Bøger af Federal Emergency Management Agency

The purpose of this primer is to provide the design community and school administrators with the basic principles and techniques to make a school that is safe from terrorist attacks and at the same time is functional, aesthetically pleasing, and meets the needs of the students, staff, administration, and general public. Protecting a school building and grounds from physical attack is a significant challenge because the ability to design, construct, renovate, operate, and maintain the facility is spread across numerous building users, infrastructure systems, and many building design codes. There is a strong interest in the United States (U.S.) in ensuring the safety of students, faculty, and staff in our schools. Schools are integral parts of their communities. Many schools are used as shelters, command centers, or meeting places in times of crisis. Schools are also used widely for polling and voting functions. In some communities, schools are places of health care delivery. Schools may or may not be the targets of terrorism, but they are certain to be affected by terrorism, whether directly or indirectly. On September 11, 2001, four elementary schools and three high schools located within 6 blocks of the World Trade Center were just beginning classes when the first plane hit the north tower. Thousands of children were exposed to the dust clouds from the collapsing buildings. Even those children not in the immediate vicinity experienced a great deal of anxiety. Children in at least three states (New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut) had parents working in or around the World Trade Center that day. In the Washington, DC, area, schools faced similar situations after the Pentagon was attacked. Many Americans feel that schools should be the safest place our children can be, perhaps at times even safer than the homes in which they live. Security is not a standalone capability; it is a critical design consideration that should be constantly reviewed and scrutinized from the design phase through construction or rehabilitation and onto building use. The focus of this primer will be on the threats posed by potential physical attacks on a school by terrorists. Attacking schools and school children could be a highly emotional and high profile event. At the time of publication of this primer, there have been no direct terrorist threats against a school known to the public; however, schools could be indirectly threatened by collateral damage from a terrorist attack directed at nearby facilities. Protecting a school against terrorist attack is a challenging task. A school may have considerable vulnerabilities, because of its well defined periods of use, designated access points, storage of sensitive personal information, minimal security forces, and numerous avenues of penetration and escape for attackers. This primer should be used in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 426, Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings, and FEMA 427, Primer for Design of Commercial Buildings to Mitigate Terrorist Attacks. This primer presents an approach to protecting schools at risk from terrorist attacks. The information presented is intended primarily for architects and engineers, or school administrators with a technical background. This publication is designed to meet the needs of all schools, including those with serious security concerns. Because security concerns of individual schools vary greatly, some users with modest security concerns may feel beleaguered by the amount of information and technical approach presented. They should feel free to select the methods and measures that best meet their individual situations while gaining a general appreciation of security concerns and risk management.

The financing of hazard mitigation continues to, be one of the more difficult impediments to creating a seismically safe environment for Californians. Both State and local governments have undertaken mitigation utilizing a variety of funding mechanisms. California is one of the most seismically active States in the U.S. The statistics generated by seismologists are sobering. Over the coming decades variously sized earthquakes can be expected throughout the State, some with catastrophic damage potential. A sample statistic: there is a 90% probability that either the San Francisco Bay Area or the Los Angeles basin will suffer a magnitude 7 or larger earthquake by the year 2020. Each of the many large earthquakes predicted throughout the State can cause billions of dollars in property damage, loss of human life, injury, and disruptions in transportation, communications and utilities. As one response to this threat, because unreinforced masonry buildings (URMs) are susceptible to serious damage in a major earthquake, in 1986 the State of California adopted what is commonly referred to as "the URM Law." As discussed later in this Handbook, this law requires municipalities and counties within the most seismically active zones in the State to identify and create hazard mitigation programs for the unreinforced masonry buildings in their jurisdiction. A number of earthquake experts are now recommending that such identification and mitigation be applied to other seismically hazardous structures as well, including concrete frame structures lacking ductile connections, poorly designed tilt-up concrete buildings with inadequate roof-wall connections, and older (pre-1960) homes with inadequate strength in their foundations or cripple walls. The URM Law stopped short of requiring the owners of URM buildings to upgrade their structures. Many communities, however, have taken the initiative and mandated retrofitting of privately-owned URMs and other hazardous buildings. A few jurisdictions have mitigated the URM hazard in their community and more are in the process of doing so. The vast majority of jurisdictions, however, having identified some or all of the hazards, are wondering what they might do to mitigate them. This Handbook has been designed with that group in mind. The Handbook was conceived as part of an effort to find sources of financing for retrofit of privately owned hazardous buildings. The first step in the research process was to survey the 520 cities, towns and counties in California as to the status of their URM retrofit programs, and to gather information on any financial and non-financial incentive programs they may have established. Although more than 35% of those surveyed did respond, very few respondents had implemented any retrofit incentive programs. While the survey did not reveal the pot of gold, we were excited and encouraged by the creativity and resourcefulness of the few jurisdictions which have found ways to leverage or develop financing while promoting retrofitting in their communities. Their efforts are described in this Handbook. The heart of the Handbooklies in the CASE STUDIES, which describe steps to promote retrofitting taken by jurisdictions throughout California that may serve as models for others. The case studies were selected from responses to our survey. We met with staff at these municipalities to develop the case studies, which include descriptions of these jurisdictions' programs, as well as discussions of their programs' development, the resources they require, and their effectiveness.

