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.

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.

Hurricane Charley made landfall on Friday, August 13, 2004, at Mangrove Point, just southwest of Punta Gorda, Florida. On August 19, 2004, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Mitigation Division deployed a Mitigation Assessment Team (MAT) to Florida to assess damages caused by Hurricane Charley. This report presents the MAT's observations, conclusions, and recommendations in response to those field investigations. Several maps included in our first chapter illustrate the path of the storm, the wind field estimates, the impact on people and infrastructure, and the depth of storm surge along the path. The width of the high-wind field was very narrow even though hurricane force winds affected some portion of the Florida peninsula from Punta Gorda to Daytona Beach. There was little storm surge or coastal flooding because of the narrow size of the storm and the translational speed with which it came ashore and crossed the state. The hurricane is believed to have been a design wind event (the wind speeds equaled or exceeded those delineated in the current version of the Florida Building Code FBC]) for a narrow area from the point of landfall on the west coast inland for 120 miles. The design wind speed for Charlotte County (Punta Gorda) per the FBC is 114 to 130 mph (measured as a 3-second peak gust). The actual measured wind speed near Punta Gorda was 112 mph (3-second peak gust) and measured speeds in other parts of the state suggest that Charley was a design wind event. The storm created a very small area affected by storm surge and most damage was not caused by flooding from storm surge, waves, or erosion. Because Hurricane Charley was a design level wind event, the resultant storm damage provides valuable evidence about the effectiveness of building codes and design practices as they ad-dress design guidelines for high winds. For buildings built prior to the adoption of the current codes, judgments were made about how the observed damage was reflective of the code to which the building was constructed, and the quality of construction or the inspection process that followed construction. Consideration also was given to the type and use of buildings. Many buildings that were expected to function for critical/essential services were severely damaged by the hurricane and lost function for significant periods of time after the event. The recommendations in this report are based solely on the observations and conclusions of the MAT, and are intended to assist the State of Florida, local communities, businesses, and individ-uals in the reconstruction process and to help reduce damage and impact from future natural events similar to Hurricane Charley. The general recommendations presented in Section 8.1 relate to policies and education/outreach that are needed to ensure that designers, contractors, and building officials understand the requirements for disaster resistance construction in hurricane-prone regions.

On August 24, 1992, Hurricane Andrew struck southern Dade County, Florida, generating high winds and rain over a vast area of the county. Although the storm produced high winds and high storm surge, the effects of the storm surge and wave action were limited to a relatively small area of the coastal floodplain. It was evident from the extensive damage caused by wind, however, that wind speeds are significant. In September 1992, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Federal Insurance Administration (FIA), at the request of the FEMA Disaster Field Office Staff, assembled a Building Performance Assessment Team. The task of the team was to survey the performance of residential buildings in the storm's path and to provide findings and recommendations to both the Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team and the Dade County Building Code Task Force. The basis for performing the survey is that better performance of building systems can be expected when causes of observed failures are corrected using recognized standards of design and construction. The assessment team developed recommendations for reducing future hurricane damage such as that resulting from Hurricane Andrew. Recommendations included areas of concern such as building materials, construction techniques, code compliance, quality of construction, plan review, inspection, and reconstruction/retrofit efforts. The recommendations presented in this report may also have application in other communities in Florida. This report presents the team's observations of the successes and failures of buildings in withstanding the effects of Hurricane Andrew, comments on building failure modes, and provides recommendations for improvements intended to enhance the performance of buildings in future hurricanes.

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.

The Nation has made measurable strides toward improving preparedness for the full range of hazards at all levels of government and across all segments of society. National preparedness has improved not only for the countless threats posed by those who wish to bring harm to the American homeland but also for the many natural and technological hazards that face the Nation's communities. Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness (PPD-8) describes the Nation's approach to preparing for the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk to the security of the United States. The Directive requires a National Preparedness Report (NPR), an annual report summarizing the progress made toward building, sustaining, and delivering the 31 core capabilities described in the National Preparedness Goal (the Goal). As the NPR coordinator, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) worked with the full range of whole community partners-including all levels of government, private and nonprofit sectors, faith-based organizations, communities, and individuals-to develop the NPR. Specifically, FEMA collaborated with federal interagency partners to identify quantitative and qualitative performance and assessment data for each of the 31 core capabilities. In addition, FEMA integrated data from the 2011 State Preparedness Reports (SPRs), statewide self-assessments of core capability levels submitted by all 56 U.S. states and territories through a standardized survey. Finally, FEMA conducted research to identify recent, independent evaluations, surveys, and other supporting data related to core capabilities. FEMA synthesized, reviewed, and analyzed all of these data sources in order to derive key findings that offer insight on critical issues in preparedness, including areas where the Nation has made progress and where areas of improvement remain. During the development of specific core capability key findings, eight broader trends in national preparedness emerged. As shown below, these overarching key findings synthesize information from across multiple core capabilities and mission areas and reflect national-level results on preparedness progress and gaps. With the September 2011 release of the Goal, the Nation is transitioning to a new set of core capabilities. As a result, whole community partners are updating their efforts to collect, analyze, and report preparedness progress according to the Goal's core capabilities and preliminary targets. The 2012 NPR therefore relies on a range of existing assessment approaches and associated quantitative and qualitative data to present the Nation's preparedness progress and to report key findings. Assessment processes, methodologies, and data will evolve in future years to align more directly with the Goal and its capabilities. Efforts are already underway to refine the Goal's capabilities and preliminary targets; future efforts will focus on developing agreed-upon measures and assessment methodologies that will guide the annual development of the NPR.

