Bøger af Federal Emergency Management Agency

The National Mutual Aid and Resource Management Initiative supports the National Incident Management System (NIMS) by establishing a comprehensive, integrated national mutual aid and resource management system that provides the basis to type, order, and track all (Federal, State, and local) response assets. For ease of ordering and tracking, response assets need to be categorized via resource typing. Resource typing is the categorization and description of resources that are commonly exchanged in disasters via mutual aid, by capacity and/or capability. Through resource typing, disciplines examine resources and identify the capabilities of a resource's components (i.e., personnel, equipment, and training). During a disaster, an emergency manager knows what capability a resource needs to have to respond efficiently and effectively. Resource typing definitions will help define resource capabilities for ease of ordering and mobilization during a disaster. As a result of the resource typing process, a resource's capability is readily defined and an emergency manager is able to effectively and efficiently request and receive resources through mutual aid during times of disaster.

This document updates and consolidates the guidance provided in the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP) Planning Guidance (2008) and CSEPP Programmatic Guidance (2008) and supersedes these documents. This guidance has also been reorganized into a structure consistent with the CSEPP National Benchmarks. This document provides the basis for Federal, State, and local program managers to implement CSEPP in keeping with the Department of the Army (Army)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) CSEPP Strategic Plan. References have been made throughout this document to the following function-specific guidance documents that serve as its technical companions: Annual CSEPP Cooperative Agreement Guidance; CSEPP Exercise Policy and Guidance (December 2012), (aka The Blue Book); CSEPP Medical Resource Guide; CSEPP Public Affairs Compendium Workbook. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the statutory and programmatic history of CSEPP, the organizational roles and responsibilities, and the management structure. Chapter 2 provides a summary of the hazards and risks associated with the U.S. Army chemical weapons stockpile. Chapters 3-14 provide guidance on each of the twelve CSEPP National Benchmarks. They are intended to provide a description of the critical components of each benchmark to assist program managers at the Federal, State, and local level in assigning responsibilities and developing budgets. Appendices A and B provide a summary of the specific hazard and risk associated with the stockpiles at Blue Grass (Kentucky) and Pueblo (Colorado). Appendix C provides a glossary of the terminology that may be unfamiliar and a list of acronyms. Appendix D explains how the Policy Papers that originally guided the program have been incorporated into CSEPP Guidance.

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

Fires resulting from cooking continue to be the most common type of fire experienced by U.S. households. This is true for fires reported to fire departments and those handled by private individuals. Cooking fires are also the leading cause of home fire injuries. As a result, the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) has partnered with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) "to research the types of behaviors and sequences of events that lead to cooking fires and develop sound recommendations for behavioral mitigation strategies that will reduce such fires and their resultant injuries and fatalities." This study of the causes of cooking fires and cooking injuries and the effectiveness of strategies to prevent them also considers as part of its scope cooking burns of all types from all types of products involved in preparing and serving food or drink. Although many cooking injuries result from knives or broken glass and many people are made ill by improperly handled food, these other issues are beyond the scope of this project.

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.

