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.

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.

This Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) provides an assessment of the expected environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the programs funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Grant Programs Directorate (GPD). The proposed implementation of GPD-funded grant programs would involve a wide variety of projects designed to improve the preparedness and readiness of public safety and first response agencies, as well as improve homeland security through increased protection of the Nation's critical infrastructure. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Grants and Training (G&T) was transformed into GPD on April 1, 2007, as a result of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006. GPD is housed within FEMA to oversee the grant business operations, systems, training, and policy. FEMA coordinates the federal government's role in preparing for, preventing, mitigating the effects of, responding to, and recovering from all domestic disasters, whether natural or man-made, including acts of terror. The preparedness grant programs managed by GPD enhance the preparedness and response capabilities of States, Territories, Tribes, private-sector and non-governmental first responders to respond to terrorist attacks and non-man made emergencies. These funds are intended to develop and administer planning, training, and equipment assistance programs for state and local emergency response agencies to better prepare them against the threat of terrorism as part of GPD's mission. GPD's mission is to manage Federal assistance to measurably improve capability and reduce the risks the Nation faces. GPD is responsible for the program management and administration of 19 preparedness grant programs. GPD will ensure all of their preparedness grant programs are aligned to, and are measurable against, the National Preparedness Guidelines and the National Priorities as authorized by the H.R. 10, 9/11 Commission Recommendations Implementation Act. These preparedness grant programs support the achievement of the National Preparedness Goal by providing funds for State and local homeland security efforts, such as planning, equipment purchase, protection of critical infrastructure by reinforcing physical security and access controls, and hiring and training first response personnel. Currently, the grants administered by GPD funds are provided to all 56 States and Territories. The events of September 11, 2001 highlighted critical needs in the Nation's security safeguards and systems. Effective preparedness is a critical precondition of successful response. In order to best equip State and local governments, as well quasi-governmental private entities, to successfully respond to emergencies, GPD is committed to providing funds that will allow these entities to improve preparedness. These grant programs are part of a comprehensive set of measures authorized by Congress and implemented by FEMA to help strengthen the Nation against risks associated with potential terrorist attacks. This PEA examines the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the GPD-funded grant programs. This document has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the FEMA regulations for implementing NEPA.

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

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

The President issued the National Security Presidential Directive-51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive-20 (NSPD-51/HSPD-20) National Continuity Policy in May 2007 to establish and maintain a comprehensive and effective national continuity capability in order to ensure the preservation of our form of Government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions. In August 2007, the President approved the National Continuity Policy Implementation Plan to build upon the Policy and provide guidance to executive departments and agencies on appropriately identifying and carrying out their Primary Mission Essential Functions that support the eight National Essential Functions-the most essential functions necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency. To provide the operational guidance to implement this policy, the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, in coordination with our non-federal partners, has developed Continuity Guidance Circular 1 (CGC 1), Continuity Guidance for Non-Federal Entities. The purpose of this guidance document is to provide direction for the development of continuity plans and programs for non-federal entities. Effective continuity planning and programs facilitate the performance of essential functions during all-hazards emergencies or other situations that may disrupt normal operations. The primary goal of continuity is the continuation of essential functions. In this guidance document, the elements of a viable continuity capability are identified and discussed. These elements are critical to establishing and maintaining a comprehensive and effective continuity capability. Continuity programs and operations are good business practices that ensure critical services will be available to the Nation's citizens under all conditions. The provisions of this guidance document are applicable for State, local, territorial and tribal governments and the private sector.

We've all seen the powerful images that make real the heartbreak of disaster. But we don't often see the images or hear the stories that capture efforts to minimize the effects of disasters. Nationwide, individuals, businesses and communities are fighting back against Mother Nature by taking action to reduce or prevent future disaster damage. In many cases, these actions already have proven to be successful. In others, the "test" is yet to come. Either way, there is a story to tell. Our challenge is to capture and promote these efforts in an interesting and effective way. When we succeed, we motivate others to better protect themselves and their communities. This guidebook provides some of the "best practices" of those who have promoted disaster-resistance efforts throughout the country. It is largely based on the lessons learned during a project by FEMA Region VIII and the North Dakota Division of Emergency Management to document disaster resistance. The result of that joint effort is a collection of stories, compiled into a book and published by FEMA in 2001, titled, Journeys, North Dakota's Trail Towards Disaster Resistance. Two of those stories are included in the Appendices of this book. In this guide, you'll find the key considerations for successfully telling the tale of disaster resistance-developing story leads, researching and documenting projects, creating a finished product and promoting those projects.

