Bøger af U S Department of Homeland Security

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 first-ever Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) comes amid much expectation and interest. Homeland security encompasses the most sweeping reform in government in nearly half a century, and makes explicit the realization that the evolving international security landscape bears directly on our domestic security. But we have also learned that security is not an end in itself; rather, it is an important means to a vital end: preserving the values, principles, and way of life we pursue as Americans. A review of homeland security could take many forms-from a retrospective and assessment of the past, to an analysis of current programs and activities, to a view of what the future might bring. Nonetheless, Congress made clear in its direction to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the principal author of this report, that the QHSR should delineate a homeland security strategy, including an outline of priority mission areas, not simply for DHS, but for the homeland security enterprise as a whole-embracing Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, as well as individuals, families and communities. Such a strategic analysis would then serve as a basis for a deeper review of the many programs and budgets required to execute the full range of homeland security missions. Congress also sought to better understand the resource and organizational implications of an evolving strategic view of homeland security. What was clear from the start, however, is that any articulation of strategy or analysis of specific programmatic or resource tradeoffs-either within DHS or across the broader homeland security enterprise-had to be firmly rooted within a comprehensive strategic understanding of homeland security. For example, "What is homeland security?" "How is the homeland best made secure?" "What does it mean to be prepared?" Eight years after 9/11, these questions still echo widely among the many homeland security stakeholders. The QHSR marks the beginning of a multi-step process to answer these questions. It offers a vision for a secure homeland, specifies key mission priorities, outlines goals for each of those mission areas, and lays the necessary groundwork for subsequent analysis and recommendations. As an immediate follow-on and complement to the QHSR, an important "bottom-up" review of DHS was begun in November 2009 that will look to align the Department's programmatic activities and organizational structure with the mission sets and goals identified in the QHSR.While the primary purpose for the QHSR is to outline the strategic framework to guide the activities of participants in homeland security toward a common end, it is equally important to note what the QHSR is not. The report is not a resource prioritization document, although in identifying key mission areas for priority focus, it is highly indicative of where those priorities should lie. Nor does the QHSR detail the roles and responsibilities of Federal or other institutions for each mission area. Instead, the QHSR functions as a strategic document that seeks to answer the most fundamental questions that many Americans still ask about homeland security. By describing a forward-looking homeland security vision for the Nation and the requisite set of key mission areas, goals, objectives, and outcomes, integrated across the breadth of the homeland security landscape, it also will serve as a roadmap to keep America safe, secure, and resilient in the years ahead.

Every day in cities and towns across the Nation, emergency response personnel respond to incidents of varying scope and magnitude. Their ability to communicate in real time is critical to establishing command and control at the scene of an emergency, to maintaining event situational awareness, and to operating overall within a broad range of incidents. However, as numerous after-action reports and national assessments have revealed, there are still communications deficiencies that affect the ability of responders to manage routine incidents and support responses to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other incidents. Recognizing the need for an overarching emergency communications strategy to address these shortfalls, Congress directed the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) to develop the first National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP). Title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 United States Code 101 et seq.), as amended, calls for the NECP to be developed in coordination with stakeholders from all levels of government and from the private sector. In response, DHS worked with stakeholders from Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies to develop the NECP-a strategic plan that establishes a national vision for the future state of emergency communications. To realize this national vision and meet these goals, the NECP established the following seven objectives for improving emergency communications for the Nation's Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency responders: 1. Formal decision-making structures and clearly defined leadership roles coordinate emergency communications capabilities. 2. Federal emergency communications programs and initiatives are collaborative across agencies and aligned to achieve national goals. 3. Emergency responders employ common planning and operational protocols to effectively use their resources and personnel. 4. Emerging technologies are integrated with current emergency communications capabilities through standards implementation, research and development, and testing and evaluation. 5. Emergency responders have shared approaches to training and exercises, improved technical expertise, and enhanced response capabilities. 6. All levels of government drive long-term advancements in emergency communications through integrated strategic planning procedures, appropriate resource allocations, and public-private partnerships. 7. The Nation has integrated preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery capabilities to communicate during significant events. The NECP also provides recommended initiatives and milestones to guide emergency response providers and relevant government officials in making measurable improvements in emergency communications capabilities. The NECP recommendations help to guide, but do not dictate, the distribution of homeland security funds to improve emergency communications at the Federal, State, and local levels, and to support the NECP implementation. Communications investments are among the most significant, substantial, and long-lasting capital investments that agencies make; in addition, technological innovations for emergency communications are constantly evolving at a rapid pace. With these realities in mind, DHS recognizes that the emergency response community will realize this national vision in stages, as agencies invest in new communications systems and as new technologies emerge.

The National Response Framework (NRF) presents the guiding principles that enable all response partners to prepare for and provide a unified national response to disasters and emergencies - from the smallest incident to the largest catastrophe. The Framework defines the key principles, roles, and structures that organize the way we respond as a Nation. It describes how communities, tribes, States, the Federal Government, and private-sector and nongovernmental partners apply these principles for a coordinated, effective national response. The National Response Framework is always in effect, and elements can be implemented at any level at any time. This Overview supports and provides additional guidance concerning the Framework. In particular, this document focuses on the essential processes for requesting and receiving Federal assistance and summarizes the key response capabilities and essential support elements provided through the Emergency Support Function (ESF) Annexes and Support Annexes. The Overview includes the following topics: 1) Key Players: Organizations and entities that may either need assistance or provide assistance; 2) Federal Assistance: Descriptions of the processes for requesting and obtaining Federal assistance in support of States, tribes, local jurisdictions, and other Federal partners; 3) Emergency Support Function Annexes: Summaries of the 15 ESF Annexes, which group Federal resources and capabilities into functional areas to serve as the primary mechanisms for providing assistance at the operational level; 4) Support Annexes: Summaries of the 8 Support Annexes, which describe essential supporting aspects that are common to all incidents. The Framework also includes Incident Annexes that address specific categories of contingencies or hazard situations requiring specialized application of Framework mechanisms. The Incident Annexes are not directly addressed or summarized in this support document. Readers should review the Incident Annexes on the NRF Resource Center, http: //www.fema.gov/NRF. Details relating to requesting and receiving assistance, as well as the authorities under which assistance is provided, are available on the NRF Resource Center. Response Partner Guides, information on Stafford Act and non-Stafford Act assistance, all annexes, and a listing of legal authorities are available on this Web site

