Preparedness is the shared responsibility of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and individual citizens. Individuals and households are at the core of our Nation's preparedness. A community's ability to respond to or recover from a disaster depends on the level of preparedness of every member. However, a 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey found that 29 percent of Americans have not prepared because they think that emergency responders will help them and that over 60 percent expect to rely on emergency responders in the first 72 hours following a disaster. The reality is that in a complex disaster, first responders and emergency workers may not be able to reach everyone right away. In addition, providers may not be able to restore critical services, such as power, immediately. The purpose of this initiative is to promote personal and community preparedness through engaging activities for individuals, neighbors, or households. These activities are a set of building blocks. You can mix and match the activities based on the needs of your target audience or time available. Most activities can be completed during a 15-minute to 60-minute session. You should adapt the materials to include critical local information, such as information on local hazards, local alerts and warnings, and local community response resources and protocols. Remember, preparedness does not have to be complex or overly time consuming. Rather, it should motivate, empower, and engage the whole community.

Fire departments in the United States responded to nearly 1.6 million fire calls in 2007. The United States fire problem, on a per capita basis, is one of the worst in the industrial world. Thousands of Americans die each year, tens of thousands of people are injured, and property losses reach billions of dollars. There are huge indirect costs of fire as well-temporary lodging, lost business, medical expenses, psychological damage, and others. These indirect costs may be as much as 8- to 10-times higher than the direct costs of fire. To put this in context, the annual losses from floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and other natural disasters combined in the United States average just a fraction of those from fires. The public, the media, and local governments generally are unaware of the magnitude and seriousness of the fire problem to individuals and their families, to communities, and to the Nation. The National Fire Data Center (NFDC) of the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) periodically publishes Fire in the United States, a statistical overview of the fires in the United States with the focus on the latest year in which data were available at the time of preparation. This report is designed to equip the fire service and others with information that motivates corrective action, sets priorities, targets specific fire programs, serves as a model for State and local analyses of fire data, and provides a baseline for evaluating programs. This Fifteenth Edition covers the 5-year period of 2003 to 2007 with a primary focus on 2007. Only native National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) 5.0 data are used for NFIRS-based analyses. In 2007, the native NFIRS 5.0 data account for 98 percent of the fire incident data. The report addresses the overall national fire problem.

Past storms such as Hurricanes Andrew, Hugo, Charley, Katrina, and Rita, and recent events such as Hurricane Ike continue to show the vulnerability of our built environment. While good design and construction cannot totally eliminate risk, every storm has shown that sound design and construction can significantly reduce the risk to life and damage to property. With that in mind, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed this manual to help the community of homebuilders, contractors, and local engineering professionals in rebuilding homes destroyed by hurricanes, and designing and building safer and less vulnerable new homes. The intent of the manual is to provide homebuilders, contractors, and engineering professionals with a series of recommended foundation designs that will help create safer and stronger buildings in coastal areas. The designs are intended to help support rebuilding efforts after coastal areas have been damaged by floods, high winds, or other natural hazards. The foundations may differ somewhat from traditional construction techniques; however, they represent what are considered to be some of the better approaches to constructing strong and safe foundations in hazardous coastal areas. The objectives used to guide the development of this manual are: To provide residential foundation designs that will require minimal engineering oversight; To provide foundation designs that are flexible enough to accommodate many of the homes identified in A Pattern Book for Gulf Coast Neighborhoods prepared for the Mississippi Governor's Rebuilding Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding, and Renewal; To utilize model layouts so that many homes can be constructed without significant additional engineering efforts. The focus of this document is on the foundations of residential buildings. The assumption is that those who are designing and building new homes will be responsible for ensuring that the building itself is designed according to the latest building code (International Building Code(r), International Residential Code(r), and FEMA guidance) and any local requirements. The user of this manual is directed to other publications that also address disaster-resistant construction. Although the foundation designs are geared to the coastal environment subject to storm surge, waves, floating debris, and high winds, several are suitable for supporting homes on sites protected by levees and floodwalls or in riverine areas subjected to high-velocity flows. Design professionals can be contacted to ensure the foundation designs provided in this manual are suitable for specific sites. This edition of FEMA 550 introduces the Case H foundation, which is an open/deep foundation developed for use in coastal high hazard areas (V zones). It is also appropriate to use the Case H foundation in Coastal A and non-coastal A zones. Case H foundations incorporate elevated reinforced concrete beams that provide three important benefits. One, the elevated beams work in conjunction with the reinforced concrete columns and grade beams to produce a structural frame that is more efficient at resisting lateral loads than the grade beams and cantilevered columns used in other FEMA 550 open foundations. The increased efficiency allows foundations to be constructed with smaller columns that are less exposed to flood forces. The second benefit is that the elevated reinforced concrete beams provide a continuous foundation that can support many homes constructed to prescriptive designs from codes and standards such as the IRC, the American Forest and Paper Association's Wood Frame Construction Manual for One- and Two-Family Dwellings (WFCM), and the International Code Council's Standard for Residential Construction in High Wind Regions (ICC-600). The third benefit that Case H foundations provide is the ability to support relatively narrow homes. It is anticipated that Case H foundations can be used for several styles of modular ho

