Safer, Stronger, Smarter: 

A Guide to Improving School 

Natural Hazard Safety 

FEMA P-1000 / June 2017 

 

 

 

FEMA P-1000 

Safer, Stronger, Smarter: 

A Guide to Improving School Natural Hazard Safety
	

Prepared by 

APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 

201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 

Redwood City, California 94065 

www.ATCouncil.org 

Prepared for 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
	

Michael Mahoney, Project Officer
	

Andrew Herseth, Task Monitor 

Washington, D.C. 

APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL
	

Jon A. Heintz (Program Executive, Program Manager) 

Veronica Cedillos (Project Manager) 

Ayse Hortacsu (Project Manager) 

PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE PROJECT REVIEW PANEL 

Barry H. Welliver (Project Technical Director) 

Suzanne Frew 

Ines Pearce (Chair) 

Jill Barnes 

William T. Holmes Victor Hellman 

Christopher P. Jones 

Lori Peek 

Andrew Kennedy*

Rebekah Paci-Green 

John Schelling

Thomas L. Smith 

Cindy Swearingen

* ATC Board Contact 

Edward Wolf 

REPORT DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT WORKING GROUP 

Laura Dwelley-Samant Lucy Carter 

Shawna Bendeck 

Scott Kaiser 

Jacob Moore 

Meghan Mordy 

Katherine Murphy

Jennifer Tobin 

June 2017
	
Notice 

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the Applied Technology Council (ATC), the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), or the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Additionally, neither ATC, DHS, 

FEMA, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, nor assumes any legal 

liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product, or 

process included in this publication. Users of information from this publication assume all liability 

arising from such use. 

Cover images: FEMA (top left); David Welker (bottom left); Ellen M. Banner, The Seattle Times (right) 
 

Foreword 

Our nation’s elementary and secondary school buildings contain the future of 

our country. Over 50 million students attend approximately 99,000 public 

elementary and secondary schools with an additional 5.2 million students 

attending close to 34,000 private schools (NCES, 2016). Parents send their 

children off to school every day with the belief and expectation that their 

children will be safe from natural hazards. Children not only have the right 

to an education; they also have the right to an education in a safe 

environment. However, in many parts of our country, school buildings are 

vulnerable to severe damage or collapse in the next earthquake, tornado, 

hurricane, flood, tsunami, windstorm, or other natural hazard and are 

therefore putting our children at risk. In particular, many of our nation’s 

school buildings are older unreinforced masonry (URM) structures that are 

vulnerable to severe damage and collapse in the next earthquake, or are of 

lighter frame construction that is vulnerable to other types of natural hazards 

such as a tornado, hurricane, high winds, or flash flooding. Some schools are 

located in tsunami hazard zones without access to safe ground that can be 

reached within the expected tsunami warning time. 

Schools are far more than a place for teaching children; they often serve as 

community centers. They are the places where the public votes for their 

future leaders and they often serve as a focal point for a community’s social 

and cultural life, be it the Friday night football game or the location for 

evening community meetings. The loss of a school building can severely 

disrupt the fabric of a community. 

School buildings also serve other critical functions within the communities 

where they are located. For example, they often serve as designated shelters 

for displaced families after a natural or manmade disaster. Even when they 

may not be a designated shelter, school policy across the country is that if 

children cannot be returned home safely, they must be sheltered in place in 

the school until parents can pick them up. So even if a school is not 

officially designated as a shelter, school policies have made them into de 

facto shelters. 

The 1933 Long Beach magnitude-6.4 earthquake in southern California is 

best known for damaging thousands of URM buildings, including over 230 

FEMA P-1000 Foreword iii 
 

school buildings. Fortunately, school had ended for the day at the time of the 

earthquake. Had that not been the case, thousands of children would have 

been injured or killed. The outcry from seeing collapsed school buildings 

directly led to the State of California passing the Field Act, which mandated 

earthquake-resistant construction requirements and inspection for all future 

school buildings. 

While the January 1994 magnitude-6.7 Northridge earthquake in southern 

California did not collapse any school buildings, the amount of damage, 

including collapsed suspended ceilings and light fixtures, would have injured 

children had the earthquake occurred during school hours. Fortunately, the 

earthquake occurred early in the morning on a national holiday. Even so, 

FEMA funded a major seismic retrofitting program to seismically brace all 

suspended ceilings and light fixtures in every Los Angeles County school 

building. 

While there have been notable efforts by some states, particularly Oregon 

and Utah, to identify at-risk school buildings and to begin the process of 

addressing the seismic risk they present, they have all been severely limited 

by budget issues and the day-to-day problems local governments face to just 

to keep their schools operating. 

However, this is not just an earthquake problem. In May 2013, an EF5 

tornado struck Moore, Oklahoma and resulted in 24 fatalities, including 

seven children at the Plaza Towers Elementary School. In April 2014, an 

EF4 tornado leveled a brand-new school still under construction in Vilonia, a 

suburb of Little Rock, Arkansas. While schools generally have some shortterm notification of a tornado warning, and tornado safe rooms are becoming 

an accepted standard of care, and are now a requirement for new schools in 

certain locations under the 2015 International Building Code, many schools 

remain vulnerable to tornadoes with no safe haven for students or staff. 

The risk from flooding is generally well known and mapped, and sufficient 

warning time usually exists that the risk from this hazard is well controlled. 

However, the risk from flash flooding in mountainous terrain or from storm 

surge flooding in coastal areas can still be a significant hazard for schools 

located in harm’s way. Severe flooding, as with other natural hazard events, 

can also lead to school closures and long-term negative impacts on students. 

Despite the critical role that schools play in people’s lives, many obstacles 

exist in attempting to improve school safety from natural hazards. These 

include competing public needs and demands, scarce resources in an 

increasingly difficult economic and political environment, and lack of 

iv Foreword FEMA P-1000 
 

understanding of the risk of natural hazards. We believe that a 

comprehensive document for school administrators and staff, as well as 

concerned parents that provides advice on both successful operational 

policies and practices, as well as recommendations on how to improve the 

physical protection of the school facility to resist applicable natural hazards 

would help improve overall school safety. 

FEMA recently worked with the Department of Education and other federal 

partners to develop the Guide on Developing High Quality School 

Emergency Operations Plans (U.S. Department of Education, 2013), a 

school safety planning guide that covers a wide range of possible hazards and 

threats. The goal of FEMA P-1000 was to develop a companion guide that 

provides additional information specific to natural hazards to help schools be 

better prepared and better able to respond, recover, and mitigate future 

natural hazards. This Guide focuses on operational guidance (what to do 

before, during and after an event) as well as physical protection (what can be 

done to the structure and facility to improve safety). It was developed with 

input from design professionals, emergency managers, school administrators, 

teachers, representatives of concerned parent groups, and other relevant 

entities. 

FEMA wishes to express its gratitude to the Project Management Committee 

(PMC) of Barry H. Welliver (Chair), Suzanne Frew, William T. Holmes, 

Christopher P. Jones, Lori Peek, John Schelling, Thomas L. Smith, and 

Edward Wolf. The PMC managed the development efforts and also served 

as principal authors. We also wish to thank Laura Dwelley-Samant, who was 

the Report Development Consultant, as well as Lucy Carter, Shawna 

Bendeck, Scott Kaiser, Jacob Moore, Meghan Mordy, Katherine Murphy, 

and Jennifer Tobin, who provided assistance in the literature search and 

focus group work. 

FEMA also wishes to thank the Project Review Panel, which consisted of 

Ines Pearce (Chair), Jill Barnes, Victor Hellman, Andrew Kennedy (ATC 

Board Contact), Rebekah Paci-Green, and Cindy Swearingen. They 

provided review, advice, and consultation at key stages of the work. The 

names and affiliations of all who contributed to this report are provided in the 

list of Project Participants. 

Without the dedication and hard work of all of these people, this project 

would not have been possible. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FEMA P-1000 Foreword v 

Preface 

In 2014, the Applied Technology Council (ATC), with funding from FEMA 

under Task Order Contract HSFE60-12-D-0242, commenced a two-year 

project (ATC-122) to develop a document that would provide school safety 

guidance to use before, during, and after a natural hazard event by updating 

existing documents and providing new information on improved knowledge 

about natural hazard-resistant design and policies and procedures 

recommended by other federal agencies. In particular, this project would 

build upon the Guide for Developing High-Quality School Emergency 

Operations Plans (U.S. Department of Education, 2013), which was 

developed as a multi-agency effort involving the Department of Education, 

the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland 

Security and its Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the 

Department of Justice and its Federal Bureau of Investigation. To help 

inform the development of the document under the ATC-122 Project, the 

project team conducted a literature review of over 250 existing relevant 

resources and held videoconference calls with focus groups made up of 

representatives of the intended audience. 

The resulting Guide provides up-to-date, authoritative information that 

schools can use to develop a comprehensive strategy for addressing natural 

hazards. 

ATC is thankful for the leadership of Barry H. Welliver, Project Technical 

Director, and to the members of the ATC-122 Project Team for their efforts 

in developing this Guide. The Project Management Committee, consisting of 

Suzanne Frew, William T. Holmes, Christopher P. Jones, Lori Peek, John 

Schelling, Thomas L. Smith, and Edward Wolf, managed the development 

efforts and served as principal authors. Laura Dwelley-Samant served as the 

Report Development Consultant and Lucy Carter, Shawna Bendeck, Scott 

Kaiser, Jacob Moore, Meghan Mordy, Katherine Murphy, and Jennifer Tobin 

provided assistance in the literature search and focus group work as members 

of the Project Working Group. The Project Review Panel, consisting of Ines 

Pearce (Chair), Jill Barnes, Victor Hellman, Andrew Kennedy (ATC Board 

Contact), Rebekah Paci-Green, and Cindy Swearingen, provided review, 

advice, and consultation at key stages of the work. Focus group members, 

consisting of Debbie Carter-Bowhay, Cathy Coy, Susan Graves, Julie 

FEMA P-1000 Preface vii 
Mahoney, Bob Roberts, Kerry Sachetta, Shawn Streeter, and Randy Trani, 

provided valuable feedback as representatives of the target audience. The 

names and affiliations of all who contributed to this report are provided in the 

list of Project Participants. 

ATC is indebted to the leadership of Mike Mahoney (FEMA Project Officer) 

who conceived the project, contributed to development efforts, and provided 

guidance at critical stages. ATC also gratefully acknowledges Drew Herseth 

(FEMA Task Monitor) whose input and guidance made this document 

possible. ATC is thankful to John Westcott (FEMA) and Madeline Sullivan 

(U.S. Department of Education) for their review of this document. Veronica 

Cedillos and Ayse Hortacsu served as the ATC Project Managers and Carrie 

Perna provided report production services. 

Ayse Hortacsu Jon A. Heintz 

ATC Director of Projects ATC Executive Director 

viii Preface FEMA P-1000 
Table of Contents 

Foreword....................................................................................................... iii 

Preface.......................................................................................................... vii 

List of Figures............................................................................................... xv 

List of Tables .............................................................................................. xxi
	

Executive Summary ................................................................................. xxiii
	

1.		 An Introduction to School Natural Hazard Safety ....................... 1-1 

1.1 Overview of Schools and Impacts of Natural Hazards ............. 1-2 

1.1.1 Impacts on School Operations ..................................... 1-2 

1.1.2 Vulnerabilities of School Buildings ............................ 1-3 

1.1.3 Exposure to Natural Hazard Events ............................ 1-3 

1.2		 Purpose of this Guide ............................................................... 1-6 

1.3 Comprehensive Approach to Reducing Risk in Schools .......... 1-6 

1.3.1 A Comprehensive Approach for Natural Hazards ....... 1-8 

1.3.2 Goals of a Comprehensive Approach .......................... 1-9 

1.4 Requirements and Voluntary Measures for Schools .............. 1-10 

1.5 How to Use this Guide ........................................................... 1-14
	

2.		 Identifying Relevant Natural Hazards ........................................... 2-1 

2.1 An Overview of Natural Hazards ............................................. 2-1 

2.2 Natural Hazards: Characteristics and Where They Occur ........ 2-3 

2.2.1 Earthquakes ................................................................. 2-3 

2.2.2 Floods.......................................................................... 2-6 

2.2.3 Hurricanes ................................................................... 2-7 

2.2.4 Tornadoes .................................................................... 2-9 

2.2.5 Tsunamis ................................................................... 2-10 

2.2.6 High Winds ............................................................... 2-12 

2.2.7 Other Hazards............................................................ 2-13 

2.3 Summary Checklist – Which Hazards are Relevant to Your 

School? ................................................................................... 2-13 

3.		 Making School Buildings Safer ....................................................... 3-1 

3.1 School Building Safety from Natural Hazards ......................... 3-1 

3.1.1 Level of Safety Provided by Building Codes .............. 3-3
	

3.2 Existing School Buildings........................................................ 3-4 

3.2.1 Determining Building Vulnerability ........................... 3-4 

3.2.2 Identifying and Evaluating Mitigation Options........... 3-6
	

3.2.3 Developing an Implementation Plan ........................... 3-6 

3.3 New School Buildings.............................................................. 3-9 

3.3.1 Smart Site Selection .................................................... 3-9 

3.3.2 Relevant Building Codes and Resilient Design........... 3-9
	

FEMA P-1000	 Table of Contents ix 
 

4. 

5. 

6. 

3.3.3		 Schools as Emergency Shelters or Recovery

Centers ....................................................................... 3-10 

3.4 Developing a Funding Plan .................................................... 3-11 

3.5 Importance of Quality Assurance Measures ........................... 3-13 

3.5.1 Overview of Design and Construction....................... 3-13
	

3.5.2 Long-Term Maintenance and Improvements ............3-13 

Planning the Response ..................................................................... 4-1 

4.1 Purpose of a School Emergency Operations Plan ..................... 4-2 

4.2 Recommended Process to Develop an EOP ............................. 4-3 

4.3 Overview of Structure and Content of an EOP ......................... 4-6 

4.3.1 The Basic Plan ............................................................. 4-6 

4.3.2 Functional Annexes ..................................................... 4-7 

4.3.3 Threat- or Hazard-Specific Annexes ........................... 4-9 

4.4 Legislative Considerations in Developing EOPs .................... 4-10 

4.5 Training and Exercises ........................................................... 4-11 

4.6 Making the Plan Actionable ................................................... 4-12 

Planning the Recovery ..................................................................... 5-1 

5.1 Getting Back in School Buildings ............................................ 5-1 

5.1.1 Post-Disaster Building Assessment ............................. 5-1 

5.1.2 Documenting the Damage ........................................... 5-2 

5.1.3 Building Back Better ................................................... 5-2 

5.1.4 Adaptability ................................................................. 5-4 

5.1.5 Schools as Emergency or Recovery Shelters ...............5-4
	

5.2 Focusing on Routine and Mental Health .................................. 5-6 

5.2.1 Re-Establishing Routine .............................................. 5-6 

5.2.2 Assessing Mental Health ............................................. 5-7 

5.3 Financing the Recovery ............................................................ 5-8 

5.3.1 Federal Resources........................................................ 5-9 

5.4 Planning for the Next One ...................................................... 5-11 

Engaging the Whole Community .................................................... 6-1 

6.1 The Whole Community Approach ............................................ 6-1 

6.2 Engage Community Partners .................................................... 6-3 

6.2.1 Children and Youth...................................................... 6-4 

6.2.2 Design Professionals.................................................... 6-7 

6.2.3 Educational Professionals............................................ 6-7 

6.2.4 Elected Officials .......................................................... 6-7 

6.2.5 Emergency Management Professionals ....................... 6-7 

6.2.6 Labor Bargaining Units ............................................... 6-8 

6.2.7 Local Business and Industry ........................................ 6-8 

6.2.8 Local Community Organizations ................................. 6-8 

6.2.9 Local Hospitals ............................................................ 6-9 

6.2.10 Local Jurisdiction Public Agencies ............................. 6-9 

6.2.11 Media ........................................................................... 6-9 

6.2.12 Parents and Caregivers .............................................. 6-10 

6.3 Communicating with the Community ..................................... 6-11 

6.3.1 Before the Event ........................................................ 6-11 

6.3.2 During the Emergency and Recovery Phase ..............6-13
	

6.3.3 After the Recovery Phase .......................................... 6-13 

6.4 Tools and Technology for Effective Communication ............ 6-14
	

x Table of Contents FEMA P-1000
 
7. Moving Forward ............................................................................... 7-1 

7.1 Identified Challenges................................................................ 7-1 

7.2 Potential Opportunities............................................................. 7-3 

Supplement E: Earthquakes ..................................................................... E-1 

E.1 Overview of Earthquakes ......................................................... E-1 

E.1.1 Earthquake Impacts on Schools .................................. E-2 

E.2 Is Your School in an Earthquake-Prone Region? ..................... E-4 

E.2.1 Determining the Severity of the Hazard...................... E-5 

E.2.2 Determining Your School’s Vulnerability .................. E-7 

E.3 Making Buildings Safer ............................................................ E-8 

E.3.1 Existing School Buildings........................................... E-8 

E.3.2 New School Buildings............................................... E-14 

E.3.3 Nonstructural Systems and Contents ......................... E-15 

E.4 Planning the Response ............................................................ E-19 

E.4.1 During the Earthquake............................................... E-20 

E.4.2 Immediately Following Shaking ............................... E-21 

E.5 Planning the Recovery ............................................................ E-22 

E.6 Recommended Resources ....................................................... E-23 

Supplement F: Floods................................................................................ F-1 

F.1 Overview of Floods.................................................................. F-1 

F.1.1 Flood Impacts on Schools........................................... F-2 

F.2 Is Your School in a Flood-Prone Region? ................................ F-3 

F.2.1 Flood Hazard Maps ..................................................... F-4 

F.2.2 Levees and Other Flood Control Structures ................ F-6 

F.3 Making Buildings Safer ............................................................ F-6 

F.3.1 Existing School Buildings........................................... F-8 

F.3.2 New School Buildings............................................... F-12 

F.4 Planning the Response ............................................................ F-14 

F.5 Planning the Recovery ............................................................ F-15 

F.6 Recommended Resources ....................................................... F-16 

Supplement H: Hurricanes ...................................................................... H-1 

H.1 Overview of Hurricanes .......................................................... H-1 

H.1.1 Hurricane Impacts on Schools.................................... H-3 

H.1.2		 Improvements in School Construction for 

Hurricanes .................................................................. H-7 

H.1.3 Important Terminology .............................................. H-8 

H.2 Is Your School in a Hurricane Hazard Area?.......................... H-8 

H.3 Making Buildings Safer ......................................................... H-11 

H.3.1 Existing School Buildings........................................ H-11 

H.3.2 New School Buildings.............................................. H-15 

H.4 Planning the Response ........................................................... H-17 

H.5 Planning the Recovery ........................................................... H-18 

H.6 Recommended Resources ...................................................... H-20 

Supplement TO: Tornadoes .................................................................. TO-1
	

TO.1 Overview of Tornadoes ......................................................... TO-1 

TO.1.1 Tornado Impacts on Schools .................................... TO-2 

TO.1.2 Important Terminology ............................................ TO-5 

TO.2 Is Your School in a Tornado-Prone Region? ........................ TO-5 

FEMA P-1000	 Table of Contents xi 
TO.3 Protecting Occupants within School Buildings ..................... TO-7 

TO.3.1 Existing School Buildings ........................................ TO-7 

TO.3.2 New School Buildings ............................................ TO-10 

TO.4 Planning the Response ......................................................... TO-13 

TO.5 Planning the Recovery ......................................................... TO-15 

TO.6 Recommended Resources .................................................... TO-16 

Supplement TS: Tsunamis...................................................................... TS-1

TS.1 Overview of Tsunamis ........................................................... TS-1 

TS.1.1 Causes of Tsunamis .................................................. TS-2 

TS.1.2 Local or Distant?....................................................... TS-3 

TS.2 Is Your School in a Tsunami Hazard Zone? .......................... TS-5 

TS.2.1 Mapped Tsunami Hazard Zones ............................... TS-6 

TS.2.2 Unmapped Tsunami Hazard Zones .......................... TS-6 

TS.3 Tsunamis and School Buildings ............................................ TS-7 

TS.3.1 General Considerations............................................. TS-7 

TS.3.2 Existing School Facilities ......................................... TS-8 

TS.3.3 New Facilities: Design for Vertical Evacuation ....... TS-8 

TS.3.4 Schools as Evacuation Shelters or Refuges ............ TS-10 

TS.4 Planning the Response ......................................................... TS-10 

TS.4.1 Warning Signs ........................................................ TS-11 

TS.4.2 Plans, Policies, Procedures ..................................... TS-12 

TS.4.3 Evacuation Protocols and Practice .......................... TS-15 

TS.5 Planning the Recovery ......................................................... TS-19 

TS.6 Recommended Resources .................................................... TS-19 

Supplement W: High Winds.................................................................... W-1 

W.1 Overview of High Winds........................................................ W-1 

W.2 Is Your School in a Region Exposed to High Winds? ............ W-2 

W.3 Making Buildings Safer .......................................................... W-2 

W.3.1 Existing School Buildings ......................................... W-2 

W.3.2 New School Buildings ............................................... W-3 

W.4 Planning the Response ............................................................ W-4 

W.5 Planning the Recovery ............................................................ W-4 

W.6 Recommended Resources ....................................................... W-5 

Supplement X: Other Hazards ................................................................. X-1 

X.1 Snow Storms ............................................................................ X-1 

X.2 Volcanic Eruptions .................................................................. X-2 

X.3 Wildfires .................................................................................. X-3 

X.4 Recommended Resources ........................................................ X-3 

Appendix AE: Earthquake Appendix .................................................. AE-1 

AE.1 Determination of Seismicity Region of Site .......................... AE-1 

AE.2 Adequacy of Building Codes ................................................. AE-4 

Appendix AF: Flood Maps Appendix.................................................... AF-1 

AF.1 Understanding and Using Flood Hazard Maps ...................... AF-1 

AF.2 FIRMs and Related Products ................................................. AF-2 

AF.2.1 Finding FIRMs and Related Products ....................... AF-3 

AF.2.2 Reading FIRMs ......................................................... AF-5 

AF.3 Other Types of Flood Hazard Maps ...................................... AF-8 

xii Table of Contents FEMA P-1000 
 

AF.3.1 Coastal Flood Hazard Map Comparison .................. AF-8 

AF.3.2 Riverine Flood Hazard Map Comparison............... AF-10 

AF.3.3 Future Conditions Affecting Flood Hazards .......... AF-11 

Appendix AR: Resources ...................................................................... AR-1 

AR.1 Communications .................................................................... AR-1 

AR.2 Community Engagement ....................................................... AR-2 

AR.3 Curriculum ............................................................................ AR-2 

AR.4 Disaster and Emergency Planning ......................................... AR-4 

AR.4.1 General Guidance ..................................................... AR-4 

AR.4.2 Federal Laws Applicable to Emergency

Operations Plans....................................................... AR-7 

AR.4.3 Incident Command System ...................................... AR-8 

AR.4.4 School Safety Plan Examples ................................... AR-8 

AR.5 Emergency Exercises, Drills, and Materials .......................... AR-9 

AR.6 International Resources ......................................................... AR-9 

AR.7 Mental Health ...................................................................... AR-10 

AR.8 Vulnerability Assessments .................................................. AR-12 

References.................................................................................................. R-1 

Project Participants ................................................................................... P-1 

FEMA P-1000 Table of Contents xiii 

List of Figures
 

Figure 1-1 Types of state emergency management resources 

shown on the interactive map on the REMS website ....... 1-12 

Figure 1-2 2015 disaster report card.................................................. 1-13 

Figure 2-1 Relative seismic hazard map showing earthquake 

intensity .............................................................................. 2-4 

Figure 2-2 Map indicating hurricane hazard areas in the United 

States.................................................................................. 2-8 

Figure 2-3 Map indicating tornado-prone regions in the United 

States................................................................................ 2-10 

Figure 3-1 Tornado safe room placard ................................................ 3-8 

Figure 3-2 Thanks to a federal grant, a new monolithic dome 

resembling the existing Beggs Event Center will house 

Beggs School District’s tornado safe room ..................... 3-12
	

Figure 4-1 Six step process to develop, review, approve, and 

maintain a school Emergency Operations Plan.................. 4-4 

Figure 4-2 Example Incident Command System chart ........................ 4-5 

Figure 4-3 Example structure of a school Emergency Operations 

Plan using a traditional format ........................................... 4-6 

Figure 4-4 Participants taking part in the tabletop exercise............... 4-13 

Figure 5-1 Photos documenting earthquake damage to school 

buildings............................................................................. 5-3 

Figure 5-2 Schoolchildren affected by the Colorado floods................ 5-5 

Figure 5-3 Drawing by child affected by Hurricane Katrina ............... 5-7 

Figure 5-4 Briarwood Elementary was one of three public schools
	

destroyed or damaged by the Moore, Oklahoma 

tornado of May 2013 ........................................................ 5-10 

Figure 6-1 Young people in Joplin, Missouri shared their stories 

through the YCDR2

 project................................................ 6-5 

Figure 6-2 A member of Teen CERT explains why the experience 

has been so valuable to him ............................................... 6-6 

FEMA P-1000 List of Figures xv 
 

 

Figure 7-1 The three pillars of the Comprehensive School Safety
	

Framework ......................................................................... 7-2 

Figure 7-2		 Map indicating the percentage of low income students
	

in U.S. public schools ......................................................... 7-4 

Figure E-1 Site of a student fatality in the 1949 Olympia 

earthquake in Washington................................................. E-2 

Figure E-2 Examples of nonstructural damage ................................... E-4 

Figure E-3 Relative seismic hazard map of the United States ............ E-6 

Figure E-4		 Collapse of part of Jefferson High School in the 1933 

Long Beach earthquake................................................... E-10 

Figure E-5		 Collapse of a portion of a concrete school in the 

Helena, Montana earthquake of 1935 ............................. E-11 

Figure E-6		 High school first floor plan indicating the identified 

potential spaces for shelter sleeping and other 

important planning considerations for shelter 

operations ........................................................................ E-16 

Figure E-7 Fallen light fixtures in a classroom after the Northridge
	

earthquake ....................................................................... E-17 

Figure F-1		 Ramstad Middle School, in Minot, North Dakota was 

flooded in June 2011, badly damaged, and ultimately
	

decommissioned in June 2012 ............................................ F-2 

Figure F-2		 Graphic illustrating the rise in nuisance flooding around

the United States, but especially off the East Coast ........... F-4 

Figure F-3		 This school in Puerto Rico was undermined by riverine 

erosion during Hurricane Georges in September 1998 ......F-5 

Figure F-4 School buses in New Orleans, Louisiana were swamped 

by the floodwaters following Hurricane Katrina in 

September 2005 .................................................................. F-7 

Figure F-5		 Danville Middle School in Pennsylvania flooded in
	

September 2011 ................................................................ F-10 

Figure F-6		 Wall repair and reconstruction to resist future flood 

damage ............................................................................. F-11 

Figure F-7		 Metal lockers were replaced with high density
	

polyethylene (HDPE) lockers ........................................... F-11 

Figure F-8		 Flood vents were installed throughout most of the 

school ............................................................................... F-11 

xvi List of Figures FEMA P-1000 
 

 

 

 

Figure H-1 Storm surge rises above the normal tide ........................... H-2 

Figure H-2		 This book documented the many long-term, negative 

effects that Hurricane Katrina had on children ................. H-3 

Figure H-3 Large portions of the school roof coverings blew off
	

during 2005 Hurricane Katrina ......................................... H-4 

Figure H-4 Damage to school ceiling in Mississippi during 2005 

Hurricane Katrina ............................................................. H-4 

Figure H-5 Storm surge flooding in a high school in LaPlace, 

Louisiana during Hurricane Isaac in 2012 ........................ H-5 

Figure H-6 Storm surge flooding of a high school in Sabine Pass, 

Texas during Hurricane Ike in 2008 ................................. H-5 

Figure H-7		 Denham Springs, Louisiana, High School flooded in 

August 2016...................................................................... H-6 

Figure H-8 Timeline indicating a selection of significant hurricane 

events and improvements to building codes and 

guidelines.......................................................................... H-7 

Figure H-9 Recorded Category 1–5 hurricanes striking the Atlantic 

and Gulf coastal areas and Hawaii from 1950 to 2014 ..... H-9 

Figure H-10 Map indicating hurricane hazard areas in the United
	

States................................................................................. H-9 

Figure H-11		 Example hurricane storm surge inundation map in the
	

Norfolk, Virginia area..................................................... H-10 

Figure H-12		 Damage in a school in Florida during Hurricane 

Andrew in 1992 .............................................................. H-11 

Figure H-13 Collapsed unreinforced masonry classroom wall in 

the U.S. Virgin Islands during Hurricane Marilyn 

in 1995 ............................................................................ H-12 

Figure H-14		 Rooftop mechanical equipment is often inadequately 

attached ........................................................................... H-12 

Figure H-15 This school was retrofitted with accordion shutters
	

prior to a hurricane .......................................................... H-14 

Figure H-16		 Had this tree fallen in the opposite direction during 

2004 Hurricane Ivan in Florida, it would have 

damaged the school ......................................................... H-14 

Figure H-17 View of aid tents between a damaged elementary
	

school and high school in Florida after Hurricane 

Andrew ........................................................................... H-17 

FEMA P-xxx List of Figures xvii 
 

 

 

Figure H-18 Crenshaw Elementary and Middle School, located in 

Port Bolivar, Texas, which was successfully designed 

to be a hurricane shelter in 2005 and was one of the 

few buildings standing after 2008 Hurricane Ike ............H-18 

Figure H-19 Essentially the entire roof covering on this older 

school blew off................................................................ H-19 

Figure TO-1 Enhanced Fujita scale ...................................................... TO-2 

Figure TO-2 Typical tornado damage descriptions particular to 

schools and their corresponding intensity according 

to the EF Scale. ............................................................... TO-3 

Figure TO-3 Aerial view of a school devastated by a strong 

tornado in Moore, Oklahoma in 2013 ............................. TO-4 

Figure TO-4 Wind-borne debris in a classroom in Greensburg, 

Kansas in 2007 ................................................................ TO-4 

Figure TO-5 Recorded EF0 and EF1 tornadoes from 1950 to 2014 .... TO-6 

Figure TO-6 Recorded EF2, EF3, EF4, and EF5 tornadoes from
	

1950 to 2014.................................................................... TO-6 

Figure TO-7 Safe room/shelter design wind speed zones for 

tornadoes ......................................................................... TO-7 

Figure TO-8 This multipurpose room addition was designed as a 

safe room in Wichita, Kansas .......................................... TO-8 

Figure TO-9 Identified refuge areas, both previous and updated,
	

marked on school floor plan ............................................ TO-9 

Figure TO-10 Timeline of development and requirements of 

tornado safe rooms/shelters ........................................... TO-11 

Figure TO-11 View of the gymnasium ................................................ TO-12 

Figure TO-12 Post-tornado view .......................................................... TO-14 

Figure TO-13 Damaged hallway where seven fatalities occurred ....... TO-14 

Figure TS-1 Tsunami sources .............................................................. TS-2 

Figure TS-2 Impacts of the 1964 Alaska tsunami on lower Ecola 

Creek, Cannon Beach, Oregon........................................ TS-4 

Figure TS-3 Tsunami evacuation map for Crescent City, 

California......................................................................... TS-7 

xviii List of Figures FEMA P-1000 
 

Figure TS-4		 Ocosta Elementary School’s heavily reinforced 

vertical evacuation structure under construction in 

Westport, Washington ..................................................... TS-9 

Figure TS-5 Tsunami evacuation route sign ...................................... TS-16 

Figure TS-6		 Waves surge past Togura Elementary School in 

Minami-Sanriku, Japan during the 2011 Great East 

Japan Tsunami ............................................................... TS-18 

Figure W-1		 The roof on this new school blew off during moderate
	

winds soon after it was installed ...................................... W-2 

Figure W-2		 The roof on this school blew off during cold weather, 

thus increasing the repair costs ........................................ W-3 

Figure AE-1 Screenshot from USGS seismic design parameter 

calculator......................................................................... AE-2 

Figure AE-2 Screenshot showing parameters to determine 

Seismicity Region ........................................................... AE-3 

Figure AF-1 Screenshot from FEMA MSC website with the street 

address of Tanglewood Elementary School entered ....... AF-4 

Figure AF-2 Screenshot showing MSC products available for 

Tanglewood Elementary School..................................... AF-4 

Figure AF-3 Portion of screenshot of NFHL image of Tanglewood
	

Elementary School.......................................................... AF-5 

Figure AF-4 Generalized depiction of a FEMA Flood Insurance 

Rate Map (FIRM), showing flood hazard zones and 

Base Flood Elevations .................................................... AF-7 

Figure AF-5 Portion of screenshot of the portion of the National 

Flood Hazard Layer for Tampa, Florida ......................... AF-8
	

Figure AF-6 Storm surge atlas for Tampa, Florida ............................. AF-9 

Figure AF-7		 Portion of screenshot from the National Flood 

Hazard Layer for Lawton, Oklahoma ........................... AF-10 

Figure AF-8 Dam failure inundation map for the area shown in 

Figure AF-7................................................................... AF-11 

Figure AF-9		 Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, flood 

hazard map showing 1% annual chance flood hazard 

area and community flood hazard area based on 

future development upstream........................................ AF-12 

Figure AF-10 Areas that potentially could be impacted by the 

100-yr flood and various sea level rise heights ............. AF-13 

FEMA P-xxx List of Figures xix 
Figure AF-11 Increased flooding scenario brochure for 

San Francisco Bay Area ................................................ AF-14 

xx List of Figures FEMA P-1000 
List of Tables 

Table A Organization of this Guide............................................... xxiv 

Table 1-1 Organization of this Guide............................................... 1-14 

Table 2-1 Natural Hazards and Other Types of Hazards and 

Threats ............................................................................... 2-2 

Table 2-2 Coastal Areas in the United States Ranked by Tsunami
	

Hazard.............................................................................. 2-11 

Table 3-1 Likely Warning Times by Hazard and Resulting School 

Occupancy Expectation During Hazard Events ................. 3-2 

Table E-1 Times of Damaging Earthquakes in the United States 

Since 1906.......................................................................... E-3 

Table TS-1 Coastal Areas in the United States Ranked by Tsunami
	

Hazard.............................................................................. TS-5 

Table AE-1 Determination of Seismic Region from USGS Design 

Parameters, Ss and S1.......................................................AE-4 

Table AE-2 Building Codes Presumed to be Adequate (if Properly
	

Followed) by FEMA P-154 ............................................ AE-5 

Table AF-1 List of Flood Hazard Zones that May Be Shown on a 

FIRM............................................................................... AF-6 

FEMA P-1000 List of Tables xxi 

Executive Summary 

Will we value and invest in school disaster resilience for the sake of our 

children’s safety and the future of our communities? Or will we fail to act 

until after our schools and communities experience irrecoverable loss that 

could have been prevented? This is a choice and we choose the former. We 

hope you do the same. —anonymous 

School leaders and state officials are the specialists and authorities for 

educating and protecting our children. But natural hazards may be 

unfamiliar territory, requiring skills, plans, and support to which school 

communities may not have access. Poor building performance during a 

disaster is exacerbated by inadequate strategies to prepare for, respond to, 

recover from, and mitigate against natural disasters. In contrast, schools that 

have taken steps to reduce their risks and have adequately prepared for 

emergencies can respond effectively, recovery quickly, and help support the 

entire community to recover from a disaster. 

This Guide provides up-to-date, authoritative information and guidance that 

schools can use to develop a comprehensive strategy for addressing natural 

hazards. The Guide presents information and guidance on: 

	 Identifying natural hazards that could potentially impact a school; 

	 Making new and existing school buildings safer for children and staff, 

and more resistant to damage during natural disasters; 

	 Planning and preparing for effective and successful response during a 

natural disaster; 

	 Recovering after a natural disaster as quickly and robustly as possible, 

and being better prepared for future events; and 

	 Engaging the whole community in the entire process in order to improve 

school and community disaster resilience. 

This Guide is intended to be used by administrators, facilities managers, 

emergency managers, emergency planning committees, and teachers and 

staff at K through 12 schools. It can also be valuable for state officials, 

district administrators, school boards, teacher union leaders, and others that 

play a role in providing safe and disaster-resistant schools for all. Parents, 

The stakes are high—natural 

hazards can endanger the lives of 

children and staff, increase 

emotional traumas, and result in 

long-term harm to children and 

communities. 

FEMA P-1000 Executive Summary xxiii 
 

 

caregivers, and students can also use this Guide to learn about ways to 

advocate for safe schools in their communities. 

This Guide is divided into three main sections, as shown in Table A. This 

Guide only focuses on natural hazards. It does not cover other types of 

important hazards and threats, including technological or intentional threats, 

as there are resources already available to schools that address these. In 

particular, this Guide builds upon the Guide for Developing High-Quality 

School Emergency Operations Plans (U.S. Department of Education, 2013), 

which provides the latest guidance on developing school emergency 

operation plans that is applicable to many hazards and threats. 

School leadership and state officials are busy with their critical work to 

educate and protect children. It is a challenge to focus limited resources and 

time on planning and preparing for rare and complicated events like natural 

disasters. But doing so is essential. It can mean the difference between life 

and death, or the difference between a devastated community and one that 

recovers quickly and effectively, becoming even stronger than before. It can 

also make all the difference in the life and educational trajectory of a child. 

Ultimately, this Guide provides actionable guidance to help school leaders 

take necessary steps to be as ready as possible when the next disaster strikes. 

Table A Organization of this Guide

Section Content Description 

Comprehensive Approach 

for School Natural Hazard 

Safety 

Ch 1: An Introduction to School Natural 

Hazard Safety 

Ch 2: Identifying Relevant Hazards 

Ch 3: Making School Buildings Safer 

Ch 4: Planning the Response 

Ch 5: Planning the Recovery 

Ch 6: Engaging the Whole Community 

Ch 7: Moving Forward 

These chapters are recommended for 

all readers. They provide an overview 

of the key components of a 

comprehensive approach for school 

natural hazard safety. 

Hazard-Specific 

Supplements 

E: Earthquakes 

F: Floods 

H: Hurricanes 

TO: Tornadoes 

TS: Tsunamis 

W: High Winds 

X: Other Hazards: Snow Storms, 

Volcanic Eruptions, and Wildfires 

These supplements provide detailed 

information and guidance focused on 

particular natural hazards. Readers 

should refer to the hazards that affect 

their schools. 

Appendices 

Earthquake Appendix 

Flood Maps Appendix 

Resources Appendix 

The appendices provide more detailed 

information on a variety of topics, and 

are referenced in other sections of this 

Guide. The Resources Appendix points 

the reader to many sources of useful 

information that expand on the topics 

covered by this Guide. 

xxiv Executive Summary FEMA P-1000 
 

 

Chapter 1 

An Introduction to School 

Natural Hazard Safety 

Schools are fundamentally important places. Schools—and here we are 

referring to the buildings and, importantly, to the adults and children in those 

structures on any given school day—are where our future generations are 

educated. 

Schools are also unique in terms of the risks they face and responsibilities 

they have associated with natural disasters. Because natural hazard events 

are infrequent, they can be seen as less urgent and are more easily demoted in 

importance when compared to other more urgent, daily challenges faced by 

school leaders. But school administrators and state officials have a moral, 

and in many cases legal, responsibility to make their schools more resilient to 

disasters and to minimize the risk of damage and injury in natural hazard 

events. Properly planning for natural hazards results in safer, more prepared 

and resilient schools and the benefits from ensuring school safety go beyond 

the schoolyard—schools can help drive the health, prosperity, and quality of 

life for an entire community. 

This chapter provides an introduction to school natural hazard preparedness 

and safety by covering the following: 

	 An overview of how natural hazards impact schools, including issues 

that school administrators and local and state officials need to consider to 

address risks from natural hazards; 

	 The purpose of this Guide and how it relates to the recently published 

Guide for Developing High-Quality School Emergency Operations Plans 

(U.S. Department of Education, 2013); 

	 A description of key elements of a comprehensive approach to mitigate 

the effects of natural hazards, to protect the school community, and to 

effectively respond and recover from potential events, including 

earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, and other natural 

hazards; 

	 A description of relevant requirements and voluntary measures related to 

natural hazard safety that are applicable to schools; and 

94% of American children live in 

communities at risk of natural 

disasters (Save the Children, 

2012). 

FEMA P-1000 1: An Introduction to School Natural Hazard Safety 1-1 
 

It took 7 months for the last 

Katrina child to be reunited with a 

parent (Save the Children, 2015). 

Disaster impacts on school 

operations can include: facility 

damage, staff shortages, and the 

use of the school building as 

either an evacuation or 

community housing/recovery 

shelter. All potential impacts 

should be considered in the school 

emergency operations plans. 

 A summary of how this Guide is structured and how to use it. 

1.1 Overview of Schools and Impacts of Natural Hazards 

Natural disasters can have both immediate and long-term impacts on school 

buildings, their occupants, and the surrounding community. Most 

devastatingly, natural disasters can cause deaths and injuries among students 

and staff when structures are unsafe or located in areas vulnerable to natural 

hazards. 

Children depend on safe school buildings and school staff to ensure their 

safety and well-being both during and immediately after a disaster that 

occurs during school hours. Due to the disruption and damage that can 

accompany a disaster event, school officials, staff, and teachers may need to 

provide care for some children for an extended period of time before they are 

reunited with parents or guardians. Experiences during a disaster and the 

long-term recovery period that follows can result in emotional trauma to both 

students and staff. 

When students cannot attend school, the entire community and its ability to 

recover is affected. Not only is students’ education interrupted, their routine 

disrupted, and the school services they receive suspended, but parents of 

younger children often cannot return to work or volunteer, thus stalling the 

recovery process for parents and children alike. It is becoming increasingly 

clear that the recovery of the entire community is linked to the resilience of 

schools. 

1.1.1 Impacts on School Operations 

The days and weeks following disaster events can severely impact school 

operations. Damage to individual school buildings, school sites, roads, and 

utilities can lead to school closures that last weeks, months, or even over a 

year. School operations may also be affected by lack of staff, which may be 

a result of delayed returns from large-scale evacuations or staff living in 

severely impacted neighborhoods. School buildings are also often 

designated as shelters to be used by the community following a disaster. 

Schools are often selected as shelters because of their prime locations in the 

community and their availability of large spaces, such as gymnasiums and 

auditoriums. Although this can be very helpful for communities following 

disasters, it can also impede school operations. These impacts on school 

operations—whether they are caused by physical damage to buildings and 

infrastructure, staff shortages, or the use of a school building as a shelter— 

should all be considered in school emergency operations plans (EOPs). 

1-2 1: An Introduction to School Natural Hazard Safety FEMA P-1000 
1.1.2 Vulnerabilities of School Buildings 

In the United States, school buildings are the only high occupancy public 

buildings, other than prisons and courthouses, whose inhabitants are 

compelled by legal mandate to be inside them. Perhaps because children are 

required to attend school, by law, the general public often perceives school 

buildings as possessing good resistance to natural hazards. However, school 

buildings can be more vulnerable to damage in natural hazards than other 

types of buildings. For example, schools frequently have large assembly 

rooms, such as gymnasiums and auditoriums, which are more vulnerable to 

damage in natural hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornadoes. 

Furthermore, school buildings often remain in use for many more years than 

other types of buildings and may not receive consistent capital renewal 

funds. Although building codes change and improve continually as building 

professionals learn more about how to design disaster-resistant buildings, 

many school buildings are decades old and, thus, were constructed to older 

building code standards. Meaning, older school buildings are particularly 

vulnerable to natural hazards and in most cases, school administrators do not 

have the financial resources to address these vulnerabilities. 

In many cases, schools are pre-designated as emergency shelters, yet they 

have not been designed or constructed to the standards that will ensure that 

they will even be occupiable following a disaster. Both the designation and 

operation of shelters in school buildings take careful consideration and 

planning, from building code and performance requirements to operational 

considerations. The core planning team, which should include local 

emergency management organizations, should have pre-established 

agreements in place as part of the school EOP. 

1.1.3 Exposure to Natural Hazard Events 

Over the last several decades, the United States has experienced an escalation 

in the number of damaging natural hazard events and their corresponding 

costs resulting from that damage. Despite this increase, loss of life in schools 

due to natural disasters has been reduced over time. This is due to several 

factors, including more stringent building codes for newly constructed 

schools, better state regulations regarding school building inspections and 

construction, the inclusion of professional emergency managers in school 

preparedness, mandated emergency planning, and better warning systems. 

The increase in disaster frequency is not only felt in the United States, but 

also around the world. For example, earthquakes in recent years have caused 

massive destruction of schools and high number of fatalities. In 2005, an 

earthquake in Pakistan caused 6,700 school buildings to collapse during 

During normal working hours— 

which total more than 2,000 

hours a year—the safety of 

nearly 68 million of our 

country’s children is in the hands 

of school officials and child 

caregivers. Most parents assume 

that when they drop their kids 

off for the day, they will be safe 

if disaster strikes. But two-thirds 

of U.S. states have not adopted 

basic emergency preparedness 

regulations for child care 

facilities and schools (Save the 

Children, 2012). 

The core planning team per the 

Guide for Developing HighQuality School Emergency 

Operations Plans should include a 

wide range of people, including 

representatives of school 

personnel, students, parents, and 

community partners. 

FEMA P-1000 1: An Introduction to School Natural Hazard Safety 1-3 
 

school hours, killing approximately 17,000 students. In 2008, in Sichuan, 

China, at least 7,000 children died in the collapse of school buildings. 

Although earthquake disasters of similar magnitude have not hit the United 

States during school hours in contemporary times, the potential is still very 

real and should serve as a warning. 

A Tale of Two Earthquakes 

Two earthquakes occurred just ten months apart in the late 1980s. Both were magnitude-6.9 earthquakes. 

Both hit heavily populated urban areas. Both affected zones with housing, schools, and other critical 

infrastructure. But while these two earthquakes share many similarities, the devastation to school 

buildings and children could not be more different. 

On December 7, 1988, an earthquake struck the country of Armenia during school hours at 11:41 am. 

Unfortunately, buildings in the affected area had been built with little to no consideration of earthquake 

effects. Half a million buildings were destroyed including over 900 schools. About 25,000 people died in 

the destruction and it is estimated that 6,000 of the deaths were school children (Balassanian et al., 1995). 

On October 17, 1989, an earthquake of the same magnitude hit Loma Prieta, California. In contrast to the 

Armenian earthquake, the Loma Prieta earthquake resulted in only 63 deaths. And while this earthquake 

took place after school hours, no school buildings collapsed, and only three schools were severely 

damaged. Luckily for the affected area, the 1933 Field Act—which was enacted in response to the 1933 

Long Beach earthquake that destroyed hundreds of schools, fortunately after school hours—ensured the 

construction of safe school buildings able to withstand the earthquake of 1989. 

Comparing these two cases, it is clear that the implementation of strict building codes and mitigation 

measures in California law and practices saved many lives. While schools in California are held to higher 

standards in terms of earthquake resistance, many schools around the United States are not and are still at 

risk. Are we willing to accept this risk? 

The public may expect or assume that their safety from natural hazards is 

School Buildings get a D+ assured, but the reality is that, as of 2012, the average age of public school 

Every few years, the American buildings was 44 years old (Alexander and Lewis, 2014). While some major 

Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) renovations may have taken place in the interim, the original construction of issues Infrastructure Report Cards numerous school buildings predates many of the modern building code that indicate the current 

requirements protecting occupants from natural hazards such as earthquakes, conditions of infrastructure. The 

2017 report card gave school floods, high winds, and tsunamis and should raise concern. In fact, most 

infrastructure a D+, noting that older school buildings are of unreinforced masonry construction, which is 

the nation continues to arguably the most vulnerable type of building to earthquake and wind 

underinvest in school facilities damage. Perhaps the most important actions for state and school officials to and that more than 53% of public take include: (1) addressing the vulnerability of the large number of existing schools need to make investments 

to be in “good” condition (ASCE, school facilities to natural hazards; (2) incorporating best practices for the 

2017a). design and construction of new or replacement school buildings; and (3) 

1-4 1: An Introduction to School Natural Hazard Safety FEMA P-1000 
 

 

There have been many “close call” events that would have caused extensive loss of life had the disaster 

occurred during the school day. Even so, many of these close calls have caused significant building 

damage and economic hardships, and have been disruptive to schools and the education process. 

Significantly reducing these risks and improving school building safety will require a concerted effort of 

all risk bearers, including state officials, school administrators, and entire communities. 

Close Call in Joplin, Missouri 

Imagine the following scenario. A tornado touches down in the heart of your city. The EF-5 tornado 

blows through town, causing $2.8 billion in damage and taking 161 lives. About 7,500 students attend 

school in your district, with over 2,000 of those students at the local high school. The schools in your 

district do not have storm shelters. The tornado flattens your high school along with a junior high and 

three elementary schools. How many lives would be lost if this disaster struck during an average school 

day? Thankfully, the town of Joplin, Missouri will never truly know, as these events occurred on 

Sunday, May 22, 2011. Had this EF-5 tornado struck on a school day, the results would have been more 

catastrophic. 

Close Call in West Virginia 

Recent flash floods in West Virginia were another close call for our schools. On June 23, 2016, heavy 

rainfall caused rivers to overflow and city streets, homes, and buildings, including schools, were 

suddenly flooded, floor to ceiling, with water, mud, and hazardous materials standing for days. Over two 

dozen schools went under water. While this flooding took place during summer break, it is difficult to 

imagine the disruption that may have occurred had this event taken place with schools in session. West 

Virginia was lucky. How many close calls are we willing to accept when it means putting the integrity 

of our school buildings and the safety of our children at risk? 

Close Call in Coalinga, California 

Imagine another scenario: this time, a magnitude-6.5 earthquake rocks your town. At the time the 

earthquake strikes, there are 1,900 students in attendance at the five schools throughout the city. While 

the school buildings in your district are built to have structural frames and walls withstand an earthquake 

of this intensity, other portions of the building, referred to as the nonstructural components of the 

buildings, have been ignored. Glass windows implode spraying glass everywhere within the schools. 

Thousands of light bulbs, fixtures, and ceiling tiles fall on the children. Water pipes burst and children 

are trapped in flooding classrooms. Sulfuric acid from the chemistry lab spills and eats through the 

flooring and lands on students below. Toxic fumes fill the classrooms and hallways, while everything 

from cabinets, book cases, typewriters, and television screens fly through the air. 

How many fatalities would result from this earthquake? How many injuries to students, teachers, and 

staff might occur? This event actually took place in the City of Coalinga, California on May 2, 1983 

with just one minor difference. The Coalinga earthquake struck just after schools had closed their doors 

for the day. 

FEMA P-1000 1: An Introduction to School Natural Hazard Safety 1-5 
As of May 2017, FEMA has 

awarded over $660 million in 

federal funds for K-12 schools 

through their Hazard Mitigation 

Assistance programs. For more 

information on the grant 

programs and eligibility, refer to 

the current guidance for Hazard 

Mitigation Assistance at 

www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation 

-assistance. 

collaborating and coordinating with community partners to develop a 

comprehensive school EOP that supports the school community before, 

during, and after disasters. Although these actions can be challenging to 

implement given scarce resources and other competing needs and demands, 

there are opportunities and resources that can provide the necessary support, 

many which are highlighted in this Guide. 

1.2 Purpose of this Guide 

The purpose of this Guide is to provide the latest information and guidance 

on developing effective strategies for reducing risk in schools from natural 

hazards. It is intended to be used by administrators, facilities managers, 

emergency managers, emergency operations core planning team, and 

teachers and staff at K through 12 schools. It can also be valuable for state 

officials, district administrators, school boards, teacher union leaders, 

community partners, and others that play a role in providing safe and 

disaster-resistant schools for all. Parents, caregivers, and students can also 

use this Guide to learn about ways to advocate for safe schools in their 

communities. Finally, this Guide can also be used by all audiences to help 

communicate and promote the importance of school natural hazard safety. 

This Guide builds upon the Guide for Developing High-Quality School 

Emergency Operations Plans (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). That 

document is referred to as the School EOP Guide throughout this Guide. The 

School EOP Guide was developed as a multi-agency effort, involving the 

Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the 

Department of Homeland Security and its Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, and the Department of Justice and its Federal Bureau of 

Investigation. The School EOP Guide provides the latest guidance on 

developing school emergency operation plans (EOPs) that is applicable to 

many hazards. 

This Guide highlights and expands on information from the School EOP 

Guide that is particularly important for natural hazards. This Guide also 

provides detailed information and recommendations on natural hazards that 

are critical to the safety of school children, staff, and visitors. 

1.3	 Comprehensive Approach to Reducing Risk in 

Schools 

A comprehensive approach for school natural hazard safety must incorporate 

many different actions for reducing risk. One framework that is particularly 

valuable for developing a comprehensive approach is outlined in the School 

EOP Guide. This particular resource is structured in terms of courses of 

1-6 1: An Introduction to School Natural Hazard Safety FEMA P-1000 
 

 

action taken before a natural hazard event, during the hazard emergency, and 

after the emergency has ended. School emergency management and 

preparedness practitioners work to build capacity in the following five 

mission areas (adapted from the School EOP Guide). 

Before the Hazard Event 

	 Prevention refers to actions to avoid or deter an incident from occurring. 

Of course, it is not possible to prevent most natural hazards—such as an 

earthquake, hurricane, tornado, tsunami, or volcanic eruption—from 

occurring. However, there are some available preventative measures, 

such as controlling adjacent vegetation to prevent wildfires from 

impacting a school. 

	 Protection refers to actions to secure buildings against natural disasters. 

This focuses on the ongoing actions that protect students, teachers, staff, 

visitors, and property from a hazard. Natural hazard-specific examples 

include practicing safety drills and developing policies and guidance for 

ongoing site-based assessments and disaster planning. 

	 Mitigation refers to actions to eliminate or reduce the loss of life and 

property damage by lessening the impact of an event or emergency. 

Natural hazard-specific examples include bracing or strapping file 

cabinets and bookshelves in earthquake-prone schools and seismically 

retrofitting school buildings to reduce damage. 

During the Hazard Emergency 

	 Response refers to actions to stabilize an emergency once it has already 

happened or is certain to happen in an unpreventable way; to establish a 

safe and secure environment; to save lives and property; and to facilitate 

the transition to recovery. Natural hazard-specific examples include 

responding by engaging in “Drop, Cover, and Hold On” during 

earthquake shaking, evacuating to either high ground or a vertical 

evacuation refuge during a tsunami warning, or seeking shelter in a 

tornado safe room during a tornado warning. This would also include 

sheltering students in place during a natural hazard event until parents 

can safely pick up their children. 

After the Event 

	 Recovery refers to actions to restore the learning environment for 

schools affected by an event. Recovery is an extended period that blends 

into the “before” timeframe of the next hazard event for a community, 

and should include steps to build back better so that future natural 

hazards have lesser impacts. 

Risk from natural hazards is a 

combination of the severity of the 

hazard (e.g., location and 

intensity of an earthquake) and 

the vulnerability of the asset or 

institution under consideration 

(e.g., vulnerability of a school 

building). 

FEMA P-1000 1: An Introduction to School Natural Hazard Safety 1-7 
1.3.1 A Comprehensive Approach for Natural Hazards 

Building on the current guidance from the School EOP Guide, this Guide 

uses a structure that is well-suited for considerations particular to natural 

hazard safety in schools. In particular, the Guide is organized as follows: 

	 Identifying Relevant Natural Hazards (Chapter 2). Identifying and 

prioritizing which hazards could potentially impact a school is crucial to 

effectively planning and preparing for natural hazards. This chapter 

provides up-to-date resources and general information on how to 

determine whether a school is at risk from earthquakes, floods, 

hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, high winds, and other natural hazards. 

	 Making School Buildings Safer (Chapter 3). Properly designed, 

constructed, and maintained school buildings are critical for providing a 

safe school and minimizing damage. For existing school buildings, this 

Guide provides information to school administrators and state officials to 

help identify potential safety problems and prioritize work to correct 

them. It also shares strategies that have worked to build support and 

funding for these potentially expensive projects. For new school 

buildings, the Guide shares best practices to ensure new buildings are as 

safe as possible and as likely as possible to reopen quickly after a hazard 

event. 

	 Planning the Response (Chapter 4). Every school should have an EOP 

that is inclusive of all individuals on the school campus and describes the 

actions that need to be taken before, during, and after an emergency 

occurs, who is responsible for each action, and contingencies for all of 

the different scenarios that could occur. This chapter provides an 

overview of EOPs and points to the natural-hazard specific aspects of 

developing such a plan. 

	 Planning the Recovery (Chapter 5). After the emergency timeframe is 

over, it can be a long road for schools to find their way to a new, postdisaster normal. This chapter presents detailed information on what 

schools should plan for and anticipate in advance to make recovery as 

positive and quick as possible after a destructive natural hazard event. 

	 Engaging the Whole Community (Chapter 6). In order to most 

effectively engage in comprehensive school safety planning, it is critical 

to engage all members of the community, including schoolchildren, 

parents, teachers, school administrators, school board members, 

emergency managers, and many other local leaders who can influence 

school safety decisions and activities. 

1-8 1: An Introduction to School Natural Hazard Safety FEMA P-1000 
 

 

 

 

Importance of Accounting for EVERYONE 

“My oldest son is in a wheelchair, and he was in middle school in the valley when we had the Northridge 

(CA) earthquake. You know, there were a lot of aftershocks after that quake, but they never evacuated 

him with the rest of the students. He was on the third floor and they just left him there! They said they 

didn’t have a plan for him.” —parent (Barnes, 2013) 

Planning with People in Mind 

In Joplin, they made the multipurpose room for children with autism a tornado safe room (Freeman 

Health System, 2015). That way, the children with autism do not have to move if the event sirens sound

as they are already in a safe space. 

Learning from Hurricane Katrina 

In Louisiana, many Individual Education Plans (IEPs) in paper form were destroyed during Hurricane 

Katrina. The state has since implemented a web-based system to store IEPs on state-operated servers. 

Access to all IEPs is now readily available to districts receiving special education students who transfer 

within Louisiana (National Forum on Education Statistics, 2010). 

Taking Action Before an Event Strikes 

Many schools in Oregon are of unreinforced masonry construction, which is particularly vulnerable to 

collapse in earthquake shaking. In response to this, concerned parents mobilized and as a group, 

advocated for earthquake retrofits in vulnerable schools. Over the years, their efforts have led to $175 

million in state funding for school earthquake retrofit projects. 

1.3.2 Goals of a Comprehensive Approach 

As schools work to manage their natural hazard risk, it is important to have 

the work guided by a clear understanding of the ultimate goals of this effort. 