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.

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.

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.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed the National Incident Management System (NIMS) Guideline for the Credentialing of Personnel (the guideline) to describe national credentialing standards and to provide written guidance regarding the use of those standards. This document describes credentialing and typing processes and identifies tools which Federal Emergency Response Officials (FERO) and emergency managers at all levels of government may use both routinely and to facilitate multijurisdictional coordinated responses. Through this guideline, DHS/FEMA encourages interoperability among Federal, State, local, territorial, tribal, and private sector officials in order to facilitate emergency responder deployment for response, recovery, and restoration. This guideline also provides information about where emergency response leaders can obtain expertise and technical assistance in using the national standards or in ways they can adapt the standards to department, agency, jurisdiction, or organization needs. Each Federal agency with responsibilities under the National Response Framework is required to ensure that incident management personnel, emergency response providers, and other personnel (including temporary personnel) and resources likely needed to respond to a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other manmade disaster are credentialed and typed in accordance with 6 U.S.C. Section 320. In addition, Homeland Security Presidential Directive - 5 (HSPD -5), Management of Domestic Incidents, requires that the heads of Federal departments and agencies adopt the National Incident Management System. DHS interprets these authorities to require agencies to ensure that their personnel are credentialed and typed according to these guidelines. Federal Legislative and Judicial Branches, State, local, tribal, private sector partners, and non-governmental organizations (NGO) are not required to credential their personnel in accordance with these guidelines. These non-Federal entities do not need to comply with the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 201, an open technical standard used by Federal officials for uniform credentialing and access control or other Federal identification requirements for emergency response purposes. However, DHS/FEMA strongly encourages them to do so, in order to leverage the Federal investment in the FIPS 201 infrastructure and facilitating interoperability for personnel deployed outside their home jurisdiction.This document, developed and maintained by DHS/FEMA, is written for government executives; emergency management practitioners; private-sector, volunteer, and NGO leaders; and critical infrastructure (CI) owners and operators. It is addressed to senior elected and appointed leaders, such as Federal department and/or agency heads, State governors, mayors, tribal leaders, and city and/or county officials who have a responsibility to provide effective response. It also is intended for use by private-sector entities entering an impacted area to carry out their own response and recovery activities within the Incident Command System (ICS). For these users, this guideline is augmented with online access to supporting documents, further training, and an evolving resource for exchanging lessons learned.This guideline applies to incidents such as large-scale terrorist attacks or catastrophic natural disasters where mutual aid and multijurisdictional aid is required. It can be useful for international cross-border initiatives undertaken by States and tribes.

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.

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.

In 2003, the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) announced a goal to reduce firefighter fatalities by 25 percent within 5 years and 50 percent within 10 years. It also committed to doing research that would support that goal. The consistently high annual percentage of fatalities related to fire department response and roadway scene operations prompted the USFA to look at several aspects related to these collisions in an effort to improve responder safety. Firefighters who are killed in privately owned vehicles (POVs) during the course of their duties account for the largest percentage of vehicle-related deaths. These are typically volunteer firefighters who are responding to or returning from emergency calls. However, career firefighters are also occasionally killed in POVs while performing their duties. The original edition of this "Traffic Incident Management Systems" (TIMS) report was released in 2008 as part of a cooperative agreement between the UFSA and the International Fire Service Training Association (IFSTA) at Oklahoma State University (OSU). The project was funded by the DOT Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This latest edition of TIMS was developed in response to the release of the 2009 edition of the DOT/FHWA's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD). It becomes evident that injuries and deaths that occur at roadway emergency scenes are a major concern to emergency responders. The purpose of this report is to focus on the causes of firefighter injuries and deaths when working on roadway incidents. This report will focus on the causes of these incidents and provide strategies for mitigating them in the future. The occurrence and severity of these incidents can be reduced through proper roadway incident scene tactics and incident management, information which will be covered in the remaining chapters of this document.

