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

Dramatic scenes of devastation and suffering caused by disasters such as the 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami, are viewed with shock and horror by millions of us across the world. What we rarely see, however, are the international politics of disaster aid, mitigation and prevention that condition the collective response to natural catastrophes around the world. In this book, respected Canadian environmental sociologist John Hannigan argues that the global community of nations has failed time and again in establishing an effective and binding multilateral mechanism for coping with disasters, especially in the more vulnerable countries of the South.Written in an accessible and even-handed manner, Disasters without Borders it is the first comprehensive account of the key milestones, debates, controversies and research relating to the international politics of natural disasters. Tracing the historical evolution of this policy field from its humanitarian origins in WWI right up to current efforts to cast climate change as the prime global driver of disaster risk, it highlights the ongoing mismatch between the way disaster has been conceptualised and the institutional architecture in place to manage it. The book's bold conclusion predicts the confluence of four emerging trends - politicisation/militarisation, catastrophic scenario building, privatisation of risk, and quantification, which could create a new system of disaster management wherein 'insurance logic' will replace humanitarian concern as the guiding principle. "Disasters Without Borders" is an ideal introductory text for students, lecturers and practitioners in the fields of international development studies, disaster management, politics and international affairs, and environmental geography/sociology.

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.

Do you want to get started prepping, but don't have enough money to cover your expenses now, let alone start prepping for the future?
When you're living paycheck to paycheck it's tough to look ahead and start planning for the future. While you may not think you can afford to stockpile food and supplies for an emergency situation, the reality is you can't afford not to.
Think about the potential cost of inaction. Your family is counting on you to see them through an emergency. If you aren't prepared, you're going to have to depend on the kindness of others. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather be self-reliant, especially in this day and age.
You know you need food and gear, but until now you thought purchasing it was out of reach. You don't have to shell out thousands of dollars at a time preparing for the future. The tips and tricks in "The Poor Man's Prepping Guide" will enable you to slowly but surely build up a respectable cache of food and supplies.
For less than the price of a cup of coffee, you can buy this book now and find out how to begin prepping on a serious budget.

According to available information, landsliding in the United States causes an average of 25 to 50 deaths and $1 to $2 billion in economic losses annually. Although all 50 states are subject to landslide activity, the Rocky Mountain, Appalachian, and Pacific Coast regions generally suffer the greatest landslide losses. The costs of landsliding can be direct or indirect and range from the expense of cleanup and repair or replacement of structures to lost tax revenues and reduced productivity and property values. Landslide losses are growing in the United States despite the availability of successful techniques for landslide management and control. The failure to lessen the problem is primarily due to the ever-increasing pressure of development in areas of geologically hazardous terrain and the failure of responsible government entities and private developers to recognize landslide hazards and to apply appropriate measures for their mitigation, even though there is overwhelming evidence that landslide hazard mitigation programs serve both public and private interests by saving many times the cost of implementation. The high cost of landslide damage will continue to increase if community development and capital investments continue without taking advantage of the opportunities that currently exist to mitigate the effects of landslides. The widespread occurrence of landsliding, together with the potential for catastrophic statewide and regional impacts, emphasizes the need for cooperation among federal, state, and local governments and the private sector. Although annual landslide losses in the U.S. are extremely high, significant reductions in future losses can be achieved through a combination of landslide hazard mitigation and emergency management. Landslide hazard mitigation consists of those activities that reduce the likelihood of occurrence of damaging landslides and minimize the effects of the landslides that do occur. The goal of emergency management is to minimize loss of life and property damage through the timely and efficient commitment of available resources. Despite their common goals, emergency management and hazard mitigation activities have historically been carried out independently. The integration of these two efforts is most often demonstrated in the recovery phase following a disaster, when decisions about reconstruction and future land uses in the community are made. The development and implementation of landslide loss-reduction strategies requires the cooperation of many public and private institutions, all levels of government, and private citizens. Coordinated and comprehensive systems for landslide hazard mitigation do not currently exist in most states and communities faced with the problem. In most states, local governments often take the lead by identifying goals and objectives, controlling land use, providing hazard information and technical assistance to property owners and developers, and implementing mitigation projects as resources allow. State and federal agencies play supporting roles-primarily financial, technical, and administrative. In some cases, however, legislation originating at the state or federal level is the sole impetus for stimulating effective local mitigation activity. In many states there remains a need to develop long-term organizational systems at state and local levels to deal with landslide hazard mitigation in a coordinated and systematic manner. The development of a landslide hazard mitigation plan can be the initial step in the establishment of state and local programs that promote long-term landslide loss reduction. The purpose of this guidebook is to provide a practical, politically feasible guide for state and local officials involved in landslide hazard mitigation. The guidebook presents concepts and a framework for the preparation of state and local landslide hazard mitigation plans.

