Lifelines (e.g., systems and facilities that deliver energy fuel and systems and facilities that provide key services such as water and sewage, transportation, and communications are defined as lifelines) are presently being sited in "utility or transportation corridors" to reduce their right-of-way environmental, aesthetic, and cost impacts on the communities that rely upon them. The individual lifelines are usually designed, constructed, and modified throughout their service life. This results in different standards and siting criteria being applied to segments of the same lifeline, and also to different standards or siting criteria being applied to the separate lifelines systems within a single corridor. Presently, the siting review usually does not consider the impact of proximity or collocation of the lifelines on their individual risk or vulnerability to natural or manmade hazards or disasters. This is either because the other lifelines have not yet been installed or because such a consideration has not been identified as being an important factor for such an evaluation. There have been cases when some lifeline collocations have increased the levels of damage experienced during an accident or an earthquake. For example, water line ruptures during earthquakes have led to washouts which have caused foundation damage to nearby facilities. In southern California a railroad accident (transportation lifeline) led to the subsequent failure of a collocated fuel pipeline, and the resulting fire caused considerable property damage and loss of life. Loss of electric power has restricted, and sometimes failed, the ability to provide water and sewer services or emergency fire fighting capabilities. In response to these types of situations, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is examining the use of such corridors, and FEMA initiated this study to examine the impact of siting multiple lifeline systems in confined and at-risk areas. The overall FEMA project goals are to develop managerial tools that can be used to increase the understanding of the lifeline systems' vulnerabilities and to help identify potential mitigation approaches that could be used to reduce those vulnerabilities. Another program goal is to identify methods to enhance the transfer of the resulting information to lifeline system providers, designers, builders, managers, operators, users, and regulators. This report presents the analytic methods developed to define the collocation impacts and the resulting analyses of the seismic and geologic environmental loads on the collocated lifelines in the Cajon Pass. The assumed earthquake event is similar to the 8.3 magnitude, San Andreas fault, Ft. Tejon earthquake of 1857. In this, report a new analysis method is developed and applied to identify the increase in the vulnerability of the individual lifeline systems due to their proximity to other lifelines in the Cajon Pass. A third reports presents an executive summary of the study. The Cajon Pass Lifeline Inventory report and this present report taken together provide a specific example of how the new analysis method can be applied to a real lifeline corridor situation.

Recent decades have seen a dramatic earthquake related losses. In the past ten years estimated losses were twenty times larger than in the previous 30 years combined. FEMAs expenditures related to earthquake losses have become an increasing percentage of its disaster assistance budget. Predictions are that future single earthquakes, which will inevitably occur, may result in losses of $50-100 billion each. Losses are rising due to several factors. These include: a denser population of buildings being located in seismically active regions. an aging building stock and the increasing cost of business interruption. Nonstructural and contents damage are also large contributors to loss, especially in regions with high-technology manufacturing and health-care industries. It is this increase in losses from all hazards that has led FEMA to support actions to reduce future losses. One of these is Project Impact, an initiative to encourage loss reduction activities through partnerships at the local community level. One of the key components of Project Impact is the community's adoption and enforcement of an adequate building code. Performance Based Seismic Design (PBSD) is a methodology that provides a means to more reliably predict seismic risk in all buildings in terms more useful to building users. PBSD will benefit nearly all building users. The PBSD methodology will be used by code writers to develop building codes that more accurately and consistently reflect the minimum standards desired by the community. A performance based design option in the code will facilitate design of buildings to higher standards and will allow rapid implementation of innovative technology. When performance levels are tied to probable losses in a reliability framework, the building design process can be tied into owner's long-term capital planning strategies, as well as numerical life cycle cost models. PBSD is not limited to the design of new buildings. With it, existing facilities can be evaluated and/or retrofitted to reliable performance objectives. Sharing the common framework of PBSD, existing buildings and new buildings can be compared equitably. It is expected that a rating system will develop to replace the currently used Probable Maximum Loss (PML) system. Such a system is highly desirable to owners, tenants, insurers, lenders, and others involved with building financial transactions. Despite its inconsistency and lack of transparency, the PML system is widely used and a poor rating often creates the financial incentive needed for retrofit decisions. This Action Plan presents a rational and cost effective approach by which building stakeholders: owners, financial institutions, engineers, architects, contractors, researchers, the public and governing agencies, will be able to move to a performance based design and evaluation system. The Plan recognizes that there is a strong demand from stakeholder groups for more reliable, quantifiable and practical means to control building damage. It also recognizes that there is not a focused understanding among these groups as to how these goals can be obtained. This Plan describes how performance based seismic design guidelines can be developed and used to achieve these goals. It will be a vehicle to bring together the diverse sets of demands from within the stakeholder groups and distill them into cohesive and practical guidelines. It engages each of the groups in the development these guidelines, by which future building design will become more efficient and reliable.

