Disaster preparedness became a renewed priority for our Nation as a direct response to the devastation of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Following the tragedies of that day, government at all levels has embedded stronger collaboration with nongovernmental civic and private sector organizations and the general public in policies and practices. The Citizen Corps grassroots model of community preparedness has spread across the country, and Americans have been asked to become fully aware, trained, and practiced on how to respond to potential threats and hazards. To evaluate the Nation's progress on personal preparedness, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Community Preparedness Division conducts Citizen Corps National Surveys to measure the public's knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors relative to preparing for a range of hazards. This report provides a summary of the findings from the 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey. The research objectives and survey questions for the Citizen Corps National Survey were developed based on previous research, preparedness modeling, and policy and guidance from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In 2003, Citizen Corps conducted a national survey to provide baseline data on individual preparedness for disasters. In 2007, the Citizen Corps National Survey was designed to incorporate additional areas of examination and to refine the questioning, while retaining several specific questions from the 2003 survey to provide trend data. The 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey includes several more small refinements. Comparisons between the findings from the 2003, 2007, and 2009 surveys are noted throughout the report. FEMA's Community Preparedness Division publishes the Citizen Preparedness Review to highlight specific areas of research regarding community preparedness and to summarize research findings from multiple sources. To assess the research landscape on preparedness, Citizen Corps has developed and maintains the Citizen Preparedness Surveys Database of surveys on personal and business preparedness conducted in the United States since September 11, 2001. As of August 2009, the database contains 102 surveys on individual preparedness, 29 surveys on business, and 11 surveys on school preparedness. Analyzing research from this wide variety of sources allows larger preparedness trends and research gaps to be identified. Citizen Preparedness Review Issue 3, Patterns in Current Research and Future Research Opportunities (published summer 2006), made several recommendations for future research that were taken into consideration in the development of the Citizen Corps National Survey implemented in 2007 and 2009. These recommendations included: More fully explore participants' knowledge of the correct preparedness measures and appropriate responses for different types of hazards; Investigate a more comprehensive range of knowledge, supplies, and skills related to disaster preparedness, such as knowledge of warning systems, evacuation routes, and training for specific skills; More fully explore motivational barriers to preparedness, such as the degree of uncertainty about ability to perform recommended measures or perceptions that recommended measures will not make a difference in disaster situations; Investigate demographic and contextual characteristics as they relate to preparedness including: prior experience with disasters, disability/ability factors, and community engagement; Examine individuals' preparedness in multiple locations in addition to their homes, such as the school, workplace, and community. An important finding from the Citizen Preparedness Surveys Database is that perceived preparedness can be very different from the specific preparedness measures taken. In nearly all cases, these surveys substantiate that the proportion of those who have taken appropriate preparedness measures is much lower than those that indicate that they are prepared.

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

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

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

In the last decade, disasters have affected university and college campuses with disturbing frequency, sometimes causing death and injury, but always imposing monetary losses and disruption of the institution's teaching, research, and public service. Damage to buildings and infrastructure and interruption to the institutional mission result in significant losses that can be measured by faculty and student departures, decreases in research funding, and increases in insurance premiums. These losses could have been substantially reduced or eliminated through comprehensive pre-disaster planning and mitigation actions. September 11, 2001 reminded everyone of the importance of taking steps to mitigate the consequences of disasters. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, many higher education institutions reviewed their disaster plans and began to reconsider issues of safety and security. Natural and man-made disasters represent a wide array of threats to the instructional, research, and public service missions of higher education institutions. This publication provides planning guidance to these institutions as they prepare to identify their risks, assess their vulnerability to natural and man-made hazards, and develop a hazard mitigation plan. Its purposes are to encourage higher education institutions to take hazard mitigation seriously and to illustrate a course of action for implementing a mitigation program to permanently reduce vulnerability to future disasters. This publication is both a how-to guide and a distillation of the experiences of six universities and colleges across the country that have been working over the past several years to become more disaster-resistant. It complements the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) State and Local Mitigation Planning how-to guides that provide planning guidance for creating and implementing a hazard mitigation planning process. These how-to guides are excellent resources for higher education institutions and are referenced in this publication whenever appropriate. This guide provides basic information designed for institutions just getting started as well as concrete ideas, suggestions, and practical experiences for institutions that have already begun to take steps to becoming more disaster-resistant.

