Bøger af Federal Emergency Management Agency

This report continues a series of annual studies by the USFA of on-duty firefighter fatalities in the United States. The specific objective of this study is to identify all on-duty firefighter fatalities that occurred in the United States and its protectorates in 2008 and to analyze the circumstances surrounding each occurrence. The study is intended to help identify approaches that could reduce the number of firefighter deaths in future years.

This report continues a series of annual studies by the USFA of on-duty firefighter fatalities in the United States. The specific objective of this study is to identify all on-duty firefighter fatalities that occurred in the United States and its protectorates in 2009 and to analyze the circumstances surrounding each occurrence. The study is intended to help identify approaches that could reduce the number of firefighter deaths in future years.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed this publication, Site and Urban Design for Security: Guidance against Potential Terrorist Attacks, to provide information and design concepts for the protection of buildings and occupants, from site perimeters to the faces of buildings. The intended audience includes the design community of architects, landscape architects, engineers and other consultants working for private institutions, building owners and managers and state and local government officials concerned with site planning and design. This publication, FEMA 430, is one of a series that addresses security issues in high-population private-sector buildings. It is a companion to the Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings (FEMA 426), which provides an understanding of the assessment of threats, hazards, vulnerability, and risk, and the design methods needed to improve protection of new and existing buildings and the people occupying them. Chapter 2 of FEMA 426 provides guidance on site layout and design and discusses architectural and engineering design considerations for risk mitigation, starting at the property line, including the orientation and placement of buildings on the site. This publication represents an expansion of Chapter 2 and focuses in more detail on information useful to the site security design team. In addition, this publication expands on Instruction Unit IX, "Site and Layout Design Guidance," in the Building Design for Homeland Security Training Course (FEMA E155) and also summarizes some of the concepts in Risk Assessment: A How-To Guide to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings (FEMA 452). Some of the technical information on design against blast contained in the Primer for Design of Commercial Buildings to Mitigate Terrorist Attacks (FEMA 427) is also summarized. These publications are part of the FEMA Risk Management Series (RMS).

Instructor Guide to CERT Animal Response IIIt contains the same information as the pdf which can be downloaded from Ready.gov at no cost. This book contains additional helpful tabs and pages for notes.

This report continues a series of annual studies by the USFA of on-duty firefighter fatalities in the United States. The USFA is the single public agency source of information for all on-duty firefighter fatalities in the United States each year. The unique and specific objective of this study is to identify all on-duty firefighter fatalities that occurred in the United States and its protectorates in 2006, and to present in summary form the circumstances surrounding each occurrence. The study is intended to help identify approaches that could reduce the number of firefighter deaths in future years. In addition to the 2006 overall findings, this study includes information on the hazards to firefighters presented by engineered lumber when it is exposed to fire conditions.

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.

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

FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is a powerful resource in the combined effort by Federal, State, and local government, as well as private industry and homeowners, to end the cycle of repetitive disaster damage. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act was passed on November 23, 1988, amending Public Law 93-288, the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. The Stafford Act included Section 404, which established the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. In 1993, the Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Act amended Section 404 to increase the amount of HMGP funds available and the cost-share to 75 percent Federal. This amendment also encouraged the use of property acquisition and other non-structural flood mitigation measures. In an effort to streamline HMGP delivery, FEMA encourages States to develop their mitigation programs before disaster strikes. States are adopting a more active HMGP management role. Increased capabilities may include: Conducting comprehensive all-hazard mitigation planning prior to disaster events; Providing applicants technical assistance on sound mitigation techniques and hazard mitigation policy and procedures; Coordinating mitigation programs through interagency teams or councils. Conducting benefit-cost analyses; and Preparing National Environmental Policy Act reviews for FEMA approval. States that integrate the HMGP with their frequently updated State Administrative and Hazard Mitigation Plans will create cohesive and effective approaches to loss reduction. This type of coordinated approach minimizes the distinction between "predisaster" and "post-disaster" time periods, and instead produces an ongoing mitigation effort. Hazard mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards and their effects. A key purpose of the HMGP is to ensure that the opportunity to take critical mitigation measures to protect life and property from future disasters is not lost during the recovery and reconstruction process following a disaster. Program grant funds available under Section 404 of the Stafford Act provide States with the incentive and capability to implement mitigation measures that previously may have been infeasible. The purpose of this Desk Reference is to: Provide comprehensive information about FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP); Increase awareness of the HMGP as an integral part of statewide hazard mitigation efforts; and Encourage deeper commitments and increased responsibilities on the part of all States and communities to reduce damage and losses from natural disasters. This Desk Reference is organized to simplify program information and assist the reader with practical guidance for successful participation in the program. Lists of program-related acronyms and definitions are included, along with appendices that amplify selected aspects of the HMGP. This Desk Reference is organized into 14 sections, each of which presents a major HMGP subject area. In each section, information is presented on the right side of the page. In several sections, job aids containing supplemental material are provided. The job aids for each section can be found at the end of the section. At the front of each section, there is a detailed table of contents to help you locate specific information.

