In 2010, the Incident Emergency Medical Subcommittee (IEMS), operating under the authority of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) - Risk Management Committee, completed the document, Interim Minimum Standards for Medical Units Managed By NWCG Member Agencies. The document was the first of several to be developed that will address the need for uniform standards and safe delivery of medical care provided by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel at wildland fire. It focused on recognizing current practices and recommending standards to medical units for; promoting the use of licensed personnel within their scope of practice, state EMS office notification, applicable rules and jurisdictions, medical direction, communications, patient transportation and medical equipment, medication and supplies used. The IEMS also committed to developing wildland fire specific protocols and this document, Clinical Treatment Guidelines for Wildland Fire Medical Units, PMS 551, is the finished product. A task group of physicians with diverse backgrounds in wildland fire medicine, wilderness medicine and emergency/ clinical backgrounds reviewed this document and provided valuable input. These guidelines where developed with the expectation that the typical appropriate Basic Life Support (BLS) or Advanced Life Support (ALS) EMS interventions will be provided as needed so we did not include detailed protocols for EMS medical or trauma patient care, which already exists. Rather, we focused on guidance for the unique differences and challenges associated with remote sites and expanded evaluation skills needed for patient care issues such as: 1) assisting a patient with first aid and self-care health management; 2) triaging conditions for recognition of appropriate self-care assistance vs. need for transport to clinical medical care; and 3) initiating urgent/EMS care using appropriate and predetermined transport modes.

The Agency Administrator's Guide to Critical Incident Management is designed to assist Agency Administrators in dealing with critical incidents. A critical incident may be defined as a fatality or other event that can have serious long-term adverse effects on the agency, its employees and their families or the community. Although fire incidents inspired this document, it also has application to other types of incidents. The Agency Administrator is the highest-ranking agency line officer with direct responsibility for the personnel involved in the incident (for example, BLM District Manager, Park Superintendent, Forest Supervisor, Refuge Manager, BIA Agency Superintendent or State land manager). Through effective, efficient, and timely leadership, Agency Administrators are responsible for the overall management of critical incidents within their jurisdiction. This document includes a series of checklists to guide an Agency Administrator through those difficult and chaotic days that follow a death, serious injury, or other critical or highly visible event. The time to use it is now This document needs to be reviewed and updated at least annually. The availability of Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM) teams and related resources varies constantly - it is imperative that local units pre-identify in this plan the CISM resources that can support local unit needs. This guide was designed as a working tool to assist Agency Administrators with the chronological steps in managing the incident. It also provides a detailed overview of Agency Administrators' responsibilities before a critical incident occurs, during the actual management of the incident, and after the incident activity has taken place. It is not intended to take the place of local emergency plans or other detailed guidance. It should be used in conjunction with other references as well as the attached appendixes. This guide can also be used as a worksheet (both in preparation for and in management of a critical incident) by Agency Administrators and others with oversight responsibilities during a critical incident.

In the summer of 2004, the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) launched its most comprehensive and intensive public fire education campaign for elderly Americans. A FIRE SAFETY CAMPAIGN FOR PEOPLE 50 PLUS provides detailed fire prevention information to assist fire departments and other USFA partners in mitigating the risk of fire fatalities and injuries among the 50 and over population. This report, Fire and the Older Adult, analyzes the fire risk to persons aged 65 and older as a complement to that campaign. The report provides an extensive review of the fire situation for older adults in the United States and evaluates fire risk factors and risks of fire injury and fatality among that population group. On average, more than 1,000 Americans aged 65 years and older die each year in home fires and more than 2,000 are injured. In 2001 alone, 1,250 older adults died as the result of fire incidents. Moreover, the elderly are 2.5 times more likely to die in a residential fire than the rest of the population. With the U.S. Census Bureau predicting that increases in the senior population will continue to outpace increases in the overall population, the elderly fire problem will undoubtedly grow in importance. After offering an overview of the U.S. demographics of the 65 and older population, this report discusses how physical, emotional, social, economic, and residential factors have unique impacts on seniors.

