Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-5, Management of Domestic Incidents, directs the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop a National Incident Management System (NIMS). Initially published in March 2004, and revised in December 2008, the NIMS provides a consistent national approach for Federal, State, tribal, and local governments, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations (NGO) to work together to prepare for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate domestic incidents, regardless of cause, size, or complexity. HSPD-5 directs Federal agencies to adopt NIMS and encourages adoption of NIMS by all other stakeholders-State, tribal, and local governments; private sector organizations; critical infrastructure owners and operators; and NGOs involved in emergency management. In addition, the adoption and implementation of NIMS by State, tribal, and local organizations is a condition for receiving Federal preparedness assistance through grants, contracts, and other activities, as stated in HSPD-5. Based upon emergency management and incident response practices, NIMS represents a core set of doctrine, concepts, principles, terminology, and organizational processes that enables effective, efficient, and collaborative incident management. The institutionalization of these elements nationwide through training helps to mitigate risk by achieving greater preparedness. Incident after-action reports and NIMS both emphasize that successful implementation relies upon development and maintenance of a national NIMS training program. Furthermore, NIMS implementation relies upon comprehensive NIMS training and standardized personnel qualification. The primary goal of this guidance is to facilitate training and qualification of emergency management personnel to all NIMS concepts and principles. The NIMS Training Program identifies a deliberate method to develop and maintain a complete NIMS core curriculum and, concurrently, to provide training guidance to stakeholders for developing their training plans. To meet this goal, the NIMS Training Program has the following three objectives: 1. Support NIMS education and training for all emergency management personnel; 2. Adapt the functional capabilities defined by NIMS into guidelines, courses, and a curriculum that help stakeholders to develop personnel training and credentialing plans that yield the desired capabilities; 3. Define the minimum personnel qualifications required for service on complex multijurisdictional incidents nationwide. The NIMS Training Program lays out a conceptual framework that maintains a systematic process for the development of training courses and personnel qualifications. This process produces trained and qualified emergency management personnel. The framework facilitates the systematic development of these courses and qualifications by translating functional capabilities (defined in NIMS) into positions, core competencies, training, and personnel qualifications. The NIMS Training Program sets a sequence of goals, objectives, and action items for the NIC, which administers NIMS training nationally, and for stakeholders, who run their respective NIMS training and education programs.

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

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) and Grant Programs Directorate (GPD), Technical Assistance (TA) Program seeks to build and sustain capabilities through specific services and analytical capacities across two primary functional areas: Preparedness TA activities in support of the four homeland security mission areas (prevention, protection, response, and recovery); Homeland security program management This two-pronged approach ensures that initiatives measurably contribute to the enhancement of homeland security capabilities through State and local homeland security programs. The TA program addresses the areas of greatest State and local need by institutionalizing knowledge at the State and local level and providing a dynamic menu of services that is responsive to national priorities. The TA Program is driven by the following three core tenets: TA must support the National Preparedness Guidelines (Guidelines), National Priorities, and associated national strategies and doctrine that maintain homeland security; TA must be flexible and adaptable to fully address current national threats and the present day needs of homeland security personnel; TA must include a layered range of products ranging from guidance and templates to specialized on-site support that apply to States, regions, Urban Areas, counties, tribal entities, and private interests with a role in homeland security TA service deliveries may take a variety of forms that can be combined or modified to meet the specific needs of each requesting State or local jurisdiction. To best accommodate the wide variety of TA needs and deliverables, NPD and GPD support the following three levels of TA: Level 1 - Information Resources: General information to raise awareness or enhance familiarity with best practices/protocols required within all jurisdictions. Level 2 - Models, Templates, and Samples: Delivery of solution packages and performance models drawn from Federal, state, and local studies, best practices, and experience that guides the implementation of various initiatives. Level 3 - On-site Workshops: Delivery of rigorous, customized solutions through direct, on-site support, including workshops, guidance, and facilitation efforts to maximize direct interaction between TA providers and TA recipients and ensure the successful implementation of the most complex initiatives. Preparedness TA services seek to build and sustain capabilities in support of the four homeland security mission areas (prevention, protection, response, and recovery) and the suite of priorities and capabilities outlined in the Guidelines. As capability gaps are identified within State and local jurisdictions, Preparedness TA services are designed, developed, and delivered to address those needs and build capabilities in the most critical areas. The GPD Program Management TA services provide direct assistance in the establishment and enhancement of the overall homeland security administrative framework within State and local jurisdictions. These TA services help build the infrastructure at the State and local levels in which preparedness purchases, training activities, exercises, and additional assistance can accurately be managed, administered, tracked, and measured. This component of the overall TA Program includes services focused on grant reporting, grants management, overall homeland security program management, and resource management strategies for special needs jurisdictions.

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.

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.

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 only book to combine emergency management principLEs with proven military concepts

Good disaster plans do not guarantee a good response. Any disaster plan rarely survives the first rain bands of a hurricane or the first tremors of an earthquake. While developing plans is essential, there must be systems in place to adapt these plans to the ever-changing operational environment of a disaster. Currently there is no set of standard disaster response principles to guide a community. The National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the Incident Command System (ICS) provide the framework to implement operational decisions, but they were never designed as operational concepts. The military has developed just such concepts and many of them can be adapted for civilian use.