Lifelines (e.g., communication, electric power, liquid fuels, natural gas, transportation, water and sewer systems, etc.) are presently being sited in "utility or transportation corridors" to reduce their right-of-way environmental, aesthetic, and cost impacts on the community and on land use. The individual lifelines are usually constructed or modified at different time periods, resulting in their being built to different standards and in different siting criteria being applied to different segments of an individual lifeline or to different lifelines that provide similar functions. Presently, the siting review usually does not consider the impact of the proximity or collocation of one lifeline upon the risk to or vulnerability of other lifelines from natural or manmade hazards or disasters, either because the other lifelines have not yet been installed or because such a consideration has not been identified as a factor in the siting evaluation. In August 1988, a train derailment in northern California also damaged a petroleum pipeline which was buried along the railroad right-of-way. The result was a spill of the pipeline fluids in addition to the derailment (but no significant loss of property and no injuries to or casualties). When another derailment in San Bernardino occurred in May l989, which resulted in severe property damage and the loss of life, the Office of the Fire Marshall also responded to see if the derailment had impacted a petroleum products pipeline that was buried along the railroad right-of-way. It was decided that the pipeline was not damaged, and the fire and safety personnel turned over the site to the railroad to allow them to clean up the site. About a week later the pipeline ruptured and the resulting fire caused considerable property damage and loss of life. The subsequent investigations concluded that the pipeline may have been damaged during the derailment, but that the most probable cause of its damage was the derailment clean up operations. In a similar sense, communication lines along a highway bridge would be vulnerable to failure if the bridge were to displace or fail during a disaster event. In fact, frequently highway bridges and overpasses are used to route other lifelines, such as communications and pipelines, over causeways and water bodies. Such lifelines can be damaged by failure of the superstructure, bridge foundation movement, or ground deformation along the approaches to the bridge. Settlement and lateral displacement adjacent to abutments have been especially troublesome because such movements tend to impose deformations on the lifelines where they are locally constrained at the attachment or penetration of the abutment. There are many such examples of lifeline interdependency that occurred during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. In response to these types of situations, FEMA is focusing attention on the use of such corridors, and they initiated this study to examine the impacts of siting multiple lifeline systems in confined and at-risk areas. The overall FEMA project goals are to develop, for multiple lifeline systems in confined and at-risk areas, a managerial tool that can be used to increase the understanding of the lifeline systems' vulnerabilities and to help identify potential mitigation approaches that could be used to reduce those vulnerabilities. The goals also are to identify methods to enhance the transfer of the resulting information to lifeline system providers, designers, builders, managers, operators, users, and regulators. To provide a specific example of how the managerial tool can be used, it was decided that the methods should be applied to the lifelines in the Cajon Pass, California, for an assumed earthquake event at the Pass. The purpose of this report is to provide an inventory of the major lifeline systems in the Cajon Pass and the earthquake and geologic analysis tools available to identify and define the level of seismic risk to those lifelines.

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.

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.

Recent earthquakes around the world show a pattern of steadily increasing damages and losses that are due primarily to two factors: (1) significant growth in earthquake-prone urban areas and (2) vulnerability of the older building stock, including buildings constructed within the past 20 years. In the United States, earthquake risk has grown substantially with development while the earthquake hazard has remained relatively constant. Understanding the hazard requires studying earthquake characteristics and locales in which they occur while understanding the risk requires an assessment of the potential damage to the built environment and to the welfare of people - especially in high risk areas. Estimating the varying degree of earthquake risk throughout the United States is useful for informed decision-making on mitigation policies, priorities, strategies, and funding levels in the public and private sectors. For example, potential losses to new buildings may be reduced by applying seismic design codes and using specialized construction techniques. However, decisions to spend money on either of those solutions require evidence of risk. In the absence of a nationally accepted criterion and methodology for comparing seismic risk across regions, a consensus on optimal mitigation approaches has been difficult to reach. While there is a good understanding of high risk areas such as Los Angeles, there is also growing recognition that other regions such as New York City and Boston have a low earthquake hazard but are still at high risk of significant damage and loss. This high risk level reflects the dense concentrations of buildings and infrastructure in these areas constructed without the benefit of modern seismic design provisions. In addition, mitigation policies and practices may not have been adopted because the earthquake risk was not clearly demonstrated and the value of using mitigation measures in reducing that risk may not have been understood. This study highlights the impacts of both high risk and high exposure on losses caused by earthquakes. It is based on loss estimates generated by HAZUS(R)-MH, a geographic information system (GIS)-based earthquake loss estimation tool developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in cooperation with the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). The HAZUS tool provides a method for quantifying future earthquake losses. It is national in scope, uniform in application, and comprehensive in its coverage of the built environment.

