Earthquakes are potentially the most destructive of all natural disasters in both loss of life and property damage. Casualties and structural damage result from intense ground shaking and such secondary effects as fires, landslides, ground subsidence, and flooding from dam collapse or tsunamis. While earthquakes in the United States are commonly associated with the West Coast, particularly California, 39 states altogether face some degree of seismic risk. Seventy million people and at least nine metropolitan areas are susceptible to severe earthquakes. Nevertheless, California has been the focal point of most earthquake studies due to its high frequency of events (two thirds of all earthquakes have occurred in California), large population and extensive property development. But the high frequency of earthquakes alone does not warrant the amount of official and scientific attention these events have received. It is the rare and devastating earthquake such as the 1906 San Francisco quake and the 1964 Alaska event, both of which measured more than 8 on the Richter Scale. Earthquakes of this magnitude could be expected in the United States, and most likely in California, every 60 to 100 years and less severe but major earthquakes every 15 to 20 years (Anderson, et al., 1981). The area currently believed to be at greatest risk of a massive earthquake is the Los Angeles-San Bernardino region. An event which could exceed 8 on the Richter Scale has an estimated annual probability of occurrence of 2 to 5 percent and its likelihood of occurrence in the next 20 to 30 years is regarded as -high." This earthquake could kill and injure between 15,000 and 69,000 persons (depending upon time of occurrence) and cause up to $17 billion in property damage (NSC/FEMA, 1980). Some studies have placed the property damage estimates as high as $50 billion (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1969). This report grew out of the City of Los Angeles Planning Partnership for which the Southern California Earthquake Preparedness Project (SCEPP) was asked to research and report on several issues pertaining to earthquake insurance. In the course of this research, it became obvious to both SCEPP and SCEPP's Policy Advisory Board that earthquake insurance and its role in the recovery process was a major policy issue. Thus, the research effort was expanded to incorporate broader issues and circulation of the report beyond the Los Angeles Planning Partnership. The report has five goals which correspond to its organization: (1) to outline the provisions (coverages, rates, deductibles, etc.) of earthquake insurance policies currently available to the major classes of insurance consumers-homeowners, businesses, local governments and special districts; (2) to determine the extent to which earthquake insurance is purchased by these parties and explore the circumstances surrounding purchase or non-purchase; (3) to review the salient issues in earthquake insurance from the standpoints of purchasers and providers; (4) to explore potential Federal roles in resolving these issues and in providing or promoting earthquake insurance; and finally, (5) to make reasonable policy recommendations involving both the Federal Government and other stakeholders in earthquake insurance toward a more adequate system of coverage.

Prepping A to Z The Series of Prepping Books About How to Be More Prepared and Live A More Self-Reliant Lifestyle

The first book on the Bhopal disaster, written on site a few weeks after the accident. "The people knew right away the source of the poisonous air, although it was incredible and shocking. Thousands had fled their homes a few months before upon the occasion of a small discharge of gas and an associated rumor of disaster. Now they choked and screamed at one another to rise and flee, aiding each other when they could, the choking and gagging leading the fully blinded. Some stepped out of their huts at the first whiffs, strangling, and were too blinded to turn back in, were swept in the gathering human torrent and often never saw their families, neighbors and friends again..." "A moving account of a shattering experience." - Arun Gandhi "Rightly, Al de Grazia highlights the important role of a Free Press. The Press has had to battle secrecy and suppression to expose the full extent of the Bhopal tragedy. Conitnuing now to assail the shocking failures of managers and officials in India and the USA, we must demand the reform of the irresponsible liaison between governments and multinational corporations." - S. B. Kolpe

