Nonstructural failures have accounted for the majority of earthquake damage in several recent U.S. earthquakes. Thus, it is critical to raise awareness of potential nonstructural risks, the costly consequences of nonstructural failures, and the opportunities that exist to limit future losses. Nonstructural components of a building include all of those components that are not part of the structural system; that is, all of the architectural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, as well as furniture, fixtures, equipment, and contents. Windows, partitions, granite veneer, piping, ceilings, air conditioning ducts and equipment, elevators, computer and hospital equipment, file cabinets, and retail merchandise are all examples of nonstructural components that are vulnerable to earthquake damage. The primary purpose of this guide is to explain the sources of nonstructural earthquake damage and to describe methods for reducing the potential risks in simple terms. This guide is intended for use by a non-engineer audience located within the United States; this audience includes building owners, facility managers, maintenance personnel, store or office managers, corporate or agency department heads, business proprietors, risk managers, and safety personnel. The guide is also designed to be useful for design professionals, especially those who are not experienced with seismic protection of nonstructural components. It addresses nonstructural issues typically found in schools, office buildings, retail stores, hotels, data centers, hospitals, museums, and light manufacturing facilities. FEMA 74 explains the sources of earthquake damage that can occur in nonstructural components and provides information on effective methods for reducing risk associated with nonstructural earthquake damage. It is intended for use by a non-engineer audience that includes building owners, facility managers, maintenance personnel, store or office managers, corporate or agency department heads, and homeowners. The reference material contained within the third edition of FEMA 74 is now approaching 20 years old. A considerable amount of new information now exists as a result of ongoing National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) activities, local and state government programs, private sector initiatives, and academic work focused on reducing the potential for nonstructural earthquake damage.

This publication discusses the recent history of offsetting rescissions in paying for supplemental appropriations to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). As Congress has debated the growing size of the budget deficit and national debt in recent years, efforts have intensified to control spending and offset the costs of legislation. In 1995, 2011, and again in 2012, the question of offsetting disaster relief spending emerged in congressional debate. In 2011, a series of disasters threatened to deplete the DRF, which is the primary source of assistance to state and local governments as well as individuals in the wake of disasters. Hurricane Sandy struck the east coast of the United States on October 29, 2012. The storm caused tens of billions of dollars in damage along the coast. As damage estimates became public in the weeks after the storm, calls for supplemental appropriations to help pay for recovery efforts were met with calls for offsets from some quarters. Traditionally, supplemental disaster relief funding has been treated as emergency spending, not counted against discretionary budget caps, and not requiring an offset. However, supplemental spending packages have at times carried rescissions that have offset, to one degree or another, their budgetary impact. In some instances, the supplemental spending packages have contained both appropriations for the DRF and offsetting rescissions. This publication examines the use of offsets in connection with supplemental funding for the DRF since FY1990, reviewing three specific incidences where bills that had an impact on the level of funding available in the DRF were fully offset, and points out a number of issues Congress may wish to consider in this debate. Since FY1990, there has only been one case in which supplemental funding for the DRF was completely offset by rescissions.

Before and after a disaster strikes, it may be helpful to understand the broad outlines of the national emergency management structure and where authority rests at various stages of the process. This book provides information that can aid policy makers as they navigate through the many levels of responsibility, and numerous policy pressure points, by having an understanding of the laws and administrative policies governing the disaster response and recovery process. The book also reviews the legislative framework that exists for providing federal assistance, as well as the implementing policies the executive branch employs to provide supplemental help to state, tribal, and local governments during time of disasters. Furthermore, the book includes a summary of federal programs that provide federal disaster assistance to individual survivors, states, territories, local governments, and nongovernmental entities following a natural or man-made disaster; and reviews several key concepts about these federal assets, and highlights possible issues Congress may consider when evaluating their authorisation and appropriation.

