This guide was developed to fulfill several different objectives and address a wide audience with varying needs. The primary intent is to explain the sources of nonstructural earthquake damage in simple terms and to provide information on effective methods of reducing the potential risks. The recommendations contained in this guide are intended to reduce the potential hazards but cannot completely eliminate them. The primary focus of this guide is to help the reader understand which nonstructural items are most vulnerable in an earthquake and most likely to cause personal injury, costly property damage, or loss of function if they are damaged. In addition, this guide contains recommendations on how to implement cost effective measures that can help to reduce the potential hazards. This guide is intended primarily for use by a lay Audience building owners, facilities managers, maintenance personnel, store or office managers, corporate/agency department heads, business proprietors, homeowners, etc. Some readers may be small-business owners with a small number of potential problems that could be addressed in a few days' time by having at handyman install some of the generic details presented in this guide. Other readers may be responsible for hundreds of facilities and may need a survey methodology to help them understand the magnitude of their potential problems.

One of the goals of the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) is to encourage design and building practices that address the earthquake hazard and minimize the resulting risk of damage and injury. Publication of this edition of the "NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulation of New Buildings and Other Structures" and its "Commentary" ("FEMA 450-2 / Part 2: Commentary") is a fitting end to the 25th year of the NEHRP and reaffirms FEMA's ongoing support to improve the seismic safety of construction in this country. Its publication marks the sixth edition in an ongoing series of updating of both the NEHRP Recommended Provisions and several complementary publications. FEMA was proud to sponsor the Building Seismic Safety Council for this project and we encourage the widespread dissemination and voluntary use of this state-of-the-art consensus resource document. This edition of the "NEHRP Recommended Provisions" contains several significant changes, including: a reformatting to improve its usability; introduction of a simplified design procedure, an updating of the seismic design maps and how they are presented; a modification in the redundancy factor; the addition of ultimate strength design provisions for foundations; the addition of several new structural systems, including buckling restrained braced frames and steel plate shear walls; structures with damping systems has been moved from an appendix to a new chapter; and inclusion of new or updated material industry reference standards for steel, concrete, masonry, and wood. The "NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures" (referred to hereinafter as the "Provisions") present criteria for the design and construction of structures to resist earthquake ground motions. The purposes of these "Provisions" are as follows: 1. To provide minimum design criteria for structures appropriate to their primary function and use considering the need to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public by minimizing the earthquake-related risk to life and 2. To improve the capability of essential facilities and structures containing substantial quantities of hazardous materials to function during and after design earthquakes. The design earthquake ground motion levels specified herein could result in both structural and nonstructural damage. For most structures designed and constructed according to these "Provisions," structural damage from the design earthquake ground motion would be repairable although perhaps not economically so. For essential facilities, it is expected that the damage from the design earthquake ground motion would not be so severe as to preclude continued occupancy and function of the facility. The actual ability to accomplish these goals depends upon a number of factors including the structural framing type, configuration, materials, and as-built details of construction. For ground motions larger than the design levels, the intent of these "Provisions" is that there be a low likelihood of structural collapse. These "Provisions" shall apply to the design and construction of structures-including additions, changes of use, and alterations-to resist the effects of earthquake motions. Every structure, and portion thereof, shall be designed and constructed to resist the effects of earthquake motions as prescribed by these "Provisions."

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.

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

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

This manual is intended to 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.

This document provides State and Major Urban Area fusion center and EOC officials with guidance for coordination between fusion centers and EOCs. It outlines the roles of fusion centers and EOCs within the fusion process and provides steps by which these entities can work together to share information and intelligence on an ongoing basis. This guide supports the implementation of the Baseline Capabilities for State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers and, likewise, assists EOCs fill their missions in both steady state and active state emergency operations, as supported by the CPG 601: Design and Management of Emergency Operations Centers. This CPG provides guidance on the broad capability requirements of an EOC. Fusion centers and emergency operations centers (EOCs) should become familiar with each others' roles and capabilities to facilitate successful interfacing and cooperation between them. In addition, it is imperative that the two develop a solid relationship in order to effectively work together to achieve their respective objectives. The relationships forged between these two entities will allow them to have continuous, meaningful contacts, which will enhance their ability to share information and intelligence regardless of the activation status of the EOC. Mutual trust and respect must guide interagency collaboration policies and protocols, allowing for effective and consistent collaboration during the steady state or during an emergency. Comprehensive Planning Guide (CPG) 502 focuses on this critical partnership and the exchange of information between these entities. Effective prevention, protection, response and recovery efforts depend on the ability of all levels and sectors of government, as well as the private sector, to collect, analyze, disseminate and use homeland security- and crime-related information and intelligence. In support of this, the National Strategy for Information Sharing calls for a national information sharing capability through the establishment of a national integrated network of fusion centers. To facilitate the development of a national fusion center capability, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) and the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) have partnered to develop the Fusion Process Technical Assistance Program. The Fusion Process Technical Assistance Program has also been developed to directly support the implementation of the Fusion Center Guidelines and the Baseline Capabilities for State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers. In constructing the Fusion Center Guidelines, Global engaged diverse representation from the public and private sectors, melding emergency management and law enforcement expertise. The process of creating guidance for the operation of fusion centers has evolved through the development of the Baseline Capabilities for State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers. This document identifies the baseline capabilities for fusion centers and the operational standards necessary to achieve each of the capabilities. The sustained Federal partnership with State and major urban area fusion centers is critical to the safety of the nation. The baseline capabilities recommend developing processes that govern official outreach with leaders and policymakers, the public sector, the media and citizens. These capabilities also recommend development of a plan to promote awareness of the fusion center's purpose, mission and functions which, in turn, enhances partnership with the EOC), as well as ensure a common understanding of roles and responsibilities.

