Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

An Evaluation of Disaster Mitigation Planning for BC First Nations: An Assessment Redmond, Gordon R Sep 30, 2013

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
310-SCARP_2013_GradProject_Redmond.pdf [ 106.04MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 310-1.0075784.json
JSON-LD: 310-1.0075784-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 310-1.0075784-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 310-1.0075784-rdf.json
Turtle: 310-1.0075784-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 310-1.0075784-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 310-1.0075784-source.json
Full Text
310-1.0075784-fulltext.txt
Citation
310-1.0075784.ris

Full Text

AN EVALUATION OF DISASTER MITIGATION PLANNING FOR B.C. FIRSTNATIONS: AN ASSESSMENT OF 5 COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITYPLANS (CCP)byGORDON R. REDMONDB.Sc., Emergency Administration & Disaster Planning,University Of North Texas, 2004 A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCE (PLANNING)inTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESSchool of Community and Regional PlanningWe accept this project as conformingto the required standard..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAApril 2013© Gordon R. Redmond, 2013This page intensionally left blankDisaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First NationsiiExecutive Summary:	  This project looks at the extent to which natural and technological hazards are being addressed within the Aboriginal and Northern Development Canada's (AANDC) CCP HANDBOOK and ultimately the resulting comprehensive community plans (CCP). Further, we argue that natural hazards are a concern for B.C. First Nations, and show the trends globally, nationally, and provincially for disaster losses. If B.C. First Nations consider natural hazard concerns as important to incorporate into their community planning efforts, this project and the resources provided will help ensure that disaster mitigation planning efforts will be successful. In order to ascertain whether these comprehensive plans have incorporated any hazard considerations, there needed to be a criteria that could be used to objectively measure the plans for hazard mitigation planning elements. We completed a review and evaluation of planning quality and disaster mitigation planning literature to ensure that current information could be included in this criteria. The Crosswalk, which is a hazard mitigation plan evaluation tool from Florida,was selected as the framework for analysis and was enhanced with the findings from the literature review. This updated Crosswalk is available in the appendix, and was applied to the 5 B.C. First Nationcommunity CCP's:• The 2010 Westbank First Nation Community Plan• Musqueam First Nation; A Comprehensive Sustainable Community Development Planners, January 2011• Sliammon First Nation Comprehensive Community Plan, March 2007• Penticton Indian Band Comprehensive Community Plan, March 2013• ʔaq̓am Community Strategic Plan, April 7th, 2011I have demonstrated through the application of the Crosswalk that no hazards were addressed within the sample plans. As a result, I have provided recommendations which include: suggested improvements for the CCP HANDBOOK, ways in which current communities could integrate hazard mitigation planning into their current plans, and effective training structures that can be used by all levels of government to better incorporate hazard mitigation planning.The Crosswalk is the cornerstone to this project as it can be taken and applied to any comprehensive plan and help communities determine effective mitigation actions to further safeguard their communities from the effects of natural or technological hazards. I argue that hazard mitigation planning is important and to be successful it needs to be incorporated into comprehensive community planning, so unless B.C. First Nations are completing comprehensive multi-hazard mitigation plans, which we are not aware of, arguably they would not be taking full advantage of the available planning tools targeted at community vulnerability reduction. Finally, the best hazard mitigation is to be where the hazard is not, thus eliminating all of the negative consequences of the hazard. Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First NationsiiiThis page intensionally left blankDisaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First NationsivTable of Contents: 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................1 2. Natural Hazard Risks in First Nations Communities in B.C................................................. 3 2.1. Geography of Canada.................................................................................................4 2.2. Hazard Event Trends World.......................................................................................5 2.3. Hazard Event Trends in Canada.................................................................................7 2.4. Hazard Event Trends for B.C.....................................................................................10 2.5. Hazard Events and B.C. First Nations Communities................................................ 13 3. Disaster Management – The Big Picture............................................................................... 16 3.1. The Beginning of Disaster Management.................................................................. 16 3.2. Community Concerns and Urban Planners............................................................... 16 3.2.1. Planners and Emergency Managers............................................................... 17 3.3. Mitigation Phase: Comprehensive Disaster Mitigation Planning............................. 19 3.3.1. Crosswalks..................................................................................................... 19 3.3.2. What is the Process of Mitigation Planning?................................................ 20 3.3.3. Goals and Vision and Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis............................. 21 3.3.4. Prepare a Local Mitigation Strategy “Blueprint”.......................................... 21 3.3.5. Mitigation Plan Implementation.................................................................... 21 3.3.6. Management of Disaster Mitigation Programs............................................. 22 3.4. Disaster Management Canada................................................................................... 23 3.4.1. Origin of Current Structure........................................................................... 23 3.4.2. National Disaster Mitigation Strategy (NDMS)............................................ 25 a. Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements – Disaster Costs Recovery............ 25 b. History of NDMS................................................................................................ 25 3.5. Disaster Management British Columbia................................................................... 26 3.6. B.C. First Nations/ B.C. First Nations and AANDC................................................. 27 3.6.1. Comprehensive Community Planning (CCP)............................................... 27 a. Implications......................................................................................................... 29 4. Methodology.......................................................................................................................... 32 4.1. Plan Quality and Disaster Mitigation Planning Literature Review........................... 33 4.2. The Crosswalk........................................................................................................... 35 4.3. Community Descriptions........................................................................................... 41 4.3.1. Westbank First Nation(WFN)........................................................................ 43 4.3.2. Penticton Indian Band (PIB)......................................................................... 43 4.3.3. Musqueam Indian Band (MIB)..................................................................... 45 4.3.4. St Mary’s Indian Band (ʔaq̓am)..................................................................... 46 4.3.5. Sliammon First Nation (SFN)....................................................................... 47 5. Findings................................................................................................................................. 49 5.1. Findings Across Each Section of Crosswalk............................................................. 49 5.1.1. Section I. Prerequisite(s)............................................................................... 49 5.1.2. Section II. Planning Process.......................................................................... 50 5.1.3. Section III. Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis Process................................ 51 5.1.4. Section IV. Mitigation Strategy......................................................................53 5.1.5. Section V.  Implementation of Mitigation Actions........................................ 55Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nationsv 5.1.6. Section VI. Mitigation Policies......................................................................56 5.1.7. Section VII. Mitigation Programs................................................................. 57 5.1.8. Section VIII. Inter-Organization Coordination & Capabilities......................57 5.1.9. Section IX. Plan Maintenance Process.......................................................... 59 5.1.10. Section X. Disaster Event/ Post-Disaster Event.............................................59 5.2. Findings Across the Sample Community CCPs........................................................ 60 6. Recommendations................................................................................................................. 65 7. Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 70 8. Appendix............................................................................................................................... 72List of tables and figuresFig. 1 Disaster Event Continuum..................................................................................................................................... 3Fig. 2 Cascadia Subduction Zone cross-section............................................................................................................... 4Fig. 3 Estimated Damage 1975 to 2011 (CRED 2013).................................................................................................... 6Fig. 4 Canadian national events by type 2007 to 2012..................................................................................................... 7Fig. 5 Distribution of Canadian hazard events 2007 to 2012........................................................................................... 7Fig. 6 1950s Canadian Civil Defence funding................................................................................................................. 8Fig. 7 Canadian Disaster Costs by Event 2007 to 2012................................................................................................... 9Fig. 8.Canadian national trends in number of DFAA requests......................................................................................... 10Fig. 9.Disaster Costs by type B.C. 2007 to 2012............................................................................................................. 11Fig. 10 B.C. forest fires by ignition source...................................................................................................................... 12Fig. 11 B.C. forest fire costs (adjusted) Budgets vs. Actual............................................................................................. 12Fig. 12 Distribution of study communities across B.C..................................................................................................... 14Fig. 13 Huu-ay-aht First Nation Coast of Vancouver Island ........................................................................................... 14Fig. 14 1950s Civil Defence Handbook approach to hazards.......................................................................................... 23Fig. 15 1958  Canadian National Civil Defence How it Operates................................................................................... 23Fig. 16  Timeline of Canadian Legislation for First Nations............................................................................................ 28Fig. 17 The Crosswalk...................................................................................................................................................... 35Fig. 18 Primary indicator on Crosswalk........................................................................................................................... 36Fig. 19 Traditional Territory of Syilx Nation.................................................................................................................... 44Fig. 20 Musqueam Traditional Territory........................................................................................................................... 45Fig. 21 Ktunaxa Nation Traditional Territory .................................................................................................................. 46Fig. 22 The Tla'amin Traditional Territory....................................................................................................................... 48Fig. 23 Crosswalk score comparison across sample Section I......................................................................................... 49Fig. 24 Crosswalk score comparison across sample Section II........................................................................................ 50Fig. 25 Crosswalk score comparison across sample Section III....................................................................................... 51Fig. 26 Crosswalk score comparison across sample Section IV....................................................................................... 53Fig. 27 Crosswalk score comparison across sample Section V........................................................................................ 55Fig. 28 Crosswalk score comparison across sample Section VI...................................................................................... 56Fig. 29 Crosswalk score comparison across sample Section VIII.................................................................................... 58Fig. 30 Crosswalk score comparison across sample Section IX...................................................................................... 59Fig. 31 Summary Crosswalk score comparison across sample........................................................................................ 61Fig. 32 Average scores for each section across sample.................................................................................................... 63Fig. 33 Primary indicator from Crosswalk....................................................................................................................... 64Table 1 Local Government Act 1996.............................................................................................................................. 26Table 2  Comparison between CCP and Hazard Mitigation Planning.............................................................................. 30Table 3 Community Summary........................................................................................................................................ 42Table 4 Comparison Scores of Sample........................................................................................................................... 62Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nationsvi 1. IntroductionThis research project explores the extent to which natural and technological hazards are currently beingaddressed in the CCP HANDBOOK: Comprehensive Community Planning for First Nations in British Columbia1. The CCP HANDBOOK is a tool to help B.C. First Nation communities create a comprehensive community plan (CCP) to influence development, impacts and change within their communities, and is currently funded by the B.C. Regional Office of Aboriginal and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). The AANDC also supports communities in emergency planning and other activities, through their emergency management department, which prepare for and assist the community’s response to emergencies. All B.C. First Nation communities are encouraged to complete acommunity emergency plan (preparedness and response) from a template provided by the First Nation Emergency Services Society (FNESS). The B.C. Regional Office of AANDC is responsible for both emergency management and the funding and delivery of a comprehensive disaster mitigation2 framework within their annual budget. Ideally, in terms of addressing hazards, a community's response to the threat of a disaster would follow a comprehensive disaster management framework, which consists of 4 phases: mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. However, the AANDC's emergency plans (response and preparedness) appear to not include mitigation and therefore do not address long-term strategies for vulnerability reduction (e.g. land use planning, fuel reduction, public education on hazards and related policies) that are ultimately aligned with community goals. Aside from these community developed emergency plans, the only other planning process that the B.C.First Nations currently use to potentially manage natural and technological hazards is through a CCP. While the AANDC does not currently support emergency planning through the CCP process, if hazardswere to be included within CCPs, it would be another way to incorporate comprehensive disaster management into community efforts and strengthen emergency plans. There are some concerns that even after the best CCP plans are completed, communities still remain vulnerable to some natural and technological hazards. The question is, to what extent is hazard mitigation3 being included into the CCP HANDBOOK, and ultimately being incorporated into the B.C. First Nation's Comprehensive Community Plans (CCP).In this project we will first address the question of whether or not hazards are indeed a problem on a global, national, provincial, and local scale. By identifying any hazard trends, we can then better understand costs in terms of lives lost, and the financial impacts that result. Next, we will explore society’s general collective response to the threats posed by hazards. How have we changed in the way we organize our communities to deal with these threats? What have scholars argued for in terms of comprehensive community planning, and more specifically mitigation planning? How has Canada’s legal governance framework been organized to meet the challenges faced by communities, and how areB.C. and the B.C. First Nations connected to this framework? As part of our discussion of what societies do about hazard threats, we will outline the relationship between the Canadian federal 1 (AANDC B.C. Regional Strategic Planning Manager 2006)2 AANDC works to ensure First Nation residents are safe, reserve property is protected, and housing and infrastructure is re-established after a disaster. (AANDC 2013)3 The terms hazard mitigation, disaster mitigation, and mitigation are used interchangeably with risk reduction in this project. They are all referring to long-term sustained action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people and property from hazards and their effects. (Dynes 1991; “Tribal Mitigation Planning” 2010)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations1government and Indigenous peoples, particularly as it relates to the Indian Act and some of the mandated disaster mitigation4 requirements for Indigenous communities. We will then look at a review of available plan quality and disaster mitigation literature and incorporatecurrent best practices into an evaluation tool (the Crosswalk) that can be applied on a plan-by-plan basis to any First Nation’s CCP. In an attempt to gauge the quality of current hazard mitigation planning, we have sampled CCPs from 5 First Nation communities, and applied the Crosswalk to detect any community vulnerability reduction measures within those plans. Through an analysis of the CCPs of the 5 B.C. First Nations we will discuss the findings and recommendations for improvements to the CCP HANDBOOK. Finally, we will discuss the current strengths and any opportunities for disaster mitigation planning for B.C. First Nations.The goal of this project is to encourage AANDC policy makers and senior government officials to include disaster mitigation planning guidelines during future revisions of the CCP HANDBOOK. Because the effects of natural hazards are literally creating a potential life-threatening issue for First Nations communities in B.C., it is essential that we need to address hazard mitigation within comprehensive plans in order to reduce their vulnerabilities to natural hazards. In fact, the federal government is currently working on a Canadian National Disaster Mitigation Strategy (NDMS) which would address vulnerability reduction actions across the country. This project may offer some practical information for this National discussion, as B.C. First Nation communities are unique in that they require federal-provincial leadership to develop complete disaster mitigation programs (beyond response and recovery), in order to support these local communities to reduce their vulnerability to any hazard event(s).4 (Wernick 2011, 7)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations22. Natural Hazard Risks for B.C. First Nations Communities Forest fires, earthquakes, floods, landslides, are natural occurrences and it is not until these events disrupt communities that we label them as disasters. i.e. An earthquake in Northern B.C. that shakes a few squirrels out of trees is not considered a disaster. Disaster5 researchers have identified a typology, in order to better understand the magnitude of a disruption that results from a hazard event, and more precisely communicate the level of community disruption (event continuum Fig. 1) (McEntire, Pers. Comm. 2003).Accident: Unforeseen event occurring that is usually handled through well-established social responses and structures.Emergency: Normal daily operations for emergency response organizations are usually handled by existing structures and facilities/staff and resources. There are usually more responders than patients.Crisis: Organizations are forced into non-traditional agency interactions, which are not usually associated with loss of life. It is common to have loss of capabilities and service levels, with temporary or partial impact to one facility or critical business function.Disaster: Organizations are forced into non-traditional agency interactions, non-traditional duties, and priorities. This usually exceeds the capability of existing agency and first line mutual aid agreements.Catastrophe: Emergency responders become victims and normal community function is severely impacted. Neighbouring jurisdictions become primary responders.Armageddon: The disaster event changes the permanent settlement patterns. e.g. Fukushima tsunami in northern Japan.5  Disasters are a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material,economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources(United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNODRR) 2012).Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations32.1. Geography of CanadaCanada has nearly 9.9 million km² of land area and 202,000 km of coastline, which is mostly plains with mountains in the west and lowlands in the southeast. It has a population of 35.1 million6 as of November 2012. The province of British Columbia has a population of 4.62 million7, and nearly 5% of those are made up of aboriginal people (196,000)8.Within this vast country there are a number of natural and technological hazards. Public Safety Canada indicates9 that landslides, severe storms, and avalanches occur in all regions of Canada. All Canadian rivers and any developments on low-lying land areas are prone to flooding. Further, storm surges occur on any Canadian coastal areas, while tsunamis occur in oceans and lakes. Also, any communities in British Columbia within and adjacent to grasslands and forested areas are at risk of wildfires. Finally, high wind events can occur anywhere in the province, while tornadoes generally occur in the interior ofB.C.More than 5000 earthquakes alone are recorded each year in Canada, and the majority of scientists that study earthquakes come to British Columbia10. Communities in southeastern B.C. are vulnerable to 2 types of earthquake events: 1st a mega-thrust subduction earthquake, along the Cascadia subduction fault zone or 2nd, a strong crustal event directly underneath the region (Jardine, Wallace, and Kovacs 2012). Below (Fig.2) you can see the Juan De Fuca Plate/ North America Plate section, showing the ocean floor (seabed) Subduction Zone and plate movements in a mega-thrust subduction quake. The crustal quakes occur in the North American Plate (below southwestern B.C.) shown in red.6 (Government of Canada 2013a)7 (Province of British Columbia 2013)8 (Government of Canada 2013a)9 (Government of Canada 2008)10 Personal conversation with researcher at NRCan, Sidney, B.C. 2008Figure 2:Cascadia Subduction Zone cross-section. Courtesy of Natural Resource Canada (2005).Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations42.2. Hazard Event Trends WorldThe diagram below (Fig. 3), shows the global trend of estimated disaster damages reported from 1975-2012. For a disaster to be entered into the database, at least one of the following criteria must be fulfilled: 10 or more people killed, 100 or more people affected, declaration of a state of emergency, and call for international assistance. In terms of hazard threat to Canada, B.C., and B.C. First Nations the historical events that are documented below do not present the complete picture of the current threats. If we look at figure 3, we can see the global disaster trends. What is important about this graphic is the Honshu tsunami and subsequent disaster losses. For British Columbia this is important asmuch of the population resides close to the Cascadia subduction zone. This means that we have yet to suffer the kinds of catastrophic losses that come with a mega-thrust subduction earthquake event. To realize current mitigation opportunities for B.C. First Nations, it is important to consider not only the past events that have occurred in recent memory, but to identify the true nature of threat(s) we face. Unless senior leadership, policy makers, and the public understand that we need to change where and how we develop and live, none of this mitigation discussion will save lives or reduce future disaster losses11.In 2011, Canada ranked 9th in the world by damages ($2.3 billion U.S. dollars) from meteorological andclimatological disaster events (Debby Guha-Sapir et al. 2011).11 (Schwab 2010, iii)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations5Figure 3: Estimated Damage (U.S. $Billions) reported 1975-2012 (Centre for Research and the Epidemiology of Disasters - CRED 2013). Scale adjusted to reflect updated estimates (UNT 2008; Honshu 2011). D i s a s t e r  M i t i g a t i o n  P l a n n i n g  f o r  B . C .  F i r s t  N a t i o n s62.3. Hazard Event Trends in CanadaCanadian communities have been fortunate to have not suffered a mega-thrust subduction earthquake, yet recent events such as ice storms, heavy rainfall, and forest fires continue to remind us that we are not invincible. The Public Safety Canada (PSC) database from 2007 to 2012 (Fig.4) indicates the top three historical hazards: 38 flood events, 32 severe thunderstorm/storm events, and 25 forest fire events. The diagram below (Fig 5) shows the distribution of the hazard events across the country. Figure 5: Distribution of Canadian hazard events from 2007 - 2012. The white diamonds indicate events by type: hazmat, fire, flood, landslide, or storm. The number indicates the number of events in that area. There were 14 events recorded in B.C. during this time period. (Public Safety Canada 2013)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations7Who pays when a disaster strikes? The simple answer is that all Canadians pay, directly or indirectly.Some of the earliest federal-provincial funding arrangements relating to hazards started in the 1950s, after the federal government created the Civil Defense (i.e. a National Disaster Management system) initiative. Under the Civil Defense (CD) setup, each province and municipality was responsible for adopting federal policies for the needs of its own people. Ottawa exercised no administrative control over local CD agencies12 (more on this in section 3.0). The funding for the CD program was divided between the 3 levels of government: 50% federal, 25% provincial, and 25% municipal (Fig. 6). Today, Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAAs) are one of the ways that federal and provincial governments assist local communities to offset the disaster losses. As we can see below (Fig.7), outlining Canadian disaster losses by event type from 2007-2012, flooding and wildfire account for almost $2.2 billion in disaster losses for all Canadians. This is an average of $60,000 each day13.12 (Edmond Cloutier 1957, 5)13 Data provided by PSC Disaster Database Aug 2013.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations8D i s a s t e r  M i t i g a t i o n  P l a n n i n g  f o r  B . C .  F i r s t  N a t i o n s9The graph below14 (Fig.8) shows the Canadian national trend for DFAAs. Unfortunately, the true disaster losses and secondary costs are rarely covered in this kind of evaluation. The Government of Canada recognizes that disaster costs are steadily increasing15, so it is a good time for all Canadian stakeholders to engage in a discussion around disaster losses and impacts to our local communities and economies. 2.4. Hazard Event Trends for B.C.Although there are numerous hazard events across Canada, B.C. has some unique geography and settlement patterns that influence the way hazards found here threaten existing communities. The province is home to approximately 4.62 million people and approximately 200 First Nations16. Public Safety Canada database (Fig. 9) has recorded the most costly hazards in B.C to be: Forest Fires, Flooding, and Severe Storms. It is predicted, as a result of climate changes alone, that B.C. will have greater frequency of heavy rain storms and landslides for the foreseeable future (e.g. landslide near Pemberton, B.C., 2010)17. In Fig. 12 below, we can see the distribution of disaster costs for B.C. by hazard type (2013). These disaster losses are equivalent to an average disaster loss, for all British Columbians, of $184,00018 each day (2007-2012).14 (Public Safety Canada 2011)15 (Public Safety Canada 2011)16 (Province of British Columbia 2013)17 (Bruce,, Ian Burton, and Mark Egener 2007)18 (Public Safety Canada 2013a)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations10One of the most prominent hazard threats in B.C. is forest fire, as much of the province is covered by forests and grasslands. Each year, on average, nearly 7400 wildfires occur in B.C., with costs ranging from $500 million to $1 billion per year19. The B.C. Ministry of Forests has tracked all provincial lightning strikes (to within 100m) since the 1980s, so reliable ignition source data is available to help better understand this dangerous community threat (Fig. 10, Fig. 11). Additionally, we can see the adjusted provincial forest protection budget and the trend of steadily increasing fire suppression costs over the past decade. 19 (Jardine, Wallace, and Kovacs 2012)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations11With each hazard event magnitude: accident, emergency, crisis, disaster, catastrophe, there is an exponential increase in direct and indirect costs associated with lost revenue, damage to structures, lossof employees, business interruption, emergency response, fire suppression, and displaced community Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations12members. Individuals, business, First Nations and provincial governments all suffer losses from forest fires to varying degrees (e.g. heavy smoke from forest fires or mandatory area evacuations). First Nation communities are spread across B.C. and subject to a diverse array of natural and technological hazards. Some communities may be dependent on neighboring communities for critical infrastructure and services, (e.g. water, power, waste, sewer systems, emergency pre-hospital healthcare, police and fire services). This means that local First Nations need to enter into discussions with neighboring communities to determine the extent of support they may receive from others. AANDC recognizes that many communities are isolated, have poor social economic conditions and few economic opportunities, reducing their capacity to respond to hazards and contributing to their vulnerability20.2.5. Hazard Events and B.C. First Nations CommunitiesThe B.C. First Nation communities are not immune to hazard events; although specific community hazard information was not available from the AANDC, we can see by the figure below the distributionof hazard events from 2007-2012. We can see from the diagram (fig.12)  that hazards occur across the province and do not discriminate between which communities suffer the impacts, therefore in addition to existing community challenges, B.C. First Nations also will benefit from considering hazards in theircomprehensive planning. The AANDC indicates the top three events that occur for Canadian aboriginalcommunities are flooding, fire, and infrastructure failure. Given that many B.C. First Nation communities have been limited to reservation lands, which arguably were designated without consideration of hazards, and as many were nomadic, they have lost many community resources to effectively relocate, eliminate, or reduce their vulnerability to hazards. Traditional oral histories from B.C. First Nations shows that hazards are not a new problem for communities. The Hupacasath First Nation, located adjacent to Port Alberni, B.C., was heavily impacted on March 28, 1964, as a result of a tsunami (a secondary hazard effect) caused by the Alaska earthquake. Two of six tsunami waves traveled more than 3000 km (1800 miles) from the Gulf of Alaska and roared up the Alberni Inlet, flipping cars smashing 58 homes and damaging 375 others21.Chief Louis Nookmis (1964) from the Huu-ay-aht First Nation (Fig. 13), recounted an oral history of when the Huu-ay-aht people felt a violent shudder in the earth one dark and stormy winter night many generations ago. The story which recounts how “the water came in really fast. Swept their homes away.Swept everything away.” As all the people of the community were drowned22; hazard effects are not a new concern for B.C. First Nations. Therefore, it is clearly important to discover the extent to which hazard mitigation planning is being included into current B.C. First Nations CCPs; as well they have traditional management practices that could inform the integration of disaster mitigation planning for their communities. 