City of Paramount Water Division
2025
Urban Water Management Plan
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN JUNE 24 , 2026
P R E P A R E D F O R: CITY OF PARAMOUNT 16400 COLORADO AVENUE PARAMOUNT , CA 90723
P R E P A R E D B Y:
16310 BAKE PARKWAY IRVINE, CA 92618 949.535.4261
www.ardurra.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... i Previous Studies and Reports................................................................................................................ iii CHAPTER 1
UWMP INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ............................................................. 1-1
1.1
Updated Guidance for 2025 Urban Water Management Plans ............................................. 1-2
1.2
Submittal Tables ................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.1
Inclusion of Submittal Tables ........................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.2
Optional Planning Tool .................................................................................................... 1-3
1.3
Recommended UWMP Organization .................................................................................... 1-4
1.4
UWMPs in Relation to Other Efforts ...................................................................................... 1-5
1.4.1
Specific Considerations ................................................................................................... 1-5
1.5
Department of Water Resources’ Review Process................................................................ 1-5
1.6
UWMP and Grant or Loan Eligibility ...................................................................................... 1-6
CHAPTER 2 2.1
PLAN PREPARATION ............................................................................................. 2-1
Basis for Preparing a Plan .................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1
Suppliers with Both Wholesale and Retail Sales .............................................................. 2-1
2.1.2
Public Water Systems ..................................................................................................... 2-2
2.2
Individual or Regional Plans ................................................................................................. 2-2
2.2.1 2.3
Regional Reporting .......................................................................................................... 2-3
Fiscal or Calendar Year and Units of Measure...................................................................... 2-3
2.3.1
Fiscal or Calendar Year ................................................................................................... 2-3
2.3.2
Units of Measure ............................................................................................................. 2-4
2.4
Coordination and Outreach ................................................................................................... 2-4
2.4.1
Wholesale and Retail Coordination .................................................................................. 2-4
2.4.2
Coordination with Other Agencies and the Community .................................................... 2-4
2.4.3
Notice to Cities and Counties .......................................................................................... 2-5
CHAPTER 3
SERVICE AREA DESCRIPTION ............................................................................. 3-1
3.1
General Description .............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2
Service Area Boundary Maps ............................................................................................... 3-2
3.3
Service Area Climate ............................................................................................................ 3-2
3.4
Service Area Population and Demographics ......................................................................... 3-6
3.4.1
Service Area Population .................................................................................................. 3-6
3.4.2
Other Social, Economic, and Demographic Factors......................................................... 3-8
3.5
Land Uses within Service Area ............................................................................................. 3-9
CHAPTER 4
WATER USE CHARACTERIZATION ...................................................................... 4-1 Page | i
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
4.1
Non-Potable Versus Potable Water Use ............................................................................... 4-1
4.2
Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector ............................................................... 4-1
4.2.1
Water Use Sectors Listed in Water Code......................................................................... 4-1
4.2.2
Water Use Sectors in Addition to Those Listed in Water Code ........................................ 4-2
4.2.3
Past Water Use ............................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.4
Current Water Use........................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.5
Projected Water Use ....................................................................................................... 4-5
4.3
4.2.5.1
Lower Income Households....................................................................................... 4-7
4.2.5.2
Climate Change Considerations............................................................................... 4-7
Distribution System Water Loss ............................................................................................ 4-7
4.3.1
Previous Five Years Distribution System Losses ............................................................. 4-8
4.3.2
Progress Toward Meeting the Water Loss Performance Standard .................................. 4-8
CHAPTER 5
SB X7-7 Baselines, 2020 Targets, and 2025 Reporting ........................................... 5-1
5.1
Reporting Requirements for Wholesale Suppliers ................................................................. 5-1
5.2
Reporting Requirements for Retail Suppliers ........................................................................ 5-1
5.2.1
Supplier Was Not an Urban Retail Water Supplier in 2020 .............................................. 5-1
5.2.2
Supplier Met 2020 Target in 2020.................................................................................... 5-1
5.2.3
Supplier Did Not Meet 2020 Target in 2020 – No Change to Service Area ...................... 5-2
5.2.4
Supplier Did Not Meet 2020 Target in 2020 – Change to Service Area............................ 5-2
5.2.5
Funding Eligibility............................................................................................................. 5-2
CHAPTER 6 6.1
NORMAL-YEAR WATER SUPPLY CHARACTERIZATION ..................................... 6-1
Water Supply Analysis Overview .......................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.1
Specific Analysis Applicable to All Water Supply Sources ............................................... 6-2
6.1.2
Special Considerations .................................................................................................... 6-4
6.2
6.1.2.1
Climate Change Effects ........................................................................................... 6-4
6.1.2.2
Regulatory Conditions and Project Development ..................................................... 6-4
6.1.2.3
Other Locally Applicable Criteria .............................................................................. 6-4
6.1.2.4
Wholesale and Retail Suppliers Coordination .......................................................... 6-4
Water Supply Characterization ............................................................................................. 6-5
6.2.1
Purchased or Imported Water .......................................................................................... 6-5
6.2.2
Groundwater.................................................................................................................... 6-5
6.2.2.1
Basin Description ..................................................................................................... 6-6
6.2.2.2
Basin Management Information ............................................................................... 6-8
6.2.2.3
Other Considerations ............................................................................................... 6-8
6.2.2.4
Past Five Years Groundwater Pumping ................................................................... 6-8 Page | ii
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
6.2.3
Surface Water ................................................................................................................. 6-9
6.2.4
Stormwater ...................................................................................................................... 6-9
6.2.5
Wastewater and Recycled Water................................................................................... 6-10
6.2.5.1
Recycled Water Coordination ................................................................................ 6-10
6.2.5.2
Wastewater Treatment Discharge .......................................................................... 6-10
6.2.5.3
Recycled Water System Description ...................................................................... 6-15
6.2.5.4
Current, Potential, and Projected Recycled Water Uses ........................................ 6-15
6.2.6
Desalinated Water Opportunities ................................................................................... 6-19
6.2.7
Water Exchanges and Transfers ................................................................................... 6-20
6.2.8
Supply from Storage ...................................................................................................... 6-21
6.2.9
Future Water Projects .................................................................................................... 6-21
6.3
Energy Use ......................................................................................................................... 6-22
CHAPTER 7 7.1
WATER SERVICE RELIABILITY AND DROUGHT RISK ASSESSMENT ................ 7-1
Constraints on Water Sources Considerations...................................................................... 7-1
7.1.1
Central Basin Groundwater ............................................................................................. 7-2
7.1.1.1
Legal ........................................................................................................................ 7-2
7.1.1.2
Climatic .................................................................................................................... 7-2
7.1.2
CBMWD Wholesale Water .............................................................................................. 7-2
7.1.3
Water Quality................................................................................................................... 7-2
7.2
7.1.3.1
Central Basin Groundwater ...................................................................................... 7-3
7.1.3.2
CBMWD Wholesale Water ....................................................................................... 7-3
Water Service Reliability Assessment ................................................................................... 7-5
7.2.1
WSRA Year-Type Characterization ................................................................................. 7-5
7.2.1.1 7.2.2
WSRA Supply and Demand Comparison ........................................................................ 7-9
7.2.2.1
Normal Year ............................................................................................................ 7-9
7.2.2.2
Single Dry Year........................................................................................................ 7-9
7.2.2.3
Five Consecutive Dry Years..................................................................................... 7-9
7.2.3 7.3
Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 7-8
WRSA Description of Management Tools and Options .................................................. 7-10
Drought Risk Assessment................................................................................................... 7-11
7.3.1
DRA Data, Methods, and Basis for Water Shortage Conditions ..................................... 7-11
7.3.2
DRA Individual Water Source Reliability ........................................................................ 7-11
7.3.3
DRA Total Water Supply and Use Comparison ............................................................. 7-12
CHAPTER 8 8.1
WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLANNING ................................................. 8-1
Water Supply Reliability Analysis .......................................................................................... 8-1 Page | iii
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
8.2
Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Procedures................................................ 8-3
8.2.1
Decision-Making Process ................................................................................................ 8-3
8.2.2
Data and Methodologies .................................................................................................. 8-4
8.3
Six Standard Water Shortage Levels .................................................................................... 8-4
8.3.1
Establishment of Water Shortage Conditions................................................................... 8-4
8.3.2
Water Shortage Stages ................................................................................................... 8-5
8.4
Shortage Response Actions ................................................................................................. 8-8
8.4.1
Supply Augmentation ...................................................................................................... 8-8
8.4.2
Demand Reduction .......................................................................................................... 8-8
8.4.2.1
Water Waste Prohibitions......................................................................................... 8-8
8.4.2.2
Water Conservation Measures ............................................................................... 8-12
8.4.2.3
Water Use Restrictions .......................................................................................... 8-12
8.4.3
Operational Changes ..................................................................................................... 8-13
8.4.4
Additional Mandatory Restrictions ................................................................................. 8-13
8.4.5
Emergency Response Plan ........................................................................................... 8-13
8.4.6
Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan ............................................................... 8-15
8.4.6.1
Faults, Earthquakes, and Liquefaction ................................................................... 8-16
8.4.6.2
Seismic Risk .......................................................................................................... 8-16
8.4.6.3
Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 8-16
8.4.7
Shortage Response Action Effectiveness ...................................................................... 8-17
8.5
Communication Protocols ................................................................................................... 8-17
8.6
Compliance and Enforcement ............................................................................................. 8-18
8.6.1
Compliance and Enforcement Protocols ........................................................................ 8-18
8.6.2
Penalties for Excessive Use .......................................................................................... 8-19
8.7
Legal Authorities ................................................................................................................. 8-19
8.7.1
Legal Authorities ............................................................................................................ 8-20
8.7.2 Declaration of Water Shortage Condition or Emergency and Implementation of Water Shortage Response Actions ...................................................................................................... 8-20 8.7.3
Proclamation of Local Emergency ................................................................................. 8-20
8.7.4
Withdrawal of Water Shortage Condition and Water Response Actions ........................ 8-20
8.8
Financial Consequences of WSCP ..................................................................................... 8-20
8.8.1
Financial Impacts and Mitigation Action ......................................................................... 8-20
8.8.2 Reporting Cost of Compliance with Excessive Water Use Prohibition During Drought Emergency ................................................................................................................................ 8-21 8.9
Monitoring and Reporting.................................................................................................... 8-21
8.10
WSCP Refinement Procedures ..................................................................................... 8-21 Page | iv
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
8.11
Special Water Feature Distinction .................................................................................. 8-22
8.12
Plan Adoption, Submittal, Availability, and Amendment Procedures .............................. 8-22
CHAPTER 9 9.1
DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES .................................................................. 9-1
Demand Management Measures for Retail Suppliers ........................................................... 9-1
9.1.1
Implementation Over the Past Five Years ....................................................................... 9-2
9.1.2
Implementation to Achieve Water-Use Targets ................................................................ 9-3
9.1.3
Required Demand Management Measures ..................................................................... 9-3
9.1.3.1
Water-Waste Prevention Ordinances ....................................................................... 9-3
9.1.3.2
Metering................................................................................................................... 9-3
9.1.3.3
Conservation Pricing ................................................................................................ 9-4
9.1.3.4
Public Education and Outreach ................................................................................ 9-4
9.1.3.5
Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss ............................ 9-5
9.1.3.6
Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support............................. 9-5
9.1.3.7
Other Demand Management Measures ................................................................... 9-5
9.2
Demand Management Measures for Wholesale Suppliers.................................................... 9-8
9.2.1
Required Demand Management Measures ..................................................................... 9-8
9.2.2
Wholesale Demand Management Measures ................................................................... 9-8
CHAPTER 10
PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION .................................. 10-1
10.1
Plan Completion Timeline .............................................................................................. 10-1
10.2
Notice of Plan Preparation ............................................................................................. 10-1
10.3
Notice of Public Hearing ................................................................................................ 10-1
10.4
Public Hearing and Adoption ......................................................................................... 10-1
10.5
Plan Submittal ............................................................................................................... 10-2
10.5.1
Submitting a UWMP and Water Shortage Contingency Plan to DWR ........................ 10-2
10.5.2
Electronic Data Submittal........................................................................................... 10-2
10.5.3
Submitting a UWMP, Including WSCP, to the California State Library ....................... 10-2
10.5.4
Submitting a UWMP to Cities and Counties ............................................................... 10-2
10.6
Public Availability ........................................................................................................... 10-2
10.7
Notification to Public Utilities Commission ..................................................................... 10-3
10.8
Plan Implementation ...................................................................................................... 10-3
10.9
Amending an Adopted UWMP or WSCP ....................................................................... 10-3
10.9.1
Amending a UWMP or WSCP.................................................................................... 10-3
10.9.2
Submitting Revised Water Shortage Contingency Plan ............................................. 10-3
10.10
California Department of Water Resources Review of Submitted Plans ........................ 10-3
Page | v 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: California Water Code Changes Since 2020 UWMP .......................................................... 1-2 Table 2-1: Retail Only: Public Water Systems ..................................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-2: Plan Identification............................................................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-3: Supplier Identification ......................................................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-4: Retail: Water Supplier Information Exchange ..................................................................... 2-4 Table 3-0a: Well Operating Capacities................................................................................................ 3-2 Table 3-1: Climate Data1 ..................................................................................................................... 3-6 Table 3-2: Retail: Population -- Current and Projected ........................................................................ 3-8 Table 3-3: Developed Land Use Summary within Service Area .......................................................... 3-9 Table 4-1: Historic Water Use ............................................................................................................. 4-4 Table 4-2: Total Uses for Potable and Non-Potable Water - Actual ..................................................... 4-5 Table 4-3: Historical Use Rates (GPCD) ............................................................................................. 4-6 Table 4-4: Retail: Total Uses for Potable, and Non-Potable Water - Projected .................................... 4-6 Table 4-5: Inclusion in Water Use Projections ..................................................................................... 4-7 Table 4-6: Water Loss Audit Reporting ............................................................................................... 4-8 Table 4-7: Progress Towards 2028 Water Loss Standard ................................................................... 4-9 Table 5-1: SB X7-7 2020 Target Progress .......................................................................................... 5-1 Table 6-1: Water Supplies – Actual ..................................................................................................... 6-2 Table 6-2: Water Supplies – Projected................................................................................................ 6-3 Table 6-3: Quality of Imported Water .................................................................................................. 6-5 Table 6-4: Groundwater Volume Pumped ........................................................................................... 6-9 Table 6-5: Volume Projected to be Pumped........................................................................................ 6-9 Table 6-6: Wastewater Collected within Service Area in 2020 .......................................................... 6-12 Table 6-7: Wastewater Treatment and Outcomes within UWMP Service Area in 2025 ..................... 6-14 Table 6-8: Recycled Water - FY 2024-2025 Use ............................................................................... 6-15 Table 6-9: Recycled Water District Beneficial Uses within Service Area ........................................... 6-16 Table 6-10: 2020 UWMP Recycled-Water Use Projection Compared to 2022 Actual ....................... 6-16 Table 6-11: Recycled Water - Potential Future Use .......................................................................... 6-17 Table 6-12: 2020 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2025 Actual........................ 6-17 Table 6-13: Methods to Encourage Future Recycled Water Use....................................................... 6-19 Table 6-14: Current Desalination Projected Capacities ..................................................................... 6-20 Table 6-15: Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs .................................................... 6-21 Table 6-16: Water Supplies – 2025 Actual ........................................................................................ 6-22 Table 7-1: Factors Resulting in Inconsistence of Water Supply........................................................... 7-1 Table 7-2: Supply Augmentation and Other Actions ............................................................................ 7-8 Table 7-3: Normal-Year Supply and Demand Comparison ................................................................. 7-9 Table 7-4: Single Dry-Year Supply and Demand Comparison............................................................. 7-9 Table 7-5: Five Consecutive Dry-Year Supply and Demand Comparison ......................................... 7-10 Table 7-6: Single Dry-Year Supply and Demand Comparison........................................................... 7-12 Table 8-1: Climate Change Vulnerability Screening ............................................................................ 8-2 Table 8-2: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Planning............................................................... 8-5 Table 8-3: Comparison for the City’s 2015 Shortage Levels and the 2025 WSCP Mandated Shortage Levels ............................................................................................................................ 8-7 Table 8-4: Supply Augmentation and Other Actions ............................................................................ 8-8 Table 8-5: Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Uses ........................................................................ 8-9 Table 8-6: Catastrophic Supply Interruption Actions ......................................................................... 8-15 Page | vi 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 8-7: Estimated Demand Reduction.......................................................................................... 8-17 Table 8-8: Penalties and Charges ..................................................................................................... 8-19 Table 8-9: Notification to Cities and Agencies ................................................................................... 8-22 Table 9-1: CUWCC BMP Organization and Names and UWMP DMMs .............................................. 9-2 Table 10-1: Notice to Cities and Counties ......................................................................................... 10-1
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1: City of Paramount Regional Location ................................................................................ 3-3 Figure 3-2: City of Paramount Service Area ........................................................................................ 3-4 Figure 3-3: Average Temperatures ..................................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-4: Total Precipitation ............................................................................................................. 3-5 Figure 3-5: Service Area 25-Year Population and Growth Chart ......................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-6: City of Paramount Land Use ........................................................................................... 3-10 Figure 4-1: Historic Water Use ............................................................................................................ 4-3 Figure 6-1: Groundwater Basin Location ............................................................................................. 6-7 Figure 7-1: Historic Rainfall Data ........................................................................................................ 7-7
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A:
Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: Appendix H: Appendix I: Appendix J:
Notification Letters City of Paramount 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan, LA County 2025 Hazard Mitigation Plan, CBMWD Strategic Plan 2021 - 2026 Water Loss Audits AWWA Standards 2024 Consumer Confidence Report City Resolution to Adopt the UWMP-WSCP Ordinances Submittal Tables Newspaper Notification Checklist
Page | vii 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
List of Abbreviations AB
Assembly Bill
HECW
High-Efficiency Clothes Washer
AF
Acre-Feet
HET
High-Efficiency Toilet
AFY
Acre-Feet per Year
ID
Identifier
AWWA
American Water Works Association
IRWMP
BMP
Best Management Practice
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Cal EMA
California Emergency Management Agency
JOS
Joint Outfall System
JWPCP
Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
CAP
Climate Action Plan
kWh
kiloWatts per Hour
CBMWD
Central Basin Municipal Water District
LACSD
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
CCR
Consumer Confidence Report
LRP
Local Resources Program
CD
Compact Disc
MCL
Maximum Contaminant
CDPH
California Department of Public Health
mg/L
milligrams per Liter
CII
Commercial, Industrial, Institutional (Water Use Sectors)
MGY
Million Gallons per Year
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
CIMIS
California Irrigation Management Information System
MWD
Metropolitan Water District
City
City of Paramount
NA
Not Applicable
CUWCC
California Urban Water Conservation Council
NAWI
National Alliance for Water Innovation
CWAC
California Water Awareness Campaign
PFAS
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
CWC
California Water Code
PHG
Public Health Goal
DDW
Division of Drinking Water
ppb
Parts per Billion
DMM
Demand Management Measure
ppm
Parts per Million
DOF
Department of Finance
RHNA
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
DRA
Drought Risk Assessment
RUWMP
DWR
Department of Water Resources
Regional Urban Water Management Plan
EPC
Emergency Operations Center
SB
Senate Bill
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
SB X7-7
ETo
Reference Evapotranspiration
Senate Bill Seven of the Senate’s Seventh Extraordinary Session of 2009
°F
Fahrenheit
SDP
Seawater Desalination Project
FY
Fiscal Year
SGMA
GBMP
Groundwater Basins Master Plan
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
SGVMWD
GPCD
Gallons per Capita per Day
San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District
GPD
Gallons per Day
gpf
gallon per flush
GSA
Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSWC
Golden State Water Company
USGVMWD Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District SWP State Water Project SWRCB
State Water Resources Control Board
SWRP
Southeast Water Reliability Project
Page | i 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
TDS
Total Dissolved Solids
WRP
Water Reclamation Plant
ULFT
Ultra-low Flush Toilet
WSA
Water Supply Assessment
UWMP
Urban Water Management Plan
WSCP
Water Shortage Contingency Plan
UWMP Act
Urban Water Management Plan Act
WSRA
Water Service Reliability Assessment
UWUO
Urban Water Use Objectives
WUE
Water Use Efficiency
WBIC
Weather-Based Irrigation Controller
WWTP
Wastewater Treatment Plant
WRD
Water Replenishment District of Southern California
Page | ii 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Previous Studies and Reports The following studies, reports, and other materials were reviewed during the preparation of this Urban Water Management Plan update: 1.
City of Paramount 2020 UWMP
2.
2026 Clearwater Specific Plan
3.
City of Paramount 2015 Water Master Plan Update
4. 5.
City of Paramount Water Consumption and Water Loss Audits City of Paramount General Plan (Section 3)
6.
January Population Housing Estimates Table E-1 Department of Finance
7.
2020 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Annual Report
8.
2025 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Draft UWMP
9.
2023 City of Paramount Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Page | iii 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
CHAPTER 1
UWMP INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
This report comprises the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) update for the City of Paramount (Paramount/City). Paramount is a suburban city located in southeastern Los Angeles County, California, within the Los Angeles Basin. The City encompasses 4.73 square miles of land with primarily residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The 2025 population is approximately 52,371, based on the most recent available population estimate from the U.S. Department of Finance (DoF) from January 2025. Early economic activity in the area centered on agriculture, particularly dairy and hay production, before transitioning to the more urbanized land uses seen today. Groundwater historically supported the area’s development, similar to many communities in the Los Angeles Basin that lacked perennial rivers or streams. The 15,006 households accounted for in the City between 2020 and 2024 are primarily metered, reflecting typical urban service characteristics. The UWMP is a valuable planning document used for the following purposes: Meet a statutory requirement of the California Water Code (CWC) Provide a key source of information for Water Supply Assessments (WSAs) and Written Verifications of Water Supply required by Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 221 Support regional long-range planning documents including County General Plans Serve as a critical component of developing Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMPs) As part of the California Water Code (CWC), the California Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP Act) requires all urban water suppliers with more than 3,000 connections or distributing more than 3,000 acre feet per year (AFY) to complete an UWMP every five years ending in ‘5’ or ‘0’. The UWMP Act is administered by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), who is responsible for developing guidance for preparation of the UWMPs, reviewing the submitted plans for completeness, compiling the data for statewide and regional analysis, and publishing the documents online for public access. CWC 10620 (d)(1) An urban water supplier may satisfy the requirements of this part by participation in area wide, regional, watershed, or basin wide urban water management planning where those plans will reduce preparation costs and contribute to the achievement of conservation and efficient water use. CWC 10621 (b) Every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan pursuant to this part shall, at least 60 days before the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan.
New Requirements for 2025 Update The 2025 UWMP requires a clearer explanation of how the document aligns with recent legislative changes, including updates to reporting timelines and planning horizons. This chapter now must reference integration with other long-range planning documents (e.g., Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) updates, climate vulnerability assessments) and describe how new data sources—particularly updated demand projections and SB 606/ Assembly Bill (AB) 1668 requirements—inform the overall plan. Page | 1-1 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Compared to 2020, the emphasis on coordination with land-use agencies and statewide conservation programs has increased. The following new requirements have been identified in the 2025 UWMP Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers and have been addressed in the City’s 2025 UWMP update: Water Loss Standard Reporting Submittal Tables All other changes from the 2020 UWMP are classified as updated to existing requirements.
1.1
Updated Guidance for 2025 Urban Water Management Plans
Table 1-1 provides an overview of the applicable changes to the CWC since the 2020 UWMP, which have been included in this 2025 update. Chapter 9, Parts 2.55 and 2.56 of the CWC contain the primary statutory provisions governing the changes summarized below, which were adopted under the UWMP Act and related urban water conservation legislation. Table 1-1: California Water Code Changes Since 2020 UWMP Topic Area
10609.2 Urban Water Use Objectives & Conservation Standards
10609.4 10609.12– 10609.20 10609.33
Drought Planning & Water Shortage Reporting Water Use Characterization & Water Loss Reporting SBX7-7 Compliance & Verification Reporting
Summary
2025 UWMP Guidebook Chapter(s)
Updates indoor residential standards (47 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) in 2025; 42 gpcd in 2030), formalizes long-term efficiency regulations (“Making Conservation a California Way of Life”), and standardizes methodologies for calculating and reporting Urban Water Use Objectives (UWUOs), directly affecting demand forecasting and compliance reporting.
5&7
Expands drought planning requirements to small water suppliers and certain school systems, operationalizes Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (Annual Shortage Report), and reorganizes WSCP requirements and submittal formats, while retaining core statutory elements.
7&8
Introduces updated mandatory reporting tables, aligns water loss reporting with the 2028 Water Loss Performance Standard, expands climate change considerations, and separates historical, current, and projected water use more clearly.
3-5
CWC Section(s)
10609.50 10632.1 10632 –10634 10631 10631.1 10631.2
10608
Shifts Senate Bill Seven of the Senate’s Seventh Extraordinary Session of 2009 (SBX7-7) reporting from general compliance to verification of 2020 achievements and required 2025 reporting status, with clarified pathways for suppliers that met or did not meet conservation targets.
7
Page | 1-2 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Water Supply Characterization & Energy Use Water Service Reliability & Drought Risk Assessment Demand Management Measures (DMMs) UWMP Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal Procedures
1.2
10631 10631.1
10631.5 10635
10631.5
10610 – 10621 10644
Reorganizes supply source reporting for clarity, integrates energy-use reporting, adds new wastewater and desalination tables, and emphasizes normal-year supply characterization.
6
Restructures Water Service Reliability Assessment (WSRA) and Drought Risk Assessment (DRA) frameworks to align with year-type characterization and supply-demand comparisons, and introduces consolidated submittal tables for improved consistency.
6&8
Clarifies distinctions between wholesale and retail supplier reporting, consolidates narrative requirements, and refreshes organization while maintaining required measures and five-year implementation reporting.
9
Streamlines plan preparation guidance, introduces standardized submittal tables, updates adoption timelines and notice requirements, and consolidates submittal procedures to DWR, the State Library, and local agencies.
1&2 10
Submittal Tables
The DWR now includes a set of Submittal Tables, attached as Appendix H and included in relevant chapters, designed to ensure that all urban water suppliers report information in a consistent, comparable format. The tables function as a compliance checklist and data-reporting framework, translating narrative chapters into quantifiable entries. DWR emphasizes that UWMPs must address all requirements contained in the CWC (§10610–10656 and §10608 et seq.), and the submittal tables serve as a structured mechanism to demonstrate compliance with these statutory elements.
1.2.1
Inclusion of Submittal Tables
The Submittal Tables align with the organization of the UWMP Guidebook and provide a standardized method for reporting information related to system description, water supply characterization, demand projections, water shortage contingency planning, and conservation program performance. DWR’s UWMP checklist confirms that the tables serve as a structured framework to communicate how the urban water supplier satisfies statutory requirements across sections such as §10615, §10620, and §10631. By including all required Submittal Tables, this UWMP enhances transparency, facilitates DWR review, and ensures comparability with other urban water suppliers throughout California. The tables also contribute to statewide data consistency, enabling DWR to compile water management information across five‑year planning cycles.
1.2.2
Optional Planning Tool
The UWMP Guidebook allows suppliers to incorporate optional planning tools that can improve analytical rigor, support scenario evaluation, and enhance data quality. While DWR does not mandate the use of Page | 1-3 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
any specific planning tool, the Department provides access to templates, calculators, and data‑entry resources through the Water Use Efficiency (WUE) Data Portal and associated guidance materials. These tools help suppliers organize data, align assumptions with state methodologies, and streamline preparation of plan components such as population estimates, water reliability analyses, and annual assessments.
1.3
Recommended UWMP Organization
This UWMP update was prepared based on guidance from the final draft of the California DWR “2025 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers” dated January 2026 and follows the recommended chapter formatting identified in the guidebook and briefly described below. Chapter 1 – UWMP Introduction and Overview: This chapter identifies changes since the 2020 UWMP, fundamentals of the 2025 UWMP, and the required lay description of the City and its service area. Some subsequent chapters also include an initial lay description. Chapter 2 – Plan Preparation: This chapter provides information on processes used to develop the UWMP, including efforts in coordination and outreach. Chapter 3 – Service Area Descriptions: This chapter includes maps of the service area, an explanation of the service area and climate, and detail on the public water system. Chapter 4 – Water Use Characterization: This chapter provides a description and quantification of the current and projected water uses within the City’s service area. Chapter 5 – SBX&-7 Baselines, 2020 Targets, and 2025 Reporting: This chapter describes the City’s compliance with the 2025 per-capita water conservation mandate, presents the City’s 2025 per-capita target value that was adopted in the 2020 UWMP, and compliance with per-capita target based upon actual 2025 customer water use. Chapter 6 – Normal-Year Water Supply Characterization: This chapter provides a description and quantification of current and projected potable and non-potable water supplies. A narrative description of each supply source and quantification of the supply availability for each supply source was identified. Chapter 7 – Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment: This chapter describes the City’s water system reliability through at least a 20-year planning horizon. The description includes normal, single dry year, and five consecutive dry years. The water system reliability differs from the Drought Risk Assessment (DRA) by allowing a different basis for characterizing the five consecutive dry years. Chapter 8 – Water Shortage Contingency Plan: This chapter provides a structured plan for dealing with water shortages, incorporating prescriptive information and standardized action levels, along with implementation actions in the event of a catastrophic supply interruption. Chapter 9 – Demand Management Measures: This chapter identifies the City’s efforts to promote conservation and to reduce demand on the water supply; specifically including a narrative describing efforts to implement demand management measures. Chapter 10 – Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation: This chapter describes and documents the steps taken to make the UWMP publicly available, as well as the steps taken to adopt and submit the UWMP in accordance with the Water Code, and also describes the City’s plan to implement the UWMP. Page | 1-4 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Appendices: To support and further clarify information included in the main chapters of the UWMP, relevant information has been included in the appendix of this UWMP.
1.4
UWMPs in Relation to Other Efforts
A UWMP is prepared by local Suppliers that have the in-depth and practical knowledge of their water systems. The information contained in each Supplier’s UWMP reflects the operations of its system in the context of the Supplier’s customers, supplies, and service area. This local planning and preparation remains the fundamental focus of the UWMP. In addition to the local Supplier focus, the UWMP requires coordination with other planning agencies and is most effective when integrated with other planning efforts. Land-use planning agencies, such as cities and counties, prepare General Plans and Specific Plans that affect a Supplier’s analysis provided in its UWMP, and vice versa. Moreover, Water Master Plans, facility plans, Recycled Water Master Plans, Integrated Regional Water Management Plans, local or regional Hazard Mitigation Plans, and others need to be synthesized with a Supplier’s UWMP to ensure a holistic planning process. For the City’s UWMP, elements of the following reports and documents were utilized to develop the required sections of the plan (a brief description is provided for the relevant information contained in each document): 2020 Urban Water Management Plan: Served as the basis for the 2025 update. City of Paramount Draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, August 2022 City of Paramount Housing Element, March 2022 2020 – 2025 Water Loss Audits
1.4.1
Specific Considerations
Other related analysis and information related to the Delta Plan and Ocean Desalination projects are not included in this UWMP, as they do not relate to the City.
1.5
Department of Water Resources’ Review Process
The DWR reviews each UWMP to ensure it satisfies the requirements of the CWC and aligns with the organizational structure and reporting expectations outlined in the UWMP Guidebook. Once a UWMP is submitted through the WUE data portal, DWR conducts a completeness and compliance review and later compiles statewide findings for legislative reporting. DWR’s review focuses on verifying that suppliers have addressed all required elements, appropriately used Submittal Tables, and incorporated accurate and consistent data as referenced in the UWMP Checklist. After the review, DWR will contact the Supplier with one of the following letter types: UWMP Address Water Code Requirements: The submitted UWMP addresses the requirements of the Water Code and has met the eligibility requirements for grants and loans under Water Code Section 10608.56. UWMP Address Water Code Requirements with Recommendations: The submitted UWMP addresses the requirements of the Water Code and has met the eligibility requirements for grants Page | 1-5 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
and loans under Water Code Section 10608.56, but DWR will provide recommendations for portions that could use slight adjustment in the next round of UWMPs. UWMP Advisory Letter: The submitted UWMP did not address all Water Code requirements or that it cannot be determined whether all requirements have been addressed. The Supplier must then submit an amended UWMP that addresses the deficiencies or necessary information documenting the requirements addressed. UWMP Does Not Address Water Code Requirements: The UWMP has not addressed all the requirements of the Water Code, and is issued if no response has been received to a UWMP Advisory Letter. Indeterminate: It could not be determined whether the submitted UWMP has addressed the Water Code’s UWMP requirements.
1.6
UWMP and Grant or Loan Eligibility
For a Supplier to be eligible for any water grant or loan administered by DWR, the Supplier must have a current UWMP on file that has been determined by DWR to address the requirements of the Water Code. A current UWMP must also be maintained by the Supplier throughout the term of any grant or loan administered by DWR. An UWMP may also be required in order to be eligible for other state funding, depending on the conditions that are specified in the funding guidelines. Suppliers are encouraged to seek guidance on the specifics of any state funding source from the respective funding agencies.
Page | 1-6 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
CHAPTER 2
PLAN PREPARATION
New Requirements for 2025 Update The 2025 update requires agencies to incorporate the most recent demographic, land-use, and housing information, including updated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) allocations where applicable. This chapter now places greater emphasis on climate-related vulnerabilities and the geographic areas most sensitive to water supply reductions. Unlike the 2020 UWMP, the 2025 version requires more explicit coordination with local General Plans, hazard mitigation plans, and SB 379 climate adaptation updates.
2.1
Basis for Preparing a Plan CWC 10617 “Urban water supplier” means a supplier, either publicly or privately owned, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually. An urban water supplier includes a supplier or contractor for water, regardless of the basis of right, which distributes or sells for ultimate resale to customers. This part applies only to water supplied from public water systems…
The City is required to prepare an UWMP since it supplies an average of ~6,300 acre-feet (AF) per year within its service area. In 2025, the City produced approximately 5,122 acre-feet (AF) of water. CWC 10620(b) Every person that becomes an urban water supplier shall adopt an urban water management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier. CWC 10621(a) Each urban water supplier shall update its plan at least once every five years on or before December 31, in years ending in five and zero, except as provided in subdivision (d). (d) Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2015 plan to the department by July 1, 2016. In 1985 and 1990 the City adopted the CBMWD’s UWMP as its own. In 1995 the City issued its own UWMP citing it as an amendment to CBMWD’s UWMP. From 2000 and on, the City adopted its own UWMP completely separate from CBMWD and other agencies. The City’s first completely independent adoption of the UWMP occurred in 2000, they have completed and submitted UWMP Updates in 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020.
2.1.1
Suppliers with Both Wholesale and Retail Sales
The City is a Retail water supplier, operating its own water system and providing potable water directly to customers within its service boundaries. The City does not serve as a wholesale distributor to other retail agencies.
Page | 2-1 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
2.1.2
Public Water Systems CWC 10644(a)(2) The plan, or amendments to the plan, submitted to the department… shall include any standardized forms, tables, or displays specified by the department. CWC 10608.52(a) The department, in consultation with the board, the California Bay-Delta Authority or its successor agency, the State Department of Public Health, and the Public Utilities Commission, shall develop a single standardized water use information needs of each agency, including the needs of urban water suppliers that elect to determine and report progress toward achieving targets on a regional basis as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 10608.28. (b) At a minimum, the form shall be developed to accommodate information sufficient to assess an urban water supplier’s compliance with conservation targets pursuant to Section 10608.24… The form shall accommodate reporting by urban water suppliers on an individual or regional basis as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 10608.28. California Health and Safety Code 116275 (h) “Public Water System” means a system for the provision of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances that has 15 or more service connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year.
The City’s 2015 UWMP utilized the DWR standardized forms, tables, or displays. This use of forms, tables, or displays is continued throughout the 2025 UWMP. The City is a public urban water supplier serving an estimated population of 52,371 people. Table 2-1 provides a summary of the number of connections and total volume of water supplied by the City to its customers for calendar year 2025. The City serves a single public water system and service area. Table 2-1: Retail Only: Public Water Systems Public Water System Number
Public Water System Name
Number of Municipal Connections 2025
Volume of Water Supplied 2025 (AF)
CA1910105
Paramount – City, Water Department
7,556
5,122
7,556
5,122
TOTAL Notes: 1. Table coordinates with WUE Table 2-1R
2.2
Individual or Regional Plans
The City has developed a UWMP that reports solely on its individual service area as identified in Table 2-2. This plan addresses all applicable CWC requirements, including necessary references to historical SB X7-7 targets, while meeting the current long-term water use efficiency requirements under AB 1668 and SB 606. Page | 2-2 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 2-2: Plan Identification Type of Plan ☒
☐
Individual UWMP ☐
Water Supplier is also a member of a Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP)
☐
Water Supplier is also a member of a Regional Alliance
Regional Urban Water Management Plan
Notes: 1. Table coordinates with WUE Table 2-2
2.2.1
Regional Reporting
The City will not be participating in a regional 2025 UWMP; however, the City has developed stand-alone UWMPs since 2000 and will do so for the 2025 update. The goal of this UWMP is to address all the requirement of the CWC. As part of this effort, the agency notified and coordinated with the Central Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD), County of Los Angeles, Metropolitan Water District (MWD), and the Long Beach Water Department.
2.3
Fiscal or Calendar Year and Units of Measure CWC 1608.20 (a)(1) Urban retail water suppliers… may determine the targets on a fiscal year or calendar year basis
2.3.1
Fiscal or Calendar Year
The City uses Fiscal Years for its database. Information regarding Agency type, year basis and unit of measure used is presented in Table 2-3 below. Table 2-3: Supplier Identification Type of Supplier ☐ Supplier is a wholesaler ☒ Supplier is a retailer Fiscal or Calendar Year ☐ UWMP Tables Are in Calendar Years ☒ UWMP Tables Are in Fiscal Years If using fiscal years provide month and date that the fiscal year begins (mm/dd) Units of Measure Used in UWMP Unit AF Notes: 1. Table coordinates with WUE Table 2-3 Page | 2-3 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
2.3.2
Units of Measure
Water volumes presented in this 2025 UWMP are measured in AF as identified in Table 2-3.
2.4
Coordination and Outreach CWC 10631 (j) An urban water supplier that relies upon a wholesale agency for a source of water shall provide the wholesale agency with water use projections from that agency for that source of water in fiveyear increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The wholesale agency shall provide information to the urban water supplier for inclusion in the urban water supplier’s plan that identifies and quantifies, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water as required by subdivision (b), available from the wholesale agency to the urban water supplier over the same five-year increments, and during various water-year types in accordance with subdivision (c). An urban water supplier may rely upon water supply information provided by the wholesale agency in fulfilling the plan informational requirements of subdivisions (b) and (c).
2.4.1
Wholesale and Retail Coordination
The CBMWD is a wholesale urban water supplier that currently supplies ~4% of the City’s water. The CBMWD was provided a copy of the draft UWMP for review and comment as shown in Table 2-4. Table 2-4: Retail: Water Supplier Information Exchange The retail supplier has informed the following wholesale supplier(s) of projected water use in accordance with CWC 10631. Wholesale Water Supplier Name Central Basin Municipal Water District Notes: 1. Table coordinates with WUE Table 2-4R
2.4.2
Coordination with Other Agencies and the Community CWC 10620 (d)(3) Each urban water supplier shall coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable.
The City has coordinated with multiple neighboring and stakeholder agencies in the preparation of this UWMP. The coordination efforts were conducted to: 1) inform the agencies of the planning activities of the City; 2) gather data for use in developing this UWMP update; and 3) coordinate planning activities
Page | 2-4 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
with other related regional plans and initiatives. The coordination activities conducted by the City in preparation of this plan are summarized in Table 2-5. Table 2-5: Agency Coordination
Agency
Sent a notice of public hearing for draft UWMP
CBMWD
X
Golden State Water Company
X
City of Long Beach
X
Attended Contacted Commented public for on the draft meetings assistance
Sent a copy of the draft plan
Sent a Notice of notice of Plan intention Availability to adopt
CWC 10642 Each urban water supplier shall encourage the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan. The City realizes the importance different social, cultural, and economic elements within its service area can have on the quality and success of its plan and water conservation efforts. The City encouraged all members of the public to attend the public hearing, and the City solicited written input from the public. Additionally, the City advertised, and provided a draft version of the plan on its website to allow public review and comment.
2.4.3
Notice to Cities and Counties
CWC 10621 (b) Every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan pursuant to this part shall, at least 60 days before the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. The City encouraged public input, review, and comment on this UWMP update. The CBMWD and County of Los Angeles were provided notice that an update to the City UWMP was being prepared and provided notice of the public hearing on the Plan. Further information on coordination of the Plan and the public involvement process is included in Chapter 10. Copies of the letters are available in Appendix A, as well as the distribution addresses.
Page | 2-5 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
CHAPTER 3
SERVICE AREA DESCRIPTION
New Requirements for 2025 Update Chapter 3 now includes enhanced reporting on system interties, backup supplies, and operational constraints that affect reliability. The 2025 update requires more detailed descriptions of groundwater basin conditions, consistent with Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) progress and any major infrastructure additions since 2020. The chapter also must reflect recent changes in treatment processes, surface water rights, recycled water infrastructure, and conveyance capacity, which were not as thoroughly required in 2020. CWC Section 10631 Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected population, climate, and other social, economic, and demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning. The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The description shall include the current and projected land uses within the existing or anticipated service area affecting the supplier’s water management planning. Urban water suppliers shall coordinate with local or regional land use authorities to determine the most appropriate land use information, including, where appropriate, land use information obtained from local or regional land use authorities, as developed pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
3.1
General Description
The City is located in the southeastern portion of Los Angeles County, between the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers. It is 12 miles north of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and 15 miles south of downtown Los Angeles. It occupies an area of approximately 4.8 square miles (2,800 acres). The predominant land use in the City is residential, with land also dedicated to commercial, industrial, municipal, parks and recreation, school, and hospital uses. The City has three water sources: groundwater, imported water (surface), and recycled water. The City also has a emergency mutual-aid domestic water connection with the City of Long Beach. Additionally, there is an existing, one-way, emergency interconnection which allows the Golden State Water Company (GSWC) to receive water from the City when needed. Currently, the City’s water department serves the community, with MWD (via CBMWD) supplementing water demands when needed. The City provides potable water service to its residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional customers within the City limits. The City’s current water system that includes three wells; two imported water connections; approximately 130 miles of water transmission and distribution mains; and appurtenant valves, hydrants, and equipment. Currently, the City does not have any storage reservoirs, although the groundwater basin acts as ground storage for the City. The City overlies the Central Groundwater Basin (Central Basin). Upon the Central Basin’s adjudication in 1965, the City was allocated an annual pumping right, which currently stands at 5,883 AF per year plus 60% annual carryover rights. Well No. 15 and No. 16 are the City’s two existing groundwater wells as of 2025. Table 3-0a provides a description of the City wells. Page | 3-1 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 3-0a: Well Operating Capacities Well Name Gallons per Day (GPD) City of Paramount Well 15
2,736,000
City of Paramount Well 16
4,896,000
Total
7,632,000
3.2
Service Area Boundary Maps
Figure 3-1 shows the City in a regional context and Figure 3-2 shows the extents of the current service area. There have been no annexations or adjustments to the service area or City boundary since 2020.
3.3
Service Area Climate CWC Section 10631(a) Describe the service area of the supplier, including climate. CWC Section 10630 It is the intention of the Legislature, in enacting this part, to permit levels of water management planning… while accounting for impacts of climate change.
Temperature The City’s semi-arid climate is temperate year-round, with mild and dry summer and wet cool winters. The temperature range is generally moderate as depicted in Figure 3-3; the average high temperature is 73.4 Fahrenheit (°F) and the average minimum annual temperature is 52.8 °F.
Page | 3-2 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
CITY OF PARAMOUNT SERVICE AREA
Figure 3-3: Average Temperatures
Mean Daily Temperatures as of 2025 90
Temperature (°F)
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Mean Daily Minimum
Mean Daily Maximum
Precipitation The City’s annual total precipitation is 11.9 inches. The total monthly precipitation in the City for 2025 is presented in Figure 3-4. Figure 3-4: Total Precipitation 3.5
Monthly Total Precipitation (in.)
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0
Page | 3-5 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Additionally, seasonal variation in temperature, rainfall, and evapotranspiration (Eto) rate are illustrated in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: Climate Data1 Avg. High Temp. (°F)
Avg. Low Temp. (°F)
Total Precipitation (in)
Total ETo (in)
January
67.7
39
0.4
2.40
February
67.9
46.5
2.97
2.41
March
65.8
46.5
1.23
3.57
April
69
49.4
0.28
4.50
May
73.4
56.1
0.03
5.17
June
76.1
59.3
0.06
5.22
July
77.6
59.9
0
5.70
August
82.6
62.4
0.01
5.82
September
82.9
62.6
0.07
4.48
October
76.8
53.7
1.05
3.47
November
71.1
51
3.37
1.84
December
70.3
47.4
2.39
1.63
Source: 1. CIMIS Monthly Report for Station #174 (https://cimis.water.ca.gov/UserControls/Reports/MonthlyReportViewer.aspx)
3.4
Service Area Population and Demographics
3.4.1
Service Area Population CWC Section 10631(a) Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected population… The projected estimates shall be based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available.
The area was first founded in 1886 when the California Cooperative Colony Tract Company subdivided the land and sold off tracts in what was then known as the town of Clearwater, named after the adjacent lake. This area was then used for farming and dairy uses, the latter of which was spurned on by the influx Page | 3-6 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
of dairymen from the Netherlands and Portugal in the 1920s. During this time, water was obtained through various sources, which included the Los Angeles River, Clearwater Lake, and through groundwater. By the late 1920s, the Signal Hill oil boom, brought on the development of several refineries in the area and several subsequent housing tracts, causing the City to triple in size within five years. In addition, the construction of the Los Angeles Terminal Railroad through the City and heavy industries, which are located adjacent to it, continued on the urbanization of the City. The City has approximately 15,006 dwelling units and there is an average of 3.54 persons per household. The City was incorporated in 1957 and population growth increased at a high annual rate of 2.46% between 1960 and 1970 but tailed off to 0.47% between 1970 and 1980. The population took off between 1980 and 2005 growing 60% during this 25-year period as a result of City development. The City’s population has steadily decreased in the last 20 years. The largest population increase occurred in the early 2010’s and continued to decrease after the period of growth. Figure 3-5 provides a summary of historical growth rates from the City’s service area over the last twenty years (based on values from the Department of Finance) with the following average growth rates: 5-year growth rate of -2.1% (2020-2025) 10-year growth rate of -4.6% (2015-2025) 20-year growth rate of -6.2% (2005-2025) Figure 3-5: Service Area 25-Year Population and Growth Chart 4.00%
56,000
3.00% 55,000
Population
54,000 1.00%
0.5% 53,000
-0.7%
-0.4%
-0.2%
0.2% 0.5%
-0.4%
-0.4% -0.1%
-0.4%
-0.5%
0.00%
0.2% -0.4%
-0.2%
-0.6%
-0.6%
52,000
-0.2% -0.6%
-1.00%
-1.0%
Growth Rate (%)
2.00%
-0.9% -2.00% 51,000 -3.00%
Population
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
-4.00% 2005
50,000
Growth Rate
Page | 3-7 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Despite the decrease in the past 20 years, the population in the City is expected to increase slightly through 2045. The increase is based on the housing elements estimated growth rate of 3.7% through 2045 and the Clearwater Specific Plan’s population growth of 4,643. This amounts to a total growth rate of approximately 12.7% over the 20-year planning horizon, which is consistent with the anticipated growth in LA County which is estimated to be 14.8% through 2045. Table 3-2 shows the current and projected population growth. Table 3-2: Retail: Population -- Current and Projected Year Population Served Notes: 2. 3. 4. 5.
3.4.2
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
52,371
53,962
55,602
57,292
59,033
2025 population based on Department of Finance data 3.7% growth rate through 2045 plus 4,643 estimated from the Clearwater Specific Plan (12.7% in total anticipated growth) Service area population is defined as the population served by the distribution system. Table coordinates with WUE Table 3-1R
Other Social, Economic, and Demographic Factors CWC Section 10631 Describe the service area of the supplier, including… other social, economic and demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning.
With decreased new development and increased City water conservation in the past 15 years, the City domestic water demand has been fairly flat while averaging approximately 4.4 million GPD. City water demand is estimated to increase slightly in the future as a result of the projected increase in population. City water demand also fluctuates as a result of climatic variations. For example, between 1996/97 and 2004/05, City water demand increased 7.0% in 1997/98 when rainfall was high (29.7 inches) and decreased 5.0% in 2003/04 when rainfall was low (7.5 inches). When it comes to evaluating socioeconomic correlations to increased community water use and ultimately, water insecurity, low-income areas are of particular interest. Low-income individuals are often limited financially and can only afford older rundown homes with less upkeep. Buildings of that nature tend to lack proper piping connections, water fixture sealings, etc. making them prone to drips, leaks, and floods. Poor water control characteristics such as these raise a red flag. Not to any surprise, as the U.S. has seen a gradual increase in overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Growth Rates from 2013 through 2018 at an average of 0.19% a year, the City has also seen a steady increase in median household incomes starting at $44,934 in 2013 and progressing all the way up to $75,250 in 2024 (www.census.gov/quickfacts). Most notably, there was a 5.8% household income growth between 2023 and 2024. However, despite this positive rise in income, the City in general is consistently well below the CA median household income values by approximately $24,000, classifying the City as a disadvantaged community. Furthermore, 2024 statistics show that 12.6% of individuals residing in the City are below the poverty level. To put this into perspective, in 2024, 6,447 out of 51,169 people (12.6%) in the City were under the poverty line compared to the national average of 11.1%.
Page | 3-8 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
As of 2025, the City has experienced an unemployment rate of 5.0%, distinctly larger than the US average of 4.4%. Unemployment can impact water use according to a study done by Cranfield University. According to research, household water consumption changes significantly after the start of the COVID19 lockdown. Although the study was not focused on the City, the water use patterns for the unemployed are likely similar. At home activities such as showering, laundry, gardening, etc. can happen more frequently when individuals increase time spent at home. As the City’s unemployment rate fluctuates, the City may find a correlation between water use and unemployment.
3.5
Land Uses within Service Area
The current service area encompasses approximately 2,124 developed acres (excluding railroads, utility easements, roadways, etc). Table 3-3 shows a summary of the currently developed land uses throughout the existing service area. Table 3-3: Developed Land Use Summary within Service Area Land Use Category
Gross Land Acres
Percent of Total
Single-Family Residential
500
24%
Multi-Family Residential
448
21%
Commercial
84
4%
Public Facility
156
7%
Industrial
217
10%
Area Plan
423
20%
Mixed-Use
91
4%
Office Professional
140
7%
Open Space
20
< 1%
Recreation
45
2%
Total
2,124
100%
Figure 3-6 provides an overview of the overall land use categories within the City’s service area.
Page | 3-9 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
CHAPTER 4
WATER USE CHARACTERIZATION
New Requirements for 2025 Update New for 2025, agencies must incorporate updated water loss audit requirements, revised demand categories, and updated standards related to the statewide conservation framework. The chapter requires the use of the latest DWR demand reporting tables and clearer documentation of how future demand projections incorporate land-use, climate, and economic growth factors. Compared to 2020, the 2025 UWMP places stronger emphasis on distinguishing indoor vs. outdoor use and documenting nonrevenue water trends.
4.1
Non-Potable Versus Potable Water Use
Recycled water is addressed comprehensively in Section 6.2.5.
4.2
Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector
In this section, current and projected water usage is addressed. Table 4-2 displays water use in five-year increments from 2025 to 2050.
4.2.1
Water Use Sectors Listed in Water Code CWC 10631(d) (1)
For an urban retail water supplier, quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a), and projected water use, based upon information developed pursuant to subdivision (a), identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following use:
(A)
Single-family residential
(B)
Multifamily
(C)
Commercial
(D)
Industrial
(E)
Institutional and governmental
(F)
Landscape
(G)
Sales to other agencies
(H)
Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use, or any combination thereof
(I)
Agricultural
(J)
Distribution system water loss Page | 4-1
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
The City’s service area includes the following water demand sectors listed in the CWC applicable to the UWMP update: Single Family Residential: Single family detached dwellings Multi-Family Residential: Apartments, condominiums, town houses, duplexes and trailer parks Commercial/Institutional: Retail establishments, office buildings, laundries, schools, prisons, hospitals, dormitories, nursing homes, hotels, and churches Industrial: Warehouses, light manufacturing facilities, and processing facilities Landscape: Public parks, recreational fields, school grounds, landscaped medians, and rights-of-way Other: Miscellaneous water uses not captured in the categories above, such as construction water use, temporary uses, and other minor or miscellaneous demands (less than 1% of deliveries, combined) Distribution system water loss: Water losses associated with the conveyance and distribution of potable water, including real losses (e.g., leaks, breaks) and apparent losses (e.g., meter)
4.2.2
Water Use Sectors in Addition to Those Listed in Water Code
To provide clarity, the following sectors are not currently applicable to the City’s current demands in this UWMP update: Exchanges Surface Water Augmentation Wetlands or Wildlife Habitat Agriculture Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use For the City’s imported water source, as described in Section 6.2.1, the City purchases water from CBMWD.
4.2.3
Past Water Use
The City’s Water System currently serves approximately 52,371 people within its service area. With the City being almost completely built-out, significant growth or increase in water demands are not anticipated in future years. Key factors that affect water demands are; population growth, increases in land use development, industrial growth, and reductions in annual rainfall. For the City, population and rainfall exhibit the greatest influence. Usage of water per capita day ranged primarily between 115 – 123 Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD) during the 2001 – 2010 baseline period and has since been trending lower, as shown in Figure 4-1, with 2023 having the lowest per capita water use in the past 20 years. Page | 4-2 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Consumption has ranged from a low of 80 GPCD in 2023 to a maximum of 123 GPCD in 2008. The average use per day during the period from 2001 through 2020 was 110 gallons per person. Figure 4-1: Historic Water Use 130 120
GPCD
110 100 90 80
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
70
Table 4-1 provides historical water usage.
Page | 4-3 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Fiscal Year
4.2.4
Table 4-1: Historic Water Use Gross Water Use Population (Million Gallons per Year (MGY))
Usage Per Capita Day (GPCD)
2006
2,461
57,626
122
2007
2,398
57,601
122
2008
2,444
57,638
123
2009
2,365
57,874
120
2010
2,187
57,989
111
2011
2,214
54,191
112
2012
2,238
54,486
113
2013
2,217
54,722
111
2014
2,162
55,076
108
2015
2,084
55,302
103
2016
1,898
54,909
95
2017
2,082
54,909
104
2018
2,143
54,387
108
2019
1,769
53,955
90
2020
1,799
54,098
89
2021
1,677
53,255
86
2022
1,683
52,728
87
2023
1,534
52,502
80
2024
1,558
52,415
81
2025
1,621
52,371
85
Current Water Use
Table 4-2 provides an overview of the existing water demands by use type within the City’s service area for calendar year 2025.
Page | 4-4 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 4-2: Total Uses for Potable and Non-Potable Water - Actual 2025 Actual Water Use Use Type Potable or Non-Potable
Volume (AF)
Single-Family
Potable
1,172
Multi-Family
Potable
2,253
Commercial
Potable
525
Landscape Irrigation
Potable / Non-Potable
105
Agricultural Irrigation
Potable / Non-Potable
47
Industrial
Potable
508
Other
Potable
365
Losses
Potable
147
Total (AF)
5,122
Notes: 1. Demands = Annual water consumption by customer type as shown above. 2. Values represent metered use as reported to DWR. 3. Table coordinates with WUE Table 4-1R
4.2.5
Projected Water Use
Based on the 2020 UWMP, the City was required to comply with an urban water use target of 114 gpcd by 2020. The City’s 2020 gpcd was 89 and therefore, met the urban water use target. Table 4-3 provides a summary of historical gpcd within the service area and years of mandatory conservation with requested conservation level (% reduction).
Page | 4-5 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 4-3: Historical Use Rates (GPCD) Water Gross Meter Residential Production Water Use Residential Water Use (AFY) (gpcd) Use (AFY) (gpcd)
Year
Service Area Population
2020
53,467
5,576
93
3,519
59
-
2021
53,255
5,371
90
3,543
59
-
2022
52,728
5,312
90
3,556
60
-
2023
52,502
5,040
86
3,239
55
-
2024
52,415
4,996
85
3,291
56
-
2025
52,371
5,122
87
3,424
58
-
89
3,429
58
6-Year Average
Mandatory Conservation (%)
Notes: 1. Water Production = Value of water supplied from Water Audit Validation spreadsheets 2. Meter Residential Use estimated based on total production minus water losses times the total residential water land use percentage. Annual water demand within the service area was assumed to increase in proportion to the population projection in Table 3-1. The demand projections in Table 4‑4 are based on the population projections presented in Table 3-2 multiplied by the per capita water use in Table 4-3 and then allocated across use types using the customer-type percentages from Table 4‑2. The following equation was used to determine the City’s demand projections: 89 Table 4-4: Retail: Total Uses for Potable, and Non-Potable Water - Projected Projected Water Use (AF) Use Type
Potable or Non-Potable
2030
2035
2040
2045
Single Family
Potable
1,266
1,305
1,345
1,385
Multi-Family
Potable
2,437
2,511
2,587
2,666
Commercial
Potable
567
585
602
621
Landscape Irrigation
Potable
550
566
584
601
Agricultural Irrigation
Potable
114
117
121
125
Industrial
Potable
51
52
54
55
Other
Potable
395
407
419
432
Losses
Potable
147
147
147
147
Total (AF)
5,527
5,690
5,859
6,032
Notes: 6. Table coordinates with WUE Table 4-2R
Page | 4-6 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
4.2.5.1
Lower Income Households
The projected water demands for lower income households were included in the City’s total projected water demands, as indicated in Table 4-5. Table 4-5: Inclusion in Water Use Projections Reporting Period Start Date Volume of Water Loss (AF) Are Future Water Savings Included in Projections?
No
If “Yes” to above, state the section or page number, in the cell to the right, where citations of the codes, ordinances, or otherwise are utilized in demand projections are found.
-
Are Lower Income Residential Demands Included in Projections?
Yes
Notes: 1. Table coordinates with WUE Table 4-3R
4.2.5.2
Climate Change Considerations
The City conducted a hazard mitigation plan for the existing water service area in 2022; however, no official climate change vulnerability assessment has been done for the City. Climate change considerations relevant to the City’s water supply are incorporated into regional planning efforts, including the Los Angeles County Multi‑Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, as well as applicable groundwater sustainability planning and regional water management documents for the Central Basin in their Strategic Plan 2021-2026. These documents are included in Appendix B.
4.3
Distribution System Water Loss CWC 10631 (e)(1) Quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use over the same fiveyear increments described in subdivision (a), and projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors, including but not necessarily limited to, all of the following uses: … (J) Distribution system water loss (3)(A)&(C) Retail supplies shall provide quantified distribution system losses for each of the five preceding years and whether or not the state standard was met. (B) The distribution system water loss quantification shall be reported in accordance with a worksheet approved or developed by the department through a public process. The water loss quantification worksheet shall be based on the water system balance methodology developed by the American Water Works Association. Page | 4-7
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Distribution system water losses are defined by the Guidebook as the physical potable water losses from the pressurized water distribution system and the Supplier’s storage facilities up to the point of delivery to the customer’s system. The following sections summarize the distribution system losses for the previous five years, as well as the City’s progress toward meeting water loss performance standards.
4.3.1
Previous Five Years Distribution System Losses
Table 4-6 summarizes the distribution system water loss reporting for each of the five years preceding the plan update. The Water Loss Audit Reports are included in Appendix C. Table 4-6: Water Loss Audit Reporting Reporting Period
Submitted to DWR Water Loss Audit Program (Yes/No)
Volume of Water Loss (AF)
2020
Yes
464
2021
Yes
223
2022
Yes
145
2023
Yes
334
2024
Yes
215
2025
Yes
147
Notes: 1. Water loss based on AWWA worksheet values. 7. Table coordinates with WUE Table 4-5R
4.3.2
Progress Toward Meeting the Water Loss Performance Standard
The City is required to provide data demonstrating its efforts to meet the State Water Board Water Loss Performance Standard (23 Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Section 980) set in 2023. The goal of the Water Loss Performance Standard is to minimize water losses in the system, improve system efficiency, support long-term water conservation and supply reliability. The Water Loss Performance Standard does not have to be met until 2028. Table 4-7 quantifies the City’s progress towards meeting the designated Water Loss Performance Standard. The Water Board’s Calculated Water Loss Standards are included in Appendix D.
Page | 4-8 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 4-7: Progress Towards 2028 Water Loss Standard Real Water Loss1
Public Water System Identifier (ID)
CA1910105
Did the Water Board Calculate a Water Loss Standard for this Public Water System?
Yes
Apparent Water Loss1
State Water Board Standard
Most Recent Americal Water Works Association (AWWA) Water Loss Audit
2028 Real Water Loss Standard per Unit per Day2
Units for Real Water Loss2
Number of Units (Connections or Miles correspon ding with units selected)
61.8
Gallons per Service Connecti on per Day (gpscd)
7,556
Volume of Total Real Loss (from AWWA Water Loss Audit)3
74.9
State Water Board Standard Real Water Loss Gallons Per Unit Per Day
8.9
Most Recent AWWA Water Loss Audit
2028 Apparent Water Loss Standard per Unit per Day2
Units for Apparent Water Loss2
Number of Connections
Volume of Total Apparent Loss (from AWWA Water Audit)
13.6
Gallons per Service Connection per Day (GPSCD)
7,556
71.9
Apparent Water Loss Gallons Per Unit per Day
8.5
Notes: 1. Water Loss based on AWWA 2025 worksheet values. 2. Water Board’s Calculated Water Loss Standards (Appendix D). 3. AFY= Acre-feet per year 4. Table coordinates with WUE Table 4-6R
Page | 4-9 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
CHAPTER 5
SB X7-7 Baselines, 2020 Targets, and 2025 Reporting
New Requirements for 2025 Update This is a substantially new component that was not included in the 2020 plans. The 2025 UWMP must summarize the agency’s progress toward meeting its urban water-use objective, describe compliance pathways, and document component standards (indoor residential use, outdoor residential use, Commercial, Industrial, Institutional (Water Use Sectors) (CII) performance measures, and water loss). Agencies must also describe variances and supply considerations relevant to objective calculations. This chapter represents one of the largest additions to the report compared to 2020.
5.1
Reporting Requirements for Wholesale Suppliers
The City is not a wholesale supplier; therefore, this section does not apply to the City.
5.2
Reporting Requirements for Retail Suppliers
5.2.1
Supplier Was Not an Urban Retail Water Supplier in 2020
The City was an urban retail water supplier in 2020; therefore, this section does not apply.
5.2.2
Supplier Met 2020 Target in 2020
The City met targeted reduction in 2020. Table 5-1: SB X7-7 2020 Target Progress Was Supplier part of a merger or consolidation since 2020?
Individual Target
2020 Target
No
114
114
Actual 2020 GPCD
Did Supplier Achieve Targeted Reduction for 2020?
Actual 2025 GPCD
89
Yes
87
Notes: 1. Table coordinates with WUE Table 5-1R
The City successfully met its SB X7-7 2020 target of 114 GPCD, achieving an actual use of 89 GPCD in 2020, and continued to maintain water use below the target with an even lower actual use of 87 GPCD in 2025.
Page | 5-1 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
5.2.3
Supplier Did Not Meet 2020 Target in 2020 – No Change to Service Area
The City met targeted reduction in 2020; therefore, this section does not apply to the City.
5.2.4
Supplier Did Not Meet 2020 Target in 2020 – Change to Service Area
The City met 2020 targeted reduction in 2020; therefore, this section does not apply to the City.
5.2.5
Funding Eligibility
The City met 2020 targeted reduction in 2020; therefore, the City is eligible to receive water grants or loans from the State of California.
Page | 5-2 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
CHAPTER 6
NORMAL-YEAR WATER SUPPLY CHARACTERIZATION
New Requirements for 2025 Update The 2025 update requires agencies to integrate the latest water reliability assessments from suppliers, wholesalers, and Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs); account for SGMA-related limitations; and describe climate-adjusted supply projections. The chapter must now include more detailed descriptions of water rights constraints, hydrologic variability, wildfire effects on surface water quality, and drought-related supply restrictions. Compared to the 2020 UWMP, this chapter requires a more explicit comparison of multiple supply scenarios, including climate-stressed conditions.
6.1
Water Supply Analysis Overview CWC 10631 Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier {in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available} providing supporting and related information including all of the following: (1) A detailed discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal water year, single dry year, and droughts lasting at least five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, as described in the drought risk assessment. For each source of water supply, consider any information pertinent to the reliability analysis… including changes in supply due to climate change. (2) When multiple sources of water supply are identified, a description of the management of each supply in correlation with the other identified supplies. (3) For any planned sources of water supply, a description of the measures that are being undertaken to acquire and develop those water supplies. CWC 10631 (h) An urban water supplier that relies upon a wholesale agency for a source of water shall provide the wholesale agency with water use projections from that agency for that source of water in fiveyear increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The wholesale agency shall provide information to the urban water supplier for inclusion in the urban water supplier’s plan that identifies and quantifies, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water as required by subdivision (b), available from the wholesale agency to the urban water supplier over the same five-year increments, and during various water year types in accordance with subdivision (f). An urban water supplier may rely upon water supply information provided by the wholesale agency in fulfilling the plan informational requirements of subdivisions (b) and (f).
This section describes the existing and projected water supply sources for the City. The City utilizes both potable and recycled water.
Page | 6-1 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
6.1.1
Specific Analysis Applicable to All Water Supply Sources
The City obtains potable water from two sources: directly pumped groundwater and imported water purchased through the CBMWD, who in turn receives the water through the MWD. In addition to distributing potable water, the City also has a recycled water system that provided 35 AF of recycled water in 2025. The City provided a total of 5,122 AF of water to a population of approximately 52,371 in 2025. As detailed in Chapter 4, demands are expected to continue to increase in the next 20 years by around 9%, and the water supply available to the City is expected to meet the water demand through the planning horizon. More information comparing the projected water supply and demand can be found in Chapter 7. The City obtains its groundwater from the Central Subbasin, one of four subbasins in the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles. The Central Subbasin is commonly referred to as the Central Basin and is identified as such through the remainder of the report. The Central Basin is an adjudicated basin. For the supply section, it is assumed that the City pumps the total allotted amount of groundwater from the Central Basin: 5,883 AF. More information on the adjudication of the Central Basin can be found in Section 6.2, which discusses the groundwater sources for the City. The total current and projected supplies available to the city through CBMWD, pumped groundwater, and recycled water are shown in Tables 6-1 and 6-2, respectively.
Water Supply
Table 6-1: Water Supplies – Actual 2025 Additional Detail Actual Volume on Water Supply Water Quality (AFY)
Total Right or Safe Yield [2]
Groundwater
CBMWD
2,779
Drinking Water
5,883
Carryover
CBMWD
0
Drinking Water
3,530
Purchased or Imported Water
CBMWD
2,289
Drinking Water
-
Recycled Water [1]
CBMWD Century System
278
Recycled Water
-
Total
5,346
-
9,413
Notes: 1. Full 2025 Production Report was not available upon preparation of the UWMP, and 2024 was not a representative year. Recycled Water Data from FY 2023 was used. 2. City of Paramount’s Groundwater Allotment is 5,883 AFY plus and additional 60% carryover. 3. Corresponds to WUE Table 6-8R
Page | 6-2 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 6-2: Water Supplies – Projected
Water Supply
Additional Water Supply Detail
Groundwater
2030
2035
2040
2045
Reasonably Available Volume
Total Right or Yield
Reasonably Available Volume
Total Right or Yield
Reasonably Available Volume
Total Right or Yield
Reasonably Available Volume
Total Right or Yield
CBMWD
5,883
5,883
5,883
5,883
5,883
5,883
5,883
5,883
Groundwater Carryover [1] [2]
CBMWD
2,664
3,530
2,664
3,530
2,664
3,530
2,664
3,530
Purchased or Imported Water
CBMWD
500
-
500
-
500
-
500
-
Recycled Water
CBMWD
278
-
278
-
278
-
278
-
Total
9,325
9,413
9,325
9,413
9,325
9,413
9,325
9,413
Notes: 1. Groundwater supplies projected based on total allowable pumping allocation; groundwater carryover of 60%, purchased water supplies estimated based on 5-year average deliveries; recycled water supplies estimated based on highest annual deliveries recorded over the past 5 years. 2. Groundwater supplies including carryover is limited to 8,547 AFY based on Well 15 and Well 16 pumping capacities. 3. Corresponds to WUE Table 6-9R 4. Table utilizes CBMWD 2020 UWMP for planning purposes and based off 5-year average deliveries.
Page | 6-3 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
6.1.2
Special Considerations
The following section outlines the special conditions relevant to this UWMP and provides guidance on how they shape the evaluation of long-term water supply reliability.
6.1.2.1
Climate Change Effects
The City has evaluated the potential effects of climate change through the adoption of its Climate Action Plan (CAP), associated climate change vulnerability assessment, and updates to the General Plan Safety and Environmental Justice Elements, which identify localized risks such as extreme heat, air quality degradation, and flooding, particularly for vulnerable populations. These efforts, along with ongoing hazard mitigation and CAP implementation activities, provide a coordinated framework to address climate change impacts while supporting long‑term water supply reliability and community resilience.
6.1.2.2
Regulatory Conditions and Project Development
Recent federal and state regulatory actions, including the adoption of enforceable drinking water standards for per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a new state maximum contaminant level for hexavalent chromium, expanded PFAS monitoring requirements, and the implementation of direct potable reuse regulations, may affect future characterization, monitoring, and reporting of water quality within the City’s service area.
6.1.2.3
Other Locally Applicable Criteria
The City’s future water supply is not subject to local surface water flow requirements; however, groundwater production is governed by the Central Basin adjudication, which establishes basin‑wide extraction limits, and regional environmental flow objectives affecting imported water, recycled water, and recharge activities may indirectly influence long‑term supply availability. In addition, changes to State Water Project (SWP) operations, allocation methodologies, contracting terms, or environmental compliance requirements may affect the quantity and reliability of imported water supplies available to MWD member agencies and, by extension, the City’s overall supply portfolio.
6.1.2.4
Wholesale and Retail Suppliers Coordination
The City is a retail water supplier that relies in part on imported water provided by a wholesale supplier. For this source, the City relies on the wholesale supplier’s quantification and characterization of available water supplies under normal year, single dry year, five consecutive dry years, and five‑year planning interval conditions, consistent with Water Code Section 10631(h). In turn, the City provides its wholesale supplier with projected water use associated with imported supplies in five‑year increments over a 20‑year planning horizon, or as far as data are available, to support coordinated regional water supply planning.
Page | 6-4 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
6.2
Water Supply Characterization
6.2.1
Purchased or Imported Water
Water for use in the City is purchased through the CBMWD. CBMWD obtains its water from a number of sources, including local groundwater supplies and recycled water. However, the majority of water supplied to CBMWD is from MWD as part of the SWP. The SWP is a series of reservoirs, aqueducts, and pumping facilities that convey water from Northern to Southern California. The water for use within the City is collected and delivered to MWD via the SWP, which is subsequently treated at either the Weymouth Filtration Plant or the Jensen Filtration Plant. Water from either of these filtration plants is then transferred to CBMWD. The quality of the imported water is shown in Table 6-3: Table 6-3: Quality of Imported Water Colorado River Water1 ( milligrams per liter (mg/L))
SWP Water2 (mg/L)
Chloride
90
50
Sulfate
213
50
Hardness (as CaCO3)
264
109
Total Dissolved Solids
574
240
Constituent
Notes: 1. At Lake Mathews – from 2020 MWD Annual Report, Table 4-2 2. At Castaic Lake – from 2020 MWD Annual Report, Table 4-2
In 2025, CBMWD delivered 5,122 AF of water to the City for distribution. Prior to the construction of Well No. 15 in 2011-2012, the City purchased 2,864 AFY on average from CBMWD. However, with the addition of Well No. 15 and Well No. 16, the City has currently been able to more fully utilize its allowable pumping allocation, and its yearly purchased water deliveries have dropped accordingly. This trend is expected to continue throughout the 20-year planning horizon, and in the future as demand increases, the reduced purchased water demands from CBMWD will continue to be a reliable supply to supplement the City’s groundwater source.
6.2.2
Groundwater CWC 10631 (b)(4) If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier, all of the following information shall be included in the plan: (A) The current version of any groundwater sustainability plan or alternative adopted pursuant to Part 2.74 (commencing with Section 10720), any groundwater management plan adopted by the urban water supplier, including plans adopted pursuant to Part 2.75 (commencing with Section
Page | 6-5 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
10750), or any other specific authorization for groundwater management for basins underlying the urban water supplier’s service area. (B) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the urban water supplier pumps groundwater. For basins that a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the urban water supplier has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For a basin that has not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin as a high- or medium-priority basin in the most current official departmental bulletin that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description of the efforts being undertaken by the urban water supplier to coordinate with groundwater sustainability agencies or groundwater management agencies listed in subdivision (c) of Section 10723 to maintain or achieve sustainable groundwater conditions in accordance with a groundwater sustainability plan or alternative adopted pursuant to Part 2.74 (commencing with Section 10720).
6.2.2.1
Basin Description
The City pumps water from the Los Angeles County Central Subbasin (Central Basin), a large subbasin that makes up part of the Coastal Plan of Los Angeles Basin. The total surface area of this subbasin is approximately 177,000 acres. It is bounded on the north by a surface divide called the La Brea high, and on the northeast and east by emergent less permeable tertiary rocks of the Elysia, Repetto, Merced and Puente Hills. The southeast boundary between Central Basin and the Orange County Groundwater Basin roughly follows Coyote Creek, which is a regional drainage boundary. The southwest boundary is formed by the Newport Inglewood fault system and the associated folded rocks of the Newport Inglewood uplift. The Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers drain inland basins and pass across the surface of the Central Basin on their way to the Pacific Ocean. Average precipitation throughout the Subbasin ranges from 11 to 13 inches with an average of approximately 12 inches. The description of the Central Basin is provided in DWR’s Bulletin 118. Additionally, the Central Basin’s location as part of the South Coast Hydrologic Region can be seen in Figure 6-1.
Page | 6-6 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
6.2.2.2
Basin Management Information
The City utilizes groundwater pumped from the Central Basin. There are currently no plans to discontinue pumping water from the Central Basin for potable use. The Central Basin was adjudicated in 1965, and the DWR was appointed Watermaster until retiring its duties on June 30, 2014, due to the third Central Basin Judgment 3rd Amendment being entered into record. Beginning July 1, 2014, three new bodies began their roles as Central Basin Watermaster: •
Water Rights Panel (The Panel), made up of seven Central Basin water rights holders
•
Administrative Body (the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD))
•
Storage Panel (The Panel plus the WRD Board of Directors)
Every month extractions are reported to the Watermaster by each individual pumper. This allows the Watermaster to regulate the water rights of the Subbasin. Central Basin does not have a groundwater management plan because it is adjudicated and the Watermaster manages groundwater extractions. A court ordered adjudication for the Central Basin was issued in 1965. The adjudication was a response to rapidly declining groundwater levels in the basin due to overdraft that caused partial seawater intrusion. The Central Basin Judgment (currently the third Central Basin Judgment 3rd Amendment) can be found on the Central Basin Watermaster website. The total allotted pumping rights from the Central Basin from all wells is 220,000 AFY. The total allotted pumping rights for the City is 5,883 AFY. The City may exceed its total allotment under two circumstances. The first of these is in the case that in the previous year, the City did not pump the total 5,883 AF of water. If this occurs, up to 60% of the total allotment may be carried over the subsequent year. The second case in which the City may exceed its water pumping rights is if another water retailer chooses to lease water pumping rights to the City. Although the City has in past leased a portion of its water pumping rights to other retailers, with the pumping capacity provided by Well No. 15 and the additional capacity from the newly constructed Well No. 16, it is expected that the City will fully utilize its allotted pumping rights moving forward. It is known that the total allotted pumping rights exceed the natural replenishment of groundwater to the Central Basin. Although the users of the Central Basin pump below their total allotted rights (approximately 173,000 AF were pumped in FY 2019-2020; from “Summary of Pertinent Data” in the Central Basin Watermaster Report, 2019 - 2020), possible conditions of overdraft must still be considered. To avoid conditions of overdraft, the WRD was formed to ensure that water was purchased where necessary to fully replenish the quantity of groundwater that could not be restored through natural processes. The WRD manages the financial and logistical aspect of purchasing water to maintain safe groundwater levels.
6.2.2.3
Other Considerations
The Central Basin is an adjudicated basin, therefore, over drafting conditions do not apply.
6.2.2.4
Past Five Years Groundwater Pumping
Table 6-4 illustrates the amount of groundwater pumped from the Central Basin over the last five years.
Page | 6-8 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 6-4: Groundwater Volume Pumped Supplier does not pump groundwater. The supplier will not complete the table below.
☐ Groundwater Type
Potable or Non-Potable
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Alluvial Basin
Potable
3,166
2,106
2,712
2,812
2,779
3,166
2,106
2,712
2,812
2,779
Total (AF)
Notes: 1. Corresponds to WUE Table 6-1R
The City intends to continue using groundwater pumped from the Central Basin as the majority of the supply for the City’s water demand. The projected amount of water to be pumped is shown in Table 6-5 below. The numbers projected in Table 6-5 are based on the City fully utilizing its groundwater rights and supplementing with imported water from CBMWD as needed. The City’s groundwater rights are compared to the forecasted water demands from Chapter 4 in order to arrive at the projections. Due to the addition of Well No. 15 and the newly constructed Well No. 16, it is not anticipated that the groundwater use in the next 20 years will fall below the amount available to the City through adjudication. Table 6-5: Volume Projected to be Pumped 2030 2035 2040
2045
Central Basin
5,527
5,690
5,859
6,032
Total Groundwater Pumped
5,527
5,690
5,859
6,032
Percent of Total Water Supply
100%
100%
100%
100%
Basin Name
Note: Volume available in the Central Basin includes the annual pumping allowance, plus a 60% carryover.
6.2.3
Surface Water
The City does not have a self‑supplied surface water source; the City delivers a municipal water supply consisting of locally pumped groundwater blended with imported surface water from the SWP and Colorado River Aqueduct via the MWD, while a small portion of the City is served separately by GSWC using a similar combination of imported and groundwater supplies.
6.2.4
Stormwater
The City does not currently supplement water supply demands through the capture and reuse of stormwater due to limited land availability, highly urbanized conditions, and stormwater infrastructure primarily designed for flood control rather than supply augmentation. Page | 6-9 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
6.2.5
Wastewater and Recycled Water CWC 10633 Provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier. The preparation of the plan shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning agencies that operate within the supplier’s service area.
The City is committed to potable water conservation through the treatment and distribution of recycled water for non-potable uses; including landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, and industrial uses throughout the service area. This effectively decreases the total water that must be purchased through CBMWD, and is a significant part in the statewide effort to conserve and manage potable water resources. Since planning and constructing its recycled water systems in the early 1990’s, CBMWD has become an industry leader in water re-use.
6.2.5.1
Recycled Water Coordination
The City is part of an integrated water recycling program that includes the Cities in Los Angeles County as well as water districts, including MWD. Wastewater is collected and treated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) sewage system and sent to either the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) or one of six satellite water reclamation plants (WRPs) as part of the Joint Outfall System (JOS). Wastewater destined for recycled water use undergoes tertiary treatment (as described below) and is subsequently distributed or disposed of as necessary. Wastewater too salty for use as recycled water is sent to the JWPCP where it undergoes secondary treatment and disinfection before being discharged to the ocean. The LACSD reports nearly 430,420 AFY of treated wastewater was producted by the JOS in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2025. Approximately 100,880 AFY produced was beneficially reused either as recycled water for industrial, landscape irrigation, or agricultural use, or for groundwater recharge.
6.2.5.2
Wastewater Treatment Discharge
Treated wastewater from the LACSD’s Los Coyotes WRP and San Jose Creek WRP is supplied through CBMWD’s Century recycled water distribution system to the cities of Bellflower, Bell Gardens, Compton, Downey, Lakewood, Lynwood, Norwalk, Paramount, Santa Fe Springs, South Gate and Vernon. In 20132014, San Jose Creek and Los Coyotes Plants treated a total of 91,393 AF of wastewater to recycled water quality standards. Of this, 377 AF was eventually distributed to the City. Wastewater in the City is collected by the LACSD sewage system and sent to either the JWPCP or one of six WRPs as part of the JOS. The JOS is a regional, interconnected system of facilities providing wastewater collection and treatment for residential, commercial and industrial users in 73 cities. The system includes the main JWPCP in Carson (treatment capacity of 400 million gallons per day (mgd)) and the following six satellite WRPs: •
Whittier Narrows WRP (near South El Monte, treatment capacity of 15 mgd)
•
Los Coyotes WRP (Cerritos, treatment capacity of 37.5 mgd)
•
San Jose Creek WRP (adjacent to the City of Industry, treatment capacity of 100 mgd) Page | 6-10
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
•
Long Beach WRP (Long Beach, treatment capacity of 25 mgd)
•
Pomona WRP (Pomona, treatment capacity of 15 mgd)
•
La Cañada WRP (La Cañada Flintridge, treatment capacity of 0.2 mgd)
Approximately two-thirds of the wastewater in the JOS is treated at the JWPCP, which carries out primary and secondary treatment prior to discharge into the ocean. The remaining one-third is treated in the six satellite WRPs. At these plants, the wastewater goes through a three stage treatment process consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment stages. After tertiary treatment, water is available for use to recycled water customers, used for groundwater recharge, or discharged into the ocean. Table 6-6 below, summarizes the wastewater collected within the service area from the 2020 UWMP report. The 2025 LACSD UWMP report is not available at this time to update the information. Upon collection of wastewater from the Cities of Los Angeles County, wastewater undergoes primary treatment. In this stage, water is collected in long concrete tanks that act as a river. Primary treatment refers to the removal of macroscopic waste particles in the water. Light materials will flow to the top and heavier materials will sink to the bottom. Both the light and heavier materials can be removed and are sent to the JWPCP for disposal.