Clear goals both remind communities of why this work is so important and 

thus help to prioritize and focus efforts. Because there are many goals 

schools could have as they work to manage their risk from natural hazards, it 

is important that each school community determine the goals that are most 

meaningful and viable to them. 

The following are some examples of typical goals for school hazard safety: 

 Safety. Minimizing casualties among students, teachers, and staff is of

paramount importance. This is especially important for schools because

they work with children, who are dependent on adults to provide for their

safety.

 Emotional Well-Being. Natural disasters are traumatic events for

children and adults alike. Trauma is reduced when damage is

FEMA P-1000 1: An Introduction to School Natural Hazard Safety 1-9
 

 

 

minimized, emergency procedures are clear and practiced, and school 

routines resume quickly. Moreover, schools are important sites for 

identifying traumatized children and in providing mental health services 

or targeted interventions. 

	 Educational Continuity. Well-constructed and prepared schools can 

prevent or minimize occupancy interruption. When buildings are 

damaged, school contingency plans have to provide for education to 

temporarily resume elsewhere, which may be difficult in a large-scale 

disaster. 

	 Savings and Benefits. Money spent before a natural hazard to mitigate 

risk is a good investment that can save lives and help reduce the cost of 

repairing or replacing damaged buildings and building contents after an 

event. Studies funded by FEMA have shown a savings of $4 for every 

$1 spent on mitigation (Multihazard Mitigation Council, 2005). 

	 Providing Emergency Shelter. As some of the largest public buildings 

in many communities, school buildings often serve as evacuation sites, 

and/or post-event recovery centers. If used as an evacuation shelter, 

schools need to be properly designed and constructed as discussed in 

Chapter 3. Their loss can have repercussions to the community far 

beyond just education. 

	 Speeding Community Recovery. When students cannot attend school, 

parents may have a harder time going to work and contributing to 

helping the community get back to normal (see Chapter 5). School 

recovery is an important part of family and community recovery. 

In addition to the goals listed above, it is important for school and 

community leaders to have conversations about why school safety is 

important, and then to set clear, tangible, and achievable goals for both the 

short- and the long-term. What are the requirements for school safety that 

need to be met? What are the goals for school safety and do those go beyond 

the requirements? What needs to be done to achieve those goals? 

1.4 Requirements and Voluntary Measures for Schools 

Building construction and emergency management requirements for schools 

vary by state and community. Some of the actions discussed in this Guide 

are required by law in some states and communities. Others are voluntary, 

advisable steps. 

It is important for school leaders to familiarize themselves with specific 

requirements for their state and local community, in order to ensure proper 

1-10	 1: An Introduction to School Natural Hazard Safety FEMA P-1000 
 

and thorough compliance. Examples of some relatively common 

requirements include the following: 

	 School building construction generally falls under the jurisdiction of the 

state-adopted building code or is governed by statewide codes that are 

specific for school buildings. Most states follow the International 

Building Code, although this varies from state to state with some of the 

most hazardous regions adopting more stringent and state-specific 

building code construction and inspection requirements. Because 

building codes only provide the minimum necessary requirements to 

provide life safety and are not intended to control damage, “building 

above the code” to offer maximal safety and protection for occupants 

should be considered. 

	 Some states have special agencies, programs, or standards focused on 

safety in natural hazards for the design and construction of new school 

buildings. One example is the State of California’s Field Act, which 

requires specific design review for new construction and special 

inspections for public schools (see the Earthquake Supplement). 

	 All states have requirements to provide adequate access and safety for 

persons with disabilities. These should be integrated into all aspects of a 

comprehensive school EOP. 

	 Some communities have laws requiring risk evaluation or retrofit for 

particular types of older school buildings. For example, several states in 

seismically-prone regions have laws that focus on unreinforced masonry 

school buildings—a particularly dangerous type of construction in 

earthquakes. 

	 Some states have laws requiring tornado shelters in new schools and the 

2015 International Building Code (ICC, 2014b) now requires the 

construction of tornado shelters in new schools with over 50 occupants in 

areas where the design wind speed for tornado shelters is 250 mph. 

	 Many states require local education agencies to comply with or provide 

assurances that schools create an EOP and conduct regular emergency 

drills. 

	 Some states require school emergency preparedness plans to be part of 

State Hazard Mitigation Plans. 

Schools embarking on a safety strategy for exposure to natural hazards will 

need to understand which regulations and mandates apply to them. School 

leaders should refer to their State Department of Education, as it is most 

likely the primary source for identifying these requirements. It is important 

Life Safety is an engineering term 

used to describe a level of design. 

The main goal behind life safety 

is to prevent fatalities and serious 

injuries in a building due to 

failure or collapse of structural 

elements, such as columns and 

beams. 

FEMA P-1000 1: An Introduction to School Natural Hazard Safety 1-11 
 

that schools work in close collaboration with their community partners who 

have roles and responsibilities in school preparedness, including law 

enforcement, fire officials, emergency managers, and mental health 

practitioners. School emergency management is a shared responsibility and 

community partners have expertise and resources to support schools. 

Most states require basic emergency drills in schools, while others mandate 

stricter and more involved rigorous emergency planning. For state-specific 

emergency management resources, mandates, and partners, see the Readiness 

and Emergency Management for School (REMS) Technical Assistance 

website at http://rems.ed.gov/StateResources.aspx. An example of the type 

of information the website provides is illustrated in Figure 1-1. 

Figure 1-1 Types of state emergency management resources shown on the interactive 

map on the REMS website. 

For a summary for legislative actions by state, see: csgjusticecenter.org/ 

wp-content/uploads/2014/03/NCSL-School-Safety-Plans-Brief.pdf (Council 

of State Governments Justice Center, 2014). 

1-12	 1: An Introduction to School Natural Hazard Safety FEMA P-1000 
 

Save the Children: 18 States Fall Short on Protecting Children in Disasters 

Since 2008, Save the Children has issued annual reports on protecting children in disasters in the United 

States. As part of each report, the organization assesses the state of preparedness among United States 

schools and childcare centers. The 2015 disaster report card assesses whether states have met four criteria: 

(1) a plan for evacuating children in childcare; (2) a childcare plan for reuniting families after disaster; 

(3) a plan for children with disabilities and those with access and functional needs in childcare; and (4) a 

multi-hazard plan for K-12 schools. As of 2015, 32 states had met all 4 criteria, while 18 had not. Is your 

state prepared? Find out more at Save the Children: www.savethechildren.org 

Figure 1-2 2015 disaster report card (Save the Children, 2015). 

FEMA P-1000 1: An Introduction to School Natural Hazard Safety 1-13 
 

 

1.5 How to Use this Guide 

This Guide is divided into three main sections, as shown in Table 1-1. This 

Guide only focuses on natural hazards. It does not cover other types of 

important hazards and threats for which schools should prepare, such as 

technological or biological hazards. It is not intended that users read all of 

the hazard-specific supplements—only those that cover relevant hazards 

should be read. Chapter 2 helps readers identify which natural hazards are 

relevant to their location. 

Table 1-1 Organization of this Guide

Section Content Description 

Comprehensive Approach 

for School Natural Hazard 

Safety 

Ch 1: An Introduction to School Natural 

Hazard Safety 

Ch 2: Identifying Relevant Hazards 

Ch 3: Making School Buildings Safer 

Ch 4: Planning the Response 

Ch 5: Planning the Recovery 

Ch 6: Engaging the Whole Community 

Ch 7: Moving Forward 

These chapters are recommended for 

all readers. They provide an overview 

of the key components of a 

comprehensive approach for school 

natural hazard safety. 

Hazard-Specific 

Supplements 

E: Earthquakes 

F: Floods 

H: Hurricanes 

TO: Tornadoes 

TS: Tsunamis 

W: High Winds 

X: Other Hazards: Snow Storms, 

Volcanic Eruptions, and Wildfires 

These supplements provide detailed 

information and guidance focused on 

particular natural hazards. Readers 

should refer to the hazards that affect 

their schools. 

Appendices 

Earthquake Appendix 

Flood Maps Appendix 

Resources Appendix 

The appendices provide more detailed 

information on a variety of topics, and 

are referenced in other sections of this 

Guide. The Resources Appendix points 

the reader to many sources of useful 

information that expand on the topics 

covered by this Guide. 

1-14 1: An Introduction to School Natural Hazard Safety FEMA P-1000 
 

Chapter 2 

Identifying Relevant 

Natural Hazards 

The key purpose of this chapter is to help readers identify which types of 

hazards could potentially impact their schools and determine which hazardspecific supplements they should be reading for more detailed guidance on 

addressing their risk. In particular, this chapter provides the following: 

 An overview of the type of hazards that are covered in this Guide; 

 A description of the characteristics of each of the hazards that are 

covered in this Guide, including a brief description of where they 

typically occur, their frequency of occurrence and intensity, warning 

time, duration, and follow-on hazards; and 

 A summary checklist to help readers identify which hazard-specific 

supplement(s) apply to them. Hazard-specific supplements provide more 

detailed guidance on each particular hazard. 

This information will help readers effectively work with the appropriate 

design professionals to identify, assess, and mitigate relevant risks to their 

school. It will also provide information on hazard characteristics (e.g., likely 

intensity and duration) that should be considered when developing school 

emergency operations plans and a risk reduction strategy. 

2.1 An Overview of Natural Hazards 

Some natural hazard events occur periodically during a person’s lifetime. A 

community might remember recent floods or tornadoes. Other events, like 

earthquakes, may be infrequent by occurring perhaps once in several 

generations. Some communities may even experience multiple hazards. For 

example, they may be exposed to one type of natural hazard regularly, like 

flooding, and also have a major risk from infrequent events, like earthquakes 

or tsunamis. Regardless of their frequency, it is important for schools to be 

prepared for and ready to respond to all significant natural hazards that could 

reasonably be expected to occur. 

Natural hazard events tend to occur repeatedly in the same geographical 

locations because they are related to physical or geological characteristics of 

an area or weather patterns. This is in contrast to technological hazards, 

FEMA P-1000 2: Identifying Relevant Natural Hazards 2-1 
 

biological hazards, and human-caused threats, which often refer to hazards 

borne from human action, whether accidental or intentional. Table 2-1 

distinguishes the different hazard types, although it is worth remembering 

that hazards may be cascading, meaning that one hazard generates or is 

related to another (for instances, flooding and landslides may occur after a 

wildfire or oil spills may be generated after hurricanes). In addition, as 

scholars have long argued, a natural hazard only becomes a disaster when 

widespread community disruption occurs and many people are 

simultaneously affected. As shown in Table 2-1, this Guide focuses on six 

major natural hazards that are potentially devastating to schools: earthquakes, 

floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and high winds. Other natural 

hazards, including snow storms, volcanic eruptions, and wildfires, are also 

briefly discussed. 

Table 2-1 Natural Hazards and Other Types of Hazards and Threats (hazard categories 

adapted from U.S. Department of Education, 2013) 

Type of Hazard Specific Hazard 

Extent Covered in 

this Guide

Natural Hazards 

Earthquakes 

Floods 

Hurricanes 

Tornadoes 

Tsunamis 

High Winds 

Snow Storms 

Volcanic eruptions 

Wildfires 

Covered in depth 

Covered briefly 

Technological 

Hazards 

Includes: explosions or accidental releases of toxins from 

Not covered1 

industrial plants; accidental releases of hazardous materials 

from within school (e.g., gas leaks, laboratory spills); 

hazardous materials releases from highways or railroads; 

radiological releases from nuclear power plants; dam failure; 

power failure; water failure 

Biological Hazards Includes: infectious diseases; contaminated food outbreaks; 

toxic materials present in school laboratories 

Adversarial, 

Incidental, and 

Human-caused 

Threats 

Includes: fires; active shooters; criminal threats or actions; 

bullying, gang violence, or school violence; bomb threats; 

cyber-attacks; suicide 

1

 Covered in School EOP Guide (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). 

It is important for schools to prepare for all hazards and threats that pose a 

potential risk, but this Guide focuses solely on natural hazards. Some 

resources listed in the Resources Appendix provide information and guidance 

that is also applicable to other types of threats and hazards that are not 

covered in this Guide. 

2-2 2: Identifying Relevant Natural Hazards FEMA P-1000 
2.2 Natural Hazards: Characteristics and Where They 

Occur 

Each natural hazard has different characteristics that affect the types and 

amounts of damage it can cause, as well as the specific steps necessary to 

prepare. This section provides a brief description of each type of natural 

hazard covered in this Guide, and describes where they typically occur, their 

frequency of occurrence and intensity, warning time, duration, and follow-on 

hazards. These factors will play an important role in determining which 

hazards require immediate attention or more long-term planning and if 

mitigation efforts should address multiple hazards. 

Characteristics of the natural hazards that can affect a given school should be 

taken into consideration when assessing building risk and mitigation of 

existing buildings, implementing best practices for the design of new 

buildings, and developing emergency operations plans that consider both 

response and long-term recovery. 

Each hazard can have an effect over a length of time or have additional 

consequences following the event that should be considered when assessing 

the effects. Different parts of the United States experience different hazards 

more frequently than others. 

This section is intended to be used by the reader to help determine which 

natural hazards may occur in their regions and how severe they may be. 

After identifying which hazards are relevant to their school, the reader should 

refer to each of the hazard-specific supplements in this Guide, which provide 

more detailed information and guidance that are particular to each hazard. 

2.2.1 Earthquakes 

Description. An earthquake is caused when two segments of the earth’s 

crust suddenly slip along fault lines. This release of energy causes the 

ground to roll or shake and can cause damage or collapse of school buildings 

and property. 

Where Earthquakes Occur. Studies indicate that there are 39 states within 

the United States with a significant earthquake hazard. Regions with the 

highest earthquake hazard include the western states, as well as some regions 

in the South and Midwest; areas with moderately high earthquake hazard 

include the Northeast. Figure 2-1 shows a map with relative seismic hazard 

Nearly half of the U.S. population 

is exposed to potentially 

damaging earthquakes, with 

about 28 million people living in 

areas with a high potential of 

experiencing damaging 

earthquake shaking (Jaiswal et 

al., 2015). 

FEMA P-1000 2: Identifying Relevant Natural Hazards 2-3 
Figure 2-1 Relative seismic hazard map showing earthquake intensity (FEMA, 2015b). 

2-4 2: Identifying Relevant Natural Hazards FEMA P-1000 
by state and territory of the United States. Schools that are in moderate, 

moderately high, high, and very high regions of seismicity should include 

earthquake risk in their school hazard safety plan. More information about 

earthquake hazard zones is available in the Earthquake Supplement and 

Earthquake Appendix, including a link to a website where schools can enter 

their address to get more detailed information on their particular earthquake 

hazard. 

Frequency of Occurrence and Intensity of Earthquakes. Earthquakes can 

happen at any time in earthquake-prone regions. The interval between 

occurrences can vary widely and can only be estimated. 

Earthquake size is categorized in various ways, the most commonly known 

measures are magnitude and intensity. The intensity of shaking at a given 

location depends on many factors, including earthquake magnitude, depth, 

and distance from the fault rupture, as well as soil characteristics at the site. 

Intensity is the best measure of the earthquake effects on school buildings. 

For example, a building on firm soil that experiences a distant, deep, and 

high magnitude earthquake will have less damage than a building on weak 

soil that experiences a nearby, shallow, and lower magnitude earthquake. 

Either way, earthquakes can impart tremendous loads on all elements of a 

building and generally result in some level of damage. Earthquake forces are 

so large that building codes are typically designed to allow a certain level of 

damage only because it is not economically feasible to design a building to 

not have any damage whatsoever. 

Knowing how frequently earthquakes occur in a particular area and how 

strong they can potentially be can help determine the urgency for preparing 

for this type of hazard. Ultimately, in earthquake-prone regions, it is not a 

matter of if an earthquake will occur, it is a matter of when. 

Available Warning Time for Earthquakes. At the time of writing, no 

operational warning system exists in the United States for earthquakes, but 

California and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) are in the 

process of developing such a system. When operational, this system could 

provide seconds to tens of seconds of warning before strong earthquake 

shaking reaches a given location. This short time frame would allow only 

the most basic life-saving steps, such as “Drop, Cover, and Hold On,” to take 

place. 

Duration of Earthquakes. Earthquake shaking lasts from seconds to 

minutes, depending on the type of earthquake, magnitude, and site location. 

To learn more about the latest 

earthquake hazard maps and 

how to use them, visit: https:// 

earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards 

/learn/. 

Great ShakeOut Earthquake Drills 

are an annual opportunity for 

schools, along with their 

communities, to practice what to 

do during earthquake shaking. 

More information on the program 

can be found at www.shakeout 

.org 

FEMA P-1000 2: Identifying Relevant Natural Hazards 2-5 
 

 

FIRMs can be viewed and 

downloaded from FEMA’s Map 

Service Center (MSC) https://msc 

.fema.gov/portal. Maps can be 

searched by street address or by 

state and community. Flood 

hazard information can also be 

viewed using the National Flood 

Hazard Layer, accessible via the 

MSC. 

Over 6,000 schools in the United 

States are located in a mapped 

Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) 

as defined by FEMA (Pew, 2017). 

Duration plays an important role because longer duration of shaking can 

degrade the capacity of school buildings and lead to eventual collapse. 

Follow-on Hazards from Earthquakes. Earthquake shaking can cause 

ground failure, landslides, fires, tsunamis, spills of hazardous materials, and 

failure of utilities and infrastructure. Earthquakes can also be followed by 

aftershocks, which can continue for weeks, months, or even years, and 

require additional consideration for safety during recovery. 

2.2.2 Floods 

Description. Flooding is a condition where water moves beyond normal 

channels and shorelines, and temporarily overflows and inundates normally 

dry areas. Floods can result from runoff from excess rainfall or snowmelt; 

ice or debris blockage of streams and drainage; high tides, waves, and storm 

surges; tsunamis; or failure of levees, flood protection structures, or dams. 

Floods can cause damage to school buildings and may require extensive 

repairs or even demolition. 

Where Floods Occur. Flood prone regions include coastal areas and places 

subject to extreme rains or weather related events. Although all fifty states in 

the United States experience flooding hazards, the states with the most 

frequent and severe flood losses include Louisiana, Texas, New Jersey, New 

York, Florida, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Alabama, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Missouri, and California. 

The most common flood hazard map is the Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(FIRM) produced by FEMA. FIRMs have been produced for over 21,000 

communities in the United States. These maps show flood hazards from 

rivers, lakes, and the ocean and indicate Special Flood Hazard Areas 

(SFHA). In general, SFHA incicates an area with 1% annual chance of 

flooding, where the National Flood Insurance Program’s (NFIP) floodplain 

management regulations and the mandatory purchase of flood insurance 

applies. More information about FIRMs is available in the Flood 

Supplement and Flood Maps Appendix. 

Schools that meet any of the criteria listed below should include flood hazard 

in their school hazard safety strategy: 

 schools located in SFHA (Zones A and V) on the FIRM; 

 schools near the SFHA (Zones B, C, or X) on the FIRM; 

 schools in areas behind levees; 

 schools in hurricane storm surge inundation areas; or 

2-6 2: Identifying Relevant Natural Hazards FEMA P-1000 
 

 

 schools in areas that have experienced flooding in the past. 

Past floods are also important given that flood hazard maps may not show 

local drainage issues or flooding from small watersheds. Local floodplain 

managers or local building or planning officials should be able to help with 

the determination of whether a school is in a flood zone. 

Frequency of Occurrence and Intensity of Floods. Floods are the most 

common natural hazard in the United States, occurring in every state and 

territory. Flood intensity is often described in terms such as “100-year 

flood,” which means a flood that has a 1% chance of happening in any given 

year. This does not mean that there will be 100 years between floods of this 

size. 

Available Warning Time for Floods. Floods can occur with days of 

warning or, as in the case of flash floods, with little to no warning. 

Duration of Floods. Flood inundation can last from hours to days to even 

months in some areas. 

Follow-on Hazards from Floods. Floods can be accompanied by erosion, 

mudslides, debris flow, and high velocity waves. Floods can cause spills of 

hazardous materials, fires, and failure of utilities and flood protection 

structures. 

2.2.3 Hurricanes 

Description. A hurricane is a tropical weather system of spiraling winds 

converging with increasing speed toward the storm’s center (the eye of the 

hurricane). Hurricanes form over warm ocean waters. Many hurricanes 

bring very high winds and heavy rainfall and/or coastal flooding. Hurricanes 

also occasionally spawn tornadoes. The terms “hurricane,” “cyclone,” and 

“typhoon” describe the same type of storm. The term used depends on the 

region of the world where the storm occurs. 

Where Hurricanes Occur. Hurricane hazard areas in the United States 

include Atlantic and Gulf Coast areas, Hawaii, and U.S. territories in the 

Caribbean and South Pacific, which includes American Samoa, Guam, 

Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. Regions 

along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts that are at risk of hurricanes are shown in 

Figure 2-2 (red and orange areas on the map). Schools located in these 

regions, or in Hawaii or United States territories in the Caribbean or South 

Pacific should include hurricane risk in their school hazard safety strategies. 

The Hurricane Supplement provides more information. 

FEMA P-1000 2: Identifying Relevant Natural Hazards 2-7 
 

Figure 2-2	 Map indicating hurricane hazard areas in the United States (high wind area adapted from ASCE, 

2017b). 

Frequency of Occurrence and Intensity of Hurricanes. In the Central 

Pacific, Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico regions, hurricane season 

runs from June through November. During typical hurricane seasons, about 

six hurricanes can be expected. During more active years, up to 15 

hurricanes may occur along the United States Gulf or Atlantic coasts 

(NOAA, 2015). In the West Pacific region, hurricanes can occur in every 

season. 

The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale categorizes the intensity of 

hurricanes based on wind speed. The five-step scale ranges from Category 1 

(the weakest) to Category 5 (the strongest). Typical hurricanes are about 300 

miles wide, although they can vary considerably. The largest one on record 

had a diameter of 1,350 miles and the smallest was 60 miles. 

Available Warning Time for Hurricanes. Schools typically have more 

than a day of warning time before a hurricane strikes. 

2-8 2: Identifying Relevant Natural Hazards FEMA P-1000 
Duration of Hurricanes. Extremely strong winds can last for several hours 

and moderately strong winds for a day or more. Flooding associated with 

hurricanes can persist for hours (storm surge) or up to days or weeks (rainfall 

induced flooding). 

Follow-on Hazards from Hurricanes. Hurricanes can also spawn 

tornadoes and are often accompanied by storm surge flooding with waves 

and flooding caused by torrential rain. This can lead to spills of hazardous 

materials and failure of utilities and infrastructure. 

2.2.4 Tornadoes 

Description. A tornado is a violently rotating column of air extending from 

the base of a thunderstorm to the ground. Although small in terms of impact 

area, tornadoes can generate wind speeds that are far greater than what 

schools are typically designed to resist. 

Where Tornadoes Occur. Tornadoes can occur throughout the United 

States. However, the most destructive, deadly, and strong tornadoes mostly 

affect central United States, and are rare in the West and Northeast. The 

shaded areas in Figure 2-3 indicate the portion of the continental United 

States that is considered to be in a tornado-prone region and should include 

tornado risk in their school hazard safety strategy. For locations along or 

near a boundary of different wind speeds on the Figure 2-3 map, the higher 

wind speed should be assumed. The Tornado Supplement provides more 

information. 

Frequency of Occurrence and Intensity of Tornadoes. On average, over 

1,000 tornadoes are recorded in the United States each year. Tornadoes can 

occur at any time during the year and at any time in the day; however, 

different regions are more likely to experience tornadoes at certain times of 

the year. Tornadoes in the “Tornado Alley”—a nickname given to a region 

in the southern plains of the central United States that consistently 

experiences tornadoes each year—are more likely to occur in late spring and 

sometimes in the early fall. Gulf states are more likely to experience 

tornadoes earlier in the spring, and in the northern plains and upper Midwest, 

summer is more likely. Fewer tornadoes are documented in winter months, 

although deadly winter outbreaks have occurred. In terms of time of day, 

tornadoes are most likely to occur mid-afternoon to evening, although they 

can occur at all hours of the day (NOAA, 2017). 

Tornadoes are typically less than 1,000 feet wide; however, widths of 

approximately 2.5 miles have been reported. The National Weather Service 

FEMA P-1000 2: Identifying Relevant Natural Hazards 2-9 
Figure 2-3 Map indicating tornado-prone regions in the United States. Schools that are located in the 160, 

200, and 250 miles per hour wind speed zones are considered to be in a tornado-prone region 

(adapted from ICC, 2014a). 

rates tornado severity using the six-level Enhanced Fujita (EF) scale, with 

EF0 (least severe) to EF5 (most severe), based on observed damage. 

Available Warning Time for Tornadoes. Tornadoes occur with a few or 

several minutes of warning. 

Duration of Tornadoes. Tornado winds generally last several seconds to a 

minute at a given location. In total, tornadoes can last from several seconds 

to more than an hour, with most lasting less than 10 minutes (NOAA, 2017). 

Follow-on Hazards from Tornadoes. Tornadoes can rupture natural gas 

lines resulting in fires. Tornadoes can also cause spills of hazardous 

materials and failure of utilities and infrastructure. 

2.2.5 Tsunamis 

Watch vs. Warning 

A tornado watch is issued when 

conditions are favorable for 

tornado development. 

A tornado warning is issued when 

a tornado has been sighted or 

indicated by weather radar. 

Description. A tsunami is a series of waves that are caused by a rapid 

disturbance within a body of water. Waves travel outward in all directions 

from an initial tsunami generating source, usually from an undersea 

2-10	 2: Identifying Relevant Natural Hazards FEMA P-1000 
 

earthquake, much like the ripples caused by throwing a rock into a pond. 

Because tsunamis are actually a series of pressure waves, they can travel 

across oceans at great speed and increase to significant heights as they come 

onshore. They can cause low-lying areas adjacent to coastlines to experience 

severe inland inundation of water and debris, causing significant damage to 

school buildings and property. 

Where Tsunamis Occur. Although all coastal areas in the United States can 

experience a tsunami, the regions with the highest tsunami hazard level 

include Hawaii, Alaska, and the West Coast states (especially the Pacific 

Northwest states). American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, 

Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are considered to have a high hazard 

level, as well (see Table 2-2). 

Through the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP) that is 

administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), many coastal states and territories have developed tsunami 

inundation maps and evacuation routes with signage that depict where 

tsunami inundation may occur and how people can evacuate to high ground. 

Schools located in regions with high or very high hazard levels per Table 2-2 

should refer to the Tsunami Supplement for more information. 

Table 2-2 Coastal Areas in the United States Ranked by Tsunami Hazard 

(adapted from NTHMP, 2015) 

Location Tsunami Hazard Level 

Alaska High to Very High 

Hawaii High to Very High 

U.S. West Coast High to Very High 

American Samoa High 

Guam & N. Mariana Islands High 

Puerto Rico & U.S. Virgin Islands High 

U.S. Atlantic Coast Very Low to Low 

Alaska Arctic Coast Very Low 

U.S. Gulf Coast Very Low 

Note: Hazard levels are qualitative and based largely on the historical record from the 

early 19th century through 2014, geological evidence, and location relative to 

known tsunami sources, all of which provide clues to what might happen in the 

future. 

Frequency of Occurrence and Intensity of Tsunamis. A damaging 

tsunami occurs approximately twice a year worldwide. The frequency of 

tsunamis in a particular location mostly depends on how often offshore faults 

produce earthquake-generating tsunamis. For example, tsunamis are more 

FEMA P-1000 2: Identifying Relevant Natural Hazards 2-11 
 

 

likely to occur along Pacific Ocean coastlines due to the number of active 

undersea earthquake faults around the Pacific Rim. Tsunamis can also be 

generated by other sources, such as underwater landslides, but these events 

are rarer and more difficult to forecast. 

Tsunamis are measured by the wave height above normal sea level 

(amplitude), the on-land depth of flooding (inundation) and the distance they 

penetrate inland (runup). 

Available Warning Time for Tsunamis. For a locally-generated tsunami, 

earthquake shaking is “nature’s warning sign” and provides several minutes 

of warning prior to arrival of a tsunami. For a tsunami generated by a distant 

source, there can be hours of warning time provided by a Tsunami Warning 

Center under NOAA’s Tsunami Program. Tsunami warnings, advisories, 

and watches can be received via the NOAA Weather Radio. 

Duration of Tsunamis. Tsunami waves come as a series of waves, and can 

last for up to 24 hours although the most damaging waves usually occur 

within a few hours’ time. 

Follow-on Hazards from Tsunamis. Tsunamis bring severe flooding with 

significant debris and can cause fires, spills of hazardous materials, and 

failure of utilities and infrastructure. 

2.2.6 High Winds 

Description. Most wind damage is caused by tornadoes and hurricanes. 

However, damage is occasionally caused by other high winds, notably 

straight-line and down-slope winds. Straight-line winds generally blow in a 

single direction and are common throughout the United States. Down-slope 

winds blow down the slope of mountains. 

Where High Winds Occur. Straight-line winds with sufficient speed to 

cause building damage can occur anywhere in the United States and its 

territories. Down-slope winds with sufficient speed to cause building 

damage can occur in mountainous areas. Because these high winds can 

occur anywhere, all users who are not already reading the Hurricane 

Supplement should read the High Winds Supplement. 

Frequency of Occurrence and Intensity of High Winds. Damaging 

straight-line and down-slope winds can occur at any time. 

Available Warning Time for High Winds. Weather events generating 

straight-line and down slope winds can generally be predicted days or hours 

in advance. 

2-12 2: Identifying Relevant Natural Hazards FEMA P-1000 
 

 

Duration of High Winds. Winds associated with intense low pressure can 

last up to a day at any given location. 

Follow-on Hazards from High Winds. Other hazards associated with high 

winds are wildfires and snow drifts, which are snow mounds created by high 

winds. 

2.2.7 Other Hazards 

This Guide also includes brief information about the following other natural 

hazards: snow storms, volcanic eruptions, and wildfires. Additionally, there 

may be natural hazards not specifically mentioned in this Guide, like 

droughts or hailstorms, which should be considered when developing a 

comprehensive strategy to address school natural hazard safety. If these 

hazards are known to be relevant to a school, they should be incorporated 

into school hazard safety strategies. More information is provided in the 

Other Hazards Supplement. 

2.3 Summary Checklist – Which Hazards are Relevant to Your School? 

1. Take the following steps to determine whether your school has a reasonable chance of experiencing 

each of the hazards below: 

□ Earthquakes: Is your school in a moderate Region of Seismicity or higher per Figure 2-1? 

If so, read the Earthquake Supplement. 

□ Floods: Is your school located behind a levee, in a storm surge inundation area, or in Flood 

Zone A, V, B, C, or X? Does your school have a history of flooding? If any of these are true, 

read the Flood Supplement and the Flood Maps Appendix. 

□ Hurricanes: Is your school in the shaded region in Figure 2-2 or in Hawaii or a U.S. territory in 

the Caribbean or South Pacific? If so, read the Hurricane Supplement. 

□ Tornadoes: Is your school within the tornado-prone region as defined in Figure 2-3? 

If so, read the Tornado Supplement. 

□ Tsunamis: Is your school within a high or very high tsunami hazard level per Table 2-2? 

If so, read the Tsunami Supplement. 

□ High Winds: All areas in the United States are susceptible to high winds, notably straight-line 

and down-slope winds. If you are not already reading the Hurricane Supplement, you should 

read the High Winds Supplement. 

□ Other Hazards: If you think your school is located in an area that is prone to snow storms, 

volcanic eruptions, or wildfires, read the Other Hazards Supplement. 

2. Incorporate risk management steps for the relevant hazards in your school’s hazard safety strategy. 

FEMA P-1000 2: Identifying Relevant Natural Hazards 2-13 

 

Chapter 3 

Making School 

Buildings Safer 

School buildings vary tremendously in characteristics, size, age, condition, 

and construction materials. For instance, schools can range from one-room 

schoolhouses to large campuses with multi-story complexes. School 

construction materials can vary from wood, concrete, steel, masonry or a 

combination of these. Some schools are located in dense urban 

environments, while others are in rural or suburban settings. In addition to 

their setting, the location of school buildings also dictates to which natural 

hazards they might be exposed, as was covered in Chapter 2. 

Given all these varying factors, each individual school will have a unique 

situation and will require a corresponding mitigation plan that is particular to 

the specific context and situation. Although the specifics of mitigation plans 

are unique, the approach and strategies for making school buildings safer are 

rooted in the same basic process. 

The purpose of this chapter is to provide guidance on improving the 

structural safety and resiliency of school buildings. In particular, this chapter 

provides: 

	 An overview of the level of safety from natural hazards that is expected 

and provided by buildings codes for school buildings; 

	 Guidance on determining vulnerabilities of existing school buildings, 

evaluating mitigation options, and developing an implementation plan; 

	 Guidance on important considerations for new school building 

construction to improve natural hazard resilience; 

	 Suggestions for developing a funding plan for mitigation work or new 

school facilities that incorporate natural hazard resilience; and 

	 A description of important quality assurance measures that are necessary 

to provide a safe school facility long-term. 

3.1 School Building Safety from Natural Hazards 

Buildings can typically withstand common weather events, such as rain, 

snow, and wind. However, infrequent, but strong natural hazard events bring 

Well-designed, constructed, and 

maintained school buildings are 

critical for providing a safe and 

reliable learning and work 

environment. 

FEMA-P-1000	 3: Making School Buildings Safer 3-1 
 

 

forces that put enormous loads and stress on buildings, which can lead to 

damage or even collapse. 

Different types of natural hazards affect buildings in different ways. For 

instance, earthquake shaking could cause damage to the entire structural 

framework rendering it unusable whereas a hurricane or tornado may only 

affect a section of the roof or wall while leaving other areas marginally 

affected and potentially usable. 

While avoiding damage to school buildings from any natural hazard is 

desired, it is particularly important for schools that are prone to hazards that 

provide little to no warning. Because warning times can vary, some students 

and staff could still be inside school buildings during an event, whereas for 

other hazards the school is likely to have been evacuated and the building 

would be empty during the time of the event. Table 3-1 provides a list of the 

likely warning times by hazard and the corresponding expected occupancy if 

the event were to strike during school hours. 

Table 3-1 Likely Warning Times by Hazard and Resulting School Occupancy 

Expectation During Hazard Events 

Hazard Expected Warning Time 

Expected Occupancy in a 

Hazard Event during School 

Hours 

Earthquake No warning or seconds of 

warning 

Occupied, given the lack of 

warning time 

Flood Usually hours to days of 

warning; sometimes no warning, 

especially for flash floods 

Evacuation in advance is likely in 

most cases 

Occupied in rare cases, such as 

flash floods 

Hurricane Days of warning Evacuation in advance is likely in 

most cases 

Occupied if the school building is 

a designated hurricane evacuation 

shelter 

Tornado Minutes of warning Occupied, given the lack of 

warning time 

In some cases, the school building 

will have a designated tornado 

safe room 

Tsunami Minutes of warning for local 

tsunami 

Hours of warning for distant 

tsunami 

Evacuation in advance is likely in 

most cases 

Occupied if the school building is 

a designated tsunami vertical 

evacuation building 

High Winds Varies, minutes to hours of 

warning 

Typically occupied, given the lack 

of warning time in most cases 

3-2 3: Making School Buildings Safer FEMA-P-1000 
 

 

 

For schools threatened by hazards with little or no warning, building 

assessments and evaluations should be prioritized. For school buildings 

exposed to hazards with longer warning times, effective evacuation 

procedures and continuous training is particularly important. In all cases, it 

is important to have school buildings that are hazard resistant to minimize 

damage and interruptions, and to ensure educational continuity. 

3.1.1 Level of Safety Provided by Building Codes 

Many people assume that the government requires all school buildings to be 

safe and minimally damaged during a natural hazard. This is not necessarily 

the case. Most local governments do require that new schools be designed 

and constructed to meet local building codes, which are generally based on 

current state and national model codes. In some states, school construction 

may be governed by a statewide school construction code, which may differ 

from the building code used for other types of buildings. In many cases, the 

objective of the adopted building codes is to provide life safety at a minimum 

for some hazard events, but not necessarily prevent structural damage to the 

school building. In fact, if a school is struck by a strong, violent tornado or 

earthquake, significant damage is expected even if the school building was 

constructed using modern day building codes. Put simply, just because a 

building is “built to code” does not necessarily mean that it will be fully 

functional or usable after a hazard event. Additionally, after a school 

building is constructed, structural changes over the years to maintain or 

enhance resistance to natural hazards are typically not required. 

Building codes improve over time with respect to natural disaster resistance 

as experts learn from hazard events and building science research. In fact, 

substantive building code changes, standards, and test methods have been 

made since the 1990s to reflect the notion that buildings should perform 

better in hazard events. This means that older school buildings are designed 

and constructed to older building codes that do not reflect modern knowledge 

about safe building design and construction. Consequently, many older 

school buildings are significantly less resistant to natural hazards than 

schools constructed to current building codes. Some older school buildings 

might have safety risks that are unacceptable to the community. 

In addition, many community leaders now argue that aiming for only life 

safety in school buildings is not adequate, as this goal does not prevent 

damage that could render the building unusable after some hazard events. A 

better objective, especially for new school buildings, is immediate 

occupancy. This means designing, constructing, and maintaining school 

buildings so they do not suffer significant damage and are more likely to be 

Life Safety is an engineering term 

used to describe a level of design. 

The main goal behind life safety 

is to prevent fatalities and serious 

injuries in a building due to 

failure or collapse of structural 

elements, such as columns and 

beams. 

How old are your school 


buildings? 


Over 40% of school buildings in 

the United States are over 15 

years old (U.S. Department of 

Education, 2012), meaning that 

they were not designed and 

constructed to the latest building 

codes and standards, which 

require that schools be designed 

to withstand stronger loads. The 

average public school building is 

over 40 years old (NCES, 2014). 

FEMA-P-1000 3: Making School Buildings Safer 3-3 
usable again shortly after an event. This objective aims to minimize 

disruption and improve community resilience given that the resumption of 

school is closely tied to community recovery. Because schools are often 

planned to be used as community emergency shelters, they should be 

designed and built to be functional following a natural hazard event. 

Cascadia Earthquake and Tsunami Risk Looms Large 

The Cascadia subduction zone, widely referred to as the Cascadia fault, runs from northern Vancouver 

Island in Canada to northern California. The last known great Cascadia earthquake took place in 1700. 

Although hundreds of years have passed with no major activity along the fault line, many cities are at risk 

including Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia; Seattle, Washington; and Portland, Oregon. Victoria, 

Vancouver, and Seattle are coastal cities that also face tsunami risk. 

Across Washington State, about 386,000 students—or one in every three enrolled—live in earthquakeprone areas and attend schools built before seismic construction standards were adopted statewide. In 

addition, about 31,000 students in Washington attend schools that are in tsunami inundation zones 

(Doughton and Gilbert, 2016). 

No one knows if the next “big one” along the Cascadia fault will occur in our lifetimes. But just because 

these events are infrequent, it does not mean that they can be ignored. The lives of children and those who 

teach them on a daily basis depend on action. 

3.2 Existing School Buildings 

School leaders interested in addressing their school’s potential natural hazard 

risk should follow the following steps: (1) engage a team of qualified 

engineers and architects to determine school building vulnerabilities; 

(2) identify and evaluate mitigation options and corresponding costs; and 

(3) develop a plan to fund and implement mitigation actions. In some cases, 

a long-term program to fund and implement building improvements may be 

needed. 

3.2.1 Determining Building Vulnerability 

Each natural hazard affects school buildings in different ways. Earthquakes 

shake the entire building intensely, hurricane and tornado winds produce 

pressures on the exterior wall and roof systems, and floods and tsunamis 

generate tremendous water pressures on exterior portions of the building. 

Although these considerations require different analytical approaches, the 

overall process for identifying and mitigating significant building 

vulnerabilities is essentially the same and will require the advice of design 

professionals, as well as the expertise of school facility and financial 

managers. 

3-4 3: Making School Buildings Safer FEMA-P-1000 
 

 

Some school leaders are reluctant to examine the natural hazard vulnerability 

of their school buildings for a variety of reasons. They worry that any 

needed upgrades or retrofits will be too expensive. They fear the reaction of 

parents whose children attend the school if they learn the building is 

potentially unsafe in a natural disaster. Further, the authority and 

responsibility to evaluate and address structural vulnerabilities in existing 

school buildings is often unclear and is typically not explicitly part of 

anyone’s job description. 

Nevertheless, none of these reasons for reluctance change the fundamental 

importance of school buildings having adequate resistance to natural hazards. 

In many communities, emergency management champions have emerged 

who are willing to face these challenging issues for the greater good of the 

community and its children. 

National standards exist that define consistent, technically rigorous 

approaches to assess building vulnerability for most natural hazards. Details 

about how to conduct building vulnerability assessments for each natural 

hazard are provided in the hazard-specific supplements in this Guide. For 

each hazard, the specific process of identifying vulnerabilities and defining 

risk reduction options is different. In most instances, a team of qualified 

structural engineers and architects is needed to make these assessments. A 

quick, low-cost first step is to have the experts identify some preliminary 

characteristics, such as building age, type of construction, and hazard 

exposure at the school site. This preliminary screening information allows 

the team to quickly identify possible red flags so that school leaders can have 

a deeper conversation about potential next steps for mitigation. 

Understanding a school building’s vulnerabilities is particularly important if 

it is pre-designated as a shelter for people to use during a natural hazard 

event. For example, if a building is designated as a safe place to go during a 

hurricane or tsunami, it should be ensured that the building is designed and 

constructed to protect people inside the building during such an event. Some 

school buildings might also be designated to be used after an event to help 

with recovery. In those cases, it is particularly important to understand if the 

building is likely to be functional following a natural hazard event. If any of 

these designations are applicable to a school, it is critical for the team of 

qualified professionals conducting the building assessment to be aware of 

this. More information on understanding a school’s role as an emergency or 

recovery shelter is provided in Section 5.1.5. 

The following provides case 

studies of successful school 

earthquake screening programs 

in the United States: www.eeri.org 

/projects/schools/subcommittees 

/#eval. 

FEMA-P-1000 3: Making School Buildings Safer 3-5 
Designating Adequate Buildings as Shelters is Critical 

On September 21, 1989, Hurricane Hugo, by then a Category 4 storm, made landfall on the South 

Carolina coast above Charleston. The Town of McClenllanville had a single approved shelter for its 

residents—the local high school. Unfortunately, the designation was based on erroneous elevation of the 

school building. When the storm reached its peak, people had to stand on desks, break through the 

ceiling, and place their children above to avoid drowning. This event highlighted the importance of 

ensuring that pre-designated shelters will remain safe to occupy during natural hazards. 

3.2.2 Identifying and Evaluating Mitigation Options 

Mitigation options can range significantly in their scope, cost, 

implementation time, level of disruption, required personnel, and 

effectiveness at reducing risk. 

Mitigation options should also be evaluated in light of building code 

requirements for improvements and repairs. Significant improvements or 

alterations can trigger requirements for the work to comply with the current 

building code, which could include additional considerations, such as 

accessibility and energy improvements. Most work to strengthen buildings 

from natural hazards will be viewed favorably by building departments 

provided that the overall building is not made less strong. Additionally, 

repairs after an event can also trigger building code requirements based upon 

the amounts of damage to the building. Relevant requirements should be 

discussed and evaluated with the professional design team before committing 

to the work. Section 5.1.3 provides more information on these trigger 

requirements. 

3.2.3 Developing an Implementation Plan 

After school building vulnerabilities and mitigation options are identified, the 

challenging tasks of prioritizing and phasing actions, building community 

and political support, and raising needed funds begin. This can be a difficult 

and uncertain process. Seeking funds for facilities improvements, 

replacement, or new construction is a tough financial task most school 

leaders will eventually face. Even the smaller funds needed for planning 

activities and engineering assessments that precede capital projects can 

sometimes be unavailable or difficult to raise. 

School leaders with responsibility for large numbers of buildings will likely 

need to prioritize mitigation activities. It often makes sense to prioritize 

projects based on a “worst first” concept. This strategy first addresses the 

most pressing vulnerabilities affecting the largest number of children, 

3-6 3: Making School Buildings Safer FEMA-P-1000 
 

Earthquake Mitigation Examples 

A school with earthquake vulnerabilities might consider strengthening to improve its expected performance 

in an event in conjunction with other scheduled maintenance and upkeep tasks. This often can be 

accomplished over periods when the school is unoccupied (summers) and integrated incrementally over a 

number of years to help reduce disruption costs. FEMA 395, Risk Management Series: Incremental 

Seismic Rehabilitation of School Buildings (K-12) (FEMA, 2003), provides more detailed guidance on 

applying these strategies to reduce seismic risk in schools. 

Teachers and students can conduct a hazard hunt for potential falling hazards, such as unsecured 

bookshelves and light fixtures, in a school with earthquake risk. These risks can often be easily improved 

and can be cost effective, such as adding of straps and anchors. FEMA’s Earthquake School Hazard Hunt 

Game and Poster is a great resource: https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/ 90409. 

For more details on earthquake-specific mitigation options, see the Earthquake Supplement. 

Flood Mitigation Examples 

A school with flood risk can elevate or dry floodproof the structure to protect the building and its contents 

from flood damage. This should include the utility equipment such as furnaces, boilers, and air 

conditioning so that all portions of the building survive flooding with minimal damage. A school building 

can be elevated using compacted soil in low flood velocity areas or columns or pilings in areas where flood 

velocities are higher. In addition, areas such as entrances and storage rooms located below flood elevations 

should be constructed of flood-resistant materials such that they can be easily cleaned and repaired after a 

flood event. For more details on flood-specific mitigation options, see the Flood Supplement. 

Hurricane Mitigation Example 

A school replacing a roof covering that has reached the end of its service life in a hurricane-prone region 

could incorporate best practices in the design and construction of the new roof. For more details on 

hurricane-specific mitigation options, see the Hurricane Supplement. 

Tsunami Mitigation Example 

A school with tsunami risk might determine that it is not feasible to reach safe ground from the school 

premises within the expected tsunami warning time. The school could construct a new wing of the school 

that can both resist the forces of tsunami inundation waves and is tall enough to be used for vertical 

evacuation. This means the building’s highest floors are higher than expected tsunami inundation waters. 

For more details on tsunami-specific mitigation options, see the Tsunami Supplement. 

Tornado Mitigation Example 

When designing an addition to an existing school building, a school with tornado risk can incorporate a 

tornado safe room into the addition which would be large enough to accommodate all students, staff, 

visitors to a school, as well as nearby community members whose residences do not have suitable shelter. 

For more details on tornado-specific mitigation options, see the Tornado Supplement. 

FEMA-P-1000 3: Making School Buildings Safer 3-7 
followed by less critical vulnerabilities. In some cases, mitigation is 

incorporated as part of planned maintenance or replacement of deteriorated 

building components. In other cases, communities pursue less expensive 

projects first, while they build support and raise funds for more expensive 

projects. Section 3.4 provides recommendations on developing a funding 

plan. 

Keeping Students and the Community Safe 

After nearly one-third of the town of Joplin, Missouri, was flattened when a massive EF5 tornado 

touched down, community leaders were dedicated to build back better. According to FEMA, the number 

of tornado safe rooms in Missouri has doubled since the Joplin tornado in May of 2011. The City of 

Joplin had 14 community tornado safe rooms as of May 2016, many of them located inside local 

schools. This will ensure that students, teachers, and members of the public have a safe place to go in 

the event of a tornado. (McTavish, 2016) 

FEMA can help fund the construction of safe rooms through their Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 

(HMPG). Section 3.4 provides more information on HMGP and other financial resources. The 

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program can also provide support even if a community has not 

experienced a recent disaster. 

Figure 3-1 Tornado safe room placard. 

Existing School Buildings: Summary of Key Steps 

 Determine existing building vulnerabilities by engaging a team of qualified engineers and architects 

to conduct school buildings assessments. 

 Identify and evaluate mitigate options to address all significant vulnerabilities. 

 Develop a plan to implement building mitigation actions over time, depending on the needed scope 

and cost, with participation of community stakeholders. 

3-8 3: Making School Buildings Safer FEMA-P-1000 
3.3 New School Buildings 

The design and construction of new school buildings provides communities 

with the opportunity to “get it right” when it comes to disaster resilience. 

This requires careful decision-making, input at the earliest stages of the 

project, and oversight throughout the building process and ultimately results 

in a school building that can serve the community well for decades to come. 

In many cases, new school buildings can be made highly natural hazardresistant with only minimal increases in design and construction costs 

compared to a typical new school building. For example, elevating the new 

building above the minimum flood elevation required by the building code 

may add minimal cost to the project, but significantly improve flood 

resilience and lower flood insurance premiums. Additionally, initial design 

and construction decisions can have a significant effect on operational and 

maintenance expenses over the lifetime of the school building. 

In order to have new school buildings that are resistant to natural hazards, the 

following should be considered: (1) smart site selection; (2) relevant building 

codes and resilient design; and (3) schools as emergency shelters or recovery 

centers. 

3.3.1 Smart Site Selection 

Selecting sites for new construction that are less prone to natural hazards is 

highly advised. For communities with flood and tsunami risks, new school 

buildings should be located outside of mapped hazard zones. In areas with 

seismic risk, careful consideration of soils, landslide potential, and proximity 

to fault lines should be considered when selecting sites for new schools. 

Chapter 2 provides an overview of where specific natural hazards typically 

occur, and more details are provided in the hazards-specific supplements. 

3.3.2 Relevant Building Codes and Resilient Design 

First, it is important to understand what level of damage is expected in new 

school buildings designed to current codes. New schools must be planned, 

sited, designed, and constructed in accordance with the state building codes 

that are based on national standards. In some states, school construction may 

be governed by a state school construction code, which may differ from the 

building code used for other types of buildings. 

In general, building codes require that school buildings be designed to be 

somewhat stronger than typical buildings (e.g., residences or commercial 

spaces). However, as described in Section 3.1.1, the minimums prescribed in 

buildings codes only provide a certain level of protection, which some 

For new school buildings, adding 

more hazard resistance typically 

only increases construction costs a 

small amount. For example, 

studies have shown that providing 

adequate seismic design 

generally adds less than 2% to 

the overall cost of typical building 

construction (NIST, 2014). 

FEMA-P-1000 3: Making School Buildings Safer 3-9 
communities think is not adequate for schools. Because of this, some school 

leaders have chosen to design and construct new school buildings to go 

beyond the code. By doing so, they improve the resiliency of their schools 

and their communities. Often, significant improvements in building 

resilience can be achieved for relatively small additional costs. For instance, 

the addition of a modest amount of reinforcing steel at a nominal cost can 

significantly improve the performance of foundation or structural systems. 

Investing in more resilient school buildings pays off—it can save lives and 

help reduce the cost of repairing or replacing damaged buildings. The costs 

are small when compared to the benefits. 

3.3.3 Schools as Emergency Shelters or Recovery Centers 

Communities also often desire to use school buildings as shelter spaces 

during and after events. This can include providing enough space in tornado 

safe rooms to accommodate community members, or making a school an 

official hurricane evacuation shelter. It can also include using school spaces 

for community recovery functions after an event. If local emergency 

officials and community leaders expect for a school building to serve as an 

emergency shelter or recovery center, it should be discussed and addressed in 

the conceptual design phase of a new school building. School buildings that 

are designated shelters or recovery centers have additional design 

requirements, such as designing to resist higher loads and protecting certain 

equipment, to ensure that they will remain functional during and after events. 

Decisions related to whether or not the school building should serve as a 

shelter should be made within the context of the entire community, its needs, 

and corresponding costs. For example, school districts might want to make 

strategic decisions by selecting a few, centrally-located school buildings to 

design as shelters if they cannot afford this level of design for all schools. 

Many of the emergency shelter and recovery center requirements vary 

significantly by the hazard being addressed. For example, the design 

requirements for a tsunami vertical evacuation shelter can be quite different 

from that of a tornado safe room. More specific considerations related to this 

topic are provided in the hazard-specific supplements in this Guide. 

3-10 3: Making School Buildings Safer FEMA-P-1000 
 

New School Buildings: Summary of Key Considerations 

 Identify appropriate sites for new schools considering hazard-specific concerns. 

 Understand the relevant building codes and the corresponding level of safety that they provide, and 

decide if the new school design should go beyond the code requirements. 

 Determine if the new school will also serve as a designated emergency shelter or recovery center. 

3.4 Developing a Funding Plan 

The necessary political support and funding depend on the scope and cost of 

work to be done. As a start, State Hazard Mitigation officers are a great 

resource to obtain information about federally funded projects and their 

associated costs. Projects that entail major work on existing buildings or 

construction of new buildings can be very expensive. However, such 

expenditures can save lives and reduce the costs associated with a school that 

is heavily damaged or destroyed by an event. For expensive projects, 

schools can raise needed funds in a variety of ways, including the following: 

 school bond measures or other ballot initiatives, 

 special fundraising campaigns online or through community, and 

 public-private partnerships between schools and companies or 

corporations that may be willing to donate expert time, materials for 

construction, or other goods. 

As far as federal support, school districts should consider participating in 

hazard mitigation planning processes conducted by local jurisdictions or even 

developing a FEMA-approved Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan of their own. 

With such a plan in place, districts become eligible for two federal grant 

programs that can be used to support mitigation options, such as 

strengthening an existing school structure. These programs are: 

 Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program; and 

 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for post-disaster. 

Both of these FEMA funding programs are administered through state 

emergency management agencies, with grants disbursed to jurisdictions or 

public entities like school districts that have a Natural Hazard Mitigation 

Plan in place. FEMA planning grants may be available to defray the expense 

of preparing such a plan. 

School districts often make plans to spread mitigation work over a multi-year 

timeframe. This type of work can also be incorporated into annual 

FEMA Grant Opportunities for 

School Natural Hazard Safety 

Improvements: 

Before A Disaster: PreDisaster Mitigation (PDM) 

Grants 

After A Disaster: PostDisaster Hazard Mitigation 

Grants (HMGP) 

More information can be found 

here: https://www.fema.gov 

/hazard-mitigation-assistance. 

FEMA-P-1000 3: Making School Buildings Safer 3-11 
School District’s Hazard Mitigation Plan Secures Investment in Tornado Safety 

Beggs Public Schools, 35 miles south of Tulsa in northeastern Oklahoma, sought to augment safety for the 

district’s 1,201 students and 166 teachers and staff in the event of severe tornadoes. The multi-milliondollar cost of a new facility designed to high safety standards was beyond the means of the small rural 

school district. Former Superintendent Cindy Swearingen (now retired) wondered if federal dollars could 

help. 

The Superintendent started by asking Okmulgee County Commissioners to add a tornado safe room project 

to the county’s existing Hazard Mitigation Plan in order to secure eligibility for federal grant funds. She 

learned that lacking planning grant dollars, the county was unable to update its plan to accommodate the 

school project. 

Superintendent Swearingen then approached her school board and requested $20,000 to hire a consultant to 

prepare a Hazard Mitigation Plan specifically for the district. The board approved her request and hired a 

writer. As soon as the Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency approved the district’s first Hazard Mitigation Plan, the district prepared and 

submitted its grant request to the state’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which is ultimately 

funded by FEMA. 

In the wake of the catastrophic EF5 Moore tornado near Oklahoma City in May 2013, a Presidential 

Disaster Declaration released a large amount of new federal funding to the State of Oklahoma’s HMGP. 

Beggs School District’s grant was not funded at that time, however. After three years and more disaster 

declarations replenished the HMGP, Beggs Schools successfully secured $3 million toward the $4 million 

expense of a new dual-purpose building containing school band facilities and a community tornado safe 

room. 

When completed, the building will be a monolithic dome designed to withstand an EF5 tornado. Thanks 

to a federal grant, a new dome resembling the existing Beggs Event Center (Figure 3-2) will house Beggs 

School District’s tornado safe room. 

Figure 3-2 Thanks to a federal grant, a new monolithic dome resembling the 

existing Beggs Event Center (shown here) will house Beggs School 

District’s tornado safe room. (Photo source: Monolithic Dome Institute) 

3-12 3: Making School Buildings Safer FEMA-P-1000 
maintenance budgets. If a disaster occurs, insurance and grant funding may 

be used to rebuild in a more resilient manner. 

In order to garner the needed political and financial support, it is critical that 

as many key stakeholders as possible be involved in these efforts. This 

builds understanding of the need for this work and support for obtaining the 

needed funds and frequently results in better decisions that meet the needs of 

the entire community. In particular, school leaders should connect with other 

leaders including elected officials, members of the local business community, 

and other trusted leaders who have a stake in having functioning schools in 

the community. Some school leaders have effectively involved students in 

these outreach efforts, whether it be giving high school seniors over age 18 

and staff time off to go vote on relevant school safety initiatives, or engaging 

younger children in rallies and community meetings to draw attention to the 

cause. See Chapter 6 for more information on community outreach. 

3.5 Importance of Quality Assurance Measures 

3.5.1 Overview of Design and Construction 

Peer review, in which one engineer or architect checks the work of another, 

is often a good practice that can help ensure that the intended design goals 

are achieved. School buildings should be constructed by highly qualified 

professionals, using appropriate materials, according to the approved design. 

Additionally, rigorous oversight of construction improves the ultimate 

quality of the building. 

Design review to ensure compliance with the building code, as well as 

oversight and inspection of construction to assure compliance with the plans 

are known to greatly improve building performance in natural hazards. For 

example, it has been demonstrated in actual earthquakes that buildings that 

have had their designs reviewed for compliance with the code have resulted 

in superior performance (CSSC, 2007). Similarly, damage to the Donald T. 

Shields Elementary School in Texas due to a December 26, 2015 tornado 

was due to wall connections that did not comply with the plans and 

specifications (Thompson, 2016). Additionally, a 2009 report to the 

California Seismic Safety Commission concluded that, due to thorough plan 

review and construction inspection, California schools have consistently outperformed other similar buildings in earthquakes (CSSC, 2007). 

3.5.2 Long-Term Maintenance and Improvements 

Ongoing attention to buildings and resilience to natural hazards is needed to 

ensure that schools remain safe years after their construction. Actions taken 

FEMA-P-1000 3: Making School Buildings Safer 3-13 
 

to retrofit and improve the safety of facilities may be carried out over a 

number of years and require tracking to ensure the program is completed. 

The knowledge of hazards can change with time and as events occur, which 

may require revisions to strategies for hazard resilience. For example, 

seismic retrofits conducted in the 1970s and 1980s may no longer be 

considered adequate today. Engineering consensus on design criteria for 

tornado safe rooms are very recent and is likely to evolve. Finally, ongoing 

maintenance and replacement of deteriorated building components is critical, 

to make sure buildings retain the hazard-resistant characteristics with which 

they were designed. 