David Alexander provides a concise yet comprehensive and systematic primer on how to prepare for a disaster. The book introduces the methods, procedures, protocols and strategies of emergency planning, with an emphasis on situations within industrialized countries. It is designed to be a reference source and manual from which emergency mangers can extract ideas, suggestions and pro-forma methodologies to help them design and implement emergency plans.

Seismic risk management tools, including new seismic engineering technology and data, are now available to assist with evaluating, predicting, and controlling financial and personal-injury losses from future damaging earthquakes. These tools have evolved as a result of scientific and engineering breakthroughs, including new earth-science knowledge about the occurrence and severity of earthquake shaking, and new engineering techniques for designing building systems and components to withstand the effects of earthquakes. As a result, design and construction professionals can now design and construct new buildings with more predictable seismic performance than ever before. Seismic risks can be managed effectively in a number of ways, including the design and construction of better performing buildings as well as the employment of strategies that can result in risk reduction over the life of the building. Risk reduction techniques include the use of new technologies, such as seismic isolation and energy dissipation devices for both structural and nonstructural systems; site selection to avoid hazards such as ground motion amplification, landslide, and liquefaction; and the use of performance-based design concepts, which enable the engineer to better estimate building capacity and seismic loading demand and to design buildings for enhanced performance (beyond that typically provided by current seismic codes). The implementation of risk reduction strategies by building owners and managers is critically important, not only for reducing the likelihood of life loss and injury, but also for reducing the potential for losses associated with earthquake damage repair and business interruption. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has commissioned and funded the development of this document to facilitate the process of educating building owners and managers about seismic risk management tools that can be effectively and economically employed by them during the building development phase - from site selection through design and construction - as well as the operational phase. The objectives of this report are fourfold: (1) to summarize, in a qualitative fashion, important new concepts in performance-based seismic design and new knowledge about the seismic hazard facing the United States (in a way that can be easily communicated to building owners and managers); (2) to describe a variety of concepts for reducing seismic risk, including the means to reduce economic losses that are not related to engineering solutions; (3) to provide illustrative examples and graphical tools that can be used by the design community to more effectively "sell" concepts of seismic risk management and building performance improvements; and (4) to establish a means by which seismic engineering and financial risk management can be integrated to form a holistic seismic risk management plan. The overarching goal of the document is to provide a means to facilitate communications between building owners/managers and design professionals on the important issues affecting seismic risk decision making during the design and construction of new facilities, as well as the operational phase. Stated another way, this report may be considered as a framework for integrating seismic risk management into already well-established project planning, design, and construction processes used by most owners and designers.

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.

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."

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

This guide is intended to promote the effectiveness of FEMA incident operations by standardizing the incident action planning process. The guide explains the ICS incident action planning process, describes how FEMA applies it on all FEMA incidents, defines the specific roles and responsibilities of the various players, and establishes standards for incident action planning on FEMA incidents. This guide also communicates to FEMA's partners the details of how the agency conducts the incident action planning process. This guide is also intended to serve as a reference for incident personnel and to provide the basis for FEMA incident action planning staffing and exercising. Finally, this guide informs the required training, position task books, and development of courses for the positions of the FEMA Qualification System. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) primary mission is to reduce the loss of life and property and protect the Nation from all hazards. When FEMA becomes involved in an incident, it is because the scope and scale of the incident necessitates Federal assistance. When FEMA is engaged, officials from the State and local government are also involved along with nongovernmental organizations (NG0s), elements of the private sector, and-more than likely-other Federal departments and agencies. Ensuring that the efforts of all players are coordinated and synchronized to achieve the best results is the job of incident management. It is also the reason that the National Incident Management System and the Incident Command System (ICS) exist. The incident action planning process provides a tool to synchronize operations at the incident level and ensures that incident operations are conducted in support of incident objectives. The iterative incident action planning process provides FEMA and all interagency partners involved in incident management operations the primary tool for managing incidents. A disciplined system of planning phases and collaboration sessions fosters partnerships and clearly focuses incident operations. Because incidents in which FEMA is engaged are complex and intergovernmental and interagency, applying the incident action planning process accurately, consistently, and completely is essential to the success of incident operations. Disciplined application of the incident action planning process produces positive effects on incidents of all size and scope and maintains the otherwise perishable planning skills of FEMA personnel. While the process described in this guide outlines how FEMA as a part of the whole community executes incident action planning, those involved in a FEMA response and recovery must recognize that it will, in all probability, not be the only incident action planning process being executed. For example, local and municipal organizations may develop IAPs to guide the actions of first responders. For a catastrophic incident there may be hundreds of concurrent incident action planning efforts taking place simultaneously. The joint IAP that State and Federal incident management personnel develop must support all local IAPs and synchronize those at the State and Federal level.

FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is a powerful resource in the combined effort by Federal, State, and local government, as well as private industry and homeowners, to end the cycle of repetitive disaster damage. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act was passed on November 23, 1988, amending Public Law 93-288, the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. The Stafford Act included Section 404, which established the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. In 1993, the Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Act amended Section 404 to increase the amount of HMGP funds available and the cost-share to 75 percent Federal. This amendment also encouraged the use of property acquisition and other non-structural flood mitigation measures. In an effort to streamline HMGP delivery, FEMA encourages States to develop their mitigation programs before disaster strikes. States are adopting a more active HMGP management role. Increased capabilities may include: Conducting comprehensive all-hazard mitigation planning prior to disaster events; Providing applicants technical assistance on sound mitigation techniques and hazard mitigation policy and procedures; Coordinating mitigation programs through interagency teams or councils. Conducting benefit-cost analyses; and Preparing National Environmental Policy Act reviews for FEMA approval. States that integrate the HMGP with their frequently updated State Administrative and Hazard Mitigation Plans will create cohesive and effective approaches to loss reduction. This type of coordinated approach minimizes the distinction between "predisaster" and "post-disaster" time periods, and instead produces an ongoing mitigation effort. Hazard mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards and their effects. A key purpose of the HMGP is to ensure that the opportunity to take critical mitigation measures to protect life and property from future disasters is not lost during the recovery and reconstruction process following a disaster. Program grant funds available under Section 404 of the Stafford Act provide States with the incentive and capability to implement mitigation measures that previously may have been infeasible. The purpose of this Desk Reference is to: Provide comprehensive information about FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP); Increase awareness of the HMGP as an integral part of statewide hazard mitigation efforts; and Encourage deeper commitments and increased responsibilities on the part of all States and communities to reduce damage and losses from natural disasters. This Desk Reference is organized to simplify program information and assist the reader with practical guidance for successful participation in the program. Lists of program-related acronyms and definitions are included, along with appendices that amplify selected aspects of the HMGP. This Desk Reference is organized into 14 sections, each of which presents a major HMGP subject area. In each section, information is presented on the right side of the page. In several sections, job aids containing supplemental material are provided. The job aids for each section can be found at the end of the section. At the front of each section, there is a detailed table of contents to help you locate specific information.

In 1985, Congress directed the Department of Defense (DoD) to dispose of its lethal unitary (pre-mixed) chemical agents and munitions while providing "maximum protection for the environment, the general public, and the personnel involved." In 1987, the U.S. Army (Army) released a draft Emergency Response Concept Plan (ERCP), which presented a basis for the development of local emergency response programs and examined various methods of emergency planning. The Army also prepared a Chemical Stockpile Disposal Implementation Plan and requested funds to implement enhanced emergency preparedness on-post and off-post for all eight chemical stockpile sites. FEMA joined the Army in implementing CSEPP through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in August 1988. This MOU was reaffirmed in 1993 and revised in 1997 and 2004. CSEPP is a project conducted under the chemical demilitarization program, a major defense acquisition program executed by the U.S. Army. CSEPP augments the Army's installation chemical accident and incident response capability. The Army is responsible for programming and budgeting validated CSEPP requirements as developed by the State and local governments and validated by FEMA. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Eliminating Chemical Weapons (DASA ECW]) is responsible for overseeing the CSEPP execution, to include coordination with Congress, FEMA, and the Citizen Advisory Commissions. The Chemical Materials Agency executes the day-to-day management of CSEPP, to include upgrading on-post response capabilities; developing on-post preparedness plans; conducting on-post training; automation; and integrating on- and off-post capabilities. FEMA is responsible for off-post emergency preparedness and works with the States and local governments in the development of preparedness plans, conducting necessary training, administering cooperative agreements, and upgrading response capabilities. Off-post efforts include command and control, public awareness of protective actions, communication, and alert notification systems (e.g., computer hardware and software, telephone and radio upgrades, sirens, and tone alert radios). FEMA assists the States and local governments in planning and validating their CSEPP requirements and distributes funds to the States under cooperative agreements. The States and local governments execute plans to protect the public and provide financial and performance reports, addressing the capability improvements realized through those funds. While the likelihood of a chemical stockpile incident with off-post consequences is considered remote, the Army and FEMA recognize that the impact of such an event could be significant. CSEPP Strategic Plan states the basic goal of CSEPP is "to mitigate the effects of an accident to the maximum extent practicable." Thus, CSEPP has two basic objectives: 1. To establish and enhance emergency preparedness in nearby communities, including community alert and warning systems and protective action strategies. 2. To institute protective measures and hazard mitigation strategies at the chemical stockpile sites (the Army installations) to lessen the vulnerability of the storage structures and their contents to any internally or externally generated accidents.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the Federal agency responsible for supporting 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. Environmental stewardship and historic preservation support emergency management goals and aid to prevent or minimize the impacts of these emergency situations/events. Protection and stewardship of the Nation's natural resources, landscapes, and cultural sites provides increased protection from disasters to communities throughout the country. The Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) Strategic Plan 2009-2013 is the result of an extensive planning process led by the Office of Environmental Planning & Historic Preservation (OEHP). This process included several rounds of vetting and writing in order to ensure maximum stakeholder input and buy-in. The direction and impetus for the plan began at the Regional Environmental Officers (REO) meeting in November 2007. In April 2008, a Steering Committee helped identify five-year goals and objectives. In June 2008, a large number of internal Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) stakeholders came together to validate the draft goals and objectives, develop supporting strategies, and sketch the plan's framework. The Steering Committee then edited this draft, and developed implementation plans to support the objectives and priority strategies. The plan has been vetted by FEMA program offices and the EHP Advisory Committee (EHPAC). The EHP Strategic Plan was approved on June 3, 2010. The major themes that have significantly shaped FEMA's EHP Strategic Plan for 2009-2013 include: increased EHP capabilities both internal and external to FEMA; efficiencies gained through cross-program integration of EHP functions, technology, and processes; and increased EHP awareness that leads to better partnerships and action. The following goals and objectives represent the culmination of this work: Goal 1: Build Sustainable Capabilities OBJECTIVE 1.1: Strengthen EHP Human Capital. OBJECTIVE 1.2: Develop an investment and funding support strategy to meet FEMA's EHP compliance goals and program metrics. Goal 2: Strengthen Operational Effectiveness OBJECTIVE 2.1: Simplify, standardize and improve the EHP compliance process across all programs; OBJECTIVE 2.2: Integrate EHP requirements into program goals, development, implementation and performance; OBJECTIVE 2.3: Leverage technology in the EHP compliance process; OBJECTIVE 2.4: Evaluate the reliability, consistency, cost effectiveness, and timeliness of EHP's compliance process. Goal 3: Strengthen Partnerships OBJECTIVE 3.1: Increase awareness of the value of the EHP compliance process across FEMA programs and among stakeholders, in order to foster a sense of ownership of and responsibility for EHP compliance. OBJECTIVE 3.2: Improve coordination with Resource Agencies; OBJECTIVE 3.3: Develop and implement EHP partnering opportunities to advance the FEMA mission. The EHP Strategic Plan lays out a path for a robust EHP program that strengthens FEMA's programs and protects FEMA's investments.

