Bøger af Federal Emergency Management Agency

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.

Over the past decade, numerous law enforcement officers, firefighters, and emergency medical services (EMS) workers were injured or killed along roadways throughout the United States. In 2008, as with the prior 10 years, more law enforcement officers died in traffic-related incidents than from any other cause; National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial (NLEOM, 2008) over the past 12 years, an average of one officer per month was struck and killed by a vehicle in the United States. (FBI, 2007) Preliminary firefighter fatality statistics for 2008 reflect 29 of 114 firefighters killed on duty perished in motor vehicle crashes, (USFA, 2009a) similar to figures posted in previous years. According to a 2002 study that aggregated data from several independent sources, at least 67 EMS providers were killed in ground transportation-related events over the 6 years from 1992 to 1997. These sobering facts clearly demonstrate the importance of addressing vehicle characteristics and human factors for reducing the morbidity and mortality of public safety personnel operating along the Nation's highways and byways. Studies conducted in the United States and elsewhere suggest that increasing emergency vehicle visibility and conspicuity holds promise for enhancing first responders' safety when exposed to traffic both inside and outside their response vehicles (e.g., patrol cars, motorcycles, fire apparatus, and ambulances). This report, produced in partnership between the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) and the International Fire Service Training Association (IFSTA), with support from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), National Institute of Justice (NIJ), analyzes emergency vehicle visibility and conspicuity with an eye toward expanding efforts in these areas to improve vehicle and roadway operations safety for all emergency responders. Emphasis in this report is placed on passive visibility/conspicuity treatments; additional studies are underway on active technologies such as emergency vehicle warning lighting systems. A number of key findings were developed from the examination performed for this report. Principal among these findings is the salient need for additional research on emergency vehicle visibility and conspicuity in the United States. Despite meaningful limitations, the existing visibility/conspicuity research, combined with passenger vehicle lighting and human factors, evokes several potential opportunities for improving the safety of emergency vehicles in the United States using readily available products.

This document provides State and Major Urban Area fusion center and EOC officials with guidance for coordination between fusion centers and EOCs. It outlines the roles of fusion centers and EOCs within the fusion process and provides steps by which these entities can work together to share information and intelligence on an ongoing basis. This guide supports the implementation of the Baseline Capabilities for State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers and, likewise, assists EOCs fill their missions in both steady state and active state emergency operations, as supported by the CPG 601: Design and Management of Emergency Operations Centers. This CPG provides guidance on the broad capability requirements of an EOC. Fusion centers and emergency operations centers (EOCs) should become familiar with each others' roles and capabilities to facilitate successful interfacing and cooperation between them. In addition, it is imperative that the two develop a solid relationship in order to effectively work together to achieve their respective objectives. The relationships forged between these two entities will allow them to have continuous, meaningful contacts, which will enhance their ability to share information and intelligence regardless of the activation status of the EOC. Mutual trust and respect must guide interagency collaboration policies and protocols, allowing for effective and consistent collaboration during the steady state or during an emergency. Comprehensive Planning Guide (CPG) 502 focuses on this critical partnership and the exchange of information between these entities. Effective prevention, protection, response and recovery efforts depend on the ability of all levels and sectors of government, as well as the private sector, to collect, analyze, disseminate and use homeland security- and crime-related information and intelligence. In support of this, the National Strategy for Information Sharing calls for a national information sharing capability through the establishment of a national integrated network of fusion centers. To facilitate the development of a national fusion center capability, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) and the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) have partnered to develop the Fusion Process Technical Assistance Program. The Fusion Process Technical Assistance Program has also been developed to directly support the implementation of the Fusion Center Guidelines and the Baseline Capabilities for State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers. In constructing the Fusion Center Guidelines, Global engaged diverse representation from the public and private sectors, melding emergency management and law enforcement expertise. The process of creating guidance for the operation of fusion centers has evolved through the development of the Baseline Capabilities for State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers. This document identifies the baseline capabilities for fusion centers and the operational standards necessary to achieve each of the capabilities. The sustained Federal partnership with State and major urban area fusion centers is critical to the safety of the nation. The baseline capabilities recommend developing processes that govern official outreach with leaders and policymakers, the public sector, the media and citizens. These capabilities also recommend development of a plan to promote awareness of the fusion center's purpose, mission and functions which, in turn, enhances partnership with the EOC), as well as ensure a common understanding of roles and responsibilities.

