Download:
pdf |
pdfTABLE OF CONTENTS
Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Planning Guidance
March 2010
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Department of Homeland Security
500 C Street, SW
Washington, DC 20472
This guidance represents FEMA’s interpretation of a statutory or regulatory
requirement. The guidance itself does not impose legally enforceable rights
and obligations, but sets forth a standard operating procedure or agency
practice that FEMA employees follow to be consistent, fair, and equitable in
the implementation of the agency’s authorities.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents.........................................................................................................................i
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................ii
Introduction .................................................................................................................................1
Purpose .....................................................................................................................................1
Using the Mitigation Planning Guidance....................................................................................7
Planning Resources...................................................................................................................8
Multi-Jurisdictional Plans and Other Organizations .................................................................10
Planning Process......................................................................................................................12
Documentation of the Planning Process..................................................................................14
Program Integration .................................................................................................................19
Risk Assessment ......................................................................................................................21
Identifying Hazards ..................................................................................................................22
Profiling Hazards .....................................................................................................................24
Assessing Vulnerability: Overview...........................................................................................27
Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures ........................................................................31
Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses..............................................................34
Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends........................................................36
Assessing Vulnerability: Assessing Cultural and Sacred Sites................................................40
Mitigation Strategy....................................................................................................................42
Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Goals........................................................................................43
Identification and Analysis of Tribal Mitigation Actions ............................................................45
Implementation of Tribal Mitigation Actions .............................................................................50
Tribal Capability Assessment ..................................................................................................51
Tribal Funding Sources............................................................................................................54
Plan Maintenance......................................................................................................................55
Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan........................................................................56
Monitoring Progress of Mitigation Activities .............................................................................59
Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms ...................................................................61
Continued Member and Stakeholder Involvement...................................................................64
Repetitive Loss Strategy (Optional) ........................................................................................66
Repetitive Loss Strategy..........................................................................................................67
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plans ......................................................................................69
Multi-Jurisdictional Tribal Planning Participation .....................................................................70
Plan Review and Adoption.......................................................................................................73
Plan Submittal and Review Procedures ..................................................................................73
Assurances by the Indian Tribal Government..........................................................................76
Adoption by the Indian Tribal Government ..............................................................................77
Multi-Jurisdictional Tribal Plan Adoption..................................................................................80
Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk....................................................... T-1
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Comparison of Tribal, State, and Local Mitigation Plan Requirements ............. A-1
Mitigation Planning and the National Flood Insurance Program ....................... B-1
Contacts and Resources ................................................................................... C-1
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
i
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
APA
BCA
BIA
CDMS
CFR
CRS
CZM
DFIRM
DMA
EMI
FEMA
FIRM
FMAG
FMA
GIS
HAZUS-MH
HMA
HMGP
IA
NEPA
NFIP
NFPA
PA
PDM
PNP
RFC
SHMO
SFHA
SRL
Stafford Act
STAPLEE
WUI
Approval Pending Adoption
Benefit-Cost Analysis
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Comprehensive Data Management System
Code of Federal Regulations
Community Rating System
Coastal Zone Management
Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
Emergency Management Institute
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Flood Insurance Rate Map
Fire Management Assistance Grants
Flood Mitigation Assistance
Geographic Information System
Hazards United States – Multi-Hazard
Hazard Mitigation Assistance
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
Individual Assistance
National Environmental Policy Act
National Flood Insurance Program
National Fire Protection Agency
Public Assistance
Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Private Nonprofit
Repetitive Flood Claims
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
Special Flood Hazard Area
Severe Repetitive Loss
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic & Environmental
Wildland/Urban Interface
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
ii
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
Hazard mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to
human life and property from hazards. Mitigation activities may be implemented prior to, during,
or after an incident. However, hazard mitigation is most effective when based on an inclusive,
comprehensive, long-term plan that is developed before a disaster occurs.
The mitigation planning process encourages coordination among Indian tribal authorities and
other governmental agencies, tribal members, local residents, businesses, academia, and
nonprofit groups and promotes their participation in the plan development and implementation
process. This broad-based approach enables the development of mitigation actions that are
supported by tribal members and other stakeholders and that reflect the needs of the Indian
Tribal government as a whole.
Special Consideration:
Definition of Indian
Tribal Government
For consistency and ease of reference, the term Indian Tribal
government is used throughout this document. As defined in 44
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 201.2: Indian Tribal
government means any Federally recognized governing body of an
Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or
community that the Secretary of Interior acknowledges to exist as
an Indian tribe under the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List
Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a. This does not include Alaska Native
corporations, the ownership of which is vested in private
individuals.
This Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance assists Indian Tribal governments and
other tribal entities to identify and assess their risk to natural hazards through the Federal
Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) multi-hazard mitigation planning process. Based
on the requirements of 44 CFR 201.7, this guidance will help:
Indian Tribal governments identify their risks from natural hazards and protect their
members and other resources;
Indian Tribal governments develop and adopt new mitigation plans, or revise or update
existing mitigation plans, to meet the requirements of 44 CFR 201.7;
Plan reviewers evaluate mitigation plans from different Indian Tribal governments in a fair
and consistent manner;
Indian Tribal governments exercise flexibility and apply for assistance as either a grantee or
subgrantee under FEMA grant programs with a single plan type; and
Provide guidance and culturally relevant examples to other tribal entities that comply with
similar planning requirements under 44 CFR 201.6 as a local government.
Authorities
Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford
Act) 42 U.S.C. 5165, as amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) (P.L. 106-390),
provides for States, Indian Tribal governments, and local governments to undertake a riskbased approach to reducing risks to natural hazards through mitigation planning. The National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., as amended, further reinforces the need
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
1
INTRODUCTION
and requirement for mitigation plans, linking flood mitigation assistance programs to State,
Tribal, and Local Mitigation Plans.
FEMA has implemented the various hazard mitigation provisions through 44 CFR Part 201. This
regulation emphasizes the need for State, local, and Indian Tribal governments to closely
coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts and describe the requirement for a
State, Local, or Tribal Mitigation Plan as a condition of pre- and post-disaster assistance.
According to the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), there are 562
federally recognized American Indian Tribes and Alaska Natives in the United States; 52.7
million acres of land belong to Indian Tribes and their members across the nation as of the date
of this publication. In recognition of tribal sovereignty and the government-to-government
relationship that FEMA has with Indian Tribal governments, FEMA amended 44 CFR Part 201
at 72 Fed. Reg. 61720, on October 31, 2007, and again at 74 Fed. Reg. 47471, on September
16, 2009, to consolidate and clarify the requirements for Indian Tribal governments, establish
Tribal Mitigation Plans separately from State and Local Mitigation Plans, and finalize the
Mitigation Planning rule.
Indian Tribal governments with an approved Tribal Mitigation Plan in accordance with 44 CFR
201.7 may apply for assistance from FEMA as a grantee. If the Indian Tribal government
coordinates with the State for review of their Tribal Mitigation Plan, then the Indian Tribal
government also has the option to apply as a subgrantee through a State or another tribe. A
grantee is an entity such as a State, territory, or Indian Tribal government to which a grant is
awarded and that is accountable for the funds provided. A subgrantee is an entity, such as a
community, local, or Indian Tribal government; State-recognized tribe; or a private nonprofit
(PNP) organization to which a subgrant is awarded and that is accountable to the grantee for
use of the funds provided.
If the Indian Tribal government is eligible as a grantee or subgrantee because it has an
approved Tribal Mitigation Plan and has coordinated with the State for review, it can decide
which option it wants to take on a case-by-case basis with respect to each Presidential Disaster
Declaration, and for each grant program under a Declaration, but not on a project-by-project
basis within a grant program. For example, an Indian Tribal government can participate as a
subgrantee for Public Assistance (PA), but as a grantee for the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP) under the same Declaration. However, the Indian Tribal government would
not be able to request grantee status under HMGP for one HMGP project, then request
subgrantee status for another HMGP project under the same Declaration.
Under the Stafford Act and the National Flood Insurance Act, Indian Tribal governments must
have an approved, adopted Tribal Mitigation Plan to meet the eligibility requirements for certain
types of assistance, which may differ depending on whether the Indian Tribal government
intends to apply as a grantee or subgrantee, as outlined in the following table.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
2
INTRODUCTION
Program
Enabling
Legislation
Tribal Mitigation Plan Requirement
Subgrantee
Grantee Status
Status
Funding
Authorization
Public Assistance (PA)
(Categories A, B: e.g., debris
Presidential
Stafford Act
removal, emergency protective
Disaster Declaration
measures)
Public Assistance (Categories
C-G: e.g., repairs to damaged
Presidential
Stafford Act
infrastructure, publicly owned
Disaster Declaration
buildings)
Presidential
Individual Assistance (IA)
Stafford Act
Disaster Declaration
Fire Management
Fire Management Assistance
Stafford Act
Assistance
Grants
Declaration
Hazard Mitigation Grant
Presidential
Program (HMGP) Planning
Stafford Act
Disaster Declaration
Grant
Presidential
HMGP Project Grant
Stafford Act
Disaster Declaration
Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM)
Annual
Stafford Act
Planning Grant
Appropriation
Annual
PDM Project Grant
Stafford Act
Appropriation
National
Flood Mitigation Assistance
Flood
Annual
(FMA)
Insurance
Appropriation
Act
National
Flood
Annual
Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL)
Insurance
Appropriation
Act
National
Flood
Annual
Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC)
Insurance
Appropriation
Act
No Plan Required
No Plan Required
No Plan Required
No Plan Required
No Plan Required
No Plan Required
No Plan Required
No Plan Required
No Plan Required
No Plan Required
= Tribal Mitigation Plan Required
Special Consideration:
Extraordinary
Circumstances
Effective October 16, 2009, the provisions in 44 CFR 201.6 (a)(3)
are available to tribes applying for mitigation project grants as
subgrantees. This means that the FEMA Regional Administrators
may grant an exception to the Tribal Mitigation Plan requirement in
extraordinary circumstances, such as in a small and impoverished
community, when justification is provided. In these cases, a plan
must be completed within 12 months of award of the project grant.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
3
INTRODUCTION
Types of Mitigation Plans
Prior to October 1, 2008, Indian Tribal governments were given the option to meet the
requirements for a State Mitigation Plan to be eligible for FEMA grant programs as a grantee or
a Local Mitigation Plan to be eligible for these grant programs as a subgrantee. State Mitigation
Plans must be updated and approved every 3 years; Local Mitigation Plans must be updated
and approved every 5 years. All mitigation plans approved for Indian Tribal governments prior to
October 1, 2008, will remain in effect as approved (either for 3 or 5 years depending on the type
of plan adopted). After October 1, 2008, Indian Tribal governments must meet the requirements
of a Tribal Mitigation Plan under 44 CFR 201.7; these plans will be valid for 5 years.
Appendix A, Comparison of Tribal, State, and Local Mitigation Plan Requirements, compares
the requirements among State, Local, and Tribal Mitigation Plans. In general, Tribal Mitigation
Plan requirements include all of the Local Mitigation Plan requirements (with some changes to
better meet the needs of Indian Tribal governments), and also include elements comparable to
a State Mitigation Plan to demonstrate the ability to apply for and manage grant funds as a
grantee.
Special Consideration:
Meeting Requirements
for an Enhanced Tribal
Plan
Indian Tribal governments acting as grantees may elect to develop
Enhanced Plans which meet all of the requirements of a Tribal
Mitigation Plan outlined at 44 CFR 201.7, plus the requirements for
an Enhanced Plan outlined at 44 CFR 201.5. When a disaster is
declared, an Indian Tribal government with a FEMA-approved
Enhanced Mitigation Plan is eligible to receive up to 20 percent of
available funds under the HMGP, as opposed to the 15 percent
maximum possible with a standard Tribal Mitigation Plan. An Indian
Tribal government with an approved plan under 44 CFR 201.7
could develop an Enhanced Plan meeting additional requirements
under 44 CFR 201.5 by demonstrating:
integration with other tribal planning initiatives;
eligibility and ranking criteria for multi-hazard mitigation
measures and a system for determining cost-effectiveness;
grant program management and environmental review
capabilities;
a system for evaluating completed mitigation actions and
tracking cost avoidance data;
a commitment for a comprehensive program; and
other requirements as appropriate.
Key Concepts
This publication is one of three guidance documents on implementing FEMA’s Mitigation
Planning regulation under 44 CFR Part 201. Separate documents are available for the State
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance (Standard and Enhanced, 44 CFR 201.4 and 201.5)
and Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance (44 CFR 201.6).
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
4
INTRODUCTION
Several key concepts are reflected throughout the Mitigation Planning regulation, and in each of
the State, Local, and Tribal Mitigation Plan requirements and corresponding guidance. Two of
the most critical elements of a successful mitigation plan are:
Comprehensive risk and capability assessments that form a solid foundation for
decisionmaking; and
Participation by a wide range of tribal members and other affected parties, often called
stakeholders, who play a role in setting mitigation goals, and identifying and implementing
mitigation actions.
The Mitigation Planning requirements in 44 CFR Part 201 emphasize greater interaction
between mitigation planning activities by State, local, and Indian Tribal governments, and
highlight the need for improved links among these plans. Under 44 CFR 201.4(c)(4), States are
required to coordinate mitigation planning with local and Indian Tribal governments, and to
document how priorities are determined for providing funding and technical assistance to these
entities. The information contained in Tribal Mitigation Plans may also help States develop their
State Mitigation Plans. That is, States refer to Tribal and Local Mitigation Plans to improve the
level of detail and comprehensiveness of statewide risk assessments, and States must
coordinate their hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and priorities with those of local and Indian
Tribal governments. Indian Tribal governments can refer to their State’s Mitigation Plan where
information may be useful for developing mitigation strategies. Also, Indian Tribal governments
pursuing the option to participate in FEMA grant programs as subgrantees will coordinate with
the State for review of their Tribal Mitigation Plans.
FEMA also has a continuing interest in streamlining the mitigation planning and implementation
process. The hazard mitigation planning process is just as important as the plan itself. FEMA
considers the plan to be the written record, or documentation, of the planning process. This is
why the Mitigation Planning regulation requires a “discussion” or “description” of a process or
development of a planning product (such as goals or hazard identification). Implementation of
planned, pre-identified mitigation actions based on a sound hazard identification and risk
assessment streamlines the planning and implementation processes.
To emphasize the importance of the process, FEMA has taken a performance approach, rather
than a prescriptive approach, to the planning requirements, to the extent possible. The
Mitigation Planning requirements are designed to identify what should be done in the process
and documented in the plan, rather than how it should be done. This approach offers flexibility in
recognition of the unique and inherent differences that exist among Indian Tribal governments
with respect to size, resources, capability, and vulnerability to hazards. It also enables Indian
Tribal governments to integrate their Tribal Mitigation Plans into other daily and long-term
planning initiatives and programs, including initiatives with other Federal agencies.
Funding for Plan Development
FEMA makes funds available under the HMGP and the PDM Program for State, local, or Indian
Tribal governments to develop or update their hazard mitigation plans. Also, the FMA Program
provides annual grant funds for flood mitigation planning. These programs are all part of the
Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Program. Please refer to the FEMA Web site at
http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/hma/grant_resources.shtm for current HMA program
information.
Funding for hazard mitigation planning or to generate the data needed for a plan may also be
available from other Federal agencies. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program has funded coastal hazard
mitigation activities, including planning. The Mitigation Planning regulation under 44 CFR Part
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
5
INTRODUCTION
201 encourages State, local, and Indian Tribal governments, residents, businesses, academia,
and nonprofit organizations to participate in the mitigation planning and implementation process.
This broad participation can help identify and develop funding sources and support mitigation
plans and actions that reflect the needs of the Indian Tribal government.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
6
USING THE MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
Organization
This guidance is divided into seven sections and three appendices, as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Planning Process
Risk Assessment
Mitigation Strategy
Plan Maintenance
Repetitive Loss Strategy (Optional)
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plans
Plan Review and Adoption (and the Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Review
Crosswalk)
Appendix A: Comparison of Tribal, State, and Local Mitigation Plan Requirements
Appendix B: Mitigation Planning and the National Flood Insurance Program
Appendix C: Contacts and Resources
Each section contains the language of the Mitigation Planning regulation, an explanation
clarifying the intent of the requirements, and references to resources that address particular
planning issues in more detail. The last section, Plan Review and Adoption, also includes the
Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk for evaluating Tribal Mitigation Plans.
The Mitigation Planning regulation is published at 44 CFR Part 201. Language in brackets does
not appear in the regulation, but has been added to provide the proper context. For example:
“[The plan must include] a description of the planning process.” An ellipsis (…) indicates that
other phrases precede or follow the requirement language.
Special Consideration:
Explanation of
Mandatory
Requirements
In reading the Mitigation Planning regulation, an important distinction
must be made between the words “shall” and “should.” When the
word “shall” or “must” is used, the requirement is mandatory, e.g.,
“The risk assessment shall include: A description of the type,
location, and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the Indian
Tribal government.” If the plan does not include this description, it will
not be approvable by FEMA. The word “must” also denotes a
mandatory requirement; for example, “The plan must be …
resubmitted for approval within 5 years…” means that Indian Tribal
governments must update their plans every 5 years to remain eligible
for non-Emergency Stafford Act and mitigation grant funds.
When the word “should” is used, the item is strongly recommended
to be included in the plan, but its absence will not cause FEMA to
disapprove the plan. For example, where the Mitigation Planning
regulation says, “The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of …
the types and numbers of existing and future buildings …,” this
information would make the plan more useful, but the plan could still
be approved if it is not included (assuming the plan met all the
mandatory requirements).
The use of the words “shall,” “must,” and “should” in this guidance
document is consistent with the use of those words in the Mitigation
Planning regulation. In the Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Review Crosswalk, the “should” requirements are shaded, as a
reminder that they are not required for plan approval.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
7
INTRODUCTION
Plan Updates
The Mitigation Planning regulation includes the following paragraph at 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) that
directs the update of Tribal Mitigation Plans:
Indian Tribal governments must review and revise their plan to reflect changes in
development, progress in local mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and resubmit
it for approval within 5 years in order to continue to be eligible for non-emergency
Stafford Act assistance and FEMA mitigation grant funding, with the exception of the
Repetitive Flood Claims program.
Plan updates must demonstrate that progress has been made in the past 5 years for Tribal
Mitigation Plans to fulfill commitments outlined in the previously approved plan. This involves a
comprehensive review and update of each section of the previous mitigation plan and a
discussion of the results of evaluation and monitoring activities detailed in the Plan Maintenance
section of the previously approved plan. Plan updates may validate the information in the
previously approved plan or may involve a major plan rewrite. A plan update is NOT an annex to
the previously approved plan; it must stand on its own as a complete and current plan.
Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk
In addition to assisting Indian Tribal governments in plan development, this Tribal Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Planning Guidance outlines a process for the review of Tribal Mitigation Plans based
on the requirements described in the Mitigation Planning regulation at 44 CFR 201.7. The Tribal
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk is also an important tool in both the review and
the development of complete plans. Plan reviewers use this tool to ensure that each element in
the 44 CFR 201.7 regulation for Tribal Mitigation Plans is met, to organize comments on
information that may be missing, and to provide suggestions for improvement.
Special Consideration:
Multi-Jurisdictional
Plans
As explained in the Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plans section of
this guidance, Indian Tribal governments have the option of
participating in multi-jurisdictional plans. When participating in a
multi-jurisdictional mitigation plan, Indian Tribal governments must
meet all requirements for Tribal Mitigation Plans at 44 CFR 201.7.
Therefore, the Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Review
Crosswalk should be completed for Indian Tribal governments
participating in a multi-jurisdictional plan.
PLANNING RESOURCES
Planning Guidance, Tools, and Training
FEMA provides several planning tools to assist Indian Tribal governments in developing a
comprehensive, multi-hazard approach to mitigation planning and in preparing plans that will
meet the Mitigation Planning requirements. These tools include:
Mitigation Planning How-To Guides (FEMA 386-1 through 9) – help Indian Tribal
governments, States, and communities plan and implement practical, meaningful hazard
mitigation actions; available on the FEMA Web site at
http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/resources.shtm.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
8
INTRODUCTION
Planning for a Sustainable Future (FEMA 364) – provides guidance for integrating hazard
mitigation and sustainable practices as part of pre- and post-disaster mitigation planning
efforts; available on the FEMA Web site at
http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/resources.shtm.
Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment – prepared as a reference document to
summarize the findings of a FEMA research project to clarify and document previous efforts
to identify natural and technological hazards and to assess associated risks; available on
the FEMA Web site at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2214.
Mitigation Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) Toolkit Compact Disc (CD) – includes all the FEMA
BCA software, technical manuals, BCA training course documentation, and other supporting
material and BCA guidance that may be helpful, although a BCA analysis is not required for
an approved Tribal Mitigation Plan. The BCA Toolkit is available through FEMA’s toll-free
Benefit-Cost Analysis Technical Assistance Helpline: 866-222-3580 or e-mail:
[email protected].
HAZUS-MH (Hazards U.S. – Multi-Hazard) – a risk assessment software program that can
be ordered on the FEMA Web site at http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus/.
Community Rating System (CRS) Coordinator’s Manual (FIA-15/2007) – includes
information on writing plans to reduce flood risk and can be ordered from the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP)/CRS, P.O. Box 501016, Indianapolis, IN 46250-1016, by e-mail:
[email protected], or downloaded at http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/CRS/.
FEMA publications can be ordered through the FEMA Publications Warehouse at (800) 4802520 or writing to FEMA, P.O. Box 2012, Jessup, MD 20794-2012, by faxing a request to (301)
362-5335, or online at FEMA’s Information Resource Library
http://www.fema.gov/library/index.jsp.
Special Consideration:
Historic Properties and
Cultural Resources
The Mitigation Planning How-To Guide #6, Integrating Historic
Property and Cultural Resource Considerations into Hazard
Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-6), is a valuable resource for Indian
Tribal governments in addressing cultural resources. For example,
pages 1 – 4 of How-To Guide #6 describe the role of State and
Tribal Historic Preservation Offices established under the National
Historic Preservation Act. Their roles and responsibilities related to
planning and implementing mitigation actions can be a valuable
resource for Indian Tribal governments in meeting the
requirements of 44 CFR 201.7. Visit http://www.achp.gov/thpo.html
for more information about Tribal Historic Preservation Officers.
FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute (EMI) and FEMA’s Regional Offices sponsor training
for Federal, State, local, and Indian Tribal governments by offering the Mitigation Planning
Workshop for Local Governments (G318) for plan developers and reviewers. EMI also has a
Training for Tribal Representatives program, which includes some courses about mitigation
planning, as explained at http://www.fema.gov/government/tribal/training.shtm.
EMI’s curriculum, posted at http://www.training.fema.gov/, also includes training in BCA, the
NFIP, HAZUS-MH, the National Hurricane Program, and the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program. The curriculum includes courses of varying lengths offered in residence,
through field courses, and through the online independent study program.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
9
INTRODUCTION
Special Consideration:
Integrating Manmade
Hazards
Both the Stafford Act and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
specifically require mitigation planning for natural hazards, but not
for manmade hazards. However, FEMA supports Indian Tribal
governments that choose to consider technological and manmade
hazards in their mitigation plans. While it is true that a Tribal
Mitigation Plan does not require manmade hazards to be
addressed in order to be approved, this Tribal Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Planning Guidance can be helpful in developing and
evaluating plans that include these hazards as part of a
comprehensive hazard mitigation strategy. For more information on
integrating technological and manmade hazards in mitigation
plans, see Integrating Manmade Hazards into Mitigation Planning
(FEMA 386-7), available on the FEMA Web site at
http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/resources.shtm.
NFIP Participation
The NFIP is a voluntary program authorized under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as
amended, to enable property owners in participating communities and Indian Tribal
governments to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losses in exchange for
adopting floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damages. Indian tribes,
authorized tribal organizations, Alaska Native villages, and authorized native organizations that
have land use authority, are considered communities by the NFIP and can join the program
even if no flood hazard map exists that covers all tribal lands. As of July 2009, 36 Indian Tribal
governments were enrolled in the NFIP, with more than 300 insurance policies in effect totaling
over $58 million in coverage. Indian Tribal governments do not have to be NFIP participants to
develop and adopt a Tribal Mitigation Plan, but the program may still provide valuable flood risk
data and other resources for use in the planning process. Appendix B, Mitigation Planning and
the National Flood Insurance Program, provides additional information on NFIP participation
and how NFIP information should be addressed in plans.
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PLANS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
The Tribal Mitigation Plan requirements under 44 CFR 201.7 specifically allow for multijurisdictional mitigation plans. An Indian Tribal government may elect to participate in a multijurisdictional plan as a participant in either a:
1. Tribal Multi-Jurisdictional Plan, where all participants are Indian Tribal governments; or
2. Local/Tribal Multi-Jurisdictional Plan, where one or more Indian Tribal government(s)
participate(s) in a planning process with one or more local government(s).
More detailed guidance for Indian Tribal governments participating in multi-jurisdictional
mitigation plans is presented later in this document.
Other Entities On or Near Tribal Lands
FEMA recognizes that governance structures vary, and that the authority to implement
mitigation strategies (e.g., land use planning and zoning, building code enforcement,
infrastructure improvements, floodplain management) may not reside within a single
governmental entity or with the Indian Tribal government. In addition, certain FEMA hazard
mitigation assistance programs accept applications from private and nonprofit organizations,
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
10
INTRODUCTION
special districts, schools, State-recognized tribes, and other quasi-governmental entities that do
not necessarily align with traditional geopolitical boundaries or do not fall under the governing
authority of Indian Tribal governments. Such entities are included under the definition of a Local
Government under 44 CFR 201.2, as follows:
[A]ny county, municipality, city, town, township, public authority, school district, special
district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of
governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or
interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; any
Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization;
and any rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other public entity.