Page | 6-11 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 6-6: Wastewater Collected within Service Area in 2020 ☐
Check the box if there is no wastewater collection system.
Wastewater Collection Name of Wastewater Agency Collection Agency
Wastewater Volume Metered or Estimated?
Volume of Wastewater Collected from UWMP Service Area 2025
LACSD
Estimated
139
LACSD
Estimated
139
LACSD
Estimated
139
LACSD
Estimated
139
LACSD
Estimated
139
LACSD
Estimated
139
LACSD
Estimated
139
Total Wastewater Received from UWMP Service Area in 2025:
Recipient of Collected Wastewater Name of Wastewater Is WWTP Treatment Plant Located Within (WWTP) and Place UWMP Area? ID Number A.K. Warren Water Resource Facility (Joint Water No Pollution Control Plant) (234156) Whittier Narrows No WRP (235826) Los Coyotes WRP No (238646) San Jose Creek No WRP (260156) Long Beach WRP (238562) Pomona WRP (250700) La Cañada WWRP (237748)
No No No
973
Notes: 1. Corresponds to WUE Table 6-2R
The system currently consists of 1,400 miles of pipeline, with the backbone being a 30-inch pipeline paralleling the San Gabriel River. Construction of the initial system was completed in 1992, with the delivery of recycled water for applications such as landscape irrigation of parks, schools, and freeway slopes, nursery stock irrigation, and various industrial applications. The system was connected to the Rio Hondo recycled water distribution system in 1994, and both the Century and Rio Hondo systems can be partially supplied with water from either the Los Coyotes or San Jose Creek WRPs, individually or in combination. Most of the recycled water delivered through the Century distribution system actually originated at the San Jose Creek WRP. However, the usage is still reported from the Los Coyotes WRP, as there is no way to differentiate which reuse sites receive which recycled water. Therefore, for the sake of consistency, recycled water usage along the Century facilities is reported as coming from the Los Coyotes WRP, and along the Rio Hondo facilities as coming from the San Jose Creek WRP. The primary treated water is sent to the second stage: secondary treatment. Secondary treatment acts as a biological treatment step to reproduce what naturally occurs in water treatment in rivers. The same microorganisms that feed on dissolved organic particles during natural water treatment are used in Page | 6-12 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
secondary treatment. Oxygen is supplied to create an ideal feeding environment for the microorganisms, decreasing the overall time required for treatment. As the microorganisms complete the feeding process, they sink to the bottom and are removed to be reused in another batch of wastewater. Finally, the water enters tertiary treatment, where water is sent through filters to remove any last suspended particles in the water. The filters contain layers of anthracite coal, sand, and gravel. Once sent through the filters, the water is disinfected. Chlorine from the disinfection process must be removed prior to use. Following the disinfection process and the removal of excess chlorine, water is safe for use and is distributed to the customers of the LACSD as reclaimed water. Reclaimed water that is not used is discharged into the ocean. Approximately one-third of the wastewater collected by the LACSD is treated to tertiary standards, as described above, and can be used as recycled water. The remaining two-thirds is treated to secondary standards only before being disinfected and discharged into the ocean. However, none of the collected wastewater is treated or disposed of within the City’s service area. The wastewater volume generated by the City for fiscal year 2024-2025 was estimated based on the total water demand for the year. It was estimated that the water deliveries for irrigation (landscape and agricultural, including recycled water), fire hydrants, and water losses were not converted to wastewater. In addition, 42% of the total residential water deliveries were estimated to be used for indoor purposes, with 98% being captured as wastewater. The remaining residential water deliveries were assumed to be used for outdoor purposes and were not included in the wastewater estimates. 100% of the remainder of the water deliveries (commercial, industrial, and institutional) were assumed to be sent to the LACSD for treatment. In 2025, approximately 40% of the total potable water deliveries were estimated to have been captured as wastewater and sent to LACSD for treatment. The estimated wastewater collected in FY 2024-2025 is provided in Table 6-7.
Page | 6-13 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 6-7: Wastewater Treatment and Outcomes within UWMP Service Area in 2025 Check this box if no wastewater is treated or disposed of within the UWMP service area. ☐
WWTP and Place ID Number
Does this Plant Treat Wastewater Generated Outside the UWMP Service Area?
2025 Volume of Wastewater Received from UWMP Service Area
Whittier Narrows Yes 139 WRP Los Coyotes WRP Yes 139 (238646) San Jose Creek WRP Yes 139 (260156) Long Beach Yes 139 WRP (S838741) Pomona Yes 139 WRP La Cañada Yes 139 WRP Notes: 1. Corresponds to WUE Table 6-3R
2025 Outcome of Treated Wastewater Total 2025 Volume of Water Treated
Water Recycled Within UWMP Service Area Treatment Level
Volume (AF)
Water Recycled Outside of UWMP Service Area
Effluent Discharge that is not a Permitted Recycled Water Use
Required Discharge for Instream Flow
Delivered to Another Entity for Additional Treatment
139
Secondary, Undisinfected
NA
NA
NA
NA
139
Secondary, Disinfected 23
NA
NA
NA
NA
139 139 139 139
Page | 6-14 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
6.2.5.3
Recycled Water System Description
Recycled water is used at 31 sites within the City’s service area, with a total 2021-2022 demand of 272 AF. The 2021-2022 LACSD Annual Status Report on Recycled Water Use, Table 8 identified that 31 of the customers used recycled water for landscape, athletic field, and nursery irrigation purposes, a single industrial customer used recycled water for concrete manufacturing, a single golf course was provided recycled water for irrigation, and there was a single agricultural recipient. Recycled water users requiring more than 20 AFY and the industrial use site are identified in Table 6-8.
Name
Table 6-8: Recycled Water - FY 2024-2025 Use Recycled Water Demand Water Use (AFY)
Alondra Junior High School
22
Irrigation
Paramount High School
35
Irrigation
Paramount Park
24
Irrigation
Clearwater Junior High School
28
Irrigation
Dills Park
26
Irrigation
Robertson’s Ready Mix
13
Industrial
Other Users
118.4
Irrigation
CBMWD has expanded its production of recycled water; however, the City was not allocated additional recycle water due to other projects claiming the allocations.
6.2.5.4
Current, Potential, and Projected Recycled Water Uses
The current and project recycled water direct, beneficial uses are listed in Table 6-9.
Page | 6-15 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 6-9: Recycled Water District Beneficial Uses within Service Area Check box if recycled water is not used and is not planned for use within the service area of the supplier. The supplier will only complete the column on “Potential Recycled Water Use” and submit an accompanying narrative on the feasibility of the potential recycled water use.
☐
Name of Agency Producing (Treating) the Recycled Water:
LACSD
Name of Supplemental Operating the Recycled Water Distribution System:
CBMWD
Supplemental Water Added in 2025
0
Source of 2025 Supplemental Water
N/A
Beneficial Use Type
Potable or Non-Potable
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050 (opt.)
Irrigation
Non-potable
253
253
253
253
253
-
Industrial Use
Non-potable
13
13
13
13
13
-
266
266
266
266
266
-
Total
Notes: 1. NA = not applicable 2. Table coordinates with WUE Table 6-4R
Table 6-10 provides a summary of the 2020 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projections compared to the 2022 actual use. It should be noted that the Compton Golf Course was demolished by the City of Compton and is no longer included under recycled water use. Annual Reuse reports are not available from LACSD beyond 2022. Table 6-10: 2020 UWMP Recycled-Water Use Projection Compared to 2022 Actual Recycled water was not used in 2025 nor previously projected for ☐ use in 2020. The supplier will not complete the table below. Use Type 2020 Projection for 2025 Irrigation 245 Golf course irrigation 44 Industrial Use 23 Total 312 Notes: 1. Corresponds to WUE Table 6-4R
2022 Actual Use 253 0 13 266
The 2008 CBMWD Recycled Water Master Plan identified areas for expansion of the entire CBMWD recycled water system. In total, the plan identified an additional 55,479 AFY of potential for recycled water use within the service areas of the CBMWD, San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (SGVMWD), Page | 6-16 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
and Upper SGVMWD (USGVMWD). Of this potential additional use, 1,147 AFY was identified as demand that could be supplied through the City’s recycled water system. The types and feasibility of these are located in Table 6-11. Expanding the recycled water system based on these recommendations was not considered feasible by the City because the CBMWD’s capital improvement plan did not include these projects. Instead, the major project, the Southeast Water Reliability Project (SWRP), involving a much higher potential of recycled water users, was prioritized by CBMWD. The City independently identified roadway medians adjacent to the existing recycled water distribution system during its 2015 Water Master Plan Update that would benefit from recycled water use, and the projects have been included in the City’s capital improvement program. The SWRP and City’s plans are described further in later sections.
User Type Landscape Irrigation (CBMWD 2008 RWMP) Landscape Irrigation Industrial reuse
Table 6-11: Recycled Water - Potential Future Use Feasibility Description 2025 2030
2035
2040
Parks, School Districts, Medians, Nursery’s, etc.
No
612
612
612
612
Medians
Yes
31
31
31
31
No
13
13
13
13
656
656
656
656
Laundry, Robertson’s ReadyMix, Metals Processing Total
Note: Median irrigation estimates are based on the LACSD Recycled Water Use FY 2021-22
Table 6-12 shows the projected 2020 use for recycled water in 2025. It can be seen that the actual use for 2020 did not meet the expected projection. This could be due to a general decrease in the use of recycled water, both within the City and throughout the whole customer base of the LACSD. Table 6-12: 2020 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2025 Actual Use Type
2020 Projection for 2025
2025 Actual Use
Irrigation (excludes golf courses)
245
253
Golf course irrigation
44
0
Industrial use
23
13
312
266
Total Notes: 1. Corresponds to WUE Table 6-5R
Page | 6-17 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
CWC 10633 (f) (Describe the) actions, including financial incentives, which may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water, and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year. The City, CBMWD, and MWD encourage recycled water use among its customers. One of the most compelling ways to encourage the use of recycled water is through financial incentives. Recycled water is available at anywhere from a 30-50% discount to customers who use it over potable water. This allows financial savings while encouraging water conservation. In addition, the CBMWD encourages the use of recycled water by emphasizing the benefits of recycled water to its customers. Among these benefits include the increased reliability and the use of recycled water being consistent with the statewide goals for water conservation. CBMWD notes that, even during a drought, wastewater will still be produced and must be treated to recycled water standards. CBMWD will also advance funds necessary for retrofitting existing potable connections for use with recycled water. CBMWD realizes that the capital costs associated with this retrofitting may be unavailable. To prevent this from hindering the use of recycled water at these sites, CBWMD will retrofit the existing system and allow monthly reimbursement for advanced funds. In addition to the City and CBMWD incentives, MWD also has an extensive incentive program for encouraging the use of recycled water among its member agencies. Please refer to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2020 UWMP for more information. CWC 10633 (g) (Provide a) plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier’s service area, including actions to facilitate the installation of dual distribution systems, to promote recirculating uses, to facilitate the increased use of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, and to overcome any obstacles to achieving that increased use. A recycled water master plan was developed in 2008 for the CBMWD which includes the City’s recycled water system. CBMWD assists to oversee the purchase, use, and sale of recycled water to the individual water purveyors in Los Angeles County. The 2008 Recycled Water Master Plan identifies potential uses for recycled water within the City, as well as many other surrounding cities and water districts. The Plan includes recommendations and suggestions for improvement to the recycled water system. Recommendations were based on cost feasibility, as well as the potential customer demand for recycled water. Due to the low customer demand and high associated costs, recommendations were not made to include the City in the CBMWD’s Capital Improvement Plan for expanding the recycled water system. Instead, priority was given to a project with larger potential users: the SWRP. The SWRP is the planned CBMWD system expansion that will complete the loop of the Rio Hondo and Century systems for flow reliability, system pressure, and to aid in chlorination. The ultimate capacity for the combined, looped systems is projected to be 15,000 AFY. As envisioned, this will consist of approximately 11.4 miles of 30-inch cement-lined and coated steel pipeline to be built from the City of Pico Rivera, through the cities of Montebello, Commerce, and East Los Angeles to the City of Vernon. Construction on the first phase from Pico Rivera to the Montebello Golf Course was completed in the fall of 2011 and several sites have already been connected using approximately 400-500 AFY of the 1,000 AFY of identified demand. Construction of the Phase 2 from
Page | 6-18 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Montebello to Vernon will depend on funding, securing a customer base, and other outstanding institutional issues. Refer to the CBMWD’s 2020 UWMP Update for further information. In addition to the CBMWD’s programs, the City identified in its 2015 Draft Water Master Plan Update opportunities to use recycled water for irrigation of ornamental turf grass in street medians within its service area. Recycled water produced by the LACSD is already conveyed across the City in a 24-inch trunk main located along the Southern California Railroad Corridor. An analysis of the beneficial locations of recycled water use in medians and estimated cost was prepared in May 2015. From the analysis a total of seven projects were identified that could save the City approximately 26.3 acre-feet annually, and the projects have been included in the recommended capital improvement program. Table 6-13 identifies that the City completed its projects for turf median irrigation and those projects resulted in an estimate total recycled water use of 31 AF in 2022. No future recycled water projects are proposed at this time.
Table 6-13: Methods to Encourage Future Recycled Water Use ☒ Name of Action
Supplier does not plan to expand recycled water use in the future. Supplier will not complete the table below but will provide narrative explanation. Description
Planned Implementation Year
Expected Increase in Recycled Water Use
Total Notes: 1. Corresponds to WUE Table 6-6R
6.2.6
Desalinated Water Opportunities CWC 10631 (g) Describe the opportunities for development of desalinated water, including, but not limited to, ocean water, brackish water, and groundwater, as a long-term supply.
The City is not currently exploring the possibility of using desalinated water as a water source independently. MWD joined the National Alliance for Water Innovation (NAWI) in 2020 and has reported three (3) desalination projects within its service area in the 2020 UWMP. As an end user of water supplied through MWD, the City may receive water, or benefit in other ways (i.e. increased supplies and reliability), as a result of this effort in discovering the opportunity for desalination. Therefore, a brief description of MWD’s efforts in water desalination is discussed. In 2001, MWD created the Seawater Desalination Project (SDP) to explore the potential for using seawater as a long-term water supply. The SDP provided incentives for its member agencies to develop water through desalination; up to $250 per AF for all produced supplies. Since its inception, MWD has entered into agreements with its member agencies to fund three local seawater desalination projects amounting to 46,000 AFY of potential production. In October 2014, MWD added seawater desalination projects into its Local Resources Program (LRP), replacing the SDP program and increasing the
Page | 6-19 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
incentives to $340 for produced supplies (recycled water, recovered groundwater and desalinated seawater). In June 2020, MWD’s SDP agreements with all three (3) member agencies expired. According to the MWD 2020 UWMP Update, Table 3-11, the Claude Bud Lewis Carlsbad Seawater Desalination production was estimated as 43,868 acre-feet in 2020. In addition, Table 3-13, in the same report, lists three (3) sweater desalination projects under development within MWD’s service area. Table 6-14 shows the projected supplies provided by these seawater desalination plants.
Project
Table 6-14: Current Desalination Projected Capacities Projected Capacity Member Agency (AFY)
Status
Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project
San Diego County Water Authority
43,868
Operational
Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project
Municipal Water District of Orange County
56,000
Permitting
Doheny Desalination Project
Municipal Water District of Orange County/South Coast Water District
5,000 – 15,000
Permitting
West Basin Seawater Desalination Project
West Basin Municipal Water District
20,000 – 60,000
EIR Process
Total
6.2.7
124,868 – 174,868
Water Exchanges and Transfers CWC 10631 (c) Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long-term basis.
CBMWD and MWD seek out opportunities for water transfer and exchanges to ensure reliability within their respective service areas. Water transfers and exchanges help water suppliers distribute water effectively to areas with limited water supplies. For example, the MWD accepts water through the SWP and Colorado River for distribution throughout Southern California. The City, although not directly involved in the planning of these opportunities, may benefit from additional water supplies as a result of MWD and CBMWD’s efforts in securing water transfers and exchanges. Information on new transfer and exchange opportunities to the MWD and CBMWD can be found in the respective 2020 Urban Water Management Plans. The City maintains three interconnections with the City of Long Beach. Although these are available for use at any time and would serve groundwater and imported water to the City, these interconnections are primarily used only during times when the CBMWD connections to the City are unavailable due to
Page | 6-20 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
maintenance or repair, or during emergency situations. The City has no intention of using water supplied from the City of Long Beach through these connections as a short- or long-term water supply source. The City also has a manual unmetered one-way connection with the GSWC. This connection has check valves that only allow water to be supplied in one direction from the City to the other agency. And as with the connections to the City of Long Beach, the City has no intention of using these connections as shortterm or long-term transfers or exchanges.
6.2.8
Supply from Storage
The City does not operate surface water storage facilities or withdraw surface water stored in underground storage for municipal supply.
6.2.9
Future Water Projects CWC 10631 (h) (Describe) all water supply projects and water supply programs that may be undertaken by the urban water supplier to meet the total projected water use as established pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10635.
In accordance with a recommendation made in the City’s 2015 Draft Water Master Plan Update, the City included construction of a new well, Well No. 16, to its capital improvement program to supplement the groundwater supply and allow for the decommissioning and abandonment of Well No. 13. In addition, this will allow the transition of Well No. 14 to a backup facility. As discussed in Section 6.2, Well No. 13 has been experiencing water quality issues and is currently used as backup for Wells 14 and 15. The addition of Well No. 16 increases the reliability of the City’s pumping capacity to ensure full utilization of its groundwater pumping rights. Refer to Table 6-15 for a summary of the City’s future water supply projects providing quantifiable increases to the City’s water supply.
Page 6-17 Name of Future Projects or Programs N/A
Table 6-15: Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs No expected future water supply projects or programs that ☒ provide quantifiable increase to the agency’s water supply. Supplier will not complete the table below. Some of all of the supplier’s future water supply projects or programs are not compatible with this table and are ☐ described in a narrative format. Provide page location of narrative in the UWMP Expected Joint Project with Other Planned Potable Planned Increase in Suppliers? for Use in or NonImplementation Water Year Potable Year Supply to If Yes, Supplier Type Yes/No Supplier Name -
-
-
-
-
-
Notes: 1. Corresponds to WUE Table 6-7R
Page | 6-21 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
6.3
Energy Use CWC 10621.2 (a) In addition to the requirements of Section 10631, an urban water management plan shall include any of the following information that the urban water supplier can readily obtain: (1) An estimate of the amount of energy used to extract or divert water supplies. (2) An estimate of the amount of energy used to convey water supplies to the water treatment plants or distribution systems. (3) An estimate of the amount of energy used to treat water supplies. (4) An estimate of the amount of energy used to distribute water supplies through its distribution systems. (5) An estimate of the amount of energy used for treated water supplies in comparison to the amount used for nontreated water supplies. (6) An estimate of the amount of energy used to place water into or withdraw from storage. (7) Any other energy-related information the urban water supplier deems appropriate.
The City operates two well production sites, Well 15 and Well 16. Well 15 has a 400 HP motor that runs approximately 17 hours daily. Well 16 has a 600 HP motor and runs 24 hours per day with occasional planned shutdowns for maintenance and static water level readings. Table 6-16 summarizes the City’s supply facilities energy intensity using the total utility approach. Table 6-16: Water Supplies – 2025 Actual Urban Water Supplier Operational Control Enter Start Date for Period 1/1/2025 Non-Consequential Sum of All Water Hydropower End Date 12/31/2025 Processes Total Utility Hydropower Net Utility Volume of Water Entering Process (AF)
5,122
Energy Consumed (kiloWatts per hour (kWh))
5,444,758
Energy Intensity (kWh/AF)
1,063
Notes: 1. Corresponds to WUE Table O-1A
Page | 6-22 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
CHAPTER 7
WATER SERVICE RELIABILITY AND DROUGHT RISK ASSESSMENT
New Requirements for 2025 Update For 2025, DWR requires expanded quantitative reliability assessments, including five-year drought risk analyses and updated dry-year sequences. Agencies must also assess reliability under climate stress conditions and describe any new limitations identified since 2020 (e.g., SGMA pumping reductions, environmental flow requirements). This chapter now also integrates SB 552 requirements for small water supplier coordination when applicable. The level of climate modeling and scenario documentation is substantially greater than in 2020.
7.1
Constraints on Water Sources Considerations CWC 10631(c)(2) For any water source that may not be available at a consistent level of use, given specific legal, environmental, water quality, or climatic factors, describe plans to supplement or replace that source with alternative sources or water demand management measures, to the extent practical. CWC 10634 The plan shall include information, to the extent practical, relating to the quality of existing sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments as described in subdivision (a) of Section 10631, and the manner in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliability.
Currently, the only sources of potable water that the City utilizes are supplier pumped groundwater from the Central Basin and wholesale distributed water through CBMWD. Additional water supplies are obtained by treating wastewater and using it as recycled water for irrigation purposes only. Although these are deemed reliable, each source has unique challenges to ensure that water will continue to be available. These challenges are shown in Table 7-1 and described below. Table 7-1: Factors Resulting in Inconsistence of Water Supply Water Supply Water Legal Environmental Climatic Sources Quality Central Basin Groundwater
X
X
X
Additional Information NA
CBMWD Wholesale Water
X
NA
Recycled Water
X
NA
With respect to water quality, the City’s 2024 CCR (Appendix E) summarizes the City’s existing water constituents and concentrations. As shown, the City met all Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) water quality standards. Page | 7-1 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
7.1.1
Central Basin Groundwater
Although it is deemed the most reliable and most cost-effective water supply source, several factors affect the reliability of the Central Basin supply. Despite these factors, the City still considers optimizing the use of groundwater from the Central Basin a priority for the future.
7.1.1.1
Legal
As the Central Basin is adjudicated, it is subject to legal considerations. The amount of groundwater allowed to be pumped is set at a constant rate by the adjudication agreement. Although it is not anticipated that total water supplies from the Central Basin will decrease as a result of the adjudication, it is unlikely that they will increase with increasing demand. Therefore, alternative ways to supplement groundwater must be considered as increased pumping from the Basin will be legally restricted.
7.1.1.2
Climatic
Groundwater levels are highly dependent on climate issues such as annual rainfall and average temperature. During dry or wet years, the groundwater levels in the Central Basin are dynamic due to the large number of water districts that use it as either a sole or major source of water. Inconsistency in water levels due to drought is generally a short-term event that can significantly impact the water supply to the City. Currently the CBMWD, in conjunction with the City and its other member agencies, has several preventative measures in place to mitigate the effects a drought may have on the overall water supply. These mitigation measures include maintaining a groundwater recharge system, surplus capacity, and emergency water connections for imported water. For more information on the effects of a drought, see Section 7.2, which identifies the water reliability during a normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry years.
7.1.2
CBMWD Wholesale Water
CBMWD identified that its water supply to the City is considered reliable and sufficient to meet projected demands. However, the reliability of the supply is also dependent on the water quality delivered by the SWP to the MWD. In general, the SWP quality has been considered good, with delivered water meeting the state threshold requirements. But as seawater intrusion into the Bay-Delta increases, water quality can be diminished. In addition, as water moves through the Bay-Delta, levels of total organic carbon and bromide are likely to increase. Water quality can also be affected by the amount of wastewater that is disposed as this provides a means for the transportation of salts and pathogens into clean water supplies. To prevent these water quality issues from affecting the overall reliability of supply, water quality analyses are conducted throughout the delivery process and at the water treatment plants to ensure water is safe prior to delivery. Furthermore, state regulatory factors have included biological assessments affecting the amount of water delivered from the Delta to the SWP system to prevent degradation of water quality from the Delta. MWD, CBMWD, and the City are diligent in identifying poor water quality and will act immediately to ensure proper treatment so as to maintain a clean source of potable water.
7.1.3
Water Quality
Each of the City’s water sources present its own, unique water quality issues. Issues that may cause concern regarding water quality are described in the subsections below. It should be noted the City of Paramount’s 2024 CCR did not identify any contaminant above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). Page | 7-2 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
The following subsections are presented, not to indicate they are the source of current water quality violations in the City’s water supply, but instead they are identified as potential issues of concern that should be monitored to ensure a high-quality water supply.
7.1.3.1
Central Basin Groundwater
Groundwater supplied by the Central Basin has historically met good water quality standards. However, the City has, at times, detected arsenic and manganese content above the MCL in City wells, requiring additional treatment to be performed at the well head to prevent distribution of poor-quality water. In addition to City water testing conducted to ensure water quality is met while contaminant and bacteria presence are at acceptable levels, the CBMWD conducts its own water quality tests and monitoring of wells to ensure that water is acceptable for delivery within its service area as well as its purveyors’ service areas. Groundwater quality varies by well, below is a summary of each well’s water quality. Arsenic Arsenic is a toxic chemical that can be found naturally in groundwater. In the United States it is most commonly found in southwest regions and is commonly known to cause skin cancer. At Well No. 15, arsenic concentrations are naturally occurring and typically range from 6 to 8 ppb, which is below the MCL and therefore does not require treatment. At Well No. 16, arsenic concentrations average approximately 10 ppb and are treated with a ferric chloride feed system to achieve levels of about 3 ppb. Manganese In response to more stringent arsenic requirements (as described above), the City augmented the treatment system at Well No. 15 and 16; improvements also included manganese treatment as part of the upgrade. Both wells experience manganese concentrations averaging approximately 40 ppb and are treated to non-detect levels in the finished water. Since implementation of these treatment systems, arsenic and manganese have been effectively managed in the City’s groundwater supply.
7.1.3.2
CBMWD Wholesale Water
The water quality issues associated with the water supply to the City are consistent with those experienced by the CBMWD and are similar to regional water quality challenges identified by the MWD. In addition to longstanding concerns related to salinity and certain inorganic and organic constituents in imported supplies from the Colorado River and the SWP, MWD has identified emerging contaminants of concern that may affect water quality management, including PFAS, microplastics, and cyanotoxins associated with harmful algal blooms. These constituents have become an increasing focus of regulatory oversight, monitoring, and treatment planning due to potential public health and operational impacts. MWD has reported that elevated levels of salinity and chemical constituents, under a theoretical water quality event, could result in a temporary reduction of available supply of up to approximately 15%; however, MWD also notes that operational strategies—such as blending affected supplies with treated or higher‑quality water, adjusting source portfolios, and optimizing treatment processes—can reduce contaminant concentrations to meet potable water quality standards. Similar management approaches are being evaluated and implemented to address emerging contaminants, including advanced treatment Page | 7-3 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
technologies and source water protections. Based on these mitigation measures and regional planning efforts, MWD anticipates no significant long‑term reductions in water supply availability from the Colorado River, SWP, or local groundwater sources due solely to water quality concerns over the UWMP planning horizon. The City realizes the importance of constantly assuring that the water it distributes meets potable water standards. Although there are no water quality issues that immediately threaten the supply to the City’s customers, the City maintains knowledge of water quality issues to prevent poor quality water from being distributed. The following are descriptions of the most pertinent issues of concern, due to either historically increasing levels of water salinity or threshold reductions (Chromium VI). Salinity Since 2020, increased salinity pressure in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta during prolonged drought conditions has influenced the reliability and operational management of SWP supplies delivered to the City through the MWD. Reduced freshwater inflows during water years 2020–2022 increased the risk of saltwater intrusion from San Francisco Bay, prompting the DWR to implement emergency salinity control measures, including the installation of a temporary rock‑fill emergency drought salinity barrier on the West False River in June 2021. The barrier was designed to reduce tidal saltwater intrusion into the central Delta and was maintained through November 2022 due to continued critically dry conditions, limiting the need for additional upstream reservoir releases to repel salinity. While the barrier was effective in reducing salinity levels in the central Delta, it also altered Delta hydraulics and constrained SWP export operations, contributing to reduced pumping flexibility during critical periods. During this same period, SWP allocations were significantly curtailed, including a reduction in March 2022 from 15% to 5%, partly to preserve reservoir storage needed to maintain Delta water quality standards and mitigate salinity intrusion. For Paramount, these conditions did not result in direct salinity‑related service interruptions but increased reliance on operational strategies such as source blending, storage withdrawals, and conservation to maintain delivered water quality below MWD’s salinity management target of 500 mg/L total dissolved solids (TDS). MWD continues to identify salinity management, including emergency barrier deployment and export constraints during dry years, as a contributing factor to reduced SWP reliability, particularly under future drought and sea‑level rise conditions. Chromium VI (Hexavalent Chromium) Regulatory oversight of Chromium VI in drinking water has advanced significantly since the adoption of the City’s 2020 UWMP. On April 17, 2024, the SWRCB adopted a new MCL for Chromium-6 of 10 ppb, replacing the prior reliance on a Public Health Goal (PHG) established by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. The regulation became effective October 1, 2024, with compliance dates extending to October 1, 2026 or later depending on system size. While the PHG of 0.02 ppb remains an intentionally conservative, non-enforceable health-protective benchmark rather than a maximum safe level, the new MCL establishes an enforceable standard based on treatment feasibility and statewide implementation considerations. Chromium-VI continues to occur naturally in groundwater throughout California and has been detected more frequently in groundwater-influenced supplies than in imported surface water. SWP supplies historically exhibit variable but generally low Chromium-VI concentrations, while Colorado River supplies have typically shown non-detectable levels. In response to the new MCL, water agencies across California are evaluating compliance strategies including blending, operational adjustments, and treatment technologies such as ion exchange. Although some agencies have begun issuing public Page | 7-4 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
notices associated with exceedances of the new standard, regulatory guidance indicates that short-term exceedances do not represent an immediate public health emergency but require long-term corrective action. MWD continues comprehensive monitoring of all source waters, including imported surface supplies, and anticipates that compliance with the Chromium-VI MCL can be achieved without significant reductions in water supply availability through coordinated regional treatment and blending strategies.
7.2
Water Service Reliability Assessment CWC 10631(c)(1) Describe the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage, to the extent practicable, and provide data for each of the following: (A) An average water year, (B) A single dry water year, (C) Multiple dry water years
Since 2020, water supplies delivered by MWD to agencies dependent on the SWP, including the City, have experienced significant reductions due to prolonged drought, regulatory constraints in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, water quality limitations, and infrastructure capacity losses. From 2020 to 2022, the driest three-year sequence in California’s recorded history was experienced, resulting in critically reduced snowpack runoff and reservoir inflows to the SWP system. In addition to hydrologic shortages, regulatory requirements implemented under state and federal laws to protect endangered fish species, including Delta smelt and winter-run Chinook salmon, have constrained pumping operations in the Delta by limiting export timing and volumes to reduce entrainment risk and protect water quality standards. These constraints have reduced the reliability and consistency of SWP deliveries, particularly during dry years when freshwater inflows are low. In March 2022, the DWR reduced the 2022 SWP allocation from an initial 15% to 5% as drought conditions intensified, citing severely limited runoff, deteriorating water quality conditions in the Delta—including increased salinity intrusion—and critically low reservoir storage, resulting in substantially reduced supplies available to MWD and its member agencies. Water quality challenges associated with low-flow conditions, such as higher salinity, warmer water temperatures, and reduced assimilative capacity in the Delta, have further constrained SWP operations by limiting pumping during periods when exports could adversely affect municipal and agricultural water quality. Concurrently, long-term groundwater overdraft in portions of the San Joaquin Valley has caused land subsidence that has permanently reduced the conveyance capacity of the California Aqueduct by approximately 3%, restricting SWP delivery capacity even during wetter hydrologic periods. Although exceptionally wet conditions in water year 2023 temporarily restored SWP allocations to 100%, MWD continues to identify SWP supplies as highly variable and vulnerable to future drought, climate-driven hydrologic extremes, Delta regulatory requirements, water quality limitations, and ongoing infrastructure constraints, underscoring the importance of conservation and diversified local and regional supplies to maintain long-term water service reliability.
7.2.1
WSRA Year-Type Characterization
All potable water supplies are pumped from the Central Basin or provided through the CBMWD as part of MWD and the SWP. The groundwater supply is available based on the ability of the City to pump the fully allotted amount through the Central Basin adjudication. Since the additional purchased supply is not Page | 7-5 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
directly obtained by the City, the determination of reliability will largely be based on CBMWD and MWD analyses to provide a consistent water supply to the City during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. During these years, the City is committed to reducing water demand during times of drought in order to conserve water and improve reliability for future water supplies. For the purpose of this Plan, the Department of Water Resources defines average, single-dry, and multiple dry years as follows. Average Year: A year, or an averaged range of years, that most closely represents the median water supply available to the agency. Single-Dry Year: The year that represents the lowest water supply available to the agency. Multiple Dry Years: The period that represents the lowest average water supply availability to the agency for a consecutive multiple year period (three years or more) To determine the typical normal, single dry year, and five consecutive dry years within the service area, the City reviewed historical rainfall data from the CIMIS Station #174 in Long Beach. The results of the historical rainfall data review are presented in Figure 7-1.
Page | 7-6 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Figure 7-1: Historic Rainfall Data 25.0
20.2 19.2
20.0
17.8
15.0
13.7
13.2 11.9 10.1
10.0
8.9 8.2
7.9 7.2 6.3
6.2
5.6
5.0
5.0 3.3
0.0
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Rainfall (inches)
13.7
7.2
7.9
3.3
6.3
5.6
10.1
13.2
5.0
20.2
8.2
8.9
6.2
19.2
17.8
11.9
Average (inches)
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
Page | 7-7 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 7-2 identifies the normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years chosen to represent the water supply from CBMWD as well as the percentage/volume of supply that was available for public use. These percentage values do not represent additional supplies through surplus storage. Instead, they demonstrate the water available to be added to the supply system based on the hydrology of those years.
7.2.1.1
Climate Change
According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, the City, and the greater Los Angeles Area, should consider increases in temperature, reduction in precipitation, increased fires, more frequent droughts, and changes in air quality, among others, as potential impacts of climate change. Each of these impacts has the potential to develop into a water shortage scenario for the community. While direct impacts to the City are vague based on current reports, the City recognizes that continued efforts to increase water use efficiency are needed to mitigate the impacts of climate change. The following tables demonstrate the reliable of the City’ water supply through multiple dry-year scenarios. It is likely, based on current information, that the likelihood of these scenarios will increase in the future. Table 7-2: Supply Augmentation and Other Actions Available Supplies If Year Type Repeats
Year Type
Quantification of available supplies is not compatible with this table and is provided elsewhere
Base Type
Volume Available (AFY)
% of Average Supply
Average Year
2016
6,852
100%
Single-Dry Year
2018
7,094
104%
Consecutive Dry Years 1st Year
2011
7,175
105%
Consecutive Dry Years 2nd Year
2012
7,433
108%
Consecutive Dry Years 3rd Year
2013
7,308
107%
Consecutive Dry Years 4th Year
2014
7,151
104%
Consecutive Dry Years 5th Year
2015
7,289
106%
Notes: 1. Corresponds to WUE Table 7-1R.
Page | 7-8 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
7.2.2 7.2.2.1
WSRA Supply and Demand Comparison Normal Year
Table 7-3 provides a summary of the City’s projected supply and water demands through 2050. The future demand projections are based on future population projections as described in Section 3.4 and historical per capita demands including the implementation of the required SBX7-7 as described in Section 5.2. Table 7-3: Normal-Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2030 2035 2040 2045
2050
Supply Totals (AF)
9,385
9,385
9,385
9,385
9,385
Use Totals (AF)
5,527
5,690
5,859
6,032
6,086
Surplus/(Shortfall) (AF)
3,858
3,695
3,526
3,353
3,299
Notes: 1. Corresponds to WUE Table 7-2R.
7.2.2.2
Single Dry Year
As shown in Table 7-2, 113% of the City’s average supply was available during a single dry year. Table 7-4 provides a summary of the City’s projected supply and demand through 2050 for a single dry year. It is estimated that water demand will increase by 0.2% during a single dry year. Table 7-4: Single Dry-Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2030 2035 2040 2045
2050
Supply Totals (AF)
9,717
9,717
9,717
9,717
9,717
Use Totals (AF)
5,538
5,701
5,871
6,044
6,098
Surplus/(Shortfall) (AF)
4,179
4,015
3,846
3,673
3,619
Notes: 1. Corresponds to WUE Table 7-3R.
7.2.2.3
Five Consecutive Dry Years
As shown in Table 7-2, an average of 106% of the City’s average supply was available during five consecutive dry years. Table 7-5 provides a summary of the City’s projected supply and demand through 2050 for multiple dry years. It is estimated that water demand will increase by 6% per year during a multidry year event.
Page | 7-9 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 7-5: Five Consecutive Dry-Year Supply and Demand Comparison
First Year
Second Year
Third Year
Fourth Year
Fifth Year
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Supply Totals (AF)
9,828
9,828
9,828
9,828
9,828
Use Totals (AF)
5,538
5,701
5,871
6,044
6,098
Surplus/(Shortfall) (AF)
4,290
4,126
3,957
3,784
3,730
Supply Totals (AF)
10,181
10,181
10,181
10,181
10,181
Use Totals (AF)
5,870
6,043
6,223
6,407
6,464
Surplus/(Shortfall) (AF)
4,311
4,138
3,958
3,775
3,717
Supply Totals (AF)
10,010
10,010
10,010
10,010
10,010
Use Totals (AF)
6,223
6,406
6,596
6,791
6,852
Surplus/(Shortfall) (AF)
3,788
3,604
3,414
3,219
3,158
Supply Totals (AF)
9,795
9,795
9,795
9,795
9,795
Use Totals (AF)
6,596
6,790
6,992
7,199
7,263
Surplus/(Shortfall) (AF)
3,200
3,005
2,803
2,597
2,532
Supply Totals (AF)
9,984
9,984
9,984
9,984
9,984
Use Totals (AF)
6,992
7,198
7,412
7,630
7,699
Surplus/(Shortfall) (AF)
2,992
2,786
2,572
2,354
2,285
Notes: 1. Corresponds to WUE Table 7-4R.
7.2.3
WRSA Description of Management Tools and Options
The City coordinates closely with the CBMWD and MWD. The City has and will continue to participate in the following water resource planning efforts: Implementation of conservation and water‑use efficiency programs consistent with MWD regional objectives and state requirements to reduce demand during normal and dry‑year conditions Participation in MWD‑led water allocation, shortage contingency, and emergency response planning, including compliance with allocation and conservation directives during declared drought emergencies Coordination with CBMWD and MWD on water quality monitoring, blending, and treatment strategies to manage salinity, emerging contaminants, and regulatory compliance without compromising supply reliability
Page | 7-10 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
7.3
Drought Risk Assessment CWC 10635(b) Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, a drought risk assessment for its water service to its customers as part of information considered in developing the demand management measures and water supply projects and programs to be included in the urban water management plan. The urban water supplier may conduct an interim update or updates to this drought risk assessment within the five-year cycle of its urban water management plan update
In accordance with the water code, the City has prepared a DRA in accordance with the water code. The City estimated sufficient water supply should be available to meet demands based on reported additional supplies from CBMWD through MWD and anticipated water conservation efforts set forth in the WSCP and City Ordinance 1050 for Water Conservation. The following section outlines the specific requirements of the water code and explains how the City meets compliance.
7.3.1
DRA Data, Methods, and Basis for Water Shortage Conditions CWC 10635(b)(1) (1) A description of the data, methodology, and basis for one or more supply shortage conditions that are necessary to conduct a drought risk assessment for a drought period that lasts five consecutive water years, starting from the year following when the assessment is conducted.
Data for the DRA was based on current and historic water demand records for the City and estimated using the same tools used to complete the update to the Urban Water Management Plan. The City population was estimated using linear percentage increases based on the 2021-2029 Housing Element’s 20-year growth window and the Clearwater Specific Plan. Additionally, water supply was calculated utilizing the same methodology used to determine the multiple dry year scenario. Working with historical water supply values and then applying that percent to the current water supply over successive years to develop a multiple dry-year scenario beginning in the current planning year. The values reflect what supply and demand might look like if the City entered into a multiple dry-year scenario beginning in the current year. The following information was used to support the City’s DRA to identify water production and consumption to its customers and determine restrictions to supply sources: Los Angeles County All-Hazards Mitigation Plan City of Paramount Draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan WRD Groundwater Basins Master Plan (GBMP) Historical rainfall data from precipitation gauge CIMIS Station #174 Long Beach
7.3.2
DRA Individual Water Source Reliability
As identified previously, the City has never had a single year or multiple dry years in which it did not meet 100% of its demand, regardless of regional hydrology or supply constraints. Therefore, there is no basis Page | 7-11 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
in the hydrologic record for reducing supply reliability based upon single and/or multiple dry year conditions when imported water supply is available in addition to historical groundwater production. On this assumption, the City’s supply is presented as 100% reliable for single and multiple dry year periods as summarized in the following sections.
7.3.3
DRA Total Water Supply and Use Comparison CWC 10635(b)(3) A comparison of the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use for the drought period.
Sustainable management of its existing resources through water-use efficiency measures will allow the City to serve existing and future water demands during normal years, single dry years, or multiple dry years. Table 7-6 summarizes the five-year drought risk assessment. Table 7-6: Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment 2026
Total Total Water Use
5,226
Total Supplies
5,309
Surplus/Shortfall without WSCP Action
83
2027
Total Total Water Use
5,258
Total Supplies
5,497
Surplus/Shortfall without WSCP Action
238
2028
Total Total Water Use
5,291
Total Supplies
5,691
Surplus/Shortfall without WSCP Action
400
2029
Total Total Water Use
5,324
Total Supplies
5,892
Surplus/Shortfall without WSCP Action
569
2030
Total Total Water Use
5,356
Total Supplies
6,101
Surplus/Shortfall without WSCP Action
744
Notes: 1. Corresponds to WUE Table 7-5R.
Page | 7-12 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
As noted above, CBMWD has stated it can provide sufficient water for the foreseeable future even in multiple dry-year conditions. So, for the purpose of these tables, and deficiencies were met assuming supplemental water could be provided by CBMWD. While CBMWD is available to meet consumer demands, it is more economically sustainable for the City to implement the water conservation measures outlined in City Ordinance 1050 and the WSCP to avoid the need for supplemental water.
Page | 7-13 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
CHAPTER 8
WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLANNING
New Requirements for 2025 Update The 2025 UWMP must include an updated summary of the agency’s WSCP, including any revisions made to comply with SB 552, updated shortage stages, new communication protocols, and supply augmentation or demand response measures added since 2020. There is also a new requirement to document annual WSCP reporting procedures and describe how the WSCP aligns with updated reliability assessments.
8.1
Water Supply Reliability Analysis
This section evaluates the City’s water supply reliability under various conditions as presented in Chapter 7 of the UWMP. Chapter 7 contains an assessment of the water supply reliability for the City’s primary water supply sources: groundwater, imported water, and recycled water. Based on 2025 supply and demand data, projected supply is sufficient to meet projected demand for the next five years even if those years are consecutive dry years. As described in Chapter 6, the City utilizes both potable and recycled water. The City obtains potable water from two sources: directly pumped groundwater and imported water purchased through the CBMWD, who in turn receives the water through the MWD. Currently, two water utilities serve the community: Golden State Water Company (GSWC) and the City’s Water Department. The City’s water department services the majority of the population; however, two northern portions of the City, above the I-105 Freeway, are serviced by GSWC. The City also purchases recycled water from CBWMD for nonpotable uses. In 2025, the City purchased 1,399 AFY of potable water from CBMWD, 31 AFY of recycled water, and pumped 3,530 AFY of groundwater. The City began receiving imported water supplies through regional water suppliers following the expansion of metropolitan water infrastructure in Southern California during the mid-20th century. Imported potable water supplies available to the City of Paramount are delivered through the CBMWD, which serves as the MWD member agency for portions of the City. Under existing agreements, the City has the ability to receive up to 5,883 AFY of imported potable water supplies under its annual pumping agreement with CBMWD plus an additional 60%, subject to availability, contractual provisions, and regional allocation policies, with an effective allocation of 9,412 AFY in the current year. In addition to City provided service, GSWC supplies potable water to limited areas within the City under its separate service arrangements and allocations. The City does not possess independent SWP entitlements, direct surface water rights, or area of origin settlement water entitlements and relies on regional wholesale suppliers and groundwater resources to meet potable water demands. To identify potential water supply reliability concerns, the following climate change vulnerability screening analysis was completed (including impacts from extreme heat, water quality, sea level rise, flooding, and wildfire), as shown in Table 8-1.
Page | 8-1 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 8-1: Climate Change Vulnerability Screening Preliminary Assessment Imported Water Level of Risk I. Water Supply and Demand Are the water supply diversions sensitive to climate change?
5
Is the water supply source affected by urban or agricultural water demand that might be climate sensitive?
4
Is groundwater a major supply source?
5
Does the water supply source rely on or could it be affected by snowmelt?
5
Does the water supply source come from or could it be affected by coastal aquifers? Has saltwater intrusion been a problem in the past?
N/A
Does the water supply source rely on or could it be affected by changes in stored water supplies?
4
II. Extreme Heat Could extreme heat impact operations of the water supply project or diversions?
4
Does the supply source rely on equipment or infrastructure that could be impacted by extreme or prolonged heat?
4
III. Water Quality Could water quality issues, such as low dissolved oxygen, algal blooms, disinfectant biproducts affect the water supply source?
4
Could reduction in assimilative capacity of a receiving water body affect the water supply source?
3
IV. Sea Level Rise Is any of the water supply source infrastructure located in area that could be exposed to rising tides?
1
Could coastal erosion affect the water supply source?
1
Is the water supply source dependent on coastal structures, such as levees or breakwaters, for protection from flooding?
N/A
V. Flooding Is the water supply or any of its associated infrastructure located within the 200-year floodplain? Does the water supply
3
Page | 8-2 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 8-1: Climate Change Vulnerability Screening Preliminary Assessment Imported Water Level of Risk source rely on flood protection infrastructure such as levees or dams? VI. Wildfire Is the water supply source located in an area that is expected to experience an increase in wildfire activity or severity? Would a wildfire result in damage to the water supply source infrastructure or interruption of its ability to perform as designed? Could the water supply source be affected by an increase in wildfire activity or severity in an upstream watershed or other adjacent area?
3
Notes: Level of Risk: 1 – low, 3 – medium, 5 – high
8.2
Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Procedures
In accordance with CWC 10632, the City will conduct an annual water supply and demand assessment, or an annual assessment by July 1st of each year. The City will draft and prepare a written report that discusses the results of the annual water supply and demand assessment. As a water supplier, the City must prepare an Annual Assessment. The Annual Assessment is a determination of the near-term outlook for supplies and demands and how a perceived shortage may relate to WSCP shortage stage response actions in the current calendar year; this determination is based on known circumstances and information available to the City at the time of the analysis. Starting in 2022, the Annual Assessment will be due by July 1 of every year, as indicated by CWC Section 10632.1. The Annual Assessment will be primarily based on the City’s ongoing supply-demand tracking process which is exhibited in monthly report by water personnel. These monthly analyses provide key information for Metropolitan to manage resources to meet a range of estimated demands and adjust to changing conditions throughout the year. By June, Water personnel will present a completed Annual Assessment for approval. Upon approval, City staff will then formally submit the Annual Assessment to the DWR by July 1 each year.
8.2.1
Decision-Making Process
The City will start to evaluate the water supply availability in January and will submit the report to the DWR in June of each year.
Page | 8-3 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
8.2.2
Data and Methodologies
Because shortages are based on the difference between expected supplies and demand under assumed current year and dry year conditions, the evaluation criteria to be used by the Water Division in the Annual Assessment for determining a shortage include the following: •
Characterization of the current year and dry year scenarios bases on best-available data,
•
Estimation of available core supplies, and
•
Estimate of projected demands
Together, these three criteria provide the necessary information to calculate shortage percentages by dividing the difference between total core supplies and unconstrained demand by total unconstrained demand, under current year and dry year scenarios.
8.3
Six Standard Water Shortage Levels
8.3.1
Establishment of Water Shortage Conditions
The City establishes water shortage conditions pursuant to the authority provided in the Paramount Municipal Code (PMC) and through actions of the City Council. The PMC authorizes the City to regulate water use, implement conservation measures, and enforce restrictions as necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare during periods of reduced water supply or emergency conditions. The PMC defines discrete water‑shortage tiers or stages, and provides the legal framework under which the City Council may declare water shortage or emergency conditions and impose mandatory or voluntary conservation measures by resolution. The WSCP serves as the primary policy document that establishes water shortage levels, identifies supply and demand indicators, and outlines the corresponding response actions that may be implemented during normal, water shortage, or emergency conditions. Under normal water supply conditions, the City promotes water use efficiency through ongoing conservation programs and requires compliance with permanent water‑use efficiency standards and water‑waste prohibitions established in the City Code and applicable state regulations. When water supply constraints occur due to drought, regional supply limitations, groundwater conditions, infrastructure constraints, or state mandated actions, the City Council may activate the applicable water shortage stage consistent with the PMC and WSCP. These measures may apply citywide or to specific customer classes or uses and may include enhanced conservation requirements, mandatory water use restrictions, and enforcement actions commensurate with the severity of the shortage. In the event of a severe or emergency water shortage, the City Council may declare a water supply emergency and implement additional restrictions or allocation based measures as necessary to ensure the continued availability of water for essential public health and safety needs. All water shortage actions are implemented in coordination with regional water suppliers, including the CBMWD, and in compliance with applicable SWRCB requirements.
Page | 8-4 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
8.3.2
Water Shortage Stages
The City developed a six-level rationing plan to be implemented when the City experiences a shortage in the water supply, which is contained in PMC § 13.04, Art. V. According to the plan, the City Council, upon the request of the City Manager, has the authority to declare a stage of action and implement reduction measures. Table 8-2 provides an outline of each phase and the associated percentage of water supply reduction. These stages have been updated to comply with the six Standard Water Shortage Stages established by DWR in 2019.
Shortage Level 1
Table 8-2: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Planning Stage % Supply Water Supply Condition Reduction 0 – 10% A Level I Water Supply Shortage exists when the City Council determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought or other water supply conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened Stage I: shortage exists and a 10% consumer demand Moderate (a) reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions.
2
11 – 20%
A Level II Water Supply Shortage exists when the City Council determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought or other water supply conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a 20% consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions.
21 – 30%
A Level III Water Supply Shortage exists when the City Council declares, in its sole discretion, that due to drought or other water supply conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a 30% consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions.
31 – 40%
A Level IV Water Supply Shortage exists when the City Council declares, in its sole discretion, that due to drought or other water supply conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a 40% consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions
41 – 50%
A Level V Water Supply Shortage is referred to as a Water Shortage Emergency. A Level V
Stage I: Moderate (b)
3
Stage II: Severe (a)
4
Stage II: Severe (b)
5
Stage III: Critical
Page | 8-5 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
condition exists when the City Council declares, in its sole discretion, a water shortage emergency and notifies its residents and businesses that a 50% reduction in consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions 6
+51%
Stage IV: Emergency
A Level V Water Supply Shortage is referred to as a Water Shortage Emergency. A Level V condition exists when the City Council declares, in its sole discretion, a water shortage emergency and notifies its residents and businesses that a 50% reduction in consumer demand is necessary to maintain sufficient water supplies for public health and safety, pursuant to Water Code Section 350 et seq.
Stage I (a): A moderate water shortage exists when the City Council determines, in its sole discretion, that drought or other water supply conditions have resulted in, or may result in, a water supply shortage requiring up to a 10% reduction in consumer demand. This stage is intended to encourage increased efficiency in water use and early conservation actions to appropriately respond to existing or threatened water supply conditions while maintaining reliable service to all customer classes. Stage I (b): A continued moderate water shortage exists when the City Council determines, in its sole discretion, that drought or other water supply conditions warrant a 20% reduction in consumer demand. This stage reflects more pronounced supply constraints and the need for enhanced conservation actions to reduce water use and protect the City’s available supplies. Measures implemented during this stage are intended to further improve efficiency and slow demand growth while avoiding emergency conditions. Stage II (a): A severe water shortage exists when the City Council declares, in its sole discretion, that drought or other water supply conditions require a 30% reduction in consumer demand. This stage indicates significant stress on available water supplies and necessitates stricter conservation measures and broader compliance to ensure that essential water needs can continue to be met throughout the service area. Stage II (b): A continued severe water shortage exists when the City Council declares, in its sole discretion, that drought or other water supply conditions require a 40% reduction in consumer demand. This stage reflects critical supply limitations and the need for aggressive conservation actions across all customer sectors to sustain available supplies and minimize the risk of progressing to emergency conditions. Stage III: A critical water shortage exists when the City Council declares a Water Shortage Emergency, determining that a 50% reduction in consumer demand is necessary. At this level, water supply conditions are extremely constrained, and emergency conservation measures are implemented to protect remaining supplies and ensure continued availability of water for essential public health and safety needs. Stage IV: An emergency water shortage represents the most severe supply condition and is also classified as a Water Shortage Emergency. This stage exists when the City Council declares, in its sole Page | 8-6 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
discretion, that drought or other conditions require reductions exceeding 51% to maintain sufficient water supplies for public health and safety, pursuant to CWC Section 350 et seq. Measures implemented under this stage are intended to preserve critical supplies and prioritize essential uses until emergency conditions subside. Water shortage actions may also be triggered by shortages or mandatory reduction requirements imposed by regional, State, or federal agencies, including CBMWD, MWD, or the SWRCB. The City Manager or designee uses available supply, demand, and operational information to recommend implementation or modification of water shortage response actions to the City Council. Table 8-3 provides a comparison that shows the City’s water shortage to those mandated by statute. Table 8-3: Comparison for the City’s 2015 Shortage Levels and the 2025 WSCP Mandated Shortage Levels Stages from 2015 UWMP
Crosswalk
2025 WSCP Mandated Shortage Levels
Stage
% Supply Reduction
Water Supply Condition
Mandatory compliance with water savings measures
Always in place
1
0% to 10%
Slightly Restricted
Mandatory compliance
0% to 15%
Reduced surfacewater availability or emerging drought
2
11% to 20%
Slightly Restricted
Mandatory compliance
15% to 25%
Multi-year drought conditions or allocation reductions
3
21% to 30%
Moderately Restricted
Mandatory compliance
4
31% to 40%
Moderately Restricted
Mandatory compliance
5
41% to 50%
Severely Restricted
Mandatory compliance
6
51% and above
Extremely Restricted
Mandatory compliance
Stage
% Supply Reduction
Water Supply Condition
-
0%
1
2
3
25% to 35%
4
35% to 50%
Significant surface-water curtailments; emergency risk Extreme shortage; threat to public health and safety
Notes: 1. Corresponds to WUE Table 8-1.
Page | 8-7 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
8.4
Shortage Response Actions
Chapter 6 of the UWMP discusses the City’s conjunctive management of ground and surface water sources to use resources effectively and sustainably and avoid overuse. Chapter 6 also further details the City’s participation in recycled water systems; the City is part of an integrated water recycling program that includes the Cities in Los Angeles County as well as water districts, including MWD. Wastewater is collected and treated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) sewage system and sent to either the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) or one of six satellite water reclamation plants (WRPs) as part of the Joint Outfall System (JOS).
8.4.1
Supply Augmentation
Table 8-4 summarizes the restrictions and prohibitions on end users during each stage of water shortage responses implemented by the City in accordance with CWC §10632(a)(4)(A). Table 8-4: Supply Augmentation and Other Actions Shortage Level
Supply Augmentation Methods and Other Actions by Water Supplier
All Stages 4 to 6
Estimated Extent of Reducing the Water Shortage Gap
Penalty, Charge, or Other Enforcement?
Reduce Water System Loss
High
No
Begin Implementation and/or Develop Agreements with Nearby Agencies/Water Suppliers
High
No
Notes: 1. Corresponds to WUE Table 8-2R.
8.4.2 8.4.2.1
Demand Reduction Water Waste Prohibitions
The PMC includes specific water use restrictions, detailed in § 13.04, Art. V. In the event of a significant reduction of water supply, the City has six stages of actions to take and policies to implement in order to minimize the impacts of water shortage, prepare for an increase in shortage, and attempt to conserve water to prevent further shortages. Table 8-5 provides an overview of the mandatory prohibitions and the consumption reduction methods the City will implement to compensate for a water shortage of up to 50%.
Page | 8-8 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Stage
Table 8-5: Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Uses Penalty, Charge, or Other Restrictions and Prohibitions of End Users Enforcement
1
Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific days
Yes
1
Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a timely manner
Yes
1
Landscape - Restrict or prohibit runoff from landscape irrigation
Yes
1
Other - Prohibit use of potable water for washing hard surfaces
Yes
2
Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains
Yes
2
CII - Restaurants may only serve water upon request
Yes
2
Other - Prohibit use of potable water for construction and dust control
Yes
3
Landscape – Increased limit for landscape irrigation to specific days
Yes
3
Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a timely manner
Yes
3
Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains
Yes
4
Other - Prohibit vehicle washing except at facilities using recycled or recirculating water
Yes
4
Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition
Yes
4
Main line flushing is allowed for emergency purposes only
Yes
5
Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a timely manner
Yes
6
Additional prohibited uses as determined by the City Council.
Yes
Notes: 1. Corresponds to WUE Table 8-3R.
Page | 8-9 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Level 1 and 2 Water Supply Shortage (0% - 20% reduction) The following mandatory water conservation requirements apply during such time that the Stage 1 Water Supply Shortage is in effect: Limits on Watering Days: Watering or irrigation of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to 3 days per week. During the months of November through March, watering or irrigation of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to no more than 2 days per week. This provision does not apply to landscape irrigation systems that exclusively use very low-flow drip type irrigation systems when no emitter produces more than two gallons of water per hour. This provision does not apply to use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off device, or for very short periods for the express purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. Obligation to Fix Leaks, Breaks, or Malfunctions: All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in the water user’s plumbing, distribution, or irrigation system must be remedied within 72 hours of observation and/or notification by the City. No Excessive Water Flow or Run-Off: Watering or irrigation of any lawn, landscape or other vegetated area in a manner that causes or allows excessive water flow or run-off onto an adjoining sidewalk, driveway, street, alley, gutter or ditch must be repaired within 5 days of observation and/or notification by the City. No Washing Down Hard or Paved Surfaces: Washing down hard or paved surfaces, including but not limited to sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios or alleys is prohibited except when necessary to alleviate safety or sanitary hazards and only by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a low-volume high pressure cleaning machine equipped to recycle any water used or a low volume high pressure water broom. Re-circulating Water Required for Water Fountains and Decorative Water Features: Operating a water fountain or other decorative water feature that does not use re-circulating water is prohibited Limits on Washing Vehicles: Using water to wash or clean a vehicle including but not limited to any automobile, truck, van, bus, motorcycle, boat or trailer whether motorized is prohibited, except by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container or a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle or device. Drinking Water Served Upon Request Only: Restaurants are prohibited from providing drinking water to any person unless expressly requested by that person. Other Prohibited Uses: o
Use only recycled water for construction site dust control, consolidation of backfill.
o
The City Council may implement other prohibited water uses as determined by the City after notice to customers.
Level 3 and 4 Water Supply Shortage (21% - 40%)
Page | 8-10 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
The following mandatory water conservation requirements, in addition to the Stage 1 actions, apply during such time that the Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage is in effect: Limits on Watering: Watering or irrigation of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to 2 days per week. During the months of November through March, watering or irrigation of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to no more than 1 day per week. This provision does not apply to landscape irrigation systems that exclusively use very low-flow drip type irrigation systems when no emitter produces more than 2 gallons of water per hour. This provision does not apply to use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off device, or for very short periods for the express purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. Obligation to Fix Leaks, Breaks or Malfunctions: All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in the water user’s plumbing, distribution, or irrigation system must be remedied within 48 hours of observation and/or notification by the City. Other Prohibited Uses: o
No filling, cleaning and/or refilling of decorative fountains, ornamental lakes or ponds except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life, provided that such animals have been actively managed within the water feature prior to declaration of this supply shortage stage.
o
Residential car washing prohibited. Use car washes available with water recycling systems.
o
The filling or topping off of any new or existing residential pools or outdoor spas is prohibited.
o
Planting of new turf grass is prohibited.
o
Outdoor evaporative mist coolers are prohibited.
o
Main line flushing is allowed for emergency purposes only.
o
The City may implement other prohibited water uses as determined by the City Council, after notice to Customers.
Level 5 and 6 Water Supply Shortage – Emergency Condition (Greater than 41% Reduction) The following mandatory water conservation requirements, in addition to Stage 1 and Stage 2 actions, apply during such time that the Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage is in effect: No Watering or Irrigating: Watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is restricted in accordance with allotments as set forth by the City during a Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage. This restriction does not apply to the use of recycled water or to the following categories of use: o
Maintenance of existing landscape necessary for fire protection;
o
Maintenance of existing landscape for soil erosion control;
Page | 8-11 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
o
Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well-being of protected species;
o
Maintenance of landscape within active public parks and playing fields, daycare centers, golf course greens, and school grounds, provided that such irrigation does not exceed 2 days per week;
o
Actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects.
Obligation to Fix Leaks, Breaks, or Malfunctions: All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in the water user’s plumbing, distribution, or irrigation system must be remedied within 24 hours of observation and/or notification by the City. Other Prohibited Uses: The City may implement other prohibited water uses as determined by the City Council, after notifying customers.
8.4.2.2
Water Conservation Measures
In addition to permanent waste prohibitions, the City promotes efficient water use through ongoing conservation measures and coordination with its regional wholesale water suppliers. Ongoing conservation measures include: Public outreach and education promoting efficient water use through the City’s website, public messaging, and billing communications Promotion of water-efficient practices and technologies Encouragement of timely detection and repair of leaks by customers Participation in and promotion of regional water efficiency programs offered by wholesale agencies If water shortage conditions are declared, the City may enhance these efforts by: Expanding public information and public outreach campaigns Increasing conservation messaging through water billing and other communications Directing customers toward water use surveys or efficiency evaluations offered through regional partners Increasing emphasis on behavior‑based water savings appropriate to the severity of the shortage
8.4.2.3
Water Use Restrictions
During declared water shortage or emergency conditions, the City Council may implement additional water use restrictions by resolution to achieve the required level of water use reduction identified in the WSCP. Potential water use restrictions include, but are not limited to:
Page | 8-12 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Further limiting or prohibiting outdoor landscape irrigation Restricting irrigation to drip or other high-efficiency systems only Limiting or prohibiting non-essential outdoor water uses Reducing or suspending discretionary system activities such as hydrant flushing, where allowed by regulations Limiting operation of decorative water features Implementing water use allocations or water budgets for specific customer classes Imposing enforcement actions, penalties, or surcharges for non-compliance
8.4.3
Operational Changes
In the event of an extreme water shortage, the City will implement some or all of the following operational changes in accordance with CWC §10632(a)(4)(C) and §10632.5(a): The City shall provide prompt notice to customer whenever the City obtains information that indicates a leak may exist within the end-user’s exclusive control. Evaluate maintenance procedures and alter if needed to reduce operation use of water loss. Evaluate infrastructure repairs, and complete if possible, to reduce operation use of water loss. The City will continue to evaluate operational and maintenance procedures in order to identify opportunities for improved efficiency in water delivery and reducing water system loss.
8.4.4
Additional Mandatory Restrictions
The City’s customers shall comply to the mandatory water shortage response actions listed in Table 8-5 associated with a Level 3 or higher water shortage event in accordance with §10632(a)(4)(D). In the event of a water shortage emergency or severe drought, the City may enact additional mandatory restrictions: Provide technical information to customers on means to promote water use efficiency
8.4.5
Emergency Response Plan
The City adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in 2023, and continues to maintain the comprehensive plan which outlines the water system response plan in the event of a natural disaster or Citywide power outage. When activated, the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) coordinates damage assessments, information gathering, and response actions related to impacts on City facilities, infrastructure, and services, including the water distribution system. The LHMP includes the following elements: Measures to be taken prior to and following an emergency event Information regarding coordination with police and fire department personnel Page | 8-13 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Interdepartmental coordination protocols, including systems for issuing emergency alerts and communicating with residents Public information and notification procedures Resources management and logistics planning, addressing personnel, equipment, and facility needs during emergency operations In the event of a catastrophic interruption or other emergency, the City Council can direct the implementation of the Emergency stage of water conservation action. The Health and Safety Element (HSE), adopted in 2022 and amended in 2025, provides the foundational policy framework for protecting the community from natural and human‑caused hazards and for guiding emergency preparedness and response activities. The Safety Element identifies public safety risks such as earthquakes, flooding, fire hazards, and hazardous incidents, and establishes goals and policies related to emergency response, infrastructure resilience, and protection of life and property. The HSE includes contemporary climate change analysis and addresses water supply reliability or climate-related stresses, reflecting current conditions, evolving hazards, and modern planning practices. The following incidents are considered in the HSE:
Urban Fire Earthquakes Adversarial Events Hazardous Material Release Pipeline Failure Flooding and Dam Failure Destructive/Drought Winds Transportation Accident/Incidents
The UWMP Act requires a catastrophic supply interruption plan. This plan looks at the vulnerability of each source and distribution system to events such as wildfires, flooding, earthquakes, landslides, rockslides, other natural disasters, and unforeseen emergencies. The actions taken to address each catastrophe are consistent with the Safety Element and the County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan (AHMP) (September 2025) presented in Table 8-6 below:
Page | 8-14 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 8-6: Catastrophic Supply Interruption Actions Possible Catastrophe
Summary of Actions
Wildfire/ Flooding
Wildfire and flooding events are identified by the LA County AHMP as hazards that can affect access, power supply, communications, and above-ground infrastructure, even in urbanized coastal areas. While these events are not expected to cause a systemwide water supply failure for the City, localized impacts to facilities, pipelines, or electrical service may occur. In the event of wildfire or flooding impacts, the City would notify affected customers, implement voluntary or mandatory water use restrictions as appropriate, and isolate damaged facilities or pipeline segments to limit service impacts. Emergency coordination with regional agencies and utility providers would be initiated, and impacts to the water system would be mitigated through operational redundancies and use of available storage.
Earthquake/ Fault Rupture/ Liquefaction
Earthquakes and associated ground shaking and liquefaction are identified in the LA County AHMP as primary regional hazards with the potential to cause widespread infrastructure damage. In the event of a major seismic event, the City’s EOC would be activated in accordance with the City’s EOP. Damaged portions of the water distribution system would be isolated, system integrity would be assessed, and customers would be notified to limit water use as necessary. The City would rely on available stored water, regional system redundancy, and coordination with wholesale water suppliers to maintain critical service while emergency repairs are undertaken.
Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge
The LA County AHMP identifies coastal storms, sea level rise, and storm surge as hazards that may affect low-lying coastal infrastructure over time. While water supply conveyance is largely regional, localized impacts to City facilities or supporting infrastructure could occur during severe coastal storm events. In such cases, the City would implement protective actions for affected facilities, coordinate with regional agencies regarding system status, and implement water use restrictions if necessary to preserve available supplies.
Extreme Heat/Power Disruption
Extreme heat events are identified in the LA County AHMP as an increasing hazard with potential indirect impacts on water systems through increased demand and power supply interruptions. In the event of extreme heat or extended power outages, the City would coordinate with electric utilities and regional water suppliers, implement water use restrictions as necessary, and prioritize available water supplies.
8.4.6
Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan
The City provides potable water to its customers from imported supplies delivered through regional wholesale agencies and groundwater wells. The City operates a municipal water distribution system that delivers water throughout its service area through one pressure zone. The City provides wastewater collection service within the water service area; however, wastewater treatment is provided by regional
Page | 8-15 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
facilities owned and operated by the LACSD, and the City does not operate its own wastewater treatment plant. The City’s LHMP evaluates seismic hazards within the City, including earthquake ground shaking, fault rupture, and liquefaction, and assesses potential impacts to critical infrastructure and essential services. . The LHMP provides the primary local basis for identifying mitigation strategies to reduce seismic risk and improve community resilience. In addition, the Los Angeles County AHMP provides a regional assessment of earthquake hazards and associated risks that may affect the City and surrounding jurisdictions. The City’s HSE complements these planning documents by identifying preparedness, detection, and response strategies for earthquakes and outlining procedures for coordinated emergency response and recovery. The following sections provide a summary of the general finding from the AHMP with respect to potential impacts from earthquakes, faults, and liquefaction within the City’s service area.
8.4.6.1
Faults, Earthquakes, and Liquefaction
Per the AHMP, the following provides a description of major faults within Los Angeles County: Over 163 earthquakes of M 5.0 or greater have been recorded in Southern California since 1812. The San Andreas Fault remains the greatest seismic hazard, with a 59% chance of an M 6.7+ event in the next 30 years… Los Angeles County has a long history of experiencing damaging earthquakes due to its location along multiple active fault systems, including the San Andreas, Newport-Inglewood, and Whittier faults. The City’s HSE describes the regional risk: The Steering Committee ranked earthquake as the greatest threat to the City. The City does not have any seismic faults within its boundaries but is still in the vicinity of several known active and potentially active earthquake faults. … many of these faults are known to be capable of a magnitude 6.0 or greater earthquake… This report focused on the four faults that could most seriously impact the area: 1. 2. 3. 4.
San Andreas Fault Newport-Inglewood Fault Whittier-Elsinore Fault Palos Verdes Fault
8.4.6.2
Seismic Risk
Per the California Department of Conservation Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (EQ Zapp) and the area maps included in the LHMP, the City’s existing water distribution facilities were not identified to be within critical fault or landslide hazard zones, but are still susceptible to the risks of ground shaking. They City boundaries, however, are within a critical liquefaction zone.
8.4.6.3
Mitigation
In the event of a system disruption to existing water supplies from an earthquake, fault rupture, or liquefaction response actions are described in the City’s LHMP.
Page | 8-16 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
8.4.7
Shortage Response Action Effectiveness
Efficacy of demand reduction efforts is difficult to estimate or predict, but water savings are a function of the extent to which public information campaigns reach water users and the degree of consumer response to those messages. Consistent with the Communications Plan in the following section, anticipated shortages will involve an appropriately sized outreach campaign to address the targeted demand reduction, which depends on the combined effectiveness of other shortage response actions. As shown in the following table, reduction responses are designed to reduce demands up to approximately 50% of water demands. This WSCP contains six levels at which water reduction responses will be applied to achieve appropriate levels of use reduction. Table 8-7 gives examples of estimated savings by each level using the estimated 2025 demand of 5,122 AF. Actual reductions and base demands are based on a formula that includes various factors such as actual local supply production, population growth, and conservation.
Water Shortage Level
Table 8-7: Estimated Demand Reduction Approximate Percent Example Base Demand Reduction
Estimated Demand Reduction
1
10%
512 AF
2
20%
1,024 AF
3
30%
1,537 AF 5,122 AF
4
40%
2,049 AF
5
50%
2,561 AF
6
55%
2,817 AF
Notes: 1. 55% used for estimation purposes
8.5
Communication Protocols
Effectual reduction of water usage begins with effectual communication; both with the public and heads of City management. Water personnel are responsible for communicating increasing water shortage conditions and educating both the public and City management about the necessity and way to conserve limited water supplies. In additional, Water personnel will collaborate with CBMWD and the MWD to improve water reliably and infrastructure. Water personnel will strive to; Motivate the public to: o
Increase conservation
o
Follow voluntary or mandatory water use guidelines
o
Participate in water-saving incentive programs Page | 8-17
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Raise awareness about: o
Water shortage and/or drought conditions
o
Water sources, supplies, and reserves
o
Local, regional, and state regulations
Educate the public about: o
Water supply reliability
o
Water infrastructure and delivery
o
Water quality
Prepare City Management for: o
Varying water supply conditions
o
Escalating supply shortage levels
Conservation as a way of life remains central to messaging during normal supply conditions. Regional rebate programs, indoor and outdoor water use efficiency, investments to maintain infrastructure, emergency preparedness, local supply programs, water quality, and regional supply reliability are among some of the themes that make up normal supply period’s communications mix to encourage ongoing conservation actions. Below is a snapshot of the various strategies involved: Social Media City Website Community Events Education Outreach Business Outreach
8.6
Compliance and Enforcement
The City will endeavor to achieve water use reduction targets when possible through voluntary compliance measures which will include existing and enhanced water conservation communication, education, outreach, and incentive programs.
8.6.1
Compliance and Enforcement Protocols
In the event that water target reductions are not met and/or water shortages occur that cannot be met simply through voluntary measures, the City may enact compliance and enforcement protocols to ensure compliance. These measures may include: Water waste and/or enforcement protocols Warning and citation protocols Page | 8-18 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
8.6.2
Penalties for Excessive Use
In the event of a water supply shortage, violators can face a maximum fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for no more than 30 days. Table 8-8 describes the penalties associated with single and recurring violations which are outlined in the ordinance. This includes a first warning and subsequent fines increasing from $100. On the fifth violation, a notice of intent to install a flow restrictor, with the financial burden of the installation of a flow restrictor lying on the suspected violator of the ordinance, will be implemented. Table 8-8: Penalties and Charges Stages 2 & 3 Penalty or Charge
Violation
Stage 1 Penalty or Charge
First Violation
Written courtesy door hanger describing the violation and deliver a copy of this ordinance by mail
Fine not to exceed $100
Second Violation
Fine not to exceed $100
Fine not to exceed $200
Third Violation
Fine not to exceed $150
Fine not to exceed $250
Fourth Violation
Fine not to exceed $200
Fine not to exceed $250
Fifth Violation
Fine not to exceed $250 and the City may install a Flow Restrictor with the financial burden of the Flow Restrictor lying on the suspected violator
Fine not to exceed $500 and the City may install a Flow Restrictor with the financial burden of the Flow Restrictor lying on the suspected violator
The procedures for administration, implementation, enforcement, and appeal of water conservation violations, fines, and penalties are set forth in PMC § 13.04.600 and related enforcement provisions, including authority to issue notices of violation, citations, and administrative penalties for non‑compliance.
8.7
Legal Authorities
CWC Section 350 et seq. authorizes any public entity to declare a water shortage emergency and, upon declaration of that emergency, adopt regulations and restrictions on the delivery and consumption of water in order to conserve water resources during the period of the emergency and until the supply of water available for distribution by the suppliers has been replenished or augmented. For the City, the City Council, along with the City manager, has the ability to declare a state of water shortage and enforce response actions appropriate to the scenario. City Ordinance 1050 lays out the City’s plan for implementing reduction measures depending on the severity of the shortage. In 2020, the water code was updated mandating additional water shortage levels be added through the development of the WSCP. This plan seeks to build off the existing ordinance, adding the additional measures to meet Water Code 10635.
Page | 8-19 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
8.7.1
Legal Authorities
The Water Division, through the Water Division Superintendent, shall be responsible for administration and enforcement of the provisions of the WSCP. The Department will monitor and determine when a water shortage exists or is projected to exist and make a recommendation to the City Manager.
8.7.2
Declaration of Water Shortage Condition or Emergency and Implementation of Water Shortage Response Actions
The City Council, along with the City Manager, has the ability to declare a state of water shortage and enforce response actions appropriate to the scenario. City Ordinance 1158 lays out the City’s plan for implementing reduction measures depending on the severity of the shortage. In 2020, the water code was updated mandating additional water shortage levels be added through the development of this WSCP. This plan seeks to build off the existing ordinance, adding the additional measures to meet Water Code 10635.
8.7.3
Proclamation of Local Emergency
In the event of a local emergency that would affect water supplies, the City shall contact the following agencies: CBMWD MWD Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management Division of Drinking Water (DDW) Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
8.7.4
Withdrawal of Water Shortage Condition and Water Response Actions
Water shortage response actions will continue to be in effect until the Water Division has determined that water shortage conditions have improved. Upon recommendation from the Department and City Manager, the City Council may, by resolution, declare a reduction or elimination of the water shortage response action.
8.8
Financial Consequences of WSCP
8.8.1
Financial Impacts and Mitigation Action
The City purchases imported water from CBMWD at a two-tiered rate structure. This rate structure promotes water conservation and regional supply reliability. The City is committed to a voluntary purchase agreement with CBMWD, which outlines the amount of water to be purchased at a Tier 1 rate and the cost of the Tier 2 rate for water purchases that exceed the Tier 1 allotment. In order to further promote water conservation and supply reliability, the City has adopted a similar rate structure for its customers. The City utilizes a two-tier structure for each customer account category. The Page | 8-20 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City’s water rate schedule is updated on a yearly basis. See the City’s website for water current rates. Note that 1 unit is equivalent to 100 cubic feet or 748 gallons. Variation in the amount of revenues is already part of the City’s financial planning. Revenues vary according to weather patterns and the availability of water supplies. In dry years, local demands increase, and the City may receive higher than anticipated revenues due to increased sales volumes. In contrast, in wet years, demands decrease, and revenues drop due to lower sales volumes. Such revenue surpluses and shortages could cause instability in water rates. To mitigate this risk, the City maintains financial reserves, with a minimum and target balance, to stabilize water rates during times of reduced water sales. The reserves hold revenues collected during times of high-water sales and are used to offset the need for revenues during times of low sales. The City’s practice of using reserves to buffer unexpected increases or decreases in budgeted revenue also applies to unexpected expenditure increases or decreases resulting from shortage responses.
8.8.2
Reporting Cost of Compliance with Excessive Water Use Prohibition During Drought Emergency
In compliance with Water Code Section 366, the City shall report on the cost of compliance, including rate structures or excessive water use ordinances, in the event of any of the following: Governor declared statewide drought emergency City moves to a local water shortage condition requiring mandatory reductions Governor declared local drought emergency
8.9
Monitoring and Reporting
Consistent with California Governor’s Executive Order B-29-25, the City is currently monitoring and comparing monthly consumption and production rates to the same months in 2013 in order to determine levels of water usage reduction. These rates rely on groundwater pumping and water purchase transaction records as well as end user meter readings to determine water quantities. Should water shortage conditions remain, the City will continue to use these methods to document and analyze measurable progress in water savings against previous years.
8.10
WSCP Refinement Procedures
The WSCP is meant to be an adaptive management plan that is subject to evaluation and refinement as needed to ensure that the provisions and measures contained in the plan are effective and achieving the desired results of effectively managing the City’s water supply during water shortage conditions. Water shortage response actions will include the appropriate level of water shortage risk tolerance and be periodically evaluated to ensure the strategies employed are appropriate for the water shortage level. The WSCP will be periodically re-evaluated to ensure that its shortage risk tolerance is adequate, and the shortage response actions are effective and up to date based on lessons learned from implementing the WSCP. The WSCP will be revised and updated during the UWMP update cycle to incorporate updated and new information. For example, actions that are no longer applicable for reasons such as program expiration will be removed. However, if revisions to the WSCP are warranted before the UWMP is updated, the WSCP will be updated outside of the UWMP update cycle. In the course of preparing the
Page | 8-21 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Annual Assessment each year, City staff will routinely consider the functionality the overall WSCP and will prepare recommendations for the City Council if changes are found to be needed.
8.11
Special Water Feature Distinction
The City did not identify any special water features.
8.12
Plan Adoption, Submittal, Availability, and Amendment Procedures
As was done for the 2025 UWMP update, the WSCP will be made available during update years to the public and neighboring agencies. Drafts will be advertised on the City website and by email to interested stakeholders. Each June, the City will hold a public hearing to answer questions regarding the plan and for the City Council to approve the WSCP prior to submission to the DWR. The notice of the public hearing, held May 26, 2026 at the City’s office, was sent to the City of Long Beach, Golden State Water Company, and Central Basin Municipal Water District on June 3, 2026, in accordance with CWC §10632(a)(c). A copy of the letters from the City to the City and County are included in Appendix A of this WSCP. Table 8-9: Notification to Cities and Agencies City Name 60 Day Notice Notice of Public Hearing City of Long Beach Golden State Company
Water
Central Basin Municipal Water District
X X X
A public hearing was held on June 23 , 2026 at the City’s office. The public hearing provided opportunity for community input. The WSCP update was adopted by the City on June 23, 2026 by approval of Resolution 26:021. A copy of the resolution can be viewed in Appendix F. Within 30 days of adoption, the City will submit the WSCP update to the DWR for review. During the DWR review process the City will coordinate with DWR reviewers as necessary. The City will use the online submittal tool located at www.wuedata.water.ca.gov.secure/ developed by the DWR to electronically submit the WSCP update. Within 30 days of adoption, the City will submit a CD of the adopted WSCP to the California State Library at the following address: California State Library Government Publications Section P.O. Box 942867 Sacramento, CA 94237-001 Attention: Coordinator, Urban Water Management Plans
Page | 8-22 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Within 30 days of adoption, the City will submit an electronic copy of the adopted WSCP update to the City of Long Beach and the County of Los Angeles electronically in accordance with CWC Section 10632(a)(c). A copy of the transmittals to said agencies will be included in Appendix A. Within 30 days of adoption, the City will have a copy of the WSCP update available for public review at the City Office (see address below) during normal business hours and available on the City’s website, https://www.paramountcity.gov/. City of Paramount 16400 Colorado Ave Paramount, CA 90723 Phone – 562.220.2000
Page | 8-23 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
CHAPTER 9
DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES
New Requirements for 2025 Update The 2025 update expands reporting requirements for demand management, including documentation of program effectiveness, cost-benefit considerations, and integration with the SB 606/AB 1668 framework. Agencies must now report on performance measures for CII customers and provide more detailed explanations of outreach, education, landscape transformation programs, and conservation tracking methods. Compared to 2020, the level of detail required for conservation reporting is significantly higher.