One of the activities authorized by the Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002 is research to enhance the Nation's ability to assure that adequate dam safety programs and practices are in place throughout the United States. The Act of 2002 states that the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in cooperation with the National Dam Safety Review Board (Review Board), shall carry out a program of technical and archival research to develop and support: improved techniques, historical experience, and equipment for rapid and effective dam construction, rehabilitation, and inspection; devices for continued monitoring of the safety of dams; development and maintenance of information resources systems needed to support managing the safety of dams; and initiatives to guide the formulation of effective policy and advance improvements in dam safety engineering, security, and management. With the funding authorized by the Congress, the goal of the Review Board and the Dam Safety Research Work Group (Work Group) is to encourage research in those areas expected to make significant contributions to improving the safety and security of dams throughout the United States. The Work Group (formerly the Research Subcommittee of the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety) met initially in February 1998. To identify and prioritize research needs, the Subcommittee sponsored a workshop on Research Needs in Dam Safety in Washington D.C. in April 1999. Representatives of state and federal agencies, academia, and private industry attended the workshop. Seventeen broad area topics related to the research needs of the dam safety community were identified. To more fully develop the research needs identified, the Research Subcommittee subsequently sponsored a series of nine workshops. Each workshop addressed a broad research topic (listed) identified in the initial workshop. Experts attending the workshops included international representatives as well as representatives of state, federal, and private organizations within the United States: Impacts of Plants and Animals on Earthen Dams; Risk Assessment for Dams; Spillway Gates; Seepage through Embankment Dams; Embankment Dam Failure Analysis; Hydrologic Issues for Dams; Dam Spillways; Seismic Issues for Dams; Dam Outlet Works. Based on the research workshops, research topics have been proposed and pursued. Several topics have progressed to products of use to the dam safety community, such as technical manuals and guidelines. For future research, it is the goal of the Work Group to expand dam safety research to other institutions and professionals performing research in this field. The proceedings from the research workshops present a comprehensive and detailed discussion and analysis of the research topics addressed by the experts participating in the workshops. The participants at all of the research workshops are to be commended for their diligent and highly professional efforts on behalf of the National Dam Safety Program. The National Dam Safety Program research needs workshop on Outlet Works was held on May 25-27, 2004, in Denver, Colorado. The Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, would like to acknowledge the contributions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, which was responsible for the development of the technical program, coordination of the workshop, and development of these workshop proceedings.

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

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) program, developed in the early 1990s, is used to determine the cost effectiveness of proposed mitigation projects for several FEMA mitigation grant programs. In 2008, FEMA collaborated with many Applicants and subapplicants on enhancements to update values in the software and to make it more efficient. The purpose of the BCA Reference Guide is to provide BCA software users with an overview of the grant programs, application development, benefits and costs, and the location of BCA guidance documents and helpful information. This guide also outlines sources of additional information needed to use the software to obtain a Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) for a single project or multiple projects. Hazard mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards and their effects. This definition distinguishes actions that have a long-term impact from those that are more closely associated with immediate preparedness, response, and recovery activities. Hazard mitigation is the only phase of emergency management specifically dedicated to breaking the cycle of damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. As such, States, Territories, Indian Tribal governments, and communities are encouraged to take advantage of the funding provided by Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs in both the pre- and post-disaster periods. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FEMA HMA programs provide a critical opportunity to reduce the risk to individuals and property from natural hazards, while simultaneously reducing reliance on Federal disaster funds. HMA guidance provides continuity between five FEMA mitigation grant programs: the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC), and Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) programs. Each HMA program was authorized by a separate legislative action, and as such, each program differs slightly in scope and intent, but all of them provide significant opportunities to reduce or eliminate potential losses to State, Tribal, and local assets. HMGP may provide funds to States, Territories, Indian Tribal governments, local governments, and eligible private non-profits following a Presidential major disaster declaration. The PDM, FMA, RFC, and SRL programs may provide funds annually to States, Territories, Indian Tribal governments, and local governments. While the statutory origins of the programs differ, all share the common goal of reducing the risk of loss of life and property due to natural hazards. This publication was prepared with contributions by the URS Group, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD.