The original Earthquakes -A Teacher's Package for K-6 (FEMA 159) was developed as a joint effort of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) under contract with FEMA. NSTA's project team produced an excellent product. Since its publication in 1988, over 50,000 teachers have requested copies. This revised version brought members of the original project team together with a group of teachers who had used the materials extensively in their classroom and served as teacher-educators at FEMA's Tremor Troop workshops. About 75% of the original material remains unchanged: a few activities were removed and a few added. A major change was the addition of assessments throughout the units. The examples we provide relate to life outside the classroom and/or activities similar to those of scientists. We also added matrices linking activities to the National Science Education Standards. The Teacher's Package has five units. Each of the first four units is divided into three levels: Level 1, for grades K-2; Level 2, for grades 3-4; and Level 3, for grades 5-6. Since classes and individuals vary widely you may often find the procedures in the other levels helpful for your students. The last unit has four parts with activities for students in all grades, K-6. Unit L, Defining an Earthquake, builds on what students already know about earthquakes to establish a working definition of the phenomenon. Legends from near and far encourage children to create their own fanciful explanations, paving the way for the scientific explanations they will begin to learn in this unit. Unit I, Why and Where Earthquakes Occur, presents the modern scientific understanding of the Earth's structure and composition, and relates this to the cause of earthquakes. Unit II, Physical Results of Earthquakes, provides greater understanding of the processes that shape our active Earth. Earthquakes are put in the context of the large- and small-scale changes that are constantly at work on the continents as well as the ocean floor. Unit IV, Measuring Earthquakes, explains earthquakes in terms of wave movement and introduces students to the far-ranging effects of earthquakes. Unit V, Earthquake Safety and Survival, focuses on what to expect during an earthquake; how to cope safely; how to identify earthquake hazards; and how to reduce, eliminate, or avoid them.

This FEMA 154 Report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, is the first of a two-volume publication on a recommended methodology for rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards. The technical basis for the methodology, including the scoring system and its development, are contained in the companion FEMA 155 report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation. The rapid visual screening procedure (RVS) has been developed for a broad audience, including building officials and inspectors, and government agency and private-sector building owners, to identify, inventory, and rank buildings that are potentially seismically hazardous. Although RVS is applicable to all buildings, its principal purpose is to identify (1) older buildings designed and constructed before the adoption of adequate seismic design and detailing requirements, (2) buildings on soft or poor soils, or (3) buildings having performance characteristics that negatively influence their seismic response. Once identified as potentially hazardous, such buildings should be further evaluated by a design professional experienced in seismic design to determine if, in fact, they are seismically hazardous. The RVS uses a methodology based on a "sidewalk survey" of a building and a Data Collection Form, which the person conducting the survey (hereafter referred to as the screener) completes, based on visual observation of the building from the exterior, and if possible, the interior. The Data Collection Form includes space for documenting building identification information, including its use and size, a photograph of the building, sketches, and documentation of pertinent data related to seismic performance, including the development of a numeric seismic hazard score. Once the decision to conduct rapid visual screening for a community or group of buildings has been made by the RVS authority, the screening effort can be expedited by pre-planning, including the training of screeners, and careful overall management of the process. Completion of the Data Collection Form in the field begins with identifying the primary structural lateral-load-resisting system and structural materials of the building. Basic Structural Hazard Scores for various building types are provided on the form, and the screener circles the appropriate one. For many buildings, viewed only from the exterior, this important decision requires the screener to be trained and experienced in building construction. The procedure presented in this Handbook is meant to be the preliminary screening phase of a multi-phase procedure for identifying potentially hazardous buildings. Buildings identified by this procedure must be analyzed in more detail by an experienced seismic design professional. Because rapid visual screening is designed to be performed from the street, with interior inspection not always possible, hazardous details will not always be visible, and seismically hazardous buildings may not be identified as such. Conversely, buildings initially identified as potentially hazardous by RVS may prove to be adequate.

Recent earthquakes around the world show a pattern of steadily increasing damages and losses that are due primarily to two factors: (1) significant growth in earthquake-prone urban areas and (2) vulnerability of the older building stock, including buildings constructed within the past 20 years. In the United States, earthquake risk has grown substantially with development while the earthquake hazard has remained relatively constant. Understanding the hazard requires studying earthquake characteristics and locales in which they occur while understanding the risk requires an assessment of the potential damage to the built environment and to the welfare of people - especially in high risk areas. Estimating the varying degree of earthquake risk throughout the United States is useful for informed decision-making on mitigation policies, priorities, strategies, and funding levels in the public and private sectors. For example, potential losses to new buildings may be reduced by applying seismic design codes and using specialized construction techniques. However, decisions to spend money on either of those solutions require evidence of risk. In the absence of a nationally accepted criterion and methodology for comparing seismic risk across regions, a consensus on optimal mitigation approaches has been difficult to reach. While there is a good understanding of high risk areas such as Los Angeles, there is also growing recognition that other regions such as New York City and Boston have a low earthquake hazard but are still at high risk of significant damage and loss. This high risk level reflects the dense concentrations of buildings and infrastructure in these areas constructed without the benefit of modern seismic design provisions. In addition, mitigation policies and practices may not have been adopted because the earthquake risk was not clearly demonstrated and the value of using mitigation measures in reducing that risk may not have been understood. This study highlights the impacts of both high risk and high exposure on losses caused by earthquakes. It is based on loss estimates generated by HAZUS(r)-MH, a geographic information system (GIS)-based earthquake loss estimation tool developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in cooperation with the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). The HAZUS tool provides a method for quantifying future earthquake losses. It is national in scope, uniform in application, and comprehensive in its coverage of the built environmen