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.

According to available information, landsliding in the United States causes an average of 25 to 50 deaths and $1 to $2 billion in economic losses annually. Although all 50 states are subject to landslide activity, the Rocky Mountain, Appalachian, and Pacific Coast regions generally suffer the greatest landslide losses. The costs of landsliding can be direct or indirect and range from the expense of cleanup and repair or replacement of structures to lost tax revenues and reduced productivity and property values. Landslide losses are growing in the United States despite the availability of successful techniques for landslide management and control. The failure to lessen the problem is primarily due to the ever-increasing pressure of development in areas of geologically hazardous terrain and the failure of responsible government entities and private developers to recognize landslide hazards and to apply appropriate measures for their mitigation, even though there is overwhelming evidence that landslide hazard mitigation programs serve both public and private interests by saving many times the cost of implementation. The high cost of landslide damage will continue to increase if community development and capital investments continue without taking advantage of the opportunities that currently exist to mitigate the effects of landslides. The widespread occurrence of landsliding, together with the potential for catastrophic statewide and regional impacts, emphasizes the need for cooperation among federal, state, and local governments and the private sector. Although annual landslide losses in the U.S. are extremely high, significant reductions in future losses can be achieved through a combination of landslide hazard mitigation and emergency management. Landslide hazard mitigation consists of those activities that reduce the likelihood of occurrence of damaging landslides and minimize the effects of the landslides that do occur. The goal of emergency management is to minimize loss of life and property damage through the timely and efficient commitment of available resources. Despite their common goals, emergency management and hazard mitigation activities have historically been carried out independently. The integration of these two efforts is most often demonstrated in the recovery phase following a disaster, when decisions about reconstruction and future land uses in the community are made. The development and implementation of landslide loss-reduction strategies requires the cooperation of many public and private institutions, all levels of government, and private citizens. Coordinated and comprehensive systems for landslide hazard mitigation do not currently exist in most states and communities faced with the problem. In most states, local governments often take the lead by identifying goals and objectives, controlling land use, providing hazard information and technical assistance to property owners and developers, and implementing mitigation projects as resources allow. State and federal agencies play supporting roles-primarily financial, technical, and administrative. In some cases, however, legislation originating at the state or federal level is the sole impetus for stimulating effective local mitigation activity. In many states there remains a need to develop long-term organizational systems at state and local levels to deal with landslide hazard mitigation in a coordinated and systematic manner. The development of a landslide hazard mitigation plan can be the initial step in the establishment of state and local programs that promote long-term landslide loss reduction. The purpose of this guidebook is to provide a practical, politically feasible guide for state and local officials involved in landslide hazard mitigation. The guidebook presents concepts and a framework for the preparation of state and local landslide hazard mitigation plans.

The Extension Agent's Handbook for Emergency Preparedness and Response can be a valuable response tool in times of emergency or as an aid in preparedness education activities. The Handbook is divided into two parts to provide the information you need in an easy-to-use format. The first section of the Handbook, General Family Preparedness, provides basic information you may need to access quickly in any disaster or emergency situation. It also may be used as a preparedness education tool for the public. The second section of the Handbook covers 10 disaster specific situations. For the purposes of this manual, a disaster is any event which drastically affects a person's life or livelihood. Floods, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, winter storms, earthquakes, droughts and volcanic eruptions are considered to be natural disasters, events over which one usually has no control. Radiological and hazardous materials accidents may be caused by the failure of people to maintain control over the operation, transportation or storage of certain materials. In addition to an overview of the disaster, each section provides a series of preparedness measures and post-disaster responses that should be taken in conjunction with those outlined in the General Family Preparedness section. This handbook is not intended to cover every situation. It provides basic information you will need for a disaster situation and early post-disaster response. Because every community is different, special consideration for the local area should be taken into account along with the information provided in the Handbook.