National Security Presidential Directive-51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive-20 (NSPD-51/HSPD-20), National Continuity Policy, and the supporting National Continuity Policy Implementation Plan (NCPIP) provide direction and implementation guidance for a comprehensive and integrated approach to maintaining a national continuity capability in order to ensure the preservation of our Constitutional form of Government and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions (NEFs) under all conditions. In January 2009, recognizing the critical role played by non-Federal entities in the performance of the NEFs, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued Continuity Guidance Circular (CGC 1), Continuity Guidance for Non-Federal Entities (States, Territories, Tribal, and Local Government Jurisdictions and Private Sector Organizations), to provide guidance in the development of non-Federal essential functions, plans, and programs. Continuity Guidance Circular 2 (CGC 2), Continuity Guidance for Non-Federal Entities: Mission Essential Functions Identification Process (States, Territories, Tribes, and Local Government Jurisdictions), provides additional planning guidance to assist non-Federal entities and organizations in identifying their essential functions. Additionally, through the use of a systematic Business Process Analysis, Business Impact Analysis, and the development of risk mitigation strategies, CGC 2 provides guidance to non-Federal entities to ensure the continued performance of these essential functions during and following a significant disruption to normal operations. Guidance in CGC 1 and CGC 2 supports the implementation of Presidential direction in the NCPIP. The provisions of this guidance document are applicable to all levels of State, territorial, tribal, and local government jurisdictions.

On May 27, 2008, President Bush declared a major disaster in the State of Iowa (1763-DR-IA) pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 5121-5206. The incident period began on May 25, 2008 and closed August 13, 2008. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that Federal agencies evaluate the environmental effects of their proposed and alternative actions before deciding to fund an action. The President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has developed a series of regulations for implementing the NEPA. These regulations are included in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 1500-1508. They require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) that includes an evaluation of alternative means of addressing the problem and a discussion of the potential environmental impacts of a proposed Federal action. An EA provides the evidence and analysis to determine whether the proposed Federal action will have a significant adverse effect on human health and the environment. An EA, as it relates to the FEMA program, must be prepared according to the requirements of the Stafford Act and 44 CFR, Part 10. This section of the Federal Code requires that FEMA take environmental considerations into account when authorizing funding or approving actions. This EA was conducted in accordance with both CEQ and FEMA regulations for NEPA and will address the environmental issues associated with the FEMA grant funding as applied to the construction of the Cedar Rapids Convention Complex Parkade (hereon "Parkade"). Executive Order (EO) 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires that Federal agencies assume a leadership role in avoiding direct or indirect support of development within the 100-year floodplain whenever there is a practicable alternative. Further, EO 11988 requires consideration of the 500-year floodplain for critical facilities such as hospitals and fire stations. Pursuant to Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5172), as amended, the City of Cedar Rapids has requested funding through FEMA Public Assistance Program. FEMA's Public Assistance Program provides supplemental Federal disaster grant assistance to State, Tribal, and local governments, and certain types of Private Nonprofit organizations so that communities can respond to and recover from major disasters or emergencies. The Public Assistance Program also has rules whereby eligible applicants may choose to use eligible, though capped, recovery funds for alternate or improved projects that may be more beneficial to the Applicant than what existed prior to the disaster event. The purpose of this project is to improve parking capacity of Lots 24/26 in downtown Cedar Rapids by using the FEMA Public Assistance Program to contribute eligible funding toward improving the parking capacity of Lot 24/26. The Parkade will ultimately be connected to the new CRCC and Hotel via a skywalk over 1st Avenue E. The structure is intended to accommodate ground level retail units in downtown Cedar Rapids. The need for the proposed project is to increase the parking capacity of downtown Cedar Rapids. This project will provide adequate parking for the CRCC and Hotel that is currently under construction. This EA is intended to document the City's decision-making process and evaluate City and FEMA defined alternatives for the City's desire to improve the parking capacity of Lots 24/26. This EA is intended to document and evaluate Cedar Rapids and FEMA defined alternatives for the City's desire to use eligible recovery funds from the facilities considered here toward the construction of the Parkade under FEMA's improved project policies.