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 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) and Grant Programs Directorate (GPD), Technical Assistance (TA) Program seeks to build and sustain capabilities through specific services and analytical capacities across two primary functional areas: Preparedness TA activities in support of the four homeland security mission areas (prevention, protection, response, and recovery); Homeland security program management This two-pronged approach ensures that initiatives measurably contribute to the enhancement of homeland security capabilities through State and local homeland security programs. The TA program addresses the areas of greatest State and local need by institutionalizing knowledge at the State and local level and providing a dynamic menu of services that is responsive to national priorities. The TA Program is driven by the following three core tenets: TA must support the National Preparedness Guidelines (Guidelines), National Priorities, and associated national strategies and doctrine that maintain homeland security; TA must be flexible and adaptable to fully address current national threats and the present day needs of homeland security personnel; TA must include a layered range of products ranging from guidance and templates to specialized on-site support that apply to States, regions, Urban Areas, counties, tribal entities, and private interests with a role in homeland security TA service deliveries may take a variety of forms that can be combined or modified to meet the specific needs of each requesting State or local jurisdiction. To best accommodate the wide variety of TA needs and deliverables, NPD and GPD support the following three levels of TA: Level 1 - Information Resources: General information to raise awareness or enhance familiarity with best practices/protocols required within all jurisdictions. Level 2 - Models, Templates, and Samples: Delivery of solution packages and performance models drawn from Federal, state, and local studies, best practices, and experience that guides the implementation of various initiatives. Level 3 - On-site Workshops: Delivery of rigorous, customized solutions through direct, on-site support, including workshops, guidance, and facilitation efforts to maximize direct interaction between TA providers and TA recipients and ensure the successful implementation of the most complex initiatives. Preparedness TA services seek to build and sustain capabilities in support of the four homeland security mission areas (prevention, protection, response, and recovery) and the suite of priorities and capabilities outlined in the Guidelines. As capability gaps are identified within State and local jurisdictions, Preparedness TA services are designed, developed, and delivered to address those needs and build capabilities in the most critical areas. The GPD Program Management TA services provide direct assistance in the establishment and enhancement of the overall homeland security administrative framework within State and local jurisdictions. These TA services help build the infrastructure at the State and local levels in which preparedness purchases, training activities, exercises, and additional assistance can accurately be managed, administered, tracked, and measured. This component of the overall TA Program includes services focused on grant reporting, grants management, overall homeland security program management, and resource management strategies for special needs jurisdictions.

One of the activities authorized by the Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002 is research to enhance the Nation's ability to assure that adequate dam safety programs and practices are in place throughout the United States. The Act of 2002 states that the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in cooperation with the National Dam Safety Review Board (Review Board), shall carry out a program of technical and archival research to develop and support: improved techniques, historical experience, and equipment for rapid and effective dam construction, rehabilitation, and inspection; devices for continued monitoring of the safety of dams; development and maintenance of information resources systems needed to support managing the safety of dams; and initiatives to guide the formulation of effective policy and advance improvements in dam safety engineering, security, and management. With the funding authorized by the Congress, the goal of the Review Board and the Dam Safety Research Work Group (Work Group) is to encourage research in those areas expected to make significant contributions to improving the safety and security of dams throughout the United States. The Work Group (formerly the Research Subcommittee of the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety) met initially in February 1998. To identify and prioritize research needs, the Subcommittee sponsored a workshop on Research Needs in Dam Safety in Washington D.C. in April 1999. Representatives of state and federal agencies, academia, and private industry attended the workshop. Seventeen broad area topics related to the research needs of the dam safety community were identified. To more fully develop the research needs identified, the Research Subcommittee subsequently sponsored a series of nine workshops. Each workshop addressed a broad research topic (listed below) identified in the initial workshop. Experts attending the workshops included international representatives as well as representatives of state, federal, and private organizations within the United States. Impacts of Plants and Animals on Earthen Dams; Risk Assessment for Dams; Spillway Gates; Seepage through Embankment Dams; Embankment Dam Failure Analysis; Hydrologic Issues for Dams; Dam Spillways; Seismic Issues for Dams; Dam Outlet Works. Based on the research workshops, research topics have been proposed and pursued. Several topics have progressed to products of use to the dam safety community, such as technical manuals and guidelines. For future research, it is the goal of the Work Group to expand dam safety research to other institutions and professionals performing research in this field. The proceedings from the research workshops present a comprehensive and detailed discussion and analysis of the research topics addressed by the experts participating in the workshops. The participants at all of the research workshops are to be commended for their diligent and highly professional efforts on behalf of the National Dam Safety Program. The National Dam Safety Program research needs workshop on Hydrologic Issues for Dams was held on November 14-15, 2001, in Davis, California. The Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, would like to acknowledge the contributions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, which was responsible for the development of the technical program, coordination of the workshop, and development of these workshop proceedings. A complete list of workshop facilitators, presenters, and participants is included in the proceedings.

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 Embankment Dam Failure Analysis was held on June 26-28, 2001, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, would like to acknowledge the contributions of the Agricultural Research Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in organizing the workshop and developing these workshop proceedings.

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.

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.