Tribal or non-tribal entities located on or in proximity to tribal lands in “checkerboard” areas,
where tribal and non-tribal lands are interspersed, can participate in the development of the
Tribal Mitigation Plan, or develop a mitigation plan independently from the Indian Tribal
government. If developed separately, a non-tribal organization or tribal entity must develop a
Local Mitigation Plan under 44 CFR 201.6 and would only be eligible to apply for HMA grants as
a subgrantee. The Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance is available at
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3336. Since many of the Local Mitigation Plan
requirements under 44 CFR 201.6 are the same as the requirements for a Tribal Mitigation Plan
under 44 CFR 201.7, tribal entities may find this Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning
Guidance and the samples taken from approved Tribal Mitigation Plans useful in meeting many
of the requirements under 44 CFR 201.6, Local Mitigation Plans.
Special Consideration:
Private Nonprofit
Organizations
Private nonprofit organizations are not governmental entities. This
distinction is important because 44 CFR Part 201 requires
governments (State, tribal or local) to have a FEMA-approved
Mitigation Plan to receive project grant funds, not PNPs. For
mitigation planning purposes, PNPs are defined consistently with
44 CFR 206.2(a)(19) as:
Any nongovernmental agency or entity that currently has: (i)
An effective ruling letter from the U.S. Internal Revenue
Service granting tax exemption under section 501 (c), (d),
or (e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; or (ii)
Satisfactory evidence from the State that the organization
or entity is a nonprofit one organized or doing business
under State law.
Under the HMGP regulation at 44 CFR 206.434(a)(1), certain
PNPs are eligible subapplicants. In those cases, the local or Indian
Tribal government in which the PNP project is located must have a
FEMA-approved Mitigation Plan to be eligible for grant funds.
FEMA strongly recommends that PNPs participate in the
development of the Local or Tribal Mitigation Plan to ensure that
projects funded are consistent with the mitigation strategies of the
local or Indian Tribal government. If they have fully participated in
the development and review of the Local or Tribal Mitigation Plan,
it is not necessary for the PNP to approve/adopt the plan, as long
as it is adopted by the appropriate local jurisdiction or Indian Tribal
government.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
11
PLANNING PROCESS
Because the planning process is so important, the Mitigation Planning regulation at 44 CFR Part
201 requires documentation of this process including how the plan was prepared, who was
involved in the process, and how tribal members and other stakeholders were involved. For
example, these efforts may begin with a tribal planning team to collect information on hazards
on their lands. Then the process would likely involve other tribal members and affected
stakeholders to agree on common goals and strategies to protect life and property, preserve
tribal culture and resources, and reduce vulnerability to hazards. This process provides an
opportunity for the public, as defined by the Indian Tribal government, to comment on the plan
as it is being developed. This may also include an opportunity for neighboring communities,
businesses, and other interested parties to participate in the planning process.
A successful planning process involves bringing tribal members together to talk about their
knowledge, their perception of risk, and how to meet their needs as part of the process. It is an
inclusive process that also works within the traditions, culture, and methods most suitable to an
Indian Tribal government so that participants better understand the problem or issues and
develop a vision for setting goals, priorities, and mitigation actions. An effective planning
process ensures that tribal members and other stakeholders understand risks and vulnerability,
work with the Indian Tribal government, and support its policies, actions, and tools over the
long-term to achieve a reduction in future losses.
FEMA recognizes that public participation may be different for Indian Tribal governments than
for non-tribal communities. For example, non-tribal communities may announce and hold public
meetings in a manner that is different from the way Indian Tribal governments are accustomed
to exchanging information with their members and making decisions. It is important that Indian
Tribal governments work with the FEMA Regional Office (and/or State counterparts if the Indian
Tribal government is considering the option to apply through the State as a subgrantee) to
agree on a method for meeting and documenting member and other stakeholder involvement
before the planning process begins to ensure that these requirements will be met. In addition,
Indian Tribal governments are strongly encouraged to coordinate with other Federal agencies,
such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Indian Health Service, and others that may
have resources and information appropriate for use in the planning process.
A comprehensive description of the planning process informs tribal members, plan reviewers,
and others about the plan’s development. Leadership, staffing, and in-house knowledge in the
Indian Tribal government may fluctuate over time; the description of the planning process
serves as a permanent record that explains how decisions were reached on a mitigation
strategy to reduce losses, and documents that it was developed with input from tribal members
and other stakeholders. Leaders can rely on this documentation to continue to make decisions
in a pre- and post-disaster environment to decrease vulnerability to hazards.
Special Consideration:
Cultural Traditions and
Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Planning
Some Indian Tribal governments have experienced difficulty or
apprehension about how to honor traditional beliefs and cultural
attitudes while participating in the mitigation planning process.
Similarly, the term “natural hazard” as used in the planning regulation
at 44 CFR Part 201, and in this document to remain consistent, is not
meant to contradict cultural beliefs common to many Indian Tribal
governments and their members. The following excerpt, taken from
the Navajo Nation Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan shows how one Indian
Tribal government addressed this concern.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
12
PLANNING PROCESS
Sample 1.1: Excerpt from Navajo Nation Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Navajo Nation and the Navajo People (Dinė) find the subject of hazard
mitigation hard to speak of and hard to prepare for. The idea of preparing for
disaster from a traditional point of view is asking for disaster. One plans for the
future well being of one’s family, the planting of crops or the shearing of sheep.
One does not plan for the proverbial rainy day, because it may offend the rain.
The elements in traditional belief are living beings, wind, rain, earth, and sky, live
and breathe as we do. The elements are holy, the Holy Wind brought the Dinė to
life, the rain is both male (heavy rains, thunder) and female (gentle), the earth is
our mother, the sky our father. They protect us and provide us with food, shelter,
medicines, and in turn we offer our prayers. An elderly Navajo woman was told
that she must be relocated from her childhood home and moved to a new area,
as part of a land exchange between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Nation. The
woman’s only concern was that if she left she was afraid that the wind would not
know her name.
To plan for protection from the elements may bring more of a disaster or worse
yet, cause the elements to leave. The Dinė Nation has suffered for many years
from drought; the medicine people and the elderly believe that the rain has not
come because the young have forgotten how to pray, and cut their hair (long hair
represents rain). The Dinė in this plan strive to find a balance between living in
the 21st Century (western) and living in the traditional way. The Dinė believe that
balance must be found between the two in order to survive as a culture, for in the
balance there is Hozho (beauty). This plan represents the combination of the two
worlds, the western and the traditional. The Plan was prepared with beauty in our
thoughts, with beauty above us, with beauty below us, with beauty surrounding
us.
This section includes the following subsections:
Documentation of the Planning Process
Program Integration
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
13
PLANNING PROCESS
DOCUMENTATION OF THE PLANNING PROCESS
Requirements
201.7(b), 201.7
(c)(1)(i) and (ii):
An effective planning process is essential to the development of an
effective plan. The mitigation planning process should include
coordination with other tribal agencies, appropriate Federal agencies,
adjacent jurisdictions, interested groups, and be integrated to the extent
possible with other ongoing tribal planning efforts as well as other FEMA
mitigation programs and initiatives.
[The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the
plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process,
and how the public was involved. This shall include:
(i) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the
drafting stage and prior to plan approval, including a description of how
the Indian Tribal government defined “public;”
(ii) As appropriate, an opportunity for neighboring communities, tribal
and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and
agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as
businesses, academia, and other private and nonprofit interests to be
involved in the planning process.
Explanation:
FEMA recognizes the unique and sovereign status of Indian Tribal
governments and the need for the Indian Tribal government to define
“public.” The planning process provides an opportunity for Indian Tribal
governments to design their own procedures for involving their members
and other stakeholders. In addition, Indian Tribal governments are
strongly encouraged to work with neighboring jurisdictions and other
agencies to locate data, develop mitigation strategies and priorities, and
supplement their resources in addressing and implementing mitigation
goals.
The description of the planning process shall:
Indicate how tribal members and other affected parties often referred
to as stakeholders (residents, businesses, and other interested
parties) had an opportunity to comment on the plan during the
drafting stage and prior to plan approval (e.g., information
exchanged at gatherings and meetings, through tribal offices,
libraries, school events, radio broadcasts, interactive Web pages,
storefronts, toll-free telephone lines); and
Include a discussion of the opportunity provided to other Indian Tribal
governments; regional, State, and local agencies; businesses;
academia; other relevant private and nonprofit interests; and as
appropriate, neighboring communities to be involved in the hazard
mitigation planning process.
The plan shall document how the plan was prepared (e.g., the time
period to complete the plan, the type and outcome of meetings or
gatherings), who was involved in the planning process (e.g., the
composition of the planning team), and how tribal members were
involved.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
14
PLANNING PROCESS
The plan should also document how the planning team was formed and
how each party contributed to the process. Ideally, the tribal planning
team includes members from different tribal offices and reaches out to a
cross section of members and elders, as well as business and nonprofit
leaders, and educators. Whenever possible, it is highly encouraged that
the tribal planning team reach out to other Indian Tribal governments
and organizations and Federal, State, regional, and local agencies that
may have valuable data or other information to share in developing the
Tribal Mitigation Plan.
The plan should describe how stakeholder comments and concerns
were considered and incorporated into the plan.
Special
Consideration:
Additional
Introductory
Information
The tribal planning team should consider including a current description
of the Indian Tribal government and tribal lands in this section or in the
introduction of the plan. The general description can include a
socioeconomic, historic, and geographic profile as well as traditions and
culture, to provide a context for understanding the Indian Tribal
government’s perception of risk, mitigation goals, and mitigation actions.
Photographs of tribal land areas may also be included to help portray the
landscape and potential hazards.
Plan Update:
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to
review and revise its plan to reflect any changes in development,
progress in mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it
for approval within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA
assistance.
Therefore, the updated plan shall describe the process used to review
and analyze each section of the plan (i.e., Planning Process, Risk
Assessment, Mitigation Strategy, and Plan Maintenance). If the tribal
planning team finds that some sections of the plan warrant an update
and others do not, the process the team undertook to make that
determination must be documented in the plan.
The Plan Maintenance section of this guidance requires a description
about how tribal members and other stakeholders were invited to stay
involved during the plan maintenance process (44 CFR 201.7 (4)(iv))
over the previous 5 years. Since this contributes to the continued
planning process, the Indian Tribal government may choose to describe
this within the planning process section of the plan update rather than
the plan maintenance section. The Plan Maintenance section of the plan
is intended to emphasize future involvement for tribal members and
other stakeholders, as appropriate.
Resources:
For more information on the planning process and ideas on identifying
stakeholders, building the planning team, generating interest among
tribal members, enlisting partners, and seeking to initiate a
comprehensive local mitigation planning process, see:
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
15
PLANNING PROCESS
Getting Started (FEMA 386-1), Steps 1 – 3.
Integrating Manmade Hazards into Mitigation Planning (FEMA
386-7), Phase 3, Step 4.
Sample 1.2:
Excerpt from Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Pre-Disaster
Mitigation Plan
2.0
PLANNING PROCESS
The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes PDM [Plan] is the result of
a collaborative effort between Tribal members, Lake and Sanders
County citizens, Tribal and public agencies, local utility companies, and
regional, State, and Federal organizations. Public participation played a
key role in the development of goals and mitigation projects. Interviews
were conducted with the Tribal DES Coordinator Office of Emergency
Services, as well as with the emergency managers from Lake and
Sanders County. Interviews were conducted with Tribal members, the
Tribal Council, mayors, and elected officials. Four public meetings were
held to solicit input from Tribal and county residents.
2.1
CONTACT LIST
The PDM planning process was initiated by preparing a contact list of
individuals whose input was needed to help develop the Plan. These
persons included the Tribal DES Coordinator, Tribal Council,
TERC/LEPC, Tribal Historic Preservation, Tribal Fire Management,
Tribal Forest Management, and Shoreline Protection. Councilpersons
from each of the incorporated towns (Polson, Ronan, St. Ignatius and
Hot Springs) were listed, as well as the mayors, fire chiefs and public
works directors. Federal and State agencies on the contact list included
the National Weather Service, U.S. Forest Service, Montana Department
of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and Montana Department of Natural
Resources. Public and private entities included Montana Rail Link,
Pennsylvania Power and Light of Montana, Bonneville Power, Mission
Valley Power, Century Telephone and Blackfoot Telephone. Appendix B
represents the Tribal contact list. Persons and entities on the contact list
received a variety of information during the planning process, including
project maps and documents for review, meeting notifications, and
mitigation strategy documents.
2.2
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS AND MEETINGS
Interviews were conducted with individuals and specialists from
organizations interested in hazard mitigation planning. The interviews
identified common concerns related to natural and manmade hazards
and identified key long and short-term activities to reduce risk.
Stakeholders interviewed for the plan included representatives from
Tribal government, water providers, fire departments, and utility
providers. A list of meetings and interviews with Flathead Reservation
stakeholders is presented in Appendix B.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
16
PLANNING PROCESS
2.3
FORMAL PUBLIC MEETINGS
Four public meetings were conducted on the Flathead Reservation. The
meetings were held in Ronan/Pablo on March 31, 2004, in Polson on
April 1, 2004, in St. Ignatius on April 7, 2004, and in Hot Springs on April
8, 2004. The purpose of the meetings was to gather information on
historic disasters, update the list of critical facilities, and gather ideas
from citizens about mitigation planning and priorities for mitigation goals.
Sign-in sheets from the Flathead Reservation public meetings, and
meeting summaries are presented in Appendix B.
In advance of the public meetings, a press release was distributed to
local and regional newspapers including the Charkoosta, Lake County
Leader, and Sanders County Ledger. A copy of the press release and
media distribution list is included in Appendix B. Appendix B also
contains copies of the press release as it appeared in several local
newspapers.
2.4
OTHER PROJECT MEETINGS
Over the course of the project, numerous meetings were held with, and
briefings given to, local officials and other stakeholders. At the project’s
inception, the author visited in depth with members of the TERC/LEPC
committee.
2.5
PLAN REVIEW
Review copies of the draft Plan were provided to the DES Coordinator
for distribution in hard copy. Plan reviewers included Tribal Council
members, Tribal government officials, BIA officials, county
commissioners, mayors of the various jurisdictions, representatives of
the local utility companies, the National Weather Service, and other
federal, State, and local officials. Public comments were submitted to the
DES Coordinator after a 30-day review period. The DES Coordinator
reviewed the comments and submitted a consolidated list of comments
to the contractor.
A review of the Plan for completeness was conducted after the initial
comments were addressed. Plan copies were submitted to the Montana
DES Hazard Mitigation Officer and the Montana FEMA representative
for review. The review period lasted 30 days. Upon receipt of comments,
the Plan was finalized and taken to the Tribal Council for adoption.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
17
PLANNING PROCESS
Sample 1.3:
Excerpt from the Cher Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad
Rancheria Hazard Mitigation Plan
2.8 Public Inclusion
Trinidad Rancheria staff facilitated a number of opportunities for public
inclusion in the development of the plan, in order to gather input and
ideas from Trinidad Rancheria residents and stakeholders. Beginning
with the Tribal Business Committee meeting on January 19, 2005, the
Trinidad Rancheria community has been invited to participate in the
development of the HMP and has had numerous opportunities to provide
input on mitigation activities and priorities for increasing the level of
disaster preparedness and resilience.
2.9 Public Involvement
The Trinidad Rancheria has been publicizing the creation of the Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan since February 26, 2005. A draft HMP was
created for the Community Council and was discussed on November 12,
2005, requesting public participation and community comments. The
HMP Work Group held a public hearing on November 14, 2005 and
disseminated the draft HMP to the participating community members.
[NOTE: Community survey indicates a 34% return of surveys from voting
members of the Council and a 64% return of surveys from surveys given
out at the public hearing.]
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
18
PLANNING PROCESS
PROGRAM INTEGRATION
Requirement
201.7(c)(1)(iii)
and (iv):
[The plan shall:]
[include] (iii) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans,
studies, and reports; and
(iv) Be integrated to the extent possible with other ongoing tribal
planning efforts as well as other FEMA programs and initiatives.
Explanation:
Indian Tribal governments are strongly encouraged to utilize existing
information and activities to integrate data, mitigation strategies, and
other resources that support or address mitigation goals. Coordination
can result in identifying opportunities to integrate planning efforts and
mitigation actions. FEMA has found that mitigation plan implementation
is most effective when mitigation planning efforts are integrated with
those of other planning programs and initiatives.
The description of the planning process shall describe the review of any
existing plans, studies, and reports, and how these are incorporated into
the plan. This may include data or technical assistance from other tribal,
Federal, regional, State, or local agencies, as well as tribal colleges and
universities, academic institutions, or other sources of aid, grants,
resources, or assistance.
In addition, Indian Tribal governments shall demonstrate that they have
made efforts at integration. Examples may include:
Plan Update:
Reviewing existing plans and reports to identify opportunities to
integrate mitigation actions.
Having mitigation planners/specialists serve on other tribal program
and planning teams.
Consolidating the planning requirements for all tribal mitigation
programs (e.g., HMGP, FMA, CRS, local comprehensive plans, and
land use plans).
Identifying overall goals or priorities common to other tribal planning
efforts.
Requesting that legislation be passed or issuing an Executive Order
mandating integration of mitigation actions into other planning
initiatives.
Describing actual ongoing efforts where mitigation actions have been
integrated into planning mechanisms (e.g., comprehensive plans,
capital improvement plans, and emergency operation plans) and
implementation tools (e.g., building codes, floodplain ordinances,
and land use regulations).
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to
review and revise its plan to reflect any changes in development,
progress in mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it
for approval within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
19
PLANNING PROCESS
assistance.
In addition to discussing what integration efforts have taken place to
date, the update shall discuss the Indian Tribal government’s planning
integration efforts and opportunities that were identified in the previously
approved plan and any unforeseen obstacles that emerged since
approval of the previous plan.
Resource:
For information on integrating hazard mitigation actions with other
initiatives, see:
Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4), Step 2.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
20
RISK ASSESSMENT
Section 201.7(c)(2) of 44 CFR requires Indian Tribal governments to provide sufficient hazard
and risk information from which to develop and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to
safeguard and protect tribal members, lands, and cultural and other resources in long-term or
permanent ways. This includes detailed descriptions of all the natural hazards that could affect
the tribal planning area, as well as an analysis of the Indian Tribal government’s vulnerability to
those hazards. The risk assessment does not need to be based on the most sophisticated
technology, but does need to be accurate, current, and relevant. The risk assessment coupled
with the Indian Tribal government’s mitigation strategies may also contribute to the basis for the
State’s evaluation of its resources and facilitate the establishment of statewide goals.
Comprehensive risk assessment data may not be readily available for Indian Tribal
governments to meet mitigation planning requirements with the submission of their initial plan.
Therefore, FEMA recommends that plans identify any data limitations and include actions in the
mitigation strategy of the plan to explain how the data will be obtained. The data would then be
included in the risk assessment completed for the next plan update.
Even though maps are generally not required as part of the plan, FEMA recommends their use
to illustrate the required risk assessment information. FEMA developed HAZUS (HAZUS-MH), a
nationally standardized geographic information system (GIS) software that can also upload tribal
data to assess vulnerability by estimating losses from floods, earthquakes, and hurricane wind
events. HAZUS-MH is not required for developing a Tribal Mitigation Plan, but Indian Tribal
governments are encouraged to incorporate their own data and use this tool to form a scientific
basis for developing their mitigation strategy.
Indian Tribal governments are encouraged to address cultural and sacred sites in their risk
assessments, though many consider their sacred sites to be a “close hold” subject, and may be
unable, according to their traditions, to share specific locations and conditions (i.e., risk) in a
public document. Respecting these cultural beliefs, Indian Tribal governments should cite that
there are some areas that could be vulnerable but are sacred. Likewise, the Indian Tribal
government can include a reference (agency or department contact information) for historic,
archaeological, and cultural sites in the Tribal Mitigation Plan. Plans submitted to FEMA may be
subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore, Indian Tribal
governments may include information on sacred sites in a separate annex that can be
referenced in the Tribal Mitigation Plan but secured by the Indian Tribal government in their own
offices to address potential risks to these sites without revealing their exact locations.
The Mitigation Planning regulation does not require that plans address manmade hazards,
although Indian Tribal governments are encouraged to assess risks to these hazards by using
FEMA’s Integrating Manmade Hazards into Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-7). This guide can
help Indian Tribal governments identify specific actions to reduce loss of life and property from
manmade hazards by modifying the built environment. It is not intended to help establish
procedures to respond to disasters, write an emergency operations plan, or create a counterterrorism program. In this context, the goal of mitigation is to decrease the need for response as
opposed to increasing response capability.
This section includes the following subsections:
Identifying Hazards
Profiling Hazards
Assessing Vulnerability: Overview
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
21
RISK ASSESSMENT
Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures
Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses
Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends
Assessing Vulnerability: Assessing Cultural and Sacred Sites
IDENTIFYING HAZARDS
Requirement
201.7(c)(2)(i):
[The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type … of all
natural hazards that can affect the tribal planning area …
Explanation:
The risk assessment shall identify and describe the natural hazards likely
to affect the tribal planning area. This means that the Indian Tribal
government must define the tribal planning area covered by their Tribal
Mitigation Plan and clearly identify the boundaries of the land holdings in
the tribal planning area, including noncontiguous tribal lands and
checkerboard areas.
It is critical that the plan identify all natural hazards that can affect the
tribal planning area, because the hazard identification is the foundation
for the plan’s risk assessment, which in turn is the factual basis for the
mitigation strategy. If the hazard identification omits (without explanation)
any land holdings or hazards commonly recognized as threats to the
tribal planning area, this part of the plan cannot receive a “Satisfactory”
score.
While not required by the Mitigation Planning regulation at 44 CFR Part
201, the plan should describe the sources used to identify hazards. The
process for identifying hazards could involve the following:
Talking to experts from other Indian Tribal governments, Federal,
State, and local agencies, colleges, and universities;
Collecting data from adjacent local, regional, Federal, or other Indian
Tribal governments or agencies;
Reviewing the relevant portions of State hazard mitigation plan(s),
reports, plans, flood ordinances, and land use regulations;
Searching the Internet, newspapers, and other publications;
Interviewing tribal elders who may not already be involved with the
tribal planning team; and
Reviewing past events and disasters.
For events that involve multiple hazards, each hazard should be
described separately so that the Indian Tribal government has sufficient
information to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions. For
instance, the impacts of high winds of hurricanes and tsunamis are
distinctly different from the impacts of flooding and storm surge; severe
storms also include both flooding and high winds; and wildfires have
immediate fire hazards but may also produce mudslide hazards when
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
22
RISK ASSESSMENT
followed by rain.
When considering how to approach hazard identification, Indian Tribal
governments may want to refer to the State’s risk assessment and
approach hazard identification in a similar manner, particularly if
considering subgrantee status with the State for grant funding.
Plan Update:
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to
review and revise its plan to reflect any changes in development,
progress in mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it
for approval within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA
assistance.
Therefore, the risk assessment update shall address any newly identified
hazards that have been determined to pose a threat to the tribal planning
area. If improved descriptions of hazards are available, they should be
incorporated into this section.
Special
Consideration:
Using HAZUSMH to Estimate
Potential Losses
HAZUS-MH can be used to define the area at risk and the hazards that
may affect that area, as well as the degree of risk from potential flood,
earthquake, and wind hazards. HAZUS-MH is based on a GIS platform;
therefore, it is possible to overlay information about other hazards on
HAZUS-MH maps to better understand risk from combined hazards.
While the use of HAZUS-MH is not required in Tribal Mitigation Plans,
Indian Tribal governments are encouraged to use HAZUS-MH to form a
scientific basis from which the mitigation strategy is developed. To assist
with conducting a hazard vulnerability analysis, FEMA has developed
HAZUS-MH, a nationally standardized GIS software that can incorporate
tribal data to assess vulnerability by estimating losses from floods,
earthquakes, and hurricane wind events.
Resource:
For more information on identifying hazards, see:
Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 1.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
23
RISK ASSESSMENT
PROFILING HAZARDS
Requirement
201.7(c)(2)(i):
[The risk assessment shall include a] description of the … location and
extent of all natural hazards that can affect the tribal planning area. The
plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events
and on the probability of future hazard events.
Explanation:
The description of each hazard shall include a narrative (and an optional
map and/or table) of the following information:
The location or geographical area in the tribal planning area that
would be affected. If a hazard location cannot be geographically
determined, such as for tornadoes, which can strike anywhere in the
tribal planning area, the plan must describe the entire area that can be
affected by the hazard. However, hazards with known geographic
boundaries (e.g., flood, wildfire) must specifically identify where the
hazard can occur. For example: floodplains indicate areas potentially
affected by flooding; inundation areas represent the boundary on a
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that shows the rising of a body of
water and its overflowing onto normally dry land; wildland/urban
interface (WUI) are areas where improved property and wildland fuels
meeting at a well-defined boundary are potentially affected by
wildfire. 1 When maps are included, be sure to include a directional
arrow to orient the data; when digital data are used, it is helpful to
reference metadata standards used, such as Federal Geographic Data
Commission metadata standards, when applicable.
The extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of potential hazard events.
Magnitude is a measure of the strength of a hazard event. The
magnitude (also referred to as severity) of a given hazard event is
usually determined using technical measures specific to the hazard.
For each identified hazard, plans shall indicate the range of
magnitude or severity that could be experienced. Related information
should reference scientific scales, such as the Enhanced Fujita Scale
(for hurricanes), TORRO Hail Scale, Richter Scale (for earthquakes),
Beaufort Wind Scale, Saffir-Simpson Scale (for hurricanes), and the
Palmer Drought Severity Index by using quantitative measurements
such as miles per hour, flood depth, inches of rain, fire danger rating,
and acres burned. Another way to classify hazards is to use terms like
high, medium, low; or major, minor, minimum. The plan must clearly
define any classification methods used to illustrate extent.