Think about where you are right now. How well would you and your family fare if today, right now, you were suddenly faced with an enormous disaster-a massive earthquake, a sudden flood, a horrific hurricane, tornado, super storm, or other catastrophic event? If you and your family are not fully prepared to face the events after a disaster and you want to learn how to prepare for and survive when a disaster strikes, this book could save your life ... and the lives of your family. This book details lifesaving information and illustrations for you and your family, to help ensure your survival in the event of a disaster.

Preparedness is the shared responsibility of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and individual citizens. Individuals and households are at the core of our Nation's preparedness. A community's ability to respond to or recover from a disaster depends on the level of preparedness of every member. However, a 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey found that 29 percent of Americans have not prepared because they think that emergency responders will help them and that over 60 percent expect to rely on emergency responders in the first 72 hours following a disaster. The reality is that in a complex disaster, first responders and emergency workers may not be able to reach everyone right away. In addition, providers may not be able to restore critical services, such as power, immediately. The purpose of this initiative is to promote personal and community preparedness through engaging activities for individuals, neighbors, or households. These activities are a set of building blocks. You can mix and match the activities based on the needs of your target audience or time available. Most activities can be completed during a 15-minute to 60-minute session. You should adapt the materials to include critical local information, such as information on local hazards, local alerts and warnings, and local community response resources and protocols. Remember, preparedness does not have to be complex or overly time consuming. Rather, it should motivate, empower, and engage the whole community.

For the millions of Americans who have physical, medical, sensory or cognitive disabilities, emergencies such as fires, floods and acts of terrorism present a real challenge. The same challenge also applies to the elderly and other special needs populations. Protecting yourself and your family when disaster strikes requires planning ahead. This booklet will help you get started. Discuss these ideas with your family, friends and/or your personal care attendant, or anyone else in your support network and prepare an emergency plan. Post the plan where everyone will see it, keep a copy with you and make sure everyone involved in your plan has a copy. Where will you, your family, your friends or personal care attendants be when an emergency or disaster strikes? You, and those you care about, could be anywhere - at home, work, school or in transit. How will you find each other? Will you know your loved ones will be safe? Emergencies and disasters can strike quickly and without warning and can force you to evacuate your neighborhood or confine you to your home. What would you do if basic services - water, gas, electricity or telephones - were cut off? Local officials and relief workers will be on the scene after a disaster, but they cannot reach everyone right away. You are in the best position to plan for your own safety as you are best able to know your functional abilities and possible needs during and after an emergency or disaster situation. You can cope with disaster by preparing in advance with your family and care attendants. You will need to create a personal support network and complete a personal assessment. You will also need to follow the four preparedness steps listed in this booklet. 1. Get informed 2. Make a plan 3. Assemble a kit 4. Maintain your plan and kit.