9.1
Demand Management Measures for Retail Suppliers CWC 10631(f) (A)…The narrative shall describe the water demand management measure that the supplier plans to implement to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20. (B) The narrative pursuant to this paragraph shall include descriptions of the following water demand management measures: (i) Water waste prevention ordinances. (ii) Metering. (iii) Conservation pricing. (iv) Public education and outreach. (v) Programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss. (vi) Water Conservation program coordination and staffing support. (vii) Other demand management measures that have a significant impact on water use as measured in gallons per capita per day, including innovative measures, if implemented.
The City works with the CBMWD to implement water conservation techniques to reduce the total demand of water throughout the City and CBMWD. Together, the City and CBMWD implement the seven required Demand Management Measures (DMMs) within the City. CBMWD is an early signatory to the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding Urban Water Conservation in California. CUWCC represents a diverse group of water supply agencies dedicated to establishing guidelines toward implementing conservation measures and managing supply demands. The City has implemented the required DMMs per CWC 10631 to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20 and described in Chapters 5 and 8. In the past 5 years, the City has maintained its rebate programs, metering, and water waste prevention. Table 9-1 summarizes the Best Management Practices (BMPs)/DMMs.
Page | 9-1 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Category
Table 9-1: CUWCC BMP Organization and Names and UWMP DMMs BMP # BMP Name DMM # DMM Name 1.1
Operations Practices
5
Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss
1.2
Water Loss Control
1
Water Waste Prevention Ordinances
1.3
Metering with Commodity Rates
2
Metering
1.4
Retail Conservation Pricing
3
Conservation Pricing
4
Public Education and Outreach
2
Public Education and School Education
6
Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support
3
Conservation Pricing
4
Public Education and Outreach
6
Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support
3
Conservation Pricing
4
Public Education and Outreach
6
Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support
3
Conservation Pricing
6
Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support
BMP 1: Utility Operations
BMP 2: Public Education and School Education
BMP 3: Residential Programs
3
Residential Programs
BMP 4: Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
4
Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
BMP 5: 5
Landscape
Landscape
9.1.1
Implementation Over the Past Five Years CWC 10631(f) Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following: (1)(A)…a narrative description that addresses the nature and extent of each water demand management measure implemented over the past five years. Page | 9-2
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Implementation for each DMM is partially covered in the following sections. Significant increases in rebate usage demonstrates that conservation efforts within the City are effective and that continued progress for water conservation targets are being met.
9.1.2
Implementation to Achieve Water-Use Targets CWC 10631(f) Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following: (1)(A)…The narrative shall describe the water demand management measures that the supplier plans to implement to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20.
Continued outreach and support for rebates are the City’s prime method of implementation. As stated in following sections, CBMWD provides the support for rebates for its associated agencies. The City implemented the required DMM per CWC 10631 to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20. Baseline and target 2020 GPCD are described in Chapter 5 of the UWMP. It is anticipated that the City will adopt its WSCP (see Chapter 8) at its July 2026 Council meeting which outlines measures the City will take to achieve water use targets.
9.1.3
Required Demand Management Measures
9.1.3.1
Water-Waste Prevention Ordinances
The City adopted a "Water Conservation and Water Supply Program," by Ordinance Number 1050 on September 2, 2014, which is actively enforced in drought situations. The Ordinance outlines three stages of water supply shortage, and the stage may be determined by the City. To enforce Ordinance 1050, the City will issue warnings and subsequent citations, possibly up to termination of service, to customers exceeding the conservation constraints. The City has currently determined that it is in a Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage of the Ordinance, which requires a number of water conservation measures to be inplace within the City including the reduction of consumer demand to meet anticipated demands. A copy of the Ordinance is located in Appendix G for reference.
9.1.3.2
Metering
CWC 526 (a) …Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, an urban water supplier that, on or after January 1, 2004, received water from the Federal Central Valley Project under a water service contract or subcontract…shall do both of the following: (1) On or before January 1, 2013, install water meters on all service connections to residential and nonagricultural commercial buildings…located within its service area. CWC 526 (a) …An urban water supplier that is not subject to Section 526 shall do both the following: (1) Install water meters on all municipal and industrial service connections located within its service area on or before January 1, 2025.
Page | 9-3 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
The City estimates that there are no unmetered connections within City limits since there has never been a flat rate charged for water use within any sector. Therefore, no program for retrofitting existing unmetered connections needs to be identified. The City currently bills its retail customers (residence and commercial) according to meter consumption, and requires meters for all new connections and bills by volume-of-use.
9.1.3.3
Conservation Pricing
The City purchases imported water from CBMWD at a two-tiered rate structure. This rate structure promotes water conservation and regional supply reliability. The City is committed to a voluntary purchase agreement with CBMWD, which outlines the amount of water to be purchased at a Tier 1 rate and the cost of the Tier 2 rate for water purchases that exceed the Tier 1 allotment. In order to further promote water conservation and supply reliability, the City has adopted a similar rate structure for its customers. The City utilizes a two-tier structure for each customer account category. The City’s water rate schedule is updated on a yearly basis. This rate structure is always in places and is not dependent on a water shortage for implementation. The rates are also not treated as penalties for excessive water use, they are intended as a signal to customers to encourage lower water use. See the City website for water rates. Note that 1 unit is equivalent to 100 cubic feet or 748 gallons.
9.1.3.4
Public Education and Outreach
The City and CBMWD work together to raise public awareness regarding many different issues regarding water and water supply. These issues include information pertaining to runoff pollution, water quality, and water conservation. The City and CBMWD have implemented several ways to educate the public about these broad topics that ultimately pertain to water use by the City customers. The City provides public information via city-wide events, flyers, and direct mailings to customers. Additionally, customers can attend regular meetings of the Public Works Commission to receive information about the water system. Through its membership in CBMWD, the City is active in the California Water Awareness Campaign (CWAC), which is an association formed to coordinate efforts throughout the state during “May is Water Awareness Month”. With this effort, water agencies throughout the state, large and small, can tap into a large pool of knowledge and materials to promote a water awareness message not only in May, but throughout the year. CBMWD has also launched its “In a Drought, Shut Your Tap!” campaign, which the City also participates in. School Education Programs Water and environmental education are critical components of an effective outreach strategy. CBMWD offers a variety of elementary through high school programs free of charge to all schools within the City’s service area. The following list shows the educational programs offered by CBMWD: Water Squad Investigations (Grades 4-12) Water Wanderings (Grades 4-5) Think Watershed (Grades 4-6) Think Earth! It’s Magic (Grades K-5)
Page | 9-4 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Think Water! It’s Magic (After School Program for Grades K-5) PEAK (professional development for teachers) Solar Cup (Grades 9-12) Water is Life” Poster Contest (Grades 4-8) Waterlogged (Grades 9-12) Conservation Connection: Water & Energy in Southern California (Grades 5-8)
9.1.3.5
Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss
The City completes an annual pre-screening system audit of its potable water system to determine the need for a full-scale system audit. The system audit is performed by tracking the actual metered water use, which can be compared to total well production. Production is tracked monthly and reviewed annually to determine if the system exhibits significant losses. Using 2025 data from the City Water Audit data provided, verifiable use as a percent of total production is calculated comparing actual metered sales (4,975 AF) against total supply into the system as measured at the wellhead and import water meters (5,122 AF). Based upon this data, the City has approximately 3% loss in their system, which did not require the implementation of system audits.
9.1.3.6
Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support
As a member agency of CBMWD, the City takes advantage of the CBMWD’s water conservation coordinator that works with cities and water agencies to enhance their conservation efforts. This close collaboration between CBMWD’s conservation coordinator and City staff provides for a successful execution of the DMMs. In addition, CBMWD’s conservation coordinator represents all member agencies at regional and statewide workshops and organizations. Conservation coordination within the City is an auxiliary responsibility of existing staff. Additionally, CBMWD’s conservation coordinator also seeks Federal, State, and local funding to develop new programs that member agencies, such as the City of Paramount, can partner on and provide additional benefits to customers.
9.1.3.7
Other Demand Management Measures
The following subsections outline DMMs not categorized above. Water Survey Programs for Residential Customers Residential surveys evaluate all the water-using devices inside the home such as toilets, faucets, showerheads, etc. A trained surveyor checks for leaks and tests the flows indoor and outdoor. Once the survey is completed, recommendations are provided for retrofitting certain water use devices, and educational materials are also supplied to the resident. Residential surveys provide the City with a great opportunity to provide their customers with a program that offers customer outreach opportunities. Currently, surveys are completed on an as needed basis.
Page | 9-5 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Residential Plumbing Retrofit Residential plumbing retrofit recommends the distribution and retrofit of low-flow showerheads, Ultra-low flow toilets, and faucet aerators, as well as the adoption of enforceable ordinances. The City and CBMWD distributes retrofit equipment, such as low-flow showerheads, at city-wide events such as the annual Safety Fair. Availability of conservation devices are also promoted within City publications. In addition, these items are distributed to any resident who makes a request. Residential Rebates Below is a summary of rebates provided by the City, to its residences. High-Efficiency Washing Machines As a member agency of CBMWD, the City participates in CBMWD’s High-Efficiency Clothes Washer (HECW) Program. This program has exceeded all expectations and continues to be one of CBMWD’s more successful programs. New HECWs cost more than regular inefficient models, in general, but by providing rebates starting at $85 (along with other utility/store incentives); consumers are choosing to purchase the new HECWs. The HECWs also have other benefits; not only do they use 55% less water but also save 60% electricity and use less detergent. A high-efficiency washer will save approximately 34% to 80% of water usage compared to a traditional clothes washer (American Cleaning Institute, “High Efficiency Washers and Detergents”, 2010, www.cleaninginstitute.org). Residential ULFT Replacement Programs The City participated in CBMWD’s Ultra-Low Flush Toilet (ULFT) Program. Technology standards in the last 10 years have replaced the 1.6 gallon per flush (gpf) ULFT and the High-Efficiency 1.28 gpf Toilets (HET) with 0.8 gpf HETs. Today, CBMWD only distributes HETs at a rebate value of $40 for qualifying products. HETs have been a key element in the conservation success CBMWD has experienced over the years. Free HET distribution events have provided thousands of free toilets to local residents throughout CBMWD’s service area. Since 2005, CBMWD has completed more than 5,000 HET installations in single family, multifamily and commercial, industrial and institutional facilities throughout CBMWD’s service area. CBMWD receives requests to participate in various local partnerships to provide disadvantaged residents with HETs. CBMWD’s service area is home to many disadvantaged residents and the need for free, water conserving toilets remains high. Given the current economic state, the conservation coordinator for CBMWD is focusing attention on securing additional sources of funding to make HET programs possible. Since 2005, 921 ULFTs or HETs were installed through this program in the City. Rotating Sprinkler Nozzles The City participates, through CBMWD, in a program to replace all standard sprinkler nozzles with rotating sprinkler nozzles. Rotating sprinkler nozzles can save, on average, up to 1,300 gallons per year compared to standard nozzles (MWD, “Choosing Rotating Sprinkler Nozzles for Your Landscape”, 2014, www.bewaterwise.com), and provide for more focused watering on landscaped areas. CBMWD offers a $2 rebate, per nozzle. Weather-Based Irrigation Controllers
Page | 9-6 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Residential Weather-Based Irrigation Controllers (WBICs) are programmable to use irrigation based on the weather in the area. The US EPA has published WaterSense® requirements for certification of devices/controllers. In general, all WaterSense®-certified controllers must utilize evapotranspiration data from the site to regulate or adjust irrigation. The City, through CBMWD, offers a $35 to $80 rebate, depending on size of landscaping and number of units used. Rain Barrels Rain barrels collect rain water from the roof and/or gutters and diverts the water to a collection basin (barrel). The water can later be used for irrigation by removing it from the barrel and irrigating plants or lawn areas. The City, through CBMWD, offers a rebate at $35 per barrel (up to two barrels), with a minimum size of 50 gallons and maximum number of 4 barrels per household. Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Programs The City participates in a region-wide CII rebate program developed by CBMWD in partnership with MWD. CBMWD participates in MWD’s region-wide commercial “Save A Buck” rebate program which provides water conservation devices to be utilized in commercial, industrial and institutional facilities. These rebates are promoted to the businesses, schools and facilities throughout the City’s service area. Rebates are offered for weather-based and central computer irrigation controllers, large rotary nozzles, rotating nozzles for pop-up spray heads, HETs, multi-family HETs, zero water urinals, laminar flow restrictors, in-stem flow restrictors, and water savings incentive programs. Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives Despite the urbanization of Southern California, the region is dotted with large turf areas that require year-round irrigation to keep them green. Some of these areas within the include parks, schools, and street medians. The City is working along with CBMWD to reduce demand for water for irrigation purposes by providing recycled water in its service area. In addition to the MWD’s region-wide “SoCal Water$mart” and “Save A Buck” rebate programs, CBMWD also offers various large landscape conservation programs including: A District-wide large landscape managed irrigation program, incorporating maintenance, monitoring and tracking of individual property water savings Federal and State grants providing over 2,000 smart controllers to residential and commercial customers A city partnership program to install Smart Irrigation Controllers in parka and street medians A commercial landscape research grant to improve water use efficiency at schools, parks and open public spaces. Most of the large landscape areas within the City are already taking advantage of recycled water, which helps to conserve potable water.
Page | 9-7 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
9.2
Demand Management Measures for Wholesale Suppliers
9.2.1
Required Demand Management Measures
The City is not a wholesale agency and is not required by DWR to complete Section 9.2.
9.2.2
Wholesale Demand Management Measures
The City is not a wholesale agency and is not required by DWR to complete Section 9.2.
Page | 9-8 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
CHAPTER 10 PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION New Requirements for 2025 Update There have been no changes to the requirements for the plan adoption, submittal, and implementation since the 2020 Update.
10.1
Plan Completion Timeline
Efforts to complete the 2025 UWMP began in March 2026. Notification Letters were provided to necessary agencies, cities and counties in May of 2026. The City will adopt the 2025 UWMP and WSCP at the June City Council meeting.
10.2
Notice of Plan Preparation
The City notified the agencies listed in Table 10-1 at least sixty (60) days prior to the public hearing of the preparation of the 2025 Plan and invited them to participate in the development of the Plan. A copy of the notification letters sent to these agencies is provided in Appendix A. Table 10-1: Notice to Cities and Counties Agency
60-Day Notice
CBMWD
X
Golden State Water Company
X
City of Long Beach
X
Notice of Public Hearing
Notes: 1. Corresponds to WUE Table 10-1R.
10.3
Notice of Public Hearing
The public hearing was noticed in the local newspaper as prescribed in Government Code 6066. This notice included time and place of hearing, as well as the location where the UWMP and WSCP is available for public inspection. A copy of the newspaper notice is included in Appendix I.
10.4
Public Hearing and Adoption
Prior to adopting the 2025 UWMP and WSCP, the City held a public hearing at the June 2026 City Council meeting, which included input from the community regarding the City’s draft 2025 UWMP and WSCP. As part of the public hearing, the City provided information on determination of its water use targets and action plan in case of severe water shortage conditions.
Page | 10-1 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
10.5
Plan Submittal
10.5.1 Submitting a UWMP and Water Shortage Contingency Plan to DWR Within 30 days of adoption of the 2025 UWMP by the City Council, the City will submit the adopted 2025 UWMP to DWR, as required by CWC 10621 and 10644. The 2025 UWMP will be submitted through DWR’s “Water Use Efficiency (WUE) Data Online Submittal Tool” website. DWR previously provided a checklist to make determine if an UWMP has addressed the requirements of the CWC. The City has completed the DWR checklist by indicating where the required CWC elements can be found within the City’s 2025 UWMP (see Appendix J).
10.5.2 Electronic Data Submittal Within 30 days of adoption of the 2020 Plan, the City will also submit all data tables associated with the 2020 Plan through DWR’s “WUE Data Online Submittal Tool” website.
10.5.3 Submitting a UWMP, Including WSCP, to the California State Library Within 30 days of adoption of the 2025 UWMP by the City Council, a copy (compact disc (CD) or hardcopy) of the 2025 Plan will be submitted to the State of California Library. A copy of the letter to the State Library will be maintained in the City’s file. The 2025 Plan will be mailed to the following address if sent by regular mail: California State Library Government Publications Section P.O. Box 942837 Sacramento, CA 94237-0001 Attention: Coordinator, Urban Water Management Plans The 2025 Plan will be delivered to the following address if sent by courier or overnight carrier: California State Library Government Publications Section 914 Capitol Mall Sacramento, CA 95814
10.5.4 Submitting a UWMP to Cities and Counties Within 30 days of adoption of the 2025 Plan by the City Council, a copy of the 2025 UWMP will be submitted to the County of Los Angeles Registrar/Recorders office and City’s office. A copy of the letter to the County of Los Angeles will be maintained in the City’s file.
10.6
Public Availability
The adopted 2025 UWMP is available on City’s website at https://www.paramountcity.gov/ and at the City Hall at 16400 Colorado Avenue between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Thursday and Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Page | 10-2 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
10.7
Notification to Public Utilities Commission
The section is not applicable to the City.
10.8
Plan Implementation
The City will implement the strategies set forth in the plan immediately upon adoption by the City Council. Details on the implementation of specific sections are detailed in their respective sections of the plan.
10.9
Amending an Adopted UWMP or WSCP
10.9.1 Amending a UWMP or WSCP If the City amends the adopted 2025 UWMP, the amended UWMP will undergo adoption by the City’s governing board. Within 30 days of adoption, the amended UWMP will then be submitted to DWR, the State of California Library, the County of Los Angeles Registrar/Recorders office, and the City’s office. The City submits copies of its 2025 UWMP to the following agencies within 30 days after adoption: The California DWR The California State Library Los Angeles County Additionally, any amendments or changes to the plan will be submitted to the above agencies within 30 days after adoption.
10.9.2 Submitting Revised Water Shortage Contingency Plan If the City amends the adopted 2025 WSCP, the amended WSCP will undergo adoption by the City’s governing board. Within 30 days of adoption, the amended WSCP will then be submitted to DWR, the State of California Library, the County of Los Angeles Registrar/Recorders office, and the City’s office.
10.10 California Department of Water Resources Review of Submitted Plans After the adopted UWMP is submitted to DWR, DWR will review the UWMP using the provided checklist (Appendix J) and determine whether the UWMP addresses Water Code requirements.
Page | 10-3 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Appendix A Notification Letters
Appendix B City of Paramount 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan LA County 2025 Hazard Mitigation Plan CBMWD Strategic Plan 2021 - 2026
City of Paramount Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan August 2022
Prepared By: Risk Management Professionals 8717 Research Drive, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92618 949/282-0123 www.RMPCorp.com
Table of Contents PLAN ADOPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1
Plan Requirements and Objectives ............................................................ ES-1
ES.2
Mitigation Definition .................................................................................... ES-4
ES.3
Planning Process Summary........................................................................ ES-5
ES.4
Hazard Analysis ........................................................................................... ES-6
ES.5
Mitigation Strategies and Implementation Plan ......................................... ES-8
ES.6
Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan ....................................... ES-13
CHAPTER 1:
PLANNING PROCESS
1.1
Narrative Description of the Planning Process ............................................ 1-1
1.2
Steering Committee & Public Involvement ................................................... 1-6 1.2.1 Steering Committee Participant Solicitation ................................................... 1-6 1.2.2 Steering Committee Participants.................................................................... 1-7 1.2.3 Steering Committee Meeting Descriptions ..................................................... 1-9 1.2.4 Public Meetings & Outreach ........................................................................ 1-16
1.3
Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans ............................................... 1-18
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
TOC-1
CHAPTER 2:
PLANNING AREA PROFILE
2.1
Region Description ......................................................................................... 2-1
2.2
Development Trends ...................................................................................... 2-3
2.3
Population ....................................................................................................... 2-7
2.4
Demographics................................................................................................. 2-7
CHAPTER 3:
RISK ASSESSMENT
3.1
Risk Assessment ............................................................................................ 3-4
3.2
Hazard Identification and Profiling ................................................................ 3-7 3.2.1 Hazard Profiling ........................................................................................... 3-10 3.2.2 Trends in Perceived Vulnerability................................................................. 3-11
3.3
Earthquake Hazard Profile ........................................................................... 3-13 3.3.1 Earthquake Hazard Information and Background ........................................ 3-13 3.3.2 Earthquake History ...................................................................................... 3-17 3.3.3 Earthquake Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ..................................... 3-24
3.4
Adversarial Events Hazard Profile ............................................................... 3-35 3.4.1 Adversarial Events Hazard Information and Background ............................. 3-35 3.4.2 Adversarial Events History ........................................................................... 3-37 3.4.3 Adversarial Events Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ......................... 3-38
3.5
Urban Fire Hazard Profile ............................................................................. 3-39 3.5.1 Urban Fire Hazard Information and Background .......................................... 3-39 3.5.2 Urban Fire History ....................................................................................... 3-40 3.5.3 Urban Fire Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ...................................... 3-46
3.6
Hazardous Material Release Hazard Profile ................................................ 3-48 3.6.1 Hazardous Material Release Hazard Information and Background .............. 3-48 3.6.2 Hazardous Material Release History ............................................................ 3-50 3.6.3 Hazardous Material Release Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude .......... 3-52
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
TOC-2
3.7
Homelessness Hazard Profile ..................................................................... 3- 55 3.7.1 Homelessness Information and Background ................................................ 3-55 3.7.2 Homelessness History ................................................................................. 3-57 3.7.3 Homelessness Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude................................ 3-60
3.8
Utility Loss Hazard Profile ........................................................................... 3-64 3.8.1 Utility Loss Information and Background ...................................................... 3-64 3.8.2 Utility Loss History ...................................................................................... 3- 65 3.8.3 Utility Loss Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ...................................... 3-66
3.9
Pipeline Failure Hazard Profile .................................................................... 3-67 3.9.1 Pipeline Failure Hazard Information and Background .................................. 3-67 3.9.2 Pipeline Failure History ................................................................................ 3-68 3.9.3 Pipeline Failure Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude .............................. 3-69
3.10
Flood and Dam Failure Hazard Profile ........................................................ 3-70
3.10.1 Flood Hazard Information and Background ................................................ 3-70 3.10.2 Flood History ............................................................................................. 3-72 3.10.3 Dam Failure Hazard Information and Background ..................................... 3-74 3.10.4 Dam Failure History ................................................................................... 3-77 3.10.5 Flood Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ............................................ 3-79 3.10.6 Dam Failure Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude.................................. 3-82 3.11
Destructive Winds Hazard Profile ................................................................ 3-84
3.11.1 Destructive Winds Information and Background ........................................ 3-84 3.11.2 Destructive Winds History .......................................................................... 3-85 3.11.3 Destructive Winds Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ........................ 3-87 3.12
Drought Winds Hazard Profile ..................................................................... 3-89
3.12.1 Drought Information and Background ........................................................ 3-89 3.12.2 Drought History.......................................................................................... 3-91 3.12.3 Drought Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ........................................ 3-92 3.13
Disease Outbreak Hazard Profile ................................................................. 3-94
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
TOC-3
3.13.1 Disease Outbreak Information and Background......................................... 3-94 3.13.2 Disease Outbreak History .......................................................................... 3-95 3.13.3 Disease Outbreak Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude......................... 3-98 3.14
Civil Unrest/Riots Hazard Profile ................................................................. 3-99
3.14.1 Civil Unrest/Riots Information and Background .......................................... 3-99 3.14.2 Civil Unrest/Riots History ........................................................................... 3-99 3.14.3 Civil Unrest/Riots Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ........................ 3-101 3.15
Transportation Accident/Incident Hazard Profile ..................................... 3-103
3.15.1 Transportation Accident/Incident Information and Background ................ 3-103 3.15.2 Transportation Accident/Incident History.................................................. 3-104 3.15.3 Transportation Accident/Incident Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude 3-104 3.16
Climate Change .......................................................................................... 3-106
3.17
Asset Inventory ........................................................................................... 3-107
3.18
Loss Estimates ........................................................................................... 3-116
CHAPTER 4:
MITIGATION STRATEGIES
4.1
Mitigation Goals and Objectives .................................................................... 4-1
4.2
Identification of Mitigation Recommendations ............................................. 4-4
4.3
National Flood Insurance Program Compliance........................................... 4-9
4.4
Prioritization of Mitigation Recommendations ........................................... 4-10
4.5
Implementation Strategy .............................................................................. 4-17
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
TOC-4
CHAPTER 5:
PLAN MAINTENANCE
5.1
Mitigation Progress Monitoring ..................................................................... 5-2
5.2
Planning Mechanisms .................................................................................... 5-3 5.2.1 Process to Incorporate the Mitigation Strategy into Other Planning Mechanisms .................................................................................................. 5-3 5.2.2 Process
to
Incorporate
Mitigation
Strategy
into
Other
Planning
Mechanisms ............................................................................................... 5-13 5.3
Periodic Assessment Requirements ........................................................... 5-15
5.4
Update Requirements ................................................................................... 5-17 5.4.1 Plan Update ................................................................................................. 5-18 5.4.2 Continued Public Involvement ..................................................................... 5-19
APPENDICES Appendix A:
Glossary
Appendix B:
Regulations
Appendix C:
Hazard Analysis
Appendix D:
Public Participation & Planning Process Documentation
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
TOC-5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table of Contents ES.1
Plan Requirements and Objectives ........................................................... ES-1
ES.2
Mitigation Definition ................................................................................... ES-4
ES.3
Planning Process Summary ...................................................................... ES-5
ES.4
Hazard Analysis .......................................................................................... ES-6
ES.5
Mitigation Strategies and Implementation Plan ....................................... ES-8
ES.6
Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan ..................................... ES-13
List of Tables Table ES.1: City of Paramount Hazard Ranking Summary ........................................ ES-6 Table ES.2: Loss Estimate Summary ......................................................................... ES-7 Table ES.3: Mitigation Action Summary.................................................................... ES-10
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
ES-i
ES.1 Plan Requirements and Objectives The City of Paramount (City) Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) is a living document that reflects ongoing hazard mitigation activities. Hazard mitigation involves strategies to reduce short- and long-term vulnerability to identified hazards. This document serves as the framework for the ongoing identification and implementation of hazard mitigation strategies developed in the City. The City adopted its original All-Hazard Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2004 and updated the Plan in 2015. This serves as an update to the 2015 Plan. Background Information In 2000, the Congress of the United States determined that disasters and, more importantly, lack of preparedness for disasters, were significant causes of loss of life, human suffering, loss of income, property loss and damage. Further, because disasters often disrupt the normal functioning of governments and communities and adversely affect individuals and families with great severity, special measures designed to assist the efforts of the affected States in expediting the rendering of aid, assistance, and emergency services, and the reconstruction and rehabilitation of devastated areas, were necessary. As a result, Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 200), or Public Law 106-390, to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. This provides an opportunity for States, Tribal governments, and local jurisdictions to apply for assistance from the Federal government in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and damage which results from such disasters by: a. revising and broadening the scope of existing disaster relief programs; b. encouraging the development of comprehensive disaster preparedness and assistance plans, programs, capabilities, and organizations by the States and by local governments; c. achieving greater coordination and responsiveness of disaster preparedness and relief programs; d. encouraging individuals, States, and local governments to protect themselves by obtaining insurance coverage to supplement or replace governmental assistance; e. encouraging hazard mitigation measures to reduce losses from disasters, including development of land use and construction regulations; and
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
ES-1
f.
providing Federal assistance programs for both public and private losses sustained in disasters.
DMA 2000 allows State, Tribal, and local jurisdictions to obtain Federal assistance through pre-disaster hazard mitigation planning. As part of the requirements for receiving Federal grants for improving a locality’s resistance to disasters, each locality must determine their existing vulnerabilities and develop a plan to reduce or eliminate these vulnerabilities and must have this plan approved by the appropriate State officials. Upon approval of this plan, each locality is eligible to receive various types of pre- and post-disaster assistance, such as the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) under the Stafford Act. The PDM program provides funds for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation actions prior to a disaster event. These grants are funded and approved through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on a competitive basis. The HMGP provides grants to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. These grants are funded by FEMA but are distributed by the State. In California, that agency is the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES). FEMA has developed guidance to assist communities in developing both the vulnerability assessments and plans to reduce or eliminate their vulnerabilities to disasters. These tools, coupled with techniques from the safety and security industries were used to develop the City HMP. Additional information regarding the HMGP and PDM programs can be found in FEMA’s “Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance” document, located in FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance portal (http://www.fema.gov/hazardmitigation-assistance). Additional information including guidance and regulations can be found at the California Emergency Management Agency’s Local Hazard Mitigation Planning
Program
portal
(http://hazardmitigation.calema.ca.gov/plan/local_hazard_mitigation_plan_lhmp). In order to be eligible for certain Federal disaster assistance and mitigation funding, the City of Paramount is required to have a CalOES- and FEMA-approved Hazard Mitigation Plan in place. As a result, the City obtained grant funding to update this document to fulfill CalOES and FEMA requirements and provide direction and guidance on implementing hazard mitigation actions on a hazard-level, probability, and cost-priority basis. The overall goal of the HMP is to reduce the potential for damage to critical assets from natural and man-made hazards. In addition, the Plan describes past and current hazard mitigation activities and philosophies and outlines future mitigation goals and strategies.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
ES-2
FEMA Requirements FEMA requires that the HMP meet certain requirements. First, the planning process must be open and public, and must allow the public to have an opportunity to comment during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval. Second, the process must allow other local jurisdictions to be involved in the planning process. Third, the Plan must incorporate, if appropriate, existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. FEMA expects that each HMP have the following information: 1. Documentation of the planning process used to develop the plan 2. A risk assessment that provides a factual basis for upgrades and recommendations 3. A description of the natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction 4. A description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to these natural hazards 5. A description of land usage, and an estimate of losses should a disaster occur 6. A mitigation strategy 7. A plan maintenance process 8. Documentation that the plan has been adopted by the jurisdiction’s governing body 9. Review by the State Hazard Mitigation Officer
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
ES-3
ES.2 Mitigation Definition Mitigation is the ongoing effort to prevent or lessen future emergency or disaster incidents, and the impacts they might have on people, property, and the environment. Examples of mitigation activities include the following: •
Legislation, laws and regulations;
•
Financial assistance;
•
Variances;
•
Hazard Identification;
•
Zoning and land use management;
•
Risk Analysis;
•
Engineering and building codes;
•
Evaluation;
•
Hazard mitigation plans & teams;
•
Research; and
•
Technical guidance & assistance;
•
Education.
Mitigation decreases the demand for emergency response resources, reduces the principal causes of injuries and deaths, enables a quicker lifesaving response and economic recovery because the community infrastructure remains intact, and it reduces the societal impacts of the emergency because it results in less disruption to the social environment. In essence, mitigation is the foundation of sustainable community development.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
ES-4
ES.3 Planning Process Summary Hazard mitigation planning is a dynamic process built on realistic assessments of past and present information that enables the City to anticipate future hazards and provide mitigation strategies to address possible impacts and identified needs. The overall approach to the HMP included developing a baseline understanding of the natural and man-made hazards, determining ways to reduce those risks, and prioritizing mitigation recommendations for implementation. To complete these objectives, the City compiled a qualified team with various expertise, including risk management, public safety and health, engineering and public works, water infrastructure, and emergency response agencies to participate on a Steering Committee to guide the development of the comprehensive City HMP. In addition, the Steering Committee solicited public involvement throughout the planning process, including inviting participation on the Steering Committee, allowing the public to comment during the drafting stage, and making the draft Plan available to allow the public to comment on the Hazard Mitigation Plan content. Chapter 1: Planning Process, contains descriptions of the Planning process, including information on the Steering Committee and public involvement.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
ES-5
ES.4 Hazard Analysis The City is vulnerable to a wide range of natural and human-made hazards that threaten life and property. In order to identify the hazards that the City and neighboring communities perceive as the largest threat, each member of the Steering Committee participated in the Hazard Identification Exercise during the first Steering Committee Meeting. The Committee brainstormed potential hazards based on past incidents that have impacted the City and information incorporated from other studies. Each identified hazard was then qualitatively ranked based upon hazard probability/frequency, consequence/severity, and the City’s overall vulnerability using an interactive model. Section 3.2 Hazard Identification, contains detailed information regarding the hazard ranking. Table ES.1 provides a summary of the hazard ranking. Table ES.1: Hazard Ranking Summary Hazard Rank High Earthquake Moderately High Adversarial Events Moderate Utility Loss Hazardous Materials Release Homelessness Moderately Low Urban Fire Pipeline Failure Flood/Dam Failure Destructive Winds Drought Disease Outbreak Low Civil Unrest Transportation Accident/Incident
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
ES-6
Asset Inventory and Loss Estimates In addition to the hazard profiles, the Risk Assessment contains a detailed asset inventory that lists the City’s assets, such as buildings, parks, public facilities, and critical non-City assets, such as hospitals and schools. This asset inventory was used in the vulnerability assessment to estimate potential losses for each hazard. The Steering Committee reviewed each hazard and assigned a potential percentage of damage expected. This also included loss of function values for lifeline and emergency service interruptions. Section 3.17 Loss Estimates, includes a detailed breakdown of the vulnerability assessment calculations. Table ES.2: Loss Estimate Summary Hazard
Estimated Losses
Earthquake
$138,559,000
Hazardous Materials Release / Industrial Accident / Refinery Explosion Hazards
$17,988,000
Adversarial Events
$36,910,000
Pipeline Failure
$10,104,000
Urban Fire
$22,858,000
Transportation Accident / Incident
$3,602,000
Drought
$2,516,000
Dam Failure
$478,000
Utility Loss
$15,676,000
Flood
$4,630,000
Severe Weather and Destructive Winds
$4,938,000
Biological / Human Disease
$874,000
Civil Unrest / Riots
$6,334,000
Note: A total value is not included since it is not expected for all hazards to occur simultaneously.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
ES-7
ES.5 Mitigation Strategies and Implementation Plan Plan Goals and Objectives As part of the development process, Plan goals and objectives were revalidated to provide a framework for mitigating hazards and proposing potential mitigation actions. The goals are consistent with the California State Hazard Mitigation Plan and the LA County Hazard Mitigation Plan and were developed by the Steering Committee. Paramount’s overall Plan goals are: 1. Protect lives and property 2. Support the priorities of the City of Paramount, its mandate, employees, students, residents, and the business community 3. Promote development consistent with seismic, floodplain and risk management guidance as developed by the City of Paramount and its agencies and/or organizations 4. Promote the recognition of the real value of hazard mitigation to public facilities, public safety and the welfare of all residents in the City of Paramount 5. Support the mitigation efforts of residents, non-profit organizations, communitybased organizations and private business throughout the City 6. Ensure all codes and standards are consistent with hazard mitigation In addition to the overall Plan goals, individual objectives were developed that more specifically address mitigation strategies. Section 4.1 Mitigation Goals and Objectives contains the full list of the Plan goals and objectives. Mitigation Strategies Mitigation strategies are administrative and/or engineering project recommendations to reduce the vulnerability to the identified hazards. The Steering Committee identified specific mitigation actions to reduce the impact or likelihood of the hazards. The specific objectives served as a starting point for developing the mitigation actions, and additional actions were taken from the City’s Capital Improvements Plan.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
ES-8
Implementation Plan Following the identification of mitigation actions, a simplified Benefit-Cost Review was applied in order to prioritize the mitigation actions for implementation. The priority for implementing mitigation actions depended upon the overall cost effectiveness of the action, when taking into account monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits associated with each action. Additionally, the following questions were considered when developing the Benefit-Cost Review:
•
How many people will benefit from the action?
•
How large an area is impacted?
•
How critical are the facilities that benefit from the action?
•
Environmentally, does it make sense to do this project for the overall community?
The Benefit-Cost Review yielded a relative priority ranking (High, Medium, or Low) for each mitigation action. Mitigation actions identified as high-priority are typically implement before lower ranked action. Results from the Benefit-Cost Review are located in Chapter 4.4 Prioritization of Mitigation Recommendations. The Steering Committee considered responsible departments, funding resources, and estimated implementation timeframe when developing the implementation plan. Chapter 4 Mitigation Strategies contains additional information regarding the mitigation strategies and implementation plan.
Table ES.3 on the following pages provides a
summary of each mitigation action, including the hazard(s) mitigated, responsible agency/department, and relative priority rank taken from the Benefit-Cost Review.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
ES-9
Table ES.3: Mitigation Action Summary
Action ID
Mitigation Action
Hazards Mitigated
Responsible Agency/Department
Priority
Engineering
High
Consider performing a seismic evaluation of City buildings and perform seismic retrofits accordingly.
Earthquake
Consider performing a seismic evaluation of the water pumping stations and water pipelines and perform seismic retrofits accordingly.
Earthquake
LHMP.2015.03
Continue to coordinate with LA County to ensure sewer systems and local connections are assessed accordingly.
Earthquake
Public Works
Medium
LHMP.2015.04
Consider upgrading the Maintenance Building to function as a dedicated secondary EOC.
Earthquake
Public Safety
High
Consider configuring the dedicated shelter station (Progress Park) with an emergency generator for backup power.
Earthquake
Consider configuring the secondary shelter station (Paramount Park) with an emergency generator for backup power.
Earthquake
LHMP.2015.07
Consider providing public education materials to residents in mobile home parks in regards to urban fires.
Urban Fires
Public Safety
Low
LHMP.2015.08
Continue to coordinate between Hazardous Materials Owners/Operators and appropriate response agencies.
Hazardous Materials Release
Public Safety
Medium
LHMP.2015.09
Consider configuring critical City locations (e.g., major intersections, refinery, City buildings, Community Building, Plaza) with appropriate surveillance equipment.
Terrorism
Public Works Planning
High
LHMP.2015.01
LHMP.2015.02
LHMP.2015.05
LHMP.2015.06
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Building and Safety Engineering
High
Public Works
Planning Planning
Medium
Parks and Recreation Planning
Medium
Parks and Recreation
ES-10
Responsible Agency/Department
Priority
Pipeline Failure
Public Works
Medium
Consider contracting with Jankovic and a secondary contract (e.g., DeWitt) to obtain backup fuel supplies for the City fleet.
Utility Loss
Public Safety
High
LHMP.2015.12
Consider ensuring that existing contracts for priority on obtaining emergency supplies and food with local businesses are continually updated.
All
Public Safety
High
LHMP.2015.13
Consider providing training to City personnel on how to access priority phone services in the event of an emergency.
All
Public Safety
High
LHMP.2015.14
Consider configuring the EOCs with 2-way communication capabilities to facilitate emergency communications with the Paramount School District.
All
Public Safety
High
LHMP.2015.15
Consider ensuring that flood mitigation remains a priority.
Flood
Public Safety
Low
LHMP.2015.16
Consider educating residents about maintaining trees on private property (e.g., mobile home park) to mitigate the effects of severe wind.
Severe Weather and Destructive Wind
Administrative Services
Low
LHMP.2015.17
Consider providing education to the public on the effects of drought.
Drought
Public Safety
High
LHMP.2015.18
Consider evaluating the merits of implementing an incentive program for residents to develop alternative landscaping.
Drought
Administrative Services
High
LHMP.2015.19
Consider evaluating the merits of upgrading the reclaimed water service area to encompass all City resources.
Drought
Public Works
Low
Action ID
Mitigation Action
LHMP.2015.10
Continue to coordinate with pipeline companies to maintain the ongoing integrity of natural gas and hazardous materials pipelines.
LHMP.2015.11
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazards Mitigated
ES-11
Responsible Agency/Department
Priority
Dam Failure, Earthquake, etc.
Public Safety
High
Continue to coordinate with first responders (e.g., Fire Departments, California Highway Patrol, etc.) to mitigate the effects of transportation incidents.
Transportation Accidents
Public Safety
Medium
Continue to coordinate with LA County Sheriff’s Department to ensure adequate communications are maintained in the event of civil unrest.
Civil Unrest
Sherrif’s Department
High
LHMP.2015.23
Consider ensuring EOC training is provided to key City personnel as necessary.
All
Public Safety
High
LHMP.2015.24
Consider ensuring that new development complies with applicable building codes and considers hazard mitigation.
All
Planning
Low
LHMP.2015.25
Consider coordinating efforts for resurfacing and retrofitting the LA Bridge in accordance with the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP).
Earthquake
Public Works
Medium
Action ID
Mitigation Action
LHMP.2015.20
Consider ensuring that the mass notification system (i.e. Reverse 9-1-1 System) is used as needed.
LHMP.2015.21
LHMP.2015.22
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazards Mitigated
Public Safety
ES-12
ES.6 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan The Hazard Mitigation Plan is a living document that reflects ongoing hazard mitigation activities and requires monitoring, evaluating, and updating to ensure the mitigation actions are implemented. To facilitate the Hazard Mitigation Planning process and adhere to regulatory requirements, the Plan will be reviewed annually and any major revisions will be incorporated into the five-year update. In addition, public involvement will be requested when applicable. Chapter 5 Plan Maintenance outlines the update requirements and Planning Mechanisms the City has in place for ongoing hazard mitigation.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
ES-13
PLANNING PROCESS
Table of Contents 1.1
Narrative Description of the Planning Process ................................................. 1
1.2
Steering Committee & Public Involvement ........................................................ 6
1.2.1
Steering Committee Participant Solicitation .................................................... 6
1.2.2
Steering Committee Participants..................................................................... 7
1.2.3
Steering Committee Meeting Descriptions ...................................................... 9
1.2.4
Public Meetings & Outreach.......................................................................... 16
1.3
Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans ................................................... 17
List of Tables Table 1.1: Steering Committee Participants...................................................................... 8
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
1-i
1.1 Narrative Description of the Planning Process §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. §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. Hazard mitigation planning is a dynamic process built on realistic assessments of past
and
present
information
that
Organize Resources
engages the City of Paramount (City) to anticipate future hazards and provide meaningful
strategies
to
Implement Plan & Monitor Progress
address
Assess Risks
possible impacts and identified needs. The hazard mitigation planning process
Develop a Mitigation Plan
involves the following tasks: •
Organizing resources
•
Assessing risks
•
Developing mitigation strategies, goals, and priorities
•
Adopting a plan
•
Implementing the plan
•
Monitoring progress
•
Revising the plan as necessary
The overall approach to updating the Hazard Mitigation Plan included building off the baseline understanding of the natural hazards as defined in the original 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan and determining ways to continue reducing those risks and prioritizing
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
1-1
those recommendations for implementation. The following task descriptions provide a detailed narrative of the overall project progression. Organize Resources Identify Stakeholders and Compile Steering Committee Steven Coumparoules, Management Analyst for the City Public Safety Department, contacted local and public groups to form a Steering Committee and invited and coordinated participation from the appropriate law enforcement, emergency response, health organizations, City representatives, and public representatives. The Steering Committee was responsible for providing essential insight into the past natural hazard events, current natural hazard vulnerability (including specific locations), critical assets, and possible mitigation projects. The invitations were sent out via email and the first Steering Committee Meeting was advertised on the City’s website. The following groups were invited to participate in the plan development: •
City Key Personnel (Finance, City Planning, Public Safety, Recreation, Analytical, and Recreation)
•
Los Angeles County Fire Department
•
Kindred Hospital
•
The American Red Cross
•
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
•
Paramount Unified School District
•
City Residents
Public Process The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires an “Open and Public Process” for developing the Hazard Mitigation Plan. This process requires, at a minimum, that the public be allowed to comment on the Plan during the drafting phase and prior to adoption. In addition to soliciting public involvement in the Steering Committee, the City conducted a public meeting to allow for the public comment during the drafting stage of the Plan prior to submittal of the plan for FEMA review. The public meeting was held on October 4, 2022. Documentation of public outreach is provided in Appendix D.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
1-2
Risk Assessment Identify Hazards This task was designed to identify all the natural and human-made hazards that might affect the City and then narrow the list to the hazards that are most likely to occur. The hazards included natural, technical, and human-caused events, with an emphasis on the effect of natural disasters on the City’s critical facilities. In order to compile the list, the Project Team built upon the list of hazards identified in the 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan and then continued to research newspapers, historical records, and websites to determine any additional hazards. In addition, the Steering Committee reviewed a list of hazards that have affected the City in the past with specific information regarding frequency, magnitude, and associated consequences. A Hazard Identification exercise was conducted during the first Steering Committee Meeting to identify and evaluate each selected hazard. The following hazards were included in the Hazard Mitigation Plan: •
Earthquake
•
Adversarial Event
•
Urban Fire
•
Hazardous Materials Release
•
Homelessness
•
Utility Loss
•
Pipeline Failure
•
Flood/Dam Failure
•
Destructive Winds
•
Drought
•
Disease Outbreak
•
Civil Unrest
•
Transportation Accident/Incident
This list is not all-inclusive to the hazards discussed during the Hazard Identification exercise. Hazards not thought to pose significant risk to the City were not included. In addition, some items were captured as sub-items of the hazards listed above. For
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
1-3
example, climate change is discussed with hazards where the impact of changes in weather patterns could act as a catalyst for those scenarios. Profile Hazard Events The hazard event profiles consist of either a map indicating the area impacted by each hazard or an important piece of data regarding the characteristics of hazard events within the City and surrounding area. To update the detailed hazard profiles, the Project Team researched and reviewed relevant open-source natural hazard studies and mapping projects. In addition, the City supplied any hazard studies that have been developed specifically for the City. This task determined the hazard magnitude, frequency, and location characteristics (e.g., predicted ground acceleration values, fault locations, flood plains, etc.) that were used as the design-basis for the loss estimates and hazard ranking. Asset Inventory The purpose of this task was to determine the quantity of City facilities and assets that lie in the different hazard areas and what proportion of the City this represents. The asset inventory was compiled with data taken from the City’s 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan during a Steering Committee meeting and including any new or recently acquired facilities. The completed asset inventory enabled the Planning Team to estimate losses resulting from hazard events and to determine where resources should be allocated to address mitigation issues. Loss Estimates The Project Team developed loss assessment tables for each specific hazard that identify potential damages with the City, critical infrastructure, and buildings. This task was crucial in determining which assets are subject to the greatest potential damages and which hazard event is likely to produce the greatest potential losses. The conclusion of this task precipitated a comprehensive loss estimate (vulnerability assessment) for each identified hazard for each specific asset in terms of damages, economic loss, and the associated consequences. Mitigation Strategy Development Develop Mitigation Goals and Objectives The Project Team, based upon information provided by the Steering Committee, discussed the mitigation features and resources that the City currently has in place. These mitigation features provided a framework to determine where practical improvements City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
1-4
could be made and where sufficient improvements would be prohibitive due to cost, schedule, or impracticality of implementation. For each of the hazard events, mitigation goals and objectives were developed with the intention of reducing or eliminating the potential hazard impacts. The mitigation goals and objectives were developed at a Steering Committee Meeting to provide the basis for determining the associated mitigation projects. Identify and Prioritize Mitigation Actions Mitigation strategies are administrative and/or engineering project recommendations to reduce the vulnerability to the identified hazards. It was imperative to have City Planners and community developers involved in this phase of the Plan in order to develop strategies and projects that will mitigate the hazards cost-effectively, as well as ensure consistency with the City’s long-term mitigation goals and capital improvements. At a Steering Committee Meeting, a team-based approach was used to brainstorm mitigation projects based on the identified hazards and associated loss estimates. The evaluation and prioritization of the mitigation actions produced a list of recommended mitigation actions to incorporate into the mitigation Plan. A separate Steering Committee meeting was held to conduct a Benefit-Cost Review for each proposed mitigation action to determine the relative priority level of the recommendation. Implementation & Monitoring Prepare an Implementation Strategy The Project Team developed an action plan to detail how the mitigation recommendations will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the City. During the Hazard Mitigation Plan creation process, the Project Team coordinated with the Steering Committee to determine the mitigation project implementation strategy (including identifying responsible departments, funding resources, and estimated implementation timeframe).
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
1-5
1.2 Steering Committee & Public Involvement While
the
City
and
Risk
Management STEP 1: ASSESS COMMUNITY
Professionals had lead responsibility for the update of the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan, neighboring
communities,
agencies,
STEP 2: BUILD THE PLANNING TEAM
businesses, and other interested parties were invited to participate on the Steering Committee STEP 3: ENGAGE THE PUBLIC
to review the Hazard Mitigation Plan during each phase of the document development. In order to compile a list of Steering Committee participants, the Project Team assessed community support
COMPILE STEERING COMMITTEE TO GUIDE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT
through active community leaders and invited public participation during each of the planning meetings. Each member of the Steering Committee participated in all aspects of the planning process. §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 §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.
1.2.1
Steering Committee Participant Solicitation
The City solicited participation in the Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee by contacting both internal and external stakeholders. Internal stakeholders included members of various City departments. External stakeholders were comprised of representatives from local agencies and neighboring communities, including the Los Angeles County Fire and Sheriff’s Departments, the Red Cross, Paramount Unified School District and Kindred Hospital. Emails were sent out to key players requesting their participation on the Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee. In addition, members of the public were invited to attend the Steering Committee Meetings. City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
1-6
1.2.2
Steering Committee Participants
The City brought together personnel from management, finance, City planning, public safety, and recreation departments to ensure the Steering Committee included all departments and provided a mechanism for receiving input from each participant. Additionally, the City compiled historical hazard data, provided relevant planning documents for incorporation into the Plan, and coordinated participation with the public. Each draft chapter was reviewed by the Steering Committee and specific comments and input were incorporated into the plan. The multidisciplinary Steering Committee assembled enabled the City to work together and incorporate each individual’s expertise to provide for a comprehensive Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed with assistance and advice from participants from the City and several neighboring agencies. Table 1.1 provides a list of the Steering Committee participants. Individuals are listed in alphabetical order by last name.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
1-7
Table 1.1: Steering Committee Participants Name
Affiliation
Title
SCM 1
SCM 2
SCM 3
SCM 4
SCM 5
Ryan Bray
Risk Management Professionals
Senior Technical Consultant
X
X
X
X
X
Chris Campbell-Joy
Red Cross
Disaster Program Specialist
X
X
X
John Carver
City of Paramount Planning Department
Planning Director
X
X
Steven Coumparoules
City of Paramount Public Safety
Management Analyst
X
X
Danny Elizarraras
City of Paramount Public Safety
Management Analyst
X
X
Sarah Ho
City of Paramount Public Works
Assistant Director
X
John King
City of Paramount Planning Department
Assistant Planning Director
Norman Mamea
City of Paramount Public Works
Water Superintendent
X
Anthony Martinez
City of Paramount
Management Analyst II
X
X
Bill Pagett
Contract – City Engineer
Deputy City Engineer
X
X
Alex Rodriguez
Kindred Paramount Hospital
Safety Officer
X
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
1-8
The Steering Committee met five times during the course of the project to discuss project progress and obtain valuable input and information for documenting the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The meetings are detailed over the subsequent pages. Appendix D – Public Participation contains copies of the presentations used at each meeting, specific meeting handouts, and sign in sheets. 1.2.3
Steering Committee Meeting Descriptions
Steering Committee Meeting #1 – Project Initiation, Hazard Identification, and Information Collection July 22, 2021 Meeting Attendees: •
Ryan Bray
•
•
Chris Campbell-Joy
•
John Carver
•
Steve Coumparoules
Danny Elizarraras
•
Bill Pagett
Reál
•
Alex Rodriguez
•
Sarah Ho
•
Norman Mamea
•
Anthony Martinez
During the Project Initiation, Hazard Identification, and Information Collection Meeting of the Steering Committee, Risk Management Professionals presented an overview presentation that detailed the objectives and scope of the project. After a review of the project schedule and key tasks, the Steering Committee discussed each participant’s areas of expertise, resultant member responsibilities, and the community meeting process. The
Steering
discussed include
the
hazards
to
Plan.
To
characterize
the
in
effectively
Committee
the
City’s risk and vulnerability, Risk
Management
Professionals
facilitated
a
discussion of the historical hazards with the Committee members during this meeting.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
1-9
This meeting also served as a forum to discuss information for the Plan’s background information and asset inventory. The Steering Committee determined the initial hazard profile ranking through a facilitated workshop using an automated interactive software spreadsheet that asked specific questions on potential hazards and then assigned a relative value to each potential hazard accordingly, including numerical rankings (1-5) of the following criteria: •
Consequence/Severity – How wide spread is the impact area?
•
Secondary Effects – Could the event trigger another event and separate response?
•
Probability/Frequency – Historical view of how often this type of event occurs locally and projected recurrence intervals.
•
Warning/Onset – Advance warning of the event, or none.
•
Duration – Length of elapsed time in which response resources are active.
•
Recovery – Length of time until lives and property return to normal.
Chapter 3: Risk assessment outlines the methodology used for hazard rankings. All Steering Committee participants were requested to provide existing plans and technical studies, GIS data, and identify existing mitigation features as part of a detailed information request. Steering Committee Meeting #2 – Hazard Risk Rank Review, Mitigation Goals and Objectives August 12, 2021 Meeting Attendees: •
Ryan Bray
•
Chris Campbell-Joy
•
John Carver
•
•
Steve
•
Anthony Martinez
Coumparoules
•
Bill Pagett
Danny Elizarraras Reál
The hazard risk ranking from Steering Committee Meeting #1 was reviewed, updated, and validated by the Steering Committee with a review of the hazard profiles. Additionally, the Plan’s mitigation goals and objectives were updated with the intention of reducing or eliminating the potential hazard impacts, which also provided the basis for determining the associated mitigation projects. The Steering Committee reviewed the goals and objectives from the City’s 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan, the 2018 California State Multi-Hazard City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
1-12
Mitigation Plan, and the 2019 Los Angeles County Hazard Mitigation Plan as a baseline for determining the City’s current mitigation goals and objectives. Steering Committee Meeting #3 – Asset Inventory and Vulnerability Assessment September 9, 2021 Meeting Attendees: •
Ryan Bray
•
Chris Campbell-Joy
•
•
Steve
•
John King
Coumparoules
•
Norman Mamea
Sarah Ho
•
Anthony Martinez
The asset inventory was developed to determine the quantity of buildings, facilities, and other assets in the City that lie in the different hazard areas and what proportion of the City this represents. The asset inventory included locations and specifications for general buildings: city well sites, civic buildings, parks, hospitals, schools, and other facilities. The asset inventory was reviewed by the Steering Committee for completeness and assignments we given to those who could retrieve missing information.
The asset inventory was then used to develop loss estimates for all hazard scenarios. The hazard probabilities and recurrence intervals were applied to the City assets to determine which assets were subject to the greatest potential damages and which hazard events were likely to produce the greatest potential losses. Additionally, each Steering Committee participant was given a Mitigation Activity Identification worksheet to document potential projects to be discussed during Steering Committee Meeting #4.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
1-13
Steering Committee Meeting #4 – Mitigation Action Identification October 28, 2021 Meeting Attendees: •
Ryan Bray
•
Steve Coumparoules
•
Danny Elizarraras
•
John King
Reál •
Sarah Ho
The purpose of this meeting was to identify potential mitigation actions and projects that will reduce the impact of identified hazards. First, the mitigation goals and objectives from Steering Committee Meeting #2 were reviewed and validated with the Steering Committee. Then, during the meeting, the Steering Committee participants brainstormed possible projects and actions to mitigate the effects of the identified hazards. This was done using the hazard profiles, hazard-specific objectives, and asset-specific loss estimates as starting points. In addition, the Capital Improvements Plan was reviewed as necessary to see if any capital improvement projects considered hazard mitigation. As the mitigation projects were identified, the Steering Committee discussed the mitigation action implementation plan according to the following characteristics: •
Mitigation Action Category – Prevention, Property Protection, Public Education and Awareness Natural Resource Protection, Emergency Services, and Structural Projects
•
Corresponding Goals and Objectives
•
Responsible Department – Building and Safety Division of the Planning Department, Engineering Division of the Public Works Department, Administrative Services, Planning, Public Works, etc.
•
Resources – General Fund, Grant Programs, Staff Time, Capital Improvements etc.
•
Implementation Timeframe – Ongoing, Short-Term (within two years), Mediumterm (between three and ten years), and Long-Term (greater than ten years)
•
Whether or not the project protects new or future buildings
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
1-13
Steering Committee Meeting #5 – Mitigation Action Benefit-Cost Review January 13, 2022 Meeting Attendees: •
Ryan Bray
•
Chris Campbell-Joy
•
Steve Coumparoules
Danny Elizarraras Reál
•
Sarah Ho
During the fifth Steering Committee Meeting, the identified mitigation actions from Steering Committee Meeting #4 were reviewed and validated with the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee then performed a high-level benefit-cost review on each of the identified mitigation actions. The review consisted of identifying all benefits and costs associated with implementing each mitigation action. Typical benefits include: •
Avoided physical damages (e.g., to buildings, infrastructure, and equipment)
•
Avoided loss of function costs (e.g., loss of utilities and lifelines)
•
Avoided casualties
•
Avoided emergency management costs (e.g., emergency operations center costs, evacuation/rescue costs, and other management costs)
Once the benefits and costs were estimated, a relative priority was assigned for each action based upon the evaluation.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
1-14
1.2.4
Public Meetings & Outreach
The City actively solicited public involvement through several advertisements and other media. The City posted an advertisement on its website to invite the public to participate in Steering Committee Meetings and all Steering Committee Meetings were open to the public. Although residents were invited to each meeting, no residents participated in any of the Steering Committee meetings. Members of the public were also able to provide direct input for Plan development and attend the Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Meeting in order to review the Plan during the drafting stage with the Steering Committee Meeting and provide comments. The Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Meeting was held on October 4, 2022. Copies of the Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan were available for interested members of the public and a presentation was prepared to provide an overview of the planning process and the results of the analyses. However, no members of the public attended. Following the Public Meeting, the draft Plan was posted on the City’s website for a comment period. Members of the public were instructed to submit specific comments to the Project Team via phone. By the close of the comment period, no comments had been received from the public. Additional information on the Public Meeting, including the sign in sheet and presentation, can be found in Appendix D.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
1-16
1.3 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. While developing the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Project Team reviewed existing plans (detailed below) and incorporated relevant information into the planning efforts. City of Paramount 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan The City’s 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan is crucial in comparing the previous mitigation ideas and attitudes to the City’s current needs and concerns. The project team referred to this Plan constantly throughout the updating process. The Plan provides insight into hazard ranking, hazard history, previously proposed mitigation projects, etc. City of Paramount General Plan The City of Paramount 2007 General Plan, with several 2022 revisions, contains guidelines and policies that serve as the City’s vision for future planning and development. Mitigation projects defined in the Hazard Mitigation Plan will be required to align with the objectives outlined in the General Plan. Proposal mitigation actions are found in Chapter 4 of this Plan. The Hazard Mitigation Plan is identified in the Health and Safety Element of the General Plan, and Health and Safety Policy Element 43 sets regular updates to the Hazard Mitigation Plan to reduce the level of injury, property damage, and community disruption. Policy EJ-3.5 of the Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan states “Coordinate and integrate hazard mitigation activities with emergency operations plans and procedures.” Paramount Urban Water Management Plan The City’s Urban Water Management Plan is updated every five years to monitor water supply issues and mitigate drought situations. It was updated most recently in 2021. As part of the Urban Water Management Plan updates, the City will review the drought hazard profile in the Hazard Mitigation Plan and incorporate the drought mitigation actions identified in the plan.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
1-17
Paramount Climate Action Plan The City Council adopted the Paramount Climate Action Plan in 2021. The Climate Action Plan outlines strategies, goals, and actions for reducing City’s municipal and communitywide greenhouse gas emissions and for preparing the community for the anticipated impacts of climate change. Strategy CR3 of the Resilient Community Adaptation Actions of the Climate Action Plan is to “Ensure that emergency planning, public health planning, and adaptation efforts prioritize vulnerable populations.” City of Paramount Emergency Operations Plan The City periodically updates the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The EOP, last updated in 2017, includes specific response procedures for earthquake, hazardous material incident, flooding, etc. In order to ensure the plan includes an appropriate response, the City will incorporate the Risk Assessment element of the Hazard Mitigation Plan into the Emergency Operations Plan update as appropriate.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
1-18
State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018) The Hazard Mitigation Plan was reviewed to ensure consistency between the State and City Plan, with respect to identified hazards and vulnerability, goals and objectives, and mitigation actions. The State goals served as the basis for developing the goals at the City level. City goals and objectives are outlined in Chapter 4. County of Los Angeles 2019 All-Hazards Mitigation Plan LA County’s All-Hazards Mitigation Plan was reviewed to ensure consistency between the County and City Plan. The County Plan, updated in 2019, outlines the County’s approach to hazard mitigation, focusing on natural hazards, human-caused events, and technological emergencies. California Fire Plan The State Board of Forestry and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection have developed the Fire Plan for wildland fire protection in California. The plan defines a level of service measurement, considers assets at risk, incorporates the cooperative interdependent relationships of wildland fire protection providers, provides for public stakeholder involvement, and creates a fiscal framework for policy analysis. This information was used when developing the Urban Fire hazard profile. California Water Plan The state updated the California Water Plan in 2018 in order to address drought hazard mitigation over the long term. This Plan outlines the state’s approach to integrated water management and sustainability. This information was used when developing the drought hazard profile. California Adaptation Planning Guide 2020 FEMA, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), and the California Natural Resources Agency developed the California Adaptation Planning Guide to assist municipalities in recognizing local climate change and to provide guidance with addressing potential vulnerabilities. The information was used to identify potential hazards and to provide background information that allowed the Steering Committee to make educated decisions regarding mitigation actions designed to alleviate the effects of climate change.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
1-15
PLANNING AREA PROFILE
Table of Contents 2.1
Region Description .......................................................................................... 2-1
2.2
Development Trends ........................................................................................ 2-3
2.3
Population ......................................................................................................... 2-7
2.4
Demographics .................................................................................................. 2-7
List of Tables Table 2.1: Projected Growth for the City of Paramount ................................................. 2-7 Table 2.3: Demographic Estimates ................................................................................ 2-9
List of Figures Figure 2.1: City of Paramount Overview Map ................................................................ 2-2 Figure 2.2: City of Paramount General Plan Zoning Map .............................................. 2-6 Figure 2.3: City of Paramount Area Plans Map .............................................................. 2-7
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
2-i
2.1 Region Description The City of Paramount (City) is a municipality characterized by a combination of residential, industrial, and commercial developments. The City was incorporated in 1957 as a General Law City. Paramount is located in the southwestern part of Los Angeles County, California, about 16 miles southwest of the City of Los Angeles. The City is bordered by Compton, Lynwood, and unincorporated Los Angeles County to the west, South Gate and Downey to the north, Bellflower to the east and south, and Long Beach to the south. The City is located near four of the major Los Angeles County freeways, including Interstates 105, 710, 605 and California State Route 91. Additionally, the City is in close proximity to Los Angeles International Airport, Long Beach Municipal Airport, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and is about 16 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. The City has a total area of 4.8 square miles or 3,072 acres. The City’s climate is consistent with coastal southern California and is generally characterized by warm summers and cool winters. According to National Center for Environmental Information, average temperatures range from the average high at 76.5 degrees to the average minimum annual temperature at 55.5. Precipitation occurs mainly in the winter months with an average annual rainfall of 11.46 inches. December, January, and February are the wettest month on average with ~2.5 inches of rainfall each month. Figure 2.1 provides an overview of Paramount.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
2-1
Figure 2.1: City of Paramount Overview Map
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
2-2
2.2 Development Trends §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. The City is 4.73 square miles in area. The following describes land use designations for Paramount. These descriptions are excerpted from the City General Plan (2007) in an attempt to designate the proposed general distribution and intensity of uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, public facilities, and other categories of public and private uses. At the time of this report, there were no plans for land use redistribution or large capital projects that would impact the City’s vulnerability. Residential Land Uses Single-Family Residential •
Land uses within this designation are characterized by single-family detached residential development. This land is intended to provide for the maintenance and preservation of the existing single-family neighborhoods in the City and to permit new infill development. The maximum development intensity permitted under this land designation is 8 dwelling units per acre.
Multiple-Family Residential •
This land use designation provides for higher density residential development at intensities of up to 22 dwelling units per acre.
Commercial & Industrial Land Uses Commercial •
This land use designation applies to a wide range of land uses involved in retail sales and services. Development included in this land use designation may be characterized
by
smaller
neighborhood
commercial
establishments,
community shopping centers, office developments, and other service-related activities. Industrial •
The industrial land use classification includes those land uses involved in manufacturing, processing, and warehousing activities.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
2-3
Business Park •
The Business Park land use designation promotes planned development that integrates light industrial, limited retail commercial, and office uses into contemporary development designs. Commercial and office uses should be of a type that serve and reinforce the light manufacturing establishments that are part of the development.
Public/Quasi-Public (P/PQ) •
This designation includes publicly owned lands and properties for quasi-public institutions containing existing or proposed support uses for local communitywide or regional support facilities. Examples of land uses include, but are not limited to, schools, parks, power line easements, flood control facilities, churches, and similar uses that are ancillary to quasi-public uses.
Specific Area Plans •
There are six Area Plans that have been developed for key neighborhoods and districts in the City. These Area Plans are designed to establish more specific policies to selected area of the City, including areas targeted for special revitalization and redevelopment opportunities. The six area designations are: o
Central Business District Area Plan;
o
Central Industrial District Area Plan;
o
Clearwater East Area Plan;
o
Clearwater North & Howe/Orizaba Area Plan; (consolidation into North Paramount Gateway Specific Plan currently in progress)
o
Clearwater West Area Plan; and
o
Somerset Ranch Planned Community.
Figures 2.2 and 2.3 illustrate the City of Paramount’s land use (zoning) and area plan designations, respectfully, and were update in 2022 from the 2007 revision of the General Plan.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
2-4
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
2-5
Figure 2.2: City of Paramount General Plan Zoning Map
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
2-6
Figure 2.3: City of Paramount Area Plans Map
2.3 Population Since its incorporation in 1957, the City’s population has increased by an annual rate of about 2.46% from 1960 to 1970. After a decade of decreased growth from 1970 to 1980, the City boomed between 1980 and 2005, growing 60% in those years due to City development efforts. The City’s population is expected to increase by only 9.5% between 2020 and 2040. Population growth is expected to grow slowly as development opportunities become increasingly limited and the City reaches its potential for building out. Table 2.1 provides the City’s projected population growth to 2040. Table 2.1: Projected Growth for the City of Paramount Year
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Population
55,461
57,404
58,919
60,218
61,266
Source: E-1 Cities, Counties, and the State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change (1/1/2020) and P-2A Total Population for California and Counties (2010 – 2060)
2.4 Demographics When considering the impacts of hazard scenarios on the community, the City is cognizant that some portions of the community will be impacted to a greater extent than others. A better understanding of how disasters impact the community, even disproportionately, can help guide resiliency efforts to better serve the entire community. Although other factors may be present, this section will focus on how low economic status and age can exacerbate the impacts of a hazard scenario. At the time of this report, economic status and age are the clearest indicators of increased/reduced suffering during a disaster situation based on the information available. Economic Status The July 2017 issue of the Supplemental Research Bulletin published by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSA) states that disasters are experienced differently by people in poverty, even at the preparedness stage. The Supplemental Research Bulletin also notes, according to a 2004 report by Fothergill and Peek, impoverished people are likely to have less access to education regarding City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
2-7
vulnerabilities to disasters and are therefore, typically not able to be as prepared. It is also speculated that preparedness actions may be costly, and possibly too expensive, for people with low incomes to be able to implement. Furthermore, the poor generally are assumed to have to live in homes with lower quality construction which are more susceptible to the impacts of disasters. The bulletin also cites a 1983 report (Rossi, Wright, Weber-Burdin, & Pereira) which found higher rates of injury during natural disasters for lower income households. This also may be tied to the high cost of preparedness measures leaving the poor at a higher rate of vulnerability. World Bank and GFDRR report authors note that people in poverty around the world are more likely than others to live in areas at high risk of disaster impacts. They explain that this may be the case because these more dangerous areas are less expensive, or simply more available, in parts of the world with limited space for housing (Hallegatte et al., 2017). Age According to a statement from the Red Cross, “new research has found that older adults are more vulnerable and experience more casualties after natural disasters compared to other age groups”. While not universal, older adults are more likely to have a greater prevalence for chronic conditions, multi-morbidity, cognitive impairment, and medical concerns that other age groups. Generally, older adults are more likely to be dependent on assistive devises and caregivers, more likely to be isolated, more likely to have gaps in preparedness, and potentially be at higher risk for psychological distress. All of these factors increase the potential for injury during a disaster event. Youth can also be factor in determining the impacts of disasters on the community; especially long-term. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), children may experience anxiety, fear, sadness, sleep disruption, irritability, difficulty concentrating, and anger outburst following a disaster. Furthermore, the CDC states children under 8 years of age are at particular risk for long-term mental health issues after experiencing a disaster. City Vulnerability To estimate the impacts of low income and population age on the City, Table 2.3 summarizes some of the applicable estimates provided by the 2020 United States Census regarding the economic status of the community.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
2-8
Table 2.3: Demographic Estimates Estimate Category Population (2020)
Census Estimates 53,733
Persons under 5 years
6%
Persons under 18 years
27.4%
Persons 65 years and over
8.6%
Households (2015-2019)
14,207
Persons per household (2015-2019)
3.82
Households with a computer (2015-2019)
91.1%
Households with a broadband internet subscription, percent
79.8%
(2015-2019) High School graduate or higher, percent of persons aged 25
64.8%
years+ (2015-2019) Bachelor’s degree or higher percent of persons aged 25 years+
11.3%
(2015-2019 Median Household income (in 2019 dollars, 2015-2019)
$55,670
Per capita income in past 12 months (in 2019 dollars 2015-2019)
$18,073
Persons in poverty, percent
16.7%
Source: United State Census Bureau
Although many inferences could be made based on the table above, it is clear 16.7% of the community is recorded being at or below poverty level. Additionally, 8.6% of the community is over the age of 65 while 6% are under the age of 5. While each of these groups represent a small portion of the City, it can be assumed this percentage of the public with be impacted by disasters at a higher degree than the rest of the community. As the City moves forward, considerations for these small sectors of the population should be made to provide effective resilience measures.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
2-9
RISK ASSESSMENT Table of Contents 3.1
Risk Assessment .................................................................................................3-4
3.2
Hazard Identification and Profiling .......................................................................3-7 3.2.1 Hazard Profiles ......................................................................................... 3-10 3.3.1 Trends in Perceived Vulnerability .............................................................. 3-11
3.3
Earthquake Hazard Profile ................................................................................. 3-13 3.3.1 Earthquake Hazard Information and Background ...................................... 3-13 3.4.2 Earthquake History ................................................................................... 3-17 3.3.3 Earthquake Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude .................................. 3-24
3.4
Adversarial Events............................................................................................. 3-35 3.4.1 Adversarial Events Hazard Information and Background .......................... 3-35 3.4.2 Adversarial Events History ........................................................................ 3-37 3.4.3 Adversarial Events Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ....................... 3-38
3.5
Urban Fire Hazard Profile .................................................................................. 3-39 3.5.1 Urban Fire Hazard Information and Background ....................................... 3-39 3.5.2 Urban Fire History ..................................................................................... 3-40 3.5.3 Urban Fire Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ................................... 3-46
3.6
Hazardous Material Release.............................................................................. 3-48 3.6.1 Hazardous Material Release Hazard Information and Background ........... 3-48 3.6.2 Hazardous Material Release History ......................................................... 3-50 3.6.3 Hazardous Materials Release Hazard Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ................................................................................................. 3-52
3.7
Homelessness ................................................................................................... 3-55 3.7.1 Homelessness Hazard Information and Background ................................. 3-55 3.7.2 Homelessness History .............................................................................. 3-57 3.8.3 Homelessness Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ............................. 3-60
3.8
Utility Loss Hazard Profile .................................................................................. 3-64 3.8.1 Utility Loss Hazard Information and Background ....................................... 3-64 3.8.2 Utility Loss History .................................................................................... 3-65 3.8.3 Utility Loss Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ................................... 3-66
3.9
Pipeline Failure Hazard Profile .......................................................................... 3-67 3.9.1 Pipeline Failure Hazard Information and Background ............................... 3-67
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-i
3.9.2 Pipeline Failure History ............................................................................. 3-68 3.9.3 Pipeline Failure Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ............................ 3-69 3.10 Flood and Dam Failure Hazard Profile ............................................................... 3-70 3.10.1 Flood Hazard Information and Background ............................................. 3-70 3.10.2 Flood History .......................................................................................... 3-72 3.10.3 Dam Failure Hazard Information and Background .................................. 3-74 3.10.4 Dam Failure History ............................................................................... 3-77 3.10.5 Flood Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ........................................ 3-79 3.10.6 Dam Failure Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude .............................. 3-82 3.11 Destructive Winds Hazard Profile ...................................................................... 3-84 3.11.1 Destructive Winds Hazard Information and Background ........................ 3-84 3.11.2 Destructive Winds History ...................................................................... 3-85 3.11.3 Destructive Winds Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ..................... 3-87 3.12 Drought Hazard Profile ...................................................................................... 3-89 3.12.1 Drought Hazard Information and Background ........................................ 3-89 3.12.2 Drought History ...................................................................................... 3-90 3.12.3 Drought Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude..................................... 3-92 3.13 Disease Outbreak Hazard Profile ...................................................................... 3-94 3.13.1: Disease Outbreak Hazard Information and Background ........................ 3-94 3.13.2 Disease Outbreak History ...................................................................... 3-95 3.13.3 Disease Outbreak Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ..................... 3-98 3.14 Civil Unrest/Riots Hazard Profile ........................................................................ 3-99 3.14.1 Civil Unrest/Riots Hazard Information and Background ......................... 3-99 3.14.2 Civil Unrest/Riots History....................................................................... 3-99 3.14.3 Civil Unrest/Riots Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ................... 3-101 3.15 Transportation Accident/Incident Hazard Profile .............................................. 3-103 3.15.1 Transportation Accident/Incident Hazard Information and Background 3-103 3.15.2 Transportation Accident/Incident Hazard History .................................. 3-104 3.15.3 Transportation Accident/Incident Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ............................................................................................... 3-104 3.16 Climate Change ............................................................................................... 3-106 3.17 Asset Inventory ................................................................................................ 3-107 3.18 Loss Estimates ................................................................................................ 3-116
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-1
List of Figures Figure 3.1: Southern California Historic Earthquakes Map ......................................... 3-24 Figure 3.2: City of Paramount Earthquake Fault Map ................................................. 3-26 Figure 3.3: Southern California Earthquake Fault Map ............................................... 3-27 Figure 3.4: City of Paramount Peak Ground Acceleration Map ................................... 3-32 Figure 3.5: Liquefaction Zones in Los Angeles County ............................................... 3-34 Figure 3.5: Los Angeles County Fire Threat Map ....................................................... 3-46 Figure 3.6: City of Paramount Facilities and Transportation Routes Map ................... 3-54 Figure 3.7: Crimes Involving Homeless Individuals .................................................... 3-59 Figure 3.8: Violent Crime Rate ................................................................................... 3-60 Figure 3.9: Relationship Between Homelessness and Housing Prices ....................... 3-61 Figure 3.10: Homeless Encampments in Los Angeles County ................................... 3-62 Figure 3.11: City of Paramount FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) ................. 3-80 Figure 3.12: City of Paramount FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) ................. 3-81 Figure 3.13: Maximum Flood Depth for Whittier Narrows Dam Failure ....................... 3-83 Figure 3.15: Annual Runoff in California ..................................................................... 3-91 Figure 3.16: Western United States Drought Conditions, 2021 ................................... 3-92 Figure 3.17: Nations With Confirmed Cases H5N1 Avian Influenza (July 7, 2006) ..... 3-96 Figure 3.18: Nations with confirmed Cases H1N1 (August 4, 2009) ........................... 3-97 Figure 3.19: City of Paramount Transportation Map ................................................. 3-105
List of Tables Table 3.1: Risk Factors for Hazard Identification ..........................................................3-8 Table 3.2 Hazard Ranking Matrix .................................................................................3-9 Table 3.3: Hazard Rank Categorization ...................................................................... 3-10 Table 3.4: City of Paramount Hazard Ranking Summary ........................................... 3-11 Table 3.5: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale ................................................................ 3-15 Table 3.6 Southern California Historical Earthquakes................................................. 3-17 Table 3.7: San Andreas Fault Information .................................................................. 3-28 Table 3.8: Newport-Inglewood Fault Information ........................................................ 3-28 Table 3.9: Whittier-Fault Information .......................................................................... 3-29 Table 3.10: Elsinore Fault Information ........................................................................ 3-30 Table 3.11: Palos Verdes Fault Information................................................................ 3-30 Table 3.12: Mercalli Intensity and Corresponding Peak Group Acceleration ............... 3-33
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-2
Table 3.13: Southern California Historical Fires (2005-2020) ..................................... 3-42 Table 3.14: Types of Hazardous Material Incidents .................................................... 3-49 Table 3.15: ERNS Spills and Accidents in California in 2013...................................... 3-51 Table 3.16: EPA Regulated Facilities in Paramount ................................................... 3-53 Table 3.17: HUD Homelessness Classification........................................................... 3-56 Table 3.18: Homeless Population in Los Angeles County .......................................... 3-57 Table 3.19: Demographics of Paramount Homeless Population ................................. 3-62 Table 3.20: Economic Impacts of Loss of Electric Power ........................................... 3-66 Table 3.21: Historical Flooding Damage in Los Angeles County ................................ 3-73 Table 3:22: Dam Failure Events in California ............................................................. 3-78 Table 3.23: Historical Destructive Wind Damage in Los Angeles County ................... 3-86 Table 3.24: Traffic Fatalities in California (2014-2019) ............................................. 3-104 Table 3.25: Structural Replacement Values ............................................................. 3-108 Table 3.22: Loss of Function Values – Utilities & Lifelines ........................................ 3-109 Table 3.24: Asset Inventory ...................................................................................... 3-111 Table 3.25: Loss of Function .................................................................................... 3-115 Table 3.26: Loss Estimates / Vulnerability Assessment – Earthquake through Homelessness ....................................................................................... 3-117 Table 3.27: Loss Estimates / Vulnerability Assessment –Utility Loss through Destructive Winds .................................................................................................... 3-119 Table 3.28: Loss Estimates / Vulnerability Assessment –Utility Loss through Destructive Winds .................................................................................................... 3-121 Table 3.29: Loss Estimates Summary ...................................................................... 3-123
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-3
3.1 Risk Assessment The Risk Assessment is the foundation of the hazard mitigation planning process. As noted in FEMA’s “State and Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guide,” Risk Assessment is the process of measuring the potential impacts of hazards by estimating the existing vulnerability to the identified hazards. The Risk Assessment consists of four key steps: Hazard Identification, Hazard Profiling, Asset
STEP 1: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
Inventory, and Loss Estimates. This chapter includes the Hazard Identification and Hazard
STEP 2: HAZARD PROFILING
Profiling steps to evaluate the hazards of primary concern to local decision-makers to provide a basis for the Loss Estimates. Additionally, the Risk
STEP 3: ASSET INVENTORY
Assessment provides a basis for the evaluation of mitigation projects and measures that can help
STEP 4: LOSS ESTIMATE
reduce the impacts of a hazard when one occurs. Step 1: Identify Hazards This step identified all the natural and human-
USE RISK ASSESSMENT OUTPUTS TO PREPARE A HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
made hazards that might affect the City of Paramount (City) and then narrowed the list to the hazards that are most likely to occur. These hazards included natural, technical, and human-caused events, with an emphasis on the effect of natural disasters on critical facilities, services, and roadways (e.g., government buildings, schools, hospitals, and public services including police and fire). The Steering Committee participated in a Hazard Identification Workshop during the first Steering Committee Meeting to identify and rank the potential hazards within the City. Step 2: Profile Hazard Events The hazard event profiles consist of either a map indicating the area impacted by each hazard or key information regarding the characteristics of hazard events within the planning area. To develop detailed hazard profiles, relevant open-source natural hazard studies and mapping projects were reviewed and documented within this report. In addition, the City supplied natural hazard studies (e.g., microbursts, flood, etc.) that included specific hazard and emergency information. This planning step determined the natural hazard magnitude, frequency, and location characteristics (urban fire, fault locations, flood plains, etc.) that were used as the design-basis for the loss estimates. City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-4
Step 3: Inventory Assets The purpose of this step was to determine the quantity of buildings, people, and assets in the City that lie in the different hazard areas and what proportion of the City this represents. The asset inventory was completed using spatial Geographic information Systems (GIS) asset locations and specifications for the following assets: •
General Buildings: City Well Sites, Civic Buildings, Parks, etc.
•
Critical Facilities: Hospitals and Schools.