Nearly all major roads and bridges in the United States are part of the federal-aid highway system and are therefore eligible for assistance from the Emergency Relief Program (ER) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). ER assistance is restricted to roads and bridges on the federal aid highway system, which essentially includes all public roads not functionally classified as either local or rural minor collectors. For disaster-damaged roads that are not federal-aid highways, states may request reimbursement for emergency road repairs from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA may also allow limited funding under its Public Assistance Program for such things as snow removal and related operating costs during extreme snowfalls, which are not eligible for ER funds. This book describes FHWA assistance for the repair and reconstruction of highways and bridges damaged by disasters or catastrophic failures. It begins with a brief discussion of the legislative origins of federal assistance, and then addresses eligibility issues and program operation. Moreover, this book discusses agricultural disaster assistance; presents backgrounds on emergency agricultural land assistance programs; describes snow assistance and assistance for severe winter storms, the declaration process, the criteria used to make eligibility determinations, and the types of assistance that are provided after the President has issued a major disaster declaration for the incident; discusses federal non-agricultural programs for emergency water assistance during droughts; commercial fishery disasters; and examines the Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) benefits.

The Robert T Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act authorises the President to issue "major disaster" or "emergency" declarations before or after catastrophes occur. Emergency declarations trigger aid that protects property, public health, and safety and lessens or averts the threat of an incident becoming a catastrophic event. Given their purpose, the emergency declarations may precede an event. A major disaster declaration is generally issued after catastrophes occur, and constitutes broader authority for federal agencies to provide supplemental assistance to help state and local governments, families and individuals, and certain nonprofit organisations recover from the incident. Since the decision for a declaration is at the discretion of the President, there has been some speculation regarding the influence of political favor in these decisions. Some have posited various connections between the political party of the governor requesting or the prominence of some state's congressional delegation on committee's important to FEMA. This book discusses the evolution of this process, how it is administered and recent changes enacted in law as well as amending legislation that has been introduced. The book then provides background on key elements of the Public Assistance (PA) Grant Program, which provides financial grant assistance to states, tribes, and local communities both in the response to and recovery from significant disasters. Finally, this book concludes with discussion of several policy issues that Congress may wish to consider when evaluating the PA Program in the future, including considerations of significant prospective changes to the PA Program and the role of the PA Program in the context of other federal agency disaster assistance authorities.

These guidelines represent the culmination of efforts, initiated by President Carter in April 1977, to review procedures and criteria used by Federal Agencies involved in the design, construction, operation, and regulation of dams and to prepare guidelines for management procedures to ensure dam safety. The guidelines are based on an intensive review of Agency practices conducted by the Departments and Agencies themselves, by an ad hoc interagency committee of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET), and by an Independent Review Panel of recognized experts from the academic and private sectors. These reviews are summarized in two earlier reports: Improving Federal Dam Safety, a report of the FCCSET, November 1977, and Federal Dam Safety Report of the OSTP Independent Review Panel, December 1978. Publication of the guidelines marks the final step in the review process. However, the Departments and Agencies recognize that there must be a continuing Federal effort to improve dam safety. Federal dam safety remains a fundamental responsibility of each Federal employee in every Department and Agency involved and it is on their technical expertise and dedication that the safety of Federal dams rests. These guidelines recognize that underlying fact and support management efforts to discharge that responsibility effectively and efficiently. These guidelines apply to Federal practices for dams with a direct Federal interest and are not intended to supplant or otherwise conflict with State or local government responsibilities for safety of dams under their jurisdiction. Current Federal initiatives to assist States and others with non-Federal dam safety programs are being pursued under other authorities. The objective of both programs, however, is the same: to allow the people of this country to enjoy the benefits of water resource development with the best assurance of dam safety possible.

In April 1977, President Carter issued a memorandum directing the review of federal dam safety activities by an ad hoc panel of recognized experts. In June 1979, the ad hoc interagency committee on dam safety (ICODS) issued its report, which contained the first guidelines for federal agency dam owners. The Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety (Guidelines) encourage strict safety standards in the practices and procedures employed by federal agencies or required of dam owners regulated by the federal agencies. The Guidelines address management practices and procedures but do not attempt to establish technical standards. They provide the most complete and authoritative statement available of the desired management practices for promoting dam safety and the welfare of the public. To supplement the Guidelines, ICODS prepared and approved federal guidelines in the areas of emergency action planning; earthquake analysis and design of dams; and selecting and accommodating inflow design floods for dams. These publications, based on the most current knowledge and experience available, provided authoritative statements on the state of the art for three important technical areas involving dam safety. In 1994, the ICODS Subcommittee to Review/Update the Federal Guidelines began an update to these guidelines to meet new dam safety challenges and to ensure consistency across agencies and users. In addition, the ICODS Subcommittee on Federal/Non-Federal Dam Safety Coordination developed a new guideline, Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams. With the passage of the National Dam Safety Program Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303, ICODS and its Subcommittees were reorganized to reflect the objectives and requirements of Public Law 104-303. In 1998, the newly convened Guidelines Development Subcommittee completed work on the update of all of the following guidelines: Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Emergency Action Planning for Dam Owners; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Earthquake Analyses and Design of Dams; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Selecting and Accommodating Inflow Design Floods for Dams; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Glossary of Terms. The publication of these guidelines marks the final step in the review and update process. In recognition of the continuing need to enhance dam safety through coordination and information exchange among federal and state agencies, the Guidelines Development Subcommittee will be responsible for maintaining these documents and establishing additional guidelines that will help achieve the objectives of the National Dam Safety Program.