The National Mutual Aid and Resource Management Initiative supports the National Incident Management System (NIMS) by establishing a comprehensive, integrated national mutual aid and resource management system that provides the basis to type, order, and track all (Federal, State, and local) response assets. For ease of ordering and tracking, response assets need to be categorized via resource typing. Resource typing is the categorization and description of resources that are commonly exchanged in disasters via mutual aid, by capacity and/or capability. Through resource typing, disciplines examine resources and identify the capabilities of a resource's components (i.e., personnel, equipment, training). During a disaster, an emergency manager knows what capability a resource needs to have to respond efficiently and effectively. Resource typing definitions will help define resource capabilities for ease of ordering and mobilization during a disaster. As a result of the resource typing process, a resource's capability is readily defined and an emergency manager is able to effectively and efficiently request and receive resources through mutual aid during times of disaster.

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.

Disaster preparedness became a renewed priority for our Nation as a direct response to the devastation of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Following the tragedies of that day, government at all levels has embedded stronger collaboration with nongovernmental civic and private sector organizations and the general public in policies and practices. The Citizen Corps grassroots model of community preparedness has spread across the country, and Americans have been asked to become fully aware, trained, and practiced on how to respond to potential threats and hazards. To evaluate the Nation's progress on personal preparedness, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Community Preparedness Division conducts Citizen Corps National Surveys to measure the public's knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors relative to preparing for a range of hazards. This report provides a summary of the findings from the 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey. The research objectives and survey questions for the Citizen Corps National Survey were developed based on previous research, preparedness modeling, and policy and guidance from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In 2003, Citizen Corps conducted a national survey to provide baseline data on individual preparedness for disasters. In 2007, the Citizen Corps National Survey was designed to incorporate additional areas of examination and to refine the questioning, while retaining several specific questions from the 2003 survey to provide trend data. The 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey includes several more small refinements. Comparisons between the findings from the 2003, 2007, and 2009 surveys are noted throughout the report. FEMA's Community Preparedness Division publishes the Citizen Preparedness Review to highlight specific areas of research regarding community preparedness and to summarize research findings from multiple sources. To assess the research landscape on preparedness, Citizen Corps has developed and maintains the Citizen Preparedness Surveys Database of surveys on personal and business preparedness conducted in the United States since September 11, 2001. As of August 2009, the database contains 102 surveys on individual preparedness, 29 surveys on business, and 11 surveys on school preparedness. Analyzing research from this wide variety of sources allows larger preparedness trends and research gaps to be identified. Citizen Preparedness Review Issue 3, Patterns in Current Research and Future Research Opportunities (published summer 2006), made several recommendations for future research that were taken into consideration in the development of the Citizen Corps National Survey implemented in 2007 and 2009. These recommendations included: More fully explore participants' knowledge of the correct preparedness measures and appropriate responses for different types of hazards; Investigate a more comprehensive range of knowledge, supplies, and skills related to disaster preparedness, such as knowledge of warning systems, evacuation routes, and training for specific skills; More fully explore motivational barriers to preparedness, such as the degree of uncertainty about ability to perform recommended measures or perceptions that recommended measures will not make a difference in disaster situations; Investigate demographic and contextual characteristics as they relate to preparedness including: prior experience with disasters, disability/ability factors, and community engagement; Examine individuals' preparedness in multiple locations in addition to their homes, such as the school, workplace, and community. An important finding from the Citizen Preparedness Surveys Database is that perceived preparedness can be very different from the specific preparedness measures taken. In nearly all cases, these surveys substantiate that the proportion of those who have taken appropriate preparedness measures is much lower than those that indicate that they are prepared.