporary debris management sites (Ismail et al., 2018). These sites can potentially create traffic impediments, noise pollution, and air pollution for residents living nearby. Several past disasters illustrate the detrimental impacts of disaster debris on affected communities (EPA, 2019; McEntire, 2006).

Debris management challenges commonly linger into the recovery phase, delaying the completion of the necessary actions to return communities back to their pre-disaster states. FEMA attributes approximately 27% of debris management costs to the total costs for a given disaster (FEMA, 2012). Additionally, the EPA estimates that every one million cubic yards of debris would lessen a landfill’s life by about five years (EPA, 2008³¹). Furthermore, the activation of too many or too few temporary debris management sites can lead to prolonged recovery (Fetter & Rakes, 2012³²).

Research Questions

While there is a body of literature that examines debris management in the preparedness, response, and recovery phases, these studies focus almost exclusively on areas that are frequently impacted by debris generating disasters. With growing concerns over the increases in the frequencies and intensities of large-scale disasters due to the impacts of climate change (Cappelli et al., 2021³³), there is a need to examine the debris management needs of areas that do not have a long history of experiencing debris-generating events.

This study addressed this gap by examining disaster debris management in the preparedness, response, and recovery phases for the Maine floods of December 2023. This study sought to answer the following two research questions:

1. How did pre-disaster debris management planning impact the response and recovery phases of the Maine floods of December 2023?
2. What were the most significant debris management challenges of the Maine floods of December 2023?

Research Design

To provide an in-depth understanding of the debris management needs for the preparedness, response, and recovery phases of the Maine December floods of 2023, the principal investigator (PI) used qualitative methods to answer the research questions. This involved conducting 10 semi-structured interviews of about 45 minutes each with emergency management personnel involved with debris management at the state, county, and town levels. Most of the interviews took place via Zoom while a few were in person. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The following subsections will provide additional details on the research design.

Study Site

The study sites consisted of places in Maine impacted by debris from the December floods of 2023. This particular event and location were selected due to the record damage described in the Introduction section of this report. Furthermore, Maine is a home rule state (Bower, 1985³⁴) with a government structure where the state grants autonomy to local governments. Additionally, Maine has a high number of unorganized territories (Fisk, 2004³⁵). This structure poses additional challenges for communication in debris management.

Sampling Strategy and Participant Recruitment

This study used purposive sampling to select participants involved in debris management for the Maine floods of 2023. Purposive sampling is a nonrandom technique that involves deliberately selecting participants due to the qualities that potential participants possess (Tongco, 2007³⁶). Purposive sampling was used for this study because the research questions called for participants with knowledge of the debris management process for the floods.

The PI initially recruited potential research participants by emailing county emergency management offices that were eligible for Category A Public Assistance for the floods. Some interviews were set up through this process and snowballing methods—where study subjects recruit additional subjects from their social networks (Parker at al., 2019³⁷)—to identify other potential participants. Additional contact was made when the PI attended a state emergency management conference in Maine and met several other emergency management staff who were involved with debris management. To benefit the site, the PI agreed to share her research findings and recommendations with anyone interested.

Prior to beginning the interviews, the PI read an oral consent information sheet to each participant that was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. The oral consent form provided participants with a brief overview of the purpose of the study, an estimate of the duration of the interview, and an explanation that participation is voluntary and that they may skip any questions that they do not want to answer or choose to stop participating at any time with no penalty. The PI also asked if participants had any questions and provided her contact information as well as the contact information for the University of Missouri-Kansas City Research Compliance.

While recruiting participants, the PI considered saturation. This refers to the point where data becomes repetitive with no new themes or information and is an important consideration when working with purposive samples (Guest et al., 2006³⁸). The sample began with nine interviewees. A 10th interviewee was then added to check for saturation, which was identified. Recruitment ended after the 10th interview was completed.

Interview Protocol

To address the research questions, the PI developed an interview protocol that was divided into four sequential sections, including background, preparedness, response, and recovery. The background section included questions about the location and the interviewee roles to better understand their perspectives. The section on preparedness consisted of questions pertaining to steps that were taken for debris management prior to the floods to analyze how the preparedness phase impacted the response and recovery phases. The section on response incorporated questions on debris management immediately after the floods to assess if debris management planning would be useful for response. The fourth and final section on recovery included questions on the relationship between debris management and getting the impacted communities back to their pre-disaster states. Like the response section, this section also assessed if debris management planning would be useful for recovery. The Appendix provides a list of each section with the respective interview questions.

Data Analysis Procedures 

Interview transcripts were imported into NVivo (Version 12) software to complete the coding process. The PI analyzed the data using thematic coding—a process by which interview transcripts are assigned descriptive labels and grouped based on similar characteristics (Bailey & Bailey, 2017³⁹). The analysis began with open coding, which involved initially assigning descriptive codes to the interview transcripts. Codes were then further organized through focused coding where the codes were narrowed down and regrouped to generate relevant themes (Bailey & Bailey, 2017). Four themes emerged through the multi-step process of open and focused coding.

