This report, FEMA-351 - Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings has been developed by the SAC Joint Venture under contract to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide structural engineers with recommended criteria for evaluation of the probable performance of existing steel moment-frame buildings in future earthquakes and to provide a basis for updating and revision of evaluation and rehabilitation guidelines and standards. It is one of a series of companion publications addressing the issue of the seismic performance of steel moment-frame buildings. The set of companion publications includes: FEMA-350 - Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. This publication provides recommended criteria, supplemental to FEMA-302 - 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, for the design and construction of steel moment-frame buildings and provides alternative performance-based design criteria. FEMA-351 - Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. This publication provides recommended methods to evaluate the probable performance of existing steel moment-frame buildings in future earthquakes and to retrofit these buildings for improved performance. FEMA-352 - Recommended Postearthquake Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. This publication provides recommendations for performing postearthquake inspections to detect damage in steel moment-frame buildings following an earthquake, evaluating the damaged buildings to determine their safety in the postearthquake environment, and repairing damaged buildings. FEMA-353 - Recommended Specifications and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Steel Moment-Frame Construction for Seismic Applications. This publication provides recommended specifications for the fabrication and erection of steel moment frames for seismic applications. The recommended design criteria contained in the other companion documents are based on the material and workmanship standards contained in this document, which also includes discussion of the basis for the quality control and quality assurance criteria contained in the recommended specifications. The information contained in these recommended evaluation and upgrade criteria, hereinafter referred to as Recommended Criteria, is presented in the form of specific recommendations for design and performance evaluation procedures together with supporting commentary explaining part of the basis for these recommendations.

This report, FEMA-353 - Recommended Specifications and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Steel Moment-Frame Construction for Seismic Applications has been prepared by the SAC Joint Venture, under contract to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to indicate those standards of workmanship for structural steel fabrication and erection deemed necessary to achieve reliably the design performance objectives contained in the set of companion publications prepared under this same contract: FEMA-350 - Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, which provides recommended criteria, supplemental to FEMA-302, 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, for the design and construction of steel moment-frame buildings and provides alternative performance-based design criteria; FEMA-351 - Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, which provides recommended methods to evaluate the probable performance of existing steel moment-frame buildings in future earthquakes and to retrofit these buildings for improved performance; and FEMA-352 - Recommended Postearthquake Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded, Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, which provides recommendations for performing postearthquake inspections to detect damage in steel moment-frame buildings following an earthquake, evaluating the damaged buildings to determine their safety in the postearthquake environment, and repairing damaged buildings. The recommended design criteria contained in these three companion reports are based on the material and workmanship standards contained in this document, which also includes discussion of the basis for the quality control and quality assurance criteria contained in the recommended specifications.

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

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

This report, FEMA-352 - Recommended Postearthquake Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, has been developed by the SAC Joint Venture under contract to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide communities and organizations developing programs for the assessment, occupancy status, and repair of welded steel moment-frame buildings that have been subjected to the effects of strong earthquake ground shaking. It is one of a series of companion publications addressing the issue of the seismic performance of steel moment-frame buildings. The set of companion publications includes: FEMA-350 - Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. This publication provides recommended criteria, supplemental to FEMA 302 - 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and other Structures, for the design and construction of steel moment-frame buildings and provides alternative performance-based design criteria. FEMA-351 - Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. This publication provides recommended methods to evaluate the probable performance of existing steel moment-frame buildings in future earthquakes and to retrofit these buildings for improved performance. FEMA-352 - Recommended Postearthquake Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. This publication provides recommendations for performing postearthquake inspections to detect damage in steel moment-frame buildings following an earthquake, evaluating the damaged buildings to determine their safety in the postearthquake environment, and repairing damaged buildings. FEMA-353 - Recommended Specifications and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Steel Moment-Frame Construction for Seismic Applications. This publication provides recommended specifications for the fabrication and erection of steel moment frames for seismic applications. The recommended design criteria contained in the other companion documents are based on the material and workmanship standards contained in this document, which also includes discussion of the basis for the quality control and quality assurance criteria contained in the recommended specifications. The information contained in these recommended postearthquake damage assessment and repair criteria, hereinafter referred to as Recommended Criteria, is presented in the form of specific damage assessment, safety evaluation and repair procedures together with supporting commentary explaining part of the basis for these recommendations.