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

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) encourages State and local governments, tribal authorities, and private non-profit organizations to take a proactive approach to coordinating and managing debris removal operations as part of their overall emergency management plan. Communities with a debris management plan are better prepared to restore public services and ensure the public health and safety in the aftermath of a disaster, and they are better positioned to receive the full level of assistance available to them from FEMA and other participating entities. The core components of a comprehensive debris management plan incorporate best practices in debris removal, reflect FEMA eligibility criteria, and are tailored to the specific needs and unique circumstances of each applicant. FEMA developed this guide to provide applicants with a programmatic and operational framework for structuring their own debris management plan or ensuring that their existing plan is consistent with FEMA's eligibility criteria. This framework: 1. Identifies and explains the debris removal eligibility criteria that applicants must meet in order to receive assistance under the FEMA Public Assistance (PA) Program; 2. Provides a blueprint for assembling an effective and responsive plan for the entire debris management cycle; 3. Outlines the FEMA Public Assistance debris removal organizational structure and strategy.

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

For over two decades, mitigation activities have been implemented across the country to save lives, reduce property damage and lessen the need for recovery funding. In many cases, mitigation success has been achieved following devastating disasters, when local officials and the general public have realized the need to effect change in their community. Major efforts to reduce flood damage in the nation include programs such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Flood Mitigation Assistance Program. Of particular note is FEMA's funding of local acquisition programs, which have resulted in the relocation of 30,000 flood prone structures since 1993. Certainly structural projects have their place as well, such as dams, levees and locks undertaken by such agencies as the Army Corps of Engineers, Natural Resource Conservation Service and others. In the 21st Century, more and more communities are mitigating flood damage through a combination of approaches. As our country grows, flood damages are ever increasing. Annual flood losses in the United States continue to worsen, despite 75 years of federal flood control and 30 years of the National Flood Insurance Program. The general trend is for flood losses to increase every decade. Even though floods are the single most predictable natural hazard, the cost of flood damages per capita has doubled over the past century. Our average annual flood losses are currently estimated at $6 billion. Something must be done Early mitigation activities, which focused on preventing loss of life, were being implemented as early as the 1880's. For instance, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, built the famous "Johnstown Incline Plane" in 1891 to lift people, horses and wagons to safety after a 37 foot wall of water hit the Conemaugh Valley in 1889. That flood killed more than 2,200 people The Incline Plane carried people to safety during the 1936 and 1977 floods in Johnstown. It is now a focal point of an economic resurgence for the community. Mitigation Success Stories, Edition 4 showcases examples of natural hazard mitigation activities and publicizes the benefits of mitigation successes across the country from 39 communities in 24 states. The examples included in this document can serve as models for other communities and can provide decision-makers with valuable information about how to achieve natural hazard reduction.