In April 1977, President Carter issued a memorandum directing the review of federal dam safety activities by an ad hoc panel of recognized experts. In June 1979, the ad hoc interagency committee on dam safety (ICODS) issued its report, which contained the first guidelines for federal agency dam owners. The Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety (Guidelines) encourage strict safety standards in the practices and procedures employed by federal agencies or required of dam owners regulated by the federal agencies. The Guidelines address management practices and procedures but do not attempt to establish technical standards. They provide the most complete and authoritative statement available of the desired management practices for promoting dam safety and the welfare of the public. To supplement the Guidelines, ICODS prepared and approved federal guidelines in the areas of emergency action planning; earthquake analysis and design of dams; and selecting and accommodating inflow design floods for dams. These publications, based on the most current knowledge and experience available, provided authoritative statements on the state of the art for three important technical areas involving dam safety. In 1994, the ICODS Subcommittee to Review/Update the Federal Guidelines began an update to these guidelines to meet new dam safety challenges and to ensure consistency across agencies and users. In addition, the ICODS Subcommittee on Federal/Non-Federal Dam Safety Coordination developed a new guideline, Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams. With the passage of the National Dam Safety Program Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303, ICODS and its Subcommittees were reorganized to reflect the objectives and requirements of Public Law 104-303. In 1998, the newly convened Guidelines Development Subcommittee completed work on the update of all of the following guidelines: Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Emergency Action Planning for Dam Owners; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Earthquake Analyses and Design of Dams; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Selecting and Accommodating Inflow Design Floods for Dams; Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Glossary of Terms . The publication of these guidelines marks the final step in the review and update process. In recognition of the continuing need to enhance dam safety through coordination and information exchange among federal and state agencies, the Guidelines Development Subcommittee will be responsible for maintaining these documents and establishing additional guidelines that will help achieve the objectives of the National Dam Safety Program.

The Interagency Committee on Dam Safety (ICODS) was established to provide the Federal agencies involved in dam safety with the opportunity to coordinate their dam safety activities. One of the goals of ICODS is to provide a common forum for the Federal agencies and State officials to exchange ideas and procedures that are used for dam safety and to provide an efficient mechanism for technology transfer. The purpose of this document is to establish a common Glossary of Terms for Dam Safety.

Earthquakes in the United States are regional in their occurrence and while California is famous for its earthquake other states, such as Texas, have much less concern for the threat of temblors. However, architectural practice is becoming increasingly national and global, and the architect in Texas may find that the next project is in California. Thus it has become necessary for the professional architect to have some knowledge of the earthquake problem and how design seeks to control it. Designing for Earthquakes: a Manual for Architects is intended to explain the principles of seismic design for those without a technical background in engineering and seismology. The primary intended audience is that of architects, and includes practicing architects, architectural students and faculty in architectural schools who teach structures and seismic design. For this reason the text and graphics are focused on those aspects of seismic design that are important for the architect to know. Because of its non-technical approach this publication will also be useful to anyone who has an interest and concern for the seismic protection of buildings, including facility managers, building owners and tenants, building committee participants, emergency service personnel and building officials. Engineers and engineering students will also gain from this discussion of seismic design from an architectural viewpoint. The principles discussed are applicable to a wide range of building types, both new and existing. The focus is on buildings that are designed by a team that includes architects, engineers and other consultants.