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.

Tens of thousands of conduits through embankment dams in the United States are aging and deteriorating. These conduits often were poorly constructed and are not frequently inspected, if at all. Deteriorating conduits pose an increasingly greater risk for developing defects that can lead to embankment dam failure with each passing year. In an effort to deal with this problem, this document has been prepared to collect and disseminate information and experience that is current and has a technical consensus. This document provides procedures and guidance for "best practices" concerning design, construction, problem identification and evaluation, inspection, maintenance, renovation, and repair associated with conduits through embankment dams. Most of the available information on these topics was reviewed in preparing this document. Where detailed documentation existed, it was cited to avoid duplicating available materials. The authors have strived not to reproduce information that is readily accessible in the public domain. This document attempts to condense and summarize the vast body of existing information, provide a clear and concise synopsis of this information, and present a recommended course of action. This document is intended for use by personnel familiar with embankment dams and conduits, such as designers, inspectors, construction oversight personnel, and dam safety engineers. In preparation of this document, the authors frequently found conflicting procedures and standards in the many references they reviewed. Where conflicts were apparent, the authors focused on what they judged to be the "best practice" and included that judgment in this document. Therefore, this document may be different than some of the various participating agencies' own policies. Embankment dams, regardless of their size, create a hazard potential from the stored energy of the water they impound.

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.

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.

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 Dam Spillways was held on August 26-27, 2003, in Denver, Colorado. The Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, would like to acknowledge the contributions of the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation in organizing the workshop and developing these workshop proceedings.

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.

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 (aka "Sub-Applicant") requested funding through FEMA's 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 Voluntary Agencies so that communities can respond to and recover from major disasters or emergencies. The Public Assistance Program has rules whereby eligible Sub-Applicants may choose to use eligible, though capped, recovery funds for alternate or improved projects that may be more beneficial to the Sub-Applicant than what existed prior to the disaster event. Cedar River floodwaters completely inundated and severely damaged the Animal Control Shelter at 1401 Cedar Bend Lane SW in Cedar Rapids. The functional use of the 31.10 acres, 5,010 square foot facility was compromised and the facility was permanently closed. The facility, circa 1961, is owned and maintained by the Sub-Applicant, City of Cedar Rapids (GPN: 15322-26001-00000). The original facility function was waste water treatment until converted for animal care and control. Animal Control Shelter consists of four (4) structures: Main Building (GPS: 41.96199, -91.57838), Kennel Building (GPS: 41.96170, -91.57796), Cat Building (GPS: 41.96181, -91.57802), and West (aka Quarantine) Building (GPS: 41.96186, -91.57893). Main, Cat, and West buildings were eligible and approved for permanent relocation by FEMA. Presently a temporary animal shelter is operated at 2109 North Towne Lane NE in Cedar Rapids. Animal Control Shelter annually cares, controls, and houses 3,000 animals from the cities of Cedar Rapids and Marion. Temporary shelter is located in an 8,676 square foot industrial warehouse facility (1.33 acres lot) in a commercial zone. This facility will be utilized until the permanent shelter is constructed. The purpose of the improved project is to assist the citizens of Cedar Rapids and Linn County toward their recovery and return to normalcy from the 2008 flooding. FEMA's Public Assistance Program will contribute eligible funding toward demolishing and debris removal of the original damaged facility and constructing a new Animal Control Shelter to restore and improve the pre-disaster animal care and control facility functions. Proposed site for the new Animal Control Shelter is on a vacant parcel (2.5 acres) located on the Kirkwood Community College (KCC) campus in Cedar Rapids. KCC site (GPS: 41.90611, -91.64722) is located on an unnamed road between 76th Avenue Drive SW to the south and Tower Road SW to the north. The site is adjacent to Washington Hall to the west, Mansfield Swine Education Center to the south, two waste water lagoons to the east, and vacant / open agricultural lands to the east of proposed site. The proposed improved project designs all facilities into one (1) building and increases the original facility footprint from 5,010 square feet to 16,000 square feet (13,800 square feet of usable space) and would integrate learning opportunities for KCC students with the addition of new classroom space for campus use. Animal Control Shelter is not a critical facility by definition; however it does serve a vital community service for short-term and long-term animal care and control. Presently the original facility does not meet minimum flood protection levels to fulfill community needs during flooding events. The need is to relocate and replace facilities, equipment, and functions to a new site outside of the 100-year floodplain in order to restore local animal care and control functions to reduce the facility susceptibility from repetitive flood damage and ensure animal safety and welfare. If Animal Control Shelter is not relocated to a new permanent site, the long-term ability to shelter and care for wayward animals would be jeopardized.