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.

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.

Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005, but in the subsequent ten years, the city has demonstrated both remarkable resilience and frustrating stagnation. In Reforming New Orleans, Peter F. Burns and Matthew O. Thomas chart the city's recovery and assess how successfully officials at the local, state, and federal levels transformed the Big Easy in the wake of disaster. Focusing on reforms in four key sectors of urban governance-economic development, education, housing, and law enforcement-both before and after Katrina, they find lessons for cities hit by sudden shocks, such as natural disasters or large-scale financial crises.One of their key insights is that post-disaster recovery tends to limit local control. State and federal officials, national foundations, and local actors excluded by pre-Katrina politics used their resources and authority to displace entrenched local interests and implement a public agenda focused on institutional and governmental change. Burns and Thomas also make clear reform in New Orleans was already underway before Katrina hit, but that it had focused largely on upper- and middle-class residents, a trend that accelerated after the storm. The market-centered nature of the reforms have ensured that they largely benefited city and regional elites while not significantly aiding the city's working-class and impoverished populations. Thus reform has come at a cost and that cost, in the long term, could undermine the political gains of the post-Katrina era.

Nonstructural failures have accounted for the majority of earthquake damage in several recent U.S. earthquakes. Thus, it is critical to raise awareness of potential nonstructural risks, the costly consequences of nonstructural failures, and the opportunities that exist to limit future losses. Nonstructural components of a building include all of those components that are not part of the structural system; that is, all of the architectural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, as well as furniture, fixtures, equipment, and contents. Windows, partitions, granite veneer, piping, ceilings, air conditioning ducts and equipment, elevators, computer and hospital equipment, file cabinets, and retail merchandise are all examples of nonstructural components that are vulnerable to earthquake damage. The primary purpose of this guide is to explain the sources of nonstructural earthquake damage and to describe methods for reducing the potential risks in simple terms. This guide is intended for use by a non-engineer audience located within the United States; this audience includes building owners, facility managers, maintenance personnel, store or office managers, corporate or agency department heads, business proprietors, risk managers, and safety personnel. The guide is also designed to be useful for design professionals, especially those who are not experienced with seismic protection of nonstructural components. It addresses nonstructural issues typically found in schools, office buildings, retail stores, hotels, data centers, hospitals, museums, and light manufacturing facilities. FEMA 74 explains the sources of earthquake damage that can occur in nonstructural components and provides information on effective methods for reducing risk associated with nonstructural earthquake damage. It is intended for use by a non-engineer audience that includes building owners, facility managers, maintenance personnel, store or office managers, corporate or agency department heads, and homeowners. The reference material contained within the third edition of FEMA 74 is now approaching 20 years old. A considerable amount of new information now exists as a result of ongoing National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) activities, local and state government programs, private sector initiatives, and academic work focused on reducing the potential for nonstructural earthquake damage.

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.

For months in early 1980, scientists, journalists and ordinary people listened anxiously to rumblings in the long quiescent volcano Mount St. Helens. Still, when a massive explosion took the top off the mountain, no one was prepared. Fifty-seven people died and the lives of many others were changed forever. Steve Olson interweaves history, science and vivid personal stories to portray the disaster as a multi-faceted turning point. Powerful economic, political and historical forces influenced who died when the volcano erupted. The eruption of Mount St. Helens transformed volcanic science, the study of environmental resilience and our perceptions of how to survive on an increasingly dangerous planet.