One of the activities authorized by the Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002 is research to enhance the Nation's ability to assure that adequate dam safety programs and practices are in place throughout the United States. The Act of 2002 states that the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in cooperation with the National Dam Safety Review Board (Review Board), shall carry out a program of technical and archival research to develop and support: improved techniques, historical experience, and equipment for rapid and effective dam construction, rehabilitation, and inspection; devices for continued monitoring of the safety of dams; development and maintenance of information resources systems needed to support managing the safety of dams; and initiatives to guide the formulation of effective policy and advance improvements in dam safety engineering, security, and management. With the funding authorized by the Congress, the goal of the Review Board and the Dam Safety Research Work Group (Work Group) is to encourage research in those areas expected to make significant contributions to improving the safety and security of dams throughout the United States. The Work Group (formerly the Research Subcommittee of the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety) met initially in February 1998. To identify and prioritize research needs, the Subcommittee sponsored a workshop on Research Needs in Dam Safety in Washington D.C. in April 1999. Representatives of state and federal agencies, academia, and private industry attended the workshop. Seventeen broad area topics related to the research needs of the dam safety community were identified. To more fully develop the research needs identified, the Research Subcommittee subsequently sponsored a series of nine workshops. Each workshop addressed a broad research topic (listed) identified in the initial workshop. Experts attending the workshops included international representatives as well as representatives of state, federal, and private organizations within the United States: Impacts of Plants and Animals on Earthen Dams; Risk Assessment for Dams; Spillway Gates; Seepage through Embankment Dams; Embankment Dam Failure Analysis; Hydrologic Issues for Dams; Dam Spillways; Seismic Issues for Dams; Dam Outlet Works. The proceedings from the research workshops present a comprehensive and detailed discussion and analysis of the research topics addressed by the experts participating in the workshops. The participants at all of the research workshops are to be commended for their diligent and highly professional efforts on behalf of the National Dam Safety Program. The National Dam Safety Program research needs workshop on Seepage through Embankment Dams was held on October 17-19, 2000, in Denver, Colorado. The Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, would like to acknowledge the contributions of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials and URS Corporation in organizing the workshop and developing these workshop proceedings.

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

The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) (P.L. 106-390) provides an opportunity for States, Tribes, and local governments to take a new and revitalized approach to mitigation planning. DMA 2000 amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by repealing the previous Mitigation Planning section (409) and replacing it with a new Mitigation Planning section (322). This new section emphasizes the need for State, Tribal, and local entities to closely coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. It continues the requirement for a State mitigation plan as a condition of disaster assistance, and creates incentives for increased coordination and integration of mitigation activities at the State level through the establishment of requirements for two different levels of State plans: "Standard" and "Enhanced." States that demonstrate an increased commitment to comprehensive mitigation planning and implementation through the development of an approved Enhanced State Plan can increase the amount of funding available through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). To implement the DMA 2000 planning requirements, FEMA published an Interim Final Rule in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002. This Rule (44 CFR Part 201) established the mitigation planning requirements for States, Tribes, and local communities. Normally FEMA publishes a proposed rule for public comment before publishing a final rule. This process can result in a lengthy comment and response period, during which the proposed rule is not legally effective or enforceable. Because certain types of Stafford Act assistance are conditioned on having an approved mitigation plan, FEMA wanted to publish an effective rule providing the DMA 2000 planning requirements in order to position State and local governments to receive these mitigation funds as soon as possible. Even though it is an Interim Final Rule, FEMA will still publish a proposed rule for public comment, to be followed eventually by a final rule. FEMA is assessing the utility and practicality of these interim final requirements based on the experience of States, Tribes, and local governments, and will draw on this experience in preparing the future Proposed and Final Rules for Mitigation Planning. Until then, the Rule serves as the governing set of requirements for DMA 2000 planning implementation. To help States, Tribes, and local governments better understand the Rule and meet the DMA 2000 planning requirements, FEMA has prepared this document, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance). It was designed with three major objectives: To help Federal and State reviewers evaluate mitigation plans from different jurisdictions in a fair and consistent manner; To help States, Tribes, and local jurisdictions develop new mitigation plans or modify existing ones in accordance with the requirements of the Rule, and To help States, Tribes, and local jurisdictions conduct comprehensive reviews and prepare updates to their plans in accordance with the review and update requirements of the Rule. This Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, as interpretation and explanation for the Rule, is FEMA's official source for defining the requirements of original and updated mitigation plans. It includes references to specific language in the Rule, descriptions of the relevant requirements, and sample plan text to illustrate distinctions between plan approaches that would and would not meet DMA 2000 requirements. In addition, this document provides references to a number of planning tools that FEMA has made available to assist States, Tribes, and localities in developing a comprehensive, multi-hazard approach to mitigation planning, and in preparing plans that will meet the DMA 2000 requirements.

