Bøger af Federal Emergency Management Agency

This publication on seismic strengthening of existing buildings is one of a series that FEMA is sponsoring to encourage local decision makers, design professionals, and other interested groups to undertake a program of mitigating the risks posed by existing hazardous buildings in the event of an earthquake. Publications in this series are being prepared under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) and examine both the engineering/architectural aspects and societal impacts of seismic rehabilitation. FEMA's existing buildings activities are structured to result in a coherent, cohesive, carefully selected and planned reinforcing set of documents designed for national applicability. The resulting publications (descriptive reports, handbooks, and supporting documentation) provide guidance primarily to local elected and appointed officials and design professionals on how to deal not only with earthquake engineering problems but also with the public policy issues and societal dislocations associated with major seismic events. This handbook of techniques for solving a variety of seismic rehabilitation problems and its companion publication on the seismic evaluation of existing buildings reflect basic input provided by two organizations recognized for their retrofit evaluation and design experience as well as the results of a consensus development activity carried out by the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). The preliminary version of this document, the NEHRP Handbook of Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, was developed for FEMA by URS/John A. Blume and Associates, Engineers (URS/Blume). A companion volume, the NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, for which a preliminary version was developed for FEMA by the Applied Technology Council (ATC), provides a method for evaluating existing buildings to identify those that are likely to be seismically hazardous. The BSSC project, initiated at the request of FEMA in October 1988, has focused on identification and resolution of technical issues in and appropriate revision of the two handbooks by a 22-member Retrofit of Existing Buildings (REB) Committee composed of individuals possessing expertise in the various subjects needed to address seismic rehabilitation.

This Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Incident Management and Support Keystone establishes the foundational doctrine that guides FEMA's conduct of disaster operations and is the primary document from which all other FEMA disaster response, recovery, mitigation, and logistics directives and policies are derived. It describes how the response doctrine, articulated in the National Response Framework (NRF), and recovery doctrine are implemented in the context of FEMA incident management and support operations. This Keystone is fully in line with the National Incident Management System. Incident Management is the incident-level operation of the Federal role in emergency response, recovery, logistics, and mitigation. Responsibilities in incident management include the direct control and employment of resources, management of incident offices, operations, and delivery of Federal assistance through all phases of emergency response. Incident Support is the coordination of all Federal resources that support emergency response, recovery, logistics, and mitigation. Responsibilities include the deployment of national-level assets, support of national objectives and programs affected during the disaster, and support of incident operations with resources, expertise, information, and guidance. This keystone document describes the full function of FEMA assistance, from the earliest lifesaving operations and support through the entire life of the Joint Field Office (JFO). The keystone addresses how FEMA will provide lifesaving operations and necessary resources; restore power and rebuild roads in the affected communities; provide technical assistance to community floodplain management programs and flood insurance; and manage individual assistance inspections, temporary housing, public assistance inspections, 406 mitigation, and hazard mitigation grants. The Incident Management and Support Keystone leads a family of other doctrinal documents that guide the implementation of FEMA's disaster operations. This document is intended to standardize procedures, institutionalize best practices, and guide planning, training, equipping, and staffing. Doctrine is an authoritative statement of fundamental principles of an organization. It is authoritative yet adaptable enough to address diverse situations. Doctrine provides a standard frame of reference for FEMA and explains why the Agency performs its functions. Doctrine is a guide to action and judgment founded in hard-won experience; it facilitates readiness and increased efficiency and effectiveness by standardizing activities and processes. The consistent application of doctrine outlined in this Keystone will assist FEMA in better managing its functions, requirements, capabilities, priorities, policies, organizational design, command and control authorities, and the allocation of resources across the full spectrum of disaster response and recovery. This FEMA Incident Management and Support Keystone applies to all FEMA incident management and support operations, including incidents that have occurred, efforts undertaken based on an identified threat, and actions performed in anticipation of, or in preparation for, a significant event. This doctrine pertains to FEMA incident management and support operations that involve- or that may involve-a presidential declaration under the Stafford Act, as well as incidents requiring a coordinated Federal response where the Stafford Act does not apply. This doctrine applies to the full range of incidents contained within one or several jurisdictions, as well as those incidents that are national in scope. This Keystone is intended to promote readiness to act, effective cooperation, interoperability, and sharing of essential resources and information among all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector-by communicating to our partners the principles by which FEMA conducts incident management and support operations.

The United States Fire Administration (USFA) is committed to using all means possible for reducing the incidence of injuries and deaths to firefighters. One of these means is to partner with other people and organizations who share this same admirable goal. One such organization is the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). The IAFF has been deeply committed to improving the safety of its members and all firefighters as a whole. This is why the USFA was pleased to work with the IAFF through a cooperative agreement to develop this revised edition of Emergency Incident Rehabilitation.

Earthquakes are a serious threat to safety in multifamily apartment buildings and pose a significant potential liability to building owners. Multifamily buildings in 39 states are vulnerable to earthquake damage. Unsafe existing buildings expose multifamily building owners and tenants to the following risks: Death and injury of tenants, occupants, and visitors; Damage to or collapse of buildings; Damage to and loss of furnishings, equipment, and other building contents; Disruption of rental and occupancy functions and other building operations. The greatest earthquake risk is associated with existing multifamily buildings that were designed and constructed before the use of modern building codes. For many parts of the United States, this includes buildings built as recently as the early 1990s. Although vulnerable multifamily buildings need to be replaced with safe, new construction or rehabilitated to correct deficiencies, for many building owners new construction is limited, at times severely, by budgetary constraints, and seismic rehabilitation is expensive and disruptive. However, incremental seismic rehabilitation, proposed in this manual, is an innovative approach that phases in a series of discrete rehabilitation actions over a period of several years. It is an effective, affordable, and non-disruptive strategy for responsible mitigation actions that can be integrated efficiently into ongoing facility maintenance and capital improvement operations to minimize cost and disruption. This manual and its companion documents are the products of a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) project to develop the concept of incremental seismic rehabilitation-that is, building modifications that reduce seismic risk by improving seismic performance and that are implemented over an extended period, often in conjunction with other repair, maintenance, or capital improvement activities. It provides owners of Class A, B, or C multifamily buildings, be they Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), pension funds, partnerships, individuals, or other forms of ownership, with the information necessary to assess the seismic vulnerability of their buildings and to implement a program of incremental seismic rehabilitation for those buildings.