20 (Wernick 2011)21 In 1964 this story was first (Thompson 2011)22 (Thompson 2011, 197)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations13Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations14This page intenstionally left blankDisaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations153. Disaster Management – The Big PictureNow let us consider how our societies respond to hazard threats and review some ideas on how they can organize their efforts to address them. We start with the origins of disaster research as it relates to hazards and move on to explaining the planner’s role within communities. Local planners must collaborate with emergency managers and other professionals to facilitate comprehensive vulnerability reduction programs and create multi-hazard disaster mitigation plans. Ideally, societies should approachhazards in a very systematic way, based on current best-practices and hazard-specific data. We will cover the mitigation planning process used in the creation of these plans, which communities use to manage their vulnerability to hazards. Federal and provincial governments can utilize a tool, the Crosswalk, as a means to establish nationwide criteria for community vulnerability reduction plans in order to justify any federal mitigation funding. We will look at the disaster management structure at thenational and provincial levels and how this may be of potential relevance to B.C. First Nations. Finally,we explore how hazard mitigation planning is being addressed through the use/application of an existing planning tool (comprehensive community planning) by 5 B.C. First Nations.3.1 The Beginning of Disaster ManagementThe first disaster social science research was completed by a Canadian in 1917 after an ammunition ship, SS Mont-Blanc23, exploded in the Halifax harbor (Dr. McEntire24). The effects of the disaster weresystematically documented and analyzed. Since then, disaster researchers have studied many different hazard events from plane crashes to hurricanes and volcanoes in a similar way. When social scientists looked at the body of research generated from these studies, four themes consistently emerged: mitigation25, preparedness, response, and recovery, as a means to consistently explain the spectrum of hazard events. Scholars (Dynes, Quarantelli, Drabek, McEntire, Mileti, etc) have argued that comprehensive emergency management26 (CEM27), cannot exist without addressing these four phases of emergency management.3.2. Community Concerns and Urban PlannersThere are a number of issues faced by local communities, which planners help manage. These include 23 (Joseph Scanlon 2000)24 University of North Texas, Denton, TX25 Mitigation refers to all sustained action that reduces or eliminates long-term [threat] to people and property from natural hazards and their effects.; Preparedness refers to the range of deliberate, critical tasks and activities necessary to build, sustain, and improve the capability of a community to be ready to respond to a disaster.; Response refers to the process of saving lives, protecting property and the environment, and meeting basic human needs immediately after a disaster.; Response includes the execution of emergency plans2 and actions to support short-term recovery.; Recovery refers to the process of restoring public services and returning the community to pre-event conditions while taking advantage of opportunities to mitigate future disasters to build a more resilient community.26 Emergency Management: “The discipline and profession of applying science, technology, planning, and management to deal with extreme events that can injure or kill large numbers of people, do extensive damage to property, and disrupt community life.” Drabek27 (Drabek and Hoetmer 1991), Comprehensive emergency management  “The discipline and profession of applying science, technology, planning, and management to deal with extreme events that can injure or kill large numbers of people, do extensive damage to property, and disrupt community life.” Drabek  Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations16but are not limited to: sustainable and economic development, growth management, climate change, watershed protection, transportation, housing affordability, landscaped ecosystems, human rights, stormwater management, etc. One of the major challenges that communities face in applying disaster management best practices is that the current infrastructure was designed and built in a time when communities did not consider natural hazards in the placement and zoning of their developments. “It is estimated that by 2050 between 9 and 12 million Canadians will live in homes that currently are not yetbuilt28. Many of the changes necessary to safeguard our built environment for the next hundred years will require a collaboration of local governments, local stakeholders, and a wide array of professionals. Due to the continued work of various disaster researchers (Schwab, Mileti, Drabek etc), natural scientists, civil and structural engineers, hydrologists, geologists, and climate and weather specialists, we know more about natural hazards and their effects on communities than when we first established our communities. Now community planners can integrate hazard concerns into other planning activities, so that we can start reducing our vulnerability to disasters now29.The planner can help communities in, at least, four ways: first, by ensuring that all future development and projects incorporate the current hazard realities faced by the community; secondly, by helping to deal with all the issues regarding the existing built environment that is vulnerable to hazard(s); and thirdly, by helping current community stakeholders in adapting to the updated perception of threat and developing plans to help them easily adjust. Finally, by helping to initiate a public dialogue before an emergency, crisis, disaster, or catastrophe, and inform and assist senior leadership, public and other stakeholders in achieving consensus on as many broad principles and mitigation action items as possible30. In essence, determining what, how and where we build in terms of hazard threat31.Some of the tools used by local planners (Indigenous and non-indigenous) to shape community development include: building and zoning bylaws, subdivision, planned unit development, building guidelines, building and landscaping codes, policy development, development permits and land-use, growth management, and transportation plans32. The community planning process consists of numerousstages, including community goal setting and visioning, financing and project implementation. Plannersare also involved in reviewing and preparing development proposals, including re-development plans, site plan review, and development agreements, in addition to capital budgeting and improvements programs. 3.2.1. Planners and Emergency ManagersDisaster (emergency) management is only as good as the assumptions on which it is based, so it is important to recognize and explicitly document them within our plans. For example, assuming that the community will be on their own in a disaster and that no assistance will be available. A comprehensive disaster management (CEM) program can be created to include the administration, budget and governance for each of the four phases of an event (mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery), assessing the hazards and vulnerabilities specific to that particular phase and jurisdiction. The ideal 28 (Jardine, Wallace, and Kovacs 2012)29 (Schwab 2010, 6)30 (Schwab 2010, 4)31 (Jardine, Wallace, and Kovacs 2012)32  (Schwab 2010, 6)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations17scenario for a community to apply CEM is to address each phase in sequence, starting with the completion of a comprehensive multi-hazard mitigation33 plan.1. Mitigation Phase: Comprehensive Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan2. Preparedness Phase: Comprehensive Multi-Hazard Preparedness Plan3. Response Phase: Comprehensive Multi-Hazard Emergency Response Plan4. Recovery Phase: Comprehensive Post-Disaster Recovery PlanTypically, a community’s response to natural hazard threats requires an incorporation of CEM and the collaboration of two key professionals: emergency managers and community planners. Professional emergency managers often address preparedness, response, and recovery, but find it challenging to identify effective mitigation actions. Further, some mitigation actions may not achieve their intended objectives, and may have unintended consequences 34. One example, dikes seem to be the first action tosafeguard communities from water, yet this particular approach provides a false sense of security as it; re-directs the water (threat) to your neighboring communities; and could alter any pre-existing protective features provided by the natural environment; and encourages further development behind the dikes, which ultimately places more people and property in harm.“Planners are more inclined to look at long-term consequences of current actions in terms of the built environment, economic development, and social equity. Emergency managers tend to operate more in the present, in order to react efficiently to crises of various types. Tothe extent that mitigation planning influences long-term outcomes in the built environment, planners should have a strong voice in the planning process. Problems arise in situations where lack of cooperation, collaboration, and input from planners leads to mitigation actions reflecting too short-term a perspective, ignoring longer-range possibilities.” (Schwab 2010, 14)Addressing hazards within communities (e.g. risk reduction, mitigation, disaster mitigation) requires emergency managers and local planners to collaborate with many other professionals at the local level: developers, architects, civil and structural engineers, hydrologists, geologists, economists, healthcare providers, and other community stakeholders (Schwab 2010). Some mitigation actions require years to implement and extensive community engagement, as well as political support, in order to be successful.Planners are well positioned to facilitate the necessary community outreach to achieve political buy-in for the implementation of effective mitigation actions (“Tribal Mitigation Planning” 2010). 33Multi-hazard mitigation considers not only the effects of individual hazards, but also looks at any cumulative or cascading affects among different hazards (e.g. winds can exacerbate forest fires; flooding can take out transportation infrastructure; earthquakes can cause structural fires). By grouping together multiple hazards with similar functional characteristics, the community can not only address more than one hazard with the same planning effort, but also maximize access to available hazard-specific funding. Only through local multi-hazard mitigation can a community have an accurate grasp of their true level of threat.34   (Tierney 1993, 4)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations183.3. Mitigation Phase: Comprehensive Disaster Mitigation PlanningIn the mitigation phase, comprehensive disaster mitigation planning35 is used to save lives, reduce property losses, and eliminate negative impacts on socially vulnerable populations36. This can be done as a standalone plan, or be integrated into other community plans37 (e.g. growth management plans, economic development plans). The primary purpose of a mitigation planning process is to enable communities to identify policies, actions, and tools that will reduce their risk to any losses in the future.Scholars argue that natural hazards are best addressed through comprehensive planning, which could38:• Document existing hazards and vulnerabilities of the community,• Set clear goals and a shared vision that support the community’s goals and objectives• Identify effective mitigation strategies and integrate them with other community efforts• Establish a process for monitoring and implementation of those strategiesHazard mitigation often requires more than simple technical fixes39 (brick-and-mortar projects) to be successful (e.g. dredging a river, or building dikes). It generally requires sustained efforts across a range of community sectors and organizations, as well as integration into all other aspects of governance. The most powerful mitigation tool for local communities is land-use planning and regulation (e.g. eliminating the ability for people to build in hazardous areas).3.3.1. CrosswalksThe Crosswalk is an evaluation tool that incorporates any and all federal, state/provincial, and local First Nations mitigation planning criteria, so that local comprehensive plans can be consistently and systematically scored for level of mitigation planning and plan quality compliance. By utilizing a uniform set of guidelines that are focused on hazards (e.g. flooding, forest fire, severe storms, seismic events) that affect communities, the Crosswalk becomes a universal tool to help break down barriers between different levels of government. The Crosswalk is similar to a report card in that it allows planners to easily score a plan’s level of compliance with mandated mitigation planning requirements from all relevant levels of government. A Crosswalk can help bridge multi-jurisdictional challenges as local, provincial, or federal planning staff all have a chance to review and comment on a particular plan and offer constructive suggestions for the next plan update. Further, it allows one or two state/provincial or federal planners to evaluate as many as 62 local mitigation plans40 in a very cost-effective way. One example is that it could be a valuable tool to help Westbank First Nation and the City of Kelowna work together to face their wild forest fire threat. If these communities were interested in collaborating on a collective disaster mitigation strategy, the could use the Crosswalk to not only identify the necessary elements within the reserve lands, but expand the scope of a multi-hazard mitigation plan to include their traditional 35 The terms hazard mitigation, disaster mitigation, and mitigation are used interchangeably with risk reduction in this project. They are all referring to sustained action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards and their effects (“Tribal Mitigation Planning” 2010; Dynes 1991)36 (Philip Berke, Smith, and Lyles 2012)37 (Philip Berke, Smith, and Lyles 2012)38 (Schwab 2010; Burby 1999; FEMA 2013)39 (Tricia Wachtendorf 2001)40 (State of Florida)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations19territory. This would help facilitate government-to-government strategies to collectively improve or reduce the region’s vulnerability to natural hazards.Federal disaster mitigation funding could be offered to provincial and local communities that choose to complete a local plan that meets the Crosswalk. Provinces and local communities that meet these requirements would be able to apply for mitigation grants for any projects that were identified in the plans. If a local community was unable or chose not to have an approved plan, then they would not be eligible to apply for funding. This allows the existing disaster management governance structure to remain, and allows the federal government a constructive way to implement a National Disaster Mitigation Strategy (NDMS). An effective NDMS proactively supports local hazard mitigation planning to ensure federal funding is targeted in a consistent, effective, and transparent way that reduces a community’s vulnerability to hazards.One of the most important applications for the Crosswalk is as a training guide (check list) for local communities to systematically progress through a mitigation planning process (see below). Communities are provided a blank Crosswalk before they start creating their plan, so they can meet all the requirements proactively, rather than having a plan submitted and returned for non-compliance. Finally, communities that have difficulty with the process are offered federally funded mitigation planning technical assistance and staff mitigation planning training. 3.3.2. What is the Process of Mitigation Planning?Hazard mitigation planning is a systematic community planning process used to determine the specific hazards that threaten any community, what kinds of effects will occur, and facilitate a public dialogue around mitigation strategies for vulnerability reduction. The final stage of the process is identifying specific actions, projects, and programs to enable community stakeholders to realize their goals and visions for the future safety of the community. This is most effective when completed long before a hazard event impacts a community, and it allows a community to decide how big of a hit (disaster impact) they are willing to accept.Hazard mitigation planning41 can be easily broken down into a process of 5 steps:A. Organizing community resourcesB. Assessing the community's hazards and vulnerabilitiesC. Preparing a mitigation strategyD. Adopting and implementing the planE. Updating the planThe first step is organizing resources: preparing to plan by establishing a planning committee, conflict resolution criteria, project work plan, and inviting any relevant organizations, agencies or local businesses to participate in the planning process and assist in its development. This is also the time the community obtains their blank Crosswalk to share with all planning committee members. Some local residents and planning staff may want to attend the ‘mitigation planning training for local government staff' course42 prior to starting the process. Other relevant professionals, scientists and other specialists can be included so they may inform the planning process as needed.41 FEMA EMI Course Hazard Mitigation for Local Government IS-31842 FEMA EMI Course Hazard Mitigation for Local Government IS-318 (FEMA 2013)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations203.3.3. Goals and Vision and Hazard and Vulnerability AnalysisWhat is the Perception of Threat43 (Risk)?The perception of threat refers to an individual's understanding of threat posed by hazards in their community. The perception of risk is a social product, which is neither static nor one-dimensional. The importance people give to a hazard (i.e. how much should we be worried about this?) depends on at least 3 factors44:1. Prior experience with disaster or this type of hazard event2. Scientific and technical information3. Collective community actions and behaviourThe perception of threat shapes the way people adapt new social plans focused on addressing the threat45. Due to the individual perceptions of threat, a prescriptive planning process is used to ensure the planning committee considers all hazards that threaten their community. Much of this process involves education and raising awareness of hazards, so many planning committee members often havea better understanding of their community's vulnerability to hazards at the end of the process.Next, planning committee members and stakeholders would complete a systematic analysis of all hazards that threaten the jurisdiction. Then, they would complete an inventory of all community assets, the built environment, which is exposed to each hazard. A Community’s exposure46, to hazards, helps determine the level of community vulnerability47. The key to this process is developing the hazard and vulnerability data for the community, which is used to determine the specific preparedness and response actions necessary. For example, if a community is concerned about flooding they could relocate all of the structures out of the floodplain to higher ground, thus eliminating the need to respondto a flood. This would mean that the local preparedness and response plan would no longer include training and equipment for responders to deal with a flood.3.3.4. Prepare a Local Mitigation Strategy “Blueprint”The purpose of a hazard mitigation plan is to describe the community's vision for long-term vulnerability reduction and become the community’s blueprint for action48. One of the key parts for the creation of an effective strategy is public engagement and stakeholder involvement. As “vulnerability and mitigation are two sides of the same coin49,” it is important for a community to have accurate current information to make informed decisions in formulation and development of a strategy. Some of the key benefits include promoting economic development, protecting life support functions of natural systems, and reducing poverty50.43  (Thomas E. Drabek 2012)44  (Dynes 1991, 6,13)45   (Drabek and Hoetmer 1991; Thomas E. Drabek 2012)46 Exposure: the amount of people property or the environment that lies within the path of a potential hazard occurrence. For example, how much of the community stands in the path of a potential forest fire?47 “The degree of vulnerability is determined by a combination of several factors including hazard awareness, the conditionof human settlements and infrastructure, public policy and administration, and organized abilities in all fields of disaster management” (ISDR).48 FEMA EMI Course Hazard Mitigation for Local Government IS-31849 (Tierney 1993)50 (Philip Berke, Smith, and Lyles 2012)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations21Mitigation actions are planned social change, and consist of policies and actions taken before an event which are intended to minimize the extent of damage when an event does occur51 (Drabek, Mushkatel, and Kilijanek, 1983: 12). These actions can be divided into structural and non-structural activities. Structural mitigation actions include property protection and hazard specific projects to lessen the effects from known hazards. Non-structural mitigation actions, often the most powerful, include use of a wide array of mitigation tools52: land-use planning, comprehensive planning, development regulations, zoning, taxation and spending programs, insurance, and hazard education and awareness systems and out-reach programs. Mitigation needs to be integrated with comprehensive community planning so these efforts can be aligned with other community goals, which requires a coordinated effort from a cross-section of community stakeholders, and political interests53.3.3.5. Mitigation Plan ImplementationIn terms of bringing the plan to life, any community mitigation strategy must be adopted by local government leadership in order to ensure that it gets acted upon. Senior leadership support and buy-in is critical as mitigation actions typically occur within the policy domain that is influenced by powerful economic interests and institutional sectors concerned with development, land-use, infrastructure investment, real estate, and environment.One of the benefits of including any hazard mitigation actions within local comprehensive plans, is thatyou have the benefit of a legal binding document to assist in shaping the community. In other words, rather than having a suggestion it becomes a requirement for local government to restrict or prevent further development within a high hazard area. Further, it allows local government to control and shapethe development that does occur in high hazard areas so that it may reduce the collective community vulnerability to known hazards. Only a sustained mitigation effort (i.e. consistently be updating the plan within five years) will ensure that communities maintain their long-term vulnerability reduction goals and save money by reducing or eliminating disaster losses. 3.3.6. Management of Disaster Mitigation ProgramsThe management of disaster mitigation programs can be broken down into three components: funding, planning, and projects and programs. In terms of disaster mitigation funding, local governments need financial, technical, and resource support from provincial level governments.  Provincial governments need this same kind of support from the federal government in order to help reduce vulnerabilities at a local level. In regards to planning, having consistent criteria (e.g. the Crosswalk) for all community plans throughout all levels of government will ensure that all of the necessary considerations have beenaddressed in terms of hazards and allows communities the opportunity to apply known mitigation tools to reduce the local vulnerability to hazards. Finally, if the federal or provincial governments want to highlight particular hazard trends (e.g. river flooding or forest fires), they may initiate specific projects or programs to target those vulnerability reduction measures to address their concerns.51 (Tierney 1993; Thomas E. Drabek 2012)52  (Drabek and Hoetmer 1991, 153)53 (Tricia Wachtendorf 2001)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations223.4. Disaster Management CanadaIn order to understand disaster mitigation opportunities for B.C. First Nations, it is important to understand the relevant legislation which exists for Canadian Aboriginal communities, and the current disaster management legislation and structure, in B.C. and Canada as a whole. When the Constitution of Canada was created in 1867, it delegated authority and responsibilities between the provinces and federal government54. In 1876, the federal government created the Indian Act which specified that in allmatters dealing with indigenous peoples the federal government was responsible.3.4.1. Origin of Current Structure:Moving ahead 75 years to 1951, the Canadian federal government delegated responsibility for national disaster planning to the Department of National Health and Welfare. After national conference in 1950-51, the provinces created their first civil defense organizations, and the Hon. Paul Martin, Minister of national health and welfare and the federal cabinet minister responsible for civil defense said, “[Disaster management] cannot be imposed from the top. In the event of a disaster… each level of government has a part to play in organizing the civilian population55.” In the 1950s, civil defense officials stated that, “...the only absolute certain defense against a hydrogen bomb, is to be where it isn't56,” suggesting that the perfect disaster mitigation planning action is to avoid being in harm’s way. Unfortunately, our communities have already established themselves in and around hazardous lands, so this is not always an option. 54 (Wernick 2011, 7)55 (Edmond Cloutier 1957, 8)56 (Edmond Cloutier 1957, 7)Figure 15: Above the Canadian National Civil Defence as outlined in 1958. This figure shows the basis for natural disaster response as a replication of existing community services.Figure 14: Above image from 1958 Civil Defence Handbook. It shows the basic approach as preparedness for a response (command and control/ combat operation).This was based on the best efforts of the day and the social threats of post-war Canada.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations23In 1958, the Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare recommended many practical disaster tips for citizens. A handbook called “Disaster” informed citizens of 3 easy steps (actions) to usein any disaster:1. Be cheerful57 2. Have a cup of coffee3. Have a cigarette … as help will come within 24hrsNow in terms of First Nations...In 1966, the Government Organization Act S. C. 1966-67, c. 25. created the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which is now known as Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)58. This department supports First Nations, Inuit and Métis in areas such as:• Social well-being• Economic prosperity• Creating healthy sustainable communities• Participation in political, social, and economic development in CanadaPublic Safety Canada59(PSC), previously known as Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness (OCIPEP), was created in 2003 to address natural disaster management. In 2007, the federal government created the Emergency Management Act S.C. 2007, c. 15, which outlinesthe federal government’s “response to an emergency, and ... 4. (1)(r) commitment to facilitating the authorized sharing of information in order to enhance [disaster management].” Much has changed since the early days of disaster management in Canada, yet one thing remains; Canada’s Constitution outlines that emergency response roles and formal communications across the country adopt a bottom-up approach. Responsibility lies first with the individual, then the municipality,followed by the province or territory, and finally with the federal government60. For B.C. First Nations, responsibility for disaster management ultimately lies with the federal government, rather than with the province, as outlined by the Canadian Constitution and the Indian Act.If the capabilities of local communities are exceeded in a hazard event, they can declare a local state of emergency and request assistance from the province. If the capabilities of provinces are exceeded, they may approach the federal government to request assistance. The federal government cannot assist local communities unless requested, although in circumstances where a disaster is so great that it exceeds local and provincial capabilities, the burden falls upon the federal government to cover all of the costs.57 1958 Ministry of National Health and Welfare “Disaster Handbook”58  (Government of Canada 2013b)59   (Public Safety Canada 2013b)60 (Edmond Cloutier 1957, 12)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations243.4.2. National Disaster Mitigation Strategy (NDMS)One of the only solutions to the increasing trends of disaster losses is the formulation and implementation of a national disaster mitigation strategy (NDMS), which targets the reduction of vulnerability of local communities to all hazards. One of the benefits of adopting a comprehensive disaster mitigation program, is that enables communities to pool resources from a number of individual sources to create worthwhile projects that satisfy multiple goals that benefit the community as a whole. These initiatives could also include different community stakeholders to consider how disaster mitigation fits into their own mandates and how interagency cooperation can build safer, healthier communities in a more physically sound way61.Not all of the costs that result from a disaster can be recovered from insurance, or post-disaster financial assistance programs from the provincial government. Some individuals may require emergency financial services, career counselings, or employment assistance after an urban interface disaster (The Government of Alberta (GOA) et al. 2011). Businesses, on the other hand, can obtain insurance and can arrange for extra protection for their operations by updating their business continuityplan. Indirect tourism economic losses during the 2003 Kelowna firestorm were estimated at $80 million. The province in 2003, suffered losses due to emergency response costs, lost tourism revenue, forest productivity, homes, and infrastructure that exceeded an estimated $500 million (BCMOF 2012). a. Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements – Disaster Costs RecoveryDisaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA) are triggered after an event and allow local governments to request funding to their province, and specific requirements are set down in policies and regulations at the provincial level. If in the event of a disaster, a province may request financial assistance to the federal government to assist in the response and recovery from any major event.b. History of NDMSThe national disaster mitigation strategy implies that mitigation policy and funding should follow a similar organizational structure between the different levels of government. As of 2002, the national disaster mitigation strategy was not complete and the various mechanisms for implementation were being explored.  The stakeholders in 2002 were encouraged to look for similar disaster mitigation programs from which the Canadian strategy could learn and exchange information and apply current industry best practices. Public Safety Canada has been consulting with Canadian provinces and other stakeholders to establish a National Disaster Mitigation Strategy (NDMS) over the last two decades buthave not yet fully implemented a nation funding program. The Government of Canada, together with provincial and territorial governments, launched Canada's National Disaster Mitigation Strategy on January 9, 200862. Some emergency management agencies may support limited programs in disaster mitigation; much of the activity has been carried out on a project-by-project basis, which identifies a specific hazard type and magnitude63. Many of these projects are embedded within the particular agencies and are not usually termed mitigation. 61 (Tricia Wachtendorf 2001)62 (Public Safety Canada 2013b)63  (Tricia Wachtendorf 2001)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations253.5. Disaster Management British ColumbiaIn order to understand disaster mitigation opportunities for B.C. First Nations, it is important to be clearwhat structures currently exist for governance of disaster management in B.C. As was mentioned previously, Canadian local communities are on the front lines when it comes to dealing with emergencies. The legislation is clear that the relationship between the federal government and the provincial government has set out the requirements for consideration of hazard(s) directly with the provincial governments.In 1993, B.C. created the Emergency Program Act, § 6(2) which requires a local authority to prepare a local emergency plan64 specifically addressing [emergency] response and [post-disaster] recovery from emergencies or disasters65. These plans focus on emergency preparedness and responses, and are tactical in nature with a strong emphasis on command-and-control66, and do not include any disaster mitigation actions or activities.In 1996, the province created elements within the Local Government Act, which included some natural hazard considerations. See table below.Table 1:LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT [RSB.C. 1996]67Section of Act Hazard Specific TerminologyCHAPTER 323 Part 25 – Regional Growth Strategies § (2)(k)…risks associated with natural hazardsCHAPTER 323 Part 26 —  § 877(1)(d) ...statements and map designations... hazardous conditionsCHAPTER 323 Part 26 § 905.1(6)(c) ...hazardous condition...CHAPTER 323 Part 26 § 909(1)(c) ...preventing hazardous conditionsCHAPTER 323 Part 26  § 910(1) ...flood hazard management...CHAPTER 323 Part 26  § 919.1 (1)(a) ... protection of development from hazardous conditionsCHAPTER 323 Part 26  § 919.1 (7.1)(a) Specify areas of land that may be subject to flooding, mud flows, torrents of debris, erosion, land slip, rock falls, subsidence, tsunami, avalanche or wildfire, or to another hazard...CHAPTER 323 Part 26  § 919.1 (7.1)(c) ...wildfire hazard...CHAPTER 323 Part 26  § 919.1 (7.1)(d) ...wildfire hazard... 64 Response plan to emergencies, crisis, and disaster.65 (HONOURABLE COLIN GABELMANN ATTORNEY GENERAL 2012, 1993)66 Command-and-control is a fundamental aspect of the  Incident Command System (ICS), which was created in 1978 by California Forest Service to help management of large wildland urban interface forest fires.67 B.C. Local Government Act 1996Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations26The following page Fig. 16, illustrates the Canadian policy history of the federal and provincial governments, both the constitutional relationship to B.C. First Nations, and disaster mitigation policies and legislation. On the bottom it shows the history of the provincial disaster legislation. The next level, shows the federal government's constitutional and national legislative framework. The third level, shows the federal government's legislative response to Canadian and B.C. First Nations governance. the top level shows a brief history of disaster management research and relevant historical disaster planning guidance. The right-hand side shows the opportunities moving forward and highlights disastermanagement best-practices. This image is important as it demonstrates that B.C. First Nations have been influenced by the Canadian federal government for over a century. During that time, the capabilityaround disaster management has only really occurred within the past few decades. This points to an opportunity to incorporate current hazard mitigation best practices that have already been proven elsewhere into B.C. First Nations. 3.6. B.C. First NationsNow, when we look at First Nations communities within British Columbia, we can better understand the federal provincial local context for disaster management and the challenge for Aboriginal communities who are required to participate in this process. 3.6.1. Comprehensive Community Planning (CCP)In 2004, a comprehensive planning working group helped to facilitate the creation of the CCP for First Nations, CCP HANDBOOK. Key planning areas that were identified and included in the CCP development were: governance, land and resources, health, infrastructure development, culture, social issues, and the economy. This tool is based on comprehensive planning principles which follow a universally accepted traditional planning model: preparing to plan, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The fundamental principles comprehensive planning include: creation of the planning steering committee, community engagement, transparency, empowering the community, and building upon existing community strengths.The CCP process has brought many benefits to those communities that participate, such as improving performance and governance capabilities, as well as coordination of future development, while celebrating traditions and culture. This planning process has a grounding in a holistic world view and a strength in building support for finding solutions that leverages existing community strengths. If completed effectively, a CCP will provide a roadmap for the community. Many communities are very limited in staffing for administration and planning, which is not helped by social challenges resulting from colonization practices such as housing, infrastructure issues, drug abuse, and suicides68. As each community has its own set of priorities and social needs the flexibility that is afforded by the CCP process helps these communities build upon existing strength and highlight/identify areas for improvement. 