The probability of the potential occurrence of a hazard event. The
probability is a statistical measure of the likelihood that the hazard
event would occur in the tribal planning area.
The plan shall also provide a discussion of past occurrences of hazard
events in or near the tribal planning area. For example, in areas where
1
Source: National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) 299, Standard for Protection of Life and Property from
Wildfire, 1997.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
24
RISK ASSESSMENT
tornadoes occur, the plan should indicate the recorded intensities and
dates of previous events. This discussion should include:
Information on the damages that occurred (e.g., costs of recovery,
property damage, lives lost) to the extent available;
Level of severity (e.g., flood depth, wind speeds, earthquake intensity);
Duration of event;
Date of occurrence; and
Sources of information used or consulted for assembling a history of
past occurrences.
The hazard analysis should also identify on a map the areas affected by
each identified hazard. Additionally, a composite map (i.e., map showing
combined information from different thematic map layers) should be
provided for hazards with a recognizable geographic boundary (i.e.,
hazards that are known to occur in particular areas of the tribal planning
area, such as floods, coastal storms, wildfires, tsunamis, and landslides).
The characterization of hazards should describe the conditions, such as
topography, soil characteristics, meteorological conditions, etc., in the
area that may exacerbate or mitigate the potential effects of hazards.
The hazard analysis should be detailed enough to allow identification of
the areas of the tribal land areas that are most severely affected by each
hazard.
The plan should describe the analysis or sources used to determine the
probability, likelihood, or frequency of occurrence as well as the severity or
magnitude of future hazard events.
The plan should note any data limitations and identify and include in the
mitigation strategy actions for obtaining the data necessary to complete
and improve future risk analysis efforts.
Special
Consideration:
Using HAZUSMH to Estimate
Potential Losses
Plan Update:
While HAZUS-MH is not required for preparing Tribal Mitigation Plans,
Indian Tribal governments are encouraged to use HAZUS-MH to form a
scientific basis from which the mitigation strategy is developed.
HAZUS-MH establishes a base map for both single- and multijurisdictional boundaries and includes important features such as
critical/essential facilities, lifeline facilities, high potential loss facilities,
bridges, hazardous materials facilities, and limited utilities and road
segment data. It is based on the geographic area that the risk
assessment will address.
HAZUS-MH includes historical information about earthquake and
hurricane hazards.
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to review
and revise its plan to reflect any changes in development, progress in
mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for approval
within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA assistance.
Therefore, the plan update shall continue to describe occurrences of hazards
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
25
RISK ASSESSMENT
included in the previously approved plan and discuss new occurrences of
hazard events. As required under 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3), the updated plan shall
incorporate any new data (i.e., data gathered since the previous plan was
approved) or hazard data related to profiling hazards, such as NFIP maps or
studies, HAZUS-MH studies, or reports from the Indian Tribal government or
other Federal or State agencies that describe location, extent, probability, or
previous occurrences of hazards.
FEMA recommends that Tribal Mitigation Plans point out any data limitations
and identify actions to obtain the data in the mitigation strategy. If a previously
approved plan identified data deficiencies to be addressed later, then the
deficiencies shall be incorporated in the updated risk assessment. However,
if the data deficiencies have not been resolved, they must be addressed in
the updated plan and accompanied by an explanation of why they remain
and an updated schedule to resolve the issue.
Any maps included in the updated plan must be consistent with the updated
information.
Special
Consideration:
Maps
While the Tribal Mitigation Plan requirements under 44 CFR 201.7 do not
require the inclusion of maps, they can be a valuable tool to illustrate the
information provided in the risk assessment. If the Indian Tribal government
does not have digital mapping capability (Geographic Information System,
Internet maps), paper maps can be scanned, copied, or manipulated
manually to include in the plan.
Maps should address hazards represented in the plan for the tribal planning
area. For example, maps at a State or regional scale may not adequately
show information on the level needed for the tribal planning area (especially
when an Indian Tribal government has scattered landholdings in multiple
counties, checkerboard areas, or more than one State). It may be useful to
consider the following when determining the usefulness of maps:
Maps should be selected at a scale appropriate to the tribal planning
area.
Maps can have multiple layers to clarify each hazard. This is effective for
hazards such as flood and hazardous materials.
Maps should clearly show all participating jurisdictional boundaries.
Maps should be readable at an 8 ½ by 11 inch letter size.
Maps should include a readable legend, scale, and north arrow.
The limitations of the data used on the map should be described the plan.
Refer to Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2) for more information on
maps and mapping techniques.
Resources:
For more information on profiling hazards, see:
Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2).
Integrating Manmade Hazards into Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-7),
Phase 2, Step 2.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
26
RISK ASSESSMENT
ASSESSING VULNERABILITY: OVERVIEW
Requirement
201.7(c)(2)(ii):
[The risk assessment shall include a] description of the Indian Tribal
government’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary
of each hazard and its impact on the tribe.
Explanation:
The Tribal Mitigation Plan shall include an overview of the Indian Tribal
government’s vulnerability to the hazards and impacts in the tribal
planning area, vulnerable structures, and culturally significant sites. This
summary shall include, by type of hazard, a general description of the
types of structures affected by the hazard. Examples include, but are not
limited to, buildings, infrastructure, critical facilities, structures that house
the elderly or disabled, and areas where low-income populations reside.
The overview shall also include a general description of the extent of the
hazard’s impact to vulnerable structures, resources, or sites. Vulnerable
assets include those located in geographic areas susceptible to a
particular hazard. However, keep in mind that certain hazards may affect
the entire tribal planning area.
The summary can be presented in terms of dollar value or percentages
of damage. If there are any data limitations, 44 CFR 201.7(c)(2) may be
met by identifying the particular limitations and including actions to
obtain the data needed to complete and improve future vulnerability
assessments.
Special
Consideration:
Using HAZUSMH to Estimate
Potential Losses
HAZUS-MH generates tables and maps of inventory data and allows the
incorporation of tribal data to consider the assets that can be impacted
by the prioritized hazards. HAZUS-MH includes information compiled
from national databases to describe the distribution of buildings by their
use, construction material, replacement cost, and other characteristics. It
also includes data about the location and characteristics of utilities,
transportation, populations, buildings, infrastructure, utilities, and other
information that can help Indian Tribal governments understand their risk
from hazards. HAZUS-MH can incorporate hazard data and information
about the built environment and other assets to assess risk for tribal land
areas as part of the risk assessment process.
The most important purpose of HAZUS-MH is to estimate losses from
natural hazards. Descriptions of losses include social, cultural, and
economic considerations, as well as the location and extent of losses. It
is recommended that Indian Tribal governments use HAZUS-MH to
produce loss estimations that reflect their actual conditions as accurately
as possible.
While the use of HAZUS-MH is not required in preparing Tribal Mitigation
Plans, Indian Tribal governments are encouraged to use HAZUS-MH to
form a scientific basis from which the mitigation strategy is developed.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
27
RISK ASSESSMENT
Plan Update:
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to
review and revise its plan to reflect changes in development, progress in
tribal mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for
approval within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA
assistance.
Therefore, the vulnerability overview in the updated plan shall describe
any changes, clarifications, or refinements to the overview summary
described in the previously approved plan. It shall continue to include,
by type of hazard, a general description of the types of structures
affected by the hazard.
The Indian Tribal government should take into account the following
when updating its vulnerability assessment:
Updated inventories of existing structures and other resources in
hazard areas, including new development, redeveloped areas, or
structures located in land purchases or other acquisitions;
Potential impacts of future land development, including areas that
may be purchased or acquired in the future;
New buildings that house special high-risk populations (i.e., elders,
youth, low-income, disabled, and those without transportation); and
Completed mitigation actions that reduced overall vulnerability.
If the previously approved plan noted data limitations related to the
vulnerability summary and identified in the mitigation strategy actions to
resolve the data deficiency, then the updated plan shall discuss how the
data were collected and incorporated into the updated risk assessment.
If data deficiencies still remain unresolved, the plan must discuss in the
mitigation strategy what action will be taken to collect the data for the
next update.
Special
Consideration:
Special
Populations
The Mitigation Planning regulation at 44 CFR Part 201 does not require
a discussion about facilities that house special populations at risk, such
as elders, youth, low-income, disabled, those without transportation, or
others with special needs. However, FEMA recommends their
consideration in the risk assessment to enable the development of
appropriate actions to reduce vulnerability to these facilities during and
after a disaster, thereby potentially saving lives.
HAZUS-MH uses some standardized data and some data from State
databases, but also has a Comprehensive Data Management System
(CDMS) tool to support conversion of external data sources into HAZUSMH-compliant data. Processing site-specific and aggregate information
at the census block and tract levels is supported. Tribes can enter their
data using CDMS to replace other data, such as census data. CDMS
can streamline and automate raw data processing and the transfer of
data from other datasets.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
28
RISK ASSESSMENT
Resources:
Sample 2.1:
For a discussion on preparing a vulnerability assessment, see:
Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 3, Worksheet #3a,
Inventory Assets.
HAZUS-MH at www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus/.
Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations
into Hazard Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-6).
Integrating Manmade Hazards into Mitigation Planning (FEMA 3867), Phase 2, Step 2.
Excerpt From Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Karuk Tribe of
California
While the Karuk have 650 acres of trust lands and over 1000 acres of
fee lands, many of the Tribe’s most valued resources (i.e., cultural
assets) are located on federal lands, which encompass approximately
1.4 million acres of National Forest lands. Karuk cultural resources are
trust resources the government is obligated to protect as part of its trust
responsibility to Federal Indian tribes. Karuk trust resources include:
traditional subsistence foods such as fish, shellfish, wild game, acorns,
mushrooms, and plants to make baskets and objects for ceremonial &
sacred uses. Many irreplaceable cultural resources are adversely
impacted by frequent fires and floods. In the past, floods have washed
away burial sites and fires have incinerated cultural resources.
The Karuk Tribe of California maintains Fire/Fuels and Watershed
Restoration programs as well as memorandums of understanding
(MOUs) with local National Forest Offices that encourage the Karuk
Tribe’s involvement in wildfire suppression, fuel reduction projects, and
watershed restoration (road decommissioning) activities. This allows the
Tribe to monitor fire suppression, pro-actively reduce fuel loads, and
reduce the threat posed by un-maintained road miles in its Ancestral
Territory. In addition, the Tribe meets monthly with the U.S.F.S. to
address other activities that may impact Karuk resources. When fire
events occur, the Karuk Tribe encourages the U.S.F.S. to implement
responsible mitigation to protect Tribal resources and needs. In some
instances, there is not enough time to take the action(s) needed. For this
reason, safeguarding our irreplaceable natural and cultural resources in
advance is critical.
The December 31, 2005, flood impacted locations where ceremonial
activities occur. It also affected areas where the Karuk are dependent on
forest resources and road access to them. These resources include, but
are not limited to Ceremonial Grounds, Gathering Sites for Subsistence,
Trails, Road Access, and a Fish Hatchery.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
29
RISK ASSESSMENT
Risk Identification Summary Assessment for the Karuk Tribe of California
Hazard
Type
Wildfire
Flood
Landslides
Drought
Water Contamination
Dam Failure
Volcanoes
Earthquakes
Road and Bridge
Failure
Potential
Threat
High
Risk
Low
Risk
Extent
Wide
Extent
Limited
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
Frequent
Probability
High Low
Infrequent
30
RISK ASSESSMENT
ASSESSING VULNERABILITY: IDENTIFYING STRUCTURES
Requirement
201.7(c)(2)(ii)
(A):
[The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the] types and
numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical
facilities located in the identified hazard areas.
Explanation:
This information should be based on an inventory of existing and
proposed buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities (structures)
located within identified tribal hazard area boundaries. The inventory may
include, but is not limited to, the following:
Building Stock broadly includes residential, commercial, industrial,
tribally owned, and other institutional buildings such as schools and
senior centers.
Critical Facilities are essential to the health and welfare of the tribal
population and are especially important following hazard events.
Since vulnerability is based on service losses as well as building
structure integrity and content value, assess the effects on the service
function interruption of critical facilities as well as physical damage.
Critical facilities, for purposes of this Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Planning Guidance, may include emergency service facilities such as
hospitals and other medical facilities, jails and juvenile detention
centers, police and fire stations, emergency operations centers,
public works facilities, evacuation shelters, schools, and structures
that house special needs populations.
Transportation Systems include airways (including airports,
heliports, etc.), roadways (including highways, bridges, tunnels,
roadbeds, overpasses, transfer centers, etc.), railways and public
transit (including trackage, tunnels, bridges, rail yards, depots, etc.),
and waterways (including canals, locks, seaports, ferries, harbors,
dry-docks, piers, etc.).
Lifeline Utility Systems such as potable water, wastewater, oil,
natural gas, electric power, substations, and power lines.
Communications Systems and Networks such as telephones,
emergency service radio systems, repeater sites and base stations,
and television and radio stations.
High Potential Loss Facilities are facilities such as nuclear power
plants or dams that would have a high loss associated with their
impairment.
Hazardous Material Facilities include facilities housing
industrial/hazardous materials, such as corrosives, explosives,
flammable materials, radioactive materials, and toxins.
Economic Elements include major employers, financial centers, and
other business or retail districts in the community that could
significantly affect the tribal or surrounding economy if interrupted.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
31
RISK ASSESSMENT
Special Consideration Areas include areas of high density or areas
that may become isolated, whether residential, commercial,
institutional, or industrial that could result in economic and functional
losses as well as high death tolls and injury rates, if damaged.
Historic, Cultural, Sacred, and Natural Resource Areas may
include buildings, structures, objects, sacred sites, tribal, national,
and local historic or significant districts, and historical archival storage
facilities. The Tribal Mitigation Plan is for the Indian Tribal
government’s use, but FEMA understands that this portion of the plan
may contain sensitive information and that plans submitted to FEMA
may be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
Therefore, Indian Tribal governments may want to include information
on sacred sites in a separate annex that can be referenced in the
Tribal Mitigation Plan but secured by the Indian Tribal government in
their own offices. Alternatively, Indian Tribal governments can meet
this planning requirement by sharing approximate areas that may
contain sacred sites without revealing their exact locations. Inclusion
of these data is strongly encouraged in assessing risk and developing
mitigation goals, objectives, strategies, and actions to protect and
preserve cultural and sacred sites for future generations.
The structure description should also include construction characteristics
(e.g., year built, building materials [e.g., light wood frame, concrete
frame], freeboard, foundation types [e.g., piers, piles, basement, slab-ongrade]). The Indian Tribal government should determine the best way to
identify structures that are vulnerable to more than one hazard.
The Indian Tribal government should determine a timeframe for use (e.g.,
10 years) in considering proposed buildings, infrastructure, and critical
facilities, including planned and approved development. The information
on future structures may be based on and timed with the data gathering
phase of the Indian Tribal government comprehensive plan or land use
plan, if applicable.
If a comprehensive plan addressing the tribal planning area is not
available, Federal or State agencies or regional planning commissions
may be able to provide regional data about anticipated growth that may
affect the Indian Tribal government’s vulnerability to hazards.
The plan should document the process and sources used to identify
existing and future structures. If data are not readily available for
buildings and infrastructure, the plan should provide information on
critical facilities within the identified hazard areas and identify the
collection of data for buildings and infrastructure as an action item in the
mitigation strategy.
Plan Update:
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to
review and revise its plan to reflect changes in development, progress in
mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for approval
within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA assistance.
Therefore, the updated plan should include a current inventory of existing
and proposed buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located within
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
32
RISK ASSESSMENT
the identified hazard area boundaries in the tribal planning area.
Special
Consideration:
Build-out
Analysis
In addition to reviewing and incorporating data from comprehensive and
long-range plans, some Indian Tribal governments may opt to conduct a
build-out analysis. The analysis involves a projection based on full
development of all land in accordance with existing land use regulations,
such as a zoning ordinance or subdivision regulations. Within this
context, the impact of growth on vulnerability could be assessed and
included in the risk assessment as a means to develop future actions to
mitigate the risk. 2
Resources:
For a discussion on identifying vulnerable structures and preparing a
detailed inventory, see:
Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 3, Worksheets #3a
and #3b, Inventory Assets.
HAZUS-MH at www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus/.
Integrating Manmade Hazards into Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-7),
Phase 2, Step 4.
Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations
into Hazard Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-6).
2
Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/greenkit/build_out.htm.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
33
RISK ASSESSMENT
ASSESSING VULNERABILITY: ESTIMATING POTENTIAL LOSSES
Requirement
201.7(c)(2)(ii)
(B):
[The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the
potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph
(c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to
prepare the estimate.
Explanation:
Describing vulnerability in terms of dollar losses provides the Indian
Tribal government with a common framework in which to measure the
effects of hazards on vulnerable structures and other resources or sites.
The Plan should include an estimate of losses for the identified
vulnerable structures. A monetary estimate should be provided for each
hazard, and should include, when resources permit, structure, contents,
and functional losses to present a full picture of the total loss for each
asset.
Structural loss is defined as:
(Structure Replacement Value) x (% Damage) = (Structure Loss)
Contents loss is defined as:
(Replacement Value of Contents) x (% Damage) = (Contents Loss)
Functional losses are indirect effects that usually involve interruptions in
asset operations. Functional downtime is the average time (in days)
during which a business or service is unable to function due to a hazard
event. The total loss for each hazard event is defined as:
(Structure Loss) + (Contents Loss) + (Function Loss) = Total Loss
When data are limited, the Indian Tribal government can select the most
likely event for each hazard and estimate the losses for that event. In this
way, the tribal planning team can identify areas that could suffer the
greatest losses. In addition, the estimated dollar losses as a result of
hazard events can also be used to assess the benefits and costs of
proposed mitigation actions.
The methodology used to determine losses should also be provided in
the plan. It should note any data limitations and identify and include in the
implementation strategy actions for obtaining the data to complete and
improve the future risk assessment analysis efforts.
Plan Update:
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to
review and revise its plan to reflect changes in development, progress in
mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for approval
within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA assistance.
The loss estimate should be updated to reflect changes to the hazard
profile and/or to the inventory of structures. The plan should describe any
new methodology if the approach for determining the losses has changed
since the previous plan approval. The updated plan should include, when
resources permit, estimates of current structure, contents, and function
losses as well as an analysis of other affected resources or sites to
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
34
RISK ASSESSMENT
present a full picture of the total potential loss for each asset.
If the previously approved plan noted data deficiencies in estimating
potential losses and new data are available, then the new information
should be incorporated into the updated plan. However, if the data
deficiencies have not been resolved, the updated plan should explain
why the data deficiencies remain and include a schedule to resolve the
issue.
Special
Consideration:
Composite Maps
Creating a composite loss map depicting high potential loss areas (and
identifying the location of critical facilities within the high potential loss
areas) from multiple hazards will help the Indian Tribal government
develop its mitigation priorities based on loss potential.
Resources:
For a step-by-step method for estimating losses, see:
Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Estimate Losses, Steps 3
and 4, Worksheet #4.
HAZUS-MH at www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus/.
Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations
into Hazard Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-6).
Integrating Manmade Hazards into Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-7),
Phase 2, Step 1.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
35
RISK ASSESSMENT
ASSESSING VULNERABILITY: ANALYZING DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
Requirement
201.7(c)(2)(ii)
(C):
[The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of a] general description of
land uses and development trends within the tribal planning area so that
mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.
Explanation:
The Tribal Mitigation Plan should provide a general overview of land uses
and types of development occurring within the Indian tribal lands. This can
include existing land uses and development densities in the identified
hazard areas, as well as any anticipated future/proposed land uses,
including anticipated new development and redevelopment, and
anticipated land purchases or other acquisitions.
An analysis of development trends provides a basis for making decisions
on the type of mitigation approaches to consider and the locations where
these approaches can be implemented. This information can also
influence decisions regarding future development in hazard areas. A land
use map would be useful to depict the descriptive information.
The Tribal Mitigation Plan should note any data limitations and identify and
include in the mitigation strategy actions for obtaining the data necessary
to complete and improve the risk assessment in the future.
The Tribal Mitigation Plan should consider any or all of the following when
analyzing development trends:
Plan Update:
Trends in terms of the amount of change over time (e.g., projecting
trends based on increases of numbers of permits, including demolition,
issued per year) and where the development is occurring;
Similar types of land uses in areas with distinctly different densities
(e.g., single-family homes, attached housing, and multifamily housing);
Where the future land uses are likely to occur based on
comprehensive plans, zoning, redevelopment plans, or proposed land
acquisitions or purchases; or
The expected growth or redevelopment for some reasonable future
timeframe (e.g., 10 years). The timeframe could be coordinated with
that of a comprehensive or long-range plan review and update.
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to review
and revise its plan to reflect changes in development, progress in
mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for approval
within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA assistance.
The updated plan should include a general overview of land uses and
types of development occurring within the tribal land areas, highlighting
any changes since the previously approved plan. The update should
specifically include existing and future land uses in identified hazard
areas.
If the previously approved plan noted data deficiencies in analyzing
development trends and identified actions in the mitigation strategy to
address them at a later time, then the new information should be
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
36
RISK ASSESSMENT
incorporated. However, if the data deficiencies have not been resolved,
they should be addressed in the updated plan and accompanied by an
explanation of why they remain and an updated schedule to resolve the
issue.
Special
Consideration:
Using HAZUSMH to Analyze
Development
Trends
The HAZUS-MH inventory reflects current conditions within a study area
based on best available national data sources. HAZUS-MH can be
customized to accept data from other sources to reflect actual or projected
changes in the tribal planning area. While this process can be potentially
time consuming and costly, depending on the scale of the area under
study, it could be a valuable way to assess the risk from anticipated
development. This information can then be applied toward making betterinformed decisions to guide development in the tribal land areas.
While the use of HAZUS-MH is not required in Tribal Mitigation Plans,
Indian Tribal governments are encouraged to use HAZUS-MH to form a
scientific basis from which the mitigation strategy is developed.
Resources:
For more information on development trends, consult with other Indian
Tribal governments or Federal, State, local, or regional planning officials.
For information on estimating losses, see:
HAZUS-MH at www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus/.
Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations
into Hazard Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-6).
Integrating Manmade Hazards into Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-7),
Phase 2, Step 1.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
37
RISK ASSESSMENT
Sample 2.2:
Excerpt from the Tulalip Tribes Hazard Mitigation Plan
3.4 Land Use and Future Development Trends
The Tulalip Reservation has a unique land ownership and land use system
compared to other jurisdictions in Washington State. This is because the
Tulalip Reservation is not a State; rather it is a sovereign nation within
Washington State and held in Trust for its native inhabitants, namely Tulalip
Tribes members, by the United States Federal government. Nonetheless,
Federal policy and relations between Native Americans and non-native
Americans, has led to about 11,400 acres or 48% of the land area being
alienated or owned by non-natives. This land is referred to as Fee Land.
With greater economic independence in recent years, the Tribe has been
buying back alienated land. As of 2006, it is estimated that the Tribes and
members now own about 60% of the Reservation land base.
Figure 2-7 shows the current land ownership of the Reservation. Please
note the tribally owned parcel at Camano Head. This was the site of a
landslide that killed many Tribal members’ ancestors in the 1830s while
clamming. It caused a small tidal wave, a tsunami that then swept across
Possession Sound and destroyed a village at Hat Island. Figure 2-8 shows
the current zoning of the land of the Tulalip Reservation. Figure 2-9 shows
the proposed future land use of the Tulalip Reservation. Note that Tribal
Trust lands located along the steep landslide-prone bluffs are now
designated as Conservation.
Figure 2-7: 2004 Land Ownership
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
38
RISK ASSESSMENT
Figure 2-8: 2004 Tulalip Reservation Zoning
Figure 2-9: Tulalip Reservation Future Land Use
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
39
RISK ASSESSMENT
ASSESSING VULNERABILITY: ASSESSING CULTURAL AND SACRED SITES
Requirement
201.7(c)(2)(ii)
(D):
[The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] cultural and sacred
sites that are significant, even if they cannot be valued in monetary terms.
Explanation:
The plan should describe cultural and sacred sites located in hazard areas
in the tribal planning area. These sites can be significant for subsistence,
economic, religious/spiritual, medicinal, historical, and other values. A site
may be valued at several levels and in many different ways. Non-tribal
communities may think of plants, animals, water, air, and sunshine as
“resources to be managed.” Tribal members may consider them to be
relatives that the people understand and live with in harmony, and not
have dominion or control over them. Objects or sites (e.g., rock formation,
forest, view shed, plaza, mesa, longhouse or other religious building or
site) may have a spiritual significance not readily apparent to those
unfamiliar with tribal history, culture, and customs. The loss of those
cultural resources, whether the result of a manmade or natural disaster,
can have significant impacts.
The Tribal Mitigation Plan is for the Indian Tribal government’s use, but
plans submitted to FEMA may be subject to disclosure under the Freedom
of Information Act. Therefore, Indian Tribal governments may want to
include information on sacred sites in a separate annex that can be
referenced in the Tribal Mitigation Plan but secured by the Indian Tribal
government in its own offices. Alternatively, Indian Tribal governments can
meet this planning requirement by sharing approximate areas that may
contain sacred sites without revealing their exact locations. While
completion of this element is not required for plan approval, inclusion of
these data is strongly encouraged in assessing risk and developing
mitigation goals, objectives, strategies, and actions to protect and
preserve sacred sites for future generations.
The Tribal Mitigation Plan should note any data limitations and identify and
include in the mitigation strategy actions for obtaining the data necessary
to complete and improve this portion of the risk assessment in the future.
Plan Update:
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to review
and revise its plan to reflect changes in development, progress in
mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for approval
within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA assistance.
If the previously approved plan noted data deficiencies in analyzing
development trends and identified actions in the mitigation strategy to
address them at a later time, then the new information should be
incorporated. However, if the data deficiencies have not been resolved,
they should be addressed in the updated plan and accompanied by an
explanation of why they remain and an updated schedule to resolve the
issue.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
40
RISK ASSESSMENT
Resource:
For further guidance on identifying cultural and sacred sites, see:
Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations
into Hazard Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-6).