FEMA has produced a series of 37 fact sheets that provide technical guidance and recommendations concerning the construction of coastal residential buildings. The fact sheets present information aimed at improving the performance of buildings subject to flood and wind forces in coastal environments. The fact sheets make extensive use of photographs and drawings to illustrate National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulatory requirements, the proper siting of coastal buildings, and recommended design and construction practices, including structural connections, the building envelope, utilities, and accessory structures. In addition, many of the fact sheets include lists of additional resources that provide more information about the topics discussed.

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.

One of the goals of the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) is to encourage design and building practices that address the earthquake hazard and minimize the resulting risk of damage and injury. Publication of this edition of the "NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulation of New Buildings and Other Structures" and its "Commentary" ("FEMA 450-2 / Part 2: Commentary") is a fitting end to the 25th year of the NEHRP and reaffirms FEMA's ongoing support to improve the seismic safety of construction in this country. Its publication marks the sixth edition in an ongoing series of updating of both the NEHRP Recommended Provisions and several complementary publications. FEMA was proud to sponsor the Building Seismic Safety Council for this project and we encourage the widespread dissemination and voluntary use of this state-of-the-art consensus resource document. This edition of the "NEHRP Recommended Provisions" contains several significant changes, including: a reformatting to improve its usability; introduction of a simplified design procedure, an updating of the seismic design maps and how they are presented; a modification in the redundancy factor; the addition of ultimate strength design provisions for foundations; the addition of several new structural systems, including buckling restrained braced frames and steel plate shear walls; structures with damping systems has been moved from an appendix to a new chapter; and inclusion of new or updated material industry reference standards for steel, concrete, masonry, and wood. The "NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures" (referred to hereinafter as the "Provisions") present criteria for the design and construction of structures to resist earthquake ground motions. The purposes of these "Provisions" are as follows: 1. To provide minimum design criteria for structures appropriate to their primary function and use considering the need to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public by minimizing the earthquake-related risk to life and 2. To improve the capability of essential facilities and structures containing substantial quantities of hazardous materials to function during and after design earthquakes. The design earthquake ground motion levels specified herein could result in both structural and nonstructural damage. For most structures designed and constructed according to these "Provisions," structural damage from the design earthquake ground motion would be repairable although perhaps not economically so. For essential facilities, it is expected that the damage from the design earthquake ground motion would not be so severe as to preclude continued occupancy and function of the facility. The actual ability to accomplish these goals depends upon a number of factors including the structural framing type, configuration, materials, and as-built details of construction. For ground motions larger than the design levels, the intent of these "Provisions" is that there be a low likelihood of structural collapse. These "Provisions" shall apply to the design and construction of structures-including additions, changes of use, and alterations-to resist the effects of earthquake motions. Every structure, and portion thereof, shall be designed and constructed to resist the effects of earthquake motions as prescribed by these "Provisions."

On September 28, 1998, Hurricane Georges made landfall in the Ocean Springs/Biloxi, Mississippi area. On October 2, 1998, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Mitigation Directorate deployed a Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) to the Gulf Coast to assess damages caused by Hurricane Georges. The team included FEMA Headquarters and Regional Office engineers, planners, and a coastal geologist; consulting engineers; floodplain management specialists; and a forensic engineer. The BPAT.s mission was to assess the performance of buildings in the Gulf Coast area and make recommendations for improving building performance in future hurricanes. The assessment included areas of the Gulf Coast from Pensacola Beach, Florida, to Gulfport, Mississippi (including Mobile Bay, Alabama). In addition, a supplemental assessment of manufactured home performance was conducted in the Florida Keys. The assessment also included inland areas along major streams and rivers that experienced flooding. The BPAT process is intended to provide guidance to state and local governments on post-hurricane reconstruction and new construction with the goal of enhancing future building design and construction. This report presents the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Building Performance Assessment Team's (BPAT) observations on the success and failure of buildings in the Florida Keys and Gulf Coast areas of the United States to withstand the wind and flood forces generated by Hurricane Georges. Recommendations to improve the building performance in future natural disasters in this area are included as well.

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.

