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.

This report, FEMA-351 - Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings has been developed by the SAC Joint Venture under contract to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide structural engineers with recommended criteria for evaluation of the probable performance of existing steel moment-frame buildings in future earthquakes and to provide a basis for updating and revision of evaluation and rehabilitation guidelines and standards. It is one of a series of companion publications addressing the issue of the seismic performance of steel moment-frame buildings. The set of companion publications includes: FEMA-350 - Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. This publication provides recommended criteria, supplemental to FEMA-302 - 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, for the design and construction of steel moment-frame buildings and provides alternative performance-based design criteria. FEMA-351 - Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. This publication provides recommended methods to evaluate the probable performance of existing steel moment-frame buildings in future earthquakes and to retrofit these buildings for improved performance. FEMA-352 - Recommended Postearthquake Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. This publication provides recommendations for performing postearthquake inspections to detect damage in steel moment-frame buildings following an earthquake, evaluating the damaged buildings to determine their safety in the postearthquake environment, and repairing damaged buildings. FEMA-353 - Recommended Specifications and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Steel Moment-Frame Construction for Seismic Applications. This publication provides recommended specifications for the fabrication and erection of steel moment frames for seismic applications. The recommended design criteria contained in the other companion documents are based on the material and workmanship standards contained in this document, which also includes discussion of the basis for the quality control and quality assurance criteria contained in the recommended specifications. The information contained in these recommended evaluation and upgrade criteria, hereinafter referred to as Recommended Criteria, is presented in the form of specific recommendations for design and performance evaluation procedures together with supporting commentary explaining part of the basis for these recommendations.

This report, FEMA-350 - Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings has been developed by the SAC Joint Venture under contract to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide organizations engaged in the development of consensus design standards and building code provisions with recommended criteria for the design and construction of new buildings incorporating moment-resisting steel frame construction to resist the effects of earthquakes. It is one of a series of companion publications addressing the issue of the seismic performance of steel moment-frame buildings. The set of companion publications includes: FEMA-350 - Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. This publication provides recommended criteria, supplemental to FEMA-302 - 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, for the design and construction of steel moment-frame buildings and provides alternative performance-based design criteria. FEMA-351 - Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. This publication provides recommended methods to evaluate the probable performance of existing steel moment-frame buildings in future earthquakes and to retrofit these buildings for improved performance. FEMA-352 - Recommended Postearthquake Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. This publication provides recommendations for performing postearthquake inspections to detect damage in steel moment-frame buildings following an earthquake, evaluating the damaged buildings to determine their safety in the postearthquake environment, and repairing damaged buildings. FEMA-353 - Recommended Specifications and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Steel Moment-Frame Construction for Seismic Applications. This publication provides recommended specifications for the fabrication and erection of steel moment frames for seismic applications. The recommended design criteria contained in the other companion documents are based on the material and workmanship standards contained in this document, which also includes discussion of the basis for the quality control and quality assurance criteria contained in the recommended specifications. The information contained in these recommended design criteria, hereinafter referred to as Recommended Criteria, is presented in the form of specific design and performance evaluation procedures together with supporting commentary explaining part of the basis for these recommendations.

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 BCAR report is provided for use by interested BCA users to review and understand the methodology behind the FEMA Damage Frequency Assessment (DFA) Module - previously known as the FEMA Limited Data Module for Benefit-Cost Analysis (LD Module) - and determining unknown frequencies within the LD Module. The methodology report was reviewed by the FEMA BCAR Technical Advisory Group (TAG), and is part of a larger effort to re-engineer the FEMA Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) methods, modules, guidance, and training in order to improve the BCA process.