Blanco County, Texas has been awarded, under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Homeland Security Program Grant (HSGP) authorization to construct a three hundred (300) foot new communications tower, a total of three hundred twenty (320) feet with the planned attached antennae. This communications tower will enhance the interoperable communications among all first responder disciplines in response to terrorist attacks and during times of natural or man-made disasters. The HSGP provides grant funding to public safety agencies for the protection of critical communications infrastructure from terrorism, natural disasters and routine operations. HSGP supports the implementation of State Homeland Security Strategies to address the identified planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercise needs to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events. This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared according to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as applied to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) at 44 CFR Part 10. This section of the federal code requires that FEMA take into account environmental considerations when authorizing or approving actions, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. This phased project, is a joint venture between Burnet (1,021 Sq. Mi.), Llano (966 Sq. Mi.) and Blanco (713 Sq. Mi.) Counties will build a P25 Regional VHF Digital Trunking Communications System that allows for a link back to the Austin Master Site Controller making it an element of a much larger Capital Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) Regional Radio System. The terrain of the three counties consists of 2,700 Square Miles of rural, rugged hills, valleys, and lakes over the three county areas. The new system will increase coverage from nonexistent in numerous locations to approximately 94% AREA Portable Inbound coverage. The Project is being installed in Phases beginning with FY 2007 Grant Year thru FY 2010 Grant Year. The link back to the Austin Master Site Controller making it an element of a much larger CAPCOG Regional Radio System is being planned for FY 2011 Grant Year. This project will assist Burnet, Llano and Blanco Counties in completing our P25 Communications System for our CAPCOG Regional Interoperable project and is fully compliant with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) January 1, 2013 Narrowband mandate for VHF Frequencies. In support of the proposed project, the Blanco County Commissioners Court conducted a public meeting on August 9, 2011 that included discussions regarding the funding for the Round Mountain Tower site. The purpose of this EA is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed construction of a communications tower facility. FEMA will use the findings in this EA to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a federal program that allows property owners to purchase insurance protection against losses from flooding. This insurance is designed to provide an alternative to costly, taxpayer-funded disaster assistance. Congress established the NFIP with the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 that provides the NFIP authority and guidelines. All changes since 1968 have been made as amendments to this act. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the NFIP. Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between local participating communities and the federal government. The community agrees to implement and enforce floodplain measures (ordinances and laws) to reduce future flood damage to new construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas; the federal government will make flood insurance available within the community as financial protection against future flood losses. In 1981, FEMA initiated efforts to once again involve the private-sector insurance industry in the NFIP. A cooperative effort between FEMA and insurance company representatives led to the creation of the Write Your Own (WYO) Program in July 1983. The WYO Companies issue and service federally backed Standard Flood Insurance Policies under their own names, collect premiums, and handle and pay claims. FEMA pays the WYO Companies a fee for these services. In August 1983, FEMA extended an invitation to all licensed property and casualty companies to participate in the WYO Program for fiscal year 1984. The NFIP now has two programs-the NFIP Direct Program and the WYO Program. 1) NFIP Direct Program The program that deals with the issuing and servicing of flood insurance policies, and the handling of resultant claims, directly by the federal government is known as the NFIP Direct Program. The NFIP Servicing Agent assists and advises agents and adjusters who handle Direct Program policies. The NFIP Servicing Agent also manages the Group Flood Insurance Policy Program and the policies for buildings that are identified as Severe Repetitive Loss Properties. 2) WYO Program The WYO Program now accounts for approximately 90 percent of all flood policies. The NFIP Bureau and Statistical Agent assist and advise the WYO Companies. However, this does not diminish the authority of the WYO Company or relieve the company of its obligations. The WYO Company still collects the premium, issues the policy, and provides adjustment and payment for claims. In addition to providing flood insurance for property, the NFIP is actively engaged in the evaluation of existing and potential flood hazards and their long-term reduction. Accordingly, various zones of flooding probability and severity have been established. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) are produced to show the projected elevation to which flooding is likely to occur in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Community officials are responsible for issuing building permits and must keep the FIRM and make the information available. In some instances, the local agent may have the maps available.

This volume of selected readings and the handbook it accompanies have been developed to provide participants in the building process at the local, state, and regional levels with the information they need to adequately address the potential effects on their communities of using new or improved seismic safety design provisions in the development of regulations for new buildings. It represents one product of an ongoing program conducted by the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). A brief description of this program is presented below so that readers of the handbook and these selected readings can approach their use with a fuller understanding of their purpose and limitations. In the chapters included in the handbook: The potential impacts identified by the committee are described. Information sources and data bases that may be able to provide communities with general as well as specific information and guidance are listed. General terms related to earthquakes are defined and the modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) scale and the Richter magnitude scale are described. In this accompanying volume of selected readings, the committee has assembled a series of papers that address various aspects of the seismic safety issue. A number of these papers were prepared specifically for the BSSC study and several were presented at the BSSC committee meetings with building process participants. Several other papers were originally presented at a 1984 FEMA workshop but were not published. Included are: An estimate of the impact of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions on design and construction costs developed for the BSSC study; Descriptions of the seismic hazard in various areas of the United States developed for the BSSC study; Explanations of seismic safety codes; Descriptions of current seismic hazard mitigation practices and programs; A description of recent seismic safety policy research developed for the BSSC study; A summary of the BSSC committee meetings with building process participants in Charleston, Memphis, St. Louis, and Seattle; A relatively extensive set of references.