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.

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 100-707), signed into law on November 23, 1988; amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-288). The Stafford Act constitutes the statutory authority for most Federal disaster response activities especially as they pertain to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and FEMA programs. The Stafford Act is designed to bring an orderly and systemic means of federal natural disaster assistance for state and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to aid citizens. Congress' intention was to encourage states and localities to develop comprehensive disaster preparedness plans, prepare for better intergovernmental coordination in the face of a disaster, encourage the use of insurance coverage, and provide Federal assistance programs for losses due to a disaster. Title I provides the intent of Congress to provide continued and orderly assistance, by means of the Federal government, to State and local governments to relieve hardship and damage which result from disasters. An emergency may be any instance in which State or local efforts need Federal assistance to save lives and protect the health and welfare of the people in a community. A major disaster may be defined as any natural catastrophe, fire, flood, or explosion, determined by the president to warrant the additional resources of the Federal government to alleviate damages or suffering they cause. Title II authorizes the President to establish a disaster preparedness program that utilizes the appropriate agencies and gives the President the right to provide technical assistance to states in order to complete a comprehensive plan to prepare against disasters. Title II articulates the necessity of a disaster warning system. This includes the readiness of all appropriate Federal Agencies to issue warnings to State and local authorities and the disbursement of warnings to the public. This title authorizes the President to make use of either the civil defense communication system or any commercial communications systems that are voluntarily given to the president to issue warnings to the public. Title III explains that upon the declaration of a major disaster, the President must appoint a Federal coordinating officer to help in the affected area. The President must also form emergency support teams staffed with Federal personnel. Title IV sets out the authority of the President during major disasters or emergencies. These powers include, but are limited to: directing any Federal agency to help the affected area (including precautionary evacuations), coordinating all disaster relief assistance, providing technical and advisory assistance (issuing warnings, providing for the public health and safety, and participating in recovery activities), distributing medicine, food and other supplies, and providing accelerating Federal assistance when the President deems it necessary. The President can also provide any emergency communications or public transportation that an affected location might need. Title V explains the process a State must follow to request that the President declare an emergency. Every request for the President to declare an emergency must come from the Governor of the State. In order for a request to be made, the Governor must deem that the situation is beyond the potential for the State to manage. Title IV explains the measures that have to be undertaken to prepare for anticipated hazards including creating operational plans, recruiting and training personnel, conducting research, stockpiling necessary materials and supplies, creating suitable warning systems, and constructing shelters. Title six also sets out the authority and responsibilities of the director of FEMA. Title VII gives the President the authority to determine any rule or regulation that may be necessary to carry out the powers that he is given in the Act.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed this series of mitigation planning "how-to" guides to assist states, communities, and tribes in enhancing their hazard mitigation planning capabilities. These guides are designed to provide the type of information state and local governments need to initiate and maintain a planning process that will result in safer communities. These guides are applicable to states and communities of various sizes and varying ranges of financial and technical resources. This how-to series is not intended to be the last word on any of the subject matter covered; rather, it is meant to provide easy to understand guidance for the field practitioner. In practice, these guides may be supplemented with more extensive technical data and the use of experts when necessary. The how-to guides cover the following topics: 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 or state (FEMA 386-2); Setting mitigation priorities and goals for your community or state 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 measures through the use of benefit-cost analysis and other techniques (FEMA 386-5); Incorporating special considerations into hazard mitigation planning for historic structures and cultural resources (FEMA 386-6); Incorporating considerations for human-caused hazards into hazard mitigation planning (FEMA 386-7); Using multi-jurisdictional approaches to mitigation planning (FEMA 386-8); and Finding and securing technical and financial resources for mitigation planning (FEMA 386-9). This first guide in the State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to series discusses the activities and issues involved in initiating a hazard mitigation planning process. The topics covered here are presented within the context of the beginning phase of the mitigation planning process, although many of these activities will continue more or less behind the scenes throughout the process. Therefore, the efforts you put into identifying and organizing your resources early on will pay dividends later as you progress through some of the more challenging tasks of mitigation planning. This how-to guide thus covers not only this first phase of the planning process, but also provides snapshots of later phases. You will then be able to begin the planning process knowing ahead of time what types of resources you may need to call upon in the future. Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, elected officials, community staff, citizens, and businesses will benefit from the knowledge, organization, positive attitude, and energy that you and your team demonstrate.