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

A fundamental principle of the Public Assistance (PA) Program is that it will operate much more effectively for all participants when everyone shares a common understanding of the program benefits, expectations, and procedures. To support this idea, FEMA has undertaken an effort to provide the State, Tribal, and local partners with more and better information about the PA Program. Through the Internet, newly published materials, training opportunities, and the production of a standard Applicant's Briefing package, FEMA wants to ensure that all participants have the tools to do their part in obtaining and administering public assistance funding. As part of this effort, FEMA has produced this digest of PA Program policies. The Public Assistance Policy Digest is intended to be an easy-to read, easy-to use, brief summary of the basic policies that govern the PA Program. While the digest is primarily intended for those unfamiliar with the terms and provisions of the program, it also may serve as a reference for those with more knowledge of the program. Because this policy digest is not exhaustive, either in topics or in detail, information should be verified with FEMA PA Program officials before becoming the basis for decision making.

Nearly 1.7 million fires in the United States during 2002 claimed 3,380 lives, injured 18,425 people, and destroyed over $10 billion in property. Incendiary and suspicious acts (including arson), cooking and carelessness with open flames are the leading causes of fires. These causes have a common thread: human activity and human error. As such, most of these fires were likely preventable. Many activities that influence fire incidence change with the season of the year. In the winter, the need for heating increases. Hot, dry weather affects wildland areas and creates fire prone situations. Warm weather tends to bring people and their behaviors outdoors. Behaviors also change as people participate in various holiday customs and traditions. At some holidays, decorations in the home increase the load of combustible material. The use of candles and extra electric lighting may be used to celebrate other events. Fireworks are part of Fourth of July and other celebrations. As part of seasonal celebrations, people may prepare and cook elaborate meals. People also travel more, leaving some homes unoccupied while other homes increase in occupancy. Any of these behaviors can affect both the incidence and the severity of fires. By understanding the nature and scope of seasonal fires, public education and other fire related programs can be specifically targeted at these seasonal fire problems. This report first explores fire patterns by each season of the year; both the changes in incidence and the causes of fire are discussed. The report then focuses on the changes in fire profiles around four seasonal holidays: Independence Day, Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. These holidays were chosen because of their striking changes in fire patterns.