Seismic risk management tools, including new seismic engineering technology and data, are now available to assist with evaluating, predicting, and controlling financial and personal-injury losses from future damaging earthquakes. These tools have evolved as a result of scientific and engineering breakthroughs, including new earth-science knowledge about the occurrence and severity of earthquake shaking, and new engineering techniques for designing building systems and components to withstand the effects of earthquakes. As a result, design and construction professionals can now design and construct new buildings with more predictable seismic performance than ever before. Seismic risks can be managed effectively in a number of ways, including the design and construction of better performing buildings as well as the employment of strategies that can result in risk reduction over the life of the building. Risk reduction techniques include the use of new technologies, such as seismic isolation and energy dissipation devices for both structural and nonstructural systems; site selection to avoid hazards such as ground motion amplification, landslide, and liquefaction; and the use of performance-based design concepts, which enable the engineer to better estimate building capacity and seismic loading demand and to design buildings for enhanced performance (beyond that typically provided by current seismic codes). The implementation of risk reduction strategies by building owners and managers is critically important, not only for reducing the likelihood of life loss and injury, but also for reducing the potential for losses associated with earthquake damage repair and business interruption. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has commissioned and funded the development of this document to facilitate the process of educating building owners and managers about seismic risk management tools that can be effectively and economically employed by them during the building development phase - from site selection through design and construction - as well as the operational phase. The objectives of this report are fourfold: (1) to summarize, in a qualitative fashion, important new concepts in performance-based seismic design and new knowledge about the seismic hazard facing the United States (in a way that can be easily communicated to building owners and managers); (2) to describe a variety of concepts for reducing seismic risk, including the means to reduce economic losses that are not related to engineering solutions; (3) to provide illustrative examples and graphical tools that can be used by the design community to more effectively "sell" concepts of seismic risk management and building performance improvements; and (4) to establish a means by which seismic engineering and financial risk management can be integrated to form a holistic seismic risk management plan. The overarching goal of the document is to provide a means to facilitate communications between building owners/managers and design professionals on the important issues affecting seismic risk decision making during the design and construction of new facilities, as well as the operational phase. Stated another way, this report may be considered as a framework for integrating seismic risk management into already well-established project planning, design, and construction processes used by most owners and designers.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed this publication, Site and Urban Design for Security: Guidance against Potential Terrorist Attacks, to provide information and design concepts for the protection of buildings and occupants, from site perimeters to the faces of buildings. The intended audience includes the design community of architects, landscape architects, engineers and other consultants working for private institutions, building owners and managers and state and local government officials concerned with site planning and design. Immediately after September 11, 2001, extensive site security measures were put in place, particularly in the two target cities of New York and Washington. However, many of these security measures were applied on an ad hoc basis, with little regard for their impacts on development pat-terns and community character. Property owners, government entities and others erected security barriers to limit street access and installed a wide variety of security devices on sidewalks, buildings, and transportation facilities. The short-term impacts of these measures were certainly justified in the immediate aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001, but traffic patterns, pedestrian mobility, and the vitality of downtown street life were increasingly jeopardized. Hence, while the main objective of this manual is to reduce physical damage to buildings and related infrastructure through site design, the purpose of FEMA 430 is also to ensure that security design provides careful attention to urban design values by maintaining or even enhancing the site amenities and aesthetic quality in urban and semi-urban areas. This publication focuses on site design aimed to protect buildings from attackers using vehicles carrying explosives. These represent the most serious form of attack. Large trucks enable terrorists to carry very large amounts of explosives that are capable of causing casualties and destruction over a range of many hundreds of yards. Perimeter barriers and protective design within the site can greatly reduce the possibility of vehicle penetration. Introduction of smaller explosive devices, carried in suitcases or backpacks, must be prevented by pedestrian screening methods. Site design for security, however, may impact the function and amenity of the site, and barrier and access control design may impact the quality of the public space within the adjacent neighborhood and community. The designer's role is to ensure that public amenity and the aesthetics of the site surroundings are kept in balance with security needs. This publication contains a number of examples in which the security/ amenity balance has been maintained through careful design and collaboration between designers and security experts. Much security design work since September 11, 2001, has been applied to federal and state projects, and these provide many of the design examples shown. At present, federal government projects are subject to mandatory security guidelines that do not apply to private sector projects, but these guidelines provide a valuable information resource in the absence of comparable guidelines or regulations applying to private development. Operations and management issues and the detailed design of access control, intrusion alarm systems, electronic perimeter protection, and physical security devices, such as locking devices, are the province of the security consultant and are not covered here, except as they may impact the conceptual design of the site. Limited information only is provided on some aspects of chemical, biological and radiological (CBR) attacks that are significant for site designers; extensive discussion of approaches to these threats can be found in FEMA 426.

This document is a comprehensive guide to the National Incident Management System Supporting Technology Evaluation Program (NIMS STEP). Evaluation activities are sponsored by the National Preparedness Directorate (NPD), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This guide is designed to provide an orientation to the evaluation process and policies including vendor application requirements, product selection methods, evaluation activities, and post-evaluation review/reporting processes. Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-5 directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and administer the National Incident Management System (NIMS). In 2004, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released NIMS to provide a consistent nationwide template to enable governments and responders to work together effectively and efficiently to manage incidents and planned events. Although the incident management framework can be adaptable to any situation, NIMS provides a standard structure and management concepts that transcend all incidents, including: Accountability, Common Terminology, Comprehensive Resource Management, Information and Intelligence Management, Integrated Communications, Management Span-of-Control, Modular Organization, Unified Command Structure. The NIMS provides a framework and sets forth, among others, the requirement for interoperability and compatibility to enable a diverse set of public and private organizations to conduct well-integrated and effective incident management operations. Systems operating in an incident management environment must be able to work together and not interfere with one another. Interoperability and compatibility are achieved through the use of tools such as common communications and data standards. Establishing and maintaining a common operating picture and ensuring accessibility and interoperability are the principal goals of the Communication and Information Management component of NIMS. The NIMS STEP supports NIMS implementation by providing an objective evaluation of supporting technologies - the use and incorporation of new and existing technologies to improve efficiency and effectiveness in all aspects of incident management. The Incident Management Systems Integration (IMSI) Division of NPD has tasked the NIMS Support Center (NIMS SC) to support and manage the day-to-day functions of the program.

As traffic volume increases and the highway and interstate system becomes more complex, emergency responders face a growing risk to their personal safety while managing and working at highway incidents. The purpose of this report is to identify practices that have the potential to decrease that risk, as well as to reduce the number of injuries and deaths that occur while responding to and returning from incidents. The consistently high annual percentage of emergency worker fatalities related to response prompted the Fire Service Emergency Vehicle Safety Initiative (EVSI), a partnership effort among the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)/NHTSA, and the DOT/Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Joint Program Office. One of the primary functions of the EVSI was to sponsor the National Forum on Emergency Vehicle Safety, which brought together representatives of major national-level fire and emergency service associations and other individuals and organizations with an interest and expertise in emergency vehicle safety. These representatives met to: identify the major issues related to firefighter fatalities that occur while responding to or returning from alarms and while operating on highway emergency scenes; develop and prioritize recommendations to reduce firefighter response and highway scene fatalities; identify organizations that had made progress in improving firefighter/responder safety in these areas based on mitigation techniques and technologies; and review and approve the findings of the research done for this report.