This guide was developed to fulfill several different objectives and address a wide audience with varying needs. The primary intent is to explain the sources of nonstructural earthquake damage in simple terms and to provide information on effective methods of reducing the potential risks. The recommendations contained in this guide are intended to reduce the potential hazards but cannot completely eliminate them. The primary focus of this guide is to help the reader understand which nonstructural items are most vulnerable in an earthquake and most likely to cause personal injury, costly property damage, or loss of function if they are damaged. In addition, this guide contains recommendations on how to implement cost effective measures that can help to reduce the potential hazards. This guide is intended primarily for use by a lay Audience building owners, facilities managers, maintenance personnel, store or office managers, corporate/agency department heads, business proprietors, homeowners, etc. Some readers may be small-business owners with a small number of potential problems that could be addressed in a few days' time by having at handyman install some of the generic details presented in this guide. Other readers may be responsible for hundreds of facilities and may need a survey methodology to help them understand the magnitude of their potential problems.

Early on the morning of 4th September 2010, a series of seismic events began to unfold in Christchurch, New Zealand. They would eventually take 185 lives and directly affect hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. This book is a compilation of stories from some of these people. Preschoolers, teenagers, families, and retirees tell of the impact of the ongoing earthquakes and aftershocks, the emotional and physical toll they exacted, and their hope for a new Christchurch. They reflect the incredible resilience the people of Canterbury have shown throughout this devastating time. Some of the stories are poignant, some humorous, some shocking and some sad. All of them are from the heart and deserve to be heard. Magnitude 7.1 & 6.3 was put together by Debbie Roome who is an award-winning novelist and freelance writer with 25 years experience.

Earthquakes represent an enormous threat to the Nation. Although damaging earthquakes occur infrequently, their consequences can be staggering. As recent earthquakes around the world have demonstrated, high population densities and development pressures, particularly in urban areas, are increasingly vulnerable. Unacceptably high loss of life and enormous economic consequences are associated with recent global earthquakes, and it is only a matter of time before the United States faces a similar experience. Earthquakes cannot be prevented, but their impacts can be managed to a large degree so that loss to life and property can be reduced. To this end, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) seeks to mitigate earthquake losses in the U.S. through both basic and directed research and implementation activities in the fields of earthquake science and engineering. This program is authorized and funded by Congress and is managed as a collaborative effort among the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). These four Federal organizations work in close coordination to improve the Nation's understanding of earthquake hazards and to mitigate their effects. The missions of the four agencies are complementary: FEMA, a component of the Department of Homeland Security, works with states, local governments, and the public to develop tools and improve policies and practices that reduce earthquake losses; NIST enables technology innovation in earthquake engineering by working with industry to remove technical barriers, evaluate advanced technologies, and develop the measurement and prediction tools underpinning performance standards for buildings and lifelines; NSF strives to advance fundamental knowledge in earthquake engineering, earth science processes, and societal preparedness and response to earthquakes; and USGS monitors earthquakes, assesses seismic hazard for the Nation, and researches the basic earth science processes controlling earthquake occurrence and effects. Mindful of the increasing threat posed by earthquakes, NEHRP initiated a review of the scientific goals and strategies of the Program and a discussion of the opportunities and priorities for the five-year interval 2001-2005. This review and discussion culminated in the new strategic plan presented here. Shaping the plan are four goals that represent the continuum of activities in the Program, ranging from research and development to application and implementation. These four goals are as follows: A. Develop effective practices and policies for earthquake loss-reduction and accelerate their implementation. B. Improve techniques to reduce seismic vulnerability of facilities and systems. C. Improve seismic hazard identification and risk assessment methods and their use. D. Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.