68 (Patriquin 2012)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations27D i s a s t e r  M i t i g a t i o n  P l a n n i n g  f o r  B . C .  F i r s t  N a t i o n s2 8The strategic planning staff at the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, B.C. region indicate not all FirstNation communities have complete CCP's to review, and every plan is a unique, community-specific, high level/umbrella document that outlines key priorities and the goals of the community as a whole. Of the available CCP plans, the staff recommended 5 of the most detailed plans they were familiar with, which are included in this study. The CCP process offers a structured and consistent set of plans which we can use to evaluate. Resource constraints prohibited the author from conducting staff interviews or interviews with community planners, so all analysis is based on the 5 CCP plans that were publicly available. The study provides a snapshot of the extent to which mitigation considerations are currently being addressed within this existing CCP planning process. a. ImplicationsIn the 2011 national emergency management plan developed by AANDC, the roles and responsibilities are derived from the Emergency Management Act (EMA) 2007 and the Indian Act69. Emergencies that exceed the capacity of the local community to address on their own have been AANDC's focus, based on the national emergency management plan. Further, the AANDC disaster management governance structure steps away from Indian bands and stipulates involving existing provincial and territorial disaster management governance structures to the greatest extent possible when responding to emergencies. This is why the complex concerns around natural hazards within the First Nations communities in British Columbia must include a discussion of provincial laws and regulations, and require that solutions moving forward be integrated in a holistic manner through multiple levels of government.Further, the federal government indicates that the most common events affecting First Nations are floods, fires, or failure of community infrastructure70. As many First Nations in B.C. are dependent on adjacent and neighboring communities, having the ability to incorporate hazard concerns into comprehensive planning for these communities could help open up meaningful conversations with other jurisdictions. Effective mitigation planning is intended to eliminate or reduce the effects resulting from many of the challenges associated with infrastructure failure in crises, disasters, and catastrophes, so these same mitigation practices can naturally solve daily service interruptions for all infrastructure.The worldview of First Nations has a more holistic, and arguably, sustainable perspective, grounded in the protection of mother nature, not only for today, but for generations yet to come. The key to an effective disaster mitigation policy in British Columbia will be to include a traditional aboriginal perspective into community mitigation actions. It is important to recognize that by changing our environment, it has an effect on our ecosystem and our collective vulnerability to hazards; therefore theincorporation of a long-term sustainable view is a welcome addition to any mitigation effort.Note: Table 2, below outlines the two historical CCP planning process (2004, 2006) and comparing them with the mitigation planning process from (2000). You can see that the planning steps seem compatible and with some enhancements the existing CCP process could be adjusted to help guide communities to consider hazards along with other community concerns.69  (Wernick 2011)70  (Wernick 2011, 5)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations29Table 2:CCP Planning Steps71 (2004)CCP Planning Steps72 (2006)Mitigation Planning Steps73 (2000)Define the planning approachBuild a planning frameworkIdentify potential uses for community planGather informationCreate individual strategic plansBring together strategic plans into a CCPConsult with the communityDevelop necessary resources and capacityDeveloping tools to regulate land-use planningDeveloping final community plan productDefining the role of CCP [regarding] capital plansCommunity plan administration needsMonitor and reviewPre-Planning StepsDevelop budgetBuild Planning TeamResearchBuild a Work planOrganize CommunityResourcesCreate Planning CommitteeEstablish Ground rulesInvite StakeholdersEstablish a Work planPlanning StepsGather informationComplete community analysisBuild strategic frameworkGoals and objectivesIdentify Activities & ProjectsCreate Implementation strategyAssessing Hazards & VulnerabilitiesComplete Hazard and Vulnerability AnalysisResearchCollect historical dataHazard profilesPreparing Mitigation StrategyCommunity OutreachPublic consultationsActions:ProjectsProgramsImplementationStepsBuild work planImplement PlanReportAdopting and Implementing PlanMonitoring & Evaluation StepsAnalysis of ResultsReview & RecommendationsRevise and UpdateUpdating PlanTable 2: Comprehensive Community Planning (CCP) from 2004, 2006 as compared to the hazard mitigation planning process.71(Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Public Works and Government Services Canada 2004)72(AANDC B.C. Regional Strategic Planning Manager 2006)73(FEMA 2013)D i s a s t e r  M i t i g a t i o n  P l a n n i n g  f o r  B . C .  F i r s t  N a t i o n s3 0This page intensionally left blank4. MethodologyIn order to gauge the extent to which natural and technological hazards are currently being addressed inthe CCP HANDBOOK, and in CCPs for B.C. First Nation communities, I had to first find a way to objectively measure if mitigation planning74 is currently being utilized. The first task included an evaluation of current mitigation planning and plan quality evaluation literature to create a protocol to measure the level of mitigation planning elements within a CCP plan.Through previous work experience in emergency management I discovered that, in terms of mitigation,the state of Florida has one of the most advanced mitigation programs in North America. The transparent and comprehensive mitigation plan Crosswalk was selected as the starting position for a plan assessment method. The Crosswalk is used by planners to assess local and state level mitigation plans for compliance with state and federal regulations. The mitigation program from the state of Florida was adopted as the US national standard for mitigation after the comprehensive planning requirements mandated by the state, a FEMA experiment, in the late 1990s75.After review of the plan quality literature, I incorporated the mitigation best practices and plan quality criteria into the Crosswalk. Next, I needed to find a sample of B.C. First Nation CCPs to see to what extent mitigation measures were currently being incorporated into existing comprehensive plans. After speaking to strategic planning staff at AANDC's B.C. Regional office, they indicated over the past 7 years or so, approximately 100 communities in B.C. have received some funding, through the B.C. Capacity Initiative, from Aboriginal Affairs (AANDC) to begin the CCP process. Approximately 25 communitiesin B.C. have completed CCPs, and of those 25, about 20 of them are actively using their plans. The AANDC staff believed that about 5 communities had the best and most complete CCP plans that were accessible to the public; there were some CCPs that were considered confidential by their respective communities and thus not included in the study. These 5, publicly available CCP plans (Penticton, Musqueam, ?Aqam, Westbank, and Simpcw) were suggested as the best samples for the study. Ideally having communities that currently face hazards would be beneficial to test, but given many communities are still completing their CCPs, the study utilized the best available samples. The study communities are nevertheless facing hazards, as Public Safety Canada76 (PSC) indicates that landslides,severe storms, and avalanches occur in all regions of Canada. Also, that B.C. communities are most at risk to earthquakes, flooding, and those areas with grasslands and forests are at risk of wildfire. I found 2 additional communities to sample by searching the Internet for publicly available CCP plans.Finally, I needed to test my updated Crosswalk tool on 2 comprehensive community plans to see if the changes were appropriate. Through the application of the Crosswalk on the 2 test communities, I was able to modify the scoring and adjust the sensitivity of hazards detection within the plans. For example to meet the minimum requirement for a plan to be scored as addressing hazards; at least [3] hazards from the following listing of B.C. hazards must be identified in the plan (flood, forest fire, landslide, earthquake, tsunami, storm and hazmat). The crosswalk is intended to evaluate a multi-hazard plan. All 74 Mitigation planning can be thought of as a community’s response to their perceived level of hazard threat.75 Personal conversation with retired State of Florida Mitigation Planning Management staff 2013.76 (Government of Canada 2008)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations32B.C. First Nations and other communities face multiple hazards. Three hazards were selected as a minimum to differentiate those communities that considered only climate change, from those communities that considered climate change, flooding, fires, or other hazards. The whole intent of the planning process is to consider as many hazards (threats) as possible, to be truly effective. 4.1. Plan Quality and Disaster Mitigation Planning Literature ReviewIn adapting the State of Florida’s Crosswalk to use as the primary evaluation tool, it was suggested by Professor Mark Stevens77 that I complete a mitigation plan quality review of the following articles to see if there were any improvements to be made in order to better adapt it to evaluating B.C. First Nations CCPs.• The influence of state planning mandates on local plan quality, Berke (1994) • Planning for Resiliency: Evaluation of state hazard mitigation plans under the Disaster Mitigation Act, Berke (2012)• Are we learning to make better plans? A longitudinal analysis of plan quality associated with natural hazards, Brody (2003)• Local government compliance with state plan mandates: The effect of state implementation in Florida, Deyle (1998)• An assessment of coastal zone hazard mitigation plans in Texas, Kang (2010)• U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 44 CFR Part 201–Mitigation Planning,  (2006)• Basics of Community Mitigation78 A Job Aid, FEMA (1998)• Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000• U.S. Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000• CCP HANDBOOK, Comprehensive Community Planning for First Nations in B.C. (2006)Brody’s article supports the selection and use of the Florida Crosswalk as is, because his recommendations are already incorporated. These recommendations include having collaborative planning, with full public participation by a wide array of stakeholders, so that local community leaderscan reach a consensus on important local mitigation measures. He also suggested the following indicators for vulnerability analysis, formulation of goals, and mitigation policies, which were fully incorporated into the final Crosswalk for this project.Indicators in vulnerability analysis:De-lineation of hazard magnitudesExposed populationsStructural loss estimatesEvacuation clearance time dataIndicators in the goals:Economic impactsPhysical impactsPublic interest impactsPolicies plan component:Actions associated with increasing awarenessRegulationsIncentives77  Mark Stevens is a professor at the School of Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), University of British Columbia (UB.C.)78  (Federal Emergency Management Agency - National Emergency Training Center Emergency Management Institute 1998)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations33Unless there was significant political commitment to mitigation at the local level, there would be no use in applying any mitigation measures as they would not be funded or utilized. You can have the mostaccurate maps in the world but if nobody looks at them or uses them to make decisions, they are completely useless.He suggested, “…local political commitment could be attained through educational efforts…” and therefore, public education and outreach for senior officials must be a part of any adequate mitigation program (Berke and French 1994, 247).Berke's 2012 article suggests further enhancements to mitigation, which go beyond the traditional elements of:• Reducing hazard losses• Protecting life and property• Minimizing economic impacts• Reduction of impacts on socially vulnerable population groupsHe also includes protection of the natural systems on which communities depend (e.g. tree farms, salmon habitat) and the reduction of poverty within them, which was incorporated into the final Crosswalk.Deyle79 found that plan quality is higher when mandates are in place that require local planning that is evaluated by another government authority charged with review and approval of those plans. That planning mandates alone will not fix things and that planning requirements need to be linked to incentive programs to help local officials go beyond the minimum requirements. In the state of Florida, they were very successful in applying the carrot and the stick approaches to assist local governments to not only complete their plans but also provide an adequate level of mitigation projects based on long-term planning needs. In Florida the release of project funding was contingent on the jurisdiction havingan approved mitigation plan. Those plans not meeting the minimum requirement triggered state level technical assistance, training, and funding support to assist local governments to meet those minimum plan requirements. He also found that local communities historically addressed only the low hanging fruit80 (e.g. altering the built environment with dykes, dams, and structural protection), rather than utilize the more powerful mitigation tool of altering land-use types and intensity of development in hazardous land areas. His final point is that many local governments are restricted in their ability to alter their community development patterns, as many have already been fully developed and that some high hazard lands already have highly invested stakeholders who are resistant to relocation.79  (Deyle 1998)80 A project by project rationale that currently being applied in Canada.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations344.2. The CrosswalkThe following is a description of The Crosswalk (Fig. 17) (see appendix for a sample):The first page is the instructions and regulations that are included in the Crosswalk. Examples of how aplan reviewer would score a plan are included on the first page.The second page has all the particulars of the local community and the dates and information of the reviewers. This section can have any other criteria that state/provincial and federal officials deem appropriate and tracking the particulars of local mitigation plans.The third page is a summary of the comprehensive hazard mitigation plan review (i.e. a Dashboard). This identifies the scoring system that was used in this evaluation, which was either a one or zero. Plan reviewers can easily see the overall results of the analysis on this page and the next. The Crosswalk developed as part of this project has 10 sections outlined below and each of these sections was scored using a percentage of the total available elements within that section.One of the most important features in any hazard mitigation plan, which forms the core of this work, is the number of hazards addressed within the plan. Please see the Crosswalk, on the lower right-hand side of page 3 we can see the total number of hazards considered within the plan (Fig.18). In order to achieve a score for hazards addressed, each hazard would have had to be considered in a number of sections within the plan, and this helps to distinguish plans which do not contain mitigation with plans that do.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations354.2.1. Section 1: PrerequisitesThis section covers the legal framework and justification for planning within the local community and whether supporting documentation is included in the plan to meet legislative requirements.4.2.2. Section 2: Planning processThis section clearly identifies the planning process and helps the reviewer understand the level of community engagement and the variety of stakeholders involved in creating the plan. It also requires the evidence to be included about the creation of a planning team (Local Mitigation Strategy Working Group) and explicit documentation within the plan on data sources and references on which the planning assumptions are based.Mitigation planning requires full community involvement, so a measure of the level of community engagement has been included in this Crosswalk to provide a sense of who was involved and how their contributions shaped the plan.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations364.2.3. Section 3: Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis ProcessQ. What should we worry about the most in our community?This section forms the meat of the sandwich and is a very complex yet powerful process for any community to complete. Traditional knowledge and information is critical to informing a good disaster mitigation plan, these and other data sources are clearly addressed in the Crosswalk. Some of these plans mentioned a hazard or two in passing, yet in order to achieve a score the minimum requirement for this analysis was set at three hazards from a list of hazards that naturally occur in British Columbia. If any hazard analysis process was used in the community (i.e as part of an emergency plan), it would be detected by this analysis.This section helps to clarify problems and issues, determine where to focus the community’s time and attention, identify current opportunities for mitigation81. The perception of threat is an important indicator of the community’s priority on natural hazards, a disaster mitigation plan is not only a plan for the planning committee members but also has to be shared and understood with senior band leadership, other community members, neighboring local governments, provincial, and federal officials. Having a locally generated statement of the perception of threat helps all of the stakeholders align their efforts to support and meet those needs. One useful tool is the creation of a community problem statement; a problem that the mitigation strategies (developed later in the process) are targeted to solve.A problem statement for a hypothetical B.C. coastal community could be as simple as:Dyke failure and liquefaction during an earthquake would leave large areas of our community flooded and over half of our populations without shelter, potable water, power, transportation, or utilities.4.2.3.a. Profiling HazardsIn order to determine what mitigation actions are necessary the community has to have a concrete understanding, to the best of our current knowledge and capabilities82, of the true nature of threat that they face. A community that achieves all of these elements would have much more information available than simply, for example: this hazard 'X' is a medium threat to our community.81 (FEMA 2013)82 Utilizing mitigation best-practices, available natural science research and accurate historical data.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations374.2.3.b. Develop a Community ProfileThe Crosswalk identifies all of the elements of an effective multi-hazard disaster mitigation plan, because many of the actions that come out of this process have to be based on the particular characteristics of the community. A community of 50 people has possibly the same level of concern over a forest fire, as a community of 300,000. These plans need to clearly indicate the existing community property and infrastructure, so that those stakeholders basing assumptions on this plan can have a better understanding of the assets at risk. Much of the benefits of a mitigation plan are derived from external sources using that information. One example: during a major disaster a community mitigation plan can be an invaluable source for professionals from other parts of the country to: quicklyand easily become familiar with the community. This allows all relevant hazard information (local threats), critical infrastructure, vulnerable aspects of the community and assets at risk, to be communicated to those agencies and personnel that may be in a position to respond and safeguard thoseassets.4.2.3.c. Assessing VulnerabilityThis section goes through the physical and social impacts from threats and helps the community in gaining a better understanding of the opportunities for vulnerability reduction. This is where sacred, spiritually significant lands can be included in the planning process.4.2.3.d. Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying StructuresThis section helps to identify the dollar values for assets at risk and is of considerable importance whenconsidering insurance, economic development, local capability development, and local business interests. 4.2.3.e. Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development TrendsThe Crosswalk here identifies to the extent that the community is incorporating disaster management into future growth and community development. This is a perfect opportunity for sustainability and transparency around new developments to be expressed within the plan.4.2.4. Section 4: Mitigation StrategyThis is the whole point of the mitigation planning process; to create the community’s blueprint for vulnerability reduction83, which clearly communicates the assumptions and considerations, used for deciding upon and prioritizing particular mitigation actions.4.2.4.a. Nonstructural Mitigation ActionsThis identifies actions that are not brick-and-mortar but help leverage other community capabilities to adapt to the threats identified in previous sections.83 (FEMA 2013; Drabek and Hoetmer 1991; Mileti 1999; Schwab 2010)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations384.2.4.b. Local Hazard Mitigation GoalsHere the Crosswalk identifies clearly articulated goals focused on the specific community hazards (threats) identified above. An example, articulate the community’s desire to protect people and structures, including the environment, and sites of historical, cultural, or religious significance.Goal examples: “Minimize the hazard of floodplains on development by locating lower intensity land uses in these areas and regulate any development within floodplains.”        (Westbank First Nation Government 2010, 93)“Westbank First Nation recognizes its responsibility to protect the land and her resources for future generations.” (ibid 22)A possible goal could be: Protect Band Reservation community (including reservation residents and guests) from injury, death, or displacement due to natural hazards.4.2.4.c. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation ActionsThis section captures the discussions around various mitigation actions and ultimately the time/costs/implementation concerns can be identified and addressed during the planning process. Oftencommunities lack the resources to implement their mitigation actions on their own. This section will help any external stakeholders to better understand the limits of local capabilities and highlight community mitigation needs (e.g. technical assistance, training, or funding).4.2.5. Section 5: Implementation of Mitigation ActionsThis section looks for a clear prioritization and implementation plan for the local community mitigationactions. This helps manage long-term capital projects along with short-term projects. This section is helpful for funding organizations that are looking for worthy local mitigation projects to support. This allows flexibility for the community given any possible variations in funding year-to-year.4.2.5.a. Resource acquisition and government incentive programsHere the search for funding and partners to complete the mitigation actions is communicated in the plan. The plan also identifies local level capability and any possible gaps that may exist in staffing, training, or technical expertise e.g. scientific studies, and reports.4.2.5.b. Nonstructural Mitigation ToolsThis part of the plan integrates mitigation goals and actions into other areas of local government.4.2.5.c. Structural Mitigation Tools ApplicationThis part of the Crosswalk looks at projects that may be funded by other internal or external Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations39stakeholders and yet affect the overall community’s level of threat from hazards. (e.g. an adjacent Regional District may adopt forest fuel reduction actions, or incentive programs for homeowners to adopt Firewise84 best-practices) 4.2.6. Section 6: Mitigation PoliciesThis section identifies local policies that discourage development in hazardous lands and help achieve the community’s overall goals and vision for safety and sustainability85.4.2.7. Section 7: Mitigation ProgramsThis part of the Crosswalk is looking for linkages to an overall mitigation program. This section also identifies other tools to encourage local community stakeholders to meet the overall community vulnerability reduction goals.4.2.8. Section 8: Inter-organization Coordination and CapabilitiesIndian bands have a number of levels of government and organizations that they deal with on a daily basis. All of the regular government duties, plans, and actions could benefit from hazard and vulnerability information, as it would integrate community vulnerability reduction actions into day-to-day governance. This section of the planning process helps communities to identify which plans and policies to examine and incorporate into the discussion around community vulnerabilities. Any land-use/zoning/building codes, sustainability plans, economic development plans, capital improvement plans, and growth management plans can all be incorporated into the mitigation planning process.4.2.8.a. Intergovernmental CoordinationDue to the nature of this information, the plans will most often be reviewed by a number of stakeholders including neighboring jurisdictions. To the extent that the community’s perception of threat is easily accessible to others that will use the plan to get that information, is captured in this section. If the plan is easy to use and provides relevant information, it is more likely to be consulted and have, the goals and visions integrated across a number of stakeholders. Quality plans are easy to access and can quickly communicate their message to a variety of stakeholders.4.2.9. Section 9: Plan Maintenance ProcessThis section of the Crosswalk identifies the ongoing support and updating of the information on hazards and vulnerabilities of the community. This element is critical for those concerned about climatechange, as the level of uncertainty increases, it becomes important for communities to systematically update their hazard and impact information to help them make better decisions. Climate specific impacts, such as sea level rise, are not expected within the next 6 months to a year (short term), in B.C, although we can still prepare for this threat now by completing comprehensive vulnerability mapping. A multi-hazard disaster mitigation plan will naturally incorporate the uncertainties of future climate 84 Firewise communities helps communities reduce their forest fire vulnerability.85 See appendix for definition of sustainability in disaster mitigation.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations40changes and must be updated every 5 years to be truly adaptive. A comprehensive multi-hazard strategymay be more helpful to communities than those which address only one hazard at a time.4.2.10. Section 10: Disaster Event/Post-disaster EventThis section of the Crosswalk looks for the mandatory requirements for updating a hazard mitigation plan just after a disaster. This allows the community to leverage the window of opportunity and a heightened awareness of hazard importance to advance a number of mitigation actions.4.2.11. Matrix A: Profiling HazardsThe matrix section of the Crosswalk gives a summary of the hazard specific elements to provide stakeholders and plan reviewers an overview of the particular hazards identified in the plan. When a blank Crosswalk is provided to a First Nation community to create their first multi-hazard disaster mitigation plan, planning committee members can use the Crosswalk to guide them through a comprehensive process and ensure they considered all the necessary elements (i.e. follow 2013 mitigation best-practices).4.2.12. Graphing ResultsThe last section is a graph of the results from the summary at the beginning of the Crosswalk. For this study we used the graphs as a way to visualize the scores across the sample community CCPs. Each section is independent, meaning they cannot be compared equally based on importance. All are important for the ideal disaster mitigation plan, so with each section we are measuring the level of compliance as a proportion of the possible scores.4.3. Community DescriptionsThe 5 B.C. First Nation communities CCPs that were evaluated in this study are located across the southern portion of B.C. (Fig. 12). The St Mary’s Indian Band (ʔaq̓am) is located in the Columbia Valley just outside Cranbrook. The Penticton Indian Band is located adjacent to the City of Penticton in the southern Okanagan Valley. The Westbank First Nation is located just across Lake Okanagan from the City of Kelowna. And the Musqueam Indian Band is located adjacent to the City of Vancouver and the Sliammon First Nation is adjacent to the City of Powel River on the Nothern sunshine Coast. A summary profile is shown in table 3.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations41Table 3: CCP Community Summary86CommunityPop. Median AgeMembers On ReserveGovernance/Organizational StructureLand Reservation(s)Nation MembershipHazards8788Westbank First Nation68148.457% on reserveWestbank Self Government Act5 reserves 2,147 hectares(5306 acres)Okanagan (Syilx) NationDrought, wind, forest fires, flooding, hazmat, erosion, and landslideMusqueam Indian Band124739.958% on reserveChief and Council Section 10 Band3 reserves and land holdings 338 hectares (835 acres)No dataHazmat, earthquake, liquefaction,tsunami, flooding, erosionPenticton Indian Band100060.259% on reserveChief and Council Section 11 Band3 reserves 18,698.5 hectares (46, 205 acres)Okanagan (Syilx) NationDrought, wind, forest fires, flooding, hazmat, erosion, and landslideSt Mary’s Indian Band (ʔaq̓am)35432.357% on reserveChief and Council Section 10 Band1 reserve 7,461 hectares (18,436.5 acres)Ktunaxa (ʔamakʔis) NationDrought, wind, forest fires, flooding, and landslide89Sliammon First Nation102960% < 40yrs75% on reserveChief and Council Section 11 Band6 reserves 1,907 hectares (4722 acres)Sliammon First NationEarthquake, wind, forest fire, flooding, erosion, and landslideTable 3: B.C. First Nation Community's CCPs included in this study.86When data was not available from community plan the data was then obtained from (Government of Canada 2013a; Government of Canada 2013b; Government of Canada 2008). In addition, where possible the data from the community was considered as primary.87All hazard information obtained from  (Government of Canada 2008; Government of Canada 2013b; Public Safety Canada 2013a) 88 2003 fire at Okanagan Mountain Provincial Park, 2010 forest fire burned 107 hectares in West Kelowna, 2011, 1, a blaze near Okanagan Lake forced about 550 people from their homes and campsites (CKQQ,CKFR,CHNL,The Canadian Press 2011).89No data available for median age at the time of this analysis.D i s a s t e r  M i t i g a t i o n  P l a n n i n g  f o r  B . C .  F i r s t  N a t i o n s4 24.3.1. Westbank First Nation90(WFN) Population 681 62% under age 40 Approximately 57% of the members residing on the reserveSelf-governing since April 2005 Comprised of 5 reserves totaling 2,147 hectares (5306 acres) Mission Creek Reserve 8Tsinstikeptum Reserve 9 Tsinstikeptum Reserve 10Medicine Hill Reserve 11Medicine Creek Reserve 12 1 of 7 native communities of the Okanagan (Syilx) Nation (Fig. 19) Sylix traditional territory Approximately 69,000 km2 (17.043 million acres) in the Southern Interior of BritishColumbia (Canada) 5,568 km2 (1.4 million acres) in Northern Washington (USA) (Pg 101 mapLand use:Approximately 40% developed and fully serviced with cable, water, sewer, and other utilitiesCritical infrastructure: 63 bed intermediate care facility Day care and preschool services Church, school Youth drop-in center Government administration buildings Hazards91 in traditional territories: Drought, wind, forest fires92, flooding, hazmat, erosion, and landslide4.3.2. Penticton Indian Band (PIB)93Population 1000 Largest reserve land base in B.C. totaling 18,698.5 hectares (46, 205 acres) Indian Reserves 1Indian Reserves 2Indian Reserves 3A 1 of 7 native communities of the Okanagan (Syilx) Nation (Fig. 19)  Hazards94 in traditional territories: Drought, wind, forest fires, flooding, hazmat, erosion, and landslide90  (Westbank First Nation Government 2010, 37)91 (Government of Canada 2008)92  2003 fire at Okanagan Mountain Provincial Park2010 forest fire burned 107 hectares in West Kelowna2011, a blaze near Okanagan Lake forced about 550 people from their homes and campsites (CKQQ,CKFR,CHNL,The Canadian Press 2011).93  (Penticton Indian Band 2013)94 (Government of Canada 2008)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations43Figure 19: Syilx Traditional territory. (Source Penticton Indian Band)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations444.3.3. Musqueam Indian Band (MIB)95 Population 124765% under age 40 with 50% of the members residing on reserveCreators of The Musqueam Declaration 1976Comprised of 3 reserves and land holdings totaling 338 hectares (835 acres)Musqueam Indian Reserve 2Sea Island Indian Reserve 3Musqueam Indian Reserve 4Musqueam traditional territory is 144,888 hectares (358,026 acres) All of present day Vancouver, extending northwest up Howe Sound and east up the Fraser Valley (Fig. 20) Hazards96 in traditional territories: hazmat, earthquake, liquefaction, tsunami, flooding, infrastructure failure9795  (Musqueam 2011)96 (Government of Canada 2008)97 AANDC Regional planning staff indicated Musqueam certainly has a flood risk from the Fraser, and risk from a breakage in the sewage pipe.Figure 20: Musqueam Traditional Territory, Source WikipediaDisaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations454.3.4. St Mary’s Indian Band (ʔaq̓am)98: Population 354 with 59 homes in the communityʔaq̓amnik̓ (St Mary’s Indian Band) reserve totals 7,461 hectares (18,436.5 acres)  ʔaq̓am is a member community of the Ktunaxa (ʔamakʔis) Nation (pronounced ‘k-too-nah-ha’)Ktunaxa traditional territoryApproximately 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) within the Kootenay region of southeastern British Columbia and historically included parts of Alberta, Montana, Washington, and Idaho (Fig. 21)Hazards99 in traditional territories: drought, wind, forest fires, flooding, avalanche and landslide98  (ʔaq̓amnik̓ 2011)99 (Government of Canada 2008)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations464.3.5. Sliammon First Nation100 (SFN)Population nearly 100060% under age 40, Approximately 75% of the members residing on reserveTla’amin final agreement June 2010 with the Province of British Columbia and CanadaComprised of 6 reserves totaling 1,907 hectares (4722 acres)Teeshohsum Indian Reserve 1 (Sliammon main village site) (778.8 ha)Ahgykhson (Indian Reserve 2 - Harwood Island) 847.8 haPaukeanum (Indian Reserve 3 - Cortez Island) 80.9 haTokwanon (Indian Reserve 4 – Theodosia) 160.1 haTokenatch (Indian Reserve 5 – Okeover) 21.4 haKahkaykay (Indian Reserve 6 - Grace Harbour) 18.4 haThe Tla’amin traditional territory (Fig. 22)Extends from the vicinity of Stillwater and the northern part of Texada Island, northward along the Malaspina and Gifford Peninsulas to the southern area of Homfray Channel and part of Cortes Island, including also the smaller offshore islands such as Hernando, Savary and Harwood as well as Powell, Goat and Haslam Lakes. Land use: The only populated reserve is Indian Reserve 1Hazards101 in traditional territories: earthquake, wind, forest fire, flooding, erosion, and landslide100 (Sliammon First Nation 2007; Wikipedia)101(Government of Canada 2008)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations47Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations485. Findings5.1. Findings Across Each Section of CrosswalkWe will now go through the findings and discuss each of the 10 sections of the Crosswalk and compare across the sample CCPs.5.1.1. Section I Prerequisite(s)• Adoption by the Local Governing BodyThese communities scored very similarly in this section of the Crosswalk (Fig. 23) and indicate how consistent the comprehensive community planning support has been to the development of the CCPs. This section of the Crosswalk is looking for specific documentation in the plan that identifies formal adoption, a legal basis (specific legislation references), and explicit support for the plan from senior leadership. These activities may have occurred as part of the planning process, but the plans evaluated in this study did not document or include the information necessary for an ideal score in this section. Penticton Indian Band’s CCP scored the highest of the sample and would have obtained a perfect score if there was a clear explanation within the plan of how internal and external stakeholders participated inthe creation of the plan. With slightly more documentation, each of these plans may have achieved a perfect score in this section.