Sample 2.3:
Excerpt from the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
(From notes on determining appropriate mitigation actions during a field
trip.)
The group toured [a tribal member’s] property and documented several
cultural resources, including a “grinding rock,” at her home site. The
“grinding rock” and culturally significant plants used in native basketry and
for medicinal purposes were photographed. The preservation of numerous
identified plants is of major concern to residents. Potential mitigation
activities were discussed and a fire break around the fence line of the
allotments was of great interest to the residents. The goals of the LHMP
project were explained; seeking funds to protect allotment properties from
wildfires was discussed. One of the allotments also has a family cemetery.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
41
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Section 201.7(c)(3) of the Mitigation Planning regulation requires Indian Tribal governments to
develop a mitigation strategy. The tribal mitigation strategy includes the development of goals,
objectives, and prioritized mitigation actions and serves as the long-term blueprint for reducing
the potential losses identified in the risk assessment.
The development of goals from which specific actions and projects will be derived is based on
the Indian Tribal government’s existing authorities, policies, programs, resources, capabilities,
and tools to reduce losses and vulnerability from profiled hazards. Goals are long-term policy
statements and global visions that support the mitigation strategy. An example of a goal for a
wildfire hazard is “Minimize wildfire losses in the wildland/urban interface area.” Many Indian
tribal and local governments take an extra step and identify objectives that more narrowly define
implementation steps to attain the goals. Unlike goals, objectives are specific and measurable,
such as, “Increase educational opportunities for tribal members and other stakeholders about
wildfire defensible space actions.”
Following the identification of goals and objectives, the Mitigation Planning regulation at 44 CFR
Part 201 requires that Indian Tribal governments identify, analyze, and prioritize alternative
actions by profiled hazard. The actions are even more specific than objectives. An example of
an action for a wildfire hazard is “Sponsor a booth at the community fair to promote wildfire
defensible space.” Just as local governments will benefit by reviewing the State’s mitigation
strategy to ensure that locally identified actions are supported by the State’s policies,
regulations, and programs, Indian Tribal governments may benefit from reviewing State and
adjacent Local or Tribal Mitigation Plans when developing their risk assessment and mitigation
strategy. This coordination is invaluable for Indian Tribal governments interested in State review
of their plan to request the option of subgrantee status under FEMA grant programs.
Indian Tribal governments are encouraged to develop actions that can be implemented by using
existing resources or tools, such as capital improvement budgets, or by implementing changes
in ordinances, policies, or procedures. In addition, Indian Tribal governments are encouraged to
consider mitigation actions that may not be currently feasible, but may become a realistic
possibility following a disaster event. Access to State or Federal funds may enable Indian Tribal
governments to accomplish actions during post-disaster recovery.
After five years of implementing the mitigation strategy, Indian Tribal governments update their
goals and actions. In the plan update, goals and objectives may be reaffirmed or updated based
on current conditions, including the completion of mitigation initiatives, an updated or new risk
assessment, or changes in priorities (including relevant State and local government priorities
should the Indian Tribal government choose to consider them or decide to pursue subgrantee
status). It is useful to review the changes in the tribal planning area since the previous plan was
approved to determine whether goals have been met or if they remain consistent with current
conditions.
This section includes the following subsections:
Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Goals
Identification and Analysis of Tribal Mitigation Actions
Implementation of Tribal Mitigation Actions
Tribal Capability Assessment
Tribal Funding Sources
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
42
MITIGATION STRATEGY
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION GOALS
Requirement
201.7(c)(3)(i):
[The mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to
reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.
Explanation:
Goals are broad policy statements that explain what is to be achieved.
The Indian Tribal government’s hazard reduction goals, as described in
the plan with any corresponding objectives, guide the development and
implementation of mitigation actions. This section shall list the goals
intended to reduce or avoid the effects of the profiled hazards addressed
in the risk assessment.
The description should include how goals were developed. The goals
could be developed early in the planning process and refined based on
the risk assessment findings, or developed after the risk assessment is
completed. They should also be compatible with the goals of the Indian
Tribal government, its members, and to the extent possible, other
affected stakeholders as expressed in other planning documents
developed by or for the Indian Tribal government, such as a
comprehensive plan.
Although the Mitigation Planning regulation does not require a description
of objectives, Indian Tribal governments are encouraged to include
objectives developed to achieve the goals so that reviewers understand
the connection between goals, objectives, and actions.
The goals and objectives should:
Plan Update:
Be based on the findings of the risk assessment; and
Represent a long-term vision for hazard reduction or enhancement of
mitigation capabilities.
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to
review and revise its plan to reflect changes in development, progress in
mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for approval
within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA assistance.
The plan update provides an opportunity for Indian Tribal governments to
reconsider the goals and objectives identified in the previously approved
plan. Goals should be reaffirmed or updated based on current conditions,
including the completion of mitigation initiatives, an updated or new risk
assessment, or changes in priorities.
It is not necessary to change goals from the previous plan if they remain
valid; however, the plan must document that goals were re-evaluated
and that they were determined to remain valid and effective. If the
previously approved plan included objectives, the updated plan should
document which objectives have been met and identify new objectives.
The tribal planning team should address the following questions when
updating the mitigation strategy:
Do the goals and objectives identified in the previously approved plan
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
43
MITIGATION STRATEGY
reflect the updated risk assessment?
Special
Consideration:
Goals and
Objectives
Did the goals and objectives identified in the previously approved plan
lead to mitigation projects and/or changes in policy that helped the
Indian Tribal government to reduce vulnerability?
Do the goals and objectives in the previously approved plan support
any changes in mitigation priorities?
Are the goals identified in their updated Tribal Mitigation Plan
reflective of current State and tribal goals (particularly if the Indian
Tribal government coordinates resources or funding through State or
other agencies)?
Goals are general guidelines that explain what you want to achieve.
They are broad policy statements, are usually long-term, and represent
global visions, such as “Protect Existing Property.”
Objectives define strategies or implementation steps to attain the
identified goals. Unlike goals, objectives are specific, are measurable,
and may have a defined completion date. Objectives are more specific,
such as “Increase the number of buildings protected from flooding.”
The development of effective goals and objectives enables the planning
team to evaluate the merits of alternative mitigation actions and the
conditions in which these activities would be pursued at the tribal level. A
potential mitigation action that would support the goal and objective
example above is “Acquire repetitive flood loss properties in the Acadia
Woods Housing Area.”
Resources:
For more information on developing tribal mitigation goals and objectives,
see:
Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3), Step 1.
Integrating Manmade Hazards into Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-7),
Phase 3, Step 1.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
44
MITIGATION STRATEGY
IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF TRIBAL MITIGATION ACTIONS
Requirement
201.7(c)(3)(ii):
[The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and
analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and
projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with
particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure.
Explanation:
The Indian Tribal government shall list potential loss reduction actions it
has identified in its planning process and evaluate various actions that
achieve the Indian Tribal government’s goals and objectives to reduce or
avoid the effects of the identified hazards. A comprehensive range of
specific mitigation actions consists of multiple mitigation actions for each
profiled hazard. “No Action” does not qualify as a mitigation action.
Mitigation actions shall address existing buildings as well as planned
construction of new buildings and infrastructure.
For multi-jurisdictional mitigation plans, each Indian Tribal government
must have participated in identifying and analyzing a comprehensive
range of mitigation actions for each profiled hazard, which can result in
an achievable mitigation action plan. As with single-jurisdictional plans, a
comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions consists of multiple
mitigation actions for each profiled hazard and for each Indian tribe
participating in the plan. See the Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plans
section in this guidance or 44 CFR 201.7(a)(4) for additional
requirements for multi-jurisdictional planning.
Prior to analyzing and prioritizing mitigation actions, it may be useful for
Indian Tribal governments to organize identified mitigation actions into
the following categories:
Prevention: Government administrative or regulatory actions or
processes that influence the way land and buildings are developed
and built. These actions also include public activities to reduce hazard
losses. Examples include planning and zoning, adopting and
enforcing building codes to guide development and construction of
new buildings, capital improvement programs, open space
preservation, floodplain management ordinances and regulations,
and stormwater management regulations.
Property Protection: Actions that modify existing buildings or
infrastructure to protect them from a hazard or remove them from the
hazard area. Examples include acquisition, elevation, relocation,
structural retrofits, flood proofing, and installation of storm shutters or
shatter-resistant glass.
Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform and educate
tribal members, other affected stakeholders, elected officials, and
property owners about potential risks from hazards and potential
ways to mitigate them. Such actions include outreach projects, real
estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school-age and
adult education programs.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
45
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Natural Resource Protection: Actions that, in addition to minimizing
hazard losses, also preserve or restore the functions of natural
systems. These actions include sediment and erosion control, stream
corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation
management, and wetland restoration and preservation.
Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of new
structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Such structures include
stormwater controls (e.g., culverts), floodwalls, seawalls, retaining
walls, and safe rooms.
The plan should describe the process by which the Indian Tribal
government decides on particular mitigation actions. This description
should include who participated in the analysis and selection of actions.
Some of the mitigation actions initially identified may ultimately be
eliminated in the Indian Tribal government’s action plan due to limited
capabilities, prohibitive costs, low benefit/cost ratio, or other concerns.
The information will also be valuable as part of the alternative analysis for
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review required if projects
are federally funded.
With regard to analyzing mitigation actions, FEMA’s Developing the
Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3) highlights the STAPLEE method—a
technique for identifying, evaluating, and prioritizing mitigation actions
based on existing conditions.
S Social
T Technical
A Administrative
P Political
Tribal members and other stakeholders support the
overall implementation strategy and specific
mitigation actions. Therefore, the projects will have
to be evaluated in terms of acceptance by the
Indian Tribal government and harmony with social,
cultural, and sacred beliefs and customs.
It is important to determine whether the proposed
action is technically feasible, will help to reduce
losses in the long term, and has minimal secondary
impacts. Determine whether the alternative action is
a whole or partial solution, or not a solution at all.
Under this part of the evaluation criteria, examine
the anticipated staffing, funding, and maintenance
requirements for the mitigation action to determine
whether the Indian Tribal government has the
personnel and administrative capabilities necessary
to implement the action or whether outside help will
be needed.
Understanding how the Indian Tribal government,
tribal members, and other political leadership feel
about issues related to the environment, economic
development, safety, and emergency management.
This will provide valuable insight into the level of
political support for mitigation activities and
programs. Proposed mitigation objectives
sometimes fail because of a lack of political
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
46
MITIGATION STRATEGY
acceptability.
L Legal
E Economic
E Environmental
Without the appropriate legal authority, the action
cannot lawfully be undertaken. When considering
this criterion, determine whether the Indian Tribal
government has the legal authority at the
appropriate levels (possibly at levels also affecting
jurisdiction over non-tribal members) to implement
the action. Each level of government operates
under a specific source of delegated authority.
Identify the unit of government undertaking the
mitigation action and include an analysis of the
interrelationships within the Indian Tribal
government and with local, regional, State, and
Federal governments. Legal authority is likely to
have a significant role later in the process when the
Indian Tribal government will have to determine
how mitigation activities can be carried out, and to
what extent mitigation policies and programs can
be enforced.
Every government experiences budget constraints
at one time or another. Cost-effective mitigation
actions that can be funded in current or upcoming
budget cycles are much more likely to be
implemented than mitigation actions requiring
general obligation bonds or other instruments that
would incur long-term debt. Indian Tribal
governments with tight budgets or budget shortfalls
may be more willing to undertake a mitigation
initiative if it can be funded, at least in part, by
outside sources. “Big ticket” mitigation actions, such
as large-scale acquisition and relocation, are often
considered for implementation in a post-disaster
scenario when additional Federal or State funding
for mitigation may be available.
Impact on the environment is an important
consideration because of concern among tribal
members for sustainable and environmentally
healthy communities and the many statutory
considerations, such as NEPA, to keep in mind
when using Federal funds. When implementing
mitigation actions, Indian Tribal governments will
need to evaluate whether there would be negative
consequences to environmental or historically
significant assets, such as tribal resources with
cultural and religious significance, threatened and
endangered species, wetlands, and other protected
natural or cultural resources.
Using criteria such as STAPLEE, Indian Tribal governments can weigh
the pros and cons of implementing a particular mitigation action. Indian
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
47
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Tribal governments should evaluate actions based on conditions that
may affect whether or not the actions identified in the mitigation action
plan can be accomplished. When identifying and evaluating mitigation
actions, the following considerations may also be useful, particularly if the
Indian Tribal government intends to participate in FEMA mitigation grant
programs as a subgrantee to the State or reserve that option:
Compatibility with goals and objectives identified in the current State
hazard mitigation plan;
Compatibility with goals and objectives identified in adjacent local
mitigation strategies or with other local or regional plans and
programs;
The effect of identified actions on other jurisdictions within the region
(possibly by following No Adverse Impact 3 watershed area plans);
Cost/benefit reviews of potential actions; and
Funding priorities identified in the current State Mitigation Plan.
Indian Tribal governments and plan reviewers may consider activities and
consultations resulting from environmental, cultural preservation, and
other laws and policies including, but not limited to, the following:
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act;
Archaeological Resources Protection Act;
American Indian Religious Freedom Act;
National Historic Preservation Act;
National Environmental Policy Act;
Freedom of Information Act;
Privacy Act;
Indian Sacred Sites Executive Order 13007, May 24, 1996;
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13084, May 14, 1998;
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments Executive Memorandum, April 29, 1994; and
Tribal Colleges and Universities Executive Order 13021.
3
No Adverse Impact (NAI) is a floodplain management doctrine which states that actions of property
owners or government shall not adversely affect adjacent or downstream property owners through
increase of the flood risk. Coastal No Adverse Impact Handbook, May 2007, Association of State
Floodplain Managers, posted at http://www.floods.org/.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
48
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Plan Update:
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to
review and revise its plan to reflect progress in tribal mitigation efforts
and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for approval within 5 years in
order to continue eligibility for FEMA assistance.
The plan update provides an opportunity for Indian Tribal governments to
reconsider the range of specific actions. If the mitigation actions or
activities remain unchanged from the previously approved plan, the
updated plan should indicate why changes are not necessary.
Special
Consideration:
Including Other
Actions
In the course of developing the Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation plan, an
Indian Tribal government may discover and build consensus on
preparedness, response, and recovery actions. Although FEMA will not
deny a plan for including these types of actions, they do not substitute for
the mitigation action requirements of a Tribal Mitigation Plan. In addition,
even though actions are listed in the plan, they may not all meet eligibility
requirements for FEMA’s mitigation grant programs (e.g., a Benefit-Cost
Analysis is not required for actions in a Tribal Mitigation Plan, but FEMA
mitigation project grant applications do require a BCA). FEMA
encourages Indian Tribal governments to formally agree upon long-term
mitigation actions that will make them safer from natural and manmade
hazards.
Hazard mitigation is defined as sustained action taken to reduce or
eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards and their
effects. A mitigation action, such as voluntary acquisition and conversion
to open space in a floodplain, protects the property and removes people
from harm’s way for the long term. A preparedness action that would not
qualify as a mitigation action would be, “Update Emergency Operations
Plan” or “Purchase fire trucks.”
Resources:
For more information on identifying and evaluating mitigation actions and
preparing a capability assessment, see:
Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3), Step 2, Worksheet #1:
Identify Alternative Mitigation Actions, Job Aid #1: Alternative
Mitigation Actions by Hazard, Worksheet #2: State Mitigation
Capability Assessment, Worksheet #3: Local Mitigation Capability
Assessment, Job Aid #2: Local Hazard Mitigation Capabilities, and
Worksheet #4: Evaluate Alternative Mitigation Actions.
Integrating Manmade Hazards into Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-7),
Phase 3.
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework
(FEMA 365).
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
49
MITIGATION STRATEGY
IMPLEMENTATION OF TRIBAL MITIGATION ACTIONS
Requirement:
201.7(c)(3)(iii):
[The mitigation strategy shall include an] action plan describing how the
actions identified in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section will be prioritized,
implemented, and administered by the Indian Tribal government.
Explanation:
After describing the mitigation actions to be included in the mitigation
strategy, the Indian Tribal government shall describe the method for
prioritizing the order in which mitigation actions will be implemented.
Considerations that may be used to set priorities include: social impact,
technical feasibility, administrative capabilities, political and legal effects,
and economic, environmental, historic, and cultural preservation issues.
The STAPLEE method may be used to identify, prioritize, rank, and
evaluate potential actions for the mitigation strategy.
While a BCA is not required, a clear method of evaluating each action
and setting priorities among competing alternatives must be included.
Indian Tribal governments should consider the benefits that would result
from each mitigation action versus the cost of each action even if they
are not measurable or expressed in monetary terms (e.g., if cultural
preservation is the highest priority, that should be reflected). The
requirement is met as long as the cultural, economic, or other criteria that
drive the selection of mitigation actions are explained in the action plan.
This section shall also include how actions will be implemented and
administered. The plan shall include the department or agency
responsible for carrying out the actions, the potential funding sources,
and the implementation timeline. If an action does not meet the BCA
criteria for HMA project applications, then other funding sources would
need to be identified for that action. This section should also include a
cost estimate or budget for each action, when available. If cost estimates
are not available, Indian Tribal governments may provide comparative
costs (such as high, medium, or low) with defined scales among actions.
Plan Update:
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to
review and revise its plan to reflect progress in tribal mitigation efforts
and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for approval within 5 years in
order to continue to be eligible for mitigation project grant funding.
Therefore, the updated plan must identify the completed, deleted, or
deferred actions or activities from the previously approved plan as a
benchmark for progress. If the mitigation priorities, actions, or activities
remain unchanged from the previously approved plan, the updated plan
must indicate why changes are not necessary. Further, the updated plan
shall include in its prioritization new mitigation actions identified since the
previous plan was approved or through the plan update process.
Resources:
For a detailed description of the development of the action plan, see:
Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3), Phase 3.
Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-5).
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
50
MITIGATION STRATEGY
TRIBAL CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Requirement
201.7(c)(3)(iv):
Explanation:
[The mitigation strategy shall include] a discussion of the Indian Tribal
government’s pre- and post-disaster hazard management policies,
programs, and capabilities to mitigate the hazards in the area, including:
An evaluation of tribal laws, regulations, policies, and programs
related to hazard mitigation as well as to development in hazardprone areas; and
A discussion of tribal funding capabilities for hazard mitigation
projects.
The Indian Tribal government shall include a discussion of its financial,
legal, and programmatic ability to carry out mitigation actions in the preand post-disaster setting to achieve its mitigation objectives and,
ultimately, its goals. The mitigation strategy should not only address the
ways the Indian Tribal government’s existing capabilities can aid the
mitigation effort, but also address areas in which it needs to strengthen its
capabilities. Without an assessment of the Indian Tribal government’s
capability, plan implementation could stall from inadequate resources.
The Indian Tribal government shall conduct an evaluation of its laws,
regulations, policies, and programs related to hazard mitigation as well as
to development in hazard-prone areas. The Indian Tribal government
should discuss existing and emerging policies and programs for both preand post-disaster mitigation. The discussions should include
implementation opportunities and problems (e.g., financial/staffing
resources, lack of informed “public” as defined by the Indian Tribal
government, non-mandated improvements), opportunities for improving
Indian Tribal government capabilities, conflicts created by investment
policies (e.g., policies that have promoted investment in hazard-prone
areas), and problems created by development projects in hazard-prone
areas. The Indian Tribal government should highlight implementation
tools, policies, and programs that have proven to be effective in achieving
mitigation objectives (e.g., planning legislation requiring integration of
mitigation actions in comprehensive plans). The Indian Tribal government
should also identify those laws, regulations, and policies that can be
amended to integrate mitigation actions or to remove provisions that
hinder mitigation efforts.
The Indian Tribal government shall describe its assessment of its
funding capabilities for hazard mitigation projects. The discussion should
include positive aspects as well as problems encountered, and identify
areas where the Indian Tribal government needs to seek outside funding
sources (e.g., if an action does not meet BCA criteria, then HMA project
grants could not be used as a funding source for that action).
Plan Update:
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to review
and revise its plan to reflect any changes in development, progress in
mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for approval
within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA assistance.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
51
MITIGATION STRATEGY
The plan update provides an opportunity for the Indian Tribal government
to re-evaluate its pre- and post-disaster hazard management laws,
regulations, policies, programs, and capabilities. The plan update must
address any hazard management capabilities that have changed since
approval of the previous plan.
The Indian Tribal government shall also provide an updated assessment
of its funding capabilities for hazard mitigation projects.
In the previously approved plan, the Indian Tribal government may have
identified laws, regulations, and policies that could be amended to
integrate mitigation actions or to remove provisions that hinder mitigation
efforts. Where applicable, the updated plan should describe progress in
modifying these policies and legislation or identify where opportunities for
integration still remain.
Resource:
For more tips on how to assess mitigation capabilities, see:
Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3), Step 2.
Sample 3.1:
Excerpt from the Trinidad Rancheria Hazard Mitigation Plan
Table 5.4 Mitigation Capability Worksheet/Trinidad Rancheria
Organizational Capabilities
Tribe
Security
Gaming
Gaming
Law
Enforcement
Surveillance
Intelligence
FBI Coord.
Emergency
Response
Tribe
Emergency
Dept.
Tribe
Facilities
Dept.
EPA
Pre-Emerg.
Planning
Medical Care
Emerg.
Management
Heavy
Equipment
Diking
Water Quality
GIS
Mapping
Water
Systems
Tribal
Funding
Capability
Point
Of
Contact
No
N/A
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Name/#
Name/#
N/A
TERT
Team/#
X
X
Yes
Name/#
X
X
Yes
Yes
Name/#
Name/#
X
X
X
X
Yes
Name/#
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Name/#
Name/#
Name/#
Name/#
Name/#
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
Facilitate
Missions/
Programs
Support
Agency
Name
Hinder
Effect on Loss
Reduction
Comments
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
52
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Sample 3.2:
Excerpt from The Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California MultiHazard Mitigation Plan
15.1 Tribal Pre-Disaster Capability Assessment
Throughout the United States, the importance of disaster prevention and
hazard mitigation has been increasingly recognized in recent years,
shifting from the previous emphasis on the other components of
emergency management: preparedness, response, and recovery. This
change in federal policy and understanding should now “trickle down,” to
be reflected correspondingly in the Washoe Tribe’s governmental, legal,
fiscal, departmental and programmatic policies, such that they increasingly
incorporate and prioritize hazard mitigation measures. As this HMP was
produced in cooperation with key political and departmental players both
within the Tribe and outside local agencies, the process of creating it has
been a first step towards bringing about that internal change in
understanding and policy framework.
Because the Tribe uses federal funding for many of its housing,
development, and other projects, most of these developments must
comply with National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA)
requirements. For example, everything funded through an Indian
Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG), the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act (NHASDA), or the Bureau
of Indian Affairs Home Improvement Program (HIP) must be NEPAcompliant. Washoe Housing Authority (WHA) projects must also follow
federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations. The
aforementioned projects constitute the majority of the Tribe’s
development. Additionally, all developments on Tribal land must comply
with the Tribe’s Development Planning System, described in detail below,
which has requirements similar to those of NEPA. These federal and tribal
laws and regulations ensure the structural, electrical, and utility system
integrity and safety of development on Tribal lands.
The Washoe Tribe has several mechanisms already in place that reduce
the risk associated with hazard events; however, there are areas where
the Tribe should increase its emphasis on mitigation in general to reflect
the new federal policy shift. The Tribe’s current “hazard mitigation
capability” relies on Tribal law, development policies, land use and other
plans, budget allocations, personnel, training, and public outreach. Some
of the Tribe’s capabilities can also be strengthened by support from
federal, State, and local government agencies. All of these are addressed
in this chapter.
To determine what capabilities the Tribe has and to identify areas to
improve implementation of hazard mitigation measures, the Emergency
Management Coordinator conducted special one-on-one meetings with
the Tribe’s senior planner, general counsel, financial director, Washoe
Housing Authority (WHA) staff, and the director of the Washoe
Development Group (WDG). The information they provided is included in
tables and paragraphs in the corresponding sections below.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
53
MITIGATION STRATEGY
TRIBAL FUNDING SOURCES
Requirement
201.7(c)(3)(v):
[The mitigation strategy shall include an] identification of current and
potential sources of Federal, tribal, or private funding to implement
mitigation activities.
Explanation:
The Tribal Mitigation Plan shall describe the current funding sources as
well as potential sources that will be pursued to fund proposed mitigation
projects and actions. It should also identify where funding is required to
implement a project/activity identified in the mitigation strategy. Funding
alternatives shall include tribal, Federal, State, local, and private sources.
The description can also include novel or alternative ways to fund actions,
such as:
Plan Update:
Combining funding from various programs to implement a mitigation
project;
Integrating mitigation actions in implementing agencies’ work plans;
Identifying mitigation opportunities that may arise during scheduled
infrastructure improvements, maintenance, replacement, or other
capital improvements;
Building partnerships with businesses and nonprofits whose properties,
employees, or clients may be affected by hazards; or
Combining funding from various Federal programs to fund a
comprehensive plan with a mitigation component.
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to review
and revise its plan to reflect changes in development, progress in mitigation
efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for approval within 5
years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA assistance.
The updated plan must describe current and potential sources of funding
to implement mitigation activities. The updated plan should associate
current and potential funding with identified mitigation actions in the
mitigation strategy, not just a general statement of funding. The updated
plan must identify the sources of mitigation funding used since approval
of the previous plan to implement activities in the mitigation strategy.
Resources:
For more information on funding mitigation actions, see:
Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3), Step 3.
Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4), Step 2.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
54
PLAN MAINTENANCE
Section 201.7(c)(4) of 44 CFR requires a formal plan maintenance process to ensure that the
Tribal Mitigation Plan remains an active and relevant document. The plan maintenance process
includes a method and schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan at least every
5 years. This section of the Mitigation Planning regulation also includes an explanation of how
Indian Tribal governments intend to incorporate their mitigation strategies into existing planning
mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans or zoning and building
codes. Lastly, continued participation by the “public,” as defined by the Indian Tribal
government, is required throughout the plan maintenance process.
When the plan is updated, Indian Tribal governments assess how their plan maintenance
process worked and identify whether changes to the process are needed. Taking into
consideration future updates, adjustments to the method and schedule for maintaining the plan
may be necessary to ensure its value for comprehensive risk reduction.
As the mitigation plan evolves through updates, the plan maintenance process serves as the
basis for the next update, and the process of updating the plan provides Indian Tribal
governments with an opportunity to document progress in achieving its mitigation goals.
When the Indian Tribal government prepares a plan update, the Mitigation Planning regulation
at 44 CFR 201.7 requires that the plan discuss how the “public,” which usually includes tribal
members and other affected stakeholders, were kept involved during the plan maintenance
process over the previous 5 years. This discussion may take place within the planning process
section of the plan update rather than the plan maintenance section. The plan maintenance
section should emphasize future plan maintenance and “public” involvement.
This section includes the following subsections:
Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan
Monitoring Progress of Mitigation Activities
Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
Continued Member and Stakeholder Involvement
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
55
PLAN MAINTENANCE
MONITORING, EVALUATING, AND UPDATING THE PLAN
Requirement
201.7(c)(4)(i):
Explanation:
[The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the
method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the
mitigation plan.
The Indian Tribal government shall describe how, when, and by whom the
mitigation plan will be monitored. It is only necessary to provide the
department or agency responsible for carrying out the actions, not specific
individuals. Monitoring may include periodic reports by agencies involved
in implementing projects or activities, site visits, phone calls, and meetings
conducted by the members of the tribal planning team or others
responsible for overseeing the plan, or the preparation of annual reports
that capture the highlights of the previously mentioned activities.
The plan shall also include a description of how, when, and by whom the
plan will be evaluated and should include the criteria used to evaluate the
plan. The evaluation should assess, among other things, whether:
The goals and objectives address current and expected conditions;
The nature, magnitude, and/or type of risks have changed;
The current resources are appropriate for implementing the plan;
There are implementation problems, such as technical, social, cultural,
political, legal, or coordination issues with other agencies, tribal
members, or other affected stakeholders;
The outcomes have occurred as expected (a demonstration of
progress); and
The agencies and other partners participated as originally proposed.
The plan shall describe how, when, and by whom the plan will be
updated. The Mitigation Planning regulation requires that the plan be
updated within 5 years from the date of FEMA approval. FEMA
recommends that the plan be reviewed and updated on an annual basis or
after a hazard occurrence to determine the effectiveness of programs, and
to reflect changes in land development or programs that may affect
mitigation priorities. Monitoring, evaluation, and update activities should
take place continuously within the 5-year timeframe.
Plan Update:
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to review
and revise its plan to reflect changes in development, progress in
mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for approval
within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA assistance.
The previously approved plan identified procedures to monitor, evaluate,
and update its mitigation plan and track mitigation activities. The results of
this evaluation and monitoring will assist the Indian Tribal government in
updating each section of the plan as part of the established update
schedule. In particular, the plan maintenance section of the previously
approved plan should assist in establishing a process for updating the
plan. The plan update process provides Indian Tribal governments with
the opportunity to compare the mitigation framework established in the
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
56
PLAN MAINTENANCE
previously approved plan to assess the amount of progress made through
the implementation of the mitigation strategy.
As a part of the planning process, the Indian Tribal government reviews
and analyzes the previously approved plan’s method and schedule for
monitoring and updating the plan, such as strengths and weaknesses and
what elements, if any, have changed. The updated plan must include the
method and schedule to be used over the next 5 years to monitor,
evaluate, and update the plan.
Resources:
For guidance on monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan, see:
Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4), Steps 2 – 4.
Integrating Manmade Hazards into Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-7),
Phase 4, Step 3.
Sample 4.1:
Excerpt from the Resighini Rancheria Hazard Mitigation Plan:
Plan Maintenance Process
5.1
Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan
Method and schedule for monitoring the plan; include a schedule for
reports, site visits and or meetings.
The REPA Director is responsible for following through with each
mitigation action, and, every six month, the Director will check with the
individual place in charge of each project that is undertaken to find out
work completed to date. Site visits and conferences will be scheduled as
needed.
The REPA Director will meet with all Department Directors and the Tribal
Council semi-annually to discuss progress on achieving the Tribes goals
and objectives set out in the Plan. The Tribe will use these meetings to
identify any obstacles to finishing the job and then report to the Tribal
Manager on overall progress in carrying out the plan. Quarterly reports will
be made to the Tribal Council and budget requests will be submitted each
April when department budgets are being developed.
Monitoring Activity
Due Date
Resighini Hazard Mitigation Plan Developed
May 2006
Progress Report to Tribal Council
July 2006
Progress Report to Tribal Council
October 2006
Semi-Annual Director’s Meeting
December 2006
Progress Report to Tribal Council
January 2007
Departments Submit Budget Requests
April 2007
Progress Report to Tribal Council
April 2007
Progress Report to Tribal Council
July 2007
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
57
PLAN MAINTENANCE
Semi-Annual Director’s Meeting
July 2007
Draft Plan Update to Tribal Council
October 2007
Draft Plan Update for Public Comment
December 2007
Semi-Annual Director’s Meeting
December 2007
Updated Plan to Tribal Council for Adoption
January 2008
Progress Report to Tribal Council
April 2008
Semi-Annual Director’s Meeting
July 2008
Progress Report to Tribal Council
July 2008
Method for evaluating the plan (identifies the party responsible for
evaluating the plan, includes the criteria used to evaluate the plan).
At each July Director’s meeting the department heads will evaluate the
progress in undertaking the mitigation projects and to discuss way in
which the various departments can assist in furthering the work.
Method and schedule for updating the plan.
The Tribe’s Hazard Mitigation Plan will be evaluated annually and will be
updated at least every two years. A revised copy of the plan will be
completed by November 30th and submitted for public comment. The
Tribal Council will approve the updated plan by January 31st. More
frequent updates may be submitted to the Tribal Council for approval as
needed to address new or unexpected mitigation goals and objectives or
funding opportunities.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
58
PLAN MAINTENANCE
MONITORING PROGRESS OF MITIGATION ACTIVITIES
Requirement
201.7(c)(4)(ii),
201.7(c)(4)(v):
Explanation:
[The plan maintenance process shall include a]
system for monitoring implementation of mitigation measures and
project closeouts; and
a system for reviewing progress on achieving goals as well as
activities and projects outlined in the mitigation strategy.
The plan must describe the Indian Tribal government’s monitoring system
for tracking the initiation and status of projects as well as project
closeouts, indicating who will be responsible for implementing and
maintaining this system. This is important because without regular
monitoring, mitigation actions may not be implemented as planned.
The plan must also describe how the Indian Tribal government reviews
the progress made on actions and projects and how well these contribute
to achieving the plan’s goals. The description must also include who is
involved and what the timeframe is for carrying out the review.
Plan Update:
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to review
and revise its plan to reflect any changes in development, progress in
mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for approval
within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA assistance.
The update must:
Describe any modifications to the Indian Tribal government’s system
used to track the initiation, status, and completion of mitigation
activities;
Discuss whether mitigation actions were implemented as planned; and
Indicate who will be responsible for continued management and
maintenance of the monitoring system, including the timeframe for
carrying out future reviews.
The system identified in this section of the plan will support demonstration
of progress in mitigation efforts under 44 CFR 201.7 (d)(3)(iii).
The update should:
Resource:
Describe any challenges that hindered implementation of mitigation
measures and project close-outs and how these will be dealt with in
the future. These could include technical, social, cultural, political,
financial, legal, or agency coordination issues; and
Describe any factors that contributed to successful implementation of
mitigation measures.
For information on the plan maintenance process, see:
Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4), Steps 3 and 4.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
59
PLAN MAINTENANCE
Sample 4.2:
Excerpt from Resighini Rancheria Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan
5.2 Monitoring Progress of Mitigation Activities
How will mitigation measures and project closeouts be monitored?
The Tribal Council, at its monthly meetings, will identify any ongoing projects and activities in support of mitigation goals and
objectives and that are identified in the Mitigation Strategy.
The Tribal Council will also work to identify opportunities to
integrate other activities and projects that support mitigation goals
and objectives.
The Tribal Council will work to coordinate the necessary technical
and fiscal resources to implement the projects and activities.
The various departments of the tribal government will monitor
project closeouts and include closeout information in a report to the
Tribal Council, Tribal Manager and Tribal Accountant.
What system will be utilized to review progress on achieving goals in the
mitigation strategy?
The Tribal Council will request activity reports from the department,
program, enterprise or other entity implementing the projects and
activities.
The Tribal Council will coordinate with the entity to help ensure that
project implementation and results make progress toward the
mitigation goals and objectives.
The Tribal Council will monitor the annual budget that relates to
obtaining hazard mitigation goals and objectives to ensure project
funds are being spent appropriately.
What system will be used to review progress on implementing activities
and projects of the Mitigation Strategy?
The Tribal Council will include monitoring reports and evaluations
in the Annual Report to the Tribal Membership due in December of
each year.
Each department responsible for completing a mitigation action will
prepare a Mitigation Action Report for presentation at the Tribe’s
Annual Meeting held in December of each year.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
60
PLAN MAINTENANCE
INCORPORATION INTO EXISTING PLANNING MECHANISMS
Requirement
201.7(c)(4)
(iii):
Explanation:
[The plan maintenance process shall include a] process by which the
Indian Tribal government incorporates the requirements of the mitigation
plan into other planning mechanisms such as reservation master plans or
capital improvement plans, when appropriate.
The plan shall identify other planning mechanisms that may be
appropriate for incorporating hazard mitigation plan requirements. Indian
Tribal governments shall also indicate how information contained in the
plan, including goals and objectives, hazard identification, and risk
assessment, will be integrated into other planning mechanisms.
This requirement is related to the Program Integration requirement (44
CFR 201.7(c)(1)(iv)) described in the Planning Process section. The
planning process requires the Indian Tribal government to show how they
integrated the mitigation plan, to the extent possible, with other planning
efforts. Whereas 201.7(c)(1)(iv) describes what has already been
completed in the past, the requirement under 201.7(c)(4) is intended to
describe what the Indian Tribal government will do to integrate mitigation
into other planning mechanisms in the future.
Indian Tribal governments that do not have comprehensive plans, capital
improvement plans, or other long-range plans, should explain how the
mitigation actions would be implemented into zoning and building codes,
subdivision regulations, site reviews, permitting, staff training, and other
planning tools where such tools are the appropriate vehicle for
implementation. For mitigation actions that may use other means of
implementation, these other tools should be described.
Indian Tribal government functions may provide a myriad of methods in
which to implement actions identified in the mitigation strategy. Among
them is the comprehensive plan. Others may include, but are not limited
to, the following:
Plans
Tribal Comprehensive Plan
General Land Use Plan
Sustainability Plan
Redevelopment Plan
Post-Disaster Redevelopment/Recovery Plan
Regional Development Plans
Land Use
Capital Improvements Plan
Watershed Protection/Enhancement Plan
Open Space Plan
Flood Mitigation Plan
Military Base Development/Redevelopment/Reuse Plan
College Campus Plans
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
61
PLAN MAINTENANCE
Plans (continued)
Special Functional Plans (e.g., economic development,
airport facilities plan)
Continuity Plan
Emergency
Operations
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
Evacuation Plan
Codes, Regulations, & Procedures
Zoning Ordinance
Subdivision Regulations
Building Code/Permitting
Solid Waste & Hazardous Materials Waste Regulations
Property Deed Restrictions
Land Use
Landscape Code
Tree Protection Ordinance
Site Plan Review
Architectural/Design Review
Floodplain/Stormwater Management
Soil Erosion/Floodplain Management Ordinance
Programs
Beach Conservation & Restoration Program
Historic Preservation Program
Construction/Retrofit Program
Transportation Improvement/Retrofit Program
School District Facilities Plan
Long-Range Recreation Facilities Program
Economic Development Authority
Land Use
Environmentally Sensitive Purchase/Protection Program
Land Buyout Program
Downtown Redevelopment Authority
Tribal, Local, State, and/or Regional Evacuation Programs
“Firewise” and other Fire Mitigation Programs
Fire Rescue Long-Range Programs
Mutual Aid Agreement
Temporary Animal Relocation Program
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
62
PLAN MAINTENANCE
Plan Update:
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to review
and revise its plan to reflect changes in development, progress in
mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for approval
within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA assistance.
The updated plan must explain how the Indian Tribal government
incorporated the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms, when
appropriate, as a demonstration of progress in mitigation efforts.
The updated plan shall continue to describe how the mitigation strategy,
including the goals and objectives, and mitigation actions will be
incorporated into other planning mechanisms, and also indicate how
information contained in the plan, including hazard identification and the
risk assessment, will be integrated into other planning mechanisms.
When the Indian Tribal government prepares a plan update, the Mitigation
Planning regulation at 44 CFR Part 201 requires that the plan discuss how
the Indian Tribal government incorporated the mitigation plan into other
planning mechanisms, when appropriate, as a demonstration of progress
in mitigation efforts over the previous 5 years. It is suggested that this
discussion take place within the planning process section of the plan
update rather than the plan maintenance section. The plan maintenance
section should emphasize methods for future involvement by the “public”
as defined by the Indian Tribal government.
Resources:
For more information on incorporating hazard mitigation activities into other
initiatives, see:
Getting Started (FEMA 386-1), Step 2.
Planning for a Sustainable Future: The Link Between Hazard Mitigation
and Livability (FEMA 364).
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
63
PLAN MAINTENANCE
CONTINUED MEMBER AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
Requirement
201.7(c)(4)(iv):
[The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the
Indian Tribal government will continue public participation in the plan
maintenance process.
Explanation:
The plan shall describe continued participation opportunities for the
“public,” as defined by the Indian Tribal government in accordance with 44
CFR 201.7(c)(i). This typically includes opportunities that tribal members
and other potentially affected parties (i.e., stakeholders who are not part of
the tribal planning team, such as nearby residents, businesses, technical
experts, etc.) will have during the plan’s implementation to comment on
the progress made to date. Plans should describe the mechanisms for
keeping the “public” involved (e.g., holding strategic meetings,
participation in other gatherings sponsored by the Indian Tribal
government, circulating newsletters, or posting documents on the Internet
for comment).
Plan Update:
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to review
and revise its plan to reflect any changes in development, progress in
mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for approval
within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA assistance.
When the Indian Tribal government prepares a plan update, the Mitigation
Planning regulation at 44 CFR Part 201 requires that the plan discuss how
the “public,” as defined by the Indian Tribal government, was kept involved
during the plan maintenance process over the previous 5 years. It is
suggested that this discussion take place within the planning process
section of the plan update rather than the plan maintenance section. The
plan maintenance section should emphasize methods for future “public”
involvement by the tribal members and other stakeholders.
Resource:
For more information on keeping the public involved, see:
Getting Started (FEMA 386-1), Step 3.
Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4), Steps 2 and 3.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
64
PLAN MAINTENANCE
Sample 4.3:
Excerpt from the Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada MultiHazard Mitigation Plan
19.3 Continued Public Involvement
To facilitate the goal of continued public involvement in the planning
process, the Washoe Emergency Management Coordinator will assure
that the following steps are taken:
Sample 4.4:
Copies of the plan will be catalogued and kept on hand at Tribal
Headquarters, the WEPD, Planning Department, Tribal Police Station,
and all of the community centers. Contact information for the
Emergency Management Coordinator will be included with the
dissemination of the Washoe Tribe Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The plan will be available on the Washoe Tribe website, and will
contain an email address and phone number for the public’s use for
submitting comments and concerns about the plan.
A public meeting will be held annually to provide the public with a
forum for expressing concerns, opinions, and ideas. The Coordinator
will set meeting schedules and dates and use Tribal resources to
publicize and host this meeting. A public meeting will also be held
within 2 months after a disaster event to ensure that the public can
express concerns, opinions and ideas over the disaster event.
Excerpt from the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes PreDisaster Mitigation Plan:
The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes are dedicated to involving
the public directly in review and updates of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Plan. The public will have many opportunities to provide feedback about
the Plan. Copies of the Plan will be catalogued and kept at all appropriate
agencies on the Reservation as well as at the Public Library. The
existence and location of these copies will be publicized in Tribal and
County newspapers. Section 2.0 of the Plan includes the address and the
phone number of the DES Coordinator responsible for keeping track of
public comments on the Plan.
A series of public meetings will also be held after each 5 year evaluation,
or when deemed necessary by the TERC/LEPC. The meetings will
provide the public a forum for which they can express its concerns,
opinions, or ideas about the Plan. The DES Coordinator will be
responsible for using Tribal resources to publicize the annual public
meetings and maintain public involvement through the newspapers and
radio.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
65
REPETITIVE LOSS STRATEGY (OPTIONAL)
Indian Tribal governments are encouraged to identify repetitive flood loss structures as part of
the risk assessment and include a repetitive loss strategy in their plans. A repetitive loss
structure means any residential or commercial structure insured under the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) with two or more claim payments of more than $1,000 within 10
years. In addition, the NFIP defines Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) structures as single or
multifamily residential properties covered under an NFIP flood insurance policy and:
1. That have incurred flood-related damage for which 4 or more separate claims payments
have been made, with the amount of each claim (including building and contents
payments) exceeding $5,000, and with the cumulative amount of such claims payments
exceeding $20,000; or
2. For which at least two separate claims payments (building payments only) have been
made under such coverage, with cumulative amount of such claims exceeding the
market value of the property.
3. In both instances, at least 2 of the claims must be within 10 years of each other, and
claims made within 10 days of each other will be counted as 1 claim.
Indian Tribal governments can submit a Repetitive Loss Strategy as part of their Tribal
Mitigation Plan. This is strongly encouraged to prevent loss of life and property and protect
cultural and other resources. In addition, an approved Tribal Mitigation Plan with a repetitive
loss strategy that addresses SRL properties makes the Indian Tribal government eligible under
44 CFR 201.7(c)(3)(vi) for a reduced non-Federal cost share under the Flood Mitigation
Assistance (FMA) and SRL hazard mitigation assistance programs when they apply directly to
FEMA as a grantee. The reduced cost share option would only apply to SRL properties. If an
Indian Tribal government applies as a subgrantee, their eligibility for receiving a reduced
Federal cost share is based on the eligibility of the grantee, regardless of whether the Indian
Tribal government has a Repetitive Loss Strategy.
Special Consideration:
Severe Repetitive Loss
Properties
There were no severe repetitive loss properties on lands owned by
Indian Tribal governments as of the date of this publication. Since
the Repetitive Loss Strategy is optional, Indian Tribal governments
may choose not to include these elements until there are SRL
properties within the tribal planning area. However, even without
the incentive of a reduced cost share for FEMA mitigation grants,
Indian Tribal governments should consider including a mitigation
strategy for the repetitive loss properties identified in the Tribal
Mitigation Plan to protect their members and resources. The
repetitive loss mitigation strategy supplements the risk assessment
and mitigation strategy portions of the plan by specifically
identifying goals, capabilities, and actions to reduce the number of
repetitive loss properties, including SRL properties.
In order to be eligible for a reduced cost share under the FMA or SRL grant programs, the
Indian Tribal government must have a FEMA-approved Tribal Mitigation Plan at the time of
project application that also meets the repetitive loss strategy requirements described in this
section. Of the 36 Indian Tribal governments that participate in the NFIP, there are 2
participating Indian Tribal governments with 250 claims for 87 repetitive loss properties and
none with severe repetitive loss properties as of the publication of this document.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
66
REPETITIVE LOSS STRATEGY (OPTIONAL)
However, Indian Tribal governments that do not participate in the NFIP or do not have
properties that meet the NFIP definitions of repetitive or SRL structures can still benefit from
identifying and developing mitigation goals, strategies, and actions to protect members,
property, and resources prone to repetitive flooding as part of their planning process.
This section includes the following subsection:
Repetitive Loss Strategy
REPETITIVE LOSS STRATEGY
Requirement
201.7(c)(3)(vi):
Explanation:
[An Indian Tribal government may request the reduced cost
share…under FMA and SRL programs…if they have an approved Tribal
Mitigation Plan meeting the requirements of 201.7… and that]:
identifies actions the Indian Tribal government has taken to
reduce the number of repetitive loss properties, (which must
include properties identified as severe repetitive loss properties),
and
specifies how the Indian Tribal government intends to reduce the
number of such repetitive loss properties.
This requirement supplements the risk assessment and mitigation
strategy portions of the plan required under 44 CFR 201.7(c)(2) and (3)
by specifically identifying goals, capabilities and actions that will reduce
the number of repetitive loss properties, including severe repetitive loss
properties. These requirements are helpful in assessing and identifying
actions to reduce flood risk, and are required if the Indian Tribal
government chooses to pursue this option or intends to request the
reduced cost share under 44 CFR 79.4(c)(2) of regulations for the FMA
and the SRL programs when they apply directly to FEMA as a grantee.
The Repetitive Loss Strategy requires the following to be included in the
Tribal Mitigation Plan:
The Indian Tribal government must address repetitive loss structures
in its risk assessment. The plan should refer generally to geographic
areas where concentrations of repetitive loss properties are located
for the purpose of identifying and prioritizing areas for mitigation
projects, or the plan may list the number of repetitive loss properties
with aggregate repetitive loss data.
The Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Goals developed to meet the
requirements under 201.7(c)(3)(i) must support the selection of
activities to mitigate and reduce potential losses to structures
susceptible to flood damage, including repetitive loss properties. In
addition, the Tribal Capability Assessment required under
201.7(c)(3)(iv) must include an evaluation of policies, programs, and
capabilities that allow the mitigation of repetitive losses from flood
damage.
The Indian Tribal government must describe specific actions that it
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
67
REPETITIVE LOSS STRATEGY (OPTIONAL)
has implemented to mitigate repetitive loss properties, and
specifically actions taken to reduce the number of severe repetitive
loss properties as a subset of their repetitive loss properties. If the
Indian Tribal government cannot show that any action has ever been
taken to reduce the number of such properties, this criterion cannot
be met.
Plan Update:
Based on the findings of the risk assessment, the Indian Tribal
government must identify actions in the mitigation strategy that
specifically address repetitive loss properties, including those that are
severe repetitive loss properties. This supplements the mitigation
actions requirement under 201.7(c)(3)(iii). Mitigation actions should
be tied to goals and objectives and provide the means to achieve
them.
As part of the mitigation strategy, the plan must also describe the
current funding sources as well as potential sources that will be
pursued to fund proposed mitigation actions for repetitive loss
properties. This supplements the identification of funding requirement
under 201.7(c)(3)(v).
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to
review and revise its plan to reflect any changes in development,
progress in mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it
for approval within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA
assistance.
Therefore, the updated plan must specifically address repetitive loss
properties, including severe repetitive loss properties, in accordance with
the plan update requirements for the risk assessment under 201.7(c)(2)
and under each of the criteria under the tribe’s mitigation strategy under
201.7(c)(3).
In addition, the updated plan must identify the actions or activities
completed since the previously adopted plan as a benchmark for
progress. If no mitigation actions or activities have been taken since the
previously approved plan, the updated plan must indicate why the Indian
Tribal government has not been able to complete these actions.
Resources:
National Flood Insurance Program Description
http://www.fema.gov/about/programs/nfip/index.shtm.
To join the NFIP, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office. Visit
http://www.fema.gov/about/contact/regions.shtm for a listing of the
FEMA Regional Offices.
For a listing of NFIP State Coordinating Agencies, visit
http://www.floods.org/index.asp?menuID=274&firstlevelmenuID=185&
siteID=1.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
68
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL MITIGATION PLANS
The Tribal Mitigation Plan requirements under 44 CFR 201.7(a)(4) specifically allow for multijurisdictional mitigation plans. Many issues are better resolved by evaluating hazards more
comprehensively by coordinating at the county, regional, or watershed level. In addition, sharing
of resources and information may be more cost-effective and advantageous for Indian Tribal
governments and other communities that work together. Indian Tribal governments may elect to
participate in multi-jurisdictional plans as either:
1. Participants in a Tribal Multi-Jurisdictional Plan, where all participating entities are Indian
Tribal governments; or
2. Participants in a Local/Tribal Multi-Jurisdictional Plan, where the Indian Tribal
government participates in a planning process with local governments.
Although economy-of-scale efforts are possible and encouraged with multi-jurisdictional plans,
FEMA requires that all participating local governments meet the requirements for mitigation
plans identified in 44 CFR 201.6 and that all participating Indian Tribal governments meet the
requirements identified in 44 CFR 201.7. Several plan elements for those entities that
participate as local governments under 44 CFR 201.6 are the same as those for Indian Tribal
governments under 44 CFR 201.7 (e.g., planning process, identification of hazards, establishing
mitigation goals, and plan maintenance requirements). Other elements are unique to
participating local or Indian Tribal governments. This section summarizes the process and
differences in the plan development and update process when an Indian Tribal government(s)
chooses to participate in a multi-jurisdictional plan.
This section includes the following subsection:
Multi-Jurisdictional Tribal Planning Participation
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
69
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL MITIGATION PLANS
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TRIBAL PLANNING PARTICIPATION
Requirement
201.7(a)(4):
Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., county-wide or watershed plans) may be
accepted, as appropriate, as long as the Indian Tribal government has
participated in the process… Indian Tribal governments must address
all the elements identified in [44 CFR 201.7] to ensure eligibility as a
grantee or subgrantee.