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

The Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed a series of "how-to" guides for the purpose of assisting Tribes, States, and local governments in developing effective hazard mitigation planning processes. The material presented in these guides is intended to address the needs of both large and small communities with varying degrees of technical expertise and financial resources. The topic area for this guide is "Multi-Jurisdictional Approaches to Hazard Mitigation Planning" (FEMA 386-8). This guide provides suggestions to local governments in preparing multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plans that meet the DMA 2000 planning requirements. Other guides that have been developed by FEMA as part of the "how-to" series include: Getting started with the mitigation planning process, including important considerations for how you can organize your efforts to develop an effective mitigation plan (FEMA 386-1); Identifying hazards and assessing losses to your community, State, or Tribe (FEMA 386-2); Setting mitigation priorities and goals for your community, State, or Tribe and writing the plan (FEMA 386-3); Implementing the mitigation plan, including project funding and maintaining a dynamic plan that changes to meet new developments (FEMA 386-4); Evaluating potential mitigation actions through the use of benefit-cost review (FEMA 386-5) (to be published); Incorporating special considerations into hazard mitigation planning for historic properties and cultural resources, the topic of this how-to guide (FEMA 386-6); Incorporating mitigation considerations for manmade hazards into hazard mitigation planning (FEMA 386-7); and Finding and securing technical and financial resources for mitigation planning (FEMA 386-9). The first four guides are commonly referred to as the "core four" as they provide a broad overview of the core elements associated with hazard mitigation planning. This and the other guides are supplementary "how-to" guides that are to be used in conjunction with the "core four." Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) DMA 2000 provides an opportunity for States, Tribal Governments, and local jurisdictions to significantly reduce their vulnerability to natural hazards. It also allows them to streamline their access to and use of Federal disaster assistance, through pre-disaster hazard mitigation planning. DMA 2000 places new emphasis on State, Tribal, and local mitigation planning by requiring these entities to develop and submit mitigation plans as a condition of receiving various types of pre- and post-disaster assistance (such as the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program PDM] and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HMGP]) under the Stafford Act. On February 26, 2002, FEMA published under Title 44 Part 201 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) an Interim Rule (the Rule) to implement the mitigation planning requirements of DMA 2000. The Rule outlines the requirements for both State and local mitigation plans. FEMA has prepared a document, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, that explains the requirements of the Rule with the help of sample plan excerpts and discussion.

This Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Incident Management and Support Keystone establishes the foundational doctrine that guides FEMA's conduct of disaster operations and is the primary document from which all other FEMA disaster response, recovery, mitigation, and logistics directives and policies are derived. It describes how the response doctrine, articulated in the National Response Framework (NRF), and recovery doctrine are implemented in the context of FEMA incident management and support operations. This Keystone is fully in line with the National Incident Management System. Incident Management is the incident-level operation of the Federal role in emergency response, recovery, logistics, and mitigation. Responsibilities in incident management include the direct control and employment of resources, management of incident offices, operations, and delivery of Federal assistance through all phases of emergency response. Incident Support is the coordination of all Federal resources that support emergency response, recovery, logistics, and mitigation. Responsibilities include the deployment of national-level assets, support of national objectives and programs affected during the disaster, and support of incident operations with resources, expertise, information, and guidance. This keystone document describes the full function of FEMA assistance, from the earliest lifesaving operations and support through the entire life of the Joint Field Office (JFO). The keystone addresses how FEMA will provide lifesaving operations and necessary resources; restore power and rebuild roads in the affected communities; provide technical assistance to community floodplain management programs and flood insurance; and manage individual assistance inspections, temporary housing, public assistance inspections, 406 mitigation, and hazard mitigation grants. The Incident Management and Support Keystone leads a family of other doctrinal documents that guide the implementation of FEMA's disaster operations. This document is intended to standardize procedures, institutionalize best practices, and guide planning, training, equipping, and staffing. Doctrine is an authoritative statement of fundamental principles of an organization. It is authoritative yet adaptable enough to address diverse situations. Doctrine provides a standard frame of reference for FEMA and explains why the Agency performs its functions. Doctrine is a guide to action and judgment founded in hard-won experience; it facilitates readiness and increased efficiency and effectiveness by standardizing activities and processes. The consistent application of doctrine outlined in this Keystone will assist FEMA in better managing its functions, requirements, capabilities, priorities, policies, organizational design, command and control authorities, and the allocation of resources across the full spectrum of disaster response and recovery. This FEMA Incident Management and Support Keystone applies to all FEMA incident management and support operations, including incidents that have occurred, efforts undertaken based on an identified threat, and actions performed in anticipation of, or in preparation for, a significant event. This doctrine pertains to FEMA incident management and support operations that involve- or that may involve-a presidential declaration under the Stafford Act, as well as incidents requiring a coordinated Federal response where the Stafford Act does not apply. This doctrine applies to the full range of incidents contained within one or several jurisdictions, as well as those incidents that are national in scope. This Keystone is intended to promote readiness to act, effective cooperation, interoperability, and sharing of essential resources and information among all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector-by communicating to our partners the principles by which FEMA conducts incident management and support operations.

