The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed a series of mitigation planning "how-to" guides for the purpose of assisting Tribes, States, and local governments in developing effective hazard mitigation planning processes. The material presented in these guides is intended to address the needs of both large and small communities with varying degrees of technical expertise and financial reserves. The topic area for this guide is "Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations into Hazard Mitigation Planning." Other guides that have been developed by FEMA as part of the "how-to" series include: 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, State, or Tribe (FEMA 386-2); Setting mitigation priorities and goals for your community, State, or Tribe 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). These four guides are commonly referred to as the "core four" as they provide a broad overview of the core elements associated with hazard mitigation planning. In addition to these "core four," FEMA has developed a series of supplementary "how-to" guides that are to be used in conjunction with the "core four" and address the following special topic areas: Evaluating potential mitigation actions through the use of benefit-cost review (FEMA 386-5); Incorporating special considerations into hazard mitigation planning for historic properties and cultural resources, the topic of this how-to guide (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 guide is designed for all practitioners involved in creating a hazard mitigation plan (e.g., planners and emergency managers). Why should planners and emergency managers consider historic properties and cultural resources? Because after a disaster, these resources' special status as designated landmarks may complicate recovery efforts. However, these resources may also be assets that can help in creating mitigation plans with multiple community benefits. This guide will be of value to citizens who love their communities and want to protect their historic and cultural assets. The guide will outline specific steps for how communities can harness their knowledge, talent, and energy to create a secure future for historic resources.

The Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed a series of "how-to" guides for the purpose of assisting Tribes, States, and local governments in developing effective hazard mitigation planning processes. The material presented in these guides is intended to address the needs of both large and small communities with varying degrees of technical expertise and financial resources. The topic area for this guide is "Multi-Jurisdictional Approaches to Hazard Mitigation Planning" (FEMA 386-8). This guide provides suggestions to local governments in preparing multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plans that meet the DMA 2000 planning requirements. Other guides that have been developed by FEMA as part of the "how-to" series include: 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, State, or Tribe (FEMA 386-2); Setting mitigation priorities and goals for your community, State, or Tribe 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 potential mitigation actions through the use of benefit-cost review (FEMA 386-5) (to be published); Incorporating special considerations into hazard mitigation planning for historic properties and cultural resources, the topic of this how-to guide (FEMA 386-6); Incorporating mitigation considerations for manmade hazards into hazard mitigation planning (FEMA 386-7); and Finding and securing technical and financial resources for mitigation planning (FEMA 386-9). The first four guides are commonly referred to as the "core four" as they provide a broad overview of the core elements associated with hazard mitigation planning. This and the other guides are supplementary "how-to" guides that are to be used in conjunction with the "core four." Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 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 their access to 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 Program PDM] and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HMGP]) under the Stafford Act. On February 26, 2002, FEMA published under Title 44 Part 201 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) an Interim Rule (the Rule) to implement the mitigation planning requirements of DMA 2000. The Rule outlines the requirements for both State and local mitigation plans. FEMA has prepared a document, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, that explains the requirements of the Rule with the help of sample plan excerpts and discussion.

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 natural hazard mitigation planning capabilities. These guides are designed to provide the type of information states and communities 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 be an easy to understand guide for the field practitioner. In practice, these guides may be supplemented with more extensive technical data and the use of experts if possible. The how-to guides cover the following topics: Getting started with the mitigation planning process including important considerations for how you can organize to develop a plan; Identifying hazards and assessing losses to your community and state; Setting mitigation priorities and goals for your community; Evaluating potential mitigation measures through the use of benefit-cost analysis and other techniques; Creating a mitigation plan and implementation strategy; Implementing the mitigation plan including project funding and revising the plan periodically as changes in the community occur; and Incorporating special circumstances in hazard mitigation planning for historic structures, among other topics. Risk assessment answers the fundamental question that fuels the natural hazard mitigation planning process: "What would happen if a natural hazard event occurred in your community or state?" Risk assessment is the process of measuring the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from natural hazards by assessing the vulnerability of people, buildings, and infrastructure to natural hazards. Risk assessment provides the foundation for the rest of the mitigation planning process. The risk assessment process focuses your attention on areas most in need by evaluating which populations and facilities are most vulnerable to natural hazards and to what extent injuries and damages may occur. It tells you: The hazards to which your state or community is susceptible; What these hazards can do to physical, social, and economic assets; Which areas are most vulnerable to damage from these hazards; and The resulting cost of damages or costs avoided through future mitigation projects. In addition to benefiting mitigation planning, risk assessment information also allows emergency management personnel to establish early response priorities by identifying potential hazards and vulnerable assets. The steps in this how-to guide describe some methods you may use to develop this information. Subsequent guides assist you in determining priorities for mitigation and in deciding which assets in your community or state should be protected.