In 2003, the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) announced a goal to reduce firefighter fatalities by 25 percent within 5 years and 50 percent within 10 years. It also committed to doing research that would support that goal. The consistently high annual percentage of fatalities related to fire department response and roadway scene operations prompted the USFA to look at several aspects related to these collisions in an effort to improve responder safety. Firefighters who are killed in privately owned vehicles (POVs) during the course of their duties account for the largest percentage of vehicle-related deaths. These are typically volunteer firefighters who are responding to or returning from emergency calls. However, career firefighters are also occasionally killed in POVs while performing their duties. The original edition of this "Traffic Incident Management Systems" (TIMS) report was released in 2008 as part of a cooperative agreement between the UFSA and the International Fire Service Training Association (IFSTA) at Oklahoma State University (OSU). The project was funded by the DOT Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This latest edition of TIMS was developed in response to the release of the 2009 edition of the DOT/FHWA's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD). It becomes evident that injuries and deaths that occur at roadway emergency scenes are a major concern to emergency responders. The purpose of this report is to focus on the causes of firefighter injuries and deaths when working on roadway incidents. This report will focus on the causes of these incidents and provide strategies for mitigating them in the future. The occurrence and severity of these incidents can be reduced through proper roadway incident scene tactics and incident management, information which will be covered in the remaining chapters of this document.

Although earthquakes are an inevitable hazard, they are not inevitable disasters. Experiences in recent years have shown consistently that lifelines properly designed to resist earthquakes perform well in spite of severe earthquakes; those not so designed are subject to failure. Assessments of earthquake hazards indicate that one or more severe earthquakes can be expected to strike U.S. metropolitan areas in the next decade. Until actions are taken to improve the design and construction of lifelines, failures can be expected to result in substantial losses--estimated at billions of dollars and many lives for a single severe earthquake. The plan described in this document defines a process that, if activated, will begin the development of seismic design guidelines and standards for both new and existing lifelines. Lifelines are the public works and utility systems that support most human activities: individual, family, economic, political, and cultural. The various lifelines can be classified under the following five systems: electric power, gas and liquid fuels, telecommunications, transportation, and water supply and sewers. This plan for developing and adopting seismic design and construction guidelines and standards for lifelines has been prepared in response to Public Law 101-614, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Reauthorization Act. The act requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to develop "a plan, including precise timetables and budget estimates, for developing and adopting, in consultation with appropriate private sector organizations, design and construction standards for lifelines" and "recommendations of ways Federal regulatory authority could be used to expedite the implementation of such standards." The Plan focuses on developing recommendations, encouraging and supporting the approval of these recommendations by the standards and professional organizations serving the lifeline community, and working with the lifeline community to achieve their effective implementation. Design guidelines lay out a set of principles, which for lifelines may include performance criteria, materials characteristics, and testing procedures for design, construction, maintenance, repair, and retrofitting of both existing and proposed systems. Guidelines provide a basis for making judgments or determining a course of action; they may evolve into recommendations for standards. A standard, according to the National Standards Policy Advisory Committee, is "a prescribed set of rules, conditions, or requirements concerning definitions of terms; classification of components; specification of materials, performance, or operation; delineation of procedures; or measurement of quantity and quality in describing materials, products, systems, services, or practices." Properly developed and effectively implemented lifeline seismic guidelines and standards will significantly reduce the vulnerability of both existing and proposed lifeline systems to future earthquakes. Guidelines and standards should (1) establish performance criteria for the construction, maintenance, and operation of existing and proposed lifeline systems, equipment, and materials for selected levels of seismic risk; (2) provide a basis for technical specifications for use by buyers and sellers of lifeline products and services to reduce the vulnerability of lifeline systems to earthquakes; and (3) provide a reliable basis for regulations to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