This book is intended to acquaint the public with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Despite the highly technical nature of the Program, there has been a deliberate effort to minimize the use of technical terms. This publication is designed for readers who do not need a detailed history or refined technical or legal explanations, but who do need a basic understanding of the Program and the answers to some frequently asked questions. Readers who need legal definitions should refer to the Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) and to NFIP and related regulations. The information provided herein is as current as possible, but changes in the NFIP are made periodically. Readers can obtain the most up-to-date insurance data by using the contact information at the back of the book. The NFIP is a Federal program created by Congress to mitigate future flood losses nationwide through sound, community-enforced building and zoning ordinances and to provide access to affordable, federally backed flood insurance protection for property owners. The NFIP is designed to provide an insurance alternative to disaster assistance to meet the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods. Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between local communities and the Federal Government that states that if a community will adopt and enforce a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risks to new construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), the Federal Government will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses. For decades, the national response to flood disasters was generally limited to constructing flood-control works such as dams, levees, seawalls, and the like, and providing disaster relief to flood victims. This approach, however, did not reduce losses, nor did it discourage unwise development. In some instances, it may have actually encouraged additional development. To compound the problem, due to its high risk and seasonal nature, insurance companies were not able to provide affordable flood insurance coverage. In light of mounting flood losses and escalating costs of disaster relief to the taxpayers, the U.S. Congress created the NFIP. The intent was to reduce future flood damage through community floodplain management ordinances, and provide protection for property owners against potential losses through an insurance mechanism that requires a premium to be paid for the protection.

By signing National Security Presidential Directive 41/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 13 (NSPD-41/HSPD-13) President Bush underscored the importance of securing the Maritime Domain, which is defined as "All areas and things of, on, under, relating to, adjacent to, or bordering on a sea, ocean, or other navigable waterway, including all maritime-related activities, infrastructure, people, cargo, and vessels and other conveyances." NSPD-41/HSPD-13 established a Maritime Security Policy Coordinating Committee (MSPCC)-the first coordinating committee specifically tasked to address this issue-to oversee the development of a National Strategy for Maritime Security (NSMS) and eight supporting implementation plans: The National Plan to Achieve Maritime Domain Awareness lays the foundation for an effective understanding of anything associated with the Maritime Domain and identifying threats as early and as distant from our shores as possible; The Global Maritime Intelligence Integration Plan uses existing capabilities to integrate all available intelligence regarding potential threats to U.S. interests in the Maritime Domain; The Maritime Operational Threat Response Plan facilitates coordinated U.S. government response to threats against the United States and its interests in the Maritime Domain by establishing roles and responsibilities, which enable the government to respond quickly and decisively; The International Outreach and Coordination Strategy provides a framework to coordinate all maritime security initiatives undertaken with foreign governments and international organizations, and solicits international support for enhanced maritime security; Maritime Infrastructure Recovery Plan recommends procedures and standards for the recovery of the maritime infrastructure following attack or similar disruption; Maritime Transportation System Security Plan responds to the President's call for recommendations to improve the national and international regulatory framework regarding the maritime domain; Maritime Commerce Security Plan establishes a comprehensive plan to secure the maritime supply chain; The Domestic Outreach Plan engages non-Federal input to assist with the development and implementation of maritime security policies resulting from NSPD-41/HSPD-13. Although these plans address different aspects of maritime security, they are mutually linked and reinforce each other. Together, NSMS and its supporting plans represent the beginning of a comprehensive national effort to promote global economic stability and protect legitimate activities, while preventing hostile or illegal acts within the Maritime Domain.

This Annex to the 2012 Federal Interagency Response Plan - Hurricane, describes a concept of operations implementing a paradigm shift for response and recovery operations which focuses on transitioning 500,000 eligible households from sheltering to temporary housing and support for their transition to sustainable housing following a catastrophic hurricane. The concepts and options found in this Annex focus on increasing capacity and adjusting timelines to improve efficiency of transitioning households out of congregate and noncongregate sheltering to temporary housing or directly into long-term sustainable or permanent housing. This Annex also identifies the considerations necessary to implement options in the most efficient and effective manner possible by working with the whole community as described in A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management: Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action. Emphasis of recovery support will initially be conducted in the least impacted areas and progress inward toward the most heavily impacted area as accessibility allows. Recovery support for survivors living in the most heavily impacted area will emphasize sheltering/temporary housing solutions provided in locations outside of the impacted area. Life-sustaining support for essential personnel performing critical functions and recovery operations will be provided in all areas. This Annex is currently built around FEMA's plans to increase its housing capabilities. Implementation of the concepts presented in this document will be coordinated with external partners for continued development. The information presented in this Annex provides the foundation for Phase I and sets the stage for Phase II catastrophic planning. Phase I encompasses mass care and sheltering. Phase II will focus on the Whole Community, including other Federal agency participation, resources, and authorities, in the development of a plan to provide long-term sustainable or permanent housing. These Phases are illustrated in Figure 4 on page 14. The planning concepts and options provided herein are guidelines only. Every disaster will be unique in scope and magnitude. The needs of a particular community will drive the response and recovery actions.