Explanation:
A multi-jurisdictional plan prepared in coordination either with other
Indian Tribal governments or with non-tribal jurisdictions is acceptable
under 44 CFR 201.7(a)(4). However, Indian Tribal governments within
the planning area that do not participate in its development and adopt
the multi-jurisdictional mitigation plan will not be eligible for future
FEMA mitigation project grant assistance unless they have developed
their own approved plan. Therefore, the multi-jurisdictional plan must
document how each Indian Tribal government requesting FEMA
approval of the plan participated in the planning process by attending
meetings; contributing research, data, or other information; commenting
on drafts of the plan; and meeting public participation requirements.
In any multi-jurisdictional mitigation plan, participating Indian Tribal
government(s) address all of the required elements under the Tribal
Mitigation Plan regulation at 44 CFR 201.7, particularly areas that are
unique to them, including:
Risks, where they differ from the general planning area;
Mitigation actions (at least one action must be identified for each
Indian Tribal government and participating jurisdiction(s); see
Mitigation Strategy/Identification and Analysis of Tribal Mitigation
Actions section); and
Plan adoption (each Indian Tribal government and other
participating jurisdiction(s) must formally adopt the plan).
Tribal Multi-Jurisdictional Plan. Where participants in a multijurisdictional plan are all Indian Tribal governments, each tribal
participant must meet all of the requirements of 201.7 to have an
approved Tribal Mitigation Plan. A separate Tribal Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk will be completed for participating
Indian Tribal governments to ensure that all elements have been met.
Tribal/Local Multi-Jurisdictional Plan. When participants in a multijurisdictional plan include Indian Tribal government(s) and local
government(s), all of the requirements under 44 CFR 201.6 must be
met for each participant in the plan. Indian tribal participants must meet
the requirements in 201.7, which already include the requirements
under 44 CFR 201.6, to request approval of a Tribal Mitigation Plan.
The elements that an Indian Tribal government must address in
addition to those under 44 CFR 201.6 are listed in the following table
(these differences are also shown in Appendix A: Comparison of Tribal,
State, and Local Mitigation Plan Requirements).
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
70
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL MITIGATION PLANS
Regulation
201.7
(c)(1)(iv)
201.7
(c)(2)(ii)(D)
201.7
(c)(3)(iv)
201.7
(c)(3)(v)
201.7
(c)(4)(ii)
201.7
(c)(4)(v)
201.7
(c)(6)
Plan Update:
Requirement
Plan Content. Be integrated to the extent
possible with other ongoing tribal planning efforts
as well as other FEMA programs and initiatives.
Risk Assessment. Cultural and sacred sites that
are significant, even if they cannot be valued in
monetary terms.
Mitigation Strategy. A discussion of the Indian
Tribal government’s pre- and post-disaster
hazard management policies, programs, and
capabilities to mitigate the hazards in the area,
including: an evaluation of tribal laws,
regulations, policies, and programs related to
hazard mitigation as well as to development in
hazard-prone areas; and a discussion of tribal
funding capabilities for hazard mitigation
projects.
Mitigation Strategy. Identification of current and
potential sources of Federal, tribal, or private
funding to implement mitigation activities.
Plan Maintenance. A system for monitoring
implementation of mitigation measures and
project closeouts.
Plan Maintenance. A system for reviewing
progress on achieving goals as well as activities
and projects identified in the mitigation strategy.
Assurances. The plan must include assurances
that the Indian Tribal government will comply
with all applicable Federal statutes and
regulations in effect with respect to the periods
for which it receives grant funding, in compliance
with 13.11(c) of this chapter. The Indian Tribal
government will amend its plan whenever
necessary to reflect changes in tribal or Federal
laws and statutes as required in 13.11(d) of this
chapter.
Location in
Guidance
Page 19
Page 40
Page 51
Page 54
Page 59
Page 59
Page 76
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to
review and revise its plan to reflect changes in development, progress
in mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for
approval within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA
assistance. This requirement also applies to Indian Tribal governments
and others participating in multi-jurisdictional plans.
The updated multi-jurisdictional plan must identify the following:
All participating Indian tribal and local governments, and
whether they are new or are continuing to participate; and,
Indian tribal and local governments that no longer participate in
the plan.
If participation has changed since approval of the previous plan,
changes should be discussed in the planning process section of the
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
71
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL MITIGATION PLANS
updated plan.
All Tribal Mitigation Plan elements must be reviewed and revised, as
necessary, in the updated multi-jurisdictional plan.
Resources:
For more information on initiating a comprehensive local mitigation
planning process, see:
Getting Started (FEMA 386-1), Steps 1-3.
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8).
Sample 6.1:
Excerpt from the Maricopa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan – Ft. McDowell Yavapai Nation Annex
…the Maricopa County Hazard Mitigation Planning Group and The Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation Planning Team have collaborated to prepare
this Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The MultiJurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan is the umbrella under which
each of the 27 jurisdictional plans, to include The Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation Hazard Mitigation Plan, has been developed. With the
support of various community officials, county officials, URS
Corporation consultants, the State of Arizona, Maricopa County
Department of Emergency Management, and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), this plan is the result of nearly a year’s
worth of work to develop a multi-hazard mitigation plan that will guide
the Community toward greater disaster resistance in full harmony with
the character and needs of the Community and region.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
72
PLAN REVIEW AND ADOPTION
The Tribal Mitigation Plan review and adoption process can vary depending on several factors,
such as whether the Indian Tribal government developed its own plan or participated in a multijurisdictional plan with other local governments and whether the Indian Tribal government would
like to coordinate with a State for eligibility to participate in FEMA grant programs as a
subgrantee. While some situations may be unique and coordinated on a case-by-case basis,
most situations are addressed in this Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance.
This section includes the following subsections:
Plan Submittal and Review Procedures
Assurances by the Indian Tribal Government
Adoption by the Indian Tribal Government
Multi-Jurisdictional Tribal Plan Adoption
PLAN SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW PROCEDURES
The Mitigation Planning regulation under 44 CFR Part 201 requires Indian Tribal governments
to submit their mitigation plans to the FEMA Regional Office for review and approval. If
however, the Indian Tribal government would like the option of being a subgrantee under the
State for future mitigation grant funding or is participating in a Tribal/Local Multi-Jurisdictional
Plan, then the Tribal Mitigation Plan must be submitted to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer
(SHMO) for review and coordination. If this is done prior to FEMA approval as required for a
Tribal/Local Multi-Jurisdictional Plan, the Indian Tribal government would submit the plan to the
SHMO for initial review, with the State then forwarding the plan to FEMA for formal review and
approval. The location of the Tribal Headquarters and the Region responsible for that State
determines which Regional Office will review each Tribal Mitigation Plan. If an Indian Tribal
government already has a FEMA-approved plan or is part of a Tribal Multi-Jurisdictional Plan
but wants to coordinate with the State for subgrantee status at a later time, this is also an
option.
Tribal Mitigation Plans should be submitted in an electronic format as instructed by the
appropriate Regional Office, either through e-mail or through the mail on CD. The following
recommended submission approaches may also be helpful:
Indian Tribal governments and the plan reviewer (either the FEMA Regional Office or the
SHMO, as appropriate) should coordinate with each other to identify procedures and
schedules that will facilitate support of tribal mitigation planning efforts and review of the
Tribal Mitigation Plan.
Indian Tribal governments are encouraged to share drafts of their entire plan, or at least the
results of the risk assessment (because of the importance of the risk assessment to the
quality of the overall plan), with the reviewer well in advance of finalizing the plan. Early
feedback from the reviewer will let the Indian Tribal government know that it is on the right
track, that additional material needs to be added, or that major revisions need to be made in
time to develop and submit an approvable plan by established deadlines.
Indian Tribal governments are encouraged to submit a final draft of the mitigation plan to the
reviewer before seeking formal adoption of the plan by the appropriate officials, agencies, or
organizations. If FEMA determines that the plan is “approvable pending adoption” (i.e., the
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
73
PLAN REVIEW AND ADOPTION
plan meets all requirements except for the formal adoption and final submittal), the Indian
Tribal government can then proceed with the adoption process, knowing that the adopted
plan will be approved. If FEMA determines that the plan is not approvable, the responsible
parties will be able to address deficiencies before taking the plan through adoption,
therefore avoiding unnecessary delays in plan approval.
Indian Tribal governments should coordinate with plan reviewer(s) early to develop a
schedule for plan review and approval within established deadlines.
Timeframe for Plan Review and Approval
Once a final plan is submitted, the FEMA Regional Office will complete the review within 45
days from the day it is received, whenever possible. In the event that the plan is not approved,
the FEMA Regional Office will provide comments on the areas that need improvement. FEMA
will strive to complete the review of each re-submittal of the Tribal Mitigation Plan within 45 days
from the day it is received, whenever possible. Once approved, FEMA issues a formal, signed
approval letter with the official approval date and the expiration date of the plan.
Plan Evaluation Methodology
FEMA reviewers will document their evaluation of the plan using the Tribal Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk. Tribal Mitigation Plans are approved when they receive a
“Satisfactory” for all requirements under 44 CFR 201.7. Except for prerequisites that must be
met before the plan can be approved, the reviewer evaluates requirements based on the
following system:
Needs Improvement (N): The plan does not meet the minimum for the requirement.
Reviewer’s comments are required.
Satisfactory (S): The plan meets the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s
comments are encouraged but not required.
The completed Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk provides the Indian Tribal
government with:
A determination for each requirement;
FEMA reviewer comments for requirements that need improvement;
Recommended revisions that are not required but offer suggestions on areas to improve the
mitigation plan; and
A determination of whether the plan is approved by FEMA (and the State, for a Tribal/Local
Multi-Jurisdictional Plan).
In those cases where FEMA reviewers provided recommended revisions, the plan update
process is an excellent opportunity to incorporate these recommendations into the revised plan.
When FEMA reviews the updated plan, it may assess whether and how the plan addressed
recommended revisions.
Special Consideration:
Crosswalk Suggestion
to Assist Plan
Reviewers
The Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk includes
a column (second from left), “Location in the Plan,” that the Indian
Tribal government (or State, if applicable) can complete to assist
reviewers in determining where in the plan the requirements are
addressed. When reviewing plans, the evaluator may find it helpful
to first read the plan and identify the appropriate sections that
correspond to the Tribal Mitigation Plan requirements.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
74
PLAN REVIEW AND ADOPTION
Plan Updates
The Mitigation Planning regulation for Indian Tribal governments at 201.7(d)(3) directs the
update of Tribal Mitigation Plans:
Indian Tribal governments must review and revise their plan to reflect changes in
development, progress in local mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and resubmit
it for approval within 5 years in order to continue [eligibility for FEMA assistance].
Tribal Mitigation Plans must be updated and resubmitted to FEMA for approval every 5 years in
order to continue eligibility for FEMA grant programs. Plan updates must demonstrate that
progress has been made in the past 5 years for Indian Tribal governments to fulfill commitments
outlined in the previously approved plan. This involves a comprehensive review and update of
each section of the Tribal Mitigation Plan and a discussion of the results of evaluation and
monitoring activities detailed in the plan maintenance section of the previously approved plan.
Plan updates may validate the information in the previously approved plan, or may involve a
major plan rewrite. A plan update is NOT an annex to the previously approved plan; it stands on
its own as a complete and current plan.
Indian Tribal governments should develop a schedule that allows for plan update and approval
to occur within 5 years from the last approval date. All Indian Tribal governments should
consider the time needed prior to the expiration of the Tribal Mitigation Plan. Sufficient time
should be allotted for all activities up to and including adoption, such as:
Application and award for mitigation planning grants (if applicable);
Contracting for technical or professional services (if applicable);
Review of mitigation plan;
Planning process to develop the update;
FEMA and State reviews, as applicable;
Revising the updated plan, if necessary, based on FEMA review comments; and
Plan adoption procedures.
If an Indian Tribal government is considering the option of being a subgrantee under the State
for future mitigation grant funding, it should be noted that States could establish a schedule for
more frequent Tribal Mitigation Plan updates.
Review of Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plans
Multi-jurisdictional mitigation plans that include non-tribal jurisdictions must be submitted to the
SHMO for initial review and coordination, with the State then forwarding the plans to FEMA for
formal review and approval.
Multi-jurisdictional mitigation plans that include only Indian Tribal governments may be
submitted directly to FEMA for review and approval if all participating Indian Tribal governments
anticipate grantee-only status under FEMA grant programs. FEMA encourages all Indian Tribal
governments to share their mitigation plans with their State(s) for information exchange and
coordination. This allows a participating Indian Tribal government that adopts a FEMA-approved
multi-jurisdictional plan maximum flexibility to apply for FEMA assistance as either a grantee or
subgrantee since they will have coordinated with the State for plan review.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
75
PLAN REVIEW AND ADOPTION
The Indian Tribal government submitting the plan must address the following prerequisites
(assurances and adoption requirements) before FEMA can approve the plan. Once approved,
FEMA issues a formal, signed approval letter, which includes the official approval date and the
expiration date of the plan.
ASSURANCES BY THE INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENT
Requirement
201.7(c)(6):
[The plan must include] assurances that the Indian Tribal government will
comply with all applicable Federal statutes and regulations in effect with
respect to the periods for which it receives grant funding, in compliance
with 13.11(c) of this chapter. The Indian Tribal government will amend its
plan whenever necessary to reflect changes in tribal or Federal laws and
statutes as required in 13.11(d) of this chapter.
Explanation:
The regulation regarding assurances, also required for State Mitigation
Plans, relates to the Indian Tribal government’s understanding and
accountability in complying with Federal statutes and regulations in effect
when they receive grant funding in 44 CFR 13.11(c). Additionally,
assurances indicate that Indian Tribal governments will amend their plan
to reflect new or revised Federal regulations or statutes, or changes in
tribal law, organization, policy, or tribal agency operation. The amendment
can be added as an annex to the plan and later incorporated in to the
appropriate section(s) when the plan is formally adopted in accordance
with 44 CFR 201.7. The plan must include these assurances prior to
FEMA approval.
Plan Update:
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to review
and revise its plan to reflect any changes in development, progress in
mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for approval
within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA assistance. The
Indian Tribal government is required to review the assurances and must
include these assurances in the plan update.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
76
PLAN REVIEW AND ADOPTION
ADOPTION BY THE INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENT
Requirement
201.7(c)(5):
Explanation:
The plan must be formally adopted by the governing body of the Indian
Tribal government prior to submittal to FEMA for final review and
approval.
Adoption by the Indian Tribal government demonstrates the required
commitment to fulfilling the mitigation goals and objectives outlined in
the plan. Adoption legitimizes the plan and authorizes responsible
agencies to execute their responsibilities. The plan shall include
documentation of plan adoption, usually a resolution.
If the Indian Tribal government has not passed a formal resolution, or
used some other documentation of adoption, the clerk or attorney must
provide written confirmation that the action meets the legal requirements
for official adoption, and/or the highest elected official or his or her
designee must submit written proof of the adoption. The signature of one
of these officials is required with the explanation or other proof of
adoption.
Minutes of a council or other appropriate meeting during which the plan
is adopted may be sufficient if the laws of the Indian Tribal government
allow meeting records to be submitted as documentation of adoption.
The clerk of the Indian Tribal government governing body, or attorney,
must provide a copy of the law and a brief, written explanation, such as,
“in accordance with section ___ of the code/ordinance, this constitutes
formal adoption of the measure,” with an official signature.
Approvable Pending Adoption (APA) is a recommended and potentially
time-saving process by which Indian Tribal governments submit the final
draft mitigation plan for a review prior to formal adoption. If the plan
meets all of the Tribal Mitigation Plan requirements, the plan would then
be returned to the Indian Tribal government with an APA status letter.
When the APA version of the plan is adopted by the Indian Tribal
government, and FEMA has received the documentation of adoption, it
would then be formally approved through a signed FEMA approval letter.
Formal adoption of the plan may be completed prior to submission to
FEMA for review. If any changes are made to a plan after FEMA
determines it has APA status, FEMA would have to review the plan
again to be sure that the changes do not affect final approval. If changes
do affect approval, the Indian Tribal government may have to go through
the adoption process again to adopt the revised plan. If adopted after
FEMA review, adoption must take place within one calendar year of
receipt of FEMA’s APA status. If the plan is not adopted within one
calendar year of FEMA’s APA status, the Indian Tribal government must
update the entire plan and resubmit it for FEMA review.
If the plan is not adopted by the Indian Tribal government, they would
not be eligible for project grants under the following FEMA mitigation
grant programs: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster
Mitigation (PDM), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), and Severe
Repetitive Loss (SRL). In addition, an Indian Tribal government applying
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
77
PLAN REVIEW AND ADOPTION
as a grantee would not be eligible for funding under the Fire
Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) or Repetitive Flood Claims
(RFC) programs or, in the event of a Presidential Disaster Declaration,
for Public Assistance Categories C-G, (e.g., repairs to damaged
infrastructure or publicly owned buildings) until the plan is approved.
Note: The plan’s crosswalk may contain recommended revisions,
suggesting improvements to the plan. If the Indian Tribal government
opts to incorporate all or some of the recommended revisions then the
plan would be resubmitted for another review.
Plan Update:
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to
review and revise its plan to reflect any changes in development,
progress in mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it
for approval within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA
assistance.
Therefore, the updated plan shall include a copy of the resolution or
other documentation of formal adoption of the updated plan regardless
of the degree of modification. The resolution or adoption for the
previously approved plan will not be accepted for plan updates.
Resource:
For more information about adopting a mitigation plan, see:
Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4), Step 1.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
78
PLAN REVIEW AND ADOPTION
Sample 7.1: Tribal Adoption Resolution
Name of Indian Tribal Government
Resolution #2006-01
WHEREAS the [insert tribe name here] has historically experienced severe damage from natural and
human-caused hazards such as flooding, wildfire, earthquake, drought, thunderstorms/high winds, and
hazardous materials incidents on many occasions in the past century, resulting in loss of property and life,
economic hardship, and threats to public health and safety;
WHEREAS the [insert tribe name] has developed and received conditional approval from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for its All Hazard Mitigation Plan under the requirements of
44 CFR 201.7;
WHEREAS the Plan specifically addresses hazard mitigation strategies and plan maintenance procedures
for [insert tribe name here];
WHEREAS the Plan recommends several hazard mitigation actions/projects that will provide mitigation
for specific natural and human caused hazards that impact [insert tribe name], with the effect of protecting
people and property from loss associated with those hazards;
WHEREAS, adoption of this plan will make the [insert tribe name] eligible for funding to alleviate the
impacts of future hazards on the Reservation,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
by the [insert appropriate official titles] of the [insert tribe name] that:
1. The Plan is hereby adopted as an official plan of [insert tribe name].
2. The respective officials identified in the mitigation strategy of the Plan are hereby directed to pursue
implementation of the recommended actions assigned to them.
3. Future revisions and Plan maintenance required by 44 CFR 201.7 and FEMA, are hereby adopted as a
part of this resolution for a period of five (5) years from the date of this resolution.
4. An annual report on the progress of the implementation elements of the Plan shall be presented to the
[insert appropriate official titles such as Mayor, Town Council, Board of Supervisors, Tribal Council,
etc.] by [insert date] of each calendar year.
5. The [insert tribe name] will comply with all applicable Federal statutes and regulations in effect with
respect to the periods for which it receives grant funding, in compliance with 44 CFR 13.11 (c); and
will amend our Plan whenever necessary to reflect applicable changes in Tribe, State or Federal laws
and statutes as required in 44 CFR 13.11. (d).
PASSED by the [insert appropriate title], this ___ day of ____ (month), _____(year).
[Provide various signature blocks as required]
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
79
PLAN REVIEW AND ADOPTION
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TRIBAL PLAN ADOPTION
Requirement
201.7(a)(4) and
(c)(5):
Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., county-wide or watershed plans) may be
accepted, as appropriate, as long as the Indian Tribal government …has
officially adopted the plan.
Explanation:
Each Indian Tribal government that is included in a multi-jurisdictional
plan must have its governing body adopt the plan prior to FEMA
approval, even when a regional agency has the authority to prepare
such plans.
As with single jurisdictional plans, in order for FEMA to give approval to
a multi-jurisdictional plan, at least one participating jurisdiction must
formally adopt the plan within one calendar year of FEMA’s designation
of the plan as “approvable pending adoption” (See: Adoption by the
Indian Tribal Government for an explanation of “approvable pending
adoption”). If any changes are made to a plan after FEMA determines it
is in APA status, FEMA would have to review the plan again to be sure
that the changes do not affect final approval.
Participants of a multi-jurisdictional plan will have the same expiration
date as the first jurisdiction’s approval date (i.e., five years after the first
jurisdiction received approval) regardless of the other participant’s
subsequent adoption date(s). FEMA recommends that all participating
jurisdictions coordinate the adoption process as soon as the plan has
received “approvable pending adoption” status to ensure that all
participants are covered by a plan for the full five years.
The plan approval date begins the 5-year approval period and sets the
expiration date for the plan. The official approval date is indicated on the
signed FEMA approval letter. As well as providing the approval date, the
letter also indicates the expiration date of the plan.
The 5-year approval period does not get “re-set” each time another
participating Indian tribal or local government adopts the plan. For
example, if jurisdiction #1, the first jurisdiction to formally adopt the Blue
County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, receives a FEMA
approval letter dated January 15, 2008, the plan will expire on January
15, 2013, exactly five years later. If jurisdiction #2 does not formally
adopt the plan until July 15, 2008, its eligibility would expire on January
15, 2013, the same expiration date for the entire Blue County plan.
If the plan is not adopted by a participating Indian Tribal government,
that Indian Tribal government would not be eligible for project grants
under the following HMA programs: HMGP, PDM, FMA, and SRL. In
addition, an Indian Tribal government applying as grantee would not be
eligible for funding under the Fire Management Assistance or RFC Grant
programs or for Public Assistance Categories C-G (e.g., repairs to
damaged infrastructure or publicly owned buildings) until the plan is
approved.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
80
PLAN REVIEW AND ADOPTION
Plan Update:
The Indian Tribal government is required by 44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) to
review and revise its plan to reflect changes in development, progress in
mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and to resubmit it for
approval within 5 years in order to continue eligibility for FEMA
assistance.
Each Indian Tribal government that is seeking approval for the multijurisdictional mitigation plan must have its governing body adopt the
updated plan, regardless of the degree of modifications. The resolution
or adoption for the previously approved plan will not be accepted for plan
update.
Resources:
For more information about adopting the mitigation plan, see:
Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4), Step 1.
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8), p. 4.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
81
PLAN REVIEW AND ADOPTION
This page intentionally left blank.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
82
T
I GI G
AA
T ITOI N
R ERVEIV
E IWE W
C RCORS O
SW
LA
KL K
TR
R II B
BA
A LL M
MUULLTTI I- -HHAAZZAARRDD MMI TI T
O NP LPALNA N
S SAW
Indian Tribal Government:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
Instructions for Using the Plan Review Crosswalk for Review of Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plans
Attached is a Plan Review Crosswalk based on the Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, published by FEMA, dated March 2010. This Plan Review Crosswalk is
consistent with the Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), as amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L.
106-390); the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended by the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-264); and 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 201 – Mitigation Planning, inclusive of all amendments through November 30, 2009.
SCORING SYSTEM
N – Needs Improvement: The plan does not meet the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments must be provided.
S – Satisfactory: The plan meets the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments are encouraged, but not required.
Each requirement includes separate elements. All elements of a requirement must be rated “Satisfactory” in order for the requirement to be fulfilled and receive a summary score
of “Satisfactory.” A “Needs Improvement” score on elements shaded in gray (recommended but not required) will not preclude the plan from passing.
When reviewing single jurisdiction plans, reviewers may want to put an N/A in the boxes for multi-jurisdictional plan requirements. When reviewing multi-jurisdictional plans,
reviewers may want to put an N/A in the prerequisite box for single jurisdiction plans. Indian Tribal governments or States that have additional requirements can add them in the
appropriate sections of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance or create a new section and modify this Plan Review Crosswalk to record the score for those
requirements.
Optional matrices for assisting in the review of sections on profiling hazards, assessing vulnerability, and identifying and analyzing mitigation actions are found at the end of the
Plan Review Crosswalk.
The example below illustrates how to fill in the Plan Review Crosswalk.
Example
Assessing Vulnerability: Overview
Requirement 201.7(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the Indian Tribal government’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This
description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the tribe.
Location in the
SCORE
Plan (section or
N
S
Element
annex and page #)
Reviewer’s Comments
A. Does the plan include an overall summary
Section II, pp. 4-10
The plan describes the types of assets that are located within geographically defined hazard
description of the Indian tribe’s vulnerability
areas as well as those that would be affected by winter storms.
to each hazard?
B. Does the plan address the impact of each
Section II, pp. 10-20
The plan does not address the impact of two of the five hazards addressed in the plan.
hazard on the Indian tribe?
Required Revisions:
Include a description of the impact of floods and earthquakes on the assets.
Recommended Revisions:
This information can be presented in terms of dollar value or percentages of damage.
SUMMARY SCORE
March 2010
T-1
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK
Indian Tribal Government:
Tribal Mitigation Plan Review and Approval Status
Tribe:
Title of Plan:
Tribal Point of Contact:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
Date of Plan:
Address:
Title:
Agency:
Phone Number:
E-Mail:
State Reviewer (if applicable):
Title:
Date:
FEMA Reviewer:
Title:
Date:
Date Received in FEMA Region [Insert #]
Plan Not Approved
Plan Approved
Date Approved
DFIRM
In Plan
Additional Indian Tribal Governments (if appropriate):
NOT In Plan
NFIP Status*
Y
N
N/A
CRS
Class
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. [ATTACH PAGE(S) WITH ADDITIONAL INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS]
* Notes:
March 2010
Y = Participating
N = Not Participating
N/A = Not Mapped
T-2
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK
Indian Tribal Government:
TRIBAL
MULTI-HAZARD
MITIGATION
PLAN
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
REVIEW
SUMMARY
The plan cannot be approved if the plan has not been formally adopted. Each requirement includes separate elements. All elements of the requirement must be rated “Satisfactory” in order for the
requirement to be fulfilled and receive a score of “Satisfactory.” Elements of each requirement are listed on the following pages of the Plan Review Crosswalk. A “Needs Improvement” score on elements
shaded in gray (recommended but not required) will not preclude the plan from passing. Reviewer’s comments must be provided for requirements receiving a “Needs Improvement” score.