Since earthquake shaking is possible almost everywhere in the United States, earthquake safety should be practiced by everyone. There is a great deal that you and your students can do to take care of yourselves during and after an earthquake. The lessons in this booklet cover planning, preparation, practice, and more practice. The classroom activities are designed for students in kindergarten through sixth grade. We provided teaching notes; "Learning Links" summarizing interdisciplinary connections; and a set of masters ready to reproduce for transparencies, handouts, and worksheets. Students find the topic of earthquakes fascinating. Their fascination may contain an element of fear, like the fear that arises in teaching fire safety. That fear can be reduced by reminding them that they are learning how to take care of themselves if an earthquake happens. Parents' fears may also need to be addressed. Let your students know that fear is a normal reaction to any danger. Make your message clear: We can't do anything to prevent earthquakes, but we can prepare ourselves to cope with them. We can help ourselves and others to do many things that will make our homes and schools safer. This publication provides ready-to-use, hands-on activities for students and teachers explaining what happens during an earthquake, how to prepare for earthquake shaking, and how to stay safe during and after an earthquake. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Science Teachers Association have also prepared Earthquake: A Teacher's Package for K-6, which includes hands-on classroom activities to support all elementary subject areas: creative writing, art, mathematics, social studies, and science. Known as Tremor Troop, this publication contains matrices that link the classroom activities to the National Science Education Standards. For middle and high school teachers, FEMA and the American Geophysical Union have prepared Earthquake: A Teacher's Package for Grades 7-12. Classroom activities are described, and activity sheets for students and background material for teachers are provided in each of the volume's six units. Known as Seismic Sleuths, this publication also contains matrices that link the classroom activities to the National Science Education Standards.

Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 provides Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidance on the fundamentals of planning and developing emergency operations plans (EOP). CPG 101 shows that EOPs are connected to planning efforts in the areas of prevention, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation. Version 2.0 of this Guide expands on these fundamentals and encourages emergency and homeland security managers to engage the whole community in addressing all risks that might impact their jurisdictions. While CPG 101 maintains its link to previous guidance, it also reflects the reality of the current operational planning environment. This Guide integrates key concepts from national preparedness policies and doctrines, as well as lessons learned from disasters, major incidents, national assessments, and grant programs. CPG 101 provides methods for planners to: Conduct community-based planning that engages the whole community by using a planning process that represents the actual population in the community and involves community leaders and the private sector in the planning process; Ensure plans are developed through an analysis of risk; Identify operational assumptions and resource demands; Prioritize plans and planning efforts to support their seamless transition from development to execution for any threat or hazard; Integrate and synchronize efforts across all levels of government. CPG 101 incorporates the following concepts from operational planning research and day-to-day experience: The process of planning is just as important as the resulting document; Plans are not scripts followed to the letter, but are flexible and adaptable to the actual situation; Effective plans convey the goals and objectives of the intended operation and the actions needed to achieve them. Successful operations occur when organizations know their roles, understand how they fit into the overall plan, and are able to execute the plan. Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 provides guidelines on developing emergency operations plans (EOP). It promotes a common understanding of the fundamentals of risk-informed planning and decision making to help planners examine a hazard or threat and produce integrated, coordinated, and synchronized plans. The goal of CPG 101 is to make the planning process routine across all phases of emergency management and for all homeland security mission areas. This Guide helps planners at all levels of government in their efforts to develop and maintain viable all-hazards, all-threats EOPs. Accomplished properly, planning provides a methodical way to engage the whole community in thinking through the life cycle of a potential crisis, determining required capabilities, and establishing a framework for roles and responsibilities. It shapes how a community envisions and shares a desired outcome, selects effective ways to achieve it, and communicates expected results. Each jurisdiction's plans must reflect what that community will do to address its specific risks with the unique resources it has or can obtain. Planners achieve unity of purpose through coordination and integration of plans across all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and individuals and families. This supports the fundamental principle that, in many situations, emergency management and homeland security operations start at the local level and expand to include Federal, state, territorial, tribal, regional, and private sector assets as the affected jurisdiction requires additional resources and capabilities. A shared planning community increases the likelihood of integration and synchronization, makes planning cycles more efficient and effective, and makes plan maintenance easier.