The development of the comprehensive inventory facilitated the development of loss estimates for all hazard scenarios. Step 4: Loss Estimates The loss estimate step relied on detailed information regarding the hazard probability and maps that were completed as part of the hazard profiles. This information was used to apply the hazard probabilities and recurrence intervals to the assets and inventory (buildings and infrastructure) of the City. This step was critical in determining which assets were subject to the greatest potential damages and which hazard event was likely to produce the greatest potential losses. The HAZUS-MH software package, which implements the FEMA-developed methodology and runs on a GIS platform, was used to map, and display earthquake hazard data, as well as the results of damage and economic loss estimates for buildings and infrastructure within the City. To estimate potential losses for the other hazards, detailed spreadsheets, including the asset inventory and potential hazards, were used to estimate the monetary impact of each hazard to the City. In estimating losses, HAZUS-MH and the spreadsheets take into account various impacts of a hazard event such as: •
Physical damage: damage to public buildings, schools, critical facilities, and infrastructure;
•
Economic loss: lost jobs, business interruptions, repair, and reconstruction costs; and
•
Social impacts: impacts to people, including requirements for shelters and medical aid.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-5
The conclusion of this step precipitated a comprehensive loss estimate (vulnerability assessment) for each identified hazard for each specific asset in terms of damages, economic loss, and the associated consequences for the City.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-6
3.2 Hazard Identification and Profiling §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type, location, and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events. §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in `paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment] must also address National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insured structures that have been repetitively damaged floods. §201.6(c)(2)(iii): For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction’s risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. The hazard identification and ranking were obtained from the hazard identification exercise which took place during the initial Steering Committee meeting. Each hazard profile includes a summary of the hazard identification exercise identified risk factors and overall rank for each hazard, in addition to the detailed hazard description, historical occurrences, and projected future probability, magnitude, and frequency. The hazard identification exercise was conducted during the first Steering Committee Meeting to identify the potential hazards within the City. Since this is an update to the City’s 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan, the original Plan was used as the starting point for discussing the hazards that can potentially affect the City. The Steering Committee also reviewed hazards discussed in FEMA’s “State and Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guide.” Chapter 1 and Appendix D include additional information (e.g., presentation, signin sheets, etc.) on the first Steering Committee Meeting. The hazard identification exercise was facilitated using an automated interactive spreadsheet program that asked specific questions on potential hazards and then ranked them accordingly. These questions guided the Committee in the correct facilitation and application of the program. Table 3.1 summarizes the hazard identification exercise risk factors, lists the descriptions of each factor, provides the specific descriptor choices for each risk factor and description, and their associated values used for ranking. It should be noted that the hazards were qualitatively ranked against each other, and the probability/frequency, consequence/severity, or vulnerability may not accurately reflect any actual hazard occurrence.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-7
Table 3.1: Risk Factors for Hazard Identification
Risk Factor
Probability/ Frequency
Description
Prediction of how often a hazard will occur in the future
Physical Damage - structures and lifelines Consequence/ Economic Impact – loss of Severity function for power, water, sanitation, roads, etc.
Vulnerability
Impact Area - area impacted by a hazard event Secondary Impacts Capability of triggering additional hazards Onset - Period of time between initial recognition of an approaching hazard and when the hazard begins to impact the community
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Descriptors
Value
Infeasible event - not applicable due to geographic location characteristics
0
Rare event - occurs less than once every 50 years
1
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive)
2
Regular event - occurs between once a year and once every 7 years
3
Frequent event - occurs more than once a year
4
No damage
1
Minor/slight damage to buildings and structures, no loss of lifelines
2
Moderate building damage, minor loss of lifelines (less than 12 hours)
3
Moderate building damage, lifeline loss (less than 24 hours)
4
Extensive building damage, widespread loss of lifelines (water, gas, electricity, sanitation, roads), loss of life
5
No physical damage, no secondary impacts
1
Localized damage area
2
Localized damage area, minor secondary impacts, delayed hazard onset
3
Moderate damage area, moderate secondary impacts, moderate warning time
4
Widespread damage area, significant secondary impacts, no warning time
5
3-8
Each profile includes a ranking of the hazard, ranging from low hazard to high hazard. The hazard rankings were determined by assigning each hazard the appropriate risk factors as described above. The risk factors were then used with a hazard ranking matrix to determine the final hazard score. Table 3.2 provides the matrix used for determining each hazard’s score. Table 3.2 Hazard Ranking Matrix Probability/Frequency Description
Rare Event: Occurs less than once every 50 years
Infrequent Event: Occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive)
Regular Event: Occurs between once a year and once every 7 years
Frequent Event: Occurs more than once a year
Hazard Ranking Matrix Probability/Frequency Value 1 1 2 Vulnerability 3 4 5 Probability/Frequency Value 2 1 2 Vulnerability 3 4 5 Probability/Frequency Value 3 1 2 Vulnerability 3 4 5 Probability/Frequency Value 4 1 2 Vulnerability 3 4 5
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Consequence/Severity 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 2 4 6 8 10 3 6 9 12 15 4 8 12 16 20 5 10 15 20 25 Consequence/Severity 1 2 3 4 5 2 4 6 8 10 4 8 12 16 20 6 12 18 24 30 8 16 24 32 40 10 20 30 40 50 Consequence/Severity 1 2 3 4 5 3 6 9 12 15 6 12 18 24 30 9 18 27 36 45 12 24 36 48 60 15 30 45 60 75 Consequence/Severity 1 2 3 4 5 4 8 12 16 20 8 16 24 32 40 12 24 36 48 60 16 32 48 64 80 20 40 60 80 100
3-9
The hazard scores from the Hazard Ranking Matrix were compared to the hazard rank criteria to finally categorize each hazard with a hazard ranking. Table 3.3 provides the value determinations for each hazard ranking. Table 3.3: Hazard Rank Categorization Hazard Ranking
Matrix Value
High Hazard
50 to 100
Moderately High Hazard
25 to 49
Moderate Hazard
15 to 24
Moderately Low Hazard
5 to 14
Low Hazard
1 to 4
3.2.1
Hazard Profiles
The following sections present additional information regarding the hazards of concern as hazard profiles. The hazard profiles are designed to assist communities in evaluating and comparing the hazards that can impact their community by comparing a number of hazard factors. Each type of hazard has unique characteristics, and the impact associated with a specific hazard can vary depending on the magnitude and location of each event. For the purposes of this report, a hazard event is a specific, uninterrupted occurrence of a particular type of hazard. Furthermore, the probability of occurrence of a hazard in a given location impacts the priority assigned to that hazard. Finally, each hazard will impact different communities in different ways, based on geography, local development, population distribution, age of buildings, and mitigation measures already implemented. Table 3.4 provides the hazard ranking summary for the City.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-10
Table 3.4: City of Paramount Hazard Ranking Summary Hazard Rank
Score
High Earthquake
50
Moderately High Adversarial Events
32
Moderate Hazardous Material Release
18
Urban Fire
18
Homelessness
18
Moderately Low Hazard Utility Loss
12
Pipeline Failure
9
Flood/Dam Failure
8
Destructive Winds
8
Drought
6
Disease Outbreak
6
Low Hazard Transportation Accident/Incident
3
Civil Unrest/Riots
2
3.3.1
Trends in Perceived Vulnerability
As illustrated above, the Steering Committee reviewed its perceived vulnerability to determine the potential impact of each hazard to the City. The Steering Committee began with the hazards identified in the 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan and used the lists as a springboard in determining current perceived vulnerability For example, the City redefined the Terrorism hazard as Adversarial Events to broaden the scope to include office/school violence. City staff are cognizant of the increasing frequency of adversarial events, although the City has never experience one. In response, the Steering Committee increased its perceived vulnerability to Adversarial Events. Secondly, the City included homelessness as an identified hazard. Continued reports of increased homelessness throughout Los Angeles County coupled with increasing hazards to those experiencing homeless and the surrounding community prompted the City to take action in identifying homelessness as a perceived hazard in order to take action to protect the community. City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-11
The 2020 Los Angeles County All-Hazards Mitigation Plan considered the potential for Tsunami and Wildfire, but these were deemed not to be applicable to the City due to a lack of proximity to the ocean and the lack of open “wild areas”. As a result, Tsunami was not included in the Plan and Wildfire was adapted to Urban Fire to be more in line with the City’s vulnerabilities
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-12
3.3 Earthquake Hazard Profile
Earthquake Risk Assessment Summary Risk Rank: High Probability/ Frequency:
Consequence/ Severity:
Vulnerability: Hazard Risk Rank Score:
3.3.1
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive) Extensive building damage, widespread loss of lifelines (water, gas, electricity, sanitation, roads), loss of life Widespread damage area, significant secondary impacts, no warning time 50
Earthquake Hazard Information and Background
Plate tectonics is a starting point for understanding the forces within the Earth that cause earthquakes. Plates are thick slabs of rock that make up the outermost 100 kilometers of the Earth. The term "tectonics" describes the deformation of the Earth's crust, the forces producing such deformation, and the geologic and structural features that result. The constant motion of the plates causes stress in the brittle upper crust of the Earth. These tectonic stresses build as the rocks are gradually deformed. The rock deformation, or strain, is stored in the rocks as elastic strain energy. When the strength of the rock is exceeded, rupture occurs along a fault. The rocks on opposite sides of the fault slide past each other as they spring back into a relaxed position. The strain
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-13
energy is released partly as heat and partly as elastic waves called seismic waves. The passage of these seismic waves produces the ground shaking in earthquakes. Faults are more likely to produce future earthquakes if they have rapid rates of movement, have had recent earthquakes along them, experience greater total displacements, and are aligned so that movement can relieve the accumulating tectonic stresses. Geologists classify faults by their relative hazards. “Active” faults, which represent the highest hazard, are those that have ruptured to the ground surface during the Holocene period (about the last 11,000 years). In contrast, “potentially active” faults are those that displaced layers of rock from the Quaternary period (the last 1,800,000 years). Determining if a fault is “active” or “potentially active” depends on geologic evidence, which may not be available for every fault. Shaking The amount of energy released during an earthquake is usually expressed as a magnitude and is measured directly from the earthquake as recorded on seismographs. An earthquake’s magnitude is expressed in whole numbers and decimals (e.g., 6.8). Seismologists have developed several magnitude scales. One of the first was the Richter Scale, developed in 1932 by the late Dr. Charles F. Richter of the California Institute of Technology. The most commonly used scale today is the Moment Magnitude (Mw) Scale. Moment magnitude is related to the total area of the fault that ruptured and the amount of offset (displacement) across the fault. It is a more uniform measure of the energy released during an earthquake. The other commonly used measure of earthquake severity is intensity. Intensity is an expression of the amount of shaking at any given location on the ground surface. In general, it decreases with distance from the source of an earthquake, but it may be increased or decreased by several factors. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale and Corresponding Richter Scale Magnitudes Shaking intensity is often described using the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, which rates an earthquake’s effects based on human observation. While an earthquake has only one magnitude it may have many intensity values, which will generally decrease with distance from the epicenter. Table 3.5 lists the Modified Mercalli Scale’s various intensity levels and corresponding Richter Scale magnitudes.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-14
Table 3.5: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale Mercalli Intensity
Description
Richter Scale Magnitude
I
Instrumental
Detected only by a seismograph
II
Feeble
Noticed by sensitive people
0.1 to 3.4
III
Slight
Like the vibrations due to a passing truck
3.5 to 4.2
IV
Moderate
Felt by people while walking; rocking of loose objects, including standing vehicles
V
Felt generally; most sleepers are awakened Rather Strong and bells ring
VI
Strong
4.3 to 4.8
Trees sway and all suspended objects swing; damage by over-turning and falling of loose objects
4.9 to 5.4
VII
Very Strong
General alarm; walls crack; plaster falls
VIII
Destructive
Car drivers seriously disturbed; masonry fissured; chimneys fall; poor constructed buildings damaged
5.5 to 6.1
IX
Ruinous
Some houses collapse where ground begins to crack, and pipes break
6.2 to 6.9
X
Disastrous
Ground cracks badly; many buildings destroyed, and railway lines bent; landslides on steep slopes
7.0 to 7.3
XI
Very disastrous
Few buildings remain standing; bridges destroyed; all services (railway, pipes, and cables) out of action; great landslides and floods
7.4 to 8.1
XII
Catastrophic
Total Destruction; objects thrown into air; ground rises and falls in waves
8.1 +
Amplification of Seismic Shaking Although seismic waves radiate from their source like ripples on a pond, the radiation is not uniform due to the complex nature of an earthquake rupture, the different paths the waves follow through the earth, and the different rock and soil layers near the earth’s surface. Large earthquakes begin to rupture at their hypocenter deep in the earth and the fault ruptures outward from that point. Because the speed of an earthquake rupture on a City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-15
fault is similar to the speed of seismic waves, waves closer to the epicenter can be compounded by waves from farther along the rupture, creating a pulse of very strong seismic waves that moves along the fault in the direction of the fault rupture. Seismic waves may also be modified as they travel through the earth’s crust. As seismic waves approach the ground surface, they commonly enter areas of loose soils where the waves travel more slowly. As the waves slow down, their amplitude increases, resulting in larger waves with frequencies that are more likely to damage structures. Waves can also be trapped within soft sediments between the ground surface and deep, hard basement rocks, their destructive energy multiplying as they bounce back and forth, producing much greater shaking at the ground surface. Ground Failure Fissuring, settlement, and permanent horizontal and vertical shifting of the ground often accompany large earthquakes. Although not as pervasive or as costly as the shaking itself, these ground failures can significantly increase damage and under certain circumstances can be the dominant cause of damage. Fault Rupture The sudden sliding of one part of the earth’s crust past another releases the vast store of elastic energy in the rocks as an earthquake. The resulting fracture is known as a fault, while the sliding movement of earth on either side of a fault is called fault rupture. Fault rupture begins below the ground surface at the earthquake hypocenter, typically between three and ten miles below the ground surface in California. If an earthquake is large enough, the fault rupture will actually travel all the way to the ground surface, severely damaging structures built across its path. Liquefaction In addition to the primary fault rupture that occurs right along a fault during an earthquake, the ground many miles away can also fail during the intense shaking. One common type of failure occurs when soft, water-saturated soil settles, causing the water to eject sediment particles as it works its way to the ground surface. This phenomenon, known as liquefaction, turns the soil into a fluid, causing it to lose the ability to support buildings and other structures. Areas susceptible to liquefaction include places where sandy sediments have been deposited by rivers along their course or by wave action along beaches.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-16
Landslides Landslides are the result of the down-slope movement of unstable hillside materials under the influence of weathering and gravity over time. Strength of rock and soil, steepness of slope, and weight of the hillside material all play an important role in the stability of hillside areas. Weathering and absorption of water can weaken slopes, while the added weight of saturated materials or overlying construction can increase the chances of slope failure. Sudden failure can be triggered by heavy rainfall, excavation of weak slopes, and earthquake shaking, among other factors. 3.4.2
Earthquake History
To indicate the potential for an earthquake event, Table 3.6 lists all significant recorded earthquakes in Southern California, and the associated magnitudes (excerpted from the Southern California Earthquake Data Center). Table 3.6 Southern California Historical Earthquakes
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4
Magnitude > 7.5
Magnitude
Year
Earthquake Name
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1922
Parkfield Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1923
North San Jacinto Fault Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1925
Santa Barbara Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4
1927
Lompoc Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1933
Long Beach Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1934
Parkfield Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1937
San Jacinto Fault ("Terwilliger Valley") Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4
1940
Imperial Valley Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1941
Santa Barbara Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1941
Torrance-Gardena Earthquakes
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4
1942
Fish Creek Mountains Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1946
Walker Pass Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4
1947
Manix Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1948
Desert Hot Springs Earthquake
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-17
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4
Magnitude > 7.5
Magnitude
Year
Earthquake Name
Magnitude > 7.5
1952
Kern County Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1952
Bakersfield Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1954
San Jacinto Fault Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1966
Parkfield Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4
1968
Borrego Mountain Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1970
Lytle Creek Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4
1971
San Fernando (Sylmar) Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1973
Point Mugu Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1975
Galway Lake Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1978
Santa Barbara Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1979
Malibu Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1979
Imperial Valley Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1980
White Wash Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1982
"Anza Gap" Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1986
North Palm Springs Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1986
Oceanside Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4
1987
Elmore Ranch/Superstition Hills Earthquakes
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1987
Whittier Narrows Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1988
Tejon Ranch Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1988
Upland Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1988
Pasadena Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1989
Malibu Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1989
Newport Beach Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1989
Montebello Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1990
Upland Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1991
Sierra Madre Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1992
Joshua Tree Earthquake
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-18
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4
Magnitude > 7.5
Magnitude
Year
Earthquake Name
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4
1992
Landers Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1992
Big Bear Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1992
Mojave (Garlock) Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1993
Wheeler Ridge Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4
1994
Northridge Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
1995
Ridgecrest Earthquakes
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1996
Coso Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1997
Calico Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1998
Coso Earthquakes
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1998
Crafton Hills (Redlands) Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1998
San Bernardino Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
1998
Whiskey Springs (Big Bear City) Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4
1999
Hector Mine Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
2001
Anza Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
2002
Laguna Salad Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4
2003
San Simeon Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
2005
Mettler Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
2008
Chino Hills Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
2009
Inglewood Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
2009
Baja California Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4
2010
Sierra El Mayor Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
2011
Calexico Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
2012
Brawley Earthquakes
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
2012
Westmoreland Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
2013
Isla Vista Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
2014
Brea Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
2016
Borrego Springs Earthquake
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-19
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4
Magnitude > 7.5
Magnitude
Year
Earthquake Name
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4
2019
Ridgecrest Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
2020
Searles Valley Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
2020
Lone Pine Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4
2020
South El Monte
Source. Southern California Earthquake Date Center
Southern California Historic Earthquakes One of the best indicators of earthquake potential is learning the earthquake history of the area. The following is a discussion on large earthquakes that affected the City and Southern California in general, which were also included in Table 3.6. 1857 Fort Tejon Earthquake On January 9, 1857, one of the greatest recorded earthquakes in the United States occurred. The Fort Tejon earthquake measured 7.9 on the Richter Scale and left a surface rupture scare of over 350 kilometers along the San Andreas Fault. Strong shaking was said to have lasted for over a minute, and water from the Los Angeles River was reportedly thrown out of its bed. Damage was not nearly as serious as it would be today since Southern California was sparsely populated at the time. Were the Fort Tejon earthquake to occur today, the damage would easily run into billions of dollars, and the loss of life would be substantial. The present-day communities of Wrightwood and Palmdale lie upon or near the 1857 rupture area. 1933 Long Beach Earthquake In 1933, the Long Beach 6.4 magnitude earthquake struck the Los Angeles Basin on March 10. The earthquake occurred on the Newport-Inglewood Fault, causing serious damage in Long Beach and other communities. The earthquake resulted in 120 deaths and over $50 million in property damage. Most of the damaged buildings were of unreinforced masonry. The following images of the damage were taken from the Southern California Earthquake Data Center website.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-20
1971 Sylmar Earthquake (San Fernando) On February 9, 1971, the Los Angeles basin shook for over one minute. There were 65 deaths and a financial cost of over $500 million. The earthquake resulted in a crack in the Van Norman Dam where an 80-square mile area had to be evacuated due to fear the dam would break. Numerous people were trapped in buildings and fires were started from natural gas line breaks. Two hospitals collapsed killing nine people. The Veterans Administration Hospital had seven deaths (photo left) and the Olive View Hospital had two deaths. Following this earthquake, the Alquist Hospital Seismic Act was passed. 1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake In
October
1987,
the
Whittier
Narrows
Earthquake struck the Los Angeles area with a 5.9 magnitude earthquake. This earthquake occurred on a fault system not previously known for seismic activity. There were 8 deaths and 200 injuries. The earthquake damage was estimated at $358 million.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-21
1994 Northridge Earthquake On
January
17,
1994,
the
Northridge
Earthquake 6.7 magnitude struck the Los Angeles area. There were 57 deaths and over 1,500 people were injured. The earthquake caused billions of dollars in damage and disrupted the lives of thousands of residents, schools,
and
businesses
in
Southern
California. For days afterward, thousands of homes and businesses were without electricity; tens of thousands had no gas; and nearly 50,000 had little or no water. Approximately 15,000 structures were moderately to severely damaged, which left thousands of people temporarily homeless. Over 66,500 buildings were inspected. Nearly 4,000 were severely damaged and over 11,000 were moderately damaged. Several collapsed bridges and overpasses created commuter havoc on the freeway system. Ground shaking caused extensive damage, but the earthquake triggered liquefaction and dozens of fires also caused additional severe damage. This extremely strong ground motion in large portions of the Los Angeles Basin resulted in record economic losses. However, the earthquake occurred early in the morning on a holiday. This circumstance considerably reduced the potential
effects.
Many
collapsed
buildings were unoccupied, and most businesses were not yet open. The direct and indirect economic losses ran into the tens of billions.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-22
2019 Ridgecrest Earthquakes The 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake event s began on July 4, 2019, with a magnitude 6.4 quake near the town of Ridgecrest. Then, at 6:32PM on July 6th, 2019, a 7.1 magnitude struck again east of the town. This quake moved along 30 miles of Garlock strike-slip fault line and was followed by 26,000 aftershocks over multiple days. The shaking was felt in Stockton, Las Vegas, and downtown Los Angeles; near the City. According to the United States Geological Survey, five people were injured, 50 homes were structurally damaged, and many more homes were damaged by fire from broken gas lines and power outages. Damages from the quake were estimated to exceed $100,000,000 USD. Even if the epicenter of a major earthquake is not located directly within the City, the aftershocks associated with that earthquake can cause significant damage. The hazards associated with aftershock earthquakes are the same as mainshock earthquakes and may cause significant damage and disruption. The primary difference between mainshock and aftershock earthquakes is aftershock earthquakes are categorized by the following two guidelines. First, it must occur within one rupture length of the mainshock rupture surface, or alternatively, within an "aftershock zone" based upon early aftershock activity and defined by seismologists. Second, it must occur within that designated area before the seismicity rate in that area returns to its "background", meaning pre-mainshock, level. Figure 3.1 from the Southern California Earthquake Data Center details the locations and magnitudes for historic Southern California earthquakes.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-23
Figure 3.1: Southern California Historic Earthquakes Map Southern California Earthquake Data Center at Caltech
3.3.3
Earthquake Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude
The Steering Committee ranked earthquake as the greatest threat to the City. The City does not have any seismic faults within its boundaries but is still in the vicinity of several known active and potentially active earthquake faults. As discussed below, many of these faults are known to be capable of a magnitude 6.0 or greater earthquake. A major earthquake occurring in or near the City may cause many casualties, extensive property damage, fires, and hazardous material spills, and other ensuing hazards. The effects could be aggravated by aftershocks and by the secondary effects of fire, hazardous material accidents, and possible failures of pipelines and waterways. As shown in previous earthquakes, the time of day could have a significant effect on the number of casualties and the damages incurred. Such an earthquake could exceed the response capabilities City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-24
of the City, requiring disaster relief and aide support from other local governments and organizations. Fault Zones There are many faults and fault zones throughout southern California. After reviewing maps of California and specifically the Southern California area, the research resulted in earthquakes that could impact the City. Faults that were reviewed include: the San Andreas, Newport-Inglewood, San Jacinto, El Modena, Cristianitos, El Modena, Norwalk, San Joaquin Hills, Peralta Uplift, Whittier-Elsinore, and Palos Verdes. These faults, all considered active, are capable of producing earthquakes in the 4.5 – 8+ range. This report focused on the four faults that could most seriously impact the area. 1. San Andreas Fault 2. Newport-Inglewood Fault 3. Whittier-Elsinore Fault 4. Palos Verdes Fault A major earthquake along any of these four faults could result in substantial casualties and damage resulting from collapsed buildings, damaged roads and bridges, fires, flooding, and other threats to life and property. There may still be unmapped earthquake faults throughout Southern California that could also affect the City. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 provide the local earthquake faults in Southern California and in the areas around the City. In addition, Tables 3.7 through 3.11 give fault-specific information form the Southern California Earthquake Data Center for local faults that could affect the City.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-25
Figure 3.2: City of Paramount Earthquake Fault Map
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-26
Figure 3.3: Southern California Earthquake Fault Map
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-27
The San Andreas Fault Table 3.7: San Andreas Fault Information Type of fault:
Right-lateral strike-slip
Length:
1200 km
Nearby Communities:
Parkfield, Frazier Park, Palmdale, Wrightwood, San Bernardino, Banning, Indio
Last Major Rupture:
January 9, 1857 (Mojave segment); April 18, 1906 (Northern segment)
Slip rate:
20-35 mm/yr.
Interval Between Major Ruptures:
Average of about 140 years on the Mojave segment; recurrence interval varies greatly from under 20 years (at Parkfield only) to over 300 years
Probable 6.8-8.0 Magnitudes: Source: Southern California Earthquake Data Center at Caltech This fault marks the boundary between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates and is capable of producing earthquakes in the magnitude 8+ range. It has been scientifically determined through a carbon dating process that a major earthquake on this fault has occurred approximately every 145 years plus or minus 20 years. The last major earthquake on the Mojave segment of the Fault occurred in 1857 (157 years ago as of 2014). The San Andreas Fault is considered one of the most active faults in the world today, and a major earthquake up to an 8.3 magnitude is expected to occur again within the next 20 years. The Fault traverses the Southern California region and is located approximately 70 miles east of the City. The ground shaking of an 8.3 magnitude earthquake on the Southern San Andreas Fault would result in serious damage in Southern California, including the City. The Newport-Inglewood Fault Table 3.8: Newport-Inglewood Fault Information Type of fault:
Right lateral; local reverse slip associated with fault steps
Length:
75 km
Nearby Communities:
Culver City, Inglewood, Gardena, Compton, Signal Hill, Long Beach, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa
Last Major Rupture
March 10, 1993, MW 6.4
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-28
Slip rate:
0.6 mm/yr.
Interval Between Major Ruptures:
Unknown
Probable 6.0-7.4 Magnitudes: Source: Southern California Earthquake Data Center at Caltech The Newport-Inglewood Fault is considered the second most active fault in California. It runs from the City of Inglewood through Huntington Beach and out into the Pacific Ocean in the Newport Beach area. This fault is capable of producing earthquakes in the range of 6.3 to 7.5 magnitude. The 6.5 magnitude, 1933 Long Beach earthquake occurred on the Newport-Inglewood fault causing 120 deaths and severe damage. Unreinforced masonry buildings collapsed leaving people trapped beneath the rubble. Earthquakes are to be considered a major threat to the City. When scientists refer to the San Andreas Fault, they often call it “The Big One.” In 1990, the Los Angeles Times newspaper did a series of articles on the Newport-Inglewood Fault and described it as “The Bigger One.” Both faults would cause considerable damage; however, a 7.5 magnitude Newport-Inglewood earthquake could be more severe to the City than an 8.3 on the San Andreas due to the fault’s proximity to the City. The cost estimates of damage are much greater for the Newport-Inglewood worst-case scenario than the San Andreas worst-case scenario. Whittier-Elsinore Fault Table 3.9: Whittier-Fault Information Type of fault:
Right-lateral strike-slip with some reverse slip
Length:
40 km
Nearby Communities:
Yorba Linda, Hacienda Heights, Whittier
Most Recent Surface Rupture
Holocene
Slip rate:
Between 2.5 and 3.0 mm/yr.
Interval Between Major Ruptures:
Unknown
Probable 6.0-7.2 Magnitudes: Source: Southern California Earthquake Data Center at Caltech The Whittier Fault runs along the Chino Hills range between Chino Hills and Whittier. Earthquakes with surface rupture on the Whittier Fault are estimated to have return City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-29
intervals for a M6.5 and M7.5 of 100 and 1,200 years, respectively. An unpublished paleoseismic investigation suggests that the Whittier segment has not moved for 2,000 years. Since the average interval between major characteristic (extreme) events on the Whittier segment is estimated to be on the order of 1,200 years, the fault is considered long overdue. The Whittier fault joins the Chino Fault near Prado Dam where they merge into the Elsinore Fault. Table 3.10: Elsinore Fault Information Type of fault:
Right-lateral strike-slip
Length:
180 km
Nearby Communities:
Temecula, Lake Elsinore, Julian
Last Major Rupture
May 15, 1910; Magnitude 6
Slip rate:
Roughly 4.0 mm/yr.
Interval Between Major Ruptures:
Roughly 250 years
Probable 6.5-7.5 Magnitudes: Source: Southern California Earthquake Data Center at Caltech The Elsinore Fault trends along the eastern base of the Santa Ana Mountains and is one of the largest in Southern California, and in historical times, has been one of the quietest. The main trace of the Elsinore Fault has only seen one historical event greater than magnitude 5.2, which was the M6.0 Elsinore Earthquake of 1910. At the northern end, the fault splays into several faults, creating the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone. A “characteristic” Magnitude M6.9 on the northwest segment of the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone has been estimated to have a return period of 450 years. This “characteristic” earthquake would be expected to cause ground movement on the order of 3 to 6 feet, with peak horizontal ground accelerations up to 1 g. Most structures built prior to 1997 were designed to withstand peak ground accelerations of up to 0.4 g, so a “characteristic” earthquake along this fault zone would have devastating consequences. Palos Verdes Fault Table 3.11: Palos Verdes Fault Information Type of fault:
Right-reverse
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-30
Length:
Roughly 80 km
Nearby Communities:
San Pedro, Palos Verdes Estates, Torrance, Redondo Beach
Most recent surface rupture:
Holocene offshore; Late Quaternary onshore;
Slip rate:
Between 0.1 and 3.0 mm/yr.
Interval between major ruptures:
Unknown
Probable 6.0 – 7.0 (or greater); fault geometries may allow only partial magnitudes: rupture at any one time. Source: Southern California Earthquake Data Center at Caltech The Palos Verdes Hills Fault is capable of a 6.0-7.0 magnitude earthquake. It has two main branches and continues southward as the Palos Verdes-Coronado Bank Fault Zone. This fault is located off the coast of Redondo Beach and Torrance and continues southward through the Palos Verdes peninsula and offshore, outside the San Pedro Bay. The issue of concern is the fault causing shaking and liquefaction within the City. Peak Ground Acceleration The Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) mapping represents peak horizontal acceleration of the ground on firm-rock conditions. The approach of representing peak horizontal ground acceleration on firm-rock is a common and widely used method of showing ground accelerations. The development of probabilistic acceleration maps is a result of three types of basic input parameters: 1) Attenuation of ground shaking with distance from the earthquake source; 2) Frequency of earthquakes within an area or region, termed recurrence; and 3) The character and extent of regions and faults that generate earthquakes. According to the following Peak Ground Acceleration Map, the City is located in an area that will experience a PGA ranging from 0.50 g to 0.70 g with 10% exceedance in 50 years (0.0021 annual probability).
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-31
Figure 3.4: City of Paramount Peak Ground Acceleration Map
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-32
According to Table 3.12 below (provided by the United States Geographic Survey), this PGA value is typically associated with a range of 4.9 to 5.4 magnitude earthquakes. Thus, there is a 0.21% annual possibility of a 4.9 to 5.4 magnitude earthquake affecting the City. Table 3.12: Mercalli Intensity and Corresponding Peak Group Acceleration Mercalli Intensity
Richter Intensity
Acceleration (%g)
Velocity (cm/s)
Perceived Shaking
Potential Damage
3.5
< 0.17
< 0.1
Not Felt
None
4.2 – 4.3
0.17 - 1.4
0.1 - 1.1
Weak
None
4.8
1.40 – 3.9
1.1 - 3.4
Light
None
4.9 – 5.4
3.9 - 9.2
3.4 - 8.1
Moderate
Very light
5.5 – 6.0
9.2 - 18
8.1 - 16
Strong
Light
6.1
18 - 34
16 - 31
Very Strong
Moderate
6.2
34 - 65
31 - 60
Severe
Moderate to Heavy
6.9
65 - 124
60 - 116
Violent
Heavy
> 124
> 116
Extreme
> 7.0
Very Heavy
Liquefaction Zone The term Liquefaction Zone represents areas where the underlying soil foundations may become fluidized and experience liquefaction during an earthquake. Liquefaction refers to a phenomenon where saturated sand and silt take on the characteristics of a liquid during the intense shaking of an earthquake. This can cause the soil to sink, spread, and possibly collapse under the weight of aboveground structures. This can cause underground pipes to float and possibly rupture, severe damage to electrical grids and utility poles, and worstcase scenario cause severe damage to buildings leading to a structural collapse. Figure 3.5 shows all the liquefaction zones in Los Angeles County.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-33
Figure 3.5: Liquefaction Zones in Los Angeles County The City has been impacted by earthquakes numerous times over the years. Typical of many locations in Southern California, seismic building standards have prevented these earthquakes from causing any severe damage within the City. However, as noted above, the potential for a large-scale earthquake is possible. Based on data the proximity of identifies fault lines and the information demonstrated in the PGA maps, it is clear the whole community are at risk to the impacts of an earthquake event. Given the frequency, and likelihood, of earthquake occurrences in the area coupled with the possibility of a large-scale scenario and community impacts, the City has ranked earthquakes as the hazard with highest vulnerability for the City.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-34
3.4 Adversarial Events Adversarial Events Risk Rank: Moderate Probability/ Frequency:
Consequence/ Severity:
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive) Moderate building damage, lifeline loss (less than 24 hours), severe injury or disability Moderate damage area, moderate
Vulnerability:
secondary impacts, moderate warning time
Hazard Risk Rank Score:
3.4.1
32
Adversarial Events Hazard Information and Background
An adversarial event is used to describe what has traditionally been referred to as terrorism. Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of a political or social objective. A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a type of weapon that can bring significant harm to a large number of people or structures. Examples of WMD include nuclear radiological, biological, or chemical agents. Aside from attacking local targets, terrorists might also use WMD to inflict harm on a large population. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has categorized two types of terrorism in the United States. International Terrorism involves terrorist activity committed by groups or individuals who are foreign-based and/or directed by countries or groups outside the United States, or whose activities transcend national boundaries.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-35
Domestic Terrorism involves groups or individuals whose terrorist activities are directed at elements of our government or population without foreign direction. Well-known international terrorist groups include Islamic Fundamentalist groups, such as the Al-Qaeda; European terrorists, including the Red Brigade in Italy, Spain’s ETA, and the Japanese Red Army; separatist groups, such as Sierra Luminoso, and the so-called “Shining Path” in Peru. Add to these a host of narco-terrorists, such as the Medellin and Cali drug cartels. In the United States, a number of animal rights activists; environmentalist groups; white supremacists, such as the League of Aryan nations; and groups including the Covenant, Sword and Arm of the Lord, New World Order, and skinheads have been responsible for acts of terrorism on US soil. Added to these are groups like the KKK, survivalists, such as the Freemen in Montana, anti-government or anti-authority violent extremists, and doomsday cults, such as David Koresh in Waco, Texas, and Jim Jones in Guyana. There are a number of methods a terrorist may use to carry out their objective, including attacks of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, explosive, and cyber nature. In addition,
terrorists
conduct
hijackings,
assassinations,
armed
assaults,
kidnappings/hostage taking, arson fires, sabotage of critical infrastructures such as utilities and transportation, and the dissemination of confidential or otherwise sensitive information for the planning of terrorist attacks. Chemical Chemical agents involve the use of chemical compounds to kill or seriously injure victims. There are numerous kinds of chemical weapons, and their effectiveness is determined by a number of factors, including age, purity, weather conditions, wind direction, and means of dissemination. Biological Biological agents include microbes, such as bacteria or viruses, and toxins derived from plants or animals that can cause illness or death. Illegal facilities that manufacture these substances are difficult to detect because they employ fermentation technology commonly used in the production of legitimate products such as antibiotics, vaccines, and consumables. Radiological and Nuclear Radiological or nuclear terrorism is the use of radioactive materials and/or nuclear explosives, as well as any terrorist actions against nuclear facilities by individuals or City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-36
groups, to inflict harm on a population and advance political or social objectives. Sources of radiological material include nuclear fuel cycle waste, medical and dental equipment, military weaponry, and machines used in private industry. Explosive The impact of a bombing depends largely on the type, size, and placement of the device used. Additionally, a WMD in combination with an explosive device expands the lethality, physical damage, and economic disruption. The use of an explosive device can also inflict significant disruption of society through destruction of critical infrastructure and widespread fear amongst the target population. Cyber Cyber terrorism is a premeditated, politically motivated attack against information, computer systems, computer programs, and data which result in violence against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents. Cyber terrorists can be domestic or international. Classification of being a cyber-terrorist depends on if the terrorist relies on cyber terrorism to further their cause or uses it in addition to conventional terrorism. Additional Terrorism Methods Additional terrorism methods include hijackings, kidnappings, and the taking of hostages; armed assaults and mass shootings; assassinations of public figures; sabotage of transportation systems and utility infrastructure; the dissemination of confidential information that would aid terrorist organizations when planning an attack; arson fires; and many other means of disrupting normal society or endangering lives and property. 3.4.2
Adversarial Events History
The United States has proven to be a high priority target for both domestic and international terrorists. Acts of terror have become increasingly alarming in their magnitude in recent years. Examples of this include the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and the attacks of September 11th, 2001, on the World Trade Center complex and the Pentagon. However, not all attacks are of this magnitude. The United States has also been subject to smaller scale attacks in the past such as the Boston Marathon Bombing in 2013 and the Pulse Night Club shooting in 2016. Specifically, the City has not been directly impacted by terrorism events in the past.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-37
3.4.3
Adversarial Events Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude
While the City has never fallen victim to a terrorist attack, the City recognizes the potential for a terrorism event to impact the City. Given current escalating terrorism trends, the threat of a terrorist event within the United States is a credible possibility and the City ranked the probability of terrorism accordingly during the Hazard Identification Workshop. Although Paramount does not have any hard targets within the City’s boundaries, the potential threat exists due to its proximity to the City and County of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Airport, and other identified targets. Additionally, the City completed a Security Vulnerability Assessment to comply with the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. The Security Vulnerability Assessment evaluated the City’s vulnerability to malevolent attacks, including terrorism and contamination, and developed recommendations to protect against the malevolent attacks. However, because of the security sensitive nature of the information, the terrorism risk assessment results are not repeated as part of the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-38
3.5 Urban Fire Hazard Profile
Urban Fire Risk Assessment Summary Risk Rank: Moderate Probability/
Regular event - occurs between once a
Frequency:
year and once every 7 years
Consequence/ Severity:
Vulnerability:
Moderate building damage, minor loss of lifelines (less than 12 hours), lost time injury but no disability Localized damage area
Hazard Risk Rank Score:
3.5.1
18
Urban Fire Hazard Information and Background
Fire is a rapid oxidation process that can lead to uncontrolled burning, exposing and possibly consuming structures. Fires often spread quickly and are usually signaled by dense smoke that may fill the area for miles around. Fires can be human caused through acts such as arson or can be caused by natural events such as lightning. Fires are typically classified according to the following categories: •
Urban fires are primarily those associated with structures and the activities in and around them.
•
Wildland fires occur in forests or other generally uninhabited areas and are fueled primarily by natural vegetation.
•
Urban Interface fires occur where development and forest interface, with both vegetation and structures providing fuel, and are sometimes referred to as urbanwildland interface fires.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-39
The following factors contribute significantly to aforementioned fire behavior: •
Slope/Topography: As slope increases, the rate of fire spread increases. South facing slopes are also subject to greater solar radiation, making them drier and thereby intensifying fire behavior.
•
Fuel: Weight and volume are the two methods of classifying fuel, with volume also referred to as fuel loading. Each fuel is assigned a burn index (the estimated amount of potential energy released during a fire), an estimate of the effort required to contain a fire, and an expected flame length.
•
Weather: Variations in weather conditions have a significant effect on the occurrence and behavior of fires.
Firestorms that occur during extreme weather (e.g., high temperatures, low humidity, and high winds) have high intensity making fire suppression virtually impossible. These events typically burn until the conditions change, or the fuel is exhausted. Even small fires can threaten lives, deplete resources, and destroy properties. It is also important to note that in addition to affecting people, fires may severely affect livestock and pets. Such events may require the emergency watering/feeding, shelter, evacuation, and even burying of animals. Fire Secondary Events The aftermath of a fire can be as disastrous if not more so than the fire. A particularly destructive fire burns away plants and trees that prevent erosion. If heavy rains occur after such a fire, landslides, ash flows, and flash floods can occur. This can result in property damage outside the immediate fire area, and can affect the water quality of streams, rivers, and lakes. Fire as a Secondary Event In addition to typical ignition sources for fires, earthquakes and floods have the potential to rupture buried gas lines, and high winds or accidents could cause overhead electric lines to break, creating ignition sources for fires. Catastrophic earthquakes could cause widespread urban fires, as multiple gas and electrical lines could be broken or disrupted. 3.5.2
Urban Fire History
Los Angeles County is well known as one of the world's great urban centers, but the county is also home to the 655,000-acre Angeles National Forest and a large portion of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreational Area. Thousands of homes are located in foothill City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-40
communities near these great natural areas, creating unique challenges for local fire agencies. This combination of abundant natural areas and densely populated urban areas has created several challenges and hazards in the past. 2018 Pico Rivera Apartment Fire Around 4 p.m. on February 22, 2018, a fire was reported an apartment building in the 9100 block of Burke Street. The fire, which started in the attic of the structure, quickly engulfed the
first
and
second
floors.
Fortunately, only 3 injuries were reported, but around 300 residents were displaced after more than 141 units were impacted by the fire; 45 of them with fire and smoke damage. More than 100 firefighters were dispatched to fight the flames while City officials worked with property owners to provide hotel vouchers for displaced residents. Due to the need for critical repairs, residents could not begin to return home for at least 3 to 5 days after the fire. Although specifics were not provided to the public, in the aftermath, the Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department stated that investigators believed a problem with the building’s plumbing caused the fire. Pico Rivera is less than 10 miles from the City. 2018 Wildfire Season The 2018 wildfire season in California was one of
the
deadliest
seasons
in
California’s
recorded history. There was a total of 8,527 reported fires during this period which burned more than 1,627,652 acres according to The Sacramento Bee. Notable fires included the Thomas Fire in Santa Barbara County which burned 281,893 acres and the Mendocino Complex Fire with burned more than 459,000 acres becoming the largest complex fire in California history. Estimated damages are more than $3 billion to clear debris and $11.8 billion to victims according to NBC News. As temperatures began to cool in late November and the fire subsides, the death toll was estimated at around 104 that year with more injured. 2017 Canyon Fire II City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-41
On the morning of October 9, 2017, a fastmoving brush fire was noted near the 91 freeways and Gypsum Canyon Road. By noon, the fire had scorched 800 acres and by 6:00AM the following day, the fire had spread to 7,500 acres damaging at least 24 structures and dozens of homes. By the time, the fire was fully contained on October 17, 2017, 9,217 acres had been burned, 25 structured has been destroyed, and 55 more were damaged. 16,570 people had to be evacuated from their homes in Anaheim, Orange, and the City. 2017-2018 Thomas Fire The Thomas Fire started December 4th, 2017, near Santa Paula and burned for three weeks raging across Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. The fire consumed over 280,000 acres before it was extinguished on January 12, 2018. 8,500 firefighters from all over the United States were deployed to fight the fire and over 1,063 structures, mostly houses, were destroyed before it was extinguished. The Thomas Fire was almost immediately followed by massive mudslides in Montecito, CA triggered by a combination of heavy rainfall and the charred landscape. On January 9th, 2018, massive flows of mud and debris traveling
at
20
miles
per
hour
demolished homes and businesses in the
area.
Over
400 homes were
damaged or destroyed, and 21 people were killed. Table 3.13 provides a selection of recent fires in Los Angeles County and is taken from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection historical fire archives.
Table 3.13: Southern California Historical Fires (2005-2020) Fire Name
Date
Description
Topanga Fire
9/28/2005
The Topanga Fire burned 24,175 acres in the Chatsworth area.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-42
Fire Name
Date
Description
Empire Fire
7/22/2006
The Empire Fire burned 1,094 acres on Catalina Island near the airport.
Quail Fire
8/13/2006
The Quail Fire burned 4,864 acres near the northbound Interstate 5 at Quail Lake Road in Gorman.
Cross Fire
8/28/2006
The Cross Fire burned 665 acres near Placerita Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road in Santa Clarita.
Pines Fire
9/19/2006
The Pines Fire burned 113 acres in the Angeles National Forest near the Angeles Forest Highway and Angeles Crest Highway Junction.
Island Fire
5/10/2007
The Island Fire burned 4,750 acres near Avalon on Catalina Island.
Gorman Fire
5/19/2007
The Gorman Fire burned 2,500 acres at the edge of Los Padres National Forest.
Canyon Fire
7/7/2007
The Canyon Fire burned 815 acres near Agua Dulce Canyon and 14 Freeway.
North Fire
9/2/2007
The North Fire burned 2,200 acres 6 miles southwest of Acton in the Angeles National Forest.
Ranch Fire
10/20/2007
The Ranch Fire burned 58,401 acres near Townsend Peak southwest of Templin Highway and Interstate 5.
Buckweed (Agua Dulce) 10/21/2007 Fire
The Buckweed (Agua Dulce) Fire burned 38,000 acres near Mint Canyon Road and Sierra Highway.
Canyon Fire
10/21/2007
The Canyon Fire burned 4,521 acres in the Malibu Canyon south of the Pacific Coast Highway.
Magic Fire
10/22/2007
The Magic Fire burned 2,824 acres near the Magic Mountain Parkway and The Old Road.
Corral Fire
11/24/2007
The Corral Fire burned 4,901 acres near Malibu Creek State Park.
Santa Fire
4/26/2008
The Santa Anita Fire burned 584 acres in the mountains above the cities of Sierra Madre and Arcadia in the Angeles National Forest.
5/13/2008
The Big Horn Fire burned 490 acres North of Mt. Baldy Village near Claremont.
Anita
Big Horn Fire
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-43
Fire Name
Date
Description
Sesnon Fire
10/13/2008
The Sesnon Fire burned 14,703 acres in the Porter Ranch Community, Twin Lakes, and Indian Hills area.
Marek Fire
10/28/2008
The Marek Fire burned 4,824 acres near the West Side Little Tujunga Canyon.
Sayre Fire
11/14/2008
The Sayre Fire burned 11,262 acres near Sylmar.
Osito Fire
7/15/2009
The Osito Fire burned 304 acres north of Castaic in the Angeles National Forest.
Morris Fire
8/25/2009
The Morris Fire burned 2,168 acres by San Gabriel Canyon near Morris Dam.
Station Fire
8/26/2009
The Station Fire burned 160,577 acres over 3 weeks by Highway 2, 1.5 miles north of USFS Angeles Crest Station.
PV Fire
8/27/2009
The PV Fire burned 235 acres near Rancho Palos Verdes.
Crown Fire
7/29/2010
The Crown Fire burned 14,000 acres over 6 days, north of Sierra Highway at Anthony Road, southwest of Palmdale.
Mint Fire
9/17/2011
The Mint Fire burned 634 acres near the Sierra Highway at Mint Canyon Road, north of Agua Dulce.
5 Mile Fire
7/6/2012
The 5 Mile Fire burned 525 acres off the I-5, north of Parker Road near Castaic.
Lake Fire
05/28/2013
The Lake Fire burned 712 acres off the southbound I-5 and Lake Hughes Road.
Magic Fire
6/10/2013
The Magic Fire burned 149 acres around Magic Mtn Parkway in Valencia.
Hunters Fire
6/2/2014
The Hunters Fire burned 677 acres near the southeast shore of Lake McClure.
Gulch Fire
9/10/2014
The Gulch Fire burned 1,375 acres east of Bella Vista.
Black Fire
9/13/2014
The Black Fire burned 403 acres north of Lake Mendocino.
Highway Fire
4/18/2015
The Highway Fire burned 1,049 acres near Prado Basin.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-44
Fire Name
Date
Description
Park Hill Fire
6/20/2015
The Park Hill Fire burned 1,791 acres east of Santa Margarita.
Swedes Fire
7/29/2015
The Swedes Fire burned 400 acres off Swedes Flat Road, 3 miles north of Bangor.
Thomas Fire
12/4/2017
The Thomas Fire burned 280,000 acres across Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties.
Rye Fire
12/5/2017
The Rye Fire burned 7,000 acres in Santa Clarita near Rye Canyon Loop.
Creek Fire
12/20/2017
The Creek Fire burned 15,619 acres 4 miles east of Sylmar.
Stone Fire
6/4/2018
The Stone Fire burned 1,352 acres near Anthony Road in Agua Dulce.
Woolsey Fire
11/8/2018
The Woolsey Fire burned 96,949 acres across many cities north of LA County.
Saddleridge Fire
10/10/2019
The Saddleridge Fire burned 7,500 acres off the 210 FWY near Yarnell Street
Tick Fire
10/24/2019
The Tick Fire burned 4,615 acres near Tick Canyon Road
Soledad Fire
7/5/2020
The Soledad Fire burned 1,300 acres near Soledad Canyon Road and the 14 Fwy
Lake Fire
8/12/2020
The Lake Fire burned 31,000 acres near Lake Hughes.
Bobcat Fire
9/6/2020
The Bobcat fire burned 115,796 acres in the central San Gabriel Mountains
Source: Major Incident Archive – Fire Department (lacounty.gov) (for fires after 2015)
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-45
3.5.3
Urban Fire Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude
Since the City consists of urban terrain with minimal open space, the expected type of fire is an urban fire. Additionally, the existence of several petroleum and hazardous materials facilities within the City also contribute to the fire threat. In addition, the Santa Ana winds typically occur during the fire season. These winds blow hot, dry air from the southern California deserts to the coasts, fueling regional wildfires and making fires much more difficult to contain. Urban fires often consume buildings with the potential to spread to adjoining buildings; however major urban fires are highly unlikely. Wildfires are a major environmental hazard that have historically cost California more than $800 million each year and contribute to "bad air days" throughout the state. Heat and smoke from fires can be more dangerous than the flames. Inhaling smoke can sear the lungs, and fire also produces poisonous gases that cause disorientation and drowsiness, eventually leading to asphyxiation. As a result, asphyxiation is the leading cause of fire deaths, exceeding burns by a three-to-one ratio. Figure 3.5 illustrates the fire threat to the City. As shown in the figure, the expected fire hazard is low.
Figure 3.5: Los Angeles County Fire Threat Map
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-46
Fires and Climate Change Increased usage of fossil fuels for transportation and electricity, along with increased deforestation has led to the overloading of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2). These heat trapping emissions act as a blanket and increase the overall atmospheric temperature, thus warming the planet. As summers get hotter and longer, the conditions for wildfires increase exponentially. Fires, including both wild and urban fires, in the U.S. have been on an increasing trend and the effects of climate change has shown to aggravate the frequency and duration of urban fires.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-47
3.6 Hazardous Material Release
Hazardous Material Release Risk Rank: Moderate Probability/ Frequency:
Consequence/ Severity:
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive) Moderate building damage, minor loss of lifelines (less than 12 hours), lost time injury but no disability Localized damage area, minor
Vulnerability:
secondary impacts, delayed hazard onset
Hazard Risk Rank Score:
3.6.1
18
Hazardous Material Release Hazard Information and Background
A Hazardous material is any substances that can pose a significant risk to the general population if released. These substances may be highly toxic, reactive, corrosive, flammable, radioactive or infectious. They are present in nearly every community in the United States, where they may be manufactured, used, stored, transported, or disposed. Because of their nearly ubiquitous presence, there are hundreds of hazardous material release events annually that contaminate air, soil, and groundwater resources, potentially triggering millions of dollars in clean-up costs, human and wildlife injuries, and occasionally cause human deaths. Accidents which result in chemical clouds or release of hazardous materials into public water or sewer systems may affect outlying neighborhoods or the community at large. Depending upon the scale of the release, large segments of the residential and the business populations may need to be evacuated quickly for extended periods of time. Effective emergency planning with regard to hazardous materials, therefore, requires the
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-48
concentrated efforts of the Fire and Police Departments as well as other public safety officials and private organizations, such as the Red Cross. Hazardous material releases may occur from any of the following: Table 3.14: Types of Hazardous Material Incidents
Fixed-Site
Includes all releases involving the production and manufacturing, handling, and storage of a hazardous product at a single facility as well as any releases that may occur at a designated hazardous waste disposal site.
Transportation
Includes all releases that occur while the product is in transit from one facility to another or enroute to be disposed of at a designated hazardous waste disposal site, of which the main concerns for the City are the 105, 710, 605, and 91 freeways.
Intentional Spills and Releases
Includes all criminal acts and acts of terrorism in which a hazardous material is used to intentionally cause injuries and/or fatalities, damage the environment and/or property, or advance a political or social agenda. Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction will be discussed in further detail in the Adversarial Events section of this document.
In response to concerns over the environmental and safety hazards posed by the storage and handling of toxic chemicals, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) in 1986. To reduce the likelihood of hazardous material releases, EPCRA established specific requirements on federal, state, and local governments, Indian tribes, and industry to plan for hazardous materials emergencies. EPCRA’s Community Right-to-Know provisions help increase the public's knowledge and access to information on chemicals at individual facilities, their uses, and releases into the environment. States and communities working with facilities can use the information to improve chemical safety and protect public health and the environment. Under EPCRA, hazardous materials must be reported to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), even if they do not result in human exposure. Hazardous material releases may include the following: •
Air emissions (e.g., pressure relief valves, smokestacks, broken pipes, water, or ground emissions with vapors)
•
Discharges into bodies of water (e.g., outflows to sewers, spills on land, water runoff, contaminated groundwater)
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-49
•
Discharges onto land
•
Solid waste disposals in onsite landfills
•
Transfer of wastewater to public sewage plants
•
Transfers of waste to offsite facilities for treatment or storage
In addition to human-caused events, natural hazards may cause the release of hazardous materials and complicate response activities. The impact of earthquakes may be particularly damaging to facilities due to loss of structural integrity or failure of containment facilities. The threat of any hazardous material event may be magnified due to restricted access, reduced fire suppression and spill containment, and even complete cut-off of emergency response personnel and equipment. In recognition of the dangers associated with keeping hazardous substances, the California State legislature has enacted several laws regulating the use and transport of identified hazardous materials. In particular, Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code requires all businesses using these materials to inform local government agencies of the materials and quantities stored on site. This disclosure enables emergency response agencies to respond quickly and appropriately to accidents involving dangerous substances. Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, and Title 19 of the California Code of Regulation, describes the requirements for chemical disclosure, business emergency plans, and community right to know programs. According to these state requirements, a business that uses or handles hazardous materials in amounts equal to or greater than 55 gallons, 500 pounds or 200 cubic feet at any one time must prepare a business emergency plan and chemical inventory. The inventory must be updated annually, and the business plan every two years. The chapter also has incorporated certain requirements from Federal Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III for chemicals designated as acutely hazardous. These regulations apply to industrial accidents, refinery explosions and incidences of high-volume releases. 3.6.2
Hazardous Material Release History
According to the Emergency Response Notifications System (ERNS), there were over 2,143 spills and accidents in California during 2013. As illustrated in Table 3.15 below, the majority of these incidents were caused by mobile vehicles, which represent a threat to the City due to multiple transportation routes that run in close proximity to the City.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-50
Table 3.15: ERNS Spills and Accidents in California in 2013 Type of Incident
Number of Incidents
Fixed site (e.g., incident at a building)
651
Continuous release
1
Storage tank, drilling platform, or pipeline
176
Unknown sheen on water
313
Mobile vehicle (plane, truck, train, ship, etc.)
1,002
Other or unknown
0
Total
2,143
2012 Richmond Refinery Fire On August 6, 2012, a piping segment at the number 4 Crude Unit at a Chevron refinery in Richmond, California, failed leading to a release of hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbon vapor cloud then ignited, resulting in a large, uncontrolled fire. The fire burned for several hours before being contained later that night. The picture below illustrates the smoke plume from the fire.
Photo taken from a Cal/OSHA presentation on 2/26/2014
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-51
According to the final investigation report completed by the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, over 15,000 residents surrounding the refinery sought medical treatment for respiratory irritation. The incident tied up many local emergency response agencies and shut down local service for the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Although the 2012 Richmond Refinery Fire did not impact the City, the incident illustrates the potential major impacts to residential areas that a release of this magnitude could have on the City. Altair Paramount/World Energy, previously known as the Paramount Petroleum, operated the Paramount Refinery within the City. The refinery is required to file a site-specific emergency response contingency and evacuation plan. The refinery has had several minor incidents in the past, and a major accident could endanger many of the residents around the facility.
3.6.3 Hazardous Materials Release Hazard Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude Hazardous material emergencies can occur during transportation and all major highways are susceptible to releases of toxic and flammable chemicals. While the City Paramount has taken measures to reduce the potential for hazardous materials events, the City is still surrounded by Interstates 105, 710, 605, and California State Route 91. Due to the volume of traffic and the nature of the materials transported, there is a risk of a hazardous material leak or spill within the City. The ongoing use, production, and transportation of hazardous materials in and through the City pose constant and real threats to the safety of the community. An accidental release of a hazardous substance into the environment has the potential to cause localized or widespread upset. Refineries are subject to multiple safety and environmental regulations, including the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP), the Environmental Protection Agency’s Risk Management Plan (EPA RMP), California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) Process Safety Management (PSM) Program, and the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPPC) Plans. The Paramount Refinery’s compliance with these and other regulatory programs is designed to decrease the probability of catastrophic failures. While there is currently no mechanism to assign a true probability of a fixed-site or transportation hazardous material emergency, it is important to consider a relatively high City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-52
likelihood of occurrence and conduct planning and training accordingly. This can be done by analyzing the previous chemical releases. Table 3.16 shows all EPA regulated facilities within Paramount and their respective quantity of hazardous materials released. It should be noted that this table is solely meant to provide insight into the facilities in Paramount and is not meant to be a risk assessment for each facility. Table 3.16: EPA Regulated Facilities in Paramount Facility Name Press Forge
Address 7700 Jackson St
Quantity Released
Chemicals
in 2020 (lbs)
Released
80,525
70.5% Nickel & 29.5% Chromium
Surface Treatment &
7517 Jefferson St
40,8560
Inspection Inc
93.5% Nitrate Compounds, 6.5% Nitric Acid
Altair Paramount
14700 Downey
(World Energy
Ave
2,421
86.5% Ammonia, 13.5%
Refinery)
Hydrocarbons
The Jankovic
14066 Garfield
Company
Ave
Aerocraft Heat
15701 Minnesota
Treating Company
Ave
270
100% Hydrocarbons
244
69.3% Nickel, 26.2% Chromium, 4.5% Cobalt
Carlton Forge Works
7743 Adams St
51
66.7% Nickel, 13.7% Chromium, 13.7% Cobalt, 5.9% Copper
7277 E. Rosecrans
7
100% Lead Compounds
Ace Clearwater
14105 Garfield
2
100% Lead
Enterprises
Ave
Weber Metals
16706 Garfield
Robertson’s Ready Mix Plant 23
Compounds 0
N/A
0
N/A
Ave R &S Processing Co
15712 Illinois Ave
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-53
It should be noted that each facility handles a variety of chemical and not all chemical releases are equal. Figure 3.6 provides an overview of these facilities’ location relative to the transportation corridors throughout the City, including Interstates 105, 710, 605 and the 91 freeway, which are considered major shipping and transportation routes. The circle size is used to represent quantity released.
Figure 3.6: City of Paramount Facilities and Transportation Routes Map
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-54
3.7 Homelessness
Homelessness Risk Rank: Moderate Probability/ Frequency:
Consequence/ Severity:
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive) Moderate building damage, minor loss of lifelines (less than 12 hours), lost time injury but no disability Localized damage area, minor
Vulnerability:
secondary impacts, delayed hazard onset
Hazard Risk Rank Score:
3.7.1
18
Homelessness Hazard Information and Background
According to the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) being homeless refers to an individual or family lacking a fixed, regular, or adequate nighttime residence. This includes individuals or families living in a hotel/motel, individuals living in a shelter, individuals fleeing domestic violence and having no other residence, and individuals who have changed residence two or more times in the preceding 60 days.
As of January 4th 2012, HUD classifies homelessness into four categories: Traditionally homelessness often referred to as literally homeless, Imminent Risk of Homelessness, Homeless Under other Federal Statutes, and Fleeing/Attempting to Flee Domestic Violence. Table 3.17 defines each of these categories.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-55
Table 3.17: HUD Homelessness Classification Category
Definition
Category 1: Literally
Individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, meaning: (i) Has a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not meant for human habitation; (ii) Is living in a publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including congregate shelters, transitional housing, and hotels and motels paid for by charitable organizations or by federal, state, and local government programs); or (iii) Is exiting an institution where (s)he has resided for 90 days or less and who resided in an emergency shelter or place not meant for human habitation immediately before entering that institution
Homeless
Category Imminent
2: Risk
Homelessness
Category 3: Homeless under other Federal Statutes
of
Individual or family who will imminently lose their primary nighttime residence, provided that: (i) Residence will be lost within 14 days of the date of application for homeless assistance; (ii) No subsequent residence has been identified; and (iii) The individual or family lacks the resources or support networks needed to obtain other permanent housing Unaccompanied youth under 25 years of age, or families with children and youth, who do not otherwise qualify as homeless under this definition, but who: (i) Are defined as homeless under the other listed federal statutes; (ii) Have not had a lease, ownership interest, or occupancy agreement in permanent housing during the 60 days prior to the homeless assistance application; (iii) Have experienced persistent instability as measured by two moves or more during in the preceding 60 days; and (iv) Can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period of time due to special needs or barriers
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-56
Category
Definition
Category 4: Fleeing/Attempting to
Any individual or family who: (i) Is fleeing, or is attempting to flee, domestic violence; (ii) Has no other residence; and (iii) Lacks the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing
Flee Domestic Violence
According to HUD, there are many reasons for which an individual may become homeless, with the most common being poverty, lack of affordable housing, employment discrimination, substance abuse or mental health challenges, LGBTQ kids who are rejected by family, domestic violence, lack of familial ties, and kids who age out of foster care. According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), the rise in homelessness is primarily a result of stagnant income, rising housing prices, lack of investment in mental health services, lack of tenant protections, and discriminatory land use. Additionally, they noted that mass incarceration has escalated the aforementioned factors. An estimated 60% of Los Angeles homeless population has cycled through the criminal justice system
3.7.2
Homelessness History
According to Security.org, seven out of the top ten cities with the largest rate of homelessness per capita are in California, and the top six are all in California. Los Angeles has the fourth highest per capita homelessness rate and the second largest homeless population behind New York City. As the City is part of Los Angeles County, it is very susceptible to homelessness. Table 3.18 shows the change in homelessness in Los Angeles County over past 4 years and is based on the yearly LAHSA homeless count. Table 3.18: Homeless Population in Los Angeles County 2018
2019
2020
57,794
52,765
58,936
66,436
9,036
8,343
9,543
13,012
111
107
114
85
2017 Los Angeles County Service (SPA) 6
Planning
Paramount
Area
Note: Homeless population is based on a yearly count that occurs on a single night in January, actual homeless population is estimated to be higher.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-57
Although the homeless population of Paramount decreased in 2020, the overall homeless population of SPA 6 increased by 36% and the homeless population of Los Angeles County increased by 13%. In order to truly understand the homeless population, it is necessary to understand the demographics and root cause of their homelessness. In Los Angeles County, 12% are underage, 32% are female, 20% are in a family unit, 17% are physically disabled, 38% are chronically homeless, 24% have substance abuse disorders, 22% suffer from serious mental illness, and 29% have experienced domestic violence. Accompanying the increase in homeless population is an increase in homeless encampments. Large homeless encampments such as those in Venice Beach, Skid Row, and Anaheim pose severe threats to public health due to the accumulation of waste, human excrement, and drug paraphernalia. Additionally, encampments often occur near vital public spaces such as beaches, parks, and riverbeds, which limits their accessibility and increases the probability of public exposure. 2018 Anaheim Encampment Public Health Hazard Neighboring Orange County is also facing an increase in homelessness leading many
to
seek
refuge
in
homeless
encampments. The largest encampment was the Anaheim encampment, a 1000person two-mile encampment near the Angel’s stadium and the Santa Ana River. The city deemed this encampment to be a public
health
hazard
due
to
the
accumulation of human waste, drug paraphernalia, and trash. Previous cleanup efforts found substantial human waste, 315 tons of trash, and 4,600 needles. This created a public health crisis, decreased public accessibility to the river trails, polluted the river, and disrupted routine maintenance on the flood channels. Because of this, the city of Anaheim decided to relocate residents of the encampment to shelters across Orange County. Crime Rate Among Homeless Population The rapid increase in homelessness has coincided with an even sharper increase in crimes involving homeless individuals. Figure 3.7 on the following page shows the increase in homelessness compared to the change in crimes involving homeless
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-58
individuals. All data is relative to data from 2015 and was provided by the LAPD as part of the LAPD Open Data Portal.
Figure 3.7: Crimes Involving Homeless Individuals This drastic increase in crime is amplified by the fact that a majority of crimes involving homelessness are violent crimes. Figure 3.8 on the following page compares the overall rate of violent crime to the rate of violent crime involving homeless individuals.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-59
Figure 3.8: Violent Crime Rate 3.8.3
Homelessness Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude
According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), the rise in homelessness is primarily a result of stagnant income, rising housing prices, lack of investment in mental health services, lack of tenant protections, and discriminatory land use. As the price of housing continues to increase and the economic downturn from the pandemic continues, it is expected that these issues may worsen. This relationship price of housing and homelessness can be seen in figure 3.9 on the following page.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-60
Figure 3.9: Relationship Between Homelessness and Housing Prices Although the rate of homelessness is increasing in Los Angeles County, Paramount has historically been less affected. According to a September 2020 Forbes article that mapped all reported homeless encampments from 2019 to 2020, not a single encampment was reported in or near Paramount, with the closest encampments being in North Wilmington and Watts. Figure 3.10 shows all homeless encampments near Paramount.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-61
Figure 3.10: Homeless Encampments in Los Angeles County Although no homeless encampments were reported in 2020, the City was made aware of a recent encampment. This encampment is located between the intersections of the 710 and the 105 freeways and the 710 freeway and Rosecrans Avenue. In order to better understand the history of encampments in Paramount, it is important to understand the makeup of the Paramount homeless population. Table 3.19: Demographics of Paramount Homeless Population Place of
2017
2018
2020
2019
Refuge Car
16
2
12
22
Van
25
7
18
18
RV or Camper
9
23
19
11
Tents
14
34
0
0
Makeshift Shelters
17
8
6
0
Street
30
33
59
33
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-62
From this data it is clear that a majority of the city’s homeless population resides in vehicles and there has been a sharp decrease in the number of people residing in makeshift shelters (encampments), possibly due to the “Plan to Prevent and Combat Homelessness” which was developed alongside the City of Bellflower and PATH, a nonprofit organization.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-63
3.8 Utility Loss Hazard Profile
Utility Loss Risk Assessment Summary Risk Rank: Moderately Low Probability/ Frequency:
Consequence/ Severity:
Vulnerability:
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive) Minor/slight damage to buildings and structures, no loss of lifelines, first aid injury and no disability Localized damage area
Hazard Risk Rank Score:
3.8.1
8
Utility Loss Hazard Information and Background
Utility loss includes losses of power, water, sewer, and other critical services. A power outage is the loss of the electricity supply to an area. In addition to natural hazards, power failure can result from a defect in a power station, damage to a power line or other part of the distribution system, a short circuit, or overloading of electricity mains. A power outage may be referred to as a blackout if power is lost completely, or as a brownout if some power supply is retained, but the voltage level is below the minimum level specified for the system, and a short circuit indicates a loss of power for a short amount of time (usually seconds). Some brownouts, called voltage reductions, are made intentionally to prevent a full power outage. The absence of electrical power at City facilities for extended periods can, in some areas, preclude water deliveries where pumping is necessary. This will result in a loss of water and sewer services to the local area. In and of itself, these short duration utility losses, typically do not generate large hazards that can dramatically impact the City. However, utility losses in conjunction with other hazards can make response efforts much more difficult. For example, since water is typically pumped from a source, a loss of water during City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-64
a fire will decrease the effectiveness of firefighting systems, or a sewer system failure in conjunction with a flood will result in increased localized flooding in residences and the streets. Since water and sewer systems usually require power sources for the pumps, adequate backup power should be available for critical systems in the event of a power failure. 3.8.2
Utility Loss History
California Energy Crisis The 2000-2001 California Electricity Crisis brought to light many critical issues surrounding the state’s power generation and distribution system, including its dependency on out-ofstate resources. Although California has implemented effective energy conservation programs, the state continues to experience both population growth and weather cycles that contribute to a heavy demand for power. The 2000 and 2001 blackouts occurred due to losses in transmission or generation and/or extremely severe temperatures that lead to heavy electric power consumption. 2011 Southwest Blackout In September of 2011, five separate power grids serving nearly 7 million people in southern California, western Arizona, and parts of Mexico went out in the span of 11 minutes. The power outage, termed the 2011 Southwest Blackout, was the largest power failure in California history and lasted over twelve hours. Affected metropolitan areas were crippled from the loss of traffic signals; as a result, trains stopped running and freeways experienced extreme congestion. Public gas stations were also unable to pump fuel, leaving many stranded vehicles. The power outage also caused several sewer pumping stations to fail, resulting in contaminated beaches and potentially unsafe water supplies. Restaurants and grocery stores also suffered large losses from spoiled food. 2020/2021 Rolling Blackouts During the summers of 2020 and 2021, historically high temperatures, a drought and wildfires compounded to cause rolling blackouts throughout California. Wildfires damaged infrastructure throughout northern California while triple digit temperatures led to a sharp increase in air conditioning and electricity usage. This increased stress on an already vulnerable power grid threatened to damage the electrical infrastructure. In response, electric companies began to implement rolling blackouts. Although severe infrastructure
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-65
and personnel damage was avoided, as climate change continues to increase daily temperatures, blackouts may become more common and more severe. 3.8.3
Utility Loss Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude
Currently, there is no mechanism to calculate the probability of utility losses, without evaluating the failure as a cascade effect from natural hazards (e.g., earthquakes). However, California has implemented numerous conservation measures to ensure an adequate power supply, and the City has worked with its water suppliers to ensure an adequate water supply. Additionally, in order to evaluate the damage inflicted by a power outage, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has assigned economic values to the loss of electric power. Table 3.16 summarizes the loss estimates per capita per day, excerpted from FEMA’s “What is a Benefit? Guidance on Benefit-Cost Analysis of Hazard Mitigation Projects.” Table 3.20: Economic Impacts of Loss of Electric Power Category Reduced regional economic activity1
Estimated Economic Impact $87
Impacts on Residential Customers •
Direct economic losses
$30 to $35
•
Disruption economic impact
$63 to 85
•
Total Best estimate
$101
Total economic impacts
$188
1 This value of reduced regional economic activity is based on national economic data. If desired, more
detailed estimates could be made for specific metropolitan areas using NAICS data in the economic census referenced above.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-66
3.9 Pipeline Failure Hazard Profile
Pipeline Failure Risk Assessment Summary Risk Rank: Moderately Low Probability/
Rare event - occurs less than once
Frequency:
every 50 years
Consequence/ Severity:
Moderate building damage, minor loss of lifelines (less than 12 hours), lost time injury but no disability Localized damage area, minor
Vulnerability:
secondary impacts, delayed hazard onset
Hazard Risk Rank Score:
3.9.1
9
Pipeline Failure Hazard Information and Background
Pipeline transport is an economic method for transporting large quantities of oil or natural gas over land. Where possible, pipelines are built above the surface; however, in more developed, urban, or environmentally sensitive areas they are buried underground. The oil and natural gas infrastructure is utilized to provide resources for national defense, heating and cooling homes, generating power for business, and providing fuel. Oil and/or gas underground pipelines are present in the City. Government regulations require that buried fuel pipelines must be protected from corrosion. Typically, corrosion control is by use of pipeline coating in conjunction with cathodic protection. Natural gas can explode when mixed with air in certain concentrations and ignited by a spark or flame creating major hazards when pipelines fail. The National Transportation Safety Board has documented cases where natural gas from ruptured pipelines resulted in flash fires and explosions, causing fatalities and property damage.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-67
3.9.2
Pipeline Failure History
Compared to other methods of fuel transportation, pipelines are considered the safest means to transport vast quantities of petroleum and natural gas (compared to rail or truck). However, failure incidents regularly occur, causing substantial losses to property and life. According to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, there has been an annual average of 287.5 significant pipeline failure incidents for the past twenty years. These events have resulted in a total of 256 deaths, 1,142 injuries, and over $10,728,930,041 in property damage. Pipeline failures are caused by a variety of factors. The most common cause is corrosion of the pipeline. Corrosion weakens the structural integrity of the pipeline and makes it more susceptible to rupture and failure. Accidental rupture at a construction site from excavation is another common failure cause. Many natural gas and oil pipelines are buried underground, becoming a potential hazard for excavation projects. Other sources of failure include natural forces such as earthquakes, equipment failure and operations failure, materials failures, including defects and fatigue, and weld failures, as occurred in the wellknown 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion. No pipeline failures have occurred within the City; however, the prevalence of hazardous and flammable gas and liquid distribution pipelines throughout the City gives the potential for a future event. 2010 San Bruno Pipeline Explosion On September 9, 2010, a 30-inch steel natural gas transmission pipeline owned by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) ruptured in a residential neighborhood in San Bruno, California. The rupture released approximately 47.6 million standard cubic feet of natural gas. The released gas then ignited, resulting in an explosion and fire that killed 8, injured 60, and forced the evacuation of many more people. The fire also caused substantial property damage, destroying 38 homes, and damaging 70 homes. The rupture created a crater 72 feet long by 26 feet wide in the middle of the street. The ruptured pipe segment was 28 feet long, weighed approximately 3,000 pounds, and was found 100 feet from the crater.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-68
An investigation was immediately conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). A review of PG&E records revealed that the pipeline had been labeled in PG&E drawings as seamless API 5L Grade X42 pipe. However, upon examination of the ruptured pipe segment, the NTSB found that it was actually constructed of smaller segments of pipe of unknown origin welded together. The NTSB concluded that the poorly welded pipe section had a visible seam weld flaw that grew over time. As a result, the pipe was not as strong as the listed API 5L Grade X42 steel pipe and ruptured under increased pressure during electrical maintenance at the Milpitas Terminal. 3.9.3
Pipeline Failure Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude
Although there are various generalized pipeline failure probabilities, failure is dependent upon specific pipeline construction material, joint type, soil, diameter, length, etc., the existence of natural gas and liquid pipelines within the City indicates the potential for a pipeline failure incident. Some of the most common sources of pipeline incidents occurs from corrosion construction equipment rupturing or penetrating buried lines. Maintaining pipeline integrity (including replacing corroded pipelines), maintaining accurate piping maps, and ensuring adequate personnel training for construction and excavation in pipeline areas are important to prevent the occurrence of significant pipeline failures.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-69
3.10 Flood and Dam Failure Hazard Profile Flood Risk Assessment Summary Risk Rank: Moderately Low Probability/ Frequency:
Consequence/ Severity:
Vulnerability:
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive) Minor/slight damage to buildings and structures, no loss of lifelines, first aid injury and no disability Localized damage area
Hazard Risk Rank Score:
8
3.10.1 Flood Hazard Information and Background Historically, a flood is the most common type of disaster, either natural or human-made. Land along rivers, lakes, and coastlines are particularly susceptible to flooding. The primary responsibility of the local governments during widespread flooding is to protect public safety. Secondary is protection of the environment, followed by property such as highways, streets, bridges, and structure protection. The types and causes off flooding that can occur within the City are the result of: •
Heavy rains
•
Flood control channel overflow
•
Wastewater flooding within residences as a result of lift station failures
•
Coastal, tropical, and/or hurricane storms
•
Accidents such as reservoir leaks and water main breaks
•
High water table
What are Floods?
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-70
A flood occurs any time a body of water rises to cover what is usually dry land. Floods have many causes, including heavy rains, spring snowmelt, coastal storms, and dam or levee failure. When flooding occurs, affected areas may sustain damage to structures and personal property, as well as severe damage to the environment in the form of soil erosion and deforestation and damage to utilities and transportation systems. Floods can take several hours to days to develop; the following flood characterization designates the amount of time for response: •
Flood Watch – a flood is possible in the area.
•
Flood Warning – flooding is already occurring or will occur soon in the area.
•
Flash Flood Watch – a flash flood is possible in the area. Seek immediate shelter or higher ground.
•
Flash Flood Warning – flooding is already occurring or will occur soon in the area. Flash floods can occur without warning, during heavy rain in mountainous regions ensure that precautions and flash flood warnings are adhered to.
Despite its generally dry conditions, the City experiences periodic winter storms and thunderstorms that can result in flash floods. Under storm conditions, the region’s stream systems pose a potential threat. Alluvial Fan Flooding Alluvial fan flooding occurs in the steep arid or semiarid mountains found throughout California. Alluvial fans are fan-shaped deposits of eroded rock and soil carried out of mountains and into valley floors by landslides, mudslides, mudflows, and surface runoff. At the beginning of the valley, alluvial fans are steep and narrow with boulders and other course material. The deposited material becomes increasingly fine as the gradient decreases and the material, mainly gravels, sand and mud, spreads. When rain falls, runoff from the canyon walls flows as a high-velocity sheet that channels into rivulets, and then to natural drainage courses. The rapidly moving water often carries large boulders and other material from the watershed depositing them into runoff channels, blocking the flow of water. Floodwater then spills out onto the fan, with each event finding a new channel that soon fills up with deposits and overflows. Flooding in alluvial fans often can cause greater damage than clear-water flooding. City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-71
Flash Flooding A flash flood is a rapid flooding of low-lying areas, rivers and streams that is caused by the intense rainfall associated with a thunderstorm, or multiple thunderstorms. Flash floods also occur when human-made structure, such as a dam, collapses. Flash flooding occurs when the ground under a storm becomes saturated with water so quickly that it cannot be absorbed. The runoff collects in low-lying areas and flows rapidly downhill. As a result, anything in its path is suddenly in rising water. A typical flash flood begins with a slowmoving thunderstorm. This usually takes longer to move out of the affected areas and causes the area to endure a greater amount of rainfall for a longer period of time. In addition, a thunderstorm may pass over an affected area repeatedly, dumping even more rainfall. The heavy rainfall associated with these storm systems contributes to urban flooding in a number of ways. Primarily, heavy rainfall will often overwhelm the capacity of the conventional drainage system made up of storm drains, catch basins, sewers, and additional natural mechanisms for storm-water management. These systems typically cannot handle more than one or two inches of rainfall per hour before they begin to backup and overflow. This amount is further diminished if the storm drains, and other components of the storm-water management system, have not been adequately maintained, are clogged with debris such as trash or natural waste, or are old and in a state of disrepair. Heavy rainfall, combined with storm-water runoff, can cause local waterways to rise and overflow their banks. 3.10.2 Flood History A flood event in Los Angeles County can range from a few isolated areas where a number of streets are flooded preventing temporary access to homes and businesses, to numerous homes inundated with several feet of water causing millions of dollars of damage. Floods in the Paramount area can cause extensive damage to residential and business properties, parks and recreational facilities, road and highway infrastructure, and critical utility facilities. To indicate the potential for a flooding event, Table 3.17 below, taken from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, lists an excerpt of large-scale flooding events that have resulted in damage within Los Angeles County.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-72
Table 3.21: Historical Flooding Damage in Los Angeles County Date
Injuries
Fatalities
Property Damage ($)
Crop Damage ($)
2/17/1994
1
0
0
0
2/20/1994
0
0
50,000
0
1/04/1995
0
1
50,000,000
0
1/10/1995
0
0
500,000
0
2/07/1998
0
3
0
0
10/20/2004
0
1
0
0
1/09/2005
0
1
0
0
1/11/2005
0
0
2,000,000
0
2/20/2005
0
0
1,000,000
0
12/21/2005
1
0
0
0
9/22/2007
0
0
300,000
0
11/26/2008
0
0
10,000
0
1/19/2010
0
0
0
3,000,000
10/11/2012
0
0
0
0
2/28/2014
0
0
0
0
Historical Flooding Events Los Angeles County Flood of 1938 According to the Suburban Emergency Management Project, the Los Angeles County Flood of 1938 was caused by two oceanic storms that swept through the Los Angeles Basin to the San Gabriel Mountains in late February and early March of 1938. Rainfall from the two storms totaled nearly 9.5 inches over a three-day period, resulting in a large natural disaster. The flood was responsible for destroying 5,601 homes, damaging another 1,500, and killing nearly 110 people. The Los Angeles River reached a maximum flood rate of 130,000 cubic feet per second. As a result, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers channelized the local rivers and built more flood control dams. City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-73
The above photographs are courtesy of California State University Northridge. The photograph on the left illustrates flooding of the Los Angeles River along Victory Blvd. The photograph on the right illustrates the levee failures along the Los Angeles River. Periodic Flooding In early 1995, heavy winter rains caused local flooding events in Los Angeles County near the City. Public Works crews worked around the clock to barricade flooded streets, clear fallen trees, open blocked storm drains, and restore power to traffic signals. Many sandbags were dispensed to residents to provide additional flooding protection. Besides natural disasters, other factors such as dam failure may also cause flooding.