SCORING SYSTEM
Please check one of the following for each requirement.
N – Needs Improvement: The plan does not meet the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments must be provided.
S – Satisfactory: The plan meets the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments are encouraged, but not required.
Planning Process
N
S
1. Documentation of the Planning Process:
201.7(b) and 201.7(c)(1)(i) and (ii)
2. Program Integration: 201.7(c)(1)(iii) and (iv)
Risk Assessment
N
S
3. Identifying Hazards: 201.7(c)(2)(i)
Plan Maintenance Process
N
S
NOT MET
MET
N
S
15. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan:
201.7(c)(4)(i)
16. Monitoring Progress of Mitigation Activities:
201.7(c)(4)(ii) and 201.7(4)(v)
17. Incorporation into Existing Planning
Mechanisms: 201.7(c)(4)(iii)
18. Continued Member and Stakeholder
Involvement: 201.7(c)(4)(iv)
4. Profiling Hazards: 201.7(c)(2)(i)
Prerequisites
5. Assessing Vulnerability: Overview:
201.7(c)(2)(ii)
6. Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures:
201.7(c)(2)(ii)(A)
19. Adoption by the Tribal Governing Body :
201.7(c)(5) and (c)(6) [single Indian Tribal
government only]
20. Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption: 201.7(a)(4),
(c)(5) and(c)(6) [multi-jurisdictional only]
21. Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation:
201.7(a)(4) [multi-jurisdictional only]
7. Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential
Losses: 201.7(c)(2)(ii)(B)
8. Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing
Development Trends: 201.7(c)(2)(ii)(C)
9. Assessing Vulnerability: Assessing Cultural and
Sacred sites: 201.7(c)(2)(ii)(D)
Severe Repetitive Loss Strategy (Optional)
22. Repetitive Loss Strategy: 201.7(c)(3)(vi)
Mitigation Strategy
10. Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Goals:
201.7(c)(3)(i)
11. Identification and Analysis of Tribal Mitigation
Actions: 201.7(c)(3)(ii)
12. Implementation of Tribal Mitigation Actions:
201.7(c)(3)(iii)
N
S
TRIBAL MITIGATION PLAN APPROVAL STATUS
PLAN NOT APPROVED
See Reviewer’s Comments
13. Tribal Capability Assessment: 201.7(c)(3)(iv)
14. Tribal Funding Sources: 201.7(c)(3)(v)
March 2010
PLAN APPROVED
T-3
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK
Indian Tribal Government:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
PLANNING PROCESS: 201.7(b): An effective planning process is essential in developing and maintaining a good plan. The mitigation planning process should
include coordination with other tribal agencies, appropriate Federal agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, interested groups, and be integrated to the extent possible
with other ongoing tribal planning efforts as well as other FEMA mitigation programs and initiatives.
1. Documentation of the Planning Process
Requirement 201.7(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the
process, and how the public was defined and involved. This shall include:
(i) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval, including a description of how the Indian
Tribal government defined “public;” and
(ii) As appropriate, an opportunity for neighboring communities, tribal and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that
have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia, and other private and nonprofit interests to be involved in the planning
process.
Location in the
SCORE
Plan (section or
N
S
Element
Reviewer’s Comments
annex and page #)
A. Does the plan provide a narrative description of the process followed to
prepare the new or updated plan?
B. Does the new or updated plan indicate who was involved in the current
planning process?
C. Does the new or updated plan indicate how the “public” was defined
and involved? How was the “public” defined? How was the “public”
involved? Were they provided an opportunity to comment on the plan
during the drafting stage and prior to the plan approval?
D. Does the new or updated plan discuss the opportunity for other Indian
Tribal governments, tribal and regional agencies, businesses, academia,
nonprofits, neighboring communities, and other affected stakeholders and
interested parties to be involved in the planning process?
E. Does the updated plan document how the planning team reviewed and
analyzed each section of the plan? [Updates only.]
F. Does the updated plan indicate for each section of the plan whether or not
it was revised as part of the update process? [Updates only.]
SUMMARY SCORE
March 2010
T-4
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK
Indian Tribal Government:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
2. Program Integration
Requirement 201.7(c)(1)(iii) and (iv): [The plan shall:]
[include] (iii) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, and reports; and
(iv) Be integrated to the extent possible with other ongoing tribal planning efforts as well as other FEMA programs and initiatives.
Location in the
Plan (section or
Element
Reviewer’s Comments
annex and page #)
A. Does the new or updated plan describe the review and incorporation, if
appropriate, of existing plans, studies, and reports in the new or updated
plan?
B. Does the new or updated plan describe how the Indian tribal mitigation
plan is integrated with other ongoing Indian tribal planning efforts?
C. Does the new or updated plan describe how the Indian tribal mitigation
planning process is integrated with FEMA mitigation programs and
initiatives?
SUMMARY SCORE
SCORE
N
S
RISK ASSESSMENT: 201.7(c)(2): [The plan shall include a] risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses
from identified hazards. Tribal risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the Indian Tribal government to identify and prioritize appropriate
mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards.
3. Identifying Hazards
Requirement 201.7(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type … of all natural hazards that can affect the tribal planning area.
SCORE
Location in the
Plan (section or
N
S
annex and page #)
Element
Reviewer’s Comments
A. Does the new or updated plan describe the tribal planning area?
B. Does the new or updated plan include a description of the types of all
natural hazards that affect the tribal planning area?
SUMMARY SCORE
March 2010
T-5
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK
Indian Tribal Government:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
4. Profiling Hazards
Requirement 201.7(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the … location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the tribal
planning area. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events.
Location in the
SCORE
Plan (section or
N
S
Element
Reviewer’s Comments
annex and page #)
A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., geographic area
affected) of each natural hazard addressed in the new or updated plan?
B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of
each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan?
C. Does the new or updated plan provide information on previous
occurrences of each hazard addressed in the plan?
D. Does the new or updated plan include the probability of future events
(i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the plan?
E. Does the updated plan address data deficiencies, if any, noted in the
previously approved plan?
SUMMARY SCORE
5. Assessing Vulnerability: Overview
Requirement 201.7(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the Indian Tribal government's vulnerability to the hazards described in
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the tribe.
Location in the
SCORE
Plan (section or
N
S
Element
Reviewer’s Comments
annex and page #)
A. Does the new or updated plan include an overall summary description of
the Indian tribe’s vulnerability to each hazard?
B. Does the new or updated plan address the impact of each hazard on the
Indian tribe?
SUMMARY SCORE
March 2010
T-6
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK
Indian Tribal Government:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
6. Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures
Requirement 201.7(c)(2)(ii)(A): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the] types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and
critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas.
Location in the
SCORE
Plan (section or
N
S
Element
Reviewer’s Comments
annex and page #)
A. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types
Note: A “Needs Improvement”
and numbers of existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities
score on this requirement will not
located in the identified hazard areas?
preclude the plan from passing.
B. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types
Note: A “Needs Improvement”
and numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities
score on this requirement will not
located in the identified hazard areas?
preclude the plan from passing.
SUMMARY SCORE
7. Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses
Requirement 201.7(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified
in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate.
Location in the
SCORE
Plan (section or
N
S
Element
Reviewer’s Comments
annex and page #)
A. Does the new or updated plan estimate potential dollar losses to
Note: A “Needs Improvement”
vulnerable structures?
score on this requirement will not
preclude the plan from passing.
B. Does the new or updated plan describe the methodology used to prepare
Note: A “Needs Improvement”
the estimate?
score on this requirement will not
preclude the plan from passing.
C. Does the updated plan reflect the effects of changes in development on
Note: A “Needs Improvement”
loss estimates?
score on this requirement will not
preclude the plan from passing.
SUMMARY SCORE
March 2010
T-7
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK
Indian Tribal Government:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
8. Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends
Requirement 201.7(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of a] general description of land uses and development trends within the tribal
planning area so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.
SCORE
Location in the
Plan (section or
N
S
Element
Reviewer’s Comments
annex and page #)
A. Does the new or updated plan describe land uses and development
Note: A “Needs Improvement” score
trends within the tribal planning area?
on this requirement will not preclude
the plan from passing.
B. Does the updated plan reflect changes in development for tribal lands in
Note: A “Needs Improvement” score
hazard prone areas within the tribal planning area?
on this requirement will not preclude
the plan from passing.
SUMMARY SCORE
9. Assessing Vulnerability: Assessing Cultural and Sacred Sites
Requirement 201.7(c)(2)(ii)(D): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] cultural and sacred sites that are significant, even if they cannot be valued
in monetary terms.
Location in the
SCORE
Plan (section or
N
S
Element
Reviewer’s Comments
annex and page #)
A. Does the new or updated plan describe significant cultural and sacred
Note: A “Needs Improvement” score
sites that are located in hazard areas?
on this requirement will not preclude
the plan from passing.
SUMMARY SCORE
March 2010
T-8
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK
Indian Tribal Government:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
MITIGATION STRATEGY: 201.7(c)(3): [The plan shall include a] mitigation strategy that provides the Indian Tribal government’s blueprint for reducing the
potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these
existing tools.
10. Tribal Multi-Hazard Mitigation Goals
Requirement 201.7(c)(3)(i): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified
hazards.
Location in the
SCORE
Plan (section or
N
S
Element
Reviewer’s Comments
annex and page #)
A Does the new or updated plan include a description of mitigation goals to
reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards?
B. Does the updated plan demonstrate that the goals were evaluated and
either remain valid or have been revised?
SUMMARY SCORE
11. Identification and Analysis of Tribal Mitigation Actions
Requirement 201.7(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions
and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure.
Location in the
SCORE
Plan (section or
N
S
Element
Reviewer’s Comments
annex and page #)
A. Does the new or updated plan identify and analyze a comprehensive
range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard?
B Do the identified actions and projects address reducing the effects of
hazards on new buildings and infrastructure?
C. Do the identified actions and projects address reducing the effects of
hazards on existing buildings and infrastructure?
SUMMARY SCORE
March 2010
T-9
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK
Indian Tribal Government:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
12. Implementation of Tribal Mitigation Actions
Requirement: 201.7(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy shall include an] action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized,
implemented, and administered by the Indian Tribal government.
SCORE
Location in the
Plan (section or
N
S
annex and page #)
Element
Reviewer’s Comments
A. Does the mitigation strategy in the new or updated plan include how the
actions are prioritized? (For example, is there a discussion of the
process and criteria used?)
B. Does the mitigation strategy in the new or updated plan address how the
actions will be implemented and administered, including the
responsible agency, existing or potential resources, and the timeframe to
complete each action?
C. Does the updated plan identify the completed, deleted, or deferred
mitigation actions as a benchmark for progress, and if activities are
unchanged (i.e., deferred), does the updated plan describe why no
changes occurred?
SUMMARY SCORE
13. Tribal Capability Assessment
Requirement 201.7(c)(3)(iv): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] discussion of the Indian Tribal government's pre- and post-disaster hazard
management policies, programs, and capabilities to mitigate the hazards in the area, including: An evaluation of tribal laws, regulations, policies, and
programs related to hazard mitigation as well as to development in hazard-prone areas; and a discussion of tribal funding capabilities for hazard mitigation
projects.
Element
A. Does the new or updated plan include an evaluation of the Indian Tribal
government’s pre-disaster hazard management laws, regulations,
policies, programs, and capabilities?
B. Does the new or updated plan include an evaluation of the Indian Tribal
government’s post-disaster hazard management laws, regulations,
policies, programs, and capabilities?
C. Does the new or updated plan include an evaluation of the Indian Tribal
government’s laws, regulations, policies, programs, and capabilities
related to development in hazard prone areas?
D. Does the new or updated plan include a discussion of the Indian Tribal
government’s funding capabilities for hazard mitigation projects?
March 2010
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
SCORE
Reviewer’s Comments
N
S
T-10
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK
Indian Tribal Government:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
E. Does the updated plan address any hazard management laws, policies,
programs, capabilities, or funding capabilities of the Indian Tribal
government’s that have changed since approval of the previous plan?
SUMMARY SCORE
14. Tribal Funding Sources
Requirement 201.7(c)(3)(v): [The mitigation strategy shall include an] identification of current and potential sources of Federal, tribal, or private funding to
implement mitigation activities.
SCORE
Location in the
Plan (section or
N
S
Element
annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments
A. Does the new or updated plan identify current sources of Federal, tribal, or
private funding to implement mitigation activities?
B. Does the new or updated plan identify potential sources of Federal, tribal,
or private funding to implement mitigation activities?
C. Does the updated plan identify the sources of mitigation funding used to
implement activities in the mitigation strategy since approval of the previous
plan?
SUMMARY SCORE
PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS
15. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan
Requirement 201.7(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and
updating the mitigation plan.
Element
A. Does the new or updated plan describe the method and schedule for
monitoring the plan, including how, when, and by whom (e.g., the
responsible agency)?
B. Does the new or updated plan describe the method and schedule for
evaluating the plan, including how, when, and by whom (e.g., the
responsible agency)?
C. Does the new or updated plan describe the method and schedule for
updating the plan, including how, when, and by whom (e.g., the
responsible agency), within the 5-year cycle?
March 2010
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
SCORE
Reviewer’s Comments
N
S
T-11
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK
Indian Tribal Government:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
D. Does the updated plan include an analysis of whether the previously
approved plan’s method and schedule worked, and what elements or
processes, if any, were changed for the next 5 years?
SUMMARY SCORE
16. Monitoring Progress of Mitigation Activities
Requirement 201.7(c)(4)(ii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] system for monitoring implementation of mitigation measures and project
closeouts.
Requirement 201.7(c)(4)(v): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] system for reviewing progress on achieving goals as well as activities and
projects identified in the mitigation strategy.
Element
A. Does the new or updated plan describe how mitigation measures and
project closeouts will be monitored?
B. Does the new or updated plan identify a system for reviewing
progress on achieving goals and implementing activities and projects
in the Mitigation Strategy?
C. Does the updated plan describe any modifications, if any, to the
system identified in the previously approved plan to track the
initiation, status, and completion of mitigation activities?
D. Does the updated plan discuss whether mitigation actions were
implemented as planned?
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
SCORE
Reviewer’s Comments
N
S
SUMMARY SCORE
17. Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
Requirement 201.7(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] process by which the Indian Tribal government incorporates the requirements
of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as reservation master plans or capital improvement plans, when appropriate.
Element
A. Does the new or updated plan identify other tribal planning mechanisms
available for incorporating the requirements of the mitigation plan?
B. Does the new or updated plan include a process by which the Indian Tribal
government will incorporate the mitigation strategy and other information
contained in the plan (e.g., risk assessment) into other planning mechanisms,
when appropriate?
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
SCORE
Reviewer’s Comments
N
S
SUMMARY SCORE
March 2010
T-12
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK
Indian Tribal Government:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
18. Continued Member and Stakeholder Involvement
Requirement 201.7(c)(4)(iv): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the Indian Tribal government will continue public
participation in the plan maintenance process.
Location in the
SCORE
Plan (section or
N
S
Element
annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments
A. Does the new or updated plan explain how continued public participation will
be obtained? (For example, will there be public notices, an on-going mitigation
plan committee, or annual review meetings with stakeholders?)
SUMMARY SCORE
PREREQUISITES
19. Adoption by the Tribal Governing Body (Single Indian Tribal government)
Requirement 201.7(c)(5): The plan must be formally adopted by the governing body of the Indian Tribal government prior to submitting to FEMA for final
review and approval.
Requirement 201.7(c)(6): [The plan must include] assurances that the Indian Tribal government will comply with all applicable Federal statutes and
regulations in effect with respect to the periods for which it receives grant funding, in compliance with 13.11(c) of this chapter. The Indian Tribal government
will amend its plan whenever necessary to reflect changes in tribal or Federal laws and statutes as required in 13.11(d) of this chapter.
Element
A. Has the Indian tribal governing body formally adopted the new or updated
plan?
B. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, included with the new
or updated plan?
C. Does the new or updated plan provide assurances that the Indian Tribal
government will continue to comply with all applicable Federal statutes and
regulations during the periods for which it receives grant funding, in
compliance with 44 CFR 13.11(c), and will amend its plan whenever
necessary to reflect changes in tribal or Federal laws and statutes as
required in 44 CFR 13.11(d)?
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
Reviewer’s Comments
SCORE
NOT
MET MET
SUMMARY SCORE
March 2010
T-13
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK
Indian Tribal Government:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
20. Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption (Multiple Indian Tribal governments)
Requirement 201.7(a)(4): Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., county-wide or watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each Indian Tribal
government…has officially adopted the plan.
Requirement 201.7(c)(5): The plan must be formally adopted by the governing body of the Indian Tribal government prior to submittal to FEMA for final
review and approval.
Requirement 201.7(c)(6): [The plan must include] assurances that the Indian Tribal government will comply with all applicable Federal statutes and
regulations in effect with respect to the periods for which it receives grant funding, in compliance with 13.11(c) of this chapter. The Indian Tribal government
will amend its plan whenever necessary to reflect changes in tribal or Federal laws and statutes as required in 13.11(d) of this chapter.
Location in the
SCORE
Plan (section or
NOT
annex and page #)
Element
Reviewer’s Comments
MET MET
A. Does the new or updated plan indicate the specific Indian Tribal
government(s) represented in the plan?
B. For each Indian Tribal government(s), has the governing body adopted the
new or updated plan?
C. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, included for each
participating Indian Tribal government(s)?
D. Does the new or updated plan provide assurances that the Indian Tribal
government will continue to comply with all applicable Federal statutes and
regulations during the periods for which it receives grant funding, in
compliance with 44 CFR 13.11(c), and will amend its plan whenever
necessary to reflect changes in tribal or Federal laws and statutes as
required in 44 CFR 13.11(d)?
SUMMARY SCORE
March 2010
T-14
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK
Indian Tribal Government:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
21. Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation (Multiple Indian Tribal governments)
Requirement 201.7(a)(4): Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., county-wide or watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each Indian Tribal
government has participated in the process... Indian Tribal governments must address all the elements identified in [44 CFR 201.7] to ensure eligibility as a
grantee or as a subgrantee.
Location in the
SCORE
Plan (section or
NOT
annex and page #)
Element
Reviewer’s Comments
MET MET
A. Does the new or updated plan describe how each Indian Tribal government
participated in the plan’s development?
B. Does the updated plan identify all participating Indian Tribal governments,
including new and continuing Indian Tribal government(s) and any Indian
Tribal government(s) that no longer participate in the plan?
C. Does each participating Indian Tribal government participating in the new or
updated mitigation plan meet all of the elements identified in the Tribal
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk for their tribal planning
area? Has a separate crosswalk for participating Indian Tribal
government(s) been completed, and are all elements “Met” or “S”?
SUMMARY SCORE
March 2010
T-15
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK
Indian Tribal Government:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
REPETITIVE LOSS STRATEGY (OPTIONAL)
22. Repetitive Loss Strategy
Requirement 201.7(c)(3)(vi): An Indian Tribal government applying to FEMA as a grantee may request the reduced cost share authorized under 79.4(c)(2) of
this chapter of the FMA and SRL programs if they have an approved Tribal Mitigation Plan meeting the requirements of this section that also identifies actions
the Indian Tribal government has taken to reduce the number of repetitive loss properties (which must include severe repetitive loss properties), and specifies
how the Indian Tribal government intends to reduce the number of such repetitive loss properties. [Note: While submittal of a Repetitive Loss Strategy is
optional, if the Indian Tribal government wants to request the reduced cost share authorized under 44 CFR 79.4(c)(2) for the FMA and SRL programs
as a grantee, then all of the following requirements must be met.]
Element
A. Does the new or updated plan address repetitive loss properties
in its risk assessment (see 201.7(c)(2))?
B. Does the new or updated plan describe the Indian Tribal
government’s mitigation goals that support the selection of
mitigation activities for repetitive loss properties (see
201.7(c)(3)(i))?
C. Does the new or updated plan identify mitigation actions for
repetitive loss properties (see 201.7(c)(3)(iii))?
D. Does the new or updated plan describe specific actions that have
been implemented to mitigate repetitive loss properties, including
actions taken to reduce the number of severe repetitive loss
properties?
E. Does the new or updated plan consider repetitive loss properties
in its evaluation of the Indian Tribal government’s hazard
management laws, regulations, policies, programs, and
capabilities and its general description of mitigation capabilities
(see 201.7(c)(3)(iv))?
F. Does the new or updated plan identify current and potential
sources of Federal, tribal, or private funding to implement
mitigation activities for repetitive loss properties (see
201.7(c)(3)(v))?
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
SCORE
Reviewer’s Comments
[Note: Only required for SRL 90/10 under FMA &
SRL]
[Note: Only required for SRL 90/10 under FMA &
SRL]
N
S
[Note: Only required for SRL 90/10 under FMA &
SRL]
[Note: Only required for SRL 90/10 under FMA &
SRL]
[Note: Only required for SRL 90/10 under FMA &
SRL]
[Note: Only required for SRL 90/10 under FMA &
SRL]
SUMMARY SCORE
March 2010
T-16
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK
Indian Tribal Government:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
MATRIX A: PROFILING HAZARDS
This matrix can assist FEMA (and the State, if applicable) as well as the Indian Tribal government in scoring each hazard. Indian Tribal governments may find the
matrix useful to ensure that their plan addresses each natural hazard that can affect the tribal planning area. Completing the matrix is not required.
Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement 201.7(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or the S box for each applicable hazard. An
“N” for any element of any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the
comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk.
Hazard Type
Hazards Identified
Per Requirement
201.7(c)(2)(i)
Not a
Hazard
Yes
A.
Location
N
B.
Extent
S
N
C. Previous
Occurrences
S
N
S
D. Probability of
Future Events
N
S
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other:
Other:
Other:
Legend: 201.7(c)(2)(i) Profiling Hazards
A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., geographic area affected) of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan?
B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan?
C. Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each natural hazard addressed in the new or updated plan?
D. Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan?
March 2010
T-17
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK
Indian Tribal Government:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
MATRIX B: ASSESSING VULNERABILITY
This matrix can assist FEMA (and the State, if applicable) as well as the Indian Tribal government in scoring each hazard. Indian Tribal governments may find the
matrix useful to ensure that their plan addresses each natural hazard that can affect the tribal planning area. Completing the matrix is not required.
Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement 201.7(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or the S box for each applicable hazard. An
“N” for any element of any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the
comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk. Note: Receiving an N in the shaded columns will not preclude the plan from passing.
N
S
N
S
Legend:
201.7(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview
A. Does the new or updated plan include an overall summary description of the vulnerability of
the tribal planning area to each hazard?
B. Does the new or updated plan address the impact of each hazard on the tribal planning area?
201.7(c)(2)(ii)(A) Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures
A. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of
existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?
March 2010
A.
Existing
Structures
B.
Future
Structures
N
N
S
A.
Loss Estimate
S
N
S
B.
Methodology
N
S
201.7(c)(2)(ii)(B)
Estimating Potential Losses
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other:
Other:
Other:
Yes
B.
Hazard Impact
201.7(c)(2)(ii)(A) and (D)
Identifying Structures and Sacred Sites
(types and estimated numbers)
Not a
Hazard
A.
Overall Description
of Vulnerability
201.7(c)(2)(ii)
Overview
Hazard Type
Hazards Identified
Per Requirement
201.7(c)(2)(i)
B. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of
future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?
201.7(c)(2)(ii)(B) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses
A. Does the new or updated plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures?
B. Does the new or updated plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate?
T-18
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK
Indian Tribal Government:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
MATRIX C: IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION ACTIONS
This matrix can assist FEMA (and the State, if applicable) as well as the Indian Tribal government, in scoring each hazard. Indian Tribal governments may find
the matrix useful to ensure consideration of a range of actions for each hazard. Completing the matrix is not required.
Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement 201.7(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or the S box for each applicable hazard.
An “N” for any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments
section of the Plan Review Crosswalk.
Hazard Type
Hazards Identified
Per Requirement
201.7(c)(2)(i)
Not a
Yes
Hazard
A. Comprehensive
Range of Actions
and Projects
N
S
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other:
Other:
Other:
Legend:
201.7(c)(3)(ii) Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions
A. Does the new or updated plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard?
March 2010
T-19
APPENDIX A: COMPARISON OF TRIBAL, STATE, AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
PLANNING PROCESS
Prior to October 1, 2008, Indian Tribal governments were given the option to meet the requirements of a State or a Local Mitigation
Plan for approval and eligibility for most types of disaster assistance and mitigation grant programs. The following chart illustrates the
differences in a State or Local Mitigation Plan, as compared to the requirements that must be met for a Tribal Mitigation Plan
approved after October 1, 2008.
STATE PLAN (201.4)
44 CFR 201.4(b)
44 CFR 201.4(c)(1)
(b) Planning process. An effective planning
process is essential in developing and
maintaining a good plan. The mitigation
planning process should include
coordination with other State agencies,
appropriate Federal agencies, interested
groups, and be integrated to the extent
possible with other ongoing State planning
efforts as well as other FEMA mitigation
programs and initiatives.
(c)(1) Description of the planning process
used to develop the plan, including how it
was prepared, who was involved in the
process, and how other agencies
participated.
n/a
n/a
n/a
TRIBAL PLAN (201.7)
44 CFR 201.7(c)(1)(i-iv)
44 CFR 201.7(b)
(b) An effective planning process is
essential in developing and maintaining a
good plan. The mitigation planning process
should include coordination with other tribal
agencies, appropriate Federal agencies,
adjacent jurisdictions, interested groups,
and be integrated to the extent possible
with other ongoing tribal planning efforts as
well as other FEMA mitigation programs
and initiatives.