Wildfires, floods, hazardous material spills, hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes- emergencies can strike anytime, anywhere. In fact, the number of annual federal disaster declarations has more than doubled over the past few decades. All juvenile justice residential facilities need plans to prepare for, respond to, and recover from these emergencies so that the essential services they provide can become operational again as soon as possible after an emergency strikes. Emergency planning for these facilities takes on even greater significance because children are often the most vulnerable population in disasters, and protecting them from physical harm and trauma is essential. Emergency Planning for Juvenile Justice Residential Facilities provides information about how facilities can ensure that youth receive the supports and services they require as they experience the disruptions that emergencies inevitably cause. This document emphasizes the importance of ongoing communication and collaboration with community partners in the emergency planning process. In addition, facilities are encouraged to prepare for all emergencies that may affect their geographical area-for everything from a fire in a building to a major flood, earthquake, or hurricane that impacts the surrounding region. The emergency management cycle encompasses four interdependent phases: prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Prevention/mitigation measures create a safer environment and facilitate recovery from later emergencies by reducing the risk of serious damage. Preparedness in the form of drills and exercises helps ensure an effective and efficient emergency response. During the recovery phase, careful assessments of what worked and what did not contribute to improved preparedness for subsequent emergencies. All phases are vital elements in the emergency management cycle. This publication provides key principles and recommendations, but it is not overly prescriptive. Emergency planners inevitably will need to adapt these guidelines to the particular requirements of their facilities. This document is targeted to state, county, and local juvenile justice authorities charged with the custodial care and supervision of youth in the juvenile justice system, with particular focus on those authorities who oversee residential treatment and correctional and detention facilities that house juveniles via court-ordered placements. The principles outlined in this document may also apply to emergency planning for youth in out-of-home placement. Through its step-by-step guidance in the planning process, Emergency Planning for Juvenile Justice Residential Facilities will help ensure the efficient continuation of operations during an emergency, the reduction of risk to the physical plant, and, most importantly, the safety and well-being of youth and staff in our nation's juvenile justice residential facilities.

Earthquakes are potentially the most destructive of all natural disasters in both loss of life and property damage. Casualties and structural damage result from intense ground shaking and such secondary effects as fires, landslides, ground subsidence, and flooding from dam collapse or tsunamis. While earthquakes in the United States are commonly associated with the West Coast, particularly California, 39 states altogether face some degree of seismic risk. Seventy million people and at least nine metropolitan areas are susceptible to severe earthquakes. Nevertheless, California has been the focal point of most earthquake studies due to its high frequency of events (two thirds of all earthquakes have occurred in California), large population and extensive property development. But the high frequency of earthquakes alone does not warrant the amount of official and scientific attention these events have received. It is the rare and devastating earthquake such as the 1906 San Francisco quake and the 1964 Alaska event, both of which measured more than 8 on the Richter Scale. Earthquakes of this magnitude could be expected in the United States, and most likely in California, every 60 to 100 years and less severe but major earthquakes every 15 to 20 years (Anderson, et al., 1981). The area currently believed to be at greatest risk of a massive earthquake is the Los Angeles-San Bernardino region. An event which could exceed 8 on the Richter Scale has an estimated annual probability of occurrence of 2 to 5 percent and its likelihood of occurrence in the next 20 to 30 years is regarded as -high." This earthquake could kill and injure between 15,000 and 69,000 persons (depending upon time of occurrence) and cause up to $17 billion in property damage (NSC/FEMA, 1980). Some studies have placed the property damage estimates as high as $50 billion (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1969). This report grew out of the City of Los Angeles Planning Partnership for which the Southern California Earthquake Preparedness Project (SCEPP) was asked to research and report on several issues pertaining to earthquake insurance. In the course of this research, it became obvious to both SCEPP and SCEPP's Policy Advisory Board that earthquake insurance and its role in the recovery process was a major policy issue. Thus, the research effort was expanded to incorporate broader issues and circulation of the report beyond the Los Angeles Planning Partnership. The report has five goals which correspond to its organization: (1) to outline the provisions (coverages, rates, deductibles, etc.) of earthquake insurance policies currently available to the major classes of insurance consumers-homeowners, businesses, local governments and special districts; (2) to determine the extent to which earthquake insurance is purchased by these parties and explore the circumstances surrounding purchase or non-purchase; (3) to review the salient issues in earthquake insurance from the standpoints of purchasers and providers; (4) to explore potential Federal roles in resolving these issues and in providing or promoting earthquake insurance; and finally, (5) to make reasonable policy recommendations involving both the Federal Government and other stakeholders in earthquake insurance toward a more adequate system of coverage.