3-14 3: Making School Buildings Safer FEMA-P-1000 
Chapter 4 

Planning the Response 

When an emergency happens during school hours or a school event, school 

personnel must assume the role of emergency responders for the children in 

their care because they might be the only ones present at that moment. 

Professional first responders may be delayed due to excessive demands for 

service or to damaged infrastructure or other conditions that impede 

response, such as roads blocked by rubble and debris, which can occur due to 

a widespread disaster. School responders must remain flexible in their 

approach, and able to cope with the dynamic disaster environment. 

Developing an effective Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) gives school 

personnel, including administrators, teachers, and staff, definitive direction 

for what to do before, during, and after an emergency. It provides clear and 

actionable direction on the “who, what, when, where, why, and how” for 

emergency response. 

Because creative problem solving is critical to successful disaster response, a 

EOP’s structure, process, and procedures need to allow for flexibility and 

improvisation. Every scenario cannot be planned out in advance. If the right 

leaders and partners contribute to the development of the EOP and work as a 

team using adaptive approaches that support a standardized process, the 

school is more likely to function well in the event of an emergency. 

Although having the EOP is important, equally important is having 

stakeholder networks, connections, and organizational capacity to implement 

the plan. Combined, these elements lead to effective response and resilience. 

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the issues that schools need to 

understand and consider for creating, maintaining, and practicing the use of 

an EOP for effectively responding to natural hazard events. In particular, 

this chapter covers the following: 

 An overview of the purpose of an EOP; 

 A description of the recommended process to develop an EOP; 

 An overview of the structure and content of an EOP; 

 Legislative aspects that should be considered when developing an EOP; 

 A description of the importance of training and exercises; and 

FEMA P-1000 4: Planning the Response 4-1 
 

 Guidance on making an EOP actionable. 

There are many resources that can help school personnel put together 

complete and effective EOPs, some of which are referenced within this 

chapter and others within the Resources Appendix. In particular, this chapter 

builds upon the Guide for Developing High-Quality School Emergency 

Operations Plans Guide (U.S. Department of Education, 2013), which 

provides the latest guidance on developing school EOPs that is applicable to 

many hazards. 

Planning Principles 

The School EOP Guide (U.S. Department of Education, 2013) identifies the following as key principles 

in developing a comprehensive school EOP: 

Planning must be supported by leadership. Strong support for the planning team by local leaders, 

including district managers and senior-level officials, can help develop plans that are more effective. 

Planning uses assessment to customize plans to the building level. Comprehensive, ongoing 

assessment of the school community is important for developing plans that are appropriate for the 

particular context, situation, and circumstances. 

Planning considers all threats and hazards. It is important to consider all threats and hazards that 

might impact the school when developing a comprehensive EOP. The EOP should consider the needs 

before, during, and after these potential incidents. 

Planning provides for the access and functional needs of the whole school community. Planning 

should be inclusive of all the school community, including those with access and functional needs, those 

from diverse backgrounds, and those with limited English proficiency. 

Planning considers all setting and all times. When developing an EOP, it is important to consider 

events that could happen during and outside of school hours, as well as in or outside the school premises. 

Creating and revising a model EOP is done through a collaborative process. Using a collaborative 

process to create and revise an EOP helps to ensure that the plan is inclusive and effective. 

More information on these principles can be found at: http://rems.ed.gov/K12PlanningPrinciples.aspx. 

4.1 Purpose of a School Emergency Operations Plan 

Thorough response planning for a hazard event helps ensure that a school 

community executes an organized, timely, and well-communicated response 

when the unexpected occurs. Every school should develop and maintain an 

EOP that clearly states what actions need to be taken before, during, and after 

an emergency event, who is responsible for those actions, and contingencies 

4-2 4: Planning the Response FEMA P-1000 
 

 

for the different situations that could arise. The plan should provide enough 

details that it can be actionable, easily understood, and readily used. 

If any part of the school campus will be used as a shelter during or following 

a natural hazard event, special considerations should be included in the EOP. 

For example, plans for storing or procuring adequate amounts of water, food, 

and medicine for occupants should be established, as well as plans for 

providing adequate power supply (e.g., backup generators and storage of 

sufficient fuel supply). Parties responsible for developing the plans and 

ensuring that they are carried out will vary by context and should be 

identified. Alternate responsible parties should also be identified. 

Administrators, teachers, and staff need to know their roles and be trained 

accordingly. The entire school community needs to practice responding to 

an event so that everyone reacts appropriately when a disaster occurs. 

School leaders should know how to interface with community partners, such 

as local fire, police, and other emergency personnel. EOPs should also 

incorporate school preparedness and mitigation strategies and activities, and 

specify up-to-date school safety policies and protocols. 

An EOP is a good way for school personnel to think through and be ready for 

all of the difficult issues that emergency events bring. It also protects 

financial investments and helps build a culture of personal safety in the 

school community. 

4.2 Recommended Process to Develop an EOP 

EOPs are best developed by a diverse team of school stakeholders with a 

range of knowledge and perspectives. This team may include participation 

of the administration, teachers, staff, students, parents, and representatives of 

school community members with disabilities and minority groups. It also 

includes school support staff who may not be always be on campus, such as 

bus drivers and substitute teachers. Involving students in developing the 

school EOP (and overall safety preparedness) builds student leadership, 

engages youth in school emergency management planning and promotes 

student preparedness. 

School safety planning goes beyond the school campus. It involves critical 

collaboration with local emergency responders, businesses, community 

groups, parents, and other key stakeholders with whom the school might 

need to interact during an emergency event. For example, a nearby business 

whose parking lot will be used for evacuation is an important planning team 

member. For more detailed information on involving the community in 

developing emergency operations, see Chapter 6. 

EOP ASSIST 2.0, the Readiness 

and Emergency Management for 

Schools Technical Assistance 

Center’s software application, is a 

valuable resource that is designed 

to help schools create and update 

high-quality emergency 

operations plans. More 

information at this link: https:// 

rems.ed.gov/EOPASSIST/EOPASSI 

ST.aspx 

FEMA P-1000 4: Planning the Response 4-3 
Extensive online resources are 

available to help school 

administrators learn more about 

NIMS and ICS. See the Resources 

Appendix. 

In particular, the School EOP Guide recommends the following six-step 

process, shown in Figure 4-1, to develop, review, approve, and maintain 

emergency plans. 

The National Incident Management System (NIMS) provides a common, 

nationwide approach for managing emergencies. Although it is not required 

for schools to use NIMS (unless receiving federal preparedness funding), the 

U.S. Department of Education recommends that all schools implement 

NIMS. NIMS provides the vocabulary, systems, and processes to enable 

schools to manage their emergencies and more effectively coordinate with 

their community’s first responders 

One element of NIMS is the Incident Command System (ICS), a nationally 

recognized management system that includes a common organizational 

structure, defined roles and responsibilities, and standard procedures. ICS 

has become the standard for emergency management across the country. ICS 

also provides school leaders with a management system that has been proven 

effective across incidents of all types and scale. Using ICS assists school 

administration and staff to coordinate effectively with each other and with 

first responders. It provides a common organizational structure, and allows 

school personnel to communicate with first responders using the same 

terminology and expectations, which leads to better alignment between 

agencies and fewer misunderstandings during an emergency. See Figure 4-2 

for an example of how one school district adapted ICS to meet their needs. 

Figure 4-1 Six step process to develop, review, approve, and maintain a school Emergency 

Operations Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). 

4-4 4: Planning the Response FEMA P-1000 
Figure 4-2 Example Incident Command System chart. (Source: Los Angeles Unified School District) 

FEMA P-1000 4: Planning the Response 4-5 
 

 

The U.S. Department of 

Education’s Readiness and 

Emergency Management in 

Schools Technical Assistance 

Center provides courses on EOP 

development by request. Visit the 

following website for more 

information: http://rems.ed.gov/ 

For other resources to support 

teacher training, see the 

Resources Appendix. 

4.3 Overview of Structure and Content of an EOP 

Developing and writing an EOP fall under Steps 4 and 5 in the process 

illustrated in Figure 4-1. School EOPs should be user-friendly and should be 

agreed upon by all parties that will play a role in the EOP. The specific 

structure of the school EOP can vary—one that works best for a particular 

school and context should be selected. Figure 4-3 provides an example of 

one EOP structure. This particular structure is often referred to as the 

“traditional format” and is provided as an example in the School EOP Guide. 

This structure, in particular, is described as follows and includes: (1) the 

Basic Plan; (2) Functional Annexes; and (3) Threat- or Hazard-Specific 

Annexes. 

Figure 4-3 Example structure of a school Emergency Operations Plan using a traditional format 

(U.S. Department of Education, 2013). 

4.3.1 The Basic Plan 

This section addresses all of the activities a school must conduct during an 

emergency, regardless of the situation. This includes describing how the 

plan gets activated, assigning emergency responsibilities, defining the 

4-6 4: Planning the Response FEMA P-1000 
decision-making process, outlining administrative processes and controls, 

and explaining how the plan will be practiced and maintained over time. 

Plans need to cover all times and locations that could impact school 

activities. For example, what if a natural hazard event occurs right before the 

school day begins or ends, during a school field trip while buses are 

transporting students, during an evening school event, or during a schoolsponsored sporting event? Students may be unaccompanied on campus when 

an event occurs. Further, school personnel should be aware that they will 

likely be responsible for children after hazard events until they are reunited 

with their parents or guardians, which can take some time given the potential 

damage and disruption that can be caused by hazard events. 

Specific requirements of a school’s unique population should be addressed in 

the development of the EOP. Individuals with disabilities and those with 

access and functional needs may need assistance with language 

interpretation, special transportation and immediate medical needs. 

Resources to address these needs are available in the Resources Appendix. 

Individuals unfamiliar or inexperienced with local natural hazards or disaster 

response activities (e.g., transfer students, recent immigrants) may benefit 

from customized information on locally relevant hazards and basic disaster 

response activities. Additionally, if the school is designated to become a 

community shelter, this factor must be accounted for during the relocation of 

the students, guests, and staff. 

4.3.2 Functional Annexes 

Functional Annexes describe critical operational functions and courses of 

action that could be triggered by a variety of emergency events. While 

Functional Annexes address overall response operations in general, details 

may vary depending on the specific hazard. For example, evacuation sites 

and routes for a fire in the school building might be different than those 

needed for a tsunami. The following lists Functional Annexes that are 

particularly relevant to natural hazards, and provides examples of response 

operations for natural hazard events. 

Communications Annex. During and after a disaster, it is important to 

communicate with all stakeholders in a timely manner, providing what is 

legally appropriate and necessary, in a rapid, truthful manner. Schools 

should have procedures for communicating with administration, staff, 

students, families, the community, and first responders before, during and 

after an emergency. Considerations for effectively communicating with 

students with access and functional needs should be included. It is important 

An EOP should consider and 

address the access and functional 

needs that schoolchildren and 

staff might have, as well as 

injuries they might receive. These 

might include needs associated 

with limited mobility, visual and 

hearing impairments, cognitive 

delays, developmental 

disabilities, and multiple 

disabilities. 

An EOP should take into account 

forms of diversity that could 

affect planning activities. Factors 

to consider include ethnic 

background, non-English 

speakers, number of children on 

free and reduced lunch, 

transportation dependence, and 

other indicators that may 

influence ability to prepare, 

respond, or recover among 

students and staff. These 

considerations are becoming 

increasingly important as U.S. 

student demographics are rapidly 

changing and becoming more 

diverse and lower-income than 

the U.S. population as a whole 

(Southern Education Foundation, 

2015). 

FEMA P-1000 4: Planning the Response 4-7 
Best available refuge areas refer 

to areas in an existing building 

that have been deemed by a 

qualified architect or engineer to 

likely offer the greatest safety for 

building occupants during a 

tornado. These areas are not 

specifically designed to withstand 

tornadoes and should be 

regarded as an interim measure 

only until a tornado safe 

room/shelter is made available. 

to ensure that relevant staff members can operate communications 

equipment. Using multiple forms of communication increases the likelihood 

of reaching everyone even if some communications channels are not 

functioning after a hazard event. This annex should include specific 

guidance on warning and alert systems, as well as protocols and procedures 

from local first responders and other authorities. Schools should also be 

prepared for media and citizen journalists, members of the public who report 

information (usually on social media), covering an event. Journalists are 

likely to focus on issues of public safety and the safety of the students and 

school staff. Schools should think through how to communicate impacts on 

students to the community. More detailed guidance on crafting and 

distributing effective emergency communications can be found in Chapter 6. 

Evacuation Annex. Students and visitors may need to be evacuated from 

the school buildings and grounds during or after an event. For natural 

hazards, it is important to recognize that pre-designated onsite or offsite 

evacuation site(s) via preplanned evacuation routes must be selected with 

hazard zones in mind and may need on-the-spot adjustment due to debris or 

inaccessibility caused by a natural hazard event. For example, following 

earthquake shaking, an adult supervisor should ensure that evacuation routes 

are safe and unblocked before commencing evacuation. In communities with 

a tsunami hazard, the evacuation plan must consider tsunami inundation 

areas. In general, it is recommended to develop a plan on what to do when 

the primary evacuation route or evacuation area is unsafe or unusable. 

Shelter-in-Place Annex. With safety and security being of utmost 

importance, schools need to balance the risk of changing locations with 

staying in place. If sheltering onsite is needed during a natural hazard event, 

shelter areas should be pre-designated and ensured to be as safe as possible. 

For example, best available refuge areas that are to be used during a tornado 

should be selected by a qualified architect or engineer. These sites or safe 

rooms for sheltering in place during a response should be accessible for all 

members of the school community and conducive to meeting the needs of the 

individuals with disabilities and those with access and functional needs. The 

sites should be maintained with proper supplies for life safety and medical 

needs for the possible duration of a hazard event. 

Accounting for All Persons Annex. Procedures for accounting for the 

safety and well-being of all students, staff, and visitors must be flexible 

enough to work in any location. Likewise, plans should recognize that 

communication and technology networks, such as cell phones and email, 

could be out of service during and after a hazard event. 

4-8 4: Planning the Response FEMA P-1000 
 

Reunification Annex. The reunification process should be well documented 

and clearly communicated to parents, guardians and students in advance— 

this produces a process that is effective, builds trust, and reduces fear. It is 

critical that parents and guardians know how and where they should reunite 

with their children after a hazard event. For example, in communities where 

schools are located in the tsunami inundation zone, parents should know to 

go to the evacuation site, not the school. The reunification site should be 

accessible for all children and parents, and alternate reunification sites should 

be pre-determined in case primary sites are unsafe or inaccessible. FEMA 

provides a list of reunification systems that may be available to the public 

during a disaster: https://www.fema.gov/how-do-i-find-my-family. 

Continuity of Operations and Recovery Annexes. Schools need to address 

the anticipated recovery continuity of operations needs of their specific 

school populations by identifying the needed and available capabilities and 

resources for recovery, and describing how these resources will be 

coordinated and mobilized. These annexes should describe how essential 

functions, such as payroll and educational continuity, will continue during 

and following an event. Clear and concise procedures reduce the adverse 

impact of a disaster event and help the school recover as rapidly as possible. 

Chapter 5 addresses the issues and planning for continuing school operations 

and recovery in more detail. 

Health and Medical Annex. Medical and public health issues can be very 

sensitive and anxiety-producing for staff and parents and thereby require 

careful communications and planning with key partners. Children and adults 

experience very personal reactions to emergencies. This annex should 

address the medical and mental health needs of both staff and students and 

should consider that first responders might be delayed. This annex should 

identify where emergency medical supplies should be located and who is 

responsible for maintaining the supplies. Staff should know school site 

triage and what types of first aid they can administer and what they should 

leave to medical professionals. They should also know whether, when, and 

how to move seriously injured individuals, to ensure they do not cause 

additional injuries while trying to help. Chapter 5 provides more details on 

mental health considerations. 

4.3.3 Threat- or Hazard-Specific Annexes 

Schools with natural hazard risk need to consider the types of damage that a 

natural disaster can cause as they develop annexes for their EOP. Each 

school should develop the Threat- or Hazard-Specific Annexes that pertain to 

their school’s specific natural hazard risks. The hazard-specific supplements 

“Nearly half of parents, 45%, do 

not know the location to which 

their child would be evacuated as 

part of their school’s disaster 

plan... Slightly over half of U.S. 

parents surveyed believed the 

school buildings in their 

community could withstand a 

major natural disaster such as an 

earthquake or tornado. Even 

among those parents who trusted 

in the physical integrity of the 

school buildings, however, 61% 

would ignore evacuation orders 

and retrieve their children” 

(Redlener et al., 2008). 

FEMA P-1000 4: Planning the Response 4-9 
 

 

 

"More students with increasingly 

serious disabilities are being 

placed on general education 

campuses because of Least 

Restrictive Environment 

requirements. Those students 

lose the benefits of a specialized 

setting with greater numbers of 

skilled adults. This fact may 

broaden the effects of a disaster 

to a wider range of schools” 

(Barnes, 2013). 

of this Guide indicate aspects specific to earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, 

tornadoes, tsunamis, and windstorms that should be considered, when 

relevant, in developing EOP Hazard-Specific Annexes. 

These annexes describe courses of action that are specific to particular threats 

and hazards, such as “Drop, Cover, and Hold On” for earthquake response. 

Schools should develop annexes for all of the threats and hazards that they 

could face, based on a hazards analysis. In many cases, Threat- or HazardSpecific Annexes will point to Functional Annexes, such as the Evacuation 

Annex. 

4.4 Legislative Considerations in Developing EOPs 

There are local, state, and federal laws that impact emergency planning. 

During the planning process, it is important for schools to abide by the laws 

that regulate their state and community. Federal laws that are relevant 

include the following: 

	 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits disability 

discrimination across the spectrum on all emergency services, programs, 

and activities. For example, plans must address the provision of aids and 

services to ensure effective communications, that individuals are not 

separated from their service animals and assistive devices, and that a 

person with disabilities can receive disability-related assistance 

throughout an emergency. 

	 Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964 establishes language access for 

providing effective communications with individuals, including students 

and parents, with limited English proficiency. 

	 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the 

privacy of student records and the release of student information. 

	 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) 

requires health care providers and organizations to develop and follow 

procedures that ensure the confidentiality and security of protected health 

information when it is transferred, received, handled, or shared. HIPAA 

may apply to some schools (www.hhs.gov/hipaa/). 

For state-specific mandates, see the REMS infographic at http://rems.ed.gov 

/StateResources.aspx, which provides information by state. More 

information on these laws and others that might apply to specific situations is 

available in the Resources Appendix. 

4-10	 4: Planning the Response FEMA P-1000 
 

4.5 Training and Exercises 

Regular training, drills, and exercises make a plan effective and keep it 

relevant. Training builds awareness and understanding of specific response 

protocols and increases the chance that plan procedures will be followed 

appropriately during a disaster. School training activities should include all 

key stakeholders—regular staff, new staff, and those who might not be on 

campus regularly, but serve important roles, such as bus drivers and 

substitute teachers. Everyone should be familiar with the school’s response 

protocols and their expected roles during an emergency. Exercises and 

trainings related to disaster response can be integrated into and built upon 

existing school activities. Knowledge gained from practicing emergency 

response in a school carries over into the home and the community. 

Additionally, coordinating with local leaders and first responders on school 

exercises and drills opens the door for opportunities for schools to participate 

in community-level exercises. 

A wide variety of opportunities are available for training teachers, who are 

the first line of communication with the students. For example, teacher inservice workshops or trainings are an opportunity for teachers to understand 

and engage in the development and implementation of an EOP. In addition 

to learning procedures and protocols, these workshops increase 

understanding of local hazards, risk, and threats. 

Exercises and drills of an EOP are essential. Exercising a school’s plan lets 

everyone become familiar with their designated emergency roles and helps 

identify gaps, weaknesses, and improvement opportunities. It tests the 

feasibility and safety of evacuation routes as well as secondary (back-up) 

escape routes along with all of the other response procedures and protocols. 

Each practice response provides opportunity for students and staff to provide 

input and feedback. First responders can be engaged to observe and 

evaluate. All drills and exercises should be conducted in “no fault” 

environment that emphasizes learning and improvement. The lessons 

learned from each practice helps the school community respond more 

effectively in the case of a real event and improves response planning and 

overall school preparedness. 

There are a range of exercise types a school can conduct. In general, it is 

recommended to partner with emergency managers and to involve other key 

players in any exercise. Some examples include: 

 Tabletop Exercises. These exercises consist of small group discussions 

that go through emergency scenarios and the actions that need to be 

taken before, during, and after an incident. These discussions can be 

“Large-scale drills and 

simulations ... illuminate roles 

and responsibilities, 

arrangements and connections for 

the complex coordination of 

disaster response. Demonstrated 

proficiency in a simulation has 

proven to result in better 

preparedness in real life” (Risk 

RED, 2009). 

FEMA P-1000 4: Planning the Response 4-11 
 

incorporated into curriculum and classroom activities, as well as safetyoriented school meetings or workshops for the school (including the 

parents). 

	 Drills. This is the most common way to exercise the school and test an 

EOP. Schools most often conduct drills throughout the academic school 

year. During a drill, the school personnel use actual school grounds to 

practice responding to a scenario. It is also important to consider and 

involve parents in drills to make sure they understand the process for 

reunification with their children if there is an emergency. In addition to 

the standard fire drill, drills are important for practicing responses to any 

emergency that might occur in a school. For example, Great ShakeOut 

Earthquake Drills are an annual opportunity for schools (and people in 

homes and organizations) in earthquake-prone areas to practice what to 

do during earthquakes and to improve their preparedness. 

	 Functional Exercises. These are similar to a drill, but involve multiple 

partners, perhaps district-wide, and typically employ the Incident 

Command System structure. 

	 Full-Scale Exercises. These are multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional 

“boots on the ground” drills that test assets such as communication 

systems and equipment. These exercises help build community 

resilience and focus on continuity of services following a disaster. 

Response exercises are a critical foundation to school, community, and 

national preparedness efforts. Support for designing, executing, and 

evaluating all of these exercise types are offered in the Homeland Security 

Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). More information about HSEEP 

and planning and implementing exercises is available in the Resources 

Appendix. 

4.6 Making the Plan Actionable 

Once an EOP is developed it needs to be communicated and discussed with 

the school community and key stakeholders. The plan should allow for 

flexibility and improvisation when responding. It must be regularly reviewed 

and updated with changes to school policies and procedures, building and 

campus improvements, contact information, and response activities. 

Training and exercises are critical for making sure the plan works and is 

understood by all involved. All these elements combined will help ensure 

the safety of students and staff during an emergency. 

4-12	 4: Planning the Response FEMA P-1000 
 

Training for Severe Weather: Exercise Play in Oklahoma 

Severe weather regularly occurs during the school year in Oklahoma, forcing school administrators to 

make informed decisions with limited lead-time. An interdisciplinary team comprising University of 

Oklahoma professors and a local emergency manager questioned how they could best prepare teachers, 

administrators, and emergency managers to work together to solve problems in an emergency. Building 

off a statewide survey and focus group concerning information needs and communications in severe 

weather, they created a tabletop exercise to increase stakeholders’ knowledge and awareness of their 

responsibilities during severe weather. This problem-based learning activity was also designed to train 

them on the importance of proactive decision-making during a severe weather event, as well as to highlight 

the importance of communication among the different groups. 

Participants in the tabletop exercise were selected from three Oklahoma school districts and included a 

public emergency manager, two school emergency managers, and a variety of school decision makers 

including superintendents, principals, teachers, coaches, transportation directors, and maintenance 

directors. Participants were assigned to groups based on their roles and affiliations for each of the 

problem-based activities. Simple index cards were used to trigger the play. A “Time Stamp” card used 

actual case data from the National Weather Service including alerts, outlooks, and damage reports. A 

“Happenings” card introduced school events or everyday actions, such as parents calling the school to 

check on band concerts. Each round of the game started with a “Critical Event” card triggering discussion 

about what had happened and how participants would respond. It posed questions such as: What actions 

do you take? Why? How concerned are you? How confused are you and what is confusing you? For most 

questions, participants responded using a scaled ranking from 1 to 10. Participants shared decisions, and 

deliberated and recorded their discussions. Afterwards, participants reflected on how they would respond 

to future events and noted the benefits of networking. One participant wrote afterwards, “Being able to 

connect with other districts to talk about their plans during severe weather was extremely beneficial.” 

(Stalker et al., 2015) 

Figure 4-4 Participants taking part in the tabletop exercise. 

FEMA P-1000 4: Planning the Response 4-13 

 

 

Chapter 5 

Planning the Recovery 

Recovery actions typically begin after the emergency response phase ends. 

While the emergency response period is typically brief—lasting only 

minutes, hours, days, or weeks—recovery may take months or even many 

years after a major event. Recovery typically refers to putting a disasterstricken community or organization back together. In the case of schools, the 

goal often focuses on the restoration of education and learning, as well as 

recovery for the people who make up the school system. 

Post-disaster recovery is often more challenging and time consuming than 

people expect. Thus, planning the recovery—which includes understanding 

the various steps, policies, persons, costs, and opportunities involved in this 

process—can greatly facilitate the speed and effectiveness of post-disaster 

recovery activities within schools and surrounding communities. 

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the issues schools 

can face after a natural disaster and the steps school leaders can take to be 

ready to recover well. In particular, this chapter includes the following: 

	 Important aspects to consider while trying to get students and staff back 

into school buildings; 

	 Considerations related to the health, safety, and well-being of students 

and staff during recovery; 

	 Guidance on financing the recovery; and 

	 The importance of planning for the next event. 

The following sections highlight considerations specific to post-disaster 

recovery. Information about recovery that is unique to particular natural 

hazards is presented in the hazard-specific supplements of this Guide. 

5.1 Getting Back in School Buildings 

5.1.1 Post-Disaster Building Assessment 

After any natural disaster, a first step is expert assessment of whether school 

buildings are safe to re-enter and use. These assessments are generally 

conducted by local building officials or other trained experts. Depending on 

the type of natural hazard, different technical standards exist for these postSchool leaders should reach out to 

local building professionals to 

pre-arrange school building 

evaluations after a disaster. 

Local building professionals will 

likely be very busy following a 

hazard event and might not be 

immediately available for 

inspection without prior 

arrangement. 

FEMA P-1000 5: Planning the Recovery 5-1 
 

event building safety assessments to ensure consistency and technical rigor. 

These standards are discussed for each hazard in the hazard-specific 

supplements of this Guide. 

The Four Most Fundamental Kinds of Recovery 

The School EOP Guide (U.S. Department of Education, 2013) identifies the following as fundamental 

aspects of recovery: 

Academic Recovery. This should consider school opening/closings, alternate sites if the school building 

cannot be used, and alternate education if students cannot physically reconvene. 

Physical Recovery. This entails documentation of school assets, records management, inspections, 

damage assessments, public access, and security. 

Fiscal Recovery. This includes funding for recovery efforts, records, legal aspects, and donations 

management. 

Psychological and Emotional Recovery. This includes mental health services, memorials, and event 

commemorations. 

5.1.2 Documenting the Damage 

It is important to document damage to buildings, contents, and equipment 

shortly after a disaster, but prior to any substantial clean up or repair 

activities. Documentation of damage can be important for many reasons, 

especially in terms of receiving appropriate insurance or other reimbursement 

for cleanup, repairs, and replacement of damaged items. This entails 

thorough photographing of all damage, as well as documentation of time and 

materials spent on the response and recovery. Ideally, documentation of 

damage is also conducted by registered building design professionals, who 

know which types of damage are of most concern. Figure 5-1 shows 

examples of photos documenting earthquake damage. 

5.1.3 Building Back Better 

After a disaster, but before students and staff can get back to work in school, 

buildings often need to be repaired, cleaned, and in some cases retrofitted or 

demolished and replaced. The timing and funding needed for this work can 

vary tremendously depending on the damage that occurs. 

In some cases, a damaged building may be required to be repaired or rebuilt 

in compliance with the latest hazard regulations and building code 

requirements. The rules around what level of damage triggers these 

requirements vary significantly across jurisdictions—some communities may 

5-2 5: Planning the Recovery FEMA P-1000 
 

Figure 5-1 Photos documenting earthquake damage to school buildings. (Photo source: Michael 

Mahoney, FEMA) 

Safer, Smarter, Stronger... Greener 

On May 4, 2007, an EF5 tornado tore through the small town of Greensburg, Kansas. The tornado was 

more than a mile wide—wider than the town itself. It ultimately destroyed 95% of the structures in the 

community. 

As Greensburg dug itself out from the rubble, leaders made a commitment to build back better and more 

environmentally sustainable than before. After much planning and with the help of knowledgeable experts, 

Greensburg made a commitment to becoming the greenest town in the United States. Now, the city hall, 

the hospital, and the local school have all been built to the highest Leadership in Energy and Environmental 

Design (LEED) certification level offered by the U.S. Green Building Council. 

The new school in Greensburg was “built green” from the ground up. School leaders worked with a 

professional design and construction team to plan, design, and build an environmentally responsible, 

student-focused academic environment that reinforces Greensburg’s community-wide commitment to 

sustainability (U.S. Department of Energy, 2011). 

have lower thresholds than others that trigger these requirements. If school 

buildings are also historic structures, they may be subject to a different level 

of thresholds that trigger these requirements. 

These rules are known as “compliance triggers” and are typically expressed 

in terms of building damage, such as “substantial damage” or “substantial 

structural damage,” both of which are defined in the International Building 

Code (ICC, 2014b). School leadership should check with their local building 

code officials about substantial damage and improvement rules that are 

relevant to them. 

FEMA developed a Substantial 

Damage Estimator (SDE) to assist 

state and local officials in 

determining level of substantial 

damage for buildings in flood 

hazard areas. For more 

information see: www.fema.gov 

/media-library/assets/documents 

/18692. 

FEMA P-1000 5: Planning the Recovery 5-3 
After the 2016 floods in 

Louisiana, the Louisiana 

Connections Academy allowed 

displaced students to stay current 

in their school work through an 

online system that had become 

established in 2011 (Connections 

Academy, 2016). 

For schools designated by the 

local community emergency 

authorities as a shelter (known as 

Risk Category IV in the 

International Building Code), the 

required design loading is 

stronger than typical, intended to 

greatly increase the chances of 

the building being available as a 

shelter after an earthquake or 

hurricane event. 

For schools that need to conduct major repairs or demolish and rebuild one or 

more school buildings, this is an unparalleled opportunity to build back 

better. During recovery, community members and government agencies will 

be keenly aware of the importance and consequences of natural hazards. 

With the right information, advocacy, and community-level support, they 

may be willing to support disaster-resilient building design. Designing and 

constructing new disaster-resilient school buildings is discussed in Chapter 3. 

5.1.4 Adaptability 

School leaders should make contingency plans in case they cannot reoccupy 

some or all of their buildings in a reasonable timeframe due to the need for 

retrofit or reconstruction. These plans can range from using modular 

classrooms, to sharing space temporarily on another school campus, to 

occupying another building that is not a school, to online systems that 

facilitate educational continuity. These plans must be made in discussion 

with local and/or state building officials because many states have particular 

laws that regulate school buildings. These plans should reflect the likelihood 

of building damage based on pre-event hazard vulnerability evaluations of 

existing school buildings, as discussed in Chapter 3. It is critical that school 

leaders plan for these back-up facilities or systems, as this is what can ensure 

educational continuity for students. When back-up locations have been 

identified before an event, teaching and learning can often continue, even 

after a disaster that causes widespread damage and disruption. 

5.1.5 Schools as Emergency or Recovery Shelters 

The role that schools can play in re-establishing routine can be complicated 

by the fact that many communities designate schools as shelter sites. Often, 

schools are one of the only public buildings with large assembly spaces, such 

as gyms, auditoriums, and cafeterias. Accordingly, schools can and often do 

serve a variety of shelter functions during the emergency and early recovery 

periods following disaster. In some cases, schools are a site that community 

residents evacuate to during a disaster, such as during a tornado or a tsunami. 

Schools often serve as post-event mass shelters, temporarily housing 

residents who cannot stay in their homes. Schools may also be designated as 

recovery centers, hosting a variety of post-disaster support services and 

personnel for the community. All of these functions are critically important. 

But they also can interfere with plans to resume school and to get students 

and teachers back in the classroom. 

5-4 5: Planning the Recovery FEMA P-1000 
 

When Floods Displace a School: The Value of Planning Ahead 

Six months prior to the 2013 Colorado Front Range flood, the St. Vrain School District updated their 

Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) to identify a secondary location for students if they ever had to 

close a school because of an emergency. During this process, they held table top exercises involving 

directors from each of the major divisions of the district including emergency management, nutrition 

services, technology, custodial services, operations and maintenance, and human services. They 

developed two options for reunification if an emergency were to occur: (1) they would divide students 

between other schools across the school district; or (2) they would institute an agreement with the tenants 

of another nearby school to use their facilities as a temporary school location during displacement. Little 

did administrators know at the time that this plan would need to be implemented only a few months later. 

In September 2013, Colorado experienced multiple days of record-breaking rainfall and flash flooding 

that resulted in 10 deaths and the evacuation and forced relocation of approximately 18,000 residents. 

The small community of Lyons, Colorado, was devastated. Due to road and bridge failures, residents 

were trapped for 36 hours as they waited for National Guard assistance. Lyons experienced an almost 

complete loss of services including power, telephone, sewage, and potable water. Due to the damage 

incurred by the town, residents were evacuated and unable to return for at least six weeks. 

Although Lyons Elementary and Lyons Middle/Senior High Schools escaped the flood damage, the 

buildings remained inaccessible to students and staff due to the massive destruction in other parts of the 

community. Over 700 students were displaced. While this disaster could have caused chaos for an 

unprepared school district, the St. Vrain Valley School District was ready to act. 

Within one week of the flood—and with the feedback and collaboration of principals from both 

schools—the school district announced that they would resume classes beginning the week of September 

23, just 9 days after the floodwaters ravaged Lyons. Both schools were reopened 11 miles east of Lyons 

in a neighboring community. The students, faculty, and staff met on their regular class schedule for ten 

weeks at the temporary location until they finally returned to their home schools on December 2, 2013. 

Without the foresight of planning implemented by the school district, these children—and the faculty and 

staff that support them—could have faced many negative academic and emotional consequences as a 

result of being displaced and separated from their familiar school environment. For the sake of these 

children, planning truly mattered (Tobin-Gurley, 2016). 

Figure 5-2 Schoolchildren affected by the Colorado floods. (Photo 

source: Peggy Dyer, One Million Faces Project) 

FEMA P-1000 5: Planning the Recovery 5-5 
 

School administrators should check with local emergency managers, 

American Red Cross officials, or other shelter providers to determine 

whether and how local schools may be included in current emergency and 

recovery plans for their community. Some school districts may wish to 

negotiate formal agreements with shelter providers in order to address issues 

including access to facilities, liability for damages and loss of functionality, 

and other relevant topics. The State of Washington, for example, has enacted 

laws that enable the state to hold harmless or indemnify the owners of private 

facilities, including independent schools, that permit the use of private land 

or facilities for public evacuation. Local emergency managers may be 

familiar with similar laws or statutes in other jurisdictions. 

School district leaders and staff should consider contingencies for continuing 

instruction during emergencies that may require public use of their facilities. 

Once contingency plans are established, it is important to practice how these 

plans would be carried out during the school’s disaster exercises and 

trainings. See Chapter 4 for more information on practicing plans. Also see 

the hazard-specific supplements for more information on evacuation or 

emergency shelters related to specific natural hazards. 

5.2 Focusing on Routine and Mental Health 

In addition to restoring physical infrastructure, it is also essential that school 

leaders focus on the health, safety, and well-being of students and staff 

during the recovery period. Although planning for this is often overlooked, it 

is important that leaders keep in mind how long this process can take and 

what a central role schools can play in facilitating individual, family, and 

community recovery. In addition, a major lesson of past disasters has been 

that people can move in and out of vulnerable conditions, and that recovery 

is not simply one linear, straightforward path for all. This means that human 

and financial resources may need to be dedicated over a long-term horizon— 

and targeted at different time points—to ensure that students and staff receive 

the proper support they need to fully recover. 

5.2.1 Re-Establishing Routine 

Disaster experts have long recognized that getting children back into a 

routine is a key driver of recovery. Schools can help provide the normalcy 

that children often desire, while also allowing adult caregivers to focus on 

re-establishing their own “new normal.” 

5-6 5: Planning the Recovery FEMA P-1000 
Hurricane Katrina: Restoring Routine 

Hurricane Katrina made landfall at the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year. According to the U.S. 

Department of Education, approximately 372,000 students were displaced from their home communities 

in the states directly affected by Katrina, while 160,000 remained dislocated for years after the storm. In 

many cases, these children moved numerous times after the initial displacement, and each transition 

meant adjusting to a new home, neighborhood, school, teachers, and peers. 

Re-establishing routine was justifiably a central concern for teachers and school administrators in both 

disaster-affected and receiving communities. Teachers reported that when the initial novelty of the 

“extended vacation” wore off for children, they actually seemed to want a routine in the classroom. Of 

course, given the enormity of the disruption caused by Katrina, school staff had to find the right balance 

between regimented school routines and the desire to be flexible and adaptable to support children’s 

emergent and ongoing needs. 

When classes resumed after Katrina, teachers across the Gulf Coast and beyond worked hard to maintain 

rules in the classrooms, although there was some recognition that exceptions to the normal rules would 

have to be made. For example, one student was not wearing the required knee socks with her school 

uniform. When the teacher pulled the student aside to reprimand her, she found out that the student had 

lost all of her clothing in the flood, and that she no longer had the appropriate attire to wear to school 

(Fothergill and Peek, 2015). 

Figure 5-3 Drawing by child affected by Hurricane Katrina (Fothergill and Peek, 2015). 

5.2.2 Assessing Mental Health 

Until a new routine is established, and even afterwards, those impacted by 

disaster may experience issues with safety, stress, and extended grieving. 

Emotions can include hopelessness, depression, guilt, and withdrawal. In the 

most severe cases, classroom behavior and academic performance may be 

FEMA P-1000 5: Planning the Recovery 5-7 
 

Psychological First Aid for Schools 

is an evidence-informed 

intervention approach to assist 

children and staff after a disaster, 

including natural hazard events. 

See here for information: www 

.nctsn.org/content/psychological 

-first-aid-schoolspfa. See the 

Resources Appendix for other 

post-disaster mental health 

resources. 

impacted. Teachers and staff—who are coping with their own recovery 

while also managing school needs—also may be challenged by changed 

emotions and behaviors. Teachers and staff who were not affected by the 

disaster might also be faced with similar challenges given that in some cases, 

affected children are relocated to other schools after a disaster. 

In the immediate aftermath of an emergency, students, staff, and families 

may need psychological support to help deal with trauma-related distress, 

which can a have a long-term impact. The National Child Traumatic Stress 

Network (NCTSN) has assembled resources for many forms of trauma 

experienced by children, including natural disasters. These resources include 

guidance about things teachers can do to help their students recover, and 

steps that teachers can take to help themselves cope. School crisis 

intervention teams can also play an important part of the recovery process. 

Over the longer term, teachers often adopt new age appropriate arts- or 

writing-based curriculum to help children and youth process their disaster 

experience and to reflect on a new future in the aftermath of the event. Peer 

listening teams can also be powerful during the recovery period, in terms of 

engaging young people to become a part of their own and each other’s 

healing process. 

5.3 Financing the Recovery 

Following a natural disaster, it is critical for schools to prioritize detailed 

legal and financial recordkeeping. These are needed for reimbursements of 

any expenses, including repair and reconstruction costs. They also might be 

needed for legal reasons. 

Of course, these records are often needed at a time when accessing databases 

and files can be challenging or impossible, and all staff members are 

extremely busy, both with emergency responsibilities and with concerns for 

their own loved ones. This is why planning in advance to ensure that critical 

records are regularly backed up and stored offsite is invaluable. 

After a disaster, concerned people might seek to give donations for response 

and recovery. Knowing whether and how schools can accept donations and 

developing systems to accept them, perhaps through partner community 

organizations, allows schools to benefit from this generosity. At the same 

time, donations management can become its own full-time job, as schools 

can quickly become overwhelmed as material goods—both needed and 

unneeded—arrive rapidly after a disaster. In some cases, schools have had to 

hire donations management experts or rely on volunteers to help process the 

influx of goods that arrive after a disaster. It is important for school officials 

5-8 5: Planning the Recovery FEMA P-1000 
to clearly articulate what they do, and do not, need after a disaster, and to try 

to ensure that when donations are made, they are helpful to school operations 

and to student success. 

5.3.1 Federal Resources 

Federal resources can also assist in the recovery. In particular, the following 

are resources that might be relevant: 

	 The Stafford Act authorizes the delivery of federal technical, financial, 

logistical, and other assistance to states and localities during declared 

major disasters or emergencies. FEMA coordinates administration of 

federal disaster relief resources and assistance to states if an event is 

beyond the combined response capabilities of state and local 

governments. 

	 FEMA’s Public Assistance (PA) program provides supplemental federal 

disaster grant assistance for debris removal, emergency protective 

measures, and the repair, replacement, or restoration of disasterdamaged, publicly-owned facilities or certain private not-for-profit 

institutions following major disasters or emergencies declared by the 

President. The federal share of assistance is not less than 75% of the 

eligible cost. The recipient (usually the state) determines how the 

non-federal share (up to 25%) is split with the sub-recipients (eligible 

applicants). The PA program also provides assistance for hazard 

mitigation measures during the recovery process. More information may 

be found on FEMA’s website: http://www.fema.gov/public-assistance 

-policy-and-guidance. 

	 FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) may provide federal 

funds for structural improvements after a disaster strikes. More 

information can be found here: http://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation 

-grant-program. 

	 Certain private schools might not be eligible for FEMA’s PA program or 

HMGP. They may, however, be eligible for low-interest disaster loans 

from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) to repair or replace 

certain property and equipment damaged during a declared disaster. 

More information can be found here: https://www.sba.gov/loans 

-grants/see-what-sba-offers/sba-loan-programs/disaster-loans. 

Following the August 2016 floods 

in Louisiana, FEMA’s PA program 

awarded nearly $79 million to 

schools to support recovery 

efforts, including repair and 

rebuilding (FEMA, 2017a). 

FEMA P-1000 5: Planning the Recovery 5-9 
 

 

Meeting Payroll: Nimble Financial Services Can Support Recovery 

On Monday, May 20, 2013, a 2-mile-wide EF5 tornado struck the Oklahoma City suburb of Moore, 

killing 24 people, including 9 children, and causing an estimated $2 billion in property damage. Three 

public schools were especially hard-hit: Briarwood Elementary School, Plaza Towers Elementary School, 

and Highland East Junior High. The tornado rendered the Moore Public School District’s administration 

building, including its technology center, unusable. Servers that contained payroll data for approximately 

3,000 district employees were destroyed, making it impossible for the school system to make payroll. In 

accordance with their employment contract, teachers in the Moore District were due to be paid the Friday 

after the tornado. Proactive efforts by local banks and the State Banking Commissioner enabled the 

teachers and administrators to receive uninterrupted pay. 

BancFirst, the account holder for the school district, worked with several local banks and state regulators 

to provide teachers in the district with provisional credit while the district worked to salvage its payroll 

data. The majority of financial institutions in Oklahoma decided to give Moore Public School employees 

interest-free, short-term loans for the amount of their last paycheck. 

Oklahoma State Banking Commissioner Mick Thompson sent a public bulletin to state-chartered bank 

presidents on Thursday, May 23, asking the banks to provide provisional credit to district employees the 

next day, Friday, May 24. “As Oklahoma Bank Commissioner, I am asking that if you have 

customers/depositors who are employees of the Moore, Oklahoma public school system and who would 

be receiving a payroll deposit tomorrow, that you consider providing provisional credit until their payroll 

deposit arrives,” Commissioner Thompson wrote. 

“Basically what we told the banks is that the school district won’t be able to transfer the money into your 

accounts, so just give the employees whatever the amount of their last payroll deposit was,” Thompson 

said. (Bailey, 2013) 

Figure 5-4 Briarwood Elementary was one of three public schools destroyed or damaged by the 

Moore, Oklahoma tornado of May 2013. (Photo source: Scott Olson, Getty Images) 

5-10 5: Planning the Recovery FEMA P-1000 
 

5.4 Planning for the Next One 

Even after full recovery from an event, it is important to dedicate time to 

evaluate the process and procedures used for emergency preparedness, 

response, and recovery. Plans including policies, procedures, roles, chain of 

command, and functional and hazard specific annexes should be examined to 

evaluate what worked and what did not. Plans should be revised to 

incorporate: 

	 Updates to all contact information for all key leaders, partners, and first 

responders; 

	 New and updated resource lists for long-standing and newly established 

contacts; 

	 Revisions to key response activities, such as evacuation routes and sites; 

	 Changes to the buildings, school campus, bus routes, and broader 

community; 

	 Changes to school policies and procedures; 

	 Lessons learned; and 

	 Any issues that may have been overlooked in the original plan. 

Once the plans are updated, briefings should be held to communicate the plan 

modifications and improvements to key stakeholders, staff, and students, as 

well as media, parents, and local officials. This type of outreach encourages 

stakeholder engagement and provides an opportunity for dialogue with the 

wider community. 

If at all possible, schools should also keep detailed notes regarding how the 

response and the recovery went during the actual event. This will ensure that 

important details can be recalled later when evaluating how plans and 

response activities could be improved. Some emergency officials invite 

researchers and social scientists trained to take systematic field notes to come 

and observe response and recovery activities. 

FEMA P-1000 5: Planning the Recovery 5-11 

 

Chapter 6 

Engaging the Whole 

Community 

School disaster resilience is most effectively achieved when the community 

is engaged in the process to understand and reduce school risks, plan for 

emergencies, and recover from damaging events. This chapter provides 

guidance on engaging the whole community and in particular, provides: 

	 An overview of the whole community approach and the role that schools 

play; 

	 Guidance on engaging community partners, including professionals, 

local government, community organizations, parents, and students, and 

why their partnership is important; 

	 Guidance on communicating with the community; and 

	 Information on tools and technologies for effective communication with 

the community. 

6.1 The Whole Community Approach 

For nearly a decade, FEMA has moved toward a “whole community” 

approach to emergency management. This approach recognizes that all 

resources and diverse segments of the community must be fully engaged in 

order to most effectively prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover 

from, and mitigate against all hazards. Partners in this work include FEMA 

and other federal agencies; local, tribal, state, and territorial leaders; schools 

and higher education; health care; non-governmental organizations including 

faith-based and non-profit groups; private sector industry; and individuals 

and families. The whole community approach recognizes and embraces 

diversity in its broadest definitional sense, including an array of 

organizational representatives, but also re-focusing efforts to ensure that 

members of historically marginalized communities (including the elderly, 

persons with disabilities, low-income populations, immigrants and nonEnglish speakers, racial and ethnic minorities and others) are included in the 

discussions and that their voices are heard and respected. 

At the heart of the whole community approach is the idea that all members of 

the community need to have a voice, as community members and leaders are 

FEMA P-1000	 6: Engaging the Whole Community 6-1 
 

 

best situated to identify local assets, capacities, interests, needs, and goals. 

Put simply, they are the experts on their own local community and hence 

they should be engaged in the disaster planning process. The foundational 

principles of the approach, as described by FEMA, include: 

	 Understand and meet the actual needs of the whole community. 

Community engagement can lead to a deeper understanding of the 

unique and diverse needs of a population, including its demographics, 

values, norms, community structures, networks, and relationships. This 

will allow for better understanding of the community’s real life safety 

and sustaining needs and their motivations to participate in emergency 

management-related activities prior to an event. 

	 Engage and empower all parts of the community. Engaging the 

whole community and empowering local action will better position 

stakeholders to plan for and meet the needs of the community. This type 

of engagement will also strengthen the local capacity to deal with the 

consequences of various threats and hazards. This requires all members 

of the community to be part of the emergency management team. When 

the community is engaged in an authentic dialogue, it becomes 

empowered to identify its needs and the existing resources that may be 

used to address them. 

	 Strengthen what works well in communities on a daily basis. A 

whole community approach to building community resilience requires 

finding ways to support and strengthen the institutions, assets, and 

networks that already work well in communities and are working to 

address issues that are important to community members on a daily basis. 

Existing structures and relationships that are present in the daily lives of 

individuals, families, businesses, and organizations before an incident 

occurs can be leveraged and empowered to act effectively during and 

after a disaster strikes. 

Schools are an essential part of the whole community. Not only do schools 

educate future generations, they also serve as gathering places and hubs of 

community activity and vitality. Communities invest in schools through 

property taxes and other forms of support, and in turn, schools serve as 

sources of employment, hubs of leadership, and even symbols of hope for the 

future within communities. 

6-2 6: Engaging the Whole Community FEMA P-1000 
 

The Societal Value of Schools 

“Our society places great importance on the education system and its schools, and has a tremendous 

investment in current and future schools... The school is both a place of learning and an important 

community resource and center” (FEMA, 2010a). 

There are over 50 million students attending close to 99,000 public elementary and secondary schools 

with an additional 5.2 million students attending close to 34,000 private schools (NCES, 2016). School 

facilities highly vary from one-room rural schoolhouses to citywide urban schools that have over 5,000 

students. 

An involved community increases support for needed funding, improves 

emergency planning by involving a wider range of voices, and makes 

response and recovery more efficient and effective because community 

members know what to expect and take steps to assist schools and school 

leaders. Not only does engaging a wide range of community stakeholders 

improve school safety preparedness, their engagement furthers a school’s 

reach into the infrastructure of the community, improves institutional 

credibility, and expands a school’s ability to call on an expanded pool of 

resources—human, financial, and material—when a disaster happens. 

Engaging the community prior to a hazard event can help build a culture of 

preparedness that moves schools from a reactive response into a proactive 

planning mindset to create and sustain safety and security for the entire 

school community. School leaders often effectively interface with parents, 

nearby universities, and local emergency management; they should also 

consider reaching out to a broader swatch of potential partners, including 

community-based organizations, local business and industry, and government 

officials. 

6.2 Engage Community Partners 

After a disaster, a wide range of individuals, organizations, agencies, and 

disaster management professionals quickly rally to respond. Some turn to 

immediate life-safety response needs, and others focus on effective 

management of a school district’s operational response and facility security. 

Those involved in the pre-disaster planning period often continue to serve 

active roles during response and throughout the recovery period. 

Because of the number of individuals and organizations involved throughout 

the disaster lifecycle, relationships need to be built and actively maintained 

over time. This can be achieved by involving local partners and community 

stakeholders in a variety of events that focus on preparation and education 

After a disaster is not the time to 

be exchanging business cards. 

FEMA P-1000 6: Engaging the Whole Community 6-3 
 

 

regarding natural hazards. These may include commemorations of past 

damaging events or participation in drills. For example, the Great ShakeOut 

organizes a series of earthquake drills, which provide an annual opportunity 

for people in homes, schools, businesses, faith-based settings, and other 

organizations to practice what to do during earthquakes and to improve 

earthquake preparedness. These drills are carried out in many areas of the 

United States and around the world. Similarly, a number of communities 

practice community-wide tsunami evacuation drills, where schools partner 

with local government and community groups for a more realistic drill 

experience. Regardless of what the school decides to do—whether it be an 

annual event or a weekly gathering—this is the time to be creative in terms 

of designing outreach and relationship-building activities that make sense in 

the local community culture and can be sustained over the long-term. 

There are many different stakeholders that school leaders should consider 

engaging. The prioritization of these different groups and entities may vary 

by school district. Information on potential partners are provided in the 

following subsections. Given that their level of importance will vary by 

community, they are listed in alphabetical order, and not in order of 

importance. 

6.2.1 Children and Youth 

It is critical to remember that children and youth are vital stakeholders in any 

school-based community preparedness, response, or recovery effort. 

Research has consistently shown that children regularly express the desire to 

learn about hazards and also to engage in activities that help adults, help 

other young people, and ultimately help themselves. 

Schools could incorporate information about natural hazards, approaches to 

reduce society’s risks to hazards, and specific natural hazard risk information 

relevant to a school and a community into school curricula in engaging ways. 

Raising awareness of youth and children, starting from kindergarten, about 

A Lesson That Saved Lives 

On the day after Christmas in 2004, ten-year-old Tilly Smith of Surrey, England, was on vacation in 

Thailand with her parents. Smith had learned the warning signs of tsunamis in her geography class at 

Danes Hill School just two weeks prior. Seeing the water recede from Maikhao Beach and recognizing 

that a tsunami could be imminent, she alerted her parents who helped to tell others and clear the beach. 

Smith’s timely warning saved nearly a hundred tourists and local beachgoers. Maikhao was one of the 

few beaches on Phuket Island with no reported casualties during the Indian Ocean tsunami, the deadliest 

tsunami disaster in recorded history (The Telegraph, 2005). 

6-4 6: Engaging the Whole Community FEMA P-1000 
 

 

natural hazards and how to respond to them can be life-saving. A number of 

resources are available for educators on this topic (see the Resources 

Appendix). 

Recognizing that individual schools can be limited in the flexibility of their 

curricula, it is also important to consider programs to engage youth beyond 

school hours. Involving youth in safety preparedness and disaster response, 

both in the school and the community, builds student leadership and 

increases overall community resilience. 

Youth Creating Disaster Recovery & Resilience 

Youth Creating Disaster Recovery & Resilience (YCDR2

) is a research project for youth affected by 

disasters. YCDR2

 connected with youth in disaster-affected communities affected by disasters including 

wildfires, tornadoes, and floods in Canada and the United States. Young people have used art, video, 

music, and storytelling to discuss what they needed, the challenges they have faced, and how they might 

contribute to helping their friends, families, and communities recover from disasters. Figure 6-1 shows 

an example of art created following the 2011 Joplin tornado. More on creative youth stories can be 

found at: www.ycdr.org. 

Figure 6-1 Young people in Joplin, Missouri shared their stories through the YCDR2 

project. (Photo source: Circular Motions Photography) 

Students have a vital role in contributing to the safety of their school and 

community. Such work is central to their development as citizens and, some 

argue, is part of their ethical and moral responsibility to themselves, their 

peers, and school staff. Although there are legitimate and important safety 

limits that must be placed on student engagement in emergency management 

activities, schools should place a high priority on involving this critical 

stakeholder group in mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery 

activities. If schools miss this opportunity, they not only deny students’ 

FEMA P-1000 6: Engaging the Whole Community 6-5 
unique learning and leadership opportunities, they also decrease their ability 

to harness one of their greatest resources available to them. The day of a 

major emergency, schools need all of the coordinated assistance they can 

receive; adequately trained, empowered students will step up to this role if 

they are given the tools and trust of adults to do so. 

One example program to engage youth in natural hazard planning is to create 

a local Teen Community Emergency Response Team (Teen CERT). Schools 

may use Teen CERT to engage youth in school emergency management 

planning and promote student preparedness. Adapted from the adult CERT 

program, FEMA established Teen CERT to equip high school students with 

basic response skills and an understanding of emergency preparedness 

concepts. CERT Basic Training includes emergency preparedness and 

disaster response skills such as fire safety, light search and rescue, team 

organization, and disaster medical operations. More information is available 

in the Resources Appendix. 

Teen CERT Builds Health and Safety Awareness 

“The staff at Valley Mills ISD in Valley Mills, Texas felt compelled to begin Teen CERT training at the 

school due to the health and safety needs of the faculty, staff, and students. They saw a high level of 

need at the school due to those suffering from health issues like diabetes, asthma, seizures, and other 

physical injuries. CERT-trained students are aware of the different medical issues and are able to assist 

in the event of an emergency” (FEMA, 2012a). Figure 6-2 shows an example of the value of this type of 

program for Teen CERT members. 

Figure 6-2 A member of Teen CERT explains why the experience has 

been so valuable to him. (Photo source: Laura Conway) 

6-6 6: Engaging the Whole Community FEMA P-1000 
Additional examples of ways to engage students in the process to develop a 

school hazard safety strategy include assemblies, after-school activities, 

student clubs, school exhibits, competitions, and safety drills. 

6.2.2 Design Professionals 

Design professionals, such as architects and engineers, can be valuable 

partners in helping to keep students and school staff safe. They can help 

determine a school building’s pre-event vulnerabilities and provide 

recommendations for improving the safety of the school, such as retrofit 

options. For new school construction, they can also provide guidance on 

decisions affecting environmental, health, and safety aspects. Design 

professionals also serve a critical role in assessing the safety and severity of 

building damage following a hazard event. 

6.2.3 Educational Professionals 

The wide range of professionals working in education can offer resources 

and guidance on policy, stakeholder relationships, continuity of academic 

programs, and much more. These individuals can be helpful in crafting 

school emergency management plans and working through the preparedness 

planning process. These professionals may include school district leadership 

teams, school board members, school administrators and staff, teachers, 

members of the school safety team and school crisis team, agency-appointed 

mental health agents, grief counselors, risk managers/legal counsel, and 

educational spokespersons. 

6.2.4 Elected Officials 

Elected leaders within a community often run on platforms associated with 

schools and education. This is true for school board members, but also for 

other elected officials such as the mayor, city manager, legislators, city 

council members, and county commissioners. These individuals often care 

deeply about the quality and functionality of local schools, and can actively 

engage with school system representatives to build awareness and support for 

planning, preparedness, response, and recovery activities. These elected 

officials are often called upon to speak on behalf of their constituencies, 

making a close partnership with school leaders all the more important. 

6.2.5 Emergency Management Professionals 

Local emergency management professionals can provide invaluable 

information to schools regarding state-of-the-art preparedness, response, and 

mitigation activities. School leaders should be on a first name basis with 

leaders from local fire departments, law enforcement agencies, emergency 

FEMA P-1000 6: Engaging the Whole Community 6-7 
 

American Federation of Teachers Disaster Relief Fund 

“Help us show our union family in Louisiana that we have their backs. Donate today.” 

The call-to-action posted on the donations page of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) website 

(www.aft.org/disaster-relief-fund) urged union members throughout the country to donate financially to 

help union members hit by the massive 2016 flooding disaster in Louisiana. AFT, an affiliate of the 

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) representing 1.6 

million members, actively assists members affected by disaster events by raising funds through the AFT 

Disaster Relief Fund. Donation pages on websites and social media feeds of the national AFT 

organization, state federations, and local affiliates gather funds to provide direct relief. Disaster 

assistance efforts similar to those for Louisiana in 2016 have provided assistance to union members after 

other major events including Superstorm Sandy. 

medical services, and emergency management, as these are the front-line 

responders who may provide lifesaving first response and can also help the 

school through the recovery process. 