FEMA initiated this project in September 2004 with a contract to the Applied Technology Council. The project was undertaken to address the need for guidance on how to build a structure that would be capable of resisting the extreme forces of both a tsunami and an earthquake. This question was driven by the fact that there are many communities along our nation's west coast that are located on narrow spits of land and are vulnerable to a tsunami triggered by an earthquake on the Cascadia subduction zone, which could potentially generate a tsunami of 20 feet in elevation or more within 20 minutes. Given their location, it would be impossible to evacuate these communities in time, which could result in a significant loss of life. Many coastal communities subject to tsunami located in other parts of the country also have the same potential problem. In these cases, the only feasible alternative is vertical evacuation, using specially design, constructed and designated structures built to resist both tsunami and earthquake loads. The significance of this issue came into sharp relief with the December 26, 2004 Sumatra earthquake and Indian Ocean tsunami. While this event resulted in a tremendous loss of life, this would have been even worse had not many people been able to take shelter in multi-story reinforced concrete buildings. Without realizing it, these survivors were among the first to demonstrate the concept of vertical evacuation from a tsunami. This publication presents the following information: General information on the tsunami hazard and its history; Guidance on determining the tsunami hazard, including the need for tsunami depth and velocity on a site-specific basis; Different options for vertical evacuation from tsunamis; Determining tsunami and earthquake loads and structural design criteria necessary to address them; and, Structural design concepts and other considerations. In September 2004 the Applied Technology Council (ATC) was awarded a "Seismic and Multi-Hazard Technical Guidance Development and Support" contract (HSFEHQ-04-D-0641) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to conduct a variety of tasks, including the development of design guidance for special facilities for vertical evacuation from tsunamis, which ATC designated the ATC-64 Project. The effort was co-funded by FEMA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The developmental process involved a variety of activities including review of relevant research and state-of-the-practice documentation and literature, preparation of technical guidance and approaches for tsunami-resistant design, identification of relevant tsunami loads and applicable design criteria, development of methods to calculate tsunami loading, and identification of desired architectural and structural system attributes for vertical evacuation facilities. The resulting guidance for design of special facilities for vertical evacuation from tsunami, as presented herein, addresses a range of relevant issues. Chapter 1 defines the scope and limitations of the guidance. Chapter 2 provides background information on tsunami effects and their potential impacts on buildings in coastal communities. Chapters 3 through 7 provide design guidance on characterization of tsunami hazard, choosing between various options for vertical evacuation structures, locating and sizing vertical evacuation structures, estimation of tsunami load effects, structural design criteria, and design concepts and other considerations. The document concludes with a series of appendices that provide supplemental information, including examples of vertical evacuation structures from Japan, example tsunami load calculations, a community design example, development of impact load equations, and background on maximum flow velocity and momentum flux in the tsunami runup zone.

Damage to earthen dams and dam safety issues associated with tree and woody vegetation penetrations of earthen dams is all too often believed to be a routine maintenance situation by many dam owners, dam safety regulators, and engineers. Contrary to this belief, tree and woody vegetation penetrations of earthen dams and their appurtenances have been demonstrated to be causes of serious structural deterioration and distress that can result in failure of earthen dams. For the first time in the history of dam safety, a Research Needs Workshop on Plant and Animal Impacts on Earthen Dams (Workshop) was convened through the joint efforts of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) in November 1999 to bring together technical resources of dam owners, engineers, state and federal regulators, wildlife managers, foresters, and members of academia with expertise in these areas. The Workshop highlighted the realization that damage to earthen dams resulting from plant and animal penetrations was indeed a significant dam safety issue in the United States. The purpose of this Technical Manual for Dam Owners, Impacts of Plants on Earthen Dams is to convey technology assembled through the Workshop by successful completion of four objectives. These objectives are as follows: 1. Advance awareness of the characteristics and seriousness of dam safety problems associated with tree and woody vegetation growth impacts on earthen dams; 2. Provide a higher level of understanding of dam safety issues associated with tree and woody vegetation growth impacts on earthen dams by reviewing current damage control policies; 3. Provide state-of-practice guidance for remediation design considerations associated with damages associated with tree and woody vegetation growth on earthen dams; and 4. Provide rationale and state-of-practice techniques and procedures for management of desirable and undesirable vegetation on earthen dams.