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed this series of mitigation planning "how-to" guides to assist states, communities, and tribes in enhancing their hazard mitigation planning capabilities. These guides are designed to provide the type of information state and local governments need to initiate and maintain a planning process that will result in safer communities. These guides are applicable to states and communities of various sizes and varying ranges of financial and technical resources. This how-to series is not intended to be the last word on any of the subject matter covered; rather, it is meant to provide easy to understand guidance for the field practitioner. In practice, these guides may be supplemented with more extensive technical data and the use of experts when necessary. 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 or state (FEMA 386-2); Setting mitigation priorities and goals for your community 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 potential mitigation measures 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 considerations for human-caused 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 first guide in the State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to series discusses the activities and issues involved in initiating a hazard mitigation planning process. The topics covered here are presented within the context of the beginning phase of the mitigation planning process, although many of these activities will continue more or less behind the scenes throughout the process. Therefore, the efforts you put into identifying and organizing your resources early on will pay dividends later as you progress through some of the more challenging tasks of mitigation planning. This how-to guide thus covers not only this first phase of the planning process, but also provides snapshots of later phases. You will then be able to begin the planning process knowing ahead of time what types of resources you may need to call upon in the future. Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, elected officials, community staff, citizens, and businesses will benefit from the knowledge, organization, positive attitude, and energy that you and your team demonstrate.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed this series of mitigation planning "how-to" guides to assist states, communities, and tribes in enhancing their hazard mitigation planning capabilities. These guides are designed to provide the type of information state and local governments need to initiate and maintain a planning process that will result in safer communities. These guides are applicable to states and communities of various sizes and varying ranges of financial and technical resources. This how-to series is not intended to be the last word on any of the subject matter covered; rather, it is meant to provide clear guidance for the field practitioner. In practice, these guides may be supplemented with more extensive technical resources and the use of experts when necessary. The series consists of four guides covering the core aspects of the planning process, and additional guides addressing special topics in hazard mitigation. The "core four" guides cover: 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 or state (FEMA 386-2); Setting mitigation priorities and goals for your community or state 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). Special topics covered include: Evaluating 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 properties and cultural resources (FEMA 386-6); Incorporating mitigation considerations for manmade hazards into hazard mitigation planning, the topic of this how-to guide (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). Disasters are events that can cause loss of life and property, environmental damage, and disruption of governmental, social, and economic activities. They occur when hazards impact human settlements and the built environment. Throughout the Cold War, the focus of emergency management planning was on responding to and recovering from nuclear attack by foreign enemies. During the 1990s, this emphasis shifted to address natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and floods. Yet again, the need to incorporate new threats into emergency management planning-this time, manmade hazards such as terrorism and technological disasters-has become all too apparent, as demonstrated by the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington, DC and the July 2001 hazardous material train derailment and fire in Baltimore, Maryland. Additionally, the 2001 anthrax attacks, the 1996 bombing at the summer Olympics in Atlanta, the 1995 destruction of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and scores of smaller-scale incidents and accidents reinforce the need for communities to reduce their vulnerability to future terrorist acts and technological disasters.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is pleased to have the opportunity to sponsor the Program on Improved Seismic Safety Provisions being conducted by the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). The materials produced by this program represent the tangible results of a significant effort, under way for more than a decade, to lessen adverse seismic effects on buildings throughout the United States. This community handbook is a companion publication to the 1994 Edition of the NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, and it is one of a series of reports produced to increase awareness of seismic risk and to disseminate information on up-to-date seismic design and construction practices. It is designed to provide interested individuals across the nation with information that will assist them in assessing the seismic risk to their buildings and their community and in determining what might be done to mitigate that risk - whether on an individual basis or through community building regulatory action.