The purpose of this primer is to introduce concepts that can help building designers, owners, and state and local governments mitigate the threat of hazards resulting from terrorist attacks on new buildings. This primer specifically addresses four high-population, private-sector building types: commercial office, retail, multi-family residential, and light industrial. However, many of the concepts presented here are applicable to other building types and/or existing buildings. The focus is on explosive attack, but the text also addresses design strategies to mitigate the effects of chemical, biological, and radiological attacks. Designing security into a building requires a complex series of tradeoffs. Security concerns need to be balanced with many other design constraints such as accessibility, initial and life-cycle costs, natural hazard mitigation, fire protection, energy efficiency, and aesthetics. Because the probability of attack is very small, security measures should not interfere with daily operations of the building. On the other hand, because the effects of attack can be catastrophic, it is prudent to incorporate measures that may save lives and minimize business interruption in the unlikely event of an attack. The measures should be as unobtrusive as possible to provide an inviting, efficient environment that does not attract undue attention of potential attackers. Security design needs to be part of an overall multi-hazard approach to ensure that it does not worsen the behavior of the building in the event of a fire, earthquake, or hurricane, which are far more prevalent hazards than are terrorist attacks. Because of the severity of the types of hazards discussed, the goals of security-oriented design are by necessity modest. With regard to explosive attacks, the focus is on a damage-limiting or damage-mitigating approach rather than a blast-resistant approach. The goal is to incorporate some reasonable measures that will enhance the life safety of the persons within the building and facilitate rescue efforts in the unlikely event of attack. It is clear that owners are becoming interested in considering manmade hazards for a variety of reasons including the desire to: attract more tenants or a particular type of tenant, lower insurance premiums or obtain high-risk insurance, reduce life-cycle costs for operational security measures, and limit losses and business interruption. Protection against terrorist attack is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Incremental measures taken early in design may be more fully developed at a later date. With a little forethought regarding, for instance, the space requirements needed to accommodate additional measures, the protection level can be enhanced as the need arises or the budget permits after construction is complete. This primer strives to provide a holistic multi-disciplinary approach to security design by considering the various building systems including site, architecture, structure, mechanical and electrical systems and providing general recommendations for the design professional with little or no background in this area. This is one of a series of five FEMA primers that address security issues in high-population, private-sector buildings. It is the intent of FEMA that these reports will assist designers, owners, and local/state government officials in gaining a solid understanding of man-made hazards. These reports will also discuss current state-of-the-art methods to enhance protection of the building by incorporating low-cost measures into new buildings at the earliest stages of site selection and design.

This document updates and consolidates the guidance provided in the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP) Planning Guidance (2008) and CSEPP Programmatic Guidance (2008) and supersedes these documents. This guidance has also been reorganized into a structure consistent with the CSEPP National Benchmarks. This document provides the basis for Federal, State, and local program managers to implement CSEPP in keeping with the Department of the Army (Army)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) CSEPP Strategic Plan. References have been made throughout this document to the following function-specific guidance documents that serve as its technical companions: Annual CSEPP Cooperative Agreement Guidance; CSEPP Exercise Policy and Guidance (December 2012), (aka The Blue Book); CSEPP Medical Resource Guide; CSEPP Public Affairs Compendium Workbook. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the statutory and programmatic history of CSEPP, the organizational roles and responsibilities, and the management structure. Chapter 2 provides a summary of the hazards and risks associated with the U.S. Army chemical weapons stockpile. Chapters 3-14 provide guidance on each of the twelve CSEPP National Benchmarks. They are intended to provide a description of the critical components of each benchmark to assist program managers at the Federal, State, and local level in assigning responsibilities and developing budgets. Appendices A and B provide a summary of the specific hazard and risk associated with the stockpiles at Blue Grass (Kentucky) and Pueblo (Colorado). Appendix C provides a glossary of the terminology that may be unfamiliar and a list of acronyms. Appendix D explains how the Policy Papers that originally guided the program have been incorporated into CSEPP Guidance.