This document describes baseline and additional EMS criteria for the National Emergency Response Credentialing System. The EMS Working Group determined the job titles listed herein to be the most commonly requested EMS personnel in a state-to-state, mutual aid-based response. Considering existing, nationally-accepted standards and/guidelines, the EMS Working Group extracted relevant education, training, experience, physical/medical fitness, certification, and licensing criteria to define the baseline criteria for each job title listed. These baseline criteria represent the minimum requirements for EMS personnel to participate in the Incident Management Integration Systems Division's National Emergency Responder Credentialing System. The EMS Working Group identified additional recommended criteria relating to education, training, certification, experience, and physical/medical fitness where it believed such standards and baseline criteria might enhance job performance. These criteria are not required and represent the EMS Working Group's recommendations for EMS personnel to participate in the Incident Management Systems Integration Division's Emergency Responder Credentialing System. Many nationally recognized clinically-based certification/verification courses such as Advanced Cardiac Life Support are appropriate and essential resources for field personnel.

The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under Presidential Executive Order 13407, has clear directives to: Consult, coordinate, and cooperate with the private sector, including communications media organizations, and Federal, State, territorial, tribal and local governmental authorities, including emergency response providers; Ensure the conduct of public education efforts so that State, territorial, tribal, and local governments, the private sector, and the American people understand the functions of the public alert and warning system and how to access, use, and respond to information from the public alert and warning system; and, Ensure the conduct of training, tests, and exercises for the public alert and warning system. Additionally, in the 2009 General Accounting Office (GAO) report, Improved Planning and Coordination Necessary for Modernization and Integration of Public Alert and Warning System, the GAO recommended "increased coordination and consultation with partners." The IPAWS Program Management Office (PMO) enthusiastically accepted the challenge evidenced by its "Strategic Plan for the Integrated Public Alert and Warning Systems (IPAWS) Program - June 2010" ("Strategic Plan"). This IPAWS Outreach Plan establishes IPAWS' communication and partner engagement strategies to effectively accomplish this mission, vision, and goals stated in the IPAWS Strategic Plan. It also helps meet Executive Order 13407 directive and implements recommendations from the GAO report. The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) program will modernize and enhance alert and warning delivery to the American public. Established by Presidential Executive Order 13407, the IPAWS Program brings together existing and new public alert and warning systems and technologies in order to provide government alerting authorities at all levels a broader range of message options and communications pathways. During an emergency, the IPAWS will facilitate timely delivery of alert and warning information over more media to more people before, during, and after a disaster. In the event of a national emergency, the President will be able to use the IPAWS to send a message to the American people quickly and simultaneously through multiple communications pathways. The IPAWS will also provide Federal, State, local, tribal and territorial governments with capability to integrate their alert and warning systems with the national alert and warning infrastructure. Through this, the IPAWS will increase resilience of local systems and provide additional means by which life-saving information is distributed during a crisis. The IPAWS Program Management Office (PMO) is partnering with recognized government and industry leaders and technical experts to ensure the IPAWS program incorporates the latest technologies and is practical for prospective users. Partners include Federal Governance and Legislative, Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial Alerting Authorities, Private Sector Industry, Non-Profit and Advocacy, and the American People. The effectiveness of the program will be realized through a comprehensive outreach approach using strategic communications and robust partnership engagement coupled with integrated training and exercises. The IPAWS PMO will also reach out to the American people to ensure they understand how the IPAWS functions, what it is for, what it provides, and how they can "Get Alerts, Stay Alive."

The National Mutual Aid and Resource Management Initiative supports the National Incident Management System (NIMS) by establishing a comprehensive, integrated national mutual aid and resource management system that provides the basis to type, order, and track all (Federal, State, and local) response assets. For ease of ordering and tracking, response assets need to be categorized via resource typing. Resource typing is the categorization and description of resources that are commonly exchanged in disasters via mutual aid, by capacity and/or capability. Through resource typing, disciplines examine resources and identify the capabilities of a resource's components (i.e., personnel, equipment, training). During a disaster, an emergency manager knows what capability a resource needs to have to respond efficiently and effectively. Resource typing definitions will help define resource capabilities for ease of ordering and mobilization during a disaster. As a result of the resource typing process, a resource's capability is readily defined and an emergency manager is able to effectively and efficiently request and receive resources through mutual aid during times of disaster.

Earthquakes in the United States are regional in their occurrence and while California is famous for its earthquake other states, such as Texas, have much less concern for the threat of temblors. However, architectural practice is becoming increasingly national and global, and the architect in Texas may find that the next project is in California. Thus it has become necessary for the professional architect to have some knowledge of the earthquake problem and how design seeks to control it. Designing for Earthquakes: a Manual for Architects is intended to explain the principles of seismic design for those without a technical background in engineering and seismology. The primary intended audience is that of architects, and includes practicing architects, architectural students and faculty in architectural schools who teach structures and seismic design. For this reason the text and graphics are focused on those aspects of seismic design that are important for the architect to know. Because of its non-technical approach this publication will also be useful to anyone who has an interest and concern for the seismic protection of buildings, including facility managers, building owners and tenants, building committee participants, emergency service personnel and building officials. Engineers and engineering students will also gain from this discussion of seismic design from an architectural viewpoint. The principles discussed are applicable to a wide range of building types, both new and existing. The focus is on buildings that are designed by a team that includes architects, engineers and other consultants.