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.

When a disaster or emergency occurs, it is the responsibility first of the local community and the State or Tribe to respond. However, their combined efforts at times are not sufficient to effectively address the direct results of the most serious events. These situations call for Federal assistance. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. Sections 5121-5207, authorizes the President to provide Federal assistance to supplement State, Tribal, and local efforts. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a component of the Department of Homeland Security, coordinates the delivery of assistance under the law and provides grants through the Public Assistance Program to help with the extraordinary costs for response and infrastructure recovery. This Handbook explains how applicants can obtain help through the Public Assistance Program. Potential recipients of this assistance include State, Tribal, and local governments and certain types of private nonprofit organizations. The mission of the Public Assistance Program is to assist communities in recovering from the devastating effects of disasters and emergencies by providing technical assistance and financial grants in an efficient, effective, consistent, and customer-friendly manner. Accordingly, it is important that everyone shares a common understanding of program policies and procedures. By understanding the content of this Handbook and following the principles outlined in it, applicants can participate as knowledgeable partners in obtaining grant funding.

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 100-707), signed into law on November 23, 1988; amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-288). The Stafford Act constitutes the statutory authority for most Federal disaster response activities especially as they pertain to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and FEMA programs. The Stafford Act is designed to bring an orderly and systemic means of federal natural disaster assistance for state and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to aid citizens. Congress' intention was to encourage states and localities to develop comprehensive disaster preparedness plans, prepare for better intergovernmental coordination in the face of a disaster, encourage the use of insurance coverage, and provide Federal assistance programs for losses due to a disaster. Title I provides the intent of Congress to provide continued and orderly assistance, by means of the Federal government, to State and local governments to relieve hardship and damage which result from disasters. An emergency may be any instance in which State or local efforts need Federal assistance to save lives and protect the health and welfare of the people in a community. A major disaster may be defined as any natural catastrophe, fire, flood, or explosion, determined by the president to warrant the additional resources of the Federal government to alleviate damages or suffering they cause. Title II authorizes the President to establish a disaster preparedness program that utilizes the appropriate agencies and gives the President the right to provide technical assistance to states in order to complete a comprehensive plan to prepare against disasters. Title II articulates the necessity of a disaster warning system. This includes the readiness of all appropriate Federal Agencies to issue warnings to State and local authorities and the disbursement of warnings to the public. This title authorizes the President to make use of either the civil defense communication system or any commercial communications systems that are voluntarily given to the president to issue warnings to the public. Title III explains that upon the declaration of a major disaster, the President must appoint a Federal coordinating officer to help in the affected area. The President must also form emergency support teams staffed with Federal personnel. Title IV sets out the authority of the President during major disasters or emergencies. These powers include, but are limited to: directing any Federal agency to help the affected area (including precautionary evacuations), coordinating all disaster relief assistance, providing technical and advisory assistance (issuing warnings, providing for the public health and safety, and participating in recovery activities), distributing medicine, food and other supplies, and providing accelerating Federal assistance when the President deems it necessary. The President can also provide any emergency communications or public transportation that an affected location might need. Title V explains the process a State must follow to request that the President declare an emergency. Every request for the President to declare an emergency must come from the Governor of the State. In order for a request to be made, the Governor must deem that the situation is beyond the potential for the State to manage. Title IV explains the measures that have to be undertaken to prepare for anticipated hazards including creating operational plans, recruiting and training personnel, conducting research, stockpiling necessary materials and supplies, creating suitable warning systems, and constructing shelters. Title six also sets out the authority and responsibilities of the director of FEMA. Title VII gives the President the authority to determine any rule or regulation that may be necessary to carry out the powers that he is given in the Act.

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.