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused extensive damage to the coast along the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in an unprecedented relief, recovery, and reconstruction effort. This reconstruction presents a unique opportunity to rebuild the communities and public infrastructure using the latest hazard mitigation techniques proven to be more protective of lives and property. Critical facilities comprise all public and private facilities deemed by a community to be essential for the delivery of vital services, protection of special populations, and the provision of other services of importance for that community. This manual concentrates on a smaller group of facilities that are crucial for protecting the health and safety of the population: health care, educational, and emergency response facilities. The Design Guide for Improving Critical Facility Safety from Flooding and High Winds (FEMA 543) was developed with the support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IV in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. This manual recommends incorporating hazard mitigation measures into all stages and at all levels of critical facility planning and design, for both new construction and the reconstruction and rehabilitation of existing facilities. It provides building professionals and decision makers with information and guidelines for implementing a variety of mitigation measures to reduce the vulnerability to damage and disruption of operations during severe flooding and high-wind events. The underlying theme of this manual is that by building more robust critical facilities that will remain operational during and after a major disaster, people's lives and the community's vitality can be better preserved and protected. The poor performance of many critical facilities in the affected areas was not unique to Hurricane Katrina. It was observed in numerous hurricanes dating back more than three decades. Several reasons may explain this kind of performance. In many cases the damaged facilities were quite old and were constructed well before the introduction of modern codes and standards. Some of the older facilities were damaged because building components had deteriorated as a result of inadequate maintenance. Many fa-cilities occupy unsuitable buildings that were never intended for this type of use. Some newer facilities suffered damage as a result of deficiencies in design and construction or the application of inappropriate design criteria and standards. The primary objective of this manual is to assist the building design community and local officials and decision makers in adopting and implementing sound mitigation measures that will decrease the vulnerability of critical facilities to major disasters. The goals of this manual are to: Present and recommend the use of building design features and building materials and methods that can improve the performance of critical facilities in hazard-prone areas during and after flooding and high-wind events. m Introduce and provide guidelines for implementing flooding and high-wind mitigation best practices into the process of design, construction, and operation and maintenance of critical facilities; and To aid in the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, this manual presents an overview of the principal planning and design considerations for improving the performance of critical facilities during, and in the aftermath of, flooding and high-wind events. It provides design guidance and practical recommendations for protecting critical facilities and their occupants against these natural hazards. It presents incremental approaches that can be implemented over time to decrease the vulnerability of buildings, but emphasizes the importance of incorporating the requirements for mitigation against flooding and high winds into the planning and design of critical facilities from the very beginning of the process.

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

The Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads Program, or ERFO Program, was established to assist Federal agencies with the repair or reconstruction of Federal roads, which are found to have suffered serious damage by a natural disaster over a wide area or by a catastrophic failure (23CFR668.201). The purpose of this manual is to provide federal land management agencies with guidance and instructions to apply for federal assistance under the ERFO program. Federal, tribal, state, and local governments that have the authority to repair or reconstruct federal roads may apply for ERFO funds, but only the federal land management agencies (FLMA) can apply directly as an "Applicant." The other governmental entities must apply through an "Applicant." The intent of the ERFO program is to pay the unusually heavy expenses in the repair and reconstruction of Federal roads 23CFR668.205 (a). The ERFO program is not intended to cover all repair costs nor interim emergency repair costs that are necessary to repair or reconstruct Federal roads. Agencies have the responsibility to perform emergency repairs and fund the unexpected expenditures, shift project priorities and manage reduced traffic service levels that a natural disaster can present. Emergency relief work shall be given prompt attention and priority over non-emergency work.

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

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