Whether you believe an economic collapse is imminent, the power grid is doomed to fail or you preparing because you see how unsustainable this system really is we need to be prepared for anything. We can't afford to get blindsided by something because we were looking in a totally different direction. Preparedness should be a mindset, not a fad. To become a seasoned prepper we need to start from ground zero and work our way up, and we need to do it in a way that doesn't put us in the poor house. Preparing is also very personalized, there is no one way to build your food storage and no one way to build your bug out bag. All of our situations are different and we need to plan accordingly. This is not your typical prepping book; you will not find a list for items you need in the event of a disaster. What you will find is the information you need to build your supplies evenly over time, what to expect from others who are not prepared, form a plan based on our personal situation and do it in a way that helps you become more self-reliant over time. This is more than just another book because we are going to take this a step further and give you full access to the Survivalist Prepper Academy for 60 days. In the academy we have a list of downloadable files, survival courses, prepping courses, spreadsheets and other members only content.

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.

Over the past decade, numerous law enforcement officers, firefighters, and emergency medical services (EMS) workers were injured or killed along roadways throughout the United States. In 2008, as with the prior 10 years, more law enforcement officers died in traffic-related incidents than from any other cause; National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial (NLEOM, 2008) over the past 12 years, an average of one officer per month was struck and killed by a vehicle in the United States. (FBI, 2007) Preliminary firefighter fatality statistics for 2008 reflect 29 of 114 firefighters killed on duty perished in motor vehicle crashes, (USFA, 2009a) similar to figures posted in previous years. According to a 2002 study that aggregated data from several independent sources, at least 67 EMS providers were killed in ground transportation-related events over the 6 years from 1992 to 1997. These sobering facts clearly demonstrate the importance of addressing vehicle characteristics and human factors for reducing the morbidity and mortality of public safety personnel operating along the Nation's highways and byways. Studies conducted in the United States and elsewhere suggest that increasing emergency vehicle visibility and conspicuity holds promise for enhancing first responders' safety when exposed to traffic both inside and outside their response vehicles (e.g., patrol cars, motorcycles, fire apparatus, and ambulances). This report, produced in partnership between the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) and the International Fire Service Training Association (IFSTA), with support from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), National Institute of Justice (NIJ), analyzes emergency vehicle visibility and conspicuity with an eye toward expanding efforts in these areas to improve vehicle and roadway operations safety for all emergency responders. Emphasis in this report is placed on passive visibility/conspicuity treatments; additional studies are underway on active technologies such as emergency vehicle warning lighting systems. A number of key findings were developed from the examination performed for this report. Principal among these findings is the salient need for additional research on emergency vehicle visibility and conspicuity in the United States. Despite meaningful limitations, the existing visibility/conspicuity research, combined with passenger vehicle lighting and human factors, evokes several potential opportunities for improving the safety of emergency vehicles in the United States using readily available products.

Fires started by lighted tobacco products, principally cigarettes, constitute the leading cause of residential fire deaths. The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) has partnered with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) "to research what types of behaviors cause smoking fire fatalities and develop sound recommendations for behavioral mitigation strategies to reduce smoking fire fatalities in the United States...." The scope of the study included all lighted tobacco products, but cigarettes account for nearly all consumption and fires. Lighting implements such as matches and lighters were not included. Most fires involving these objects occur during incendiarism or fireplay. An extensive literature review on behaviors related to smoking, or to fires or fatalities due to smoking-material fires was conducted to provide the broadest possible fact base for recommendations. In addition, data were collected from: analysis of the 1980 to 2001 U.S. smoking-material fire problem, using The National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) national estimates; analysis of several hundred 1997 to 1998 fatal smoking-material fires, not necessarily representative but documented in greater detail in NFPA's major fires database called the Fire Incident Data Organization (FIDO); analysis of other risk factors correlated with smoking, based on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Behavioral Risk Factor database for 2002.