One of the goals of the 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 the 2009 edition of the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA P-750) reaffirms FEMA's ongoing support of efforts to achieve this goal. First published in 1985, the 2009 edition of the Provisions marks the seventh in a series of updates to the document and several complementary publications. FEMA is proud to have sponsored this project conducted by the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) of National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) and continues to encourage the widespread dissemination and voluntary use of this state-of-art consensus resource document. In contrast to the earlier editions of the Provisions which resulted from three-year update projects, the 2009 edition is the first resulting from a five-year update effort that allowed the BSSC's Provisions Update Committee (PUC) to make some major changes in both the substance and the format of the Provisions document. The most significant change involves the adoption by reference of the national consensus design loads standard, ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, including the related consensus standards referenced therein and Supplements 1 and 2. Part 1 of this document includes consensus-approved modifications of the seismic requirements in the standard. Among these modifications is the adoption of new seismic design maps based on seismic hazard maps issued in 2008 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) along with some design-related adjustments. Another major change has been made to the accompanying Commentary, previously issued as a separate volume but now included as Part 2 of the 2009 Provisions. The content of the Commentary has been completely rewritten to provide users with an up-to-date, user friendly explanation of how to design using the Provisions and the reference standard. Part 3 of the 2009 Provisions consists of a series of resource papers intended to clarify aspects of the Provisions, stimulate consideration of and feedback from the design community on new seismic design concepts and procedures, and/or encourage the development and adoption of new requirements in ASCE/SEI 7 and the standards referenced therein. Thus, the 2009 Provisions serves as a national resource intended for use by both design professionals and the standards- and codes-development community in fostering development of a built environment designed and constructed to protect building occupants from loss of life and serious injury and to reduce the total losses from future earthquakes.

The purpose of these Technical Fact Sheets, "Home Builder's Guide to Construction in Wildfire Zones," is to provide information about wildfire behavior and recommendations for building design and construction methods in the wildland/urban interface. Implementation of the recommended design and construction methods can greatly increase the chances of a building's survival in a wildfire.

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

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

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

To assist with a catastrophic mass casualty incident in the United States and its territories - at the direction of the President - the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the appropriate Combatant Commander may deploy the CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force (CCMRF). The CCMRF is trained and equipped to provide a rapid response capability following a catastrophic event. Just as with all instances of Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA), military forces respond only when requested. Requests always work their way up from the local level. After a major incident, city leaders will ask for county assistance; county asks for State assistance; the State Governor asks for Federal assistance from the President. If the President agrees, a Presidential Declaration of Disaster is declared. The Secretaries of Homeland Security, Defense, and other cabinet members meet and determine the best course of action. The SecDef may initiate activation of CCMRF units. State National Guard units are usually mobilized under the direction of the Governor and remain State assets, while CCMRF units are usually Title 10 under the direction of NORTHCOM, ARNORTH, and the Joint Task Force (JTF) Commander - or the Defense Coordinating Officer (DCO) if a JTF is not stood up. The CCMRF includes assets such as medical surge, chemical decontamination and biological detection that may be helpful to the victims of a catastrophic event. The CCMRF also includes communications, force protection, transportation, supply and maintenance assets that can be used to establish command and control capabilities to facilitate additional military and civilian resources into the affected area. Joint Doctrine for Civil Support notes, "DOD resources are normally used only when state and local resources are overwhelmed and/or non-DOD resources of the Federal government are insufficient or unable to meet the requirements of local and state civil authorities." This workbook focuses on domestic consequence management under the command of USNORTHCOM. The CCMRF mission is part of a broader Department of Defense (DOD) support package to the Lead Federal Agency (LFA), which is responsible for overall coordination of the response. The primary agency is responsible for overall coordination of the response. In many cases the primary agency is FEMA, but not always. In the case of many other emergencies the state government retains legal and operational leadership. Often, for these incidents, there is no need to establish a Joint Task Force, and the Defense Coordinating Officer remains the single point of contact for DoD. Other Federal agencies may also support the response - for example, the FBI may assist in collecting evidence - but the primary responsibility remains at the State or local level. There is also likely to be significant involvement in emergency response by local authorities, private organizations, and individual citizens. The legal, political, and operational implications can be complex. When the CCMRF is deployed, the event has overwhelmed local resources. If the event is perceived as having terrorist origins, the level of public concern will be especially high. Public concern, legal limitations, and the need to collaborate with a wide range of other players establish a challenging strategic context.