Prepping A to Z The Series of Prepping Books About How to Be More Prepared and Live A More Self-Reliant Lifestyle

The first book on the Bhopal disaster, written on site a few weeks after the accident. "The people knew right away the source of the poisonous air, although it was incredible and shocking. Thousands had fled their homes a few months before upon the occasion of a small discharge of gas and an associated rumor of disaster. Now they choked and screamed at one another to rise and flee, aiding each other when they could, the choking and gagging leading the fully blinded. Some stepped out of their huts at the first whiffs, strangling, and were too blinded to turn back in, were swept in the gathering human torrent and often never saw their families, neighbors and friends again..." "A moving account of a shattering experience." - Arun Gandhi "Rightly, Al de Grazia highlights the important role of a Free Press. The Press has had to battle secrecy and suppression to expose the full extent of the Bhopal tragedy. Conitnuing now to assail the shocking failures of managers and officials in India and the USA, we must demand the reform of the irresponsible liaison between governments and multinational corporations." - S. B. Kolpe

The original Earthquakes -A Teacher's Package for K-6 (FEMA 159) was developed as a joint effort of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) under contract with FEMA. NSTA's project team produced an excellent product. Since its publication in 1988, over 50,000 teachers have requested copies. This revised version brought members of the original project team together with a group of teachers who had used the materials extensively in their classroom and served as teacher-educators at FEMA's Tremor Troop workshops. About 75% of the original material remains unchanged: a few activities were removed and a few added. A major change was the addition of assessments throughout the units. The examples we provide relate to life outside the classroom and/or activities similar to those of scientists. We also added matrices linking activities to the National Science Education Standards. The Teacher's Package has five units. Each of the first four units is divided into three levels: Level 1, for grades K-2; Level 2, for grades 3-4; and Level 3, for grades 5-6. Since classes and individuals vary widely you may often find the procedures in the other levels helpful for your students. The last unit has four parts with activities for students in all grades, K-6. Unit L, Defining an Earthquake, builds on what students already know about earthquakes to establish a working definition of the phenomenon. Legends from near and far encourage children to create their own fanciful explanations, paving the way for the scientific explanations they will begin to learn in this unit. Unit I, Why and Where Earthquakes Occur, presents the modern scientific understanding of the Earth's structure and composition, and relates this to the cause of earthquakes. Unit II, Physical Results of Earthquakes, provides greater understanding of the processes that shape our active Earth. Earthquakes are put in the context of the large- and small-scale changes that are constantly at work on the continents as well as the ocean floor. Unit IV, Measuring Earthquakes, explains earthquakes in terms of wave movement and introduces students to the far-ranging effects of earthquakes. Unit V, Earthquake Safety and Survival, focuses on what to expect during an earthquake; how to cope safely; how to identify earthquake hazards; and how to reduce, eliminate, or avoid them.