Marz bis Mai 2020: Es sind drei Monate, die die Welt verandern, in denen in Italien Tausende von Menschen sterben und hierzulande das Toilettenpapier aus den Supermarktregalen verschwindet. Die Corona-Tagebucher berichten unaufgeregt aus der Zeit des Lockdowns in einer suddeutschen Stadt. Sie bieten einen standigen Faktencheck und den Blick uber die eigenen Landesgrenzen, vor allem nach Italien, wo das neue Virus sich europaweit zuerst ausbreitet. Sachlich fundiert, sind die Tagebucher gleichzeitig ein sehr persoenliches Zeitdokument. Marco Lalli ist Schriftsteller und promovierter Sozialwissenschaftler. Als Statistiker verfugt er uber eine umfassende epidemiologische Ausbildung, mit der er die Hintergrunde der Corona-Pandemie verstandlich erklart. Er ist zudem bekannt durch seine Ausfuhrungen zum Themenkomplex des autonomen Fahrens.

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

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.

On March 11, 2011, Japan was struck by the shockwaves of a 9.0 magnitude undersea earthquake originating less than 50 miles off its eastern coastline. The most powerful earthquake to have hit Japan in recorded history, it produced a devastating tsunami with waves reaching heights of over 130 feet that in turn caused an unprecedented multireactor meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. This triple catastrophe claimed almost 20,000 lives, destroyed whole towns, and will ultimately cost hundreds of billions of dollars for reconstruction.

In 3.11, Richard Samuels offers the first broad scholarly assessment of the disaster's impact on Japan's government and society. The events of March 2011 occurred after two decades of social and economic malaise as well as considerable political and administrative dysfunction at both the national and local levels and resulted in national soul-searching. Political reformers saw in the tragedy cause for hope: an opportunity for Japan to remake itself. Samuels explores Japan s post-earthquake actions in three key sectors: national security, energy policy, and local governance. For some reformers, 3.11 was a warning for Japan to overhaul its priorities and political processes. For others, it was a once-in-a-millennium event; they cautioned that while national policy could be improved, dramatic changes would be counterproductive. Still others declared that the catastrophe demonstrated the need to return to an idealized past and rebuild what has been lost to modernity and globalization.

Samuels chronicles the battles among these perspectives and analyzes various attempts to mobilize popular support by political entrepreneurs who repeatedly invoked three powerfully affective themes: leadership, community, and vulnerability. Assessing reformers successes and failures as they used the catastrophe to push their particular agendas and by examining the earthquake and its aftermath alongside prior disasters in Japan, China, and the United States Samuels outlines Japan s rhetoric of crisis and shows how it has come to define post-3.11 politics and public policy."

In the early morning hours of August 24, 1992, Hurricane Andrew struck south Florida with high winds and heavy rains. Andrew destroyed tens of thousands of homes and left 180,000 people homeless. The resulting property damage totaled over 30 billion dollars. The widespread destruction caused by Andrew was due primarily to high winds. However, flood waters contributed to the damage in low-lying coastal areas of central and southern Miami-Dade County. In the repair and reconstruction efforts that followed Hurricane Andrew, owners of damaged houses had opportunities to modify their houses to protect them from future flood damage. One effective method of protecting a house from flooding is elevating the habitable areas of the house above the flood level. Almost all single-family homes in Miami-Dade County are constructed with reinforced masonry block walls on a slab-on-grade foundation. Houses of this type are the most difficult to elevate for flood protection. This publication describes how homeowners in Miami-Dade County elevat-ed their damaged slab-on-grade masonry houses following the devastating effects of Hurricane Andrew. Chapter 2 of this publication explains how the Federal Emergency Man-agement Agency (FEMA) provided technical and regulatory guidance to Miami-Dade County homeowners concerning alternative house elevation techniques. Chapter 3 presents an overview of three common techniques appropriate for a variety of houses on different types of foundations. Chapter 4 uses eight illustrated case studies to demonstrate how Miami- Dade County homeowners used the three techniques to elevate their slab-on-grade houses. The benefits of elevating a floodprone house are summarized in Chapter 5.