6.2.6 Labor Bargaining Units 

National unions, such as the National Educational Association (NEA) and the 

American Federation of Teachers (AFT), as well as state and local unions, 

can help guide school districts on work-related and human resource issues 

during the planning process and help in recovery by spearheading drives to 

gather relief fund donations and offer disaster relief grants for union 

members. 

6.2.7 Local Business and Industry 

Members of the private sector often donate generously to school efforts, 

whether it be funding high school sports teams or providing free food at 

elementary school band concerts. Cultivating these relationships can help 

secure contributions for mitigation, response, or recovery costs. 

6.2.8 Local Community Organizations 

The wide range of community-based and faith-based organizations that focus 

on social service provision and the collective good can often play an active 

role in identifying resources and supporting school and local community 

preparedness outreach activities. Such organizations include the American 

Red Cross Disaster Action Teams (DAT), Community Emergency Response 

Teams (CERT), Salvation Army, and Voluntary Agencies Active in Disaster 

(VOAD). See Resources Appendix for more information and links. 

6-8 6: Engaging the Whole Community FEMA P-1000 
6.2.9 Local Hospitals 

Hospital administration, staff, and primary care clinicians are vital players in 

assisting in a coordinated and integrated response and recovery, particularly 

during large-scale emergencies. During preparedness planning activities, 

they can provide school planning teams valuable guidance on healthcare 

risks and prevention planning, as well as collaborate on medical response 

protocols and procedures (e.g., triage) that work most effectively for that 

school. 

6.2.10 Local Jurisdiction Public Agencies 

Departments, such as public works, planning, public health, healthcare, and 

family support services, provide specialized services to their jurisdictions and 

key community facilities and populations. These local departments and 

agencies are often natural partners for schools, as they are often focused 

broadly on the health, vitality, and sustainability of local communities. 

6.2.11 Media 

It is helpful to develop solid relationships and strategic partnerships with key 

media representatives and online social media influencers prior to an event. 

Journalists and other members of the media—including traditional print and 

broadcast media and social media influencers (individuals and organizations 

who are influential online)—have enormous power in terms of informing the 

public of pressing issues and ultimately shaping local political and social 

agendas. 

During times of disaster, media often interface between school administrators 

and staff, students, families, and members of the community. As such, 

building relationships with media and online influencers to help cover key 

issues associated with schools in a thorough and thoughtful manner is 

crucial. In today’s environment, which has been marked by an 

unprecedented number of school shootings and rising disaster risk, school 

officials should be prepared for local (and perhaps even national) media to 

take an interest in school safety issues. When an event occurs, media 

regularly spotlight the school’s response. Social media channels trend 

heavily with posts and messages focused on topics and issues critical to the 

disaster event, response, and recovery. Media professionals are not experts 

in natural hazards and may be limited in their understanding of the events. 

When questions are asked, they expect the truth, including things which the 

school may not yet know. Timely and regular release of clear and consistent 

information should to be provided to the formal press and all interested 

individuals who may be covering the events. 

FEMA P-1000 6: Engaging the Whole Community 6-9 
 

Ideally, all this information should come from a single point of contact, 

usually a designated Public Information Officer of the school (or district) or a 

lead school official. Access to school spokespersons, leaders, and other 

subject matter experts should be provided, though access to impacted school 

facilities, staff, and particularly students should be closely regulated. 

Children—and the release of information regarding specific details on 

impacts to children—need to be protected for ethical and legal reasons (e.g., 

if a child has been affected, parents should not first find out through the 

media). Additional resources for developing messages and working with the 

media can be found in the Resources Appendix. 

6.2.12 Parents and Caregivers 

Parents, grandparents, and other caregivers are key stakeholders in the 

children’s lives. Parents and others invested in children’s futures provide a 

wide range of expertise, educational awareness support, and resources that 

can be tapped for preparedness activities. Parents can also serve as 

champions for enforcing safety at schools through legislative channels. 

Parents as School Safety Champions 

Much of Oregon is at high seismic risk, and some of the most vulnerable buildings in the state are 

schools. In response, Portland parents have mobilized to advocate for seismic improvements in schools. 

Parents at Sunnyside Environmental K-8 in Portland, for example, formed a “Rock and Roll Committee” 

to draw attention to seismic issues. The group began by researching the structural integrity of the school 

building, which was built in 1925. A rapid visual screening of schools by Oregon’s Department of 

Geology and Mineral Industries deemed Sunnyside as one of dozens of schools at “very high risk” of 

collapse in a strong earthquake. The Rock and Roll Committee hosted a dinner event to educate fellow 

parents and community members about the risks facing their school, and also to advance an agenda 

focused on preparedness and hazard mitigation. The work continues with support from the school’s 

Parent-Teacher-Student Association. (Manning, 2012) 

Another informal group, Parents for Preparedness (P4P), connects Portland-area parents to share schoollevel initiatives and to learn from local preparedness and seismic safety experts. P4P members are 

encouraged to explore roles in advocacy on school safety at the local school board and in the state 

legislature. 

Oregon parents helped to supply the political support that led state legislators to approve $175 million in 

state funding for school earthquake retrofit projects in 2015-2017. Oregon’s recent experience proves 

that individuals and informal groups can make a big difference in terms of awareness, school-level 

projects, and even the funding commitments needed to make schools safer. 

6-10 6: Engaging the Whole Community FEMA P-1000 
6.3 Communicating with the Community 

Communication is a fundamental component of preparedness, response, and 

recovery activities. It is thus important that schools conduct preparedness 

campaigns, special events, educational classes, social media dialogues, and 

other pre-disaster engagement before an event occurs to build a school- and 

community-based culture of safety. 

Delivering a clear, consistent, actionable message through many trusted 

voices builds awareness and buy-in. Repetition drives the message home. 

Trusted messengers help to make the message immediate and relevant. 

Some best practices for communicating with stakeholders include: 

	 Engage with both formal (designated, authorized) and informal (local 

trusted individuals) stakeholders. 

	 Use innovative and locally appropriate communication approaches to 

personalize outreach and make relevant to the wider school community. 

	 Link local community activities with ongoing or event-driven school 

disaster preparedness activities. 

	 Build sustained coordination and sharing of resources. 

Key preparedness and response topics to communicate include: 

	 Notifications of planning efforts and opportunity for engagement; 

	 Awareness and educational messages about relevant hazards and risks; 

	 Explanations of emergency response protocols and procedures; 

	 Tools and technology platforms being used (or considered) by school 

officials and responders; 

	 School/community available resources in the event of a disaster; and 

	 Updates regarding ongoing mitigation or reconstruction projects. 

6.3.1 Before the Event 

As a school takes steps to understand, plan for, and reduce natural hazard 

risks, it is valuable to regularly communicate with a wide range of 

stakeholders. Communicating about hazards, risk, and emergency plans can 

be done as part of preparedness informational campaigns, while holding 

special events and classes, and through social media dialogues. 

As school leaders, staff, students, parents, and others learn about the hazards 

they could experience and the potential consequences of hazard events, that 

knowledge should be shared with community members. It is also valuable to 

Safety Information and the 

Rural-Urban Website Divide 

A recent study of websites for 

every Colorado school district 

found a substantial rural-urban 

divide in terms of the information 

shared on the websites. Most 

rural schools had no emergency 

information available, at all, on 

their sites (Kaiser, 2016). 

FEMA P-1000	 6: Engaging the Whole Community 6-11 
notify community stakeholders about planning efforts and opportunities for 

engagement and feedback. If the school is going to be used as an evacuation 

shelter, it is important to plan ahead of time with the community leaders on 

how the shelter will be operated and managed, how the school will be 

cleaned up, and how the expenses will be handled. The shelter planning 

helps expedite the resumption of school operations. Emergency response 

plans, protocols, and procedures should be shared publicly so that 

community members, especially parents, know what to expect and what they 

should do when a disaster happens. 

If a school identifies a major safety concern, such as a serious structural 

deficiency in a school building, it is essential to communicate this 

information to the community in an honest, clear, and productive way. Many 

schools find that sharing information about the potential solutions (e.g., 

preliminary risk reduction options and associated costs) at the same time as 

information about the risks is actually reassuring to parents and other 

community members. However, the urgency of this information necessitates 

informing the community as soon as possible, rather than waiting for plans to 

address these safety concerns to be perfected. 

Outreach and education to key school stakeholders ensures the wider 

community has up-to-date information on hazards, risks, and existing or 

developing emergency plans. Ongoing communications foster interactive 

exchange. Establishing these relationships builds a higher level of trust that 

the school is a trusted, meaningful, “go to” resource; this is an important 

identity if or when an incident occurs. Because many communities are multicultural, multi-lingual, and have a wide range of socio-economic diversity, 

having a communications strategy that utilizes a variety of distribution 

channels will have greater success. School communications will likely be 

integrated with the local law enforcement, emergency management, and 

other first responders. Coordinating with these and other stakeholders helps 

ensure the media receive the information that is needed. Partners can serve a 

vital role for supporting schools and releasing crisis information on their 

social media feeds and other technology platforms. 

It is particularly important to have media policies and procedures set in place 

prior to any event. These should outline who should be the designated 

spokesperson on behalf of the school should an event occur, and set limits to 

media access to affected students and staff. 

As demonstrated in prior chapters of this Guide, opportunities abound for 

school and community partners to participate in hazards preparedness, 

response, and recovery activities. Not only does the involvement of 

6-12 6: Engaging the Whole Community FEMA P-1000 
community stakeholders improve institutional credibility on safety issues, it 

expands a school’s ability to call on an expanded pool of resources and 

expertise when a disaster happens. 

6.3.2 During the Emergency and Recovery Phase 

Regular, honest, transparent communication with internal and external 

stakeholders is essential during the emergency, and throughout the recovery 

phase. Questions such as “How will this affect my child? When does school 

start again? Can you fix the school?” may be commonplace. Clear 

communication should inform the community about progress and successes, 

as well as needs, concerns and issues. Outreach reduces irresponsible and 

inaccurate speculation. It keeps stakeholders, particularly parents, focused 

on the learning programs and the school recovery process. In addition, 

having a communications plan can help streamline responses to numerous 

media inquiries that often follow. 

The following are some tips for communicating after a disaster: 

	 Strive to provide timely and accurate information. 

	 Respond to questions thoroughly and honestly; do not be afraid to say “I 

don’t know, but I will get back to you with an answer.” 

	 Honor those who played a large part in the response and the recovery 

efforts, as well as those deceased, if any. 

	 Maintain ongoing, interactive dialogue between school and key 

stakeholders. 

	 Consistently emphasize a sense of caring and compassion. 

	 Quickly address rumors. 

	 Provide a primary point of contact and contact information for questions. 

6.3.3 After the Recovery Phase 

Following through with the community after the recovery phase is an 

excellent way to make a community more resilient to the next event. The 

opportunity to learn from the experience and share ideas on how to better 

prepare and respond next time is invaluable. The opportunity to reflect on 

how to do better and advocate for improvement is often received by an eager 

audience willing to share their ideas. 

FEMA P-1000	 6: Engaging the Whole Community 6-13 
 

 

 

6.4 Tools and Technology for Effective Communication 

School districts are expanding their use of tools and technologies for 

communicating alerts and warnings during the emergency phase, while also 

continuing to rely on these approaches during the longer-term post-disaster 

recovery period. Simultaneously, federal agencies and private sector 

companies are increasingly providing new solutions for timely and effective 

communication, particularly through the use of mobile devices. 

Joplin Schools: A Case Study in Communications Success 

On Sunday, May 22, 2011, an EF5 tornado hit the City of Joplin in southwest Missouri. The 200+ mph 

winds destroyed everything in the tornado’s seven-mile-long path. The tornado caused 161 fatalities and 

approximately 1,371 injuries. The tornado struck the city of Joplin just after members of the Class of 2011 

at Joplin High School had received their diplomas and were heading to post-commencement celebrations. 

While many key forward-leaning decisions factored into the extent of Joplin School’s recovery, proactive 

communications strategies and innovative implementation tactics played a significant role. 

Superintendent C.J. Huff, along with other district and volunteer leaders led the recovery and 

communication efforts in the months following the tornado. Building on pre-established communication 

tools, they set goals, created clear strategic messages and ensured consistent, timely responses to media. 

The Superintendent immediately formed a team of community professionals to meet daily, assess the 

district situation and priorities, develop solutions, communicate plans and act as a steering committee. 

School district leaders empowered key stakeholders to be associates for the schools. For example, teams 

of school communication professionals from the National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA) 

from outside of the area supported on-site operations during the early weeks after the disaster. Volunteer 

communications and community relations partners were recruited, engaged, and empowered to build and 

drive the district messages. 

Communicators employed a wide range of outreach methods ranging from social media to the telephone. 

The media was provided unparalleled access. The City of Joplin used Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to 

supplement information disseminated through traditional methods (FEMA, 2011). And when the media 

coverage began to taper off, the district created a new narrative—moving the message from the tornado’s 

destruction to the power of recovery, featuring new schools being built and giveaway of free backpacks 

and school supplies. Hundreds of electronic press packets filled with message points and emotional 

human-interest stories and a three-day celebration script encouraged continued coverage. The result was 

that on the first day of the new school year—just 86 days after the tornado and right on schedule—every 

major cable news channel/network was there. Front-page stories in USA Today and The New York Times 

featured Joplin Schools (NSPRA, 2011). 

Continuing to invest in communications, the district most recently transitioned to a new parent notification 

system using dialer messages, emails, and text messages. 

6-14 6: Engaging the Whole Community FEMA P-1000 
Each school district is best positioned for identifying the method most 

effective for their target population; however, the most frequently used 

methods for communicating to the school community include: 

	 Loud speakers (internal to school); 

	 Newsletters sent to homes or distributed materials handed out or posted 

at the schools; 

	 Text messaging; 

	 Electronic automated telephone systems (e.g., informational hotlines, 

electronic phonetrees, robocalls, and interactive voice response systems); 

	 Emails; 

	 Websites; 

	 Social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Nextdoor, and 

Snapchat); and 

	 Mobile apps. 

With the rise in use of mobile phones, particularly smart phones, social 

media is now a go-to information distribution resource. Social media 

platforms allow schools to deliver information rapidly, inexpensively, cover 

more geographic distance and more effectively target specific audiences than 

traditional media. During an event, it is essential to monitor, respond, and 

distribute information through social media platforms that are most 

prominently used in not only the local and regional community, but also 

nationally and internationally. School leaders should consider appointing a 

person or team to manage the school’s social media engagement. 

Rise of the Smartphone 

“Nearly two-thirds of Americans 

are now smartphone owners, and 

for many these devices are the 

key entry point to the online 

world” (Smith, 2015). "Mobile 

devices accounted for 55% of 

Internet usage in the United 

States in January 2014.” – CNN 

Money 

Using Social Media to Support Disaster Recovery 

One option for handling a school’s social media channels is to pre-arrange a partnership with local social 

media-savvy Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) members or volunteers from the school’s 

stakeholder community to virtually support the school’s communications team in efforts to manage 

social media traffic. 

This approach reflects one similar to that of a Virtual Operations Support Team (VOST), a team of 

trusted emergency managers and disaster volunteers trained in social media for emergency management. 

These individuals, located outside of an affected area, virtually support the operations of a local social 

media team operation. For more information, visit the Virtual Operations Support Group at 

http://vosg.us. 

FEMA P-1000	 6: Engaging the Whole Community 6-15 
Regardless of the communication channel or response team approach, 

schools should track engagement (messages sent out, calls, press briefing) 

with all media. 

In addition, in some communities, schools have hired communications 

outreach specialists to help manage and respond to media inquiries. In other 

cases, recovery leaders have held twice or once daily press conferences for 

weeks or even months after the disaster to ensure regular and systematic 

communication with the media, and hence with consumers of that media. 

Additional information on communications outreach is included in the 

Resources Appendix. 

6-16 6: Engaging the Whole Community FEMA P-1000 
Chapter 7 

Moving Forward 

School leaders, staff, and teachers dedicate their lives to educating our next 

generation of leaders and workers. They also are tasked, on a day-to-day 

basis, with keeping children safe as they foster an environment conducive to 

learning. This is one of the greatest responsibilities assigned to adults in our 

society, and these efforts should be applauded and recognized. 

This Guide has offered many practical suggestions for helping school leaders 

and other concerned parties to think about how they can best understand and 

ultimately reduce their risks related to natural hazards. The scope of this 

Guide was limited to guidance, tools, and funding mechanisms that are 

currently available, but it is clear that what is available is not enough to 

mitigate all school facilities in the nation in the near term. Accordingly, 

more research, funding, resources, and tools are needed to continue making 

our nation’s schools safer. 

The sections below identify some challenges and opportunities that were 

identified during the process of developing this Guide. 

7.1 Identified Challenges 

During the development of this report, the project team conducted a literature 

search of over 250 documents in an effort to share the latest available 

information and thinking with the reader. The process and findings from this 

study are documented in a companion document to this Guide; it is 

envisioned that the companion document will be published in late 2017. The 

literature search was conducted based on the three pillars defined in the 

Comprehensive School Safety Framework shown in Figure 7-1. Challenges 

were identified for each of the pillars: Safe Learning Facilities, School 

Disaster Management, and Risk Reduction and Resilience Education. The 

following same challenges were in common for all three topic areas: 

	 Budgetary constraints for building and maintaining disaster-resistant 

school facilities; 

	 Lack of coordination and cooperation between different stakeholder 

groups; 

	 Lack of stakeholder/decision-maker buy-in, involvement; 

FEMA P-1000	 7: Moving Forward 7-1 
 Lack of access to expertise/experts; 

 Lack of time; and 

 Resistance to change or intervention. 

Figure 7-1 The three pillars of the Comprehensive School Safety 

Framework. This is an example of a topic-based approach to 

categorize the many activities that contribute to reducing 

school risk (GADRRRES, 2017). 

Additional challenges that were raised during the development of the Guide

were: 

	 Private schools tend to fall through the cracks. Many successful 

regulations and code requirements are only applicable to public schools 

and some charter schools. Approximately 5.2 million students attend 

close to 34,000 private schools throughout the United States (NCES, 

2016). They make up over 10% of the student population in the United 

States and the safety of their school buildings from natural hazards 

should also be addressed. 

	 There is a lack of inclusion of disaster mitigation education in the 

common core curriculum in the United States. In particular, the 

literature review found that there were approximately 80% less resources 

in the United States when compared to international resources that 

7-2 7: Moving Forward FEMA P-1000 
address the Risk Reduction and Resilience Education pillar. As a 

comparison, 73% of the resources found under the Safe Learning 

Facilities pillar came from the United States. It was about evenly split 

for the School Disaster Management pillar. Because school curriculum 

is outside the context of this Guide, it was not addressed; however, 

parties that are interested and can have an impact over this topic should 

consider addressing this gap. 

	 Low community awareness of the possibilities of reducing risk through 

mitigation and planning is also an issue that was raised. As was 

mentioned throughout this Guide, many parents incorrectly assume that 

school buildings are safe from natural hazards. In cases where school 

leaders are aware of the potential risks they face, many feel powerless 

and that there is not much they can do to address these risks. 

	 Existing school buildings are often designated as emergency shelters 

without proper assessment of whether the buildings were adequately 

designed to resist natural hazard events and if they will be in adequate 

condition to shelter people during or after an emergency. 

	 Another big challenge is the changing U.S. education demographics and 

the implications of those changes for comprehensive safety strategies. 

Student populations are changing rapidly, and already more diverse (in 

every possible way) and lower-income than the U.S. population as a 

whole (Southern Education Foundation, 2015). This presents challenges 

for emergency plans and recovery (e.g., multiple languages, different 

family circumstances) and additionally, schools that have the riskiest 

school buildings and are in the riskiest areas are often the poorest schools 

with the least resources. Figure 7-2 illustrates the percentage of low 

income students in U.S. public schools per state. 

7.2 Potential Opportunities 

This Guide attempted to address some of these challenges described in 

Section 7.1 by providing guidance, resources, and examples illustrating how 

some communities have overcome similar challenges. Other potential 

opportunities to address these challenges are described as follows. 

As the world becomes more connected, the disasters that strike one 

community in an isolated location are heard about in other parts of the world. 

Accordingly, there is a growing awareness of the impact natural hazards can 

have on schools and communities. Newly available tools and technology, 

such as social media and interactive online programs, are a strong driver of 

FEMA P-1000	 7: Moving Forward 7-3 
Figure 7-2 Map indicating the percentage of low income students in U.S. public schools (Southern 

Education Foundation, 2015). 

this awareness. This advantage should be utilized to raise awareness among 

stakeholders and the broader school community. This is particularly useful 

for involving different partners in addressing school safety. 

As science continues to improve, it also improves our understanding of our 

risks and ways to address them. Guidelines on the design and construction of 

tornado safe rooms and tsunami vertical evacuation structures are relatively 

new. More and more, building codes and regulations are requiring such 

refuges for new school buildings in communities at risk. 

Finally, although natural hazard events can be devastating, they can also 

provide windows of opportunity when there is raised awareness and higher 

likelihood of political and financial support to address school natural hazard 

risks. Many significant improvements in building codes and school safety 

regulations and requirements have occurred soon after a disaster strikes. In 

many cases, these improvements affect areas that were not even impacted by 

the disaster. 

7-4 7: Moving Forward FEMA P-1000 
Supplement E 

Earthquakes 

This supplement addresses existing and new schools located in earthquake 

zones in the United States and its territories. It provides guidance for 

existing buildings, including vulnerability assessment and mitigation 

(retrofit), and guidance for new schools that are in the planning stage. The 

guidance is based on field observations and research conducted on schools 

and other buildings that were affected by earthquakes worldwide. 

After reading this supplement, school administrators, school emergency 

managers, teachers, and other school leaders should be able to: 

	 Determine the level of seismicity in which their school is located; 

	 Understand key elements of seismic vulnerability assessments for 

existing schools and potential new school sites; 

	 Identify building design and mitigation options to achieve greater 

seismic resilience of school facilities, including potentially using the 

school as a postearthquake shelter; 

	 Create or update a school emergency operations plan addressing 

earthquakes; and 

	 Identify aspects that should be considered to facilitate school recovery 

following an earthquake. 

E.1 Overview of Earthquakes 

When the adjacent sides of pieces of the earth’s crust (tectonic plates) 

suddenly slide with respect to one another along fault lines, an earthquake is 

created and waves are sent out in all directions. These waves cause the 

ground at any one site to rapidly move back and forth (shake) and this 

shaking is the primary cause of damage. The intensity of shaking at a given 

site is dependent mainly on the magnitude of the event and the distance of 

the site from the fault mechanism. There are many kinds of fault 

mechanisms created by various orientations of the edges of tectonic plates, as 

well as stresses in the plates away from the edges. These variations, along 

with differences in the surfaces along the slip, affect the characteristics of 

shaking, making every earthquake unique. 

The United States Geological 

Survey (USGS) website (http:// 

earthquake.usgs.gov/ learn/) 

includes information on the 

causes and characteristics of 

earthquakes. 

FEMA P-1000	 E: Earthquakes E-1 
 

The ground shaking from earthquakes also causes landslides on unstable 

slopes and liquefaction (similar to quicksand) to occur in sandy soils that are 

saturated with water. Liquefaction under a building will cause large 

settlements and structural damage. If major motion occurs along a fault that 

is under water, great masses of water are set in motion causing large surface 

waves. When generated in the open ocean, these waves are known as a 

tsunami. When on lakes or partially enclosed bodies of water, they are 

known as seiches. See the Tsunami Supplement for information concerning 

these hazards. 

E.1.1 Earthquake Impacts on Schools 

The occupants of schools in the United States have been very lucky with 

respect to the risks from earthquakes. Since the great San Francisco 

earthquake of 1906, there have been 24 earthquakes in the United States that 

have been large enough, and near enough to population centers, to cause 

damage. Although building collapse and other life-threatening damage in 

schools occurred in many of these events, only three of these earthquakes 

occurred during school hours as shown in Table E-1, resulting in very few 

casualties. Although the records are inconsistent, two students have 

apparently been killed in earthquakes in the United States since such records 

have been kept, both in the 1949 Olympia, Washington earthquake from 

falling masonry (see Figure E-1). 

Gable walls—the triangular 

portion of walls under sloping 

roofs (which is seen missing at 

the top of Figure E-1)—are 

particularly susceptible to falling 

outward in earthquakes and are 

particularly dangerous if they are 

of heavy materials. In the case 

shown in Figure E-1, the gable 

was over an exit and the falling 

bricks (unreinforced masonry) 

killed a student. 

Figure E-1 Site of a student fatality in the 1949 Olympia 

earthquake in Washington (NISEE, 1949). 

E-2 E: Earthquakes FEMA P-1000 
 

Table E-1 Times of Damaging Earthquakes in the United States Since 1906 

Year Event Magnitude Time 

1906 San Francisco, California 7.8 5:12 am, Wednesday, April 18 

1925 Santa Barbara, California 6.8 6:42 am, Monday, June 29 

1933 Long Beach, California 6.4 5:54 pm, Friday, March 10 

1935 Helena, Montana 6.2 9:48 pm, Monday, October 18 

1940 Imperial Valley, California 7.0 8:36 pm, Saturday, May 18 

1949 Olympia, Washington 7.1 11:55 am, Wednesday, April 13 

1952 Kern County, California 7.3 4:52 am, Monday, July 21 

1963 Coalinga, California 6.4 4:42 pm, Monday, May 2 

1964 Anchorage, Alaska 9.2 5:39 pm, Friday, March 27 

1971 San Fernando, California 6.6 6:01 am, Tuesday, February 9 

1980 Mammoth Lakes, California 6.2 9:33 am, Sunday, May 25 

1983 Borah Peak, Idaho 6.9 6:06 am, Friday, October 28 

1987 Whittier Narrows, California 5.9 7:42 am, Thursday, October 1 

1989 Loma Prieta, California 6.9 5:04 pm, Tuesday, October 17 

1992 Petrolia, California 7.2 11:06 am, Saturday, April 25 

1992 Landers, California 7.3 4:57 am, Sunday, June 28 

1994 Northridge, California 6.7 4:30 am, Monday, January 17 

2001 Nisqually, Washington 6.8 10:54 am, Wednesday, February 28 

2002 Denali, Alaska 7.9 1:12 pm, Sunday, November 3 

2003 San Simeon, California 6.5 11:15 am, Sunday, December 22 

2010 Eureka, California 5.7 4:27 pm, Saturday, January 9 

2010 El Mayor Cucapa (Baja), California* 7.2 3:40 pm, Sunday, April 4 

2011 Mineral, Virginia 5.8 1:51 pm, Tuesday, August 23 

2014 South Napa, California 6.0 3:40 am, Monday, August 24 

Note: Shaded rows represent earthquakes that occurred during school hours.
 

*While the epicenter of this earthquake was directly across the California border in Mexico, earthquake shaking 

impacted schools in Calexico, California.
 

Additionally, life-threatening damage and collapse of overhead items such as 

ceilings, light fixtures, and mechanical equipment has occurred in the 

majority of these events (see Figure E-2). These types of items are known as 

Nonstructural components refer nonstructural components. to components in buildings that 

In addition to the risk of injury or death, earthquake damage often causes are not part of the structural 

frames and walls. These include temporary closure of buildings and sometimes requires replacement. After architectural, mechanical, the relatively modest Mineral, Virginia earthquake in August 2011, damage electrical, and plumbing systems, resulted in the closure of Thomas Jefferson Elementary and Louisa County such as furniture, fixtures, 

High School. Although both were eventually replaced, the schools were not equipment, and other contents. 

FEMA P-1000 E: Earthquakes E-3 
In 2017, FEMA ranked Puerto 

Rico, Alaska, California, Hawaii, 

Oregon, Washington, Utah, 

Nevada, South Carolina, and 

Tennessee as the top ten 

states/territories with the highest 

ratio of annualized earthquake 

loss to replacement value in their 

respective regions (FEMA, 

2017b).
 

Figure E-2 Examples of nonstructural damage. (Photo sources: (a) Baja Earthquake Reconnaissance Team, 

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; (b) Gary McGavin, FEMA (2010a); (c) Russell Green, 

Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association) 

available for several years. Repair or replacement of school buildings can 

take away a valuable community resource for long periods of time, and 

disrupt the lives of children and their families. 

E.2 Is Your School in an Earthquake-Prone Region? 

Risk from natural hazards is a combination of the severity of the hazard (e.g., 

location and intensity of an earthquake) and the vulnerability of the asset or 

institution under consideration (e.g., vulnerability of a school building). For 

earthquakes, the risk can be primarily mitigated by reducing the vulnerability 

(e.g., facilities designed or retrofitted for earthquakes) and also by thorough 

emergency planning. Effective mitigation depends on an understanding of 

vulnerabilities and their consequences.
	

E-4 E: Earthquakes FEMA P-1000 
E.2.1 Determining the Severity of the Hazard 

A relative seismic hazard map of the United States by counties is shown in 

Figure E-3. The map was developed in 2014 for FEMA P-154, Rapid Visual 

Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook (FEMA, 

2015b). It is based on work by the USGS to develop maps that are part of 

building code design procedures. These maps currently do not reflect recent 

increases in seismicity due to fracking or wastewater pumping (“induced 

earthquakes”). Current consensus of earthquake professionals is that such 

seismicity should not be included in seismic building codes because: (1) 

these earthquakes have been generally below the intensity level considered 

damaging by building codes; and (2) the seismicity will change location in 

accordance with pumping practices. Local jurisdictions should decide if 

building code provisions should change due to these local effects. Similarly, 

schools affected by seismicity considered temporary can also take 

precautions by including seismic issues in their disaster planning (see Section 

E.4) and mitigating obvious falling hazards (see Section E.3.3.3). 

Locations designated to be in high or very high seismicity regions in Figure 

E-3 are at high risk of experiencing a damaging earthquake. Thorough plans 

should be developed by schools in these regions to understand potential 

consequences of earthquakes and to plan for them as a high priority. Areas 

in low regions of seismicity should set their priorities at preparing for other 

hazards before spending a lot of resources preparing for a damaging seismic 

event. The areas in moderate and moderately high regions of seismicity are 

only at moderate risk, but building types that have a high collapse risk (see 

Section E.3.1) should be identified for potential mitigation and obvious 

nonstructural risks, such a cabinets and bookcases (see Section E.3.3) should 

be anchored. 

The USGS website includes an application that determines specific seismic 

parameters applicable for any given site defined either by coordinates or an 

address. These parameters can then be used to set the applicable region of 

seismicity for the site. The Earthquake Appendix provides instructions on 

the use of this application and interpretation of the results. 

There are several USGS papers on 

induced seismicity, including 

2016 One-Year Seismic Hazard 

Forecast for the Central and 

Eastern United States from 

Induced and Natural Earthquakes 

(Petersen et al., 2016), and 

Myths and Facts on Wastewater 

Injection, Hydraulic Fracturing, 

Enhanced Oil Recovery, and 

Induced Seismicity (Rubinstein 

and Mahani, 2015). 

FEMA P-1000 E: Earthquakes E-5 
Figure E-3 Relative seismic hazard map of the United States (FEMA, 2015b). 

E-6 E: Earthquakes FEMA P-1000 
Earthquakes Do Not Just Affect the West Coast 

The Mineral Virginia earthquake was a 5.8-magnitude event that struck on August 23, 2011, at 1:51 pm 

local time. The event epicenter was 38 miles northwest of Richmond and 5 miles south-southwest of the 

town of Mineral. Several aftershocks as large as 4.5-magnitude occurred in the following weeks, 

although the number of aftershocks was roughly a tenth of what one would expect in a West Coast event. 

This was the largest earthquake to strike east of the Rocky Mountains since 1944 and the largest 

earthquake in Virginia since 1897. It was felt from Alabama to Canada and as far west as Chicago; it was 

the most widely-felt earthquake in U.S. history. There were reports of significant damage to buildings 

near the epicenter and damage was documented in northern Virginia, southern Maryland, Washington, 

D.C., and as far away as New York City. 

In Virginia, the Louisa County High School and an older elementary school were extensively damaged. 

Both buildings were older facilities that had been constructed prior to modern building codes. Classes had 

started that week and were in session when the earthquake struck. Fortunately, there were only minor 

injuries. However, damage to the two buildings was extensive and included significant cracking of 

unreinforced or marginally reinforced concrete block masonry walls. Nonstructural damage included 

collapsed ceilings and light fixtures and fallen shelves and cabinets, some of which blocked classroom 

exits. Damage was significant enough that officials quickly determined that the schools could not be 

reoccupied for the rest of the school year. 

Next door, a middle school built in the early 2000s to a newer building code suffered only minor 

nonstructural damage and was able to resume classes the following week. Louisa County used that 

building in split shifts to hold many high school classes and the remainder were conducted in temporary 

modular classrooms, which were quickly brought onsite. The earthquake was eventually declared a 

federal disaster and the two damaged school buildings were demolished and replaced with new buildings 

using a combination of federal disaster funds and earthquake insurance, which the county had in place 

along with their normal coverage. 

This event serves as a reminder that earthquakes can occur in many different parts of the U.S., even in 

areas designated as moderate or even low earthquake hazard. It is also a reminder that moderate 

earthquakes can cause significant damage to schools that are not designed for earthquake shaking. 

E.2.2 Determining Your School’s Vulnerability 

Thorough emergency planning depends on an understanding of likely 

earthquake shaking levels, and expected damage to the site and facilities. 

Vulnerability depends on potential earthquake damage to: (1) school sites 

(from fault rupture, earthquake induced liquefaction, landslides, or poor 

access); (2) the school structure (structural walls, beams, columns, and 

foundations); and (3) nonstructural systems and contents of the school (for 

example, the nonstructural enclosure material on the building, interior 

partition walls, ceilings, lights, mechanical equipment, and bookcases). 

FEMA P-1000 E: Earthquakes E-7 
 

Geotechnical engineers specialize 

in studying subsurface conditions 

at site, including conditions for 

building foundations and site 

hazards such as liquefaction and 

landslides. 

Life Safety is an engineering term 

used to describe a level of design. 

The main goal behind life safety 

is to prevent fatalities and serious 

injuries in a building due to 

failure or collapse of structural 

elements, such as columns and 

beams. 

Likely damage scenarios can best be determined by professionals after 

analysis of the site and facilities, but a general overview is given in the next 

section. 

E.3 Making Buildings Safer 

E.3.1 Existing School Buildings 

In most cases, people interested in reducing the risk from natural hazards will 

be considering the safety of an existing school facility. Schools typically 

comprise more than one building, often built at different times. The 

earthquake vulnerability of school facilities should be assessed one building 

at a time. Potential vulnerabilities include issues with the site, issues with the 

structure of the building, which could lead to severe damage or even 

collapse, and issues with the nonstructural components and contents of the 

building, which can create falling hazards and internal disruption. 

E.3.1.1 School Building Site 

Although the vulnerabilities of the buildings are usually most critical, site 

issues should also be considered. Geotechnical investigations, done when 

the buildings were constructed, may be available, but may take professional 

interpretation. The local building or planning departments may also have 

maps that show local areas with a risk of fault rupture, landslide, or 

liquefaction at the site. 

E.3.1.2 Vulnerable Building Types 

Older Codes or Pre-Code Buildings. Buildings built in accordance with 

the current building code, including the seismic provisions, should provide 

adequate life safety from partial or complete collapse even in a very large 

earthquake (although that is not always assured, see Section E.3.2.2). 

However, the code has changed and improved over the last 50 years, so older 

buildings may not provide the same level of safety. In many parts of the 

United States, buildings built before 1990 may not have been designed with 

any seismic provisions. In general, buildings built in accordance with the 

1976 Uniform Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials, 

1976) or the 2000 International Building Code (or later; ICC, 2000) should 

not have high vulnerability. Many school buildings have been built under 

very old building codes, or before any codes with seismic design 

requirements were in force. These buildings are typically more vulnerable 

than buildings built to modern building codes, and in some cases, pose a risk 

of collapse. 

E-8 E: Earthquakes FEMA P-1000 
 

 

The facility manager of the school district or the local building department 

should be able to find what code was applicable when a particular school was 

built. To get a more refined evaluation of the probable earthquake 

performance of schools designed to various building codes, a structural 

engineer should be consulted. The Earthquake Appendix also has additional 

information about different building codes and their adequacy. 

Vulnerabilities by Structural Type. Many older school buildings are built 

with a structural system called unreinforced masonry bearing walls, often 

abbreviated URM. This system uses brick walls, usually two or three bricks 

thick, with wood joists resting on the brick, forming the floors and roof. 

Some URMs use concrete floors instead of wood. The brick walls are heavy 

and brittle and not adequately tied to the floors and roof. URM buildings 

(that have not been seismically retrofitted) are almost always the first 

building type damaged in earthquakes. Chimneys, gable walls (see Figure 

E-1), and parapets (the low, barrier walls that extend at the edge of roofs) can 

collapse at low shaking levels, and with continued shaking, entire walls can 

collapse and sometimes the floors and roof. The severe damage in the 1933 

Long Beach earthquake, which led to a strong statewide school safety law in 

California, was mostly in URM schools (see Figure E-4). As previously 

noted, the only fatalities to school occupants in the United States since 1925 

were from the collapse of URM walls. 

It should be noted, however, that not all buildings with brick exteriors are 

URMs. For example, some more recent brick masonry buildings have steel 

reinforcing bars inside the wall. Other “brick-looking” buildings are only 

brick veneer, where one layer of brick (or even one-half of a brick) is 

attached to a backing wall of other material. 

If it is suspected that a school is of URM construction, it is recommended 

that the exact construction type be confirmed by the facility manager, the 

local building department, or a structural engineer. For more information on 

URM construction, see FEMA P-774, Unreinforced Masonry Buildings and 

Earthquakes (FEMA, 2009c). 

Another construction type that has proven to be susceptible to earthquake 

shaking is reinforced concrete built prior to seismic codes or according to 

very old codes (see Figure E-5). However, the vulnerability of this structural 

type is very dependent on the exact configuration and details of construction. 

Precast concrete construction, for which pieces of the structure (e.g., walls, 

columns, beams) are cast separately, either on the site or in a factory, and 

then connected together to form the building structure, is particularly 

“Schools shall be URM Free by 

2033”—this policy statement 

released in 2016 by the 

Earthquake Engineering Research 

Institute highlights the needed 

actions to keep students safe 

from collapse-prone URM school 

buildings. More details can be 

found here: www.eeri.org 

/advocacy-and-public-policy 

/schools-shall-be-urm-free-by 

-2033/ 

FEMA P-1000 E: Earthquakes E-9 
Turning Disasters into Opportunities for Change 

The 1933 Long Beach earthquake in southern California was a dramatic wake-up call. The magnitude-6.3 

earthquake occurred at 5:54 p.m. on a Friday in March, just a couple of hours after children had been 

released from school. The scenes were shocking—hundreds of school buildings completely collapsed or 

were severely damaged, most which were of unreinforced masonry as shown in Figure E-4. Had the 

earthquake occurred a couple of hours earlier, thousands of students would have perished. 

Fortunately, this close call resulted in action. One month after the earthquake, the California legislature 

passed the Field Act, which prohibited the construction of new unreinforced masonry buildings and 

essentially gave the State of California control over public school building design and construction 

inspection requirements. Since first enacted, the Field Act has had various amendments to improve its 

effectiveness and to address vulnerable existing public school buildings to date. 

Figure E-4 Collapse of part of Jefferson High School in the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. 

(Photo source: Portland Cement Association) 

The law has proven very effective in improving school earthquake safety in California (CSSC, 2009). 

However, state-of-the art of earthquake design has improved significantly since 1933 resulting in 

comparable changes to the building code and some building types built in certain periods of time are not 

currently deemed adequately safe. For example, some concrete buildings built before the mid-1970s are 

now considered dangerous, as discussed in Section E.3.1.2. 

susceptible to damage. If it is suspected that a school is built of reinforced 

concrete and was built before 1980, a structural engineer should be consulted 

to more accurately identify the vulnerabilities. 

Other construction materials, such as structural steel, reinforced masonry, or 

wood framing, are generally considered less vulnerable, but building 

performance in a real earthquake will be dependent on configuration and 

details. 

E-10 E: Earthquakes FEMA P-1000 
 

 

Figure E-5 Collapse of a portion of a concrete school in the Helena, Montana 

earthquake of 1935 (NISEE, 1935). 

E.3.1.3 Risk Reduction Measures 

Risk reduction measures related to earthquake are often perceived as 

expensive and daunting projects. But the most effective and inexpensive 

initial risk reduction measure is to get a preliminary evaluation of the 

potential damage to the structural and nonstructural systems in a school so 

that appropriate planning for emergency earthquake response can be 

completed. Such a preliminary evaluation will also allow identification of 

priority and cost-effective measures to reduce the physical risks. Such a list 

of incremental improvements can result in steady risk reduction over time. 

This section covers risk reduction measures specific to the building structure. 

Section E.3.3 covers nonstructural risk reduction measures. 

Seismic Evaluation. For emergency planning and for understanding and 

planning for physical risk reduction, it is imperative that the structural type 

and probable earthquake performance of school buildings be understood. 

As previously discussed, by far the most dangerous structure type under 

earthquake shaking is the unreinforced masonry bearing wall building 

(URM). It is imperative that school districts, staff, and parents understand 

the risks from these buildings in moderate and high seismic zones and begin 

the process of risk reduction. 

Other than determining the type of construction, the next level of seismic 

evaluation is a methodology developed by FEMA called Rapid Visual 

Screening, described in FEMA P-154. This method is intended to quickly 

In 2007, the State of Oregon 

screened nearly all K-12 schools 

and community colleges in the 

state according to FEMA P-154 

(www. oregongeology.org/sub 

/projects/rvs/default.htm). 

FEMA P-1000	 E: Earthquakes E-11 
screen multiple buildings and rank them with respect to their relative risk. 

This method is intended to be used by personnel familiar with building 

construction and with special training in use of FEMA P-154. Such training 

is available from FEMA. These evaluations only take a few hours per 

building. The speed and efficiency is achieved at the expense of reliability, 

but the method is highly recommended as a first step in systematic 

evaluation. 

Improvements in School Earthquake Safety: Examples from a City, a State, and a Province 

The City of Berkeley, California recognized the potential vulnerability of older school buildings after the 

1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and funded structural evaluations of several schools. Following a significant 

community effort, funds were raised, partly from the state and partly from local taxes, to either replace or 

seismically retrofit schools deemed as high risk. 

Recently, the State of Oregon has adopted state policy on seismic safety in schools, including funding to 

start a risk mitigation program. In particular, state legislators approved $175 million in state funding for 

school earthquake retrofit projects in 2015-2017. 

The province of British Columbia, Canada is also conducting a large program ($1.7 billion) to improve 

seismic safety of schools—all started by citizen action. 

These highlight good examples of addressing school earthquake safety; however, many states and regions in 

high risk seismic zones have done little to either understand their risk or reduce it. 

A more detailed evaluation can be done by structural engineers according to 

a national standard for seismic evaluation, ASCE/SEI 41, Seismic Evaluation 

and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE, 2014b). There are several 

different techniques for seismic evaluation in ASCE/SEI 41, with the level of 

effort ranging from three to four days to multiple weeks or even months. 

These methods will yield a much more detailed understanding of potential 

seismic performance, including identification of the specific structural 

deficiencies that could be strengthened. 

Retrofit or Replacement. If seismic deficiencies are found in school 

buildings, particularly those that can be life threatening, studies should define 

at least preliminary fixes and approximate costs. Cost of seismic retrofits 

will vary a great deal due to differences in construction type and number and 

extent of deficiencies. When the estimated cost to retrofit reaches 50%-60% 

of replacement costs for the building, replacement will often be chosen. 

Besides the cost of retrofit, it must also be considered that the use of the 

building will be severely disrupted during construction and when completed, 

E-12 E: Earthquakes FEMA P-1000 
 

the building is still “old” in planning, appearance, energy efficiency, and 

access. 

These issues may cause consideration of risk reduction by retrofit of only the 

most severe and dangerous deficiencies. For example, in URM buildings, 

parapets, chimneys, and gables could be braced to prevent their collapse and 

protection could be provided from falling objects at points of egress. 

Partial or Incremental Retrofit. Due to the cost and disruption of complete 

structural seismic retrofit, partial retrofit is sometimes considered. 

Deficiencies to be mitigated using partial retrofit have to be carefully 

selected to be critical, or “first-to-fail.” The concept is that for small to 

moderate earthquake shaking, the retrofit would prevent failure of the 

element and no other significant failures would occur. However, in stronger 

earthquake shaking, other significant failures could occur first, rendering the 

retrofit useless. For example, in URM buildings, parapets and appendages 

have been observed as the first to fail, and some communities have required 

parapets to be braced to achieve added street safety for small to moderate 

events. It has to be remembered, however, that for stronger earthquake 

shaking, failures from other deficiencies may occur; in the URM case, entire 

exterior walls may collapse and in some cases the floors and roof, as well. 

Incremental seismic strengthening is similar to partial seismic strengthening 

except each increment is carefully planned to reduce risk and eventually lead 

to a complete retrofit. With careful planning, some increments can be 

defined and executed almost independently of others and be performed at 

time convenient to the occupants. For example, work at or around the roof 

can be performed at the time of normal roof replacement. Other work can be 

performed in rooms or areas of a building under remodeling or updating. 

The incremental concept requires detailed pre-planning and is most effective 

with stable facility management staffs, which is common in most schools. 

Incremental seismic strengthening of schools has been extensively described 

in FEMA 395, Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation of School Buildings 

(K-12) (FEMA, 2003). 

Strengthening of one room or area of a school to serve as a “safe room” is 

not recommended because evacuation to that area during shaking is more 

dangerous than the “Drop, Cover, and Hold On” protocol described in 

Section E.4.1.1. Early warning systems that would provide adequate time for 

such evacuation are not fully developed and the early warning time will be 

too short for safe evacuation on most sites. 

FEMA P-1000 E: Earthquakes E-13 
 

E.3.2 New School Buildings 

E.3.2.1 Site Selection 

All potential natural hazards should be identified and considered when 

selecting a site for a new school. Particularly for earthquake risk, sites on top 

of existing fault lines, on or below landslides, and on liquefiable soils should 

be avoided, if possible. Access and egress after an event should also be 

considered. The “softness” (loose soil or sand) or the “hardness” (firm soil 

or rock) of the site also has an effect on the earthquake shaking at that site, 

but these variations would seldom disqualify a site. Sites on a steep hillside 

may present landslide potential. A site study by an engineering professional 

specializing in soils and foundations (i.e., a geotechnical engineer) should be 

performed on any site being considered for a school. Sometimes, 

preliminary geotechnical reports become available as part of due-diligence 

studies for site purchase or selection. Often, alternate sites are not available, 

but once potential site hazards are identified, they can often be mitigated in 

the design and construction. 

E.3.2.2 Building Codes and Expected Performance 

Building Code Requirements. In the vast majority of communities in the 

United States today, new buildings are required to be designed and 

constructed according to the local buildings code, most often the 

International Building Code (ICC, 2014b). That code includes 

comprehensive provisions for earthquake shaking that specifies, among other 

things, the horizontal (lateral) strength of the building. Horizontal strength is 

important in earthquakes because the ground shaking induces horizontal 

loads on structures. For schools, three different levels of strength are 

described. For small occupancy (known as Risk Category II in the code), 

schools are required to be designed for the same earthquake loads as 

“normal” buildings. For more typical school buildings with an occupant load 

greater than 250 (known as Risk Category III), the required seismic loading 

is 25% higher than typical, intended to create a building with improved 

seismic performance, essentially, “safer.” For schools designated as a shelter 

by the local community emergency authorities (known as Risk Category IV), 

the required seismic loading is 50% is higher than typical, intended to greatly 

increase the chances of the building being available as a shelter after an 

earthquake. 

Expected Performance of Code-Compliant Buildings. The building code 

is basically intended to minimize the risk of death and serious injury, so Risk 

Category II buildings are expected to experience damage, but to protect life. 

In a major event, such buildings may not be useable or even economically 

E-14 E: Earthquakes FEMA P-1000 
repairable. In rare circumstances, an occupant or passerby might be injured 

by falling debris. For buildings in Risk Category III, being slightly stronger 

and better tied together, the risk to life safety is considered smaller, but the 

intent is not to assure the building is useable. For buildings designated as 

shelters, the obvious intent is to make them useable after most events, 

although there are not sufficient earthquake response data available to know 

if this can be guaranteed. 

E.3.2.3 Schools as Shelters 

Due to their locations throughout the community and availability of large 

spaces in gymnasiums and auditoriums, schools are often considered as ideal 

emergency shelters. However, for earthquake, most schools have not been 

constructed as a “designated” shelter according to the building code and 

therefore may not have adequate performance to serve as a shelter. When 

new school buildings are built, the district should coordinate with local 

emergency authorities to determine if the school is intended to serve as a 

shelter after an earthquake. If so, it should be classified as a Risk Category 

IV building, requiring stronger seismic design. However, shelter design goes 

far beyond a stronger structure, and may also require emergency generators, 

storage rooms for supplies, and other features desired by the local emergency 

services agency. Such provisions in schools will also significantly improve 

performance and minimize school closures due to damage (SEFT Consulting 

Group, 2015). 

E.3.3 Nonstructural Systems and Contents 

E.3.3.1 Building Code Provisions 

Building code provisions to secure nonstructural items associated with the 

building itself, like partitions, ceilings, light fixtures, and mechanical 

equipment, have been in place for decades, particularly in high seismic 

zones. However, the physical installation of these items is normally 

controlled by the contractor and seismic protection features are often 

incorrect or incomplete. The contents of buildings, installed by the owner, 

such as furniture, storage shelves, and library stacks, are not controlled by the 

building code at all, and are typically just placed on the floor with no seismic 

anchors. 

E.3.3.2 Vulnerabilities of Nonstructural Components 

Considering the realities of installation as discussed above, it is no surprise 

that storage and bookshelves overturn and ceilings and light fixtures fall in 

schools in almost every earthquake. Many earthquake damage 

FEMA P-1000 E: Earthquakes E-15 
 

 

Schools as Leaders in Community Resilience 

Oregon faces a difficult challenge—it has a looming earthquake risk from the Cascadia Subduction Zone 

that was not identified as a risk until the mid-1980s. This means that most of the buildings, including 

schools, were not designed to properly resist the expected earthquake shaking. 

In response to this, leaders and communities throughout Oregon have started to address their risk in 

various ways. The Beaverton School District is an excellent example of this. Following the 2014 

approval of a major bond to help reduce school overcrowding and modernize schools, the Beaverton 

School District took this opportunity to design and construct seven new school buildings to a higher 

seismic standard than the code requires and that could also support their surrounding communities as 

emergency shelters. These leaders recognized that schools will have an important role in the response and 

recovery following an earthquake. As part of this effort, the Beaverton School District convened a 

workshop and subsequent meetings with various stakeholders to help inform these efforts. Figure E-6 

illustrates a first floor plan of the high school. A report summarizing the resilience effort for the schools 

and community can be accessed here: www.beaverton.k12.or.us/depts/facilities/Documents/150710 

_Beaverton%20School%20Report.pdf. (SEFT Consulting Group, 2015) 

Figure E-6 High school first floor plan indicating the identified potential spaces for shelter sleeping 

and other important planning considerations for shelter operations (SEFT Consulting 

Group, 2015). 

E-16 E: Earthquakes FEMA P-1000 
 

 

reconnaissance reports include observations that occupants of schools would 

likely have been injured if the event took place during school hours. Light 

fixtures are particularly prone to collapse and many such fixtures are 

sufficiently heavy to cause injury, as shown in Figure E-7. After the 1994 

Northridge earthquake, the Los Angeles Unified School District had to 

replace nearly 4,000 light fixtures in 420 schools (personal communication, 

LAUSD). This vulnerability is a good reason for the “Drop, Cover, and Hold 

On” instruction that is the standard earthquake response taught to school 

children. 

Figure E-7 Fallen light fixtures in a classroom after 

the Northridge earthquake. (Photo 

source: Earthquake Engineering 

Research Institute) 

Unanchored shelving also invariably overturns, but this mostly contributes to 

a chaotic atmosphere and potential blocked exits rather than direct injury. It 

should be noted that shelving, cabinets, and other furniture brought into the 

FEMA P-1000	 E: Earthquakes E-17 
 

FEMA’s Earthquake School Hazard 

Hunt Game and Poster is a great 

resource for school hazard hunts : 

https://www.fema.gov/media 

-library/assets/documents 

/90409 

school by the school staff are considered “contents” and these items (and 

their anchorage) are not covered by the building code. 

Damage can also occur to overhead piping and mechanical ducting and fixed 

equipment such as boilers and air conditioners that will be costly and timeconsuming to repair, possibly keeping the school closed for weeks. The 

costs may be covered by insurance or by certain FEMA programs, but 

documentation and records before and after the earthquake are critical as 

discussed in Section 5.1.2. It took twenty years for the Los Angeles Unified 

School District to “close the books” on damage from the Northridge 

earthquake even though no school was permanently closed by damage. 

E.3.3.3 Nonstructural Risk Reduction Measures 

Nonstructural seismic risk reduction measures can be separated into three 

categories: (1) very simple “do-it-yourself” activities; (2) handyman, or 

maintenance staff level activities; and (3) professional contractor level 

activities. Level 1 consists, for example, of moving furniture to clear egress 

routes or securing shelving to walls with small steel angles. Level 3, on the 

other hand, requires expertise in electrical or mechanical systems, roofing, or 

heavy construction (e.g., concrete work). A common exercise, both practical 

and educational, is to hold a “hazard hunt” in the classroom, particularly for 

Level 1 items. 

Many nonstructural elements that are susceptible to damage in schools, as 

well as potential retrofit measures for them are documented in the Guide and 

Checklist for Nonstructural Earthquake Hazards in California Schools 

(California Emergency Management Agency, 2011). Many of the items 

listed in that document are susceptible to damage, but are not necessarily life 

safety risks. It is important to understand the purpose of nonstructural 

retrofit and how they should be prioritized. 

Bookshelves, Furniture, and Egress Routes. Portable cabinets and 

shelving should not be installed in main access corridors or where they could 

tip over and block doorways. 

Wood or metal cabinets and shelving are often installed against a partition 

wall. Attaching them to the wall with light metal angles is simple and 

effective. Example details can be found in the Guide and Checklist for 

Nonstructural Earthquake Hazards in California Schools. 

As previously noted, these items are generally not covered by the building 

code and it is the responsibility of school staff to anchor the items when 

E-18 E: Earthquakes FEMA P-1000 
 

initially installed or moved. These anchoring procedures should be put into 

school’s operational plans. 

Ceilings, Lighting, and Mechanical Diffusers. As previously mentioned, 

light fixtures have often fallen in classrooms during earthquakes. Light 

fixtures suspended on rods or chains can swing and be damaged or simply 

pull out of the ceiling mounting box. The dangers of such failures can be 

mitigated by installing safety chains or wires securely attached to the fixture 

and the structure above. Many classrooms have lightweight suspended 

ceilings made up of metal support bars and panels (called “lay-in” or 

“panelized” ceilings), with light fixtures also embedded within the metal bar 

system. Often the heating/cooling system runs above these ceilings and air 

vents are also embedded in the ceiling system. These systems have also 

proven to be very vulnerable to earthquake shaking if not installed properly 

with earthquake bracing. These systems often come apart when shaken, 

allowing relatively heavy light fixtures or mechanical vents to fall into the 

classroom space. Securing fixtures and vents and bracing these kinds of 

ceilings often requires the services of specialty contractors. Appropriate 

measures to secure these ceiling systems can be found in be found in the 

Guide and Checklist for Nonstructural Earthquake Hazards in California 

Schools. 

Formal Evaluation and Systematic Retrofit. Other than the relatively 

obvious risks from shelving, cabinets, and overhead lights and ceilings, 

nonstructural seismic deficiencies that can result in costly damage and 

disruption must be identified with more comprehensive seismic evaluations. 

Although several documents include checklists that can be completed by 

staff (e.g., Guide and Checklist for Nonstructural Earthquake Hazards in 

California Schools), if occupancy immediately after an earthquake is 

desired—as for a designated shelter—a thorough evaluation, including 

proposed retrofits, is best prepared by an earthquake design professional. 

FEMA E-74, Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage 

(FEMA, 2012c) is a good resource for earthquake design professionals. 

E.4 Planning the Response 

The principles of developing school emergency management plans are well 

documented, particularly in the recently developed Guide for Developing 

High-Quality School Emergency Operations Plans (U.S. Department of 

Education, 2013). Earthquake-prone regions, in particular, require careful 

emergency planning as the range of impacts for a school or school district 

can be widespread. The size of the earthquake will affect both the severity of 

shaking (i.e., potential damage level) and the size of the shaken area (i.e., 

“Mitigation of Nonstructural 

Hazards in Schools”—this policy 

statement released in 2016 by 

the Earthquake Engineering 

Research Institute highlights the 

needed actions to keep students 

safe from nonstructural hazards 

in schools. More details can be 

found here: www.eeri.org 

/advocacy-and-public-policy 

/mitigation-of-nonstructural 

-hazards-in-schools/ 

FEMA P-1000 E: Earthquakes E-19 
 

 

 

number of buildings or schools damaged). The vulnerability of school 

buildings will also have a major impact on emergency plans; planning for 

earthquake impacts on unreinforced masonry buildings may be very different 

than for modern buildings complying with earthquake codes. It is therefore 

highly recommended that at least preliminary evaluations of school buildings 

be performed and realistic scenarios developed that will identify likely 

impacts for planning purposes. 

In addition to the general guidance on emergency operations planning 

provided in Chapter 4 of this Guide, unique conditions of the earthquake risk 

must be identified, such as: 

	 Can off-site earthquake damage to roads or structures diminish or 

eliminate site access? 

	 Is the site vulnerable to landslides or soil failure (e.g., liquefaction)? 

	 Are local emergency planners considering any of the schools as 

postearthquake shelter sites? 

	 Are there evacuation routes available from all areas of the buildings, free 

from potential overturned cabinets or shelving and safe from overhead 

falling hazards, particularly directly over exterior doors? 

	 Are postearthquake building safety inspections pre-arranged? Local 

structural engineers will be very busy and may not be immediately 

available after an earthquake without a prior arrangement. Are these 

inspections the responsibility of the individual school, the district, or the 

state? Are the buildings to be reoccupied without such inspections? 

	 Do emergency plans consider that the earthquake will likely not only 

damage the school facilities, but also much of the community? 