Before and after a disaster strikes, it may be helpful to understand the broad outlines of the national emergency management structure and where authority rests at various stages of the process. This book provides information that can aid policy makers as they navigate through the many levels of responsibility, and numerous policy pressure points, by having an understanding of the laws and administrative policies governing the disaster response and recovery process. The book also reviews the legislative framework that exists for providing federal assistance, as well as the implementing policies the executive branch employs to provide supplemental help to state, tribal, and local governments during time of disasters. Furthermore, the book includes a summary of federal programs that provide federal disaster assistance to individual survivors, states, territories, local governments, and nongovernmental entities following a natural or man-made disaster; and reviews several key concepts about these federal assets, and highlights possible issues Congress may consider when evaluating their authorisation and appropriation.

Nearly all major roads and bridges in the United States are part of the federal-aid highway system and are therefore eligible for assistance from the Emergency Relief Program (ER) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). ER assistance is restricted to roads and bridges on the federal aid highway system, which essentially includes all public roads not functionally classified as either local or rural minor collectors. For disaster-damaged roads that are not federal-aid highways, states may request reimbursement for emergency road repairs from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA may also allow limited funding under its Public Assistance Program for such things as snow removal and related operating costs during extreme snowfalls, which are not eligible for ER funds. This book describes FHWA assistance for the repair and reconstruction of highways and bridges damaged by disasters or catastrophic failures. It begins with a brief discussion of the legislative origins of federal assistance, and then addresses eligibility issues and program operation. Moreover, this book discusses agricultural disaster assistance; presents backgrounds on emergency agricultural land assistance programs; describes snow assistance and assistance for severe winter storms, the declaration process, the criteria used to make eligibility determinations, and the types of assistance that are provided after the President has issued a major disaster declaration for the incident; discusses federal non-agricultural programs for emergency water assistance during droughts; commercial fishery disasters; and examines the Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) benefits.

The Robert T Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act authorises the President to issue "major disaster" or "emergency" declarations before or after catastrophes occur. Emergency declarations trigger aid that protects property, public health, and safety and lessens or averts the threat of an incident becoming a catastrophic event. Given their purpose, the emergency declarations may precede an event. A major disaster declaration is generally issued after catastrophes occur, and constitutes broader authority for federal agencies to provide supplemental assistance to help state and local governments, families and individuals, and certain nonprofit organisations recover from the incident. Since the decision for a declaration is at the discretion of the President, there has been some speculation regarding the influence of political favor in these decisions. Some have posited various connections between the political party of the governor requesting or the prominence of some state's congressional delegation on committee's important to FEMA. This book discusses the evolution of this process, how it is administered and recent changes enacted in law as well as amending legislation that has been introduced. The book then provides background on key elements of the Public Assistance (PA) Grant Program, which provides financial grant assistance to states, tribes, and local communities both in the response to and recovery from significant disasters. Finally, this book concludes with discussion of several policy issues that Congress may wish to consider when evaluating the PA Program in the future, including considerations of significant prospective changes to the PA Program and the role of the PA Program in the context of other federal agency disaster assistance authorities.

These guidelines represent the culmination of efforts, initiated by President Carter in April 1977, to review procedures and criteria used by Federal Agencies involved in the design, construction, operation, and regulation of dams and to prepare guidelines for management procedures to ensure dam safety. The guidelines are based on an intensive review of Agency practices conducted by the Departments and Agencies themselves, by an ad hoc interagency committee of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET), and by an Independent Review Panel of recognized experts from the academic and private sectors. These reviews are summarized in two earlier reports: Improving Federal Dam Safety, a report of the FCCSET, November 1977, and Federal Dam Safety Report of the OSTP Independent Review Panel, December 1978. Publication of the guidelines marks the final step in the review process. However, the Departments and Agencies recognize that there must be a continuing Federal effort to improve dam safety. Federal dam safety remains a fundamental responsibility of each Federal employee in every Department and Agency involved and it is on their technical expertise and dedication that the safety of Federal dams rests. These guidelines recognize that underlying fact and support management efforts to discharge that responsibility effectively and efficiently. These guidelines apply to Federal practices for dams with a direct Federal interest and are not intended to supplant or otherwise conflict with State or local government responsibilities for safety of dams under their jurisdiction. Current Federal initiatives to assist States and others with non-Federal dam safety programs are being pursued under other authorities. The objective of both programs, however, is the same: to allow the people of this country to enjoy the benefits of water resource development with the best assurance of dam safety possible.