3.10.3
Dam Failure Hazard Information and Background
A dam is a barrier preventing the flow of water or loose solid materials (such as soil or snow) or a barrier built across a watercourse for impounding water. Dams are artificial barriers, which are 25 feet or more in height or have an impounding capacity of 50 acrefeet or more. Advantages of Dams Dams are important because they provide water for drinking, for industry, irrigation, fishing and recreation, water for hydroelectric power production, water for navigation in rivers, and other needs. Dams also protect people by reducing or preventing floods. Causes of Dam Failure Dam failures can result from a number of natural or human-made causes such as earthquakes, erosion of the face or foundation and improper sitting of the dam, rapidly City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-74
rising floodwaters, and structural/design flaws. Dam failure can result in severe flood events to lower-lying areas. Impacts of Dam Failure A dam failure will cause loss of life, damage to property, and other ensuing hazards, as well as the displacement of persons residing in the inundation path. Damage to electric generating facilities and transmission lines could also impact life support systems in communities outside the immediate hazard areas. A catastrophic dam failure, depending on the size of the dam and the population downstream, could exceed the response capability of local communities especially overtaxing the public safety personnel and resources. Types of Dams There are four general types of dams: Arch, Buttress, Gravity, and Embankment. Each of these types of dams has different failure characteristics. Arch Dams Arch dams are best suited to narrow canyons where they divert the force of the water behind the dam to the sides of the canyon in order to help support the weight. Therefore, arch dams need not be as thick as gravity dams since the dam itself supports less weight making them less expensive to construct. Arch dams may carry less weight than other dams; however, they are affected by the same kinds of force. These forces include pressure of the water, weight of the water, and weight of the dam. Buttress Dams Buttress dams can also be called Ambursen dams after the American engineer who used this type of dam in the early 20th century. Originally, buttress dams were used in areas requiring irrigation, but where the land was not capable of supporting the size and weight of other types of dams. Generally, buttress dams are built in wide valleys. The name "buttress" dam comes from the structure of the dam itself. The dam is supported at intervals by several buttresses, concrete slabs reinforced with steel, which form a watertight seal against the river. There are two main types of buttress dams: flat slab and multiple arches. Gravity Dams Gravity dams serve the same purposes as arch and buttress dams; however, they differ in structure and method of retaining water. This type of dam is solid and triangular in City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-75
shape; therefore, it requires a large amount of concrete or other construction material. The immense weight of the concrete provides stabilization and allows the dam to maintain control of the water. Embankment Dams Embankment dams in the US prior to 1930 had a poor track record. Of those over 490 feet high, almost 10% failed, usually due to overtopping in a flood. Overtopping is when the water level in the reservoir reaches maximum height and begins to flow over the top of the dam. The South Fork dam in Johnstown, PA was one of the first to use rockfills, or loose rocks, on the downstream face. This dam failed after being overtopped in 1889, killing over 2,000 people.
Embankment dams are massive dams made of earth or rock. Embankment dams usually have some sort of waterproof interior (called the core), which is covered with earth or rock fill. Grass may even be grown on the earth fill. Water will seep in through the earth or rock fill but should not seep into the core. They rely on the weight to resist the flow of water, similar to concrete gravity dams. The embankment dam is the only dam type that is not made of concrete. Embankment dams may be made of earth or rock, both of which are pervious to water that is, water can get into it. As seen in the figure below, the water seeps into the core material and should stop at the seepage line. The core material is usually more watertight than the rock or earth that is on the outside of the dam, but the core material is still not totally impervious to water.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-76
The diagram shown to the right is
an
example
of
an
embankment configuration. It could be any combination of earth, rock, and core material in
any
number
of
arrangements.
3.10.4
Dam Failure History
The City has never been impacted by a dam failure. There has been a total of 45 dam failures in California. Failures have occurred for a variety of reasons; the most common failure being overtopping. Other dams have failed due to specific shortcomings in the dam itself or an inadequate assessment of the surrounding geomorphologic characteristics. The first notable dam failure occurred in 1883 in Sierra County, while the most recent failure occurred in 1965. The most catastrophic dam failure was William Mulholland’s infamous St. Francis Dam, which failed in 1928 and resulted in at least 431 fatalities. Because of this failure and widespread public exposure to the potential risks associated with the approximately 1500 water storage dams in California, in 1929 the State Legislature enacted legislation providing for supervision over non-federal dams in the State. Before the enactment of this legislation, either the State Engineer or the State Railroad Commission exercised State supervision over dams. This supervision was limited in scope and extended to less than half of the dams in the State. The statute enacted in 1929 provided for: •
examination and approval or repair of dams completed prior to the effective date of the statute, August 14, 1929;
•
approval of plans and specifications, and supervision of construction of new dams, and of the enlargement, alteration, repair, or removal of existing dams; and
•
supervision over maintenance and operation of all dams of jurisdictional size.
Overall, there have been at least 460 deaths from dam failures in California, as outlined in Table 3.19.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-77
Table 3:22: Dam Failure Events in California Year Failed
Dam
Location
Cause of Failure/Deaths
1883
English
Sierra County
Dam Crumbles to foundations, decay of timber used
1892
Long Valley Creek
San Jacinto
Heavy rains, dam carried away by flood
1895
The Angels
Calaveras County
Undetermined during flood, poor foundation/ 1 death reported
1896
Vernon Heights
Oakland
Shallow foundation
1898
Snake Ravine
Stanislaus County
Poor compaction
1905
Piedmont No.1
Oakland
Outlet pipe sheared off at core wall
1906
San Andreas
San County
1912
Morena
San Diego
Overtopping
1916
Lower Otay
San Diego
Leakage and overtopping due to inadequate spillway
1918
Lake Hodges
San Diego
Cracks in pier
1963
Baldwin Hills
Los Angeles
Leak through embankment turned into washout/ 3 Deaths
1964
Hell Hole
Rubicon River
Failed during construction due to unprecedented rains
Mateo
Crack along axis
Bad foundation and concrete disintegrating Note: Information was taken from UC Davis Civil & Environmental Engineering: http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lund/dams/dam_history_page/failures.htm 1965
Matilija
Ventura
Although no significant dam failure has occurred in California within the last half century, California contains several high-hazard dams that could pose a risk in the future. As a whole, the U.S. dam infrastructure received a D by the American Society of Civil Engineers and several near misses have shown how vulnerable the aging dams are. The Oroville Dam Crisis. Built in 1968, the Oroville dam is the tallest dam in the country and forms Lake Oroville, the second largest reservoir in California. The dam and its corresponding hydroelectric power plant provide water and electricity to much of Sacramento and the surrounding area. The dam had been regarded as a marvel of modern engineering, however during the 2000’s several notable environmental and civil engineering groups, including City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-78
American Rivers, raised concerns regarding the dam’s emergency spillway and its foundation. These concerns were largely ignored until February 2017. On February 7th, after a period of heavy rain, a large crater appeared in the main spillway causing it fail and blocking the release of water leading to an increase in reservoir level. This caused 188,000 people in the surrounding Butte and Sacramento counties to be evacuated. As the heavy rain continued for several days, the emergency spillway had to be used on February 11th. It quickly became clear that the emergency spillway would not withstand this event. The hillside eroded causing large chunks of the concrete spillway and sediment to be washed into the feather river.
Photo taken from American Rivers, 2020. The environmental and economic damage caused to the surrounding communities is impossible to measure, however, in total, the repairs alone cost the State over $1 billion. This failure threatened the lives of thousands and put at risk the electrical and water infrastructure of Northern California. 3.10.5 Flood Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude Portions of the City are prone to urban flooding, also sometimes referred to as ponding, due to debris accumulation on storm drains and aged drainage systems. Low-lying areas of the City such as the All-American Park and the western boundary of the City are particularly susceptible to flooding during heavy rains. Figures 3.7 and 3.8 on the following pages provide FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the City, as well as Southern California. According to the maps, the majority of City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-79
the City is located in 100-year flood plains. The 100- and 500-year recurrence intervals indicate a 0.01 and 0.002 annual probability of a flooding event, respectively.
Figure 3.11: City of Paramount FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-80
Figure 3.12: City of Paramount FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-81
3.10.6 Dam Failure Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude There are two major dams that could potentially affect the City in the event of a dam failure: Whittier Narrows and Hansen Dams. The Whittier Narrows Dam is on the San Gabriel River at the southern end of the San Gabriel Valley. The Hansen Dam is located on the northern edge of the San Fernando Valley. In 2016, the Army Corps of Engineers deemed the 62-year-old Whittier Narrows Dam to be one of 13 high hazard dams in the country and increased its risk of failure to “very high urgency”. They determined that the risk of dam failure due to erosion had been understated and therefore routine maintenance was insufficient. Without significant improvements and routine maintenance, erosion damage is likely to cause dam failure leading to flooding that can potentially affect over one million Southern California residents. Because of this, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began the Whittier Narrows Dam Project in 2019 with the goal to begin repairs in late 2022 and finish by late 2026. However, the project construction has not yet been funded. If the dam were to fail as is, the City would be in the direct path and would incur significant damages and loss of lives. Figure 13 shows the maximum flood depth for the case of the Whittier Narrows Dam failing.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-82
Figure 3.13: Maximum Flood Depth for Whittier Narrows Dam Failure
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-83
3.11 Destructive Winds Hazard Profile
Destructive Winds Risk Assessment Summary Risk Rank: Moderately Low Probability/ Frequency:
Consequence/ Severity:
Vulnerability:
Infrequent event – occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive) Minor/slight damage to buildings and structures, no loss of lifelines, first aid injury and no disability Localized damage area
Hazard Risk Rank Score:
8
3.11.1 Destructive Winds Hazard Information and Background Wind can be described as the flow of air caused by a difference in air pressure within the Earth’s atmosphere. Differences in atmospheric pressure cause air to move from high pressure areas to lower. The greater the difference between the two pressure areas, the greater the speed at which the air moves from one pressure area to the other. Strong winds have been known to cause minor property damage and in extreme cases destroy large structures in its path. The Beaufort Scale is widely used to describe wind speeds based on observed ocean conditions. Since its most recent modification in the 1940s, the scale utilizes a seventeenlevel system ranging from no air flow to winds that exceed 140 miles per hour (mph; 120 knots) and describe wind speeds in empirical terms. According to this scale, air speeds during a windstorm usually fall between 65 mph (56 knots) and 72 mph (63 knots). Winds of this speed and greater have been known to cause tornado-like property damage and could inhibit utility, telecommunications, and transportation systems in and around the City.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-84
Santa Ana Winds The Santa Ana Winds are a seasonal phenomenon in Southern California occurring between October and March. As stated by Professor Robert Fovell of the UCLA Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, the Santa Ana winds are winds originating from high pressure systems in the Great Basin that are pushed southwest towards the California coast. As the wind passes through mountains and descends through canyons, namely the Santa Ana Canyon, they are compressed, leading to an increase in temperature, approximately 5°C for every 1000 ft. As the wind moves through canyons and passes, the wind accelerates to speeds of 40 mph (35 knots) with gusts up to about 70 mph (60 knots). These hot and dry winds then reach the coastal cities at high speeds causing crop damage, property damage, and potentially fatalities. Each year, these winds cost the San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties millions of dollars in property and infrastructure damage. While generally overlooked in Paramount because they typically lose most of their energy as they pass through more inland cities, Santa Ana winds have been reported to have caused property damage, power outages, blocked roads due to fallen trees, increased fire threats, and even loss of life as the result of a secondary impact. Microburst As stated by the National Weather Service, a microburst is a downdraft in a thunderstorm that is less than 2.5 miles in scale. Microbursts can be driven by a number of factors including mid-level dry air entrainment, cooling beneath the thunderstorm cloud base, sublimation, and the existence of rain and/or hail within the thunderstorm. Although microbursts are not widely recognized as tornadoes, they can cause comparable, and in some cases worse, damage than some tornadoes. 3.11.2 Destructive Winds History To indicate the potential for a severe storm event, Table 3.18 lists an excerpt of largescale severe storms extracted from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, including lightning, thunderstorms winds, tornadoes, and winds that have resulted in extensive regional damage. This list is not considered to be comprehensive, since severe storms are an annual event causing minor damages and economic disruption (closed roads, fallen power lines, etc.). Although most events have some financial impact, this list by NOAA only includes an estimate that was made at the time of the event and does not consider minor damages.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-85
Table 3.23: Historical Destructive Wind Damage in Los Angeles County Date
Fatalities
Injuries
Property Damage ($)
8/07/1990
0
8
0
2/23/1993
0
0
50,000
4/25/1994
0
0
5,000
3/14/1996
0
1
0
12/14/1996
1
2
0
1/20/1997
0
4
0
7/20/1998
0
1
0
5/23/1999
1
0
0
7/13/1999
0
1
0
2/23/2000
0
1
0
4/20/2001
0
1
0
7/28/2003
0
1
0
11/12/2003
0
0
3,500,000
1/07/2005
0
0
5,000,000
9/01/2007
0
0
0
09/03/2017
0
0
0
10/09/2017
0
0
0
10/15/2018
0
0
0
10/10/2019
0
0
0
Note: Property Damage may not have been reported for each incident
From this list, it is clear that destructive winds typically coincide with Santa Ana winds season, fall to early November. Although these winds were typically dampened and City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-86
weakened by surrounding counties prior to reaching Los Angeles County, there have been several instances in which they caused severe damage. In April 2000, a microburst ripped through 4.9 square miles of the City. Hardest hit were the mobile homes where at least 141 structures were reported to have sustained damage, ranging from total loss to minor structural damage. The local Fire Department
estimated
at
least
$843,000 in damage losses. Families were immediately placed in a Red Cross Shelter at a nearby park.
3.11.3 Destructive Winds Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude Taking into account that Santa Ana Winds and thunderstorms are (typically) an annual occurrence in Southern California, strong winds are very likely to continue to occur although infrequently in the City. In the past, high winds have toppled trees, damaged traffic signals, and in rare cases caused life threatening injuries to residents. Therefore, it is necessary to consider destructive winds as a hazard. The figures on the following page provide information and trends for the aforementioned hazards, including average weather information for the City.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-87
City of Paramount Average Weather Data Average Monthly Temperature
Average Wind Speed
Figure 14: City of Paramount Average Weather and Wind Speeds Note: Data taken from AreaVibes.com
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-88
3.12 Drought Hazard Profile
Drought Risk Assessment Summary Risk Rank: Low Probability/ Frequency:
Consequence/ Severity:
Vulnerability:
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive) Minor/slight damage to buildings and structures, no loss of lifelines, first aid injury and no disability No physical damage, no secondary impacts
Hazard Risk Rank Score:
3.12.1
6
Drought Hazard Information and Background
A drought or an extreme dry periodic climate is an extended period where water availability falls below the statistical requirements for a region. Drought is not a purely physical phenomenon, but rather an interplay between natural water availability and human demands for water supply. The precise definition of drought is made complex owing to political considerations, but there are generally four types of conditions that are referred to as drought: •
Meteorological drought is brought about when there is a prolonged period with less than average precipitation.
•
Agricultural drought is brought about when there is insufficient moisture for average crop or forage production. This condition can arise, even in times of average precipitation, owing to soil conditions or agricultural techniques.
•
Hydrologic drought is brought about when the water reserves available in sources such as aquifers, lakes, and reservoirs fall below the statistical average. This condition can arise, even in times of average (or above average) precipitation, when increased usage of water diminishes the reserves.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-89
•
Socioeconomic drought associates the supply and demand of water services with elements of meteorological, hydrologic, and agricultural drought. Socioeconomic drought occurs when the demand for water exceeds the supply as a result of weather-related supply shortfall.
Due to the extensive nature of water supply infrastructure – reservoirs, groundwater basins, and inter-regional conveyance facilities – mitigation for the effect of short-term dry periods is implicit for most systems. Defining when a drought begins is a function of drought impacts to water users. Hydrologic conditions constituting a drought for water users in one location may not constitute a drought for water users elsewhere, or for water users having a different water supply. Individual water suppliers may use criteria such as rainfall/runoff, amount of water in storage, or expected supply from a water wholesaler to define their water supply conditions. Drought is a gradual phenomenon. Although droughts are sometimes characterized as emergencies, they differ from typical emergency events. Most natural disasters, such as floods or wildland fires, occur relatively rapidly and afford little time for preparing for disaster response. Droughts, however, occur slowly and over a multi-year period. There is no universal definition of when a drought begins or ends. Impacts of drought are typically felt first by those most reliant on annual rainfall – ranchers engaged in dryland grazing, rural residents relying on wells in low-yield rock formations, or small water systems lacking a reliable source. Drought impacts increase with the length of a drought, as carry-over supplies in reservoirs are depleted and water levels in groundwater basins decline. Droughts may cause a shortage of water for human and industrial consumption, hydroelectric power, recreation, and navigation. Water quality may also decline, and the number and severity of wildland fires may increase. Severe droughts may result in the loss of agricultural crops and forest products, undernourished wildlife and livestock, lower land values, and raise unemployment. 3.12.2
Drought History
As stated in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan, the City has three water sources: groundwater, imported water (surface), and recycled water. The City also has emergency mutual-aid domestic water connections with the City of Long Beach, the City of Downey, and Golden State Water Company. Currently, two water utilities serve the community. The City’s water department services the majority of Paramount. Two northern portions of the City, above the I-105 Freeway, are serviced by Southern California Water Company. The City boundaries, as shown previously in Figure 2.1 provides an estimate of the service area of the City. City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-90
The City provides potable water service to its residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional customers within the City limits. The City’s current water system includes two wells; two imported water connections; approximately 130 miles of water transmission and distribution mains; and appurtenant valves, hydrants, and equipment. Currently the City does not have any storage reservoirs, although the groundwater basin acts as ground storage for the City. The City overlies the Central Groundwater Basin (Central Basin). Upon the Central Basin’s adjudication in 1965, the City was allocated an annual pumping right, which currently stands at 5,883 acre-feet per year plus 20% carryover rights. Well No. 13 and Well No. 14 are the City’s two existing groundwater wells. This infrastructure has allowed the City to provide adequate water services to its residence and businesses since its incorporation. Because water systems are interconnected, the regional impacts of drought may have adverse impacts for the City. It is important to consider droughts that have occurred and currently are occurring throughout the state. Figure 3.9 provides the annual runoff in California for the last century and is provided by the United States Geological Survey.
Figure 3.15: Annual Runoff in California
Figure 3.16 illustrates the current state of drought in California and is provided by the U.S. Drought Monitor.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-91
Figure 3.16: Western United States Drought Conditions, 2021 As stated by the California Department of Water Resources, the western U.S. is entering a third year of a severe drought. After previously lifting drought restrictions on April 2nd, 2017, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a drought state of emergency on October 19th, 2021 and encouraged civilians to minimize water usage. This triggered municipalities to take preventative actions. While the City has continued to provide potable water to its residents, the County of Los Angeles has imposed conservation measures to circumvent potential drought hazards. The City will rely on the previously discussed infrastructure to maintain water services for its residents. 3.12.3
Drought Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude
For years, the City has enjoyed an abundant supply of high-quality water. However, as water demand continues to increase statewide, and the supply fluctuates with the drought conditions the City must be even more conscientious about the water supply and maximize the efficient use of this precious natural resource. The City and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California work closely together to evaluate new and innovative water management and supply development programs, including water reuse and recycling, recharge facility construction, ocean
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-92
and brackish water desalination, surface storage, and water use efficiency programs. These efforts are helping to enhance long-term water reliability and water quality. As a result of the inherent uncertainty in the Colorado River and State Water Project supplies given various hydrologic, environmental, and legal considerations, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has undertaken several planning initiatives to broaden its water resource’s reliability. The 2020 update to their Integrated Resources Plan, outlines strategies and implementation plans to better manage resources, including the development of local resources and the furthering of existing conservation efforts to meet the Water Conservation Act of 2009. These measures are anticipated to provide a buffer for member agencies to rely upon in times of drought and long-term climatic changes. Drought and Climate Change Increased population and exploitation of fossil fuels during the past century has led to longer and more prevalent droughts in many parts of the U.S. The global warming phenomenon has led to increased rainfall instead of snowfall in many regions resulting in increased flooding. This, combined with earlier and rapid melting of snow, has led to fluctuation in water availability and resulted in increased floods in wet regions and drought in dry regions. As Southern California temperatures rise and water sources are depleted, the potential for droughts in California, including the District’s service area, are expected to continue to increase. As mentioned in Section 3.17, District personnel would recognize decreased water supply and decreased precipitation, common impacts of climate change, as a drought scenario. As mitigation activities focused on water supply reliability are indifferent to the root cause of water shortage, the Steering Committee has chosen to blend the applicable impacts of climate change with its drought mitigation efforts. All mitigation actions for drought described in Chapter 4 also consider the impacts of climate change.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-93
3.13 Disease Outbreak Hazard Profile
Disease Outbreak Risk Assessment Summary Risk Rank: Low Probability/
Rare event - occurs less than once every 50
Frequency:
years
Consequence/ Severity: Vulnerability:
No damage Localized damage area, minor secondary impacts, delayed hazard onset
Hazard Risk Rank Score:
3
3.13.1: Disease Outbreak Hazard Information and Background A disease outbreak happens when a disease occurs in greater numbers than expected in a community of region or during a certain season. A pandemic is an outbreak of an infectious disease that spreads across a large region. A flu pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus emerges for which people have little or no immunity, or possibly for which there is no vaccine. The disease spreads easily person-to-person, causes serious illness, and can sweep across the country and around the world in very short time. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, an especially severe influenza pandemic could lead to high levels of illness, death, social disruption, and economic loss. Numerous people in a wide range of locations will become seriously ill at the same time. Impacts can range from school and business closings to the interruption of basic services such as public transportation and food delivery. Additionally, a substantial percentage of the population will require some form of medical care. Health care facilities can be overwhelmed, creating a shortage of hospital staff, beds, ventilators, and other supplies. In order to define and prepare for an influenza pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) has developed a global influenza preparedness plan, which defines the stages of a pandemic,
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-94
outlines the role of WHO, and makes recommendations for national measures before and during a pandemic. The pandemic phases are detailed below: •
Interpandemic period:
•
Phase 1: No new influenza virus subtypes have been detected in humans.
•
Phase 2: No new influenza virus subtypes have been detected in humans, but an animal variant threatens human disease.
•
Pandemic alert period:
•
Phase 3: Human infection(s) with a new subtype but no human-to-human spread.
•
Phase 4: Small cluster(s) with limited localized human-to-human transmission.
•
Phase 5: Larger cluster(s) but human-to-human spread still localized.
•
Pandemic period:
•
Phase 6: Pandemic: increased and sustained transmission in general population.
3.13.2
Disease Outbreak History
There have been several major outbreaks that have resulted in many fatalities in the past. More recently however, there have been fewer outbreaks of biological diseases that cause catastrophic loss of life. However, there continue to be outbreaks of biological/human diseases. Recent Influenza Outbreaks Influenza (flu) season occurs every year, but some years may be worse than others when a new strain emerges. Health professionals were concerned in 2006 that the continued spread of a highly pathogenic avian H5N1 virus across eastern Asia and other countries represented a significant threat to human health. The H5N1 virus has raised concerns about a potential human pandemic because: •
It is especially virulent
•
It is being spread by migratory birds
•
It can be transmitted from birds to mammals and in some limited circumstances to humans, and
•
Like other influenza viruses, it continues to evolve.
The following map indicates the locations of confirmed cases of the H5N1 avian influenza virus:
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-95
Figure 3.17: Nations With Confirmed Cases H5N1 Avian Influenza (July 7, 2006) In addition, there was an outbreak of H1N1, known as the swine flu, in 2009. Figure 3.18 illustrates how widespread the strain became in 2009.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-96
Figure 3.18: Nations with confirmed Cases H1N1 (August 4, 2009) Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is a respiratory infection caused by a virus. The first patient found to be infected with MERS was in London in 2012. MERS is suspected to spread from an infected person’s respiratory secretions through close contact. According to the WHO, as of June 2014, there have been 707 confirmed cases of MERS resulting in at least 252 fatalities. An additional 113 cases have been reported by Saudi Arabia. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in the U.S., there have been two confirmed cases of MERS. Both were healthcare providers who recently traveled from Saudi Arabia. Even though the MERS situation in the U.S. is a low risk to the general public, the CDC is closely monitoring the situation. Ebola Ebola, previously known as Ebola hemorrhagic fever, is a rare and deadly disease caused by infection with one of the Ebola virus species. Researchers believe that the virus is animal-borne and that bats are the most likely reservoir. Ebola is spread through direct contact from an infected person through blood or body fluids, infected objects or through contact with infected animals. According to the CDC, there have been four cases of Ebola diagnosed in the U.S. in 2014. Of the four cases, two of them had travelled back from Africa and the other two were involved in treating one of the infected persons. The medical and public health professionals across the U.S. along with the CDC are taking precautions to ensure the Ebola situation in the U.S. is at a low risk to the general public. 2015 California Measles Outbreak On January 5, 2015, five patients were hospitalized for suspected cases of measles all tied to December travels to Disneyland in Anaheim, California the previous year. By February 2015, 125 measles cases could be linked to the Disney theme park across several states with additional cases reported in Canada and Mexico. The event sparked national concern and exacerbated debates about vaccination rights throughout the country. Although the number of victims in this instance do not rival the MERS outbreak mentioned about, this event was close enough to the City to impact the public. Disneyland caters to more than 16 million guests annually, many of them coming from Southern California: including citizens of the City. Coronavirus (COVID-19) The novel coronavirus outbreak began in Wuhan China when, on December 31, 2019, the WHO identified a pneumonia-like illness impacting dozens. By January 11, 2020, according to ABC NEWS, China reported its first death due to the Coronavirus. Ten days later, the U.S. confirmed City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-97
its first case of the virus. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at the time of this report, the U.S. has reported 45,655,635 COVID-19 cases and 740,348 deaths including victims from all 50 states. According to Harvard Health Publishing, coronaviruses are common and often are the cause of colds and other upper respiratory infections. SARS-CoV-2, short for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, is the official name for the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19. While severity can very between cases, common symptoms include fever, aches, cough, fatigue, chills, headache, loss of appetite, and loss of smell. Generally, symptoms appear withing six days of exposure, but in some cases, symptoms have taken up to 13 days to materialize. According to the World Health Organization, current evidence suggests that the virus spreads mainly between people who are in close contact with each other. A person can be infected when aerosols or droplets containing the virus are inhaled or come directly into contact with the eyes, nose, or mouth. 3.13.3
Disease Outbreak Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude
It is difficult to predict the probability and severity of the next disease outbreak pandemic. In contrast to many other illnesses, highly contagious disease spread rapidly and often unexpectedly. The City has limited medical capabilities; however, the City will work with the Los Angeles County of Department of Health and other outside organizations in the event of an outbreak.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-98
3.14 Civil Unrest/Riots Hazard Profile Civil Unrest/Riots Failure Risk Assessment Summary Risk Rank: Low Probability/
Rare event - occurs less than once every
Frequency:
50 years
Consequence/ Severity:
Vulnerability:
Minor/slight damage to buildings and structures, no loss of lifelines, first aid injury and no disability No physical damage, no secondary impacts
Hazard Risk Rank Score:
4
3.14.1 Civil Unrest/Riots Hazard Information and Background Civil Unrest is generally the result of, and a form of protest against, some form of socio-political problem. It typically consists of a disruption of normal, orderly conduct in urban areas, or an outbreak of rioting or violence that is of a large nature. Examples of Civil disorders or Civil Strife, as it is sometimes referred to, might include illegal parades, sit-ins, riots, sabotage, and other forms of crime. It is typically spurred by specific events, such as criminal trials, sporting events, or political disfavor. Damages to local City buildings, critical facilities, and infrastructure resulting from these types of demonstrations could potentially leave residents of Paramount without critical resources. Incidents of Civil Unrest often occur sporadically and without warning. In addition to the physical losses a demonstration can bring to the City, they often require response from local authorities which diminish their ability to provide services to other parts of the City. If a demonstration were to occur in conjunction with a hazardous event, it would be possible for the authorities to be overwhelmed leaving the city vulnerable to extensive damages. 3.14.2 Civil Unrest/Riots History The City is located in close proximity to the City of Los Angeles which has been the host of several demonstrations of civil unrest historically.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-99
Watts Riot 1965 As stated by the Martin Luther King Jr Research and Education Institute, the Watts Riot was a six-day race riot that began on August 11th, 1965 and lasted until August 17th. By the time, the National Guard was able to restore peace, 34 were dead, 1,032 were injured, 3,438 citizens had been arrested and the City of Los Angeles has sustained over $40 million in damages. The riot was started after police officers allegedly mistreated Marquette Fry, a 21-year-old African American man, after pulling him over for drunk driving. While the facts about the incident are unclear, rumors of police misconduct spread throughout the community inciting six days of chaos. It is estimated that between 31,000 and 35,000 adults actively participated in destroying and looting local neighborhoods. Los Angeles Riot 1992 The Los Angeles Riot was a race riot that manifested after Rodney King, an African American man, was beaten by a group of police officers that stopped him for driving intoxicated on March 3, 1991, according to U.S News. The Los Angeles District Attorney charged the four officers for excessive force and for a year the case was covered heavily by the media. On April 29th, 1992, the jury acquitted all four officers of assault and three of the fours of using excessive force. Within the first half hour of the announcement of the verdict, at least 300 people gathered outside the Los Angeles County courthouse to protest. By the time the six-day demonstration was over the numbers of protesters had swelled, the City had sustained $1 billion in property damages, and widespread looting, assault, arson, and murder had been reported all over the city. Over 2,000 had been injured and 53 had been killed before Mayor Bradley declared the end of the riot on May 4th, 1992. May Day Demonstration On March 29th, 2006, according to the Los Angeles Times, over 500,000 gathered in the heart of Los Angeles, California to protest Congressional efforts to intensify illegal immigration legislation. While the protest was peaceful, several businesses had to shut down operations and traffic hazards resulted from the demonstration. In the City, students from the local high school made a City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-100
mass exodus and walked onto the 91 freeway. Local authorities mobilized to return the students to safety. Only one injury was reported and none on the students were injured. Klu Klux Klan Rally On February 28, 2016, violence broke out during a Klu Klux Klan rally in Anaheim, CA. Around noon, seven Klan members arrived at Pearson Park when counter-protesters swarmed Klan members setting off a series of brawls up and down West Cypress Street. When police arrived on the scene, 5 were hurt and 13 were arrested. Orange
County
District
Attorney,
Tony
Rackauckas, issued the following statement regard the following legal proceedings. “This case is not about who was holding the protest rally, their racist message, or who was counterprotesting. This is about the mob mentality turning violent, which shut down neighboring streets, access to the park, and endangered the community as a whole.” Black Lives Matter Demonstrations The group Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an activist movement which campaigns against violence and racism directed towards black people.
BLM
regularly
organizes
demonstrations in response to shooting deaths of
people
of
color
by
law
enforcement
throughout the nation including protests in and near Los Angeles County. During the months of May and June of 2020, hundreds of thousands of protesters, including over 10,000 in Los Angeles County, marched in response to the death of George Floyd. These protests were generally peaceful and non-violent but often involved blocking traffic and occasionally involved clashes with police. 3.14.3 Civil Unrest/Riots Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude The potential for Civil Unrest is difficult to predict. Demonstrations are often unplanned and arise out of the result of an emotional response to current social and political issues. The threat of disturbances are always present as local governments attempt to respond to changes in the political climate. For example, the State of California is currently attempting to finalize its position on issues such as the increasing cost of education, healthcare and housing, the protocol for dealing with immigration, and many other issues that could potentially recreate the events of City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-101
previous riots. The City has dealt with small protests and civil unrest in the past but acknowledges the potential for larger demonstrations. As a result, the City has decided to include civil unrest in the Hazard Mitigation Plan update.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-102
3.15 Transportation Accident/Incident Hazard Profile
Transportation Accident/Incident Failure Risk Assessment Summary Risk Rank: Low Probability/
Regular event - occurs between once a
Frequency:
year and once every 7 years
Consequence/ Severity: Vulnerability:
No damage No physical damage, no secondary impacts
Hazard Risk Rank Score:
3
3.15.1 Transportation Accident/Incident Hazard Information and Background Freeway accidents occur very frequently in the Los Angeles County region. In the last few years, California has averaged about 3,300 freeway accident-related deaths. Major local transportation routes include Interstates 105, 710, 605 and California State Route 91, creating local traffic congestion and increasing the potential for transportation accidents in the City. In addition to freeway accidents, a number of freight trains pass through the City hauling various types of hazardous materials. A major train derailment that occurs in a heavily populated industrial area can result in significant damage and potential loss of life. Both freeway and rail accidents can be a further hazard if the impacted vehicles are transporting hazardous materials. As noted in the hazardous material release hazard profile, accidents in these cases can result in hazardous materials releases.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-103
3.15.2 Transportation Accident/Incident Hazard History The City is located in close proximity to several busy highways and railways. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, California has averaged 3299 deaths a year, which is the second highest of any state, behind Texas. Table 3.20, taken from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, presents recent traffic fatalities in California. Table 3.24: Traffic Fatalities in California (2014-2019)
Highway Fatalities Rail Fatalities
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Average
3107
3387
3837
3884
3563
3606
3299
128
131
140
157
151
194
127
3.15.3 Transportation Accident/Incident Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude Due to the high volume of commuter traffic traveling through the City Paramount, there is a high potential of a freeway accidents. In the event of a major incident, these roadways could be populated by vehicles carrying hazardous chemicals and flammable materials which could create the potential for fire, hazardous material releases, and other harmful events. Interstate 710, which is on the western side of the City, connects the region to the Long Beach Harbor. Heavy trucks with hazardous materials are frequently found on this interstate, highlighting the increased potential for a major traffic accident in Paramount. Figure 3.12 on the following page depicts the transportation routes for the City.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-104
Figure 3.19: City of Paramount Transportation Map
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-105
3.16 Climate Change With the release of the updated California Adaptation Planning Guide (APG) in June 2020, the City aimed to include the effects of climate change into the Hazard Mitigation Plan update, Paramount is located in the South Coastal Region of California. As a result, and in tandem with the adopted Paramount Climate Action Plan, the City considered the following climate change impacts as recommended by the APG; •
Increased Temperatures
•
Reduced Precipitation
•
Sea Level Rise
•
Reduced Tourism
•
Reduced Water Supply
•
Wildfire Risk
•
Public Health – Heat and Air Quality
•
Coastal Erosion
The Steering Committee engaged in a discussion to determine which impacts posed a viable threat to the City. While some impacts clearly applied to the City, some required additional research. Studies were conducted to look at recorded trends for sea level rise, wildfire, and regional temperature increases. The result of the study was the following list of perceived, feasible impacts that might affect the City over the next 5 to 10 years. •
Increased Temperatures
•
Reduced Precipitation
•
Reduced Water Supply
•
Fire Risk
After reviewing the results of each of these impacts, the Steering Committee decided to include hazards in the Plan update that represented how the impacts would be felt by the City. For example, increased temperatures, reduced precipitation, and reduced water supply would be recognized as a drought. Additionally, increased temperatures and reduced precipitation might result in a fire hazard. Therefore, the Steering Committee identified Drought and Urban Fire Hazards. Any information regarding the effects of these impacts on the City will be found under the hazard profiles listed above. Additionally, mitigation strategies that apple to these impacts will be classified under Drought and Urban Fire in the mitigation action identified in Chapter 4. City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-106
3.17 Asset Inventory
§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 A critical step required to complete the Risk Assessment is to develop a detailed asset inventory and document potential asset damages due to each identified hazard. The calculated loss estimates (vulnerability assessment) will be based on the values determined during the initial asset inventory. In order to produce accurate loss estimates, the City developed a comprehensive inventory of all assets, including asset locations. In order to develop loss estimates, specific values were assigned to the critical City facilities in the asset inventory. The following tables summarize the assigned values, as well as the sources utilized as the basis for the values including the following: •
FEMA’s “Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model, HAZUS MR5”
•
FEMA’s guidance document entitled “What is a Benefit? - Guidance on Benefit-Cost Analysis of Hazard Mitigation Projects, Draft. Revision 2.0”
Replacement Values Table 3.25 provides a mechanism for determining the cost per square foot for replacing assets. Using this table, the Steering Committee reviewed the asset inventory list and discussed and documented approximate square footages (based upon available building plans and expert knowledge) and building descriptions in order to identify the appropriate replacement cost for each asset. In order to adjust the assessment values which were determined to be low, an 19% increase was added to account for inflation. The rate was provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (2007-2021).
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-107
Table 3.25: Structural Replacement Values Facility Category
Facility Sub-Category
Description
Replacement Cost ($/SF)
Medium
2-3 Stories, 55,000 SF
$144.60
Large
4-8 Stories, 200,000 SF
$124.60
Small
1 Story, 7,000 SF
$118.01
Medium
2 Stories, 7,000 SF
$129.82
Town Hall, Small
1 Story, 11,000 SF
$90.30
Town Hall, Medium
2-3 Stories, 18,000 SF
$112.94
Courthouse, Small
1 Story, 30,000 SF
$130.71
Courthouse, Medium
2-3 Stories, 60,000 SF
$136.81
Post Office
13,000 SF
$86.83
Police Station
2 Stories, 11,000 SF
$136.10
Fire Station, Small
1 Story, 6,000 SF
$105.53
Fire Station, Medium
2 Stories, 10,000 SF
$110.34
High School
130,000 SF
$92.80
Elementary School
45,000 SF
$90.22
Jr. High School
110,00 SF
$95.21
Library
2 Stories, 22,000 SF
$103.94
Religious School
1 Story, 10,000 SF
$112.19
College Classroom
2-3 Stories, 50,000 SF
$114.68
College Laboratory
1 Story, 45,000 SF
$119.51
Vocational School
40,000 SF
$93.96
Hospital
Medical Office / Clinic
General Government Services
Emergency Response
Schools / Libraries
Colleges / Universities
Note: Values were listed from FEMA’s “Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model, HAZUS MR4”
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-108
Loss of Function Values In order to provide a mechanism for evaluating the importance of lifelines and critical services, the following tables were used to identify per capita values for each category. Based upon the population in the City, the following values were assigned. Table 3.22: Loss of Function Values – Utilities & Lifelines Loss of Electric Power Reduced
Regional
Cost of Complete Loss of Service Economic
$87
Activity1 Impacts on Residential Customers
$101
Total Economic Impact
$188
Loss of Potable Water Service
Cost of Complete
Cost of Water
Loss of Service
Unsafe for Drinking
Reduced Regional Economic Activity
$35
$8.75
Impacts on Residential Customers
$68
$34
Total Economic Impact
$103
$43
Loss of Wastewater Service
Cost of Complete
Cost of Partial
Loss of Service
Treatment Only
Reduced Regional Economic Activity
$33.50
$8.50
Impacts on Residential Customers
None
None
Total Economic Impact
$33.50
$8.50
Note: The values listed in this table were obtained from FEMA’s guidance document entitled “What is a Benefit? - Guidance on Benefit-Cost Analysis of Hazard Mitigation Projects, Draft. Revision 2.0”
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-109
Future Developments Currently, there are no planned developments for new future buildings within the City; however, the hazard maps included previously in this report and loss estimates are dynamic and the calculations will be updated to account for future developments as the potential arises. The hazard maps will also be used as a tool to pre-identify areas that are not conducive for construction. The Asset Inventory Summary tables for the City are presented on the following pages.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-110
Table 3.24: Asset Inventory Type Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings
Name City Hall City Yard Public Recreation Facility - Paramount Park Public Recreation Facility Public Recreation Facility- Dills Park Public Recreation Facility Splash Pad restroom/office Activity Center Public Recreation Facility Roosevelt Public Recreation Facility Concession Stand Alondra MS Concession Stand Water Product Facility Wellsite 13 storage building
Address 16400 Colorado Ave. 15300 Downey Ave. 14410 Paramount Blvd. 15500 Downey Ave. 6500 San Juan St. 7700 Somerset Blvd. 14618 Orange Ave. 15538 Colorado Ave. 13451 Merkel Ave 14400 Gundry Ave. 16200 Downey Ave. 15500 Downey Ave. 15123 Vermont Ave.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Cost / Square Square Footage Foot
Structure Value
Contents Value %
Contents Value
TOTAL
15,195
112.94
1,716,123
100%
1,716,123
$3,273,487
38,455
130.71
5,026,453
100%
5,026,453
$6,221,004
42,450
112.94
4,794,303
100%
4,794,303
$5,537,089
3,778
90.30
341,153
100%
341,153
$3,100,136
620
90.30
55,986
100%
55,986
$439,716
282
90.30
25,465
100%
25,465
$100,308
1,476
90.30
133,283
100%
133,283
$529,381
3,644
110.34
402,079
150%
603,118
$528,503
2,000
90.30
180,600
100%
180,600
$395,992
4,000
90.30
361,200
100%
361,200
$1,281,388
1,200
90.30
108,360
100%
108,360
$150,596
0
90.30
0
100%
0
$107,299
0
136.10
0
100%
0
$757,913
3-111
Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings City Property City Property City Property City Property City Property City Property City Property City Property City Property
City Property
City Property
Water Product Facility Wellsite 14
15966 Downey Ave. 14410 Concession Stand Paramount Blvd. 16401 Clearwater Building Paramount Blvd. Computer Various Equipment Locations Various Various Fine Arts Locations Mobile & Scheduled Various Equipment Locations Various On Premises Auto Locations Various Various Fountains Locations Storing Facility/ RV 8546 Somerset parking Blvd. Storing Facility/ RV 8550 Somerset parking Blvd. Parking Authority 15922 Colorado Lot Ave. 15341 Parking Lot Paramount Blvd. Colorado Ave. Parking Authority just Lot APN: 7103-007South of Alondra 910 Blvd. Parking Authority Colorado Ave. Lot APN:7103-007just 904
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
0
136.10
0
100%
0
$1,589,467
2,000
90.30
180,600
100%
180,600
$375,500
8,439
90.30
762,042
100%
762,042
$2,252,219
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
$648,943
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
$1,594,114
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
$1,200,950
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
$2,579,317
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
$3,327,843
5,711
NA
NA
NA
NA
$0
14,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
$0
61,698
35.78
2,207,554
150%
3,311,332
$5,518,886
15,500
34.78
539,090
50%
269,545
$808,635
0
34.78
0
50%
0
$0
0
34.78
0
50%
0
$0
3-112
City Property
Police Police Parks Parks Parks Parks Parks Parks Parks Parks Parks Parks
South of Alondra Blvd. Colorado Ave. Parking Authority just Lot APN:7103-0070 South of 903 Alondra Blvd. 15001 Sheriff Substation Paramount 15,000 Blvd. Parking Lot - Sheriff 7919 Somerset 6,249 Substation Blvd. 13330 Orizaba All-American Park 217,800 Ave. 6500 San Juan Dills Park 548,856 St. 15525 Howard Hall Pocket Paramount 29,106 Park Blvd. Wilbarn Pocket 8335 Rosecrans 1,625 Park Somerset/Colorado 7826 Somerset 15,000 Pocket Park Dills Park Public 15009 San Recreation 650 Antonio Ave. Restroom 14751 Garfield Garfield Park 34,832 Ave. 15753 Gundry Meadows Park 13,250 Ave. 13931 Downey Pequeno Park 5,227 Ave. Carosmith Pocket 16316 Ansmith 3,000 Park St.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
34.78
0
50%
0
$0
110.34
1,655,100
150%
2,482,650
$3,721,810
34.78
217,340
50%
108,670
$326,010
NA
NA
NA
NA
$116,517
NA
NA
NA
NA
$0
NA
NA
NA
NA
$0
NA
NA
NA
NA
$0
NA
NA
NA
NA
$0
90.30
58,695
100%
58,695
$370,411
NA
NA
NA
NA
$0
NA
NA
NA
NA
$0
NA
NA
NA
NA
$0
NA
NA
NA
NA
$0
3-113
Parks
Garfield Community Garden
Parks
Cortland/Orange Community Garden
Water
Water Well 15
Water
Wellsite 16
NW Corner of Garfield Ave. and Petterson St. Cortland Ave./ Orange Ave. 6503 Somerset Blvd. 16317 Garfield Ave.
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
$0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
$0
600
90.30
54,180
100%
54,180
$4,500,000
16,333
NA
NA
NA
NA
$0
Subtotal $51,353,434 With Inflation $61,110,586 Note: Values were listed from FEMA's "Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model, HAZUS MR5" Note: Inflation estimated using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (2007-2021, or $1 to $1.19) Unless otherwise notes, all locations are in the City of Paramount, CA 90723.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-114
Table 3.25: Loss of Function Loss of Function / Continuity Premium (1 day) - City of Paramount Population:
53,955
Category
Value Per Person
Value Per Day
Continuity Premium
Total
Fire Service
-
$3,536
10
$35,360
Police Service
-
$6,148
10
$61,480
Water Service
$93
$5,017,815
-
$5,017,815
Electricity
$126
$6,798,330
-
$6,798,330
Wastewater
$41
$2,212,155
-
$2,212,155 Subtotal
$14,125,140
Note: Values were listed from FEMA's "BCA Reference Guide, June 2009"
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-115
3.18 Loss Estimates
§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)(ii)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate
Loss Assessment Calculations The Steering Committee reviewed each asset category and assigned a potential percentage of damage expected due to each identified hazard. In addition, if there were identified lifeline or emergency service interruptions, the loss of function values were also included. The tables of the following pages identify each asset category, name, total value, and the percent damage/damage value for each asset. The damages for each asset are totaled for each hazard to obtain the overall loss estimate for each hazard.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-116
Table 3.26: Loss Estimates / Vulnerability Assessment – Earthquake through Homelessness City of Paramount Vulnerability Assessment Calculations Type Public Buildings Public Buildings
City Yard
Loss Estimate
% Damage
Loss Estimate
% Damage
Loss Estimate
% Damage
Loss Estimate
$3,895,450
80%
$3,116,360
40%
$1,558,180
5%
$194,772
2%
$77,909
2%
$77,909
$7,402,995
75%
$5,552,246
20%
$1,480,599
5%
$370,150
2%
$148,060
2%
$148,060
14410 Paramount Blvd., Paramount CA 90723
$6,589,136
30%
$1,976,741
5%
$329,457
5%
$329,457
2%
$131,783
2%
$131,783
15500 Downey Ave., Paramount CA 90723
$3,689,162
30%
$1,106,749
5%
$184,458
5%
$184,458
2%
$73,783
2%
$73,783
$523,262
20%
$104,652
5%
$26,163
5%
$26,163
2%
$10,465
5%
$26,163
$119,367
30%
$35,810
5%
$5,968
5%
$5,968
2%
$2,387
2%
$2,387
$629,963
30%
$188,989
5%
$31,498
5%
$31,498
2%
$12,599
2%
$12,599
$628,919
80%
$503,135
5%
$31,446
5%
$31,446
2%
$12,578
2%
$12,578
$471,230
20%
$94,246
5%
$23,562
5%
$23,562
2%
$9,425
2%
$9,425
$1,524,852
30%
$457,456
5%
$76,243
5%
$76,243
2%
$30,497
2%
$30,497
$179,209
20%
$35,842
5%
$8,960
5%
$8,960
2%
$3,584
2%
$3,584
$127,686
20%
$25,537
5%
$6,384
5%
$6,384
2%
$2,554
2%
$2,554
15123 Vermont Ave., Paramount CA 90723
$901,916
10%
$90,192
5%
$45,096
5%
$45,096
2%
$18,038
2%
$18,038
15966 Downey Ave., Paramount CA 90723
$1,891,466
10%
$189,147
10%
$189,147
5%
$94,573
2%
$37,829
2%
$37,829
14410 Paramount Blvd., Paramount, CA 90723
$446,845
20%
$89,369
5%
$22,342
5%
$22,342
2%
$8,937
2%
$8,937
16400 Colorado Ave., Paramount CA 90723 15300 Downey Ave., Paramount CA 90723
Public Recreation Facility- Dills Park Public Recreation Facility Splash Pad restroom/office
6500 San Juan St., Paramount CA 90723 7700 Somerset Blvd., Paramount CA 90723 14618 Orange Ave., Paramount CA 90723
Public Buildings
Activity Center
15538 Colorado Ave., Paramount CA 90723
Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings
Concession Stand Water Product Facility Wellsite 13 storage building Water Product Facility Wellsite 14 Concession Stand
Homelessness
% Damage
Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings
Public Recreation Facility Roosevelt Public Recreation Facility Concession Stand Alondra MS
HazMat Release
Loss Estimate
Public Buildings
Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings
Urban Fire
% Damage
Public Recreation Facility - Paramount Park Public Recreation Facility
Public Buildings
Adversarial Events
TOTAL
Name City Hall
Earthquake
13451 Merkel Ave, Paramount CA 90723 14400 Gundry Ave., Paramount CA 90723 16200 Downey Ave., Paramount CA 90723 15500 Downey Ave., Paramount CA 90723
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-117
Public Buildings
Clearwater Building
16401 Paramount Blvd., Paramount CA 90723
$2,680,141
50%
$1,340,070
5%
$134,007
5%
$134,007
2%
$53,603
2%
$53,603
City Property
Computer Equipment
Various Locations
$772,242
6%
$46,335
5%
$38,612
5%
$38,612
2%
$15,445
2%
$15,445
City Property
Various Fine Arts
Various Locations
$1,896,996
30%
$569,099
5%
$94,850
5%
$94,850
2%
$37,940
2%
$37,940
City Property
Mobile & Scheduled Equipment
Various Locations
$1,429,131
20%
$285,826
5%
$71,457
5%
$71,457
2%
$28,583
2%
$28,583
City Property
On Premises Auto
Various Locations
$3,069,387
25%
$767,347
5%
$153,469
5%
$153,469
2%
$61,388
2%
$61,388
City Property
Various Fountains
Various Locations
$3,960,133
30%
$1,188,040
5%
$198,007
5%
$198,007
2%
$79,203
2%
$79,203
Police
Sheriff Substation
15001 Paramount Blvd., Paramount CA 90723
$4,428,954
20%
$885,791
50%
$2,214,477
5%
$221,448
2%
$88,579
2%
$88,579
Parks
All-American Park
13330 Orizaba, Paramount CA 90723
$138,655
20%
$27,731
5%
$6,933
5%
$6,933
2%
$2,773
5%
$6,933
Water
Water Well 15
6503 Somerset Blvd, Paramount CA 90723
$5,355,000
10%
$535,500
10%
$535,500
5%
$267,750
2%
$107,100
2%
$107,100
Water
Wellsite 16
16317 Garfield Ave., Paramount CA 90723
$5,355,000
10%
$535,500
10%
$535,500
5%
$267,750
2%
$107,100
2%
$107,100
Fire Service
$35,360
50%
$17,680
50%
$17,680
10%
$3,536
50%
$17,680
10%
$3,536
Police Service
$61,480
50%
$30,740
75%
$46,110
5%
$3,074
50%
$30,740
25%
$15,370
Water Service
$5,017,815
60%
$3,010,689
5%
$250,891
5%
$250,891
2%
$100,356
1%
$50,178
Electricity
$6,798,330
35%
$2,379,416
5%
$339,917
7%
$475,883
2%
$135,967
1%
$67,983
Wastewater
$2,212,155
35%
$774,254
5%
$110,608
5%
$110,608
2%
$44,243
0%
$0
Earthquake
$26,558,804
Adversarial Events
$9,018,274
Urban Fire
$4,167,271
HazMat / Industrial Accident
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
$1,658,298 Homelessness
$1,486,237
3-118
Table 3.27: Loss Estimates / Vulnerability Assessment –Utility Loss through Destructive Winds City of Paramount Vulnerability Assessment Calculations Type
Utility Loss
Name 16400 Colorado Ave., Paramount CA 90723 15300 Downey Ave., Paramount CA 90723
Pipeline Failure
Flood/Dam Failure
Destructive Winds
TOTAL
% Damage
Loss Estimate
% Damage
Loss Estimate
% Damage
Loss Estimate
% Damage
Loss Estimate
$3,895,450
1%
$38,954
2%
$77,909
1%
$38,954
0%
$0
$7,402,995
1%
$74,030
10%
$740,299
1%
$74,030
0%
$0
Public Buildings
City Hall
Public Buildings
City Yard
Public Buildings
Public Recreation Facility Paramount Park
14410 Paramount Blvd., Paramount CA 90723
$6,589,136
1%
$65,891
2%
$131,783
1%
$65,891
0%
$0
Public Buildings
Public Recreation Facility
15500 Downey Ave., Paramount CA 90723
$3,689,162
1%
$36,892
2%
$73,783
1%
$36,892
0%
$0
Public Buildings
Public Recreation FacilityDills Park
$523,262
1%
$5,233
2%
$10,465
5%
$26,163
0%
$0
Public Buildings
Public Recreation Facility
$119,367
1%
$1,194
2%
$2,387
1%
$1,194
0%
$0
Public Buildings
Splash Pad restroom/office
$629,963
1%
$6,300
2%
$12,599
1%
$6,300
0%
$0
Public Buildings
Activity Center
$628,919
1%
$6,289
2%
$12,578
1%
$6,289
0%
$0
Public Buildings
Public Recreation Facility Roosevelt
$471,230
1%
$4,712
2%
$9,425
1%
$4,712
0%
$0
Public Buildings
Public Recreation Facility
$1,524,852
1%
$15,249
2%
$30,497
1%
$15,249
0%
$0
Public Buildings
Concession Stand - Alondra MS
$179,209
1%
$1,792
2%
$3,584
1%
$1,792
0%
$0
Public Buildings
Concession Stand
$127,686
1%
$1,277
2%
$2,554
1%
$1,277
0%
$0
Public Buildings
Water Product Facility Wellsite 13 storage building
15123 Vermont Ave., Paramount CA 90723
$901,916
1%
$9,019
2%
$18,038
1%
$9,019
0%
$0
Public Buildings
Water Product Facility Wellsite 14
15966 Downey Ave., Paramount CA 90723
$1,891,466
1%
$18,915
2%
$37,829
1%
$18,915
0%
$0
Public Buildings
Concession Stand
14410 Paramount Blvd., Paramount, CA 90723
$446,845
1%
$4,468
2%
$8,937
1%
$4,468
0%
$0
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
6500 San Juan St., Paramount CA 90723 7700 Somerset Blvd., Paramount CA 90723 14618 Orange Ave., Paramount CA 90723 15538 Colorado Ave., Paramount CA 90723 13451 Merkel Ave., Paramount CA 90723 14400 Gundry Ave., Paramount CA 90723 16200 Downey Ave., Paramount CA 90723 15500 Downey Ave., Paramount CA 90723
3-119
Public Buildings
Clearwater Building
16401 Paramount Blvd., Paramount CA 90723
$2,680,141
1%
$26,801
2%
$53,603
1%
$26,801
0%
$0
City Property
Computer Equipment
Various Locations
$772,242
1%
$7,722
2%
$15,445
1%
$7,722
0%
$0
City Property
Various Fine Arts
Various Locations
$1,896,996
1%
$18,970
2%
$37,940
1%
$18,970
0%
$0
City Property
Mobile & Scheduled Equipment
Various Locations
$1,429,131
1%
$14,291
2%
$28,583
1%
$14,291
0%
$0
City Property
On Premises Auto
Various Locations
$3,069,387
1%
$30,694
2%
$61,388
1%
$30,694
0%
$0
City Property
Various Fountains
Various Locations
$3,960,133
1%
$39,601
2%
$79,203
1%
$39,601
0%
$0
Police
Sheriff Substation
15001 Paramount Blvd., Paramount CA 90723
$4,428,954
5%
$221,448
2%
$88,579
1%
$44,290
0%
$0
Parks
All-American Park
13330 Orizaba Ave., Paramount CA 90723
$138,655
1%
$1,387
2%
$2,773
5%
$6,933
0%
$0
Water
Water Well 15
6503 Somerset Blvd., Paramount CA 90723
$5,355,000
1%
$53,550
2%
$107,100
1%
$53,550
0%
$0
Water
Wellsite 16
16317 Garfield Ave., Paramount CA 90723
$5,355,000
1%
$53,550
2%
$107,100
1%
$53,550
0%
$0
Fire Service
$35,360
3%
$1,061
10%
$3,536
5%
$1,768
5%
$1,768
Police Service
$61,480
5%
$3,074
10%
$6,148
5%
$3,074
5%
$3,074
Water Service
$5,017,815
1%
$50,178
2%
$100,356
1%
$50,178
0%
$0
Electricity
$6,798,330
100%
$6,798,330
2%
$135,967
10%
$679,833
50%
$3,399,165
Wastewater
$2,212,155
10%
$221,216
2%
$44,243
20%
$442,431
0%
$0
$7,902,170
Pipeline Failure
$1,868,417
Severe Weather / Destructive Winds
$3,445,444
Utility Loss
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
$2,211,801
Flood
3-120
Table 3.28: Loss Estimates / Vulnerability Assessment –Utility Loss through Destructive Winds City of Paramount Vulnerability Assessment Calculations Type Public Buildings Public Buildings
Name City Hall City Yard
Public Buildings
Public Recreation Facility Paramount Park
Public Buildings
Public Recreation Facility
Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings
Drought
Public Recreation FacilityDills Park Public Recreation Facility Splash Pad restroom/office Activity Center
16400 Colorado Ave., Paramount CA 90723 15300 Downey Ave., Paramount CA 90723 14410 Paramount Blvd., Paramount CA 90723 15500 Downey Ave., Paramount CA 90723 6500 San Juan, Paramount CA 90723 7700 Somerset Blvd., Paramount CA 90723 14618 Orange Ave., Paramount CA 90723 15538 Colorado Ave., Paramount CA 90723
Civil Unrest / Riots
Transportation Accident
TOTAL
% Damage
Loss Estimate
% Damage
Loss Estimate
% Damage
Loss Estimate
% Damage
Loss Estimate
$3,895,450
0%
$0
0%
$0
20%
$779,090
1%
$38,954
$7,402,995
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$74,030
$6,589,136
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$65,891
$3,689,162
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$36,892
$523,262
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$5,233
$119,367
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$1,194
$629,963
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$6,300
$628,919
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$6,289
$471,230
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$4,712
$1,524,852
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$15,249
$179,209
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$1,792
$127,686
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$1,277
Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings Public Buildings
Public Recreation Facility Roosevelt
Public Buildings
Water Product Facility Wellsite 13 storage building
15123 Vermont Ave., Paramount CA 90723
$901,916
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$9,019
Public Buildings
Water Product Facility Wellsite 14
15966 Downey Ave, Paramount CA 90723
$1,891,466
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$18,915
Concession Stand
14410 Paramount Blvd., Paramount, CA 90723
$446,845
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$4,468
Public Buildings
Public Recreation Facility Concession Stand - Alondra MS Concession Stand
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
13451 Merkel Ave., Paramount CA 90723 14400 Gundry Ave., Paramount CA 90723 16200 Downey Ave., Paramount CA 90723 15500 Downey Ave., Paramount CA 90723
Disease Outbreak
3-121
Public Buildings
Clearwater Building
16401 Paramount Blvd., Paramount CA 90723
$2,680,141
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$26,801
City Property
Computer Equipment
Various Locations
$772,242
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$7,722
City Property
Various Fine Arts
Various Locations
$1,896,996
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$18,970
City Property
Mobile & Scheduled Equipment
Various Locations
$1,429,131
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$14,291
City Property
On Premises Auto
Various Locations
$3,069,387
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$30,694
City Property
Various Fountains
Various Locations
$3,960,133
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$39,601
$4,428,954
0%
$0
0%
$0
20%
$885,791
1%
$44,290
$138,655
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$1,387
15001 Paramount Blvd., Paramount CA 90723 13330 Orizaba Ave., Paramount CA 90723
Police
Sheriff Substation
Parks
All-American Park
Water
Water Well 15
6503 Somerset Blvd., Paramount CA 90723
$5,355,000
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$53,550
Water
Wellsite 16
16317 Garfield Ave., Paramount CA 90723
$5,355,000
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$53,550
Fire Service
$35,360
0%
$0
50%
$17,680
20%
$7,072
10%
$3,536
Police Service
$61,480
0%
$0
50%
$30,740
20%
$12,296
10%
$6,148
Water Service
$5,017,815
10%
$501,782
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$50,178
Electricity
$6,798,330
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$67,983
Wastewater
$2,212,155
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
1%
$22,122
Drought
$501,782
Biological / Human Disease
$48,420
Civil Unrest / Riots
$1,684,249
Transportation Accident
$814,623
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-122
Table 3.29 summarizes the loss estimates for each hazard. Table 3.29: Loss Estimates Summary Hazard
Estimated Losses
Earthquake
$26,559,000
Adversarial Event
$9,018,000
Utility Loss
$7,902,000
Urban Fire
$4,167,000
Destructive Winds
$3,454,000
Pipeline Failure
$2,212,000
Flood
$1,868,000
Civil Unrest
$1,684,000
HazMat Industrial Accident
$1,658,000
Homeless
$1,486,000
Transportation Accident
$815,000
Drought
$502,000
Biological/Human Disease
$48,000
*Values are rounded to the nearest thousand Vaa
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
3-123
MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Table of Contents 4.1
Mitigation Goals and Objectives ....................................................................4-1
4.2
Identification of Mitigation Recommendations .............................................4-4
4.3
National Flood Insurance Program Compliance...........................................4-9
4.4
Prioritization of Mitigation Recommendations ........................................... 4-10
4.5
Implementation Strategy .............................................................................. 4-17
List of Tables Table 4.1: Overall Plan Goals and Objectives ................................................................. 1 Table 4.2: Mitigation Action Identification ........................................................................ 5 Table 4.3: NFIP Participation........................................................................................... 9 Table 4.4: Mitigation Action Prioritization: Benefit-Cost Review ..................................... 11 Table 4.5 Ongoing Mitigation Strategies ........................................................................ 18
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-i
4.1 Mitigation Goals and Objectives To structure goals and objectives that produce appropriate mitigation actions, the hazard profiles and loss estimates were thoroughly
STEP 1: DEVELOP MITIGATION GOALS & OBJECTIVES
reviewed to identify patterns in the location of potential hazard events and the vulnerability of the
infrastructure
identified
within
those
STEP 2: IDENTIFY & PRIORITIZE MITIGATION ACTIONS
locations. This information was used to update the existing goals to better mitigate the effects of natural hazard events in alignment with
STEP 3: PREPARE AN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
current trends throughout the City of Paramount STEP 4: DOCUMENT THE MITIGATION PLANNING PROCESS
(City). The mitigation goals listed in table 4.1 provide guidelines for developing mitigation projects to provide prioritized hazard reduction. The goals
STEP 5: DEVELOP COMPLETE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
are based on the findings of the Risk Assessment and input from the Steering Committee and characterize long-term hazard reduction targets and the enhancement of current mitigation capabilities. §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. Table 4.1 includes the Plan goals and corresponding mitigation objectives. These strategies were developed and reviewed by the Steering Committee utilizing knowledge of the local area (including high-hazard areas and sensitive populations), review of past efforts, findings of the risk assessment, and identification of mitigation projects. Table 4.1: Overall Plan Goals and Objectives 1. Protect Loved, Property, and Commerce •
Strategy 1.1: Identify mitigation action to reduce loss of lives and property
•
Strategy 1.2: Implement mitigation action to reduce loss of lives and property, where feasible.
•
Strategy 1.3: Provide resources and information to the business community to encourage economic resilience.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-1
•
Strategy 1.4: Utilize existing studies and date to support mitigation strategies which reduce vulnerability to identified hazards
2. Improve Environmental Sustainability •
Strategy 2.1: Expand tools and resources provided to residents to support environmental improvement campaigns.
•
Strategy 2.2: Educate the public on the impacts of environmental issues to encourage individual action and support of City endeavors.
3. Encourage Participation in Resiliency Efforts •
Strategy 3.1: Gain support of the City Administration, Department heads, lead Agencies, and the pubic to promote participation in implementation of hazard mitigation strategies.
•
Strategy 3.2: Education the public on the impacts of environmental issues to encourage individual action and support of City endeavors.
4. Update Codes and Standards to Improve Resiliency •
Strategy 4.1: Stay current with State and County guidance for resiliency
•
Strategy 42: Review and update other City of Paramount programs to identify current and future mitigation goals and objective in compliance with all City, county, state, and Federal requirements.
5. Enhance Emergency Management Capabilities •
Strategy 5.1: Maintain active presence in regional planning efforts to improve interagency coordination in emergency management
•
Strategy 5.2: Conduct interdepartmental trainings on aspects of emergency management providing guidance on the roles of leaders, department heads, and the public
•
Strategy 5.3: Continue to expand avenues to obtain alternate emergency resources with an emphasis on executing agreements prior to an emergency situation.
It should be noted the overall priorities for mitigation planning did not change much from the last Hazard Mitigation Plan revision in 2015. However, the current plan goals were
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-2
revised to be clearer and more direct. Figure 4.1 provides and over of the mitigation process. Figure 4.1 Mitigation Processing
As illustrated in the figure, the hazard mitigation process involves building off previous steps in order to improve mitigation efforts for the identified hazards.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-3
4.2 Identification of Mitigation Recommendations §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. Mitigation strategies are administrative and/or engineering project recommendations to reduce the City’s vulnerability to the identified hazards. Vital City employees are required in the development of strategies and projects that are designed to mitigate these hazards and solve problems cost-effectively, as well as ensure consistency with the City’s longterm mitigation goals and capital improvements. During the fourth Steering Committee meeting, a team-based approach was utilized to brainstorm mitigation projects based on the identified hazards and associated loss estimates. In addition, FEMA’s local Mitigation Planning Handbook and the California Adaptation Planning Guide were used to identify action to mitigation the effects of climate change. The evaluation and prioritization of the mitigation actions was used as an aid to produce a list of recommended mitigation actions to incorporate into the mitigation plan. Each of the mitigation recommendations listed in Table 4.2 fell into one or more of the following categories: •
Prevention – planning and zoning, building codes, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and storm water management
•
Property Protection – acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofits, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass
•
Personnel Education and Awareness – outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and education programs
•
Natural Resource Protection – sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation
•
Emergency Services – warning systems, emergency response services, and protection of critical facilities
•
Structural Projects – dams, levees, floodwalls, seawalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-4
Table 4.2: Mitigation Action Identification
Mitigation Activity
LHMP.2022.01: Consider performing a seismic
Hazards
Mitigation Action
Mitigated
Category
Earthquake
Property Protection
evaluation for critical facilities and infrastructure and
Corresponding Goals
Responsible Department
Goal 1: Protect Life and
Planning
Property
(Building and
perform structural improvements accordingly.
Resources
Grants
Estimated Project Cost
$15,000
Protects
Protects
New
Existing
Buildings
Buildings
Long
N
Y
Timeframe
(per evaluation)
Safety), Public Works
LHMP.2022.02: Consider configuring the dedicated
Earthquake
Emergency Services
shelter station (Paramount Park) with an emergency
Goal 1: Protect Life and
Public Works
Grants
$25,000
Long
N
Y
Public Works
Grants
$1,000,000 per
Medium
N
Y
Property
generator for backup power.
Goal 5: Enhance Emergency Management Capabilities
LHMP.2022.03: Consider using solar as an alternate
Earthquake,
power source for critical facilities and to run emergency
Power Outage,
generators.
Climate
Emergency Services
Goal 2: Improve Environmental Sustainability
project
Change LHMP.2022.04: Consider providing public education
Urban Fires
materials with regards to urban fires.
Personnel Education
Goal 1: Protect Life and
and Awareness
Property
Public Safety
Grants
$3,000
Medium
Y
Y
Staff Time
Staff Time
Ongoing
Y
Y
Grants
$100,000 per
Medium
Y
Y
Long
N
N
LHMP.2022.05: Consider improving coordination
HazMat
Personnel Education
Goal 1: Protect Life and
LA Fire/
between HazMat Owners/Operators and appropriate
Release
and Awareness
Property
Public Safety
LHMP.2022.06: Consider configuring critical City
Adversarial
Emergency Services
Goal 5: Improve Emergency
Public Safety
locations with appropriate surveillance equipment
Events
response agencies.
Service and Management
project
Capability LHMP.2022.07: Consider installing and expanding the
Adversarial
current LPR camera system throughout the City to
Events
assist responders in tracking suspicious or suspected
Emergency Services
Goal 5: Enhance Emergency
Public
Management Capabilities
Safety/Public
Grant
$80,000/unit
Works
individuals throughout the City.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-5
Mitigation Activity
Hazards
Mitigation Action
Mitigated
Category
LHMP.2022.08: Consider implementing cybersecurity
Adversarial
measures to protect against attacks (i.e. ransomware)
Events
LHMP.2022.09: Continue coordination with pipeline
Pipeline Failure
Prevention
Prevention
companies to maintain the ongoing integrity of natural
All
Emergency Services
New
Existing
Buildings
Buildings
Medium
N
N
Timeframe
Goal 1: Protect Lives,
IT Division
General
Technology
Property, and Commerce
(Administrative
Budget/Gra
Costs unknown
Services)
nt Funding
Est. $10k-$250k
Public Works
Staff Time
Staff Time
Ongoing
Y
Y
Recreation
Staff Time
Staff Time
Short
N
N
Public Works
Staff Time
Staff Time
Ongoing
Y
Y
Staff Time
Staff Time
Ongoing
Y
Y
Public Works
Staff Time
Staff Time
Short
N
N
Public Works
Street
$60,000 per unit
Short
N
N
Goal 5: Improve Emergency
Goal 5: Improve Emergency Capability
Flood
Prevention
remains a priority.
Goal 1: Protect Life and Property
Wind
maintaining trees on private property (particularly for
Personnel Education
Goal 5: Improve Emergency
Personnel
and Awareness
Service and Management
Education
Capability
and
mobile home parks) to mitigate the effects of severe wind. LHMP.2022.13: Expand existing tree maintenance
Project Cost
Protects
Service and Management
and food with local business are updated.
LHMP.2022.12: Consider educating residents about
Resources
Protects
Capability
contracts for priority on obtaining emergency supplies
LHMP.2022.11: Consider ensuring that flood mitigation
Department
Estimated
Service and Management
gas and hazardous pipelines. LHMP.2022.10: Consider ensuring that existing
Corresponding Goals
Responsible
Awareness Wind
Improve
Goal 1: Protect lives, Property,
program to include considerations for the impact of
Environmental
and Commerce
climate change on the tree population to prevent decay
Sustainability
and eventual falls leading to asset damage and personal injury. LHMP.2022.14: Install Max Wells to catch stormwater runoff and improve water supply resilience.
Drought
Prevention
Goal 2: Improve Environmental Sustainability
Restrict funds
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-6
Mitigation Activity
LHMP.2022.15: Expand public outreach regarding
Hazards
Mitigation Action
Mitigated
Category
Drought
Prevention
drought and available incentive programs for residents
Corresponding Goals
Goal 3: Encourage
Responsible Department
Resources
Estimated Project Cost
Timeframe
Protects
Protects
New
Existing
Buildings
Buildings
Prevention
Grants
$10,000
Medium
Y
Y
Goal 5: Improve Emergency
Emergency
Staff Time
$40,000
Ongoing
Y
Y
Service and Management
Services
Participation in Resiliency
to develop alternative landscaping as well as
Efforts
implement other water saving initiatives. LHMP.2022.16: Consider ensuring that the mass
Dam Failure,
notification system (i.e. Nixle) is ready for service and
Earthquake,
used as needed.
etc.
LHMP.2022.17: Consider coordination with first
Transportation
responders (e.g., Fire, CHP) to mitigate the effects of
Accidents
Emergency Services
Capability Emergency Services
transportation incidents. LHMP.2022.18: Consider ensuring adequate
annually
Goal 5: Improve Emergency
Emergency
Staff Time
Staff Time
Ongoing
N
N
Service and Management
Services
Staff Time
Staff Time
Ongoing
N
N
General
Staff Time
Short
N
N
Prevention
Staff Time
Staff Time
Ongoing
Y
N
Goal 1: Protect Life and
Property
Grant
$115,000
Short
N
Y
Property
Protection
Capability Civil Unrest
Emergency Services
communications with LASD in the event of civil unrest.
Goal 5: Improve Emergency
Emergency
Service and Management
Services
Capability LHMP.2022.19: Continue ensuring EOC training is
All
provided, as necessary.
Personnel Education
Goal 2: Promote Public
Personnel
and Awareness
Awareness and Outreach
Education and Awareness
LHMP.2022.20: Consider ensuring that new
All
Prevention
development complies with new and future building and
Goal 1: Protect Life and Property
zoning codes and considers hazard mitigation for new developments. LHMP.2022.21: Consider retrofitting the LA Bridge in accordance with the CIP.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Earthquake
Property Protection
4-7
Hazards
Mitigation Action
Mitigated
Category
Homelessness
Prevention/
Goal 1: Protect Lives,
targeted areas to prevent encampments from entering
Structural
Property, and Commerce
into Consider retrofitting the LA Bridge in accordance
Projects/Emergency
with the CIP. hazardous areas (i.e. near railroad tracks)
Services
Mitigation Activity
LHMP.2022.22: Consider installing buffer zones in
LHMP.2022.23: Consider obtaining outside funding to
Homelessness
support and expand existing measures to support and
Corresponding Goals
Department
Public Safety
Goal 1: Protect Lives,
Emergency Services
Property, and Commerce
Public Safety
Goal 3: Encourage
support, mental health support, etc.)
implement the Middle Mile Project to reinforce
Outbreak
broadband service capabilities throughout the City.
Prevention
General
$5,000-
Fund, Grant
$100,000 based
funding
on project size
Protects
New
Existing
Buildings
Buildings
Medium
N
Y
Medium
N
N
Long
No
No
Timeframe
General
Staff Time to
Fund, Grant
establish donor
Funding,
relationships
p
Efforts Disease
Project Cost
Protects
Sponsorshi
Participation in Resiliency
LHMP.2022.24: Work with State representatives to
Resources
Estimated
and scope.
Prevention/
rehabilitate the homeless population (i.e. job-prep, rent
Responsible
Gateway
State
Council of
Funded,
Governments/
Staff Time
Staff Time
Administratio n Notes:
1 Values provided by Steering Committee
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-8
4.3 National Flood Insurance Program Compliance §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a Federal program enabling property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losses in exchange for State and community floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damages.
Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement
between communities and the Federal Government. If a community adopts and enforces a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risk to new construction in floodplains, the Federal Government will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses. This insurance is designed to provide an alternative to disaster assistance and reduce the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods. Table 4.3 summarizes the City of Paramount’s participation in the program Table 4.3: NFIP Participation CID 065049
Community Name
County
Init. FHBM Identified
Init. FIRM Identified
Curr. Eff. Map Date
Reg-Emer. Date
Tribal
City of Los Paramount Angeles
03/31/72
07/06/98
NSFHA
02/20/79
No
Continued Compliance As part of the City’s continued compliance with NFID, the City of Paramount General Plan includes multiple Health & Safety Policies aimed at reducing flooding throughout the City by expanding flood control capabilities in open areas and structures. In addition, the City coordinates with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to identify flooding hazards throughout the City and make improvements. Flood Recommendations/Repetitive Loss Properties The Steering Committee did not identify any repetitive loss properties with the City. However, Mitigation Action LHMP.2022.12 was included this Plan a placeholder to help ensure flood mitigation remains a priority in mitigation efforts.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-9
4.4 Prioritization of Mitigation Recommendations §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. A simplified Benefit-Cost Review was applied in order to prioritize the mitigation recommendations for implementation.
The priority for
implementing mitigation
recommendations depends upon the overall cost effectiveness of the recommendation, when taking into account monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits associated with each action. Additionally, the following questions were considered when developing the Benefit-Cost Review:
•
How many people will benefit from the action?
•
How large an area is impacted?
•
How critical are the facilities that benefit from the action?
•
Environmentally, does it make sense to do this project for the overall community?
Table 4.6 provides a detailed benefit-cost review for each mitigation recommendation, as well as a relative priority rank (High, Medium, and Low) based upon the judgment of the Steering Committee. The general category guidelines are listed below:
•
High – Benefits are perceived to exceed costs without further study or evaluation
•
Medium – Benefits are perceived to exceed costs, but may require further study or evaluation prior to implementation
•
Low – Benefits and costs evaluation requires additional evaluation prior to implementation
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-10
Table 4.4: Mitigation Action Prioritization: Benefit-Cost Review Mitigation Activity LHMP.2021.01: Consider performing a seismic evaluation for critical facilities and infrastructure and perform structural improvements accordingly.
Benefits (Pros) •
Avoided physical damage (~$30,000,000)
•
Avoided loss of function costs
•
Avoided casualties
•
Avoided Emergency Management Cost
LHMP.2021.02: Consider configuring the dedicated shelter station (Paramount Park) with an emergency generator for backup power.
•
Avoided Emergency Management Cost
•
Avoided Loss of Function
LHMP.2021.03: Consider using solar as an alternate power source for critical facilities and to run emergency generators.
•
Avoided Emergency Management Cost
•
Avoided Loss of Function
•
Reduced Environmental Impact (switching from diesel to solar)
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Costs (Cons) •
$135,000 (evaluation for multiple City buildings)
•
$2,000,000 - $5,000,000 (estimated retrofits for multiple City buildings, actual costs will vary depending on results of evaluation)
•
$650,000 (potential costs associated with temporary relocations during retrofits)
•
$200,000 for generator purchase and building modifications (installation of transfer switch)
•
Priority
High
Medium
~$300K-$500k per location for panels, solar storage, and building modifications (based on size) Medium
4-11
Mitigation Activity LHMP.2021.04: Consider providing public education materials with regards to urban fires.
LHMP.2021.05: Consider improving coordination between HazMat Owners/Operators and appropriate response agencies.
LHMP.2021.06: Consider configuring critical City locations with appropriate surveillance equipment
LHMP.2021.07: Consider installing and expanding the current LPR camera system throughout the City to assist responders in tracking suspicious or suspected individuals throughout the City.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Benefits (Pros) •
Avoided physical damage
•
Avoided casualties (historical injuries in Paramount)
•
Avoided Emergency Management Cost
•
Avoided physical damage
•
Avoided casualties (historical injuries in Paramount)
Costs (Cons) •
Priority
$10,000 (materials and postings) Low
•
Staff Time
Low
•
Avoided Emergency Management Cost
•
Avoided physical damage
•
$100,000 (for several new facilities)
•
Avoided casualties
•
•
Avoided Emergency Management Cost
$10,000 (upgrades to an existing facility)
•
Avoided physical damage
•
$80K (Cost per Unit)
•
•
Installing costs
Avoided casualties
•
•
Avoided Emergency Management Cost
Administration/Management Costs
Low
High
4-12
Mitigation Activity
Benefits (Pros)
Costs (Cons)
•
Avoided Loss of Function
•
Avoided loss of Security
•
Avoided Public Impact
•
Avoided physical damage
•
Avoided casualties
•
Avoided Emergency Management Cost
LHMP.2021.10: Consider ensuring that existing contracts for priority on obtaining emergency supplies and food with local business are updated.
•
Avoided Emergency Management Cost
•
LHMP.2021.11: Consider ensuring that flood mitigation remains a priority.
•
Avoided Emergency Management Cost
•
Staff Time
LHMP.2021.12: Consider educating residents about maintaining trees on private property (particularly for mobile home parks) to mitigate the impacts of severe wind.
•
Minimize physical damage
•
$10,000 for campaign materials
•
Avoided Power Outages
•
Staff Time
LHMP.2021.08: Consider implementing cybersecurity measures to protect against attacks (i.e. ransomware)
LHMP.2021.09: Continue coordination with pipeline companies to maintain the ongoing integrity of natural gas and hazardous pipelines.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
•
Upgraded Technology costs
•
Ongoing personnel education (Staff Time)
•
Priority
Medium
Staff Time Medium
Staff Time High
Low
Low
4-13
Mitigation Activity
Benefits (Pros)
Costs (Cons)
•
Minimize physical damage
•
Avoided Power Outages
•
Avoided Injuries
•
Avoided Emergency Management Cost for debris removal and cleanup
LHMP.2021.14: Install Max Wells to catch stormwater runoff and improve water supply resilience.
•
Avoided loss of function
•
Reduced Environmental Impact
LHMP.2021.15: Expand public outreach regarding drought and available incentive programs for residents to develop alternative landscaping as well as implement other water saving initiatives.
•
Avoided loss of function
•
Reduced Environmental Impact
LHMP.2021.16: Consider ensuring that the mass notification system (i.e. Nixle) is ready for service and used as needed.
•
Avoided Emergency Management Cost
•
LHMP.2021.17: Consider coordination with first responders (e.g., Fire, CHP) to mitigate the effects of transportation incidents.
•
Avoided Emergency Management Cost
•
LHMP.2021.13: Expand existing tree maintenance program to include considerations for the impact of climate change on the tree population to prevent decay and eventual falls leading to asset damage and personal injury.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
•
Administration Costs
•
$40K for Planning/Inspection Costs
•
Additional contracted labor costs for maintenance services
•
$75-100k for Well and installation costs.
•
Priority
High
High
$10,000 for campaign materials High (currently ongoing)
$11,400 (annually) High (done annually)
Staff Time Medium
4-14
Mitigation Activity
Benefits (Pros)
Costs (Cons)
•
Avoided Emergency Management Cost
•
Avoided Physical Damages
•
Avoided injuries
LHMP.2021.19: Continue ensuring EOC training is provided, as necessary.
•
Avoided Emergency Management Cost
•
Staff Time
LHMP.2021.20: Consider ensuring that new development complies with new and future building and zoning codes and considers hazard mitigation for new developments.
•
Avoided physical damage
•
Staff Time
•
Avoided Environmental Impacts
•
Avoided Injuries
•
Avoided physical damage
•
Staff Time
•
•
$385,000 in design costs
Avoided loss of function
•
<$2,000,000 in construction costs
•
Avoided Injuries
•
Avoided Physical Damages
•
Avoided local Environmental Impacts
~$25k per project in construction costs
•
Staff Time/Administration Costs
LHMP.2021.18: Consider ensuring adequate communications with LASD in the event of civil unrest.
LHMP.2021.21: Consider retrofitting the LA (Rosecrans) Bridge in accordance with the CIP.
LHMP.2021.22: Consider installing buffer zones in targeted areas to prevent encampments from entering into hazardous areas (i.e. near railroad tracks)
• •
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Avoided Debris Removal and Cleanup costs.
•
Priority
Staff Time High
High
Medium
Medium (in the current CIP)
Medium
4-15
Mitigation Activity LHMP.2021.23: Consider obtaining outside funding to support and expand existing measures to support and rehabilitate the homeless population (i.e. job-prep, rent support, mental health support, etc.)