Ethical Considerations and Researcher Positionality

This study was granted exemption from the IRB at the University of Missouri-Kansas City on February 24, 2024 (IRB Project Number 2100658). The PI has extensive experience conducting research with human subjects. She also completed the required Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) trainings prior to submitting the study materials to the IRB. Per human subjects protocol, the PI explained the purpose of the study and obtained oral consent from participants prior to beginning the interviews.

Findings

The analysis identified the following four themes: debris management planning, resource constraints, home rule, and concerns over more extreme weather events. Details for each of these themes are described in the subsections below.

Debris Management Planning

Interviewees described various components of debris management planning actions. A few of the interviewees mentioned the presence of debris management plans and described a need to update them. Other interviewees indicated an absence of debris management plans and the challenge of not having time to develop one. There were mixed ideas about such a plan’s value, but some respondents expressed that having such a plan would be helpful for tracking debris for declared disasters and helping local citizens to understand the debris management process. An interviewee elaborated on this:

I do [think a debris management plan would have been helpful for response]. I think mostly on a citizen level versus a first responder level because the [first responders] had the manpower and the tools to take care of [the debris].

All interviewees at the state and county level indicated that there are no prequalified debris management contracts at their levels of government because they are handled at the town level. Interviewees at the town level described a pre-established contract for collecting and transporting vegetative debris to a paper mill. Interviewees presented mixed responses pertaining to the use of temporary debris management sites. Like with the pre-qualified contracts, most of the interviewees at the state and county levels indicated that temporary debris management sites are established at the town level. Some interviewees specified that they did not have temporary debris management sites due to a lack of space while others said that such sites were not developed because the residents cleared the debris themselves. A few interviewees pointed out that towns either had their own temporary debris management sites or shared a site with an adjacent town. For example, one interviewee explained, “our neighbor to the south has a licensed debris site that we could share. And if we ever got something bigger than that, we share a lot of things between our communities around us.”

Resource Constraints

Many of the interviewees acknowledged resource constraints, highlighting that the low number of staff in their localities left very few opportunities to focus on debris management planning. In some cases, interviewees specified that this is due to a lack of funding for hiring additional staff. Interviewees subsequently noted that emergency management staff tend to wear multiple hats, leaving little time for debris management planning. One interviewee cited the locality’s rising population growth since COVID-19, and a lack of public safety staff to support this growth. More specifically, the interviewee provided the following description, “Yeah, so we’re getting more people that are gonna want more services. And we have one full-time fire department.”

Resource constraints are further exacerbated by the high number of volunteer positions at the local level for emergency management personnel. Interviewees described how this dynamic creates difficulties in enabling local emergency management personnel to attend trainings. FEMA’s debris management course takes four days to complete, and volunteer emergency management personnel often have few opportunities to leave their other responsibilities to attend such a training, even as interviewees acknowledged that training is necessary to implement the debris management plan.

Interviewees indicated that, in addition to staff shortages and reliance on volunteers, competing priorities often take precedent over debris management planning. Several interviewees mentioned the need to focus on updating their town’s emergency operations plans, while others described hazard mitigation plans and school shooting plans as priorities. For example, one interviewee stated that, “I will say debris management is one that squeaks by in a way; I think a lot of our focus working with first responders is on of course life safety and our emergency operations plans.”

Home Rule

Maine’s home rule structure gives autonomy to towns, leaving most of the debris management responsibilities to the individual town level. This structure causes counties to play less of a role in local emergency management than in many other states.

Maine’s home rule structure is further complicated by its remote geographies. In addition to town autonomy, incorporating FEMA procedures for Category A funding for debris removal is challenging due to the large numbers of unorganized territories and towns with fewer than 200 people. There were frustrations with FEMA’s training models and plan guidance for debris management as these procedures are more applicable to urban areas with more centralized government structures. An interviewee provided further insights into these challenges:

For us, it’s a little frustrating, the FEMA models. I actually took a class, a webinar on debris management and it’s a FEMA one. And it’s a little frustrating because those models are so based on urban areas. And you know, it’s really different out here.

The home rule structure of Maine also influences the way that residents manage their disaster debris. Most of the debris generated from the floods of December 2023 was vegetative, resulting in residents picking up the debris themselves to be used for secondary purposes, like firewood or mulch. Furthermore, Maine law designates most roads as easements. An easement refers to the right of a party to use the property of another party for a designated purpose. In this case, vegetative debris within a given easement roadway typically used for firewood by the property owners. Several interviewees indicated that although resident vegetative debris removal was convenient for the cleanup process, in some cases it led to FEMA questioning if they made the threshold for Category A Public Assistance.