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

The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) mission is "to support 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." As the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain mapping program has evolved, Flood Insurance Study (FIS) data and maps have become more detailed and more accurate through improved computer models and greater use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). In addition, the technical requirements of the FEMA Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) program have resulted in an expansion of the amount of useful flood data. As the data have improved, the use of the data has extended beyond floodplain management permits and flood insurance. For example, the data are being used to increase the flood resistance in the design of new buildings and retrofits of existing buildings. Design information, which is available in the FEMA Building Science Branch library, includes enhanced design, siting, construction, and retrofit guidance and requirements for buildings in or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). The library consists of publications, technical bulletins, training descriptions, and tools, all of which are available online. The flood risk data available from the Risk MAP program provides FEMA with additional resources to inform communities, property owners, and other interested parties about the vast library of Building Science resources. The resources can be used together with flood risk maps and other flood hazard products to reduce the loss of life, number of injuries, and property damage from flood events. The purpose of this report is to present the best practices for incorporating Building Science flood mitigation information into the Risk MAP program and strategies for informing interested parties of the Building Science resources.

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

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

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed this series of mitigation planning "how-to" guides to assist states, communities, and tribes in enhancing their hazard mitigation planning capabilities. These guides are designed to provide the type of information state and local governments need to initiate and maintain a planning process that will result in safer communities. These guides are applicable to states and communities of various sizes and varying ranges of financial and technical resources. This how-to series is not intended to be the last word on any of the subject matter covered; rather, it is meant to provide clear guidance for the field practitioner. In practice, these guides may be supplemented with more extensive technical resources and the use of experts when necessary. The series consists of four guides covering the core aspects of the planning process, and additional guides addressing special topics in hazard mitigation. The "core four" guides cover: Getting started with the mitigation planning process, including important considerations for how you can organize your efforts to develop an effective mitigation plan (FEMA 386-1); Identifying hazards and assessing losses to your community or state (FEMA 386-2); Setting mitigation priorities and goals for your community or state and writing the plan (FEMA 386-3); and Implementing the mitigation plan, including project funding and maintaining a dynamic plan that changes to meet new developments (FEMA 386-4). Special topics covered include: Evaluating potential mitigation actions through the use of benefit-cost analysis and other techniques (FEMA 386-5); Incorporating special considerations into hazard mitigation planning for historic properties and cultural resources (FEMA 386-6); Incorporating mitigation considerations for manmade hazards into hazard mitigation planning, the topic of this how-to guide (FEMA 386-7); Using multi-jurisdictional approaches to mitigation planning (FEMA 386-8); and Finding and securing technical and financial resources for mitigation planning (FEMA 386-9). Disasters are events that can cause loss of life and property, environmental damage, and disruption of governmental, social, and economic activities. They occur when hazards impact human settlements and the built environment. Throughout the Cold War, the focus of emergency management planning was on responding to and recovering from nuclear attack by foreign enemies. During the 1990s, this emphasis shifted to address natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and floods. Yet again, the need to incorporate new threats into emergency management planning-this time, manmade hazards such as terrorism and technological disasters-has become all too apparent, as demonstrated by the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington, DC and the July 2001 hazardous material train derailment and fire in Baltimore, Maryland. Additionally, the 2001 anthrax attacks, the 1996 bombing at the summer Olympics in Atlanta, the 1995 destruction of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and scores of smaller-scale incidents and accidents reinforce the need for communities to reduce their vulnerability to future terrorist acts and technological disasters.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed this series of mitigation planning "how-to" guides to assist states, tribes, and communities in enhancing their hazard mitigation planning capabilities. These guides are designed to provide the type of information states, tribes, and communities need to initiate and maintain a planning process that will result in safer and more disaster-resistant communities. These guides are applicable to states, tribes, and communities of various sizes and varying ranges of financial and technical resources. The how-to guides cover the following topics: Getting started with the mitigation planning process, including important considerations for how you can organize your efforts to develop an effective mitigation plan (FEMA 386-1); Identifying hazards and assessing losses to your community, tribe, or state (FEMA 386-2); Setting mitigation priorities and goals for your community, tribe, or state and writing the plan (FEMA 386-3); Implementing the mitigation plan, including project funding and maintaining a dynamic plan that changes to meet new developments (FEMA 386-4); Evaluating and prioritizing potential mitigation actions through the use of benefit-cost analysis and other techniques (FEMA 386-5); Incorporating special considerations into hazard mitigation planning for historic structures and cultural resources (FEMA 386-6); Incorporating mitigation considerations for manmade hazards into hazard mitigation planning (FEMA 386-7); Using multi-jurisdictional approaches to mitigation planning (FEMA 386-8); and Finding and securing technical and financial resources for mitigation planning (FEMA 386-9). This third guide in the state and local mitigation planning how-to series is about developing your community's mitigation strategy and documenting the planning process. It builds on the resources and organizational framework discussed in Getting Started: Building Support for Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-1) and the results of the loss estimation conducted according to Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (FEMA 386-2). This guide provides you and your planning team with the tools necessary to develop mitigation goals and objectives, identify and prioritize mitigation actions, formulate an implementation strategy, and assemble the planning document.