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations495.1.2. Section II Planning Process• Documentation of the Planning Process • Organizational Involvement • Public EngagementPlanning process scores (Fig. 24) were consistently strong across most of the sample and provides some particular information on why the current CCP process is strong on public engagement and outreach. The formulation of a planning team and specifically identifying who was involved and why they were involved is a critical component to any multi-hazard disaster mitigation plan. Overall we can have a good sense of plan quality by looking at the documentation that comes from the planning process. Mitigation planning requires a documented planning process which identifies critical external stakeholder connections in addition to internal and community membership involvement. The CCP process and comprehensive disaster mitigation planning process both share the fundamental planning concepts shown by the scores in the section. The Sliammon First Nation CCP scored the highest in this section followed closely by Musqueam and Penticton Indian Bands. These plans included public engagement and the development of a planning team, and the highest score was achieved by the inclusion of mediation/conflict resolution procedures. Mediation/conflict resolution procedures are critical for any successful plan. An almost perfect score could have been achieved if documentation was included that showed how data was obtained and used in the planning process, as well as if it included information about the planning budget and necessary funding to complete the process.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations505.1.3. Section III Hazard And Vulnerability Analysis Process• Identifying Hazards• Profiling Hazards• Develop A Community Profile• Assessing Vulnerability:◦ Identifying Exposure◦ Identifying Structures◦ Estimating Potential Losses◦ Analyzing Development TrendsThe plans generally lacked the specific identification and descriptions of all hazards that threaten the area (Fig. 25). None of the plans contained a composit map showing the anticipated extend of each hazard that would affect the community, including those hazard threats within their traditional territories.Each hazard should have a specific profile showing:• any previous hazard occurrences, including any oral historical accounts• a map showing the boundaries of the hazard (i.e. what areas do we need to worry about?)• any seasonal pattern that influences the hazard• the probability of future occurrences within the community (i.e. how likely is it to occur?) • what specific areas are vulnerable • the expected duration (i.e. how long will the community be disrupted by the hazard?)• speed of onset (i.e. how serious and urgent is this threat?)• availability of warnings (i.e can we save people from this hazard by warnings?)• any secondary hazard effects that result (e.g. flooding after an earthquake)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations51Further, the plans lacked a general description of the community's exposure, including structures threatened by hazards. Finally, they did not rank the hazards in terms of community priorities, refer to neighboring communities multi-hazard mitigation plans, or take into consideration other technical reports.All B.C. First Nation communities are encouraged to complete, as part of their emergency plan, a hazard, risk, and vulnerability assessment of the community. These assessments were not detected in any of the CCP plans evaluated in this study102. From the review of the emergency plan template provided by the First Nation Emergency Services Society (FNESS), it is apparent that a hazard and vulnerability analysis, as outlined above, could inform the development of all local emergency (preparedness and response) plans.The hazard and vulnerability analysis section, in terms of a multi-hazard disaster mitigation plan, formsthe core for the justification and the selection of mitigation strategies and actions that the community can take to reduce their vulnerability to hazards. The sample communities scored relatively equal across the sample for this section and it demonstrates how none of these CCP plans included or considered hazards in their plan development process. Three of these communities scored the same but in slightly different areas and included important elements such as; oral histories, local knowledge and stories, demographic projections, long-term planning trends and demographic information in addition to a community profile. These communities could achieve a better score by including specific hazard information, which allows them to complete their vulnerability analysis. Further, these communities could include more specific details of the infrastructure, housing, sacred spiritual, and other cultural resources that are threatened by the effects ofhazards. This section provided some challenges in scoring as the identification of the hazard was not registered as present, unless the hazard was considered through a complete hazard invulnerability analysis. 102(Wernick 2011, 11)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations525.1.4. Section IV. Mitigation Strategy• Communicating the Level of Threat• Non-Structural Community Mitigation Actions• Vision for Community• Capital Improvements• Future Land Use• Economy• Traffic Circulation• Housing Integration• Environment Protection• Local Hazard Mitigation Goals• Environmental Goals• Social and Cultural• Technical• Administrative• Political• Legal• Economic• EnvironmentThe plans generally lacked specific hazard information (Fig. 26) and a community's level of disruption if a hazard event were to occur. There was no specific analysis of hazard effects on transportation, economy, housing, and the environment. There was no process to decide which level of threat was acceptable to the community. There was also no indication that the mitigation actions proposed by the planning committee were reviewed by community members.There were no goals that clearly reflected the findings of the hazard and vulnerability analysis from above. These plans did not contain goals to reduce losses, preserve natural areas, preserve open space and recreation, or maintain water quality. There were no goals to identify low income residents that may need to be relocated, or concerns for social equity in mitigation actions. No plan included an assessment of major trends and potential impacts for hazards. As well, there were no specific goals targeting property protection, hazard awareness programs, or reduction of economic losses. Finally, Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations53there were no specific goals that highlighted any mitigation actions that were likely to be legally challenged.Generally each plan reviewed the problems/issues facing local government and identified goals to address them. The maintenance and enhancement of the environment as well as reduction of the degradation were all consistent primary goals included in the CCP's. Each of the plans did also considertheir own capability to implement the measures. For Penticton Indian Band the plan identified a range of concerns around building capability in forestry.The assessment shows that a single mitigation action, which was the replacement of an administration building that was clearly a hazard to the local community, was executed by the Sliammon First Nation and included in their CCP. The community had the capability to implement this action, which shows that they have already engaged in an analysis process that will prove very beneficial if a mitigation strategy is developed.The Westbank First Nation has included major opportunities and threats to wildlife, floodplain development, lack of land, and effective use of land-use controls for reduction of flooding. Further theyconsider low income housing, environmental protection, and partnering with the local regional district to further the safety goals of the community. Finally, they included a food policy which was the most cost-effective of any mitigation action.St. Mary's Indian band had one good example of a hazard mitigation goal.A great example of a community-based Goal:”Safety and security for all community members. Add vibrant, healthy community, speaking our language, governing effectively, and maximizing our lands and resources for the benefit of all living things and future generations, in a manner consistent with qanikitȼi.” [St Mary’s Indian Band (ʔaq̓am)]Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations545.1.5. Section V. Implementation of Mitigation Actions• Resource Acquisition and Government Incentive Programs• Implementation/Technical Support• Non-Structural Mitigation Tool Application• Regulatory tools for Hazard Zone(s)• Incentive-Based Tools• Public Information:• Structural Mitigation ToolsThe plans scored in Section V (Fig. 27) were generally lacking in provisions for identifying responsibility and cost-benefit review for mitigation actions. Also, they did not include any financial considerations such as specific cost breakdowns for each mitigation action, funding incentive programs, or any necessary financial controls. Another section that was missing was a consideration of incentives that would encourage voluntary mitigation actions, such as land acquisition, voluntary retrofitting, or including mitigation measures in new developments. The plans did not include building local capacity in terms of staffing, resource needs, or requirements for technical assistance to carry out any mitigation actions. Finally, the plans lacked consideration of potential cluster developments, changes to building codes, or impact fees to cover response costs, based on the hazard and vulnerabilityassessment (Section III).All the CCPs include the education and knowledge sharing of the priorities from the plan with the community, staff, stakeholders, and students. Many of the CCPs included a timetable for implementation of actions, and identified possible sources of federal provincial and local funding. The Musqueam Indian Band CCP included an ability to prioritize and rank actions, locate and obtain Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations55funding sources, implement a timetable for actions, and include an evaluation and updating protocol forthe plan. The Westbank First Nation CCP includes land-use controls to limit high density developmentswithin any floodplains. They also require special studies relating to hazards to assist with the ongoing development process. This plan does include the encouragement of good quality parks and open space for recreation as well as access to culture resources and other amenities.All of these are useful for creating a comprehensive hazard mitigation plan. 5.1.6. Section VI. Mitigation Policies• Discourage Development in Hazardous Areas• Mandate to build local capacityThese plans generally lacked incentive initiatives to encourage hazard mitigation, as well as specific identification of programs and policies that would increase the communities vulnerability to hazards and any subsequent actions intended to change these policies or programs (Fig. 28). None of these plans identified existing government policies or legislation that restricted or posed a barrier to mitigation actions, and they lacked identification of provincial, federal, or other stakeholders that have databases/maps useful for updating the plan. Finally, technical assistance for mitigation planning (e.g. staffing and training) was not found in these examples. This sections of the Crosswalk is looking to see if they have policies that discourage development in hazardous areas. Westbank First Nation did have a policy relating to development in the floodplain and this policy was directly connected to one of their community goals (See below). All of the CCP's had policies that were tied specifically to goals, which is a necessary component of any comprehensive mitigation plan.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations56A Westbank First Nation’s goal.“As Westbank First Nation moves toward an urban landscape, it is crucial that it be done in a manner that preserves the timxʷ. The timxʷ refers to the entire creation, and the Syilx believe that one of their primary purposes in life is to steward the resources of the timxʷ in a way that benefits all the people, animals and other living organisms that reside in and around the Okanagan Valley.”5.1.7. Section VII. Mitigation Programs• Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation ActionsNone of the plans contained any information on specific mitigation programs. There were no linkages between hazard information and disaster warning and response programs. There were also missing connections to neighbouring jurisdictions that could have been included in this section of the plan.5.1.8. Section VIII. Inter-Organization Coordination & Capabilities• Government and Strategic Partners• Intergovernmental CoordinationThis section (Fig. 29) was looking for collaboration with other governments and strategic partners, in addition to how easy the plan can be used by other stakeholders. The plans consistently identified othergovernment stakeholders, linked to other plans and used existing plans/studies to inform the planning process. They also identified opportunities to collaborate with government agencies and strategic stakeholders in addition to explaining how multi-stakeholder actions would be completed. Each of the CCP plans scored well in this section, as they are easy to understand, included an executive summary, detailed table of contents, policies, relevant documents and supporting materials with clearly identified goals and visions.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations57Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations585.1.9. Section IX. Plan Maintenance Process • Monitoring and Evaluation of the Plan• Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms• Continued Public InvolvementMany of these plans included a method and schedule for maintaining the plan as well as a process for ongoing citizen monitoring. In (Fig. 30) it is also clear that a great deal of thought went into incorporation of these plans into existing governance mechanisms and how the local governments can incorporate the community’s wishes into ongoing decisions.All of the plans were missing provisions for monitoring hazards and updating baseline community hazard data. They also did not include a timeline for retrofitting critical facilities. Finally, there was no documentation of the process where the requirements of this plan would be integrated into other plans.5.1.10. Section X. Disaster Event/ Post-Disaster Event• Resource Acquisition and Government Incentive ProgramsNone of the plans included any of these elements.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations595.2. Findings Across the Sample Community CCPsWhen we look at the figure below (Fig. 31) we can see the sample in terms of how they scored collectively across the 10 categories of the crosswalk. Also, below (Fig. 32) you can see the average scores for the 5 sample CCPs. You can see that section I (Prerequisites/Pre-planning Elements) were consistently high across the sample. Additionally, in section II (Planning Process), which included the community engagement and public outreach, scored very high in this assessment. In sections VIII and IX (Inter-Organization Coordination & Capabilities and Plan Maintenance Process), we see they also  generally scored high, which suggests that these plans are effectively integrated within the community and are formatted in a way that allows the community’s vision to be accessed via external stakeholders.However, sections III – VII (Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis Process – Mitigation Programs) scored consistently low, which shows that hazard considerations were not part of the CCP development process. Finally, the categories with no score indicate that hazards were not part of the comprehensive community planning process in any of these samples.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations60D i s a s t e r  M i t i g a t i o n  P l a n n i n g  f o r  B . C .  F i r s t  N a t i o n s6 1In the table below, we can see a chart showing the five samples CCP's and their percentage score withineach of the 10 categories. Those areas marked in black scored a 70% or greater for that category. The second column from the left shows the total number of elements within each category. It is important tonote, each category score has a different number of elements and thus a total score cannot be generated for this crosswalk. There are no sections that have a higher priority than others and the only true indicator that shows overall plan quality is the number of hazards that are addressed within the plan (Fig.33).Table 4. Total # ofElementsWestbankFirstNationMusqueamIndianBandPentictonIndianBandSt Mary’sIndianBandSliammonFirstNationAverageI. Prerequisite(s) 5 60% 60% 80% 60% 60% 64%II. Planning Process 21 57% 76% 71% 19% 81% 61%III. Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis Process 53 13% 13% 6% 6% 13% 10%IV. Mitigation Strategy 64 17% 8% 6% 5% 22% 12%V. Implementation of Mitigation Actions 55 11% 18% 9% 5% 15% 12%VI. Mitigation Policies 11 18% 9% 18% 0% 9% 11%VII. Mitigation Programs 4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%VIII. Inter-Organization Coordination & Capabilities 20 70% 75% 75% 45% 75% 68%IX. Plan Maintenance Process 8 13% 50% 50% 38% 38% 38%X. Disaster Event/ Post-Disaster Event 7 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Matrix A: Profiling Hazards 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Matrix B: Assessing Vulnerability 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Matrix C: Identification andAnalysis of Mitigation Actions 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Table 4: Summary of Crosswalk scores across the 5 CCPs.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations62D i s a s t e r  M i t i g a t i o n  P l a n n i n g  f o r  B . C .  F i r s t  N a t i o n s6 3Finally, when we look at page 3 of each Crosswalk, on the lower right-hand side we can see the total number of hazards considered within each plan. This one indicator tells us at a glance that these plans do not consider any hazards; thus indicate an opportunity to consider the development of a disaster mitigation planning guidance to be included in the CCP HANDBOOK, and possible training for Indigenous community planners on the topic of mitigation planning. None of the plans evaluated in thisstudy met the criteria for number of hazards addressed. Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations646. RecommendationsBased off the findings of this project, I strongly recommend that disaster management and natural hazards be considered in the next CCP HANDBOOK update in order to ensure the CCP fulfills a holistic process and that B.C. First Nations are protected. The CCP HANDBOOK is laid out in three sections: introduction, CCP step-by-step process, and tools. I will provide recommendations for each ofthese sections. I will also provide recommendations on how to best integrate disaster mitigation planning into existing community governance and planning efforts. Finally, I will provide suggestions for mitigation planning training.In regards to this CCP HANDBOOK, there are some key areas worthy of consideration. My recommendations for the introduction section of the CCP HANDBOOK are to:1. Include natural and technological hazards into the listing of “key planning areas.”103The CCP planning process claims to be a holistic process and includes governance, economy, social, cultural, etc. as key planning areas to be included in any comprehensive community plan. This doesn't however suggest considerations of natural or technological hazards, which can and do pose significant challenges for local communities (e.g. for example flooding or forest fire threats). By including hazard threats into a comprehensive community plan, it allows local communities to better quantify the level of threat posed by hazards and to leverage tools and actions to reduce or eliminate the unwanted consequences should they occur. Further, by considering hazards, communities will save money by avoiding future disaster losses and having to pay for temporary shelters, emergency response costs, andprolonged recovery costs.2. Include an expanded definition of sustainability in the “Sustainable development” section104 to include consideration of mitigation actions that directly address the expected lifetime our built environment and communities.Sustainability has generally been defined as “the degree to which a process or enterprise can be maintained or continued while avoiding the long-term depletion of natural resources” (Oxford 2012, Bruntland Commission). It is often utilized as a concept to focus effort on the reduction of greenhouse gases and other harmful emissions that are affecting global warming and climate change. The current sustainability definition does not go far enough, however, as it generally does not consider other threatssuch as a community’s vulnerability to earthquake, floods, tsunami, forest fires, pandemic, and infrastructure failure. The challenge for planners is to systematically re-evaluate where our communities are located, as many have already established themselves in and around high-hazard land areas. To be truly sustainable, we need to adopt a more holistic perspective, which considers all hazardsthat threaten our built environment, not just climate change concerns. Any planning efforts should be 103(AANDC B.C. Regional Strategic Planning Manager 2006, 6)104(AANDC B.C. Regional Strategic Planning Manager 2006, 6)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations65designed to last for the complete lifetime of the structures or community. A comprehensive multi-hazard disaster mitigation plan must follow the principles of Integrated Community Sustainability Planning105(ICSP): • Long-term thinking• Broad scope• Integration• Collaboration• Public engagement and education• Implementation• Monitoring3. Include Mitigation technical assistance and mitigation training in the section “What's needed to make planning work.”106 It is difficult for communities to recognize the value of hazard mitigation planning when they are not even aware of what these terms actually mean, or of the possible solutions or tools that they could use.Therefore, by adding this in, communities can be empowered, as it gives them the knowledge and opportunity to reduce their vulnerability to natural hazards themselves.4. Incorporate communication and educational outreach for hazards into the “Communications” section107.Including hazard awareness information and proper terminology is important for a community to be able to discuss important concepts and ideas relating to hazards that threaten their community. By including communication and hazard outreach you can engage the collective, and better solutions can be formulated to maximize existing resources, while also achieving long-term community goals.5. Incorporate information on how to complete an inventory of hazard-specific tools and information needed for the local community mitigation planning process, into the “Resources” section108. An inventory of hazard specific tools could include any available maps showing hazard impact areas, or historical data on hazard occurrences. Before a community can embark on a mitigation planning process, they need to ensure they have all the necessary tools and information that will be required. It's difficult to make an informed decision around hazard vulnerability unless you have the details of each hazard easily available; thus, it is important to have a complete inventory prior to engaging in a public planning process.105 Ann McKafee, UBC SCARP 106(AANDC B.C. Regional Strategic Planning Manager 2006, 9)107(AANDC B.C. Regional Strategic Planning Manager 2006, 13)108(AANDC B.C. Regional Strategic Planning Manager 2006, 13)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations666. Develop a Community Hazard Mitigation Plan Toolkit to be offered as a resource to communities, and include a reference in the sidebar109. A Community Hazard Mitigation Plan Toolkit can be created to help guide a local community planner through the necessary steps needed to complete the Crosswalk. This guide can also be used as a resource for training as outlined later in these recommendations.My recommendations for the Step-by-Step section of the CCP HANDBOOK are to:7. Update “Comprehensive Community Planning: Step-by-Step”110, to include comprehensive multi-hazard considerations. Comprehensive multi-hazard considerations would include assessing all of the hazards that threaten thecommunity, as well as gathering the necessary stakeholders together that are affected by these hazards. The CCP planning process already has many of the necessary elements for hazard mitigation planning, and adding comprehensive multi-hazard considerations would only enhance and strengthen this process.8. Acknowledge within “Pre-Planning: Getting Started” that community autonomy is a fundamental principle necessary for successful hazard mitigation planning111. The strength of the CCP is that it is a community driven process, as hazard mitigation planning is only successful when driven by the majority of the community and its leaders; they are a good fit. Acknowledging a community's autonomy would allow them to determine what is a hazard threat, shareall threat information112 and determine the priority given to each hazard, rather than having it imposed upon them from another level of government. The community can influence the protective actions taken for each hazard and direct any federal or provincial funding to meet their locally determined vulnerability reduction objectives.9. Update “Pre-Planning: Step-by-Step” to include additional hazard-specific mitigation planning costs, technical assistance, and specialized studies/reports/analysis requirements. To adequately assist a community to determine whether a local community is capable of going through a mitigation planning process, it is necessary to have them consider the true mitigation planning costs, technical assistance needs, and whether or not any specialized studies/reports will be required during the process. This hazard mitigation planning process is more costly than some other community 109(AANDC B.C. Regional Strategic Planning Manager 2006, 14)110(AANDC B.C. Regional Strategic Planning Manager 2006, 17)111(AANDC B.C. Regional Strategic Planning Manager 2006, 19)112 Within the community, neighbouring communities and all key stakeholders.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations67planning processes because some specialized natural science technical analysis may be necessary to assist the community to determine the impacts of a hazard. These additional costs however, pale in comparison to the true disaster losses that result from no mitigation planning. As mentioned previously,for every dollar spent on mitigation, up to four dollars in disaster losses can be avoided113. By assisting the community to develop an adequate budget for the planning process, it will ensure a timely plan is developed and will improve the quality of mitigation actions that result.10.Update “Planning: Step 1 Gather Background Information” to include disaster management and hazard-specific information into the sample checklist114.Within the sample checklist that community members used to gather background information, it is helpful to have mitigation planning considerations provided (e.g. existing hazard specific plans, key infrastructure stakeholders, and critical emergency services). The value for including these simple areasinto the checklist, will ensure that community members engage all relevant information, existing resources, and stakeholders to assist them in completing a successful comprehensive hazard and vulnerability analysis for their community.My recommendation for the tools section of the CCP HANDBOOK is to:11.Include a blank copy of the Crosswalk that is adapted for B.C. First Nations.Community members can benefit from having a blank Crosswalk to use as a guide to assist in covering all the necessary elements to be included in a comprehensive multi-hazard mitigation plan. The Crosswalk forms a simple and easy to follow checklist for people to better understand the mitigation planning process, thus allowing all members to discover innovative and cost-effective mitigation actions for the community.If the suggestions above are included in an enhanced CCP HANDBOOK, then the next step would be toconvene a representative group of First Nations and key stakeholders to identify opportunities to incorporate mitigation best-practices with traditional knowledge and customs. The specific mitigation planning guidance could be adapted to help make it culturally, spiritually and economically supportive for B.C. First Nations communities.113(The Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC) and National Institute of Building Sciences 2005)114(AANDC B.C. Regional Strategic Planning Manager 2006, 32)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations68I also provide a recommendation for incorporating hazard mitigation planning for all levels of government, including B.C. First Nations. The next step would be to include the delivery of a training course for federal-provincial, and local B.C. First Nations staff. Such a course could be called “Hazard Mitigation Planning for Canadian Local Government and B.C. First Nations Staff”115. It would assist staff to undertake and complete a hazard mitigation planning process and would cover these following topics:• Organizing Resources (Preparing for the Mitigation Planning Process)• Development of a mitigation plan (How do we use the Crosswalk tool?)• Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment (What do we need to worry about?)• Public Consultation and Engagement (Would you agree with this threat assessment?)• Development of a mitigation strategy (What can we do?)• Create the plan (This is what we want to achieve!)• Implementation of the plan (Here is how we will do it?)Finally, if B.C. First Nations and AANDC complete the recommendations above, I then suggest that individual community members, planners, or leaders could take the Crosswalk developed for this project and apply it themselves to their own CCP or other comprehensive plan. This process is a way for you and your communities to see for yourself how close you are to meeting the current mitigation planning best-practices.If you have any questions or would like to see copies of any of the scored Crosswalks from this project,please contact the author to obtain a copy of any of the assessments.115Based on materials adapted to the Canadian context from FEMA 318 Course on Mitigation Planning for Local Government and Tribal Staff (FEMA 2013)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations697. ConclusionIn this project, I have attempted to explore the extent to which natural and technological hazards are being addressed within the CCP HANDBOOK and ultimately the extent to which they are currently being included in CCP's. Through a complete analysis of 5 B.C. First Nation CCP's, I have demonstrated that natural hazards are not being addressed and mitigation planning is under-utilized within these planning processes. In order to evaluate any CCP plans, I had to first create a relevant assessment tool (e.g. the Crosswalk) to be used to objectively measure the extent that hazard mitigation planning elements are being included in a comprehensive plan. The Crosswalk is the keystone of this project and is the one tool that breaks down any barriers across all levels of government and jurisdictions in order to align community efforts in a unified action targeting hazard risk reduction (i.e. disaster mitigation). We applied the Crosswalk to the 5 sample plans and we found generally no hazards were considered within those plans. B.C. First Nation communities have been fortunate to have not suffered a hazard event occurrence (e.g. crisis, disaster, or catastrophe) in recent years, however they are vulnerable to a number of hazard threats and there is a high likelihood that they will suffer future disaster losses.This project and these findings are important because the greatest opportunity for hazard mitigation planning is in the time period before a hazard event occurs, thus it is the perfect opportunity for B.C. First Nation communities to start their mitigation planning now! The B.C. First Nations are uniquely aware of hazards, as traditional oral histories account for hazard occurrences as early as the 1700s, however this hazard-specific threat information is not captured in thecurrent CCP HANDBOOK or comprehensive community plans. Providing a CCP HANDBOOK that incorporates information and the tools needed for hazard mitigation planning (e.g. the Crosswalk), will give B.C. First Nations an ability to apply proven mitigation tools before an event, which can not only help save money, but reduce or lessen and future hazard event effects.It is essential that all levels of government take full responsibility for assisting local communities in reducing their vulnerability to hazards. Hazard threats are a building problem for all communities in B.C., and is costing the province an estimated disaster loss of $184,000 daily116. For every dollar spent on disaster mitigation a community can save up to $4 in disaster losses117. Thus, if B.C. were to utilize hazard mitigation then they would be able to significantly decrease the money spent on future disaster losses, and eliminate in some cases, the need to respond to an event in the first place.We have seen that Canada’s response to hazards is an evolving process, thus current legislation must require enhancements to reflect what we currently know and help us face these disaster trends, while saving taxpayers significant preventable costs. Also we can see that the Canadian disaster management development has its origins in a command-and-control military combat (response centric, reactionary) approach to natural hazards, and could benefit from updating to a more comprehensive community-driven process that leverages the existing community strengths and help shape our communities in a 116 (Public Safety Canada 2013a)117 (The Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council (MMC) and National Institute of Building Sciences 2005)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations70more sustainable framework.I hope this project will prove how crucial hazard mitigation planning is to safeguard communities, and encourage other disaster researchers, community leaders, and AANDC senior leadership to raise the level of awareness around the importance of hazard mitigation planning. I offer a valuable resource, theCrosswalk, which is a proven tool for comprehensive multi-hazard disaster mitigation that has been updated in this project. It can be further updated and enhanced by incorporating any future federal or provincial legislation that addresses natural hazards. By acting now and implementing effective community multi-hazard mitigation plans, we can reduce our collective vulnerability to hazards, without having to wait until an actual event. In short, “having more, bigger, and faster fire trucks at the bottom of the cliff will never be as effective as placing a fence across the top” (Pers. Comm. Mileti 2005).Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations71Appendix: Indian ActExpenditure of capital65. The Minister may pay from capital moneys(a) compensation to an Indian in an amount that is determined in accordance with this Act to be payable to him in respect of land compulsorily taken from him for band purposes; and (b) expenses incurred to prevent or suppress grass or forest fires or to protect the property of Indians in cases of emergency.R.S., c. I-6, s. 65. (Minister of Justice Government of Canada 2009, 41)66.       (1) With the consent of the council of a band, the Minister may authorize and direct the expenditure of revenue moneys for any purpose that in the opinion of the Minister will promote the general progress and welfare of the band or any member of the band. (3) The Minister may authorize the expenditure of revenue moneys of the band for all or any of the following purposes, namely,(a) for the destruction of noxious weeds and the prevention of the spreading or prevalence of insects, pests or diseases that may destroy or injure vegetation on Indian reserves;(b) to prevent, mitigate and control the spread of diseases on reserves, whether or not the diseases are infectious or communicable;(c) to provide for the inspection of premises on reserves and the destruction, alteration or renovation thereof; (d) to prevent overcrowding of premises on reserves used as dwellings; (e) to provide for sanitary conditions in private premises on reserves as well as in public places on reserves; and (f) for the construction and maintenance of boundaryfences. R.S., 1985, c. I-5, s. 66; R.S., 1985, c. 32 (1st Supp.), s. 12;1996, c. 23, s. 187. 73. (1)(k) to provide for sanitary conditions in private premises on reserves as well as in public places on reserves;(Minister of Justice Government of Canada 2009, 45)Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations72Emergency Management Act S.C. 2007, c. 15"emergency management" means the prevention and mitigation of, preparedness for, response to and recovery from emergencies.3. The minister is responsible for exercising leadership relating to emergency management in Canada by coordinating, among government institutions and in cooperation with the provinces and other entities, emergency management activities.4. (1) the minister's responsibilities under section 3 include(e) coordinating the government of Canada's response to an emergency;(e) providing assistance other than financial assistance to a province if the province requestsit;(j) providing financial assistance to the province if; it is(i) the provincial emergency in the province has been declared to be of concern to the federal government under section 7,(ii) The minister is authorized under this section to provide the assistant, and(iii) the province has requested the assistance;(o) Promoting a common approach to emergency management, including the adoption of standards and best practices;(p) Conducting research related to emergency management;(q) Promoting public awareness of matters related to emergency management; and(r) Facilitating the authorized sharing of information in order to enhance emergency management.6. (1) The emergency management responsibilities of each minister accountable to Parliament for a government institution are to identify the risks that are within or related to his or her area of responsibility — including those related to critical infrastructure — and to do the following in accordance with the policies, programs and other measures established by theMinister: (a) prepare emergency management plans in respect of those risks;(b) maintain, test and implement those plans; and(c) conduct exercises and training in relation to those plans.(2) Each minister shall include in an emergency management plan(a) any programs, arrangements or other measures to assist provincial governments and, throughthe provincial governments, local authorities;(b) any federal-provincial regional plans;(3) A government institution may not respond to a provincial emergency unless the government of the province requests assistance or there is an agreement with the province that requires or permitsthe assistance.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations73LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT [RSB.C. 1996] CHAPTER 323 Part 25 — RegionalGrowth StrategiesDivision 1 — Application and Content of Regional Growth Strategy(2) Without limiting subsection (1), to the extent that a regional growth strategy deals with these matters, it should work towards but not be limited to the following:(k) settlement patterns that minimize the risks associated with natural hazards;LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT [RSB.C. 1996] CHAPTER 323 Part 26 — Planningand Land Use ManagementDivision 2 — Official Community PlansRequired content 877 (1) An official community plan must include statements and map designations for the area covered by the plan respecting the following: (d) restrictions on the use of land that is subject to hazardous conditions or that is environmentally sensitive to development;Phased development agreements 905.1 (6) The following changes to the specified zoning bylaw provisions or the specified subdivision servicing bylaw provisions apply to the development without the written agreement of the developer:(c) changes that, in the opinion of the local government, are necessary to address a hazardous condition of which the local government was unaware at the time it entered into the phased development agreement.Screening and landscaping to mask or separate uses 909 (1) A local government may, by bylaw, require, set standards for and regulate the provision of screening or landscaping for one or more of the following purposes:(c) preventing hazardous conditions.Construction requirements in relation to flood plain areas910 (1) In this section: "minister" means the minister charged with the administration of the Environmental Management Act; "Provincial guidelines" means the policies, strategies, objectives, standards, guidelines and environmental management plans, in relation to flood control, flood hazard management and development of land that is subject to flooding, prepared and published by the minister under section 5 of the Environmental Management Act; "Provincial regulations" means, in relation to a local government, any applicable regulations enacted under section 138 (3) (e) [general authority to make regulations —Designation of development permit areasDisaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations74919.1 (1) An official community plan may designate development permit areas for one or more of the following purposes: (a) protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity; (b) protection of development from hazardous conditions;(7.1) For land designated under section 919.1 (1) (b), a development permit may do one or more of the following: (a) specify areas of land that may be subject to flooding, mud flows, torrents of debris, erosion, land slip, rock falls, subsidence, tsunami, avalanche or wildfire, or to another hazard if this other hazard is specified under section 919.1 (1) (b), as areas that must remain free of development, except in accordance with any conditions contained in the permit;(c) in relation to wildfire hazard, include requirements respecting the character of the development, including landscaping, and the siting, form, exterior design and finish of buildings and other structures; (d) in relation to wildfire hazard, establish restrictions on the type and placement of trees and other vegetation in proximity to the development.Required content 877 (1) An official community plan must include statements and map designations for the area covered by the plan respecting the following:(d) restrictions on the use of land that is subject to hazardous conditions or thatis environmentally sensitive to development;Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations75Geospatial Canadian Disaster DatabaseThe Canadian Disaster Database contains detailed disaster information on natural, technological and conflict events (excluding war) that have directly affected Canadians since 1900. Below are the recorded events from 2007 – 2013 for British Columbia.• Rioting : Vancouver B.C.5 July, 2011 10:49 AM• Epidemic : Glengarry Hospital, Victoria B.C.4 July, 2011 6:16 AM• Epidemic : Across Canada5 July, 2011 12:05 PM• Epidemic : Across Canada5 July, 2011 12:06 PM• Non-Residential : Galiano Island B.C.5 July, 2011 11:39 AM• Flood : Slocan River B.C.13 May, 2011 12:50 PM• Flood : Terrace, Smithers & Mount Currie B.C.Terrace, Smithers & Mount Currie B.C., June 5, 2007. • Flood : Prince George B.C.5 July, 2011 11:46 AM• Flood : Kingcome Inlet and Bella Coola B.C.18 April, 2012 8:10 AM• Flood : Duncan and North Cowichan (Vancouver Island) B.C.18 April, 2012 8:07 AM• Duncan and North Cowichan (Vancouver Island) B.C., November 14-19, 2009. Flooding• Flood : Sicamous, B.C.2 July, 2013 11:09 AM• Heat Event : Vancouver and Fraser B.C.5 July, 2011 10:52 AMVancouver and Fraser B.C., July 27 to August 3, 2009.• Strong Winter Storm: Delta B.C.Delta B.C., February 4, 2006. • Storms and Severe Thunderstorms : Vancouver B.C.5 July, 2011 11:46 AM• Storms and Severe Thunderstorms : Greater Vancouver and Fraser Valley B.C.4 July, 2011 5:50 AM• Storms and Severe Thunderstorms : Vancouver Island B.C.5 July, 2011 11:40 AM• Storms and Severe Thunderstorms : Vancouver B.C.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations765 July, 2011 11:40 AM• Storms and Severe Thunderstorms : Maple Ridge B.C.5 July, 2011 11:40 AM• Storms and Severe Thunderstorms : Vancouver, Fraser Valley and the GreaterVancouver Regional Districts B.C.5 July, 2011 12:11 PM• Vancouver, Fraser Valley and the Greater Vancouver Regional Districts B.C., January 6 to 8,• Wildfire : Kootenay B.C.5 July, 2011 11:43 AM• Wildfire : Tumbler Ridge B.C.5 July, 2011 11:39 AM• Wildfire : Cariboo-Chilcotin B.C.5 July, 2011 11:39 AM• Wildfire : Kelowna, Kamloops and Cariboo B.C.5 July, 2011 10:53 AM• Wildfire : Williams Lake, Chilcotin, Houston, Burns Lake and Fraser Lake B.C.4 July, 2011 6:14 AMDisaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations77L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N  July 2013   Blank_Crosswalk_EMPG2013_Sample.doc Instructions for Using the Plan Review Crosswalk for Review of Local Community Mitigation Plans   Attached is a Plan Review Crosswalk based on the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, published by FEMA, dated March 2004.  This Plan Review Crosswalk is consistent with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390), enacted October 30, 2000 and 44 CFR Part 201 – Mitigation Planning, Interim Final Rule (the Rule), published February 26, 2002.  SCORING SYSTEM and Coding Categories • Community comments may be provided in black • Researcher comments and recommended scores will be provided in Blue. • Mark Steven’s comments and recommended scores will be provided in Green. 1 – Identified, vague:  The plan meets the minimum for the requirement.  Reviewer’s comments are encouraged, but not required. 0 – Not identified:  The plan does not meet the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments must be provided.   Optional matrices for assisting in the review of sections on INSERT OPTIONS HERE are found at the end of the Plan Review Crosswalk. The example below illustrates how to fill in the Plan Review Crosswalk.   Example Adoption by the Local Governing Body  Requirement §201.6(c)(5): [The local hazard mitigation plan shall include] Documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction of the plan (e.g. City Council, Regional District, Tribal Council).   Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)   Reviewer’s Comments SCORE  Possible 0, 1  A. Has the local governing body adopted the plan? Section II, pp. 4-10 Yes, the plan clearly states the plan was adopted. 1  B. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, included? Section II, pp. 10-20 The plan does not include any documentation of resolutions.  0  C. Is the legal context that requires planning explained?   0  D. Is the administrative authority for planning indicated? Section I, pp. i,ii The authority of the First Nation was clearly defined. 1  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum Score 4) 2/4   78L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 Local Mitigation Plan Research Review Status Jurisdiction: Sample B.C. First Nation Title of Plan:  Sample Comprehensive Community Plan Date of Plan:  March 2007 Local Point of Contact:    Address: Sample Community Address  Town, B.C. Postal Code  Tel: (250) Phone Title:    Agency:    Phone Number:   (250)  E-Mail:   Research Reviewer: Community Planner Title: Community Strategic Planner Date: Todays date of review  Faculty Reviewer:  Title: Date:   Plan Evaluated Date of review Plan Next update N/A Date Adopted N/A Jurisdiction: Disaster Declaration Status* Y N N/A  Complete     Mitigation Elements Detected                     79L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 C O M P R E H E N S I V E  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  S U M M A R Y   SCORING SYSTEM  Please check one of the following for each requirement. 1 – Identified, vague:  The plan meets the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments are encouraged, but not required. 0 – Not identified:  The plan does not meet the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments must be provided.   I. Prerequisite(s) (0%) Existing Needs Improvement Endorsed and celebrated by the Local Governing Body:  4/4 P     Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation: §201.6(a)(3) 1/1 P   II. Planning Process (0%) Existing Needs Improvement Documentation of the Planning Process: §201.6(b) and §201.6(c)(1) 7/7 P  Organizational involvement 4/4 P  Public engagement 10/10 P   III. Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis Process (0%) Existing Needs Improvement Identifying Hazards: §201.6(c)(2)(i) 3/3 P  Profiling Hazards: §201.6(c)(2)(i) 15/15 P  Community Profile 7/7 P  Assessing Vulnerability:  Overview: §201.6(c)(2)(ii) 11/11 P  Assessing Vulnerability:  Identifying Exposure 4/4 P  Assessing Vulnerability:  Identifying Structures: §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A) 2/2 P  Assessing Vulnerability:  Estimating Potential Losses: §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) 2/2 P  Assessing Vulnerability:  Analyzing Development Trends: §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C) 8/8 P  Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment: §201.6(c)(2)(iii) 1/1 P          IV. Mitigation Strategy (0%) Existing Needs Improvement Communicating the Level of Threat 5/5 P  Vision for Community 5/5 P  Capital Improvements Integration 1/1 P  Future Land Use Integration 1/1  Economy 1/1 P  Traffic Circulation and Planning Integration 1/1 P  Housing Integration 3/3 P  Environment 5/5 P  Local Hazard Mitigation Goals: §201.6(c)(3)(i) 11/11 P  Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions: §201.6(c)(3)(ii) 31/31 P   V. Implementation of Mitigation Actions (0%) Existing Needs Improvement Implementation of Mitigation Actions: §201.6(c)(3)(iii) 10/10 P  Resource Acquisition & Incentive Programs 7/7 P  Implementation &Technical Support 8/8 P  Non-Structural Mitigation Tool Application 8/8 P  Regulatory Tools for Hazard Zones 7/7 P  Incentive-Based Tools 3/3 P  Awareness/Education Outreach Tools 8/8 P  Structural Mitigation Tool Application 3/3 P   80L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  VI. Mitigation Policies (0%) Existing Needs Improvement Discourage Development in Hazardous Areas 8/8 P  Mandate to build local capability/capacity 3/3 P      VII. Mitigation Programs (0%) Existing Needs Improvement Disaster warning and response programs linked to hazard and vulnerability assessment Part III. 3/3 P  Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions: §201.6(c)(3)(iv) 1/1 P    VIII. Inter-Organization Coordination & Capabilities (0%) Existing Needs Improvement Government and Strategic Partners 6/6 P  Intergovernmental Coordination  14/14 P     IX. Plan Maintenance Process (0%) Existing Needs Improvement Monitoring and Evaluation of the Plan 4/4 P  Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms: §201.6(c)(4)(ii) 3/3 P  Continued Public Involvement: §201.6(c)(4)(iii) 1/1    X. Disaster Event/ Post-Disaster Event (100%) Existing Needs Improvement Required updating of plan after every event 7/7 P  Post-Disaster Redevelopment Planning applied n/a  Mitigation assessment teams (MAT) deployment n/a         Matrix A: Profiling Hazards (0%) Existing Needs Improvement Complete profile for known hazards X P    Matrix B: Assessing Vulnerability (0%) Existing Needs Improvement Complete assessment of vulnerabilities X P    Matrix C: Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions (0%) Existing Needs Improvement Listing of mitigation actions and priorities X P  Insert Provincial Requirement n/a      COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW FOR NATURAL HAZARD / MITIGATION PLANNING CONTENT SUMMARY  NUMBER OF HAZARDS ADDRESSED**  ?  *First Nations 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 Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk to record the score for those requirements. ** To meet this requirement, each hazard must be addressed in sections III – X of the plan to the fullest extent possible. See Reviewer’s Comments 81L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 I. PREREQUISITE(S)  Adoption by the Local Governing Body Requirement §201.6(c)(5):  Has the plan been endorsed and had a formal ceremony to celebrate, where community leaders acknowledge the community’s wishes and commit to implementing the plan. [The local hazard mitigation plan shall include] documentation that the plan has been formally adopted/endorsed by the governing body of the jurisdiction’s plan (e.g., City Council, Regional District, Indigenous/Tribal Council). Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Has the local governing body adopted the plan?  . 0 B. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, included?  Extensive consultation completed. 0 C. Is the legal context that requires planning explained?   0 D. Is the administrative authority for planning indicated?  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 4) 0/4  Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation Requirement §201.6(a)(3):  Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., watershed plans, Official Community Plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process … Statewide plans will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional plans.  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan describe how each jurisdiction / or adjacent communities participated in the plan’s development?   0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 1) 0/1  82L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 II. PLANNING PROCESS:  §201.6(b):  An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. Documentation of the Planning Process Requirement §201.6(b):  In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; (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 non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. Requirement §201.6(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 involved.  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan provide a narrative description of the process followed to prepare the plan?  Text 0 B. Does the plan identify a community mandate to complete a comprehensive natural hazard / mitigation plan?   0 C. Does the plan indicate who was involved in the planning process?  (for example, who led the development at the staff level and were there any external contributors such as contractors? Who participated on the plan committee, provided information, reviewed drafts, etc.?)   0 i. Does the plan indicate the creation of a planning team, or of a Local Mitigation Planning Committee from community stakeholders? (i.e. citizen advisory committees)   0 ii. Does the plan clearly indicate that all members of the community were encouraged to participate?   0 D. Does the planning process include mediation/conflict resolution procedures to resolve conflicts during plan development?  Text 0 E. Does the plan identify a budget necessary to complete the plan’s development and preparation?  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 7) 0/7   83L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 Organizational Involvement  Requirement §201.6(c)(5):  For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction must document that it has been formally adopted. Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan explain why the organizations and individuals identified in plan were involved?  . 0 B. Does the plan identify which agencies and organizations provide data incorporated in plan?  Text 0 C. Does the plan identify how research / data was acquired and managed in the development of the plan?   0 D. Does the plan identify which agencies and organizations provide technical assistance in plan preparation?  text 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 4) 0/4  84L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 Public Engagement Requirement: Public drive the process for hazard mitigation.  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan indicate how the public was involved?  (Was the public provided an opportunity to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and before the plan approval?)   0 i. Does the plan indicate if the process included public notice(s)?   0 ii. Does the plan indicate if the process included public meetings or workshops? (i.e. formal public hearings, open meetings, workshops/forums, or call-in hotlines)  . 0 iii. Was a household survey used to complete the plan?  . 0 iv. Does the plan indicate if the process included focus groups, surveys, or questionnaires?  . 0 v. Does the plan indicate if the process included website?  . 0 vi. Does the plan indicate if the process included newsletter and brochures?   0 B. Was there an opportunity for neighboring communities, strategic partners, agencies, businesses, academia, nonprofits, and other interested parties to be involved in the planning process?  text 0 C. Does the plan review and incorporate, if appropriate, any existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information? (i.e. comprehensive, growth management, economic development, capital improvement plans, housing plans, infrastructure plans, transportation plans, ecosystem management plans)  . 0 D. Does the plan identify a process used to share information with the community during the development of the mitigation plan?  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 10) 0/10  85L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 III. HAZARD AND VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS PROCESS:  §201.6(c)(2):  The plan shall include a hazard and vulnerability assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards.  Local hazard and vulnerability assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards. Identifying Hazards Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i):  [The hazard and vulnerability assessment shall include a] description of the type … of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. It is critical that the plan identify all the hazards that can affect the jurisdiction, because the hazard identification is the foundation for the plan’s hazard and vulnerability assessment, which in turn is the basis for the mitigation strategies1. What kinds of natural hazards can affect your community? Note: To meet the minimum requirement in this assessment at least [3] hazards from the following listing of B.C. hazards must be identified in the plan (flood, forest fire, landslide, earthquake, tsunami, storm and hazmat)   Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)   Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan specifically identify (not mention in passing) and describe all the natural hazards that affect the jurisdiction? (See matrix A). Note: Consult with the State Hazard Mitigation Officer2, Regional Mitigation Official, and/or Provincial/Federal Mitigation Official, to identify applicable hazards that may occur in the planning area.     . 0 B. Does the plan include a description of the types of all technological hazards that affect the jurisdiction? (i.e. dam failures, pipeline ruptures, train incidents, structural fires, hazardous materials events, shipping, air transport, and nuclear accidents)  . 0 C. Does the plan communicate the local perception of threat from natural hazards? (i.e. the community ‘X’ is vulnerable to flooding as 90% of the community is built in a flood plain)   . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 3) 0/3                                                  1 (FEMA 2004, 3–10) 2 In the event that a mitigation official has not be designated, please see Director(s) of Long-term and Strategic Planning, and use planning, Federal agency representative, or Emergency Management British Columbia (EMBC).  86L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Profiling Hazards Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i):  [The hazard and vulnerability assessment shall include a] description of the … 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. How bad can it get? Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the hazard and vulnerability assessment identify the location (i.e., boundaries of hazardous areas using maps) of each natural hazard addressed in the plan?  . 0 B. Does the hazard and vulnerability assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the plan?  . 0 C. Does the plan identify how often (frequency) they are likely to occur for each hazard?  . 0 D. Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each hazard addressed in the plan?   0 i. Does the plan identify and incorporate historical data: a. Oral histories b. Community records c. Libraries d. Other government entities   0 E. Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the plan?  . 0 i. Does the plan cover demographic projections of future growth and development? (I.E. does it reference regional growth strategy or other relevant community plans)?  . 0 F. Does the plan consider probable spatial extent (i.e. how large an area is it likely to affect)   . 0 G. Does the plan include information on expected duration of event for each hazard? (i.e. how long can it be expected to last)  . 0 H. Does the plan include seasonal pattern of each hazard? (i.e. the time of year most likely to occur)  . 0 I. Does the plan include speed of onset for each hazard? (i.e. how fast is it likely to occur)  . 0 J. Does the plan identify availability of warnings? (i.e. how much warning time there is, and whether a warning  . 0 87L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 system exists) K. Does the plan consider cascading hazard events (i.e. an earthquake that ruptures natural gas pipelines could result in fires and explosions)  . 0 L. Does the plan clearly identify and delineate natural resource areas to be protected?  . 0 M. Does the plan prioritize the hazards and include a description of factors used to prioritize? (i.e. based on threat to life)   . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 15) 0/15 Develop A Community Profile What assets in the community will be affected by the hazards event? Has the plan clearly identified these using maps? Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan divide the community into sectors (manageable segments) and create sector profiles?  . 0 B. Does the plan include geographical features that relate to disaster occurrences or response efforts? • Mountains • Rivers • Canyons • Coastal areas • Fault lines • Wildland/Urban interface areas   . 0 C. Does the plan indicate and include a community profile?   0 D. Does the plan include numbers and general characteristics of the Property? • Land use • Types of construction • Manufactured homes • Building codes • Essential facilities • Potential secondary hazards (hazardous material storage/manufacturing)  Not to the detail necessary for analysis below. 0 E. Does the plan include a complete inventory of infrastructure? • Utilities • Communication system • Major highway transportation routes  Lists not included in the plan. 0 88L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 • Bridges • Mass transit systems F. Does the plan include a complete demographic profile? • Population size • Population distribution • Population concentrations • Special populations (i.e. childcare facilities, nursing homes, group homes, prisons) • Animal populations   0 G. Does the plan include an inventory of response agencies? • Locations • Facilities • Services and resources for quick response capability  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 7) 0/7   89L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 Assessing Vulnerability:  Overview Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii):  [The hazard and vulnerability assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. What will be affected by these hazards? How will these hazards affect you? This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community.   Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard based on magnitude of hazard impact? (Where applicable)  . 0 Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Exposure i. Does the plan clearly indicate the number of current population exposed to each hazard? (i.e. current population in tsunami inundation zone[s])   . 0 ii. Does the plan identify the existing distribution of disadvantaged/special needs/vulnerable population and exposure to each hazard?  . 0 iii. Does the plan indicate the number and total value of different types of public infrastructure exposed to each hazard? (i.e. water, sewer, roads, storm water drainage)  . 0 iv. Does the plan indicate the number and total value of different types of private infrastructure exposed to each hazard? (i.e. crown corporations, accommodations, transportation, airports)  . 0 v. Does the plan clearly indicate the total number and type of critical infrastructure exposed to each hazard? (i.e. Hospitals, utilities, police, fire, ems)  . 0 vi. Does the plan identify total property value exposed to each hazard(s)?  . 0 vii. Does the plan clearly indicate the number of critical facilities exposed to hazards? (i.e. power stations, water treatment pumping stations etc.)  . 0 viii. Does the plan clearly identify the dangers from secondary hazards, such as dam breaking after an earthquake?  . 0 ix. Does the plan identify dangers from hazardous facilities or hazardous materials in hazard areas?  . 0 B. Does the plan clearly address the anticipated impact from each hazard on the jurisdiction?  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 11) 0/11 90L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 Assessing Vulnerability:  Continued  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 C. Does the plan identify Emergency infrastructure impact estimations by magnitude for each hazard? (Where applicable)  . 0 i. Does the plan indicate anticipated shelter demands and capacity data estimated by magnitude of hazard impact? (I.E. Earthquake magnitude 6.1 anticipated impacts, and magnitude 9.1 impacts)  . 0 D. Does the plan address the evacuation needs and clearance time data for relevant hazard impacts? (I.E. Forest Fire evacuation, flooding evacuation times including the movement of livestock)   . 0 E. Does the plan clearly identify all shelters that are designed/retrofitted to post-disaster building standards? (i.e. expected to remain fully operational during and post-earthquake)   . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 4) 0/4  Assessing Vulnerability:  Identifying Structures Requirement §201.6(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 area … .  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?  . 0 B. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 2) 0/2  91L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 Assessing Vulnerability:  Estimating Potential Losses Requirement §201.6(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)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate. … A map showing structures likely to be damaged, along with estimates of damage, would be helpful. How will your community’s assets be affected by the hazard event? How will the losses to structure use and function cost the community?  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures for public and private by estimation of magnitude? (Where applicable)  . 0 B.  Does the plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate?   . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 2) 0/2  Example:  Date: July 2009  How will these hazards affect you? Hazard: Flood Structure Loss Contents Loss Name/ Description of structure Structure Replacement Value ($) X Percent Damage (%) = Loss of Structure ($)  Replacement Value of Contents ($) X Percent Damage (%) = Loss to Contents ($) Building 350,000 X 18 = 63,000 50,000 X 27 = 13,500            92L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C):  [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] 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. This section is important in establishing the planning assumptions used in the development of mitigation alternatives.  The more realistic the scenarios the better and more effective the mitigation opportunities,   Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan describe land uses and development trends?   0 B. Does the plan summarize the hazard data and rank the hazard impact in terms of community priorities? (i.e. High, medium, Low)  . 0 i. Has the community created a composite map by overlaying the results of the individual hazard maps to determine areas with relatively more assets in danger than others?  . 0 C. Does the plan include creation and application of credible worst-case scenarios to describe the hazard’s development and impact on the jurisdiction and its generation of specific consequences?  . 0 i. Overall impact on community?  . 0 ii. Impact on specific sectors?  . 0 iii. Consequences? (i.e. collapsed buildings, loss of critical services and infrastructure, death, injury, or displacement)  . 0 iv. Needed actions and resources, including mitigation activities?  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 8) 0/8  93L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(iii):  For multi-jurisdictional plans, the hazard and vulnerability assessment must assess each jurisdiction’s perception of threat where they vary from the level of threat facing the entire planning area.  Has your hazard and vulnerability analysis been compared to your neighboring communities?  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan include a hazard and vulnerability assessment for each participating jurisdiction as needed to reflect unique or varied hazards?   text 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 1) 0/1  94L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 IV. MITIGATION STRATEGY:   §201.6(c)(3):  The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the hazard and vulnerability assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. Communicating the Level of Threat Requirement: Once the Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis has been concluded the threat associated with each hazard MUST be communicated to the public and community officials.  