E.4.1 During the Earthquake 

Unlike many natural hazards, earthquakes strike without warning. Response 

must be immediate and automatic. 

E.4.1.1 Recommended Protective Actions 

Federal, state, and local emergency management experts all agree that “Drop, 

Cover, and Hold On” is the appropriate action to reduce injury and death 

during earthquake shaking in the United States. During earthquake drills, 

students and staff should practice the following steps: 

	 Drop down onto your hands and knees. This position protects you from 

falling down, but allows you to still move if necessary. 

E-20	 E: Earthquakes FEMA P-1000 
 

	 Cover your head and neck with both arms clasping your neck with your 

hands. If a desk or table is nearby, crawl beneath it while keeping one 

arm over your head. If there is no shelter nearby, only then should get 

down near an interior wall (preferably in an inside corner) or next to lowlying furniture that will not fall on you. 

	 Hold On to your shelter while protecting your head and neck until the 

shaking stops. Be prepared to move with your shelter if the shaking 

shifts it around. 

More details on the “Drop, Cover, and Hold On” recommendations, 

including for those with disabilities, and for situations other than a typical 

classroom, can be accessed on the Earthquake Country Alliance website 

(http://www.earthquakecountry.org/dropcoverholdon/). 

In addition to regular school drills, the nationwide Great ShakeOut 

Earthquake Drills are an annual opportunity for schools, along with their 

communities, to practice protective actions during earthquake shaking. More 

information on the program can be found at www.shakeout.org. 

E.4.1.2 Reactions to Avoid 

During earthquake shaking, certain actions could be particularly dangerous. 

The following provide guidance on reactions to avoid. 

	 Do not run and stand in a doorway. Doorways are not particularly strong 

and doors could slam during shaking and cause injury. 

	 Do not run into a different room to find a shelter. It is difficult to run or 

move during shaking and may cause a fall. Moving around also exposes 

one to falling objects. 

	 Do not run outside. Exits often have heavy objects falling from above. 

	 Do not seek a “triangle of life.” There is information circulating on the 

internet that students should be taught to lay next to a table or other solid 

object, rather than under it, as described by the “Drop, Cover, and Hold 

On” recommendation. Many organizations have rebutted this 

recommendation and the consensus is to teach the “Drop, Cover, and 

Hold On” response. (See also http://www.earthquakecountry.org 

/dropcoverholdon/.) 

E.4.2 Immediately Following Shaking 

Right after the shaking stops, an adult supervisor should check the egress 

path, both inside and out, for safety, and once safety is confirmed, students 

should be evacuated. Masonry falling hazards, such as parapets and gables 

FEMA P-1000	 E: Earthquakes E-21 
 

 

 

In general, the larger the 

mainshock, the larger and more 

numerous the aftershocks, and 

the longer they will continue. 

(see Figure E-1), are often located over external doors and a visual inspection 

should assure that no obvious falling hazards are in the path of travel. 

Similarly, the outside assembly location should be checked for fallen power 

lines or other risks, including inclement weather conditions. 

Seriously injured persons should not be moved unless there are signs of 

immediate danger, such as fire or the smell of gas. Instead, they should be 

covered with a sturdy table and send someone for medical help after the 

shaking stops. They should not be left alone, unless it is completely unsafe 

to have someone remain with the injured. 

Once in the pre-selected assembly location, the pre-established post-disaster 

plan should be followed. The plan should consider the following: 

	 Aftershocks—earthquakes that follow the largest shock of an earthquake 

sequence—can occur for some time after the main earthquake. They can 

continue for a period of weeks, months, or even years. Students, 

teachers, and staff should stay away from buildings until they have been 

determined to be safe. This determination may have to be made by a 

professional engineer. 

	 Damage may have occurred over a large area, affecting emergency 

responders, parents, and the entire local school administrative structure. 

Damaged infrastructure and other conditions, such as roads blocked by 

rubble and debris, may impede immediate response and communication. 

It is critical to consider this in pre-arranged incident command structures 

and communications procedures. 

	 Access to the school may have been compromised. This condition 

should be included in contingency plans. 

E.5 Planning the Recovery 

After a strong earthquake, an engineer or building professional should assess 

the school facility, generally characterize damage or dangerous conditions, 

and determine if the facility is safe to re-enter and reoccupy. ATC-20-1, 

Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings (ATC, 2005), 

or similar documents and protocols will be useful. School districts may wish 

to have engineers under contract in advance so safety evaluations can be 

done quickly. It is important to note that safety evaluations are not the same 

as a property damage evaluation. 

Once it is safe to access the school, there are two priorities: (1) documenting 

immediate postearthquake facility condition and damage (photos, videos, and 

field notes should be made); and (2) cleaning of the facility. Documentation 

E-22	 E: Earthquakes FEMA P-1000 
 

 

 

 

 

will be needed for insurance and possible disaster assistance. Chapter 5 

provides more detailed information on this topic. In some cases, schools will 

not be available for use for an extended period of time. This may be due to 

damage to access routes or to damage to the school building itself. This 

possibility should be included in contingency plans. 

Most communities are unaware of the importance of schools in the 

community and their direct relationship to community disaster resilience. 

The school district should interact with community planners to maximize the 

effectiveness of joint recovery efforts. This is particularly true for 

earthquakes because they can damage and impact a large area, including 

much of the community, as well as many schools. The recovery and 

availability of schools is important to encourage return of the general 

population and re-establishment of normal activities. The importance of 

schools to community disaster resilience becomes particularly crucial when 

schools are intended to serve as emergency shelters following an earthquake. 

General advice and considerations for getting school back in session 

following a disaster is covered in Chapter 5. 

E.6 Recommended Resources 

Full citations of all references used to develop this supplement are listed in 

the References section in this Guide. The following is a list of recommended 

resources that might be useful for school leaders that are addressing school 

earthquake risk. In some cases, a document is both in the References section 

and listed here as a recommended resource. 

Beaverton School District Resilience Planning. The report for the Beaverton 

School District from SEFT Consulting Group (2015) summarizes planning 

activities that were conducted to develop resilient design features design of 

two schools. These activities included the input of various stakeholder 

groups and design teams. https://www.beaverton.k12.or.us/depts/facilities 

/Documents/150710_Beaverton%20School%20Report.pdf 

Case Studies of Seismic Nonstructural Retrofitting in School Facilities 

(Educational Facilities Research Center, 2005). Item by item list of 

nonstructural issues in school buildings with corresponding diagrams and 

instructions on retrofitting these items for improved safety. http://toolkit 

.ineesite.org/resources/ineecms/uploads/1055/Case_Studies_Seismic 

_Nonstructural_Retrofit.pdf 

Classroom Education and Outreach Subcommittee. This subcommittee of 

the School Earthquake Safety Initiative (SESI) under the Earthquake 

Engineering Research Institute (EERI) has developed educational training 

FEMA P-1000 E: Earthquakes E-23 
 

 

 

 

videos and design lessons for elementary schools with the purpose of 

promoting an ongoing dialog with parents, teachers, and administrators to 

develop advocates for earthquake school safety. To view available materials 

and videos, visit: https://www.eeri.org/projects/schools/subcommittees 

/#education. 

Documentation for the 2014 Update of the United States National Seismic 

Hazard Maps (Petersen et al., 2014). Not specific to schools, but details the 

current state of hazard risk to areas of the country, identifying regions most 

at risk of earthquake. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2014/1091/ 

Earthquakes and Schools (National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 

2008a). A concise eight-page primer containing checklists that cover 

identification of vulnerabilities and appropriate emergency planning. http:// 

www.ncef.org/content/earthquakes-and-schools 

FEMA P-154, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic 

Hazards: A Handbook (FEMA, 2015b). This document presents a method of 

rapidly screening a group of buildings to determine their relative seismic 

risk. It is intended for use by personnel familiar with building construction, 

but not necessarily seismic experts. Training for its use is recommended and 

is available from FEMA. http://www.fema.gov/ media-library-data/1426210 

695633-d9a280e72b32872161efab26 a602283b/FEMAP-154_ 508.pdf. 

FEMA 159, Tremor Troop: Earthquakes – A Teacher's Package for K-6. 

Revised Edition (FEMA, 2000b). This teacher’s package for grades K-6 

provides ready-to-use, hands-on activities for students and teachers on the 

science of earthquakes and earthquake safety. http://www.fema.gov/media 

-library/assets/documents/2915 

FEMA 240, Earthquake Preparedness: What Every Child Care Provider 

Needs to Know (FEMA, 2006a). Targets child care providers and features 

practical and low-cost techniques to make child care facilities safer in the 

event of an earthquake, whether they are based in a home or a larger facility. 

It offers tips for conducting earthquake drills and includes a checklist of 

supplies to keep on hand in an emergency kit. 

FEMA 395, Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation of School Buildings (K-12) 

(FEMA, 2003). This publication was developed to provide school 

administrators with the information necessary to assess the seismic 

vulnerability of their buildings, and to implement a program of incremental 

seismic rehabilitation for those buildings. Different chapters are targeted at: 

(a) superintendents, board members and principals; (b) risk managers and 

financial managers; and (c) facility managers. 

E-24 E: Earthquakes FEMA P-1000 
 

 

 

FEMA P-424, Risk Management Series: Design Guide for Improving School 

Safety in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds (FEMA, 2010a). This 

document includes extensive chapters on each hazard, explanations of 

structural and nonstructural seismic vulnerabilities found in schools and 

checklists covering site, structural and nonstructural issues. 

FEMA 474, Promoting Seismic Safety: Guidance for Advocates (FEMA, 

2005c). This document provides a collection of concise tips for advocates to 

utilize in gaining support for seismic safety policy changes and funding. 

https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/3229 

FEMA 527, Earthquake Safety Activities: For Children and Teachers 

(FEMA, 2005d). This document provides ready-to-use, hands-on activities 

for students and teachers explaining what happens during an earthquake, as 

well as how to prepare for and stay safe during and after an earthquake. 

http://www.shakeout.org/california/downloads/fema-527.pdf

FEMA 529, When Earthquake Shaking Begins...Drop, Cover, and Hold On 

Poster. This poster can be printed and used in schools. http://www.fema.gov 

/media-library/assets/documents/3266 

Earthquake School Hazard Hunt Game and Poster (FEMA). This game and 

poster provides an interactive tool which engages young children to learn 

about earthquake hazard mitigation. https://www.fema.gov/media-library

/assets/documents/90409 

The Field Act and its Relative Effectiveness in Reducing Earthquake Damage 

in California Public Schools (CSSC, 2009). California passed the Field Act 

after the Long Beach earthquake in 1933 requiring state control of school 

design and construction, particularly related to seismic safety. This study 

clearly shows the effectiveness of this law over 75 years. 

Guide and Checklist for Nonstructural Earthquake Hazards in California 

Schools (California Emergency Management Agency, 2011). This document 

includes a comprehensive checklist of nonstructural earthquake hazards 

typically found in schools and methods to mitigate the risks. Specific details 

are shown in sketches and references made to design professionals when 

needed. http://www.caloes.ca.gov/PlanningPreparednessSite/Documents 

/Nonstructural_EQ_Hazards_For_Schools_July2011.pdf 

Great ShakeOut Earthquake Drills. These drills are an annual opportunity 

for people in homes, schools, and organizations to practice what to do during 

earthquakes, and to improve preparedness. These drills are practiced in 

many areas of the United States and around the world. The shakeout site 

FEMA P-1000 E: Earthquakes E-25
 

 

includes many resources for school earthquake drills and education, 

including templates, checklists, activities, etc. teaching materials. 

www.shakeout.org 

Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology. This site has educational 

resources, including interactive maps of recent seismic activity that can be 

used as a teaching tool in classrooms. https://www.iris.edu/hq/ 

Risk RED School Disaster Response Drill Model and Templates. This site 

provides curriculum guidance to be used in schools for disaster preparedness. 

Templates for drills, including letters to parents, step by step activities, forms 

and ICS procedures, forms and surveys. www.RiskRED.org/schools.html 

School Disaster Readiness: Lessons from the first Great Southern California 

Shakeout (Risk RED, 2009). Explains process of utilizing the shakeout 

curriculum and the success. Provides step by step information and activities, 

checklists, and case study information. http://www.preventionweb.net/files 

/14873_RR2008SchoolReadinessReport.pdf 

School Facilities Improvement Program. Northern California Chapter of the 

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. This page provides examples of 

seismic mitigation programs related to educational facilities. http://www 

.eerinc.org/?page_id=240 

USGS Website. This website provides many resources related to earthquake 

hazards. https://www.usgs.gov/ 

E-26 E: Earthquakes FEMA P-1000 
 

Supplement F 

Floods 

This supplement addresses existing and new schools located in flood-prone 

areas of the United States and its territories. It provides guidance on 

evaluating flood vulnerability and mitigation options for existing school 

facilities, and site selection and design guidance for new schools that are in 

the planning stage. The guidance is based on field observations and research 

conducted on schools (and other buildings) that were affected by floods. The 

corresponding Flood Maps Appendix provides additional, more detailed 

information on understanding and using flood hazard maps. Much of the 

information in this supplement and the Flood Maps Appendix also pertains to 

schools that are prone to hurricane storm surge flooding. 

After reading this supplement, school administrators, school emergency 

managers, teachers, and other school leaders should be able to: 

	 Know where to find flood hazard maps, and determine if their school 

facility is in a flood-prone area; 

	 Understand key elements of flood vulnerability assessments for existing 

schools and potential new school sites; 

	 Understand how to improve flood resistance of existing schools, and 

recognize the importance of incorporating flood-resistant design in new 

facilities to achieve greater resilience; 

	 Create or update a school disaster plan with specific considerations for 

floods; and 

	 Identify aspects that should be considered to facilitate school recovery 

following a flood. 

F.1 Overview of Floods 

Flooding is a condition where water moves beyond normally wet areas and 

temporarily inundates or saturates normally dry areas. School facilities have 

been and will continue to be affected by flooding. Figure F-1 provides an 

example of a school impacted by a flood. Effects can span from minor 

damage and short-term disruption (hours to days), to major damage and need 

for reconstruction or relocation (months to years). 

“Flood-prone” means a 

normally dry area that can be 

inundated by water during an 

inland or coastal flood. 

“Flood-prone” includes “storm 

surge-prone.” 

FEMA P-1000 F: Floods F-1 
 

 

Every community—coastal, 

piedmont, mountain, plains, or 

desert—has some areas 

subject to some type of 

flooding. 

In August 2016, numerous 

schools in Louisiana were 

closed due to severe flooding. 

In one school district, 17 

schools were significantly 

damaged while 6 of those 

buildings were completely 

flooded (Mitchell, 2016). 

Figure F-1 Ramstad Middle School, in Minot, North Dakota was 

flooded in June 2011, badly damaged, and ultimately 

decommissioned in June 2012. A replacement school was 

constructed in a less floodprone area. 

Floods are the most common natural hazard and occur in every state and 

territory in the United States. Floods can result from runoff from excess 

rainfall or snowmelt; ice or debris blockage of streams and drainage; high 

tides and storm surges (see the Hurricane Supplement); tsunamis (see the 

Tsunami Supplement); or failure of levees, flood protection structures or 

dams. 

Floods can occur with days of warning or without warning. Those with days 

of warning allow time to implement plans to ensure safety of school 

occupants and to reduce flood damage. It is more difficult to respond to 

those with little or no warning, which require planning in advance through 

facility design and emergency operation plans. 

F.1.1 Flood Impacts on Schools 

Flood effects on schools and communities can be severe, particularly for 

children who experience flooding. Studies have documented the effects of 

flooding on schools, including displacement and school interruption for 

students, and highlight the importance of having both functional schools and 

schools that are supportive of students following flood events (Walker et al., 

2010; Fothergill and Peek, 2015). 

In particular, Children and Young People ‘After the Rain Has Gone’ – 

Learning Lessons for Flood Recovery and Resilience (Walker et al., 2010) 

documented how the recovery process, with daily disruptions, affected 

F-2 F: Floods FEMA P-1000 
 

children following the heavy rainfall and severe flooding that affected 

Kingston-upon-Hull, United Kingdom, where 91 of 99 schools closed for 

some period of time. The report provides recommendations on how schools 

and the educational system can better support students during long-term 

flood recovery. 

F.2 Is Your School in a Flood-Prone Region? 

Knowing whether a school site is susceptible to flooding is important for 

both existing schools and for siting new schools. Knowing the vulnerability 

of existing schools to flooding is important for developing mitigation 

strategies and emergency plans. Knowing the vulnerability of potential 

school sites is important when different sites are compared and when school 

facilities are designed. 

When evaluating flood vulnerability of a particular site, all of the following 

should be considered: 

1.		 Review of flood hazard maps. Do flood hazard maps indicate that the 

school site or facility is within or adjacent to an area subject to flooding? 

What information does the map (and any supporting study) provide and 

what was the intended use of the map? 

2.		 Review flood protection structures. Is the site located behind a levee 

or seawall or does the site safety rely on other flood control structures? 

Has that levee or structure been accredited as providing a certain level of 

flood protection? What entity is responsible for inspection, maintenance 

and repairs? Flood hazard maps provide authoritative information from 

government agencies, but mapping consideration for levee protection is 

not always uniform. 

3.		 Identify past flooding events. Has the school site or facility flooded 

before? Has the surrounding area flooded? When, how often, and what 

were the circumstances? Experience is important because flood hazard 

maps may not show local drainage issues or flooding from small 

watersheds. 

4.		 Identify relevant trends and development. Are there trends showing 

that occurrence and/or severity of floods are increasing? Is future land 

development likely to increase runoff and flooding? Is sea level rising in 

the community? Is the ground subsiding? Is there an increase in 

“nuisance flooding” (see Figure F-2)? Answering these questions can 

help determine if past flood trends will continue, or if flooding is likely 

to worsen. 

Just because a site has not 

flooded in the past does not mean 

that you can assume it to be safe 

from flooding in the future. 

The 100 counties with the highest 

composite flood risk scores—as 

defined in a study by The Pew 

Charitable Trusts—are in 23 

states and have 6,444 schools 

serving almost 4 million students. 

Louisiana has the highest number 

of these counties, with 24 in the 

top 100 (Pew, 2017). 

FEMA P-1000 F: Floods F-3 
Nuisance Flood Events on the Rise 

Sea levels are rising and flood hazards are increasing in many areas. A recent technical report found 

that all three coasts in the United States have seen a 300 to 925% increase in nuisance flooding since the 

1960s (NOAA, 2014). 

Figure F-2 Graphic illustrating the rise in nuisance flooding around the United States, 

but especially off the East Coast (NOAA, 2014). 

A Flood Insurance Study (FIS) 

Report is produced by FEMA along 

with the FIRM. The FIS contains a 

summary of the modeling and 

mapping information used to 

create the FIRM, and will contain 

additional detailed information 

that is needed for flood 

vulnerability assessments and 

flood-resistant design. 

F.2.1 Flood Hazard Maps 

This section provides an overview of flood hazard maps and how to use 

them. For detailed information on understanding and using flood hazard 

maps, see the Flood Maps Appendix. 

The most common flood hazard map is the Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(FIRM) produced by FEMA. FIRMs have been produced for over 21,000 

communities in the United States and its territories, and should be the first 

stop when flood hazards are investigated. Most states and communities 

regulate development using flood hazard zones and flood elevations shown 

on the FIRM. This is done through floodplain management regulations, and 

through building codes. Regulations and building codes both will reference 

the flood hazard map adopted by a community, which most often is the 

FIRM. 

FIRMs can be obtained from a number of sources. The local government is a 

good place to check. Many communities and states display FIRMs and 

related flood information on their websites. In addition, FIRMs can be 

obtained from: (1) FEMA’s Map Service Center, an online repository of 

flood hazard map and flood study information (https://msc.fema.gov/portal); 

F-4 F: Floods FEMA P-1000 
and (2) FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer, an online digital flood map of 

the nation (https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-hazard-layer-nfhl). 

FIRMs will indicate important information, such as flood hazard zones (see 

Flood Maps Appendix for details) and Base Flood Elevations (BFEs). BFEs 

indicate the expected elevation of the flood surface during the base flood, 

also known as the 1% annual chance flood or the 100-year flood. 

It is important to be aware of the following mapping assumptions and 

limitations in developing FIRMs: 

	 FIRMs depict flood hazards at the time the flood study was performed, 

and if significant time has elapsed, current land and flood characteristics 

may have changed. 

	 FIRMs show flood extents and elevations associated with floods with a 

1% chance of occurring in any year (the “100-year” flood). More severe 

floods can and do occur. 

	 FIRMs do not account for flood-related hazards like levee or dam failure, 

mudslides, debris flows, channel migration, and shoreline erosion. These 

hazards can be destructive, as shown in Figure F-3. 

	 FIRMs do not account for future changes in development, hydraulics and 

hydrology, sea level rise, climate, and other factors. A complete 

evaluation of existing school facilities and plans for new school facilities 

should take these factors into consideration, which will require 

information that is not provided by a FIRM. 

The term “100-year flood,” also 

known as the base flood, is 

misleading. It does not mean a 

given flood elevation will be 

reached only once every 100 

years. It means there is a 1-in100 chance (1%) of a flood 

reaching that elevation in any 

given year. 

FIRMs and FISs do not tell you 

everything you need to know 

about flood hazards. Other flood 

hazard maps (e.g., showing storm 

surge limits, areas subject to sea 

level rise, dam inundation areas, 

areas of future riverine flood 

hazard) should be reviewed. See 

Flood Maps Appendix. 

Figure F-3 This school in Puerto Rico was undermined by riverine erosion 

during Hurricane Georges in September 1998 (FEMA, 1999). 

FEMA P-1000 F: Floods F-5 
“Design flood” is the technical 

term used for the flood level used 

for design purposes, as dictated 

by the building code or 

state/community floodplain 

regulations. The design flood will 

always be equal to or greater 

than the base flood. 

Flood hazard zones and BFEs are important because: 

	 New school facilities must be designed to meet special requirements that 

vary with flood hazard zone. 

	 The lowest floor of a new school facility must be elevated or 

floodproofed to at least the BFE. 

	 Zones and BFEs help guide evaluation and modification of existing 

schools to achieve greater flood resilience. 

F.2.2 Levees and Other Flood Control Structures 

Levees and flood control structures have been constructed in many areas of 

the United States, but not all provide the same level of protection, and all will 

be subject to failure under certain conditions. If a school site relies on these 

types of structures for flood protection, information about the protection 

structure should be reviewed before committing to school construction or 

major repairs. 

The book So, You Live Behind a Levee! provides more information on levees 

and their associated risk (ASCE, 2009). FEMA’s Levee Analysis and 

Mapping Procedure (LAMP) website (http://www.fema.gov/final-levee 

-analysis-and-mapping-approach) provides the latest information on how 

levees are incorporated into FIRMs. Levee information available from state 

water resources agencies, levee districts, and the United States Army Corps 

of Engineers should be reviewed. 

F.3 Making Buildings Safer 

The single biggest determinant of flood vulnerability is elevation—both 

ground elevation relative to flood elevation, and building floor/basement 

elevation relative to flood elevation are important. Knowing and using this 

information is crucial to having strong and safer school facilities. In the 

context of flood, “safer buildings” means: 

	 Wherever possible, school buildings and associated facilities—including 

access roads and equipment storage facilities (see Figure F-4)—should 

remain dry during design flood conditions (i.e., ground elevations should 

be higher than the design flood elevation). 

	 If any portion of a school site gets wet during flooding, school occupants 

should not be in danger and any portion of a wet facility should sustain 

no more than minimal flood damage. Minimal flood damage means only 

clean-up and cosmetic repairs would be required and time out of service 

would be short. 

F-6 F: Floods FEMA P-1000 
 

 

Figure F-4 School buses in New Orleans, Louisiana were swamped by the 

floodwaters following Hurricane Katrina in September 2005 

(Photo source: Liz Roll, FEMA). 

	 Downtime and damage should be minor, even if a flood exceeds the 

design flood by a small amount. If a flood greatly exceeds the design 

flood, major damage should be expected and plans for using alternate 

school facilities should be considered. 

	 Facilities should be useable immediately after a design flood. 

	 If the school is designated as a shelter for flood, the shelter portion of the 

school should be operational during the design flood. 

Many existing school facilities do not meet the criteria listed above, and it 

may be much easier to design new schools to meet the criteria than to modify 

existing schools to meet them. 

The best time to take steps to reduce flood damage and manage any potential 

impacts to facilities and operations is long before a flood. Flood defense 

schemes can be complex, require significant manpower and material, and 

take time and planning to implement. Principal ways to eliminate or reduce 

flood damage include: 

	 Avoidance. This involves locating or relocating a school facility so it is 

on high ground, outside the area that is prone to flooding. 

	 Elevation. This involves constructing a new school facility or 

retrofitting an existing facility so the lowest floor and all important 

spaces are above the design flood elevation. 

FEMA P-1000 F: Floods F-7 
	 Flood Protection. This involves constructing flood protection structures 

(e.g., levees, berms, or floodwalls) or modifying the site around the 

school building (e.g., improving drainage or constructing diversion 

channels) to reduce the likelihood of flood damage. It is important to 

note that if the flood level exceeds the protection level afforded by these 

measures, flood damage could be major. 

	 Floodproofing. This involves any combination of structural or 

nonstructural adjustments, changes or actions to a school facility within 

the flood hazard area that reduces or eliminates flood damage to the 

structure, its contents, and its attendant utilities and equipment. 

Floodproofing can be divided as follows: 

o Dry Floodproofing. This involves making the structure (including 

attendant utilities and equipment) watertight, with elements 

substantially impermeable to the passage of water, and with 

structural elements capable of resisting flood loads. Dry 

floodproofing is permitted for non-residential structures only. 

o	 Wet Floodproofing. This involves allowing portions of a structure 

to intentionally flood, but constructing the structure with flooddamage resistant materials. 

o Active Floodproofing. This involves temporary measures that 

require human intervention to carry out, install, or deploy. Examples 

include: temporary relocation or elevation of valuable records (e.g., 

not placed in basements), computer equipment and other items; use 

of sand bags or other temporary flood barriers; and closing of flood 

doors and gates. 

o	 Passive Floodproofing. This involves permanent measures (e.g., 

waterproof coatings, or floodwalls) that are built-in and require no 

human intervention to deploy in the event of a flood. Passive 

floodproofing is generally more reliable than active floodproofing, 

and requires no flood warning time and human action to deploy. 

However, passive dry floodproofing installations may affect or 

interfere with function and operations. 

F.3.1 Existing School Buildings 

Existing schools will offer a wide variation in flood resistance, depending on 

age, location, and original design. Some existing schools may meet the 

criteria listed in Section F.3, but many will not. In some cases, flood 

vulnerability may be unknown or known only qualitatively. 

Schools may be floodproofed 

using dry and/or wet methods, 

but local jurisdictions should be 

contacted for exact requirements. 

Active and passive floodproofing 

measures may be permitted for 

existing and new schools, but 

local jurisdictions should be	 

contacted for exact requirements. 	

F-8 F: Floods FEMA P-1000 
 

School leaders should investigate the following questions about flood 

vulnerability of an existing school: 

	 Is the school wholly or partly within a mapped flood hazard area? 

	 Are specific flood hazards and potential flood damages known for an 

existing school? 

	 Is it cost-effective to modify or retrofit an existing school to address 

flood vulnerability? Should wet floodproofing, dry floodproofing, or a 

combination of the two be used? 

	 What level of flood protection is justified based on site and budget 

constraints? When should the work be done, before or after a flood? 

	 Will FEMA and community regulations for substantial damage and 

substantial improvement be triggered (i.e., requirements that existing 

buildings be made compliant with current flood hazard map and building 

code provisions)? Local floodplain managers or building officials should 

be consulted about substantial damage and substantial improvement 

issues. Section 5.1.3 provides more detailed information on substantial 

damage and substantial improvement triggers. 

	 Will outside funding stipulations require compliance with the current 

flood hazard map and building code (even if damage and/or work do not 

constitute substantial damage or substantial improvement)? 

	 Are there operational considerations that would affect decisions 

regarding flood retrofits and flood protection? Section F.4 provides 

flood-specific considerations for emergency operations planning. 

	 Should existing schools be replaced (if so, where, when, how)? 

In some instances, the decision will be made to decommission and replace a 

flooded school, as in the school shown in Figure F-1. In other cases, the 

decision will be made to repair and retrofit a flood-damaged school, as 

shown in Figures F-6, F-7, and F-8). 

Acquiring and evaluating the information listed above will likely require 

involvement of designers and contractors with specialized flood and/or 

educational facility experience, and will require considerable effort. 

However, modifying existing schools to achieve increased flood resilience 

may also provide opportunities to expand or reconfigure the school, and to 

modernize and improve function and operation. The evaluation of an 

existing school will require information, as follows: 

FEMA P-1000 F: Floods F-9 
Danville Middle School: Retrofit to Reduce Flood Damage 

The remnants of Tropical Storm Lee dumped approximately one foot of rain over parts of eastern 

Pennsylvania in September 2011. The Danville Middle School sustained flooding from a few inches to 

approximately six feet deep, as shown in Figure F-5. Since the school was not “substantially damaged” by 

the flooding, the school district looked at the options—that is, whether to repair and wet floodproof the 

school (design to allow flood water to enter) so it would avoid structural damage and could be cleaned 

easily, or to dry floodproof (keep flood water out of) the school. (It is important to note that had the school 

been “substantially damaged” as defined by the code, wet floodproofing would not have been permitted by 

the National Flood Insurance Program and building code.) Dry floodproofing the entire school was not 

financially feasible so a combination of measures was undertaken, as follows: 

 Some portions of the facility were protected by walls or removable flood gates at entry doors. 

 Other portions of the facility were wet floodproofed. 

 Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) equipment was elevated. 

 The lower portions of walls were removed and replaced with flood-damage resistant walls, as shown in 

Figure F-6. 

 Carpet and vinyl floors were replaced with sealed epoxy flooring. 

 Metal lockers were replaced with high density polyethylene lockers, as shown in Figure F-7. 

 Over 200 flood vents were installed to allow water into the building, as shown in Figure F-8, relieving 

potential pressure from floodwater and structural failure that complete dry floodproofing might cause. 

The clean-up and restoration work at the Danville Middle School took approximately two years and cost 

approximately $12 million. 

Figure F-5 Danville Middle School in Pennsylvania flooded in September 

2011. (Photo source: Reynolds Restoration Services, Inc.) 

F-10 F: Floods FEMA P-1000 
 

Danville Middle School: Flood Retrofit Features 

Figure F-6 Wall repair and reconstruction to Figure F-7 Metal lockers were replaced with high 

resist future flood damage. (Photo density polyethylene (HDPE) lockers 

source: Reynolds Restoration (Scranton Products, 2016). 

Services, Inc.) 

Figure F-8 Flood vents were installed throughout most of the school. 

Allowing floodwater to enter prevents structural failure of 

walls if water is outside but not inside (Smart Vent, 2016). 

	 Construction plans for the original construction, and information 

regarding any major repairs or modifications since original construction 

should be reviewed. Structural drawings, architectural drawings, and 

information on mechanical-electrical-plumbing systems will be 

especially important. 

	 Top of floor elevations (in buildings and basements) that are potentially 

susceptible to flooding should be identified. Lowest elevations of utility 

FEMA P-1000 F: Floods F-11 
 

equipment will be needed and locations of ductwork, chases, piping, and 

wiring will be useful. 

	 Locations and elevations of any possible points of floodwater or 

groundwater entry into the facility (e.g., doors, windows, above- and 

below-ground connections to other buildings, air vents, floor drains, and 

wall or slab penetrations for utilities) should be identified. 

	 Documentation for any prior flooding at the site or in the school facility 

should be investigated, including the following for each known flood 

event: source of flooding; flood elevation and duration; occurrence of 

other flood-related hazards (e.g., waves, erosion, mud, and debris); type 

and extent of flood damage sustained; and cost of repairs. 

	 The FIRM, FIS, and other available flood hazard maps and information 

should be reviewed. 

	 State and local floodplain management and building code requirements 

that could affect any work on the facility should be identified. 

F.3.2 New School Buildings 

New schools must be planned, sited, designed, and constructed in accordance 

with all applicable building codes, flood regulations, and land use plans. In 

many cases this will mean in accordance with the state building code and 

local flood regulations. In some cases, school construction may be governed 

by a state school construction code, which may differ from the building code. 

Wherever possible, designing and constructing new facilities beyond areas 

shown as inundated on the flood hazard map should be considered. If 

located inside a flood hazard area, designing and constructing for flood levels 

above the minimum requirements set by regulations and building codes, 

which may have building elevation and other design requirements that 

exceed minimum National Flood Insurance Program requirements, should be 

considered. 

F.3.2.1 Building Codes and Standards 

In most cases, state building codes or school construction codes will be based 

on a “model” building code, such as the International Building Code (ICC, 

2014b), and certain design standards referenced by the model code, such as 

ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures 

(ASCE, 2010) and ASCE/SEI 24, Flood Resistant Design and Construction 

(ASCE, 2014a). These codes and standards typically classify buildings by 

their importance, or by the risk to occupants in a design-level hazard event. 

F-12 F: Floods FEMA P-1000 
Engineers use ASCE/SEI 7 to determine flood loads that buildings should be 

able to withstand. Typical school buildings with a capacity of more than 250 

people (known as Risk Category III in ASCE/SEI 7) must be designed to 

withstand greater flood loads than most residential and commercial structures 

(known as Risk Category II in ASCE/SEI 7). This is intended to result in 

school buildings that are more resistant to flood loads and are essentially 

“safer.” Schools designated as an emergency shelter by the local community 

emergency authorities (known as Risk Category IV in ASCE/SEI 7) must be 

designed to withstand even greater flood loads, with the intention of 

increasing the chances that the building will be available as a shelter after a 

flood. 

Engineers use ASCE/SEI 24 to determine elevation and floodproofing 

requirements for schools inside mapped flood hazard areas. All schools, 

regardless of capacity, are designated as at least Flood Design Class 3, which 

requires schools to be elevated or floodproofed to levels above those required 

for Flood Design Class 2 buildings (most residential and commercial 

buildings). Elevation or floodproofing above the BFE is known as adding 

“freeboard.” Freeboard is required for school buildings not used as 

emergency shelters (Flood Design Class 3 buildings) and additional 

freeboard is required for school buildings used as emergency shelters (Flood 

Design Class 4 buildings). 

In summary, these designations are important for two reasons: 

 School buildings (designated as Risk Category III or IV structures) must 

be designed to withstand greater flood loads than most residential and 

commercial (Risk Category II) structures. 

 Schools inside mapped flood hazard areas have more stringent elevation 

and floodproofing requirements than most residential and commercial 

buildings. 

F.3.2.2 Federal Executive Orders Related to Flood 

Some schools may be subject to federal Executive Order (EO) 11988, which 

mandates certain “critical” facilities be located outside the area subject to 

flooding during the 0.2% annual chance (500-year) flood. EO 11988 does 

contain some exceptions to the siting requirement, and may require elevation 

or floodproofing to the 0.2% annual chance flood elevation instead. More 

information on application of EO 11988 can be found in Section 5.1.6.3 of 

FEMA P-424, Risk Management Series: Design Guide for Improving School 

Safety in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds (FEMA, 2010a), and in 

Chapter 5 of FEMA P-424, Risk 

Management Series: Design 

Guide for Improving School 

Safety in Earthquakes, Floods and 

High Winds (FEMA, 2010a), 

contains detailed information 

about flood-resistant design of 

new schools. 

FEMA P-1000 F: Floods F-13 
Section 2.1.4 of FEMA P-936, Floodproofing Non-Residential Buildings 

(FEMA, 2013a). 

In 2015, Executive Order 13690 was issued, revising EO 11988 and 

establishing a new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) 

http://www.fema.gov/federal-flood-risk-management-standard-ffrms. 

FFRMS requires federal agencies to consider current and future risk when 

taxpayer dollars are used to build or rebuild in floodplains. Applicability of 

FFRMS to a new school must be determined on an individual basis through 

consultation with federal agencies involved in school construction and 

funding. 

F.4 Planning the Response 

Flood-specific issues related to developing emergency operations plans are 

discussed in this section. For more general aspects of emergency operations 

plans, see Chapter 4. 

It is recommended that administrators and emergency managers consult with 

people who have been through past floods and learn from their experience. 

What did their experience teach them? What would they do again, or do 

differently? This could be one of the most important and revealing pre-flood 

actions a school could take to help inform the development of effective 

emergency operations plans. 

Once a flood watch or warning is issued, or once a flood is known to be 

imminent, the focus will be on: communicating with parents and the 

community; safe release of students and staff; orderly shut-down of 

operations; implementing any active floodproofing measures; evacuating or 

elevating contents, equipment and moveable, high-value objects; 

disconnecting utilities; and securing the facilities. All of these considerations 

should be addressed in school emergency operations plans. 

Generally, school facilities in flood-prone areas should be evacuated prior to 

a flood. Even schools protected by local berms, levees, and floodwalls 

should evacuate during flood conditions. There may be exceptions, but 

people should occupy schools during floods only when there are no other 

feasible options. Exceptions might include: (1) where certain facilities have 

been designated as hurricane or tsunami refuges of last resort; and (2) where 

a flash flood inundates a school site or cuts off evacuation access. In both 

these cases, advance planning should determine which areas of the facility 

are the best areas for temporarily sheltering people, and logistics for moving 

people quickly should be understood and exercised periodically. 

F-14 F: Floods FEMA P-1000 
 

F.5 Planning the Recovery 

The first order of business after a flood is to determine if it is safe to reach 

the facility (e.g., are roads blocked or washed out, are power lines down, or 

are there gas line leaks?). Coordination with emergency management 

officials will be needed. 

Once access is possible, the next task is to have an engineer or building 

professional assess the facility from the outside, generally characterize 

damage or dangerous conditions, and determine if the facility is safe to 

re-enter and reoccupy. ATC-45, Field Manual: Safety Evaluation of 

Buildings after Windstorms and Floods (ATC, 2004), or similar documents 

and protocols will be useful. School districts may wish to have engineers 

under contract in advance so safety evaluations can be done quickly. It is 

important to note that safety evaluations are not the same as a property 

damage evaluation. 

Once it is safe to access the facility, there are two priorities: (1) documenting 

immediate post-flood facility condition and damage (photos, videos, and 

field notes should be made); and (2) cleaning and drying of the facility. 

Documentation will be needed for insurance and possible disaster assistance. 

Chapter 5 provides more detailed information on this topic. 

Flood-damaged contents and nonstructural elements should be removed. 

Standing water should be pumped out, but caution should be taken if 

basements are flooded as rapidly pumping water out of basements with a 

high groundwater table could lead to basement wall or floor failure. A 

structural engineer should be consulted if there are any questions about 

pumping out basements. Commercial fans, dryers, and dehumidifiers should 

be brought in. Emergency generators may be required. Failure to properly 

and completely clean a flooded facility may lead to more problems later; 

most concerning would be mold contamination and possible health impacts 

to students and staff. 

Once a facility is dried and cleaned, attention can shift to making repairs to 

the facility. Repairs could be minor or major, depending on the nature and 

extent of flood damage, and decisions will have to be made regarding 

whether to reoccupy the facility or to move classes and activities to other 

facilities. 

Throughout the recovery period, documentation of activities and expenses 

should be compiled. Frequent coordination with insurers, lenders, and 

funding authorities may be required. Chapter 5 provides more detailed 

information on this topic. 

FEMA P-1000 F: Floods F-15 
 

 

 

 

Recovery plans should also consider impacts on school operations after a 

flood. For example, the following should be considered: 

	 How long might a school be out of service if it is flooded or 

inaccessible? Are there other locations where classes and educational 

activities could be held while the school is out of service? 

	 Does the school host civic or community activities, and what would the 

impact of school closure be on those? 

	 If a school is designated to be used as a temporary post-flood shelter, 

how will this impact school operations and recovery following an event? 

F.6 Recommended Resources 

Full citations of all references used to develop this supplement are listed in 

the References section in this Guide. The following is a list of recommended 

resources that might be useful for school leaders that are addressing school 

flood risk. In some cases, a document is both in the References section and 

listed here as a recommended resource. 

ATC-45, Field Manual: Safety Evaluation of Buildings After Wind Storms 

and Floods (ATC, 2004). This document provides guidelines for evaluating 

whether it is safe to enter and reoccupy buildings damaged by flood or wind. 

It is intended to be used by designers and building professionals performing 

safety evaluations. This document does not provide guidance on determining 

damage and repair costs. 

Children and Young People ‘After the Rain has Gone’ – Learning Lessons 

for Flood Recovery and Resilience (Walker et al., 2010). This report 

provides the findings from a participatory research project that was 

undertaken to identify key issues for children and young people related to 

flood events and the ensuing recovery process. This project—‘Children, 

Flood and Urban Resilience: Understanding children and young people’s 

experience and agency in the flood recovery process’—was conducted in the 

United Kingdom. http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/49462/1/FINAL_REPORT.pdf 

FEMA P-424, Risk Management Series: Design Guide for Improving School 

Safety in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds (FEMA, 2010a). This 

document is primarily intended for architects and engineers. It primarily 

pertains to new schools, but does provide guidance for existing schools. 

https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/5264 

FEMA P-758, Substantial Improvement/Substantial Damage Desk Reference 

(FEMA, 2010b). This document provides practical guidance and suggested 

procedures relevant to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and 

F-16 F: Floods FEMA P-1000 
 

 

 

 

more information on substantial improvement/substantial damage. 

https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/18562 

Floodsite. A European Union scientific project on floods created a 

comprehensive website for secondary school students and teachers to learn 

about floods. The website includes a variety of lessons and activities that can 

be used as-is, or as templates for new lessons and activities. www.floodsite 

.net/juniorfloodsite/. 

National Flood Insurance Program: Flood Hazard Mapping. This website 

provides information on FEMA’s flood hazard mapping program—Risk 

Mapping, Assessment and Planning (Risk MAP). Through this program, 

FEMA identifies flood hazards, assesses flood risks and partners with states 

and communities to provide accurate flood hazard and risk data to guide 

them to mitigation actions. https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance 

-program-flood-hazard-mapping# and http://www.floodsmart.gov. 

Risk Mapping, Assessment and Planning (Risk MAP), FEMA. This page 

discusses the Risk MAP program and what the program can mean to 

communities. This page is intended for a variety of audiences, including 

state and community officials; homeowners, renters and business owners; 

real estate, lending, insurance professionals; engineers, surveyors and 

architects. https://www.fema.gov/risk-mapping-assessment-and-planning 

-risk-map 

So, You Live Behind a Levee! (ASCE, 2009). This book was developed to 

help provide more information about levees and their associated risk. In 

particular, it provides actionable advice to better protect users against future 

flood hazards. http://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/9780784410837 

FEMA P-1000 F: Floods F-17 

 

Supplement H 

Hurricanes 

This supplement is applicable to all schools located in hurricane hazard 

areas. For schools that are located in both a hurricane and tornado-prone 

region, the Tornado Supplement is also applicable. The storm surge portion 

of this supplement is applicable to a relatively narrow strip of land (usually 

tens of miles, but sometimes greater) inland of ocean, bay, and tidal river 

shorelines along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. If a school site is 

vulnerable to storm surge or flood, the Floods Supplement and the Flood 

Appendix are also applicable. 

This supplement provides hurricane wind and storm surge guidance for 

existing school buildings and guidance for new schools that are in the 

planning stage. The guidance is based on field observation research 

conducted on a large number of schools (and other buildings) that were 

affected by hurricanes. 

After reading this supplement, school administrators, school emergency 

managers, teachers, and other school leaders should be able to: 

	 Determine if their school is located in a hurricane hazard area; 

	 Recognize the importance of having hurricane wind and storm surge 

vulnerability assessments performed for existing schools; 

	 Recognize the importance of siting new schools outside areas 

vulnerable to storm surge or flood; 

	 Recognize the importance of incorporating special design enhancements 

in new facilities to achieve greater wind resilience, and where 

necessary, storm surge and flood resilience; 

	 Create or update a school disaster plan with specific considerations for 

hurricanes; and 

	 Identify aspects that should be considered to facilitate school recovery 

following a hurricane. 

H.1 Overview of Hurricanes 

A hurricane is a system of spiraling winds converging with increasing speed 

toward the storm’s center (the eye of the hurricane). Hurricanes form over 

“Storm surge” is the abnormal 

rise in coastal water level due to 

high winds and low atmospheric 

pressure, over and above the 

predicted astronomical tide. 

FEMA P-1000	 H: Hurricanes H-1 
 

warm (tropical) ocean waters. Typical hurricanes are about 300 miles wide, 

although they can vary considerably. The largest one on record had a 

diameter of 1,350 miles and the smallest was 60 miles. Hurricanes can also 

cause high storm surge, usually limited to less than 100 miles of coastline 

(see Figure H-1), and high waves and erosion that extend along hundreds of 

miles of coastline. 

For more detailed information on 

the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane 

Wind Scale, visit www.nhc.noaa 

.gov/aboutsshws.php. 

Figure H-1	 Storm surge rises above the normal tide (National Hurricane 

Center, 2016). 

The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale categorizes the intensity of 

hurricanes based on wind speed, but does not include storm surge. The 

five-step scale ranges from Category 1 (the weakest) to Category 5 (the 

strongest). The terms “hurricane,” “cyclone,” and “typhoon” describe the 

same type of storm. The term used depends on the region of the world 

where the storm occurs. 

In addition, being capable of delivering extremely strong winds for several 

hours and moderately strong winds for a day or more, many hurricanes also 

bring very heavy rainfall over areas extending from the coast to far inland, 

potentially causing severe flooding, and wind-driven rain damage to the 

interior of buildings that have been exposed due to damaging winds. 

Hurricanes also occasionally spawn tornadoes. 

Hurricane season runs from June through November in the Central Pacific, 

Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico regions. About six hurricanes can 

be expected during typical hurricane seasons and up to 15 hurricanes during 

more active years (NOAA, 2015). In the West Pacific region, hurricanes 

can occur in every season. 

H-2 H: Hurricanes FEMA P-1000 
H.1.1 Hurricane Impacts on Schools 

Of all the windstorm types, hurricanes have the greatest potential for 

devastating a large geographical area and, hence, affect the greatest number 

of schools during an event. 

Because of the significant warning time for hurricanes, schools are typically 

not occupied during the event, unless they are used as a hurricane 

evacuation shelter. The focus of school building design for hurricanes is 

usually on minimizing building damage in order to facilitate reopening the 

school and to minimize repair cost. This is different from schools in 

tornado-prone regions where the school could be occupied during the 

tornado because of short warning. For those cases, the focus is on keeping 

the students safe during the tornado via the incorporation of tornado safe 

rooms/shelters. 

The Children of Katrina 

A seven-year study of students affected or displaced by 2005 Hurricane Katrina found that many New 

Orleans students suffered on personal, family, and social levels, and had declining educational 

trajectories (see Figure H-2). Many never recovered the former stability in their lives. Family 

disruption, loss of homes, displacement, and other factors all contributed to challenges of students 

concentrating in schools, higher anxiety levels, and more behavioral problems. 

Figure H-2 This book documented the many long-term, negative 

effects that Hurricane Katrina had on children (Fothergill 

and Peek, 2015). 

Hurricane wind speeds are the greatest at the coast, but very high winds can 

occur inland for many miles before they decay significantly. The 

combination of strong and long-duration wind, wind-borne debris, and rain 

can severely damage schools, as shown in Figure H-3. Roof membrane 

FEMA P-1000 H: Hurricanes H-3 
 

blow-off or puncture by wind-borne debris typically results in water 

leakage, which can saturate fiberglass insulation and ceiling boards causing 

them to collapse, as shown in Figure H-4. Previous powerful hurricane 

winds have resulted in significant damage to a large number of schools in 

the impacted area. 

Figure H-3 Large portions of the school roof coverings blew off (indicated 

by red arrows) during 2005 Hurricane Katrina (FEMA, 2010a). 

Figure H-4 Damage to school ceiling in Mississippi during 2005 Hurricane 

Katrina (FEMA, 2006b). 

Flooding from hurricanes can also cause severe damage to school facilities 

that are not elevated above the storm surge and any accompanying waves, 

and above flooding induced by heavy rains. Inundation by storm surge can 

cause damage to buildings and contents, as shown in Figures H-5 and H-6. 

H-4	 H: Hurricanes FEMA P-1000 
The effects of waves and high flow velocities close to an ocean shoreline 

can be more consequential. They usually cause more serious damage to the 

school facility (i.e., to the structural elements of the school). Strong waves 

can destroy many school buildings. 

Figure H-5 Storm surge flooding in a high school in LaPlace, Louisiana 

during Hurricane Isaac in 2012. (Photo source: Rusty Costanza, 

The Times-Picayune) 

Figure H-6 Storm surge flooding of a high school in Sabine Pass, Texas during Hurricane 

Ike in 2008. (Photo source: Jocelyn Augustino, FEMA) 

FEMA P-1000 H: Hurricanes H-5 
Inland Rainfall from Hurricanes and Tropical Systems Can Cause Extensive Flooding 

People know that hurricanes bring high winds and storm surge to the coast, but hurricanes and lesser 

tropical systems can lead to extreme flooding, even when high winds have abated. History is full of 

examples where tropical depressions, tropical storms, and remnants of hurricanes have flooded 

communities, including schools. The following is a selection of examples. 

 The remnants of Hurricane Camille (1969, landfall in Mississippi) caused record flooding in central 

Virginia, where over 24 inches of rain fell in eight hours. Landslides, flash flooding, and river 

flooding followed the flooding (Romano, 2010). 

 The remnants of Hurricane Agnes (1972, landfall in Florida) led to 7-15 inches of rain and widespread 

flooding across portions of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania (Weather Prediction Center, 2016a). 

 Tropical Storm Allison (2001, landfall in Texas) led to widespread flooding in Houston and Harris 

County, which saw as much as 38 inches of rain in six days. Heavy rains continued across 

southeastern and mid-Atlantic states (Stewart, 2011). 

 The remnants of Hurricane Frances (2004, landfall in Florida) led to over 20 inches of rain in western 

North Carolina, over 10 inches of rain in western Virginia, and 5-7 inches of rain in parts of Ohio, 

western Pennsylvania, and western New York (Weather Prediction Center, 2016b). 

 An August 2016 stalled tropical depression dropped 12-30 inches of rain over the greater Baton Rouge 

area in three days (see Figure H-7). These record rains led to extensive flooding. Over 100,000 homes 

were flooded. School schedules in over 25 parishes were disrupted for one to four weeks, with 

265,000 students affected. Flood damage affected homes of thousands of teachers and school staff. 

Hundreds of school buses were damaged by flooding. Ten schools were forced to temporarily relocate 

and school officials noted that some of these schools may never reopen. School damage repairs were 

still ongoing as of February 2017. Flood damages to schools are expected to total over $60 million 

(Lussier, 2017). 

Figure H-7 Denham Springs, Louisiana, High School flooded in August 

2016 (Photo source: Bill Feig, The Advocate). 

H-6 H: Hurricanes FEMA P-1000 
Special attention to building siting, design, construction, and maintenance is 

needed to avoid prolonged disruption to school operations. 

H.1.2 Improvements in School Construction for Hurricanes 

Since the late 1980s, there has been significant improvement in 

understanding how to design and construct buildings to achieve good 

performance during hurricanes. Figure H-8 provides a synopsis of a 

selection of significant hurricane events and the improvement of building 

codes, test methods, and design guidelines. This has resulted in 

dramatically better performance of schools that were constructed after these 

improvements were implemented. 

Figure H-8 Timeline indicating a selection of significant hurricane events and improvements to building 

codes and guidelines. 

FEMA P-1000 H: Hurricanes H-7 
 

 

*All safe room criteria in FEMA 

P-361 are consistent with and, in 

some cases, are more 

conservative than the 

corresponding ICC 500 

requirements. Safe rooms being 

constructed with FEMA grant 

funds must comply with ICC 500 

and FEMA P-361. 

H.1.3 Important Terminology 

Evacuation Shelter for Hurricanes. This refers to a building or portion 

thereof that is used during a hurricane to provide refuge for people who live 

in flood-prone areas or unusually weak housing. An evacuation shelter may 

or may not have been designed to be used as a refuge area from high winds. 

It is therefore recommended to not use a school as an evacuation shelter 

unless it was suitably designed and constructed for this purpose. 

Hurricane Safe Room*. This refers to a building or portion thereof that 

has been designed for the purposes of providing protection from hurricanes 

(during the event) and complies with the hurricane provisions in FEMA 

P-361, Safe Rooms for Tornadoes and Hurricanes: Guidance for 

Community and Residential Safe Rooms (FEMA, 2015c). FEMA P-361 

provides design and construction guidance for registered design 

professionals, as well as emergency management considerations. 

Hurricane Shelter*. This refers to a building or portion thereof that has 

been designed for the purposes of providing protection from hurricanes 

(during the event) and complies with the hurricane provisions in ICC 500, 

Standard for the Design and Construction of Storm Shelters (ICC, 2014a). 

Hurricane Recovery Shelter. This refers to a building or portion thereof 

that is used to provide emergency housing and other support services to the 

community in the days/weeks after a hurricane. This concept is referred to 

as an “emergency shelter” in the building codes, although it is not meant for 

buildings that would be used during an event. For buildings designated as 

emergency shelters per the building codes, the intent is to make them 

useable after an event and are therefore designed to higher loads than 

typical. 

H.2 Is Your School in a Hurricane Hazard Area? 

Figure H-9 shows the tracks of hurricanes that have struck the Atlantic and 

Gulf coastal areas and Hawaii. As shown in Figure H-10, hurricane hazard 

areas include Atlantic and Gulf coastal areas, Hawaii, and the United States 

territories in the Caribbean and South Pacific, including American Samoa, 

Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Schools located in a hurricane hazard area should include hurricane risk in 

their school hazard safety strategies. 

Figure H-10 shows two shaded areas—the red area is prone to both high 

winds and heavy rain caused by hurricanes and the orange area is mostly 

subject to hurricane-induced heavy rain although high winds can also occur 

H-8 H: Hurricanes FEMA P-1000 
 

 

Figure H-9	 Recorded Category 1–5 hurricanes striking the Atlantic and Gulf 

coastal areas and Hawaii from 1950 to 2014 (Source: Map data 

from NOAA, 2016a). 

Figure H-10 Map indicating hurricane hazard areas (both orange and red zones) in the 

United States (high wind area adapted from ASCE, 2017b). 

FEMA P-1000 H: Hurricanes H-9 
 

 

 

in those regions. The red zone is considered to have a significantly higher 

wind hazard and therefore, the building code specifies more stringent 

requirements for buildings, including schools, in this zone. To determine if 

a school is in the red shaded area of Figure H-10, enter the school’s address 

at windspeed.atcouncil.org to obtain the design wind speed; the output 

shows design speeds for different risk categories. If the Risk Category II 

speed is greater than 115 miles per hour, the school is in the region that is 

prone to both high wind and heavy rain from hurricanes. Note that schools 

are predominately Risk Category III; however, the hurricane-prone region 

(red zone in Figure H-10) is defined by Risk Category II. 

If a school is in a hurricane hazard area, it might also be affected by 

hurricane storm surge and other flooding. Several sources, noted below, 

should be referred to in order to determine if a school is in a storm surge 

area or flood hazard. 

 Hurricane storm surge inundation areas have been mapped as part of 

hurricane evacuation studies for Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico states. 

Local or state emergency management agencies can usually provide this 

information. Figure H-11 provides an example of a hurricane storm 

surge inundation map. 

Figure H-11 Example hurricane storm surge inundation map in the Norfolk, Virginia 

area. Inundation areas are tied to Hurricane Categories (Virginia 

Department of Emergency Management, 2008). 

H-10 H: Hurricanes FEMA P-1000 
FIRM Maps can be viewed and 

downloaded from FEMA’s Map 

Service Center (MSC) https://msc 

.fema.gov/portal. Maps can be 

searched by street address or by 

state and community. Flood 

hazard information can also be 

viewed using the National Flood 

Hazard Layer, accessible via the 

MSC. 

 

	 Hurricane storm surge depths above ground have been mapped by 

hurricane category for Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico states by the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) here: 

https://goo.gl/lpjFEQ. 

	 Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) have been developed by FEMA 

for over 21,000 communities in the United States and its territories. 

Flood hazard maps, including FIRMs, are covered in detail in the 

Floods Supplement. 

H.3 Making Buildings Safer 

This section provides guidance on making existing and new school 

buildings safer from hurricane wind, storm surge, and rain hazards. 

H.3.1 Existing School Buildings 

Existing schools, particularly those constructed before 2000, are typically 

susceptible to significant wind damage as shown in Figure H-12, even 

during weak hurricanes. Figures H-13 and H-14 illustrate examples of other 

building vulnerabilities from hurricanes. 

Figure H-12 Damage in a school in Florida during Hurricane Andrew in 

1992. Several windows in this school were broken by windborne debris, and a large portion of the roof membrane blew 

off. Resulting interior water damage precluded quick 

resumption of school. (Photo source: Thomas Smith) 

FEMA P-424, Risk Management 

Series: Design Guide for 

Improving School Safety in 

Earthquakes, Floods, and High 

Winds (FEMA, 2010a), provides 

vulnerability assessment guidance 

to architects and engineers, and 

provides examples of retrofit 

measures that are often 

applicable. 

FEMA P-1000 H: Hurricanes H-11 
Figure H-13 Collapsed unreinforced masonry classroom wall in the U.S. 

Virgin Islands during Hurricane Marilyn in 1995 (FEMA, 

2010a). 

Figure H-14 Rooftop mechanical equipment is often inadequately 

attached (even on new schools). Several exhaust fans blew 

off their curbs, allowing rain to directly enter the school 

during Hurricane Andrew, Florida in 1992. It is very 

inexpensive to anchor equipment and avoid costly damage 

(FEMA, 2010a). 

To address these vulnerabilities, the following are recommended: 

	 Wind Vulnerability Assessment. It is recommended to have a wind 

vulnerability assessment performed by a qualified architectural and 

engineering team. The purpose is to identify and prioritize items that 

need to be strengthened or replaced. A proactive approach in mitigating 

weaknesses can avoid or decrease occupancy interruption and 

H-12	 H: Hurricanes FEMA P-1000 
 

significantly reduce repair costs after a future hurricane. FEMA P-424, 

Risk Management Series: Design Guide for Improving School Safety in 

Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds (FEMA, 2010a) provides 

vulnerability assessment for architects and engineers, as well as 

examples of mitigation (retrofit) measures that are often applicable. 