In 1985, Congress directed the Department of Defense (DoD) to dispose of its lethal unitary (pre-mixed) chemical agents and munitions while providing "maximum protection for the environment, the general public, and the personnel involved." In 1987, the U.S. Army (Army) released a draft Emergency Response Concept Plan (ERCP), which presented a basis for the development of local emergency response programs and examined various methods of emergency planning. The Army also prepared a Chemical Stockpile Disposal Implementation Plan and requested funds to implement enhanced emergency preparedness on-post and off-post for all eight chemical stockpile sites. FEMA joined the Army in implementing CSEPP through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in August 1988. This MOU was reaffirmed in 1993 and revised in 1997 and 2004. CSEPP is a project conducted under the chemical demilitarization program, a major defense acquisition program executed by the U.S. Army. CSEPP augments the Army's installation chemical accident and incident response capability. The Army is responsible for programming and budgeting validated CSEPP requirements as developed by the State and local governments and validated by FEMA. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Eliminating Chemical Weapons (DASA [ECW]) is responsible for overseeing the CSEPP execution, to include coordination with Congress, FEMA, and the Citizen Advisory Commissions. The Chemical Materials Agency executes the day-to-day management of CSEPP, to include upgrading on-post response capabilities; developing on-post preparedness plans; conducting on-post training; automation; and integrating on- and off-post capabilities. FEMA is responsible for off-post emergency preparedness and works with the States and local governments in the development of preparedness plans, conducting necessary training, administering cooperative agreements, and upgrading response capabilities. Off-post efforts include command and control, public awareness of protective actions, communication, and alert notification systems (e.g., computer hardware and software, telephone and radio upgrades, sirens, and tone alert radios). FEMA assists the States and local governments in planning and validating their CSEPP requirements and distributes funds to the States under cooperative agreements. The States and local governments execute plans to protect the public and provide financial and performance reports, addressing the capability improvements realized through those funds. While the likelihood of a chemical stockpile incident with off-post consequences is considered remote, the Army and FEMA recognize that the impact of such an event could be significant. CSEPP Strategic Plan states the basic goal of CSEPP is "to mitigate the effects of an accident to the maximum extent practicable." Thus, CSEPP has two basic objectives: 1. To establish and enhance emergency preparedness in nearby communities, including community alert and warning systems and protective action strategies. 2. To institute protective measures and hazard mitigation strategies at the chemical stockpile sites (the Army installations) to lessen the vulnerability of the storage structures and their contents to any internally or externally generated accidents.

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 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.

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.

Our society places great importance on the education system and its schools, and has a tremendous investment in current and future schools. Nearly 50 million students were expected to attend approximately 99,000 public elementary and secondary schools in the fall of 2009, with an additional 5.8 million expected to attend private schools. The sizes of these school facilities range from one-room rural schoolhouses to citywide and mega schools that house 5,000 or more students. The school is both a place of learning and an important community resource and center. This publication is concerned with the protection of schools and their occupants against natural hazards. Architects and engineers deal with natural hazards in building design and construction and building codes have provisions for protection against natural hazards. This manual addresses two core concepts: multi-hazard design and performance-based design. Multi-hazard design recognizes the fundamental characteristics of hazards and how they interact, so that design for protection becomes integrated with all the other design demands; and Performance-based design suggests conducting a systematic investigation to ensure that the specific concerns of building owners and occupants are addressed, rather than relying on only the minimum requirements of the building code for protection against hazards. Building codes focus on providing life safety, while property protection is secondary. Performance-based design provides additional levels of protection that cover property damage and functional interruption within a financially-feasible context. This publication stresses that the identification of hazards and their frequency and careful consideration of design to resist these hazards must be integrated with all other design issues, and be included from the inception of the site selection and building design process. Although the basic issues to be considered in planning a school construction program are more or less common to all school districts, the specific processes differ greatly because each school district has its own approach. Districts vary in size, from a rural district responsible for only a few schools, to a city district or statewide system overseeing a complex program of all school types and sizes. Any of these districts may be responsible for new design and construction, renovations, and additions. While one district may have a long-term program of school construction and be familiar with programming, financing, hiring designers, bidding procedures, contract administration, and commissioning a new building, another district may not have constructed a new school for decades, and have no staff members familiar with the process. This publication is intended to provide design guidance for the protection of school buildings and their occupants against natural hazards. It focuses on the design of elementary and secondary schools (K-12), as well as repair, renovation, and additions to existing schools. It is one of a series of publications in which multi-hazard and performance-based design are addressed (FEMA 577, Design Guide for Improving Hospital Safety in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds, and FEMA 543, Design Guide for Improving Critical Facility Safety from Flooding and High Winds). This publication considers the safety of school buildings to occupants, and the economic losses and social disruption caused by building damage and destruction. The volume covers three natural hazards that have the potential to result in unacceptable risk and loss: earthquakes, floods and high winds. A companion volume, FEMA 428, Primer to Design Safe School Projects in Case of Terrorist Attacks, covers the manmade hazards of physical, chemical, biological, and radiological attacks. This publication is intended to assist design professionals and school officials involved in the technical and financial decisions related to school construction, repair, and renovations.