Plastic pipe has been used for many decades in water and sewer applications. More recently, plastic pipe has been used in new embankment dam construction and in the renovation of existing conduits. However, most of the available design information is targeted toward water distribution and sewer pipes and does not address the unique factors involved in using plastic pipe in embankment dams. In general, information on plastic pipe is too dispersed for the best use of lessons learned from past performance, and compilation of information into a more readily available source was needed. Due to the absence of any single recognized standard for plastic pipe used in embankment dams, there is significant inconsistency in the design and construction rationale. 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. The goal of this document is to provide a single, nationally recognized standard to promote greater consistency between similar project designs, facilitate more effective and consistent review of proposed designs, and result in increased potential for safer, more reliable facilities. This document is intended to supplement the plastic pipe information in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Technical Manual: Conduits through Embankment Dams (2005). This document provides in-depth analyses of loading conditions, structural design, and hydraulic design of plastic pipe. This document attempts to condense and summarize the body of existing information, provide a clear and concise synopsis of this information, and present a recommended design approach. The authors reviewed most of the available information on plastic pipe as it relates to use within embankment dams in preparing this document. Where detailed documentation exists, they cited it to avoid duplicating available materials. The authors have strived not to reproduce information that is readily accessible in the public domain. Where applicable, the reader is directed to selected portions of FEMA's Technical Manual: Conduits through Embankment Dams (2005) and other consensus-accepted references for additional guidance. 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.

The Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) was established in 1963 to replace the nation's first alert and warning system called CONELRAD. The EBS allowed the President or State and local officials to send out alerts while radio stations continued to operate on their assigned frequencies. In 1979 the President transferred the responsibility of maintaining the EBS from the Department of Commerce to FEMA through Executive Order 12127. In 1990 the Primary Entry Point Advisory Committee (PEPAC) was established by FEMA to help manage thirty-four (34) EBS Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations across the U.S. In 1994 the Emergency Alert System (EAS) was initiated and replaced the EBS by 1997. Other warning systems were developed throughout the Federal government such as National Warning System, the Digital EAS program with the Association of Public Television Stations, the Web Alert and Relay Network (WARN) pilot, and the Geo-Targeted Alerting System (GTAS) with NOAA. The September 15, 1995 Presidential Memorandum to the Director of FEMA, regarding the Emergency Alert System (EAS) Statement of Requirements, requires FEMA to: i) Act as the White House Military Office's Executive Agent for the development, operations, and maintenance of the national-level EAS; ii) Bring the Primary Entry Point (PEP) system up to full operational capability and ensure compatibility with the state and local EAS; iii) Phase out dedicated circuitry and associated equipment of the Emergency Action Notification (EAN) network and incorporate the network nodes into the national level EAS as required; iv) Prepare guidance concerning the definition and use of Priority Four, and enhance procedures to disseminate National Emergency Information Programming; v) Conduct tests and exercises; vi) Ensure the national-level EAS keeps pace with emerging technologies through the use of low-cost innovative techniques. On June 26, 2006 the President issued Executive Order (EO) 13407 requiring "an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible, and comprehensive system to alert and warn the American people in situations of war, terrorist attack, natural disaster or other hazards to public safety and well being." The Integrated Public Alert and Warning (IPAWS) Program Management Office (PMO) was established in 2007 to execute the policy established in EO 13407. The IPAWS Program goal is to identify, develop, and/or adopt appropriate standards to enable implementation of interoperable public alert and warning systems, to identify technologies and standards that improve security, reliability, addressability, accessibility, interoperability, coverage, and resilience of the public alert and warning systems, and to integrate these capabilities via a common IPAWS Aggregator. The IPAWS Program is organized in to several major concurrent and incremental projects that in coordination and partnership with other federal, state, and local stakeholders integrate and improve all aspects of public alert and warning. This PEA will also facilitate FEMA's compliance with other environmental and historic preservation requirements by providing a framework to address the impacts of actions typically funded to aid in national preparedness. FEMA coordinates and integrates to the maximum extent possible the review and compliance process required under similar requirements such as the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the eight step process of the Executive Order 11988 and 11990, and others. This PEA provides a framework on how FEMA integrates these requirements with NEPA. Finally, the PEA provides the public and decision-makers with the information required to understand and evaluate the potential environmental consequences of these national preparedness actions. This PEA meets the NEPA goals of impact identification and disclosure and addresses the need to streamline the NEPA review process in the interest of national preparedness.