	 Storm Surge Considerations. If a school is located in an area that 

could be affected by hurricane storm surge, Section F.3.1 in the Floods 

Supplement applies. That section provides information regarding 

vulnerability assessments and making existing school buildings safer 

from storm surge. 

	 Prioritizing Remedial Work. Before beginning remedial work, it is 

necessary to understand all significant aspects of a school’s 

vulnerability with respect to wind, storm surge, and wind-driven rain. If 

funds are not available to correct all identified deficiencies, the work 

should be systematically prioritized so that the items of greatest need 

are corrected first. Mitigation efforts can be very ineffective if they do 

not address all significant items that are likely to fail. For example, if a 

school has windows that are vulnerable to breakage from wind-borne 

debris and also has a roof system that is vulnerable to wind blow-off, 

both should be mitigated. If installation of window shutters is the only 

mitigation effort taken, blow-off of the roof would likely still result in 

significant interior damage due to water leakage. 

	 Planned Repairs. It is recommended that mitigation work be 

incorporated when performing planned repairs or replacements. For 

example, when replacing a roof covering that has reached the end of its 

service life or been damaged by hail, the roofing recommendations 

provided in FEMA P-424 can be incorporated. However, if a roof 

system is extremely susceptible to wind damage, it should be mitigated 

as soon as budget permits. Repairing hurricane damage also presents an 

opportunity to incorporate FEMA P-424 recommendations. 

	 Window Protection. The 2000 and subsequent editions of the 

International Building Code require that exterior windows be protected 

from wind-borne debris in portions of hurricane-prone regions (i.e., the 

“wind-borne debris region”). Most schools built prior to 2000 have 

windows that can easily be broken by wind-borne debris. FEMA P-424 

recommends window protection in a larger geographical area than 

required by the code. For schools located in the area prescribed in 

FEMA P-424, window mitigation can be economically implemented by 

installing shutters, as shown in Figure H-15. 

FEMA P-1000 H: Hurricanes H-13 
 

	 Maintenance. The exterior of the building should be inspected yearly 

by maintenance personnel. Items that have deteriorated (such as leaky 

roofs) or become loose (such as rooftop equipment) should be repaired 

or replaced before they are damaged by wind. 

	 Removal of Nearby Potential Hazards. Per FEMA P-424 

recommendations, trees with trunks larger than six inches in diameter 

should be moved away from the school so that they do not cause 

damage if they topple. Figure H-16 shows why this is important. 

Figure H-15 This school was retrofitted with accordion shutters prior to a 

hurricane. The shutters successfully protected the windows 

from wind-borne debris during 2004 Hurricane Ivan (FEMA, 

2010a). 

Figure H-16	 Had this tree fallen in the opposite direction during 2004 

Hurricane Ivan in Florida, it would have damaged the 

school (FEMA, 2007). 

H-14	 H: Hurricanes FEMA P-1000 
Making Existing School Buildings Safer: Summary of Key Points 

 Determine if your school is in a hurricane hazard area. 

 Have a vulnerability assessment performed by a qualified architectural and engineering team. If your 

school is also in a storm surge or rainfall flood hazard area, make sure that the vulnerability 

assessment also includes flood vulnerabilities. 

 Mitigate significant wind vulnerabilities. 

 Mitigate storm surge and flood vulnerabilities where feasible; consider building elevation or 

relocation, or decommissioning and replacement with a new school facility outside the storm surgeprone region. 

H.3.2 New School Buildings 

Building codes, standards, and design guidelines have greatly improved 

since devastating hurricanes in 1989 and 1992, as shown Figure H-8. 

However, complying with the 2015 International Building Code (ICC, 

2014b) does not ensure that a school will be operational after an event. 

Portions of the code are not conservative, such as the extent of the windborne debris region. Due to documentation of broken windows outside of 

the wind-borne debris region prescribed by the code, FEMA P-424 

recommends window protection further inland than required by the 2015 

International Building Code. Additionally, the code does not address some 

important wind performance issues, such as wind-resistance of roof gutters 

and water leakage caused by wind-borne debris puncture of roof systems. 

To avoid prolonged occupancy interruption and to minimize the cost of 

building damage, the special design enhancements (best practices) in FEMA 

P-424 are recommended. The increased cost to implement the best practices 

is estimated to be less than 3% for new construction. 

For schools located in hurricane storm surge areas, considerations outlined 

in Sections F.3.2 in the Floods Supplement should be incorporated. Those 

sections provide information regarding important siting and design 

considerations for new school buildings potentially subject to flooding. 

H.3.2.1 Shelters During the Event 

Hurricane evacuation shelters provide refuge for people who live in 

flood-prone areas or unusually weak housing. Local, county, and school 

emergency managers should be consulted during the planning stage for a 

new school to determine if it will be used as an evacuation shelter. If it will 

be used as a shelter during a hurricane, it should be designed in accordance 

FEMA P-1000 H: Hurricanes H-15 
with the hurricane shelter criteria in ICC 500 and FEMA P-361. These 

criteria are more stringent than for normal school buildings. For example, 

shelters should be designed for higher wind speeds and should not be 

located in flood-prone areas. FEMA P-361 indicates that the increased cost 

to comply with the hurricane safe room criteria is estimated to be less than 

5% for new construction. 

FEMA P-361 also has criteria for tornado safe rooms/shelters. The 

hurricane safe room/shelter criteria are different from that of tornadoes. 

H.3.2.2 Shelters After the Event 

Hurricane recovery shelters provide emergency housing and other support 

services to the community in the days/weeks after an event. School, local, 

and county emergency managers should be consulted to determine if a 

school is intended to be used or designated as a recovery shelter. If so, it 

should be classified as a Risk Category IV building per the building codes, 

requiring stronger design loads. However, shelter design goes far beyond a 

stronger building and should also accommodate prolonged interruption of 

electrical power, sewer, and water service, and other features desired by the 

local emergency services agency. Such provisions in schools will also 

significantly improve performance and minimize school closures due to 

damage (SEFT Consulting Group, 2015). 

In many cases, schools are designated to be emergency shelters without first 

making sure that they are designed to be functional following a hurricane. 

Figure H-17 shows an example of school buildings that were too damaged 

to be used as recovery shelters following a hurricane. FEMA P-424 and 

FEMA P-1019, Emergency Power Systems for Critical Facilities: A Best 

Practices Approach to Improving Reliability (FEMA, 2014), provide 

relevant design guidance. Alternatively, advanced arrangements could be 

made to provide delivery of an emergency generator and water after the 

event, prior to opening of the center. 

Making New School Buildings Safer: Summary of Key Points 

 Determine if your school is in a hurricane hazard area. 

 Determine if the school will be used as a shelter during the event. 

 Determine if the school will be used as a shelter after the event. 

 Have the architectural and engineering team implement the guidance, as relevant, in Section H.3.2. 

H-16 H: Hurricanes FEMA P-1000 
 

 

Figure H-17 View of aid tents between a damaged elementary school (red arrow) 

and high school (foreground) in Florida after Hurricane Andrew. 

(Photo source: Thomas Smith) 

H.4 Planning the Response 

Hurricane hazard areas require careful emergency planning given that 

hurricanes can require massive evacuations over a short period of time, they 

can cause widespread devastation, and they can affect many schools in one 

event. These should be major considerations in school emergency 

operations plans. 

School buildings are often designated as hurricane evacuation shelters even 

though they were not designed and constructed for this purpose. In many 

instances, designated buildings did not perform well during hurricanes, and 

have sometimes been evacuated during the event. In addition to shelter 

occupants being at risk of injury, they may have a very negative experience, 

such as getting wet from roof leakage or back-up of toilets. If they return to 

a home that experienced little damage, they may be reluctant to evacuate in 

a future event that could destroy their home. It is therefore recommended to 

not use a school as an evacuation shelter unless it was suitably designed and 

constructed for this purpose. 

Emergency operations plans should indicate how to prepare the building if a 

hurricane is forecast. For example, shutters should be closed, the roof and 

grounds should be checked, and items that could become wind-borne debris 

should removed or secured. School management should confirm with the 

pre-contracted architects, engineers, and contractors that they will 

immediately assess the school and perform emergency repairs. 

For schools that might also be affected by hurricane storm surge or 

flooding, the National Hurricane Center may issue storm surge 

In other types of windstorms, 

students might not be able to 

evacuate in advance as with 

hurricanes. For guidance on what 

to do in those situations, see the 

High Winds Supplement. 

FEMA P-1000 H: Hurricanes H-17 
inundation/depth maps to show anticipated storm surge flooding for a 

hurricane within 48 hours of expected landfall (see http://www.nhc.noaa 

.gov/surge/inundation/). Section F.4 in the Floods Supplement provides 

additional information and guidance. 

Flood-Resistant Design Passes a Test in Port Bolivar, Texas 

Figure H-18 shows an elementary and middle school building constructed in 2005 on the Bolivar 

Peninsula, just east of Galveston, Texas. Hurricane Ike made landfall nearby in September 2008, and 

design flood conditions affected the site. The building sustained some minor wind damage, but no flood 

damage. The building was elevated on concrete columns approximately one story higher than required 

by the flood map and building code. Flooding during Hurricane Ike reached approximately 5.5 ft above 

the ground—approximately design flood conditions—but did not enter the building. The building was 

one of the few buildings standing after Hurricane Ike and served many purposes after the storm. It was 

used to house emergency responders and to host many community meetings during the recovery and 

reconstruction period. Students returned in February 2009. FEMA (2009a) and Powitzky (2009) provide 

more information about the school and its operations after Hurricane Ike. 

Figure H-18 Crenshaw Elementary and Middle School, located in Port Bolivar, 

Texas, which was successfully designed to be a hurricane shelter in 

2005 and was one of the few buildings standing after 2008 

Hurricane Ike. (Photo source: Laurie Johnson) 

Planning the Recovery 

As mentioned in Section H.4, hurricanes can require massive evacuations 

over a short period of time. Recovery plans should consider that hurricanes 

can devastate a large geographical area and can impact many schools during 

a single event. Recovery plans should also consider the impact of local 

evacuation routes on school closures and the availability of school staff. 

Schools affected by a hurricane should be evaluated by an architectural and 

engineering team to determine whether or not they are safe to reoccupy. 

H.5 

H-18 H: Hurricanes FEMA P-1000 
ATC-45, Field Manual: Safety Evaluation of Buildings After Wind Storms 

and Floods (ATC, 2004), provides guidance on rating the safety 

significance of damage. The architectural and engineering team should also 

determine whether there was damage that is not directly related to life 

safety. Having pre-event contracts with architectural and engineering 

teams, and with contractors (including roofing contractors) for immediate 

post-event damage assessment and emergency repairs is highly 

recommended. 

If the school will be used as a shelter either during or after the event (see 

Sections H.3.2.1 and H.3.2.2, respectively), additional aspects should be 

considered when planning for recovery. These include considering the time 

and expenses required to clean the site prior to resumption of school, and 

contingency plans to use an alternate building in case damage precludes it 

from being used as such. 

Even if the school is expected to have only minor or no damage, school 

might not be able to resume for a week or two. Time may be needed for 

clearing of roads, confirmation that the school is safe to reoccupy, and 

restoration of basic services, such as electrical power, sewer, and water. 

If there is significant damage, an evaluation should be performed to 

determine if it is cost-effective to repair the damage versus demolish the 

building and build a new one. If the damage is severe enough, repairs will 

need to include various code-required upgrades (such as fire alarm systems), 

which can dramatically increase cost and may economically necessitate 

replacement with a new building, such as in the example shown in Figure 

H-19. 

Figure H-19 Essentially the entire roof covering on this older school blew off (Typhoon Paka, 

Guam, 1997). It is often more economical to demolish an old school such as this 

and build a new school, rather than perform repairs and required upgrades. 

FEMA P-1000 H: Hurricanes H-19 
 

 

 

If new construction is necessary, school leaders should consider 

implementing the guidance provided in Section H.3.2. If the damage is 

repairable, in addition to performing repairs, it is recommended that a 

vulnerability assessment be performed as described in Section H.3.1. 

For schools that might also be affected by hurricane storm surge or 

flooding, Section F.5 in the Floods Supplement provides recovery 

considerations and guidance specific to flooding and storm surge. 

H.6 Recommended Resources 

Full citations of all references used to develop this supplement are listed in 

the References section in this Guide. The following is a list of 

recommended resources that might be useful for school leaders that are 

addressing school hurricane risk. In some cases, a document is both in the 

References section and listed here as a recommended resource. 

ASCE/SEI 24, Flood Resistant Design and Construction (ASCE, 2014). 

This document sets forth the minimum design and construction 

requirements for buildings in flood hazard areas. 

ATC-45, Field Manual: Safety Evaluation of Buildings After Wind Storms 

and Floods (ATC, 2004). This document provides guidelines for evaluating 

whether it is safe to enter and reoccupy buildings damaged by wind or 

flood. It is intended to be used by designers and building professionals 

performing safety evaluations. This document does not provide guidance 

on determining damage and repair costs. 

FEMA P-361, Safe Rooms for Tornadoes and Hurricanes: Guidance for 

Community and Residential Safe Rooms (FEMA, 2015c). This document is 

primarily intended for architects and engineers; however, it provides 

emergency management considerations for the operations and maintenance 

of tornado and hurricane safe rooms. https://www.fema.gov/media-library 

/assets/documents/3140 

FEMA P-424, Risk Management Series: Design Guide for Improving 

School Safety in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds (FEMA, 2010a). 

This document is primarily intended for architects and engineers. It 

primarily pertains to new schools, but does provide guidance for existing 

schools. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1531-20490 

-0438/fema424_web.pdf 

FEMA 488, Mitigation Assessment Team Report: Hurricane Charley in 

Florida: Observations, Recommendations, and Technical Guidance 

(FEMA, 2005a). This document provides information about Hurricane 

H-20 H: Hurricanes FEMA P-1000 
 

 

 

 

Charlie effects on Florida buildings, including school buildings. FEMA has 

produced similar documents after other major hurricanes. http://www.fema 

.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1445-20490-6387/fema488.pdf 

FEMA 549, Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast: Building Performance 

Observations, Recommendations, and Technical Guidance (FEMA, 2006b). 

This document provides information about Hurricane Katrina effects on the 

Gulf Coast, including school buildings. FEMA has produced similar 

documents after other major hurricanes. http://www.fema.gov/media 

-library/assets/documents/4069 

FEMA P-757, Mitigation Assessment Team Report, Hurricane Ike in Texas 

and Louisiana: Building Performance Observations, Recommendations, and 

Technical Guidance (FEMA, 2009a). http://www.fema.gov/media-library 

/assets/documents/15498. This document provides information about 

Hurricane Ike effects on Texas and Louisiana buildings, including school 

buildings. FEMA has produced similar documents after other major 

hurricanes. See http://www.fema.gov/fema-mitigation-assessment-team 

-mat-reports. 

FEMA P-1019, Emergency Power Systems for Critical Facilities: A Best 

Practices Approach to Improving Reliability (FEMA, 2014). This 

document is primarily intended for architects and engineers, https://www 

.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/101996 

Hurricane Ready.gov website. This webpage provides guidance on what 

actions to take during a hurricane watch or warning alert from the National 

Weather Service. It also provides tips on what to do before, during, and 

after a hurricane. https://www.ready.gov/hurricanes 

ICC 500, Standard for the Design and Construction of Storm Shelters (ICC, 

2014a). This document sets forth requirements for design and construction 

of buildings or portions thereof to be used as storm shelters. 

Introduction to Storm Surge (NOAA). This document provides basic 

information on storm surge, how it is measured, and its effects. http://www 

.nhc.noaa.gov/surge/surge_intro.pdf 

JetStream – An Online School for Weather. This website was developed to 

help educators, emergency managers, or any other interested party in 

learning about weather and weather safety. http://www.srh.noaa.gov 

/jetstream/index.html 

National Hurricane Center’s Hurricane Preparedness webpage. This 

webpage provides guidance on hurricane preparedness, as well as 

FEMA P-1000 H: Hurricanes H-21 
 

 

information on Hurricane Preparedness Week. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov 

/prepare/ready.php 

The Storm as a Teacher: Lessons in Preparedness from Hurricanes Ike and 

Rita (Powitzky, 2009). This document describes how a new school building 

was designed to resist hurricane wind and surge affects, and served as a 

recovery and community center after Hurricane Ike. 

The StormReady® Program, hosted by the National Weather Service, offers 

a community recognition program for communities and institutions that 

implement storm ready activities, including activities specific to preparing 

for hurricanes. To learn how to become StormReady®, visit http://www 

.weather.gov/stormready/ 

Storm Surge Fast Draw. This short video provides an explanation of storm 

surge and its effects. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBa9bVYKLP0 

H-22 H: Hurricanes FEMA P-1000 
Supplement TO 

Tornadoes 

Winds with sufficient speed to cause building damage can occur anywhere in 

the United States and its territories. However, tornadoes and hurricanes 

present the greatest hazard, and tornadoes are the deadliest type of 

windstorm. This supplement is applicable to all schools located in tornadoprone regions. Additionally, the High Winds Supplement provides guidance 

for other types of high winds. For schools that are located in both a tornadoand hurricane-prone region, the Hurricanes Supplement is also applicable. 

This supplement provides occupant protection guidance for existing 

buildings and for new schools that are in the planning stage. The guidance is 

based on field observation research conducted on a large number of schools 

(and other buildings) that were affected by tornadoes. 

After reading this supplement, school administrators, school emergency 

managers, teachers, and other school leaders should be able to: 

	 Determine if a school is in a tornado-prone region; 

	 Determine geographical areas where tornado safe rooms/shelters are 

required, and where they are recommended; 

	 Determine if an architect or engineer should be retained to identify best 

available tornado refuge areas; 

	 Create or update a school disaster plan with specific considerations for 

tornadoes; and 

	 Identify aspects that should be considered to facilitate school recovery 

following a tornado. 

TO.1 Overview of Tornadoes 

A tornado is a violently rotating column of air extending from the base of a 

thunderstorm to or near the ground. Tornado path widths are typically less 

than 1,000 feet, however, widths of approximately 2.5 miles have been 

reported. The National Weather Service (NWS) rates tornado severity 

according to the six levels of observed damage in the Enhanced Fujita Scale 

(EF Scale). The scale ranges from EF0 to EF5, as shown in Figure TO-1. 

FEMA P-1000 TO: Tornadoes	 TO-1 
 

Tornadoes challenge affected 

communities in many ways, but 

the most devastating effect is 

measured in deaths and injuries. 

The National Weather Service 

started keeping organized records 

of tornadoes in the United States 

in 1950. Since then, the 

deadliest year for tornadoes was 

2011, which claimed 553 lives 

(FEMA, 2015c). 

Figure TO-1 Enhanced Fujita scale (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration). 

TO.1.1 Tornado Impacts on Schools 

Figure TO-2 illustrates the type and increasing severity of school damage as 

a function of the EF rating. Most tornadoes are EF0 or EF1. These weak 

tornadoes can damage most schools, but they present a low risk to life safety. 

Approximately 5% of the tornadoes are EF3 or stronger. As shown in Figure 

TO-3, these tornadoes can cause significant damage to most schools, even if 

they are well designed, constructed, and properly maintained. 

Tornadoes generate a large quantity of wind-borne debris, as illustrated in 

Figures TO-3 and TO-4. As the tornado intensity increases, the quantity of 

debris and risk of injury and death increase. 

TO-2	 TO: Tornadoes FEMA P-1000 
Figure TO-2 Typical tornado damage descriptions particular to schools and their corresponding intensity according to the EF Scale. 

FEMA P-1000 TO: Tornadoes TO-3 
Figure TO-3 Aerial view of a school devastated by a strong tornado in Moore, 

Oklahoma in 2013 (Photo source: AP Images). Yellow circle 

indicates where a wind-blown car impacted an exterior wall (yellow 

line) and pushed it into a classroom. Red circle marks an upside 

down car in the hallway, and the red arrow indicates collapsed 

interior masonry walls. 

Figure TO-4 Wind-borne debris in a classroom in Greensburg, Kansas in 

2007. Note that all of the exterior windows are broken and the 

roof deck was blown off. (Photo source: Thomas Smith, FEMA) 

TO-4	 TO: Tornadoes FEMA P-1000 
 

Because of the extremely high wind pressures, the dangers of wind-borne 

debris, and low probability of occurrence at a specific location, tornado wind 

design philosophy for schools focuses on life safety, rather than on 

minimizing building damage. 

TO.1.2 Important Terminology 

Best Available Refuge Areas. This refers to areas in an existing building 

that have been deemed by a qualified architect or engineer to likely offer the 

greatest safety for building occupants during a tornado, as defined by FEMA 

P-431, Tornado Protection: Selecting Refuge Areas in Buildings (FEMA, 

2009b). It is important to note that, because these areas were not specifically 

designed as a tornado safe room/shelter, their occupants may be injured or 

killed during a tornado. However, occupants in a best available refuge area 

are less likely to be injured or killed than people in other areas of a building. 

Best available refuge areas should be regarded as an interim measure only 

until a safe room/shelter is made available to the building occupants. 

Tornado Safe Room. This refers to a building or portion thereof that 

complies with the tornado provisions in FEMA P-361, Safe Rooms for 

Tornadoes and Hurricanes: Guidance for Community and Residential Safe 

Rooms (FEMA, 2015c). FEMA P-361 provides design and construction 

guidance for registered design professionals, as well as emergency 

management considerations for the operations and maintenance of tornado 

safe rooms. 

Tornado Shelter. This refers to a building or portion thereof that complies 

with the tornado provisions in ICC 500, Standard for the Design and 

Construction of Storm Shelters (ICC, 2014a). 

Tornado Watch. The National Weather Service issues a Tornado Watch 

when conditions are favorable for tornado development. 

Tornado Warning. The National Weather Service issues a Tornado 

Warning when a tornado has been sighted or indicated by weather radar. 

TO.2 Is Your School in a Tornado-Prone Region? 

Tornadoes can occur throughout the United States, as shown in Figure TO-5. 

However, the more destructive and deadly strong and violent tornadoes are 

rare in the west and northeast, as shown in Figure TO-6. 

Figure TO-7 shows the design wind speeds that are used for tornado safe 

rooms/shelters. This map should be used to determine if a school is located 

in a tornado-prone region. Schools that are located in the 160, 200, and 250 

miles per hour wind speed zones are considered to be in a tornado-prone 

Life Safety is an engineering term 

used to describe a level of design. 

The main goal behind life safety 

is to prevent fatalities and serious 

injuries in a building due to 

failure or collapse of structural 

elements, such as columns and 

beams. 

Safe rooms being constructed 

with FEMA grant funds must 

comply with ICC 500 and FEMA 

P-361. All safe room criteria in 

FEMA P-361 are consistent with 

and, in some cases, are more 

conservative than the 

corresponding ICC 500 

requirements. 

FEMA P-1000 TO: Tornadoes TO-5 
Figure TO-5 Recorded EF0 and EF1 tornadoes from 1950 to 2014. (Source: Map data 

from NOAA, 2016b) 

Figure TO-6 Recorded EF2, EF3, EF4, and EF5 tornadoes from 1950 to 2014. 

(Source: Map data from NOAA, 2016b) 

TO-6 TO: Tornadoes FEMA P-1000 
Figure TO-7 Safe room/shelter design wind speed zones for tornadoes (adapted from ICC, 2014a). The 

2015 edition of the International Building Code requires new schools in the red zone to have a 

tornado shelter. FEMA recommends that schools in the yellow and orange zones also have a 

tornado safe room/shelter. 

region. To determine if a school is in one of these three zones, see Figure 

TO-7. If a school is located along or near a boundary of different wind 

speeds on the Figure TO-7 map, the higher wind speed should be assumed. 

TO.3 Protecting Occupants within School Buildings 

This section provides guidance pertaining to occupant protection within 

school buildings. 

TO.3.1 Existing School Buildings 

For existing schools located in the 160, 200, or 250 mph wind zones, it is 

recommended that a safe room/shelter be constructed. Tornado safe 

rooms/shelters are specifically designed and constructed to provide occupant 

protection from high winds and wind-borne debris. The 2018 edition of the 

International Existing Building Code will, in certain circumstances, require 

ICC 500 compliant tornado shelters in K-12 school buildings with 50 or 

more occupants located in the 250 mph tornado wind speed zone shown in 

Tornado safe rooms/shelters are

intended to provide occupant 

protection, and in addition, they 

can also reduce anxiety each time 

a tornado watch is issued. 

Students, faculty and staff in a 

school with a safe room/shelter 

should be comforted by knowing 

that there is an area in the school 

that will keep them safe. Peace 

of mind should facilitate learning 

while students are in class during 

a tornado watch. 

FEMA P-1000 TO: Tornadoes	 TO-7 
Because best available refuge 

areas were not specifically 

designed to serve as safe rooms 

or shelters, their occupants may 

be injured or killed during a 

tornado. However, occupants in a 

best available refuge area are 

less likely to be injured or killed 

than people in other areas of a 

school. 	

 

Figure TO-7. A similar requirement is already in place for new school 

buildings (see Section TO.3.2). 

A safe room/shelter can be sized to only accommodate students, faculty, 

staff, and visitors. It can also be sized to also accommodate nearby 

community members. When sized to also serve a community, operational 

procedures should be established to open the safe room/shelter during nonschool hours. Section 3.2.1 and Section 3.2.2 provide more information on 

tornado safe room/shelter costs and timeline of development. 

When a safe room/shelter is added to an existing campus, it is normally done 

as part of an addition, such as a classroom wing or multipurpose room as 

shown in Figure TO-8. In some instances, a portion of an existing school 

may be retrofitted to meet safe room/shelter criteria, however, this option is 

rarely cost effective. 

Figure TO-8 This multipurpose room addition was designed as a safe room in Wichita, 

Kansas (FEMA, 2012d). 

As an interim until a safe room/shelter is available, it is recommended that 

best available refuge areas be identified by a qualified architect or engineer, 

using the guidance in FEMA P-431. 

Many schools in the tornado-prone region have identified refuge areas. 

Often however, the areas were not selected by a qualified architect or 

engineer. When areas are selected by people with inadequate expertise, it 

may result in students, faculty, and visitors taking refuge in areas that offer 

less protection. The importance of having a qualified architect or engineer 

select the best available refuge areas is illustrated by the example from the 

Oklahoma training program, shown in Figure TO-9. 

TO-8	 TO: Tornadoes FEMA P-1000 
 

 

Determining Best Available Refuge Areas: The Value of Having a Trained Team 

After deadly tornadoes struck Moore, Oklahoma in 2013, a training and school assessment program was 

conducted by FEMA and the State of Oklahoma. This included a two-day training program for 

architects, engineers, and building professionals on the design of tornado safe rooms and the selection of 

best available refuge areas. Teams were assigned an existing school and tasked with selecting best 

available refuge areas. The teams reviewed drawings of the existing buildings, conducted a site visit, 

analyzed findings, and recommended where to take refuge. This effort took less than eight hours with 

some additional time for report writing. Thus, the cost to have a qualified architect or engineer select 

refuge areas is minimal— around eight to sixteen hours for a small school and up to 24 hours for a large 

school. 

Figure TO-9 shows the floor plan of a school indicating the previously identified refuge areas, as well as 

the best available refuge areas selected by the trained assessment team. Some unique construction 

characteristics of the building presented life safety hazards that were not recognized by the entity that 

previously selected the refuge areas. A comparison of previously identified refuge areas versus the best 

available refuge areas show a significant difference in the areas that were selected for refuge. While the 

space afforded by designated best available refuge areas is noticeably less than the space of the 

previously identified refuge areas, they were determined to be of sufficient size for the school’s projected 

population needs. 

Figure TO-9 Identified refuge areas, both previous and updated, marked on school floor 

plan. “Updated” refers to the best available refuge areas that were 

identified by the trained assessment team. 

FEMA P-1000 TO: Tornadoes TO-9 
Avoid a false sense of protection. 

If a school is struck by a tornado 

and the refuge areas sustain little 

or no damage, it is important to 

avoid the conclusion that the 

refuge areas are safe. A future 

tornado that is stronger or on a 

slightly different track could 

destroy the refuge areas. Safe 

protection is only provided by a 

tornado safe room/shelter. 

 

 

Building codes are adopted and 

can be modified at the local or 

state level. For example, as of 

September 2016, when the State 

of Oklahoma Uniform Building 

Code Commission adopted the 

2015 edition of IBC, it removed 

the requirement for tornado 

shelters in new schools. 

In contrast, Alabama and Illinois 

both passed legislation in 2010 

and 2015, respectively, requiring 

tornado shelters in all new 

schools. These statutes preclude 

local jurisdictions from deleting 

the tornado shelter requirement 

from the building code. 

Signage Terminology. Refuge areas that do not comply with safe 

room/shelter criteria should not be posted with signage that would make 

occupants think they are in a safe room/shelter. It is recommended that best 

available refuge areas be posted with signs that say “Best Available Tornado 

Refuge Area.” 

TO.3.2 New School Buildings 

Beginning with the 2015 edition of the International Building Code, ICC 500 

compliant tornado shelters are required in new K-12 school buildings with 50 

or more occupants located in the 250 mph tornado wind speed zone shown in 

Figure TO-7. New school buildings must abide by building code 

requirements that are adopted by local or State jurisdictions. The adopting 

entity can delete or modify the code provisions or add to them, unless 

precluded from doing so by the state statute. FEMA recommends that 

disaster-resistant code provisions not be weakened or omitted. 

Whether or not required by the adopted building code in a particular area, it 

is recommended that a tornado safe room/shelter be incorporated in schools 

located in the 160, 200, and 250 mph wind speed zones. 

TO.3.2.1 Tornado Safe Room/Shelter Cost 

The cost to design and construct a new safe room versus normal construction 

within the 250 mph wind zone is estimated to be 20% to 32% greater. This 

increase only applies to the new safe room construction and not to the entire 

building. For example, if a new school’s multipurpose room will also serve 

as a safe room, only the cost of the multipurpose room is estimated to 

increase by 20% to 32%. The cost of the remainder of the school is 

unchanged. The percent increase in cost for safe rooms in the 200 and 160 

mph wind zones are lower. FEMA P-361 provides more detailed 

information on safe room costs and considerations. 

TO.3.2.2 Tornado Safe Room/Shelter Timeline 

Figure TO-10 provides a synopsis of major events related to development of 

safe room/shelter design criteria and building code adoption. Criteria for 

design and construction of tornado safe rooms/shelters were published in 

2000, and new schools were first required by a building code to have a safe 

room/shelter in 2015. 

TO-10 TO: Tornadoes FEMA P-1000 
Figure TO-10 Timeline of development and requirements of tornado safe rooms/shelters. 

FEMA P-1000 TO: Tornadoes TO-11 
Schools and the Joplin Tornadoes of May 2011 

An EF5 tornado struck Joplin, Missouri in May 2011, causing 161 fatalities. It severely damaged five 

public schools and one private school. Fortunately, it struck on Sunday and the schools were not 

occupied. Five schools were replaced with new buildings and one school required major renovation 

work. The renovated school opened in fall of 2013, four of the new schools opened in 2014, and the 

private school opened in 2015. All of the schools incorporated a tornado safe room in the reconstruction. 

The rebuilding of the public schools was made possible by passage of a bond measure, along with funds 

from building insurance and a FEMA grant to cover a significant portion of the safe room costs. The 

school district would not have been able to afford rebuilding one of the schools, or any of the safe rooms 

if the bond had not passed. The bond measure passed by a margin of less than 1%. 

Joplin East Middle School was one of the damaged schools. At the gymnasium, two roof trusses and an 

exterior wall collapsed, as shown in Figure TO-11. At the auditorium, two exterior walls collapsed. The 

poor performance was not due to building age (it was constructed in 2009). Rather, the damage was 

caused by wind speeds that substantially exceeded those that the school was designed to withstand. 

This school had six interior rooms designated as areas of “Tornado Safe Shelter;” however, they did not 

possess the wind pressure and wind-borne debris resistance required for adequate tornado safe 

rooms/shelters. 

An industrial park warehouse was converted into a temporary school for the start of the 2011-2012 school 

year, and was used until the new school opened in January 2014. 

Figure TO-11 View of the gymnasium. A brick veneer/precast concrete wall and two roof trusses 

collapsed onto the floor (FEMA, 2012d). 

TO-12 TO: Tornadoes FEMA P-1000 
Protecting Occupants: Summary of Key Points 

 Determine if your school is in a tornado-prone region. 

 A tornado shelter is required for new schools constructed in the 250 mph wind zone. 

 A tornado safe room/shelter is recommended for new schools and school additions in the 160 mph and 

greater wind zones. 

 For schools located in the 160, 200, and 250 mph wind zones that do not have access to safe 

rooms/shelters: 

o Plan for the construction of a safe room/shelter. 

o In the interim, have a qualified architect or engineer select best available refuge areas. 

TO.4 Planning the Response 

Having robust emergency response plans for schools that are in a tornadoprone region (that is, within the 160, 200, and 250 mph wind zones per 

Figure TO-7) is particularly important because of the limited warning time 

that comes with tornadoes. All school management, faculty, staff, students, 

and parents should respond immediately and know exactly what to do in 

different situations (e.g., if the warning occurs during class, while on a bus, 

or during recess). In particular, the following are recommended: 

	 Drills. Drills should be conducted periodically at each school. During 

drills, students, faculty, and staff should go to the safe room/shelter or 

designated refuge areas. It is recommended to conduct one drill shortly 

after the start of the school year and one before spring (an active time for 

tornadoes). It is also important to provide information on taking refuge 

when students are not at school (e.g., seek small, windowless interior 

rooms). 

	 Safe Room/Shelter. For schools that do not have access to a safe 

room/shelter, plans for adding one should be developed. The case of 

Plaza Towers Elementary School (Figures TO-12 and TO-13) 

demonstrates the importance of having access to a safe room/shelter 

during a tornado. Operations in a safe room during a tornado should be 

considered in school emergency operations plans. Considerations should 

include security and safety, first aid, and plans for communications with 

others outside of the safe room. For more information on this particular 

topic, readers should see FEMA P-361, which provides emergency 

management considerations for safe rooms, including communications 

and emergency supplies. 

If a tornado warning is issued 

(i.e., a tornado has been 

spotted), building occupants 

should move to the tornado safe 

room(s)/shelter(s), or designated 

refuge areas if they do not have 

access to a safe room/shelter. 

Occupants may be there for 

several minutes or perhaps an 

hour or longer, until the warning 

has been cancelled. 

If a tornado strikes the school, 

debris may preclude family 

reunification until after first 

responders remove the debris. 

FEMA P-1000 TO: Tornadoes	 TO-13 
No Safe Room: Plaza Towers Elementary School, Moore, Oklahoma 

Plaza Towers Elementary School in Moore, Oklahoma, was constructed in the 1970s with subsequent 

additions. The one-story school was of common construction of its time (unreinforced concrete masonry 

unit (CMU) interior and exterior walls, steel joists and steel decking). It was hit by a violent tornado on 

May 20, 2013 that resulted in the deaths of seven students and injury of many more (NIST, 2013). 

The first local tornado warning was issued prior to the normal school dismissal time. About a half hour 

earlier as the storms approached, all Moore Public School District schools were alerted to move everyone 

into designated refuge areas. Plaza Towers did not have a safe room/shelter. 

Students and teachers were in the “designated area of safety” before the tornado hit. All buildings on the 

campus sustained significant structural damage (Figure TO-12), including the collapsed refuge area where 

seven victims were crushed (Figure TO-13). Figure TO-13 shows what remained of the hallway where 

faculty had been instructed to take their students and where the seven fatalities occurred. Most of the 

debris had already been cleared at the time the photograph was taken. 

The fatalities at this school illustrate the sobering importance of safe rooms/shelters and of conveying a 

realistic sense of risk to students, faculty, staff, and parents. 

Figure TO-12 Post-tornado view. The area circled in red shows the approximate location in 

the hallway where the 7 fatalities occurred (NIST, 2013; Original photo 

source: NOAA). 

Figure TO-13 Damaged hallway where seven fatalities occurred (most of the debris has 

already been removed). This hallway area was a “designated area of safety” 

(NIST, 2013). 

TO-14 TO: Tornadoes FEMA P-1000 
 

	 Best Available Refuge Areas. As interim measure until a safe 

room/shelter is made available to the building occupants, a qualified 

architect or engineer should select best available refuge areas within the 

school grounds. Until a safe room/shelter is incorporated on school 

grounds, all school occupants should plan to go to the best available 

refuge areas during a tornado. 

	 Weather Radio. Schools should be equipped with weather radios, so 

that office personnel will be aware when the National Weather Service 

issues tornado watches and warnings. 

	 Portable Classrooms. Portable classrooms are often more susceptible to 

wind damage than school buildings. It is therefore recommended that 

portable classrooms not be occupied during time when a tornado watch 

has been issued by the National Weather Service. 

	 Policies and Operational Plans. Policies and operational plans should 

include considerations for a tornado watch or warning being issued 

during different scenarios, such as outdoor events (e.g., sports or 

ceremonies), school bus operations, and school release. For school bus 

operations, it is recommended that the policy/plan include the following: 

(1) buses should not enter an area that is within the boundary of a 

tornado warning (this will necessitate someone at the bus operations 

center having access to National Weather Service warnings, and having 

communications with drivers); and (2) if a bus inadvertently gets close to 

a tornado, the driver should try to get to find a nearby building and have 

the bus occupants go inside it (typically it will be better to have students 

be in even a weak building rather than on a bus). Policies and 

operational plans should also outline procedures for parents picking up 

students prior to an event, school lockdown prior to an event, and family 

reunification after school lockdown. 

TO.5 Planning the Recovery 

Schools affected by a tornado should be evaluated by an architectural and 

engineering team to determine whether or not they are safe to reoccupy. 

ATC-45, Field Manual: Safety Evaluation of Buildings After Wind Storms 

and Floods (ATC, 2004), provides guidance on rating the safety significance 

of damage. The architectural and engineering team should also determine 

whether there was damage that is not directly related to life safety. Having 

pre-event contracts with architectural and engineering teams, and with 

contractors (including roofing contractors) for immediate post-event damage 

assessment and emergency repairs is highly recommended. 

Typically, advance warning is 

sufficient for students, faculty, 

staff and visitors to reach the safe 

room/shelter or best available 

refuge areas. 

In the aftermath of the student 

fatalities during the Moore 2013 

tornado, voters passed a bond 

measure by a 3 to 1 margin to 

construct safe rooms at all 23 of 

the 25 schools within the school 

district. The other two schools 

had safe rooms that had been 

constructed after destructive 

tornadoes in 1999. 

FEMA P-1000 TO: Tornadoes	 TO-15 
 

 

 

 

If there is significant damage, an evaluation should be performed to 

determine if it is cost-effective to repair the damage versus demolish the 

building and build a new one. If the damage is severe enough, repairs will 

need to include various code-required upgrades (such as fire alarm systems), 

which can dramatically increase cost and may economically necessitate 

replacement with a new building. School leaders should consider 

incorporating a tornado safe room/shelter as part of the repair or 

reconstruction if the school is located in the 160, 200, or 250 mph wind 

speed zone. 

TO.6 Recommended Resources 

Full citations of all references used to develop this supplement are listed in 

the References section in this Guide. The following is a list of recommended 

resources that might be useful for school leaders that are addressing school 

tornado risk. In some cases, a document is both in the References section 

and listed here as a recommended resource. 

ATC-45, Field Manual: Safety Evaluation of Buildings after Wind Storms 

and Floods (ATC, 2004). This document provides guidelines for evaluating 

whether it is safe to enter and reoccupy buildings damaged by wind or flood. 

It is intended to be used by designers and building professionals performing 

safety evaluations. This document does not provide guidance on determining 

damage and repair costs. 

Case Study – School Community Safe Room: Wichita, Kansas (FEMA, 

2015a). This document provides a case study of a new middle school 

classroom wing that was designed to meet or exceed the design criteria in the 

2008 editions of ICC 500 and FEMA P-361. https://www.fema.gov/media 

-library/assets/documents/103902 

FEMA P-361, Safe Rooms for Tornadoes and Hurricanes: Guidance for 

Community and Residential Safe Rooms (FEMA, 2015c). This document is 

primarily intended for architects and engineers; however, it also provides 

emergency management considerations for the operations and maintenance 

of tornado safe rooms. www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/3140 

FEMA P-424, Risk Management Series: Design Guide for Improving School 

Safety in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds (FEMA, 2010a). This 

document is primarily intended for architects and engineers. It primarily 

pertains to new schools, but does provide guidance for existing schools. 

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1531-20490-0438 

/fema424_web.pdf 

TO-16 TO: Tornadoes FEMA P-1000 
 

 

 

 

FEMA P-431, Tornado Protection: Selecting Refuge Areas in Buildings 

(FEMA, 2009b). This document is primarily intended for architects and 

engineers. www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/2246 

ICC 500, Standard for the Design and Construction of Storm Shelters (ICC, 

2014a). This document sets forth requirements for design and construction 

of buildings or portions thereof to be used as storm shelters. 

JetStream – An Online School for Weather. This website was developed to 

help educators, emergency managers, or any other interested party in 

learning about weather and weather safety. http://www.srh.noaa.gov 

/jetstream/index.html 

Mitigation Case Studies: Protecting School Children from Tornadoes, State 

of Kansas School Shelter Initiative (FEMA, 2002). This document describes 

the experiences of two Kansas schools affected by the May 3, 1999 tornadoes 

and the actions taken to mitigate against future events. www.preventionweb 

.net/files/2755_ksschoolscs1.pdf 

Preliminary Reconnaissance of the May 20, 2013, Newcastle-Moore 

Tornado in Oklahoma (NIST, 2013). This report describes the 

reconnaissance investigations that were conducted on one critical facility and 

two educational facilities that were affected by the May 20, 2013 NewcastleMoore tornado in Oklahoma. http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm 

?pub_id=914721 

Storm Prediction Center. For information on tornado meteorology, see 

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/ 

The StormReady® Program, hosted by the National Weather Service, offers 

a community recognition program for communities and institutions that 

implement storm ready activities, including activities specific to preparing 

for tornadoes. To learn how to become StormReady®, visit http://www 

.weather.gov/stormready/. 

FEMA P-1000 TO: Tornadoes TO-17 

 

Supplement TS 

Tsunamis 

All open ocean shorelines in the United States are potentially susceptible to 

catastrophic flooding by tsunamis, which can destroy facilities and kill 

people unable to reach safe ground. The risk of tsunami inundation varies 

considerably. At least 190 schools in California, Oregon, Washington, 

Alaska, and Hawaii are considered at-risk to tsunami inundation (Saiyed et 

al., 2017). Estimates of school facilities at risk in other states have not yet 

been compiled, but geologists, oceanographers, and other experts are 

working to better understand the tsunami hazard to communities on the 

islands and coastlines of the Pacific Basin as well as along the U.S. Atlantic 

Coast and the Gulf of Mexico. 

This supplement addresses existing schools and planned new school 

construction located in and near tsunami hazard zones in the United States 

and its territories. It provides guidance based on field observations and 

research conducted on schools and other buildings that have been affected by 

tsunamis worldwide. 

After reading this supplement, school administrators, school emergency 

managers, teachers, and other school leaders should be able to: 

	 Determine whether their school is (or might be) located within or near a 

tsunami hazard zone; 

	 Understand general considerations and options for existing school 

buildings in tsunami hazard zones; 

	 Understand the roles that schools can serve by providing shelter or 

refuge to evacuated students, staff, and community; 

	 Create or update a school disaster plan with specific considerations for 

tsunamis, including evacuation options; and 

	 Identify aspects that should be considered to facilitate school recovery 

following a tsunami. 

TS.1 Overview of Tsunamis 

In the Japanese language, the word “tsunami” means “harbor wave.” Often 

incorrectly referred to as tidal waves, tsunamis have nothing to do with 

normal tides. The phenomenon is a series of waves generated by a powerful 

FEMA P-1000 TS: Tsunamis Supplement TS-1 
physical disturbance within a body of water. In an enclosed body of water, a 

similar displacement that produces a standing wave is called “seiche” rather 

than tsunami. When a column of water is displaced (typically by an 

earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption), the waves propagate across the 

body of water until they reach nearby and distant shores. 

In the open ocean, tsunami waves can travel at speeds up to 600 miles per 

hour. Generally imperceptible in open waters, tsunamis slow down and build 

in height as they approach the coastline. They flood ashore in a “run-up” that 

delivers great force and can flood areas far above normal high tide or storm 

surge levels. Tsunamis with run-up elevations that exceed 3.28 feet (one 

meter) above normal sea levels are particularly dangerous to people and 

property, but smaller tsunamis are also life threatening and can cause 

extensive damage. As little as six inches of fast-moving water can knock 

over an adult, and children are at risk in even less. 

The time elapsed between successive tsunami waves can vary from five to 

ninety minutes. The first wave is usually neither the largest nor the most 

significant in a tsunami sequence. The most damaging waves usually occur 

within the first several hours of the initiating event. Local effects can vary 

due to many factors, including currents and the near shore underwater 

environment. One coastal community may experience destructive inundation 

while another, not far away, may experience no tsunami flooding at all in the 

same event. These variations cannot always be predicted. 

TS.1.1 Causes of Tsunamis 

Tsunamis may be caused by undersea earthquakes, landslides occurring 

either above or below the water surface, volcanic activity, atmospheric 

activity, and, although rare, meteorite strikes. The most common causes are 

summarized in Figure TS-1. 

Figure TS-1 Tsunami sources (Pacific Tsunami Warning Center). 

TS-2 TS: Tsunamis Supplement FEMA P-1000 
 

Earthquakes account for some 72% of recorded tsunami events. Offshore, 

underwater earthquakes rapidly displace the seafloor and can shift a column 

of water upward, generating tsunami waves. 

Landslides are the second most common cause of tsunamis, accounting for 

about 10% of events. Landslides both above and below the water surface 

have the potential to produce tsunamis even in areas not considered prone to 

offshore earthquakes. Underwater landslides (for example, down the slope 

of an undersea river canyon or continental shelf) can essentially ‘pull’ a 

column of water downward, causing displacement that generates tsunami 

waves. Landslides have generated some of the largest tsunamis ever 

recorded. The 1964 Great Alaska earthquake triggered a landslide 

responsible for a “mega-tsunami” in Lituya Bay, Alaska with a wave run-up 

that damaged vegetation as high as 1,740 feet above sea level (Miller, 1960). 

About 2% of tsunamis have atmospheric causes. So-called “meteotsunamis” 

are caused by air pressure disturbances associated with fast moving weather 

systems such as squall lines (narrow bands of storms and high winds 

associated with cold fronts). These disturbances can generate ocean waves 

that travel at the same speed as the overhead weather system. Development 

of a meteotsunami depends on factors including the intensity, direction, and 

speed of the disturbance as it travels over a body of water with a depth that 

enhances wave magnification. These events are more likely to occur in the 

Gulf of Mexico, along the U.S. East Coast, and in the Great Lakes. A recent 

meteotsunami struck the Florida coast near Naples during a powerful storm 

in January 2016. 

TS.1.2 Local or Distant? 

For the purpose of emergency planning, tsunamis are classified as local or 

distant. Local tsunamis originate close to shore, typically from an 

earthquake along an offshore fault. Because they are usually preceded by a 

strong earthquake and can reach adjacent shorelines within minutes, local 

tsunamis are considered the most dangerous. 

Natural warning signs typically precede a local tsunami. These signs may 

include water that recedes from shore in an unusual manner, a water surface 

that appears to boil or churn, and/or an audible roar. An earthquake of any 

strength in proximity to a coastal area should always be considered a tsunami 

warning sign. No official notification may be received prior to the arrival of 

a local tsunami, which may reach shore within minutes of the earthquake or 

landslide that causes it. Immediate action, including evacuation to high 

ground or inland, is essential. 

FEMA P-1000 TS: Tsunamis Supplement TS-3 
A Tragic Loss in Hawaii 

On April 1, 1946, a magnitude-7.1 earthquake off the Aleutian Islands in Alaska caused a destructive 

tsunami. Locally, the earthquake generated a wave that surged as high as 135 feet, destroying a newly built 

lighthouse on Unimak Island and killing its crew of five. The tsunami crossed the Pacific Ocean to reach 

the Hawaiian Islands. 

When the tsunami waves reached Laupāhoehoe Point on the north coast of the Big Island of Hawaii, water 

drew back from shore in an unusual manner and attracted the students and staff of nearby Laupāhoehoe 

School to tide pools exposed by the drawdown. The waves that followed inundated the shore with a run-up 

that reached 56 feet above sea level. The waves killed sixteen students and five teachers, destroyed 

teachers’ residences, and flooded the school grounds. A monument commemorates the twenty-four total 

victims at Laupāhoehoe Point Park. 

A Near Miss in Oregon 

The Great Alaska earthquake, the largest earthquake recorded in United States history (magnitude-9.2), 

struck on a fault off Alaska’s coast on Good Friday, March 27, 1964. This earthquake caused local 

devastation including the massive landslide that caused the “mega-tsunami” reported at Lituya Bay, and the 

tsunami generated by the earthquake itself caused significant damage on the West Coast of the United 

States and in Hawaii. 

In the small community of Cannon Beach, Oregon, approximately 1,500 miles from the earthquake’s 

epicenter, the tsunami lifted a bridge deck spanning Ecola Creek off its abutments and floated it upstream. 

Parts of the town itself were filled with debris. Cannon Beach Elementary School (the Quonset hut in the 

top right corner of Figure TS-2), adjacent to Ecola Creek and just a few feet above sea level, somehow 

escaped destruction. The school continued to operate on the site until 2013. 

Figure TS-2 Impacts of the 1964 Alaska tsunami on lower Ecola Creek, Cannon 

Beach, Oregon. (Photo source: Cannon Beach History Center) 

TS-4 TS: Tsunamis Supplement FEMA P-1000 
 

Distant tsunamis are classified as those tsunamis that travel across oceans, 

causing impacts hundreds to thousands of miles away from their originating 

source. The long travel distance allows accurate prediction of arrival time. 

Although natural warning signs, such as water receding from shore, may 

precede the arrival of a distant tsunami, official warning systems and 

announcements from emergency managers can alert affected communities 

well in advance of any danger, allowing plenty of time for orderly evacuation 

of facilities and locations at risk. 

Either type of tsunami can be dangerous if communities and schools in 

vulnerable locations are unprepared. Fortunately, with advance preparation 

(and in some cases mitigation), communities, schools, students, faculty, and 

staff can expect to survive both local and distant tsunamis. 

TS.2 Is Your School in a Tsunami Hazard Zone? 

As mentioned in the chapter introduction, all open ocean shorelines in the 

United States are exposed to tsunamis, but the hazard level varies. Table 

TS-1 shows the variation in hazard levels, deaths, and damages attributable 

to tsunami inundation for coastal areas of the United States and its territories 

since the year 1800. Over roughly two centuries, tsunamis have been 

responsible for more than 700 deaths and nearly $2 billion in direct damages 

(in inflation-adjusted dollars) in the United States. 

Tsunamis are highly variable, and the task of identifying areas susceptible to 

flooding by local and distant tsunamis is complex. In general, state geology 

Table TS-1 Coastal Areas in the United States Ranked by Tsunami Hazard (NTHMP, 2016) 

Location 

Tsunami Hazard 

Level 

Number of 

Events 

Deaths 

Reported 

Damage 

Reported 

Hawaii High to Very High 134 293 $622 million 

Alaska High to Very High 100 222 $688 million 

U.S. West Coast High to Very High 94 25 $241 million 

American Samoa High 68 34 $139 million 

Guam & N. Mariana Islands High 25 1 -

Puerto Rico & U.S. Virgin Islands High 13 164 $63 million 

U.S. Atlantic Coast Very Low to Low 8 - -

Alaska Arctic Coast Very Low - - -

U.S. Gulf Coast Very Low 1 - -

Note: “Events” reported since early 19th century. Hazard levels are qualitative and based largely on the 

historical record through 2014, geological evidence, and location relative to known tsunami sources, all of 

which provide clues to what might happen in the future. Damage estimates adjusted for inflation to 2016 

dollar values. 

FEMA P-1000 TS: Tsunamis Supplement TS-5 
A subcommittee of the School 

Earthquake Safety Initiative 

recently started compiling a list of 

schools that are located within 

tsunami evacuation zones along 

the Pacific Rim. To see the latest 

list, visit: www.eeri.org/projects 

/schools/subcommittees/#tsuna 

mi. 

 

For a map of tsunami hazard 

zones, visit: http://nws.weather 

.gov/nthmp/NTHMP_Web_Reso 

urces.html or contact local or 

state emergency management 

agencies. 

agencies lead or coordinate the task of mapping coastal areas prone to 

inundation, combining computer simulation models, topographic data, and 

knowledge gained from tsunamis throughout the world. 

Local and state emergency managers consult inundation maps, typically the 

worst-case scenario displayed, to map tsunami evacuation zones and 

designate local evacuation routes. Evacuation zones and routes are 

commonly shared with the general public in the form of evacuation 

brochures distributed by local emergency managers and public safety 

agencies. The maps in evacuation brochures depict evacuation zones for the 

maximum extent of tsunami flooding. Each state makes local evacuation 

brochures and maps available online as well as in printed form. The National 

Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP: a federal-state partnership 

including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, and 28 U.S. 

states and territories) has compiled tsunami inundation and evacuation maps, 

as well as resources specifically useful to schools. This information is 

available at: http://nws.weather.gov/nthmp/NTHMP_Web_Resources.html. 

TS.2.1 Mapped Tsunami Hazard Zones 

State geological survey agencies in at least eight coastal states and four 

offshore territories of the United States have created and published tsunami 

inundation maps, technical reports, and evacuation brochures. 

Evacuation maps typically display inundation zones, areas of higher ground, 

evacuation routes, and assembly areas. Figure TS-3 shows an example of the 

evacuation map prepared for Crescent City, a coastal city with approximately 

7,500 residents in northern California. On this map, an elementary school, a 

high school, and a church are indicated as assembly points (gray circles) for 

people who follow designated evacuation routes to safe ground. 

TS.2.2 Unmapped Tsunami Hazard Zones 

Technical experts have not assessed all tsunami hazard zones along United 

States shorelines, but all coastal areas face some degree of tsunami hazard. 

As natural hazard educators in locations considered lower-risk sometimes say 

about tsunamis, “They may be rare... Let’s still prepare!” Local offshore 

conditions and on-shore topography make tsunami flooding highly variable 

from one community to the next. This variability makes local information 

especially important. 

In coastal communities for which no tsunami hazard assessment or 

evacuation map exists, school leaders can contact local emergency 

TS-6 TS: Tsunamis Supplement FEMA P-1000 
management agencies, state geological surveys, or state offices of emergency 

management for assistance. The NTHMP has developed guidelines for 

unmapped areas or areas of lower risk. This information is available at 

http://nws.weather.gov/nthmp/documents/Inundationareaguidelinesforlowhaz 

ardareas.pdf 

Figure TS-3 Tsunami evacuation map for Crescent City, California. 

(Photo source: California Geological Survey) 

TS.3 Tsunamis and School Buildings 

Tsunamis deliver enormous loads to buildings and other structures in their 

path, and few structures can withstand the forces without sustaining severe 

damage or complete destruction. The easiest way to eliminate the risk of 

tsunami damage to schools is to locate school facilities outside of areas 

subject to tsunami inundation. In every part of the coastal United States, 

however, schools were constructed in low-lying areas many years before the 

hazard of tsunami inundation had been recognized. Fortunately, there are 

steps that all school districts with facilities or property susceptible to 

tsunamis can take immediately to reduce the risks to their students and staff. 

TS.3.1 General Considerations 

In an ideal world, all schools would be located on high ground. School 

districts considering the location and construction of new facilities as part of 

capital planning efforts can employ a tsunami mitigation strategy of avoid, 

minimize, and replace in order to limit exposure of both the facility and its 

occupants to tsunami hazards. 

FEMA P-1000 TS: Tsunamis Supplement TS-7 
 

School Facility Planning 

Considerations: 

1. Avoid tsunami hazard zones 

if possible. 

2. Minimize exposure to 

inundation. 

3. Replace facilities as last 

resort. 

	 Avoid. In order to improve life safety and reduce the risk of damage and 

losses to school facilities from tsunamis, avoid siting new or replacement 

facilities within known or suspected tsunami hazard zones. 

	 Minimize. In communities where facilities cannot be sited outside of 

known or suspected tsunami hazard zones, risk to life safety may be 

minimized by integrating vertical evacuation into the school facilities 

located on the highest available ground. Taking advantage of natural 

elevation will reduce the costs of integrating vertical evacuation into 

school design. 

	 Replace. If no suitable alternatives exist or if vertical evacuation is not 

feasible, plan to replace existing facilities, but consider the costs and 

prepare students, staff, and community for the realities of safe evacuation 

from a vulnerable location. 

School leaders, local emergency managers, and state geological survey staff 

can collaborate to evaluate proposed locations for school facilities, helping 

school officials to plan capital budgets and bond or levy measures that 

include construction funding. 

TS.3.2 Existing School Facilities 

School districts that have facilities located within tsunami hazard zones 

should consider crafting and adopting a “risk-reduction hierarchy policy” to 

prioritize options for the relocation of schools at risk, or the replacement of 

existing schools with tsunami-resistant structures that incorporate vertical 

evacuation. 

One of the most important priorities for existing school facilities located 

within known hazard zones is to ensure that practical tsunami evacuation 

plans exist and are tested by holding regular evacuation drills. Practicing the 

procedures specified by school or district-wide emergency plans will validate 

planning assumptions and allow plans to be refined to ensure they will lead 

to the desired outcome: safe students, teachers, and staff when real-world 

evacuations occur. 

TS.3.3 New Facilities: Design for Vertical Evacuation 

Some coastal communities lack natural high ground on which to locate 

schools. Some lack safe terrain to which students and staff can evacuate in a 

timely manner in response to a nearby earthquake or a tsunami warning. For 

these communities, new concepts guiding the integration of artificial “high 

ground” into the built and natural environment deserve consideration. 

TS-8	 TS: Tsunamis Supplement FEMA P-1000 
Vertical Evacuation Becomes a Reality in Coastal Washington State 

Local officials and school leaders dedicated the first engineered vertical evacuation structure in the 

United States (a Project Safe Haven initiative) in June 2016. Ocosta Elementary School sits at the base 

of a low, sandy peninsula between Grays Harbor and the Pacific Ocean in southwest Washington State. 

The $16 million replacement of a 50-year-old deteriorating elementary school includes a tsunami refuge 

structure designed to accommodate all of the district’s 700 students and staff plus up to 1,300 community 

members at a safe elevation above sea level. 