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.

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.

Although earthquakes are an inevitable hazard, they are not inevitable disasters. Experiences in recent years have shown consistently that lifelines properly designed to resist earthquakes perform well in spite of severe earthquakes; those not so designed are subject to failure. Assessments of earthquake hazards indicate that one or more severe earthquakes can be expected to strike U.S. metropolitan areas in the next decade. Until actions are taken to improve the design and construction of lifelines, failures can be expected to result in substantial losses--estimated at billions of dollars and many lives for a single severe earthquake. The plan described in this document defines a process that, if activated, will begin the development of seismic design guidelines and standards for both new and existing lifelines. Lifelines are the public works and utility systems that support most human activities: individual, family, economic, political, and cultural. The various lifelines can be classified under the following five systems: electric power, gas and liquid fuels, telecommunications, transportation, and water supply and sewers. This plan for developing and adopting seismic design and construction guidelines and standards for lifelines has been prepared in response to Public Law 101-614, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Reauthorization Act. The act requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to develop "a plan, including precise timetables and budget estimates, for developing and adopting, in consultation with appropriate private sector organizations, design and construction standards for lifelines" and "recommendations of ways Federal regulatory authority could be used to expedite the implementation of such standards." The Plan focuses on developing recommendations, encouraging and supporting the approval of these recommendations by the standards and professional organizations serving the lifeline community, and working with the lifeline community to achieve their effective implementation. Design guidelines lay out a set of principles, which for lifelines may include performance criteria, materials characteristics, and testing procedures for design, construction, maintenance, repair, and retrofitting of both existing and proposed systems. Guidelines provide a basis for making judgments or determining a course of action; they may evolve into recommendations for standards. A standard, according to the National Standards Policy Advisory Committee, is "a prescribed set of rules, conditions, or requirements concerning definitions of terms; classification of components; specification of materials, performance, or operation; delineation of procedures; or measurement of quantity and quality in describing materials, products, systems, services, or practices." Properly developed and effectively implemented lifeline seismic guidelines and standards will significantly reduce the vulnerability of both existing and proposed lifeline systems to future earthquakes. Guidelines and standards should (1) establish performance criteria for the construction, maintenance, and operation of existing and proposed lifeline systems, equipment, and materials for selected levels of seismic risk; (2) provide a basis for technical specifications for use by buyers and sellers of lifeline products and services to reduce the vulnerability of lifeline systems to earthquakes; and (3) provide a reliable basis for regulations to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

The Survival Kit You Can Carry in Your Pocket
If you've never been in the military, you're probably unfamiliar with the concept of the survival tin. Designed to fit in your pocket, it's a mini-survival kit packed full of important survival tools that you carry with you everywhere you go.
This book covers the items you're going to want to put in your tin, along with a number of optional items that might make life a whole lot easier if disaster strikes while you're out and about.
Carrying a survival tin will drastically up your chances of survival if you're caught outside your home when disaster strikes.
Buy this book now and get started building your very own survival tin.

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

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

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

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

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.