In recent years, tremendous strides have been made by Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments to educate the public about natural disasters. Localities are now better able to respond to disasters, recover from their impact, and mitigate future damage. However, it remains a fact that in situations of catastrophic proportions, nothing that technology or preparedness has provided can prevent the inherent discontinuity in our lives caused by major disasters. Such events must be responded to through a cooperative Federal, State, Tribal, and local effort. When a disaster occurs, it is the responsibility first of the local community and then the State to respond. Often, their combined efforts are not sufficient to cope effectively with the direct results of the disaster. This situation calls for Federal assistance to supplement State, Tribal, and local efforts. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 5121 - 5207, authorizes the President to provide such assistance. Assistance is coordinated through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a component of the Department of Homeland Security. This guide explains how FEMA implements that portion of the law that authorizes Federal grants for infrastructure recovery through its Public Assistance (PA) Program. Potential recipients of this funding include State, Tribal, and local governments and certain types of Private Nonprofit (PNP) organizations. A fundamental goal of the PA Program is to ensure that everyone shares a common understanding of the program policies and procedures. To support this goal, FEMA has undertaken an effort to provide the State, Tribal, and local partners with more and better information about the PA Program. This guide describes the PA Program's basic provisions and application procedures. The guide may be of interest to elected leaders, emergency managers, city engineers, public works directors, financial management personnel, managers of eligible PNP organizations, and other individuals who have the responsibility for restoring a community's infrastructure in the wake of a disaster.

Earthquakes are a serious threat to safety in hotel and motel buildings and pose a significant potential liability to owners and operators. Hotel and motel buildings in 39 states are vulnerable to earthquake damage. Unsafe existing buildings expose hotel and motel building owners, operators, and guests to the following risks: Death and injury to guests, visitors, and staff; Damage to or collapse of buildings; Damage to and loss of furnishings, equipment, and other building contents; and Disruption of hospitality functions and building operations. The greatest earthquake risk is associated with existing hotel and motel buildings that were designed and constructed before the use of modern building codes. For many parts of the United States, this includes buildings built as recently as the early 1990s. Although vulnerable hotel and motel buildings should be replaced with safe, new construction or rehabilitated to correct deficiencies, for many building owners, new construction is limited, at times severely, by budgetary constraints, and seismic rehabilitation is expensive and disruptive. However, incremental seismic rehabilitation, an innovative approach that phases in a series of discrete rehabilitation actions over a period of several years, is an effective, affordable, and non-disruptive strategy for responsible mitigation action that can be integrated efficiently into ongoing facility maintenance and capital improvement operations to minimize cost and disruption. This manual and its companion documents are the products of a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) project to develop the concept of incremental seismic rehabilitation-that is, building modifications that reduce seismic risk by improving seismic performance and that are implemented over an extended period, often in conjunction with other repair, maintenance, or capital improvement activities. It provides operators of hotels and motels and their owners, be they Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), pension funds, partnerships, individuals, or other forms of ownership, with the information necessary to assess the seismic vulnerability of their buildings and to implement a program of incremental seismic rehabilitation for those buildings.

One of the primary goals of the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is prevention or mitigation of this country's losses from hazards that affect the built environment. To achieve this goal, we as a nation must determine what level of performance is expected from our buildings during a severe event, such as an earthquake, blast, or hurricane. To do this, FEMA contracted with the Applied Technology Council (ATC) to develop next-generation performance-based seismic design procedures and guidelines, which would allow engineers and designers to better work with stakeholders in identifying the probable seismic performance of new and existing buildings. These procedures could be voluntarily used to: (1) assess and improve the performance of buildings designed to a building code "life safety" level, which would, in all likelihood, still suffer significant structural and nonstructural damage in a severe event; and (2) more effectively meet the performance targets of current building codes by providing verifiable alternatives to current prescriptive code requirements for new buildings. Advancement of present-generation performance-based seismic design procedures is widely recognized in the earthquake engineering community as an essential next step in the nation's drive to develop resilient, loss-resistant communities. This Program Plan offers a step-by-step, task-oriented program that will develop next-generation performance-based seismic design procedures and guidelines for structural and nonstructural components in new and existing buildings. This FEMA 445 Program Plan is a refinement and extension of two earlier FEMA plans: FEMA 283 Performance-Based Seismic Design of Buildings - an Action Plan, which was prepared by the Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley in 1996, and FEMA 349 Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design, which was prepared by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute in 2000. The state of practice for performance-based assessment, performance-based design of new buildings, and performance-based upgrades of existing buildings will all be significantly advanced under this Program Plan. The preparation of this Program Plan, and developmental work completed to date, has been performed by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) under the ATC-58 project entitled Development of Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines for New and Existing Buildings. The technological framework developed under this program is transferable and can be adapted for use in performance-based design for other extreme hazards including fire, wind, flood, and terrorist attack. The decision-making tools and guidelines developed under this Program Plan will greatly improve our ability to develop cost-effective and efficient earthquake loss reduction programs nationwide.

Tens of thousands of conduits through embankment dams in the United States are aging and deteriorating. These conduits often were poorly constructed and are not frequently inspected, if at all. Deteriorating conduits pose an increasingly greater risk for developing defects that can lead to embankment dam failure with each passing year. In an effort to deal with this problem, this document has been prepared to collect and disseminate information and experience that is current and has a technical consensus. This document provides procedures and guidance for "best practices" concerning design, construction, problem identification and evaluation, inspection, maintenance, renovation, and repair associated with conduits through embankment dams. Most of the available information on these topics was reviewed in preparing this document. Where detailed documentation existed, it was cited to avoid duplicating available materials. The authors have strived not to reproduce information that is readily accessible in the public domain. This document attempts to condense and summarize the vast body of existing information, provide a clear and concise synopsis of this information, and present a recommended course of action. This document is intended for use by personnel familiar with embankment dams and conduits, such as designers, inspectors, construction oversight personnel, and dam safety engineers. In preparation of this document, the authors frequently found conflicting procedures and standards in the many references they reviewed. Where conflicts were apparent, the authors focused on what they judged to be the "best practice" and included that judgment in this document. Therefore, this document may be different than some of the various participating agencies' own policies. Embankment dams, regardless of their size, create a hazard potential from the stored energy of the water they impound.