Experience with recent disaster recovery efforts highlights the need for additional guidance, structure and support to improve how we as a Nation address recovery challenges. This experience prompts us to better understand the obstacles to disaster recovery and the challenges faced by communities that seek disaster assistance. The National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) is a guide to promote effective recovery, particularly for those incidents that are large-scale or catastrophic. The NDRF provides guidance that enables effective recovery support to disaster-impacted States, Tribes and local jurisdictions. It provides a flexible structure that enables disaster recovery managers to operate in a unified and collaborative manner. It also focuses on how best to restore, redevelop and revitalize the health, social, economic, natural and environmental fabric of the community and build a more resilient Nation. The NDRF defines: Core recovery principles; Roles and responsibilities of recovery coordinators and other stakeholders; A coordinating structure that facilitates communication and collaboration among all stakeholders; Guidance for pre- and post-disaster recovery planning; The overall process by which communities can capitalize on opportunities to rebuild stronger, smarter and safer. These elements improve recovery support and expedite recovery of disaster-impacted individuals, families, businesses and communities. While the NDRF speaks to all who are impacted or otherwise involved in disaster recovery, it concentrates on support to individuals and communities. The NDRF introduces four new concepts and terms: Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator (FDRC); State or Tribal Disaster Recovery Coordinators (SDRC or TDRC); Local Disaster Recovery Managers (LDRM); Recovery Support Functions (RSFs). The FDRC, SDRC, TDRC and LDRM provide focal points for incorporating recovery considerations into the decisionmaking process and monitoring the need for adjustments in assistance where necessary and feasible throughout the recovery process. The RSFs are six groupings of core recovery capabilities that provide a structure to facilitate problem solving, improve access to resources, and foster coordination among State and Federal agencies, nongovernmental partners and stakeholders. The concepts of the FDRCs, SDRCs, TDRCs and RSFs are scalable to the nature and size of the disaster. The NDRF aligns with the National Response Framework (NRF). The NRF primarily addresses actions during disaster response. Like the NRF, the NDRF seeks to establish an operational structure and to develop a common planning framework. Fundamentally, the NDRF is a construct to optimally engage existing Federal resources and authorities, and to incorporate the full capabilities of all sectors in support of community recovery. The effective implementation of the NDRF, whether or not in the context of a Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) declaration, requires strong coordination across all levels of government, NGOs and the private sector. It also requires an effective, accessible public information effort so that all stakeholders understand the scope and the realities of recovery. The NDRF provides guidance to assure that recovery activities respect the civil rights and civil liberties of all populations and do not result in discrimination on account of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. Understanding legal obligations and sharing best practices when planning and implementing recovery strategies to avoid excluding groups on these bases is critical. The NDRF is a guide to promote effective recovery. It is a concept of operations and not intended to impose new, additional or unfunded net resource requirements on Federal agencies.

Initial cost and loss of normal building use have been cited as major obstacles to implementation of seismic rehabilitation. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has published a series of occupancy-specific manuals for building owners that presents incremental strengthening of buildings in discrete stages as a way of managing costs and minimizing disruption associated with seismic rehabilitation projects. Incremental strengthening was initially conceptualized for school buildings under a grant from the National Science Foundation to Building Technology Incorporated. The FEMA manuals are the result of a series of projects funded by FEMA and others dating back to the 1980s, which investigated financial incentives for seismic rehabilitation of existing hazardous buildings, physical seismic rehabilitation potential, and institutional capacity for mitigation investment. Work was conducted by a team of consultants led by the World Institute for Disaster Risk Management in association with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Building Technology Incorporated, Melvyn Green Associates, EQE Incorporated, and George Washington University. Early on, these projects concluded that a strategy for integrating the planning and implementation of seismic strengthening into the overall facility maintenance and capital improvement process was needed. The strategy was referred to as incremental seismic rehabilitation, and the resulting manuals present seismic rehabilitation within the context of the specific facility management, risk management, and financial management needs and practices of building owners. The technical feasibility and economic viability of incremental seismic rehabilitation has been studied and validated. This Engineering Guideline for Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation is intended as a technical resource for design professionals who are implementing incremental seismic rehabilitation on their projects or advocating the use of an incremental approach to seismic rehabilitation in practice. It explains the concept of incremental seismic rehabilitation as a strategy, discusses owner maintenance, capital improvement and decision-making processes as a basis for communicating with decision-makers on seismic rehabilitation opportunities, summarizes available engineering resource documents, and outlines the overall engineering process for incremental seismic rehabilitation of buildings.

This manual is intended to provide guidance for engineers, architects, building officials, and property owners to design shelters and safe rooms in buildings. It presents information about the design and construction of shelters in the work place, home, or community building that will provide protection in response to manmade hazards. The information contained herein will assist in the planning and design of shelters that may be constructed outside or within dwellings or public buildings. These safe rooms will protect occupants from a variety of hazards, including debris impact, accidental or intentional explosive detonation, and the accidental or intentional release of a toxic substance into the air. Safe rooms may also be designed to protect individuals from assaults and attempted kidnapping, which requires design features to resist forced entry and ballistic impact. This covers a range of protective options, from low-cost expedient protection (what is commonly referred to as sheltering-in-place) to safe rooms ventilated and pressurized with air purified by ultra-high-efficiency filters. These safe rooms protect against toxic gases, vapors, and aerosols. The contents of this manual supplement the information provided in FEMA 361, Design and Construction Guidance for Community Shelters and FEMA 320, Taking Shelter From the Storm: Building a Safe Room Inside Your House. In conjunction with FEMA 361 and FEMA 320, this publication can be used for the protection of shelters against natural disasters. This guidance focuses on safe rooms as standby systems, ones that do not provide protection on a continuous basis. To employ a standby system requires warning based on knowledge that a hazardous condition exists or is imminent. Protection is initiated as a result of warnings from civil authorities about a release of hazardous materials, visible or audible indications of a release (e.g., explosion or fire), the odor of a chemical agent, or observed symptoms of exposure in people. Although there are automatic detectors for chemical agents, such detectors are expensive and limited in the number of agents that can be reliably detected. Furthermore, at this point in time, these detectors take too long to identify the agent to be useful in making decisions in response to an attack. Similarly, an explosive vehicle or suicide bomber attack rarely provides advance warning; therefore, the shelter is most likely to be used after the fact to protect occupants until it is safe to evacuate the building. Two different types of shelters may be considered for emergency use, standalone shelters and internal shelters. A standalone shelter is a separate building (i.e., not within or attached to any other building) that is designed and constructed to withstand the range of natural and manmade hazards. An internal shelter is a specially designed and constructed room or area within or attached to a larger building that is structurally independent of the larger building and is able to withstand the range of natural and manmade hazards. Both standalone and internal shelters are intended to provide emergency refuge for occupants of commercial office buildings, school buildings, hospitals, apartment buildings, and private homes from the hazards resulting from a wide variety of extreme events. The shelters may be used during natural disasters following the warning that an explosive device may be activated, the discovery of an explosive device, or until safe evacuation is established following the detonation of an explosive device or the release of a toxic substance via an intentional aerosol attack or an industrial accident. Standalone community shelters may be constructed in neighborhoods where existing homes lack shelters. Community shelters may be intended for use by the occupants of buildings they are constructed within or near, or they may be intended for use by the residents of surrounding or nearby neighborhoods or designated areas.