After two prior failures to pass a local bond measure to replace the old school, the new project won at the 

polls with 70 percent “yes” votes, indicating strong community support for this vision joining education 

with public safety. The robust engineering and vertical evacuation features of the new school added only 

$2 million to project costs. 

Figure TS-4 Ocosta Elementary School’s heavily reinforced vertical evacuation 

structure under construction in Westport, Washington (Magistrale, 

2015). 

The concept of vertical evacuation as a tsunami risk reduction strategy 

includes such applications as the design of tsunami-resistant buildings with 

upper floors or roof used for evacuation, the erection of reinforced earthen 

berms, the integration of reinforced towers into existing school facilities, and 

other approaches. 

Tsunami vertical evacuation design has advanced in the years since the 2004 

Indian Ocean tsunami, as federal guidance and the recommendations of 

professional engineers evolve. A key consideration facing school districts 

that seek to incorporate tsunami-resistant design features into their inventory 

of school buildings is cost. Experience in Washington State, for example, 

indicates that the incremental cost to include tsunami vertical evacuation in 

FEMA P-1000 TS: Tsunamis Supplement TS-9 
 

 

Guidance on Vertical Evacuation 

FEMA P-646, Guidelines for 

Design of Structures for Vertical 

Evacuation from Tsunamis 

(FEMA, 2012b) 

FEMA P-646A, Vertical 

Evacuation from Tsunamis: A 

Guide for Community Officials 

(FEMA, 2009d) 

“Chapter 6, Tsunami Loads and 

Effects,” ASCE/SEI 7-16, 

Minimum Design Loads and 

Associated Criteria for Buildings 

and Other Structures (ASCE, 

2017b) 

A subcommittee of the School 

Earthquake Safety Initiative 

recently compiled a Tsunami 

Preparedness Checklist for K-12 

school administrators and 

principals. The list can be 

accessed here: www.eeri.org 

/projects/schools/subcommittees 

/#tsunami. 

the construction of new facilities adds 15-20% to overall project budgets 

(Washington Military Department, 2012). 

In the absence of funding sources specifically dedicated to tsunami-resistant 

construction, school districts should consider other options for funding. 

Section 5.3 provides general ideas and guidance on funding. In addition, the 

tsunami program officer in each coastal state’s emergency management 

agency can determine whether funding from the National Tsunami Hazard 

Mitigation Program may be available to support planning, design, and 

engineering activities. A vertical evacuation initiative in coastal Washington 

State (Project Safe Haven) successfully sought funding of this type and used 

the funds to perform site-specific inundation modeling to determine the 

height of structures needed to provide safe ground to 6,300 coastal residents. 

TS.3.4 Schools as Evacuation Shelters or Refuges 

Even if a school is not located within the tsunami hazard zone, it may still be 

impacted by the tsunami event. Local emergency managers may designate 

schools outside the tsunami hazard zone as emergency refuges, shelters, or 

assembly points for community evacuation. Fulfilling these functions may 

have consequences for normal school activities if some or all of a school 

facility is reassigned to a broader community purpose. There are important 

logistical and legal considerations when schools are designated as emergency 

shelters, including the provision of facilities and services that meet 

accessibility requirements. More on this topic is covered in Section 5.1.5. 

TS.4 Planning the Response 

Comprehensive school emergency management plans are essential for 

schools that face known tsunami hazards, particularly those located in coastal 

areas where the hazard level is rated “high” to “very high.” Schools in 

tsunami zones must plan for a disaster that is both unpredictable and highly 

variable in impact, and must take both local and distant tsunami scenarios 

into account. 

Schools in places where a local tsunami would most likely be associated with 

a strong local earthquake must also plan for self-protective behavior by 

students and staff during the earthquake and before evacuation from the 

tsunami hazard, and for the likelihood that earthquake damage may 

complicate tsunami evacuation routes and procedures. All of the 

considerations discussed in Section E.4 in the Earthquakes Supplement must 

be taken into account. 

TS-10 TS: Tsunamis Supplement FEMA P-1000 
 

 

 

TS.4.1 Warning Signs 

Tsunami hazards are announced by natural warning signs and by official 

warning systems. Several natural signs indicate that a tsunami may be 

imminent: 

	 Ground Shaking. Earthquakes cause most tsunamis. In the event of an 

earthquake, students and staff should always “Drop, Cover, and Hold 

On” (even if out-of-doors) for the duration of earth shaking to protect 

themselves from injury, and should always assume that a tsunami may 

have been generated by the shaking. 

	 Sea Receding. Retreat of water from the shoreline, resembling an 

unusually low tide, is a sign that a tsunami may strike. 

	 Loud Roar. An unusually loud roaring sound or other abnormal noise 

from the sea can indicate that a tsunami is on its way. 

One or more of these signs should trigger immediate mandatory evacuation 

of students and staff to high ground or inland until emergency managers or 

other public officials provide notice that it is safe to return to low-lying areas. 

Two national tsunami warning centers operated by the National Weather 

Service (NWS) provide coastal communities with advance notice of distant 

tsunami hazards. The U.S. National Tsunami Warning Center, located in 

Palmer, Alaska, serves the continental United States and British Columbia. 

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, based in Hawaii, serves Hawaii, 

Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, the Caribbean, and many island nations throughout the Pacific 

Ocean. 

Both centers use a common hierarchy of alerts to convey the potential 

tsunami hazard that may exist for various shorelines. The hierarchy includes 

four alert levels: Warning, Advisory, Watch, and Information Statement. 

	 Warning. The highest level of alert, a Warning requires immediate 

action. Upon hearing a Warning, evacuate immediately to higher ground 

or inland, as a tsunami that could inundate the coast is expected. 

	 Advisory. The second highest level of alert, an Advisory also requires 

action. Flooding on land is not expected, but severe and damaging 

currents are expected or are already occurring. Protective measures 

include staying off the beach, staying away from shorelines, and 

avoiding ports, harbors, and marinas. 

	 Watch. A Watch is generally issued when a strong earthquake has 

occurred and the Tsunami Warning Centers have not yet determined 

Official Tsunami Alert Levels 

1. Warning. Requires 

immediate action including 

evacuation. 

2. Advisory. Requires action. 

3. Watch. Await further 

information; possible action. 

4. Information Statement. 

Situation under analysis. 

FEMA P-1000 TS: Tsunamis Supplement TS-11 
 

whether a damaging tsunami has been generated. Stay tuned for further 

information and prepare for the possibility that additional actions, such 

as evacuation, may be required. 

 Information Statement. Issued to convey important information that 

does not require immediate action, for example the fact that a strong 

earthquake has occurred but no tsunami has been generated. In some 

instances, a Statement also conveys that the Tsunami Warning Centers 

are analyzing the situation and additional information or products may be 

issued. 

Warnings and Watches are broadcast over the Emergency Alert System 

(EAS), a national public warning system. The signal will be relayed over 

television and radio networks, including All-Hazards Radio (also known as 

NOAA Weather Radio). Coastal schools should be equipped with small 

receivers for emergency radio bands, which will alert for tsunami hazards 

and other potentially dangerous situations including severe weather. 

Keeping the emergency radio switched “on” in the school office or other area 

easily accessed by principal and staff when school is in session is a key step 

in receiving tsunami and severe weather alerts. 

School emergency plans should include procedures for each type of alert that 

may be issued. Administrators, faculty, staff, and students should be familiar 

with these alert levels and should practice the procedures on a routine basis. 

Because time may be of the essence during an actual tsunami emergency, 

pre-scripting emergency messages that can be read or broadcast over school 

public address and notification systems can save time. 

TS.4.2 Plans, Policies, Procedures 

Coastal schools need emergency plans that address the full range of hazards 

from local and distant tsunamis. Plans should include a variety of scenarios 

of response. 

School leaders need to clearly understand whether their schools are 

susceptible to local tsunamis, distant tsunamis, or both. A safety plan must 

address the particulars of each situation. For example, schools within the 

small city of Hoquiam, Washington, located on Grays Harbor near the 

Pacific Ocean, are susceptible to local tsunamis from nearby sources 

including earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone, and to distant 

tsunamis that can originate in other areas around the Pacific Rim. The 

Hoquiam School District has adopted tsunami safety procedures, summarized 

on the next page, that are time-dependent and based on a threshold deemed 

appropriate to each situation. 

TS-12 TS: Tsunamis Supplement FEMA P-1000 
Example of Tsunami Safety Procedures: Hoquiam School District 

Following consultation with the Grays Harbor Office of Emergency Management, the Hoquiam School 

District will observe the following procedures in the event of a Tsunami: 

Situation 1 

There is notification to the Superintendent’s office of a Tsunami impacting the community in five hours or 

less. 

Our Response: 

1. Students and staff will immediately evacuate to designated “high ground” location. 

 Emerson, Middle School and High School to the High School baseball field. 

 Central and Lincoln went to the City Cemetery. 

2. Phone message will be made to parents/guardians through the Superintendent’s Office (if possible). 

3. Schools will remain at high ground until notified by the Superintendent/designee. 

Situation 2 

There is notification to the Superintendent’s office of a Tsunami impacting the community in more than 

five hours. 

Our Response: 

1. Phone message will be made through the Superintendent’s Office to parents/guardians. 

2. Superintendent will notify media. 

3. Parents/guardians will be permitted to pick up child from the individual school up to 2 hours before 

impact or prior to the end of the school day. 

4. Two hours before the anticipated Tsunami or at the end of the school day all remaining students will be 

bussed to the high school to gather in designated classrooms on the upper campus. 

5. The upper high school staff parking lot will be designated as the pick-up zone for parents/guardians 

wishing to pick up their student. 

6. A staff member(s) will be assigned to meet parent/guardian in the upper HS staff parking lot. 

7. Designated staff member(s) will retrieve the student(s) for the parent/guardian after verifying 

parent/guardian identity. 

8. Staff and students will remain on the campus until notified by emergency management officials. 

Based on your facility’s layout and location, more refined procedures may be necessary. It may also be 

prudent for students, faculty, and staff to understand the appropriate response and protocol if they are 

outdoors for physical education as opposed to inside a classroom. Beyond discussing this information, or 

posting it in conspicuous locations in each classroom can help reinforce the desired action. 

FEMA P-1000 TS: Tsunamis Supplement TS-13 
Hoquiam’s emergency plan specifies the high-ground locations to which 

students and school personnel will evacuate in the event of a local tsunami. 

These refuge and assembly locations are communicated to parents and 

guardians so that, in the event of an actual tsunami response, parents anxious 

to pick up their children will not rush into a potentially dangerous situation at 

the school itself. 

In areas where tsunami hazard zones have been mapped, emergency officials 

typically designate official evacuation routes and assembly areas. School 

leaders should walk the official evacuation routes themselves, and join 

evacuation drills with school staff and students. Routes for evacuation on 

foot and routes intended for evacuation by car may differ. Communities that 

face a high risk of local tsunamis will likely have routes designated for 

pedestrians only, as a strong local earthquake would be expected to damage 

or block roadways, making them unsafe for evacuations by car or school bus. 

Reviewing the plans regularly and practicing associated procedures is critical 

to ensuring school safety. By training school staff and students and by 

conducting routine tsunami evacuation drills, school leaders will develop 

confidence that their plans can be successfully implemented when needed. 

Only by conducting comprehensive drills is it possible to learn how long it 

may take to evacuate an entire student body to higher ground, following 

designated evacuation routes. If an evacuation drill takes longer than the 

interval of time anticipated before a local tsunami arrives, school leaders will 

know they have to revise plans or seriously consider other possibilities, such 

as options for vertical evacuation. 

School safety drills should be a family affair whenever possible. Inviting 

parents and guardians to participate in tsunami evacuation drills will allow 

them to experience an orderly evacuation and equip them to talk with their 

child(ren) about tsunami hazards and the importance of emergency 

preparedness. This may prompt improved family emergency preparedness at 

home. It also gives school personnel and parents and guardians the 

opportunity to practice post-emergency reunification procedures and to 

identify opportunities for improvement. 

Participation in organized statewide exercises like the annual Great ShakeOut 

Earthquake Drills held in many states can offer coastal communities an 

opportunity to link “Drop, Cover, and Hold On” earthquake safety practice 

with a tsunami evacuation component tailored to local plans and conditions. 

The TsunamiZone program, with a similar focus on tsunami preparedness 

TS-14 TS: Tsunamis Supplement FEMA P-1000 
activities, is attracting participation in a growing number of states and 

territories. 

The National Weather Service TsunamiReady® recognition program has 

established guidelines pertaining to tsunami hazard mitigation, preparedness, 

and response. Participating communities are eligible for benefits including 

technical assistance and points from FEMA’s Community Rating System, 

which can result in discounts on federal flood insurance premiums. While 

most participants are counties, municipalities, and military bases, school 

districts participating in the TsunamiReady® program include Los Angeles 

Unified School District in California and Lincoln County School District in 

Oregon. 

Preparation for the immediate evacuation that a local tsunami may require 

includes assembling basic emergency supplies for students and staff, as 

reunification with parents may prove challenging or impossible due to 

damage and debris. Go-Kits, which typically consist of a portable container 

like a backpack or bucket filled with emergency supplies, are especially 

important in areas susceptible to local tsunamis. These kits provide essential 

supplies for safety and sustenance until emergency assistance can arrive. 

Both school administrators and classroom teachers should be supplied with 

appropriate Go-Kits. 

The Lincoln County School District on the central Oregon coast serves a 

high proportion of students in poverty. Though no district schools are 

located in the tsunami zone, the communities served face earthquake and 

tsunami hazards. To ensure that essential emergency supplies are available 

to all of its 5,200 students in the event of a natural disaster, the district has 

established disaster caches in shipping containers located at or near every 

school site. Each cache is stocked with supplies sufficient to meet the basic 

needs of students and staff for days or weeks following a worst-case 

Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake and accompanying local tsunami. 

Developed with public- and private-sector local partners, the disaster caches 

are equipped to serve local community colleges and private schools as well 

as the public school population. 

TS.4.3 Evacuation Protocols and Practice 

“Practice Makes Perfect.” Nothing could ring more true when faced with the 

immediacy of an impending tsunami, especially in a school or classroom 

setting. It is only with advance preparation, education, drills, training, and by 

adopting a tsunami risk reduction hierarchy, that school districts can ensure 

life safety during tsunami emergencies. Occupants of school facilities need 

Tsunami Evacuation Essentials 

1. Know where to GO. 

2. Know what to TAKE. 

3. Know what to DO. 

FEMA P-1000 TS: Tsunamis Supplement TS-15 
 

 

to know where to go, what to take, and what to do. Figure TS-5 illustrates a 

typical tsunami evacuation sign. All must respond without hesitation, 

because there may be only one chance to get it right. 

Figure TS-5 Tsunami evacuation route sign. (Photo source: James Sherrett) 

As noted above in the Hoquiam example on page TS-13, two types of 

tsunami evacuation protocols should be considered by the school 

administration: one for local tsunamis and one for distant tsunamis. In the 

event of a local earthquake, evacuation of buildings and school grounds 

located within a tsunami hazard zone should occur immediately following 

earthquake shaking; no additional information is needed. 

School leaders should evacuate students from classrooms and grounds to the 

nearest available natural high ground or designated vertical evacuation 

structure as soon as ground shaking stops and be prepared to respond to 

changing conditions if the first assembly location appears threatened. 

Students and staff should remain in assembly locations until local emergency 

managers or other officials advise that it is safe to return. All-hazards 

weather radio will provide current information. 

Unlike many other types of emergencies, the tsunami risk can last for up to 

24 hours, so evacuation may be enforced for at least that long and possibly 

longer. All students and staff should stay clear of the tsunami hazard zone 

until local officials have declared it safe to return. The cancellation of a 

warning or advisory issued by a tsunami warning center does not mean it is 

TS-16 TS: Tsunamis Supplement FEMA P-1000 
 

 

 

 

safe to return, because waves and currents are influenced by local conditions 

that the national warning centers cannot take into account. 

Designated evacuation assembly location(s) must be clearly communicated 

in advance to parents and caregivers, so that they know not to rush to the 

school itself to pick up their children. Failure to communicate locations for 

reunification in advance could send parents and guardians into harm’s way. 

Working in partnership with local emergency managers, school 

administrators should determine, based on clearance times, whether family 

reunification can take place at the school itself, or whether reunification must 

occur at the evacuation assembly location(s) on high ground. 

Schools that include a broad age range may consider partnering younger 

students with older students as “tsunami buddies.” High school and middle 

school students may be able to help elementary students evacuate safely and 

keep younger students together, maintaining calm and easing anxieties. 

Distant tsunamis, which originate from distant sources and require two or 

more hours to reach an affected shore, change the consideration of 

evacuation options. Timing must be taken into account: both the time of day 

Lessons on Tsunami Evacuation that can Save Lives 

On March 11, 2011, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck off the island of Honshu, Japan, generating a 

tsunami that killed more than 15,800 people. 

The Kamaishi Higashi Middle School and Unosumai Elementary School in Kamaishi City were located 

within a mapped tsunami hazard zone. To improve student preparedness for tsunami evacuation, students 

in these two schools had routinely practiced evacuation drills since 2005. Their teachers devoted five to 

ten hours of class time each year to tsunami hazards. 

When the earthquake struck but before the tsunami waves arrived, students first planned to evacuate to 

the third floor of their building. However, observing a tsunami higher than expected, the students 

abandoned those plans and relocated to higher ground away from the school. They relocated twice more 

during the event because of the extent of inundation. While more than 1,000 people lost their lives in 

Kamaishi City, none of the casualties were school-age children. Classroom training had emphasized that 

students should assess the situation as they see it and be able to respond to changing events. This training 

provides the best explanation for the survival rate that has become known as the “Miracle of Kamaishi.” 

On the other hand, in communities of Northern Honshu including Taro, Kesennuma, and Ishinomaki, 

while students were evacuating to safety, many parents who rushed directly into the tsunami hazard zone 

to retrieve their children tragically lost their lives. These avoidable fatalities underscore that children and 

parents alike need to know the details of school preparedness and evacuation plans. 

FEMA P-1000 TS: Tsunamis Supplement TS-17 
Lessons on Tsunami Evacuation that can Save Lives (continued) 

Togura Elementary School located in the coastal part of Minami-Sanriku in Miyagi Prefecture, shown in 

Figure TS-6, was struck by the tsunami. Inundation submerged the three-story school up to its roofline, 

and the building itself suffered severe damage as the waters receded, with most nearby buildings being 

washed away entirely. 

Staff and students assembled in the schoolyard immediately following the earthquake, and then evacuated 

to a designated safe site on high ground nearby. The tsunami then bore down upon them, but everyone 

was able to escape unharmed—due to a quick reappraisal in the midst of the disaster. 

Because this elementary school was in a location directly exposed to tsunami hazard, the school’s 

evacuation drills took a range of scenarios into consideration. Thanks to their routine discussions of 

tsunami risk, the teachers knew to keep their attention on the ocean even after they had made a secondary 

evacuation to higher ground. Their ability to recognize the warning signs of a tsunami exceeding all prior 

experience led them to guide the children to a shrine on even higher ground, saving lives. 

Togura Elementary School was rebuilt as part of Minami-Sanriku’s municipal recovery efforts and 

reopened for classes on August 31, 2015. 

Figure TS-6 Waves surge past Togura Elementary School in MinamiSanriku, Japan during the 2011 Great East Japan Tsunami. 

(Photo source: Ichiro Abe, The Asahi Shimbun) 

that the tsunami is expected to arrive and the time of day that notification is 

received will influence the options available to school decision makers. 

For example, if an earthquake in Japan causes a tsunami expected to reach 

the U.S. West Coast in 14 hours and the warning is issued at the end of the 

school day, school leaders may take no immediate action other than to 

TS-18 TS: Tsunamis Supplement FEMA P-1000 
 

monitor the event, communicate the status to parents, faculty, and staff, and 

prepare for possible school cancellation the next morning based on updated 

information. However, if the school day has just begun and a tsunami 

warning or advisory indicates arrival within four hours, decisions may be 

different. Emergency plans and evacuation protocols should anticipate a 

range of possible scenarios for distant tsunamis. 

TS.5 Planning the Recovery 

After a tsunami, local officials will begin to assess damage to the community 

and critical facilities and will inform school administrators if and when it is 

safe to reoccupy schools. While the tsunami event itself may last up to 24 

hours, it may cause other dangers that delay return to the site even longer. 

Depending upon the amount of damage to the area and hazardous debris left 

behind, it may be days, weeks, or even months before it is possible to return 

to areas that were inundated. 

Schools that have sustained damage in a tsunami will require inspection by a 

qualified professional (architect, engineer, or other building professional) to 

determine whether the structure can be reoccupied. Schools that cannot be 

immediately reopened for classes should begin implementing their plans for 

educational continuity (see Section 5.1.4). These may include options such 

as school sharing or relocating classes and activities into temporary facilities 

in the near term, and rebuilding schools in a new location outside of the 

hazard zone in the longer term. 

The experience of evacuation from a tsunami can be traumatic for children 

and adults alike. Even students and staff who have safely evacuated from 

school may experience other losses in their personal lives. Resuming normal 

activities including school routines may prove difficult. Schools are in a 

position to deliver psychological first aid and to support recovery. More 

guidance on this topic is provided in Section 5.2. 

TS.6 Recommended Resources 

Full citations of all references used to develop this supplement are listed in 

the References section in this Guide. The following is a list of recommended 

resources that might be useful for school leaders that are addressing school 

tsunami risk. In some cases, a document is both in the References section 

and listed here as a recommended resource. 

General Information and Key Programs. The National Tsunami Hazard 

Mitigation Program (NTHMP) is a coordinated national effort joining the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Federal 

FEMA P-1000 TS: Tsunamis Supplement TS-19 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), and 28 U.S. states and territories. The purpose is to assess the 

tsunami hazard, prepare community response, issue timely and effective 

warnings, and mitigate damage. Key websites of the program and its 

partners include the following: 

	 FEMA: http://www.fema.gov and https://www.ready.gov/tsunamis 

	 National Tsunami Warning Center: http://ntwc.arh.noaa.gov 

	 National Weather Service: http://www.tsunami.gov 

	 NTHMP: http://nws.weather.gov/nthmp/ 

	 NWS Tsunami Safety: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/Tsunami/ 

	 Pacific Tsunami Warning Center: http://ptwc.weather.gov 

	 USGS: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/tsunamishazards.html 

Maps of Tsunami Hazard Zones. The NTHMP maintains a portal to 

tsunami hazard zone maps created by the program’s participating states and 

territories. Most state geology agencies and emergency management 

agencies are also a good source for mapping of coastal hazards. For the 

NTHMP Map portal, visit: http://nws.weather.gov/nthmp/maps.html. 

For guidance for unmapped or low-risk coastal areas, visit: http://nws 

.weather.gov/nthmp/documents/Inundationareaguidelinesforlowhazardareas 

.pdf 

Drills and Public Engagement Activities. Examples nationwide programs 

and campaigns are as follows: 

	 The Great ShakeOut earthquake safety drills have engaged more than 20 

million people in all parts of the United States in basic safety practice. 

To participate, visit http://www.shakeout.org/ 

	 Tsunami Preparedness Campaigns are supported by the National 

Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. To learn more about dates and 

activities in your area, visit http://nws.weather.gov/nthmp/tpw/tsunami 

-preparedness-week.html 

	 The TsunamiReady® program, hosted by the National Weather Service, 

offers a community recognition program for communities and 

institutions that implement tsunami preparedness activities. To learn 

how to become TsunamiReady®, visit http://www.tsunamiready.noaa.gov 

	 The TsunamiZone is a newer initiative based on a similar awarenesspromotion model, promoting tsunami safety and preparedness activities 

TS-20	 TS: Tsunamis Supplement FEMA P-1000 
 

along vulnerable coastlines. To participate, visit http://www.tsunami 

zone.org/ 

Vertical Evacuation Options. Vertical evacuation is an emerging concept 

in coastal facilities design. The following sources may help school leaders 

begin to evaluate the option for school facilities: 

• The American Society of Civil Engineers publishes technical guidance

incorporated into building codes; up-to-date information pertaining to

tsunamis can be found in “Chapter 6, Tsunami Loads and Effects,” in the

2016 edition of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated

Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE, 2017b).

• FEMA P-646, Guidelines for Design of Structures for Vertical

Evacuation from Tsunamis, Second Edition (FEMA, 2012b), published in 

April 2012, is available as a PDF at this link http://www.fema.gov

/media-library-data/1426211456953-f02dffee4679d659f62f414639af

a806/FEMAP-646_508.pdf

• FEMA P-646 is discussed in a 5-minute video prepared by the Cascadia

Region Earthquake Workgroup in early 2012 https://www.youtube.com /

watch?v=_h26_DUKMzA

• FEMA P-646A, Vertical Evacuation from Tsunamis: A Guide for

Community Officials (FEMA, 2009d), published in 2009, is available as a 

PDF at this link: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726

-1719-25045-1822/fema_p646a.pdf

• Project Safe Haven video. A 12-minute video about the integration of

vertical evacuation into the design of Ocosta Elementary School in

coastal Washington State, a Project Safe Haven initiative and the first

tsunami vertical evacuation building constructed in the United States, is

available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otI7bUrUOmI

• Washington State’s “Project Safe Haven” has explored a variety of

vertical evacuation applications including natural berms and evacuation

structures. http://mil.wa.gov/uploads/pdf/emergency-management/haz

_safehaven report_pacific.pdf 

Tsunami Science. Many print and online sources offer a thorough 

introduction to tsunami science. A good place to begin is with the U.S. 

Geological Survey: 

 “Life of a Tsunami.” http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/tsunami/basics.html

 USGS Tsunami and Earthquake Research. http://walrus.wr.usgs

.gov/tsunami/

FEMA P-1000 TS: Tsunamis Supplement TS-21 

 

 

Supplement W 

High Winds 

Most wind damage is caused by tornadoes and hurricanes. However, damage 

is occasionally caused by other high winds, notably straight-line and downslope winds. This supplement is applicable to all schools outside of 

hurricane-prone regions. 

This supplement provides guidance for existing buildings, and guidance for 

new schools that are in the planning stage. After reading this supplement, 

school administrators, school emergency managers, teachers, and other 

school leaders should be able to: 

	 Identify opportunities for incorporating special high wind design 

enhancements in new facilities to achieve greater resilience; 

	 Understand the importance of having yearly inspections by maintenance 

personnel; 

	 Create or update a school disaster plan with specific considerations for 

high winds; and 

	 Identify aspects that should be considered to facilitate school recovery 

following a high wind event. 

W.1 Overview of High Winds 

Straight-line winds are the most common and generally blow in a straight 

line, as opposed to tornado and hurricane winds, which consist of circular 

winds. They occur throughout the United States and its territories. Downslope winds blow down the slope of mountains and frequently occur with 

very high speeds in Alaska, Colorado, and Utah. In the continental United 

States, mountainous areas are referred to as “special wind regions.” 

Figure W-1 shows damage caused by straight-line winds. When straight-line 

or down-slope wind causes school damage, typically only one school in the 

community is damaged—unlike hurricanes that can damage many or most of 

the schools. This is typically the case because straight-line or down-slope 

wind damage usually occurs when a school has a weakness in its building 

envelope (e.g., roof covering, wall coverings, and windows). These 

weaknesses are typically caused by inadequate design, workmanship 

deterioration, or by material degradation. Normally, only one school in the 

FEMA P-1000	 W: High Winds W-1 
community will have sufficient weakness to be damaged during a given 

straight-line or down-slope wind event. 

In communities with only one school, damage can adversely affect the 

community; particularly those located in remote areas. 

Figure W-1 The roof on this new school blew off during moderate winds 

soon after it was installed. It failed even though it was a robust 

system because of a major installation error. (Photo source: 

Thomas Smith) 

W.2 Is Your School in a Region Exposed to High Winds? 

Straight-line winds that have the potential to cause building damage can 

occur anywhere in the United States and its territories. If a school is outside 

of the “high wind and heavy rain” (red) area of the hurricane hazard map 

shown in Figure 2-2, damaging winds can still affect the area and this 

supplement is applicable. Down-slope winds occur in mountainous areas. 

W.3 Making Buildings Safer 

This section provides guidance pertaining to making buildings more resilient 

to high wind events. 

W.3.1 Existing School Buildings 

Typically, unless there is an issue that causes concern, wind vulnerability 

assessments are not performed on buildings outside of hurricane-prone 

regions. However, the exterior of the building should be inspected yearly by 

maintenance personnel. Items that have deteriorated (such as leaky roofs) or 

become loose (such as rooftop equipment) should be repaired or replaced 

before they are damaged by wind. 

W-2 W: High Winds FEMA P-1000 
W.3.2 New School Buildings 

The provisions in the International Building Code (ICC, 2014b) are generally 

sufficient to provide satisfactory performance when schools experience 

straight-line or down-slope winds. However, FEMA P-424, Risk 

Management Series: Design Guide for Improving School Safety in 

Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds (FEMA, 2010a), provides 

recommended enhancements and best practices to further avoid damage and 

occupancy disruptions. The recommendations for schools exposed to 

straight-line and down-slope winds are much less stringent than the 

recommendations for schools in hurricane- or tornado-prone regions. Hence, 

the cost for implementing the recommendations for schools exposed to 

straight-line and down-slope winds are typically relatively insignificant. 

For schools located in remote areas or where the design wind speed is greater 

than 120 miles per hour, FEMA P-424 recommends the incorporation of 

additional design, construction, and maintenance enhancements, and 

provides enhancement recommendations. To determine the design wind 

speed for a school, go to http://windspeed.atcouncil.org/ and enter the 

school’s address. The output shows design speeds for different risk 

categories; schools are predominately Risk Category III. 

In some areas (such as Alaska), damaging straight-line and down-slope 

winds often occur during winter months (Figure W-2). Damage repairs 

during cold weather can be very costly. Also, if the school is in a remote 

area, repair materials and contractors may need to be brought in by airplane, 

thus greatly increasing the costs. 

Figure W-2 The roof on this school blew off during cold 

weather, thus increasing the repair costs. (Photo 

source: Thomas Smith) 

FEMA P-1000	 W: High Winds W-3 
W.4 Planning the Response 

If high winds are forecast, objects that could be damaged or moved by winds 

should be secured or moved. All windows should be closed to keep out rain, 

dust, and debris. When winds above 60 miles per hour are forecast, 

potentially hazardous areas should be evacuated and avoided. This includes 

areas adjacent to weak non-load-bearing walls, weak glass curtain walls, and 

areas below weak long-span roof structures (e.g., auditoriums, gymnasiums). 

These building elements should be assumed to be weak, unless a wind 

vulnerability assessment by an architect or engineer has determined that 

these areas can be safely occupied during high wind conditions. Portable 

classrooms are often more susceptible to wind damage than school buildings. 

It is therefore recommended that portable classrooms not be occupied when 

high winds are forecast. 

School leaders and management should develop policies and operational 

plans regarding what to do if high winds are forecast during various 

situations, including outdoor athletic events or school bus operations. Plans 

should consider the following: 

	 Activities may need to be moved indoors. 

	 High winds can blow down trees, utility lines and poles. 

	 Electricity and phone outages may occur. 

	 Traffic patterns and walking routes can be affected due to debris and 

power outages. 

FEMA P-424 provides additional recommendations to minimize the risk of 

injury and death during a high wind event. 

W.5 Planning the Recovery 

Schools that experience wind damage should be evaluated by an architectural 

and engineering team to determine whether or not they are safe to reoccupy. 

ATC-45, Field Manual: Safety Evaluation of Buildings After Wind Storms 

and Floods (ATC, 2004), provides guidance on rating the safety significance 

of damage. The architectural and engineering team should also determine 

whether or not there was damage that is not directly related to life safety. 

If there is significant damage, an evaluation should be performed to 

determine if it is cost-effective to repair the damage versus demolish the 

building and build a new one. If the damage is severe enough, repairs will 

need to include various code-required upgrades (such as fire alarm systems), 

W-4	 W: High Winds FEMA P-1000 
 

 

 

 

which can dramatically increase cost and may economically necessitate 

replacement with a new building. 

If new construction is necessary, school leaders should consider 

implementing the guidance provided in Section W.3.2. If the damage is 

repairable, in addition to performing repairs, it is recommended to 

incorporate the enhancements provided in FEMA P-424. 

W.6 Recommended Resources 

Full citations of all references used to develop this supplement are listed in 

the References section in this Guide. The following is a list of recommended 

resources that might be useful for school leaders that are addressing the risk 

from high winds in schools. In some cases, a document is both in the 

References section and listed here as a recommended resource. 

ATC-45, Field Manual: Safety Evaluation of Buildings after Wind Storms 

and Floods (ATC, 2004). This document provides guidelines for evaluating 

whether it is safe to enter and reoccupy buildings damaged by wind or flood. 

It is intended to be used by designers and building professionals performing 

safety evaluations. This document does not provide guidance on determining 

damage and repair costs. 

JetStream – An Online School for Weather. This website was developed to 

help educators, emergency managers, or any other interested party in 

learning about weather and weather safety. http://www.srh.noaa.gov 

/jetstream/index.html 

FEMA P-424, Design Guide for Improving School Safety in Earthquakes, 

Floods, and High Winds (FEMA, 2010a). This document is primarily 

intended for architects and engineers. It primarily pertains to new schools, 

but does provide guidance for existing schools. http://www.fema.gov/media 

-library/assets/documents/5264 

The StormReady® Program, hosted by the National Weather Service, offers 

a community recognition program for communities and institutions that 

implement storm ready activities. To learn how to become StormReady®, 

visit http://www.weather.gov/stormready/. 

FEMA P-1000 W: High Winds W-5 

Supplement X 

Other Hazards 

This supplement will briefly describe additional common hazards and is not 

intended to provide complete guidance, but only to provide general 

information and point toward additional resources. Hazards discussed in this 

supplement include: 

 Snow storms; 

 Volcanic eruptions; and 

 Wildfires. 

This supplement does not provide an exhaustive list of other natural hazards, 

such as drought and lighting. Schools located in areas that are vulnerable to 

other natural hazards should seek other existing guidance on these natural 

hazards. 

X.1 Snow Storms 

Winter snow storms and extreme cold weather can have a significant effect 

on school buildings and their occupants. It is important to monitor the 

National Weather Service for winter storm alerts and always maintain a 

functioning NOAA Weather Radio at school and be prepared to respond to 

alerts and warnings accordingly. 

School roof collapse due to accumulation of snow is relatively rare. The 

cause of collapse can include design defects, construction defects, and 

deterioration of the roof structure due to roof leaks; however, most collapses 

are due to snow drifts. Modern snow drift provisions were first introduced in 

1988, but many local building codes did not incorporate them until years 

later. Accordingly, some schools designed in or prior to the 1990s may have 

inadequate structural capacity to resist drifts. Roof collapse from snow load 

can also be caused by the addition of new roof insulation which could cause 

more snow to accumulate because of the reduction in snow melt. 

FEMA P-957, Snow Load Safety Guide (FEMA, 2013c), provides 

information on identifying potentially vulnerable roof framing systems, and 

provides a general methodology to monitor buildings for signs of potential 

failure so that steps can be taken to reduce the potential risk of snow-loadinduced structural failure. 

Some schools designed in or 

before the 1990s may be 

susceptible to roof collapse from 

drifting snow. 

FEMA P-1000 X: Other Hazards X-1 
 

Sometimes it is prudent to have snow removed from roofs. However, snow 

removal involves risk to workers and can cause roof damage. FEMA P-957 

recommends that a licensed design professional be retained to determine 

when removal is prudent. It also recommends that snow removal be 

performed by a licensed, insured professional roofing contractor who has 

experience in removing snow from roofs. More specific guidance on snow 

removal can be found in FEMA P-957. 

X.2 Volcanic Eruptions 

Schools located in states with active volcanoes (Alaska, California, Oregon 

Hawaii, Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming) may need to consider one or 

more volcanic hazards within their emergency planning, preparedness, and 

response efforts. 

Each volcano is different. The potential impacts to school facilities will vary 

depending upon the distance from the school to the volcano. Hazards 

associated with volcanoes include lahars (large mudflows), lava flows, and 

volcanic ash. In 2015, volcanic lava flow from Kilauea volcano in Hawaii 

disrupted regular school routines and forced the shutdown of schools in the 

town of Pahoa. 

Volcanic ash deposits of as little as 1

/8-inch can result in clogged roof drains 

that can affect roof framing and drainage systems during heavy rainfall. 

Additionally, ash accumulations on roof membranes become heavy 

additional loads, which can affect the stability of the roof framing. Removal 

of volcanic ash is a proactive measure that should be part of a school hazard 

safety plan. 

Volcanoes provide advanced warning of eruptions, which should allow 

school officials to take proactive measures well before potential issues occur. 

However, in rare cases, volcanic hazards such as lahars can occur even in the 

absence of pre-eruption signs. Check with your state geological survey or 

regional U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) volcano observatory to learn if this 

is a potential hazard at your site. 

The USGS, through its volcano observatories, constantly monitors active 

volcanoes in the United States, its commonwealths, and territories for any 

signs of an eruption. USGS has developed a web-based location for 

information on volcano hazards and their impacts (see: http://volcanoes 

.usgs.gov/ vhp/ hazards.html). 

X-2 X: Other Hazards FEMA P-1000 
 

 

 

X.3 Wildfires 

A school’s susceptibility to wildfire damage is primarily related to the 

availability of fire-suppression personnel and the following: 

 Defensible Space. This refers to an area where combustible material, 

including vegetation, has been treated, cleared, or modified to slow the 

rate and intensity of an advancing wildfire. Schools surrounded by zones 

of non-vegetated areas or areas populated by fire-resistant vegetation are 

more likely to survive. 

 Exterior Building Envelope. Combustible exterior building 

components such as roof coverings and exterior walls can be ignited by 

wildfire, leading to severe damage to or total loss of the school. 

Wildfire frequently leads to mudslides and floods. FEMA P-737, Home 

Builder’s Guide to Construction in Wildfire Zones (FEMA, 2008), provides 

information on wildfire hazard and risk assessment, and recommendations 

for design and construction of new buildings. For existing buildings, it 

recommends a vulnerability assessment and development of a customized, 

prioritized list of recommendations for remedial work on defensible space 

and the building envelope. Although FEMA P-737 pertains to residences, 

much of the guidance is also applicable to schools. 

X.4 Recommended Resources 

Full citations of all references used to develop this supplement are listed in 

the References section in this Guide. The following is a list of recommended 

resources that might be useful for school leaders that are addressing school 

risk from snow storms, volcanic eruptions, or wildfires. In some cases, a 

document is both in the References section and listed here as a recommended 

resource. 

Snow Storms. Recommended resources for schools in regions where snow 

storms are a hazard include: 

FEMA P-957, Snow Load Safety Guide (FEMA, 2013c) provides information 

on identifying potentially vulnerable roof framing systems, and provides a 

general methodology to monitor buildings for signs of potential failure so 

that steps can be taken to reduce the potential risk of snow-load-induced 

structural failure. To access the report, visit: https://www.fema.gov/media 

-library/assets/documents/83501. 

For a brief overview of FEMA P-957, visit: https://www.fema.gov/media 

-library-data/1392984631969-ac57339deb6ee839a52b16b01eeee53e/FEMA 

_Snow_Load_508.pdf. 

FEMA P-1000 X: Other Hazards X-3 
 

 

Volcanic Eruptions. The USGS provides information on volcano hazards 

and their impacts. For more information, visit: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov 

/vhp/ hazards.html. 

Wildfires. Resources for schools in regions where wildfires are a hazard 

include: 

FEMA P-737, Home Builder’s Guide to Construction in Wildfire Zones 

(FEMA, 2008) provides information on wildfire hazard and risk assessment, 

and recommendations for design and construction of new buildings. For 

existing buildings, it recommends a vulnerability assessment and 

development of a customized, prioritized list of recommendations for 

remedial work on defensible space and the building envelope. Although 

FEMA P-737 pertains to residences, much of the guidance is also applicable 

to schools. To access the report, visit: https://www.fema.gov/media-library 

/assets/documents/15962. 

Prepare Your People for Wildfire Safety: K-12 Schools (PrepareAthon, 

2014). This document provides general guidance on preparing for wildfires 

for K-12 schools. To access this document, visit: https://dphhs.mt.gov 

/Portals/85/publichealth/documents/School%20Health/Safe%20School 

%20Environment/Natural%20Disasters/FEMA%20Prepare%20for 

%20Wildfires%20K-12%20Schools.pdf 

Understanding Fire Danger website: https://www.nps.gov/fire/ wildland 

-fire/learning-center/fire-in-depth/understanding-fire-danger.cfm 

Wildfires and Schools (National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 

2008b). This document provides guidance that was adapted for schools from 

FEMA’s Wildfires homepage and Wildfire Mitigation Fact Sheet, Rebuilding 

After a Fire. To access this document, visit: http://www.ncef.org/pubs 

/wildfires.pdf 

Wildfire Safety: Social Media Content Shareables. This document provides a 

list of resources and tips for wildfire safety. To access the document, visit: 

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1438198310297-b58b3f3d40fc7ae 

964927c0bbefdd35f/Wildfire_Safety_Social_Toolkit_2015_Final.pdf 

X-4 X: Other Hazards FEMA P-1000 
 

Appendix E 

Earthquake Appendix 

The purpose of this appendix is to provide more detailed instructions on how 

to determine the level of seismicity of a specific site and to provide more 

detailed information on the adequacy of building codes depending on the 

building type. 

AE.1 Determination of Seismicity Region of Site 

Because the scale of Figure E-3 is small, it might be difficult to determine a 

location’s seismicity region from the map. This section provides instructions 

on how to accurately determine the appropriate region. 

The United States Geological Survey, which produces the seismic maps used 

in U.S. building codes, has a calculator tool that will determine seismic 

design parameters that can be used to categorize a site into the seismicity 

regions shown in Figure E-3. The steps needed to make such a determination 

are as follows: 

1.		 Go to the site: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php. 

The screen is shown in Figure AE-1. 

2.		 Enter the site address in the box indicated. 

3.		 Select “2012 IBC” from the drop-down menu at location 3. 

4.		 Select “Site Class B – Rock” from the drop-down menu at location 4. If 

more is known about soils at the site, Class C or Class D might be 

selected. Many sites are Class D. 

5.		 Select “II, III, or IV” from the drop-down menu at location 5 for Risk 

Category. For schools with less than 250 students, select II. For typical 

schools, select III. For schools used as shelters, select IV. 

6.		 Click on “Compute Values” at location 6. 

7.		 The screen shown in Figure AE-2 will come up. 

8.		 Using the values for “Ss” and”S1” from the box at location 8, go to Table 

AE-1. 

9.		 Table AE-1 can then be used to determine the appropriate seismicity 

region, assuming the highest seismicity level determined from the 

parameters in Table AE-1 governs. 

FEMA P-1000 AE: Earthquake Appendix	 AE-1 
Figure AE-1 Screenshot from USGS seismic design parameter calculator. 

AE-2 AE: Earthquake Appendix FEMA P-1000
 
Figure AE-2 Screenshot showing parameters to determine Seismicity Region. 

FEMA P-1000 AE: Earthquake Appendix AE-3
 
 

Table AE-1 Determination of Seismic Region from USGS Design 

Parameters, Ss and S1 

Seismicity Region 

Spectral Acceleration 

Response, SS (short-period, 

or 0.2 seconds) 

Spectral Acceleration 

Response, S1 (long-period, 

or 1.0 second) 

Low less than 0.250g less than 0.100g 

Moderate greater than or equal to 

0.250g but less than 0.500g 

greater than or equal to 

0.100g but less than 0.200g 

Moderately High greater than or equal to 

0.500g but less than 1.000g 

greater than or equal to 

0.200g but less than 0.400g 

High greater than or equal to 

1.000g but less than 1.500g 

greater than or equal to 

0.400g but less than 0.600g 

Very High greater than or equal to 

1.500g 

greater than or equal to 

0.600g 

Note: g = acceleration of gravity in horizontal direction 

AE.2 Adequacy of Building Codes 

Seismic provisions in building codes have been in place in some regions 

since 1925. The codes have evolved considerably since that time. Seismic 

provisions were adopted by different jurisdictions at different times. 

Buildings built in accordance with the 1976 Uniform Building Code (or later) 

or the 2000 International Building Code (or later) are often considered to 

have a low probability of collapse, even in a major earthquake. FEMA 

P-154, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards 

(FEMA, 2015b) includes a more conservative table that includes code cycle 

dates that are considered to be equivalent to current codes and is included 

here as Table AE-2. This table provides the list of building codes presumed 

to be adequate if properly followed. School facility departments or the local 

building department may have information as to what code was used to 

design different facilities and to identify the “FEMA Building Type” of the 

facility. 

AE-4 AE: Earthquake Appendix FEMA P-1000 
 

 

 

 

Table AE-2 Building Codes Presumed to be Adequate (if Properly Followed) by FEMA P-154 (FEMA, 2015b) 

FEMA Building Type 

Model Building Seismic Design Provisions 

National Building 

Code/ Standard Uniform Building International 

Building Code Code Building Code 

W1 Light wood frame single- or multiple-family 

dwellings of one or more stories in height 1993 1976 2000 

W1A Light wood frame multi-unit, multi-story 

residential buildings with plan areas on each 

floor of greater than 3.000 square feet 

1 1997 2000 

W2 Wood frame commercial and industrial 

buildings with a floor area larger than 5,000 

square feet 

1993 1976 2000 

S1 Steel moment-resisting frame buildings 1

 19942 2000 

S2 Braced steel frame buildings 1

 1997 2000 

S3 Light metal buildings 1 1 2000 

S4 Steel frame buildings with concrete shear 

walls 1993 1994 2000 

S5 Steel frame buildings with unreinforced 

masonry infill walls 1 1 2000 

C1 Concrete moment-resisting frame buildings 1993 1994 2000 

C2 Concrete shear wall buildings 1993 1994 2000 

C3 Concrete frame buildings with unreinforced 

masonry infill walls 1 1 2000 

PC1 Tilt-up buildings 1 1997 2000 

PC2 Precast concrete frame buildings 1 1 2000 

RM1 Reinforced masonry buildings with flexible 

floor and roof diaphragms 1

 1997 2000 

RM2 Reinforced masonry buildings with rigid floor 

and roof diaphragms 1993 1994 2000 

URM Unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings 1 1 1 

MH Manufactured housing 3 3 3 

1 No benchmark year. 

2 Steel moment-resisting frame shall comply with the 1994 UBC Emergency Provisions, published September/October 1994.
 

3 The model building codes in this table do not apply to manufactured housing. In California, relevant requirements 

appeared in the Mobile Home Parks Act, the California Health and Safety Code, and the California Code of Regulations. 

They evolved between 1985 and 1994; the year 1995 is recommended here as the benchmark year for California. In other 

states, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Installation Standards required tie-downs after October 

2008. The year 2009 is recommended here as the benchmark year for states other than California. 

FEMA P-1000 AE: Earthquake Appendix AE-5 

 

 

Appendix F 

Flood Maps Appendix 

The Flood Supplement provided basic information about flood hazard maps, 

specifically, about FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). This 

appendix provides additional details about FIRMs, and examples of 

additional flood hazard maps that may be useful in evaluating existing school 

facilities and potential sites for new schools. 

AF.1 Understanding and Using Flood Hazard Maps 

Flood hazard maps can vary widely in terms of purpose. Not all maps are the 

same, but they can all provide useful information to stakeholders, including 

administrators, emergency managers, planners, designers, and teachers. 

Stakeholders should seek out and use as many flood hazard maps and as 

much flood hazard information as is available. This may mean using 

different maps for the same site. 

Extracting and understanding all the information the maps and underlying 

studies contain may require assistance from others who specialize in flood, 

such as: 

	 Community planning or building departments; 

	 State emergency management agencies; 

	 State National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Coordinator’s offices; 

	 State Hazard Mitigation Officers; 

	 Regional and state water resources agencies; 

	 Federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration, Natural 

Resources, Conservation Service, and Federal Emergency Management 

Agency); and 

	 University departments, private companies and professional associations 

with expertise in hydrology, hydraulics, water resources, and flood 

hazard mapping. 

Even with the assistance of groups like these, decisions may not be simple 

due to the complexity of flooding and flood maps. For this reason, it is 

helpful to understand basic information about flood hazard maps. 

FEMA P-1000 AF: Flood Maps Appendix	 AF-1 
 

Flood Hazard Maps: Understanding Their Purpose, Assumptions, and Limitations 

 Some flood hazard maps are intended to be used for evacuation planning (e.g., hurricane storm surge, 

tsunami, and dam break) or as general planning tools, while others are intended to be used at the parcel 

level for regulating design and construction of buildings. 

 All flood hazard maps are based on some prescribed level of flood hazard, but the hazard level shown 

can vary from map to map, and the flood hazard level shown may or may not be adequate for life 

safety and property protection decisions. 

 It is for this reason that building codes and regulations often modify the flood hazard or flood level 

shown on the map for building design or evaluation purposes. Flood maps should not be used alone; 

they should be used in concert with other applicable building regulations. 

 Some maps are based on recent topography and flow calculations, while others may be based on data 

and calculation methods that are decades old. Maps based on topography, data, and/or methods that 

are outdated will not be as accurate. 

 Some maps are the result of approximate studies, while others are based on detailed studies. The 

resolution and accuracy of the detailed studies will be better. 

 Some maps consider flooding in small watersheds and streams, while others have a minimum 

watershed/stream size threshold required for flood calculations and mapping. Just because an area is 

shown as being free of flooding does not necessarily mean that is always the case. 

 Some maps assume levees or flood protection structures or dams are strong enough to withstand a 

certain level of flooding and provide protection to nearby buildings, while some maps assume they are 

not. The true flood risk (including failure of a levee or similar structure) may not be indicated on any 

given flood hazard map. 

 Some maps depict present-day flood hazards, while others project future flood hazards (due to 

increased development, changes in precipitation patterns, lake level rise, sea level rise, or erosion). 

Having estimates of future flood hazards improves our ability to forecast potential flood effects and 

flood damages over the life of a school. 

AF.2 FIRMs and Related Products 

A FIRM is what is called a “regulatory product.” It is used to regulate 

development in flood hazard areas, to determine which buildings are required 

to carry flood insurance, and to determine the appropriate flood insurance 

rate for a building. 

In almost all cases where a school site is being evaluated, a FIRM will be 

available. FIRMs are one of the products of a Flood Insurance Study (FIS). 

An FIS report will be published by FEMA with the FIRM, and the FIS will 

have detailed information and background that is not displayed on the map. 

AF-2 AF: Flood Maps Appendix FEMA P-1000 
AF.2.1 Finding FIRMs and Related Products 

FIRMs and related products can be obtained from many sources, but the two 

best sources will usually be: (1) FEMA’s Map Service Center (MSC); and 

(2) the local or state government regulating floodplains. 

The MSC (https://msc.fema.gov/portal/) allows users to search for flood 

hazard information by street address or by state/county/community 

(https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch), or by other identifying 

information. The MSC provides the following types of products: 

	 Effective flood maps and studies—those adopted by jurisdictions for 

floodplain management and used by FEMA for flood insurance rating. 

	 Historic flood maps and studies—maps and studies that are no longer 

effective. 

	 Preliminary flood maps and studies—produced by a new flood study but 

not yet used by FEMA for flood insurance rating. 

	 Flood risk products—reports and maps that can be used for informational 

and planning purposes; availability is limited to the newest flood studies, 

and the exact products vary by location. 

	 GIS and database files from the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL), a 

digital nationwide compilation of effective FIRMs. 

The NFHL is also accessible directly and can be viewed in web browsers 

without GIS software. To access this resource, visit http://fema.maps.arcgis 

.com/home/index.html, click on image above “flooding”, and click on 

“FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (Official).” 

Figures AF-1 through AF-3 provide screenshots of an example school used 

to demonstrate the use of MSC and NFHL sites. This school, Tanglewood 

Elementary School (9352 Rustling Oaks Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

70818), was flooded during the August 2016 Louisiana flood. 

FEMA P-1000 AF: Flood Maps Appendix	 AF-3 
Figure AF-1 Screenshot from FEMA MSC website with the street address of 

Tanglewood Elementary School entered. 

Figure AF-2 Screenshot showing MSC products available for Tanglewood 

Elementary School. Click on “view map” to see FIRM. Click on 

“interactive map” to see NFHL. 

AF-4	 AF: Flood Maps Appendix FEMA P-1000 
 

Figure AF-3	 Portion of screenshot of NFHL image of Tanglewood 

Elementary School. 

AF.2.2 Reading FIRMs 

The exact map format may vary, but all FIRMs will show flood hazard 

zones, and most FIRMs will show Base Flood Elevations (BFEs)—the 

expected elevation of the flood surface during the base flood (also known as 

the 1% annual chance flood, or the 100-year flood). Some older FIRMs in 

less populated areas may show “approximate” flood zones without BFEs. 

Table AF-1 lists the flood hazard zones shown on the FIRM (not all FIRMs 

will have all the zones listed in the table). 

Figure AF-4 shows a generalized depiction of a FIRM to illustrate key 

information and terminology. Modern FIRMs are digital products drawn on 

aerial photographs (older FIRMs were drawn on paper maps). 

FIRMs will show the following information: 

	 Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). This indicates the area expected 

to flood during the base flood, also known as the 1% annual chance (100-

year) flood. FEMA considers the entire SFHA to be at high risk from 

flooding. 

	 Base Flood Elevation (BFE). This refers to the flood level associated 

with the Base Flood. The BFE will be listed on most FIRMs. The BFE 

will indicate the flood water surface elevation in riverine and lake 

flooding, and the elevation of the top of the wave in coastal flooding. 

Elevations will be relative to a common survey reference (vertical 

A tutorial on reading and 

understanding the FIRM is 

provided here https://www 

.fema.gov/media-library 

/assets/documents/7984?id 

=2324 

FEMA P-1000 AF: Flood Maps Appendix	 AF-5 
datum). Flood elevation should not be confused with flood depth above 

ground. 

Table AF-1 List of Flood Hazard Zones that May Be Shown on a FIRM (adapted 

from FEMA, 2005b) 

Zone Flood Hazard 

Zone A The 100-year or base floodplain. There are six types of A Zones: 

A The base floodplain mapped by approximate methods, i.e., BFEs are 

not determined. This is often called an unnumbered A Zone or an 

approximate A Zone. 

A1-30 These are known as numbered A Zones (e.g., A7 or A14). This is 

the base floodplain where FIRM shows a BFE (old format). 

AE The base floodplain where base flood elevations are provided. AE 

Zones are now used on new format FIRMS instead of A1-A30 

Zones. 

AO The base floodplain with sheet flow, ponding, or shallow flooding. 

Base flood depths (feet above ground) are provided. 

AH Shallow flooding base floodplain. BFEs are provided. 

A99 Area to be protected from base flood by levees or Federal Flood 

Protection Systems under construction. BFEs are not determined. 

AR The base floodplain that results from the decertification of a 

previously accredited flood protection system that is in the process 

of being restored to provide a 100-year or greater level of flood 

protection. 

Zone V and 

Zone VE 

V The coastal area subject to a velocity hazard (wave action) where 

BFEs are not determined on the FIRM. 

VE The coastal area subject to a velocity hazard (wave action) where 

BFEs are provided on the FIRM. 

Zone B and 

Zone X 

(shaded) 

Area of moderate flood hazard, usually the area between the limits of the 

100-year and 500-year floods. B Zones are also used to designate base 

floodplains of lesser hazards, such as areas protected by levees from the 

100-year flood, or shallow flooding areas with average depths of less than one 

foot or drainage areas less than 1 square mile. 

Zone C and 

Zone X 

(unshaded) 

Area of minimal flood hazard, usually depicted on FIRMs as above the 

500-year flood level. Zone C may have ponding and local drainage problems 

that don’t warrant a detailed study or designation as a base floodplain. Zone 

X is the area determined to be outside the 500-year flood and protected by 

levee from 100-year flood. 

Zone D Area of undetermined but possible flood hazards. 

	 Zones. The SFHA will be subdivided into zones, and the zone 

designations will vary with type of flood hazard area (riverine or 

coastal), age of the FIRM, and the level of detail of the flood study that 

created the FIRM. 

o	 The SFHA has mostly “A Zones” and “V Zones” (exact letter 

designations may vary). 

o	 V Zones are mapped along the shoreline in coastal areas and indicate 

the presence of damaging waves during the base flood. 

AF-6	 AF: Flood Maps Appendix FEMA P-1000 
o	 A Zones are mapped for riverine, lake and coastal flooding, and 

indicate inundation (small waves may be present in coastal). 

o	 The “floodway” is an SFHA overlay that may be mapped in rivers 

and large streams. The floodway is an area subject to the highest 

riverine flood hazards, and where special development restrictions 

exist. 

Figure AF-4	 Generalized depiction of a FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), showing flood 

hazard zones and Base Flood Elevations (BFEs). A riverine flood hazard area is 

shown at the upper left, and a coastal flood hazard area is shown at the lower right. 

	 Many FIRMs will show the area expected to flood in a more severe 

flood, usually the 0.2% annual chance (500-year) flood. This area will 

be shown as Zone X (or B or C). BFEs are not mapped for these zones, 

but flood elevation information may be available in the FIS. 

	 Newer coastal FIRMs will show a line representing the Limit of 

Moderate Wave Action (LiMWA), which is used by building codes and 

standards to identify the Coastal A Zone, within which those codes and 

standards require design and construction to V Zone standards. 

FEMA’s Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) program also 

develops “non-regulatory” products that are informational in nature (https:// 

www.ready.gov/tsunamis). These products may include flood risk reports 

FEMA P-1000 AF: Flood Maps Appendix	 AF-7 
 

To see if Risk MAP non-regulatory 

products are available for your 

area, look on the Map Service 

Center web site, or contact your 

community floodplain manager. 

and databases, and special maps that show flood depths and velocities, 

anticipated financial losses from flood, and areas of mitigation interest. 

AF.3 Other Types of Flood Hazard Maps 

As was stated previously, FIRMs are not the only type of flood hazard map 

that should be consulted when flood vulnerability of a school is evaluated. 

The following sections compare other types of flood maps with the FIRM. 

AF.3.1 Coastal Flood Hazard Map Comparison 

Figures AF-5 and AF-6 show different flood hazard mapping approaches for 

the same general area of Tampa, Florida. 

	 Figure AF-5 shows the NFHL version of the FIRM produced by FEMA. 

	 Figure AF-6 shows a storm surge inundation map produced by the 

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and the State of Florida during a 

hurricane evacuation study. Inundation maps like this serve as the basis 

for community evacuation plans. Some states and communities may 

establish additional siting restrictions or design requirements using storm 

surge inundation maps. 