The National Incident Management System (NIMS) provides a systematic, proactive approach to guide departments and agencies at all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work seamlessly to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity, in order to reduce the loss of life and property and harm to the environment. NIMS works hand in hand with the National Response Framework (NRF). NIMS provides the template for the management of incidents, while the NRF provides the structure and mechanisms for national-level policy for incident management. On February 28, 2003, the President issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5), "Management of Domestic Incidents," which directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and administer a National Incident Management System (NIMS). This system provides a consistent nationwide template to enable Federal, State, tribal, and local governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector to work together to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity. This consistency provides the foundation for utilization of NIMS for all incidents, ranging from daily occurrences to incidents requiring a coordinated Federal response. NIMS represents a core set of doctrines, concepts, principles, terminology, and organizational processes that enables effective, efficient, and collaborative incident management. HSPD-5 requires all Federal departments and agencies to adopt NIMS and to use it in their individual incident management programs and activities, as well as in support of all actions taken to assist State, tribal, and local governments. The directive requires Federal departments and agencies to make adoption of NIMS by State, tribal, and local organizations a condition for Federal preparedness assistance (through grants, contracts, and other activities). NIMS recognizes the role that NGOs and the private sector have in preparedness and activities to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of incidents. Building on the foundation provided by existing emergency management and incident response systems used by jurisdictions, organizations, and functional disciplines at all levels, NIMS integrates best practices into a comprehensive framework for use nationwide by emergency management/response personnel in an all-hazards context. These best practices lay the groundwork for the components of NIMS and provide the mechanisms for the further development and refinement of supporting national standards, guidelines, protocols, systems, and technologies. NIMS fosters the development of specialized technologies that facilitate emergency management and incident response activities, and allows for the adoption of new approaches that will enable continuous refinement of the system over time. The Secretary of Homeland Security, through the National Integration Center (NIC), Incident Management Systems Integration Division (formerly known as the NIMS Integration Center), publishes the standards, guidelines, and compliance protocols for determining whether a Federal, State, tribal, or local government has implemented NIMS.Additionally, the Secretary, through the NIC, manages publication and collaboratively, with other departments and agencies, develops standards, guidelines, compliance procedures, and protocols for all aspects of NIMS. This document was developed through a collaborative intergovernmental partnership with significant input from the incident management functional disciplines, NGOs, and the private sector.

Fires resulting from cooking continue to be the most common type of fire experienced by U.S. households. This is true for fires reported to fire departments and those handled by private individuals. Cooking fires are also the leading cause of home fire injuries. As a result, the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) has partnered with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) "to research the types of behaviors and sequences of events that lead to cooking fires and develop sound recommendations for behavioral mitigation strategies that will reduce such fires and their resultant injuries and fatalities." This study of the causes of cooking fires and cooking injuries and the effectiveness of strategies to prevent them also considers as part of its scope cooking burns of all types from all types of products involved in preparing and serving food or drink. Although many cooking injuries result from knives or broken glass and many people are made ill by improperly handled food, these other issues are beyond the scope of this project.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed this Risk Assessment, A How-To Guide to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings, to provide a clear, flexible, and comprehensive methodology to prepare a risk assessment. The intended audience includes the building sciences community of architects and engineers working for private institutions, building owners/operators/managers, and State and local government officials working in the building sciences community. The objective of this How-To Guide is to outline methods for identifying the critical assets and functions within buildings, determining the threats to those assets, and assessing the vulnerabilities associated with those threats. Based on those considerations, the methods presented in this How-To Guide provide a means to assess the risk to the assets and to make risk-based decisions on how to mitigate those risks. The scope of the methods includes reducing physical damage to structural and non-structural components of buildings and related infrastructure, and reducing resultant casualties during conventional bomb attacks, as well as chemical, biological, and radiological (CBR) agents. This document is written as a How-To Guide. It presents five steps and multiple tasks within each step that will lead you through a process for conducting a risk assessment and selecting mitigation options. It discusses what information is required to conduct a risk assessment, how and where to obtain it, and how to use it to calculate a risk score against each selected threat. This is one of a series of publications that address security issues in high-population, private sector buildings. This document is a companion to the Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings (FEMA 426) and the Building Design for Homeland Security Training Course (FEMA E155). This document also leverages information contained within the Primer for Design of Commercial Buildings to Mitigate Terrorist Attacks (FEMA 427). The primary use of this risk assessment methodology is for buildings, although it could be adapted for other types of critical infrastructure. The foundation of the risk assessment methodology presented in this document is based on the approach that was developed for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) through the National Institute for Building Sciences (NIBS). Over 150 buildings have been successfully assessed using this technique. The risk assessment methodology presented in this publication has been refined by FEMA for this audience. The purpose of this How-To Guide is to provide a methodology for risk assessment to the building sciences community working for private institutions. It is up to the decision-makers to decide which types of threats they wish to protect against and which mitigation options are feasible and cost-effective. This How-To Guide views as critical that a team created to assess a particular building will be composed of professionals capable of evaluating different parts of the building. They should be senior individuals who have a breadth and depth of experience in the areas of civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering; architecture; site planning and security engineering; and how security and antiterrorism considerations affect site and building design.