FEMA has produced a series of 37 fact sheets that provide technical guidance and recommendations concerning the construction of coastal residential buildings. The fact sheets present information aimed at improving the performance of buildings subject to flood and wind forces in coastal environments. The fact sheets make extensive use of photographs and drawings to illustrate National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulatory requirements, the proper siting of coastal buildings, and recommended design and construction practices, including structural connections, the building envelope, utilities, and accessory structures. In addition, many of the fact sheets include lists of additional resources that provide more information about the topics discussed.

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.

Relief after a natural or man-made disaster may come from what many might consider an unlikely source: the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). The IRC includes several tax relief provisions that apply to affected taxpayers. Some of these provisions are permanent. The following are among the permanent provisions discussed in this report: casualty loss deductions, IRC Section 165; exemption from taxation for disaster relief payments to individuals, IRC Section 139; exemption from taxation for certain insurance payments, IRC Section 123; and deferral of gain from the involuntary conversion of homes destroyed or damaged by a disaster, IRC Section 1033. In recent years, Congress has enacted tax legislation generally intended to assist victims of specific disasters; as a result, these laws were temporary in nature. One act, however, provided more general, but still temporary, relief for any federally declared disaster occurring prior to January 1, 2010. The acts providing temporary relief include the following: The Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, P.L. 107-147, which provided tax benefits for areas of New York City damaged by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; The Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005 (KETRA), P.L. 109-73, which provided tax relief to assist the victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005; The Gulf Opportunity Zone (GO Zone) Act of 2005, P.L. 109-135, which provided tax relief to those affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005; and The Heartland Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008, P.L. 110-343, which provided tax relief to assist recovery from both the severe weather that affected the Midwest during the summer of 2008 and Hurricane Ike. This act also included general disaster tax relief provisions that applied to federally declared disasters occurring before January 1, 2010. This publication provides a basic overview of existing, permanent provisions that benefit victims of disasters, as well as past, targeted legislative responses to particular disasters. The relief is discussed without examining either the qualifications for or the limitation on claiming the provisions' benefits. In light of Hurricane Sandy, this publication is designed to help Congress identify previous legislative responses to recent disasters.

The 2011 Coastal Construction Manual, Fourth Edition (FEMA P-55), is a two-volume publication that provides a comprehensive approach to planning, siting, designing, constructing, and maintaining homes in the coastal environment. Volume I of the Coastal Construction Manual provides information about hazard identification, siting decisions, regulatory requirements, economic implications, and risk management. The primary audience for Volume I is design professionals, officials, and those involved in the decision-making process. Volume II contains in-depth descriptions of design, construction, and maintenance practices that, when followed, will increase the durability of residential buildings in the harsh coastal environment and reduce economic losses associated with coastal natural disasters. The primary audience for Volume II is the design professional who is familiar with building codes and standards and has a basic understanding of engineering principles. Volume II is not a standalone reference for designing homes in the coastal environment. The designer should have access to and be familiar with the building codes and standards that are discussed in Volume II and listed in the reference section at the end of each chapter. The designer should also have access to the building codes and standards that have been adopted by the local jurisdiction if they differ from the standards and codes that are cited in Volume II. If the local jurisdiction having authority has not adopted a building code, the most recent code should be used. Engineering judgment is sometimes necessary, but designers should not make decisions that will result in a design that does not meet locally adopted building codes. The topics that are covered in Volume II are as follows: Chapter 7 - Introduction to the design process, minimum design requirements, losses from natural hazards in coastal areas, cost and insurance implications of design and construction decisions, sustainable design, and inspections; Chapter 8 - Site-specific loads, including from snow, flooding, tsunamis, high winds, tornadoes, seismic events, and combinations of loads. Example problems are provided to illustrate the application of design load provisions of ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures; Chapter 9 - Load paths, structural connections, structural failure modes, breakaway walls, building materials, and appurtenances; Chapter 10 - Foundations, including design criteria, requirements and recommendations, style selection (e.g., open, closed), pile capacity in soil, and installation; Chapter 11 - Building envelope, including floors in elevated buildings, exterior doors, windows and skylights, non-loading-bearing walls, exterior wall coverings, soffits, roof systems, and attic vents. Chapter 12 - Installing mechanical equipment and utilities; Chapter 13 - Construction, including the foundation, structural frame, and building envelope. Common construction mistakes, material selection and durability, and techniques for improving resistance to decay and corrosion are also discussed; Chapter 14 - Maintenance of new and existing buildings, including preventing damage from corrosion, moisture, weathering, and termites; building elements that require frequent maintenance; and hazard-specific maintenance techniques; Chapter 15 - Evaluating existing buildings for the need for and feasibility of retrofitting for wildfire, seismic, flood, and wind hazards and implementing the retrofitting. Wind retrofit packages that can be implemented during routine maintenance are also discussed (e.g., replacing roof shingles.