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.

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.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed a series of mitigation planning "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 reserves. The topic area for this guide is "Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations into Hazard Mitigation Planning." 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); and Implementing the mitigation plan, including project funding and maintaining a dynamic plan that changes to meet new developments (FEMA 386-4). These 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. In addition to these "core four," FEMA has developed a series of supplementary "how-to" guides that are to be used in conjunction with the "core four" and address the following special topic areas: Evaluating potential mitigation actions through the use of benefit-cost review (FEMA 386-5); 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); Using multi-jurisdictional approaches to mitigation planning (FEMA 386-8); and Finding and securing technical and financial resources for mitigation planning (FEMA 386-9). This guide is designed for all practitioners involved in creating a hazard mitigation plan (e.g., planners and emergency managers). Why should planners and emergency managers consider historic properties and cultural resources? Because after a disaster, these resources' special status as designated landmarks may complicate recovery efforts. However, these resources may also be assets that can help in creating mitigation plans with multiple community benefits. This guide will be of value to citizens who love their communities and want to protect their historic and cultural assets. The guide will outline specific steps for how communities can harness their knowledge, talent, and energy to create a secure future for historic resources.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed this series of mitigation planning how-to guides to assist states, tribes, and communities in enhancing their hazard mitigation planning capabilities. These guides are designed to provide the type of information states, tribes, and communities need to initiate and maintain a planning process that will result in safer and more disaster-resistant communities. These guides are applicable to states, tribes, and communities of various sizes and varying ranges of financial and technical resources. The how-to guides cover the following topics: 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, tribe, or state (FEMA 386-2); Setting mitigation priorities and goals for your community, tribe, or state 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 and prioritizing potential mitigation actions through the use of benefit-cost analysis and other techniques (FEMA 386-5); Incorporating special considerations into hazard mitigation planning for historic structures and cultural resources (FEMA 386-6); Incorporating mitigation considerations for manmade hazards into hazard mitigation planning (FEMA 386-7); Using multi-jurisdictional approaches to mitigation planning (FEMA 386-8); and Finding and securing technical and financial resources for mitigation planning (FEMA 386-9). This guide will address the following questions: 1. How can we make sure the plan is officially recognized? Proof of formal adoption is required under DMA 2000 regulations. Getting the plan adopted ensures the support and approval of the governing authority in your jurisdiction. 2. What is the most effective mechanism to implement each recommendation? What resources are available? How can we keep the public informed and actively involved now that initiatives are underway? Your mitigation strategy probably contains various short- and long-term recommendations. The actual sources of funding, staff time, and staffing needs may change before project implementation gets underway. The planning team always must be on the lookout for alternative sources of funding, new opportunities, and new partnerships through which to carry out the recommendations. Determining who will bear responsibility for implementing planned actions is key to getting the implementation phase off to a successful start. 3. How will we know if our mitigation strategy is working? Monitoring and evaluating the outcomes of the mitigation actions are essential to knowing whether to stay the course or change it. The successes and limitations of your efforts should be documented as part of the evaluation process. Celebrating successes and keeping citizens actively involved and informed of the progress of the hazard mitigation initiatives, are just as important in the adoption, implementation, and revision phases as in any other phase. Keeping everyone up to date on progress also will help sustain support for mitigation as a local, tribal, or state priority. 4. When should we reexamine the plan? The community and its assets are constantly changing, requiring the mitigation plan to be updated periodically. While DMA 2000 regulations require a formal review and revision of the community plan once every five years for local jurisdictions and every three years for states, the planning team should reevaluate its implementation strategy as new opportunities, unforeseen challenges, and disasters arise. As mitigation issues are resolved, the plan should be reexamined to determine whether there is a need to reprioritize, add, or reconfigure actions in light of what has been accomplished.

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.