On May 27, 2008, President Bush declared a major disaster in the State of Iowa (1763-DR-IA) pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 5121-5206. The incident period began on May 25, 2008 and closed August 13, 2008. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that Federal agencies evaluate the environmental effects of their proposed and alternative actions before deciding to fund an action. The President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has developed a series of regulations for implementing the NEPA. These regulations are included in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 1500-1508. They require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) that includes an evaluation of alternative means of addressing the problem and a discussion of the potential environmental impacts of a proposed Federal action. An EA provides the evidence and analysis to determine whether the proposed Federal action will have a significant adverse effect on human health and the environment. An EA, as it relates to the FEMA program, must be prepared according to the requirements of the Stafford Act and 44 CFR, Part 10. This section of the Federal Code requires that FEMA take environmental considerations into account when authorizing funding or approving actions. This EA was conducted in accordance with both CEQ and FEMA regulations for NEPA and will address the environmental issues associated with the FEMA grant funding as applied to the construction of the Cedar Rapids Convention Complex Parkade (hereon "Parkade"). Executive Order (EO) 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires that Federal agencies assume a leadership role in avoiding direct or indirect support of development within the 100-year floodplain whenever there is a practicable alternative. Further, EO 11988 requires consideration of the 500-year floodplain for critical facilities such as hospitals and fire stations. Pursuant to Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5172), as amended, the City of Cedar Rapids has requested funding through FEMA Public Assistance Program. FEMA's Public Assistance Program provides supplemental Federal disaster grant assistance to State, Tribal, and local governments, and certain types of Private Nonprofit organizations so that communities can respond to and recover from major disasters or emergencies. The Public Assistance Program also has rules whereby eligible applicants may choose to use eligible, though capped, recovery funds for alternate or improved projects that may be more beneficial to the Applicant than what existed prior to the disaster event. The purpose of this project is to improve parking capacity of Lots 24/26 in downtown Cedar Rapids by using the FEMA Public Assistance Program to contribute eligible funding toward improving the parking capacity of Lot 24/26. The Parkade will ultimately be connected to the new CRCC and Hotel via a skywalk over 1st Avenue E. The structure is intended to accommodate ground level retail units in downtown Cedar Rapids. The need for the proposed project is to increase the parking capacity of downtown Cedar Rapids. This project will provide adequate parking for the CRCC and Hotel that is currently under construction. This EA is intended to document the City's decision-making process and evaluate City and FEMA defined alternatives for the City's desire to improve the parking capacity of Lots 24/26. This EA is intended to document and evaluate Cedar Rapids and FEMA defined alternatives for the City's desire to use eligible recovery funds from the facilities considered here toward the construction of the Parkade under FEMA's improved project policies.

This manual is intended to assist school administration personnel responsible for the funding and operation of existing school facilities across the United States. This guide 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. The manual was developed after analyzing the management practices of school districts of varying sizes located in various seismic zones in different parts of the United States. It focuses on the identified concerns and decisionmaking practices of K-12 public and private school managers and administrators. Earthquakes are a serious threat to school safety and pose a significant potential liability to school officials and to school districts. School buildings in 39 states are vulnerable to earthquake damage. Unsafe existing buildings expose school administrators to the following risks: Death and injury of students, teachers, and staff; Damage to or collapse of buildings; Damage and loss of furnishings, equipment, and building contents; Disruption of educational programs and school operations. The greatest earthquake risk is associated with existing school 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 school buildings need to be replaced with safe new construction or rehabilitated to correct deficiencies, for many school districts new construction is limited, at times severely, by budgetary constraints, and seismic rehabilitation is expensive and disruptive. However, an innovative approach that phases a series of discrete rehabilitation actions implemented over a period of several years, incremental seismic rehabilitation, is an effective, affordable, and non-disruptive strategy for responsible mitigation action. It can be integrated efficiently into ongoing facility maintenance and capital improvement operations to minimize cost and disruption. The strategy of incremental seismic rehabilitation makes it possible to get started now on improving earthquake safety in your school district. This manual provides school administrators with the information necessary to assess the seismic vulnerability of their buildings, and to implement a program of incremental seismic rehabilitation for those buildings.

Lifeline is an earthquake engineering term denoting those systems necessary for human life and urban function, without which large urban regions cannot exist. Lifelines basically convey food, water, fuel, energy, information, and other materials necessary for human existence from the production areas to the consuming urban areas. Prolonged disruption of lifelines such as the water supply or electric power for a city or urbanized region would inevitably lead to major economic losses, deteriorated public health, and eventually population migration. Earthquakes are probably the most likely natural disaster that would lead to major lifeline disruption. With the advent of more and more advanced technology, the United States has increasingly become dependent on the reliable provision of lifeline related commodities, such as electric power, fuel, and water. A natural question is: What is the potential for major disruption to these lifelines, especially at the regional level? The initiation of this study by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is based in part on a need to better understand the impact of disruption of lifelines, from earthquakes and to assist in the identification and prioritization of hazard mitigation measures and policies. In addition, the report is intended to improve national awareness of the importance of protecting lifeline systems from earthquakes, and of assuring lifeline reliability and continued serviceability. The specific contractual requirements of this project and report are: To assess the extent and distribution of existing U.S. lifelines, and their associated seismic risk; and To identify the most critical lifelines, and develop a prioritized series of steps for reduction of lifeline seismic vulnerability, based on overall benefit. FEMA is also sponsoring a companion study to develop and demonstrate a model methodology for assessing the seismic vulnerability and impact of disruption of water transmission and distribution systems. In this initial study, lifelines of critical importance at the U.S. national level have been analyzed to estimate overall seismic vulnerability and to identify those lifelines having the greatest economic impact, given large, credible U. S. earthquakes. The lifelines examined include electric systems; water, gas, and oil pipelines; highways and bridges; airports; railroads; ports; and emergency service facilities. The vulnerability estimates and impacts developed are presented in terms of estimated direct damage losses and indirect economic losses. These losses are considered to represent a first approximation because of the assumptions and methodology utilized, because several lifelines are not included, and because, in some cases, the available lifeline inventory data lack critical capacity information.

Each year, approximately 1,100 Americans 65 and older die in home fires and another 3,000 are injured. These statistics, combined with the fact that adults ages 50 or more care for and will soon enter this high-risk group, inspired USFA to develop a new public education campaign targeting people ages 50-plus, their families and caregivers. People between 65 and 74 are nearly twice as likely to die in a home fire as the rest of the population. People between 75 and 84 are nearly four times as likely to die in a fire. People ages 85 and older are more than five times as likely to die in a fire. A Fire Safety Campaign for People 50-Plus encourages people ages 50 and older - including the high risk 65-plus group - to practice fire-safe behaviors to reduce fire deaths and injuries. The strategy is to inform and motivate adults as they enter their fifties so that stronger fire safety and prevention practices are integrated into their lives prior to entering the higher fire-risk decades. In addition, many Baby Boomers are currently caring for family members ages 65-plus and can encourage fire safe habits.