LHMP.2022.24: Work with State representatives to implement the Middle Mile Project to reinforce broadband service capabilities throughout the City.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Benefits (Pros) •
Avoided Casualties
•
Avoided local Environmental Impacts
•
Reduction in calls for service (50-60% of current calls are transient-related)
•
Improvement of the quality of life for impacted individual(s)
•
Avoided Loss of Function
•
Avoided Illnesses
•
Avoided Emergency Management Costs
•
•
Costs (Cons)
Priority
Staff Time to establish donor relationships
High
Staff Time
High
4-16
4.5 Implementation Strategy Mitigation Actions classified as high-priority mitigation actions are meant to provide the most significant vulnerability reduction, as related to cost and probability, and are typically implemented before lower ranked improvements. The City, however, may find that under some circumstances a recommendation classified as low-priority mitigation action may need to be implemented before a higher priority recommendation. The priority levels associated with each improvement are indicated on the “Mitigation Action Prioritization: Benefit-Cost Review” table in the previous section. 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan Strategies The Steering Committee reviewed the mitigation strategies and actions form the 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The 2015 Plan outlined mitigation strategies scheduled for completion in the near future and additional project for consideration. However, as many of these projects are contingent on the City receiving grant funding to implement, some of these have yet to be implemented. Several Mitigation Strategies from the 2015 Plan have been carried through into the current Plan revision. Table 4.5 provides some of the mitigation strategies from the 2015 and their correlation to the current Plan. The table includes a column denoting whether or not an action was completed since the last Plan update.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-17
Table 4.5 Ongoing Mitigation Strategies 2015 Plan Mitigation Strategies
Correlated Current Mitigation Strategies
Completed
LHMP.2015.01: Consider performing a seismic evaluation LHMP.2021.01: Consider performing a seismic of City buildings and perform seismic retrofits accordingly
evaluation for critical facilities and infrastructure and
No
perform structural improvements accordingly. LHMP.2015.02: Consider performing a seismic evaluation This action was lumped into LHMP.2021.01 in the of the water pipelines and perform seismic retrofits 2022 update.
Modified
accordingly. LHMP.2015.03: Continue to coordinate with LA County to Completed ensure sewer systems and local connections are assessed
Yes
accordingly. LHMP.2015.04: Consider upgrading the Maintenance Completed Building to function as a dedicated secondary EOC.
Yes
LHMP.2015.05: Consider configuring the dedicated shelter LHMP.2021.02: Consider configuring the dedicated station (Progress Park) with an emergency generator for shelter station (Paramount Park) with an emergency backup power.
No
generator for backup power.
LHMP.2015.06: Consider configuring the secondary shelter Duplicate station (Paramount Park) with an emergency generator for
No
backup power.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-18
LHMP.2015.07:
Consider
providing
public
education LHMP.2021.04: Consider providing public education
materials to residents in mobile home parks in regard to materials with regards to urban fires.
Ongoing
urban fires. LHMP.2015.08:
Continue
to
coordinate
between LHMP.2021.05: Consider improving coordination
Hazardous Materials Owners/Operators and appropriate between HazMat Owners/Operators and appropriate response agencies
No
response agencies.
LHMP.2015.09: Consider configuring critical City locations LHMP.2021.06: Consider configuring critical City (e.g.,
major
intersections,
refinery,
City
buildings, locations with appropriate surveillance equipment
Community Center, Progress Plaza) with appropriate
Ongoing
surveillance equipment. LHMP.2015.10: Continue to coordinate with pipeline LHMP.2021.09: Continue coordination with pipeline companies to maintain the ongoing integrity of natural gas companies to maintain the ongoing integrity of and hazardous pipelines
Ongoing
natural gas and hazardous pipelines.
LHMP.2015.11: Consider contracting with Jankovich and a LHMP.2021.10: Consider ensuring that existing secondary contract (e.g., DeWitt) to obtain backup fuel contracts for priority on obtaining emergency supplies for the City fleet.
Ongoing
supplies and food with local business are updated.
LHMP.2015.12: Consider ensuring that existing contracts Compiled into LHMP.2021.10 for priority on obtaining emergency supplies and food with
Ongoing
local business are updated.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-19
LHMP.2015.13:
Consider
providing
training
to
City Completed
personnel on how to access priority phone services in the
Yes
event of an emergency. LHMP.2015.14: Consider configuring the EOCs with 2-way Completed radios to facilitate emergency communications with the
Yes
Paramount School District. LHMP.2015.15: Consider ensuring that flood mitigation LHMP.2021.11: remains a priority LHMP.2015.16:
Consider
ensuring
that
flood
mitigation remains a priority. Consider
educating
residents
Ongoing
about LHMP.2021.12: Consider educating residents about
maintaining trees on private property (e.g., mobile home maintaining trees on private property (particularly for park) to mitigate the effects of severe wind.
mobile home parks) to mitigate the impacts of severe
Ongoing
wind. LHMP.2015.17: Consider providing education to the public Completed to the effects of drought LHMP.2015.18:
Consider
evaluating
the
merits
of LHMP.2021.15: Expand public outreach regarding
implementing an incentive program for residents to develop drought and available incentive programs for alternative landscaping
Yes
residents to develop alternative landscaping as well
Ongoing
as implement other water saving initiatives.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-20
LHMP.2015.19:
Consider
evaluating
the
merits
of LHMP.2021.14:
upgrading the reclaimed water service area to encompass stormwater all City resources LHMP.2015.20:
Install
runoff
Max
and
Wells
improve
to
catch
water
supply
resilience. Consider
ensuring
that
the
mass LHMP.2021.16: Consider ensuring that the mass
notification system (i.e. reverse 9-1-1 System) is used as notification system (i.e. Nixle) is ready for service and needed LHMP.2015.21:
Ongoing
Ongoing
used as needed. Continue
to
coordinate
with
first LHMP.2021.17: Consider coordination with first
responders (e.g., Fire Departments, California Highway responders (e.g., Fire, CHP) to mitigate the effects of Patrol, etc.) to mitigate the effects of transportation transportation incidents.
Ongoing
incidents. LHMP.2015.22: Continue to coordinate with LA County LHMP.2021.18:
Consider
ensuring
adequate
Sheriff’s Department to ensure adequate communications communications with LASD in the event of civil are maintained in the event of civil unrest. LHMP.2015.23:
Consider
ensuring
EOC training
provided to key City personnel as necessary.
unrest. is LHMP.2021.19: Continue ensuring EOC training is provided, as necessary.
LHMP.2015.24: Consider ensuring that new development LHMP.2021.20:
Consider
Completed/ Ongoing
ensuring
that
new
complies with building codes and considers hazard development complies with new and future building mitigation.
Ongoing
and zoning codes and considers hazard mitigation
Ongoing
for new developments.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-21
LHMP.2015.25:
Consider
coordinating
efforts
for LHMP.2021.21:
Consider
retrofitting
the
resurfacing and retrofitting the Los Angeles River Bridge in (Rosecrans) Bridge in accordance with the CIP. accordance with the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP).
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
LA
On schedule to be completed
4-22
PLAN MAINTENANCE
Table of Contents 5.1
Mitigation Progress Monitoring .........................................................5-2
5.2
Planning Mechanisms.........................................................................5-3 5.2.1
Process to Incorporate the Mitigation Strategy into Other Planning Mechanisms ..........................................................................................5-3
5.2.2
Process to Incorporate the Mitigation Strategy into Other Planning Mechanisms ........................................................................................ 5-13
5.3
Periodic Assessment Requirements ............................................... 5-15
5.4
Update Requirements ....................................................................... 5-17 5.4.1
Plan Update ........................................................................................ 5-18
5.4.2
Continued Public Involvement ............................................................. 5-19
List of Tables Table 5-1: Action Item Implementation............................................................... 20
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-i
5.1 Mitigation Progress Monitoring The Mitigation Strategy report in the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) identifies mitigation
STEP 1: ADOPT THE MITIGATION PLAN
actions that have been prioritized based on the loss estimates and the probability of each hazard, which will typically be implemented
STEP 2: IMPLEMENT THE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
according to the priority rank. To thoroughly track hazard mitigation status, the City of Paramount (City) must continuously monitor and document
STEP 3: EVALUATE YOUR PLANNING
the progress of the implementation of mitigation
RESULTS
actions. Though mitigation actions may be delegated to different departments within the
STEP 4: REVISE THE PLAN
City, the Public Safety Department Director, or designee,
will
have
the
responsibility
monitoring overall progress.
of MONITOR MITIGATION PLAN EFFECTIVENESS
§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. To facilitate this monitoring process, Table 5-1: “HMP Action Item Implementation” was developed to provide a mechanism for monitoring the overall implementation progress. The table is designed to monitor mitigation actions according to project managers, project status, and project milestones.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-2
5.2 Planning Mechanisms §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.
5.2.1
Process to Incorporate the Mitigation Strategy into Other Planning Mechanisms
The City maintains the following processes to incorporate mitigation strategies of the Hazard Mitigation Plan into planning mechanisms. Website The City’s HMP will be posted on the City website to enable citizens to review and provide feedback regarding mitigation objectives and strategies. Feedback from residents can be incorporated during the annual review of five-year update of the HMP and expand the Steering Committee’s understanding of the public’s opinion on hazard vulnerability. In addition, the website can be used as a vehicle to maintain an ongoing conversation with the public regarding upcoming mitigation project and provide an avenue for hazard education. City Council The City Council is responsible for approving projects, plans and programs on a City-wide level. By providing mitigation planning concepts to the City Council, mitigation actions and projects will be incorporated into relevant planning efforts. Department heads can expand mitigation efforts by working with Council Members to encourage the inclusion of mitigation goals and objectives for any project or planning efforts which are reviewed by the City Council. Public Works Department The Public Works Department provides infrastructure and maintenance services to City assets to the public. Hazard mitigation will be integrated into Public Works programs through its involvement in the Steering Committee. The Public Works Department has the ability to expand mitigation activities by implementing safety mechanisms throughout the City to maximize resiliency. The Public Works Department, through the Sustainability City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-3
Division, is the lead department for administering and monitoring the Paramount Climate Action Plan. Strategy CR3 of the Resilient Community Adaptation Actions of the Climate Action Plan is to “Ensure that emergency planning, public health planning, and adaptation efforts prioritize vulnerable populations.” Planning Department The City Planning Department ensures development within the City is consistent with the Paramount General Plan goals and policies, as well as in the best interests of the City. The Planning Department is involved in the development of land use; general planning; zoning requirements; and residential, commercial, and industrial projects. In this way, mitigation measures can be incorporated into potential projects and the Department, particularly the Building and Safety Division, can enforce building codes which support hazard mitigation. The Hazard Mitigation Plan is identified in the Health and Safety Element of the General Plan, and Health and Safety Policy Element 43 sets regular updates to the Hazard Mitigation Plan to reduce the level of injury, property damage, and community disruption. Policy EJ-3.5 of the Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan states “Coordinate and integrate hazard mitigation activities with emergency operations plans and procedures.” Resource Tables This section serves as a high-level capability assessment of the City’s resources through which hazard mitigation objectives may be achieved. The following subsections attempt to document the Regulatory, Administrative/Technical, Fiscal, Grant funding, and Outreach/Partnership resources available to the City.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-4
Table 5.1: Regulatory Tools Table Regulatory Tool General Plan 2007
Updated
Comments
2007
The General Plan outlines how the City is organized with regard to areas such as
2022
land use, safety, different conservation efforts, and economic resilience and develop. The City comprehensively updated its plan in August 2007. In February 2022, the City Council adopted an updated Health and Safety Element and adopted a new Environmental Justice Element.
Urban Water Management
2020
Plan outlines forecasts for drought probability and magnitude while expanding
Plan
upon awareness of drought hazard vulnerability.
Administrative/Technical Resources Table 5.2: Administrative/Technical Tools Table Administrative/Technical Tool Sheriff's Department
Personnel/Resources The Sheriff's Department is able to support public outreach and may assist in identifying areas of improvement for resistance to civil unrest and adversarial events.
City Council
City Council can review and approve mitigation propositions for implementation.
Public Safety Department
The Public Safety Department is responsible for monitoring and promoting Hazard Mitigation objectives and disaster preparedness efforts.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-5
Planning Department
The Planning Department is response for all developments within the City. This department will be able to include considerations for local hazards into new projects.
Public Works
The Public Department is responsible for street improvements and overall City maintenance. This department can implement hazard mitigation activities as part of planned maintenance and City upgrades.
Administrative Services Department
The Department of Administrative Services is organized and responsible for coordinating the day-to-day activities of various internal operations and supplying specialized staff to all operating departments.
Fiscal Resources Table 5.3: Fiscal Tools Table Fiscal Tool
Available for Use
General Fund
Yes, with approval
Capital Improvement Plan
Yes, with approval
Authority to impose taxes for specific purposes
Yes, with voter approval
Grant Funding Table 5.4: Grant Funding Tools Table Grant Funding Tool
Agency
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Purpose
Contact
5-6
Pre-Disaster
Mitigation U.S.
Program
Department
Homeland Federal
(PDM)
of To
provide
Security, communities
funding for
for
States,
cost-effective
and FEMA
hazard
500 C. Street, SW
Emergency mitigation activities which complement a
Management Agency
comprehensive hazard mitigation program
Washington, DC 20472
and reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage Phone: (202) 646-4621 and deconstruction of property. Hazard Mitigation Grant U.S. Program
Department
www.fema.gov
of To prevent future losses of lives property due FEMA
Homeland
Security, to disasters; to implement State of local
Federal
Emergency hazard mitigation plans; to enable mitigation
Management Agency
measures
to
be
implemented
during
500 C Street S.W. Washington, DC 20472
immediate recovery from a disaster; and to Phone (202) 646-4621 provide funding for previously identified www.fema.gov mitigation measures to benefit the disaster area. Flood
Mitigation U.S.
Assistance (FMA)
Department
of To help States and communities plan and FEMA
Homeland
Security, carry out activities designed to reduce the risk
Federal
Emergency of flood damage to structures insurable under
Management Agency
the NFIP.
500 C Street S.W. Washington, DC 20472 Phone (202) 646-4621 www.fema.gov
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-7
Emergency
U.
Management
Homeland
Performance
S.
Department
encourage
the
development
of FEMA
Security; comprehensive emergency management at
Grants Federal
(EMPG)
of To
500 C Street S.W.
Emergency the State and local level and to improve
Management Agency
emergency
management
planning,
Washington, DC 20472
preparedness, mitigation, response, and Phone (202) 646-4621 recovery capabilities. Community
U.S.
Development
Department
Grant Housing
Program (CDBG)
and
www.fema.gov
of To develop viable urban communities by HUD
Urban providing decent housing and a suitable living
Development
451 7th Street, S. W.
environment. Principally for low-to-moderate Washington, DC 20410-7000
income individuals.
Phone: (202) 708-3587 www.hud.gov Public
Assistance U.S.
Program (PA)
Department
of To provide supplemental assistance to FEMA
Homeland
Security, States, local governments, and certain
Federal
Emergency private nonprofit organizations to alleviate
Management Agency
suffering and hardship resulting from major
500 C Street S.W. Washington, DC 20472
disasters or emergencies declared by the Phone (202) 646-4621 President.
Under
Section
406,
Public www.fema.gov Assistance funds may be used to mitigate the impact of future disasters.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-8
Emergency Watershed U.S. Protection
Department
Agriculture,
of To provide emergency technical and financial NRCS
Natural assistance to install or repair structures that
Resource
Conservation reduce runoff and prevent soil erosion to
Service
safeguard life and property.
PO BOX 2890 Washington, DC 20013 Phone: (202) 720-3527 www.nrcs.usda.gov
Disaster Mitigation and U.S. Technical Grants
Department
Assistance Commerce,
of To help States and localities to develop and EDA
Economic /or implement a variety of disaster mitigation
Development
Herbert C. Hoover Building
strategies. Washington, DC 20230
Administration
Phone: (800) 345-1222 www.eda.gov Watershed Surveys and U.S. Planning
Department
Agriculture, Resource
of To provide planning assistance to Federal, NRCS
Natural State,
and
local
agencies
for
the
PO Box 2890
Conservation development of coordination water and
Service
related
land
resources
watersheds and river basins
programs
in
Washington, DC 20013 Phone: (202) 720-3527 www.nrcs.usda.gov
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-9
National
Earthquake U.S.
Hazards
Reduction Homeland
Program (NEHRP)
Department
Federal
of To mitigate earthquake losses that can occur FEMA
Security, in many parts of the nation providing earth
500 C Street S.W.
Emergency science data and assessments essential for
Management Agency
warning of imminent damaging earthquakes,
Washington, DC 20472
land-use planning, engineering design, and Phone (202) 646-4621 emergency preparedness decisions. Engineering for Natural National Hazards
Foundation
Science Supports
fundamental
research
www.fema.gov that National Science Foundation
advances knowledge for understanding and
Phone: (703) 292-7024
mitigating the impact of natural hazards on constructed civil infrastructure
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
https://www.nsf.gov
5-10
Outreach and Partnership Resources Table 5.5: Outreach and Partnership Tools Outreach/Partnership Tools City Website
Comments The City website is an open forum for providing hazard information and for accepting ongoing comments from the public. The City website will likely be the main avenue for maintaining an open dialogue with the public for hazard mitigation throughout the planning period.
Public Outreach
The City holds several training opportunities throughout the year. Public safety training will be able to be expanded to include hazard-specific information to improve hazard awareness.
Mutual Aid Agreements
As part of expanding its resilience to the impacts of hazard events, the City intends to review its current mutual aid agreements, identify gaps, and secure new agreements to expand its available mutual resources.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-11
Building on Existing Capabilities As part of the Plan update, potential improvements to the City’s existing capabilities were discussed. The City is cognizant of the need to continually evaluate its efforts and take an active role in promoting resiliency within the City. The City currently utilizes its Public Safety Department to train its staff and reach out to the community regarding preventative and preparedness strategies for hazard event. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) directs funding to improve infrastructure and the City continually searches for grant opportunities to allow the City to accomplish additional improvements that address hazard mitigation efforts for public facilities. In addition to the City’s current efforts, the following is a list of potential new initiatives that would improve the City’s ability to promote resiliency. •
•
•
•
Regulatory/Fiscal: Enhance the CIP proposal procedure to include a Mitigation/Resiliency element to be considered for each project proposal. The intent is to consider how each CIP project might contribute to mitigation efforts, citing the HMP when proposed projects align with hazard mitigation planning efforts. Administrative: Add a Geographic Information System (GIS) Mapping Professional to the Public Safety Department to increase the City’s understanding of vulnerability to hazards through mapping products and drive resilience efforts, focusing on those areas which present the highest vulnerability. Grant Funding: Expand search for grant funding specifically to assist with aging infrastructure improvements, rehabilitation of open spaces, energy efficiency, and facility upgrades. Outreach/Education: Engage City commissions and increase volunteer opportunities to work with the public to gain community participation in resiliency efforts and voluntary resilience projects for privately-owned properties.
Progress for Mitigation Incorporation The sections above demonstrate the many resources available to the City for successful mitigation action implementation. Some of these resources have already provide their usefulness through successful action implementation over the last planning period. For example, the City successfully upgraded the Maintenance Building to function as a dedicated secondary Emergency Operations Center (EOC). This function was completed through the Public Safety Department utilizing budgetary resources. Additionally, the Public Safety Department successfully configured the EOC with 2-way radios to connect the City to the Paramount School District. Additionally, the City is in the process of City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-12
resurfacing/retrofitting the Rosecrans Avenue Bridge over the Los Angeles River utilizing funds set forth in the 2015 HMP utilizing Capital Improvement Plan funding. 5.2.2
Process to Incorporate the Mitigation Strategy into Other Planning Mechanisms
The City uses the following local planning mechanisms for incorporating the mitigation requirements of the HMP. General Planning The City of Paramount is responsible for updating and incorporating mitigation actions and concepts into the 2007 General Plan. In February 2022, the City Council adopted a revised Health and Safety Element and adopted a new Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan. The General Plan is evaluated on a periodic basis, which includes a review of the policies and programs associated with land use and development. Action Items from the Hazard Mitigation Plan will be reviewed during the next scheduled update of the plans and incorporated, as applicable. As part of this review, ordinances and codes will be reviewed to ensure they are consistent with the mitigation strategies and referred to the appropriate regulatory authority, as needed. Urban Water Management Plan The City is responsible for updating and incorporating mitigation actions and concepts into its Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP is updated every five years, which includes a review of the policies and programs associated with providing adequate water supplies to meeting demands under a range of water supply conditions. Action Items from the HMP will be reviewed during the next scheduled update of the UWMP and incorporated as applicable. As part of this review, ordinances and codes were reviewed to ensure they are consistent with the mitigation strategies and referred to the appropriate regulatory authority, as needed. The UWMP was updated for 2020, with its next revision scheduled within the next five years. Emergency Operations Plan The City maintains an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) that includes profiles and specific responses for earthquake, hazardous materials incident, flooding, and several other hazards mentioned in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The City will incorporate the risk assessment into the EOP in addition to using emergency scenarios outlined in the report to flush out potential mitigation actions. City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-13
Capital Improvements Plan The City of Paramount maintains a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) with projects that are budgeted for at least a five-year period. Engineering mitigation projects are included within the CIP’s. Additionally, the projects already included within the Capital Improvements Plans are reviewed for mitigation improvements (e.g., areas prone to flooding are configured with mitigation elements, new reservoirs are reviewed to ensure they configured with seismic flexible joints, current seismic design criteria are applied to pipeline construction, facility locations are reviewed for special hazards, etc.).
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-14
5.3 Periodic Assessment Requirements
§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. Mitigation planning is an ongoing process, and as such, the HMP should be treated as a living document that must grow and adapt in order to keep pace with changes within the City. Continuing from the 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan, an annual assessment will be completed to document those changes including site hazards (e.g., updated FIRM maps, contemporary seismic studies, etc.) or the installation and purchase of new equipment (e.g., back-up generators, emergency response equipment, etc.) to ensure they do not have any effect on City hazard vulnerabilities that would impact the conclusions or actions associated with the Hazard Mitigation Plan. In addition, these reviews will track the progress/status of proposed mitigation actions, progress of implemented actions, the incorporation of mitigation planning in other City planning documents and record any fiscal or policy issues that arise which reduce mitigation progress. As needed, these reviews can be used to promote mitigation action with the City or alter mitigation strategies within the plan, as appropriate. It should be noted that specific mitigation actions may be assigned to individuals across different departments based on the scope of the project. However, as mentioned below, the Public Safety Department Director, or designee, will take responsibility for tracking progress as it applies to mitigation planning. Actual project management will be handled by the assigned individual. Prior to the fifth year of the revision cycle, these annual observations will be reviewed to determine what changes should be implemented in the required Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. The results of the annual evaluations should be folded back into each phase of the planning process and should yield decisions on how to update each section of the Plan. The Public Safety Department Director, or designee, has the responsibility of implementing these annual and five-year requirements. During the annual review, if any updates are deemed minor, then the Public Safety Department Director or designee will perform the updates. However, if more major updates are required, then the Steering Committee (in whole or in part) will be contacted via email and reconvened to discuss the City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-15
effects on the Plan. For the fifth-year revision, the entire Steering Committee will reconvene in order to use their expertise to update the Plan in its entirety. In addition to these periodic requirements, any significant modification to the City’s facilities should be considered with respect to a possible impact on the Hazard Mitigation Plan. All Steering Committee members are responsible for providing updates for the Plan to the Public Safety Department Director, or designee, as necessary. As noted in the following section, the completed Hazard Mitigation Plan will be available on the City’s website to allow the public to continue to be involved during these periodic reviews.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-16
5.4 Update Requirements
§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. §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. The Emergency Management and Assistance regulations (44 CFR Part 201) state that it is the responsibility of local agencies to “at a minimum, review and, if necessary, update the local mitigation plan every five years from date of plan approval to continue program eligibility”. The evaluation procedures listed below will provide insight into the major changes that need to be included in the five-year update and resubmission to FEMA: •
Annual Hazard Mitigation Plan review with respect to changes in hazard vulnerability (e.g., additional hazards identified, natural hazard events, etc.)
•
Annual Hazard Mitigation Plan review with respect to development of new facilities
•
Five-year comprehensive update to address the findings of the annual reviews
•
Re-submittal of the updated Hazard Mitigation Plan to CalEMA/FEMA
Additionally, the risk assessment portion of the plan will be reviewed to determine if the information should be updated or modified. Each jurisdiction responsible for the various implementation actions will report on: •
Status of their projects,
•
Implementation processes,
•
Any difficulties encountered,
•
How coordination efforts are proceeding, and
•
Strategies that should be revised.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-17
5.4.1
Plan Update
The City’s HMP was last updated in 2015. During the second Steering Committee Meeting, as part of the current planning effort, the Plan goals were reviewed for consistency and applicability to the City, along with the goals from the 2018 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2019 Los Angeles County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Table 5.6 illustrated the changes in the priorities of the Plan. Although the language was streamlined, the intent of the overall goals for the State, County, and City were unchanged during the update process. Table 5.6: Hazard Mitigation Plan Goals 2015 Plan Goals 1. Protect lives and property
Current Plan Goals 1. Protect Lives, Property, and Commerce
2. Support the priorities of the City of 2. Improve Environmental Sustainability Paramount, its mandate, employees, students, residents, and the business community. 3. Promote development consistent with 3. Encourage Participation in Resiliency seismic, floodplain and risk management Efforts guidance as developed by the City of Paramount and its agencies and/or organizations. 4. Promote the recognition of the real 4. Update codes and standards to improve value of hazard mitigation to public resiliency facilities, public safety, and the welfare of all residents in the City of Paramount. 5. Support the mitigation efforts of 5. Enhance Emergency Management residents, non-profit organizations, Capabilities community-based organization, and private business throughout the City. 6. Ensure all codes and standards are consistent with hazard mitigation. As shown in Table 5.6, the overall Plan goals did not change. However, Plan objectives were updated to further clarify how the City wanted to achieve the Plan Goals. Details of the Plan objectives can be found in Chapter 4 of this Plan.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-18
5.4.2
Continued Public Involvement
To facilitate ongoing public input, the completed and adopted HMP will be posted on the City’s website to allow the public to remain engaged and provide feedback. The website will include a link to a contact form allowing the public to submit comments. When updated the HMP, the City will solicit participation from Steering Committee participants to discuss any issues that need to be addressed in the HMP update. Public Participation will be solicited through public notices and advertised on the website. The goal of outreach regarding update meetings is to solicit public involvement in the Steering Committee, which brainstorms the hazards facing the City and discusses ways to mitigate those hazards. The public was encouraged to participate in the hazard mitigation process through taking part in the Steering Committee
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-19
Table 5.7: Action Item Implementation
Action ID
LHMP.2022.01
Recommendation Description
Consider
performing
a
evaluation
for
facilities
critical
seismic
Implementati
Department
on Timeframe
(Building and
infrastructure and perform structural
Safety), Public
Consider
configuring
Status
Details/Status Summary
Planning
and
improvements accordingly LHMP.2022.02
Responsible
Long
Open
Public Works
Long
Open
Public Works
Medium
Open
Public Safety
Medium
Open
Ongoing
Open
Works
the
dedicated
shelter station (Paramount Park) with an emergency generator for backup power. LHMP.2022.03
Consider using solar as an alternate power source for critical facilities and to run emergency generators.
LHMP.2022.04
Consider providing public education materials with regards to urban fires.
LHMP.2022.05
Consider
improving
coordination
between HazMat Owners/Operators and appropriate response agencies.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
LA Fire/ Public Safety
5-20
Action ID
LHMP.2022.06
Recommendation Description
Consider
configuring
critical
Responsible
Implementati
Department
on Timeframe
Public Safety
Medium
Open
Long
Open
Medium
Open
Ongoing
Open
Short
Open
Status
Details/Status Summary
City
locations with appropriate surveillance equipment LHMP.2022.07
Consider installing and expanding the current LPR camera system throughout
Public
the City to assist responders in tracking
Safety/Public
suspicious
or
suspected
individuals
Works
cybersecurity
IT Division
throughout the City. LHMP.2022.08
Consider
implementing
measures to protect against attacks (i.e., ransomware) LHMP.2022.09
Continue
coordination
(Administrative Services)
with
pipeline
companies to maintain the ongoing integrity of natural gas and hazardous
Public Works
pipelines. LHMP.2022.10
Consider ensuring that existing contracts for priority on obtaining emergency
Community
supplies and food with local business are
Services
updated. City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-21
Action ID
Recommendation Description
LHMP.2022.11
Consider ensuring that flood mitigation remains a priority.
LHMP.2022.12
Consider
educating
residents
about
maintaining trees on private property (particularly for mobile home parks) to mitigate the effects of severe wind. LHMP.2022.13
Expand
existing
tree
Responsible
Implementati
Department
on Timeframe
Public Works
Ongoing
Open
Ongoing
Open
Short
Open
Short
Open
Status
Details/Status Summary
Personnel Education and Awareness
maintenance
program to include considerations for the impact of climate change on the tree population
to
prevent
decay
and
Public Works
eventual falls leading to asset damage and personal injury. LHMP.2022.14
Install Max Wells to catch stormwater runoff
and
improve
water
supply
Public Works
resilience.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-22
Action ID
LHMP.2022.15
Recommendation Description
Expand
public
outreach
regarding
drought
and
available
incentive
programs
for
residents
to
develop
alternative
landscaping
as
well
Responsible
Implementati
Department
on Timeframe
Status
Details/Status Summary
Prevention Medium
Open
Ongoing
Open
Ongoing
Open
Ongoing
Open
Short
Open
as
implement other water saving initiatives. LHMP.2022.16
Consider
ensuring
that
the
mass
Emergency
notification system (i.e., Nixle) is ready
Services
for service and used as needed. LHMP.2022.17
Consider
coordination
with
first
responders (e.g., Fire, CHP) to mitigate the effects of transportation incidents. LHMP.2022.18
Consider
ensuring
adequate
communications with LASD in the event of civil unrest. LHMP.2022.19
Consider
ensuring
adequate
communications with LASD in the event of civil unrest.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Emergency Services
Emergency Services
Personnel Education and Awareness
5-23
Action ID
Recommendation Description
LHMP.2022.20
Consider ensuring that new development complies with new and future building and zoning codes and considers hazard
Responsible
Implementati
Department
on Timeframe
Prevention
Ongoing
Open
Short
Open
Public Safety
Medium
Open
Public Safety
Medium
Open
Status
Details/Status Summary
mitigation for new developments. LHMP.2022.21
Consider
retrofitting
the
Rosecrans
Avenue Bridge over the LA River in accordance with the CIP. LHMP.2022.22
Consider
installing
buffer
Property Protection
zones in
targeted areas to prevent encampments from entering into hazardous areas (i.e., near railroad tracks) LHMP.2022.23
Consider obtaining outside funding to support and expand existing measures to support and rehabilitate the homeless population (i.e., job-prep, rent support, mental health support, etc.)
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
5-24
Action ID
Recommendation Description
LHMP.2022.24
Work with State representatives to implement the Middle Mile Project to reinforce broadband service capabilities throughout the City.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Responsible
Implementati
Department
on Timeframe
Status
Details/Status Summary
Gateway Council of Governments/
Long
Open
Administration
5-25
GLOSSARY
Active fault - For implementation of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (APEFZA) requirements, an active fault is one that shows evidence of, or is suspected of having experienced surface displacement within the last 11,000 years. APEFZA classification is designed for land use management of surface rupture hazards. A more general definition (National Academy of Science, 1988), states "a fault that on the basis of historical, seismological, or geological evidence has the finite probability of producing an earthquake" (see potentially active fault). Aftershocks - Minor earthquakes following a greater one and originating at or near the same place. Asset - Any man-made or natural feature that has value, including, but not limited to people, buildings, infrastructure like bridges, roads, and sewer and water systems; lifelines like electricity and communication resources; or environmental, cultural, or recreational features like parks, dunes, wetlands, or landmarks. A zone - Under the National Flood Insurance Program, area subject to inundation by the 100-year flood where wave action does not occur or where waves are less than 3 feet high, designated Zone A, AE, A1-A30, A0, AH, or AR on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Base flood - Flood that has a 1 percent probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Also known as the 100-year flood. Bedrock - The solid rock that underlies loose material, such as soil, sand, clay, or gravel. Contour - A line of equal ground elevation on a topographic (contour) map. Critical facility - Facilities that are critical to the health and welfare of the population and that are especially important following hazard events. Critical facilities include, but are not limited to, shelters, police and fire stations, and hospitals. Debris - (Seismic) The scattered remains of something broken or destroyed; ruins; rubble; fragments. (Flooding, Coastal) Solid objects or masses carried by or floating on the surface of moving water.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
A-1
Debris flow - A saturated, rapidly moving saturated earth flow with 50 percent rock fragments coarser than 2 mm in size which can occur on natural and graded slopes. Duration - How long a hazard event lasts. Earthquake - Vibratory motion propagating within the Earth or along its surface caused by the abrupt release of strain from elastically deformed rock by displacement along a fault. Epicenter - The point at the Earth's surface directly above where an earthquake originated. Erosion - Under the National Flood Insurance Program, the process of the gradual wearing away of landmasses. In general, erosion involves the detachment and movement of soil and rock fragments, during a flood or storm or over a period of years, through the action of wind, water, or other geologic processes. Essential facility - Elements that are important to ensure a full recovery of a community or state following a hazard event. These would include government functions, major employers, banks, schools, and certain commercial establishments, such as grocery stores, hardware stores, and gas stations. Extent - The size of an area affected by a hazard or hazard event. Fault - A fracture in the continuity of a rock formation caused by a shifting or dislodging of the earth's crust, in which adjacent surfaces are differentially displaced parallel to the plane of fracture. Fault slip rate - The average long-term movement of a fault (measured in cm/year or mm/year) as determined from geologic evidence. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) - Independent agency created in 1978 to provide a single point of accountability for all Federal activities related to disaster mitigation and emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. Flash flood - A flood event occurring with little or no warning where water levels rise at an extremely fast rate. Flood - A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from (1) the overflow of inland or tidal waters, (2) the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source, or (3) mudflows or the sudden collapse of shoreline land. Floodplain - Any land area, including watercourse, susceptible to partial or complete inundation by water from any source. City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
A-2
Frequency - A measure of how often events of a particular magnitude is expected to occur. Frequency describes how often a hazard of a specific magnitude, duration, and/or extent typically occurs, on average. Statistically, a hazard with a 100-year recurrence interval is expected to occur once every 100 years on average and would have a 1 percent chance – its probability – of happening in any given year. The reliability of this information varies depending on the kind of hazard being considered. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) - A computer software application that relates physical features on the Earth to a database to be used for mapping and analysis. Ground motion - The vibration or shaking of the ground during an earthquake. When a fault ruptures, seismic waves radiate, causing the ground to vibrate. The severity of the vibration increases with the amount of energy released and decreases with distance from the causative fault or epicenter, but soft soils can further amplify ground motions. Ground rupture - Displacement of the earth's surface as a result of fault movement associated with an earthquake. Hailstorm – Storm associated with spherical balls of ice. Hail is a product of thunderstorms or intense showers. It is generally white and translucent, consisting of liquid or snow particles encased with layers of ice. Hail is formed within the higher reaches of a well-developed thunderstorm. When hailstones become too heavy to be caught in an updraft back into the clouds of the thunderstorm (hailstones can be caught in numerous updrafts adding a coating of ice to the original frozen droplet of rain each time), they fall as hail, and a hailstorm ensues. Hazard - A source of potential danger or adverse condition. Hazards in this how-to series will include naturally occurring events such as floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunami, coastal storms, landslides, and wildfires that strike populated areas. A natural event is a hazard when it has the potential to harm people or property. Hazard event - A specific occurrence of a particular type of hazard. Hazard identification - The process of identifying hazards that threaten an area. Hazard mitigation - Sustained actions taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk from hazards and their effects. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) – Authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, HMGP is administered by FEMA and provides grants to states, tribes, and local governments to implement hazard mitigation actions after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the program is to
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
A-3
reduce the loss of life and property due to disasters and to enable mitigation activities to be implemented as a community recovers from a disaster. Hazard Mitigation Plan – A collaborative document in which hazards affecting the community are identified, vulnerability to hazards assessed, and consensus reached on how to minimize or eliminate the effects of these hazards. Hazard profile - A description of the physical characteristics of hazards and a determination of various descriptors including magnitude, duration, frequency, probability, and extent. In most cases, a community can most easily use these descriptors when they are recorded and displayed as maps. Hazardous Material Facilities – Facilities housing industrial and hazardous materials, such as corrosives, explosives, flammable materials, radioactive materials, and toxins. HAZUS (Hazards U.S.) - A GIS-based nationally standardized earthquake loss estimation tool developed by FEMA. Hurricane - An intense tropical cyclone, formed in the atmosphere over warm ocean areas, in which wind speeds reach 74-miles-per-hour or more and blow in a large spiral around a relatively calm center or "eye." Hurricanes develop over the north Atlantic Ocean, northeast Pacific Ocean, or the south Pacific Ocean east of 160°E longitude. Hurricane circulation is counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. Hydrology - The science of dealing with the waters of the earth. A flood discharge is developed by a hydrologic study. Infrastructure - Refers to the public services of a community that have a direct impact on the quality of life. Infrastructure includes communication technology such as phone lines or Internet access, vital services such as public water supplies and sewer treatment facilities, and includes an area's transportation system such as airports, heliports; highways, bridges, tunnels, roadbeds, overpasses, railways, bridges, rail yards, depots; and waterways, canals, locks, seaports, ferries, harbors, drydocks, piers and regional dams. Landslide - A general term covering a wide variety of mass-movement landforms and processes involving the downslope transport, under gravitational influence, of soil and rock material en masse. Liquefaction - Changing of soils (unconsolidated alluvium) from a solid state to weaker state unable to support structures, where the material behaves similar to a liquid as a
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
A-4
consequence of earthquake shaking. The transformation of cohesionless soils from a solid or liquid state as a result of increased pore pressure and reduced effective stress. Magnitude - A measure of the strength of a hazard event. The magnitude (also referred to as severity) of a given hazard event is usually determined using technical measures specific to the hazard. Mitigation plan - A systematic evaluation of the nature and extent of vulnerability to the effects of natural hazards typically present in the state and includes a description of actions to minimize future vulnerability to hazards. Nor'easter - An extra-tropical cyclone producing gale-force winds and precipitation in the form of heavy snow or rain. Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) - The greatest amplitude of acceleration measured for a single frequency on an earthquake accelerogram. The maximum horizontal ground motion generated by an earthquake. The measure of this motion is the acceleration of gravity (equal to 32 feet per second squared, or 980 centimeter per second squared), and generally expressed as a percentage of gravity. Potentially active fault - A fault showing evidence of movement within the last 1.6 million years (750,000 years according to the U.S. Geological Survey) but before about 11,000 years ago, and that is capable of generating damaging earthquakes. Probability - A statistical measure of the likelihood that a hazard event will occur. Replacement value - The cost of rebuilding a structure. This is usually expressed in terms of cost per square foot and reflects the present-day cost of labor and materials to construct a building of a particular size, type, and quality. Retrofit - Any change made to an existing structure to reduce or eliminate damage to that structure from flooding, erosion, high winds, earthquakes, or other hazards Richter scale - A numerical scale of earthquake magnitude devised by seismologist C.F. Richter in 1935. Seismologists no longer use this magnitude scale because of limitations in how it measures large earthquakes and prefer instead to use moment magnitude as a measure of the energy released during an earthquake. Risk - The estimated impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and structures in a community; the likelihood of a hazard event resulting in an adverse condition that causes injury or damage. Risk is often expressed in relative terms such as a high, moderate, or low likelihood of sustaining damage above a particular threshold due to a specific type of hazard event. It also can be expressed in terms of potential monetary losses associated with the intensity of the hazard. City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
A-5
Seismicity - Describes the likelihood of an area being subject to earthquakes. Tectonic plate - Torsionally rigid, thin segments of the earth's lithosphere that may be assumed to move horizontally and adjoin other plates. It is the friction between plate boundaries that cause seismic activity. Topographic - Characterizes maps that show natural features and indicate the physical shape of the land using contour lines. These maps may also include manmade features. Tornado - A violently rotating column of air extending from a thunderstorm to the ground. Tsunami - Great sea wave produced by a submarine earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption. Vulnerability - Describes how exposed or susceptible to damage an asset is. Vulnerability depends on an asset's construction, contents, and the economic value of its functions. Like indirect damages, the vulnerability of one element of the community is often related to the vulnerability of another. For example, many businesses depend on uninterrupted electrical power – if an electric substation is flooded, it will affect not only the substation itself, but a number of businesses as well. Often, indirect effects can be much more widespread and damaging than direct ones. Vulnerability assessment - The extent of injury and damage that may result from a hazard event of a given intensity in a given area. The vulnerability assessment should address impacts of hazard events on the existing and future built environment. Wildfire - An uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, exposing and possibly consuming structures. Zone - A geographical area shown on a Flood Insurance Rate Map. 100-year flood – A flood that has a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. This flood event is also referred to as the base flood. The term "100-year flood" can be misleading; it is not the flood that will occur once every 100 years. Rather, it is the flood elevation that has a 1- percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. Therefore, the 100-year flood could occur more than once in a relatively short period of time. The 100-year flood, which is the standard used by most federal and state agencies, is used by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as the standard for floodplain management to determine the need for flood insurance. 500-year flood – A flood that has a 0.2-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any one year.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
A-6
REGULATIONS
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390) facilitates a new and revitalized approach to mitigation planning. DMA 2000 amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by repealing the previous mitigation planning provisions (Section 409) and replacing them with a new set of mitigation plan requirements (Section 322). This new section emphasizes the need for state, Tribal, and local entities to closely coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. The following pages provide a description of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, as well as the Interim Final Rule for mitigation planning.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
B-1
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00001
Fmt 6579
Sfmt 6579
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
114 STAT. 1552
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
Public Law 106–390 106th Congress An Act Oct. 30, 2000 [H.R. 707]
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. 42 USC 5121 note.
To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to authorize a program for predisaster mitigation, to streamline the administration of disaster relief, to control the Federal costs of disaster assistance, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000’’. (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. TITLE I—PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION Sec. 101. Findings and purpose. Sec. 102. Predisaster hazard mitigation. Sec. 103. Interagency task force. Sec. 104. Mitigation planning; minimum standards for public and private structures. TITLE II—STREAMLINING AND COST REDUCTION Sec. 201. Technical amendments. Sec. 202. Management costs. Sec. 203. Public notice, comment, and consultation requirements. Sec. 204. State administration of hazard mitigation grant program. Sec. 205. Assistance to repair, restore, reconstruct, or replace damaged facilities. Sec. 206. Federal assistance to individuals and households. Sec. 207. Community disaster loans. Sec. 208. Report on State management of small disasters initiative. Sec. 209. Study regarding cost reduction. TITLE III—MISCELLANEOUS Sec. 301. Technical correction of short title. Sec. 302. Definitions. Sec. 303. Fire management assistance. Sec. 304. Disaster grant closeout procedures. Sec. 305. Public safety officer benefits for certain Federal and State employees. Sec. 306. Buy American. Sec. 307. Treatment of certain real property. Sec. 308. Study of participation by Indian tribes in emergency management.
TITLE I—PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION 42 USC 5133 note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00002
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
114 STAT. 1553
(1) natural disasters, including earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding, and wildfires, pose great danger to human life and to property throughout the United States; (2) greater emphasis needs to be placed on— (A) identifying and assessing the risks to States and local governments (including Indian tribes) from natural disasters; (B) implementing adequate measures to reduce losses from natural disasters; and (C) ensuring that the critical services and facilities of communities will continue to function after a natural disaster; (3) expenditures for postdisaster assistance are increasing without commensurate reductions in the likelihood of future losses from natural disasters; (4) in the expenditure of Federal funds under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), high priority should be given to mitigation of hazards at the local level; and (5) with a unified effort of economic incentives, awareness and education, technical assistance, and demonstrated Federal support, States and local governments (including Indian tribes) will be able to— (A) form effective community-based partnerships for hazard mitigation purposes; (B) implement effective hazard mitigation measures that reduce the potential damage from natural disasters; (C) ensure continued functionality of critical services; (D) leverage additional non-Federal resources in meeting natural disaster resistance goals; and (E) make commitments to long-term hazard mitigation efforts to be applied to new and existing structures. (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this title is to establish a national disaster hazard mitigation program— (1) to reduce the loss of life and property, human suffering, economic disruption, and disaster assistance costs resulting from natural disasters; and (2) to provide a source of predisaster hazard mitigation funding that will assist States and local governments (including Indian tribes) in implementing effective hazard mitigation measures that are designed to ensure the continued functionality of critical services and facilities after a natural disaster. SEC. 102. PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Title II of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘SEC. 203. PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION.
‘‘(a) DEFINITION OF SMALL IMPOVERISHED COMMUNITY.—In this section, the term ‘small impoverished community’ means a community of 3,000 or fewer individuals that is economically disadvantaged, as determined by the State in which the community is located and based on criteria established by the President. ‘‘(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The President may establish a program to provide technical and financial assistance to States and local governments to assist in the implementation of
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00003
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
President. 42 USC 5133.
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
114 STAT. 1554
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
predisaster hazard mitigation measures that are cost-effective and are designed to reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of property, including damage to critical services and facilities under the jurisdiction of the States or local governments. ‘‘(c) APPROVAL BY PRESIDENT.—If the President determines that a State or local government has identified natural disaster hazards in areas under its jurisdiction and has demonstrated the ability to form effective public-private natural disaster hazard mitigation partnerships, the President, using amounts in the National Predisaster Mitigation Fund established under subsection (i) (referred to in this section as the ‘Fund’), may provide technical and financial assistance to the State or local government to be used in accordance with subsection (e). ‘‘(d) STATE RECOMMENDATIONS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.— ‘‘(A) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The Governor of each State may recommend to the President not fewer than five local governments to receive assistance under this section. ‘‘(B) DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION.—The recommendations under subparagraph (A) shall be submitted to the President not later than October 1, 2001, and each October 1st thereafter or such later date in the year as the President may establish. ‘‘(C) CRITERIA.—In making recommendations under subparagraph (A), a Governor shall consider the criteria specified in subsection (g). ‘‘(2) USE.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in providing assistance to local governments under this section, the President shall select from local governments recommended by the Governors under this subsection. ‘‘(B) EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.—In providing assistance to local governments under this section, the President may select a local government that has not been recommended by a Governor under this subsection if the President determines that extraordinary circumstances justify the selection and that making the selection will further the purpose of this section. ‘‘(3) EFFECT OF FAILURE TO NOMINATE.—If a Governor of a State fails to submit recommendations under this subsection in a timely manner, the President may select, subject to the criteria specified in subsection (g), any local governments of the State to receive assistance under this section. ‘‘(e) USES OF TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Technical and financial assistance provided under this section— ‘‘(A) shall be used by States and local governments principally to implement predisaster hazard mitigation measures that are cost-effective and are described in proposals approved by the President under this section; and ‘‘(B) may be used— ‘‘(i) to support effective public-private natural disaster hazard mitigation partnerships; ‘‘(ii) to improve the assessment of a community’s vulnerability to natural hazards; or
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00004
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
114 STAT. 1555
‘‘(iii) to establish hazard mitigation priorities, and an appropriate hazard mitigation plan, for a community. ‘‘(2) DISSEMINATION.—A State or local government may use not more than 10 percent of the financial assistance received by the State or local government under this section for a fiscal year to fund activities to disseminate information regarding cost-effective mitigation technologies. ‘‘(f ) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—The amount of financial assistance made available to a State (including amounts made available to local governments of the State) under this section for a fiscal year— ‘‘(1) shall be not less than the lesser of— ‘‘(A) $500,000; or ‘‘(B) the amount that is equal to 1.0 percent of the total funds appropriated to carry out this section for the fiscal year; ‘‘(2) shall not exceed 15 percent of the total funds described in paragraph (1)(B); and ‘‘(3) shall be subject to the criteria specified in subsection (g). ‘‘(g) CRITERIA FOR ASSISTANCE AWARDS.—In determining whether to provide technical and financial assistance to a State or local government under this section, the President shall take into account— ‘‘(1) the extent and nature of the hazards to be mitigated; ‘‘(2) the degree of commitment of the State or local government to reduce damages from future natural disasters; ‘‘(3) the degree of commitment by the State or local government to support ongoing non-Federal support for the hazard mitigation measures to be carried out using the technical and financial assistance; ‘‘(4) the extent to which the hazard mitigation measures to be carried out using the technical and financial assistance contribute to the mitigation goals and priorities established by the State; ‘‘(5) the extent to which the technical and financial assistance is consistent with other assistance provided under this Act; ‘‘(6) the extent to which prioritized, cost-effective mitigation activities that produce meaningful and definable outcomes are clearly identified; ‘‘(7) if the State or local government has submitted a mitigation plan under section 322, the extent to which the activities identified under paragraph (6) are consistent with the mitigation plan; ‘‘(8) the opportunity to fund activities that maximize net benefits to society; ‘‘(9) the extent to which assistance will fund mitigation activities in small impoverished communities; and ‘‘(10) such other criteria as the President establishes in consultation with State and local governments. ‘‘(h) FEDERAL SHARE.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Financial assistance provided under this section may contribute up to 75 percent of the total cost of mitigation activities approved by the President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00005
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
President.
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
114 STAT. 1556
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
‘‘(2) SMALL IMPOVERISHED COMMUNITIES.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President may contribute up to 90 percent of the total cost of a mitigation activity carried out in a small impoverished community. ‘‘(i) NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND.— ‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The President may establish in the Treasury of the United States a fund to be known as the ‘National Predisaster Mitigation Fund’, to be used in carrying out this section. ‘‘(2) TRANSFERS TO FUND.—There shall be deposited in the Fund— ‘‘(A) amounts appropriated to carry out this section, which shall remain available until expended; and ‘‘(B) sums available from gifts, bequests, or donations of services or property received by the President for the purpose of predisaster hazard mitigation. ‘‘(3) EXPENDITURES FROM FUND.—Upon request by the President, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer from the Fund to the President such amounts as the President determines are necessary to provide technical and financial assistance under this section. ‘‘(4) INVESTMENT OF AMOUNTS.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current withdrawals. Investments may be made only in interestbearing obligations of the United States. ‘‘(B) ACQUISITION OF OBLIGATIONS.—For the purpose of investments under subparagraph (A), obligations may be acquired— ‘‘(i) on original issue at the issue price; or ‘‘(ii) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price. ‘‘(C) SALE OF OBLIGATIONS.—Any obligation acquired by the Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the market price. ‘‘(D) CREDITS TO FUND.—The interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the Fund shall be credited to and form a part of the Fund. ‘‘(E) TRANSFERS OF AMOUNTS.— ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The amounts required to be transferred to the Fund under this subsection shall be transferred at least monthly from the general fund of the Treasury to the Fund on the basis of estimates made by the Secretary of the Treasury. ‘‘(ii) ADJUSTMENTS.—Proper adjustment shall be made in amounts subsequently transferred to the extent prior estimates were in excess of or less than the amounts required to be transferred. ‘‘( j) LIMITATION ON TOTAL AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.— The President shall not provide financial assistance under this section in an amount greater than the amount available in the Fund. ‘‘(k) MULTIHAZARD ADVISORY MAPS.— ‘‘(1) DEFINITION OF MULTIHAZARD ADVISORY MAP.—In this subsection, the term ‘multihazard advisory map’ means a map
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00006
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
114 STAT. 1557
on which hazard data concerning each type of natural disaster is identified simultaneously for the purpose of showing areas of hazard overlap. ‘‘(2) DEVELOPMENT OF MAPS.—In consultation with States, local governments, and appropriate Federal agencies, the President shall develop multihazard advisory maps for areas, in not fewer than five States, that are subject to commonly recurring natural hazards (including flooding, hurricanes and severe winds, and seismic events). ‘‘(3) USE OF TECHNOLOGY.—In developing multihazard advisory maps under this subsection, the President shall use, to the maximum extent practicable, the most cost-effective and efficient technology available. ‘‘(4) USE OF MAPS.— ‘‘(A) ADVISORY NATURE.—The multihazard advisory maps shall be considered to be advisory and shall not require the development of any new policy by, or impose any new policy on, any government or private entity. ‘‘(B) AVAILABILITY OF MAPS.—The multihazard advisory maps shall be made available to the appropriate State and local governments for the purposes of— ‘‘(i) informing the general public about the risks of natural hazards in the areas described in paragraph (2); ‘‘(ii) supporting the activities described in subsection (e); and ‘‘(iii) other public uses. ‘‘(l) REPORT ON FEDERAL AND STATE ADMINISTRATION.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this section, the President, in consultation with State and local governments, shall submit to Congress a report evaluating efforts to implement this section and recommending a process for transferring greater authority and responsibility for administering the assistance program established under this section to capable States. ‘‘(m) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority provided by this section terminates December 31, 2003.’’. (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Title II of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131 et seq.) is amended by striking the title heading and inserting the following:
President.
Deadline.
‘‘TITLE II—DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND MITIGATION ASSISTANCE’’. SEC. 103. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.
Title II of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131 et seq.) (as amended by section 102(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘SEC. 204. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.
42 USC 5134.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall establish a Federal interagency task force for the purpose of coordinating the implementation of predisaster hazard mitigation programs administered by the Federal Government.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00007
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
114 STAT. 1558
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
‘‘(b) CHAIRPERSON.—The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall serve as the chairperson of the task force. ‘‘(c) MEMBERSHIP.—The membership of the task force shall include representatives of— ‘‘(1) relevant Federal agencies; ‘‘(2) State and local government organizations (including Indian tribes); and ‘‘(3) the American Red Cross.’’. SEC. 104. MITIGATION PLANNING; MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STRUCTURES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5141 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 42 USC 5165.
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
‘‘SEC. 322. MITIGATION PLANNING.
‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT OF MITIGATION PLAN.—As a condition of receipt of an increased Federal share for hazard mitigation measures under subsection (e), a State, local, or tribal government shall develop and submit for approval to the President a mitigation plan that outlines processes for identifying the natural hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities of the area under the jurisdiction of the government. ‘‘(b) LOCAL AND TRIBAL PLANS.—Each mitigation plan developed by a local or tribal government shall— ‘‘(1) describe actions to mitigate hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities identified under the plan; and ‘‘(2) establish a strategy to implement those actions. ‘‘(c) STATE PLANS.—The State process of development of a mitigation plan under this section shall— ‘‘(1) identify the natural hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities of areas in the State; ‘‘(2) support development of local mitigation plans; ‘‘(3) provide for technical assistance to local and tribal governments for mitigation planning; and ‘‘(4) identify and prioritize mitigation actions that the State will support, as resources become available. ‘‘(d) FUNDING.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Federal contributions under section 404 may be used to fund the development and updating of mitigation plans under this section. ‘‘(2) MAXIMUM FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION.—With respect to any mitigation plan, a State, local, or tribal government may use an amount of Federal contributions under section 404 not to exceed 7 percent of the amount of such contributions available to the government as of a date determined by the government. ‘‘(e) INCREASED FEDERAL SHARE FOR HAZARD MITIGATION MEASURES.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If, at the time of the declaration of a major disaster, a State has in effect an approved mitigation plan under this section, the President may increase to 20 percent, with respect to the major disaster, the maximum percentage specified in the last sentence of section 404(a). ‘‘(2) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.—In determining whether to increase the maximum percentage under paragraph (1), the President shall consider whether the State has established—
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00008
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
114 STAT. 1559
‘‘(A) eligibility criteria for property acquisition and other types of mitigation measures; ‘‘(B) requirements for cost effectiveness that are related to the eligibility criteria; ‘‘(C) a system of priorities that is related to the eligibility criteria; and ‘‘(D) a process by which an assessment of the effectiveness of a mitigation action may be carried out after the mitigation action is complete. ‘‘SEC. 323. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STRUCTURES.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—As a condition of receipt of a disaster loan or grant under this Act— ‘‘(1) the recipient shall carry out any repair or construction to be financed with the loan or grant in accordance with applicable standards of safety, decency, and sanitation and in conformity with applicable codes, specifications, and standards; and ‘‘(2) the President may require safe land use and construction practices, after adequate consultation with appropriate State and local government officials. ‘‘(b) EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE.—A recipient of a disaster loan or grant under this Act shall provide such evidence of compliance with this section as the President may require by regulation.’’. (b) LOSSES FROM STRAIGHT LINE WINDS.—The President shall increase the maximum percentage specified in the last sentence of section 404(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(a)) from 15 percent to 20 percent with respect to any major disaster that is in the State of Minnesota and for which assistance is being provided as of the date of the enactment of this Act, except that additional assistance provided under this subsection shall not exceed $6,000,000. The mitigation measures assisted under this subsection shall be related to losses in the State of Minnesota from straight line winds. (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— (1) Section 404(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(a)) is amended— (A) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘section 409’’ and inserting ‘‘section 322’’; and (B) in the third sentence, by striking ‘‘The total’’ and inserting ‘‘Subject to section 322, the total’’. (2) Section 409 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5176) is repealed.
42 USC 5165a.
President.
TITLE II—STREAMLINING AND COST REDUCTION SEC. 201. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
Section 311 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5154) is amended in subsections (a)(1), (b), and (c) by striking ‘‘section 803 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965’’ each place it appears
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00009
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
114 STAT. 1560
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
and inserting ‘‘section 209(c)(2) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3149(c)(2))’’. SEC. 202. MANAGEMENT COSTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5141 et seq.) (as amended by section 104(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 42 USC 5165b.
Regulations.
Deadline.
42 USC 5165b note.
‘‘SEC. 324. MANAGEMENT COSTS.
‘‘(a) DEFINITION OF MANAGEMENT COST.—In this section, the term ‘management cost’ includes any indirect cost, any administrative expense, and any other expense not directly chargeable to a specific project under a major disaster, emergency, or disaster preparedness or mitigation activity or measure. ‘‘(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF MANAGEMENT COST RATES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any administrative rule or guidance), the President shall by regulation establish management cost rates, for grantees and subgrantees, that shall be used to determine contributions under this Act for management costs. ‘‘(c) REVIEW.—The President shall review the management cost rates established under subsection (b) not later than 3 years after the date of establishment of the rates and periodically thereafter.’’. (b) APPLICABILITY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), subsections (a) and (b) of section 324 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (as added by subsection (a)) shall apply to major disasters declared under that Act on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. (2) INTERIM AUTHORITY.—Until the date on which the President establishes the management cost rates under section 324 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (as added by subsection (a)), section 406(f ) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172(f )) (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act) shall be used to establish management cost rates. SEC. 203. PUBLIC NOTICE, COMMENT, AND CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS.
Title III of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5141 et seq.) (as amended by section 202(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 42 USC 5165c.
President.
‘‘SEC. 325. PUBLIC NOTICE, COMMENT, AND CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS.
‘‘(a) PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT CONCERNING NEW OR MODIFIED POLICIES.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The President shall provide for public notice and opportunity for comment before adopting any new or modified policy that— ‘‘(A) governs implementation of the public assistance program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency under this Act; and ‘‘(B) could result in a significant reduction of assistance under the program.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
22:30 Dec 27, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00010
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
114 STAT. 1561
‘‘(2) APPLICATION.—Any policy adopted under paragraph (1) shall apply only to a major disaster or emergency declared on or after the date on which the policy is adopted. ‘‘(b) CONSULTATION CONCERNING INTERIM POLICIES.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Before adopting any interim policy under the public assistance program to address specific conditions that relate to a major disaster or emergency that has been declared under this Act, the President, to the maximum extent practicable, shall solicit the views and recommendations of grantees and subgrantees with respect to the major disaster or emergency concerning the potential interim policy, if the interim policy is likely— ‘‘(A) to result in a significant reduction of assistance to applicants for the assistance with respect to the major disaster or emergency; or ‘‘(B) to change the terms of a written agreement to which the Federal Government is a party concerning the declaration of the major disaster or emergency. ‘‘(2) NO LEGAL RIGHT OF ACTION.—Nothing in this subsection confers a legal right of action on any party. ‘‘(c) PUBLIC ACCESS.—The President shall promote public access to policies governing the implementation of the public assistance program.’’.
President.
SEC. 204. STATE ADMINISTRATION OF HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM.
Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(c) PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION BY STATES.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A State desiring to administer the hazard mitigation grant program established by this section with respect to hazard mitigation assistance in the State may submit to the President an application for the delegation of the authority to administer the program. ‘‘(2) CRITERIA.—The President, in consultation and coordination with States and local governments, shall establish criteria for the approval of applications submitted under paragraph (1). The criteria shall include, at a minimum— ‘‘(A) the demonstrated ability of the State to manage the grant program under this section; ‘‘(B) there being in effect an approved mitigation plan under section 322; and ‘‘(C) a demonstrated commitment to mitigation activities. ‘‘(3) APPROVAL.—The President shall approve an application submitted under paragraph (1) that meets the criteria established under paragraph (2). ‘‘(4) WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL.—If, after approving an application of a State submitted under paragraph (1), the President determines that the State is not administering the hazard mitigation grant program established by this section in a manner satisfactory to the President, the President shall withdraw the approval. ‘‘(5) AUDITS.—The President shall provide for periodic audits of the hazard mitigation grant programs administered by States under this subsection.’’.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00011
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
President.
President.
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
114 STAT. 1562
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
SEC. 205. ASSISTANCE TO REPAIR, RESTORE, RECONSTRUCT, OR REPLACE DAMAGED FACILITIES.
(a) CONTRIBUTIONS.—Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: ‘‘(a) CONTRIBUTIONS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The President may make contributions— ‘‘(A) to a State or local government for the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of a public facility damaged or destroyed by a major disaster and for associated expenses incurred by the government; and ‘‘(B) subject to paragraph (3), to a person that owns or operates a private nonprofit facility damaged or destroyed by a major disaster for the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of the facility and for associated expenses incurred by the person. ‘‘(2) ASSOCIATED EXPENSES.—For the purposes of this section, associated expenses shall include— ‘‘(A) the costs of mobilizing and employing the National Guard for performance of eligible work; ‘‘(B) the costs of using prison labor to perform eligible work, including wages actually paid, transportation to a worksite, and extraordinary costs of guards, food, and lodging; and ‘‘(C) base and overtime wages for the employees and extra hires of a State, local government, or person described in paragraph (1) that perform eligible work, plus fringe benefits on such wages to the extent that such benefits were being paid before the major disaster. ‘‘(3) CONDITIONS FOR ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE NONPROFIT FACILITIES.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The President may make contributions to a private nonprofit facility under paragraph (1)(B) only if— ‘‘(i) the facility provides critical services (as defined by the President) in the event of a major disaster; or ‘‘(ii) the owner or operator of the facility— ‘‘(I) has applied for a disaster loan under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)); and ‘‘(II)(aa) has been determined to be ineligible for such a loan; or ‘‘(bb) has obtained such a loan in the maximum amount for which the Small Business Administration determines the facility is eligible. ‘‘(B) DEFINITION OF CRITICAL SERVICES.—In this paragraph, the term ‘critical services’ includes power, water (including water provided by an irrigation organization or facility), sewer, wastewater treatment, communications, and emergency medical care. ‘‘(4) NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS.—Before making any contribution under this section in an amount greater than $20,000,000, the President shall notify— ‘‘(A) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate;
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00012
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
114 STAT. 1563
‘‘(B) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives; ‘‘(C) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and ‘‘(D) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.’’. (b) FEDERAL SHARE.—Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following: ‘‘(b) FEDERAL SHARE.— ‘‘(1) MINIMUM FEDERAL SHARE.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Federal share of assistance under this section shall be not less than 75 percent of the eligible cost of repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement carried out under this section. ‘‘(2) REDUCED FEDERAL SHARE.—The President shall promulgate regulations to reduce the Federal share of assistance under this section to not less than 25 percent in the case of the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of any eligible public facility or private nonprofit facility following an event associated with a major disaster— ‘‘(A) that has been damaged, on more than one occasion within the preceding 10-year period, by the same type of event; and ‘‘(B) the owner of which has failed to implement appropriate mitigation measures to address the hazard that caused the damage to the facility.’’. (c) LARGE IN-LIEU CONTRIBUTIONS.—Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172) is amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following: ‘‘(c) LARGE IN-LIEU CONTRIBUTIONS.— ‘‘(1) FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In any case in which a State or local government determines that the public welfare would not best be served by repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing any public facility owned or controlled by the State or local government, the State or local government may elect to receive, in lieu of a contribution under subsection (a)(1)(A), a contribution in an amount equal to 75 percent of the Federal share of the Federal estimate of the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing the facility and of management expenses. ‘‘(B) AREAS WITH UNSTABLE SOIL.—In any case in which a State or local government determines that the public welfare would not best be served by repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing any public facility owned or controlled by the State or local government because soil instability in the disaster area makes repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement infeasible, the State or local government may elect to receive, in lieu of a contribution under subsection (a)(1)(A), a contribution in an amount equal to 90 percent of the Federal share of the Federal estimate of the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing the facility and of management expenses. ‘‘(C) USE OF FUNDS.—Funds contributed to a State or local government under this paragraph may be used—
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00013
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
President. Regulations.
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
114 STAT. 1564
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000 ‘‘(i) to repair, restore, or expand other selected public facilities; ‘‘(ii) to construct new facilities; or ‘‘(iii) to fund hazard mitigation measures that the State or local government determines to be necessary to meet a need for governmental services and functions in the area affected by the major disaster. ‘‘(D) LIMITATIONS.—Funds made available to a State or local government under this paragraph may not be used for— ‘‘(i) any public facility located in a regulatory floodway (as defined in section 59.1 of title 44, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation)); or ‘‘(ii) any uninsured public facility located in a special flood hazard area identified by the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.). ‘‘(2) FOR PRIVATE NONPROFIT FACILITIES.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In any case in which a person that owns or operates a private nonprofit facility determines that the public welfare would not best be served by repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing the facility, the person may elect to receive, in lieu of a contribution under subsection (a)(1)(B), a contribution in an amount equal to 75 percent of the Federal share of the Federal estimate of the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing the facility and of management expenses. ‘‘(B) USE OF FUNDS.—Funds contributed to a person under this paragraph may be used— ‘‘(i) to repair, restore, or expand other selected private nonprofit facilities owned or operated by the person; ‘‘(ii) to construct new private nonprofit facilities to be owned or operated by the person; or ‘‘(iii) to fund hazard mitigation measures that the person determines to be necessary to meet a need for the person’s services and functions in the area affected by the major disaster. ‘‘(C) LIMITATIONS.—Funds made available to a person under this paragraph may not be used for— ‘‘(i) any private nonprofit facility located in a regulatory floodway (as defined in section 59.1 of title 44, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation)); or ‘‘(ii) any uninsured private nonprofit facility located in a special flood hazard area identified by the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.).’’. (d) ELIGIBLE COST.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172) is amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following: ‘‘(e) ELIGIBLE COST.—
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00014
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
114 STAT. 1565
‘‘(1) DETERMINATION.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For the purposes of this section, the President shall estimate the eligible cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a public facility or private nonprofit facility— ‘‘(i) on the basis of the design of the facility as the facility existed immediately before the major disaster; and ‘‘(ii) in conformity with codes, specifications, and standards (including floodplain management and hazard mitigation criteria required by the President or under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)) applicable at the time at which the disaster occurred. ‘‘(B) COST ESTIMATION PROCEDURES.— ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the President shall use the cost estimation procedures established under paragraph (3) to determine the eligible cost under this subsection. ‘‘(ii) APPLICABILITY.—The procedures specified in this paragraph and paragraph (2) shall apply only to projects the eligible cost of which is equal to or greater than the amount specified in section 422. ‘‘(2) MODIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE COST.— ‘‘(A) ACTUAL COST GREATER THAN CEILING PERCENTAGE OF ESTIMATED COST.—In any case in which the actual cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a facility under this section is greater than the ceiling percentage established under paragraph (3) of the cost estimated under paragraph (1), the President may determine that the eligible cost includes a portion of the actual cost of the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement that exceeds the cost estimated under paragraph (1). ‘‘(B) ACTUAL COST LESS THAN ESTIMATED COST.— ‘‘(i) GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO FLOOR PERCENTAGE OF ESTIMATED COST.—In any case in which the actual cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a facility under this section is less than 100 percent of the cost estimated under paragraph (1), but is greater than or equal to the floor percentage established under paragraph (3) of the cost estimated under paragraph (1), the State or local government or person receiving funds under this section shall use the excess funds to carry out cost-effective activities that reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, or suffering from a major disaster. ‘‘(ii) LESS THAN FLOOR PERCENTAGE OF ESTIMATED COST.—In any case in which the actual cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a facility under this section is less than the floor percentage established under paragraph (3) of the cost estimated under paragraph (1), the State or local government or person receiving assistance under this section shall reimburse the President in the amount of the difference. ‘‘(C) NO EFFECT ON APPEALS PROCESS.—Nothing in this paragraph affects any right of appeal under section 423.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00015
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
114 STAT. 1566
President.
Deadline.
Deadline.
42 USC 5172 note.
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
‘‘(3) EXPERT PANEL.— ‘‘(A) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the President, acting through the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, shall establish an expert panel, which shall include representatives from the construction industry and State and local government. ‘‘(B) DUTIES.—The expert panel shall develop recommendations concerning— ‘‘(i) procedures for estimating the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a facility consistent with industry practices; and ‘‘(ii) the ceiling and floor percentages referred to in paragraph (2). ‘‘(C) REGULATIONS.—Taking into account the recommendations of the expert panel under subparagraph (B), the President shall promulgate regulations that establish— ‘‘(i) cost estimation procedures described in subparagraph (B)(i); and ‘‘(ii) the ceiling and floor percentages referred to in paragraph (2). ‘‘(D) REVIEW BY PRESIDENT.—Not later than 2 years after the date of promulgation of regulations under subparagraph (C) and periodically thereafter, the President shall review the cost estimation procedures and the ceiling and floor percentages established under this paragraph. ‘‘(E) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of promulgation of regulations under subparagraph (C), 3 years after that date, and at the end of each 2-year period thereafter, the expert panel shall submit to Congress a report on the appropriateness of the cost estimation procedures. ‘‘(4) SPECIAL RULE.—In any case in which the facility being repaired, restored, reconstructed, or replaced under this section was under construction on the date of the major disaster, the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing the facility shall include, for the purposes of this section, only those costs that, under the contract for the construction, are the owner’s responsibility and not the contractor’s responsibility.’’. (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by paragraph (1) takes effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and applies to funds appropriated after the date of the enactment of this Act, except that paragraph (1) of section 406(e) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (as amended by paragraph (1)) takes effect on the date on which the cost estimation procedures established under paragraph (3) of that section take effect. (e) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172) is amended by striking subsection (f ). SEC. 206. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174) is amended to read as follows:
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00016
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
114 STAT. 1567
‘‘SEC. 408. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.— ‘‘(1) PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE.—In accordance with this section, the President, in consultation with the Governor of a State, may provide financial assistance, and, if necessary, direct services, to individuals and households in the State who, as a direct result of a major disaster, have necessary expenses and serious needs in cases in which the individuals and households are unable to meet such expenses or needs through other means. ‘‘(2) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ASSISTANCE.—Under paragraph (1), an individual or household shall not be denied assistance under paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of subsection (c) solely on the basis that the individual or household has not applied for or received any loan or other financial assistance from the Small Business Administration or any other Federal agency. ‘‘(b) HOUSING ASSISTANCE.— ‘‘(1) ELIGIBILITY.—The President may provide financial or other assistance under this section to individuals and households to respond to the disaster-related housing needs of individuals and households who are displaced from their predisaster primary residences or whose predisaster primary residences are rendered uninhabitable as a result of damage caused by a major disaster. ‘‘(2) DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE TYPES OF ASSISTANCE.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The President shall determine appropriate types of housing assistance to be provided under this section to individuals and households described in subsection (a)(1) based on considerations of cost effectiveness, convenience to the individuals and households, and such other factors as the President may consider appropriate. ‘‘(B) MULTIPLE TYPES OF ASSISTANCE.—One or more types of housing assistance may be made available under this section, based on the suitability and availability of the types of assistance, to meet the needs of individuals and households in the particular disaster situation. ‘‘(c) TYPES OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE.— ‘‘(1) TEMPORARY HOUSING.— ‘‘(A) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.— ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The President may provide financial assistance to individuals or households to rent alternate housing accommodations, existing rental units, manufactured housing, recreational vehicles, or other readily fabricated dwellings. ‘‘(ii) AMOUNT.—The amount of assistance under clause (i) shall be based on the fair market rent for the accommodation provided plus the cost of any transportation, utility hookups, or unit installation not provided directly by the President. ‘‘(B) DIRECT ASSISTANCE.— ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The President may provide temporary housing units, acquired by purchase or lease, directly to individuals or households who, because of a lack of available housing resources, would be unable
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00017
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
President.
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
114 STAT. 1568
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000 to make use of the assistance provided under subparagraph (A). ‘‘(ii) PERIOD OF ASSISTANCE.—The President may not provide direct assistance under clause (i) with respect to a major disaster after the end of the 18month period beginning on the date of the declaration of the major disaster by the President, except that the President may extend that period if the President determines that due to extraordinary circumstances an extension would be in the public interest. ‘‘(iii) COLLECTION OF RENTAL CHARGES.—After the end of the 18-month period referred to in clause (ii), the President may charge fair market rent for each temporary housing unit provided. ‘‘(2) REPAIRS.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The President may provide financial assistance for— ‘‘(i) the repair of owner-occupied private residences, utilities, and residential infrastructure (such as a private access route) damaged by a major disaster to a safe and sanitary living or functioning condition; and ‘‘(ii) eligible hazard mitigation measures that reduce the likelihood of future damage to such residences, utilities, or infrastructure. ‘‘(B) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ASSISTANCE.—A recipient of assistance provided under this paragraph shall not be required to show that the assistance can be met through other means, except insurance proceeds. ‘‘(C) MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE.—The amount of assistance provided to a household under this paragraph shall not exceed $5,000, as adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor. ‘‘(3) REPLACEMENT.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The President may provide financial assistance for the replacement of owner-occupied private residences damaged by a major disaster. ‘‘(B) MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE.—The amount of assistance provided to a household under this paragraph shall not exceed $10,000, as adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor. ‘‘(C) APPLICABILITY OF FLOOD INSURANCE REQUIREMENT.—With respect to assistance provided under this paragraph, the President may not waive any provision of Federal law requiring the purchase of flood insurance as a condition of the receipt of Federal disaster assistance. ‘‘(4) PERMANENT HOUSING CONSTRUCTION.—The President may provide financial assistance or direct assistance to individuals or households to construct permanent housing in insular areas outside the continental United States and in other remote locations in cases in which— ‘‘(A) no alternative housing resources are available; and
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00018
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
114 STAT. 1569
‘‘(B) the types of temporary housing assistance described in paragraph (1) are unavailable, infeasible, or not cost-effective. ‘‘(d) TERMS AND CONDITIONS RELATING TO HOUSING ASSISTANCE.— ‘‘(1) SITES.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any readily fabricated dwelling provided under this section shall, whenever practicable, be located on a site that— ‘‘(i) is complete with utilities; and ‘‘(ii) is provided by the State or local government, by the owner of the site, or by the occupant who was displaced by the major disaster. ‘‘(B) SITES PROVIDED BY THE PRESIDENT.—A readily fabricated dwelling may be located on a site provided by the President if the President determines that such a site would be more economical or accessible. ‘‘(2) DISPOSAL OF UNITS.— ‘‘(A) SALE TO OCCUPANTS.— ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a temporary housing unit purchased under this section by the President for the purpose of housing disaster victims may be sold directly to the individual or household who is occupying the unit if the individual or household lacks permanent housing. ‘‘(ii) SALE PRICE.—A sale of a temporary housing unit under clause (i) shall be at a price that is fair and equitable. ‘‘(iii) DEPOSIT OF PROCEEDS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the proceeds of a sale under clause (i) shall be deposited in the appropriate Disaster Relief Fund account. ‘‘(iv) HAZARD AND FLOOD INSURANCE.—A sale of a temporary housing unit under clause (i) shall be made on the condition that the individual or household purchasing the housing unit agrees to obtain and maintain hazard and flood insurance on the housing unit. ‘‘(v) USE OF GSA SERVICES.—The President may use the services of the General Services Administration to accomplish a sale under clause (i). ‘‘(B) OTHER METHODS OF DISPOSAL.—If not disposed of under subparagraph (A), a temporary housing unit purchased under this section by the President for the purpose of housing disaster victims— ‘‘(i) may be sold to any person; or ‘‘(ii) may be sold, transferred, donated, or otherwise made available directly to a State or other governmental entity or to a voluntary organization for the sole purpose of providing temporary housing to disaster victims in major disasters and emergencies if, as a condition of the sale, transfer, or donation, the State, other governmental agency, or voluntary organization agrees— ‘‘(I) to comply with the nondiscrimination provisions of section 308; and ‘‘(II) to obtain and maintain hazard and flood insurance on the housing unit.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00019
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
114 STAT. 1570
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
‘‘(e) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO ADDRESS OTHER NEEDS.— ‘‘(1) MEDICAL, DENTAL, AND FUNERAL EXPENSES.—The President, in consultation with the Governor of a State, may provide financial assistance under this section to an individual or household in the State who is adversely affected by a major disaster to meet disaster-related medical, dental, and funeral expenses. ‘‘(2) PERSONAL PROPERTY, TRANSPORTATION, AND OTHER EXPENSES.—The President, in consultation with the Governor of a State, may provide financial assistance under this section to an individual or household described in paragraph (1) to address personal property, transportation, and other necessary expenses or serious needs resulting from the major disaster. ‘‘(f ) STATE ROLE.— ‘‘(1) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO ADDRESS OTHER NEEDS.— ‘‘(A) GRANT TO STATE.—Subject to subsection (g), a Governor may request a grant from the President to provide financial assistance to individuals and households in the State under subsection (e). ‘‘(B) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—A State that receives a grant under subparagraph (A) may expend not more than 5 percent of the amount of the grant for the administrative costs of providing financial assistance to individuals and households in the State under subsection (e). ‘‘(2) ACCESS TO RECORDS.—In providing assistance to individuals and households under this section, the President shall provide for the substantial and ongoing involvement of the States in which the individuals and households are located, including by providing to the States access to the electronic records of individuals and households receiving assistance under this section in order for the States to make available any additional State and local assistance to the individuals and households. ‘‘(g) COST SHARING.— ‘‘(1) FEDERAL SHARE.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Federal share of the costs eligible to be paid using assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent. ‘‘(2) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO ADDRESS OTHER NEEDS.— In the case of financial assistance provided under subsection (e)— ‘‘(A) the Federal share shall be 75 percent; and ‘‘(B) the non-Federal share shall be paid from funds made available by the State. ‘‘(h) MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No individual or household shall receive financial assistance greater than $25,000 under this section with respect to a single major disaster. ‘‘(2) ADJUSTMENT OF LIMIT.—The limit established under paragraph (1) shall be adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor. ‘‘(i) RULES AND REGULATIONS.—The President shall prescribe rules and regulations to carry out this section, including criteria, standards, and procedures for determining eligibility for assistance.’’. (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 502(a)(6) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5192(a)(6)) is amended by striking ‘‘temporary housing’’.
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00020
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
114 STAT. 1571
(c) ELIMINATION OF INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY GRANT PROGRAMS.—Section 411 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5178) is repealed. (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section take effect 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
42 USC 5174 note.
SEC. 207. COMMUNITY DISASTER LOANS.
Section 417 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5184) is amended— (1) by striking ‘‘(a) The President’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The President’’; (2) by striking ‘‘The amount’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘(b) AMOUNT.—The amount’’; (3) by striking ‘‘Repayment’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘(c) REPAYMENT.— ‘‘(1) CANCELLATION.—Repayment’’; (4) by striking ‘‘(b) Any loans’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘(d) EFFECT ON OTHER ASSISTANCE.—Any loans’’; (5) in subsection (b) (as designated by paragraph (2))— (A) by striking ‘‘and shall’’ and inserting ‘‘shall’’; and (B) by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘‘, and shall not exceed $5,000,000’’; and (6) in subsection (c) (as designated by paragraph (3)), by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(2) CONDITION ON CONTINUING ELIGIBILITY.—A local government shall not be eligible for further assistance under this section during any period in which the local government is in arrears with respect to a required repayment of a loan under this section.’’. SEC. 208. REPORT ON STATE MANAGEMENT OF SMALL DISASTERS INITIATIVE.
42 USC 5121 note.
Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress a report describing the results of the State Management of Small Disasters Initiative, including— (1) identification of any administrative or financial benefits of the initiative; and (2) recommendations concerning the conditions, if any, under which States should be allowed the option to administer parts of the assistance program under section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172).
Deadline.
SEC. 209. STUDY REGARDING COST REDUCTION.
42 USC 5121 note. Deadline.
Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall complete a study estimating the reduction in Federal disaster assistance that has resulted and is likely to result from the enactment of this Act.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00021
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
114 STAT. 1572
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
TITLE III—MISCELLANEOUS SEC. 301. TECHNICAL CORRECTION OF SHORT TITLE.
The first section of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 note) is amended to read as follows: ‘‘SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
‘‘This Act may be cited as the ‘Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act’.’’. SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.