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan clearly identify what can occur from each hazard?   . 0 B. Does the plan clearly communicate the likelihood that the hazard event will occur?  . 0 C. Does the plan clearly communicate the consequences if a hazard event were to occur, in terms of casualties, destruction, disruption, and costs?  . 0 D. Does the plan identify the process used by community leaders and interested individuals employed in deciding the level of threat that is acceptable? (In other words. How big a hit are they willing to take?)  . 0 E. Does the plan identify the process employed by community leaders and interested individuals in deciding what will be done to achieve the desired level of disaster resilience? (In other words, how will they pay for the level of safety desired)  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 5) 0/5 95L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Non-Structural Community Mitigation Actions  Vision for Community: Does the vision reflect what was discovered in the hazard and vulnerability assessment?  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan have a description of the community and historical hazard threats?   0 B. Does the plan have an assessment of major trends and potential impacts from hazards and related issues?  . 0 C. Does the plan include a vision statement that clearly communicates the image of the sustainable hazard resilient jurisdiction?   0 D. Does the plan identify the major opportunities and threats?   0 E. Does the plan review the problems/issues facing local government?   0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 5) 0/5  Capital Improvements  Requirement:    Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan have a listing of community capital improvements evaluated in terms of how they will reduce community vulnerabilities to hazards?  text 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 1) 0/1 96L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Future Land Use  Requirement:  Has the community created a composite map by overlaying the results of the individual hazard maps to determine areas with relatively more assets in danger than others?  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan have an analysis of future land use evaluated in terms of how projections will reduce community vulnerabilities to hazards?   0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 1) 0/1 Economy Requirement:  Has the community taken an inventory and calculated the economic losses due to damages to infrastructure, roads, transportation, waste management, and water delivery systems? How will tourism and other community economy sectors be affected by anticipated affects of hazards?   Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan consider the impacts to the economy anticipated by hazard(s)?  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 1) 0/1 Traffic Circulation  Requirement:  How will the community function with the loss of assets due to the affects of hazards?  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan provide an analysis of current and future transportation evaluated in terms of how projections will reduce community vulnerabilities to hazards? (i.e. Evacuation clearance times for fast moving sudden onset hazards like forest fire)  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 1) 0/1 97L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Housing Integration How will the community function with the loss of housing due to the affects of hazard(s)? What are the expected shelter needs of displaced/stranded residents?  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan have an analysis of the number of current housing stock in hazard areas?  . 0 B. Does the plan identify vulnerable and special needs population in hazard areas? (i.e. Tsunami inundation zone, below dam in seismic zone, or living behind levee/dyke systems)  . 0 C. Does the plan clearly identify existing housing/shelter concerns of vulnerable populations?    0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 3) 0/3    Environment Protection How will the community function with the loss of natural resources due to the affects of hazard(s)?  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan identify environmental impacts from each hazard?  . 0 B. Does the plan require signs indicating hazardous areas that are clearly marked?  . 0 C. Does the plan identify forest and vegetation management for riparian areas?   0 D. Does the plan identify sediment and erosion control?   0 E. Does the plan identify urban forestry and landscape concerns?   0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 5) 0/5   98L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Local Hazard Mitigation Goals Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i):  [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. The plan must describe goals to reduce or avoid losses from identified hazards. Additionally, it is helpful to include objectives that will be used to achieve the goals.  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Are goals clearly stated and reflect the findings from the hazard and vulnerability assessment?  . 0 i. Any goal to reduce property loss due to hazard(s) (Public or Private)?  . 0 ii. Any goal to distribute hazard(s) management costs equitably?  . 0 iii. Any goal to promote a hazards awareness (Public Information/ education and outreach) program?   0 B. Does the plan include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards?  (Goals are long-term; represent what the community wants to achieve, such as “eliminate flood damage”; and are based on the hazard and vulnerability assessment findings.)  . 0 i. Does the plan clearly identify local senior leadership commitment to hazard mitigation goals?  . 0 C. Does the plan identify goals to reduce the economic losses resulting from hazard events?  . 0 D. Does the plan identify goals to reduce degradation of environment?   0 E. Does the plan identify goals that reduce social inequalities?  . 0 F. Does the plan identify goals to promote partnerships with other agencies? (i.e. Are there mutual aid agreements in place/under development)   0 G. Are policies mandatory (use words like shall, will, require, must) as opposed to suggestive (with words like consider, should, may)?  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 11) 0/11 99L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 Local Hazard Mitigation Goals: Environmental Goals Requirement:    Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Any goal to reduce hazards impacts that also achieves preservation of natural areas?  . 0 B. Any goal to reduce hazards impacts that also achieves preservation of open space and recreation areas?  . 0 C. Any goal to reduce hazards impacts that also achieves maintenance of good water quality?  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 3) 0/3  100L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions continued  Social and Cultural  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan identify, if each of the proposed mitigation activities is socially/culturally acceptable to the community?  text 0 B. Does the plan identify, if each of the proposed mitigation activities will cause any one segment of population to be treated unfairly?  . 0 C. Does the plan identify, if each of the proposed mitigation activities will cause relocation of low or reduced income residents?   . 0 D. Does the plan identify, if each of the proposed mitigation activities will are compatible with present and future community values?   0 E. Was the listing of proposed mitigation actions reviewed by local community members?  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 5) 0/5 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions continued  Technical  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan identify, if each of the proposed mitigation activities is technically feasible?  text 0 B. Does the plan identify, if each of the proposed mitigation activities will solve the problem?  . 0 C. Does the plan identify, which of the proposed mitigation activities is most useful, given other community goals?   0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 3) 0/3 101L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions continued  Administrative  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan identify, if the community has the capacity to implement the proposed action(s)?  text 0 B. Does the plan identify, if the community can provide any maintenance necessary?  . 0 C. Does the plan identify, if the community has enough staff, technical expertise and funding?   0 D. Does the plan identify, if the proposed action(s) can be accomplished in a timely manner?   0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 4) 0/4 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions continued  Political  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan identify, the stakeholders in the proposed mitigation action(s)?  . 0 B. Does the plan identify, if all the stakeholders have been offered an opportunity to participate in the planning process?  . 0 C. Does the plan identify, how the mitigation goals can be accomplished at the lowest cost to the stakeholders?  . 0 D. Does the plan identify, if there is public support both to implement and maintain this mitigation action/measure?  . 0 E. Does the plan identify, if there is political leadership willing to propose and support the favored mitigation action/measure?   0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 5) 0/5 102L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions continued  Legal  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan identify, if the community has the authority to implement the proposed mitigation measure?   0 B. Does the plan identify, if there is a clear legal basis for the proposed mitigation measure?   0 C. Does the plan identify, if enabling legislation is necessary?   0 D. Does the plan identify, any legal side effect of the proposed mitigation measure?   0 E. Does the plan identify, if the community with be liable for the actions or support of actions, or lack of action?   0 F. Does the plan identify, if the mitigation measure is likely to be challenged?   0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 6) 0/6 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions continued  Economic  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan identify, what are the costs and benefits of the proposed mitigation measures?  . 0 B. Does the plan identify, how the implementation of the proposed mitigation measure(s) will affect the fiscal capabilities of the community?  . 0 C. Does the plan indicate, what burden will be placed on the tax base or local economy because of the proposed mitigation measure(s)?  . 0 D. Does the plan indicate, if the proposed mitigation measure contributes to other community economic goals? (i.e. capital improvements or economic development)  text 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 4) 0/4 103L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions continued  Environment  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan indicate, how the proposed mitigation measure(s) will affect the environment?   0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 1) 0/1 104L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  V. Implementation of Mitigation Actions Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(iii):  [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) 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.   Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)   Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the mitigation strategy include how the actions are prioritized/ranked? (For example, is there a discussion of the process and criteria used?)  . 0 B. Does the mitigation strategy provide a clear designation of responsibility for each mitigation action? (Organization, agency, or private entity)  . 0 C. Does the prioritization process include an emphasis on the use of a cost-benefit review (see page 3-36 of Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance) to maximize benefits?  . 0 D. Does the plan include a timetable for implementation of mitigation actions? (i.e. an implementation strategy)  text 0 E. Does the plan specify proposed mitigation costs for each action?   . 0 F. Are sources of funding to implement the plan identified?  . 0 G. Does the plan identify a clear timetable for each action in this plan?  . 0 H. Does the plan identify any enforcement to ensure compliance with plan?  . 0 I. Does the plan have a clear designation of responsibility for evaluating, updating, and monitoring?  . 0 J. Does the plan specify an administrative (audit) process by funding source(s) to evaluate funded mitigation projects? (i.e. if there are provincial or federal requirements/regulations)  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 10) 0/10  105L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 Example:  Date: July 2009  What action(s) should we do first? Mitigation Action Community Priority Ranking: Preliminary   Priority Actions Hazard Action/Measure Priority Ranking Landslide Relocate buildings High  Incorporate drainage with new road Medium Forest Fire Fuel reduction High 106L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Resource Acquisition and Government Incentive Programs  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan identify current and potential sources of Federal, Provincial, or local fund for vulnerability reduction actions?   text 0 B. Does the plan identify funding incentive programs to retrofit public and private structures?  . 0 C. Does the plan identify funding incentives for voluntary retrofitting of private structures?  . 0 D. Does the plan identify incentives for voluntary land and property acquisition of hazard lands?  . 0 E. Does the plan identify opportunities for tax abatement for voluntary mitigation actions taken by property owners?   0 F. Does the plan identify density bonusing for voluntary mitigation retrofitting?  . 0 G. Does the plan identify programs to provide low interest loans for retrofitting buildings? (i.e. tourism industry, service industries, transportation)  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 7) 0/7 107L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Implementation/Technical Support  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan identify current sources of funding for mitigation planning, project development and implementation?  text 0 B. Does the plan identify current staffing sources, and any anticipated staffing needs for mitigation planning?   0 C. Does the plan identify current sources of technical mitigation planning assistance?  . 0 i. Does the plan identify current sources of guides for mitigation planning assistance?  . 0 ii. Does the plan identify current sources of data and analysis?  . 0 iii. Does the plan identify current sources for training in hazard mitigation planning?  . 0 D. Does the plan include mediation procedures to resolve conflicts that arise during implementation?  . 0 E. Does the plan identify any current, or potential provincial/federal program(s) that would be ultimately responsible for implementation of mitigation actions identified by local government?  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 8) 0/8  108L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Non-Structural Mitigation Tool Application   Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan identify permitted land uses in hazardous areas?   0 B. Does the plan identify density of land use in areas anticipated to suffer because of a hazard event? (i.e. density of development in low areas prone to flooding, density of rural areas needing to evacuate due to forest fire)   0 i. Does the plan identify transfer of development rights?  . 0 ii. Does the plan identify cluster development requirements?   0 iii. Does the plan identify specific setbacks required?  . 0 iv. Does the plan require site review for hazard(s)?   0 v. Does the plan call for specific studies/impact assessments of lands as part of the development process?   0 vi. Does the plan identify policies for hazard prone land and property acquisition? (I.E. flood prone land)  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 8) 0/8 109L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Non-Structural Mitigation Tools continued  Regulatory tools for Hazard Zone(s)   Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan identify open space dedications?    0 B. Does the plan clearly identify policies to locate public facilities to non-hazardous zones?   . 0 C. Does the plan identify areas to use cluster development to reduce community vulnerability?   . 0 D. Does the plan identify changes to building standards/code based on hazard and vulnerability assessment?   . 0 E. Does the plan identify application of impact fees for community properties in hazardous areas? (i.e. cover fire apparatus response in forest fire event)   . 0 F. Does the plan identify relocation of structures out of hazard zones as a cost effective solution?   . 0 G. Does the plan require a drainage ordinance?  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 7) 0/7 110L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Non-Structural Mitigation Tools continued  Incentive-Based Tools   Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan identify tax abatement for voluntary mitigation actions?  . 0 B. Does the plan specify a process for calculation of density bonus for hazard mitigation elements incorporated into developments?   . 0 C. Does the plan identify resources for low interest loans to voluntary mitigation actions within private sector? (i.e. tourism facilities me benefit from retrofitting to ensure stability of local economy)   . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 3) 0/3 111L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Non-Structural Mitigation Tools continued  Public Information:  Public information activities inform and remind people about hazardous areas and the measures necessary to avoid potential damage and injury. People can be informed about mitigation through several avenues. (Outreach projects, Real estate disclosure, Hazard information centres, technical assistance, and school age and adult education programs.)  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan identify education/knowledge sharing with Community?   0 i. Does the plan identify education/knowledge sharing with Staff?  . 0 ii. Does the plan identify education/knowledge sharing with private stakeholders (industry, business, or homeowners etc.)   0 iii. Does the plan identify education/knowledge sharing with students? (i.e. K-12, College and University)  . 0 B. Does the plan identify hazard education tool development?  . 0 C. Does the plan identify hazard education using coloring books?  . 0 D. Does the plan identify hazard education using video?  . 0 E. Does the plan identify hazard education using alternate media?    0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 8) 0/8 112L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013   Structural Mitigation Tools Application (Projects) The following are a sample of the various structural mitigation tools used for vulnerability reduction of known hazards.   Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)   Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Are Levees, dikes or dykes used/proposed in plan?  . 0 B. Are projects proposed or implemented from the following list: Seawalls; Riprap, Bulkheads; Detention ponds; Channel maintenance; Wetland restoration; Slope stabilization; Storm water management; Sewage; Drainage; Maintenance of structures Fuel breaks for forest fires Seismic retrofitting Tsunami evacuation shelters Placement of power lines below ground  text 0 C. Are any of the following Canadian Federally recognized projects proposed or implemented? • Elevating structures  • Relocating furnaces above flood level  • Relocating hot water heaters above flood level  • Relocating electrical boxes above flood level  • Replacing furnaces with baseboard heaters  • Installing weeping tiles on either the interior or exterior of the structure  • Installing sump pumps on either the interior or exterior of the structure  • Switching of petroleum heating systems to eliminate fuel tanks  • Securing of propane tanks  • Using water-resistant building materials instead of drywall  • Changing to exterior basement insulation  Section VIII-1 . 0 113L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 • Making structural changes to buildings to increase flood-proofing  • Performing seismic retrofitting such as installing foundation bolts, cripple wall bracing and shear walls • disconnecting downspouts and foundation drains from sewers  • Reinforcing buildings to be more resistant to wind and ice damage  • Installing protective plumbing such as backflow prevention valves   SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 3) 0/3 114L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 VI. MITIGATION POLICIES  Discourage Development in Hazardous Areas    Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)   Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan include policies that discourage development in hazardous areas?   0 B. Does the plan identify an on going educational awareness/ knowledge program?  . 0 C. Does the plan identify a policy for mandatory real estate hazard disclosure?  . 0 D. Does the plan identify policies and programs that increase hazard vulnerability?  . 0 E. Does the plan identify changes needed in policies and programs that increase hazard vulnerability?  . 0 F. Does the plan identify the process and development of hazard mitigation incentive programs?  . 0 G. Does the plan identify existing government policies that restrict/pose barrier to mitigation actions, both pre- and post-disaster mitigation actions? (i.e. B.C. Disaster Financial Assistance Programs/policies that restrict funding to projects that voluntarily incorporate mitigation improvements)?  . 0 H. Are policies tied to a specific goal (or goals)?   0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 8) 0/8 115L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Mandate to build local capacity  Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv):   Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)   Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan identify hazard mitigation technical assistance needs, or outline a process to obtain technical assistance?  . 0 B. Does the plan identify staffing and training needs, or outline a process to obtain adequate hazard mitigation staffing and hazard mitigation training?  . 0 C. Does the plan identify provincial, federal, or other stakeholders that have databases/mapping to be used in developing the plan?  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 3) 0/3   VII. MITIGATION PROGRAMS   Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)   Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan clearly indicate disaster warning and response program(s) that are anticipated to respond to each hazard?  . 0 B. Does the plan encourage purchase of flooding or earthquake insurance?  . 0 C. Does plan identify technical assistance capabilities and resources for developers or property owners for mitigation?  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 3) 0/3  116L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions  Requirement:   Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)   Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan include at least one identifiable action item for each jurisdiction/or involving strategic partner(s), community group(s), /or adjacent community?  text 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 1) 0/1  117L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  VIII. INTER-ORGANIZATION COORDINATION & CAPABILITIES Government and Strategic Partners   Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)   Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan identify other government partners and stakeholders in the planning process?   0 B. Does the plan remain consistent with regional, provincial, and federal mitigation goals?  .  0 C. Does the plan indicate linkages to other local comprehensive plans?   0 D. Does the plan utilize existing plans, reports, or studies to help complete the Big Picture?   0 E. Does the plan integrate planning efforts with other independent governments (i.e. municipal, regional districts, school districts)?   0 F. Does the plan indicate participation techniques in proposed actions?  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 6) 0/6 118L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 Intergovernmental Coordination  Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv): Can stakeholders easily extract necessary information? How accessible is the hazard and vulnerability assessment data?   Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)   Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan discuss the local governments pre- and post-disaster hazard management policies, programs, and capabilities?  . 0 B. Is the plan easy to understand written in plain English?  . 0 i. Does the plan have a detailed table of contents?  . 0 ii. Does the plan have a glossary of terms and definitions included?  . 0 iii. Is there an executive summary?  . 0 iv. Is there an executive letter of support highlighting the continued commitment to vulnerability reduction actions?  text 0 v. Is there a cross–referencing of issues, goals, objectives, and policies?  . 0 vi. Are clear illustrations used?  . 0 vii. Is spatial data clearly illustrated with maps?  . 0 viii. Are supporting documents included with the plan (videos, alternate forms of media, website)?  . 0 C. Does the plan explain the support and involvement of   key public agencies?  . 0 D. Are horizontal connections with other local plans and programs explained? (i.e. local hazard mitigation plans, local transportation plans, sustainability planning)  text 0 E. Are vertical connections with regional and provincial/state policies and programs explained?  text 0 F. Is a program of intergovernmental coordination explained for providing services?    0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum score 14) 0/14   119L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 IX. PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS Monitoring and Evaluation of the Plan Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.   Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)   Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan describe the method and schedule for monitoring the plan?  (For example, does it identify the party responsible for monitoring and include a schedule for reports, site visits, phone calls, and meetings?)   0 B. Does the plan clearly identify a process for citizen participation in the monitoring, evaluating, and update process? (i.e. Local Mitigation Planning Committee)  . 0 C. Does the plan identify provision for monitoring of hazards?  . 0 D. Does the plan make provisions for updating of baseline hazard identification data? (i.e. flooding)  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum Score 4) 0/4  120L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013  Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii):  [The plan shall include 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.   Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)   Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the plan identify other local planning mechanisms available for incorporating the requirements of the mitigation plan? (i.e. capital Improvement plans, official community plans, emergency management plan(s), economic re-development plans, regional growth strategies)  text 0 B. Does the plan include a process by which the local government will incorporate the requirements in other plans, when appropriate?  . 0 C. Does the plan identify priorities and timeline for retrofitting all critical public infrastructures?  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum Score 3) 0/3  Continued Public Involvement Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii):  [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.  Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)  Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the 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?)  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum Score 1) 0/1  121L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 X. DISASTER EVENT/ POST-DISASTER EVENT Requirement:   Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)   Reviewer’s Comments SCORE Possible 0, 1 A. Does the mitigation plan have a requirement to be updated after every hazard event occurrence to validate and clarify anticipated impacts with actual impacts?  . 0 B. Does the plan clearly indicate Post-Disaster Redevelopment Planning (PDRP) initiatives? (i.e. PDRP plan development)  . 0 i. Does the plan identify a Post-Disaster Recovery Team organization with names of organizations and members?  . 0 ii. Does the plan have a policy that establishes a moratorium on reconstruction after an event, to allow for potential mitigation actions / enhancements in the recovery?  . 0 iii. Does the plan identify areas of potential land use changes after an event?  . 0 iv. Does the plan identify private land acquisition and relocation options for impacted areas?  . 0 C. Does the plan identify a process for the creation of a Mitigation Assessment Team (MAT) to perform a post-disaster losses avoided assessment? (i.e. to identify how structures performed, collect time-sensitive hazard impact data, document how structures / building codes performed, and document mitigation projects that were successful)  . 0  SUMMARY SCORE (Maximum Score 7) 0/7      122L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 Matrix A: Profiling Hazards  This matrix can assist Federal and the Provincial officials in scoring each hazard.  Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure that their plan addresses each natural hazard that can affect the jurisdiction.  Completing the matrix is not required.   Note:  First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i).  Then, place a checkmark in either the N or 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 §201.6(c)(2)(i) A.  Location B.  Extent C.  Previous Occurrences D.  Probability of Future Events Yes N S N S N S 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:   §201.6(c)(2)(i) Profiling Hazards A.  Does the hazard and vulnerability assessment  identify the location (i.e., geographic area affected) of each hazard addressed in the plan? B.  Does the hazard and vulnerability assessment  identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the plan? C.  Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each natural hazard addressed in the plan? D.  Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the plan?  To check boxes, double click on the box and change the default value to “checked.”123L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 Matrix B: Assessing Vulnerability This matrix can assist Federal and the Provincial officials in scoring each hazard.  Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure that their plan addresses each requirement.  Completing the matrix is not required.   Note:  First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i).  Then, place a checkmark in either the N or 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. Hazard Type Hazards Identified Per Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i) §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview A.  Overall Summary Description of Vulnerability B.  Hazard Impact §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability:  Identifying Structures A.  Types and Number of Existing Structures in Hazard Area (Estimate) B.  Types and Number of Future Structures in Hazard Area (Estimate) §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability:  Estimating Potential Losses A.  Loss Estimate B.  Methodology Yes N S N S N S N S N S 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: §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview A.  Does the plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard? B.  Does the plan address the impact of each hazard on the jurisdiction?  §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A) Assessing Vulnerability:  Identifying Structures A.  Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?   B.  Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?  §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) Assessing Vulnerability:  Estimating Potential Losses A.  Does the plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures? B.  Does the plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate? To check boxes, double click on the box and change the default value to “checked.”124L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013 Matrix C: Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions  This matrix can assist Federal and the Provincial officials in scoring each hazard.  Local jurisdictions 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 §201.6(c)(2)(i).  Then, place a checkmark in either the N or 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 §201.6(c)(2)(i) A.  Comprehensive Range of Actions and Projects Yes 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: §201.6(c)(3)(ii) Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions A.  Does the plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard? To check boxes, double click on the box and change the default value to “checked.”125L O C A L  H A Z A R D  M I T I G A T I O N  P L A N  R E V I E W  C R O S S W A L K  R E D M O N D  2 0 1 3   J u r i s d i c t i o n :  S A M P L E  B . C .  F I R S T  N A T I O N          July 2013   126The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPI. PREREQUISITE(S) A. Has the local governing body adopted the plan?11111B. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, included?00100C. Is the legal context that requires planning explained?10111D. Is the administrative authority for planning indicated?11111Multi-Jurisdictional Planning ParticipationA. Does the plan describe how each jurisdiction / or adjacent communities participated in the plan’s development?01000II. PLANNING PROCESS: Documentation of the Planning ProcessA. Does the plan provide a narrative description of the process followed to prepare the plan?11101B. Does the plan identify a community mandate to complete a comprehensive natural hazard / mitigation plan?00000C. Does the plan indicate who was involved in the planning process?(for example, who led the development at the staff level and were there any external contributors such as contractors? Who participatedon the plan committee, provided information, reviewed drafts, etc.?)11111i. Does the plan indicate the creation of a planning team, or of a Local Mitigation Planning Committee from community stakeholders? (i.e. citizen advisory committees)11111ii. Does the plan clearly indicate that all members of the community were encouraged to participate?11111D. Does the planning process include mediation/conflict resolution procedures to resolve conflicts during plan development?100011 2 7The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPE. Does the plan identify a budget necessary to complete the plan’s development and preparation?00000Organizational Involvement A. Does the plan explain why the organizations and individuals identified in plan were involved?11111B. Does the plan identify which agencies and organizations provide data incorporated in plan?00001C. Does the plan identify how research / data was acquired and managed in the development of the plan?00000D. Does the plan identify which agencies and organizations provide technical assistance in plan preparation?01101Public EngagementA. Does the plan indicate how the public was involved?  (Was the public provided an opportunity to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and before the plan approval?)11101i. Does the plan indicate if the process included public notice(s)?01101ii. Does the plan indicate if the process included public meetings or workshops? (i.e. formal public hearings, open meetings, workshops/forums, or call-in hotlines)11101iii. Was a household survey used to complete the plan?11101iv. Does the plan indicate if the process included focus groups, surveys, or questionnaires?11101v. Does the plan indicate if the process included website?01101vi. Does the plan indicate if the process included newsletter and brochures?111011 2 8The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPB. Was there an opportunity for neighbouring communities, strategicpartners, agencies, businesses, academia, nonprofits, and other interested parties to be involved in the planning process?01000C. Does the plan review and incorporate, if appropriate, any existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information? (i.e. comprehensive, growth management, economic development, capitalimprovement plans, housing plans, infrastructure plans, transportation plans, ecosystem management plans)11101D. Does the plan identify a process used to share information with the community during the development of the mitigation plan?01101III. HAZARD AND VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS PROCESS: Identifying HazardsA. Does the plan specifically identify (not mention in passing) and describe all the natural hazards that affect the jurisdiction? (See matrix A). Note: Consult with the State Hazard Mitigation Officer , Regional Mitigation Official, and/or Provincial/Federal Mitigation Official, to identify applicable hazards that may occur in the planning area.  00000B. Does the plan include a description of the types of all technological hazards that affect the jurisdiction? (i.e. dam failures, pipeline ruptures, train incidents, structural fires, hazardous materialsevents, shipping, air transport, and nuclear accidents)00000C. Does the plan communicate the local perception of threat from natural hazards? (i.e. the community ‘X’ is vulnerable to flooding as 90% of the community is built in a flood plain) 00000Profiling HazardsA. Does the hazard and vulnerability assessment identify the location(i.e., boundaries of hazardous areas using maps) of each natural hazard addressed in the plan?000001 2 9The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPB. Does the hazard and vulnerability assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the plan?00000C. Does the plan identify how often (frequency) they are likely to occur for each hazard? 00000D. Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each hazard addressed in the plan?00000i. Does the plan cover demographic projections of future growth and development? (I.E. does it reference regional growth strategy or other relevant community plans)? 11111E. Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chanceof occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the plan?00000i. Does the plan cover demographic projections of future growth and development? (I.E. does it reference regional growth strategy or other relevant community plans)?11000F. Does the plan consider probable spatial extent (i.e. how large an area is it likely to affect) 00000G. Does the plan include information on expected duration of event for each hazard? (i.e. how long can it be expected to last) 00000H. Does the plan include seasonal pattern of each hazard? (i.e. the time of year most likely to occur) 00000I. Does the plan include speed of onset for each hazard? (i.e. how fast is it likely to occur) 00000J. Does the plan identify availability of warnings? (i.e. how much warning time there is, and whether a warning system exists) 00000K. Does the plan consider cascading hazard events (i.e. an earthquake that ruptures natural gas pipelines could result in fires and explosions)000001 3 0The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPL. Does the plan clearly identify and delineate natural resource areas to be protected?10001M. Does the plan prioritize the hazards and include a description of factors used to prioritize? (i.e. based on threat to life) 00000Develop A Community ProfileA. Does the plan divide the community into sectors (manageable segments) and create sector profiles?11001B. Does the plan include geographical features that relate to disaster occurrences or response efforts? • Mountains •Rivers •Canyons • Coastal areas • Fault lines • Wildland/Urban interface areas 01001C. Does the plan indicate and include a community profile?11111D. Does the plan include numbers and general characteristics of the Property? • Land use • Types of construction • Manufactured homes • Building codes • Essential facilities • Potential secondary hazards (hazardous material storage/manufacturing) 00001E. Does the plan include a complete inventory of infrastructure? • Utilities • Communication system • Major highway transportation routes • Bridges • Mass transit systems 00000F. Does the plan include a complete demographic profile? • Population size • Population distribution • Population concentrations • Special populations (i.e. childcare facilities, nursing homes, group homes, prisons) • Animal populations 11011G. Does the plan include an inventory of response agencies? • Locations • Facilities • Services and resources for quick response capability 000001 3 1The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPAssessing Vulnerability: OverviewA. Does the plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard based on magnitude of hazard impact? (Where applicable)00000Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Exposurei. Does the plan clearly indicate the number of current population exposed to each hazard? (i.e. current population in tsunami inundation zone[s]) 00000ii. Does the plan identify the existing distribution of disadvantaged/special needs/vulnerable population and exposure to each hazard?00000iii. Does the plan indicate the number and total value of different types of public infrastructure exposed to each hazard? (i.e. water, sewer, roads, storm water drainage)00000iv. Does the plan indicate the number and total value of different types of private infrastructure exposed to each hazard? (i.e. crown corporations, accommodations, transportation, airports)00000v. Does the plan clearly indicate the total number and type of critical infrastructure exposed to each hazard? (i.e. Hospitals, utilities, police, fire, ems)00000vi. Does the plan identify total property value exposed to each hazard(s)?00000vii. Does the plan clearly indicate the number of critical facilities exposed to hazards? (i.e. power stations, water treatment pumping stations etc.)00000viii. Does the plan clearly identify the dangers from secondary hazards, such as dam breaking after an earthquake?000001 3 2The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPix. Does the plan identify dangers from hazardous facilities or hazardous materials in hazard areas?00000B. Does the plan clearly address the anticipated impact from each hazard on the jurisdiction?00000C. Does the plan identify Emergency infrastructure impact estimations by magnitude for each hazard? (Where applicable)00000i. Does the plan indicate anticipated shelter demands and capacity data estimated by magnitude of hazard impact? (I.E. Earthquake magnitude 6.1 anticipated impacts, and magnitude 9.1 impacts)00000D. Does the plan address the evacuation needs and clearance time data for relevant hazard impacts? (I.E. Forest Fire evacuation, flooding evacuation times including the movement of livestock)00000E. Does the plan clearly identify all shelters that are designed/retrofitted to post-disaster building standards? (i.e. expected to remain fully operational during and post-earthquake) 00000Assessing Vulnerability:  Identifying StructuresA. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?00000B. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?00000Assessing Vulnerability:  Estimating Potential LossesA. Does the plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures for public and private by estimation of magnitude? (Whereapplicable)000001 3 3The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPB. Does the plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate?00000Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development TrendsA. Does the plan describe land uses and development trends?11100B. Does the plan summarize the hazard data and rank the hazard impact in terms of community priorities? (i.e. High, medium, Low)00000i. Has the community created a composite map by overlaying the results of the individual hazard maps to determine areas with relatively more assets in danger than others?00000C. Does the plan include creation and application of credible worst-case scenarios to describe the hazard’s development and impact on the jurisdiction and its generation of specific consequences?00000i. Overall impact on community?00000ii. Impact on specific sectors?00000Iii. Consequences? (i.e. collapsed buildings, loss of critical services and infrastructure, death, injury, or displacement)00000iv. Needed actions and resources, including mitigation activities?00000Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentA. Does the plan include a hazard and vulnerability assessment for each participating jurisdiction as needed to reflect unique or varied hazards? 00000IV. MITIGATION STRATEGY: Communicating the Level of Threat A. Does the plan clearly identify what can occur from each hazard? 00000B. Does the plan clearly communicate the likelihood that the hazard event will occur?000001 3 4The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPC. Does the plan clearly communicate the consequences if a hazard event were to occur, in terms of casualties, destruction, disruption, and costs?00000D. Does the plan identify the process used by community leaders andinterested individuals employed in deciding the level of threat that is acceptable? (In other words. How big a hit are they willing to take?)00000E. Does the plan identify the process employed by community leaders and interested individuals in deciding what will be done to achieve the desired level of disaster resilience? (In other words, how will they pay for the level of safety desired)00000Non-Structural Community Mitigation Actions: Vision for CommunityA. Does the plan have a description of the community and historical hazard threats?00000B. Does the plan have an assessment of major trends and potential impacts from hazards and related issues?00000C. Does the plan include a vision statement that clearly communicates the image of the sustainable hazard resilient jurisdiction?00010D. Does the plan identify the major opportunities and threats?10000E. Does the plan review the problems/issues facing local government?11111Capital Improvements A. Does the plan have a listing of community capital improvements evaluated in terms of how they will reduce community vulnerabilities to hazards?000011 3 5The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPFuture Land Use A. Does the plan have an analysis of future land use evaluated in terms of how projections will reduce community vulnerabilities to hazards?10000EconomyA. Does the plan consider the impacts to the economy anticipated byhazard(s)?00000Traffic Circulation A. Does the plan provide an analysis of current and future transportation evaluated in terms of how projections will reduce community vulnerabilities to hazards? (i.e. Evacuation clearance times for fast moving sudden onset hazards like forest fire)00000Housing IntegrationA. Does the plan have an analysis of the number of current housing stock in hazard areas?00000B. Does the plan identify vulnerable and special needs population in hazard areas? (i.e. Tsunami inundation zone, below dam in seismic zone, or living behind levee/dyke systems)00000C. Does the plan clearly identify existing housing/shelter concerns ofvulnerable populations?10000Environment ProtectionA. Does the plan identify environmental impacts from each hazard?00000B. Does the plan require signs indicating hazardous areas that are clearly marked?00000C. Does the plan identify forest and vegetation management for riparian areas?110101 3 6The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPD. Does the plan identify sediment and erosion control?10000E. Does the plan identify urban forestry and landscape concerns?00100Local Hazard Mitigation GoalsA. Are goals clearly stated and reflect the findings from the hazard and vulnerability assessment?00000i. Any goal to reduce property loss due to hazard(s) (Public or Private)?00000ii. Any goal to distribute hazard(s) management costs equitably?00000iii. Any goal to promote a hazards awareness (Public Information/ education and outreach) program?00000B. Does the plan include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards?  (Goals are long-term; represent what the community wants to achieve, such as “eliminate flood damage”; and are based on the hazard and vulnerability assessment findings.)00000i. Does the plan clearly identify local senior leadership commitment to hazard mitigation goals?00000C. Does the plan identify goals to reduce the economic losses resulting from hazard events?00000D. Does the plan identify goals to reduce degradation of environment?11100E. Does the plan identify goals that reduce social inequalities?00000F. Does the plan identify goals to promote partnerships with other agencies? (i.e. Are there mutual aid agreements in place/under development)10000G. Are policies mandatory (use words like shall, will, require, must) as opposed to suggestive (with words like consider, should, may)?000001 3 7The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPLocal Hazard Mitigation Goals: Environmental GoalsA. Any goal to reduce hazards impacts that also achieves preservation of natural areas?00000B. Any goal to reduce hazards impacts that also achieves preservation of open space and recreation areas?00000C. Any goal to reduce hazards impacts that also achieves maintenance of good water quality?00000Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions continued Social and Cultural A. Does the plan identify, if each of the proposed mitigation activities is socially/culturally acceptable to the community?00001B. Does the plan identify, if each of the proposed mitigation activities will cause any one segment of population to be treated unfairly?00000C. Does the plan identify, if each of the proposed mitigation activities will cause relocation of low or reduced income residents? 00000D. Does the plan identify, if each of the proposed mitigation activities will are compatible with present and future community values?00000E. Was the listing of proposed mitigation actions reviewed by local community members?00000Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions continued Technical A. Does the plan identify, if each of the proposed mitigation activities is technically feasible?00001B. Does the plan identify, if each of the proposed mitigation activities will solve the problem?000011 3 8The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPC. Does the plan identify, which of the proposed mitigation activitiesis most useful, given other community goals?10001Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions continued Administrative A. Does the plan identify, if the community has the capacity to implement the proposed action(s)?11001B. Does the plan identify, if the community can provide any maintenance necessary?00001C. Does the plan identify, if the community has enough staff, technical expertise and funding?00101D. Does the plan identify, if the proposed action(s) can be accomplished in a timely manner?00000Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions continued Political A. Does the plan identify, the stakeholders in the proposed mitigation action(s)?00000B. Does the plan identify, if all the stakeholders have been offered anopportunity to participate in the planning process?01000C. Does the plan identify, how the mitigation goals can be accomplished at the lowest cost to the stakeholders?00000D. Does the plan identify, if there is public support both to implement and maintain this mitigation action/measure?00001E. Does the plan identify, if there is political leadership willing to propose and support the favoured mitigation action/measure?100001 3 9The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPIdentification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions continued Legal A. Does the plan identify, if the community has the authority to implement the proposed mitigation measure?10001B. Does the plan identify, if there is a clear legal basis for the proposed mitigation measure?00001C. Does the plan identify, if enabling legislation is necessary?00000D. Does the plan identify, any legal side effect of the proposed mitigation measure?00000E. Does the plan identify, if the community with be liable for the actions or support of actions, or lack of action?00001F. Does the plan identify, if the mitigation measure is likely to be challenged?00000Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions continued Economic A. Does the plan identify, what are the costs and benefits of the proposed mitigation measures?00000B. Does the plan identify, how the implementation of the proposed mitigation measure(s) will affect the fiscal capabilities of the community?00000C. Does the plan indicate, what burden will be placed on the tax baseor local economy because of the proposed mitigation measure(s)?00000D. Does the plan indicate, if the proposed mitigation measure contributes to other community economic goals? (i.e. capital improvements or economic development)000011 4 0The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPIdentification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions continued Environment A. Does the plan indicate, how the proposed mitigation measure(s) will affect the environment?00000V. Implementation of Mitigation ActionsA. Does the mitigation strategy include how the actions are prioritized/ranked? (For example, is there a discussion of the processand criteria used?)01000B. Does the mitigation strategy provide a clear designation of responsibility for each mitigation action? (Organization, agency, or private entity)00000C. Does the prioritization process include an emphasis on the use of a cost-benefit review (see page 3-36 of Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance) to maximize benefits?00000D. Does the plan include a timetable for implementation of mitigation actions? (i.e. an implementation strategy)00001E. Does the plan specify proposed mitigation costs for each action? 00000F. Are sources of funding to implement the plan identified?01000G. Does the plan identify a clear timetable for each action in this plan?01000H. Does the plan identify any enforcement to ensure compliance with plan?00000I. Does the plan have a clear designation of responsibility for evaluating, updating, and monitoring?01000J. Does the plan specify an administrative (audit) process by funding source(s) to evaluate funded mitigation projects? (i.e. if there are provincial or federal requirements/regulations)000001 4 1The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPResource Acquisition and Government Incentive ProgramsA. Does the plan identify current and potential sources of Federal, Provincial, or local fund for vulnerability reduction actions? 00111B. Does the plan identify funding incentive programs to retrofit public and private structures?00000C. Does the plan identify funding incentives for voluntary retrofitting of private structures?00000D. Does the plan identify incentives for voluntary land and property acquisition of hazard lands?00000E. Does the plan identify opportunities for tax abatement for voluntary mitigation actions taken by property owners?00000F. Does the plan identify density bonusing for voluntary mitigation retrofitting?00000G. Does the plan identify programs to provide low interest loans for retrofitting buildings? (i.e. tourism industry, service industries, transportation)00000Implementation/Technical SupportA. Does the plan identify current sources of funding for mitigation planning, project development and implementation?00001B. Does the plan identify current staffing sources, and any anticipated staffing needs for mitigation planning?00000C. Does the plan identify current sources of technical mitigation planning assistance?00000i. Does the plan identify current sources of guides for mitigation planning assistance?00000ii. Does the plan identify current sources of data and analysis?000001 4 2The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPiii. Does the plan identify current sources for training in hazard mitigation planning?00000D. Does the plan include mediation procedures to resolve conflicts that arise during implementation?00000E. Does the plan identify any current, or potential provincial/federal program(s) that would be ultimately responsible for implementation of mitigation actions identified by local government?00000Non-Structural Mitigation Tool Application A. Does the plan identify permitted land uses in hazardous areas?00000B. Does the plan identify density of land use in areas anticipated to suffer because of a hazard event? (i.e. density of development in lowareas prone to flooding, density of rural areas needing to evacuate due to forest fire)10000i. Does the plan identify transfer of development rights?00000ii. Does the plan identify cluster development requirements?00000iii. Does the plan identify specific setbacks required?00000iv. Does the plan require site review for hazard(s)?00000v. Does the plan call for specific studies/impact assessments of lands as part of the development process?11000vi. Does the plan identify policies for hazard prone land and propertyacquisition? (I.E. flood prone land)00000Non-Structural Mitigation Tools continued Regulatory tools for Hazard Zone(s) A. Does the plan identify open space dedications?10000B. Does the plan clearly identify policies to locate public facilities tonon-hazardous zones? 000001 4 3The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPC. Does the plan identify areas to use cluster development to reduce community vulnerability? 00000D. Does the plan identify changes to building standards/code based on hazard and vulnerability assessment? 00000E. Does the plan identify application of impact fees for community properties in hazardous areas? (i.e. cover fire apparatus response in forest fire event) 00000F. Does the plan identify relocation of structures out of hazard zones as a cost effective solution? 00000G. Does the plan require a drainage ordinance?00000Non-Structural Mitigation Tools continued Incentive-Based Tools A. Does the plan identify tax abatement for voluntary mitigation actions?00000B. Does the plan specify a process for calculation of density bonus for hazard mitigation elements incorporated into developments? 00000C. Does the plan identify resources for low interest loans to voluntary mitigation actions within private sector? (i.e. tourism facilities me benefit from retrofitting to ensure stability of local economy) 00000Non-Structural Mitigation Tools continued A. Does the plan identify education/knowledge sharing with Community?11111i. Does the plan identify education/knowledge sharing with Staff?01111ii. Does the plan identify education/knowledge sharing with private stakeholders (industry, business, or homeowners etc.)111011 4 4The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPiii. Does the plan identify education/knowledge sharing with students? (i.e. K-12, College and University)01101B. Does the plan identify hazard education tool development?00000C. Does the plan identify hazard education using colouring books?00000D. Does the plan identify hazard education using video?00000E. Does the plan identify hazard education using alternate media?10000Structural Mitigation Tools Application (Projects)A. Are Levees, dikes or dykes used/proposed in plan?00000B. Are projects proposed or implemented from the following list: Seawalls; Riprap, Bulkheads; Detention ponds; Channel maintenance; Wetland restoration; Slope stabilization; Storm water management; Sewage; Drainage; Maintenance of structures Fuel breaks for forest fires Seismic retrofitting Tsunami evacuation shelters Placement of power lines below ground 01001C. Are any of the following Canadian Federally recognized projects proposed or implemented? • Elevating structures • Relocating furnaces above flood level • Relocating hot water heaters above flood level • Relocating electrical boxes above flood level • Replacing furnaces with baseboard heaters • Installing weeping tiles on either the interior or exterior of the structure • Installing sump pumps on either the interior or exterior of the structure • Switching of petroleum heating systems to eliminate fuel tanks • Securing of propane tanks • Using water-resistant building materials instead of drywall • Changing to exterior basement insulation • Making structural changes to buildings to increase flood-proofing • Performing seismic retrofitting such as installing foundation bolts, cripple wall bracing and shear walls • disconnecting downspouts andfoundation drains from sewers • Reinforcing buildings to be more resistant to wind and ice damage 000001 4 5The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPVI. MITIGATION POLICIES: Discourage Development in Hazardous Areas A. Does the plan include policies that discourage development in hazardous areas?10000B. Does the plan identify an on going educational awareness/ knowledge program?00100C. Does the plan identify a policy for mandatory real estate hazard disclosure?00000D. Does the plan identify policies and programs that increase hazard vulnerability?00000E. Does the plan identify changes needed in policies and programs that increase hazard vulnerability?00000F. Does the plan identify the process and development of hazard mitigation incentive programs?00000G. Does the plan identify existing government policies that restrict/pose barrier to mitigation actions, both pre- and post-disaster mitigation actions? (i.e. B.C. Disaster Financial Assistance Programs/policies that restrict funding to projects that voluntarily incorporate mitigation improvements)?00000H. Are policies tied to a specific goal (or goals)?11101Mandate to build local capacity A. Does the plan identify hazard mitigation technical assistance needs, or outline a process to obtain technical assistance?00000B. Does the plan identify staffing and training needs, or outline a process to obtain adequate hazard mitigation staffing and hazard mitigation training?000001 4 6The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPC. Does the plan identify provincial, federal, or other stakeholders that have databases/mapping to be used in developing the plan?00000VII. MITIGATION PROGRAMSA. Does the plan clearly indicate disaster warning and response program(s) that are anticipated to respond to each hazard?00000B. Does the plan encourage purchase of flooding or earthquake insurance?00000C. Does plan identify technical assistance capabilities and resources for developers or property owners for mitigation?00000Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions A. Does the plan include at least one identifiable action item for eachjurisdiction/or involving strategic partner(s), community group(s), /or adjacent community?00000VIII. INTER-ORGANIZATION COORDINATION & CAPABILITIES: Government and Strategic PartnersA. Does the plan identify other government partners and stakeholders in the planning process?11101B. Does the plan remain consistent with regional, provincial, and federal mitigation goals?00000C. Does the plan indicate linkages to other local comprehensive plans?11101D. Does the plan utilize existing plans, reports, or studies to help complete the Big Picture?11101E. Does the plan integrate planning efforts with other independent governments (i.e. municipal, regional districts, school districts)?111011 4 7The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPF. Does the plan indicate participation techniques in proposed actions?01101Intergovernmental Coordination A. Does the plan discuss the local governments pre- and post-disaster hazard management policies, programs, and capabilities?00000B. Is the plan easy to understand written in plain English?11111i. Does the plan have a detailed table of contents?11111ii. Does the plan have a glossary of terms and definitions included?10000iii. Is there an executive summary?11111iv. Is there an executive letter of support highlighting the continued commitment to vulnerability reduction actions?10010v. Is there a cross–referencing of issues, goals, objectives, and policies?11111vi. Are clear illustrations used?11111vii. Is spatial data clearly illustrated with maps?11111viii. Are supporting documents included with the plan (videos, alternate forms of media, website)?01101C. Does the plan explain the support and involvement of   key publicagencies?11111D. Are horizontal connections with other local plans and programs explained? (i.e. local hazard mitigation plans, local transportation plans, sustainability planning)11000E. Are vertical connections with regional and provincial/state policies and programs explained?01111F. Is a program of intergovernmental coordination explained for providing services? 001011 4 8The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPIX. PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS: Monitoring and Evaluation of the PlanA. Does the plan describe the method and schedule for monitoring the plan? (For example, does it identify the party responsible for monitoring and include a schedule for reports, site visits, phone calls, and meetings?)01111B. Does the plan clearly identify a process for citizen participation inthe monitoring, evaluating, and update process? (i.e. Local Mitigation Planning Committee)01111C. Does the plan identify provision for monitoring of hazards?00000D. Does the plan make provisions for updating of baseline hazard identification data? (i.e. flooding)00000Incorporation into Existing Planning MechanismsA. Does the plan identify other local planning mechanisms available for incorporating the requirements of the mitigation plan? (i.e. capital Improvement plans, official community plans, emergency management plan(s), economic re-development plans, regional growth strategies)11100B. Does the plan include a process by which the local government will incorporate the requirements in other plans, when appropriate?01000C. Does the plan identify priorities and timeline for retrofitting all critical public infrastructures?00000Continued Public InvolvementA. Does the 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?)001111 4 9The Crosswalk Requirement:WestbankCCPMusqueamCCPPentictonCCPSt. Mary’sCCPSliammonCCPX. DISASTER EVENT/ POST-DISASTER EVENTA. Does the mitigation plan have a requirement to be updated after every hazard event occurrence to validate and clarify anticipated impacts with actual impacts?00000B. Does the plan clearly indicate Post-Disaster Redevelopment Planning (PDRP) initiatives? (i.e. PDRP plan development)00000i. Does the plan identify a Post-Disaster Recovery Team organizationwith names of organizations and members?00000ii. Does the plan have a policy that establishes a moratorium on reconstruction after an event, to allow for potential mitigation actions / enhancements in the recovery?00000iii. Does the plan identify areas of potential land use changes after anevent?00000iv. Does the plan identify private land acquisition and relocation options for impacted areas?00000C. Does the plan identify a process for the creation of a Mitigation Assessment Team (MAT) to perform a post-disaster losses avoided assessment? (i.e. to identify how structures performed, collect time-sensitive hazard impact data, document how structures / building codes performed, and document mitigation projects that were successful)000001 5 0Bibliography:AANDC. 2013. “AANDC Support for First Nations Affected by Flooding in Manitoba.” August. www.aandc-aandc.gc.ca.AANDC B.C. Regional Strategic Planning Manager, ed. 2006. CCP Handbook. Vancouver, B.C.: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.BCMOF. 2012. “Summary of Previous Fire Seasons”. Summry. Ministry of Forests and Range, Wildfire Management Branch.Berke, Philip, and Steven French. 1994. “The Influence of State Planning Mandates on Local Plan Quality.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 13 (4): 237–250.Brody, Samuel. 2003. “Are We Learning to Make Better Plans?: A Longitudinal Analysis of Plan Quality Associated with Natural Hazards.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 23: 191.Bruce,, James P., Ian Burton, and Mark Egener. 2007. “DISASTER MITIGATION AND PREPAREDNESS IN A CHANGING CLIMATE”. A synthesis paper prepared for: Emergency Preparedness Canada, Environment Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. Bend, OR: GCSI - GLOBAL CHANGE STRATEGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.Burby, R. 1999. “Unleashing the Power of Planning to Create DisasterResistant Communities.” APA 65(3).CKQQ,CKFR,CHNL,The Canadian Press. 2011. “Kelowna Forest Fire: 550 Forced To Flee Homes, Campground.” The Huffington Post Canada. June 9. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/09/06/forest-fire-near-kelowna-_n_949999.html.Debby Guha-Sapir, Femke Vos, Regina Below, and Sylvain Ponserre. 2011. “Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2011 The Numbers and Trends”. Brussels, Belgium: Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) Institute of Health and Society (IRSS) Université catholique de Louvain.Deyle, Dr. Robert. 1998. “Local Government Compliance with State Planning Mandates The Ejects of State Implementation in Florida.” Journal of the American Planning Association 64 (4): 457.Drabek, T. E., and G. J. Hoetmer, ed. 1991. Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government. International City Management Association (ICMA).Dynes, Russell R. 1991. “Social Science Research on Earthquake Hazard Mitigation: Relevance for Policy and Practice”. Preliminary Paper #163. University of Delaware Disaster Research Center.Edmond Cloutier. 1957. Civil Defence Notebook. Ottawa: Queens Printers, Hon. Paul Martin Minister Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations151of National Health and Welfare.Federal Emergency Management Agency - National Emergency Training Center Emergency Management Institute. 1998. “A Job Aid: Basics of Community Mitigation”. A Job Aid FEMA SM393.1. Basics of Community Mitigation. Emmitsburg, MD: FEMA.FEMA. 2013. “IS-318 Mitigation Planning for Local and Tribal Communities”. EMI FEMA Course presented at the FEMA Courses, Emmitsburg, MD. http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/courseOverview.aspx?code=is-318.Government of Canada. 2008. “Natural Hazards Affect Us”. Info Graphic on Hazards across Canada. Cat. No.: M4-57/2008E. Ottawa: © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2008.———. 2013a. “Statistics Canada.” http://www.statcan.gc.ca/start-debut-eng.html.———. 2013b. “Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC).” July. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng.HONOURABLE COLIN GABELMANN ATTORNEY GENERAL. 2012. EMERGENCY PROGRAM ACT. http://www.leg.bc.ca/35th2nd/3rd_read/gov38-3.htm.Jardine, Carol, Mike Wallace, and Paul Kovacs. 2012. “Science to Action: A Strategy for Reducing Hazard Damage”. Science to Action. London, Canada: Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction.Joseph Scanlon. 2000. “Source of Threat and Source of Assistance: The Maritime Aspects of the 1917 Halifax Explosion.” The Northern Mariner/Le Marin Du Nord X (No. 4): 12.Kang, Jung, Walter Peacock, and Rahmawati Husein. 2010. “An Assessment of Coastal Zone Hazard Mitigation Plans in Texas.” Journal of Disaster Research 5 (5): 520–528.Mileti, Dennis. S. 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. University of Colorado at Boulder: Natl Academy Pr. http://www.colorado.edu/hazards.Musqueam. 2011. “Musqueam First Nation A Comprehensive Sustainable Community Development Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Vancouver, B.C.: Musqueam First Nation.Patriquin, Martin. 2012. “Canada, Home to the Suicide Capital of the World.” Macleans, March 30. Mcleans.ca.Penticton Indian Band. 2013. “Penticton Indian Band Comprehensive Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Penticton, B.C.: Penticton Indian Band.Philip Berke, Smith, and Ward Lyles. 2012. “Planning for Resiliency: Evaluation of State Hazard Mitigation Plans Under the Disaster Mitigation Act.” Natural Hazards Review: American Society of Civil Engineers 13 (May): 139–149.Province of British Columbia. 2013. “B.C. Quick Facts”. Government of B.C. http://www.gov.bc.ca/bcfacts/.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations152Public Safety Canada. 