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 National Response Framework (NRF) presents the guiding principles that enable all response partners to prepare for and provide a unified national response to disasters and emergencies - from the smallest incident to the largest catastrophe. The Framework defines the key principles, roles, and structures that organize the way we respond as a Nation. It describes how communities, tribes, States, the Federal Government, and private-sector and nongovernmental partners apply these principles for a coordinated, effective national response. The National Response Framework is always in effect, and elements can be implemented at any level at any time. This Overview supports and provides additional guidance concerning the Framework. In particular, this document focuses on the essential processes for requesting and receiving Federal assistance and summarizes the key response capabilities and essential support elements provided through the Emergency Support Function (ESF) Annexes and Support Annexes. The Overview includes the following topics: 1) Key Players: Organizations and entities that may either need assistance or provide assistance; 2) Federal Assistance: Descriptions of the processes for requesting and obtaining Federal assistance in support of States, tribes, local jurisdictions, and other Federal partners; 3) Emergency Support Function Annexes: Summaries of the 15 ESF Annexes, which group Federal resources and capabilities into functional areas to serve as the primary mechanisms for providing assistance at the operational level; 4) Support Annexes: Summaries of the 8 Support Annexes, which describe essential supporting aspects that are common to all incidents. The Framework also includes Incident Annexes that address specific categories of contingencies or hazard situations requiring specialized application of Framework mechanisms. The Incident Annexes are not directly addressed or summarized in this support document. Readers should review the Incident Annexes on the NRF Resource Center, http: //www.fema.gov/NRF. Details relating to requesting and receiving assistance, as well as the authorities under which assistance is provided, are available on the NRF Resource Center. Response Partner Guides, information on Stafford Act and non-Stafford Act assistance, all annexes, and a listing of legal authorities are available on this Web site

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.

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.

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.

Pursuant to Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5172), as amended, the City of Cedar Rapids (aka "Sub-Applicant") requested funding through FEMA's Public Assistance Program. FEMA's Public Assistance Program provides supplemental Federal disaster grant assistance to State, Tribal, and local governments, and certain types of Private Nonprofit Voluntary Agencies so that communities can respond to and recover from major disasters or emergencies. The Public Assistance Program has rules whereby eligible Sub-Applicants may choose to use eligible, though capped, recovery funds for alternate or improved projects that may be more beneficial to the Sub-Applicant than what existed prior to the disaster event. Cedar River floodwaters completely inundated and severely damaged the Animal Control Shelter at 1401 Cedar Bend Lane SW in Cedar Rapids. The functional use of the 31.10 acres, 5,010 square foot facility was compromised and the facility was permanently closed. The facility, circa 1961, is owned and maintained by the Sub-Applicant, City of Cedar Rapids (GPN: 15322-26001-00000). The original facility function was waste water treatment until converted for animal care and control. Animal Control Shelter consists of four (4) structures: Main Building (GPS: 41.96199, -91.57838), Kennel Building (GPS: 41.96170, -91.57796), Cat Building (GPS: 41.96181, -91.57802), and West (aka Quarantine) Building (GPS: 41.96186, -91.57893). Main, Cat, and West buildings were eligible and approved for permanent relocation by FEMA. Presently a temporary animal shelter is operated at 2109 North Towne Lane NE in Cedar Rapids. Animal Control Shelter annually cares, controls, and houses 3,000 animals from the cities of Cedar Rapids and Marion. Temporary shelter is located in an 8,676 square foot industrial warehouse facility (1.33 acres lot) in a commercial zone. This facility will be utilized until the permanent shelter is constructed. The purpose of the improved project is to assist the citizens of Cedar Rapids and Linn County toward their recovery and return to normalcy from the 2008 flooding. FEMA's Public Assistance Program will contribute eligible funding toward demolishing and debris removal of the original damaged facility and constructing a new Animal Control Shelter to restore and improve the pre-disaster animal care and control facility functions. Proposed site for the new Animal Control Shelter is on a vacant parcel (2.5 acres) located on the Kirkwood Community College (KCC) campus in Cedar Rapids. KCC site (GPS: 41.90611, -91.64722) is located on an unnamed road between 76th Avenue Drive SW to the south and Tower Road SW to the north. The site is adjacent to Washington Hall to the west, Mansfield Swine Education Center to the south, two waste water lagoons to the east, and vacant / open agricultural lands to the east of proposed site. The proposed improved project designs all facilities into one (1) building and increases the original facility footprint from 5,010 square feet to 16,000 square feet (13,800 square feet of usable space) and would integrate learning opportunities for KCC students with the addition of new classroom space for campus use. Animal Control Shelter is not a critical facility by definition; however it does serve a vital community service for short-term and long-term animal care and control. Presently the original facility does not meet minimum flood protection levels to fulfill community needs during flooding events. The need is to relocate and replace facilities, equipment, and functions to a new site outside of the 100-year floodplain in order to restore local animal care and control functions to reduce the facility susceptibility from repetitive flood damage and ensure animal safety and welfare. If Animal Control Shelter is not relocated to a new permanent site, the long-term ability to shelter and care for wayward animals would be jeopardized.