This BCAR report is provided for use by interested BCA users to review and understand the methodology behind the FEMA Damage Frequency Assessment (DFA) Module - previously known as the FEMA Limited Data Module for Benefit-Cost Analysis (LD Module) - and determining unknown frequencies within the LD Module. The methodology report was reviewed by the FEMA BCAR Technical Advisory Group (TAG), and is part of a larger effort to re-engineer the FEMA Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) methods, modules, guidance, and training in order to improve the BCA process.

Over the last decade, the overall cost of disasters to the United States has grown significantly. From 1989 to 1993, the average annual losses from disasters were $3.3 billion. Over the last 4 years, the average annual losses have increased to $13 billion. On the Federal side alone, disasters have cost over $20 billion over the last four years. The disaster losses are equally as staggering for the American public. Since 1993, over 1.4 million Americans have been impacted by Presidentially declared disasters, resulting in the loss of their homes, property, communities, jobs, and in some cases their lives. This figure does not include the hundreds of thousands of people impacted by natural hazard events that were managed entirely at the State and local levels, and involved the personal savings and private resources of property owners. Indeed, the impacts of major disasters on Americans go well beyond those damages that are directly sustained. Recovery from disasters requires resources to be diverted from other important public and private programs, and adversely impacts the productivity of economic systems. To many, the rising costs associated with natural disasters have become unacceptable. To address this growing problem, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under Director James L. Witt, has encouraged the emergency management community to become more proactive in reducing the potential for losses before an event occurs. This proactive strategy is commonly known as mitigation. Hazard mitigation is defined as sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to people and property from hazards and their effects. This distinguishes mitigation from other major emergency management functions such as preparedness and training, response, and short-term recovery. This emphasis on mitigation led FEMA to introduce a National Mitigation Strategy in December of 1995 to encourage a national focus on hazard mitigation. The strategy is based on the objective of strengthening the partnership among all levels of government and the private sector and to empower all Americans to fulfill their responsibilities for ensuring safer communities. The strategy was developed with input from State and local officials, as well as individuals and organizations with expertise in hazard mitigation. The strategy has two goals: to substantially increase the public awareness of natural hazard risk so that the public demands safer communities in which to live and work; and to significantly reduce the risk of loss of life, injury, economic costs, and destruction of natural and cultural resources that result from natural hazards. The reason for the emphasis on mitigation is clear. Experience at the Federal, State, and local levels during natural disasters, and a growing body of associated research, have demonstrated that the losses from such events (in terms of life, property, and community resources) can be substantially reduced when mitigation techniques and technologies are applied. This paper was prepared to illustrate the comparative benefits and costs associated with the implementation of a variety of mitigation measures by Federal, State, and local government, and private sector entities. To accomplish this, this paper will identify, through a series of case studies, the mitigation tools used to achieve cost-effective hazard mitigation benefits. The case studies are representative of the types of mitigation measures that are, or could be, performed elsewhere in the nation under similar conditions.

The National Mutual Aid and Resource Management Initiative supports the National Incident Management System (NIMS) by establishing a comprehensive, integrated national mutual aid and resource management system that provides the basis to type, order, and track all (Federal, State, and local) response assets. For ease of ordering and tracking, response assets need to be categorized via resource typing. Resource typing is the categorization and description of resources that are commonly exchanged in disasters via mutual aid, by capacity and/or capability. Through resource typing, disciplines examine resources and identify the capabilities of a resource's components (i.e., personnel, equipment, training). During a disaster, an emergency manager knows what capability a resource needs to have to respond efficiently and effectively. Resource typing definitions will help define resource capabilities for ease of ordering and mobilization during a disaster. As a result of the resource typing process, a resource's capability is readily defined and an emergency manager is able to effectively and efficiently request and receive resources through mutual aid during times of disaster.

In 1999, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) jointly conducted research and a workshop to shed light on the national problem of animal intrusion damage to earthen dams and the resulting safety issues. The FEMA/ASDSO survey and workshop united dam owners, engineers, state and federal regulators, wildlife managers, foresters, and academia to form an educated and experienced front against the growing problem of earthen dam damage and failures due to animal intrusion. The infor¬mation generated by roundtable discussions and survey answers indicates that while most states recognize animal intrusion as a problem, only a handful know of guidance on dams and wildlife management practices available to the dam professionals and owners. Based on input from the dam communities, FEMA/ASDSO's mission to develop a guidance manual on the proper management of nuisance wildlife in the earthen dam environment became clear. To determine the information needs of the dam community-and therefore the most appropriate focus of this manual-FEMA/ASDSO issued a survey in 1999 and used the survey input from the 48 state dam safety officials representatives and 11 federal agencies representing the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety (ICODS). Additionally, a second survey was issued in 2003 to identify the current needs of each state, determine what nuisance wildlife and damages the states encounter, and understand which miti¬gation methods are being used with success or failure. This manual provides technical guidance to dam specialists (including dam owners, operators, inspectors, state dam officials, and consulting engineers) in areas of focus identified through the two survey efforts and workshop. The purposes of this manual are to: Assist dam specialists in understanding the impacts wildlife can have on earthen dams; Provide dam specialists with basic information on habitat, range, description, and behavior of common nuisance wildlife to aid in their proper identification at the dam; Describe state-of-practice methods to prevent and mitigate adverse wildlife impacts on earthen dams. Provide state-of-practice design guidance for repair and preventive design associated with nuisance wildlife intrusion. It is envisioned that the entire dam specialist community will use this manual to augment their routine duties in earthen dam management. This manual is presented as a process toward dam inspection and management that includes wildlife damage identification and control. This manual provides technical information and guidance on: How wildlife damage adversely affects the safe operation of earthen dams; specifically, hydraulic alteration, internal and external erosion, and structural integrity losses (Chapter 2.0); Dam inspections that incorporate a biological component to sensitize dam specialists to the aspects of their dams that attract wildlife and to understand where nuisance wildlife are likely to occur on the dam (Chapter 3.0); Biological data for specific nuisance wildlife to assist the dam specialist in identifying which nuisance wildlife inhabits the dam. Biological data will also assist in controlling nuisance wildlife (e.g., listed food sources can be removed to encourage the animal to leave the area) (Chapter 4.0); Dam design specifications and methods that can be incorporated into repair of existing dams or new dam designs to prevent wildlife intrusions (Chapter 5.0); Guidelines to determine when wildlife management should occur at a dam (beyond dam repair and prevention actions) and wildlife management methods that can be implemented when control of specific nuisance wild¬life populations is deemed necessary. Specific methods discussed include habitat modification, use of toxicants and fumigants, trapping, and shooting (Chapter 6.0); The fiscal issues related to appropriate and timely wildlife management at earthen dams (Chapter 7.0).