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 third guide in the state and local mitigation planning how-to series is about developing your community's mitigation strategy and documenting the planning process. It builds on the resources and organizational framework discussed in Getting Started: Building Support for Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-1) and the results of the loss estimation conducted according to Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (FEMA 386-2). This guide provides you and your planning team with the tools necessary to develop mitigation goals and objectives, identify and prioritize mitigation actions, formulate an implementation strategy, and assemble the planning document.

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.

In 1973, the presidentially appointed National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control published America Burning, its landmark report on the nation's fire problem. The report presented 90 recommendations for a fire-safe America. For the past 15 years, America Burning has served as a road map, guiding the fire service and the federal fire programs toward the goal of improving fire safety in the United States. The original America Burning report made 90 recommendations in 18 chapters in the following general subject areas: the nation's fire problem; the fire services; fire and the built environment; fire and the rural wildlands environment; fire prevention; and a program for the future. While much of the report and its recommendations remained valid and relevant, it was time to take a second look at America Burning and re-examine the progress made toward the goals and objectives stated in the report. Perhaps more importantly, it was time to make new recommendations that would reflect the changes in our society and environment since 1973, but still move toward a more fire-safe America. As a result, the conference on 'America Burning Revisited" was convened in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., from November 30 to December 2, 1987. "America Burning Revisited" had a threefold purpose. First, conference participants were to reach a consensus about the status of, and trends in, America's fire problem. Second, they were to revisit America Burning by reviewing and evaluating the progress toward the report's 90 recommendations. Finally, the conference participants were to recommend guidelines for local, state and federal efforts to reduce the life and property loss from fire. The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) planned to use the results of this conference as the basis for establishing its program priorities for future activities. This meant that the fire protection leaders participating in "America Burning Revisited" were to have the opportunity to map out the future course of fire safety in this country.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed this series of mitigation planning "how-to" guides to assist states, communities, and tribes in enhancing their natural hazard mitigation planning capabilities. These guides are designed to provide the type of information states and communities need to initiate and maintain a planning process that will result in safer communities. These guides are applicable to states and communities of various sizes and varying ranges of financial and technical resources. This how-to series is not intended to be the last word on any of the subject matter covered; rather, it is meant to be an easy to understand guide for the field practitioner. In practice, these guides may be supplemented with more extensive technical data and the use of experts if possible. The how-to guides cover the following topics: Getting started with the mitigation planning process including important considerations for how you can organize to develop a plan; Identifying hazards and assessing losses to your community and state; Setting mitigation priorities and goals for your community; Evaluating potential mitigation measures through the use of benefit-cost analysis and other techniques; Creating a mitigation plan and implementation strategy; Implementing the mitigation plan including project funding and revising the plan periodically as changes in the community occur; and Incorporating special circumstances in hazard mitigation planning for historic structures, among other topics. Risk assessment answers the fundamental question that fuels the natural hazard mitigation planning process: "What would happen if a natural hazard event occurred in your community or state?" Risk assessment is the process of measuring the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from natural hazards by assessing the vulnerability of people, buildings, and infrastructure to natural hazards. Risk assessment provides the foundation for the rest of the mitigation planning process. The risk assessment process focuses your attention on areas most in need by evaluating which populations and facilities are most vulnerable to natural hazards and to what extent injuries and damages may occur. It tells you: The hazards to which your state or community is susceptible; What these hazards can do to physical, social, and economic assets; Which areas are most vulnerable to damage from these hazards; and The resulting cost of damages or costs avoided through future mitigation projects. In addition to benefiting mitigation planning, risk assessment information also allows emergency management personnel to establish early response priorities by identifying potential hazards and vulnerable assets. The steps in this how-to guide describe some methods you may use to develop this information. Subsequent guides assist you in determining priorities for mitigation and in deciding which assets in your community or state should be protected.