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

On the evening of September 21, 1998, Hurricane Georges made landfall on Puerto Rico's east coast as a strong Category 2 hurricane. It traveled directly over the interior of the island, mainly in an east-west direction, and passed off Puerto Rico's west coast on September 22. Puerto Rico had not experienced a hurricane of this magnitude since Hurricane Hugo, a devastating Category 3 hurricane that passed over the northeast corner of Puerto Rico in a southeast to northwest direction in September 1989. On September 30, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Mitigation Directorate deployed a Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) to Puerto Rico to assess damages caused by Hurricane Georges. The team included architects, engineers, planners, insurance specialists, and floodplain management specialists. The BPAT's mission was to assess the performance of buildings and other structures throughout Puerto Rico and make recommendations for improving building performance in future events. After an aerial assessment of the island, the BPAT conducted field investigations in selected areas affected by the storm. The field investigations of significantly damaged areas centered on the performance of single-family residential home construction. Isolated examples of success and failure in commercial buildings (primarily building envelope issues in high-rise buildings) and several essential facilities observed during field investigations were also documented. Commercial buildings were not investigated for compliance with current structural seismic guidelines. One- and two-family residential buildings, however, were investigated for their ability to sustain a seismic event. Seismic resistance of nonstructural elements was also observed. It is important to note that wind speeds experienced on the island were not of the strength to test the design of Puerto Rico's buildings. A more significant wind event striking Puerto Rico would likely have resulted in even more failures than were observed. A large number of residential buildings in Puerto Rico experienced structural damage from the high winds of Hurricane Georges. The BPAT concluded that while not all of the damage caused by Hurricane Georges could have been prevented, a significant amount could have been avoided if more buildings had been constructed to Puerto Rico's existing Planning Regulation 7 (building code). Additional damage could have been avoided if more buildings had been designed and constructed to current codes and regulations that address flood, wind, and seismic loads. Although the BPAT observed several examples of successful mitigation implementation, many buildings unfortunately received too little attention to mitigation. If effective mitigation efforts had been implemented more extensively in the design and construction of buildings, the widespread devastation of the hurricane would have been substantially reduced.

On September 28, 1998, Hurricane Georges made landfall in the Ocean Springs/Biloxi, Mississippi area. On October 2, 1998, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Mitigation Directorate deployed a Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) to the Gulf Coast to assess damages caused by Hurricane Georges. The team included FEMA Headquarters and Regional Office engineers, planners, and a coastal geologist; consulting engineers; floodplain management specialists; and a forensic engineer. The BPAT.s mission was to assess the performance of buildings in the Gulf Coast area and make recommendations for improving building performance in future hurricanes. The assessment included areas of the Gulf Coast from Pensacola Beach, Florida, to Gulfport, Mississippi (including Mobile Bay, Alabama). In addition, a supplemental assessment of manufactured home performance was conducted in the Florida Keys. The assessment also included inland areas along major streams and rivers that experienced flooding. The BPAT process is intended to provide guidance to state and local governments on post-hurricane reconstruction and new construction with the goal of enhancing future building design and construction. This report presents the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Building Performance Assessment Team's (BPAT) observations on the success and failure of buildings in the Florida Keys and Gulf Coast areas of the United States to withstand the wind and flood forces generated by Hurricane Georges. Recommendations to improve the building performance in future natural disasters in this area are included as well.