This guide has been prepared for direct dissemination to the general public and is based on the most reliable hazard awareness and emergency education information available at the time of publication, including advances in scientific knowledge, more accurate technical language, and the latest physical research on what happens in disasters. This publication is, however, too brief to cover every factor, situation, or difference in buildings, infrastructure, or other environmental features that might be of interest. To help you explore your interest further, additional sources of information have been included. The guide has been designed to help the citizens of this nation learn how to protect themselves and their families against all types of hazards. It can be used as a reference source or as a step-by-step manual. The focus of the content is on how to develop, practice, and maintain emergency plans that reflect what must be done before, during, and after a disaster to protect people and their property. Also included is information on how to assemble a disaster supplies kit that contains the food, water, and other supplies in sufficient quantity for individuals and their families to survive following a disaster in the event they must rely on their own resources. Are You Ready? is just one of many resources the Department of Homeland Security provides the citizens of this nation to help them be prepared against all types of hazards. The Department of Homeland Security's Ready Campaign seeks to help America be better prepared for even unlikely emergency scenarios.

Communities face many challenges following a disaster, including determining where the limited resources for their recovery are to be expended. After the initial "emergency" phase of a disaster response is completed, such as the rescue of those in need, the repair of critical services including water and power, and the restoration of key governmental functions, a community becomes focused on its long-term rebuilding. It is important to understand that there may be multiple funding sources available after a disaster event, but that resources may not be sufficient to undertake all the projects a community may ultimately need for full recovery. A first step for many communities may be to look to existing local comprehensive plans, capital improvement plans, hazard mitigation plans, or other similar documents to identify previously developed project priorities. The process identified in this Recovery Value Tool builds upon those priorities and provides a systematic methodology to evaluate recovery projects for the community. Fundamentally, this tool allows for an evaluation of priorities based upon the impacts of the recent disaster and the physical and community needs that have been caused by the event. Therefore, this process can provide a comprehensive evaluation of the needs, identify the most effective projects for the resources available, and allow for a more holistic combination of resources to accomplish the community's goals. This version of the Long-Term Community Recovery (LTCR) Recovery Value Tool presents a standardized methodology for determining the recovery value of post-disaster reconstruction projects. Prioritizing need, identifying projects to meet the need and determining which projects have the highest recovery value are critical steps to guide a community's long-term recovery from a disaster. The Tool incorporates best practices developed on a number of successful pilot recovery planning initiatives throughout the country. The Tool has been released with expedited review and is intended to meet the immediate needs of the communities impacted by the 2005 hurricane season. It is expected that revisions will be made to this tool as a result of refinement of the Long-Term Community Recovery planning process. The objective of the Recovery Value Tool is to assist in determining a project's value to the long-term recovery of a community from a particular disaster. The Recovery Value Tool will: Define what a Recovery Value is and how it fits into the planning process; Provide an objective assessment of each project's recovery value; Assist in determining implementation priorities; Provide documentation to funding agencies regarding a project's anticipated long-term impact.

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 Ivan made landfall on Thursday, September 16, 2004, just west of Gulf Shores, Alabama. The hurricane brought sustained wind speeds, torrential rains, coastal storm surge flooding, and large and battering waves along the western Florida Panhandle and Alabama coastline. After landfall, Hurricane Ivan gradually weakened over the next week, moving northeastward over the Southeastern United States and eventually emerging off the Delmarva Peninsula as an extratropical low on September 19, 2004. On September 18, 2005, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Mitigation Division deployed a Mitigation Assessment Team (MAT) to Alabama and Florida to evaluate building performance during Hurricane Ivan and the adequacy of current building codes, other construction requirements, and building practices and materials. This report presents the MAT's observations, conclusions, and recommendations as a result of those field investigations. Several maps in Chapter 1 illustrate the path of the storm, the depth of storm surge along the path, and the wind field estimates. Hurricane Ivan approximated a design flood event on the barrier islands and exceeded design flood conditions in sound and back bay areas. This provided a good opportunity to assess the adequacy of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) floodplain management requirements as well as current construction practices in resisting storm surge and wave damage. FEMA was particularly interested in evaluating damages to buildings in coastal A Zones where V-Zone construction methods are not required. The recommendations in this report are based solely on the observations and conclusions of the MAT, and are intended to assist the State of Alabama, the State of Florida, local communities, businesses, and individuals in the reconstruction process and to help reduce damage and impact from future natural events similar to Hurricane Ivan. The report and recommendations also will help FEMA assess the adequacy of its flood hazard mapping and floodplain management requirements and determine whether changes are needed or additional guidance required. The general recommendations are presented in Sections 8.1 and 8.2. They relate to policies and education/outreach that are needed to ensure that designers, contractors, and building officials understand the requirements for disaster-resistant construction in hurricane-prone regions. Proposed changes to codes and standards are presented in Section 8.3. Specific recommendations for improving the performance of the building structural system and envelope, and the protection of critical and essential facilities (to prevent loss of function) are provided in Chapter 8. Implementing these specific recommendations, in combination with the general recommendations of Section 8.1 and 8.2 and the code and standard recommendations of Section 8.3, will significantly improve the ability of buildings to resist damage from hurricanes. Recommendations specific to structural issues, building envelope issues, critical and essential facilities, and education and outreach have also been provided. As the people of Alabama and Florida rebuild their lives, homes, and businesses, there are a number of ways they can minimize the effects of future hurricanes.