The federal government helps states and localities to prepare for disasters by providing financial and technical assistance for emergency planning and training, conducting exercises of plans, and building and maintaining an emergency management infrastructure. In a catastrophic or major disaster incident, the National Response Plan, a national approach to domestic incident management, will be activated. This interagency plan describes the resources that federal agencies can mobilize to support initial emergency functions and how they will integrate with state, local, private sector, and non-governmental resources. It outlines planning assumptions, policies, a concept of operations, and organizational structures. Disaster Assistance: A Guide to Recovery Programs supports the National Response Plan as a resource for federal, state, local, and non-governmental officials. It contains brief descriptions and contact information for federal programs that may be able to provide disaster recovery assistance to eligible applicants. The programs described in this guide may all be of assistance during disaster incident recovery. Some are available only after a presidential declaration of disaster, but others are available without a declaration. Please see the individual program descriptions for details. A governor may request a presidential declaration in the event of a disaster incident in which state and local emergency resources are overwhelmed. The request must satisfy the provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, which is the primary legislative authority for the federal government to assist State and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities for disaster response and recovery. This Guide presents an array of programs that may be of assistance during disaster recovery, depending upon the circumstances, community needs, and available resources. The purpose of this guide is to provide basic information about programs of assistance available to individuals, businesses, and public entities after a disaster incident. These programs help individuals cope with their losses, and affected businesses and public entities restore their structures and operations. The information is intended to serve as a starting point for disaster workers and local, state, and federal officials to locate sources of help as they seek more definitive information, such as eligibility criteria and application processes. Included are programs that make financial assistance available, as well as those that provide technical assistance and/or goods and other services. The program summaries in this guide evolved from an initial compilation of programs obtained from the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA), the compendium of financial and non-financial programs throughout the Federal Government that provides assistance or benefits to the American public. The relevant agencies reviewed, revised, and added to the summaries to reflect programs that are specifically intended to apply to disaster recovery and regular agency programs that, in special circumstances, may support disaster recovery.

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a federal program that allows property owners to purchase insurance protection against losses from flooding. This insurance is designed to provide an alternative to costly, taxpayer-funded disaster assistance. Congress established the NFIP with the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 that provides the NFIP authority and guidelines. All changes since 1968 have been made as amendments to this act. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the NFIP. Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between local participating communities and the federal government. The community agrees to implement and enforce floodplain measures (ordinances and laws) to reduce future flood damage to new construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas; the federal government will make flood insurance available within the community as financial protection against future flood losses. In 1981, FEMA initiated efforts to once again involve the private-sector insurance industry in the NFIP. A cooperative effort between FEMA and insurance company representatives led to the creation of the Write Your Own (WYO) Program in July 1983. The WYO Companies issue and service federally backed Standard Flood Insurance Policies under their own names, collect premiums, and handle and pay claims. FEMA pays the WYO Companies a fee for these services. In August 1983, FEMA extended an invitation to all licensed property and casualty companies to participate in the WYO Program for fiscal year 1984. The NFIP now has two programs-the NFIP Direct Program and the WYO Program. 1) NFIP Direct Program The program that deals with the issuing and servicing of flood insurance policies, and the handling of resultant claims, directly by the federal government is known as the NFIP Direct Program. The NFIP Servicing Agent assists and advises agents and adjusters who handle Direct Program policies. The NFIP Servicing Agent also manages the Group Flood Insurance Policy Program and the policies for buildings that are identified as Severe Repetitive Loss Properties. 2) WYO Program The WYO Program now accounts for approximately 90 percent of all flood policies. The NFIP Bureau and Statistical Agent assist and advise the WYO Companies. However, this does not diminish the authority of the WYO Company or relieve the company of its obligations. The WYO Company still collects the premium, issues the policy, and provides adjustment and payment for claims. In addition to providing flood insurance for property, the NFIP is actively engaged in the evaluation of existing and potential flood hazards and their long-term reduction. Accordingly, various zones of flooding probability and severity have been established. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) are produced to show the projected elevation to which flooding is likely to occur in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Community officials are responsible for issuing building permits and must keep the FIRM and make the information available. In some instances, the local agent may have the maps available.