This book provides background information and educational materials to help state officials promote the adoption and enforcement of state and local model building codes that contain the latest seismic provisions. These codes can reduce the damage that will inevitably occur when future earthquakes strike at-risk parts of the country. This book is intended for state officials, especially for earthquake program managers and hazard mitigation officers in the emergency management agencies of the states and territories prone to earthquakes. It is designed to help you convince your state and local governments that codes are effective, inexpensive, and a good investment for the future of our communities. Chapters 2 and 3 of this book contain background material on the purpose, function, and effectiveness of building codes in general and seismic codes in particular. Chapters 3,4, and 5 describe step-by-step processes for adopting state or local codes and for administering codes. Several appendices contain: the history and principles of seismic design, current seismic design practices in the United States, examples of state building code requirements, examples of state legislation, examples of local code Administration, the services of the three model code organizations in the United States, sources of further information and addresses, recommended readings, educational material for making local presentations, sample press releases for the media, sample brochures aimed at local audiences, a glossary of relevant terms.

Firefighters, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), and other emergency responders face many dangers daily from exposure to smoke, deadly temperatures, and stress to issues surrounding personal protective equipment (PPE), vehicle safety, and personal health. Although publicized firefighter fatalities are associated more often with burns and smoke inhalation, cardiovascular events, such as sudden cardiac death, account for the largest number of nonincident firefighter fatalities. Both the United States Fire Administration (USFA) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) have been tracking firefighter fatalities since 1977. According to NFPA statistics, the number of sudden cardiac deaths has averaged between 40 and 50 deaths per year since the early 1990s. USFA statistics show that firefighters, as a group, are more likely than other American workers to die of a heart attack while on duty (USFA, 2002). Additional pertinent findings in the NFPA's 2005 U.S. Firefighter Fatalities Due to Sudden Cardiac Death, 1995-2004 include: Four hundred and forty firefighters out of 1,006 (or 43.7 percent) who died on the job experienced sudden cardiac death, typically triggered by stress or exertion; Fifty percent of all volunteer firefighter deaths and 39-percent of career firefighter deaths resulted from a heart attack; Ninety-seven percent of the victims had at least a 50-percent arterial blockage; Seventy-five percent of the firefighters who died of a heart attack were working with known or detectable heart conditions or risk factors, such as high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and diabetes. While sudden cardiac death is the leading cause of death among firefighters, other factors affecting firefighters' health, wellness, and safety result in multiple deaths and injuries each and every year. Through the collection of information on firefighter deaths, the USFA has established goals to reduce loss of life among firefighters (USFA, 2006). In order to achieve this goal, emphasis must be placed on reducing the risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease as well as on the mitigation of other issues affecting the health and safety of the Nation's firefighters. As part of another effort to determine the specific issues affecting firefighter health and wellness, the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC) Foundation developed a questionnaire to determine personal health, well-being, and safety practices among firefighters. A summary of findings from this study was shared with the NVFC and USFA for use in this project. The questionnaire was distributed to a study population of 364 firefighters, of which 149 were career firefighters, 165 were volunteers, and 50 indicated they were both volunteer and career. Results from the questionnaire revealed several trends in this sample firefighter population; however, the study population was not large enough to generalize these trends for all firefighters. Results from the NVFC Foundation's questionnaire are presented here. Based on these findings, it is clear that a structured personal health and fitness program, as well as safe operations to, from, and while at emergency scenes, become critical to firefighters' safety, well-being, and survival. As a result, we present this document on emergent health and safety issues for the volunteer fire and emergency services.

The purpose of these Technical Fact Sheets, "Home Builder's Guide to Construction in Wildfire Zones," is to provide information about wildfire behavior and recommendations for building design and construction methods in the wildland/urban interface. Implementation of the recommended design and construction methods can greatly increase the chances of a building's survival in a wildfire.

The area within the Central United States (CUS) (i.e., Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi and Tennessee) known as the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) is at risk for experiencing a major earthquake. Although the CUS is not traditionally thought of as an earthquake-prone zone, the scientific community agrees that this area is a seismically active zone. To educate the residents of these states, the Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC), with support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), conducted six months of outreach from December 2010 to May 2011. This outreach (collectively referred to as ''Earthquake Outreach'') comprised several major initiatives, such as the anniversary of the 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes, the first Great Central U.S. ShakeOut(TM) and the 2011 National Level Exercise (NLE). The outreach from all these initiatives is collectively referred to as ''Earthquake Outreach'' throughout this report. To measure the effectiveness of this outreach, to gauge residents' current preparedness behaviors and attitudes regarding the risk of experiencing an earthquake and to provide recommendations for increasing preparedness, FEMA's National Preparedness Assessment Division developed the 2011 FEMA Central States Disaster and Earthquake Preparedness Survey (2011 FEMA CUS Earthquake Survey). FEMA administered the 2011 FEMA CUS Earthquake Survey to 3,211 respondents from the CUS states through a telephone interview, asking respondents about the following areas of interest: Perceptions of the likelihood of an earthquake; Participation in earthquake preparedness drills and discussions about earthquake preparedness; Preparedness for an earthquake; Awareness of earthquake preparedness activities and events; and Understanding of the protective actions to take during an earthquake. Enclosed is a summary of the findings as well as recommendations for future outreach efforts. The findings are broken down into six basic sections. Several of these sections include comparisons between different groups, with the most prevalent being respondents who were aware of Earthquake Outreach (Outreach Aware) compared to those respondents who were not aware of Earthquake Outreach (Not Outreach Aware). Residence within and residence outside of the NMSZ are also used as comparison groups, as this comparison provides the unique opportunity to assess the preparedness of those individuals who are in the area most at risk of an earthquake. In addition, several of the questions included in the 2011 FEMA CUS Earthquake Survey were also in the 2011 and 2009 FEMA National Household Surveys. Where available, comparisons to these data are made, as well.