One of the activities authorized by the Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002 is research to enhance the Nation's ability to assure that adequate dam safety programs and practices are in place throughout the United States. The Act of 2002 states that the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in cooperation with the National Dam Safety Review Board (Review Board), shall carry out a program of technical and archival research to develop and support: improved techniques, historical experience, and equipment for rapid and effective dam construction, rehabilitation, and inspection; devices for continued monitoring of the safety of dams; development and maintenance of information resources systems needed to support managing the safety of dams; and initiatives to guide the formulation of effective policy and advance improvements in dam safety engineering, security, and management. With the funding authorized by the Congress, the goal of the Review Board and the Dam Safety Research Work Group (Work Group) is to encourage research in those areas expected to make significant contributions to improving the safety and security of dams throughout the United States. The Work Group (formerly the Research Subcommittee of the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety) met initially in February 1998. To identify and prioritize research needs, the Subcommittee sponsored a workshop on Research Needs in Dam Safety in Washington D.C. in April 1999. Representatives of state and federal agencies, academia, and private industry attended the workshop. Seventeen broad area topics related to the research needs of the dam safety community were identified. To more fully develop the research needs identified, the Research Subcommittee subsequently sponsored a series of nine workshops. Each workshop addressed a broad research topic (listed) identified in the initial workshop. Experts attending the workshops included international representatives as well as representatives of state, federal, and private organizations within the United States: Impacts of Plants and Animals on Earthen Dams; Risk Assessment for Dams; Spillway Gates; Seepage through Embankment Dams; Embankment Dam Failure Analysis; Hydrologic Issues for Dams; Dam Spillways; Seismic Issues for Dams; Dam Outlet Works. Based on the research workshops, research topics have been proposed and pursued. Several topics have progressed to products of use to the dam safety community, such as technical manuals and guidelines. For future research, it is the goal of the Work Group to expand dam safety research to other institutions and professionals performing research in this field. The proceedings from the research workshops present a comprehensive and detailed discussion and analysis of the research topics addressed by the experts participating in the workshops. The participants at all of the research workshops are to be commended for their diligent and highly professional efforts on behalf of the National Dam Safety Program. The National Dam Safety Program research needs workshop on Dam Spillways was held on August 26-27, 2003, in Denver, Colorado. The Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, would like to acknowledge the contributions of the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation in organizing the workshop and developing these workshop proceedings.

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.

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.

The Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed a series of "how-to" guides for the purpose of assisting Tribes, States, and local governments in developing effective hazard mitigation planning processes. The material presented in these guides is intended to address the needs of both large and small communities with varying degrees of technical expertise and financial resources. The topic area for this guide is "Multi-Jurisdictional Approaches to Hazard Mitigation Planning" (FEMA 386-8). This guide provides suggestions to local governments in preparing multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plans that meet the DMA 2000 planning requirements. Other guides that have been developed by FEMA as part of the "how-to" series include: Getting started with the mitigation planning process, including important considerations for how you can organize your efforts to develop an effective mitigation plan (FEMA 386-1); Identifying hazards and assessing losses to your community, State, or Tribe (FEMA 386-2); Setting mitigation priorities and goals for your community, State, or Tribe and writing the plan (FEMA 386-3); Implementing the mitigation plan, including project funding and maintaining a dynamic plan that changes to meet new developments (FEMA 386-4); Evaluating potential mitigation actions through the use of benefit-cost review (FEMA 386-5) (to be published); Incorporating special considerations into hazard mitigation planning for historic properties and cultural resources, the topic of this how-to guide (FEMA 386-6); Incorporating mitigation considerations for manmade hazards into hazard mitigation planning (FEMA 386-7); and Finding and securing technical and financial resources for mitigation planning (FEMA 386-9). The first four guides are commonly referred to as the "core four" as they provide a broad overview of the core elements associated with hazard mitigation planning. This and the other guides are supplementary "how-to" guides that are to be used in conjunction with the "core four." Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) DMA 2000 provides an opportunity for States, Tribal Governments, and local jurisdictions to significantly reduce their vulnerability to natural hazards. It also allows them to streamline their access to and use of Federal disaster assistance, through pre-disaster hazard mitigation planning. DMA 2000 places new emphasis on State, Tribal, and local mitigation planning by requiring these entities to develop and submit mitigation plans as a condition of receiving various types of pre- and post-disaster assistance (such as the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program PDM] and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HMGP]) under the Stafford Act. On February 26, 2002, FEMA published under Title 44 Part 201 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) an Interim Rule (the Rule) to implement the mitigation planning requirements of DMA 2000. The Rule outlines the requirements for both State and local mitigation plans. FEMA has prepared a document, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, that explains the requirements of the Rule with the help of sample plan excerpts and discussion.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed a series of mitigation planning "how-to" guides for the purpose of assisting Tribes, States, and local governments in developing effective hazard mitigation planning processes. The material presented in these guides is intended to address the needs of both large and small communities with varying degrees of technical expertise and financial reserves. The topic area for this guide is "Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations into Hazard Mitigation Planning." Other guides that have been developed by FEMA as part of the "how-to" series include: Getting started with the mitigation planning process, including important considerations for how you can organize your efforts to develop an effective mitigation plan (FEMA 386-1); Identifying hazards and assessing losses to your community, State, or Tribe (FEMA 386-2); Setting mitigation priorities and goals for your community, State, or Tribe and writing the plan (FEMA 386-3); and Implementing the mitigation plan, including project funding and maintaining a dynamic plan that changes to meet new developments (FEMA 386-4). These four guides are commonly referred to as the "core four" as they provide a broad overview of the core elements associated with hazard mitigation planning. In addition to these "core four," FEMA has developed a series of supplementary "how-to" guides that are to be used in conjunction with the "core four" and address the following special topic areas: Evaluating potential mitigation actions through the use of benefit-cost review (FEMA 386-5); Incorporating special considerations into hazard mitigation planning for historic properties and cultural resources, the topic of this how-to guide (FEMA 386-6); Incorporating mitigation considerations for manmade hazards into hazard mitigation planning (FEMA 386-7); Using multi-jurisdictional approaches to mitigation planning (FEMA 386-8); and Finding and securing technical and financial resources for mitigation planning (FEMA 386-9). This guide is designed for all practitioners involved in creating a hazard mitigation plan (e.g., planners and emergency managers). Why should planners and emergency managers consider historic properties and cultural resources? Because after a disaster, these resources' special status as designated landmarks may complicate recovery efforts. However, these resources may also be assets that can help in creating mitigation plans with multiple community benefits. This guide will be of value to citizens who love their communities and want to protect their historic and cultural assets. The guide will outline specific steps for how communities can harness their knowledge, talent, and energy to create a secure future for historic resources.