Floods, hurricanes, and other disasters can strike with little warning and damage or destroy irreplaceable art, artifacts, books, and historic records. But there are ways to prepare for emergencies and minimize the damage they inflict. Since the events of September 11, 2001, effective emergency management has become a higher priority for the cultural community. More institutions are interested in developing disaster plans, providing staff training, and better protecting their collections. Numerous federal programs now support such important efforts. Before and After Disasters: Federal Funding for Cultural Institutions is designed to help archives, arts centers, libraries, museums, historical societies, and historic sites find the resources they need. This guide is an updated and expanded version of Resources for Recovery: Post-Disaster Aid for Cultural Institutions, first developed in 1992 by Heritage Preservation and then revised in 2000. Before and After Disasters includes summary descriptions and contact information for 15 federal grant and loan programs - almost double the number of resources in the previous edition. It covers sources of federal assistance for preparedness, mitigation, and response, as well as for recovery. Sample projects in disaster planning, training, treatment research, and restoration illustrate the funding guidelines. Before and After Disasters: Federal Funding for Cultural Institutions is an initiative of the Heritage Emergency National Task Force. It was written and produced by Heritage Preservation with funding from, and in partnership with, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Endowment for the Arts as a service to the American cultural community.

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina pummeled the Gulf Coast regions and much of the Southeast, causing roughly $100 billion worth of damage in the process - the costliest hurricane in U.S. history. Seven states were affected by the storm including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi. In addition to these, Kentucky and Ohio were also affected due to floods on the Mississippi River. The most damage occurred in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It produced catastrophic damage -estimated at $75 billion in the New Orleans area along. For years, mitigation has proven one of the best measures for reducing damage and the costs of disasters. Across Louisiana, successful mitigation efforts are being achieved through the ongoing collaboration and cooperation between local, state and federal partners. Residents are also taking a proactive role in safeguarding lives and property. "Best Practices: Promoting Successful Mitigation in Louisiana - Post Hurricane Katrina" represents a sampling of mitigation activities resulting from lessons learned, after action reports and identified needs. The stories in this book provide insight on mitigation projects that have been executed in southern Louisiana in preparing for future disasters. The contents focus on fostering the journey in rebuilding safer and stronger and protecting life and property. It is an invaluable resource to: Communicate the importance of identifying hazard risks and ways to minimize risks; Identify mitigation ideas to show how mitigation is effective and affordable; Demonstrate how mitigation makes communities more stable and productive.

Plastic pipe has been used for many decades in water and sewer applications. More recently, plastic pipe has been used in new embankment dam construction and in the renovation of existing conduits. However, most of the available design information is targeted toward water distribution and sewer pipes and does not address the unique factors involved in using plastic pipe in embankment dams. In general, information on plastic pipe is too dispersed for the best use of lessons learned from past performance, and compilation of information into a more readily available source was needed. Due to the absence of any single recognized standard for plastic pipe used in embankment dams, there is significant inconsistency in the design and construction rationale. In an effort to deal with this problem, this document has been prepared to collect and disseminate information and experience that is current and has a technical consensus. The goal of this document is to provide a single, nationally recognized standard to promote greater consistency between similar project designs, facilitate more effective and consistent review of proposed designs, and result in increased potential for safer, more reliable facilities. This document is intended to supplement the plastic pipe information in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Technical Manual: Conduits through Embankment Dams (2005). This document provides in-depth analyses of loading conditions, structural design, and hydraulic design of plastic pipe. This document attempts to condense and summarize the body of existing information, provide a clear and concise synopsis of this information, and present a recommended design approach. The authors reviewed most of the available information on plastic pipe as it relates to use within embankment dams in preparing this document. Where detailed documentation exists, they cited it to avoid duplicating available materials. The authors have strived not to reproduce information that is readily accessible in the public domain. Where applicable, the reader is directed to selected portions of FEMA's Technical Manual: Conduits through Embankment Dams (2005) and other consensus-accepted references for additional guidance. This document is intended for use by personnel familiar with embankment dams and conduits, such as designers, inspectors, construction oversight personnel, and dam safety engineers.

Nearly 1.7 million fires in the United States during 2002 claimed 3,380 lives, injured 18,425 people, and destroyed over $10 billion in property. Incendiary and suspicious acts (including arson), cooking and carelessness with open flames are the leading causes of fires. These causes have a common thread: human activity and human error. As such, most of these fires were likely preventable. Many activities that influence fire incidence change with the season of the year. In the winter, the need for heating increases. Hot, dry weather affects wildland areas and creates fire-prone situations. Warm weather tends to bring people and their behaviors outdoors. Behaviors also change as people participate in various holiday customs and traditions. At some holidays, decorations in the home increase the load of combustible material. The use of candles and extra electric lighting may be used to celebrate other events. Fireworks are part of Fourth of July and other celebrations. As part of seasonal celebrations, people may prepare and cook elaborate meals. People also travel more, leaving some homes unoccupied while other homes increase in occupancy. Any of these behaviors can affect both the incidence and the severity of fires. By understanding the nature and scope of seasonal fires, public education and other fire-related programs can be specifically targeted at these seasonal fire problems. This report first explores fire patterns by each season of the year; both the changes in incidence and the causes of fire are discussed. The report then focuses on the changes in fire profiles around four seasonal holidays: Independence Day, Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. These holidays were chosen because of their striking changes in fire patterns.