One of the activities authorized by the Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002 is research to enhance the Nation's ability to assure that adequate dam safety programs and practices are in place throughout the United States. The Act of 2002 states that the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in cooperation with the National Dam Safety Review Board (Review Board), shall carry out a program of technical and archival research to develop and support: improved techniques, historical experience, and equipment for rapid and effective dam construction, rehabilitation, and inspection; devices for continued monitoring of the safety of dams; development and maintenance of information resources systems needed to support managing the safety of dams; and initiatives to guide the formulation of effective policy and advance improvements in dam safety engineering, security, and management. With the funding authorized by the Congress, the goal of the Review Board and the Dam Safety Research Work Group (Work Group) is to encourage research in those areas expected to make significant contributions to improving the safety and security of dams throughout the United States. The Work Group (formerly the Research Subcommittee of the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety) met initially in February 1998. To identify and prioritize research needs, the Subcommittee sponsored a workshop on Research Needs in Dam Safety in Washington D.C. in April 1999. Representatives of state and federal agencies, academia, and private industry attended the workshop. Seventeen broad area topics related to the research needs of the dam safety community were identified. To more fully develop the research needs identified, the Research Subcommittee subsequently sponsored a series of nine workshops. Each workshop addressed a broad research topic (listed below) identified in the initial workshop. Experts attending the workshops included international representatives as well as representatives of state, federal, and private organizations within the United States. Impacts of Plants and Animals on Earthen Dams; Risk Assessment for Dams; Spillway Gates; Seepage through Embankment Dams; Embankment Dam Failure Analysis; Hydrologic Issues for Dams; Dam Spillways; Seismic Issues for Dams; Dam Outlet Works. Based on the research workshops, research topics have been proposed and pursued. Several topics have progressed to products of use to the dam safety community, such as technical manuals and guidelines. For future research, it is the goal of the Work Group to expand dam safety research to other institutions and professionals performing research in this field. The proceedings from the research workshops present a comprehensive and detailed discussion and analysis of the research topics addressed by the experts participating in the workshops. The participants at all of the research workshops are to be commended for their diligent and highly professional efforts on behalf of the National Dam Safety Program. The National Dam Safety Program research needs workshop on Hydrologic Issues for Dams was held on November 14-15, 2001, in Davis, California. The Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, would like to acknowledge the contributions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, which was responsible for the development of the technical program, coordination of the workshop, and development of these workshop proceedings. A complete list of workshop facilitators, presenters, and participants is included in the proceedings.

The US Dam Safety community has similar needs and activities to those of the European (EU) Dam Safety community. There has been an emphasis in the EU community on investigation of extreme flood processes and the uncertainties related to these processes. The purpose of this project was to cooperate with the organizations involved in these investigations over a three year period. The purpose of this cooperation was to: 1) coordinate US and EU efforts and collect information necessary to integrate data and knowledge with US activities and interests related to embankment overtopping and failure analysis, 2) Utilize the data obtained by both groups to improve embankment failure analysis methods, and 3) provide dissemination of these activities and their results to the US dam safety community. Dissemination was to be accomplished by: 1) Conducting a special workshop at a professional society meeting involving invited speakers from Europe and the United States. This session was held as a one day workshop at the Annual Conference of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials 2004 Dam Safety. The title of the day long workshop was; "Workshop on International Progress in Dam Breach Evaluation." Ten presentations were included in the workshop (see appendix for manuscripts). 2) A final report integrating EU and US research findings and results related to earthen embankment overtopping failure over the 3-year period would be developing and reporting in the form of a FEMA/USDA document. This report is included in the following pages.