This manual, part of the new Building Infrastructure Protection Series published by the United States (U.S.) Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Infrastructure Protection and Disaster Management Division (IDD), serves to advance high performance and integrated design for buildings and infrastructure. This manual was prepared as a component of the S&T program for infrastructure protection and disaster management; the overall goal of this program is to enhance the blast and chemical, biological, and radiological (CBR) resistance of our Nation's buildings and infrastructure to meet specific performance requirements at the highest possible level. One of the objectives of this manual is to provide the tools and guidance to reduce physical damage to structural and nonstructural components of buildings and related infrastructure and to reduce resulting casualties caused by conventional bomb attacks and attacks using CBR agents. Although the material and the risk assessment methodology in this manual can be applied to most building types, it is intended to assist with the design and management of facilities in eight designated sectors outlined in the DHS 2009 National Infrastructure Protection Plan (the NIPP): Banking and Finance, Commercial Facilities, Communications, Critical Manufacturing, Government Facilities, Healthcare and Public Health, Information Technology, and Postal and Shipping. The purpose of this manual is to provide guidance to designers and decision makers in these sectors, to building professionals working for public and private institutions, and to first responder communities. It presents tools to help assess the performance of buildings and infrastructure against terrorist threats and to rank recommended protective measures. A primary objective of this manual is the establishment of a common framework of terminology to facilitate the transfer of this information. For example, a basis for design is established by identifying the threat or hazard to which a building may be vulnerable. Within the military, intelligence, and law enforcement communities, the term "threat" is typically used to describe the potential threat elements (personnel) and their tactics for creating terrorism or manmade disasters. Within FEMA and other civil agencies, the term "hazard" is used in several different contexts. "Natural" hazard typically refers to a natural event, such as a flood, wind, or seismic event. "Human-caused" (or manmade) hazards are "technological" hazards and "terrorism." These are distinct from natural hazards, primarily, in that they originate from human activity. Furthermore, "technological" hazards are generally assumed to be accidental, in that their consequences are unintended. For the sake of simplicity, this manual uses the terms "threat" to describe terrorism or intentional attacks and "hazard" to describe accidental manmade or technological hazards. Another objective of this manual is the transfer of design concepts that have been in use by DHS [these include concepts of the Interagency Security Committee (ISC) Standards and Best Practices, the General Services Administration (GSA), the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the U.S. Department of State (DOS), U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), and the military services] to commercial practice. Several valuable risk assessment methodologies are used by both the public and private sectors; however, this manual focuses on the methodology described in FEMA 452, Risk Assessment: A How-To Guide to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks (2005), which has been used extensively by Federal agencies, along with State and local governments and the private sector. This manual presents techniques that can be implemented incrementally over time to increase resiliency as well as decrease the vulnerability of a building to hazards and terrorist threats.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed this Risk Assessment, A How-To Guide to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings, to provide a clear, flexible, and comprehensive methodology to prepare a risk assessment. The intended audience includes the building sciences community of architects and engineers working for private institutions, building owners/operators/managers, and State and local government officials working in the building sciences community. The objective of this How-To Guide is to outline methods for identifying the critical assets and functions within buildings, determining the threats to those assets, and assessing the vulnerabilities associated with those threats. Based on those considerations, the methods presented in this How-To Guide provide a means to assess the risk to the assets and to make risk-based decisions on how to mitigate those risks. The scope of the methods includes reducing physical damage to structural and non-structural components of buildings and related infrastructure, and reducing resultant casualties during conventional bomb attacks, as well as chemical, biological, and radiological (CBR) agents. This document is written as a How-To Guide. It presents five steps and multiple tasks within each step that will lead you through a process for conducting a risk assessment and selecting mitigation options. It discusses what information is required to conduct a risk assessment, how and where to obtain it, and how to use it to calculate a risk score against each selected threat. This is one of a series of publications that address security issues in high-population, private sector buildings. This document is a companion to the Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings (FEMA 426) and the Building Design for Homeland Security Training Course (FEMA E155). This document also leverages information contained within the Primer for Design of Commercial Buildings to Mitigate Terrorist Attacks (FEMA 427). The primary use of this risk assessment methodology is for buildings, although it could be adapted for other types of critical infrastructure. The foundation of the risk assessment methodology presented in this document is based on the approach that was developed for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) through the National Institute for Building Sciences (NIBS). Over 150 buildings have been successfully assessed using this technique. The risk assessment methodology presented in this publication has been refined by FEMA for this audience. The purpose of this How-To Guide is to provide a methodology for risk assessment to the building sciences community working for private institutions. It is up to the decision-makers to decide which types of threats they wish to protect against and which mitigation options are feasible and cost-effective. This How-To Guide views as critical that a team created to assess a particular building will be composed of professionals capable of evaluating different parts of the building. They should be senior individuals who have a breadth and depth of experience in the areas of civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering; architecture; site planning and security engineering; and how security and antiterrorism considerations affect site and building design.