This FEMA 154 Report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, is the first of a two-volume publication on a recommended methodology for rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards. The technical basis for the methodology, including the scoring system and its development, are contained in the companion FEMA 155 report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation. The rapid visual screening procedure (RVS) has been developed for a broad audience, including building officials and inspectors, and government agency and private-sector building owners, to identify, inventory, and rank buildings that are potentially seismically hazardous. Although RVS is applicable to all buildings, its principal purpose is to identify (1) older buildings designed and constructed before the adoption of adequate seismic design and detailing requirements, (2) buildings on soft or poor soils, or (3) buildings having performance characteristics that negatively influence their seismic response. Once identified as potentially hazardous, such buildings should be further evaluated by a design professional experienced in seismic design to determine if, in fact, they are seismically hazardous. The RVS uses a methodology based on a "sidewalk survey" of a building and a Data Collection Form, which the person conducting the survey (hereafter referred to as the screener) completes, based on visual observation of the building from the exterior, and if possible, the interior. The Data Collection Form includes space for documenting building identification information, including its use and size, a photograph of the building, sketches, and documentation of pertinent data related to seismic performance, including the development of a numeric seismic hazard score. Once the decision to conduct rapid visual screening for a community or group of buildings has been made by the RVS authority, the screening effort can be expedited by pre-planning, including the training of screeners, and careful overall management of the process. Completion of the Data Collection Form in the field begins with identifying the primary structural lateral-load-resisting system and structural materials of the building. Basic Structural Hazard Scores for various building types are provided on the form, and the screener circles the appropriate one. For many buildings, viewed only from the exterior, this important decision requires the screener to be trained and experienced in building construction. The procedure presented in this Handbook is meant to be the preliminary screening phase of a multi-phase procedure for identifying potentially hazardous buildings. Buildings identified by this procedure must be analyzed in more detail by an experienced seismic design professional. Because rapid visual screening is designed to be performed from the street, with interior inspection not always possible, hazardous details will not always be visible, and seismically hazardous buildings may not be identified as such. Conversely, buildings initially identified as potentially hazardous by RVS may prove to be adequate.

Recent earthquakes around the world show a pattern of steadily increasing damages and losses that are due primarily to two factors: (1) significant growth in earthquake-prone urban areas and (2) vulnerability of the older building stock, including buildings constructed within the past 20 years. In the United States, earthquake risk has grown substantially with development while the earthquake hazard has remained relatively constant. Understanding the hazard requires studying earthquake characteristics and locales in which they occur while understanding the risk requires an assessment of the potential damage to the built environment and to the welfare of people - especially in high risk areas. Estimating the varying degree of earthquake risk throughout the United States is useful for informed decision-making on mitigation policies, priorities, strategies, and funding levels in the public and private sectors. For example, potential losses to new buildings may be reduced by applying seismic design codes and using specialized construction techniques. However, decisions to spend money on either of those solutions require evidence of risk. In the absence of a nationally accepted criterion and methodology for comparing seismic risk across regions, a consensus on optimal mitigation approaches has been difficult to reach. While there is a good understanding of high risk areas such as Los Angeles, there is also growing recognition that other regions such as New York City and Boston have a low earthquake hazard but are still at high risk of significant damage and loss. This high risk level reflects the dense concentrations of buildings and infrastructure in these areas constructed without the benefit of modern seismic design provisions. In addition, mitigation policies and practices may not have been adopted because the earthquake risk was not clearly demonstrated and the value of using mitigation measures in reducing that risk may not have been understood. This study highlights the impacts of both high risk and high exposure on losses caused by earthquakes. It is based on loss estimates generated by HAZUS(r)-MH, a geographic information system (GIS)-based earthquake loss estimation tool developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in cooperation with the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). The HAZUS tool provides a method for quantifying future earthquake losses. It is national in scope, uniform in application, and comprehensive in its coverage of the built environmen