The National Response Coordination Center (NRCC) is a multiagency center that provides overall Federal support coordination for major disasters and emergencies, including catastrophic incidents and emergency management program implementation. Staffed by the National Response Coordination Staff (NRCS), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), maintains the NRCC as a functional component of the National Operations Center (NOC) in support of incident support operations at the regional-level. Upon activation, the NRCS provides national-level emergency management by coordinating and integrating resources, policy guidance, situational awareness, and planning in order to support the affected region(s).The FEMA National Incident Support Manual describes how FEMA national staff support FEMA incident operations and briefly discusses steady-state activities pertinent to incident operations. This manual defines the activities of Federal assistance-across the nation and within FEMA's statutory authority-supporting citizens and first responders in responding to, recovering from, and mitigating all hazards. It includes definitions and descriptions of roles and responsibilities, functions, and organizational structures for those conducting FEMA incident support duties, thus forming the basis from which FEMA personnel plan and execute their assigned missions. This manual also serves as the basis for developing related guidance (procedures, handbooks, incident guides, training materials, etc.). This manual will also discuss how NRCS procedures are relevant to all personnel (FEMA, other Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector) who are either assigned to or coordinating with the NRCS. The NRCS is aligned by the functions it performs to meet the FEMA mission. This has the following advantages: NRCC structure is aligned to its primary Missions; Planning support, situational awareness, resources support, and National Response Center and Staff support are addressed as separate functions; No redundancy of function exists between incident, the regional-level, and the national-level; The alignment makes resource support efficient; The alignment promotes unity of effort.

This primer, FEMA 429, Insurance, Finance, and Regulation Primer for Terrorism Risk Management in Buildings, is a part of the Multihazard Risk Management Series of publications that addresses terrorism risk in buildings. The objective of this primer is to introduce the building insurance, finance, and regulatory communities to the issue of terrorism risk management in buildings and the tools currently available to manage that risk. Insurance, finance and regulation are considered the 'change levers' of the built environment. They are the principal mechanisms for the evaluation and management of risk exposure in buildings. These change levers play a critical role in introducing and maintaining standards for risk management and public safety.

This guide has been prepared for direct dissemination to the general public and is based on the most reliable hazard awareness and emergency education information available at the time of publication, including advances in scientific knowledge, more accurate technical language, and the latest physical research on what happens in disasters. This publication is, however, too brief to cover every factor, situation, or difference in buildings, infrastructure, or other environmental features that might be of interest. To help you explore your interest further, additional sources of information have been included. The guide has been designed to help the citizens of this nation learn how to protect themselves and their families against all types of hazards. It can be used as a reference source or as a step-by-step manual. The focus of the content is on how to develop, practice, and maintain emergency plans that reflect what must be done before, during, and after a disaster to protect people and their property. Also included is information on how to assemble a disaster supplies kit that contains the food, water, and other supplies in sufficient quantity for individuals and their families to survive following a disaster in the event they must rely on their own resources. Are You Ready? is just one of many resources the Department of Homeland Security provides the citizens of this nation to help them be prepared against all types of hazards. The Department of Homeland Security's Ready Campaign seeks to help America be better prepared for even unlikely emergency scenarios.

We've all seen the powerful images that make real the heartbreak of disaster. But we don't often see the images or hear the stories that capture efforts to minimize the effects of disasters. Nationwide, individuals, businesses and communities are fighting back against Mother Nature by taking action to reduce or prevent future disaster damage. In many cases, these actions already have proven to be successful. In others, the "test" is yet to come. Either way, there is a story to tell. Our challenge is to capture and promote these efforts in an interesting and effective way. When we succeed, we motivate others to better protect themselves and their communities. This guidebook provides some of the "best practices" of those who have promoted disaster-resistance efforts throughout the country. It is largely based on the lessons learned during a project by FEMA Region VIII and the North Dakota Division of Emergency Management to document disaster resistance. The result of that joint effort is a collection of stories, compiled into a book and published by FEMA in 2001, titled, Journeys, North Dakota's Trail Towards Disaster Resistance. Two of those stories are included in the Appendices of this book. In this guide, you'll find the key considerations for successfully telling the tale of disaster resistance-developing story leads, researching and documenting projects, creating a finished product and promoting those projects.

A considerable number of buildings in the existing building stock of the United States present a risk of poor performance in earthquakes because there was no seismic design code available or required when they were constructed, because the seismic design code used was immature and had flaws, or because original construction quality or environmental deterioration has compromised the original design. The practice of improving the seismic performance of existing buildings-known variously as seismic rehabilitation, seismic retrofitting, or seismic strengthening-began in the U.S. in California in the 1940s following the Garrison Act in 1939. This Act required seismic evaluations for pre-1933 school buildings. Substandard buildings were required to be retrofit or abandoned by 1975. Many school buildings were improved by strengthening, particularly in the late 1960s and early 1970s as the deadline approached. Local efforts to mitigate the risks from unreinforced masonry buildings (URMs) also began in this time period. In 1984, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) began its program to encourage the reduction of seismic hazards posed by existing older buildings throughout the country. Recognizing that building rehabilitation design is far more constrained than new building design and that special techniques are needed to insert new lateral elements, tie them to the existing structure, and generally develop complete seismic load paths, a document was published for this purpose in 1992. FEMA 172, NEHRP Handbook of Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (FEMA, 1992b), was intended to identify and describe generally accepted rehabilitation techniques. The art and science of seismic rehabilitation has grown tremendously since that time with federal, state, and local government programs to upgrade public buildings, with local ordinances that mandate rehabilitation of certain building types, and with a growing concern among private owners about the seismic performance of their buildings. In addition, following the demand for better understanding of performance of older buildings and the need for more efficient and less disruptive methods to upgrade, laboratory research on the subject has exploded worldwide, particularly since the nonlinear methods proposed for FEMA 273 became developed. The large volume of rehabilitation work and research now completed has resulted in considerable refinement of early techniques and development of many new techniques, some confined to the research lab and some widely used in industry. Like FEMA 172, this document describes the techniques currently judged to be most commonly used or potentially to be most useful. Furthermore, it has been formatted to take advantage of the ongoing use of typical building types in FEMA documents concerning existing buildings, and to facilitate the addition of techniques in the future. The primary purpose of this document is to provide a selected compilation of seismic rehabilitation techniques that are practical and effective. The descriptions of techniques include detailing and constructability tips that might not be otherwise available to engineering offices or individual structural engineers who have limited experience in seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. A secondary purpose is to provide guidance on which techniques are commonly used to mitigate specific seismic deficiencies in various model building types. The goals of the document are to: Describe rehabilitation techniques commonly used for various model building types, Incorporate relevant research results, Discuss associated details and construction issues, Provide suggestions to engineers on the use of new products and techniques.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) encourages State and local governments, tribal authorities, and private non-profit organizations to take a proactive approach to coordinating and managing debris removal operations as part of their overall emergency management plan. Communities with a debris management plan are better prepared to restore public services and ensure the public health and safety in the aftermath of a disaster, and they are better positioned to receive the full level of assistance available to them from FEMA and other participating entities. The core components of a comprehensive debris management plan incorporate best practices in debris removal, reflect FEMA eligibility criteria, and are tailored to the specific needs and unique circumstances of each applicant. FEMA developed this guide to provide applicants with a programmatic and operational framework for structuring their own debris management plan or ensuring that their existing plan is consistent with FEMA's eligibility criteria. This framework: 1. Identifies and explains the debris removal eligibility criteria that applicants must meet in order to receive assistance under the FEMA Public Assistance (PA) Program; 2. Provides a blueprint for assembling an effective and responsive plan for the entire debris management cycle; 3. Outlines the FEMA Public Assistance debris removal organizational structure and strategy.