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.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed this series of mitigation planning how-to guides to assist states, tribes, and communities in enhancing their hazard mitigation planning capabilities. These guides are designed to provide the type of information states, tribes, and communities need to initiate and maintain a planning process that will result in safer and more disaster-resistant communities. These guides are applicable to states, tribes, and communities of various sizes and varying ranges of financial and technical resources. The how-to guides cover the following topics: Getting started with the mitigation planning process, including important considerations for how you can organize your efforts to develop an effective mitigation plan (FEMA 386-1); Identifying hazards and assessing losses to your community, tribe, or state (FEMA 386-2); Setting mitigation priorities and goals for your community, tribe, or state and writing the plan (FEMA 386-3); Implementing the mitigation plan, including project funding and maintaining a dynamic plan that changes to meet new developments (FEMA 386-4); Evaluating and prioritizing potential mitigation actions through the use of benefit-cost analysis and other techniques (FEMA 386-5); Incorporating special considerations into hazard mitigation planning for historic structures and cultural resources (FEMA 386-6); Incorporating mitigation considerations for manmade hazards into hazard mitigation planning (FEMA 386-7); Using multi-jurisdictional approaches to mitigation planning (FEMA 386-8); and Finding and securing technical and financial resources for mitigation planning (FEMA 386-9). This guide will address the following questions: 1. How can we make sure the plan is officially recognized? Proof of formal adoption is required under DMA 2000 regulations. Getting the plan adopted ensures the support and approval of the governing authority in your jurisdiction. 2. What is the most effective mechanism to implement each recommendation? What resources are available? How can we keep the public informed and actively involved now that initiatives are underway? Your mitigation strategy probably contains various short- and long-term recommendations. The actual sources of funding, staff time, and staffing needs may change before project implementation gets underway. The planning team always must be on the lookout for alternative sources of funding, new opportunities, and new partnerships through which to carry out the recommendations. Determining who will bear responsibility for implementing planned actions is key to getting the implementation phase off to a successful start. 3. How will we know if our mitigation strategy is working? Monitoring and evaluating the outcomes of the mitigation actions are essential to knowing whether to stay the course or change it. The successes and limitations of your efforts should be documented as part of the evaluation process. Celebrating successes and keeping citizens actively involved and informed of the progress of the hazard mitigation initiatives, are just as important in the adoption, implementation, and revision phases as in any other phase. Keeping everyone up to date on progress also will help sustain support for mitigation as a local, tribal, or state priority. 4. When should we reexamine the plan? The community and its assets are constantly changing, requiring the mitigation plan to be updated periodically. While DMA 2000 regulations require a formal review and revision of the community plan once every five years for local jurisdictions and every three years for states, the planning team should reevaluate its implementation strategy as new opportunities, unforeseen challenges, and disasters arise. As mitigation issues are resolved, the plan should be reexamined to determine whether there is a need to reprioritize, add, or reconfigure actions in light of what has been accomplished.

When a disaster or emergency occurs, it is the responsibility first of the local community and the State or Tribe to respond. However, their combined efforts at times are not sufficient to effectively address the direct results of the most serious events. These situations call for Federal assistance. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. Sections 5121-5207, authorizes the President to provide Federal assistance to supplement State, Tribal, and local efforts. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a component of the Department of Homeland Security, coordinates the delivery of assistance under the law and provides grants through the Public Assistance Program to help with the extraordinary costs for response and infrastructure recovery. This Handbook explains how applicants can obtain help through the Public Assistance Program. Potential recipients of this assistance include State, Tribal, and local governments and certain types of private nonprofit organizations. The mission of the Public Assistance Program is to assist communities in recovering from the devastating effects of disasters and emergencies by providing technical assistance and financial grants in an efficient, effective, consistent, and customer-friendly manner. Accordingly, it is important that everyone shares a common understanding of program policies and procedures. By understanding the content of this Handbook and following the principles outlined in it, applicants can participate as knowledgeable partners in obtaining grant funding.

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.

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 2005, Hurricane Katrina pummeled the Gulf Coast regions and much of the Southeast, causing roughly $100 billion worth of damage in the process - the costliest hurricane in U.S. history. Seven states were affected by the storm including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi. In addition to these, Kentucky and Ohio were also affected due to floods on the Mississippi River. The most damage occurred in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It produced catastrophic damage -estimated at $75 billion in the New Orleans area along. For years, mitigation has proven one of the best measures for reducing damage and the costs of disasters. Across Louisiana, successful mitigation efforts are being achieved through the ongoing collaboration and cooperation between local, state and federal partners. Residents are also taking a proactive role in safeguarding lives and property. "Best Practices: Promoting Successful Mitigation in Louisiana - Post Hurricane Katrina" represents a sampling of mitigation activities resulting from lessons learned, after action reports and identified needs. The stories in this book provide insight on mitigation projects that have been executed in southern Louisiana in preparing for future disasters. The contents focus on fostering the journey in rebuilding safer and stronger and protecting life and property. It is an invaluable resource to: Communicate the importance of identifying hazard risks and ways to minimize risks; Identify mitigation ideas to show how mitigation is effective and affordable; Demonstrate how mitigation makes communities more stable and productive.

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.