Figure AF-5 Portion of screenshot of the portion of the National Flood Hazard Layer for Tampa, Florida. 

Cyan shading shows the area expected to flood during the 1% annual chance flood. 

AF-8	 AF: Flood Maps Appendix FEMA P-1000 
Figure AF-6 Storm surge atlas for Tampa, Florida (including the area shown in Figure AF-5). 

Shading color indicates areas expected to flood during different strength 

hurricanes, from red for Category 1 (minimal hurricane) to lavender for Category 

5 (most intense hurricane). (Photo source: Tampa Bay Regional Planning 

Council) 

It is apparent by comparing Figures AF-5 and AF-6, that a given location 

may be outside the 1% annual chance flood hazard area (which is subject to 

floodplain regulations and flood-resistant design requirements of building 

codes), but inside a storm surge inundation area. Both these maps were 

produced for different purposes, so their use may not be interchangeable. 

However, both can inform flood hazard evaluations and school siting and 

design decisions. 

FEMA P-1000 AF: Flood Maps Appendix	 AF-9 
Dam inundation areas have not 

been mapped everywhere, and 

some maps are not available to 

the public. For more information, 

contact the state dam safety 

program or visit: https://www 

.fema.gov/about-national-dam 

-safety-program. 

AF.3.2 Riverine Flood Hazard Map Comparison 

Another flood map comparison example is shown in Figures AF-7 and AF-8, 

this comparison for a different type of inundation hazard—dam failure. 

Figure AF-7 shows the FIRM for an area near Lawton, Oklahoma. Figure 

AF-8 shows the corresponding area that would be subject to inundation if the 

dam at Lake Lawtonka failed. 

We see from Figures AF-7 and AF-8 that a given location may be outside the 

1% annual chance flood hazard area (which is subject to floodplain 

regulations and flood-resistant design requirements of building codes), but 

inside a dam failure inundation area. As stated previously, although 

produced for different reasons, both of these maps should be used for flood 

hazard evaluations and school design decisions in dam inundation areas. 

Figure AF-7	 Portion of screenshot from the National Flood Hazard Layer for Lawton, Oklahoma. For 

comparison with Figure AF-8, the red circle is at a running track at Pritchard Field, outside the area 

expected to flood during the 1% annual chance flood – cyan shading). 

AF-10	 AF: Flood Maps Appendix FEMA P-1000 
 

Figure AF-8 Dam failure inundation map for the area shown in Figure AF-7 (USGS, 2012). The area in the 

red circle (at a track at Pritchard Field) is subject to inundation during modeled dam failure 

scenarios (cyan shading and yellow dashed line). 

AF.3.3 Future Conditions Affecting Flood Hazards 

FIRMs and most other flood hazard maps are almost always based on 

existing conditions, meaning flood conditions at the time the flood map was 

created. Maps should be updated as conditions change, but unfortunately, 

most map updates lag behind the actual change. Evaluation of school sites 

should include future conditions flood hazard conditions, where possible. 

Flood conditions can change over time for any number of reasons, including: 

	 Future development and land use can increase the amount of impervious 

ground surface or speed rainfall runoff, affecting flood timing and 

elevations. 

FEMA P-1000 AF: Flood Maps Appendix	 AF-11 
 

	 Surface water, lake, and groundwater levels can change over time, and 

these can affect future flooding. 

	 Precipitation patterns may change over time, increasing flood levels in 

certain areas. 

	 Sea level can increase over time, increasing coastal flood levels. 

	 Erosion can occur along coasts, rivers, streams, and lakes, and the area 

subject to flooding will change as the shoreline moves. 

Figure AF-9 shows an example where a community (Charlotte-Mecklenburg, 

North Carolina) produced two sets of flood hazards on their FIRM, one based 

on existing conditions (FEMA approach), and one showing the expected 

flood hazard area based on future development build-out conditions. 

Figure AF-9	 Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, flood hazard map showing 1% 

annual chance flood hazard area (blue shaded area) and community flood 

hazard area based on future development upstream (gray shaded area). 

(Photo source: City of Charlotte) 

There are now many tools and maps that predict inundation as a result of sea 

level rise (e.g., http://gom.usgs.gov/slr/slr.aspx, https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/, 

and http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/maps/risk-zone), but most of these 

show sea level rise inundation scenarios under normal tide conditions, or rely 

on the user to estimate a combined storm surge and sea level rise; they do not 

AF-12	 AF: Flood Maps Appendix FEMA P-1000 
 

show future flood hazard areas that include sea level rise effects layered on 

top of the FIRM. 

In some cases, tools and maps combine sea level rise and storm inundation; 

these will be the most useful for evaluating potential school sites. Figure 

AF-10 shows a sample map that displays future sea level rise effects in 

conjunction with the current 1% annual chance (100-yr) flood hazard area. 

Figure AF-10 Areas that potentially could be impacted by the 100-yr flood 

and various sea level rise heights (Patrick at al., 2015). 

FEMA has initiated several pilot studies examining sea level rise impacts on 

mapped flood hazards, and has incorporated “increased flooding scenarios” 

(e.g., BFE + 1 ft, BFE + 2 ft, and BFE + 3 ft) into its Risk MAP products for 

some studies. Figure AF-11 shows a brochure for this mapping product for 

the San Francisco Bay Area. 

FEMA P-1000 AF: Flood Maps Appendix	 AF-13 
 

Figure AF-11 Increased flooding scenario brochure for San Francisco 

Bay Area (FEMA, 2016). 

AF-14 AF: Flood Maps Appendix FEMA P-1000
 
Appendix AR 

Resources 

Full citations of all references used to develop this Guide are listed in the 

References. The following is a list of recommended resources that might be 

useful for school leaders that are addressing natural hazard risk. In some 

cases, a document is both in the References and listed here as a 

recommended resource. For recommended resources for a particular hazard, 

see the recommended resources section in each hazard-specific supplement. 

AR.1 Communications 

	 Excellent resources for developing messages, school crisis 

communications plans, and offering helpful tips on crisis 

communications and planning are available for purchase and for free 

online. Resource include: 

o	 The Complete Crisis Communication Management Manual for 

Schools (NSPRA, 2016) published by the National School Public 

Relations Association, available for purchase. http://www.nspra.org 

/crisis 

o	 School Crisis Guide: Help and Healing in a Time of Crisis (National 

Education Association, 2015). This step-by-step resource is created 

by educators for educators. http://healthyfutures.nea.org/wpcproduct 

/school-crisis-guide/ 

	 Public Awareness and Public Education for Disaster Risk Reduction: A 

Guide (IFRC, 2011). This document provides guidance on planning and 

developing public awareness and public education efforts for disaster 

risk reduction. http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/disasters 

/reducing_risks/302200-Public-awareness-DDR-guide-EN.pdf 

	 Online resources to learn more about the use of social media in 

emergency management include: 

o	 Virtual EMA, a professional association of emergency responders, 

academia, technologists, community advocates, creative thinkers 

with educational resource links on use of social media for emergency 

management. http://www.virtualema.org (formerly http://www 

.sm4em.org) 

FEMA P-1000 AR: Resources AR-1 
o	 FEMA resource page for social media; https://www.fema.gov/social 

-media. Additionally, FEMA offers a series of courses instructing 

schools, first responders, and other organizations on using social 

media in disaster response and recovery. Courses are offered free of 

charge through the National Disaster Preparedness Training Center 

(https://ndptc.hawaii.edu/training/catalog). 

AR.2 Community Engagement 

Teen Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) is an excellent 

program to involve youth. To learn more about building CERT teams for 

schools, visit: 

	 https://rems.ed.gov/TeenCertEnhancingSchoolEmergMgrment.aspx 

	 http://www.fema.gov/teen-community-emergency-response-team 

The following is a program for knowledge-sharing around disasters: 

	 Voluntary Agencies Active in Disaster (VOAD). https://www.ready.gov 

/voluntary-organizations-active-disaster 

AR.3 Curriculum 

	 Many examples of educational curriculum used throughout the world are 

readily available online. Four excellent examples are: 

o	 What’s the Plan, Stan? is an initiative from New Zealand, which 

aims to support teachers to develop their students’ knowledge, skills 

and attitudes to respond to and prepare for an emergency. http:// 

www.whatstheplanstan.govt.nz 

o	 The Pillowcase Project. The American Red Cross, sponsored by 

Disney, is a preparedness education program for children in grades 

3–5, which teaches students about personal and family preparedness, 

local hazards, and basic coping skills. The hour-long presentation is 

for schools, after-school programs, Girl and Boy Scout troop 

meetings, and more. Red Cross volunteers lead students through a 

“learn, practice, share” framework to engage them in disaster 

preparedness. Upon completion, students receive a sturdy 

pillowcase in which to build their personal emergency supplies kit. 

Presentations are customized to focus on a hazard that is important 

and relevant to the local community. http://www.redcross.org/local 

/colorado/programs-services/ preparedness/pillowcase-project 

o	 Masters of Disaster. The American Red Cross Masters of Disaster® 

curriculum features ready-to-go lesson plans that help educate 

AR-2	 AR: Resources FEMA P-1000 
children about important disaster safety and preparedness 

information. The Masters of Disaster curriculum materials are 

specifically tailored for lower elementary (K–2), upper elementary 

(3–5) and middle school (6–8) classes. http://www.redcross.org 

/local/utah/programs-services/masters-of-disaster-program 

o	 Be A Hero. This FEMA program includes online activities for 

children to learn about and prepare for disasters. Curriculum is also 

provided by grade level for educators to utilize in the classroom and 

are designed to be engaging, interactive, and multidisciplinary. 

www.ready.gov/kids 

	 Educational resources: 

o	 riskRED: risk reduction education for disasters. http://www.riskred 

.org/schools.html 

o	 Edu4drr: Effective Education for Disaster Risk Reduction-Learning 

Matters website. http://www.edu4drr.org 

o	 Drrlibrary (resources). http://www.drrlibrary.org/about.php 

o	 PreventionWeb (International disaster resilience networks, coalitions 

and resources). http://www.preventionweb.net/english/ 

o	 Coalition for Global School Safety and Disaster Prevention 

Education. http://cogssdpe.ning.com 
	

o	 Disaster Risk Reduction in School Curricula: Case Studies from 

Thirty Countries (Selby and Kagawa, 2012). This publication 

provides best practices and innovative solutions throughout the 

world with the intention of providing support to all countries in the 

process of integrating disaster risk reduction into curriculum. 

https://www.unicef.org/education/files/DRRinCurricula-Mapping 

30countriesFINAL.pdf 

o	 Children and Disaster Risk Reduction: Taking Stock and Moving 

Forward (Back et al., 2009). This report reviews child-focused and 

child-led disaster risk reduction approaches and techniques. It 

documents a number of case studies across a range of interventions, 

dividing these into three main areas: Knowledge, Voice and Action. 

It makes some observations regarding current practice and 

recommendations that imply a shift in emphasis going forward. 

http://toolkit.ineesite.org/toolkit/INEEcms/uploads/1057/Children 

_and_Disaster_Risk_Reduction.pdf 

FEMA P-1000 AR: Resources AR-3 
o	 Towards a Learning Culture of Safety and Resilience: Technical 

Guidance for Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction in the School 

Curriculum (Selby and Kagawa, 2014). This document provides a 

thorough rationale for including disaster risk reduction in school 

curricula within an Education for Sustainable Development 

framework. It also guides those with responsibility for curricula on 

appropriate teaching and learning methods for disaster preparedness. 

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/ 0022/002293/229336E.pdf 

o	 PrepareAthon! America's PrepareAthon! is a grassroots campaign for 

action to increase community preparedness and resilience. Join 

others around the country to practice your preparedness! https:// 

community.fema.gov/ 

o	 National Weather Service Education. An educational resource for 

children to learn about science and safety with Owlie Skywarn. 

http://www.weather.gov/owlie/ 

o	 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Education Resources, Natural Disasters. The resources on this page 

provide background information on the types of natural hazards that 

NOAA studies, techniques and tools used for prediction, historical 

patterns of natural disasters, and programs for helping communities 

prepare for future events. http://www.noaa.gov/resource-collections 

/weather-atmosphere-education-resources 

o	 STOP DISASTERS! A disaster simulation game from the UNISDR 

that teaches principles of disaster preparedness for earthquakes, 

floods, cyclones, and wildfires. www.stop disastersgame.org 

	 “Big Bird, Disaster Masters, and High School Students Taking Charge: 

The Social Capacities of Children in Disaster Education” (Wachtendorf 

et al., 2008). This paper reviews three initiatives that focus on children 

and disasters, including a Sesame Workshop-produced video aimed at 

pre-school children, an American Red Cross initiative that focuses on 

children in kindergarten through middle school, and a video directed at 

high school students as part of a student-generated initiative at a Seattle 

school. 

AR.4 Disaster and Emergency Planning 

AR.4.1 General Guidance 

	 Guide for Developing High-Quality School Emergency Operations Plans 

(U.S. Department of Education, 2013) provides recommendations for 

developing plans to respond to an emergency and also outlines how K-12 

AR-4	 AR: Resources FEMA P-1000 
schools can plan to prevent, protect against, mitigate impacts of, and 

recover from these emergencies. https://www.fema.gov/media 

-library/assets/documents/33599 

 The federally funded Readiness and Emergency Management Schools 

Technical Assistance (REMS TA) Center, administered by the U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of Safe and Healthy Students, provides 

extensive online resources including development guidelines, interactive 

worksheets, plan templates, a toolbox, trainings, and other resources to 

assist in the process. https://rems.ed.gov/ 

 Go-Kits and Emergency Supplies. Sources of information on Go-Kit 

basics, including recommended contents and sample checklists, include 

the following links: 

o REMS “Helpful Hints” Newsletter (2006). http://rems.ed.gov/docs 

/HH_Vol1Issue1.pdf 

o Washington (State) School Safety Center. http://www.k12.wa.us 

/Safetycenter/Emergency/pubdocs/EmergencySuppliesGoKit 

Suggestions.pdf 

 Multihazard Emergency Planning for Schools Toolkit. This is an online 

resource to support emergency planning efforts. https://training.fema 

.gov/programs/emischool/el361toolkit/start.htm 

 FEMA Course IS-362: Multi-Hazard Emergency Planning for Schools. 

This online course covers basic information about developing, 

implementing, and maintaining school emergency operations plan 

(EOP), with the goals of providing an understanding of the importance of 

having an EOP for schools. This course is intended for teachers, 

counselors, parent volunteers, coaches, bus drivers, and students; school 

administrators, principals, and first responders might also find the 

information useful. https://training.fema.gov/is/courseoverview.aspx 

?code=IS-362.a 

 FEMA Course E361: Multi-Hazard Emergency Planning for Schools. 

This 4-day in-person course provides school district teams with the 

knowledge, skills and tools needed to review, enhance and sustain an allhazard school emergency plan (EOP). https://training.fema.gov 

/emicourses/crsdetail.aspx?cid=E361&ctype=R 

 Disaster and Emergency Preparedness: Guidance for Schools 

(International Finance Corporation, 2010). This handbook was prepared 

as a resource for school administrators and teachers to serve as a basis 

for policy development. It also provides an important resource for 

FEMA P-1000 AR: Resources AR-5 
 

 

 

 

 

classroom activities and awareness-raising among children and 

communities. This guide includes an addenda of checklists useful for 

school emergency planning. http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect 

/8b796b004970c0199a7ada336b93d75f/DisERHandbook.pdf?MOD 

=AJPERES. The Disaster and Emergency Preparedness: Activity Guide 

for K to 6th Grade Teachers. This acts as a supplemental guide to the 

handbook. http://toolkit.ineesite.org/resources/ineecms/uploads/1057 

/Disaster_Emerg_Preparedness_K-6.pdf 

 Practical Information on Crisis Planning: A Guide for Schools and 

Communities (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). This guide 

provides a thorough overview of crisis planning for schools, including 

natural disaster planning. The focus of this document is on the cycle of 

crisis management and is intended to be a general guide. It includes 

action steps for each stage of planning and can be modified for any 

school or type of crisis. http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety 

/emergencyplan/ crisisplanning.pdf 

 “Creating emergency management plans” (U.S. Department of 

Education, 2006). This document provides brief guidance for emergency 

planning for schools with specific and useful suggestions. http://rems.ed 

.gov/docs/creatingplans.pdf 

 Disaster Prevention for Schools: Guidance for Education Sector 

Decision-Makers (Petal, 2008). This is a guidance document for school 

administrators, teachers, education authorities, school safety committees 

and similar. It introduces disaster impacts on and prevention for schools, 

and covers creating and maintaining safe learning environments; 

teaching and learning disaster prevention and preparedness; educational 

materials and teacher training; and developing a culture of safety. 

http://www.preventionweb.net/educational/view/7344 

 Head Start: Disaster Preparedness Workbook (UCLA Center for Public 

Health and Disasters, 2004). This workbook is specific to head start 

programs and provides an in-depth look at disaster planning with specific 

suggestions, activities, and helpful checklists, worksheets, and forms to 

prepare your head start program. It includes great information on 

training of staff, communication systems, creating response teams, and 

recovery. http://toolkit.ineesite.org/toolkit/INEEcms/uploads/1056 

/Headstart_Disaster_Preparedness.pdf 

 i love u guys foundation. This organization provides resources for 

developing standard response protocols for use in any emergency 

AR-6 AR: Resources FEMA P-1000 
situation. The foundation provides training, forms, checklists, and 

additional resources. www.iloveuguys.org 

	 Center for Safe Schools Emergency Response Crisis Management 

(ERCM) Initiative. This center guides schools and districts through a 

4-step process of prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response, and 

recovery; and provides them with needed research, training and 

consultation. http://www.safeschools.info/emergency-management 

	 Safe School Facilities Checklist. The National Clearinghouse for 

Educational Facilities (NCEF) provides a free checklist that combines 

the nation’s best school facility assessment measures into one online 

source for assessing the safety and security of school buildings and 

grounds. http://www.ncef.org/content/safe-schools-0 

	 School Safety Plans: A Snapshot of Legislative Action (Council of State 

Governments Justice Center, 2014). This CSG Justice Center brief 

recaps the legislation of 46 states with respect to their requirements for 

comprehensive school safety or emergency plans. https://csgjustice 

center.org/youth/publications/ school-safety-plans-a-snapshot-of 

-legislative-action/ 

R.4.2 Federal Laws Applicable to Emergency Operations Plans 

	 Information on applicable federal laws is discussed in Guide for 

Developing High Quality School Emergency Operations Plans (US 

Department of Education, et al., 2013). More resources on the following 

are available at: 

o	 Americans with Disabilities Act. http://www.ada.gov and 

http://achieve.lausd.net/afn
	 

o	 Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964. https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs 

/TitleVI-Overview 

o	 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). http://www2 

.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html 

o	 Emergency Management: Status of School Districts’ Planning and 

Preparedness (U.S. General Accountability Office, 2007). http:// 

www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-821T 

o	 The Stafford Act. http://www.fema.gov/robert-t-stafford-disaster 

-relief-and-emergency-assistance-act-public-law-93-288-amended 







A



FEMA P-1000 AR: Resources AR-7 
AR.4.3 Incident Command System 

	 The online ICS Resource Center from the FEMA Emergency 

Management Institute. This website provides training in ICS, useful 

forms, and job aids. https://training.fema.gov/emiweb/is/icsresource/ 

	 Independent Study courses are available on FEMA’s website at 

http://training.fema.gov/emi.aspx. Courses include instruction in the 

National Institute Management System (NIMS) and the Incident 

Command System (ICS). 

	 National Incident Management System (NIMS) is a systematic, proactive 

approach to guide departments and agencies at all levels of government, 

nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work together 

seamlessly and manage incidents involving all threats and hazards. 

http://www.fema.gov/national-incident-management-system 

AR.4.4 School Safety Plan Examples 

	 Crisis Management and Prevention Information for Georgia Public 

Schools (Georgia Department of Education, 2012). This manual of 

information was developed to support and encourage the development 

and implementation of a systematic crisis management and prevention 

plan in schools and school districts. It is designed to be used as a general 

resource and a training tool. It is not intended to list or discuss all 

possible emergency situations or conditions in a school setting. 

https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment 

/Curriculum-and-Instruction/Documents/Crisis%20Management 

%20and%20Prevention%20in%20Georgia%20Public%20Schools 

_December%202012.pdf 

	 This workbook from Fairfax County Public Schools includes excellent 

checklists and includes all of the necessary requirements for a thorough 

school plan. http://www.esc1.net/cms/lib/TX21000366/Centricity 

/Domain/89/Crisis_Management_Workbook_Fairfax_County_Public 

_Schools.pdf 

	 Emergency Preparedness Planning Guide for Utah Public Schools (Utah 

State Office of Education, 2013). This plan can be found at the be ready 

website which also contains many additional useful resources for school 

emergency planning. www.beready.utah.gov 

	 This resource guide from the Kentucky Center for School Safety can be 

used as a template that can be adjusted as needed. http://kycss.org/emp 

/Home/EmerRevCol.pdf. Additional resources: www.kysafeschools.org 

AR-8	 AR: Resources FEMA P-1000 
 

 

 

 

	 Washington State K-12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan (School 

Facilities and Organization, 2014). This document can be used as a 

template for other states to develop similar hazard plans. Specific 

disasters discussed include earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruption, 

flooding, and landslides. http://www.k12.wa.us/SchFacilities/PDM 

/pubdocs/PDM_ Plan.pdf 

	 Emergency Operations Planning: A Model for Schools and Businesses 

(Tennessee Office of Homeland Security, 2014). This guide uses a 

simplified model of emergency protocols for specific incidences. This 

template can be used as a quick reference guide for any school to follow. 

https://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/education/attachments/save_act 

_emergency_ops_planning_model.pdf 

	 Sample School Emergency Operations Plan (FEMA, 2013b). This 

document is designed to be used alongside the Guide for Developing 

High Quality School Emergency Operations Plan (U.S. Department of 

Education, 2013). It presents excepts from a sample school emergency 

plan that can be modified as needed. https://www.educateiowa.gov 

/documents/school-safety/2016/02/sample-school-emergency-operations 

-plan-fema-nov-2013 

AR.5 Emergency Exercises, Drills, and Materials 

	 Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) 

(Homeland Security, 2013). This document provides detailed 

approaches, strategies and tips on how to successfully design, execute, 

and evaluate an exercise. https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets 

/documents/32326 

	 “Accountability and assessment of emergency drill performance at 

schools” (Ramirez et al., 2009). This mixed-methods study measures the 

quantity and the quality of drills in an urban school district in Los 

Angeles. Suggestions include developing realistic simulated exercises, 

debriefing, and better school accountability for drills. https://www.ncbi 

.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19305209 

AR.6 International Resources 

	 Comprehensive School Safety: A Global Framework. (GADRRRES, 

2017). This framework provides a comprehensive approach to reducing 

risks from all hazards to the education sector. The purpose of this 

Comprehensive School Safety Framework is to bring these efforts into a 

clear and unified focus in order for education sector partners to work 

more effectively, and to link with similar efforts in all other sectors at the 

FEMA P-1000 AR: Resources AR-9 
global, regional, national and local levels. http://gadrrres.net/resources 

/comprehensive-school-safety-framework 

	 School Recovery: Lessons from Asia (Shaw et al., 2012). This work was 

conducted at the Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies at 

Kyoto University under International Environment and Disaster 

Management. This publication provides a compilation of 25 case studies 

of schools from 12 countries affected by 6 different hazards in an effort 

to understand the recovery processes of schools from natural disasters. It 

links the recovery lessons to the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) in 

the education sector (E-HFA) through sixteen tasks that constitute a 

framework for the integrated approach of disaster risk reduction in 

schools. It goes beyond the school building or education, and looks at 

the comprehensive way of disaster risk reduction in the education sector. 

	 Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction (GFDRR, 2009). This 

document presents a framework of guiding principles and general steps 

to develop a context-specific plan to address this critical gap to reaching 

Education for All (EFA) and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 

through the disaster resilient construction and retrofitting of school 

buildings. https://www.eeri.org/wp-content/uploads/Guidance_Notes 

_Safer_School_Constructionfinal.pdf 

AR.7 Mental Health 

	 Training resources on Psychological First Aid for Schools (PFA-S) and 

other mental health resources are offered by The National Child 

Traumatic Stress Network. http://www.nctsnet.org 

	 The following is a presentation on best practices in mental health 

emergency recovery in schools: http://www.powershow.com/view 

/3b1fd0-NjAwN/Best_Practices_in_Mental_Health_Emergency 

_Recovery_in_Schools_powerpoint_ppt_presentation 

	 Additional guidance on mental health recovery can be found at: 

o	 http://neahealthyfutures.org/wpcproduct/school-crisis-guide/ 

o	 http://www.nspra.org/crisis 

o	 http://www.schoolcrisisresponse.com 

o	 http://www.atsm.org 

o	 http://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov 

o	 http://www.dodea.edu/crisis/cMresources.cfm 

AR-10	 AR: Resources FEMA P-1000 
 

 

 

	 “Do It Now: Short Term Responses to Traumatic Events” (Demaria and 

Schonfeld, 2014). This source provides an overview of best practices for 

assisting children with coping following a disaster. 

	 School-Wide Crisis Management Plan Guide: A Professional School 

Counselor’s Guide to School-Wide Crisis Management (Missouri 

Professional School Counselors and Counselor Educators, 2015). 

http://www.missouricareereducation.org/doc/schcrisis/SchoolwideCrisis 

.pdf 

	 “Helping Elementary-Age Children Cope with Disasters” (Shen and 

Sink, 2002). This article addresses the effects of disasters on 

elementary-age children and their needs for mental health. It suggests 

possible school-based interventions and provides a case study of a 

traumatized first-grader, demonstrating how child- centered play therapy 

can be used in school settings. 

	 “School Interventions After the Joplin Tornado” (Kanter and Abramson, 

2013). This article provides helpful information on the use of postdisaster mental health services for school children. 

	 Tips for Talking with and Helping Children and Youth Cope After a 

Disaster or Traumatic Event: A Guide for Parents, Caregivers, and 

Teachers. (SAMHSA, 2012). This document aims to help parents and 

teachers recognize common reactions children of different age groups 

(preschool and early childhood to adolescence) experience after a 

disaster or traumatic event. It offers tips for how to respond in a helpful 

way and when to seek support. http://store.samhsa.gov/product/Tips-for 

-Talking-With-and-Helping-Children-and-Youth-Cope-After-a-Disaster 

-or-Traumatic-Event-A-Guide-for-Parents-Caregivers-and-Teachers 

/SMA12-4732 

	 “Pedagogy of Love and Care: Shaken Schools Respond” (O’Connor, 

2013). The paper continues to look at a pedagogy of love and care as a 

vital way to support, encourage, and aid children through their trauma 

and grief which continues long after the earthquake. 

	 “‘I Had to Teach Hard’: Traumatic Conditions and Teachers in PostKatrina Classrooms” (Alvarez, 2010). 

	 “Consequences for Classroom Environments and School Personnel: 

Evaluating Katrina’s Effect on Schools and System Response” 

(Buchanan and Baumgartner, 2010). 

FEMA P-1000 AR: Resources AR-11 
 

AR.8 Vulnerability Assessments 

	 A Guide to School Vulnerability Assessments: Key Principles for Safe 

Schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). This is a companion 

document to Practical Information on Crisis Planning a Guide for 

Schools and Communities (U.S. Department of Education, 2007) and is 

intended to serve as a guide for schools and districts to prepare for a 

variety of crises. The document emphasizes ongoing vulnerability 

assessments and is intended to assist schools with the implementation of 

an effective vulnerability assessment process. http://www.prevention 

web.net/files/15318_vareport20081.pdf 

AR-12	 AR: Resources FEMA P-1000 
References 

Alexander, D., and Lewis, L., 2014, Condition of America’s Public School 

Facilities: 2012-13, NCES 2014-022, National Center for Education 

Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 

Alvarez, D., 2010, “‘I had to teach hard’: Traumatic conditions and teachers 

in post-Katrina classrooms,” The High School Journal, Vol. 94, No. 

1, pp. 28-39. 

ASCE, 2009, So, You Live Behind a Levee!, American Society of Civil 

Engineers, Reston, Virginia. 

ASCE, 2010, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 

ASCE/SEI 7-10, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, 

Virginia. 

ASCE, 2014a, Flood Resistant Design and Construction, ASCE/SEI 24-14, 

American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia. 

ASCE, 2014b, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, 

ASCE/SEI 41-13, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, 

Virginia. 

ASCE, 2017a, 2017 Infrastructure Report Card, American Society of Civil 

Engineers, Reston, Virginia. 

ASCE, 2017b, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings 

and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16, American Society of Civil 

Engineers, Reston, Virginia. 

ATC, 2004, Field Manual: Safety Evaluation of Buildings after Windstorms 

and Floods, Applied Technology Council, ATC-45 Report, 

Redwood City, California. 

ATC, 2005, Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, 

Second Edition, Applied Technology Council, ATC-20-1 Report, 

Redwood City, California. 

Back, E., Cameron, C., and Tanner, T., 2009, Children and Disaster Risk 

Reduction: Taking Stock and Moving Forward, United Nations 

Children’s Fund (UNICEF), New York, New York. 

FEMA P-1000 R: References R-1 
 

 

Bailey, B., 2013, “Local banks step in after tornado prevented Moore district 

from paying schoolteachers on time,” The Oklahoman, 

http://newsok.com/article/3844466, last accessed on February 20, 

2017. 

Balassanian, S.Y., Arkakelian, A.R., Nazaretian, S.N., Avanessian, A.S., 

Martirossian, A.H., Igoumnov, V.A., Melkoumian, M.G., 

Manoukian, A.V., and Tovmassian, A.K., 1995, “Retrospective 

analysis of the Spitak earthquake,” Annali di Geofisica, Vol. 38, No. 

3-4, Bologna, Italy. 

Barnes, J., 2013, School Disaster Needs for Students with Disabilities: 

Voices from the Field, University of California at Los Angeles, Los 

Angeles, California. 

Buchanan, T.K., and Baumgartner, J.J., 2010, “Consequences for classroom 

environments and school personnel: evaluating Katrina’s effect on 

schools and system response,” Helping Families and Communities 

Recover from Disaster: Lessons Learned from Hurricane Katrina 

and its Aftermath, American Psychological Association, Washington, 

D.C. 

California Emergency Management Agency, 2011, Guide and Checklist for 

Nonstructural Earthquake Hazards in California Schools, Division 

of State Architect, Mather, California. 

Connections Academy, 2016, Virtual Public Schools Expands Enrollment to 

Accommodate Families Impacted by Flood, www.connections 

academy.com/news/laca-expands-enrollment, last accessed on 

February 20, 2017. 

Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014, School Safety Plans: A 

Snapshot of Legislative Action, Council of State Governments Justice 

Center, New York, New York, https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp 

-content/uploads/2014/03/NCSL-School-Safety-Plans-Brief.pdf, last 

accessed on June 11, 2017. 

CSSC, 2007, The Field Act and Public School Construction: A 2007 

Perspective, State of California Seismic Safety Commission, 

Sacramento, California. 

CSSC, 2009, The Field Act and its Relative Effectiveness in Reducing 

Earthquake Damage in California Public Schools, State of 

California Seismic Safety Commission, Sacramento, California. 

Demaria, T., and Schonfeld, D.J., 2014, “Do it now: Short term responses to 

traumatic events,” Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 95, No. 4, pp. 13-17. 

R-2 R: References FEMA P-1000 
 

 

 

 

Doughton, S., and Gilbert, D., 2016, “‘We should be screaming’ with 

outrage: State does little to protect schoolkids from earthquake, 

tsunami,” The Seattle Times, Seattle, Washington, 

Educational Facilities Research Center, 2005, Case Studies of Seismic 

Nonstructural Retrofitting in School Facilities, National Institute for 

Educational Policy Research, Japan. 

FEMA, 1999, Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) Report – 

Hurricane Georges in Puerto Rico (1999), FEMA 339, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2000a, Design and Construction Guidance for Community Shelters, 

First Edition, FEMA 361, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2000b, Tremor Troop: Earthquakes – A Teacher’s Package for K-6, 

Revised Edition, FEMA 159, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2002, Mitigation Case Studies: Protecting School Children from 

Tornadoes, State of Kansas School Shelter Initiative, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2003, Risk Management Series: Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation 

of School Buildings (K-12), FEMA 395, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2005a, Mitigation Assessment Team Report: Hurricane Charley in 

Florida: Observations, Recommendations, and Technical Guidance, 

FEMA 488, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 

D.C. 

FEMA, 2005b, NFIP Floodplain Management Requirements: A Study Guide 

and Desk Reference for Local Officials, National Flood Insurance 

Program, FEMA 480, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2005c, Promoting Seismic Safety: Guidance for Advocates, FEMA 

474, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2005d, Earthquake Safety Activities: For Children and Teachers, 

FEMA 527, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 

D.C. 

FEMA, 2006a, Earthquake Preparedness: What Every Child Care Provider 

Needs to Know, FEMA 240, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA P-1000 R: References R-3 
FEMA, 2006b, Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast: Building Performance 

Observations, Recommendations, and Technical Guidance, 

Mitigation Assessment Team Report, FEMA 549, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2007, Risk Management Series: Design Guide for Improving Critical 

Facility Safety from Flooding and High Winds, FEMA P-543, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2008, Home Builder’s Guide to Construction in Wildfire Zones, 

FEMA P-737, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2009a, Hurricane Ike in Texas and Louisiana: Building Performance 

Observations, Recommendations, and Technical Guidance, 

Mitigation Assessment Team Report, FEMA P-757, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2009b, Tornado Protection: Selecting Refuge Area in Buildings, 

Second Edition FEMA P-431, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2009c, Unreinforced Masonry Buildings and Earthquakes, FEMA 

P-774, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2009d, Vertical Evacuation from Tsunamis: A Guide for Community 

Officials, FEMA P-646A, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2010a, Risk Management Series: Design Guide for Improving School 

Safety in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds, FEMA P-424, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2010b, Substantial Improvement/Substantial Damage Desk 

Reference, FEMA P-758, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2011, The Response to the 2011 Joplin, Missouri, Tornado, Lessons 

Learned Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2012a, FEMA Teen CERT Guide, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Washington, D.C. http://www.fema.gov/media-library 

-data/1449865324894-7898237eb0427d36e98932589825151b 

/teen_cert_launch_maintaintraining_508_111315.pdf, last accessed 

on August 16, 2016. 

R-4 R: References FEMA P-1000 
 

 

FEMA, 2012b, Guidelines for Design of Structures for Vertical Evacuation 

from Tsunamis, Second Edition, FEMA P-646, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2012c, Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage—A 

Practical Guide, FEMA E-74, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2012d, Spring 2011 Tornadoes: April 25-28 and May 22: Building 

Performance Observations, Recommendations, and Technical 

Guidance, Mitigation Assessment Team Report, FEMA P-908, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2013a, Floodproofing Non-Residential Buildings, FEMA P-936, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2013b, Sample School Emergency Operations Plan, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2013c, Snow Load Safety Guide, FEMA P-957, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2014, Emergency Power Systems for Critical Facilities: A Best 

Practices Approach to Improving Reliability, FEMA P-1019, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2015a, Case Study – School Community Safe Room: Wichita, 

Kansas, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2015b, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic 

Hazards: A Handbook, Third Edition, FEMA P-154, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2015c, Safe Rooms for Tornadoes and Hurricanes: Guidance for 

Community and Residential Safe Rooms, FEMA P-361, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2016, San Francisco Bay Area Coastal Study: Increased Flooding 

Scenario Maps, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2017a, “East Baton Rouge Parish School to receive $1.1 M more in 

assistance,” News Release, NR-156, https://www.fema.gov/news 

-release/2017/05/11/east-baton-rouge-parish-schools-receive-11-m 

-more-assistance, last accessed on May 22, 2017. 

FEMA, 2017b, Hazus®: Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the 

United States, FEMA P-366, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA P-1000 R: References R-5 
Fothergill, A., and Peek, L., 2015, Children of Katrina, University of Texas 

Press, Austin, Texas. 

Freeman Health System, 2015, “Bill & Virginia Leffen Center for Autism 

celebrates completion of new campus,” Freeman News, Joplin, 

Missouri, https://www.freemanhealth.com/about-us/freeman-news 

/bill-virginia-leffen-center-for-autism-celebrates-completion-of-new 

-campus, last accessed on February 22, 2017. 

GADRRRES, 2017, Comprehensive School Safety, Global Alliance for 

Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education Sector, 

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. 

Georgia Department of Education, 2012, Crisis Management and Prevention 

Information for Georgia Public Schools, Atlanta, Georgia. 

GFDRR, 2009, Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction, developed as 

a collaboration between the InterAgency Network for Education in 

Emergencies (INEE) and the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction 

and Recovery (GFDRR), The World Bank. 

Homeland Security, 2013, Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation 

Program (HSEEP), Washington, D.C. 

ICC, 2000, 2000 International Building Code, International Code Council, 

Inc., Country Club Hills, Illinois. 

ICC, 2014a, ICC/NSSA Standards for the Design and Construction of Storm 

Shelters, ICC 500-2014, International Code Council & National 

Storm Shelter Association, Country Club Hills, Illinois. 

ICC, 2014b, 2015 International Building Code, International Code Council, 

Inc., Country Club Hills, Illinois. 

IFCR, 2011, Public Awareness and Public Education for Disaster Risk 

Reduction: A Guide, International Federation of Red Cross and Red 

Crescent Societies, Geneva, Switzerland. 

International Conference of Building Officials, 1976, Uniform Building 

Code, 1976 Edition, Whittier, California. 

International Finance Corporation, 2010, Disaster and Emergency 

Preparedness: Guidance for Schools, World Bank Group, 

Washington, D.C. 

Jaiswal, K.S., Petersen, M.D., Rukstales, K., and Leith, W.S., 2015, 

“Earthquake shaking hazard estimates and exposure changes in the 

conterminous United States,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 31, No. S1, 

pp. S201-S220. 

R-6 R: References FEMA P-1000 
Kaiser, S., 2016, Colorado School Safety: An Examination of Web 

Accessibility of Emergency Management Information, M.A. Thesis, 

Department of Sociology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

Kanter, R.K., and Abramson, D., 2013, “School interventions after the Joplin 

tornado,” Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 

214-217. 

Lussier, C., 2017, “Baton Rouge school flood damage tops $60 million, but 

not all schools likely to be repaired,” The Advocate, Baton Rouge, 

Louisiana, http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news 

/education/article_81eb360c-e825-11e6-ad1a-bfc3dd3bc235.html, 

last accessed on March 2, 2017. 

Magistrale, R., 2015, “Ocosta Elementary Week End Wrap Up 10-29-15,” 

YouTube video, 2:07, filmed October 2015, https://youtu.be 

/G0AzsXTZhzw, last accessed on June 7, 2017. 

Manning, R., 2012, “Portland parents worried about quake safety in schools,” 

Oregon Public Broadcasting, March 8, 2012, http://www.opb.org 

/news/article/portland-parents-worried-about-quake-safety-schools/, 

last accessed on June 11, 2017. 

McTavish, E., 2016, Since Joplin Tornado, Dozens of Safe Rooms Built in 

Area Schools, Communities, KSMU Radio, http://ksmu.org/post 

/joplin-tornado-dozens-safe-rooms-built-area-schools-communities 

#stream/0, last accessed on May 17, 2017. 

Miller, D., 1960, Giant Waves in Lituya Bay Alaska, Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 354-C, United States Department of the Interior, 

United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 

https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0354c/report.pdf, last accessed on March 

22, 2017. 

Missouri Professional School Counselors and Counselor Educators, 2015, 

School-Wide Crisis Management Plan Guide: A Professional School 

Counselor’s Guide to School-Wide Crisis Management, 

Comprehensive Guidance and Counseling Program: Responsive 

Services, Missouri. 

Mitchell, C., 2016, “Scores of Louisiana school remain closed after severe 

flooding,” Education Week, Bethesda, Maryland, http://blogs.edweek 

.org/edweek/District_Dossier/2016/08/scores_of_louisiana_schools 

_remain_closed.html, last accessed on May 23, 2017. 

FEMA P-1000 R: References R-7 
Multihazard Mitigation Council, 2005, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An 

Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation 

Activities, Vol 1 – Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations, 

prepared with funding from the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National 

Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C. 

National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 2008a, Earthquakes and 

Schools, National Institute of Building Sciences, prepared under a 

grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 

National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 2008b, Wildfires and 

Schools, National Institute of Building Sciences, prepared under a 

grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 

National Education Association, 2015, School Crisis Guide: Help and 

Healing in a Time of Crisis, Health Information Network, 

Washington, D.C. 

National Forum on Education Statistics, 2010, Crisis Data Management: A 

Forum Guide to Collecting and Managing Data About Displaced 

Students, NFES 2010-804, National Center for Education Statistics, 

U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 

National Hurricane Center, 2016, Storm Surge Overview, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/surge/, 

last accessed on March 1, 2017. 

NCES, 2016, “Fast facts: Back to school statistics,” National Center for 

Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 

Department of Education, https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts 

/display.asp?id=372, last accessed on February 20, 2017. 

NISEE, 1935, Karl V. Steinbrugge Collection, NISEE/PEER/UCB, National 

Information Service for Earthquake Engineering/Pacific Earthquake 

Engineering Research Center/University of California, Berkeley, 

California, https://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/Image/S2979, last 

accessed on February 28, 2017. 

NISEE, 1949, Karl V. Steinbrugge Collection, NISEE/PEER/UCB, National 

Information Service for Earthquake Engineering/Pacific Earthquake 

Engineering Research Center/University of California, Berkeley, 

California, https://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/Image/S2994, last 

accessed on February 28, 2017. 

R-8 R: References FEMA P-1000 
 

NIST, 2013, Preliminary Reconnaissance of the May 20, 2013, NewcastleMoore Tornado in Oklahoma, NIST Special Publication 1164, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, 

Maryland. 

NIST, 2014, Cost Analyses and Benefit Studies for Earthquake-Resistant 

Construction in Memphis, Tennessee, NIST GCR 14-917-26, 

prepared by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of 

the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium for Universities 

for Research in Earthquake Engineering, for the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland. 

NOAA, 2014, “NOAA: ‘Nuisance flooding’ an increasing problem as coastal 

sea levels rise,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140728 

_nuisanceflooding.html, last accessed March 2, 2017. 

NOAA, 2015, “How many tropical cyclones have there been each year in the 

Atlantic basin? What years were the greatest and fewest seen?,” 

Hurricane Research Division, Atlantic Oceanographic & 

Meteorological Laboratory, National Oceanic & Atmospheric 

Administration, http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html, last 

accessed on March 2, 2017. 

NOAA, 2016a, “IBTraCs,” International Best Track Archive for Climate 

Stewardship (IBTrACS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Centers for Environmental Information, 

Storm Prediction Center, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ibtracs/, last 

accessed on March 20, 2017. 

NOAA, 2016b, “SVRGIS,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Weather Service, Storm Prediction Center, 

www.spc.noaa.gov/gis/svrgis/, last accessed on March 20, 2017. 

NOAA, 2017, “Historical records and trends,” National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration website, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov 

/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends, 

last accessed on February 14, 2017. 

NSPRA, 2011, “In the aftermath of a devastating tornado, Joplin Public 

Schools’ staff showed ‘a lot of heart’ and a lot of PR savvy,” 

National School Public Relations Association, Rockville, Maryland, 

http://www.nspra.org/e_network/november_2011_leadstory, last 

accessed on February 20, 2017. 

FEMA P-1000 R: References R-9 
NSPRA, 2016, The Complete Crisis Communication Management Manual 

for Schools, National School Public Relations Association, 

Rockville, Maryland. 

NTHMP, 2015, United States and Territories National Tsunami Hazard 

Assessment: Historical Record and Sources for Waves—Update, 

National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, nws.weather.gov 

/nthmp/documents/Tsunami_Assessment_2016Update.pdf, last 

accessed on June 11, 2017. 

NTHMP, 2016, U.S. Tsunami Hazard, National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation 

Program, http://nws.weather.gov/nthmp/documents/ushazard.pdf, 

last accessed on March 3, 2017. 

O’Connor, P., 2013, “Pedagogy of love and care: Shaken schools respond,” 

Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 425-433. 

Patrick, L., Solecki, W., Jacob, K.H., Kunreuther, H., and Nordenson, G., 

2015, “New York City Panel on Climate Change 2015 Report, 

Chapter 3: Static Coastal Flood Mapping,” Building the Knowledge 

Base for Climate Resiliency, Annals of the New York Academy of 

Sciences, Vol. 1336, pp. 45-55. 

Petal, 2008, Disaster Prevention for Schools: Guidance for Education Sector 

Decision-Makers, International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 

Thematic Platform for Knowledge and Education, United Nations 

Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva, Switzerland. 

Petersen, M.D., Moschetti, M.P., Powers, P.M., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., 

Frankel, A.D., Zeng, Y., Rezaeian, S., Harmsen, S.C., Boyd, O.S., 

Field, N., Chen, R., Rukstales, K.S., Luco, N., Wheeler, R.L., 

Williams, R.A., and Olsen, A.H., 2014, Documentation for the 2014 

Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps, 

Open-File Report 2014–1091, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Petersen, M.D., Mueller, C.S., Moschetti, M.P., Hoover, S.M., Llenos, A.L., 

Ellsworth, W.L., Michael, A.J., Rubinstein, J.L., McGarr, A.F., and 

Rukstales, K.S., 2016, 2016 One-Year Seismic Hazard Forecast for 

the Central and Eastern United States from Induced and Natural 

Earthquakes, Open-File Report 2016–1035, Version.1.1, U.S. 

Geological Survey. 

Pew, 2017, Flooding Threatens Public Schools Across the Country, The Pew 

Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

R-10 R: References FEMA P-1000 
 

Powitzy, C., 2009, “The storm as a teacher: Lessons in preparedness from 

Hurricanes Ike and Rita,” Educational Facilities Planner, Vol. 44, 

Issue 1. 

PrepareAthon, 2014, Prepare Your People for Wildfire Safety: K-12 Schools, 

America’s PrepareAthon, Ready Campaign, Washington, D.C. 

Ramirez, M., Kubicek, K., Peek-Asa, C., and Wong, M., 2009, 

“Accountability and assessment of emergency drill performance at 

schools,” Family & Community Health, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 105-114. 

Redlener, I., Grant, R., Abramson, D., and Johnson, D., 2008, The 2008 

American Preparedness Project: Why Parents May Not Heed 

Evacuation Orders and What Emergency Planners, Families and 

Schools Need to Know, National Center for Disaster Preparedness, 

Columbia University and The Children's Health Fund, New York, 

New York, http://www.childrenshealthfund.org/sites/default 

/files/NCDP-CHF-Evacuation-White-Paper-Sep2008.pdf, last 

accessed on May 17, 2017. 

Risk RED, 2009, School Disaster Readiness: Lessons from the First Great 

Southern California ShakeOut, 2nd Edition, Risk RED for Earthquake 

Country Alliance Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, http://www 

.preventionweb.net/files/14873_RR2008SchoolReadinessReport.pdf, 

last accessed on May 17, 2017. 

Romano, L., 2010, “Hurricane Camille (August 1969),” Encyclopedia 

Virginia, Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, 

www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Hurricane_Camille_August 

_1969#start_entry, last accessed on May 17, 2017. 

Rubinstein, J.L., and Mahani, A.B., 2015, “Myths and facts on wastewater 

injection, hydraulic fracturing, enhanced oil recovery, and induced 

seismicity,” Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 86, No. 4. 

Saiyed, Z., Fatima, S., Izumoto, K., Robertson, I., Welliver, B., and 

Tremayne, H., 2017, “Advocacy for tsunami mitigation and 

preparedness of U.S. schools along the Pacific Rim,” Proceedings, 

Paper No. 4924, 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 

Santiago, Chile. 

SAMHSA, 2012, Tips for Talking with and Helping Children and Youth 

Cope After a Disaster or Traumatic Event: A Guide for Parents, 

Caregivers, and Teachers, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration, SMA12-4732, Rockville, Maryland. 

FEMA P-1000 R: References R-11 
Save the Children, 2012, Is America Prepared to Protect Our Most 

Vulnerable Children in Emergencies?, A National Report Card on 

Protecting Children during Disasters, Fairfield, Connecticut. 

Save the Children, 2015, Still at Risk: U.S. Children 10 Years After 

Hurricane Katrina, 2015 National Report Card on Protecting 

Children in Disasters, Fairfield, Connecticut. 

School Facilities and Organization, 2014, Washington State K-12 Facilities 

Hazard Mitigation Plan, Office of Superintendent of Public 

Instruction (OSPI), prepared by Goettel, K., and Dengel, R., 

Olympia, Washington. 

Scranton Products, 2016, Duralife Lockers at Danville Middle School: 

Helping to Improve the Educational Experience, Scranton, 

Pennsylvania, http://www.scrantonproducts.com/projects 

/duralife-lockers-case-studies/scranton-products-duralife-lockers 

-prove-to-be-a-time-and-labor-saver-for-re-built-danville-middle 

-school/, last accessed on May 17, 2017. 

SEFT Consulting Group, 2015, Beaverton School District Resilience 

Planning for High School at South Cooper Mountain and Middle 

School at Timberland, Beaverton, Oregon. 

Selby, D., and Kagawa, F., 2012, Disaster Risk Reduction in School 

Curricula: Case Studies from Thirty Countries, United Nations 

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)/United 

Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Geneva, Switzerland. 

Selby, D., and Kagawa, F., 2014, Towards a Learning Culture of Safety and 

Resilience: Technical Guidance for Integrating Disaster Risk 

Reduction in the School Curriculum, United Nations Educational, 

Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)/United Nations 

Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 

Shaw, R., Takeuchi, Y., and Fernandez, G., 2012, School Recovery: Lessons 

from Asia, Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto 

University, International Environment and Disaster Management, 

Kyoto, Japan. 

Shen, Y.-J., and Sink, C.A., 2002, “Helping elementary-age children cope 

with disasters,” Professional School Counseling, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 

322-330. 

R-12 R: References FEMA P-1000 
 

Smart Vent, 2016, Wet Floodproofing Non-Residential Buildings, 

Foundation Flood Vents, Pitman, New Jersey, http://smartvent.com 

/images/uploads/product_documents/smartvent-wetfloodproofing 

-nonres.pdf, last accessed on March 1, 2017. 

Smith, A., 2015, U.S. Smartphone Use in 2015, Pew Research Center, 

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/, 

last accessed on February 20, 2017. 

Southern Education Foundation, 2015, “A new majority research bulletin: 

Low income students now a majority in the nation’s public schools,” 

New Majority Report Series, Atlanta, Georgia. 

Stalker, S.L., Cullen, T., and Kloesel, K., 2015, “Using PBL to prepare 

educators for severe weather,” The Interdisciplinary Journal of 

Problem-Based Learning, Vol. 9, Issue 2. 

Stewart, S.R., 2011, Tropical Cyclone Report: Tropical Storm Allison, 

National Hurricane Center, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr 

/AL012001_Allison.pdf, last accessed on March 1, 2017. 

Tennessee Office of Homeland Security, 2014, Emergency Operations 

Planning: A Model for Schools and Businesses, Nashville, 

Tennessee. 

The Telegraph, 2005, “Girl, 10, used geography lesson to save lives,” The 

Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1480192/Girl-10-used 

-geography-lesson-to-save-lives.html, last accessed on February 20, 

2017. 

Thompson, S., 2016, “Construction flaws and deviations found in tornadodamaged school, officials say,” The Dallas Morning News, Dallas, 

Texas. 

Tobin-Gurley, J., 2016, Educational Continuity Following the 2013 

Colorado Floods, Department of Sociology, Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

UCLA Center for Public Health and Disasters, 2004, Head Start: Disaster 

Preparedness Workbook, University of California, Los Angeles. 

U.S. Department of Education, 2006, “Creating emergency management 

plans,” ERCM Express, Vol. 2, Issue 8, Emergency Response and 

Crisis Management Technical Assistance Center, Office of Safe and 

Drug-Free Schools, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA P-1000 R: References R-13 
U.S. Department of Education, 2007, Practical Information on Crisis 

Planning a Guide for Schools and Communities, Office of Safe and 

Drug-Free Schools, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Education, 2008, A Guide to School Vulnerability 

Assessments: Key Principles for Safe Schools, Office of Safe and 

Drug-Free Schools, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Education, 2012, “Digest of educational statistics,” 

National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education 

Sciences, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14 

_217.10.asp, last accessed on June 11, 2017. 

U.S. Department of Education, 2013, Guide for Developing High-Quality 

School Emergency Operations Plans, Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Office of Safe and Healthy Students, 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2011, Rebuilding it Better: Greensburg, Kansas, 

prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, http://www 

.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49315.pdf, last accessed on February 20, 

2017. 

U.S. General Accountability Office, 2007, Emergency Management: Status 

of School Districts’ Planning and Preparedness, Washington, D.C. 

USGS, 2012, Dam-Breach Analysis and Flood-Inundation Mapping for 

Lakes Ellsworth and Lawtonka near Lawton, Oklahoma, United 

States Geological Survey, https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5026 

/SIR12-5026.pdf, last accessed on May 17, 2017. 

Utah State Office of Education, 2013, Emergency Preparedness Planning 

Guide for Utah Public Schools, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Virginia Department of Emergency Management, 2008, Hurricane Storm 

Surge Maps, Southside East Regional Map, North Chesterfield, 

Virginia, http://www.vaemergency.gov/prepare-recover/threats 

/hurricane-storm-surge-maps/, last accessed on March 1, 2017. 

Wachtendorf, T., Brown, B., and Nickle, M.C., 2008, “Big Bird, Disaster 

Masters, and high school students taking charge: The social 

capacities of children in disaster education,” Children, Youth and 

Environments, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 456-469. 

R-14 R: References FEMA P-1000 
Walker, M., Whittle, R., Medd, W., Burningham, K., Moran-Ellis, J., and 

Tapsell, S., 2010, Children and Young People ‘After the Rain has 

Gone’ – Learning Lessons for Flood Recovery and Resilience, final 

project report for ‘Children, Flood and Urban Resilience: 

Understanding children and young people’s experience and agency 

in the flood recovery process,’ Lancaster University, Lancaster, 

United Kingdom. 

Washington Military Department, 2012, Project Safe Haven: Tsunami 

Vertical Evacuation on the Washington Coast, Pacific County, 

Olympia, Washington, http://mil.wa.gov/uploads/pdf/emergency 

-management/haz_safehavenreport_pacific.pdf, last accessed on 

March 22, 2017. 

Weather Prediction Center, 2016a, Hurricane Agnes – June 14-25, 1972, 

National Centers for Environmental Prediction, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, College Park, Maryland, http:// 

www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/agnes1972.html, last accessed 

on March 2, 2017. 

Weather Prediction Center, 2016b, Hurricane Frances – September 3-11, 

2004, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, College Park, Maryland, 

http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/frances2004.html, last 

accessed on March 2, 2017. 

FEMA P-1000 R: References R-15 

 

Project Participants 

FEMA Oversight 

Mike Mahoney (Project Officer) Andrew Herseth (Task Monitor) 

Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency 

400 C Street, SW, Suite 313 400 C Street, SW, Suite 313 

Washington, D.C. 20472 Washington, D.C. 20472 

ATC Management and Oversight 

Jon A. Heintz (Program Executive, Program Manager) Ayse Hortacsu (Project Manager) 

Applied Technology Council Applied Technology Council 

201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 

Redwood City, California 94065 Redwood City, California 94065 

Veronica Cedillos (Project Manager) 

Applied Technology Council 

201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 

Redwood City, California 94065 

Project Technical Committee 

Barry H. Welliver (Project Technical Director) Lori Peek 

BHW Engineers University of Colorado-Boulder 

13623 S Bridle Trail Road Department of Sociology, 327 Ketchum 

Draper, Utah 84020 Boulder, Colorado 80309 

Suzanne Frew John Schelling 

The Frew Group Lacey, Washington 98513 

828 Carmel Avenue 

Albany, California 94706 Thomas L. Smith 

TLSmith Consulting Inc. 

William T. Holmes 16681 Boswell Road 

Structural Engineer Rockton, Illinois 61072 

2600 La Cuesta 

Oakland, California 94611 Edward Wolf 

3414 NE 18th Avenue 

Christopher P. Jones Portland, Oregon 97212 

Durham, North Carolina 

FEMA P-1000 P: Project Participants P-1 
Project Review Panel 

Ines Pearce (Chair) Rebekah-Paci Green 

Pearce Global Partners, Inc. 516 High Street, MS 9095 

5419 Hollywood Blvd, Ste C-466
	 Western Washington University 

Los Angeles, California 90027
	 Bellingham, Washington 98225 

Jill Barnes Cindy Swearingen 

Los Angeles Unified School District P.O. Box 63 

333 South Beaudry Avenue, 24th Floor
	 Beggs, Oklahoma 74421 

Los Angeles, California 90017
	

*ATC Board Contact 

Victor Hellman 

118 Admiral Court 

Hampton, Virginia 23669
	

Andrew Kennedy*
	

University of Notre Dame 

College of Engineering, 168 Fitzpatrick Hall
	

Notre Dame, Indiana 46556 

Report Development Consultant 

Laura Dwelley-Samant 

San Francisco, California 

Working Group 

Lucy Carter Meghan Mordy 

Colorado State University Colorado State University 

Department of Sociology Department of Sociology 

Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 

Shawna Bendeck Katherine Murphy 

Colorado State University Colorado State University 

Department of Sociology Department of Sociology 

Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 

Scott Kaiser Jennifer Tobin 

Colorado State University Colorado State University 

Department of Sociology Department of Sociology 

Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 

Jacob Moore 

Colorado State University 

Department of Sociology 

Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 

P-2 P: Project Participants FEMA P-1000 
Focus Group 

Debbie Carter-Bowhay Bob Roberts 

P.O. Box 2302 2214 E. 34th Street 

Westport, Washington 98595 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105 

Cathy Coy Kerry Sachetta 

Long Beach Unified School District 2076 Benton Lane 

5250 Los Coyotes Diagonal Joplin, Missouri 64804 

Long Beach, California 90815 

Shawn Streeter 

Susan Graves c/o Poudre School District 

P.O. Box 352 2445 LaPorte Avenue 

Gleneden Beach, Oregon 97388 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 

Julie Mahoney Randy Trani 

Prince William County Public Schools 35800 East Historic Columbia River Highway 

14715 Bristow Road Corbett, Oregon 97019 

Manassas, Virginia 20108 

FEMA P-1000 P: Project Participants P-3 
FEMA P-1000 

Catalog No. 14071-1