Homeland Security Presidential Directive - 7 (December 2003) established the requirement to protect national critical infrastructures against acts that would diminish the responsibility of federal, state, and local government to perform essential missions to ensure the health and safety of the general public. HSPD-7 identified the Emergency Services as a national critical infrastructure sector that must be protected from all hazards. The Emergency Management and Response-Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EMR-ISAC) activities support the critical infrastructure protection and resilience of Emergency Services Sector departments and agencies nationwide. The fire service, emergency medical services, law enforcement, emergency management, and 9-1-1 Call Centers are the major components of the Emergency Services Sector. These components include search and rescue, hazardous materials (HAZMAT) teams, special weapons and tactics teams (SWAT), bomb squads, and other emergency support functions. This Job Aid is a guide to assist leaders of the Emergency Services Sector (ESS) with the process of critical infrastructure protection (CIP). The document intends only to provide a model process or template for the systematic protection of critical infrastructures. It is not a CIP training manual or a complete road map of procedures to be strictly followed. The CIP process described in this document can be easily adapted to assist the infrastructure protection objectives of any community, service, department, agency, or organization.

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.

Throughout the United States, at any given time of year, there are festivals, concerts, fairs, sporting events, and many other large and small events that gather or have the potential to gather large crowds. Under normal conditions, these events go on with few or no problems. When something goes wrong, however, either as a result of a natural hazard or a manmade hazard, then local emergency management becomes involved. These mass gatherings are also potential targets for terrorists. Multiple deaths and injuries at large public events have occurred consistently and over a wide spectrum of countries and types of events. Certain highly competitive sports events, particularly soccer, and rock concerts and festivals tend to produce spectator-generated incidents, while air shows and auto races tend to produce more participant-generated occurrences. In some instances, advanced assessment of, and planning for, these events failed to occur, or when they did, they failed to identify the potential for disaster, or mitigating or coping strategies for a major incident. The purpose of this manual is the prevention of injury, suffering, or death that may occur as a result of poor planning or preventable incidents at public events. This manual is intended to provide guidance for the management of risks associated with conducting events that involve mass gatherings of people and assist planners and organizers in making such events safe and successful. FEMA has prepared this manual for use by anyone planning or conducting a special event or mass gathering. This manual is intended to enable its users to ensure that adequate measures and systems are in place to prevent, reduce, and provide care for injuries, illness, and suffering that may occur. Many people, in addition to health personnel, contribute significantly to the success of a public event. Therefore, FEMA anticipates that this manual will be distributed to event promoters, managers, public and private organizations, emergency service personnel, government bodies, and any individual or organization that contributes to the planning of events. Wide distribution is encouraged, providing that individuals understand that the detailed contents of the manual are directed principally at managing the health and safety aspects of the event for all participants, officials, and spectators.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed FEMA 459, Incremental Protection for Existing Commercial Buildings from Terrorist Attack, to provide guidance to owners of existing commercial buildings and their architects and engineers on security and operational enhancements to address vulnerabilities to explosive blasts and chemical, biological, and radiological hazards. It also addresses how to integrate these enhancements into the ongoing building maintenance and capital improvement programs. These enhancements are intended to mitigate or eliminate long-term risk to people and property. FEMA's Risk Management Series publications addressing security risks are based on two core documents: FEMA 426, Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against buildings, and FEMA 452, Risk Assessment: A How-To Guide to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings. FEMA 426 provides guidance to the building science community of architects and engineers on reducing physical damage caused by terrorist assaults to buildings, related infrastructure, and people. FEMA 452 outlines methods for identifying the critical assets and functions within buildings, determining the potential threats to those assets, and assessing the building's vulnerabilities to those threats. This assessment of risks facilitates hazard mitigation decision-making. Specifically, the document addresses methods for reducing physical damage to structural and nonstructural components of buildings and related infrastructure and reducing resultant casualties during conventional bomb attacks, as well as attacks involving chemical, biological, and radiological agents. FEMA 459 can be used in conjunction with FEMA 452. This manual presents an integrated, incremental rehabilitation approach to implementing the outcomes of a risk assessment completed in accordance with FEMA 452, Risk Assessment: A How-To Guide to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Building. This approach is intended to minimize disruption to building operations and control costs for existing commercial buildings. The integrated incremental approach to risk reduction in buildings was initially developed in relation to seismic risk and was first articulated in FEMA's Risk Management Series in the widely disseminated FEMA 395, Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation of School Buildings (K-12), published in June 2003. In 2004 and 2005, FEMA also published Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation manuals (FEMA 396-400) for hospitals, office buildings, multifamily apartments, retail buildings, and hotels and motels. This manual outlines an approach to incremental security enhancement in four types of existing commercial buildings: office buildings, retail buildings, multifamily apartment buildings, and hotel and motel buildings. It addresses both physical and operational enhancements that reduce building vulnerabilities to blasts and chemical, biological, and radiological attacks, within the constraints of the existing site conditions and building configurations.