Section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122) is amended— (1) in each of paragraphs (3) and (4), by striking ‘‘the Northern’’ and all that follows through ‘‘Pacific Islands’’ and inserting ‘‘and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands’’; (2) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following: ‘‘(6) LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—The term ‘local government’ means— ‘‘(A) a county, municipality, city, town, township, local public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; ‘‘(B) an Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and ‘‘(C) a rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other public entity, for which an application for assistance is made by a State or political subdivision of a State.’’; and (3) in paragraph (9), by inserting ‘‘irrigation,’’ after ‘‘utility,’’. SEC. 303. FIRE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 420 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5187) is amended to read as follows: ‘‘SEC. 420. FIRE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The President is authorized to provide assistance, including grants, equipment, supplies, and personnel, to any State or local government for the mitigation, management, and control of any fire on public or private forest land or grassland that threatens such destruction as would constitute a major disaster. ‘‘(b) COORDINATION WITH STATE AND TRIBAL DEPARTMENTS OF FORESTRY.—In providing assistance under this section, the President shall coordinate with State and tribal departments of forestry. ‘‘(c) ESSENTIAL ASSISTANCE.—In providing assistance under this section, the President may use the authority provided under section 403.
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00022
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
114 STAT. 1573
‘‘(d) RULES AND REGULATIONS.—The President shall prescribe such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out this section.’’. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) takes effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
President.
SEC. 304. DISASTER GRANT CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES.
42 USC 5205.
42 USC 5187 note.
Title VII of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘SEC. 705. DISASTER GRANT CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES.
‘‘(a) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), no administrative action to recover any payment made to a State or local government for disaster or emergency assistance under this Act shall be initiated in any forum after the date that is 3 years after the date of transmission of the final expenditure report for the disaster or emergency. ‘‘(2) FRAUD EXCEPTION.—The limitation under paragraph (1) shall apply unless there is evidence of civil or criminal fraud. ‘‘(b) REBUTTAL OF PRESUMPTION OF RECORD MAINTENANCE.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In any dispute arising under this section after the date that is 3 years after the date of transmission of the final expenditure report for the disaster or emergency, there shall be a presumption that accounting records were maintained that adequately identify the source and application of funds provided for financially assisted activities. ‘‘(2) AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE.—The presumption described in paragraph (1) may be rebutted only on production of affirmative evidence that the State or local government did not maintain documentation described in that paragraph. ‘‘(3) INABILITY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTATION.—The inability of the Federal, State, or local government to produce source documentation supporting expenditure reports later than 3 years after the date of transmission of the final expenditure report shall not constitute evidence to rebut the presumption described in paragraph (1). ‘‘(4) RIGHT OF ACCESS.—The period during which the Federal, State, or local government has the right to access source documentation shall not be limited to the required 3-year retention period referred to in paragraph (3), but shall last as long as the records are maintained. ‘‘(c) BINDING NATURE OF GRANT REQUIREMENTS.—A State or local government shall not be liable for reimbursement or any other penalty for any payment made under this Act if— ‘‘(1) the payment was authorized by an approved agreement specifying the costs; ‘‘(2) the costs were reasonable; and ‘‘(3) the purpose of the grant was accomplished.’’. SEC. 305. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL AND STATE EMPLOYEES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1204 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b) is amended by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following: ‘‘(7) ‘public safety officer’ means—
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00023
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
114 STAT. 1574
42 USC 3796b note.
42 USC 5206.
Deadline.
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
‘‘(A) an individual serving a public agency in an official capacity, with or without compensation, as a law enforcement officer, as a firefighter, or as a member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew; ‘‘(B) an employee of the Federal Emergency Management Agency who is performing official duties of the Agency in an area, if those official duties— ‘‘(i) are related to a major disaster or emergency that has been, or is later, declared to exist with respect to the area under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); and ‘‘(ii) are determined by the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be hazardous duties; or ‘‘(C) an employee of a State, local, or tribal emergency management or civil defense agency who is performing official duties in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency in an area, if those official duties— ‘‘(i) are related to a major disaster or emergency that has been, or is later, declared to exist with respect to the area under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); and ‘‘(ii) are determined by the head of the agency to be hazardous duties.’’. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) applies only to employees described in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 1204(7) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (as amended by subsection (a)) who are injured or who die in the line of duty on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 306. BUY AMERICAN.
(a) COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT.—No funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act or any amendment made by this Act may be expended by an entity unless the entity, in expending the funds, complies with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.). (b) DEBARMENT OF PERSONS CONVICTED OF FRAUDULENT USE OF ‘‘MADE IN AMERICA’’ LABELS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—If the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency determines that a person has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing a ‘‘Made in America’’ inscription to any product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not made in America, the Director shall determine, not later than 90 days after determining that the person has been so convicted, whether the person should be debarred from contracting under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.). (2) DEFINITION OF DEBAR.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘debar’’ has the meaning given the term in section 2393(c) of title 10, United States Code. SEC. 307. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Flood Disaster
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00024
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
114 STAT. 1575
Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4002 et seq.), or any other provision of law, or any flood risk zone identified, delineated, or established under any such law (by flood insurance rate map or otherwise), the real property described in subsection (b) shall not be considered to be, or to have been, located in any area having special flood hazards (including any floodway or floodplain). (b) REAL PROPERTY.—The real property described in this subsection is all land and improvements on the land located in the Maple Terrace Subdivisions in the City of Sycamore, DeKalb County, Illinois, including— (1) Maple Terrace Phase I; (2) Maple Terrace Phase II; (3) Maple Terrace Phase III Unit 1; (4) Maple Terrace Phase III Unit 2; (5) Maple Terrace Phase III Unit 3; (6) Maple Terrace Phase IV Unit 1; (7) Maple Terrace Phase IV Unit 2; and (8) Maple Terrace Phase IV Unit 3. (c) REVISION OF FLOOD INSURANCE RATE LOT MAPS.—As soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall revise the appropriate flood insurance rate lot maps of the agency to reflect the treatment under subsection (a) of the real property described in subsection (b). SEC. 308. STUDY OF PARTICIPATION BY INDIAN TRIBES IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
(a) DEFINITION OF INDIAN TRIBE.—In this section, the term ‘‘Indian tribe’’ has the meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b). (b) STUDY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall conduct a study of participation by Indian tribes in emergency management. (2) REQUIRED ELEMENTS.—The study shall— (A) survey participation by Indian tribes in training, predisaster and postdisaster mitigation, disaster preparedness, and disaster recovery programs at the Federal and State levels; and (B) review and assess the capacity of Indian tribes to participate in cost-shared emergency management programs and to participate in the management of the programs. (3) CONSULTATION.—In conducting the study, the Director shall consult with Indian tribes. (c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall submit a report on the study under subsection (b) to— (1) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate; (2) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives; (3) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00025
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
42 USC 5121 note.
Deadline.
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
114 STAT. 1576
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000 (4) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
Approved October 30, 2000.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 707 (S. 1691): HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106–40 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure). SENATE REPORTS: No. 106–295 accompanying S. 1691 (Comm. on Environment and Public Works). CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: Vol. 145 (1999): Mar. 4, considered and passed House. Vol. 146 (2000): July 19, considered and passed Senate, amended. Oct. 3, House concurred in Senate amendment with an amendment. Oct. 5, Senate concurred in House amendment with an amendment. Oct. 10, House concurred in Senate amendment.
Æ
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
04:55 Dec 06, 2000
Jkt 089139
PO 00390
Frm 00026
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6580
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106
APPS27
PsN: PUBL390
Tuesday, February 26, 2002
Part III
Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206 Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; Interim Final Rule
VerDate 11<MAY>2000
10:58 Feb 25, 2002
Jkt 197001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM
pfrm04
PsN: 26FER2
8844
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206 RIN 3067–AD22
Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency. ACTION: Interim final rule. SUMMARY: This rule addresses State mitigation planning, identifies new local mitigation planning requirements, authorizes Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds for planning activities, and increases the amount of HMGP funds available to States that develop a comprehensive, enhanced mitigation plan. This rule also requires that repairs or construction funded by a disaster loan or grant must be carried out in accordance with applicable standards and says that FEMA may require safe land use and construction practices as a condition of grantees receiving disaster assistance under the Stafford Act. DATES: Effective Date: February 26, 2002. Comment Date: We will accept written comments through April 29, 2002. ADDRESSES: Please send written comments to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., room 840, Washington, DC 20472, (facsimile) 202–646–4536, or (email) rules@fema.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret E. Lawless, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20472, 202–646–3027, (facsimile) 202–646– 3104, or (email) margaret.lawless@fema.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction Throughout the preamble and the rule the terms ‘‘we’’, ‘‘our’’ and ‘‘us’’ refer to FEMA. Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act or the Act), 42 U.S.C. 5165, enacted under § 104 the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, (DMA 2000) P.L. 106–390, provides new and revitalized approaches to mitigation planning. This section: (1) Continues the requirement for a Standard State Mitigation plan as a condition of disaster assistance; (2) provides for States to receive an increased
VerDate 11<MAY>2000
17:00 Feb 25, 2002
Jkt 197001
percentage of HMGP funds (from 15 to 20 percent of the total estimated eligible Federal assistance) if, at the time of the declaration of a major disaster, they have in effect a FEMA-approved Enhanced State Mitigation Plan that meets the factors listed in this rule; (3) establishes a new requirement for local mitigation plans; and (4) authorizes up to 7 percent of the HMGP funds available to a State to be used for development of State, tribal, and local mitigation plans. We will give Indian tribal governments the opportunity to fulfill the requirements of § 322 either as a grantee or a subgrantee. An Indian tribal government may choose to apply for HMGP funding directly to us and would then serve as a grantee, meeting the State level responsibilities, or it may apply through the State, meeting the local government or subgrantee responsibilities. Section 322, in concert with other sections of the Act, provides a significant opportunity to reduce the Nation’s disaster losses through mitigation planning. In addition, implementation of planned, preidentified, cost-effective mitigation measures will streamline the disaster recovery process. The Act provides a framework for linking pre- and postdisaster mitigation planning and initiatives with public and private interests to ensure an integrated, comprehensive approach to disaster loss reduction. The language in the Act, taken as a whole, emphasizes the importance of strong State and local planning processes and comprehensive program management at the State level. The new planning criteria also support State administration of the HMGP, and contemplate a significant State commitment to mitigation activities, comprehensive State mitigation planning, and strong program management. The planning process also provides a link between State and local mitigation programs. Both State level and local plans should address strategies for incorporating post-disaster early mitigation implementation strategies and sustainable recovery actions. We also recognize that governments are involved in a range of planning activities and that mitigation plans may be linked to or reference hazardous materials and other non-natural hazard plans. Improved mitigation planning will result in a better understanding of risks and vulnerabilities, as well as to expedite implementation of measures and activities to reduce those risks, both pre- and post-disaster. Section 409 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5176, which required mitigation
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
plans and the use of minimum codes and standards, was repealed by the DMA 2000. These issues are now addressed in two separate sections of the law: mitigation planning is in section 322 of the Act, and minimum codes and standards are in section 323 of the Act. We previously implemented section 409 through 44 CFR Part 206, Subpart M. Since current law now distinguishes the planning from the codes and standards in separate sections, we will address them in different sections of the CFR. We address the new planning regulations in Part 201 to reflect the broader relevance of planning to all FEMA mitigation programs, while the minimum standards remain in Part 206, Federal Disaster Assistance, Subpart M. The regulations implementing the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program are in Part 206, Subpart N. This rule also contains changes to Subpart N, to reflect the new planning criteria identified in section 322 of the Act. The administration is considering changes to FEMA’s mitigation programs in the President’s Budget for FY 2003. However, States and localities still would be required to have plans in effect, which meet the minimum requirements under this rule, as a condition of receiving mitigation assistance after November 1, 2003. Implementation Strategy. States must have an approved hazard mitigation plan in order to receive Stafford Act assistance, excluding assistance provided pursuant to emergency provisions. These regulations provide criteria for the new two-tiered State mitigation plan process: Standard State Mitigation Plans, which allow a State to receive HMGP funding based on 15 percent of the total estimated eligible Stafford Act disaster assistance, and Enhanced State Mitigation Plans, which allow a State to receive HMGP funds based on 20 percent of the total estimated eligible Stafford Act disaster assistance. Enhanced State Mitigation Plans must demonstrate that the State has developed a comprehensive mitigation program, that it effectively uses available mitigation funding, and that it is capable of managing the increased funding. All State Mitigations Plans must be reviewed, revised, and reapproved by FEMA every three years. An important requirement of the legislation is that we must approve a completed enhanced plan before a disaster declaration, in order for the State to be eligible for the increased funding. We will no longer require States to revise their mitigation plan after every disaster declaration, as under former
E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM
pfrm02
PsN: 26FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations section 409 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 5176. We recommend, however, that States consider revising their plan if a disaster or other circumstances significantly affect its mitigation priorities. States with existing mitigation plans, approved under former section 409, will continue to be eligible for the 15 percent HMGP funding until November 1, 2003, when all State mitigation plans must meet the requirements of these regulations. If State plans are not revised and approved to meet the Standard State Mitigation Plan requirements by that time, they will be ineligible for Stafford Act assistance, excluding emergency assistance. Indian tribal governments may choose to apply directly to us for HMGP funding, and would therefore be responsible for having an approved State level mitigation plan, and would act as the grantee. If an Indian tribal government chooses to apply for HMGP grants through the State, they would be responsible for having an approved local level mitigation plan, and would serve as a subgrantee accountable to the State as grantee. This rule also establishes local planning criteria so that these jurisdictions can actively begin the hazard mitigation planning process. This requirement is to encourage the development of comprehensive mitigation plans before disaster events. Section 322 requires local governments to have an approved local mitigation plan to be eligible to receive an HMGP project grant; however, this requirement will not fully take effect until November 1, 2003. FEMA Regional Directors may grant an exception to this requirement in extenuating circumstances. Until November 1, 2003, local governments will be able to receive HMGP project grant funds and may prepare a mitigation plan concurrently with implementation of their project grant. We anticipate that the Predisaster Mitigation program authorized by section 203 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 5133, will also support this local mitigation planning by making funds available for the development of comprehensive local mitigation plans. Managing States that we approve under new criteria established under section 404 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 5170c(c), as amended by section 204 of DMA 2000 will have approval authority for local mitigation plans. This provision does not apply to States that we approved under the Managing State program in effect before enactment of DMA 2000. Our goal is for State and local governments to develop comprehensive and integrated plans that are coordinated through appropriate State,
VerDate 11<MAY>2000
10:58 Feb 25, 2002
Jkt 197001
local, and regional agencies, as well as non-governmental interest groups. To the extent feasible and practicable, we would also like to consolidate the planning requirements for different FEMA mitigation programs. This will ensure that one local plan will meet the minimum requirements for all of the different FEMA mitigation programs, such as the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (authorized by sections 553 and 554 of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. 4104c and 42 U.S.C. 4104d), the Community Rating System (authorized by section 541 of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. 4022), the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (authorized by section 203 of the Stafford Act), the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (authorized by section 404 of the Stafford Act), and the mitigation activities that are based upon the provisions of section 323 and subsections 406(b) and (e) of the Stafford Act. The mitigation plans may also serve to integrate documents and plans produced under other emergency management programs. State level plans should identify overall goals and priorities, incorporating the more specific local risk assessments, when available, and including projects identified through the local planning process. Under section 322(d), up to 7 percent of the available HMGP funds may now be used for planning, and we encourage States to use these funds for local plan development. In a memorandum to FEMA Regional Directors dated December 21, 2000, we announced that this provision of section 322 was effective for disasters declared on or after October 30, 2000, the date on which the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 became law. Regional Directors are encouraging States to make these funds immediately available to local and Indian tribal governments, although the funds can be used for plan development and review at the State level as well. As discussed earlier in this Supplementary Information, subsection 323(a) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5166(a), requires as a precondition to receiving disaster assistance under the Act that State and local governments, as well as eligible private nonprofit entities, must agree to carry out repair and reconstruction activities ‘‘in accordance with applicable standards of safety, decency, and sanitation and in conformity with applicable codes, specifications, and standards.’’ In addition, that subsection authorizes the President (FEMA, by virtue of Executive Order 12148, as amended) to ‘‘require safe land use and construction practices,
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
8845
after adequate consultation with appropriate State and local officials’’ in the course of the use of Federal disaster assistance by eligible applicants to repair and restore disaster-damaged facilities. At the same time that we implement the planning mandates of section 322 of the Stafford Act, we are also implementing the Minimum Standards for Public and Private Structures provision of section 323 of the Act. This rule appears at Subpart M of Part 206 of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. As mentioned earlier, the section 322 planning regulations are in Part 201, while Part 206, Subpart M includes only the minimum codes and standards regulations mandated in § 323. The rule to implement § 323 of the Act reinforces the link between predisaster planning, building and construction standards, and postdisaster reconstruction efforts. We encourage comments on this interim final rule, and we will make every effort to involve all interested parties prior to the development of the Final Rule. Justification for Interim Final Rule In general, FEMA publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a final rule, under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 533 and 44 CFR 1.12. The Administrative Procedure Act, however, provides an exception from that general rule where the agency for good cause finds the procedures for comment and response contrary to public interest. Section 322 of the Stafford Act allows States to receive increased post-disaster grant funding for projects designed to reduce future disaster losses. States will only be eligible for these increased funds if they have a FEMA-approved Enhanced State Mitigation Plan. This interim final rule provides the criteria for development and approval of these plans, as well as criteria for local mitigation plans required by this legislation. In order for State and local governments to be positioned to receive these mitigation funds as soon as possible, these regulations must be in effect. The public benefit of this rule will be to assist States and communities assess their risks and identify activities to strengthen the larger community and the built environment in order to become less susceptible to disasters. Planning serves as the vital foundation to saving lives and protecting properties, having integrated plans in place can serve to both streamline recovery efforts and lessen potential future damages. Therefore, we believe it is contrary to the public interest to delay
E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM
pfrm04
PsN: 26FER2
8846
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
the benefits of this rule. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we find that there is good cause for the interim final rule to take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register in order to meet the needs of States and communities by identifying criteria for mitigation plans in order to reduce risks nationwide, establish criteria for minimum codes and standards in postdisaster reconstruction, and to allow States to adjust their mitigation plans to receive the increase in mitigation funding. In addition, we believe that, under the circumstances, delaying the effective date of this rule until after the comment period would not further the public interest. Prior to this rulemaking, FEMA hosted a meeting where interested parties provided comments and suggestions on how we could implement these planning requirements. Participants in this meeting included representatives from the National Emergency Management Association, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the National Governors’ Association, the International Association of Emergency Managers, the National Association of Development Organizations, the American Public Works Association, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the International City/County Management Association, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We took comments and suggestions provided at this meeting into account in developing this interim final rule. Therefore, we find that prior notice and comment on this rule would not further the public interest. We actively encourage and solicit comments on this interim final rule from interested parties, and we will consider them in preparing the final rule. For these reasons, we believe we have good cause to publish an interim final rule. National Environmental Policy Act 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(ii) excludes this rule from the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, where the rule relates to actions that qualify for categorical exclusion under 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(iii), such as the development of plans under this section. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review We have prepared and reviewed this rule under the provisions of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993, a significant regulatory
VerDate 11<MAY>2000
10:58 Feb 25, 2002
Jkt 197001
action is subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. The purpose of this rule is to implement section 322 of the Stafford Act which addresses mitigation planning at the State, tribal, and local levels, identifies new local planning requirements, allows Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds for planning activities, and increases the amount of HMGP funds available to States that develop a comprehensive, enhanced mitigation plan. The rule identifies local mitigation planning requirements before approval of project grants, and requires our approval of an Enhanced State Mitigation plan as a condition for increased mitigation funding. The rule also implements section 323 of the Stafford Act, which requires that repairs or construction funded by disaster loans or grants must comply with applicable standards and safe land use and construction practices. As such the rule itself will not have an effect on the economy of more than $100,000,000. Therefore, this rule is a significant regulatory action and is not an economically significant rule under Executive Order 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice Under Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994, we incorporate environmental justice into our policies and programs. The Executive Order requires each Federal agency to conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
environment, in a manner that ensures that those programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from participation in our programs, denying persons the benefits of our programs, or subjecting persons to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin. No action that we can anticipate under the final rule will have a disproportionately high or adverse human health and environmental effect on any segment of the population. Section 322 focuses specifically on mitigation planning to: Identify the natural hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities of areas in States, localities, and tribal areas; support development of local mitigation plans; provide for technical assistance to local and tribal governments for mitigation planning; and identify and prioritize mitigation actions that the State will support, as resources become available. Section 323 requires compliance with applicable codes and standards in repair and construction, and use of safe land use and construction standards. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 12898 do not apply to this interim final rule. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and concurrent with the publication of this interim final rule, we have submitted a request for review and approval of a new collection of information, which is contained in this interim final rule. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person may not be penalized for failing to comply with an information collection that does not display a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The request was submitted to OMB for approval under the emergency processing procedures in OMB regulation 5 CFR 1320.1. OMB has approved this collection of information for use through August 31, 2002, under OMB Number 3067–0297. We expect to follow this emergency request with a request for OMB approval to continue the use of the collection of information for a term of three years. The request will be processed under OMB’s normal clearance procedures in accordance with provisions of OMB regulation 5 CFR 1320.10. To help us with the timely processing of the emergency and normal clearance submissions to OMB, we invite the general public to comment on the collection of information. This notice and request for comments complies with the provisions of the Paperwork
E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM
pfrm04
PsN: 26FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Collection of Information Title: State/Local/Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plans under Section 322 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Abstract: Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistant Act, as amended by Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, provides new and revitalized approaches to mitigation planning. To obtain Federal assistance, new planning provisions require that each state, local, and tribal government prepare a hazard mitigation plan to include sections that describe the planning process, an assessment of the risks, a mitigation strategy, and identification of the plan maintenance and updating process. The Act provides a framework for linking pre- and post-disaster mitigation planning and initiatives with public and
private interests to ensure an integrated, comprehensive approach to disaster loss reduction. Under Section 322 there is a two-tiered State mitigation plan process. State mitigation plans must be reviewed, revised, and submitted to us every 3 years. (1) A Standard State Mitigation Plan must be approved by us in order for States to be eligible to receive Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HGMP) funding based on 15 percent of the total estimated eligible Federal disaster assistance. This plan demonstrates the State’s goals, priorities, and commitment to reduce risks from natural hazards and serves as a guide for State and local decision makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of natural hazards. (2) An Enhanced State Mitigation Plan must be approved by us for a State to be eligible to receive HMGP funds based on 20 percent of the total
Update state or tribal mitigation plans (standard state mitigation plans) .................................... State review of local plans ..........................................................................................................
18 500 local plans 7 500 local plans
States develop Enhanced State Mitigation Plans ....................................................................... Local or tribal governments develop mitigation plans ................................................................. Total burden .........................................................................................................................
Comments: We are soliciting written comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) obtain recommendations to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) evaluate the extent to which automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques may further reduce the respondents’ burden. FEMA will accept comments through April 29, 2002. Addressee: Interested persons should submit written comments to Muriel B. Anderson, Chief, Records Management Section, Program Services and Systems Branch, Facilities Management and Services Division, Administration and Resource Planning Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You
may obtain copies of the OMB paperwork clearance package by
VerDate 11<MAY>2000
17:00 Feb 25, 2002
Jkt 197001
........................
contacting Ms. Anderson at (202) 646– 2625 (voice), (202) 646–3347 (facsimile), or by e-mail at muriel.anderson@fema.gov. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132, Federalism, dated August 4, 1999, sets forth principles and criteria that agencies must adhere to in formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, that is, regulations that have substantial direct effects on the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Federal agencies must closely examine the statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and to the extent practicable, must consult with State and local officials before implementing any such action. We have reviewed this rule under E.O.13132 and have concluded that the rule does not have federalism implications as defined by the Executive Order. We have determined that the rule does not significantly affect the rights, roles, and responsibilities of States, and involves no preemption of State law nor
PO 00000
Frm 00005
estimated eligible Federal disaster assistance. This plan must be approved by us within the 3 years prior to the current major disaster declaration. It must demonstrate that a State has developed a comprehensive mitigation program, is effectively using available mitigation funding, and is capable of managing the increased funding. To be eligible to receive HMGP project grants, local governments must develop Local Mitigation Plans that include a risk assessment and mitigation strategy to reduce potential losses and target resources. Plans must be reviewed, revised, and submitted to us for approval every 5 years. To receive HMGP project grants, tribal governments may apply as a grantee or subgrantee, and will be required to meet the planning requirements of a State or local government. Estimated Total Annual Burden: No. of respondents
Type of collection/forms
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
8847
Hours per response
Annual burden hours
320 8
5,760 4,000
100 300
700 150,000
........................
160,460
does it limit State policymaking discretion. However, we have consulted with State and local officials. In order to assist us in the development of this rule, we hosted a meeting to allow interested parties an opportunity to provide their perspectives on the legislation and options for implementation of § 322. Stakeholders who attended the meeting included representatives from the National Emergency Management Association, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the National Governors’ Association, the International Association of Emergency Managers, the National Association of Development Organizations, the American Public Works Association, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the International City/County Management Association, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We received valuable input from all parties at the meeting, which we took into account in the development of this rule. Additionally, we actively encourage and solicit comments on this interim final rule from interested parties, and we will
E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM
pfrm02
PsN: 26FER2
8848
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
consider them in preparing the final rule. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments We have reviewed this interim final rule under Executive Order 13175, which became effective on February 6, 2001. Under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Indian tribal governments will have the option to apply for grants directly to us and to serve as ‘‘grantee’’, carrying out ‘‘State’’ roles. If they choose this option, tribal governments may submit either a Statelevel Standard Mitigation Plan for the 15 percent HMGP funding or a Statelevel Enhanced Mitigation Plan for 20 percent HMGP funding. In either case, Indian tribal governments would be able to spend up to 7 percent of those funds on planning. Before developing this rule, we met with representatives from State and local governments and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to discuss the new planning opportunities and requirements of § 322 of the Stafford Act. We received valuable input from all parties, which helped us to develop this interim final rule. In reviewing the interim final rule, we find that it does not have ‘‘tribal implications’’ as defined in Executive Order 13175 because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Moreover, the interim final rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor does it preempt tribal law, impair treaty rights or limit the self-governing powers of tribal governments. Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking We have sent this interim final rule to the Congress and to the General Accounting Office under the Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act, Public Law 104–121. The rule is a not ‘‘major rule’’ within the meaning of that Act. It is an administrative action in support of normal day-to-day mitigation planning activities required by section 322 and compliance under section 323 of the Stafford Act, as enacted in DMA 2000. The rule will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. It will not have ‘‘significant adverse effects’’ on competition, employment, investment,
VerDate 11<MAY>2000
17:00 Feb 25, 2002
Jkt 197001
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises. This final rule is subject to the information collection requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and OMB has assigned Control No. 3067–0297. The rule is not an unfunded Federal mandate within the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104–4, and any enforceable duties that we impose are a condition of Federal assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 201 and Part 206 Administrative practice and procedure, Disaster assistance, Grant programs, Mitigation planning, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, Amend 44 CFR, Subchapter D—Disaster Assistance, as follows: 1. Add Part 201 to read as follows: PART 201—MITIGATION PLANNING Sec. 201.1 201.2 201.3 201.4 201.5 201.6
Purpose. Definitions. Responsibilities. Standard State Mitigation Plans. Enhanced State Mitigation Plans. Local Mitigation Plans.
Authority: Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121–5206; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376; E.O. 12148, 44 FR 43239, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 412; and E.O. 12673, 54 FR 12571, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 214. § 201.1
Purpose.
(a) The purpose of this part is to provide information on the polices and procedures for mitigation planning as required by the provisions of section 322 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5165. (b) The purpose of mitigation planning is for State, local, and Indian tribal governments to identify the natural hazards that impact them, to identify actions and activities to reduce any losses from those hazards, and to establish a coordinated process to implement the plan, taking advantage of a wide range of resources. § 201.2
Definitions.
Grantee means the government to which a grant is awarded, which is accountable for the use of the funds provided. The grantee is the entire legal entity even if only a particular component of the entity is designated in the grant award document. Generally,
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the State is the grantee. However, after a declaration, an Indian tribal government may choose to be a grantee, or may act as a subgrantee under the State. An Indian tribal government acting as grantee will assume the responsibilities of a ‘‘state’’, as described in this part, for the purposes of administering the grant. Hazard mitigation means any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program means the program authorized under section 404 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C 5170c and implemented at 44 CFR Part 206, Subpart N, which authorizes funding for certain mitigation measures identified through the evaluation of natural hazards conducted under section 322 of the Stafford Act 42 U.S.C 5165. Indian tribal government means any Federally recognized governing body of an Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe under the Federally Recognized Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a. This does not include Alaska Native corporations, the ownership of which is vested in private individuals. Local government is any county, municipality, city, town, township, public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and any rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other public entity. Managing State means a State to which FEMA has delegated the authority to administer and manage the HMGP under the criteria established by FEMA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5170c(c). FEMA may also delegate authority to tribal governments to administer and manage the HMGP as a Managing State. Regional Director is a director of a regional office of FEMA, or his/her designated representative. Small and impoverished communities means a community of 3,000 or fewer individuals that is identified by the State as a rural community, and is not a remote area within the corporate boundaries of a larger city; is economically disadvantaged, by having an average per capita annual income of residents not exceeding 80 percent of national, per capita income, based on
E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM
pfrm02
PsN: 26FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations best available data; the local unemployment rate exceeds by one percentage point or more, the most recently reported, average yearly national unemployment rate; and any other factors identified in the State Plan in which the community is located. The Stafford Act refers to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93–288, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5121– 5206). State is any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. State Hazard Mitigation Officer is the official representative of State government who is the primary point of contact with FEMA, other Federal agencies, and local governments in mitigation planning and implementation of mitigation programs and activities required under the Stafford Act. Subgrantee means the government or other legal entity to which a subgrant is awarded and which is accountable to the grantee for the use of the funds provided. Subgrantees can be a State agency, local government, private nonprofit organizations, or Indian tribal government. Indian tribal governments acting as a subgrantee are accountable to the State grantee. § 201.3
Responsibilities.
(a) General. This section identifies the key responsibilities of FEMA, States, and local/tribal governments in carrying out section 322 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5165. (b) FEMA. The key responsibilities of the Regional Director are to: (1) Oversee all FEMA related pre- and post-disaster hazard mitigation programs and activities; (2) Provide technical assistance and training to State, local, and Indian tribal governments regarding the mitigation planning process; (3) Review and approve all Standard and Enhanced State Mitigation Plans; (4) Review and approve all local mitigation plans, unless that authority has been delegated to the State in accordance with § 201.6(d); (5) Conduct reviews, at least once every three years, of State mitigation activities, plans, and programs to ensure that mitigation commitments are fulfilled, and when necessary, take action, including recovery of funds or denial of future funds, if mitigation commitments are not fulfilled. (c) State. The key responsibilities of the State are to coordinate all State and
VerDate 11<MAY>2000
10:58 Feb 25, 2002
Jkt 197001
local activities relating to hazard evaluation and mitigation and to: (1) Prepare and submit to FEMA a Standard State Mitigation Plan following the criteria established in § 201.4 as a condition of receiving Stafford Act assistance (except emergency assistance). (2) In order to be considered for the 20 percent HMGP funding, prepare and submit an Enhanced State Mitigation Plan in accordance with § 201.5, which must be reviewed and updated, if necessary, every three years from the date of the approval of the previous plan. (3) At a minimum, review and, if necessary, update the Standard State Mitigation Plan by November 1, 2003 and every three years from the date of the approval of the previous plan in order to continue program eligibility. (4) Make available the use of up to the 7 percent of HMGP funding for planning in accordance with § 206.434. (5) Provide technical assistance and training to local governments to assist them in applying for HMGP planning grants, and in developing local mitigation plans. (6) For Managing States that have been approved under the criteria established by FEMA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5170c(c), review and approve local mitigation plans in accordance with § 201.6(d). (d) Local governments. The key responsibilities of local governments are to: (1) Prepare and adopt a jurisdictionwide natural hazard mitigation plan as a condition of receiving project grant funds under the HMGP, in accordance with § 201.6. (2) At a minimum, review and, if necessary, update the local mitigation plan every five years from date of plan approval to continue program eligibility. (e) Indian tribal governments. Indian tribal governments will be given the option of applying directly to us for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding, or they may choose to apply through the State. If they apply directly to us, they will assume the responsibilities of the State, or grantee, and if they apply through the State, they will assume the responsibilities of the local government, or subgrantee. § 201.4
Standard State Mitigation Plans.
(a) Plan requirement. By November 1, 2003, States must have an approved Standard State Mitigation plan meeting the requirements of this section, in order to receive assistance under the Stafford Act, although assistance authorized under disasters declared prior to November 1, 2003 will continue
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
8849
to be made available. In any case, emergency assistance provided under 42 U.S.C. 5170a, 5170b, 5173, 5174, 5177, 5179, 5180, 5182, 5183, 5184, 5192 will not be affected. The mitigation plan is the demonstration of the State’s commitment to reduce risks from natural hazards and serves as a guide for State decision makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of natural hazards. States may choose to include the requirements of the HMGP Administrative Plan in their mitigation plan. (b) Planning process. An effective planning process is essential in developing and maintaining a good plan. The mitigation planning process should include coordination with other State agencies, appropriate Federal agencies, interested groups, and be integrated to the extent possible with other ongoing State planning efforts as well as other FEMA mitigation programs and initiatives. (c) Plan content. To be effective the plan must include the following elements: (1) Description of the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how other agencies participated. (2) Risk assessments that provide the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy portion of the mitigation plan. Statewide risk assessments must characterize and analyze natural hazards and risks to provide a statewide overview. This overview will allow the State to compare potential losses throughout the State and to determine their priorities for implementing mitigation measures under the strategy, and to prioritize jurisdictions for receiving technical and financial support in developing more detailed local risk and vulnerability assessments. The risk assessment shall include the following: (i) An overview of the type and location of all natural hazards that can affect the State, including information on previous occurrences of hazard events, as well as the probability of future hazard events, using maps where appropriate; (ii) An overview and analysis of the State’s vulnerability to the hazards described in this paragraph (c)(2), based on estimates provided in local risk assessments as well as the State risk assessment. The State shall describe vulnerability in terms of the jurisdictions most threatened by the identified hazards, and most vulnerable to damage and loss associated with hazard events. State owned critical or operated facilities located in the
E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM
pfrm04
PsN: 26FER2
8850
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
identified hazard areas shall also be addressed; (iii) An overview and analysis of potential losses to the identified vulnerable structures, based on estimates provided in local risk assessments as well as the State risk assessment. The State shall estimate the potential dollar losses to State owned or operated buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas. (3) A Mitigation Strategy that provides the State’s blueprint for reducing the losses identified in the risk assessment. This section shall include: (i) A description of State goals to guide the selection of activities to mitigate and reduce potential losses. (ii) A discussion of the State’s preand post-disaster hazard management policies, programs, and capabilities to mitigate the hazards in the area, including: an evaluation of State laws, regulations, policies, and programs related to hazard mitigation as well as to development in hazard-prone areas; a discussion of State funding capabilities for hazard mitigation projects; and a general description and analysis of the effectiveness of local mitigation policies, programs, and capabilities. (iii) An identification, evaluation, and prioritization of cost-effective, environmentally sound, and technically feasible mitigation actions and activities the State is considering and an explanation of how each activity contributes to the overall mitigation strategy. This section should be linked to local plans, where specific local actions and projects are identified. (iv) Identification of current and potential sources of Federal, State, local, or private funding to implement mitigation activities. (4) A section on the Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning that includes the following: (i) A description of the State process to support, through funding and technical assistance, the development of local mitigation plans. (ii) A description of the State process and timeframe by which the local plans will be reviewed, coordinated, and linked to the State Mitigation Plan. (iii) Criteria for prioritizing communities and local jurisdictions that would receive planning and project grants under available funding programs, which should include consideration for communities with the highest risks, repetitive loss properties, and most intense development pressures. Further, that for nonplanning grants, a principal criterion for prioritizing grants shall be the extent to which benefits are maximized according
VerDate 11<MAY>2000
10:58 Feb 25, 2002
Jkt 197001
to a cost benefit review of proposed projects and their associated costs. (5) A Plan Maintenance Process that includes: (i) An established method and schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan. (ii) A system for monitoring implementation of mitigation measures and project closeouts. (iii) A system for reviewing progress on achieving goals as well as activities and projects identified in the Mitigation Strategy. (6) A Plan Adoption Process. The plan must be formally adopted by the State prior to submittal to us for final review and approval. (7) Assurances. The plan must include assurances that the State will comply with all applicable Federal statutes and regulations in effect with respect to the periods for which it receives grant funding, in compliance with 44 CFR 13.11(c). The State will amend its plan whenever necessary to reflect changes in State or Federal laws and statutes as required in 44 CFR 13.11(d). (d) Review and updates. Plan must be reviewed and revised to reflect changes in development, progress in statewide mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities and resubmitted for approval to the appropriate Regional Director every three years. The Regional review will be completed within 45 days after receipt from the State, whenever possible. We also encourage a State to review its plan in the post-disaster timeframe to reflect changing priorities, but it is not required. § 201.5
Enhanced State Mitigation Plans.
(a) A State with a FEMA approved Enhanced State Mitigation Plan at the time of a disaster declaration is eligible to receive increased funds under the HMGP, based on twenty percent of the total estimated eligible Stafford Act disaster assistance. The Enhanced State Mitigation Plan must demonstrate that a State has developed a comprehensive mitigation program, that the State effectively uses available mitigation funding, and that it is capable of managing the increased funding. In order for the State to be eligible for the 20 percent HMGP funding, FEMA must have approved the plan within three years prior to the disaster declaration. (b) Enhanced State Mitigation Plans must include all elements of the Standard State Mitigation Plan identified in § 201.4, as well as document the following: (1) Demonstration that the plan is integrated to the extent practicable with other State and/or regional planning
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
initiatives (comprehensive, growth management, economic development, capital improvement, land development, and/or emergency management plans) and FEMA mitigation programs and initiatives that provide guidance to State and regional agencies. (2) Documentation of the State’s project implementation capability, identifying and demonstrating the ability to implement the plan, including: (i) Established eligibility criteria for multi-hazard mitigation measures. (ii) A system to determine the cost effectiveness of mitigation measures, consistent with OMB Circular A–94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, and to rank the measures according to the State’s eligibility criteria. (iii) Demonstration that the State has the capability to effectively manage the HMGP as well as other mitigation grant programs, including a record of the following: (A) Meeting HMGP and other mitigation grant application timeframes and submitting complete, technically feasible, and eligible project applications with appropriate supporting documentation; (B) Preparing and submitting accurate environmental reviews and benefit-cost analyses; (C) Submitting complete and accurate quarterly progress and financial reports on time; and (D) Completing HMGP and other mitigation grant projects within established performance periods, including financial reconciliation. (iv) A system and strategy by which the State will conduct an assessment of the completed mitigation actions and include a record of the effectiveness (actual cost avoidance) of each mitigation action. (3) Demonstration that the State effectively uses existing mitigation programs to achieve its mitigation goals. (4) Demonstration that the State is committed to a comprehensive state mitigation program, which might include any of the following: (i) A commitment to support local mitigation planning by providing workshops and training, State planning grants, or coordinated capability development of local officials, including Emergency Management and Floodplain Management certifications. (ii) A statewide program of hazard mitigation through the development of legislative initiatives, mitigation councils, formation of public/private
E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM
pfrm04
PsN: 26FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations partnerships, and/or other executive actions that promote hazard mitigation. (iii) The State provides a portion of the non-Federal match for HMGP and/ or other mitigation projects. (iv) To the extent allowed by State law, the State requires or encourages local governments to use a current version of a nationally applicable model building code or standard that addresses natural hazards as a basis for design and construction of State sponsored mitigation projects. (v) A comprehensive, multi-year plan to mitigate the risks posed to existing buildings that have been identified as necessary for post-disaster response and recovery operations. (vi) A comprehensive description of how the State integrates mitigation into its post-disaster recovery operations. (c) Review and updates. (1) A State must review and revise its plan to reflect changes in development, progress in statewide mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities, and resubmit it for approval to the appropriate Regional Director every three years. The Regional review will be completed within 45 days after receipt from the State, whenever possible. (2) In order for a State to be eligible for the 20 percent HMGP funding, the Enhanced State Mitigation plan must be approved by FEMA within the three years prior to the current major disaster declaration. § 201.6
Local Mitigation Plans.
The local mitigation plan is the representation of the jurisdiction’s commitment to reduce risks from natural hazards, serving as a guide for decision makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of natural hazards. Local plans will also serve as the basis for the State to provide technical assistance and to prioritize project funding. (a) Plan requirement. (1) For disasters declared after November 1, 2003, a local government must have a mitigation plan approved pursuant to this section in order to receive HMGP project grants. Until November 1, 2003, local mitigation plans may be developed concurrent with the implementation of the project grant. (2) Regional Directors may grant an exception to the plan requirement in extraordinary circumstances, such as in a small and impoverished community, when justification is provided. In these cases, a plan will be completed within 12 months of the award of the project grant. If a plan is not provided within this timeframe, the project grant will be terminated, and any costs incurred after
VerDate 11<MAY>2000
10:58 Feb 25, 2002
Jkt 197001
notice of grant’s termination will not be reimbursed by FEMA. (3) Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g. watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process and has officially adopted the plan. State-wide plans will not be accepted as multijurisdictional plans. (b) Planning process. An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (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. (c) Plan content. The plan shall include the following: (1) Documentation of the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved. (2) A risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards. The risk assessment shall include: (i) A description of the type, location, and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events. (ii) A description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of: (A) The types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas; (B) An estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
8851
and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate; (C) Providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. (iii) For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment section must assess each jurisdiction’s risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. (3) A mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. This section shall include: (i) A description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. (ii) A section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. (iii) An action plan describing how the actions identified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. (iv) For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan. (4) A plan maintenance process that includes: (i) A section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle. (ii) A process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. (iii) Discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. (5) Documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council). For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted.
E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM
pfrm04
PsN: 26FER2
8852
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
(d) Plan review. (1) Plans must be submitted to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer for initial review and coordination. The State will then send the plan to the appropriate FEMA Regional Office for formal review and approval. (2) The Regional review will be completed within 45 days after receipt from the State, whenever possible. (3) Plans must be reviewed, revised if appropriate, and resubmitted for approval within five years in order to continue to be eligible for HMGP project grant funding. (4) Managing States that have been approved under the criteria established by FEMA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5170c(c) will be delegated approval authority for local mitigation plans, and the review will be based on the criteria in this part. Managing States will review the plans within 45 days of receipt of the plans, whenever possible, and provide a copy of the approved plans to the Regional Office. PART 206—FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR DISASTERS DECLARED ON OR AFTER NOVEMBER 23, 1988 2. The authority citation for part 206 is revised to read as follows: Authority: Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121–5206; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376; E.O. 12148, 44 FR 43239, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 412; and E.O. 12673, 54 FR 12571, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 214.
2a. Revise Part 206, Subpart M to read as follows: Subpart M—Minimum Standards Sec. 206.400 206.401 206.402 § 206.400
General.
(a) As a condition of the receipt of any disaster assistance under the Stafford Act, the applicant shall carry out any repair or construction to be financed with the disaster assistance in accordance with applicable standards of safety, decency, and sanitation and in conformity with applicable codes, specifications and standards. (b) Applicable codes, specifications, and standards shall include any disaster resistant building code that meets the minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as well as being substantially equivalent to the recommended provisions of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
17:00 Feb 25, 2002
Jkt 197001
§ 206.401
Local standards.
The cost of repairing or constructing a facility in conformity with minimum codes, specifications and standards may be eligible for reimbursement under section 406 of the Stafford Act, as long as such codes, specifications and standards meet the criteria that are listed at 44 CFR 206.226(b). § 206.402
General. Local standards. Compliance.
VerDate 11<MAY>2000
Program (NEHRP). In addition, the applicant shall comply with any requirements necessary in regards to Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, Executive Order 12699, Seismic Safety of Federal and Federally Assisted or Regulated New Building Construction, and any other applicable Executive orders. (c) In situations where there are no locally applicable standards of safety, decency and sanitation, or where there are no applicable local codes, specifications and standards governing repair or construction activities, or where the Regional Director determines that otherwise applicable codes, specifications, and standards are inadequate, then the Regional Director may, after consultation with appropriate State and local officials, require the use of nationally applicable codes, specifications, and standards, as well as safe land use and construction practices in the course of repair or construction activities. (d) The mitigation planning process that is mandated by section 322 of the Stafford Act and 44 CFR part 201 can assist State and local governments in determining where codes, specifications, and standards are inadequate, and may need to be upgraded.
Compliance.
A recipient of disaster assistance under the Stafford Act must document for the Regional Director its compliance with this subpart following the completion of any repair or construction activities. Subpart N—Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 3. Revise § 206.431 to read as follows: § 206.431
Definitions.
Activity means any mitigation measure, project, or action proposed to reduce risk of future damage, hardship, loss or suffering from disasters. Applicant means a State agency, local government, Indian tribal government, or eligible private nonprofit organization, submitting an application to the grantee for assistance under the HMGP.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Enhanced State Mitigation Plan is the hazard mitigation plan approved under 44 CFR part 201 as a condition of receiving increased funding under the HMGP. Grant application means the request to FEMA for HMGP funding, as outlined in § 206.436, by a State or tribal government that will act as grantee. Grant award means total of Federal and non-Federal contributions to complete the approved scope of work. Grantee means the government to which a grant is awarded and which is accountable for the use of the funds provided. The grantee is the entire legal entity even if only a particular component of the entity is designated in the grant award document. Generally, the State is the grantee. However, an Indian tribal government may choose to be a grantee, or it may act as a subgrantee under the State. An Indian tribal government acting as a grantee will assume the responsibilities of a ‘‘state’’, under this subpart, for the purposes of administering the grant. Indian tribal government means any Federally recognized governing body of an Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe under the Federally Recognized Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a. This does not include Alaska Native corporations, the ownership of which is vested in private individuals. Local Mitigation Plan is the hazard mitigation plan required of a local or Indian tribal government acting as a subgrantee as a condition of receiving a project subgrant under the HMGP as outlined in 44 CFR 201.6. Standard State Mitigation Plan is the hazard mitigation plan approved under 44 CFR part 201, as a condition of receiving Stafford Act assistance as outlined in § 201.4. State Administrative Plan for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program means the plan developed by the State to describe the procedures for administration of the HMGP. Subgrant means an award of financial assistance under a grant by a grantee to an eligible subgrantee. Subgrant application means the request to the grantee for HMGP funding by the eligible subgrantee, as outlined in § 206.436. Subgrantee means the government or other legal entity to which a subgrant is awarded and which is accountable to the grantee for the use of the funds provided. Subgrantees can be a State agency, local government, private nonprofit organizations, or Indian tribal government as outlined in § 206.433.
E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM
pfrm02
PsN: 26FER2
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Indian tribal governments acting as a subgrantee are accountable to the State grantee. 4. Revise § 206.432(b) to read as follows: § 206.432
Federal grant assistance.
*
* * * * (b) Amounts of assistance. The total of Federal assistance under this subpart shall not exceed either 15 or 20 percent of the total estimated Federal assistance (excluding administrative costs) provided for a major disaster under 42 U.S.C. 5170b, 5172, 5173, 5174, 5177, 5178, 5183, and 5201 as follows: (1) Fifteen (15) percent. Effective November 1, 2003, a State with an approved Standard State Mitigation Plan, which meets the requirements outlined in 44 CFR 201.4, shall be eligible for assistance under the HMGP not to exceed 15 percent of the total estimated Federal assistance described in this paragraph. Until that date, existing, approved State Mitigation Plans will be accepted. (2) Twenty (20) percent. A State with an approved Enhanced State Mitigation Plan, in effect prior to the disaster declaration, which meets the requirements outlined in 44 CFR 201.5 shall be eligible for assistance under the HMGP not to exceed 20 percent of the total estimated Federal assistance described in this paragraph. (3) The estimates of Federal assistance under this paragraph (b) shall be based on the Regional Director’s estimate of all eligible costs, actual grants, and appropriate mission assignments. * * * * * 5. Section 206.434 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b) through (g) as paragraphs (c) through (h), respectively; adding a new paragraph (b); revising redesignated paragraphs (c) introductory text and (c)(1); and revising redesignated paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 206.434
Eligibility.
*
* * * * (b) Plan requirement. (1) For all disasters declared on or after November 1, 2003, local and tribal government applicants for subgrants, must have an approved local mitigation plan in accordance with 44 CFR 201.6 prior to receipt of HMGP subgrant funding. Until November 1, 2003, local mitigation plans may be developed concurrent with the implementation of subgrants. (2) Regional Directors may grant an exception to this requirement in extraordinary circumstances, such as in a small and impoverished community
VerDate 11<MAY>2000
17:00 Feb 25, 2002
Jkt 197001
when justification is provided. In these cases, a plan will be completed within 12 months of the award of the project grant. If a plan is not provided within this timeframe, the project grant will be terminated, and any costs incurred after notice of grant’s termination will not be reimbursed by FEMA. (c) Minimum project criteria. To be eligible for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, a project must: (1) Be in conformance with the State Mitigation Plan and Local Mitigation Plan approved under 44 CFR part 201; * * * * * (d) Eligible activities. (1) Planning. Up to 7% of the State’s HMGP grant may be used to develop State, tribal and/or local mitigation plans to meet the planning criteria outlined in 44 CFR part 201. (2) Types of projects. Projects may be of any nature that will result in protection to public or private property. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to: (i) Structural hazard control or protection projects; (ii) Construction activities that will result in protection from hazards; (iii) Retrofitting of facilities; (iv) Property acquisition or relocation, as defined in paragraph (e) of this section; (v) Development of State or local mitigation standards; (vi) Development of comprehensive mitigation programs with implementation as an essential component; (vii) Development or improvement of warning systems. * * * * * 6. Revise § 206.435(a) to read as follows: § 206.435 Project identificaiton and selection criteria.
(a) Identification. It is the State’s responsibility to identify and select eligible hazard mitigation projects. All funded projects must be consistent with the State Mitigation Plan. Hazard Mitigation projects shall be identified and prioritized through the State, Indian tribal, and local planning process. * * * * * 7. Revise § 206.436 to read as follows: § 206.436
Application procedures.
(a) General. This section describes the procedures to be used by the grantee in submitting an application for HMGP funding. Under the HMGP, the State or Indian tribal government is the grantee and is responsible for processing subgrants to applicants in accordance with 44 CFR part 13 and this part 206. Subgrantees are accountable to the grantee.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
8853
(b) Governor’s Authorized Representative. The Governor’s Authorized Representative serves as the grant administrator for all funds provided under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The Governor’s Authorized Representative’s responsibilities as they pertain to procedures outlined in this section include providing technical advice and assistance to eligible subgrantees, and ensuring that all potential applicants are aware of assistance available and submission of those documents necessary for grant award. (c) Hazard mitigation application. Upon identification of mitigation measures, the State (Governor’s Authorized Representative) will submit its Hazard Mitigation Grant Program application to the FEMA Regional Director. The application will identify one or more mitigation measures for which funding is requested. The application must include a Standard Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance, SF 424D, Assurances for Construction Programs, if appropriate, and an narrative statement. The narrative statement will contain any pertinent project management information not included in the State’s administrative plan for Hazard Mitigation. The narrative statement will also serve to identify the specific mitigation measures for which funding is requested. Information required for each mitigation measure shall include the following: (1) Name of the subgrantee, if any; (2) State or local contact for the measure; (3) Location of the project; (4) Description of the measure; (5) Cost estimate for the measure; (6) Analysis of the measure’s costeffectiveness and substantial risk reduction, consistent with § 206.434(c); (7) Work schedule; (8) Justification for selection; (9) Alternatives considered; (10) Environmental information consistent with 44 CFR part 9, Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands, and 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. (d) Application submission time limit. The State’s application may be amended as the State identifies and selects local project applications to be funded. The State must submit all local HMGP applications and funding requests for the purpose of identifying new projects to the Regional Director within 12 months of the date of disaster declaration. (e) Extensions. The State may request the Regional Director to extend the application time limit by 30 to 90 day
E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM
pfrm02
PsN: 26FER2
8854
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
increments, not to exceed a total of 180 days. The grantee must include a justification in its request. (f) FEMA approval. The application and supplement(s) will be submitted to the FEMA Regional Director for approval. FEMA has final approval authority for funding of all projects. (g) Indian tribal grantees. Indian tribal governments may submit a SF 424 directly to the Regional Director. Subpart H—Public Assistance Eligibility *
* * * * 8. Revise § 206.220 to read as follows:
§ 206.220
General.
This subpart provides policies and procedures for determinations of eligibility of applicants for public assistance, eligibility of work, and eligibility of costs for assistance under sections 402, 403, 406, 407, 418, 419,
VerDate 11<MAY>2000
10:58 Feb 25, 2002
Jkt 197001
421(d), 502, and 503 of the Stafford Act. Assistance under this subpart must also conform to requirements of 44 CFR part 201, Mitigation Planning, and 44 CFR part 206, subparts G—Public Assistance Project Administration, I—Public Assistance Insurance Requirements, J— Coastal Barrier Resources Act, and M— Minimum Standards. Regulations under 44 CFR part 9—Floodplain Management and 44 CFR part 10—Environmental Considerations, also apply to this assistance. 9. Section 206.226 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b) through (j) as paragraphs (c) through (k), respectively; adding a new paragraph (b); and revising redesignated paragraph (g)(5) to read as follows: § 206.226 facilities.
Restoration of damaged
*
* * * * (b) Mitigation planning. In order to receive assistance under this section, as
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of November 1, 2003, the State must have in place a FEMA approved State Mitigation Plan in accordance with 44 CFR part 201. * * * * * (g) * * * (5) If relocation of a facility is not feasible or cost effective, the Regional Director shall disapprove Federal funding for the original location when he/she determines in accordance with 44 CFR parts 9, 10, 201, or subpart M of this part 206, that restoration in the original location is not allowed. In such cases, an alternative project may be applied for. * * * * * Dated: February 19, 2002. Michael D. Brown, General Counsel. [FR Doc. 02–4321 Filed 2–25–02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6718–05–P
E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM
pfrm04
PsN: 26FER2
Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, and Flood Mitigation Assistance Program July 12, 2013 Federal Emergency Management Agency Department of Homeland Security 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20472
Titles of Opportunities:
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Funding Opportunity Numbers:
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) numbers for the three Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs are: 97.039 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) 97.047 Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program 97.029 Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Federal Agency Name:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Announcement Type:
Initial
CONTENTS Part I. Funding Opportunity Description................................................................................... 1 A. Authorization and Appropriation........................................................................................ 2 B. Additional Program Information......................................................................................... 3 B.1 Programmatic Changes ..............................................................................................4 Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements .............................................. 9 A. Mitigation Planning .......................................................................................................... 11 B. Technical Feasibility and Effectiveness............................................................................ 11 C. Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands ....................................................... 11 D. Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Review and Compliance.................. 12 E. Cost-effectiveness ............................................................................................................. 12 F. Cost Review ...................................................................................................................... 12 G. Project Development ......................................................................................................... 14 H. Advance Assistance .......................................................................................................... 14 I. Strategic Funds Management............................................................................................ 14 J. Project Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 15 K. Closeout ............................................................................................................................ 15 Part III. Award Information...................................................................................................... 16 Part IV. Eligibility Information................................................................................................. 17 A. Eligible Applicants............................................................................................................ 17 A.1 Eligible Subapplicants..............................................................................................17 B. Cost Sharing...................................................................................................................... 18 B.1 Federal Funds Allowed to Be Used as Non-Federal Cost Share..............................20 B.2 Increased Cost of Compliance as Non-Federal Cost Share......................................20 C. Restrictions ....................................................................................................................... 20 C.1 Non-Discrimination Compliance .............................................................................20 C.2 Conflict of Interest ...................................................................................................21 C.3 Duplication of Programs ..........................................................................................21 C.4 Duplication of Benefits ............................................................................................21 D. General Program Requirements ........................................................................................ 22 D.1 Eligible Activities.....................................................................................................22 D.1.1 Mitigation Projects ...................................................................................... 23 D.1.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning ........................................................................ 27 D.1.3 Management Costs ...................................................................................... 29
i
D.2 D.3 D.4 D.5
Ineligible Activities ..................................................................................................30 Cost-effectiveness ....................................................................................................31 Feasibility and Effectiveness....................................................................................32 Hazard Mitigation Plan Requirement .......................................................................32 D.5.1 Indian Tribal Government Hazard Mitigation Plan Requirement ............... 34 D.5.2 Conformance with Hazard Mitigation Plans ............................................... 34 D.6 Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Requirement............................34 D.6.1 Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands ................................. 35 D.7 National Flood Insurance Program Eligibility Requirements ..................................35 D.7.1 Special Flood Hazard Area Requirements .................................................. 36 D.8 Statutory, Regulatory, and Other Requirements ......................................................36
Part V. Application and Submission Information ................................................................... 38 A. Address to Request Application Package ......................................................................... 38 B. Content and Form of Application ..................................................................................... 38 C. Submission Dates and Times ............................................................................................ 39 D. Intergovernmental Review ................................................................................................ 39 E. Funding Restrictions ......................................................................................................... 39 E.1 HMGP Funding Restrictions....................................................................................39 E.2 PDM Program Funding Restrictions ........................................................................40 E.3 FMA Funding Restrictions.......................................................................................40 E.4 Management Costs Funding Restrictions .................................................................40 F. Other Submission Requirements....................................................................................... 41 F.1 Application Consideration under Multiple HMA Programs ....................................41 F.2 Pre-Award Costs ......................................................................................................41 G. Applicant Guidance .......................................................................................................... 41 G.1 General Applicant Guidance ....................................................................................41 G.2 Minimum Eligibility and Completeness Criteria .....................................................42 H. Scope of Work .................................................................................................................. 43 H.1 Project Scope of Work .............................................................................................43 H.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Scope of Work ............................................................44 H.3 Management Costs Scope of Work ..........................................................................46 H.4 Schedule ...................................................................................................................46 H.5 Cost Estimate............................................................................................................46 H.5.1 Project Cost Estimate .................................................................................. 47 H.5.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Cost Estimate ................................................. 47 H.5.3 Management Cost Estimate ......................................................................... 48 I. Cost-effectiveness ............................................................................................................. 48 ii
I.1 Substantial Damage Waiver .....................................................................................48 I.2 Aggregation..............................................................................................................49 I.3 5 Percent Initiative ...................................................................................................49 I.4 Pre-calculated Benefits (Safe rooms) .......................................................................49 I.5 Greatest Savings to the Fund ....................................................................................49 I.6 Environmental Benefits ............................................................................................49 I.7 Benefit-Cost Analysis Resources .............................................................................50 J. Feasibility and Effectiveness Documentation................................................................... 50 K. Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Documentation ................................ 51 Part VI. Application Review Information ................................................................................ 54 A. Review Criteria ................................................................................................................. 54 A.1 Application Review..................................................................................................54 A.2 Cost-effectiveness Review .......................................................................................54 A.3 Feasibility and Effectiveness Review ......................................................................54 A.4 Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Review ....................................55 A.5 HMA Efficiencies ....................................................................................................55 A.5.1 Safe Room Projects ..................................................................................... 55 A.5.2 Wind Retrofit Projects ................................................................................. 56 A.5.3 Certain Flood Mitigation Projects ............................................................... 56 B. Review and Selection Process .......................................................................................... 56 B.1 Technical Review .....................................................................................................56 B.2 Requests for Information ..........................................................................................56 B.2.1 Request for Information Timelines ............................................................. 57 B.3 Selection ...................................................................................................................59 B.4 Notification...............................................................................................................59 B.5 Reconsideration Process...........................................................................................59 B.5.1 Consideration of Additional Information .................................................... 60 Part VII. Award Administration Information ......................................................................... 61 A. Notice of Award................................................................................................................ 61 B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements........................................................... 61 B.1 Cost-Share Documentation ......................................................................................61 B.2 Scope of Work Changes ...........................................................................................62 B.3 Budget Changes........................................................................................................62 B.3.1 Non-construction Projects ........................................................................... 62 B.3.2 Construction Projects .................................................................................. 62 B.3.3 Cost Overruns and Underruns ..................................................................... 62 iii
B.4 Program Period of Performance ...............................................................................63 B.4.1 Extensions ................................................................................................... 63 B.5 Requests for Advances and Reimbursements ..........................................................63 B.5.1 Strategic Funds Management ...................................................................... 64 B.6 Program Income .......................................................................................................64 B.7 Federal Income Tax on Mitigation Project Funds....................................................64 B.8 Noncompliance.........................................................................................................65 C. Reporting Requirements ................................................................................................... 65 C.1 Federal Financial Reports.........................................................................................65 C.2 Performance Reports ................................................................................................66 C.3 Final Reports ............................................................................................................67 D. Closeout ............................................................................................................................ 67 D.1 Subgrant Closeout ....................................................................................................67 D.2 Grant Closeout..........................................................................................................68 D.2.1 Update of Repetitive Loss Database ........................................................... 69 Part VIII. FEMA Contacts......................................................................................................... 71 Part IX. Additional Program Guidance.................................................................................... 72 A. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program .................................................................................... 72 A.1 Grantee Request for HMGP Funds ..........................................................................72 A.2 State Administrative Plan .........................................................................................72 A.2.1 Designation of Grantee and SHMO ............................................................ 73 A.2.2 Staffing Requirements and the Mitigation Team ........................................ 73 A.2.3 Procedures to Guide Implementation Activities ......................................... 74 A.2.4 Sliding Scale................................................................................................ 74 A.2.5 Management Costs ...................................................................................... 75 A.2.6 Submission and Approval Deadlines .......................................................... 75 A.3 HMGP Funding ........................................................................................................75 A.4 HMGP Management Costs.......................................................................................76 A.5 Eligible Subapplicants..............................................................................................77 A.6 Submission of HMGP Subapplications ....................................................................78 A.7 Grant Cost-share Requirements ...............................................................................78 A.8 Post-Disaster Code Enforcement Projects................................................................79 A.9 Advance Assistance..................................................................................................80 A.10 Phased Projects.........................................................................................................82 A.10.1 Pre-Screening Process ................................................................................. 83 A.10.2 Phase I Conditional Approval ..................................................................... 83 iv
A.10.3 Phase II Approval-Construction Process..................................................... 84 A.11 The 5 Percent Initiative ............................................................................................84 A.11.1 Availability of Additional Funds for Tornado Mitigation........................... 85 A.12 Appeal Process .........................................................................................................85 B. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program ...................................................................................... 87 B.1 Allocation .................................................................................................................87 B.2 Small Impoverished Communities ...........................................................................87 B.3 Information Dissemination .......................................................................................87 B.4 Applicant Ranking of Subapplications .....................................................................88 B.5 Selection ...................................................................................................................88 C. Flood Mitigation Assistance Program .............................................................................. 89 C.1 Eligible Properties ....................................................................................................89 C.2 Repetitive Loss Strategy...........................................................................................89 C.3 Cost Sharing .............................................................................................................90 C.4 Applicant Ranking of Subapplications .....................................................................90 C.5 Selection ...................................................................................................................90 Part X. Appendices ..................................................................................................................... 92 A. Acronyms .......................................................................................................................... 92 B. Glossary ............................................................................................................................ 95 C. Additional Resources ...................................................................................................... 103 D. Referenced Regulations, Statutes, Directives, and Guidance ......................................... 107 E. Eligibility and Completeness Review Checklist for Project Subapplications ................ 117 F. Safe Room Application Using Pre-Calculated Benefits ................................................. 120 G. Generator FAQ................................................................................................................ 125 H. Eligibility and Completeness Review Checklist for Planning Subapplications ............. 133 I. EHP Checklist................................................................................................................. 135 J. 8-Step Decision Making Process for Floodplain Management Considerations ............. 137 K. Section 106 Process under the National Historic Preservation Act ................................ 138 L. Application for Advance Assistance............................................................................... 140
v
List of Figures Figure 1: Overall Project Lifecycle..................................................................................................9 Figure 2: General Steps in Project Scoping Process ......................................................................10 Figure 3: Frontloading EHP Considerations and the NEPA Process ............................................13 Figure 4: RFI Flowchart.................................................................................................................58 List of Tables Table 1: Eligible Subapplicants .....................................................................................................18 Table 2: Cost-Share Requirements ................................................................................................19 Table 3: Eligible Activities by Program ........................................................................................23 Table 4: Green Open Space and Riparian Benefits .......................................................................50 Table 5: RFI Timelines ..................................................................................................................57 Table 6: FEMA Regions ................................................................................................................71
vi
PART I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION Part I of the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Unified Guidance introduces the three HMA programs and outlines the organization of the document. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) HMA programs present a critical opportunity to reduce the risk to individuals and property from natural hazards while simultaneously reducing reliance on Federal disaster funds. On March 30, 2011, the President signed Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness (PPD-8), and the National Mitigation Framework was finalized in May 2013. The National Mitigation Framework comprises seven core capabilities, including Threats and Hazard Identification, Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment, Planning, Community Resilience, Public Information and Warning, Long-term Vulnerability Reduction, and Operational Coordination. HMA programs provide funding for eligible activities that are consistent with the National Mitigation Framework’s Long-term Vulnerability Reduction capability. HMA programs reduce community vulnerability to disasters and their effects, promote individual and community safety and resilience, and promote community vitality after an incident. Furthermore, HMA programs reduce response and recovery resource requirements in the wake of a disaster or incident, which results in a safer community that is less reliant on external financial assistance. Hazard mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards and their effects. This definition distinguishes actions that have a long-term impact from those that are more closely associated with immediate preparedness, response, and recovery activities. Hazard mitigation is the only phase of emergency management specifically dedicated to breaking the cycle of damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. Accordingly, States, Territories, Indian Tribal governments, and communities are encouraged to take advantage of funding that HMA programs provide in both the pre- and post-disaster timelines. Together, these programs provide significant opportunities to reduce or eliminate potential losses to State, Indian Tribal government, and local assets through hazard mitigation planning and project grant funding. Each HMA program was authorized by separate legislative action, and as such, each program differs slightly in scope and intent. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides funds to States, Territories, Indian Tribal governments, local governments, and eligible private non-profits (PNPs) following a Presidential major disaster declaration. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) programs provide funds annually to States, Territories, Indian Tribal governments, and local governments. Although the statutory origins of the programs
Part I. Funding Opportunity Description
1
differ, both share the common goal of reducing the risk of loss of life and property due to natural hazards. This guidance applies to HMGP funds available for disasters declared on or after the date of publication. The guidance in this document is subject to change based on new laws or regulations enacted after publication. This guidance is applicable to the PDM and FMA programs; the application cycles are announced via http://www.grants.gov/. For additional information, please contact FEMA. State, Territory, or Indian Tribal governments are eligible Applicants for HMA programs. The Applicant is responsible for soliciting subapplications from eligible subapplicants, assisting in the preparation of them, and submitting eligible, complete applications to FEMA in priority order. HMA grant funds are awarded to Applicants. When funding is awarded, the Applicant then becomes the “Grantee” and is accountable for the use of the funds, responsible for administering the grant, and responsible for complying with program requirements and other applicable Federal, State, Territorial, and Indian Tribal laws and regulations. As the Grantee, the Applicant is also responsible for financial management of the program and overseeing all approved projects. In general, the “subapplicant” is a State-level agency, Indian Tribal government, local government, or other eligible entity that submits a subapplication for FEMA assistance to the Applicant. If HMA funding is awarded, the subapplicant becomes the “subgrantee” and is responsible for managing the subgrant and complying with program requirements and other applicable Federal, State, Territorial, Indian Tribal, and local laws and regulations. An Indian Tribal government may participate as either the Applicant/Grantee or the subapplicant/subgrantee (see Part IV, A). For HMGP, “subapplicant” has the same meaning given to the term “Applicant” in the HMGP regulations at Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 206.431.
A. Authorization and Appropriation HMGP is authorized by Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (the Stafford Act), Title 42, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 5170c. The key purpose of HMGP is to ensure that the opportunity to take critical mitigation measures to reduce the risk of loss of life and property from future disasters is not lost during the reconstruction process following a disaster. HMGP is available, when authorized under a Presidential major disaster declaration, in the areas of the State requested by the Governor. Indian Tribal governments may also submit a request for a major disaster declaration within their impacted area. The amount of HMGP funding available to the Applicant is based upon the estimated total of Federal assistance, subject to the sliding scale formula outlined in 44 CFR Section 206.432(b) that FEMA provides for disaster recovery under the Presidential major disaster declaration. The formula provides for up to 15 percent of the first $2 billion of estimated aggregate amounts of disaster assistance, up to 10 percent for amounts between $2 billion and $10 billion, and up to 7.5 percent for amounts between $10 billion and $35.333 billion. For States with enhanced
Part I. Funding Opportunity Description
2
plans, the eligible assistance is up to 20 percent for estimated aggregate amounts of disaster assistance not to exceed $35.333 billion. The PDM Program is authorized by Section 203 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5133. The PDM Program is designed to assist States, Territories, Indian Tribal governments, and local communities to implement a sustained pre-disaster natural hazard mitigation program to reduce overall risk to the population and structures from future hazard events, while also reducing reliance on Federal funding in future disasters. The FMA program is authorized by Section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (NFIA), 42 U.S.C. 4104c, with the goal of reducing or eliminating claims under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF) provides the funding for the FMA program. The PDM and FMA programs are subject to the availability of appropriation funding, as well as any program-specific directive or restriction made with respect to such funds. More information about each program can be found on the FEMA HMA Web site at https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-assistance.
B. Additional Program Information This guidance consolidates the common requirements for all HMA programs and explains the unique elements of the programs in individual sections. Additionally, it provides information for Federal, State, Indian Tribal, and local officials on how to apply for HMA funding for a proposed mitigation activity. The organization of this HMA Unified Guidance provides clarity and ease of use by presenting information common to all programs in general order of the grant life cycle. As a result, closely related topics may be presented in different sections of the guidance. This guidance is organized in the following manner: Part I, Funding Opportunity Description, introduces the HMA programs; Part II, Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements, provides general information to facilitate project scoping and the overall decision-making process; Part III, Award Information, provides information about available funding and application deadlines; Part IV, Eligibility Information, provides information about eligible Applicants and subapplicants, cost-sharing requirements, and other program requirements; Part V, Application and Submission Information, provides information regarding application development including funding restrictions;
Part I. Funding Opportunity Description
3
Part VI, Application Review Information, summarizes the FEMA review and selection process; Part VII, Award Administration Information, highlights grants management requirements from the time an award is made through closeout; Part VIII, FEMA Contacts, provides Regional and State contact information; Part IX, Additional Program Guidance, provides information that is unique to each program; and Part X, Appendices, includes acronyms, a glossary, additional resources, and referenced regulations and statutes. Additional guidance for particular activity types is provided as an Addendum to this guidance. This additional guidance provides information specific to property acquisition and structure demolition or relocation, wildfire mitigation, safe room construction, mitigation reconstruction, and structure elevation projects.
B.1
Programmatic Changes
Although many of the specific requirements of each program remain the same, significant revisions to programmatic requirements included in this HMA Unified Guidance are: Per the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (SRIA), Indian Tribal governments can submit a request for a major disaster declaration within their impacted areas; A new Part II has been created to outline the importance of “frontloading” HMA program requirements in the project scoping and development process; The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 eliminated the Repetitive Flood Claims and Severe Repetitive Loss programs and made the following significant changes to the FMA program:
The definitions of repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss properties have been modified (Part IX, C.1);
There is no longer a State cap of $10 million or a community cap of $3.3 million for any 5-year period;
There is no longer a limit on in-kind contributions for the non-Federal cost share (previously limited to one-half of the non-Federal share);
Mitigation reconstruction is an eligible activity;
Cost-share requirements have changed to allow more Federal funds for properties with repetitive flood claims and severe repetitive loss properties (Part IV, B);
Part I. Funding Opportunity Description
4
The development or update of mitigation plans shall not exceed $50,000 Federal share to any Applicant or $25,000 Federal share to any subapplicant (Part V, E.3); and
There is no longer a restriction that a planning grant can only be awarded not more than once every 5 years to a State or community.
For Duplication of Benefits (DOB), HMA does not require that property owners seek assistance from other sources (with the exception of insurance); However, other assistance anticipated or received must be reported (Part IV, C.4). A Privacy Act notice is required to be provided to homeowners participating in mitigation projects; For HMGP, the purchase and installation of stand-alone generators are eligible under regular HMGP funding if they protect a critical facility and meet all other program eligibility criteria (Part IV, D.1.1); For HMGP and the PDM Program, generators and/or related equipment purchases (e.g., generator hook-ups) that are not stand-alone are considered eligible when the generator and related equipment directly relates to the hazard being mitigated and is part of a more comprehensive project (Part IV, D.1.1); For non-structural retrofits, the elevation of utilities is an eligible activity (Part IV, D.1.1); FEMA Policy 104-008-01, “Hazard Mitigation Assistance for Wind Retrofit Projects for Existing Residential Buildings” dated November 16, 2012, has been incorporated (Part IV, D.1.1). With the release of this HMA Unified Guidance, the policy has been superseded; A mitigation planning subgrant award can result in a mitigation plan adopted by the jurisdiction(s) and approved by FEMA or it can also include planning-related activities as outlined in 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206 (Part IV, D.1.2); FEMA Mitigation Planning Memorandum (MT-PL) #2 “Guidance For FEMA Regional Directors Regarding “Extraordinary Circumstances” under which an HMGP Project Grant may be awarded to Local Jurisdictions without an Approved Local Mitigation Plan” dated October 28, 2005, has been incorporated. With the release of this HMA Unified Guidance, the memo has been superseded; For PDM and FMA project subgrants, the Region may apply extraordinary circumstances, when justification is provided, with concurrence received from FEMA Headquarters (Risk Reduction and Risk Analysis Divisions) prior to granting an exception (Part IV, D.5); For the PDM Program, the Federal share to update a hazard mitigation plan has been reduced to $300,000 (Part V, E.2); Applications must contain minimal information in order for FEMA to be able to make a general eligibility determination (Part V, G.2);
Part I. Funding Opportunity Description
5
Applications or subapplications submitted to FEMA that do not contain the minimal eligibility criteria are subject to immediate denial (Part V, G.2); ♦ Greatest Savings to the Fund (GSTF) extends to properties under HMA (Part V, I); An expedited cost-effectiveness methodology (substantial damage waiver) is available for property acquisition projects when certain conditions are met under all HMA programs; this was previously limited to HMGP (Part V, I); FEMA Policy 108-024-01, “Consideration of Environmental Benefits in the Evaluation of Acquisition Projects under the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Programs” dated June 18, 2013, has been incorporated (Part V, I). With the release of this HMA Unified Guidance, this policy has been incorporated; Green open space and riparian area benefits can now be included in the project benefit cost ratio (BCR) once the project BCR reaches 0.75 or greater. The inclusion of environmental benefits in the project BCR is limited to acquisition-related activities; FEMA recommends several HMA efficiencies to facilitate FEMA review and approval (Part VI, A.5); FEMA provides timelines for Applicants to comply with requests for information (RFI) (Part VI, B.2.1); FEMA clarifies the consideration of additional information in support of a subapplication (Part VI, B.5); FEMA clarifies that requests for Scope of Work Changes must address the need for the change through a revised scope, schedule, and budget (Part VII, B.2); FEMA clarifies when prior FEMA approval is needed for a budget change (Part VII, B.3); With the publication of this HMA Unified Guidance, the Period of Performance (POP) for the programs begins with the opening of the application period and ends no later than 36 months from the close of the application period. All requests to extend the grant POP beyond 12 months from the original grant POP termination date must be approved by FEMA Headquarters (Part VII, B.4); FEMA may elect to provide funding for certain projects in incremental amounts (Strategic Funds Management [SFM]) (Part VII, B.5.1); The Grantee must notify FEMA of each property for which settlement was completed in that quarter (Part VII, C.2); The HMGP final lock-in will be established 12 months after date of declaration. The final lock-in amount may be greater than or less than the previous calculations. Because the lock-in estimate is subject to change, FEMA will not obligate more than 75 percent of any estimate prior to the calculation of the final lock-in without concurrence of the Regional Administrator or Federal Coordinating Officer with Disaster Recovery Manager Part I. Funding Opportunity Description
6
Authority and the Office of Chief Financial Officer (Part IX, A.3); With the release of this guidance, Section 1104 of the SRIA is incorporated as Advance Assistance in (Part IX, A.9); Advance Assistance can be used to accelerate the implementation of the HMGP. Applicants may use Advance Assistance to develop mitigation strategies and obtain data to prioritize, select, and develop complete HMGP applications in a timely manner (Part IX, A.9); For acquisition projects, clarifications were made regarding the purchase of vacant land, land already owned by an eligible entity, and outstanding tax liens (Addendum, Part A); FEMA will make a determination on the open space compatibility of access to a subsurface resource (e.g., mineral rights) on a case-by-case basis (Addendum, Part A); Acquisitions in Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) units and Other Protected Areas (OPAs) are eligible under all HMA programs if the projects are otherwise eligible under the requirements in the 44 CFR and this guidance (Addendum, Part A); FEMA clarifies that the relevant event may vary under the HMA programs; however, premarket value or current market value can be used at the Applicant’s discretion for all HMA programs (Addendum, Part A); In accordance with Section 203(a)(1) of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, the replacement housing allowance for homeowners may increase from $22,500 to $31,000 on October 1, 2014 (Addendum, Part A); With the release of this HMA Unified Guidance, certified clean is defined as a letter from the appropriate local, State, Indian Tribal, or Federal entity determining that no further remedial action is required to protect human health or the environment (Addendum, Part A); FEMA Policy MRR-2-08-1, “Wildfire Mitigation Policy for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program,” dated September 8, 2008, has been incorporated. With the release of this HMA Unified Guidance, this policy has now been superseded (Addendum, Part B); FEMA urges communities to implement wildfire projects using the materials and technologies that are in accordance with the International Code Council, FEMA, U.S. Fire Administration, and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Firewise recommendations, whenever applicable (Addendum, Part B); For wildfire projects, the application will include a narrative statement acknowledging the information required in the final operations and maintenance plan. The final operations and maintenance plans must be submitted to FEMA prior to project closeout (Addendum, Part B);
Part I. Funding Opportunity Description
7
FEMA Interim Policy MRR-2-09-1, “Hazard Mitigation Assistance for Safe Rooms,” dated April 30, 2009, and FEMA Memorandum, subject “Waiver of Two Provisions of Mitigation Interim Policy MRR-2-09-1, “Hazard Mitigation Assistance for Safe Rooms,” dated February 07, 2012, have been incorporated. With the release of this HMA Unified Guidance both policies are now superseded (Addendum, Part C); For safe room projects, costs associated with the acquisition of land for a community safe room are eligible costs (Addendum, Part C); For safe room projects, FEMA will review final operations and maintenance plans during project closeout (Addendum, Part C); and For safe room projects, costs associated with fire suppression sprinklers and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems are an eligible cost (Addendum, Part C).
Part I. Funding Opportunity Description
8
PART II. FRONTLOADING HMA PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS Part II provides general information on the importance of “frontloading” HMA Program eligibility requirements in the project scoping and the overall decision-making process. Project scoping and project development are two of the earliest steps in the overall project lifecycle (see Figure 1) and can have a significant impact on the course an application or subapplication takes through the HMA grant process. Project scoping (as shown in Figure 2) is the process by which subapplicants develop effective mitigation alternatives based on a defined set of requirements that meet the stated purpose and need of the proposed project. Applicants are encouraged to include representatives of the whole community in planning and scoping the project to gain broad community participation and support. The scoping process includes the identification and evaluation of technical feasibility, cost review, cost-effectiveness, and environmental and cultural resource considerations. Based on potential impacts to environmental and cultural resources, there may be a legal requirement to alter the project. The process results in the development of a preferred project alternative that is then documented through the preparation of the application or subapplication. Applicants and subapplicants should consider the whole range of program requirements at the beginning stages of project development. The incorporation of these considerations into the scoping process can increase the efficiency of program review and ensure that all HMA program requirements are addressed. Figure 1: Overall Project Lifecycle
Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements
9
Figure 2: General Steps in Project Scoping Process
Addressing the following HMA program requirements at the earliest stage possible in the decision-making process is important because it can lead to enhanced project scoping as well as development and prevent delays later: Mitigation Planning; Technical Feasibility and Effectiveness; Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands; Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Review and Compliance; Cost-Effectiveness; and Cost Review. Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements
10
“Frontloading” of these requirements at the earliest point in the decision-making process increases the efficacy of the overall HMA Program. It also reduces the need for RFIs, which may result in quicker selections of projects for further review or approval. Additionally, early consideration of Advance Assistance, SFM, project monitoring, and project closeout in the decision-making process can facilitate the scoping and development of viable projects.
A. Mitigation Planning Reviewing and incorporating information from the State, Indian Tribal, or local mitigation plan can help an Applicant or subapplicant facilitate the development of mitigation project alternatives. Linking the existing mitigation plan to project scoping can support the Applicant and the subapplicant in selecting the most appropriate mitigation activity that best addresses the identified hazard(s) while taking into account community priorities. In particular, the mitigation strategy section of the plan identifies a range of specific mitigation activities that can reduce vulnerability and includes information on the process that was used to identify, prioritize, and implement the range of mitigation actions considered. Another resource that may be useful in developing mitigation alternatives is the “Mitigation Ideas” guide available from the FEMA Library (see http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=6938). It is important to reference the mitigation plan as potential project alternatives may have been considered during the planning process. If these alternatives were not considered during the mitigation planning process, please include this information in the next mitigation plan update. For more information on hazard mitigation planning, see Part IV, D.1.2 (eligible activities), Part V, H.2 (scope of work), Part V, H.5.2 (cost estimate), or Part X, C (additional resources).