(c)(1) Documentation of the planning
process used to develop the plan, including
how it was prepared, who was involved in
the process, and how the public was
involved. This shall include:
(i) An opportunity for the public to comment
on the plan during the drafting stage and
prior to plan approval, including a
description of how the Indian Tribal
government defined ‘‘public;’’
(ii) As appropriate, an opportunity for
neighboring communities, tribal and
regional agencies involved in hazard
mitigation activities, and agencies that have
the authority to regulate development, as
well as businesses, academia, and other
private and nonprofit interests to be
involved in the planning process;
(iii) Review and incorporation, if
appropriate, of existing plans, studies, and
reports; and
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
LOCAL PLAN (201.6)
44 CFR 201.6(c)(1)
44 CFR 201.6(b)(1-3)
(b) Planning process. An open public
involvement process is essential to the
development of an effective plan. In order
to develop a more comprehensive
approach to reducing the effects of natural
disasters, the planning process shall
include [see 44 CFR 201.6(b)(1-3) below]:
(c)(1)Documentation of the planning
process used to develop the plan, including
how it was prepared, who was involved in
the process, and how the public was
involved.
(b)(1) An opportunity for the public to
comment on the plan during the drafting
stage and prior to plan approval;
(b)(2) An opportunity for neighboring
communities, local and regional agencies
involved in hazard mitigation activities, and
agencies that have the authority to regulate
development, as well as businesses,
academia and other private and nonprofit
interests to be involved in the planning
process; and
(b)(3) Review and incorporation, if
appropriate, of existing plans, studies,
reports, and technical information.
A-1
APPENDIX A: COMPARISON OF TRIBAL, STATE, AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
STATE PLAN (201.4)
RISK ASSESSMENT: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
n/a
44 CFR 201.4(c)(2)(i)
(2) Risk assessments that provide the
factual basis for activities proposed in the
strategy portion of the mitigation plan.
Statewide risk assessments must
characterize and analyze natural hazards
and risks to provide a statewide overview.
This overview will allow the State to
compare potential losses throughout the
State and to determine their priorities for
implementing mitigation measures under
the strategy, and to prioritize jurisdictions
for receiving technical and financial support
in developing more detailed local risk and
vulnerability assessments. The risk
assessment shall include the following:
(i) An overview of the type and location of
all natural hazards that can affect the State,
including information on previous
occurrences of hazard events, as well as
the probability of future hazard events,
using maps where appropriate;
TRIBAL PLAN (201.7)
(iv) Be integrated to the extent possible with
other ongoing tribal planning efforts as well
as other FEMA programs and initiatives.
44 CFR 201.7(c)(2)(i)
(2) A risk assessment that provides the
factual basis for activities proposed in the
strategy to reduce losses from identified
hazards. Tribal risk assessments must
provide sufficient information to enable the
Indian Tribal government to identify and
prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to
reduce losses from identified hazards. The
risk assessment shall include:
(i) A description of the type, location, and
extent of all natural hazards that can affect
the tribal planning area. The plan shall
include information on previous
occurrences of hazard events and on the
probability of future hazard events.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
LOCAL PLAN (201.6)
n/a
44 CFR 201.6(c)(2)(i)
(2) A risk assessment that provides the
factual basis for activities proposed in the
strategy to reduce losses from identified
hazards. Local risk assessments must
provide sufficient information to enable the
jurisdiction to identify and prioritize
appropriate mitigation actions to reduce
losses from identified hazards. The risk
assessment shall include:
(i) A description of the type, location, and
extent of all natural hazards that can affect
the jurisdiction. The plan shall include
information on previous occurrences of
hazard events and on the probability of
future hazard events.
A-2
RISK ASSESSMENT: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX A: COMPARISON OF TRIBAL, STATE, AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
STATE PLAN (201.4)
44 CFR 201.4(c)(2)(ii-iii)
(ii) An overview and analysis of the State's
vulnerability to the hazards described in this
paragraph (c)(2), based on estimates
provided in local risk assessments as well
as the State risk assessment. The State
shall describe vulnerability in terms of the
jurisdictions most threatened by the
identified hazards, and most vulnerable to
damage and loss associated with hazard
events. State owned or operated critical
facilities located in the identified hazard
areas shall also be addressed;
(iii) An overview and analysis of potential
losses to the identified vulnerable
structures, based on estimates provided in
local risk assessments as well as the State
risk assessment. The State shall estimate
the potential dollar losses to State owned or
operated buildings, infrastructure, and
critical facilities located in the identified
hazard areas.
n/a
n/a
TRIBAL PLAN (201.7)
44 CFR 201.7(c)(2)(ii)(A-D)
(ii) A description of the Indian Tribal
government’s vulnerability to the hazards
described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this
section. This description shall include an
overall summary of each hazard and its
impact on the tribe. The plan should
describe vulnerability in terms of:
(A) The types and numbers of existing and
future buildings, infrastructure, and critical
facilities located in the identified hazard
areas;
(B) An estimate of the potential dollar
losses to vulnerable structures identified in
paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section and a
description of the methodology used to
prepare the estimate;
(C) A general description of land uses and
development trends within the tribal
planning area so that mitigation options can
be considered in future land use decisions;
and
(D) Sacred sites that are significant, even if
they cannot be valued in monetary terms.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
LOCAL PLAN (201.6)
44 CFR 201.6.(c)(2)(ii)(A-C)
(ii) A description of the jurisdiction's
vulnerability to the hazards described in
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This
description shall include an overall
summary of each hazard and its impact on
the community. All plans approved after
October 1, 2008 must also address NFIP
insured structures that have been
repetitively damaged by floods. The plan
should describe vulnerability in terms of:
(A) The types and numbers of existing and
future buildings, infrastructure, and critical
facilities located in the identified hazard
areas;
(B) An estimate of the potential dollar
losses to vulnerable structures identified in
paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a
description of the methodology used to
prepare the estimate;
(C) Providing a general description of land
uses and development trends within the
community so that mitigation options can be
considered in future land use decisions.
n/a
A-3
APPENDIX A: COMPARISON OF TRIBAL, STATE, AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
MITIGATION STRATEGY: GOALS & ACTIONS
STATE PLAN (201.4)
44 CFR 201.4(c)(3)(i)&(iii)
(3) A Mitigation Strategy that provides the
State's blueprint for reducing the losses
identified in the risk assessment. This
section shall include:
(i) A description of State goals to guide the
selection of activities to mitigate and reduce
potential losses.
(iii) An identification, evaluation, and
prioritization of cost-effective,
environmentally sound, and technically
feasible mitigation actions and activities the
State is considering and an explanation of
how each activity contributes to the overall
mitigation strategy. This section should be
linked to local plans, where specific local
actions and projects are identified.
n/a
TRIBAL PLAN (201.7)
44 CFR 201.7(c)(3)(i-iii)
(3) A mitigation strategy that provides the
Indian Tribal government’s blueprint for
reducing the potential losses identified in
the risk assessment, based on existing
authorities, policies, programs and
resources, and its ability to expand on and
improve these existing tools. This section
shall include:
(i) A description of mitigation goals to
reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to
the identified hazards.
(ii) A section that identifies and analyzes a
comprehensive range of specific mitigation
actions and projects being considered to
reduce the effects of each hazard, with
particular emphasis on new and existing
buildings and infrastructure.
(iii) An action plan describing how the
actions identified in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of
this section will be prioritized, implemented,
and administered by the Indian Tribal
government.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
LOCAL PLAN (201.6)
44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(i-iii)
3) A mitigation strategy that provides the
jurisdiction's blueprint for reducing the
potential losses identified in the risk
assessment, based on existing authorities,
policies, programs and resources, and its
ability to expand on and improve these
existing tools. This section shall include:
(i) A description of mitigation goals to
reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to
the identified hazards.
(ii) A section that identifies and analyzes a
comprehensive range of specific mitigation
actions and projects being considered to
reduce the effects of each hazard, with
particular emphasis on new and existing
buildings and infrastructure. All plans
approved by FEMA after October 1, 2008,
must also address the jurisdiction's
participation in the NFIP, and continued
compliance with NFIP requirements, as
appropriate.
(iii) An action plan describing how the
actions identified in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of
this section will be prioritized, implemented,
and administered by the local jurisdiction.
Prioritization shall include a special
emphasis on the extent to which benefits
are maximized according to a cost benefit
review of the proposed projects and their
associated costs.
A-4
MITIGATION STRATEGY: POLICIES & FUNDING
APPENDIX A: COMPARISON OF TRIBAL, STATE, AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
STATE PLAN (201.4)
44 CFR 201.4(c)(3)(ii),(iv)&(v)
(ii) A discussion of the State's pre- and
post-disaster hazard management policies,
programs, and capabilities to mitigate the
hazards in the area, including: an
evaluation of State laws, regulations,
policies, and programs related to hazard
mitigation as well as to development in
hazard-prone areas; a discussion of State
funding capabilities for hazard mitigation
projects; and a general description and
analysis of the effectiveness of local
mitigation policies, programs, and
capabilities.
(iv) Identification of current and potential
sources of Federal, State, local, or private
funding to implement mitigation activities.
(v) A State may request the reduced cost
share authorized under 79.4(c)(2) of this
chapter for the FMA and SRL programs, if it
has an approved State Mitigation Plan
meeting the requirements of this section
that also identifies specific actions the State
has taken to reduce the number of
repetitive loss properties (which must
include severe repetitive loss properties),
and specifies how the State intends to
reduce the number of such repetitive loss
properties. In addition, the plan must
describe the strategy the State has to
ensure that local jurisdictions with severe
repetitive loss properties take actions to
reduce the number of these properties,
including the development of local
mitigation plans.
TRIBAL PLAN (201.7)
44 CFR 201.7(c)(3)(iv-vi)
(iv) A discussion of the Indian Tribal
government’s pre- and post-disaster hazard
management policies, programs, and
capabilities to mitigate the hazards in the
area, including: An evaluation of tribal laws,
regulations, policies, and programs related
to hazard mitigation as well as to
development in hazard-prone areas; and a
discussion of tribal funding capabilities for
hazard mitigation projects.
LOCAL PLAN (201.6)
N/A
(v) Identification of current and potential
sources of Federal, tribal, or private funding
to implement mitigation activities.
(vi) An Indian Tribal government may
request the reduced cost share authorized
under 79.4(c)(2) of this chapter of the FMA
and SRL programs if they have an
approved Tribal Mitigation Plan meeting the
requirements of this section that also
identify actions the Indian Tribal
government has taken to reduce the
number of repetitive loss properties (which
must include severe repetitive loss
properties), and specifies how the Indian
Tribal government intends to reduce the
number of such repetitive loss properties.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
A-5
COORDINATION OF LOCAL MITIGATION
PLANNING
APPENDIX A: COMPARISON OF TRIBAL, STATE, AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
STATE PLAN (201.4)
44 CFR 201.4(c)(4)(i-iii)
(i) A description of the State process to
support, through funding and technical
assistance, the development of local
mitigation plans.
(ii) A description of the State process and
timeframe by which the local plans will be
reviewed, coordinated, and linked to the
State Mitigation Plan.
(iii) Criteria for prioritizing communities and
local jurisdictions that would receive
planning and project grants under available
funding programs, which should include
consideration for communities with the
highest risks, repetitive loss properties, and
most intense development pressures.
Further, that for non-planning grants, a
principal criterion for prioritizing grants shall
be the extent to which benefits are
maximized according to a cost benefit
review of proposed projects and their
associated costs.
TRIBAL PLAN (201.7)
N/A
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
LOCAL PLAN (201.6)
N/A
A-6
APPENDIX A: COMPARISON OF TRIBAL, STATE, AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
PLAN MAINTENANCE & ADOPTION
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL MITIGATION PLANS
STATE PLAN (201.4)
N/A
TRIBAL PLAN (201.7)
44 CFR 201.7(a)(4)
(4) Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., countywide or watershed plans) may be accepted,
as appropriate, as long as the Indian Tribal
government has participated in the process
and has officially adopted the plan. Indian
Tribal governments must address all the
elements identified in this section to ensure
eligibility as a grantee or as a subgrantee.
44 CFR 201.4(c)(5)i-iii
(5) A Plan Maintenance Process that
includes:
(i) An established method and schedule for
monitoring, evaluating, and updating the
plan.
44 CFR 201.7(c)(4)
(4) A plan maintenance process that
includes:
(i) A section describing the method and
schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and
updating the mitigation plan.
(ii) A system for monitoring implementation
of mitigation measures and project
closeouts.
(ii) A system for monitoring implementation
of mitigation measures and project
closeouts.
(iii) A process by which the Indian Tribal
government incorporates the requirements
of the mitigation plan into other planning
mechanisms such as reservation master
plans or capital improvement plans, when
appropriate.
(iv) Discussion on how the Indian Tribal
government will continue public
participation in the plan maintenance
process.
(v) A system for reviewing progress on
achieving goals as well as activities and
n/a
n/a
(iii) A system for reviewing progress on
achieving goals as well as activities and
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
LOCAL PLAN (201.6)
44 CFR 201.6(a)(4), 44 CFR
201.6.(c)(2)(iii), 44 CFR 201.6.(c)(3)(iv)
(a)(4) Multi-jurisdictional plans ( e.g.,
watershed plans) may be accepted, as
appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction
has participated in the process and has
officially adopted the plan. State-wide plans
will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional
plans.
(c)(2)(iii) For multi-jurisdictional plans, the
risk assessment section must assess each
jurisdiction's risks where they vary from the
risks facing the entire planning area.
(c)(3)(iv) For multi-jurisdictional plans, there
must be identifiable action items specific to
the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval
or credit of the plan.
44 CFR 201.6(c)(4)
(4) A plan maintenance process that
includes:
(i) A section describing the method and
schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and
updating the mitigation plan within a 5-year
cycle.
n/a
(ii) A process by which local governments
incorporate the requirements of the
mitigation plan into other planning
mechanisms such as comprehensive or
capital improvement plans, when
appropriate.
(iii) Discussion on how the community will
continue public participation in the plan
maintenance process.
n/a
A-7
APPENDIX A: COMPARISON OF TRIBAL, STATE, AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
REVIEW & UPDATE
PLAN ADOPTION
ASSURANCES
STATE PLAN (201.4)
projects identified in the Mitigation Strategy.
44 CFR 201.4(c)(7)
(7) Assurances. The plan must include
assurances that the State will comply with
all applicable Federal statutes and
regulations in effect with respect to the
periods for which it receives grant funding,
in compliance with 44 CFR 13.11(c) of this
chapter. The State will amend its plan
whenever necessary to reflect changes in
State or Federal statutes and regulations as
required in 44 CFR 13.11(d) of this chapter.
TRIBAL PLAN (201.7)
projects identified in the mitigation strategy.
44 CFR 201.7(c)(6)
(6) Assurances. The plan must include
assurances that the Indian Tribal
government will comply with all applicable
Federal statutes and regulations in effect
with respect to the periods for which it
receives grant funding, in compliance with
13.11(c) of this chapter. The Indian Tribal
government will amend its plan whenever
necessary to reflect changes in tribal or
Federal laws and statutes as required in
13.11(d) of this chapter.
44 CFR 201.4(c)(6)
(6) A Plan Adoption Process. The plan must
be formally adopted by the State prior to
submittal to us for final review and
approval.
44 CFR 201.7(c)(5)
(5) Plan Adoption Process. The plan must
be formally adopted by the governing body
of the Indian Tribal government prior to
submittal to FEMA for final review and
approval.
44 CFR 201.4(d)
(d) Review and updates. Plan must be
reviewed and revised to reflect changes in
development, progress in statewide
mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities
and resubmitted for approval to the
appropriate Regional Administrator every 3
years….We also encourage a State to
review its plan in the post-disaster
timeframe to reflect changing priorities, but
it is not required.
44 CFR 201.7(d)(3)
(3) Indian Tribal governments must review
and revise their plan to reflect changes in
development, progress in local mitigation
efforts, and changes in priorities and
resubmit it for approval within 5 years in
order to continue to be eligible for nonemergency Stafford Act assistance and
FEMA mitigation grant funding, with the
exception of the Repetitive Flood Claims
program.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
LOCAL PLAN (201.6)
N/A
44 CFR 201.(c)(5)
(5) Documentation that the plan has been
formally adopted by the governing body of
the jurisdiction requesting approval of the
plan (e.g., City Council, County
Commissioner, Tribal Council). For multijurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction
requesting approval of the plan must
document that it has been formally adopted.
44 CFR 201.6(d)(3)
(3) A local jurisdiction must review and
revise its plan to reflect changes in
development, progress in local mitigation
efforts, and changes in priorities and to
resubmit it for approval within 5 years in
order to continue to be eligible for mitigation
project grant funding.
A-8
APPENDIX B: MITIGATION PLANNING AND THE
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established with the passage of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.). This Act reinforces the
need and requirement for mitigation plans, linking flood mitigation assistance programs to State,
Tribal, and Local Mitigation Plans. This appendix explains more about the NFIP requirements
for Indian Tribal governments, and the Community Rating System (CRS).
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the NFIP. This voluntary
program has three basic aspects:
1. Floodplain Identification and Mapping: FEMA issues Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMs) to establish the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) which is a legally defined
flood zone or floodprone area that is used for disaster assistance and flood insurance
purposes. The FIRMs are also invaluable tools for developing a risk assessment and
managing flood risk as part of the Tribal Mitigation Planning process.
2. Floodplain Management: To participate in the NFIP, an Indian Tribal government must
pass a resolution, adopt the effective FIRM if there is one that includes their lands, and
adopt and enforce a flood damage prevention ordinance that meets or exceeds the
minimum requirements of the program. These requirements are intended to prevent loss
of life, property and cultural resources, as well as economic and social hardships that
result from flooding. Indian Tribal governments can incorporate mitigation goals and
strategies into their floodplain management ordinances to reduce risk. Similarly, Tribal
Mitigation Plans should include mitigation goals and strategies from their floodplain
management ordinances and other NFIP or floodplain management activities.
3. Flood Insurance: If an Indian Tribal government adopts and enforces a floodplain
management ordinance that meets or exceeds the NFIP minimum requirements, FEMA
will make flood insurance available for insurable buildings as a financial protection
against flood losses. Homeowners’ insurance policies generally do not cover flood
losses, and many property owners may be unaware that their property is floodprone.
Flood insurance provides an alternative to disaster assistance to reduce the escalating
costs of repairing damage to homes, buildings, and their contents caused by floods to
property owners and renters. Congress mandated federally regulated or insured lenders
to require flood insurance on properties in floodprone areas. In addition, a lender can
require flood insurance, even if it is not federally required.
FIRMs provide data to define the SFHA, create awareness of flood hazards and assess flood
risk, administer floodplain management programs, and determine the basis for flood insurance
rates. Adoption and enforcement of a flood hazard prevention ordinance can help mitigate the
effects of flooding on new development and substantially improved structures. NFIP
participation allows residential and commercial property owners and renters to purchase
insurance as a protection against flood losses. In addition, disaster and mitigation grant funds
become available for insurable structures within SFHAs for Indian Tribal governments
participating in the NFIP that otherwise would not be available to Indian Tribal governments
whose lands are mapped but do not participate in the program.
Indian tribes, authorized tribal organizations, Alaska Native villages, or authorized native
organizations which have land use authority can join the program even if FEMA has not
produced a flood hazard map for some or all of the tribal land areas addressed in the Tribal
Mitigation Plan. As of the date of this publication, there are more than 20,000 communities
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
B-1
APPENDIX B: MITIGATION PLANNING AND THE
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
participating in the NFIP with more than 5 million policies in effect for Insurance in Force of
$1,143,065,109,700. This includes 36 Indian Tribal governments, with more than 300 insurance
policies in effect totaling over $58 million in coverage as of the date of this publication.
FEMA also administers grant programs under the authority of the National Flood Insurance Act.
Grants from the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL), and
Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) programs are intended to reduce loss of life and property from
potential flood damage. Of the 36 Indian Tribal governments that participate in the NFIP, there
are two participating Indian Tribal governments with 250 claims for 87 repetitive loss properties,
and none with severe repetitive loss properties as of the date of this publication.
NFIP Participation by Indian Tribal Governments
An Indian Tribal government should describe their floodplain management activities in their
Tribal Mitigation Plan. This will help identify additional mitigation actions and strategies and
provide support for grant applications, particularly FMA and SRL for those Indian Tribal
governments that participate in the NFIP. A Tribal Mitigation Plan should describe the Indian
tribe’s intent to join or actual participation in the NFIP to identify, analyze, and prioritize actions
related to continued compliance with the NFIP; identify repetitive and severe repetitive loss
properties; and describe strategies for mitigation of repetitive losses. Relevant information on
NFIP compliance actions could include, but is not limited to:
Description of adoption and enforcement of floodplain management requirements, including
regulating all and substantially improved construction in SFHAs;
Floodplain identification and mapping, including any requests for map updates, if needed;
Description of community assistance visits and monitoring activities; and.
Discussion of regulations exceeding FEMA minimum requirements or participation in the
CRS.
Community Rating System
CRS is a voluntary program available to participating NFIP communities, including Indian Tribal
governments. When an NFIP community implements floodplain management programs that
provide a level of protection that exceeds the Federal NFIP requirements, then flood insurance
can be available to policyholders in that community for a reduced rate through the CRS
program. As of the date of this publication, more than 1,100 communities, including one Indian
Tribal government, participate in CRS accounting for 66% of policies in force. A second tribe
enrolled in CRS; their participation in this program will be effective starting May 2010.
One of the activities that CRS participants can take to improve their CRS rating (to reduce their
risk and subsequently lower their flood insurance premiums) is to develop a CRS Floodplain
Management Plan. The CRS 10-step planning process is consistent with the multi-hazard
planning regulation under 44 CFR Part 201. However, CRS provides additional credit points for
activities that communities or Indian Tribal governments complete during their planning process
that go above the minimum requirements, thus reducing their flood risk and possibly lowering
insurance rates. An approved Tribal Mitigation Plan that addresses floods could qualify for CRS
credit. Although Indian Tribal governments are not required to participate in the NFIP or CRS to
receive approval of a Tribal Mitigation Plan, FEMA encourages integration of the CRS planning
steps into the multi-hazard mitigation planning process to reduce flood risk.
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
B-2
APPENDIX B: MITIGATION PLANNING AND THE
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
Indian Tribal governments can qualify for CRS credit in a variety of ways; for more information
on joining CRS, review the information posted at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/crs.shtm.
Special Consideration: Community Rating System Coordinators
Each FEMA Regional Office has a designated CRS Coordinator in the Mitigation Division.
Indian Tribal governments interested in learning more about joining the CRS should contact the
Mitigation Division of the FEMA Regional Office serving their location.
The table below illustrates how the CRS 10-step planning process relates to the four phases of
the multi-hazard mitigation planning process. More detailed information can be found in Activity
510 of the CRS Coordinator’s Manual or in CRS Example Plans, which can be accessed on the
Internet at http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/CRS/.
Mitigation Plan Requirements
44 CFR 201.7
Prerequisites
201.7(c)(5)
Phase 1: Planning Process
201.7(b)
201.7(c)(1)(i)
201.7(c)(1)(ii)-(iv)
Phase 2: Risk Assessment
201.7(c)(2)(i)
201.7(c)(2)(i) & (ii)
Phase 3: Mitigation Strategy
201.7(c)(3)(i)
201.7(c)(3)(ii)
201.7(c)(3)(iii) - (vi)
Phase 4: Plan Maintenance
201.7(c)(4)
Total:
CRS Planning Steps
CRS Maximum Points
9. Adopt the Plan
2
1. Organize
2. Involve the Public
3. Coordinate
10
85
25
4. Assess the Hazard
5. Assess the Problem
20
35
6. Set Goals
7. Review Possible Activities
8. Draft an Action Plan
2
30
70
10. Implement, Evaluate, Revise
15
294
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
B-3
APPENDIX C: CONTACTS AND RESOURCES
Listed below are resources that, in addition to this guidance, may assist Indian Tribal
governments in developing and implementing Tribal Mitigation Plans. For more resources and
contacts, visit FEMA’s Mitigation Planning Web site at http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/.
FEMA Regional Tribal Liaisons
See: http://www.fema.gov/about/contact/index.shtm#tribal
Region I - Boston, MA
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont
(617) 956-7506
Region II – New York, NY
New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
(212) 680-3612
(215) 931-5608
Region III – Philadelphia, PA (No Federally Recognized Tribes)
District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia
(770) 220-5200
Region IV – Atlanta, GA
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
Region V – Chicago, IL
Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio
(312) 408-5501
Region VI – Denton, TX
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
(940) 898-5104
Region VII – Kansas City, MO
Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas
(816) 283-7061
Region VIII – Denver, CO
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
(303) 235-4840
Region IX – Oakland, CA
Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada, Pacific Islands
(510) 627-7100
Region X – Bothell, WA
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
(425) 487-4604
Headquarters
Washington, DC
(202) 646-2500
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers at the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
See: http://www.achp.gov/thpo.html
National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
See: http://www.nathpo.org/
Tribal Preservation Program at the National Park Service
See: http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tribal/thpo.htm
American Indian/Alaska Native Coordinating Team at the U.S. Geological Survey
See: http://www.usgs.gov/indian/
National Congress of American Indians
See: http://www.ncai.org/
National Tribal Environmental Council
See: http://www.ntec.org/
TRIBAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE
March 2010
C-1
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | PART 4 – TRIBAL MITIGATION PLANS |
| Author | FEMA EMPLOYEE |
| File Modified | 2012-02-07 |
| File Created | 2010-05-04 |