For the millions of Americans who have physical, medical, sensory or cognitive disabilities, emergencies such as fires, floods and acts of terrorism present a real challenge. The same challenge also applies to the elderly and other special needs populations. Protecting yourself and your family when disaster strikes requires planning ahead. This booklet will help you get started. Discuss these ideas with your family, friends and/or your personal care attendant, or anyone else in your support network and prepare an emergency plan. Post the plan where everyone will see it, keep a copy with you and make sure everyone involved in your plan has a copy. Where will you, your family, your friends or personal care attendants be when an emergency or disaster strikes? You, and those you care about, could be anywhere - at home, work, school or in transit. How will you find each other? Will you know your loved ones will be safe? Emergencies and disasters can strike quickly and without warning and can force you to evacuate your neighborhood or confine you to your home. What would you do if basic services - water, gas, electricity or telephones - were cut off? Local officials and relief workers will be on the scene after a disaster, but they cannot reach everyone right away. You are in the best position to plan for your own safety as you are best able to know your functional abilities and possible needs during and after an emergency or disaster situation. You can cope with disaster by preparing in advance with your family and care attendants. You will need to create a personal support network and complete a personal assessment. You will also need to follow the four preparedness steps listed in this booklet. 1. Get informed 2. Make a plan 3. Assemble a kit 4. Maintain your plan and kit.

Think about where you are right now. How well would you and your family fare if today, right now, you were suddenly faced with an enormous disaster-a massive earthquake, a sudden flood, a horrific hurricane, tornado, super storm, or other catastrophic event? If you and your family are not fully prepared to face the events after a disaster and you want to learn how to prepare for and survive when a disaster strikes, this book could save your life ... and the lives of your family. This book details lifesaving information and illustrations for you and your family, to help ensure your survival in the event of a disaster.

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 natural hazard mitigation planning capabilities. These guides are designed to provide the type of information states and communities 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 be an easy to understand guide for the field practitioner. In practice, these guides may be supplemented with more extensive technical data and the use of experts if possible. The how-to guides cover the following topics: Getting started with the mitigation planning process including important considerations for how you can organize to develop a plan; Identifying hazards and assessing losses to your community and state; Setting mitigation priorities and goals for your community; Evaluating potential mitigation measures through the use of benefit-cost analysis and other techniques; Creating a mitigation plan and implementation strategy; Implementing the mitigation plan including project funding and revising the plan periodically as changes in the community occur; and Incorporating special circumstances in hazard mitigation planning for historic structures, among other topics. Risk assessment answers the fundamental question that fuels the natural hazard mitigation planning process: "What would happen if a natural hazard event occurred in your community or state?" Risk assessment is the process of measuring the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from natural hazards by assessing the vulnerability of people, buildings, and infrastructure to natural hazards. Risk assessment provides the foundation for the rest of the mitigation planning process. The risk assessment process focuses your attention on areas most in need by evaluating which populations and facilities are most vulnerable to natural hazards and to what extent injuries and damages may occur. It tells you: The hazards to which your state or community is susceptible; What these hazards can do to physical, social, and economic assets; Which areas are most vulnerable to damage from these hazards; and The resulting cost of damages or costs avoided through future mitigation projects. In addition to benefiting mitigation planning, risk assessment information also allows emergency management personnel to establish early response priorities by identifying potential hazards and vulnerable assets. The steps in this how-to guide describe some methods you may use to develop this information. Subsequent guides assist you in determining priorities for mitigation and in deciding which assets in your community or state should be protected.