The President issued the National Security Presidential Directive-51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive-20 (NSPD-51/HSPD-20) National Continuity Policy in May 2007 to establish and maintain a comprehensive and effective national continuity capability in order to ensure the preservation of our form of Government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions. In August 2007, the President approved the National Continuity Policy Implementation Plan to build upon the Policy and provide guidance to executive departments and agencies on appropriately identifying and carrying out their Primary Mission Essential Functions that support the eight National Essential Functions-the most essential functions necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency. To provide the operational guidance to implement this policy, the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, in coordination with our non-federal partners, has developed Continuity Guidance Circular 1 (CGC 1), Continuity Guidance for Non-Federal Entities. The purpose of this guidance document is to provide direction for the development of continuity plans and programs for non-federal entities. Effective continuity planning and programs facilitate the performance of essential functions during all-hazards emergencies or other situations that may disrupt normal operations. The primary goal of continuity is the continuation of essential functions. In this guidance document, the elements of a viable continuity capability are identified and discussed. These elements are critical to establishing and maintaining a comprehensive and effective continuity capability. Continuity programs and operations are good business practices that ensure critical services will be available to the Nation's citizens under all conditions. The provisions of this guidance document are applicable for State, local, territorial and tribal governments and the private sector.

This publication helps to develop a comprehensive juvenile firesetter prevention training workshop for the various agency professionals who work with juvenile firesetters. Juveniles are responsible for a significant proportion of both the accidental and intentional fires that occur each year in the United States. Since the mid-1970's, national, state, and local officials have been turning more attention to the problem of juvenile firesetting and have experimented with various approaches to reducing it. Nonetheless, many experts believe that there are significant gaps in our knowledge and practice. In response to these concerns, in 1987 the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) began a new research and development program intended to conceptualize, design, develop, and evaluate a variety of community-based approaches to prevent and control juvenile firesetting. The initiative was known as the National Juvenile Firesetter/Arson Control and Prevention Program (NJF/ACP). This Users' Guide is designed to accompany The Juvenile Firesetter/Arson Control and Prevention Program (JFACPP) Program Materials. The Users' Guide is intended to accomplish the following objectives: 1. To provide a summary of how to plan and implement a juvenile firesetter/arson control and prevention program. This is achieved by outlining critical decision points in building each component of the juvenile firesetter/arson program. The result is a cookbook format that guides the reader from the planning to the execution of an effective community program. 2. To highlight the key information contained in The JFACPP Guidelines for Implementation.

Following the two damaging California earthquakes in1989 (Loma Prieta) and 1994 (Northridge), many concrete wall and masonry wall buildings were repaired using federal disaster assistance funding. The repairs were based on inconsistent criteria, giving rise to controversy regarding criteria for the repair of cracked concrete and masonry wall buildings. To help resolve this controversy, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) initiated a project on evaluation and repair of earthquake-damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings in 1996. The ATC-43 project addresses the investigation and evaluation of earthquake damage and discusses policy issues related to the repair and upgrade of earthquake-damaged buildings. The project deals with buildings whose primary lateral-force-resisting systems consist of concrete or masonry bearing walls with flexible or rigid diaphragms, or whose vertical-load-bearing systems consist of concrete or steel frames with concrete or masonry infill panels. The intended audience is design engineers, building owners, building regulatory officials, and government agencies. The project results are reported in three documents. TheFEMA306report, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, Basic Procedures Manual, provides guidance on evaluating damage and analyzing future performance. Included in the document are component damage classification guides, and test and inspection guides. FEMA 307, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, Technical Resources, contains supplemental information including results from a theoretical analysis of the effects of prior damage on single-degree-of-freedom mathematical models, additional background information on the component guides, and an example of the application of the basic procedures. FEMA 308, The Repair of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, discusses the policy issues pertaining to the repair of earthquake-damaged buildings and illustrates how the procedures developed for the project can be used to provide a technically sound basis for policy decisions. It also provides guidance for the repair of damaged components.

The purpose of this primer is to introduce concepts that can help building designers, owners, and state and local governments mitigate the threat of hazards resulting from terrorist attacks on new buildings. This primer specifically addresses four high-population, private-sector building types: commercial office, retail, multi-family residential, and light industrial. However, many of the concepts presented here are applicable to other building types and/or existing buildings. The focus is on explosive attack, but the text also addresses design strategies to mitigate the effects of chemical, biological, and radiological attacks. Designing security into a building requires a complex series of tradeoffs. Security concerns need to be balanced with many other design constraints such as accessibility, initial and life-cycle costs, natural hazard mitigation, fire protection, energy efficiency, and aesthetics. Because the probability of attack is very small, security measures should not interfere with daily operations of the building. On the other hand, because the effects of attack can be catastrophic, it is prudent to incorporate measures that may save lives and minimize business interruption in the unlikely event of an attack. The measures should be as unobtrusive as possible to provide an inviting, efficient environment that does not attract undue attention of potential attackers. Security design needs to be part of an overall multi-hazard approach to ensure that it does not worsen the behavior of the building in the event of a fire, earthquake, or hurricane, which are far more prevalent hazards than are terrorist attacks. Because of the severity of the types of hazards discussed, the goals of security-oriented design are by necessity modest. With regard to explosive attacks, the focus is on a damage-limiting or damage-mitigating approach rather than a blast-resistant approach. The goal is to incorporate some reasonable measures that will enhance the life safety of the persons within the building and facilitate rescue efforts in the unlikely event of attack. It is clear that owners are becoming interested in considering manmade hazards for a variety of reasons including the desire to: attract more tenants or a particular type of tenant, lower insurance premiums or obtain high-risk insurance, reduce life-cycle costs for operational security measures, and limit losses and business interruption. Protection against terrorist attack is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Incremental measures taken early in design may be more fully developed at a later date. With a little forethought regarding, for instance, the space requirements needed to accommodate additional measures, the protection level can be enhanced as the need arises or the budget permits after construction is complete. This primer strives to provide a holistic multi-disciplinary approach to security design by considering the various building systems including site, architecture, structure, mechanical and electrical systems and providing general recommendations for the design professional with little or no background in this area. This is one of a series of five FEMA primers that address security issues in high-population, private-sector buildings. It is the intent of FEMA that these reports will assist designers, owners, and local/state government officials in gaining a solid understanding of man-made hazards. These reports will also discuss current state-of-the-art methods to enhance protection of the building by incorporating low-cost measures into new buildings at the earliest stages of site selection and design.