Earthquakes, especially major ones, are dangerous, inevitable, and a fact of life in some parts of the United States. Sooner or later another "big one" will occur. Earthquakes: Occur without warning; Can be deadly and extremely destructive; Can occur at any time. As a current or potential owner of a home, you should be very concerned about the potential danger to not only yourselves and your loved ones, but also to your property. The major threats posed by earthquakes are bodily injuries and property damage, which can be considerable and even catastrophic. Most of the property damage caused by earthquakes ends up being handled and paid for by the homeowner. In a 2000 study titled HAZUS 99: Average Annual Earthquake Losses for the United States, FEMA estimated U.S. losses from earthquakes at $4.4 billion per year. Large earthquakes in or near major urban centers will disrupt the local economy and can disrupt the economy of an entire state. However, proper earthquake preparation of your home can: Save lives; Reduce injuries; Reduce property damage. As a homeowner, you can significantly reduce damage to your home by fixing a number of known and common weaknesses. This booklet is a good start to begin strengthening your home against earthquake damage. It describes: Common weaknesses that can result in your home being damaged by earthquakes, and Steps you can take to correct these weaknesses. There are no guarantees of safety during earthquakes, but properly constructed and strengthened homes are far less likely to collapse or be damaged during earthquakes. FEMA advises you to act on the suggestions outlined in this booklet and make yourself, your family, and your home safer.

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

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.

The goal of the "Provisions" is to present criteria for the design and construction of new structures subject to earthquake ground motions in order to minimize the hazard to life for all structures, to increase the expected performance of structures having a substantial public hazard due to occupancy or use as compared to ordinary structures, and to improve the capability of essential facilities to function after an earthquake. The "Provisions" provides the minimum criteria considered prudent for the protection of life safety in structures subject to earthquakes. The "Provisions" document has been reviewed extensively and balloted by the architectural, engineering, and construction communities and, therefore, it is a proper source for the development of building codes in areas of seismic exposure. Some design standards go further than the "Provisions" and attempt to minimize damage as well as protect building occupants. The "Provisions" document generally considers property damage as it relates to occupant safety for ordinary structures. For high occupancy and essential facilities, damage limitation criteria are more strict in order to better provide for the safety of occupants and the continued functioning of the facility. Some structural and nonstructural damage can be expected as a result of the "design ground motions" because the "Provisions" allow inelastic energy dissipation in the structural system. For ground motions in excess of the design levels, the intent of the Provisions is for the structure to have a low likelihood of collapse. It must be emphasized that absolute safety and no damage even in an earthquake event with a reasonable probability of occurrence cannot be achieved for most structures. However, a high degree of life safety, albeit with some structural and nonstructural damage, can be achieved economically in structures by allowing inelastic energy dissipation in the structure. The objective of the "Provisions" therefore is to set forth the minimum requirements to provide reasonable and prudent life safety. For most structures designed and constructed according to the "Provisions," it is expected that structural damage from even a major earthquake would likely be repairable, but the damage may not be economically repairable. Where damage control is desired, the design must provide not only sufficient strength to resist the specified seismic loads but also the proper stiffness to limit the lateral deflection. Damage to nonstructural elements may be minimized by proper limitation of deformations; by careful attention to detail; and by providing proper clearances for exterior cladding, glazing, partitions, and wall panels. The nonstructural elements can be separated or floated free and allowed to move independently of the structure. If these elements are tied rigidly to the structure, they should be protected from deformations that can cause cracking; otherwise, one must expect such damage. It should be recognized, however, that major earthquake ground motions can cause deformations much larger than the specified drift limits in the "Provisions." Where prescribed wind loading governs the stress or drift design, the resisting system still must conform to the special requirements for seismic-force-resisting systems. This is required in order to resist, in a ductile manner, potential seismic loadings in excess of the prescribed loads. A proper, continuous load path is an obvious design requirement for equilibrium, but experience has shown that it often is overlooked and that significant damage and collapse can result. The basis for this design requirement is twofold: 1. To ensure that the design has fully identified the seismic-force-resisting system and its appropriate design level and 2. To ensure that the design basis is fully identified for the purpose of future modifications or changes in the structure.