This publication was equally funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which leads the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP) and by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is responsible for the implementation portion of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP). This project was originally 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 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. 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. Many coastal communities subject to tsunami located in other parts of the country also have the same issue. In these cases, the only feasible alternative is vertical evacuation, using specially designed, constructed and designated structures built to resist both tsunami and earthquake loads. The design of such structures was the focus of the earlier work on this project, which resulted in the FEMA publication, Guidelines for Design of Structures for Vertical Evacuation from Tsunamis (FEMA P646). This is a companion publication intended to present information on how vertical evacuation design guidance can be used and encouraged at the state and local level. It is meant to help state and local government officials and interested citizens by providing them with the information they would need to address the tsunami hazard in their community, to help determine if vertical evacuation is an option they should consider, and if so, how to fund, design and build such a refuge.

The National Disaster Housing Strategy (the Strategy) serves two purposes. First, it describes how we as a Nation currently provide housing to those affected by disasters. It summarizes, for the first time in a single document, the many sheltering and housing efforts we have in the United States and the broad array of organizations that are involved in managing these programs. The Strategy also outlines the key principles and policies that guide the disaster housing process. Second, and more importantly, the Strategy charts the new direction that our disaster housing efforts must take if we are to better meet the emergent needs of disaster victims and communities. Today we face a wider range of hazards and potentially catastrophic events than we have ever faced before. These include terrorist attacks and major natural disasters that could destroy large sections of the Nation's infrastructure. This new direction must address the disaster housing implications of all these risks and hazards and, at the same time, guide development of essential, baseline capabilities to overcome existing limitations. The new direction for disaster housing must leverage emerging technologies and new approaches in building design to provide an array of housing options. It must also be cost effective and draw on lessons learned and best practices. Above all, this new direction must institutionalize genuine collaboration and cooperation among the various local, State, tribal, and Federal partners, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to meet the needs of all disaster victims. Current practices in disaster housing vary based on the nature and scope of a disaster and can range from providing short-term shelters to arranging temporary and, in some cases, permanent housing. Establishing emergency shelters is generally a well-choreographed effort that unfolds smoothly at the local level as emergency management officials and nongovernmental organizations execute their emergency plans. The challenges increase when disaster victims are displaced from their homes for longer periods of time and temporary housing must be provided. The process of meeting individual and household needs becomes more challenging, and the responsibilities and roles of those involved must be absolutely clear. States monitor and support local government efforts and activate their capabilities as needed to augment local capabilities. The Federal Government stands alongside the States as an engaged partner, maintaining disaster housing resources and ready to deploy those resources, if required, to fill any emerging gap. While this process generally works very well, it broke down in August 2005 when Hurricane Katrina struck the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi and overwhelmed the capabilities of responders at all jurisdictional levels. And now, more than 3 years after Hurricane Katrina, we are still wrestling with many technical and policy issues related to disaster housing that Katrina brought to light. This Strategy outlines a vision, supported by specific goals, that will point the Nation in a new direction to meet the disaster housing needs of individuals and communities.

Earthquakes are a serious threat to safety in retail buildings, be they malls or single tenant buildings, and pose a significant potential liability to retail building owners. Retail buildings in 39 states are vulnerable to earthquake damage. Unsafe existing buildings expose retail building owners and tenants to the following risks: Death and injury to tenants, occupants, shoppers, and visitors; Damage to or collapse of buildings; Damage to and loss of furnishings, equipment, merchandise, and other building contents; Disruption of sales functions and building operations. The greatest earthquake risk is associated with existing retail 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 retail 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, 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 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 owners of Class A, B, or C retail 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.

Following certain disaster events, state, tribal, and/or local governments may wish to undertake a long-term recovery program in which FEMA - using its long-term community recovery assessment tool indicates that supplemental federal support is not required. The FEMA Long-Term Community Recovery (LTCR) Self-Help Guide (guide) is intended to provide state, tribal and local governments with a framework for implementing their own long-term community recovery planning process after a significant disaster event. It is assumed that any state, tribal, or local government undertaking a LTCR Self-Help program will have qualified staff to manage the planning process. Every disaster is unique, but there are basic principles that can be applied to assist in long-term recovery from the disaster. This LTCR Self-Help Guide: Provides step-by-step guidance for implementing a LTCR planning program based on the experience obtained and the lessons learned by teams of planners, architects, and engineers over a period of several years and multiple experiences in comprehensive long-term community recovery; Incorporates case studies for each of the steps in a LTCR program; Offers guidance and suggestions for involving the public in the recovery program; Provides method for developing a LTCR plan that is a flexible and usable blueprint for community recovery. The Self-Help Guide is based on the experiences gained and lessons learned by communities in developing and implementing a long-term community recovery program. The guide incorporates the knowledge gained by dozens of community planners as they undertook the LTCR program and developed LTCR plans in disasters that varied in scope from a tornado in a small town to the World Trade Center disaster. There also may be a need for communities to modify the process set forth in this guide to suit their particular needs. It is important that each community assess its own capability to undertake LTCR planning. The guidance provided in this guide is based on a process that has worked - but where outside technical assistance has been provided. If, after reviewing the guide, local officials do not feel they have the capacity to lead and manage this effort, consideration should be given to soliciting assistance from any of the resources listed in STEP 3: SECURING OUTSIDE SUPPORT. The primary function of the LTCR Self-Help Guide is to provide a planning template to communities that have been struck by a disaster and/or the community has the resources to undertake a LTCR program on its own. But this guide also may be useful for FEMA LTCR technical assistance teams as they work with communities on long-term recovery and may even be of assistance as a tool for teaching community preparedness in terms of putting infrastructure in place for a LTCR program before a disaster occurs.