2011. “2011-2012 Evaluation of the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements Program”. Final Report. Building a Safe and Resilient Canada. Ottawa.———. 2013a. “Canadian Disaster Database”. Public Safety Canada. Geospatial Canadian Disaster Database. http://cdd.publicsafety.gc.ca.———. 2013b. “Discussion Questions for the National Disaster Mitigation Strategy.” PSC_Programs_Prevention/Mitigation_NDMS. July.Schwab, James C., ed. 2010. Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning. Chicago, IL:American Planning Association.Sliammon First Nation. 2007. “Sliammon First Nation Comprehensive Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Powel River, B.C.: Sliammon First Nation.State of Florida. “Florida Division of Emergency Management.” 2013 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. http://www.floridadisaster.org/mitigation/State/Index.htm.The Government of Alberta (GOA), The Town of Slave Lake, The Municipal District of Lesser Slave River No. 124, and Sawridge First Nation. 2011. “Lesser Slave Lake Recovery Plan - REGIONAL WILDFIRE RECOVERY PLAN”. Post-Disaster Recovery Plan. Edmonton, Alberta: The Government of Alberta. www.alberta.ca.The Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council (MMC), and National Institute of Building Sciences. 2005. “Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities”. Report to US Federal Congress Volume 1. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Washington, DC: FEMA. http://www.nibs.org/index.php/MMC/mmchome.html.Thomas E. Drabek. 2012. The Human Side of Disaster (Hardcover). Second Edition. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.Thompson, Jerry. 2011. Cascadia’s Fault: The Deadly Earthquake That Will Devastate North America. Toronto, Ontario: Harper Collins.Tierney, Kathleen J. 1993. “SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF HAZARD MITIGATION*.” University of Delaware Disaster Research Center: 26.“Tribal Mitigation Planning.” 2010. Factsheet. Mitigation Planning for Disaster Resilient Communities.FEMA.Tricia Wachtendorf. 2001. “Suggestions for Canadian Inter-Organizational Collaboration in Disaster Mitigation”. Preliminary Paper 312. Disaster Research Center: University of Delaware.U.S. Government Printing Office. 2006. Code of Federal Regulations 44. October 2006. Vol. Chapter I,Chapter IV. Emergency Management Assistance 44. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNODRR). 2012. “UNISDR Terminology”. Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations153United Nations. Terminology. July 1. http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology.Wernick, Michael. 2011. “Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) National Emergency Management Plan”. Ottawa: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010002/1100100010021.Westbank First Nation Government. 2010. “2010 Westbank Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Kelowna, B.C.: Westbank Forst Nation Government.Wikipedia. “Sliammon First Nation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliammon_First_Nation.———. “Huu-ay-aht First Nation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Huu-ay-aht.png.ʔaq̓amnik̓. 2011. “ʔaq̓am (St Mary’s Indian Band) Strategic Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Cranbrook, BC: ʔaq̓am St. Mary’s Indian Band.AANDC. 2013. “AANDC Support for First Nations Affected by Flooding in Manitoba.” August. www.aandc-aandc.gc.ca.AANDC B.C. Regional Strategic Planning Manager, ed. 2006. CCP Handbook. Vancouver, B.C.: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.BCMOF. 2012. “Summary of Previous Fire Seasons”. Summry. Ministry of Forests and Range, Wildfire Management Branch.Berke, Philip, and Steven French. 1994. “The Influence of State Planning Mandates on Local Plan Quality.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 13 (4): 237–250.Brody, Samuel. 2003. “Are We Learning to Make Better Plans?: A Longitudinal Analysis of Plan Quality Associated with Natural Hazards.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 23: 191.Bruce,, James P., Ian Burton, and Mark Egener. 2007. “DISASTER MITIGATION AND PREPAREDNESS IN A CHANGING CLIMATE”. A synthesis paper prepared for: Emergency Preparedness Canada, Environment Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. Bend, OR: GCSI - GLOBAL CHANGE STRATEGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.Burby, R. 1999. “Unleashing the Power of Planning to Create DisasterResistant Communities.” APA 65(3).CKQQ,CKFR,CHNL,The Canadian Press. 2011. “Kelowna Forest Fire: 550 Forced To Flee Homes, Campground.” The Huffington Post Canada. June 9. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/09/06/forest-fire-near-kelowna-_n_949999.html.Debby Guha-Sapir, Femke Vos, Regina Below, and Sylvain Ponserre. 2011. “Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2011 The Numbers and Trends”. Brussels, Belgium: Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) Institute of Health and Society (IRSS) Université catholique de Louvain.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations154Deyle, Dr. Robert. 1998. “Local Government Compliance with State Planning Mandates The Ejects of State Implementation in Florida.” Journal of the American Planning Association 64 (4): 457.Drabek, T. E., and G. J. Hoetmer, ed. 1991. Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government. International City Management Association (ICMA).Dynes, Russell R. 1991. “Social Science Research on Earthquake Hazard Mitigation: Relevance for Policy and Practice”. Preliminary Paper #163. University of Delaware Disaster Research Center.Edmond Cloutier. 1957. Civil Defence Notebook. Ottawa: Queens Printers, Hon. Paul Martin Minister of National Health and Welfare.Federal Emergency Management Agency - National Emergency Training Center Emergency Management Institute. 1998. “A Job Aid: Basics of Community Mitigation”. A Job Aid FEMA SM393.1. Basics of Community Mitigation. Emmitsburg, MD: FEMA.FEMA. 2013. “IS-318 Mitigation Planning for Local and Tribal Communities”. EMI FEMA Course presented at the FEMA Courses, Emmitsburg, MD. http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/courseOverview.aspx?code=is-318.Government of Canada. 2008. “Natural Hazards Affect Us”. Info Graphic on Hazards across Canada. Cat. No.: M4-57/2008E. Ottawa: © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2008.———. 2013a. “Statistics Canada.” http://www.statcan.gc.ca/start-debut-eng.html.———. 2013b. “Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC).” July. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng.HONOURABLE COLIN GABELMANN ATTORNEY GENERAL. 2012. EMERGENCY PROGRAM ACT. http://www.leg.bc.ca/35th2nd/3rd_read/gov38-3.htm.Jardine, Carol, Mike Wallace, and Paul Kovacs. 2012. “Science to Action: A Strategy for Reducing Hazard Damage”. Science to Action. London, Canada: Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction.Joseph Scanlon. 2000. “Source of Threat and Source of Assistance: The Maritime Aspects of the 1917 Halifax Explosion.” The Northern Mariner/Le Marin Du Nord X (No. 4): 12.Kang, Jung, Walter Peacock, and Rahmawati Husein. 2010. “An Assessment of Coastal Zone Hazard Mitigation Plans in Texas.” Journal of Disaster Research 5 (5): 520–528.Mileti, Dennis. S. 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. University of Colorado at Boulder: Natl Academy Pr. http://www.colorado.edu/hazards.Musqueam. 2011. “Musqueam First Nation A Comprehensive Sustainable Community Development Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Vancouver, B.C.: Musqueam First Nation.Patriquin, Martin. 2012. “Canada, Home to the Suicide Capital of the World.” Macleans, March 30. Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations155Mcleans.ca.Penticton Indian Band. 2013. “Penticton Indian Band Comprehensive Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Penticton, B.C.: Penticton Indian Band.Philip Berke, Smith, and Ward Lyles. 2012. “Planning for Resiliency: Evaluation of State Hazard Mitigation Plans Under the Disaster Mitigation Act.” Natural Hazards Review: American Society of Civil Engineers 13 (May): 139–149.Province of British Columbia. 2013. “B.C. Quick Facts”. Government of B.C. http://www.gov.bc.ca/bcfacts/.Public Safety Canada. 2011. “2011-2012 Evaluation of the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements Program”. Final Report. Building a Safe and Resilient Canada. Ottawa.———. 2013a. “Canadian Disaster Database”. Public Safety Canada. Geospatial Canadian Disaster Database. http://cdd.publicsafety.gc.ca.———. 2013b. “Discussion Questions for the National Disaster Mitigation Strategy.” PSC_Programs_Prevention/Mitigation_NDMS. July.Schwab, James C., ed. 2010. Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning. Chicago, IL:American Planning Association.Sliammon First Nation. 2007. “Sliammon First Nation Comprehensive Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Powel River, B.C.: Sliammon First Nation.State of Florida. “Florida Division of Emergency Management.” 2013 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. http://www.floridadisaster.org/mitigation/State/Index.htm.The Government of Alberta (GOA), The Town of Slave Lake, The Municipal District of Lesser Slave River No. 124, and Sawridge First Nation. 2011. “Lesser Slave Lake Recovery Plan - REGIONAL WILDFIRE RECOVERY PLAN”. Post-Disaster Recovery Plan. Edmonton, Alberta: The Government of Alberta. www.alberta.ca.The Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council (MMC), and National Institute of Building Sciences. 2005. “Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities”. Report to US Federal Congress Volume 1. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Washington, DC: FEMA. http://www.nibs.org/index.php/MMC/mmchome.html.Thomas E. Drabek. 2012. The Human Side of Disaster (Hardcover). Second Edition. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.Thompson, Jerry. 2011. Cascadia’s Fault: The Deadly Earthquake That Will Devastate North America. Toronto, Ontario: Harper Collins.Tierney, Kathleen J. 1993. “SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF HAZARD MITIGATION*.” University of Delaware Disaster Research Center: 26.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations156“Tribal Mitigation Planning.” 2010. Factsheet. Mitigation Planning for Disaster Resilient Communities.FEMA.Tricia Wachtendorf. 2001. “Suggestions for Canadian Inter-Organizational Collaboration in Disaster Mitigation”. Preliminary Paper 312. Disaster Research Center: University of Delaware.U.S. Government Printing Office. 2006. Code of Federal Regulations 44. October 2006. Vol. Chapter I,Chapter IV. Emergency Management Assistance 44. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNODRR). 2012. “UNISDR Terminology”. United Nations. Terminology. July 1. http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology.Wernick, Michael. 2011. “Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) National Emergency Management Plan”. Ottawa: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010002/1100100010021.Westbank First Nation Government. 2010. “2010 Westbank Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Kelowna, B.C.: Westbank Forst Nation Government.Wikipedia. “Sliammon First Nation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliammon_First_Nation.———. “Huu-ay-aht First Nation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Huu-ay-aht.png.ʔaq̓amnik̓. 2011. “ʔaq̓am (St Mary’s Indian Band) Strategic Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Cranbrook, BC: ʔaq̓am St. Mary’s Indian Band.AANDC. 2013. “AANDC Support for First Nations Affected by Flooding in Manitoba.” August. www.aandc-aandc.gc.ca.AANDC B.C. Regional Strategic Planning Manager, ed. 2006. CCP Handbook. Vancouver, B.C.: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.BCMOF. 2012. “Summary of Previous Fire Seasons”. Summry. Ministry of Forests and Range, Wildfire Management Branch.Berke, Philip, and Steven French. 1994. “The Influence of State Planning Mandates on Local Plan Quality.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 13 (4): 237–250.Brody, Samuel. 2003. “Are We Learning to Make Better Plans?: A Longitudinal Analysis of Plan Quality Associated with Natural Hazards.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 23: 191.Bruce,, James P., Ian Burton, and Mark Egener. 2007. “DISASTER MITIGATION AND PREPAREDNESS IN A CHANGING CLIMATE”. A synthesis paper prepared for: Emergency Preparedness Canada, Environment Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. Bend, OR: GCSI - GLOBAL CHANGE STRATEGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.Burby, R. 1999. “Unleashing the Power of Planning to Create DisasterResistant Communities.” APA 65(3).Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations157CKQQ,CKFR,CHNL,The Canadian Press. 2011. “Kelowna Forest Fire: 550 Forced To Flee Homes, Campground.” The Huffington Post Canada. June 9. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/09/06/forest-fire-near-kelowna-_n_949999.html.Debby Guha-Sapir, Femke Vos, Regina Below, and Sylvain Ponserre. 2011. “Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2011 The Numbers and Trends”. Brussels, Belgium: Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) Institute of Health and Society (IRSS) Université catholique de Louvain.Deyle, Dr. Robert. 1998. “Local Government Compliance with State Planning Mandates The Ejects of State Implementation in Florida.” Journal of the American Planning Association 64 (4): 457.Drabek, T. E., and G. J. Hoetmer, ed. 1991. Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government. International City Management Association (ICMA).Dynes, Russell R. 1991. “Social Science Research on Earthquake Hazard Mitigation: Relevance for Policy and Practice”. Preliminary Paper #163. University of Delaware Disaster Research Center.Edmond Cloutier. 1957. Civil Defence Notebook. Ottawa: Queens Printers, Hon. Paul Martin Minister of National Health and Welfare.Federal Emergency Management Agency - National Emergency Training Center Emergency Management Institute. 1998. “A Job Aid: Basics of Community Mitigation”. A Job Aid FEMA SM393.1. Basics of Community Mitigation. Emmitsburg, MD: FEMA.FEMA. 2013. “IS-318 Mitigation Planning for Local and Tribal Communities”. EMI FEMA Course presented at the FEMA Courses, Emmitsburg, MD. http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/courseOverview.aspx?code=is-318.Government of Canada. 2008. “Natural Hazards Affect Us”. Info Graphic on Hazards across Canada. Cat. No.: M4-57/2008E. Ottawa: © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2008.———. 2013a. “Statistics Canada.” http://www.statcan.gc.ca/start-debut-eng.html.———. 2013b. “Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC).” July. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng.HONOURABLE COLIN GABELMANN ATTORNEY GENERAL. 2012. EMERGENCY PROGRAM ACT. http://www.leg.bc.ca/35th2nd/3rd_read/gov38-3.htm.Jardine, Carol, Mike Wallace, and Paul Kovacs. 2012. “Science to Action: A Strategy for Reducing Hazard Damage”. Science to Action. London, Canada: Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction.Joseph Scanlon. 2000. “Source of Threat and Source of Assistance: The Maritime Aspects of the 1917 Halifax Explosion.” The Northern Mariner/Le Marin Du Nord X (No. 4): 12.Kang, Jung, Walter Peacock, and Rahmawati Husein. 2010. “An Assessment of Coastal Zone Hazard Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations158Mitigation Plans in Texas.” Journal of Disaster Research 5 (5): 520–528.Mileti, Dennis. S. 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. University of Colorado at Boulder: Natl Academy Pr. http://www.colorado.edu/hazards.Musqueam. 2011. “Musqueam First Nation A Comprehensive Sustainable Community Development Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Vancouver, B.C.: Musqueam First Nation.Patriquin, Martin. 2012. “Canada, Home to the Suicide Capital of the World.” Macleans, March 30. Mcleans.ca.Penticton Indian Band. 2013. “Penticton Indian Band Comprehensive Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Penticton, B.C.: Penticton Indian Band.Philip Berke, Smith, and Ward Lyles. 2012. “Planning for Resiliency: Evaluation of State Hazard Mitigation Plans Under the Disaster Mitigation Act.” Natural Hazards Review: American Society of Civil Engineers 13 (May): 139–149.Province of British Columbia. 2013. “B.C. Quick Facts”. Government of B.C. http://www.gov.bc.ca/bcfacts/.Public Safety Canada. 2011. “2011-2012 Evaluation of the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements Program”. Final Report. Building a Safe and Resilient Canada. Ottawa.———. 2013a. “Canadian Disaster Database”. Public Safety Canada. Geospatial Canadian Disaster Database. http://cdd.publicsafety.gc.ca.———. 2013b. “Discussion Questions for the National Disaster Mitigation Strategy.” PSC_Programs_Prevention/Mitigation_NDMS. July.Schwab, James C., ed. 2010. Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning. Chicago, IL:American Planning Association.Sliammon First Nation. 2007. “Sliammon First Nation Comprehensive Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Powel River, B.C.: Sliammon First Nation.State of Florida. “Florida Division of Emergency Management.” 2013 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. http://www.floridadisaster.org/mitigation/State/Index.htm.The Government of Alberta (GOA), The Town of Slave Lake, The Municipal District of Lesser Slave River No. 124, and Sawridge First Nation. 2011. “Lesser Slave Lake Recovery Plan - REGIONAL WILDFIRE RECOVERY PLAN”. Post-Disaster Recovery Plan. Edmonton, Alberta: The Government of Alberta. www.alberta.ca.The Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council (MMC), and National Institute of Building Sciences. 2005. “Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities”. Report to US Federal Congress Volume 1. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Washington, DC: FEMA. http://www.nibs.org/index.php/MMC/mmchome.html.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations159Thomas E. Drabek. 2012. The Human Side of Disaster (Hardcover). Second Edition. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.Thompson, Jerry. 2011. Cascadia’s Fault: The Deadly Earthquake That Will Devastate North America. Toronto, Ontario: Harper Collins.Tierney, Kathleen J. 1993. “SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF HAZARD MITIGATION*.” University of Delaware Disaster Research Center: 26.“Tribal Mitigation Planning.” 2010. Factsheet. Mitigation Planning for Disaster Resilient Communities.FEMA.Tricia Wachtendorf. 2001. “Suggestions for Canadian Inter-Organizational Collaboration in Disaster Mitigation”. Preliminary Paper 312. Disaster Research Center: University of Delaware.U.S. Government Printing Office. 2006. Code of Federal Regulations 44. October 2006. Vol. Chapter I,Chapter IV. Emergency Management Assistance 44. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNODRR). 2012. “UNISDR Terminology”. United Nations. Terminology. July 1. http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology.Wernick, Michael. 2011. “Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) National Emergency Management Plan”. Ottawa: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010002/1100100010021.Westbank First Nation Government. 2010. “2010 Westbank Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Kelowna, B.C.: Westbank Forst Nation Government.Wikipedia. “Sliammon First Nation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliammon_First_Nation.———. “Huu-ay-aht First Nation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Huu-ay-aht.png.ʔaq̓amnik̓. 2011. “ʔaq̓am (St Mary’s Indian Band) Strategic Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Cranbrook, BC: ʔaq̓am St. Mary’s Indian Band.AANDC. 2013. “AANDC Support for First Nations Affected by Flooding in Manitoba.” August. www.aandc-aandc.gc.ca.AANDC B.C. Regional Strategic Planning Manager, ed. 2006. CCP Handbook. Vancouver, B.C.: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.BCMOF. 2012. “Summary of Previous Fire Seasons”. Summry. Ministry of Forests and Range, Wildfire Management Branch.Berke, Philip, and Steven French. 1994. “The Influence of State Planning Mandates on Local Plan Quality.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 13 (4): 237–250.Brody, Samuel. 2003. “Are We Learning to Make Better Plans?: A Longitudinal Analysis of Plan Quality Associated with Natural Hazards.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 23: 191.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations160Bruce,, James P., Ian Burton, and Mark Egener. 2007. “DISASTER MITIGATION AND PREPAREDNESS IN A CHANGING CLIMATE”. A synthesis paper prepared for: Emergency Preparedness Canada, Environment Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. Bend, OR: GCSI - GLOBAL CHANGE STRATEGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.Burby, R. 1999. “Unleashing the Power of Planning to Create DisasterResistant Communities.” APA 65(3).CKQQ,CKFR,CHNL,The Canadian Press. 2011. “Kelowna Forest Fire: 550 Forced To Flee Homes, Campground.” The Huffington Post Canada. June 9. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/09/06/forest-fire-near-kelowna-_n_949999.html.Debby Guha-Sapir, Femke Vos, Regina Below, and Sylvain Ponserre. 2011. “Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2011 The Numbers and Trends”. Brussels, Belgium: Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) Institute of Health and Society (IRSS) Université catholique de Louvain.Deyle, Dr. Robert. 1998. “Local Government Compliance with State Planning Mandates The Ejects of State Implementation in Florida.” Journal of the American Planning Association 64 (4): 457.Drabek, T. E., and G. J. Hoetmer, ed. 1991. Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government. International City Management Association (ICMA).Dynes, Russell R. 1991. “Social Science Research on Earthquake Hazard Mitigation: Relevance for Policy and Practice”. Preliminary Paper #163. University of Delaware Disaster Research Center.Edmond Cloutier. 1957. Civil Defence Notebook. Ottawa: Queens Printers, Hon. Paul Martin Minister of National Health and Welfare.Federal Emergency Management Agency - National Emergency Training Center Emergency Management Institute. 1998. “A Job Aid: Basics of Community Mitigation”. A Job Aid FEMA SM393.1. Basics of Community Mitigation. Emmitsburg, MD: FEMA.FEMA. 2013. “IS-318 Mitigation Planning for Local and Tribal Communities”. EMI FEMA Course presented at the FEMA Courses, Emmitsburg, MD. http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/courseOverview.aspx?code=is-318.Government of Canada. 2008. “Natural Hazards Affect Us”. Info Graphic on Hazards across Canada. Cat. No.: M4-57/2008E. Ottawa: © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2008.———. 2013a. “Statistics Canada.” http://www.statcan.gc.ca/start-debut-eng.html.———. 2013b. “Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC).” July. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng.HONOURABLE COLIN GABELMANN ATTORNEY GENERAL. 2012. EMERGENCY PROGRAM ACT. http://www.leg.bc.ca/35th2nd/3rd_read/gov38-3.htm.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations161Jardine, Carol, Mike Wallace, and Paul Kovacs. 2012. “Science to Action: A Strategy for Reducing Hazard Damage”. Science to Action. London, Canada: Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction.Joseph Scanlon. 2000. “Source of Threat and Source of Assistance: The Maritime Aspects of the 1917 Halifax Explosion.” The Northern Mariner/Le Marin Du Nord X (No. 4): 12.Kang, Jung, Walter Peacock, and Rahmawati Husein. 2010. “An Assessment of Coastal Zone Hazard Mitigation Plans in Texas.” Journal of Disaster Research 5 (5): 520–528.Mileti, Dennis. S. 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. University of Colorado at Boulder: Natl Academy Pr. http://www.colorado.edu/hazards.Musqueam. 2011. “Musqueam First Nation A Comprehensive Sustainable Community Development Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Vancouver, B.C.: Musqueam First Nation.Patriquin, Martin. 2012. “Canada, Home to the Suicide Capital of the World.” Macleans, March 30. Mcleans.ca.Penticton Indian Band. 2013. “Penticton Indian Band Comprehensive Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Penticton, B.C.: Penticton Indian Band.Philip Berke, Smith, and Ward Lyles. 2012. “Planning for Resiliency: Evaluation of State Hazard Mitigation Plans Under the Disaster Mitigation Act.” Natural Hazards Review: American Society of Civil Engineers 13 (May): 139–149.Province of British Columbia. 2013. “B.C. Quick Facts”. Government of B.C. http://www.gov.bc.ca/bcfacts/.Public Safety Canada. 2011. “2011-2012 Evaluation of the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements Program”. Final Report. Building a Safe and Resilient Canada. Ottawa.———. 2013a. “Canadian Disaster Database”. Public Safety Canada. Geospatial Canadian Disaster Database. http://cdd.publicsafety.gc.ca.———. 2013b. “Discussion Questions for the National Disaster Mitigation Strategy.” PSC_Programs_Prevention/Mitigation_NDMS. July.Schwab, James C., ed. 2010. Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning. Chicago, IL:American Planning Association.Sliammon First Nation. 2007. “Sliammon First Nation Comprehensive Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Powel River, B.C.: Sliammon First Nation.State of Florida. “Florida Division of Emergency Management.” 2013 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. http://www.floridadisaster.org/mitigation/State/Index.htm.The Government of Alberta (GOA), The Town of Slave Lake, The Municipal District of Lesser Slave River No. 124, and Sawridge First Nation. 2011. “Lesser Slave Lake Recovery Plan - Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations162REGIONAL WILDFIRE RECOVERY PLAN”. Post-Disaster Recovery Plan. Edmonton, Alberta: The Government of Alberta. www.alberta.ca.The Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council (MMC), and National Institute of Building Sciences. 2005. “Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities”. Report to US Federal Congress Volume 1. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Washington, DC: FEMA. http://www.nibs.org/index.php/MMC/mmchome.html.Thomas E. Drabek. 2012. The Human Side of Disaster (Hardcover). Second Edition. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.Thompson, Jerry. 2011. Cascadia’s Fault: The Deadly Earthquake That Will Devastate North America. Toronto, Ontario: Harper Collins.Tierney, Kathleen J. 1993. “SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF HAZARD MITIGATION*.” University of Delaware Disaster Research Center: 26.“Tribal Mitigation Planning.” 2010. Factsheet. Mitigation Planning for Disaster Resilient Communities.FEMA.Tricia Wachtendorf. 2001. “Suggestions for Canadian Inter-Organizational Collaboration in Disaster Mitigation”. Preliminary Paper 312. Disaster Research Center: University of Delaware.U.S. Government Printing Office. 2006. Code of Federal Regulations 44. October 2006. Vol. Chapter I,Chapter IV. Emergency Management Assistance 44. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNODRR). 2012. “UNISDR Terminology”. United Nations. Terminology. July 1. http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology.Wernick, Michael. 2011. “Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) National Emergency Management Plan”. Ottawa: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010002/1100100010021.Westbank First Nation Government. 2010. “2010 Westbank Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Kelowna, B.C.: Westbank Forst Nation Government.Wikipedia. “Sliammon First Nation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliammon_First_Nation.———. “Huu-ay-aht First Nation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Huu-ay-aht.png.ʔaq̓amnik̓. 2011. “ʔaq̓am (St Mary’s Indian Band) Strategic Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Cranbrook, BC: ʔaq̓am St. Mary’s Indian Band.AANDC. 2013. “AANDC Support for First Nations Affected by Flooding in Manitoba.” August. www.aandc-aandc.gc.ca.AANDC B.C. Regional Strategic Planning Manager, ed. 2006. CCP Handbook. Vancouver, B.C.: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations163BCMOF. 2012. “Summary of Previous Fire Seasons”. Summry. Ministry of Forests and Range, Wildfire Management Branch.Berke, Philip, and Steven French. 1994. “The Influence of State Planning Mandates on Local Plan Quality.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 13 (4): 237–250.Brody, Samuel. 2003. “Are We Learning to Make Better Plans?: A Longitudinal Analysis of Plan Quality Associated with Natural Hazards.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 23: 191.Bruce,, James P., Ian Burton, and Mark Egener. 2007. “DISASTER MITIGATION AND PREPAREDNESS IN A CHANGING CLIMATE”. A synthesis paper prepared for: Emergency Preparedness Canada, Environment Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. Bend, OR: GCSI - GLOBAL CHANGE STRATEGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.Burby, R. 1999. “Unleashing the Power of Planning to Create DisasterResistant Communities.” APA 65(3).CKQQ,CKFR,CHNL,The Canadian Press. 2011. “Kelowna Forest Fire: 550 Forced To Flee Homes, Campground.” The Huffington Post Canada. June 9. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/09/06/forest-fire-near-kelowna-_n_949999.html.Debby Guha-Sapir, Femke Vos, Regina Below, and Sylvain Ponserre. 2011. “Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2011 The Numbers and Trends”. Brussels, Belgium: Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) Institute of Health and Society (IRSS) Université catholique de Louvain.Deyle, Dr. Robert. 1998. “Local Government Compliance with State Planning Mandates The Ejects of State Implementation in Florida.” Journal of the American Planning Association 64 (4): 457.Drabek, T. E., and G. J. Hoetmer, ed. 1991. Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government. International City Management Association (ICMA).Dynes, Russell R. 1991. “Social Science Research on Earthquake Hazard Mitigation: Relevance for Policy and Practice”. Preliminary Paper #163. University of Delaware Disaster Research Center.Edmond Cloutier. 1957. Civil Defence Notebook. Ottawa: Queens Printers, Hon. Paul Martin Minister of National Health and Welfare.Federal Emergency Management Agency - National Emergency Training Center Emergency Management Institute. 1998. “A Job Aid: Basics of Community Mitigation”. A Job Aid FEMA SM393.1. Basics of Community Mitigation. Emmitsburg, MD: FEMA.FEMA. 2013. “IS-318 Mitigation Planning for Local and Tribal Communities”. EMI FEMA Course presented at the FEMA Courses, Emmitsburg, MD. http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/courseOverview.aspx?code=is-318.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations164Government of Canada. 2008. “Natural Hazards Affect Us”. Info Graphic on Hazards across Canada. Cat. No.: M4-57/2008E. Ottawa: © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2008.———. 2013a. “Statistics Canada.” http://www.statcan.gc.ca/start-debut-eng.html.———. 2013b. “Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC).” July. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng.HONOURABLE COLIN GABELMANN ATTORNEY GENERAL. 2012. EMERGENCY PROGRAM ACT. http://www.leg.bc.ca/35th2nd/3rd_read/gov38-3.htm.Jardine, Carol, Mike Wallace, and Paul Kovacs. 2012. “Science to Action: A Strategy for Reducing Hazard Damage”. Science to Action. London, Canada: Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction.Joseph Scanlon. 2000. “Source of Threat and Source of Assistance: The Maritime Aspects of the 1917 Halifax Explosion.” The Northern Mariner/Le Marin Du Nord X (No. 4): 12.Kang, Jung, Walter Peacock, and Rahmawati Husein. 2010. “An Assessment of Coastal Zone Hazard Mitigation Plans in Texas.” Journal of Disaster Research 5 (5): 520–528.Mileti, Dennis. S. 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. University of Colorado at Boulder: Natl Academy Pr. http://www.colorado.edu/hazards.Musqueam. 2011. “Musqueam First Nation A Comprehensive Sustainable Community Development Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Vancouver, B.C.: Musqueam First Nation.Patriquin, Martin. 2012. “Canada, Home to the Suicide Capital of the World.” Macleans, March 30. Mcleans.ca.Penticton Indian Band. 2013. “Penticton Indian Band Comprehensive Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Penticton, B.C.: Penticton Indian Band.Philip Berke, Smith, and Ward Lyles. 2012. “Planning for Resiliency: Evaluation of State Hazard Mitigation Plans Under the Disaster Mitigation Act.” Natural Hazards Review: American Society of Civil Engineers 13 (May): 139–149.Province of British Columbia. 2013. “B.C. Quick Facts”. Government of B.C. http://www.gov.bc.ca/bcfacts/.Public Safety Canada. 2011. “2011-2012 Evaluation of the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements Program”. Final Report. Building a Safe and Resilient Canada. Ottawa.———. 2013a. “Canadian Disaster Database”. Public Safety Canada. Geospatial Canadian Disaster Database. http://cdd.publicsafety.gc.ca.———. 2013b. “Discussion Questions for the National Disaster Mitigation Strategy.” PSC_Programs_Prevention/Mitigation_NDMS. July.Schwab, James C., ed. 2010. Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning. Chicago, IL:Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations165American Planning Association.Sliammon First Nation. 2007. “Sliammon First Nation Comprehensive Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Powel River, B.C.: Sliammon First Nation.State of Florida. “Florida Division of Emergency Management.” 2013 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. http://www.floridadisaster.org/mitigation/State/Index.htm.The Government of Alberta (GOA), The Town of Slave Lake, The Municipal District of Lesser Slave River No. 124, and Sawridge First Nation. 2011. “Lesser Slave Lake Recovery Plan - REGIONAL WILDFIRE RECOVERY PLAN”. Post-Disaster Recovery Plan. Edmonton, Alberta: The Government of Alberta. www.alberta.ca.The Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council (MMC), and National Institute of Building Sciences. 2005. “Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities”. Report to US Federal Congress Volume 1. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Washington, DC: FEMA. http://www.nibs.org/index.php/MMC/mmchome.html.Thomas E. Drabek. 2012. The Human Side of Disaster (Hardcover). Second Edition. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.Thompson, Jerry. 2011. Cascadia’s Fault: The Deadly Earthquake That Will Devastate North America. Toronto, Ontario: Harper Collins.Tierney, Kathleen J. 1993. “SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF HAZARD MITIGATION*.” University of Delaware Disaster Research Center: 26.“Tribal Mitigation Planning.” 2010. Factsheet. Mitigation Planning for Disaster Resilient Communities.FEMA.Tricia Wachtendorf. 2001. “Suggestions for Canadian Inter-Organizational Collaboration in Disaster Mitigation”. Preliminary Paper 312. Disaster Research Center: University of Delaware.U.S. Government Printing Office. 2006. Code of Federal Regulations 44. October 2006. Vol. Chapter I,Chapter IV. Emergency Management Assistance 44. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNODRR). 2012. “UNISDR Terminology”. United Nations. Terminology. July 1. http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology.Wernick, Michael. 2011. “Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) National Emergency Management Plan”. Ottawa: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010002/1100100010021.Westbank First Nation Government. 2010. “2010 Westbank Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Kelowna, B.C.: Westbank Forst Nation Government.Wikipedia. “Sliammon First Nation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliammon_First_Nation.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations166———. “Huu-ay-aht First Nation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Huu-ay-aht.png.ʔaq̓amnik̓. 2011. “ʔaq̓am (St Mary’s Indian Band) Strategic Community Plan”. Comprehensive Community Plan. Cranbrook, BC: ʔaq̓am St. Mary’s Indian Band.Disaster Mitigation Planning for B.C. First Nations167

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.310.1-0075784/manifest

Comment

Related Items