A disaster is an unexpected event that causes destruction. Disasters cause loss - of life, of property, of money, and of happiness. They strike at any time and anyplace. They can take away your home and your family. Some disasters are natural, and some are caused by humans. This book will explore the different types of disasters that can happen to you and your family. It will tell you what you can do to prepare for a disaster, and how to survive during a disaster. It will explain how to secure primary needs like food, water, and shelter. It will also cover secondary needs like communication, electricity, and finances. It will cover evacuation plans and survival kits. Although one book could never contain exhaustive information on the topic of disaster survival, this quick reference will allow you to get through almost any catastrophe. "Be Prepared An Effective Disaster Management Plan: Ways to Prepare for Every Kind of Disaster" teaches you about: What is a Disaster? Overview: Types of Disasters Disaster Preparedness Children and Disaster Management Special Needs: Disaster Management for the Elderly and the Disabled Preparing for a Disaster Financially Preparing Your Basic Needs Water Food Shelter During a Disaster Your Safe Room Hygiene and Sanitation during an Emergency or Disaster Medical needs Communicating Electrical Power Transportation Before, During, and After a Disaster To Leave or Stay? Specific Natural Disaster Preparation Disasters That Originate From Both Human and Natural Causes Man-made Disaster Preparation Chemical and Hazardous Material Spills Nuclear Accidents Terrorism Economic Meltdown Cyber War Hurry and get a copy of this book today and start preparing yourself and your loved ones to survive any kind of disaster

Hurricane Opal made landfall on Santa Rosa Island, in Santa Rosa County, Florida, near Navarre Beach on October 4, 1995. Fifteen counties in the Florida Panhandle were declared Federal disaster areas. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) deployed a Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) whose mission was to evaluate structural damage and recommend mitigation measures that will enhance the performance of buildings in future storms. The BPAT's observations focused on the performance of buildings during the hurricane, including both successes and failures. These observations and the BPAT's recommendations are documented in this report. The BPAT's observations regarding flood and wind damage caused by the storm are described in detail, and recommendations are presented regarding design and construction of new structures and substantial improvements to existing structures; permitting, plan review, and inspection; construction materials; and repair and retrofit of damaged structures.

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

Since 1979, FEMA has worked collaboratively with our federal partners; state, local, tribal, and territorial officials; the private sector; non-profit and faith-based groups; and the general public to meet our mission. Thanks to the efforts of the whole community, we stand united and prepared to effectively meet the needs of our citizens during times of crisis - when they are most in need. This document is intended to highlight FEMA's guiding principles, the ways we are actively engaged with the emergency management community today, and the work we hope to accomplish in the future. Being successful in emergency response means doing the homework and being equipped to respond to the largest scale disasters. It means being present early on the scene. It means operating swiftly, while also being smart. We at FEMA are doing that. And we're doing what it takes to do all of these things even better. In 2011, FEMA responded to more disasters than any year in its history. The variety and magnitude of each event tested our capabilities, as well as the capabilities of communities across the country. While no one hopes to face the same volume of disasters in the coming years, it is imperative that we plan accordingly and continue to evaluate our strategic and operational approaches to serving the American public. Moving forward in 2012, we will continue to focus on our strategic priorities. We will build on the progress made over the past two years and continue to foster a whole community approach to emergency management. With the completion of our all-hazards plans and National Disaster Recovery Framework, development of a National Mass Care Strategy, and implementing the FEMA Qualification System, we're strengthening the nation's capacity to respond to and recover from catastrophic events. Our strength will also come from our continued partnerships with tribal nations, the disability community, rural communities, and others. We have helped thousands of individuals and communities reduce the economic loss and human suffering associated with disasters by providing grants for mitigation activities. As part of Presidential Policy Directive 8, FEMA also led the effort to develop and publish a National Preparedness Goal - a national vision of preparedness and how the country will work together to approach our shared risks. Finally, we are improving the way we serve disaster survivors by enhancing our ability to improve and innovate based on lessons learned. Projecting further, the Fiscal Year 2013 budget request focuses on achieving success in one of DHS' core missions: ensuring domestic resilience to disasters. As such, we place a strong emphasis on funding the key programs that help to ensure that as a nation we will effectively and rapidly respond to and recover from a variety of disasters.