In October 2010, nine months after the massive earthquake that devastated Haiti, a second disaster began to unfold-soon to become the world's largest cholera epidemic in modern times. In a country that had never before reported cholera, the epidemic mysteriously and simultaneously appeared in river communities of central Haiti, eventually triggering nearly 800,000 cases and 9,000 deaths. What had caused the first cases of cholera in Haiti in recorded history? Who or what was the deadly agent of origin? Why did it explode in the agricultural-rich delta of the Artibonite River? When answers were few, rumors spread, causing social and political consequences of their own. Wanting insight, the Haitian government and French embassy requested epidemiological assistance from France. A few weeks into the epidemic, physician and infectious disease specialist Renaud Piarroux arrived in Haiti.In Deadly River, Ralph R. Frerichs tells the story of the epidemic-of a French disease detective determined to trace its origins so that he could help contain the spread and possibly eliminate the disease-and the political intrigue that has made that effort so difficult. The story involves political maneuvering by powerful organizations such as the United Nations and its peacekeeping troops in Haiti, as well as by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Frerichs explores a quest for scientific truth and dissects a scientific disagreement involving world-renowned cholera experts who find themselves embroiled in intellectual and political turmoil in a poverty-stricken country.Frerichs's narrative highlights how the world's wealthy nations, nongovernmental agencies, and international institutions respond when their interests clash with the needs of the world's most vulnerable people. The story poses big social questions and offers insights not only on how to eliminate cholera in Haiti but also how nations, NGOs, and international organizations such as the UN and CDC deal with catastrophic infectious disease epidemics.

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 below) 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 Hydrologic Issues for Dams was held on November 14-15, 2001, in Davis, California. 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. A complete list of workshop facilitators, presenters, and participants is included in the proceedings.

The US Dam Safety community has similar needs and activities to those of the European (EU) Dam Safety community. There has been an emphasis in the EU community on investigation of extreme flood processes and the uncertainties related to these processes. The purpose of this project was to cooperate with the organizations involved in these investigations over a three year period. The purpose of this cooperation was to: 1) coordinate US and EU efforts and collect information necessary to integrate data and knowledge with US activities and interests related to embankment overtopping and failure analysis, 2) Utilize the data obtained by both groups to improve embankment failure analysis methods, and 3) provide dissemination of these activities and their results to the US dam safety community. Dissemination was to be accomplished by: 1) Conducting a special workshop at a professional society meeting involving invited speakers from Europe and the United States. This session was held as a one day workshop at the Annual Conference of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials 2004 Dam Safety. The title of the day long workshop was; "Workshop on International Progress in Dam Breach Evaluation." Ten presentations were included in the workshop (see appendix for manuscripts). 2) A final report integrating EU and US research findings and results related to earthen embankment overtopping failure over the 3-year period would be developing and reporting in the form of a FEMA/USDA document. This report is included in the following pages.

Communities face many challenges following a disaster, including determining where the limited resources for their recovery are to be expended. After the initial "emergency" phase of a disaster response is completed, such as the rescue of those in need, the repair of critical services including water and power, and the restoration of key governmental functions, a community becomes focused on its long-term rebuilding. It is important to understand that there may be multiple funding sources available after a disaster event, but that resources may not be sufficient to undertake all the projects a community may ultimately need for full recovery. A first step for many communities may be to look to existing local comprehensive plans, capital improvement plans, hazard mitigation plans, or other similar documents to identify previously developed project priorities. The process identified in this Recovery Value Tool builds upon those priorities and provides a systematic methodology to evaluate recovery projects for the community. Fundamentally, this tool allows for an evaluation of priorities based upon the impacts of the recent disaster and the physical and community needs that have been caused by the event. Therefore, this process can provide a comprehensive evaluation of the needs, identify the most effective projects for the resources available, and allow for a more holistic combination of resources to accomplish the community's goals. This version of the Long-Term Community Recovery (LTCR) Recovery Value Tool presents a standardized methodology for determining the recovery value of post-disaster reconstruction projects. Prioritizing need, identifying projects to meet the need and determining which projects have the highest recovery value are critical steps to guide a community's long-term recovery from a disaster. The Tool incorporates best practices developed on a number of successful pilot recovery planning initiatives throughout the country. The Tool has been released with expedited review and is intended to meet the immediate needs of the communities impacted by the 2005 hurricane season. It is expected that revisions will be made to this tool as a result of refinement of the Long-Term Community Recovery planning process. The objective of the Recovery Value Tool is to assist in determining a project's value to the long-term recovery of a community from a particular disaster. The Recovery Value Tool will: Define what a Recovery Value is and how it fits into the planning process; Provide an objective assessment of each project's recovery value; Assist in determining implementation priorities; Provide documentation to funding agencies regarding a project's anticipated long-term impact.

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.