In April 1977, President Carter issued a memorandum directing the review of federal dam safety activities by an ad hoc panel of recognized experts. In June 1979, the ad hoc interagency committee on dam safety (ICODS) issued its report, which contained the first guidelines for federal agency dam owners. The Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety (Guidelines) encourage strict safety standards in the practices and procedures employed by federal agencies or required of dam owners regulated by the federal agencies. The Guidelines address management practices and procedures but do not attempt to establish technical standards. They provide the most complete and authoritative statement available of the desired management practices for promoting dam safety and the welfare of the public. To supplement the Guidelines, ICODS prepared and approved federal guidelines in the areas of emergency action planning; earthquake analysis and design of dams; and selecting and accommodating inflow design floods for dams. These publications, based on the most current knowledge and experience available, provided authoritative statements on the state of the art for three important technical areas involving dam safety. In 1994, the ICODS Subcommittee to Review/Update the Federal Guidelines began an update to these guidelines to meet new dam safety challenges and to ensure consistency across agencies and users. In addition, the ICODS Subcommittee on Federal/Non-Federal Dam Safety Coordination developed a new guideline, Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams. With the passage of the National Dam Safety Program Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303, ICODS and its Subcommittees were reorganized to reflect the objectives and requirements of Public Law 104-303. In 1998, the newly convened Guidelines Development Subcommittee completed work on the update of all of the following guidelines: Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Emergency Action Planning for Dam Owners; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Earthquake Analyses and Design of Dams; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Selecting and Accommodating Inflow Design Floods for Dams; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Glossary of Terms. The publication of these guidelines marks the final step in the review and update process. In recognition of the continuing need to enhance dam safety through coordination and information exchange among federal and state agencies, the Guidelines Development Subcommittee will be responsible for maintaining these documents and establishing additional guidelines that will help achieve the objectives of the National Dam Safety Program.

In April 1977, President Carter issued a memorandum directing the review of federal dam safety activities by an ad hoc panel of recognized experts. In June 1979, the ad hoc interagency committee on dam safety (ICODS) issued its report, which contained the first guidelines for federal agency dam owners. The Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety (Guidelines) encourage strict safety standards in the practices and procedures employed by federal agencies or required of dam owners regulated by the federal agencies. The Guidelines address management practices and procedures but do not attempt to establish technical standards. They provide the most complete and authoritative statement available of the desired management practices for promoting dam safety and the welfare of the public. To supplement the Guidelines, ICODS prepared and approved federal guidelines in the areas of emergency action planning; earthquake analysis and design of dams; and selecting and accommodating inflow design floods for dams. These publications, based on the most current knowledge and experience available, provided authoritative statements on the state of the art for three important technical areas involving dam safety. In 1994, the ICODS Subcommittee to Review/Update the Federal Guidelines began an update to these guidelines to meet new dam safety challenges and to ensure consistency across agencies and users. In addition, the ICODS Subcommittee on Federal/Non-Federal Dam Safety Coordination developed a new guideline, Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams. With the passage of the National Dam Safety Program Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303, ICODS and its Subcommittees were reorganized to reflect the objectives and requirements of Public Law 104-303. In 1998, the newly convened Guidelines Development Subcommittee completed work on the update of all of the following guidelines: Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Emergency Action Planning for Dam Owners; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Earthquake Analyses and Design of Dams; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Selecting and Accommodating Inflow Design Floods for Dams; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Glossary of Terms . The publication of these guidelines marks the final step in the review and update process. In recognition of the continuing need to enhance dam safety through coordination and information exchange among federal and state agencies, the Guidelines Development Subcommittee will be responsible for maintaining these documents and establishing additional guidelines that will help achieve the objectives of the National Dam Safety Program.

The Interagency Committee on Dam Safety (ICODS) was established to provide the Federal agencies involved in dam safety with the opportunity to coordinate their dam safety activities. One of the goals of ICODS is to provide a common forum for the Federal agencies and State officials to exchange ideas and procedures that are used for dam safety and to provide an efficient mechanism for technology transfer. The purpose of this document is to establish a common Glossary of Terms for Dam Safety.

Earthquakes in the United States are regional in their occurrence and while California is famous for its earthquake other states, such as Texas, have much less concern for the threat of temblors. However, architectural practice is becoming increasingly national and global, and the architect in Texas may find that the next project is in California. Thus it has become necessary for the professional architect to have some knowledge of the earthquake problem and how design seeks to control it. Designing for Earthquakes: a Manual for Architects is intended to explain the principles of seismic design for those without a technical background in engineering and seismology. The primary intended audience is that of architects, and includes practicing architects, architectural students and faculty in architectural schools who teach structures and seismic design. For this reason the text and graphics are focused on those aspects of seismic design that are important for the architect to know. Because of its non-technical approach this publication will also be useful to anyone who has an interest and concern for the seismic protection of buildings, including facility managers, building owners and tenants, building committee participants, emergency service personnel and building officials. Engineers and engineering students will also gain from this discussion of seismic design from an architectural viewpoint. The principles discussed are applicable to a wide range of building types, both new and existing. The focus is on buildings that are designed by a team that includes architects, engineers and other consultants.