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

Of the 500,000 or so detectable earthquakes that occur on Planet Earth each year, people will "feel" about 100,000 of them and about 100 will cause damage. Although most earthquakes are moderate in size and destructive potential, a severe earthquake occasionally strikes a community that is not adequately prepared and thousands of lives and billions of dollars in economic investment are lost. For example, a great earthquake and the fires it initiated destroyed much of San Francisco in 1906 and a significant portion of Anchorage, Alaska, was destroyed by a large earthquake in 1964. Within the past 200 years, major destructive earthquakes also occurred in Charleston, South Carolina, and Memphis, Tennessee. Within the past 50 years, smaller but damaging earthquakes occurred several times in both Los Angeles and Seattle. Overall, more than 20 states have a moderate or high risk of experiencing damaging earthquakes. Earthquakes are truly a national problem. One of the key ways a community protects itself from potential earthquake disasters is by adopting and enforcing a building code with appropriate seismic design and construction standards. The seismic requirements in U.S. model building codes and standards are updated through the volunteer efforts of design professionals and construction industry representatives under a process sponsored by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and administered by the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). At regular intervals, the BSSC develops and FEMA publishes the NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures (referred to in this publication as the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions or simply the Provisions). The Provisions serves as a resource used by the codes and standards development organizations as they formulate sound seismic-resistant design and construction requirements. The Provisions also provides design professionals, building officials, and educators with in-depth commentary on the intent and preferred application of the seismic regulations. The 2009 edition of the Provisions (FEMA P-750) and the building codes and consensus standards based on its recommendations are, of necessity, highly technical documents intended primarily for use by design professionals and others who have specialized technical training. This introduction to the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions is intended to provide these interested individuals with a readily understandable explanation of the intent of the earthquake-resistant design and requirements of the Provisions. Chapter 1 explains the history and purpose of building regulation in the United States, including the process used to develop and adopt the nation's building codes and the seismic requirements in these codes. Chapter 2 is an overview of the performance intent of the Provisions. Among the topics addressed are the national seismic hazard maps developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); the seismic design maps adopted by the Provisions as a basis for seismic design; and seismic risk, which is a function of both the probability that a community will experience intense earthquake ground shaking and the probability that building construction will suffer significant damage because of this ground motion. Chapter 3 identifies the design and construction features of buildings and other structures that are important to good seismic performance. Chapter 4 describes the various types of structures and nonstructural components addressed by the Provisions. Chapter 5 is an overview of the design procedures contained in the Provisions. Chapter 6 addresses how the practice of earthquake-resistant design is likely to evolve in the future. A glossary of key technical terms, lists of notations and acronyms used in this report, and a selected bibliography identifying references that may be of interest to some readers complete this report.

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

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is pleased to have the opportunity to sponsor the Program on Improved Seismic Safety Provisions being conducted by the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). The materials produced by this program represent the tangible results of a significant effort, under way for more than a decade, to lessen adverse seismic effects on buildings throughout the United States. This community handbook is a companion publication to the 1994 Edition of the NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, and it is one of a series of reports produced to increase awareness of seismic risk and to disseminate information on up-to-date seismic design and construction practices. It is designed to provide interested individuals across the nation with information that will assist them in assessing the seismic risk to their buildings and their community and in determining what might be done to mitigate that risk - whether on an individual basis or through community building regulatory action.