The 2011 Coastal Construction Manual, Fourth Edition (FEMA P-55), is a two-volume publication that provides a comprehensive approach to planning, siting, designing, constructing, and maintaining homes in the coastal environment. Volume I of the Coastal Construction Manual provides information about hazard identification, siting decisions, regulatory requirements, economic implications, and risk management. The primary audience for Volume I is design professionals, officials, and those involved in the decision-making process. Volume II contains in-depth descriptions of design, construction, and maintenance practices that, when followed, will increase the durability of residential buildings in the harsh coastal environment and reduce economic losses associated with coastal natural disasters. The primary audience for Volume II is the design professional who is familiar with building codes and standards and has a basic understanding of engineering principles. Volume II is not a standalone reference for designing homes in the coastal environment. The designer should have access to and be familiar with the building codes and standards that are discussed in Volume II and listed in the reference section at the end of each chapter. The designer should also have access to the building codes and standards that have been adopted by the local jurisdiction if they differ from the standards and codes that are cited in Volume II. If the local jurisdiction having authority has not adopted a building code, the most recent code should be used. Engineering judgment is sometimes necessary, but designers should not make decisions that will result in a design that does not meet locally adopted building codes. The topics that are covered in Volume II are as follows: Chapter 7 - Introduction to the design process, minimum design requirements, losses from natural hazards in coastal areas, cost and insurance implications of design and construction decisions, sustainable design, and inspections; Chapter 8 - Site-specific loads, including from snow, flooding, tsunamis, high winds, tornadoes, seismic events, and combinations of loads. Example problems are provided to illustrate the application of design load provisions of ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures; Chapter 9 - Load paths, structural connections, structural failure modes, breakaway walls, building materials, and appurtenances; Chapter 10 - Foundations, including design criteria, requirements and recommendations, style selection (e.g., open, closed), pile capacity in soil, and installation; Chapter 11 - Building envelope, including floors in elevated buildings, exterior doors, windows and skylights, non-loading-bearing walls, exterior wall coverings, soffits, roof systems, and attic vents. Chapter 12 - Installing mechanical equipment and utilities; Chapter 13 - Construction, including the foundation, structural frame, and building envelope. Common construction mistakes, material selection and durability, and techniques for improving resistance to decay and corrosion are also discussed; Chapter 14 - Maintenance of new and existing buildings, including preventing damage from corrosion, moisture, weathering, and termites; building elements that require frequent maintenance; and hazard-specific maintenance techniques; Chapter 15 - Evaluating existing buildings for the need for and feasibility of retrofitting for wildfire, seismic, flood, and wind hazards and implementing the retrofitting. Wind retrofit packages that can be implemented during routine maintenance are also discussed (e.g., replacing roof shingles.

The residential portion of the fire problem continues to account for the vast majority of civilian casualties. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) estimates show that, while residential structure fires account for only 25 percent of fires nationwide, they account for a disproportionate share of losses: 83 percent of fire deaths, 77 percent of fire injuries, and 64 percent of direct dollar losses. Analyses of the residential structure fire problem were published formerly as a chapter in each edition of Fire in the United States. The most recent edition of Fire in the United States, the fourteenth edition published in August 2007, featured an abbreviated chapter on residential structures. This full report is the most current snapshot of the residential fire problem as reflected in the 2005 National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) data and the 2005 NFPA survey data. In this report, as in previous chapters in Fire in the United States, an attempt has been made to keep the data presentation and analysis as straightforward as possible. It is also the desire of the United States Fire Administration (USFA) to make the report widely accessible to many different users, so it avoids unnecessarily complex methodology.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) mission is "to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a Nation, we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards." As the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain mapping program has evolved, Flood Insurance Study (FIS) data and maps have become more detailed and more accurate through improved computer models and greater use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). In addition, the technical requirements of the FEMA Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) program have resulted in an expansion of the amount of useful flood data. As the data have improved, the use of the data has extended beyond floodplain management permits and flood insurance. For example, the data are being used to increase the flood resistance in the design of new buildings and retrofits of existing buildings. Design information, which is available in the FEMA Building Science Branch library, includes enhanced design, siting, construction, and retrofit guidance and requirements for buildings in or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). The library consists of publications, technical bulletins, training descriptions, and tools, all of which are available online. The flood risk data available from the Risk MAP program provides FEMA with additional resources to inform communities, property owners, and other interested parties about the vast library of Building Science resources. The resources can be used together with flood risk maps and other flood hazard products to reduce the loss of life, number of injuries, and property damage from flood events. The purpose of this report is to present the best practices for incorporating Building Science flood mitigation information into the Risk MAP program and strategies for informing interested parties of the Building Science resources.