The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) provides an opportunity for States, Tribal governments, and local jurisdictions to significantly reduce their vulnerability to natural hazards. It also allows them to streamline the receipt and use of Federal disaster assistance through pre-disaster hazard mitigation planning. DMA 2000 places new emphasis on State, Tribal, and local mitigation planning by requiring these entities to develop and submit mitigation plans as a condition of receiving various types of pre- and post-disaster assistance (such as the Pre-Disaster Mitigation [PDM] program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program [HMGP]) under the Stafford Act. On February 26, 2002, the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published an Interim Final Rule (the Rule) to implement the mitigation planning requirements of DMA 2000. The Rule outlines the requirements for State, Tribal and local mitigation plans. FEMA has developed a series of guides, called the Mitigation Planning "How-To" Guides, to provide State, Tribal, and local governments with easy-to-understand information needed to initiate and maintain a hazard mitigation planning process and meet the requirements of the Rule. The first four How-To Guides are known as the "core four" guides. They provide the basic instructions for preparing a natural hazard mitigation plan. They are: Getting Started: Building Support for Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-1); Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (FEMA 386-2); Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementation Strategies (FEMA 386-3); Bringing the Plan to Life: Implementing the Hazard Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-4); This How-To Guide, Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-5), supplements FEMA 386-3 and focuses on guidance for using Benefit-Cost Review when prioritizing mitigation actions in a hazard mitigation plan. The purpose of a mitigation plan is to reduce the community's vulnerability to hazards. After assessing its risks, a community may consider many mitigation options. However, due to monetary as well as other limitations, it is often impossible to implement all mitigation actions. Hence, the Planning Team needs to select the most cost-effective actions for implementation first, not only to use resources efficiently, but to make a realistic start toward mitigating risks. The Rule supports the principle of cost-effectiveness by requiring hazard mitigation plans to have an action plan that includes a prioritization process that demonstrates a special emphasis on maximization of benefits over costs. The requirement states: The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. [§201.6(c)(3)(iii)] The purpose of this guide is to help local jurisdictions understand how to apply the concepts of Benefit-Cost Review to the prioritization of mitigation actions, and thereby meet the requirement of the Rule.

A fundamental principle of the Public Assistance (PA) Program is that it will operate much more effectively for all participants when everyone shares a common understanding of the program benefits, expectations, and procedures. To support this idea, FEMA has undertaken an effort to provide the State, Tribal, and local partners with more and better information about the PA Program. Through the Internet, newly published materials, training opportunities, and the production of a standard Applicant's Briefing package, FEMA wants to ensure that all participants have the tools to do their part in obtaining and administering public assistance funding. As part of this effort, FEMA has produced this digest of PA Program policies. The Public Assistance Policy Digest is intended to be an easy-to read, easy-to use, brief summary of the basic policies that govern the PA Program. While the digest is primarily intended for those unfamiliar with the terms and provisions of the program, it also may serve as a reference for those with more knowledge of the program. Because this policy digest is not exhaustive, either in topics or in detail, information should be verified with FEMA PA Program officials before becoming the basis for decision making.

An Emergency Action Plan (EAP) is one of the primary safeguards against the loss of life and property damage that can result from the failure of a high-hazard potential dam. Today, there are approximately 8,300 state-regulated high-hazard potential dams in the United States. Of these 8.300 dams, approximately 40 percent do not have an EAP. Since the establishment of the National Dam Safety Program in 1979, both the state and federal sectors have made significant progress in increasing the number of state-regulated high-hazard potential dams with EAP's. The dam safety community recognizes, however, that much more must be done to reach the goal established in January 2006 by the National Dam Safety Review Board: achieve 100 percent compliance for EAP's for high-hazard potential dams. When the National Dam Safety Review Board met in October 2005, the losses from Hurricane Katrina had just exposed significant failures in all aspects of the Nation's emergency mitigation, planning, and response. The failure of the emergency management system to respond quickly and effectively to the disaster brought to the forefront the need for all hazard areas, including dam safety, to refocus their attention on this critical requirement. For the dam infrastructure, the need for emergency action planning is heightened by the aging of dams in the United States. The 2005 Report Card for America's Infrastructure (American Society of Civil Engineers, March 2005) states that the number of unsafe or deficient dams in the United States has risen by more than 33 percent since 1998, to more than 3,500. To address these issues, the National Dam Safety Review Board established the Task Group on Emergency Action Planning and Response. The Task Group, which began its work in January 2006, recognized that the success of its effort would require the involvement of all of the sectors with an interest in its outcome. As a result, the sectors represented on the Task Group include state and federal dam safety professionals and engineers, the emergency management community, the security and protection community, and emergency response organizations. Appendix D includes the list of Task Group members. This document provides the Task Group's findings, recommendations, and strategies for significantly increasing the number of EAP's for state-regulated high-hazard potential dams.