Disaster Operations and Decision Making adapts those military concepts and combines them with disaster lessons learned to create a new opera-tional paradigm. Emphasizing team building, Emergency Operations Center operational systems, and situational awareness, the book details easily adopted methods. All of these methods are designed to be incorporated into the NIMS and ICS framework to enhance a community's response to any type of disaster.

Disaster Operations and Decision Making is an essential resource for emergency managers, fire chiefs, law enforcement officers, homeland security professionals, public health officials, and anyone else involved or interested in crisis management.

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.

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.

As Federal employees, we all have a range of responsibilities: to our families, loved ones, communities, and the American public. By preparing for emergencies, we can enhance the safety of our families and strengthen our ability to carry out our work. This guide was produced by the FEMA Office of National Capital Region Coordination to encourage Federal employees and the whole community in the Washington, D.C. area to take practical steps to better prepare ourselves and our families for emergencies that could threaten our homes, workplaces, and communities. Each day, you and other Federal employees provide an array of essential services. Your own personal readiness for natural, accidental, or intentional hazards is a key part of the Federal Government's ability to continue serving its citizens. Emergencies can happen at any time, without warning. Federal, State, local and non-governmental organizations are committed to helping people in need, but that assistance may be delayed during a large incident. You and your family should be ready for the unexpected and prepared to provide for yourselves. The best way to ensure your own safety and wellbeing is to take responsibility for your own emergency preparedness. Even if you do not have designed emergency duties, you may be expected to carry out your job functions in an emergency. Other conditions as your workplace or in your community also could make it difficult for you to get home right away. Your family should have plans and resources to take care of themselves in your absence. Fortunately, there are practical steps you can take now that can make a big difference in a wide range of emergencies - Be Informed Make a Plan Build a Kit

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.

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

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.

This manual is intended to assist school administration personnel responsible for the funding and operation of existing school facilities across the United States. This guide and its companion documents are the products of a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) project to develop the concept of incremental seismic rehabilitation-that is, building modifications that reduce seismic risk by improving seismic performance and that are implemented over an extended period, often in conjunction with other repair, maintenance, or capital improvement activities. The manual was developed after analyzing the management practices of school districts of varying sizes located in various seismic zones in different parts of the United States. It focuses on the identified concerns and decisionmaking practices of K-12 public and private school managers and administrators. Earthquakes are a serious threat to school safety and pose a significant potential liability to school officials and to school districts. School buildings in 39 states are vulnerable to earthquake damage. Unsafe existing buildings expose school administrators to the following risks: Death and injury of students, teachers, and staff; Damage to or collapse of buildings; Damage and loss of furnishings, equipment, and building contents; Disruption of educational programs and school operations. The greatest earthquake risk is associated with existing school buildings that were designed and constructed before the use of modern building codes. For many parts of the United States, this includes buildings built as recently as the early 1990s. Although vulnerable school buildings need to be replaced with safe new construction or rehabilitated to correct deficiencies, for many school districts new construction is limited, at times severely, by budgetary constraints, and seismic rehabilitation is expensive and disruptive. However, an innovative approach that phases a series of discrete rehabilitation actions implemented over a period of several years, incremental seismic rehabilitation, is an effective, affordable, and non-disruptive strategy for responsible mitigation action. It can be integrated efficiently into ongoing facility maintenance and capital improvement operations to minimize cost and disruption. The strategy of incremental seismic rehabilitation makes it possible to get started now on improving earthquake safety in your school district. This manual provides school administrators with the information necessary to assess the seismic vulnerability of their buildings, and to implement a program of incremental seismic rehabilitation for those buildings.

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

This 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.

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.

This publication discusses the recent history of offsetting rescissions in paying for supplemental appropriations to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). As Congress has debated the growing size of the budget deficit and national debt in recent years, efforts have intensified to control spending and offset the costs of legislation. In 1995, 2011, and again in 2012, the question of offsetting disaster relief spending emerged in congressional debate. In 2011, a series of disasters threatened to deplete the DRF, which is the primary source of assistance to state and local governments as well as individuals in the wake of disasters. Hurricane Sandy struck the east coast of the United States on October 29, 2012. The storm caused tens of billions of dollars in damage along the coast. As damage estimates became public in the weeks after the storm, calls for supplemental appropriations to help pay for recovery efforts were met with calls for offsets from some quarters. Traditionally, supplemental disaster relief funding has been treated as emergency spending, not counted against discretionary budget caps, and not requiring an offset. However, supplemental spending packages have at times carried rescissions that have offset, to one degree or another, their budgetary impact. In some instances, the supplemental spending packages have contained both appropriations for the DRF and offsetting rescissions. This publication examines the use of offsets in connection with supplemental funding for the DRF since FY1990, reviewing three specific incidences where bills that had an impact on the level of funding available in the DRF were fully offset, and points out a number of issues Congress may wish to consider in this debate. Since FY1990, there has only been one case in which supplemental funding for the DRF was completely offset by rescissions.