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 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) (P.L. 106-390) provides an opportunity for States, Tribes, and local governments to take a new and revitalized approach to mitigation planning. DMA 2000 amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by repealing the previous Mitigation Planning section (409) and replacing it with a new Mitigation Planning section (322). This new section emphasizes the need for State, Tribal, and local entities to closely coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. It continues the requirement for a State mitigation plan as a condition of disaster assistance, and creates incentives for increased coordination and integration of mitigation activities at the State level through the establishment of requirements for two different levels of State plans: "Standard" and "Enhanced." States that demonstrate an increased commitment to comprehensive mitigation planning and implementation through the development of an approved Enhanced State Plan can increase the amount of funding available through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). To implement the DMA 2000 planning requirements, FEMA published an Interim Final Rule in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002. This Rule (44 CFR Part 201) established the mitigation planning requirements for States, Tribes, and local communities. Normally FEMA publishes a proposed rule for public comment before publishing a final rule. This process can result in a lengthy comment and response period, during which the proposed rule is not legally effective or enforceable. Because certain types of Stafford Act assistance are conditioned on having an approved mitigation plan, FEMA wanted to publish an effective rule providing the DMA 2000 planning requirements in order to position State and local governments to receive these mitigation funds as soon as possible. Even though it is an Interim Final Rule, FEMA will still publish a proposed rule for public comment, to be followed eventually by a final rule. FEMA is assessing the utility and practicality of these interim final requirements based on the experience of States, Tribes, and local governments, and will draw on this experience in preparing the future Proposed and Final Rules for Mitigation Planning. Until then, the Rule serves as the governing set of requirements for DMA 2000 planning implementation. To help States, Tribes, and local governments better understand the Rule and meet the DMA 2000 planning requirements, FEMA has prepared this document, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance). It was designed with three major objectives: To help Federal and State reviewers evaluate mitigation plans from different jurisdictions in a fair and consistent manner; To help States, Tribes, and local jurisdictions develop new mitigation plans or modify existing ones in accordance with the requirements of the Rule, and To help States, Tribes, and local jurisdictions conduct comprehensive reviews and prepare updates to their plans in accordance with the review and update requirements of the Rule. This Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, as interpretation and explanation for the Rule, is FEMA's official source for defining the requirements of original and updated mitigation plans. It includes references to specific language in the Rule, descriptions of the relevant requirements, and sample plan text to illustrate distinctions between plan approaches that would and would not meet DMA 2000 requirements. In addition, this document provides references to a number of planning tools that FEMA has made available to assist States, Tribes, and localities in developing a comprehensive, multi-hazard approach to mitigation planning, and in preparing plans that will meet the DMA 2000 requirements.

The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under Presidential Executive Order 13407, has clear directives to: Consult, coordinate, and cooperate with the private sector, including communications media organizations, and Federal, State, territorial, tribal and local governmental authorities, including emergency response providers; Ensure the conduct of public education efforts so that State, territorial, tribal, and local governments, the private sector, and the American people understand the functions of the public alert and warning system and how to access, use, and respond to information from the public alert and warning system; and, Ensure the conduct of training, tests, and exercises for the public alert and warning system. Additionally, in the 2009 General Accounting Office (GAO) report, Improved Planning and Coordination Necessary for Modernization and Integration of Public Alert and Warning System, the GAO recommended "increased coordination and consultation with partners." The IPAWS Program Management Office (PMO) enthusiastically accepted the challenge evidenced by its "Strategic Plan for the Integrated Public Alert and Warning Systems (IPAWS) Program - June 2010" ("Strategic Plan"). This IPAWS Outreach Plan establishes IPAWS' communication and partner engagement strategies to effectively accomplish this mission, vision, and goals stated in the IPAWS Strategic Plan. It also helps meet Executive Order 13407 directive and implements recommendations from the GAO report. The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) program will modernize and enhance alert and warning delivery to the American public. Established by Presidential Executive Order 13407, the IPAWS Program brings together existing and new public alert and warning systems and technologies in order to provide government alerting authorities at all levels a broader range of message options and communications pathways. During an emergency, the IPAWS will facilitate timely delivery of alert and warning information over more media to more people before, during, and after a disaster. In the event of a national emergency, the President will be able to use the IPAWS to send a message to the American people quickly and simultaneously through multiple communications pathways. The IPAWS will also provide Federal, State, local, tribal and territorial governments with capability to integrate their alert and warning systems with the national alert and warning infrastructure. Through this, the IPAWS will increase resilience of local systems and provide additional means by which life-saving information is distributed during a crisis. The IPAWS Program Management Office (PMO) is partnering with recognized government and industry leaders and technical experts to ensure the IPAWS program incorporates the latest technologies and is practical for prospective users. Partners include Federal Governance and Legislative, Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial Alerting Authorities, Private Sector Industry, Non-Profit and Advocacy, and the American People. The effectiveness of the program will be realized through a comprehensive outreach approach using strategic communications and robust partnership engagement coupled with integrated training and exercises. The IPAWS PMO will also reach out to the American people to ensure they understand how the IPAWS functions, what it is for, what it provides, and how they can "Get Alerts, Stay Alive."