The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) (P.L. 106-390) provides an opportunity for States, Tribes, and local governments to take a new and revitalized approach to mitigation planning. DMA 2000 amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by repealing the previous Mitigation Planning section (409) and replacing it with a new Mitigation Planning section (322). This new section emphasizes the need for State, Tribal, and local entities to closely coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. It continues the requirement for a State mitigation plan as a condition of disaster assistance, and creates incentives for increased coordination and integration of mitigation activities at the State level through the establishment of requirements for two different levels of State plans: "Standard" and "Enhanced." States that demonstrate an increased commitment to comprehensive mitigation planning and implementation through the development of an approved Enhanced State Plan can increase the amount of funding available through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). To implement the DMA 2000 planning requirements, FEMA published an Interim Final Rule in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002. This Rule (44 CFR Part 201) established the mitigation planning requirements for States, Tribes, and local communities. Normally FEMA publishes a proposed rule for public comment before publishing a final rule. This process can result in a lengthy comment and response period, during which the proposed rule is not legally effective or enforceable. Because certain types of Stafford Act assistance are conditioned on having an approved mitigation plan, FEMA wanted to publish an effective rule providing the DMA 2000 planning requirements in order to position State and local governments to receive these mitigation funds as soon as possible. Even though it is an Interim Final Rule, FEMA will still publish a proposed rule for public comment, to be followed eventually by a final rule. FEMA is assessing the utility and practicality of these interim final requirements based on the experience of States, Tribes, and local governments, and will draw on this experience in preparing the future Proposed and Final Rules for Mitigation Planning. Until then, the Rule serves as the governing set of requirements for DMA 2000 planning implementation. To help States, Tribes, and local governments better understand the Rule and meet the DMA 2000 planning requirements, FEMA has prepared this document, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance). It was designed with three major objectives: To help Federal and State reviewers evaluate mitigation plans from different jurisdictions in a fair and consistent manner; To help States, Tribes, and local jurisdictions develop new mitigation plans or modify existing ones in accordance with the requirements of the Rule, and To help States, Tribes, and local jurisdictions conduct comprehensive reviews and prepare updates to their plans in accordance with the review and update requirements of the Rule. This Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, as interpretation and explanation for the Rule, is FEMA's official source for defining the requirements of original and updated mitigation plans. It includes references to specific language in the Rule, descriptions of the relevant requirements, and sample plan text to illustrate distinctions between plan approaches that would and would not meet DMA 2000 requirements. In addition, this document provides references to a number of planning tools that FEMA has made available to assist States, Tribes, and localities in developing a comprehensive, multi-hazard approach to mitigation planning, and in preparing plans that will meet the DMA 2000 requirements.

This desk reference is designed to provide a brief background on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and direction on how the NEPA process is implemented at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Although all aspects of the documentation process are discussed, the primary focus is on the Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) and the Environmental Assessment (EA) since those are the most common forms of documentation required for FEMA projects subject to the NEPA process. Other than the officially signed policy, guidance, and regulations contained within this reference, this Desk Reference is only informal guidance. Chapter One discusses the background and intent of the National Environmental Policy Act as passed by Congress. Chapter Two focuses on the NEPA environmental review process and general implementation of that process. This Chapter provides an introduction to the essential elements of the implementation of NEPA and their interrelation. Chapter Three covers the environmental review process and levels discussed, as implemented at FEMA. This chapter focuses on FEMA's regulations and procedures and involvement with Grantees and Subgrantees. A detailed, step-by -step discussion on conducting Environmental Assessments is contained in Chapter Four. The Appendices contain resource documents on NEPA guidance, FEMA policy, overviews of other environmental laws, executive orders, and sample documents.