Communities face many challenges following a disaster, including determining where the limited resources for their recovery are to be expended. After the initial "emergency" phase of a disaster response is completed, such as the rescue of those in need, the repair of critical services including water and power, and the restoration of key governmental functions, a community becomes focused on its long-term rebuilding. It is important to understand that there may be multiple funding sources available after a disaster event, but that resources may not be sufficient to undertake all the projects a community may ultimately need for full recovery. A first step for many communities may be to look to existing local comprehensive plans, capital improvement plans, hazard mitigation plans, or other similar documents to identify previously developed project priorities. The process identified in this Recovery Value Tool builds upon those priorities and provides a systematic methodology to evaluate recovery projects for the community. Fundamentally, this tool allows for an evaluation of priorities based upon the impacts of the recent disaster and the physical and community needs that have been caused by the event. Therefore, this process can provide a comprehensive evaluation of the needs, identify the most effective projects for the resources available, and allow for a more holistic combination of resources to accomplish the community's goals. This version of the Long-Term Community Recovery (LTCR) Recovery Value Tool presents a standardized methodology for determining the recovery value of post-disaster reconstruction projects. Prioritizing need, identifying projects to meet the need and determining which projects have the highest recovery value are critical steps to guide a community's long-term recovery from a disaster. The Tool incorporates best practices developed on a number of successful pilot recovery planning initiatives throughout the country. The Tool has been released with expedited review and is intended to meet the immediate needs of the communities impacted by the 2005 hurricane season. It is expected that revisions will be made to this tool as a result of refinement of the Long-Term Community Recovery planning process. The objective of the Recovery Value Tool is to assist in determining a project's value to the long-term recovery of a community from a particular disaster. The Recovery Value Tool will: Define what a Recovery Value is and how it fits into the planning process; Provide an objective assessment of each project's recovery value; Assist in determining implementation priorities; Provide documentation to funding agencies regarding a project's anticipated long-term impact.