Concerns Over More Extreme Weather Events

At the time of this writing, designated areas in Maine had received two additional major disaster declarations since the floods of December 2023; there were severe storms and flooding in January of 2024 and a severe winter storm in April of 2024. With this increase in the number of disaster events in Maine, interviewees expressed the unusual nature of these events occurring within such close time intervals and in some cases, at times of the year when they were not expected. Some interviewees explained that it is currently hard to distinguish the origins of the disaster events that generated debris since the events occurred so close together. An interviewee provided additional details:

We got hit right after with the January two-day or three-day storm, technically March ice storm, and then we had the April storm, which generated a huge amount of debris for the county so it’s kind of hard to say what kind of debris comes from each.

In addition to the increased number of disaster events in Maine, interviewees also commented on increases in the intensity of events. Several interviewees described changes in intensity of windstorms and how that creates vulnerability towards Maine’s large quantity of pine trees. These events are initiating conversations between counties and towns regarding the need for planning.

Although most debris generated from the floods of December 2023 was vegetative, some interviewees expressed concerns regarding other types of debris that could be generated from more intense and different kinds of extreme weather events. One interviewee provided examples of potential debris types like contaminated sandbags and other hazardous materials. Another interviewee expressed concerns regarding debris storage space with the increasing number of disaster events. Several interviewees felt that local planning was a valuable tool to increase resilience towards debris management needs. One interviewee stated:

We get more and more storms because you know you might have been able to put three trees at [the local open field] when you got a storm every three years, but you can’t put 200 trees now on [the local open field] so you need a plan.

Discussion

The findings provide mixed answers to the first research question, which concerned the impacts of disaster debris management planning on the response and recovery to the Maine floods of December 2023. Some interviewees indicated that they have local debris management plans that need updating, while others do not have such plans. Overall, interviewees explained that prequalified contracts for debris removal and the designation of temporary debris management sites are limited to the town level due to Maine’s home rule status. Resource constraints and home rule provide insights into the descriptions for the theme of debris management planning. Low staff numbers for local emergency management agencies, reliance on volunteer positions, and competing priorities were all reported as hindrances to debris management planning.

In terms of the second research question, which concerned the most significant debris management challenges of the Maine floods of December 2023, resource constraints and the home rule structure were noted as significant challenges, as well as the prevalence of more extreme weather events. Disasters are teachable moments and past research shows the positive correlation between frequent debris generating events and the development of robust debris management plans (Crowley, 2020).

Conclusions

This section will describe the study’s implications for practice and policy, limitations, and future research directions.

Implications for Practice and Policy

This study’s findings suggest that local academic institutions should work with state and local emergency management agencies to assist with grant writing applications to address resource constraints. Examples of federal grant programs that are currently active at the time of this writing include Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, Emergency Operations Center Grant Program, Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program, and Emergency Performance Grant Program (FEMA, 2024c⁴⁰). Grant programs like the Emergency Management Performance Grant can be used to help fund local plan development activities like the hiring of consultants (Montana Disaster Emergency Services, n.d.).

Even though there are grant programs to address different emergency management related resource constraints, it is important to understand local needs and challenges. The debris management challenges that arose from Maine’s home rule government structure reveal the importance of understanding local government structures and environments. FEMA’s rules for reimbursing Category A Public Assistance are standardized, yet there are enormous land areas with a wide array of diversity in local geographies, cultures, and government structures. For these reasons, the PI recommends that debris management coalitions be developed that consist of partners from both the public and private sectors. These coalitions would assess the debris management needs of local areas and assist in developing debris management planning guidelines while taking the local structures into consideration. The goal of the coalition would be to eventually develop area-specific debris management planning guidelines through FEMA. These guidelines could then be used to reinstate a debris management planning incentive program that is tailored to local needs.

Limitations

One limitation of this study is that it only examined the state of Maine. Debris generating disaster events occur frequently throughout the United States and are often triggered by different types of hazards and subsequently generate different types of debris. Furthermore, the study only focused on the model in the United States for debris management. It is important to note that such challenges pertaining to debris management and stronger storms are not limited to the United States.

Future Research Directions

Further research should look at debris management challenges related to resource constraints, local government structures, and increases in extreme weather events across different regions of the country. At the time of this writing, the PI is applying for a research grant to examine local emergency management planning resource constraints in the United States. This will focus on hazard mitigation planning and debris management planning and will include local emergency managers from all 10 FEMA regions.

Acknowledgments. This research was funded by the Quick Response Research Award Program. The Quick Response Research Award Program is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF Award #1635593). Additional financial support was provided by the University of Missouri-Kansas City. The author also wishes to acknowledge the emergency management personnel for their time spent participating in interviews, and their hard work and dedication in keeping communities safe.

References