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 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.

Water emerging from an outlet works conduit typically requires dissipation of excess kinetic energy to prevent downstream channel erosion. This flow often discharges at a high velocity and must be directed away from the toe of the dam. An energy dissipator is used to retard the fast moving water by creating turbulence and developing a loss through change in the water's momentum. This prevents damage to the channel downstream from the structure. The design of an energy dissipating structure can vary from simple to complex. The selection of the proper structure must consider: The energy content and unit discharge of the flow entering the dissipator; The type of valve or gate used to regulate discharge; The number of conduits involved; The duration and frequency of flow; The compatibility with the conduit or tunnel from which flow is emerging; The amount of energy that must be dissipated to control downstream channel erosion; Tailwater conditions; Alignment and location with respect to the toe of the dam and other features; Economic concerns. The goal of this manual is to provide a nationally recognized source to promote greater consistency between similar project designs, facilitate more effective and consistent review of proposed designs, and aid in the design of safer, more reliable facilities. An outlet works is a combination of structures and equipment required for the safe operation and control of water released from a reservoir to serve various purposes (i.e., regulating stream flow and quality; releasing floodwater, providing irrigation, municipal, and/or industrial water). The outlet works typically consists of an intake structure, conduit, control house, gate chamber, regulating valve(s) or gates(s), and an energy dissipation structure. This manual will focus on the methods by which energy resulting from the release of water through the outlet works is dissipated for safe discharge downstream. The theory involved with energy dissipation can best be explained with the hydraulic jump. Flowing water emerging from an outlet works can be in one of two states: subcritical or supercritical.

This manual is intended to assist office building owners' personnel responsible for funding and operating existing office buildings across the United States. This publication and its companion documents are the products of a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) project to develop the concept of incremental seismic rehabilitation-that is, building modifications that reduce seismic risk by improving seismic performance and that are implemented over an extended period, often in conjunction with other repair, maintenance, or capital improvement activities. The manual was developed after the project team analyzed the management practices of office building owners of varying sizes located in various seismic zones in different parts of the United States. It focuses on the identified concerns and decision making practices of owners and managers of Class A, B, or C buildings, be they REITs, pension funds, partnerships, individuals, or other types of owners. Earthquakes are a serious threat to office safety and pose a significant potential liability to office building owners. Office buildings in 39 states are vulnerable to earthquake damage. Unsafe existing buildings expose office building owners and tenants to the following risks: Death and injury of tenants, occupants, and visitors; Damage to or collapse of buildings; Damage to and loss of furnishings, equipment, and other building contents; Disruption of office functions and building operations. The greatest earthquake risk is associated with existing office buildings that were designed and constructed before the use of modern building codes. For many parts of the United States, this includes buildings built as recently as the early 1990s. Although vulnerable office buildings need to be replaced with safe, new construction or rehabilitated to correct deficiencies, for many building owners new construction is limited, at times severely, by budgetary constraints, and seismic rehabilitation is expensive and disruptive. However, incremental seismic rehabilitation, an innovative approach that phases in a series of discrete rehabilitation actions over a period of several years, is an effective, affordable, and non-disruptive strategy for responsible mitigation action. It can be integrated efficiently into ongoing facility maintenance and capital improvement operations to minimize cost and disruption. The strategy of incremental seismic rehabilitation makes it possible to get started now on improving earthquake safety in your office building inventory. This manual provides owners of office buildings, be they Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), pension funds, partnerships, individuals, or other forms of ownership, with the information necessary to assess the seismic vulnerability of their buildings and to implement a program of incremental seismic rehabilitation for those buildings.