This report, FEMA-351 - Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings has been developed by the SAC Joint Venture under contract to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide structural engineers with recommended criteria for evaluation of the probable performance of existing steel moment-frame buildings in future earthquakes and to provide a basis for updating and revision of evaluation and rehabilitation guidelines and standards. It is one of a series of companion publications addressing the issue of the seismic performance of steel moment-frame buildings. The set of companion publications includes: FEMA-350 - Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. This publication provides recommended criteria, supplemental to FEMA-302 - 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, for the design and construction of steel moment-frame buildings and provides alternative performance-based design criteria. FEMA-351 - Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. This publication provides recommended methods to evaluate the probable performance of existing steel moment-frame buildings in future earthquakes and to retrofit these buildings for improved performance. FEMA-352 - Recommended Postearthquake Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. This publication provides recommendations for performing postearthquake inspections to detect damage in steel moment-frame buildings following an earthquake, evaluating the damaged buildings to determine their safety in the postearthquake environment, and repairing damaged buildings. FEMA-353 - Recommended Specifications and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Steel Moment-Frame Construction for Seismic Applications. This publication provides recommended specifications for the fabrication and erection of steel moment frames for seismic applications. The recommended design criteria contained in the other companion documents are based on the material and workmanship standards contained in this document, which also includes discussion of the basis for the quality control and quality assurance criteria contained in the recommended specifications. The information contained in these recommended evaluation and upgrade criteria, hereinafter referred to as Recommended Criteria, is presented in the form of specific recommendations for design and performance evaluation procedures together with supporting commentary explaining part of the basis for these recommendations.

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 the 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; selecting and accommodating inflow design floods for dams; and glossary of terms. These publications, based on the most current knowledge and experience available, provided authoritative statements on the state of the art for these important technical areas involving dam safety. In 1994, the ICODS Subcommittee to Review/Update Federal Guidelines began an update to these guidelines to meet the new dam safety challenges and to ensure consistency across agencies and users. In addition, the ICODS Subcommittee on Federal/Non-Federal Coordination developed a new guideline on hazard potential classification systems 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 the following guidelines: Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Emergency Action Planning for Dam Owners, FEMA 64, October 1998, reprinted April 2004; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Selecting and Accommodating Inflow Design Floods for Dams, FEMA 94, October 1998, reprinted April 2004; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential Classification Systems for Dams, FEMA 333, October 1998, reprinted April 2004. With the amendment of the Act into the National Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-310, former ICODS Subcommittees were reorganized under the National Dam Safety Review Board (NDSRB). In 2004, two task groups finalized the ongoing work of the previous Subcommittee on the update of the following guidelines: Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Glossary of Terms, FEMA 148, printed April 2004; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Earthquake Analyses and Design of Dams, FEMA 65, printed May 2005. 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 amongst federal and state agencies, the NDSRB will assume responsibility for maintaining these documents and establishing additional guidelines that will help achieve the objectives of the National Dam Safety Program. The NDSRB has established a task group and work is currently underway to prepare an update to the ground motions portion of this document with new research and methodologies.

When the SHTF (Stuff Hits the Fan), will you be prepared for it?
If you don't have a bug out bag ready, you're going to waste valuable time gathering resources when you should be on the road. Having a bug out bag ready will allow you to get on the road ahead of the sweaty masses and avoid traffic jams that could put your life at risk.
This book lays out everything you need to have in your bug out bag to ensure survival. Even if you have a bag ready, you may be woefully unprepared for the worst the world has to offer.
Buy this book now and start preparing for the worst. It may never come, but if it does, you'll be ready

On June 1, 2011, a super cell thunderstorm developed over Western Massachusetts, producing an EF3 tornado that cut a 39-mile track of destruction across the state. Despite ample warnings, this event took everyone by surprise. These are the stories of survivors and emergency responders who saw firsthand what happened when this life changing tornado touched down.

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.

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

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.