Earthquakes damage structures - buildings, roads and bridges, utility and communications systems - and those damaged structures kill and injure people and cost a great deal to fix. And while the structures are not functioning, the businesses that rely on them either fail or face great financial hardship. Seismic safety advocates attempt to reduce all earthquake losses in various ways. Structures can be strengthened to resist shaking, either when they are built or later in their lives, or they can be sited in areas less subject to violent shaking. But increasing seismic safety requires knowledge of the earthquake hazard in a community or area, an understanding of how to reduce structural damages, and a willingness to spend the money and time necessary to do so. Decisions to invest in seismic safety are made by individuals, private and public sector organizations, and governments, so the goal of seismic safety is served by risk education, community activism, and political activism. Promoting seismic safety can be challenging because people seem indifferent to its benefits or decision-makers dismiss good ideas about ways to make buildings and communities more resistant to the damaging effects of earthquakes. Advocates work hard and care deeply, yet often feel that their efforts are ignored. Given these frustrations, advocates sometimes give up, or wait for another day. This resource kit is meant to inspire all advocates to keep working toward their goal. The briefs assembled here distill what we have learned-through research and experience over the last 40 years-about promoting seismic safety in the United States. Advocates can be almost anyone: people whose jobs involve public safety; design professional who want to make a difference; those who work in organizations with missions to increase seismic safety; and citizen-activists who have a personal stake in earthquake safety. Many potential advocates do not think of themselves as such because they are not trying to change seismic safety policy. But seismic safety can be increased at levels as various as design and building professional practices, planning commission and special district procedures, and implementation of public safety programs. Across the U.S., advocates have improved seismic safety in areas with moderate to very high degrees of seismic risk by arguing for reduction of future losses in damaging earthquakes, and by calling attention to the economic and social vulnerability of their community to the losses an earthquake could inflict. Especially important to consider are buildings that are built to out-of-date and inferior codes, where people nonetheless live and work. Successful advocates point out another rationale for seismic safety - more earthquake resilience in highways, power and utility systems, buildings, and communities means increased resilience to other types of damaging events, both natural and human-caused. Talking about seismic issues often has the benefit of raising questions about the condition of facilities or the readiness to respond to any extreme event.

The purpose of this manual is to assist interested states, coalitions of states, or confederations of local governments to develop and nurture seismic safety advisory boards. The first part contains "how-to" tips and advice to assist states that already have such panels in upgrading their advisory boards. The second part of the manual contains advice on strategic planning for improving seismic safety. Specifically, it includes guidelines for developing a model seismic risk management program by which to gauge progress. A seismic advisory board is a multi-disciplinary panel composed of volunteers with expertise in fields related to earthquakes and preparation for and response to earthquakes, such as earth sciences, engineering, emergency services, local government, social services, and public policy. They are drawn from the private sector, academia, and government. The board's functions are to: advise, the legislature and administrative agencies; advocate earthquake programs; promote improvements to seismic safety and procedures; identify seismic hazards; coordinate plans and actions of responsible agencies, programs, and government levels; gather, integrate, and transfer information from a wide range of sources; plan for the long-term implementation, review, and maintenance of seismic safety programs. The need for seismic safety advisory boards and for model seismic risk management programs is based on the following assumptions: A damaging earthquake can occur with little or no warning. With each passing year, the potential for one increases; Positive, goal-oriented leadership is a prerequisite to starting an effective advisory board; Organizations at many levels of government and in the private sector have responsibilities in seismic safety. The boar can help develop comprehensive and consistent programs for seismic safety and risk management; earthquakes can cause extensive property damage and endanger lives, but this risk can be reduced and managed by prudent policies for locating and designing structures; managing earthquake risks has collateral benefits, bringing about improved buildings, dams, transportation facilities, building stock, communications, fire safety, toxic materials management, and emergency response; concerted efforts bring long-term progress toward seismic safety. This manual is meant to help in the creation of a seismic safety advisory board - either as an autonomous agency or as part of an existing entity. It proved advice gained from dealing with existing hazards and offers options to consider when establishing a new board or revitalizing an existing board to meet the unique needs of a region.