FEMA initiated this project in September 2004 with a contract to the Applied Technology Council. The project was undertaken to address the need for guidance on how to build a structure that would be capable of resisting the extreme forces of both a tsunami and an earthquake. This question was driven by the fact that there are many communities along our nation's west coast that are located on narrow spits of land and are vulnerable to a tsunami triggered by an earthquake on the Cascadia subduction zone, which could potentially generate a tsunami of 20 feet in elevation or more within 20 minutes. Given their location, it would be impossible to evacuate these communities in time, which could result in a significant loss of life. Many coastal communities subject to tsunami located in other parts of the country also have the same potential problem. In these cases, the only feasible alternative is vertical evacuation, using specially design, constructed and designated structures built to resist both tsunami and earthquake loads. The significance of this issue came into sharp relief with the December 26, 2004 Sumatra earthquake and Indian Ocean tsunami. While this event resulted in a tremendous loss of life, this would have been even worse had not many people been able to take shelter in multi-story reinforced concrete buildings. Without realizing it, these survivors were among the first to demonstrate the concept of vertical evacuation from a tsunami. This publication presents the following information: General information on the tsunami hazard and its history; Guidance on determining the tsunami hazard, including the need for tsunami depth and velocity on a site-specific basis; Different options for vertical evacuation from tsunamis; Determining tsunami and earthquake loads and structural design criteria necessary to address them; and, Structural design concepts and other considerations. In September 2004 the Applied Technology Council (ATC) was awarded a "Seismic and Multi-Hazard Technical Guidance Development and Support" contract (HSFEHQ-04-D-0641) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to conduct a variety of tasks, including the development of design guidance for special facilities for vertical evacuation from tsunamis, which ATC designated the ATC-64 Project. The effort was co-funded by FEMA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The developmental process involved a variety of activities including review of relevant research and state-of-the-practice documentation and literature, preparation of technical guidance and approaches for tsunami-resistant design, identification of relevant tsunami loads and applicable design criteria, development of methods to calculate tsunami loading, and identification of desired architectural and structural system attributes for vertical evacuation facilities. The resulting guidance for design of special facilities for vertical evacuation from tsunami, as presented herein, addresses a range of relevant issues. Chapter 1 defines the scope and limitations of the guidance. Chapter 2 provides background information on tsunami effects and their potential impacts on buildings in coastal communities. Chapters 3 through 7 provide design guidance on characterization of tsunami hazard, choosing between various options for vertical evacuation structures, locating and sizing vertical evacuation structures, estimation of tsunami load effects, structural design criteria, and design concepts and other considerations. The document concludes with a series of appendices that provide supplemental information, including examples of vertical evacuation structures from Japan, example tsunami load calculations, a community design example, development of impact load equations, and background on maximum flow velocity and momentum flux in the tsunami runup zone.

Citizen Corps is FEMA's grassroots strategy to build a nationwide culture of emergency and disaster preparedness to support national and community resilience. Citizen Corps Councils bring together government and community leaders to engage individual members of the public and organizations from all sectors to collaborate on preparedness planning, emergency response, and disaster mitigation and recovery. Engaging the public is a critical part of Citizen Corps' mission. Well-trained volunteers supplement governmental resources in all phases of emergency management. Identifying and supporting policy and practice that promote and strengthen public participation is, therefore, an important element of Citizen Corps' implementation. FEMA has learned from Citizen Corps Councils, volunteer program managers, and volunteers that liability is a significant concern and a potential barrier to volunteer involvement in emergency services. Liability-legal responsibility for one's acts or omissions-includes diverse concerns: legally imposed payment of damages for personal injury or property damage; penalties for practicing a profession or trade without the required license or permit; compensation for lost income and medical expenses of an injured volunteer; and damages for breach of contract. To offer guidance in this area, FEMA funded the nonprofit Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI) to develop the Citizen Corps Volunteer Liability Guide (CCVLG) to provide an overview of liability and to suggest some approaches to addressing these concerns.

This report, America at Risk, builds on the meetings of America Burning, Recommissioned, and is based on statements, discussions and recommendations that were issued on May 3rd by the Commission as the "Principal Findings and Recommendations". One hundred years ago, American cities faced a devastating challenge from the threat of urban fires. Whole cities had become the victims of these events. Entire neighborhoods lived with the very real threat that an ignited fire would take everything, including their lives. Today, the threat of fires is still with us. But we have done a lot to address the risk, minimize the incidence and severity of losses, and prevent fires from spreading. Our states and localities have an improving system of codes and standards; most of us are aware of the risks; our communities have everyday heroes who provide the first response to emergency calls; some of our homes and buildings have alarms or sprinkler systems; and our water distribution system for fire suppression stretches further than many imagined in 1900. We have accomplished a lot, but we have much more to do. Our community fire departments and firefighters are at the vanguard of the long-term effort to address our fire risks. Not only are they the first responders to fire and other natural and man-made disasters, but also they have been strong advocates of effective codes and standards; they visited our schools and neighborhoods with educational material on fire risks, and they have put their lives on the line countless times. They will continue to do so. There is ample proof that the word hero is a correct attribute of our Nation's firefighters. As this report very clearly indicates, the success of America's fire services over the past 100 years is instructive for the strength and sustainability of America's communities for the next 100 years as well. Today, we must not only continue and reinvigorate our successes, but also expand them to include the natural and man-made threats that each of our counties, cities, towns and villages face every day - floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, hazardous material spills, highway accidents, acts of terrorism, and so much more. As the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Project Impact: Building Disaster Resistant Communities has shown, community-based partnerships among local government, public safety services, businesses and residents will provide us the best set of priorities and implementation strategies, as well as the longest lasting commitments with respect to disaster prevention. That is why FEMA and national fire service organizations have formed a Project Impact partnership to support communities' efforts to become disaster resistant. Project Impact depends on our first responders, our neighborhood fire departments, and without them, our communities would all be more vulnerable to disaster losses.