In October 2010, nine months after the massive earthquake that devastated Haiti, a second disaster began to unfold-soon to become the world's largest cholera epidemic in modern times. In a country that had never before reported cholera, the epidemic mysteriously and simultaneously appeared in river communities of central Haiti, eventually triggering nearly 800,000 cases and 9,000 deaths. What had caused the first cases of cholera in Haiti in recorded history? Who or what was the deadly agent of origin? Why did it explode in the agricultural-rich delta of the Artibonite River? When answers were few, rumors spread, causing social and political consequences of their own. Wanting insight, the Haitian government and French embassy requested epidemiological assistance from France. A few weeks into the epidemic, physician and infectious disease specialist Renaud Piarroux arrived in Haiti.In Deadly River, Ralph R. Frerichs tells the story of the epidemic-of a French disease detective determined to trace its origins so that he could help contain the spread and possibly eliminate the disease-and the political intrigue that has made that effort so difficult. The story involves political maneuvering by powerful organizations such as the United Nations and its peacekeeping troops in Haiti, as well as by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Frerichs explores a quest for scientific truth and dissects a scientific disagreement involving world-renowned cholera experts who find themselves embroiled in intellectual and political turmoil in a poverty-stricken country.Frerichs's narrative highlights how the world's wealthy nations, nongovernmental agencies, and international institutions respond when their interests clash with the needs of the world's most vulnerable people. The story poses big social questions and offers insights not only on how to eliminate cholera in Haiti but also how nations, NGOs, and international organizations such as the UN and CDC deal with catastrophic infectious disease epidemics.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the Federal agency responsible for supporting our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. Environmental stewardship and historic preservation support emergency management goals and aid to prevent or minimize the impacts of these emergency situations/events. Protection and stewardship of the Nation's natural resources, landscapes, and cultural sites provides increased protection from disasters to communities throughout the country. The Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) Strategic Plan 2009-2013 is the result of an extensive planning process led by the Office of Environmental Planning & Historic Preservation (OEHP). This process included several rounds of vetting and writing in order to ensure maximum stakeholder input and buy-in. The direction and impetus for the plan began at the Regional Environmental Officers (REO) meeting in November 2007. In April 2008, a Steering Committee helped identify five-year goals and objectives. In June 2008, a large number of internal Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) stakeholders came together to validate the draft goals and objectives, develop supporting strategies, and sketch the plan's framework. The Steering Committee then edited this draft, and developed implementation plans to support the objectives and priority strategies. The plan has been vetted by FEMA program offices and the EHP Advisory Committee (EHPAC). The EHP Strategic Plan was approved on June 3, 2010. The major themes that have significantly shaped FEMA's EHP Strategic Plan for 2009-2013 include: increased EHP capabilities both internal and external to FEMA; efficiencies gained through cross-program integration of EHP functions, technology, and processes; and increased EHP awareness that leads to better partnerships and action. The following goals and objectives represent the culmination of this work: Goal 1: Build Sustainable Capabilities OBJECTIVE 1.1: Strengthen EHP Human Capital. OBJECTIVE 1.2: Develop an investment and funding support strategy to meet FEMA's EHP compliance goals and program metrics. Goal 2: Strengthen Operational Effectiveness OBJECTIVE 2.1: Simplify, standardize and improve the EHP compliance process across all programs; OBJECTIVE 2.2: Integrate EHP requirements into program goals, development, implementation and performance; OBJECTIVE 2.3: Leverage technology in the EHP compliance process; OBJECTIVE 2.4: Evaluate the reliability, consistency, cost effectiveness, and timeliness of EHP's compliance process. Goal 3: Strengthen Partnerships OBJECTIVE 3.1: Increase awareness of the value of the EHP compliance process across FEMA programs and among stakeholders, in order to foster a sense of ownership of and responsibility for EHP compliance. OBJECTIVE 3.2: Improve coordination with Resource Agencies; OBJECTIVE 3.3: Develop and implement EHP partnering opportunities to advance the FEMA mission. The EHP Strategic Plan lays out a path for a robust EHP program that strengthens FEMA's programs and protects FEMA's investments.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This document provides program guidance and supporting information for implementation of the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP) exercise program. It replaces the exercise program document, Exercise Policy and Guidance for Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program Exercise (June 19, 2009 with Change 1, October 15, 2009), known as the "Blue Book." This document includes the following information in appendices: After-Action Report/Improvement Plan Processes (AAR/IP) (Appendix A), Public Information Planning for CSEPP Exercises (Appendix B), CSEPP Emergency Response Outcomes and Exercise Evaluation Guides (Appendix C), CSEPP Guide for Exercise Extent of Play Agreements (Appendix D), optional NIMS/ICS/CSEPP Exercise Structure (Appendix E), Background and Overview of CSEPP Remediation and Recovery Outcome Evaluation (Appendix F), Core Capabilities Crosswalk (Appendix G), CSEPP Exercise Program Glossary (Appendix H), Timeline Guidance and Templates (Appendix I). A federally-managed exercise program involving Federal, state, and local agencies and Army installations has been developed as part of the increased emphasis on emergency preparedness under the CSEP Program. The CSEP Program will result in improved preparedness at the remaining U.S. Army installations storing the unitary chemical stockpile and the surrounding civilian communities. The term "CSEPP Community," as used in this document, is the combined area of one military installation, surrounding local jurisdictions/agencies, and the State agencies involved in executing CSEPP for that area. Local jurisdictions are counties and cities within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), which encompasses the Immediate Response Zone (IRZ), Protective Action Zone (PAZ), or are designated as "host" jurisdictions. Exercises conducted by the Army and DHS/FEMA will help program managers evaluate the emergency response plans and capabilities of the CSEPP Communities. Under CSEPP, exercises managed by DHS/FEMA and the Army began in 1991. These exercises demonstrate the ability of the communities to respond to a chemical accident/incident (CAI) at an Army chemical stockpile storage site. Participation in exercises includes representatives from the Department of the Army (DA), DHS/FEMA, other Federal agencies, state and local governments, the Army installations, and civilian entities. The purpose of this document is to ensure consistency in planning and conducting the exercises and in evaluating the performance of the emergency response and emergency support personnel (often referred to as "players") in exercises. Some location-specific adaptations may be necessary to accommodate the varied response structures of the CSEPP Communities. If variances from the policy in this document are necessary, approval from the appropriate headquarter agency (DHS/FEMA or the Army) must be sought. In addition to satisfying CSEPP exercise criteria; these exercises satisfy Army regulatory requirements for exercises and the state and local government exercise requirements under the DHS/FEMA Cooperative Agreement (CA), which funds CSEPP and other emergency management activities. The CSEPP exercise approach incorporates the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) methodologies and concepts, as presented in chapter 3. The CSEPP exercise evaluation methodology is organized around a standard set of eight Emergency Response Outcomes (EROs). Exercise Evaluation Guides (EEGs) have been developed for each ERO (see Appendix C). Army and DHS/FEMA exercise management staff will monitor developments in other national exercise programs and will recommend review and revision of the CSEPP exercise methodology as required.

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.