B. Technical Feasibility and Effectiveness Mitigation projects submitted for the HMA grants must be both feasible and effective at mitigating the risks of the hazard for which the project was designed. The feasibility of the project is demonstrated through conformance with accepted engineering practices, established codes, standards, modeling techniques, or best practices. Effective mitigation measures funded under HMA should provide a long-term or permanent solution. Consideration of technical feasibility and effectiveness during the project scoping process facilitates project development. For more information on technical feasibility and effectiveness, see Part VI, A.3 (application review criteria), Part IV, D.4 (eligibility program requirements), or Part V, J (documentation).
C. Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands HMA programs and grants must conform to 44 CFR Part 9, which incorporates the requirements of Executive Order (EO) 11988 (Floodplain Management) and EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). All proposed actions should be reviewed to determine if they are in the floodplain or a wetland. Any actions located in the 100-year floodplain (500-year for critical actions), or adversely increasing the base flood or adversely affecting a wetland, trigger the requirement to Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements
11
complete the 8-step decision-making process outlined in 44 CFR Section 9.6, see Part X, Appendix J. As part of that process, FEMA must consider alternative locations to determine whether the floodplain or wetland is the only practicable location for that action. If the floodplain or wetland is the only practicable location, FEMA must avoid or must minimize adverse impacts to the floodplain or wetland. For more information on floodplain management and the protection of wetlands, see Part IV, D.6.1 (general program requirements) and Part X, Appendix J (8-Step Decision Making Process for Floodplain Management Considerations).
D. Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Review and Compliance HMA programs and grants must comply with all environmental and historic preservation (EHP) laws and with 44 CFR Part 10, which may include identifying alternate locations and, as necessary, modifying the project. See the EHP Checklist in Part X, Appendix I. Completion of this list is not a substitute for environmental compliance. The front-loading of EHP into the decision-making process allows for development of mitigation measures that reduce or eliminate the proposed project’s impact to the human environment; see Figure 3 for an overview of frontloading the EHP and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Moreover, compliance with all environmental laws and regulations is a condition of the grant. Two key considerations are whether the proposed project is located in an area that has endangered or threatened species or critical habitat and whether the proposed project might impact historic or cultural resources. If the project could result in adverse impacts to those resources, it might be necessary to change the scope of the project to avoid those impacts or incorporate mitigation measures to minimize the impacts to those resources. To determine whether any EHP issues may be associated with the proposed project, Applicants should review FEMA’s HMA EHP Resources At-a-Glance Guide, located at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=6976. For more information on EHP, see Part IV, D.6 (general program requirements), Part V, K (documentation), and Part VI, A.4 (application review).
E. Cost-effectiveness Mitigation activities are required by statute and regulation to be cost-effective or be in the interest of the NFIF. Consideration of the cost-effectiveness requirement at the earliest possible stage of the decision-making process can facilitate project scoping and improve project design. For more information on cost-effectiveness, see Part IV, D.3 (general program requirements) and Part V, I (documentation).
F. Cost Review All costs included in the subapplication should be reviewed to ensure that they are necessary, reasonable, and allocable consistent with the provisions of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87 and 2 CFR Part 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements
12
Figure 3: Frontloading EHP Considerations and the NEPA Process
Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements
13
Governments. Conducting this cost review at the earliest possible stage allows for improved project scoping and facilitates project development, which facilitates FEMA project review.
G. Project Development Project scoping is not a separate, stand-alone process from project development. It can be considered the initial stage of project development, during which the details of mitigation activities are evaluated and developed. State, Local, and Indian Tribal governments that actively participate in and document their project scoping process put themselves in a greater position for success during project development. The information gathered in the scoping process serves as the basis for the development of a more detailed and robust technical design, cost, and environmental compliance components of the mitigation activity. During the project development process, the subapplicant may encounter project considerations such as technical feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and EHP that necessitate the refinement or adjustment of the mitigation activity. When these situations are encountered, the reason for the refinement or re-scoping should be fully documented and included with the subapplication.
H. Advance Assistance Section 1104 of the SRIA authorizes the use of Advance Assistance to accelerate the implementation of the HMGP. Applicants may use Advance Assistance to develop mitigation strategies and obtain data to prioritize, select, and develop complete HMGP applications in a timely manner. Using Advance Assistance can help Applicants develop eligible and complete applications that include a feasible project budget and an appropriate project milestone. See Part IX, A.9 for additional information on Advance Assistance.
I.
ADVANCE ASSISTANCE Advance Assistance can be used to develop mitigation strategies and obtain data to prioritize, select, and develop complete HMGP applications. Consideration of Advance Assistance early in the decision-making process can help facilitate the development of a viable project, as well as project administration.
Strategic Funds Management
FEMA has implemented SFM. SFM, or STRATEGIC FUNDS MANAGEMENT incremental funding, is the concept of fiscal SFM is a fiscal management approach program management designed to provide funds designed to provide funds to the Grantee as as they are needed to implement approved HMGP needed to implement approved HMGP activities. activities. Through SFM, Applicant recovery and preparedness, communication and partnership, and the overall fiscal accuracy are expected to be improved. Considering SFM early in the decision-making process can help facilitate the development of a feasible project budget and
Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements
14
appropriate project milestones. At the beginning of an SFM project, FEMA and the State will work together to develop a work schedule. See Part VII, B.5.1 for additional information on SFM.
J. Project Monitoring After a grant or subgrant is awarded, the Grantee and subgrantee are required to monitor and evaluate the progress of the mitigation activity in accordance with the: Approved original scope of work (SOW) and budget; Administrative requirements of 44 CFR Part 13; and Any applicable State requirements. Sound project monitoring improves the efficiency of the project implementation process and the obligation of funds process. The satisfactory use of quarterly reporting facilitates project management and allows the Grantee, subgrantee, and FEMA to monitor obligations and any unliquidated funds. For additional information on project monitoring (reporting requirements) see Part VII, C.
K. Closeout Upon project completion, the Grantee and subgrantee are required to closeout the subgrant or grant in accordance 44 CFR Section 13.50 (Closeout). The project file should document that the: Approved SOW was fully implemented; All obligated funds were liquidated and in a manner consistent with the approved SOW; All environmental compliance measures or mitigations were implemented; The project was implemented in a manner consistent with the grant or subgrant agreement; Grantees submitted the required quarterly financial and performance reports; and The grant and subgrant were closed out in accordance with the provisions outlined in Part VII, C and D (subgrant and grant closeout). For more information on closeout, see Part VII, D.
Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements
15
PART III. AWARD INFORMATION Funding under HMA programs is subject to the availability of appropriations (as well as any directive or restriction made with respect to such funds in the law) and, for HMGP, to the amount of FEMA disaster recovery assistance under the Presidential major disaster declaration. For additional information about available funding for HMGP, see Part IX, A.3; for the PDM Program, see Part IX, B.1; and for FMA, see Part IX, C.
Part III. Award Information
16
PART IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION Part IV identifies common eligibility requirements for all HMA programs, such as eligible Applicants and subapplicants, cost-sharing requirements, restrictions on the use of HMA funds, activities that are eligible for HMA funding, and other program requirements. Additional program-specific requirements are found in Part IX of this guidance. Additional project-specific requirements can be found in the Addendum to this guidance. To be eligible for funding, Applicants and subapplicants must apply for funds as described in this guidance.
A. Eligible Applicants Entities eligible to apply for HMA grants include the emergency management agency or a similar office of the 50 States (e.g., the office that has primary emergency management or floodplain management responsibility), the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Indian Tribal governments. Each State, Territory, Commonwealth, or Indian Tribal government shall designate one agency to serve as the Applicant for each HMA program. For the definition of the term Indian Tribal government refer to 44 CFR Section 206.431. An Indian Tribal government may have the option to apply for HMA grants through the State as a subapplicant or directly to FEMA as an Applicant. The option for an Indian Tribal government to apply directly to FEMA reflects FEMA recognition that Indian Tribal governments are sovereign nations and share a government-to-government relationship with the United States. This choice is independent of a designation under other FEMA grants and programs, but is not available on a project-by-project basis within a single grant program. If an Indian Tribal government chooses to apply directly to FEMA and is awarded the grant, it bears the full responsibility of a Grantee for the purposes of administering the grant. For plan requirements relevant to the options to apply as a subapplicant or an Applicant, see Part IV, D.5.1.
A.1
Eligible Subapplicants
All interested subapplicants must apply to the Applicant. Table 1 identifies, in general, eligible subapplicants. For specific details regarding eligible subapplicants, refer to 44 CFR Section 206.434(a) for HMGP and 44 CFR Section 79.6(a) for FMA. For HMGP and the PDM Program, see 44 CFR Section 206.2(a)(16) for a definition of local governments. Individuals and businesses are not eligible to apply for HMA funds; however, an eligible Applicant or subapplicant may apply for funding on behalf of individuals and businesses. For additional information about the eligibility of PNPs for HMGP, see Part IX, A.5.
Part IV. Eligibility Information
17
Table 1: Eligible Subapplicants Entity
HMGP
PDM
FMA
State agencies
√
√
√
Indian Tribal governments
√
√
√
Local governments/communities
√
√
√
Private non-profit organizations (PNPs)
√
B. Cost Sharing Under the HMA programs, the total cost to implement approved mitigation activities is generally funded by a combination of Federal and non-Federal sources. Both the Federal and the nonFederal cost shares must be for eligible costs used in direct support of the approved activities under this guidance and the grant award. Contributions of cash, third-party in-kind services, materials, or any combination thereof, may be accepted as part of the non-Federal cost share. FEMA administers cost-sharing requirements consistent with 44 CFR Section 13.24 and 2 CFR Section 215.23. To meet cost-sharing requirements, the non-Federal contributions must be reasonable, allowable, allocable, and necessary under the grant program and must comply with all Federal requirements and regulations. In general, HMA funds may be used to pay up to 75 percent of the eligible activity costs. The remaining 25 percent of eligible activity costs are derived from non-Federal sources. Exceptions to the 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal share (see Table 2) are as follows: PDM Program – Small impoverished communities may be eligible for up to a 90 percent Federal cost share. For information about small impoverished communities, see Part IX, B.2. FMA
FEMA may contribute up to 100 percent Federal cost share for severe repetitive loss properties or the expected savings to the NFIF for acquisition or relocation activities (the GSTF value for property acquisition may be offered to the property owner if the project is not cost-effective using pre-event or current market value);
FEMA may contribute up to 90 percent Federal cost share for repetitive loss properties; and
FEMA may contribute up to 75 percent Federal cost share for NFIP-insured properties.
Insular areas, including American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands – FEMA automatically waives the non-Federal cost share when the non-Federal cost share for the entire grant is under $200,000, not an individual subgrant. If the non-Federal cost share for the entire grant is $200,000 or Part IV. Eligibility Information
18
greater, FEMA may waive all or part of the cost share, such a waiver is usually consistent with that provided for Public Assistance under the disaster declaration. If FEMA does not waive the cost share, the insular area must pay the entire cost-share amount, not only the amount over $200,000. Cost-share requirements also extend to management costs with the following exceptions: For HMGP, available HMGP management costs are calculated as a percentage of the Federal funds provided. There is no additional cost-share requirement for management costs. Under the PDM Program, only Indian Tribal Grantees meeting the definition of a small impoverished community are eligible for a non-Federal cost share of 10 percent for management costs. See Part IX, A.7 for further information about HMGP cost-share requirements and Part V, E.4 for further information on funding restrictions for management costs. HMA Federal funds, or funds used to meet HMA cost-share requirements, may not be used as a cost share for other Federal funds, for lobbying, or intervention in Federal regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings.
Table 2: Cost-Share Requirements Mitigation Activity
Grantee Management Costs
Subgrantee Management Costs
(Percent of Federal / NonFederal Share)
(Percent of Federal / NonFederal Share)
(Percent of Federal / NonFederal Share)
HMGP
75/25
100/0
–/–(1)
PDM
75/25
75/25
75/25
PDM – subgrantee is small impoverished community
90/10
75/25
90/10
PDM – Tribal Grantee is small impoverished community
90/10
90/10
90/10
FMA – insured properties and planning grants
75/25
75/25
75/25
FMA – repetitive loss property(2)
90/10
90/10
90/10
FMA – severe repetitive loss property(2)
100/0
100/0
100/0
Programs
(1) Subapplicants should consult their State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) for the amount or percentage of HMGP subgrantee management cost funding their State has determined to be passed through to subgrantees. (2) To be eligible for an increased Federal cost share a FEMA-approved State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan that addresses repetitive loss properties must be in effect at the time of grant award, and the property that is being submitted for consideration must be a repetitive loss property.
Part IV. Eligibility Information
19
B.1
Federal Funds Allowed to Be Used as Non-Federal Cost Share
In general, the non-Federal cost-share requirement may not be met with funds from other Federal agencies; however, authorizing statutes explicitly allow some Federal funds to be used as a cost share for other Federal grants. Federal funds that are used to meet a non-Federal cost-share requirement must meet the purpose and eligibility requirements of both the Federal source program and the HMA grant program.
B.2
Increased Cost of Compliance as Non-Federal Cost Share
The NFIP Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) claim payment from a flood event may be used to contribute to the non-Federal cost-share requirements so long as the claim is made within the timelines allowed by the NFIP. ICC payments can only be used for costs that are eligible for ICC benefits; for example, ICC cannot pay for property acquisition, but can pay for structure demolition or relocation. In addition, Federal funds cannot be provided where ICC funds are available; if the ICC payment exceeds the required non-Federal share, the Federal funding award will be reduced to the difference between the cost of the activity and the ICC payment. If an ICC payment is being used as a subapplicant’s non-Federal cost share, the NFIP policyholder must assign the claim to the subapplicant. However, only that part of the ICC benefit that pertains to the property can be assigned to the subapplicant. The NFIP policyholder can only assign the ICC benefit to the subapplicant; in no case can the policyholder assign the ICC benefit to another individual. Steps for the assignment of ICC coverage are available at http://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program/steps-assignment-coverage-d-increasedcost-compliance-coverage.
C. Restrictions C.1
Non-Discrimination Compliance
In accordance with Section 308 of the Stafford Act and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, all HMA programs are administered in an equitable and impartial manner, without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, nationality, sex, age, disability, English proficiency, or economic status. In addition, Federal assistance distributed by State and local governments is to be implemented in compliance with all applicable laws. Applicants and subapplicants must ensure that no discrimination is practiced. Applicants and subapplicants must consider fairness, equity, and equal access when prioritizing and selecting project subapplications to submit with their grant application. Subapplicants also must ensure fairness and equal access to property owners and individuals that benefit from mitigation activities.
Part IV. Eligibility Information
20
C.2
Conflict of Interest
Applicants and subapplicants must avoid conflicts of interest. Subapplicants must comply with the procurement guidelines at 44 CFR Section 13.36, which require subapplicants to avoid situations in which local officials with oversight authority might benefit financially from the grant disbursement. Applicants must comply with guidelines for awarding and administering subgrants as stated in 44 CFR Section 13.37.
C.3
Duplication of Programs
FEMA will not provide assistance for activities for which it determines the primary or more specific authority lies with another Federal agency or program. Other programs and authorities should be examined before applying for HMA funding. HMA funds are not intended to be used as a substitute for other available program authorities. Available program authorities include other FEMA programs (e.g., Individual Assistance and Public Assistance) and programs under other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. FEMA may disallow or recoup amounts that duplicate other authorities. For additional information about Duplication of Programs for wildfire mitigation projects, see Addendum, Part B.2.
C.4
Duplication of Benefits
HMA funds cannot duplicate funds received by or available to Applicants or subapplicants from other sources for the same purpose. Examples of other sources include insurance claims, other assistance programs (including previous project or planning grants and subgrants from HMA programs), legal awards, or other benefits associated with properties or damage that are subject of litigation.
DUPLICATION OF BENEFITS DOB is used to describe assistance that is from more than one source and that is used for the same purpose or activity. The purpose may apply to the entire project or only part of it. DOB may apply when assistance for the same purpose: Has been received Will be received
Is reasonably available from another Because the availability of other sources of source, such as insurance or legal mitigation grant or loan assistance is subject to settlements due to the property owners available information and the means of each individual Applicant, HMA does not require that property owners seek assistance from other sources (with the exception of insurance). However, it is the responsibility of the property owner to report other benefits received, any applications for other assistance, the availability of insurance proceeds, or the potential for other compensation, such as from pending legal claims for damages, relating to the property.
Part IV. Eligibility Information
21
Where the property owner has an insurance policy covering any loss to the property that relates to the proposed HMA project, the means are available for receiving compensation for a loss or, in the case of ICC, assistance toward a mitigation project. FEMA will generally require that the property owner file a claim prior to the receipt of HMA funds. Information regarding other assistance received by properties in HMA projects may be shared under 5 U.S.C. 552a (b) of the Privacy Act of 1974. Uses may include sharing with custodians of property records, such as other Federal or other governmental agencies, insurance companies, or any public or private entity, for the purposes of ensuring that the property has not received money that is duplicative of any possible HMA grants received. When obtaining information from property owners about other sources of assistance, a Privacy Act statement must be distributed to each owner. For more information about the process of verifying potential duplication, access the HMA Tool for Identifying Duplication of Benefits at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=6815 and for a copy of the Privacy Act statement (see Appendix F of that document). For additional information on DOB for property acquisition and structure demolition or relocation projects, see Addendum Part A.11.4.
D. General Program Requirements D.1
Eligible Activities
To be eligible, activities must meet all requirements referenced in this guidance. Eligible activities for HMA fall into the following categories: Mitigation projects (all HMA programs); Hazard mitigation planning (all HMA programs); and Management costs (all HMA programs). Table 3 summarizes eligible activities that may be funded by the HMA programs. Detailed descriptions of these activities follow the table in Part IV, D.1.1, D.1.2, and D.1.3. The following activities are not eligible as stand-alone activities but are eligible when included as a functional component of eligible mitigation activities: For the PDM Program, generators and/or related equipment purchases (e.g., generator hook-ups),when the generator directly relates to the hazards being mitigated and is part of a larger project; Real property or easements purchases required for the completion of an eligible mitigation project; and Studies that are integral to the development and implementation of mitigation project, including hydrologic and hydraulic, engineering, or drainage studies. Part IV. Eligibility Information
22
Table 3: Eligible Activities by Program Eligible Activities
HMGP
PDM
FMA
√
√
√
Property Acquisition and Structure Demolition
√
√
√
Property Acquisition and Structure Relocation
√
√
√
Structure Elevation
√
√
√
1. Mitigation Projects
√
Mitigation Reconstruction Dry Floodproofing of Historic Residential Structures
√
√
√
Dry Floodproofing of Non-residential Structures
√
√
√
Minor Localized Flood Reduction Projects
√
√
√
Structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings
√
√
Non-structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings and Facilities
√
√
Safe Room Construction
√
√
Wind Retrofit for One- and Two-Family Residences
√
√
Infrastructure Retrofit
√
√
√
Soil Stabilization
√
√
√
Wildfire Mitigation
√
√
Post-Disaster Code Enforcement
√
Generators
√
5 Percent Initiative Projects
√
Advance Assistance
√
√
√
2. Hazard Mitigation Planning
√
√
√
3. Management Costs
√
√
√
Additional information regarding eligible projects for HMGP is included in Part IX, A.8 and A.9; and for FMA, see Part IX, C.1. Costs for eligible activities must be reasonable, allowable, allocable, and necessary as required by 2 CFR Part 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments, 44 CFR Section 13.22, applicable program regulations, and this guidance. D.1.1
Mitigation Projects
This section briefly describes the mitigation projects eligible under one or more of the three HMA programs. Table 3 summarizes the eligibility of the following project types for each program: Property Acquisition and Structure Demolition – The voluntary acquisition of an existing at-risk structure and, typically, the underlying land, and conversion of the land to Part IV. Eligibility Information
23
open space through the demolition of the structure. The property must be deed-restricted in perpetuity to open space uses to restore and/or conserve the natural floodplain functions. For property acquisition and structure demolition projects, see Addendum, Part A. Property Acquisition and Structure Relocation – The voluntary physical relocation of an existing structure to an area outside of a hazard-prone area, such as the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) or a regulatory erosion zone and, typically, the acquisition of the underlying land. Relocation must conform to all applicable State and local regulations. The property must be deed-restricted in perpetuity to open space uses to restore and/or conserve the natural floodplain functions. For property acquisition and structure relocation projects, see Addendum, Part A. Structure Elevation – Physically raising and/or retrofitting an existing structure to the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) or higher if required by FEMA or local ordinance. Elevation may be achieved through a variety of methods, including elevating on continuous foundation walls; elevating on open foundations, such as piles, piers, posts, or columns; and elevating on fill. Foundations must be designed to properly address all loads and be appropriately connected to the floor structure above, and utilities must be properly elevated as well. FEMA encourages Applicants and subapplicants to design all structure elevation projects in accordance with the American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI) 24-05, Flood Resistant Design and Construction. For additional information about structure elevation projects, see Addendum, Part E. Mitigation Reconstruction – The construction of an improved, elevated building on the same site where an existing building and/or foundation has been partially or completely demolished or destroyed. Mitigation reconstruction is only permitted for structures outside of the regulatory floodway or coastal high hazard area (Zone V) as identified by the existing best available flood hazard data. Activities that result in the construction of new living space at or above the BFE will only be considered when consistent with the mitigation reconstruction requirements. Dry Floodproofing – Techniques applied to keep structures dry by sealing the structure to keep floodwaters out. For all dry floodproofing activities, FEMA encourages Applicants and subapplicants to design all dry floodproofing projects in accordance with ASCE/SEI 24-05.
Dry Floodproofing of Historic Residential Structures is permissible only when other techniques that would mitigate to the BFE would cause the structure to lose its status as a Historic Structure, as defined in 44 CFR Section 59.1.
Dry Floodproofing of Non-residential Structures must be performed in accordance with NFIP Technical Bulletin (TB) 3-93, Non-Residential Floodproofing—
Part IV. Eligibility Information
24
Requirements and Certification, and the requirements pertaining to dry floodproofing of non-residential structures found in 44 CFR Sections 60.3(b)(5) and (c)(4). Generators – Generators are emergency equipment that provide a secondary source of power. Generators and related equipment (e.g., hook-ups) are eligible provided that they are cost-effective, contribute to a long-term solution to the problem they are intended to address, and meet other program eligibility criteria.
PDM Program: Generators and/or related equipment purchases (e.g., generator hook-ups) are eligible when the generator directly relates to the hazards being mitigated and is part of a larger project.
GENERATORS Stand-alone generators and related equipment (e.g., generator hook-ups) are eligible under the 5 Percent Initiative. Stand-alone generators (including related equipment) are eligible for regular HMGP funding if the generator protects a critical facility and meets all other program eligibility criteria. Generators (including related equipment) that constitute a functional portion of an otherwise eligible mitigation measure are eligible for HMGP and PDM Program funding. Portable generators are eligible for HMGP regular funding and the 5 Percent Initiative if they meet all HMGP requirements as described in 44 CFR Section 206.434.
HMGP: A permanently installed generator that is a stand-alone project can be considered under regular HMGP funding if the generator protects a critical facility. Critical facilities may include police and fire stations, hospitals, and water and sewer treatment facilities. A generator that is a component of a larger project (e.g., elevation of a lift station) can also be funded under regular HMGP funding and the use of aggregation is permitted. Portable generators are eligible provided that they meet all HMGP requirements as described in 44 CFR Section 206.434. Stand-alone generator projects that cannot be determined cost-effective via standard HMA benefitcost methodology may be eligible under the 5 Percent Initiative. See Part IX, A.10 for additional information about the 5 Percent Initiative. For additional information on generators please see the Frequently Asked Questions for Generators in Part X, Appendix G. HMA funds are not available as a substitute for emergency, temporary, or partial solutions under the Stafford Act Section 403, Essential Assistance (42 U.S.C. 5170b) and/or the Stafford Act, Title VI Emergency Preparedness (42 U.S.C. 5195).
Minor Localized Flood Reduction Projects – Projects to lessen the frequency or severity of flooding and decrease predicted flood damages, such as the installation or modification of culverts, and stormwater management activities, such as creating retention and detention basins. These projects must not duplicate the flood prevention activities of other Federal agencies and may not constitute a section of a larger flood control system.
Part IV. Eligibility Information
25
Under the FMA program, minor localized flood reduction projects should benefit NFIP-insured properties. Projects will be prioritized based on the number of NFIP insured properties included in the project. Projects that do not include NFIP-insured properties will not be considered for funding. Documentation must be provided in the subapplication to verify the NFIP insurance requirement, which includes flood insurance policy and property locator numbers as appropriate.
Structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings – Modifications to the structural elements of a building to reduce or eliminate the risk of future damage and to protect inhabitants. The structural elements of a building that are essential to protect to prevent damage include foundations, load-bearing walls, beams, columns, building envelope, structural floors and roofs, and the connections between these elements. Non-structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings and Facilities – Modifications to the non-structural elements of a building or facility to reduce or eliminate the risk of future damage and to protect inhabitants. Non-structural retrofits may include bracing of building contents to prevent earthquake damage or the elevation of utilities. Safe Room Construction – Safe room construction projects are designed to provide immediate life-safety protection for people in public and private structures from tornado and severe wind events, including hurricanes. For HMA, the term “safe room” only applies to extreme wind (combined tornado and hurricane) residential, non-residential, and community safe rooms; tornado community safe rooms; and hurricane community safe rooms. This type of project includes retrofits of existing facilities or new safe room construction projects, and applies to both single and dual-use facilities. For additional information, see Addendum, Part C. Wind retrofit projects – Wind retrofit projects of one and two-family residential buildings must be designed in conformance with the design criteria found in the Wind Retrofit Guide for Residential Buildings (FEMA P-804) published December 2010. This document is available in the FEMA Library at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=4569. Infrastructure Retrofit – Measures to reduce risk to existing utility systems, roads, and bridges. Soil Stabilization – Projects to reduce risk to structures or infrastructure from erosion and landslides, including installing geotextiles, stabilizing sod, installing vegetative buffer strips, preserving mature vegetation, decreasing slope angles, and stabilizing with rip rap and other means of slope anchoring. These projects must not duplicate the activities of other Federal agencies. Wildfire Mitigation – Projects to mitigate at-risk structures and associated loss of life from the threat of future wildfire through:
Part IV. Eligibility Information
26
Defensible Space for Wildfire – Projects creating perimeters around homes, structures, and critical facilities through the removal or reduction of flammable vegetation. For additional information, see Addendum, Part B.3.1.
Application of Ignition-resistant Construction – Projects that apply ignitionresistant techniques and/or non-combustible materials on new and existing homes, structures, and critical facilities. For additional information, see Addendum, Part B.3.2.
Hazardous Fuels Reduction – Projects that remove vegetative fuels proximate to atrisk structures that, if ignited, pose significant threat to human life and property, especially critical facilities. For additional information, see Addendum, Part B.3.3.
Post-Disaster Code Enforcement – Projects designed to support the post-disaster rebuilding effort by ensuring that sufficient expertise is on hand to ensure appropriate codes and standards, including NFIP local ordinance requirements, are used and enforced. For additional information, see Part IX, A.8. Advance Assistance – Section 1104 of the SRIA authorizes the use of Advance Assistance to accelerate the implementation of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Applicants may use Advance Assistance to develop mitigation strategies and obtain data to prioritize, select and develop complete HMGP applications in a timely manner. See Part IX, A.9 for additional information on Advance Assistance. 5 Percent Initiative Projects – These projects, which are only available pursuant to an HMGP disaster, provide an opportunity to fund mitigation actions that are consistent with the goals and objectives of the State or Indian Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) and local mitigation plans and meet all HMGP program requirements, but for which it may be difficult to conduct a standard Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) to prove cost-effectiveness. For additional information, see Part IX, A.10. D.1.2
Hazard Mitigation Planning
Mitigation plans are the foundation for effective hazard mitigation. A mitigation plan is a demonstration of the commitment to reduce risks from natural hazards and serves as a strategic guide for decision-makers as they commit resources. MITIGATION PLANNINGThe mitigation planning process includes hazard RELATED ACTIVITIES identification and risk assessment leading to the Planning activities can include assessing development of a comprehensive mitigation strategy risk and updating the mitigation strategy to for reducing risks to life and property. The mitigation reflect current disaster recovery goals. strategy section of the plan identifies a range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce risks to new and existing buildings and infrastructure. This section includes an action plan describing how identified mitigation activities will be prioritized, implemented, and administered.
Part IV. Eligibility Information
27
Planning activities funded under HMA are designed to develop State, Indian Tribal, and local mitigation plans that meet the planning requirements outlined in 44 CFR Part 201. A mitigation planning subgrant award must result in a mitigation plan adopted by the jurisdiction(s) and approved by FEMA or it must result in a planning related activity approved by FEMA (e.g., incorporating new data into the Risk Assessment, or updating the Mitigation Strategy to reflect current disaster recovery goals) consistent with the requirements in 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206. For FMA, funds shall only be used to support the flood hazard portion of State, Indian Tribal, or local mitigation plans to meet the criteria specified in 44 CFR Part 201. Funds are only available to support these activities in communities participating in the NFIP. For links to mitigation planning and risk assessment resources, see Part X, C.2. D.1.2.1
Eligible Hazard Mitigation Planning-Related Activities
Eligible activities include but are not limited to: Update or enhance sections of the current FEMA-approved mitigation plan, such as:
Risk and vulnerability assessment based on new information, including supporting studies, such as economic analyses;
Mitigation strategy, specifically strengthening the linkage to mitigation action implementation, with emphasis on available HMA project grant funding; or
Incorporate climate adaptation, green building, or smart growth principles into the risk assessment and/or mitigation strategy.
Integrate information from mitigation plans, specifically risk assessment or mitigation strategies, with other planning efforts, such as:
Disaster recovery strategy (pre- or post), preparedness, or response plans;
Comprehensive (e.g., land use, master) plans;
Capital improvement or economic development plans;
Resource management / conservation plans (i.e., storm water, open space); or
Other long-term community planning initiatives (i.e., transportation or housing).
Building capability through delivery of technical assistance and training. Evaluation of adoption and/or implementation of ordinances that reduce risk and/or increase resilience. D.1.2.2
Ineligible Hazard Mitigation Planning-Related Activities
The following is a list of activities considered ineligible as “stand alone” planning-related activities: Part IV. Eligibility Information
28
Hazard identification or mapping and related equipment for the implementation of mitigation activities (eligible under 5 Percent Initiative); Geographic Information System (GIS) software, hardware, and data acquisition whose primary aim is mitigation (eligible under 5 Percent Initiative); Public awareness or education campaigns about mitigation (eligible under 5 Percent Initiative); Project scoping or development (also referred to as “project planning”), such as BCA, engineering feasibility studies, application development, construction design, or EHP data collection; and Activities not resulting in a clearly defined product or product(s). D.1.3
Management Costs
Management costs are any indirect costs and administrative expenses that are reasonably incurred by a Grantee or subgrantee in administering a grant or subgrant award. Eligible Applicant or subapplicant management cost activities may include: Solicitation, review, and processing of subapplications and subgrant awards; Subapplication development and technical assistance to subapplicants regarding feasibility and effectiveness, BCA, and EHP documentation; Geocoding mitigation projects identified for further review by FEMA; Delivery of technical assistance (e.g., plan reviews, planning workshops, training) to support the implementation of mitigation activities; Managing grants (e.g., quarterly reporting, closeout); Technical monitoring (e.g., site visits, technical meetings); Purchase of equipment, per diem and travel expenses, and professional development that is directly related to the implementation of HMA programs; and Staff salary costs directly related to performing the activities listed above. Management costs are only awarded in conjunction with project or planning grants and subgrants. For more information regarding management costs for HMGP, see Part IX, A.4. For the PDM Program and FMA, FEMA may provide up to 25 percent of the Applicant’s anticipated management costs, upon the award and final approval of the first subgrant. The remaining management costs will be obligated as additional subgrants are awarded.
Part IV. Eligibility Information
29
D.2
Ineligible Activities
The following list provides examples of activities that are not eligible for HMA funding: Projects that do not reduce the risk to people, structures, or infrastructure; Projects that are dependent on a contingent action in order to be effective and/or feasible (i.e., not a stand-alone mitigation project that solves a problem independently or constitutes a functional portion of a solution); Projects with the sole purpose of open space acquisition of unimproved land; Projects for which actual physical work such as groundbreaking, demolition, or construction of a raised foundation has occurred prior to award or final approval. Projects for which demolition and debris removal related to structures proposed for acquisition or mitigation reconstruction has already occurred may be eligible when such activities were initiated or completed under the FEMA Public Assistance program to alleviate a health or safety hazard as a result of a disaster; Projects that involve land that is contaminated with hazardous waste; Projects for preparedness activities or temporary measures (e.g., sandbags, bladders, geotubes); Projects that create revolving loan funds; Activities required as a result of negligence or intentional actions, or those intended to remedy a code violation, or the reimbursement of legal obligations such as those imposed by a legal settlement, court order, or State law; FEMA may, at its discretion, choose not to fund projects subject to ongoing litigation if such litigation may affect eligibility of the project or may substantially delay implementation of the project; All projects located in a CBRS Unit or in OPAs, other than property acquisition and structure demolition or relocation projects for open space under HMA. For details on property acquisition and structure demolition or relocation projects for open space within a CBRS Unit or OPAs see Addendum, Part A.2; Activities on Federal lands or associated with facilities owned by another Federal entity; Major flood control projects related to the construction, demolition, or repair of dams, dikes, levees, floodwalls, seawalls, groins, jetties, breakwaters, and erosion projects related to beach nourishment or re-nourishment; Projects for hazardous fuels reduction in excess of 2 miles from structures; Projects that address unmet needs from a disaster that are not related to mitigation;
Part IV. Eligibility Information
30
Retrofitting facilities primarily used for religious purposes, such as places of worship (or other projects that solely benefit religious organizations). However, a place of worship may be included in a property acquisition and structure demolition or relocation project provided that the project benefits the entire community, such as when the whole neighborhood or community is being removed from the hazard area; Activities that only address manmade hazards; Projects that address, without an increase in the level of protection, operation, deferred or future maintenance, repairs, or replacement of existing structures, facilities, or infrastructure (e.g., dredging, debris removal, replacement of obsolete utility systems, bridges, and facility repair/rehabilitation); Projects for the purpose of:
Landscaping for ornamentation (e.g., trees, shrubs);
Site remediation of hazardous materials (with the exception eligible activities, such as the abatement of asbestos and/or lead-based paint and the removal of household hazardous wastes to an approved landfill);
Water quality infrastructure;
Projects that primarily address ecological or agricultural issues;
Forest management;
Prescribed burning or clear-cutting;
Creation and maintenance of fire breaks, access roads, or staging areas;
Irrigation systems;
Studies not directly related to the design and implementation of a proposed mitigation project; and Preparedness measures and response equipment (e.g., response training, electronic evacuation road signs, interoperable communications equipment). All projects must also comply with any additional project-specific guidance provided in the Addendum.
D.3
Cost-effectiveness
Mitigation program authorizing statutes (Flood Mitigation Assistance at 42 U.S.C. 4104c, PreDisaster Hazard Mitigation at 42 U.S.C. 5133, and Hazard Mitigation at 42 U.S.C. 5170c) require that FEMA provide funding for mitigation measures that are cost-effective or are in the interest of the NFIF. FEMA has specified minimum project criteria via regulation (44 CFR Part 79 and 44 CFR Section 206.434), including that Applicants must demonstrate mitigation projects are cost-effective. The determination of cost-effectiveness is performed in a variety of ways. It Part IV. Eligibility Information
31
is typically demonstrated by the calculation of a BCR, dividing total annualized project benefits by total annualized project cost. Projects where benefits exceed costs are generally considered cost-effective (see Part V, I and Part VI, A.2 for additional information).
D.4
Feasibility and Effectiveness
Mitigation projects funded by HMA must be both feasible and effective at mitigating the risks of the hazard(s) for which the project was designed. A project’s feasibility is demonstrated through conformance with accepted engineering practices, established codes, standards, modeling techniques, or best practices. Effective mitigation measures funded under HMA provide a longterm or permanent solution to a risk from a natural hazard. For additional information about the feasibility and effectiveness requirement for mitigation reconstruction projects, see the Addendum, Part D.3; for additional feasibility and effectiveness resources, see Part X, C.5.
D.5
Hazard Mitigation Plan Requirement
In accordance with 44 CFR Part 201, all Applicants for the PDM Program and FMA must have a FEMA-approved State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan by the application deadline and at the time of obligation of the grant funds. The only exception is for a subapplication for a State or Indian Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan. In addition, all subapplicants for the PDM Program and FMA mitigation projects must have a FEMA-approved local or Indian Tribal mitigation plan by the application deadline and at the time of obligation of grant funds. There is no local or Indian Tribal mitigation plan requirement for any HMA program for a planning subgrant.
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES EXCEPTION For HMGP project subgrants, the Regional Administrator may grant an exception to a local or Indian Tribal mitigation plan requirement in extraordinary circumstances when justification is provided. For the PDM Program and FMA project subgrants, the Region may apply extraordinary circumstances when justification is provided and with concurrence from FEMA Headquarters (Risk Reduction and Risk Analysis Divisions) before granting an exception.
Applicants for HMGP funding must have a FEMA-approved State or Indian Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan at the time of the disaster declaration and at the time HMGP funding is obligated to the Grantee to receive an HMGP award. For HMGP project subgrants, the Regional Administrator may grant an exception to the local or Indian Tribal mitigation plan requirement in extraordinary circumstances, when justification is provided. If this exception is granted, a local or Indian Tribal mitigation plan must be approved by FEMA within 12 months of the award of the project subgrant to that community.
Part IV. Eligibility Information
32
For PDM and FMA project subgrants, the Region may apply extraordinary circumstances when justification is provided and with concurrence from FEMA Headquarters (Risk Reduction and Risk Analysis Divisions) prior to granting an exception. If this exception is granted, a local or Indian Tribal mitigation plan must be approved by FEMA within 12 months of the award of the project subgrant to that community. For HMGP, the PDM Program, and FMA, extraordinary circumstances exist when a determination is made by the Applicant and FEMA that the proposed project is consistent with the priorities and strategies identified in the State or Indian Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan and that the jurisdiction meets at least one of the criteria below. If the jurisdiction does not meet at least one of the following criteria, the Region must coordinate with FEMA Headquarters (Risk Reduction and Risk Analysis Divisions) for HMGP and coordinate and seek concurrence prior to granting an exception for the PDM Program and FMA: The jurisdiction meets the small impoverished community criteria (see Part IX, B.2); The jurisdiction has been determined to have had insufficient capacity due to lack of available funding, staffing, or other necessary expertise to satisfy the mitigation planning requirement prior to the current disaster or application deadline; The jurisdiction has been determined to have been at low risk from hazards due to low frequency of occurrence or minimal damages from previous occurrences due to sparse development; The jurisdiction experienced significant disruption from a declared disaster or another event that impacts its ability to complete the mitigation planning process prior to award or final approval of a project grant; and The jurisdiction does not have a mitigation plan for reasons beyond the control of the State, Indian Tribal or local community, such as Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) restrictions that delay FEMA from awarding project grants prior to the expiration of the local or Indian Tribal mitigation plan. For HMGP, the PDM Program, and FMA, the Applicant must provide written justification that identifies the specific criteria from above or circumstance, explain why there is no longer an impediment to satisfying the mitigation planning requirement, and identify the specific actions or circumstances that eliminated the deficiency. In determining whether to grant the exception, FEMA takes into consideration factors including whether an Applicant has prioritized its authorized HMA project assistance for use in those communities with an approved local or Indian Tribal mitigation plan, whether there are additional project funds available for award to a jurisdiction that does not have an approved local or Indian Tribal mitigation plan, and whether an Applicant has placed higher priority for grant funding on communities with higher risks. In all cases, a local or Indian Tribal mitigation plan must be completed and approved by FEMA within 12 months of the award. If a local or Indian
Part IV. Eligibility Information
33
Tribal mitigation plan is not approved by FEMA within this timeline, the project subgrant will be terminated and any costs incurred after the notice of the subgrant’s termination will not be reimbursed by FEMA. When an HMGP project subgrant is awarded under extraordinary circumstances, the Grantee shall acknowledge in writing to the Regional Administrator that a plan will be completed within 12 months of the award of the project grant. The Grantee must provide a work plan for completing the local or tribal mitigation plan, including milestones and a timetable, to ensure that the jurisdiction will complete the plan in the required time. This requirement shall be incorporated into the grant award (both the planning and project subgrant agreements, if a planning subgrant is also awarded). D.5.1
Indian Tribal Government Hazard Mitigation Plan Requirement
Indian Tribal governments with an approved Indian Tribal mitigation plan in accordance with 44 CFR Section 201.7 may apply for assistance from FEMA as a Grantee. In addition, if an Indian Tribal government with an approved Indian Tribal mitigation plan in accordance with 44 CFR Section 201.7 coordinates the review of their Indian Tribal mitigation plan with the State or another Indian Tribal government, it has the option to apply as a subapplicant through that State or Indian Tribal government, except as prohibited by State law. D.5.2
Conformance with Hazard Mitigation Plans
Projects submitted for consideration for HMA funding must be consistent with the goals and objectives identified in the current, FEMA-approved State or Indian Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan and local or Indian Tribal mitigation plan for the jurisdiction in which the activity is located.
D.6
Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Requirement
HMA programs, and grants awarded pursuant to these programs, must conform to 44 CFR Parts 9 and 10, and with all applicable EHP laws, implementing regulations, and EOs, such as the NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), EO 11988 (Floodplain Management), EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), and EO 12898 (Environmental Justice). EHP requirements ensure appropriate consideration of reasonable alternatives, taking the project’s impacts to the human environment into account in the decisionmaking process. The project, when completed, must comply with all applicable environmental laws and regulations as a condition of grant eligibility. FEMA reviews the completeness of the responses to the questions in the EHP review section of the project subapplication and supporting documentation. For HMA project subapplications that do not include the required information for each property identified in the subapplication, there
Part IV. Eligibility Information
34
may be a delay in identifying outstanding EHP compliance measures. Lack of the required information by the application deadline may prohibit FEMA from awarding a grant or subgrant. FEMA has developed guidance to assist in completing the EHP information section of a project subapplication, including an eLearning Tool, online training, and information about historic preservation. For links to these EHP resources, see Part X, C.5. D.6.1
Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands
As noted in Part IV D.6, all activities funded by HMA programs must conform to 44 CFR Part 9. Activities involving development will only be eligible for a grant if the Applicant demonstrates that there is no practicable alternative to such development in accordance with 44 CFR Section 9.9. In addition, HMGP funds cannot be used to fund new construction or Substantial Improvement in a floodway or new construction in a coastal high hazard zone. However, the costs to elevate or floodproof a damaged structure or facility are not included in determining whether the Substantial Improvement threshold is triggered. For additional information see 44 CFR Section 9.11(d).
D.7
National Flood Insurance Program Eligibility Requirements
HMA eligibility is related to the NFIP as follows: Subapplicant eligibility: All subapplicants for FMA must currently be participating in the NFIP, and not withdrawn or suspended, to be eligible to apply for grant funds. Certain non-participating political subdivisions (i.e., regional flood control districts or county governments) may apply and act as subgrantees on behalf of the NFIP-participating community in areas where the political subdivision provides zoning and building code enforcement or planning and community development professional services for that community; Project eligibility: HMGP and PDM mitigation project subapplications for projects sited within an SFHA are eligible only if the jurisdiction in which the project is located is participating in the NFIP. There is no NFIP participation requirement for HMGP and PDM project subapplications for projects located outside of the SFHA; Hazard mitigation planning eligibility: There are no NFIP participation requirements for HMGP and PDM hazard mitigation planning subapplications; and Property eligibility: Properties included in a project subapplication for FMA funding must be NFIP insured at the time of the application submittal. Flood insurance must be maintained for the life of the structure.
Part IV. Eligibility Information
35
D.7.1
Special Flood Hazard Area Requirements
For structures that remain in the SFHA after the implementation of the mitigation project, flood insurance must be maintained for the life of the structure to an amount at least equal to the project cost or to the maximum limit of coverage made available with respect to the particular property, whichever is less. The maximum limit of coverage made available is defined as the replacement cost value of the structure up to $250,000 for residential and $500,000 for nonresidential. Insurance coverage on the property must be maintained during the life of the property regardless of transfer of ownership of such property. The subgrantee (or property owner) must legally record, with the county or appropriate jurisdiction’s land records, a notice that includes the name of the current property owner (including book/page reference to record of current title, if readily available), a legal description of the property, and the following notice of flood insurance requirements: This property has received Federal hazard mitigation assistance. Federal law requires that flood insurance coverage on this property must be maintained during the life of the property regardless of transfer of ownership of such property. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5154a, failure to maintain flood insurance on this property may prohibit the owner from receiving Federal disaster assistance with respect to this property in the event of a flood disaster. The Property Owner is also required to maintain this property in accordance with the floodplain management criteria of 44 CFR Part 60.3 and City/County Ordinance. Applicants/subapplicants receiving assistance for projects sited in an SFHA must ensure that these requirements are met by requesting that the participating property owner(s) sign an Acknowledgement of Conditions for Mitigation of Property in an SFHA with FEMA Grant Funds form and providing the form to FEMA prior to award or final approval. This form is available on the FEMA Web site at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3592, or from the appropriate FEMA Regional Office (for Regional Office information, see Part VIII). Properties that do not meet these requirements will not be eligible to receive assistance under the HMA programs. If an approved HMA project affects the accuracy of the applicable Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the subgrantee is responsible for ensuring that appropriate map amendments or revisions are made. Costs associated with map amendments may be identified in the cost estimate section of a subgrant application.
D.8
Statutory, Regulatory, and Other Requirements
Mitigation activities must adhere to all relevant statutes, regulations, and requirements, including: Sections 203 (PDM Program) and 404 (HMGP) of the Stafford Act;
Part IV. Eligibility Information
36
Section 1366 (FMA) of the NFIA; Section 322 of the Stafford Act (Mitigation Planning); Section 324 of the Stafford Act (Management Costs); NHPA; NEPA; Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970; Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands (44 CFR Part 9); Environmental Considerations (44 CFR Part 10, NEPA, and ESA); Coastal Barriers Resources Act (CBRA; 44 CFR Part 206, Subpart J); Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to States and Local Governments (44 CFR Part 13); Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Non-Profit Organizations (2 CFR Part 215); Floodplain Management (44 CFR Part 60); Flood Mitigation Grants (44 CFR Part 79); Property Acquisition and Relocation for Open Space (44 CFR Part 80); Hazard Mitigation Planning (44 CFR Part 201); Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (44 CFR Part 206, Subpart N); Management Costs (44 CFR Part 207); Cost Principles for Educational Institutions (2 CFR Part 220, OMB Circular A-21); Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments (2 CFR Part 225, OMB Circular A-87); Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations (2 CFR Part 230, OMB Circular A-122); OMB Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs; OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations; Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Subpart 31.2, Contracts with Commercial Organizations; and Other applicable Federal, State, Indian Tribal, and local laws, implementing regulations, and EOs (e.g., EO 11988, EO 11990).
Part IV. Eligibility Information
37
PART V. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION Part V provides guidance on developing HMA applications or subapplications, and on related funding restrictions.
A. Address to Request Application Package Applications for HMGP are processed through the National Emergency Management Information System (NEMIS). Applicants may use the Application Development Module of NEMIS to create project applications and submit them to the appropriate FEMA Region in digital format for the relevant disaster. For NEMIS Helpdesk resources, see Part X C.6. Applications for the PDM Program and FMA are processed through the eGrants system. The eGrants system encompasses the entire grant application process and provides the means to electronically create, review, and submit a grant application to FEMA via the Internet. Applicants and subapplicants can access eGrants at https://portal.fema.gov/famsVuWeb/home. The FEMA Technical Service desk phone number is 1 (877) 611-4700. For additional eGrants resources, see Part X C.6. For more information about using NEMIS or eGrants, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office (see Part VIII).
B. Content and Form of Application For HMGP, subapplication packages are available from eligible Applicants following Presidential major disaster declarations. The Applicant selects and prioritizes subapplications and submits them to FEMA. Applicants must submit an SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance, before HMGP funding can be obligated. The Applicant submits the subapplications both in digital format via NEMIS and in hard copy format. Applications and subapplications for the PDM Program and FMA are submitted via the eGrants system. If a subapplicant does not use the eGrants system, the Applicant must enter the paper subapplication(s) into the eGrants system on the subapplicant’s behalf. Blank applications that conform to the eGrants format are available for printing from the eGrants system and the FEMA Web site. Supporting documentation that cannot be electronically attached to the eGrants application (e.g., engineering drawings, photographs, and maps) must be submitted to the appropriate FEMA Regional Office. The entire application, including all paper documentation, must be received by the appropriate FEMA Regional Office no later than the application deadline.
Part V. Application and Submission Information
38
C. Submission Dates and Times HMGP submittal deadlines for applications are established based on the disaster declaration date. For submission of an application for HMGP, see Part IX, A.1 and A.6. Completed applications for the PDM Program and FMA must be submitted to FEMA through eGrants. Application submission due dates and times are posted to the HMA Web site at https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-assistance. Subapplicants should consult the official designated point of contact (POC) for their Applicant for more information regarding the application process. For more information on FEMA and Applicant contacts, see Part VIII. For additional information on HMA application cycles either contact FEMA or go to http://www.grants.gov/.
D. Intergovernmental Review It may be necessary to allow sufficient time for an intergovernmental review of an application as established by EOs 12372 and 12416 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs). If an Applicant has chosen not to participate in the intergovernmental review process, the application may be sent directly to FEMA. Guidance on the intergovernmental review process, including the names and addresses of the single POCs as listed by OMB, is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_spoc.
E. Funding Restrictions HMA programs allow the funding of eligible costs for mitigation activities as outlined in Part IV, D.1. Subapplications that propose a Federal expenditure in excess of the Federal funding limit will not be considered for an award. For each program, additional funding restrictions apply as described below.
E.1
HMGP Funding Restrictions
Up to 7 percent of the Grantee’s HMGP ceiling may be used for mitigation planning activities in compliance with 44 CFR Section 201.3(c)(4). Up to 5 percent of the Grantee’s HMGP ceiling may be used for mitigation measures that are difficult to evaluate against traditional program cost-effectiveness criteria (i.e., the 5 Percent Initiative). For Presidential major disaster declarations for tornadoes and high winds, an additional 5 percent of the Grantee’s HMGP ceiling may be used to fund hazard mitigation measures (e.g., warning systems) to address the unique hazards posed by tornadoes. For more information on the 5 Percent Initiative and the additional 5 percent for tornadoes, see Part IX, A.10.
Part V. Application and Submission Information
39
E.2
PDM Program Funding Restrictions
Up to $800,000 Federal share may be requested in a subapplication for a planning grant to develop a new hazard mitigation plan. Up to $300,000 Federal share may be requested in a subapplication for a planning grant to update a hazard mitigation plan.
MAXIMUM AMOUNTS OF MITIGATION PLANNING GRANTS Under the PDM Program, the maximum mitigation planning grant is $800,000 for a new plan and $300,000 for an update. Under FMA, the maximum individual planning grant is $50,000 for any Applicant and $25,000 for any subapplicant.
Up to $3 million Federal share may be requested in a subapplication to implement a mitigation project. The cumulative Federal award for subapplications awarded during a single application cycle to any one Applicant shall not exceed 15 percent of the total appropriated PDM Program funds for that application cycle.
E.3
FMA Funding Restrictions
Individual planning grants using FMA funds shall not exceed $50,000 to any Applicant or $25,000 to any subapplicant. FMA funds can only be used for the flood hazard component of a hazard mitigation plan that meets the planning criteria outlined in 44 CFR Part 201.
E.4
Management Costs Funding Restrictions
For all HMA programs, indirect costs may be included as a part of the management cost estimate shown in the application or subapplication. For HMGP only: The Grantee may request a flat percentage rate (4.89 percent) of the projected eligible program costs for management costs. The Grantee is responsible for determining the amount, if any, of funds that will be passed through to the subgrantee(s) for their management costs. For further information on HMGP management costs, see Part IX, A.2.5 and A.4. Applicants for the PDM Program and FMA may apply for a maximum of 10 percent of the total funds requested in their grant application budget (Federal and non-Federal shares) for management costs to support the project and planning subapplications included as part of their grant application. Applicants requesting Applicant management costs must submit a separate Management Costs subapplication in eGrants. This subapplication must be included in the overall grant application or the request will not be considered. Applicants who are not awarded grants funds for project or planning activities will not receive reimbursement for the corresponding costs incurred in developing and submitting applications.
Part V. Application and Submission Information
40
Subapplicants for the PDM Program and FMA may apply for a maximum of 5 percent of the total funds requested in a subapplication for management costs. Subapplicants requesting management costs must include them in the project or planning subapplication for consideration as separate activities in the Mitigation Activity section of eGrants. Subapplicants who are not awarded subgrants for project or planning activities will not receive reimbursement for the corresponding costs incurred in developing and submitting subapplications.
F. Other Submission Requirements F.1
Application Consideration under Multiple HMA Programs
FEMA will only consider applications and subapplications submitted to a specific HMA program. If an applicant would like to have a subapplication considered under multiple HMA programs, the applicant must submit that subapplication to each HMA program separately.
F.2
Pre-Award Costs
Costs incurred after the HMA application period has opened, but prior to the date of the grant award or final approval, are identified as pre-award costs. For HMGP, the opening of the application period is the date when HMGP is authorized, which is generally the date of declaration. The opening of the application period for the PDM Program and FMA is established annually by FEMA. Pre-award costs directly related to developing the application or subapplication may be funded through HMA as funds are available. Such costs may have been incurred, for example, to develop a BCA, to gather EHP data, for preparing design specifications, or for workshops or meetings related to development and submission of HMA applications and subapplications. Costs associated with implementation of the activity but incurred prior to grant award or final approval are not eligible (projects initiated or completed prior to grant award or full approval of the project are not eligible). To be eligible for HMA funding, pre-award costs must be identified as separate line items in the cost estimate of the subapplication. Applicants and subapplicants may identify such pre-award costs as their non-Federal cost share. Applicants and subapplicants who are not awarded grants or subgrants will not receive reimbursement for the corresponding pre-award costs.
G. Applicant Guidance G.1 General Applicant Guidance FEMA will not direct the Applicant on how to submit its applications. The Applicant may submit a single application representing all subapplications or they may submit multiple applications. When submitting multiple subapplications, they should be ranked in priority order.
Part V. Application and Submission Information
41
Before forwarding subapplications to FEMA, Applicants also should review subapplications to document that: The subapplicant has documented its capacity to manage the subgrant funds; The subapplicant has documented its capacity to complete the mitigation activity in the time specified; Non-Federal cost-share funds are or will be available for the project; The maintenance requirements have been sufficiently identified, and the subapplicant or another authorized entity has accepted the maintenance responsibility; The underlying cost-effectiveness data are accurate and complete; and All program- and project-specific requirements have been met and are documented as appropriate. If the subapplication is considered to be deficient, the Applicant may revise or augment the subapplication in consultation with the subapplicant. Applicants must certify that they have evaluated the activities included in each subapplication and that activities will be implemented in accordance with 44 CFR Part 13 and other applicable program or activity type requirements.
G.2 Minimum Eligibility and Completeness Criteria FEMA will no longer accept incomplete and MINIMUM ELIGIBILITY AND placeholder project applications. Incomplete COMPLETENESS REQUIREMENTS applications or subapplications delay project Applications and subapplications submitted approval because they do not contain sufficient to FEMA must meet the minimal eligibility information for FEMA to make program eligibility and completeness criteria, as there is no method to determine eligibility without determinations. Applications and subapplications these data. For a detailed Eligibility and submitted to FEMA must meet the minimal Completeness checklist please see Part X, eligibility and completeness criteria as there is no Appendix E for projects and Part X, Appendix H for plans. method to determine eligibility without these data. These minimal eligibility criteria are required for all submittals including over-submittals and placeholder applications. Additional information may be requested during FEMA review. The following list is not all inclusive. For a more detailed checklist please see Part X, Appendix E for projects and Part X, Appendix H for plans. Unless otherwise noted, the following criteria apply to plans, management costs, and project subapplications and applications: Eligible Applicant; Meets all plan requirements per 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206; Provides a detailed SOW as described in Part V, H;
Part V. Application and Submission Information
42
Provides a work schedule of 3 years or less; If project is suitable for phased or incremental funding, the schedule reflects activities and timelines for each funding increment (projects); Budget/Match Source;
A detailed cost estimate/budget is provided that supports the SOW;
Cost-effectiveness and Feasibility (projects);
Project includes a FEMA-approved BCA or FEMA-approved alternate costeffectiveness documentation (see Part V, I for additional information);
The proposed activity is feasible and effective as demonstrated through conformance with accepted engineering practices, established codes, standards, modeling techniques, or best practices (see Part V, J for additional information);
EHP;
Project includes information and documentation to demonstrate conformance with all applicable laws and regulations (e.g., NEPA and State Historic Preservation Act);
Project demonstrates that it minimizes harm to the environment and is the best alternative from a range of options considered (see Part V, K for additional information); and
Assurances.
H. Scope of Work The SOW identifies the eligible mitigation activity, as described in Part IV, D.1; describes what will be accomplished; and explains how the mitigation activity will be implemented. The mitigation activity must be described in sufficient detail to verify the cost estimate. All activities for which funding is requested must be identified in the SOW prior to the close of the application period.
H.1
Project Scope of Work
The project subapplication SOW provides detailed information about the project, as well as applicable references and supporting documentation. The SOW includes: Purpose of the project – The intended outcome or objectives of the project; Clear, concise description of the proposed project – Proposed conceptual design, means of implementation of the project, and responsible party for implementation; Identification of properties to be mitigated – All properties to be mitigated must be identified, including additional, alternate properties that may be substituted should one or
Part V. Application and Submission Information
43
more of the other properties be withdrawn for eligibility or other reasons. In order for alternate properties to be properly considered in the event of a substitution, the same level of information for the alternate properties is required as is provided for the proposed properties; Outcomes – Proposed project accomplishments, problem(s) that the project will solve, parties that will directly or indirectly benefit from the project, and ways that the risks of damage or harm will be reduced; Special project components – New technologies that will be used during project implementation and how they are expected to provide the necessary results, and necessary laboratory tests or field-testing; Other projects – Other projects that are currently being implemented or expected to be implemented that will affect the proposed project; Extraordinary Circumstances – If this exception is used, a plan must be completed within 12 months of the award of the project grant, per Part IV, D.5 (Hazard Mitigation Plan Requirement); and Latitude/Longitude and site photographs – Subapplicants must identify the proposed project location on a map and provide the latitude/longitude and any relevant photographs including, but not limited to sides of the building, foundation, roof, both sides of the culvert, and the surrounding project area. The required documentation depends upon the nature of the proposed project and may include: proposed schematics, drawings or sketches, photographs, maps, sections of hazard maps, a Flood Insurance Study, or a FIRM. Whenever possible, data used to document existing conditions must be obtained from recognized sources, such as Federal agencies, State agencies, and academic organizations. The references and/or supporting documentation from qualified and credible sources such as Professional Engineers or local government records should be included when using locally developed data. Deviations from standard procedures, methods, techniques, technical provisions of the applicable codes, or best practices must be thoroughly explained and documented. Subapplicants must identify the proposed project location on a map and provide any relevant photographs including, but not limited to, sides of the building, foundation, and roof (as appropriate).
H.2
Hazard Mitigation Planning Scope of Work
The hazard mitigation planning subapplication SOW must describe the development of a hazard mitigation plan or planning-related activity that is consistent with the requirements identified in 44 CFR Part 201. For a hazard mitigation plan, the SOW must: Describe the proposed planning activity, including whether it will: Part V. Application and Submission Information
44
Result in a new or updated hazard mitigation plan that complies with the requirements identified in 44 CFR Part 201; or
Enhance an existing mitigation plan through a planning related activity that is consistent with 44 CFR Part 201.
Identify the jurisdiction(s) or tribe(s) that will participate in developing the plan or the planning-related activity and describe the jurisdictions; Provide a statement on how the overall planning effort will be coordinated; Describe the process for plan development or the planning-related activity, clearly demonstrating what applicable regulatory requirements will be met. Document in detail the activities the jurisdiction(s) will complete to develop the plan or the planning related activity, including public involvement, identification of hazards, development of a comprehensive risk/vulnerability assessment, identification of mitigation goals and strategies, and plan implementation, and describe how these activities relate to the cost estimate; and For new or updated hazard mitigation plans, describe the plan adoption process for the jurisdiction(s) or tribe(s) to ensure sufficient time to complete the plan, as well as time for State and FEMA review and, if necessary, time to complete any required revisions and to formally adopt the plan. Additionally, for an update to a hazard mitigation plan, the SOW must include the reasons for the update and describe the process for plan update, clearly demonstrating that applicable regulatory requirements will be met. Also, provide a statement on how the overall planning effort will be coordinated. If available, the subapplication also should include a copy of the plan review document (i.e., review tool or crosswalk) from the FEMA approval of the previous plan. For planning related activities, the SOW should describe the: Final product(s); Process and level of effort to develop the final product(s), including key milestones (such as meetings; data research, collection, and analysis; drafts; and outreach); and Process to incorporate the product(s) or results into the update of the next mitigation plan. Applicants/subapplicants are advised to make use of already developed materials and to seek available resources when developing a new mitigation plan or updating a mitigation plan. For links to mitigation planning and risk assessment resources, see Part X, C.2.
Part V. Application and Submission Information
45
H.3
Management Costs Scope of Work
For the Applicant management cost subapplication, the SOW must describe the activities and specific tasks related to developing subapplications, and implementing as well as closing subgrants. The SOW should state whether the work will be conducted by the Applicant’s staff or by contractor staff.
H.4
Schedule
Subapplications should include a work schedule for all project tasks identified in the SOW, such as data collection, site survey, permitting and inspections, site preparation, and construction. The schedule should identify timelines for accomplishing significant milestones, including anticipated quarterly usage of Federal funds. Proposed schedules for individual subapplications should not exceed 36 months (see Part VII, B.4). For planning subapplications, the work schedule must allow sufficient time for State and FEMA reviews; preparation of required revisions, if needed; formal adoption by the jurisdiction(s); and FEMA approval.
H.5
Cost Estimate
The cost estimate describes all of the subapplicant’s COST ESTIMATES anticipated costs associated with the SOW for the proposed FEMA will accept cost estimates mitigation activity. Cost estimates must include detailed used to support budgets and BCAs estimates of various cost item categories, such as labor, if the Applicant or subapplicant certifies that the estimates are materials, equipment, and subcontractor costs. No lumpbased on nationally published or sum estimates will be accepted. The cost estimate must local cost-estimating guides. identify the cost categories and value for which anticipated cash and third-party in-kind contributions will be used to meet the non-Federal cost share. FEMA will accept cost estimates that the Applicant or subapplicant certifies were established using nationally published or local cost estimating guides to support the budget and BCA. The Applicant or subapplicant must include appropriate documentation in the application or subapplication that demonstrates a national published standard or local cost estimating guide was used. If a cost estimate is based on a contractor's bid or historic costs from another activity, detailed documentation must be provided. The applicant must document actual costs for eligible activities at closeout. Separate cost line items in a subapplication are required to ensure that cost thresholds are not exceeded. As applicable, the following line items must be listed separately in the budget: Pre-award costs; Subapplicant management costs for the PDM Program and FMA, and HMGP if the Grantee has agreed to pass through funds to the subgrantee; and
Part V. Application and Submission Information
46
Information dissemination costs (for the PDM Program). Additionally, the cost estimate should indicate items for which the cost may change, such as a price quoted by a contractor that is only valid for 1 year. Neither contingency nor escalation costs are permitted as individual line items in the cost estimate. H.5.1
Project Cost Estimate
In addition to the items described in Part V, H.5, the project cost estimate must include a lineitem breakdown of all anticipated costs including, as applicable: Costs for anticipated environmental resource impact treatment or historic property treatment measures; Costs for engineering designs/specifications, including hydrologic and hydraulic studies/analyses required as an integral part of designing the project; Construction/demolition/relocation costs, such as survey, permitting, site preparation, and material/debris disposal costs; and All other costs required to implement the mitigation project, including any applicable project-type specific costs identified in the Addendum of this guidance. For additional information about cost estimates for property acquisition and structure demolition or relocation projects, see Addendum, Parts A.5 and A.6; for wildfire mitigation projects, see Addendum, Part B.3; for safe room construction projects, see Addendum, Part C.3.4; for mitigation reconstruction see projects Addendum, Parts D.2 and D.5; and for structure elevation projects, see Addendum, Part E.3. H.5.2
Hazard Mitigation Planning Cost Estimate
In addition to the items described in Part V, H.5, the hazard mitigation planning cost estimate must include a line-item breakdown of costs associated with all elements described in the SOW, such as: Meetings and public outreach, including the costs associated with what is necessary and reasonable; Data research and collection, including eligible mapping activities or risk assessment; Plan drafting, review, and final production; Information dissemination activities, including printing and advertising; and Professional development training, tuition, and travel for the purpose of carrying out the planning SOW.
Part V. Application and Submission Information
47
H.5.3
Management Cost Estimate
Applicants and subapplicants requesting management costs should provide supporting documentation and include these costs as separate line items in the cost estimate portion of the application or subapplication. A narrative must accompany a request for management costs. The narrative should describe the activities, personnel requirements, and other costs for which the Grantee and/or subgrantee will use management cost funding. It should provide information on how the funds will be expended and monitored and show that sufficient funds will be available for closeout. For more information on HMGP management costs, see Part IX, A.4.
I.
Cost-effectiveness
FEMA will only consider applications that use a FEMA-approved methodology to demonstrate cost-effectiveness. This is typically demonstrated by the calculation of a BCR. Projects for which benefits exceed costs are generally considered cost-effective. Benefits may include avoided damages, loss of function, and displacement. FEMA provides BCA software that allows Applicants to calculate a project BCR. Written materials and training are also available. The FEMA BCA software utilizes the OMB Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs. FEMA requires using approved BCA software (version 4.5.5 or greater) to help ensure that calculations are consistent with OMB Circular A-94. The current software is available at the FEMA Regional Office or from the BCA Technical Assistance Helpline. If FEMA standard values are used, then no additional documentation is required. If non-standard values are used, then documentation is required. Documentation must be accurate and sufficiently detailed for the analysis to be validated. FEMA recommends that supporting documentation be obtained from credible sources, such as a Flood Insurance Study. Data associated with the various methodologies for analyzing cost-effectiveness are available from the appropriate FEMA Regional Office (see Part VIII) or the BCA Technical Assistance Helpline.
I.1
Substantial Damage Waiver
An expedited cost-effectiveness methodology is available for property acquisition projects when certain conditions are met. Structures that are declared Substantially Damaged as a result of flooding and located in a riverine SFHA on a
Part V. Application and Submission Information
SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE WAIVER EXTENDED TO ALL HMA PROGRAMS An expedited cost-effectiveness analysis methodology is available for property acquisition projects when certain conditions are met.
48
preliminary or effective FIRM are considered cost-effective for acquisition projects. If this methodology is used, the project application should include a certification that the structures meet these conditions.
I.2
Aggregation
An evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of a project AGGREGATION should include all activities included within the It is appropriate to aggregate benefits from SOW. This may include activities in multiple multiple activities and multiple jurisdictions if part of the same project. jurisdictions. It may also include combining benefits from multiple activities and multiple hazards, such as wind and flood, if it is a part of the same project.
I.3
5 Percent Initiative
For 5 Percent Initiative subapplications for HMGP funding, a narrative description of the project’s cost-effectiveness must be provided. For more information on the 5 Percent Initiative, see Part IX, A.10.
I.4
Pre-calculated Benefits (Safe rooms)
For Safe Room Construction projects, an expedited cost-effectiveness methodology is available that identifies the benefits associated with certain types of safe rooms (see Appendix F). If this methodology is used, the submitted project application should include a copy of the data relevant to the project location.
I.5
Greatest Savings to the Fund
FEMA also allows for the use of the GSTF data and methodology to demonstrate cost-effectiveness for properties included in mitigation projects under HMA. Subapplicants are not required to use this methodology when submitting projects for funding and may utilize the current applicable BCA version (4.5.5 or greater) methodology.
I.6
Environmental Benefits
FEMA has identified and quantified environmental benefits for mitigation activities. Incorporating environmental benefits into the overall quantification of benefits for acquisition-related activities supports
Part V. Application and Submission Information
GREATEST SAVINGS TO THE FUND METHODOLOGY GSTF can be used to demonstrate costeffectiveness of a project under all HMA programs.
INCLUSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS INTO THE BCA TOOLKIT Green open space and riparian benefits have been identified and quantified for acquisition projects. The BCR for an acquisition project must be 0.75 before the environmental benefit can be incorporated.
49
FIMA’s mission of risk reduction, environmental compliance, and preservation of the natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain. Specifically, FEMA developed economic values for green open space and riparian areas. FEMA will be incorporating the environmental benefits for green open space and riparian areas into the BCA toolkit for acquisition projects. The economic value for green open space is $7,853 per acre per year. For riparian areas, the economic value is $37,493 per acre per year. When incorporating these values into FEMA’s BCA, the yearly benefits accrue over the 100-year project useful life and are discounted at 7 percent per year to meet OMB requirements. Table 4 provides the green open space and riparian benefits per acre per year and per square foot.
Table 4: Green Open Space and Riparian Benefits Land Use
Total Estimated Benefits (per acre per year)
Total Estimated Benefits(1) (per square foot)
Green Open Space
$7,853
$2.57
Riparian
$37,493
$12.29
(1)
Projected for 100 years with 7 percent discount rate
For an acquisition project, the BCR for a project must be 0.75 before incorporating the environmental benefit. This ensures projects funded by HMA are primarily associated with risk reduction activities. Once a project’s BCR reaches 0.75, the appropriate environmental benefit can be included for the individual properties.
I.7
Benefit-Cost Analysis Resources
Other methods to demonstrate cost-effectiveness may be used when they address a noncorrectable flaw in the FEMA-approved methodologies or propose a new approach that is unavailable using current tools. New methodologies may be used only if FEMA approves the methodology before application submission. For more information on resources, see Part X, C.3. BCA Helpline Telephone: (855) 540-6744 Email: bchelpline@fema.dhs.gov BCA Policies, Overview, and Software http://www.fema.gov/benefit-cost-analysis
J. Feasibility and Effectiveness Documentation FEMA will use the information provided in the subapplication, including the SOW, the cost estimate, and supporting documentation to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of the
Part V. Application and Submission Information
50
proposed mitigation activity. FEMA accepts the engineering design for a project if a registered Professional Engineer (or other design professional) certifies that the design meets the appropriate code or industry design and construction standards. FEMA will accept the certified engineering design in lieu of a comprehensive technical feasibility review. If accepted codes/standards are used, no additional documentation is required. See Part X, Appendix D (Referenced Regulations, Statutes, Directives, and Guidance) for examples of codes and standards used for various projects types. If an alternative design is proposed the application/subapplication should contain: Applicable building code/edition or engineering standard used; Level of protection provided by the proposed project and description of how the proposed activity will mitigate future losses; For the retrofit of existing buildings or infrastructure protection projects, an assessment of the vulnerabilities of the existing building; Any remaining risk to the structure after project implementation; and Proposed schematic drawings or designs (as applicable). Project subapplications that do not include appropriate documentation to support the determination of feasibility and effectiveness may be removed from consideration. Upon request, FEMA will provide technical assistance regarding engineering documentation. For structure elevation and dry floodproofing activities, a statement certifying that the project will be designed in conformance with ASCE/SEI 24-05 will assist in satisfying the feasibility and effectiveness requirement.
K. Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Documentation The Applicant and subapplicant should ensure that the project SOW takes into account all potential EHP compliance issues. When completing the subapplication, the Applicant/subapplicant must answer a series of EHP review questions and provide information about potential impacts on environmental resources and cultural resources (if applicable) in the project area. For additional information, see Part X, Appendix I (EHP Checklist) and Part X, Appendix J (8-Step Decision Making Process for Floodplain Considerations), and Part X, Appendix K (Section 106 Process under the National Historic Preservation Act). If potential impacts are identified through the responses to these EHP review questions, the Applicant/subapplicant must provide additional information, (as applicable), such as: The property address, original date of construction, and two color photographs for any buildings, structures, objects, or manmade sites/landscapes features that are 50 years or
Part V. Application and Submission Information
51
more in age. At least one of the two photographs provided of a building should be the front or primary façade showing the elevation; Any identified federally listed threatened or endangered species and/or designated critical habitat in the project area; Vegetation, including amount (area), type, and extent to be removed or affected; Identification of all surface waters in the project area regardless of drainage area, size, or perceived hazard level. Information about surface waters should include dimensions, proximity of the project activity to the water, and the expected and possible impacts of the project upon surface waters, if any; and A description of any adverse effects on low income or minority populations in the project area. Applicants seeking to determine whether there are any EHP issues associated with the proposed project should consult the HMA EHP Resources At-a-Glance Guide, located at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=6976 and the HMA EHP at a Glance at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=5904. This Guide also provides key contacts, Web sites, and search engines to assist in early identification of EHP issues and to facilitate coordination with the appropriate State and Federal agencies. If EHP issues are identified, the Applicant/subapplicant should initiate coordination with the relevant State and Federal agencies as early in the project planning stages as possible to address any potential EHP compliance issues associated with proposed projects. This coordination does not substitute, and shall not be interpreted to mean, that formal consultation has occurred between FEMA and the applicable resource agency. Additional EHP compliance review activities may be necessary to facilitate project approval, such as environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, Phase I environmental site assessments, biological assessments, archeological or standing structures surveys and documentation, wetlands delineations, and air quality conformity analysis or determinations. If FEMA or the Applicant/subapplicant identifies any potential impacts through the EHP review process described above, the following requirements must be completed before a grant award may be made: Evaluate any potential effects to environmental and historic resources and provide the required information and documentation to identify the impact on these resources; Complete an evaluation of alternatives to the proposed action that will avoid or minimize these impacts, including consideration of the environmental impact of taking no action; Complete any required consultation and/or coordination with the appropriate parties (e.g., the State Historic Preservation Officer, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National
Part V. Application and Submission Information
52
Marine Fisheries Service) to evaluate potential effects of the proposed project and to identify any measures necessary to avoid or minimize these effects; Demonstrate that the project will comply with all environmental laws and regulations; and Make certain that the costs of any measures to treat adverse effects are realistically reflected in the project budget estimate. Applicants/Grantees may incur costs for significant EHP compliance review activities and/or EHP mitigation measures. FEMA will consider the following factors to determine whether to reimburse costs: Nature of the analysis or study required (e.g., environmental impact statement); Costs of EHP activities compared to project costs; Complexity of the proposed project; and Nature and extent of potential adverse impacts to environmental and/or historic resources. Applicants should consider potential EHP costs during application development and submission and should seek to avoid activities that may negatively impact EHP resources. FEMA may remove projects from consideration for full approval and/or funding when EHP compliance review activities are not progressing and the Applicant/Grantee has not dedicated resources and/or provided required documentation in a timely manner. For additional information on required EHP documentation, see Part X, C.5.
Part V. Application and Submission Information
53
PART VI. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION Part VI provides information about the review process so that Applicants and subapplicants can prepare applications that meet FEMA review criteria. During an application review, FEMA may request additional information or documentation from Applicants.
A. Review Criteria While review processes vary somewhat among HMA programs, FEMA reviews all applications for: Application eligibility; Cost-effectiveness; Feasibility and effectiveness; and EHP compliance.
A.1
Application Review
FEMA will review all applications and subapplications for eligibility and completeness. Applications and subapplications that do not satisfy the eligibility and completeness requirements will not be funded. The eligibility and completeness requirements are outlined in Parts IV and V.
A.2
Cost-effectiveness Review
FEMA will review the documentation provided in support of the subapplication costeffectiveness to validate the accuracy and credibility of data and ensure the appropriate use of the cost-effectiveness methodologies. Only subapplications meeting HMA cost-effectiveness requirements will be considered eligible.
A.3
Feasibility and Effectiveness Review
FEMA will use the information provided in the subapplication, including the SOW and project cost estimate sections, as well as any supporting documentation to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of the mitigation activity. For project subapplications, FEMA will consider the following criteria in reviewing feasibility and effectiveness: Conformance to accepted engineering practices, established codes, standards, modeling techniques, or best practices, as well as work schedule; Part VI. Application Review Information
54
Effectiveness in mitigating the risks of the hazard(s); and Reasonableness of the cost estimate.
A.4
Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Review
Applicants and subapplicants are required to provide information to support the FEMA EHP compliance review. FEMA, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State resource agencies, will use the information provided in the application/subapplication, including the SOW, project cost estimate, as well as any supporting documentation, to ensure compliance with EHP requirements. As part of the EHP review process, FEMA will assess compliance with applicable requirements including NEPA, NHPA, ESA, CBRA, EO 11988 (Floodplain Management), EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), and EO 12898 (Environmental Justice). Funds will not be awarded, and the Applicant/subapplicant may not initiate the project, other than planning or preparatory work not involving construction or alteration of the land, until FEMA has completed this review and it is demonstrated that the project, when completed, will comply with all environmental laws and regulations.
A.5
HMA Efficiencies
FEMA accepts the engineering design for a project if HMA EFFICIENCIES a registered Professional Engineer (or other design FEMA provides opportunities to professional) certifies that the design meets the streamline application requirements by appropriate code, or industry design and construction allowing Applicants to use: standards. FEMA will accept the certified FEMA technical publications engineering design in lieu of the FEMA National standards and codes comprehensive technical feasibility review. For Design criteria such as ASCE criteria example, if a registered Professional Engineer Pre-calculated benefits certifies that design of a community safe room project meets or exceeds FEMA P-361 standards for design and construction, FEMA will not perform a detailed design review to ensure compliance with the standard. Additionally, in the development of applications and subapplications, the following resources and approaches should be considered as they will promote efficiencies in FEMA review and approval. A.5.1
Safe Room Projects
Applicants must document that the proposed safe room project is consistent with the requirements of FEMA P-320 or FEMA P-361. Applicants must use the expedited HMGP application for Part VI. Application Review Information
PRE-CALCULATED BENEFITS FOR SAFE ROOMS UNDER HMGP If the Applicant submits a residential safe room project with costs that are less than the precalculated benefit, then FEMA will consider the project to be cost effective.
55
Residential Safe Rooms to apply pre-calculated benefits under HMGP (see Part X, Appendix F). This pre-calculated benefit provides standardized benefits associated with residential safe rooms so that individual BCAs are not required as long as the project costs do not exceed the benefits. A.5.2
Wind Retrofit Projects
FEMA P-804 provides design guidance for wind-retrofit projects on existing one- and twofamily dwellings in coastal areas. Mitigation projects funded under HMGP and the PDM Program are required to be implemented in conformance with FEMA-804. If a subapplication complies with FEMA P-804, no additional technical information is required in the subapplication. A.5.3
Certain Flood Mitigation Projects
FEMA recommends HMA flood mitigation projects be designed and constructed in conformance with the design criteria of ASCE/SEI 24-05 as a minimum standard. FEMA will consider a project application utilizing ASCE/SEI 24-05 as being consistent with HMA engineering feasibility and effectiveness requirements. Project applications that do not use ASCE/SEI 24-05 must submit documentation to demonstrate the project meets the engineering feasibility and effectiveness requirement.
B. Review and Selection Process B.1
Technical Review
FEMA will conduct a technical review for all project subapplications that are forwarded from the initial FEMA review, for the following: Cost-effectiveness; Feasibility and effectiveness; and EHP compliance.
B.2
Requests for Information
FEMA may request additional information or documentation from Applicants to resolve outstanding administrative or procedural requirements. RFIs can take various forms, including email requests, documented telephone calls, or formal letters. Failure to provide requested information by the deadline identified in the request may result in denial, because eligibility cannot be determined. Technical assistance is available, if requested. Comments may be provided by FEMA on subapplications determined ineligible so that subapplicants can modify their subapplication for resubmission in future grant cycles.
Part VI. Application Review Information
56
B.2.1
Request for Information Timelines
Table 5 provides timelines for stepwise information REQUEST FOR INFORMATION requests and assistance offers. Figure 4 outlines the If a subapplication does not meet the RFI process and assigned responsible party. The RFI administrative or procedural information requirements, FEMA may request process involves an eligibility review to determine if additional information in the form of an RFI. the subapplication and subapplicant are eligible, then If the Regional Administrator does not a completeness review is conducted to determine if a receive the requested information by the final deadline, the project will be denied. complete subapplication was submitted. If the subapplication is determined to be incomplete, there are three steps FEMA will take to request further information from the subapplicant. At each step throughout the RFI process, FEMA will work with the Applicant and subapplicant to determine available options to develop a viable project. Some options include technical assistance from FEMA or implementing a phased project. If the requested information is not received by the Regional Administrator before the deadline, the project will be denied as FEMA will have no basis to make an eligibility determination. Upon receipt of the requested information and confirmation it adequately addresses the RFI, FEMA will proceed with making a determination of project eligibility.
Table 5: RFI Timelines Request Format
Timeline
Informal – First Request
The Project Officer requests additional information. If the requested information is not received within 30 calendar days from the date of the request, FEMA will consider the application to be incomplete and not approvable. FEMA may provide technical assistance if requested, unless the HMA program is competitive. The Applicant may consider phasing the project if it is feasible to do so.
Informal – Second Request
The Hazard Mitigation Branch Chief requests additional information. If the requested information is not received within 14 calendar days from the date of the request, FEMA will consider the application to be incomplete and not approvable. FEMA may provide technical assistance if requested, unless the HMA program is competitive. FEMA, Grantee, and Applicant staff should meet to resolve any open items within the allotted timeframe, if necessary.
Formal
The Regional Administrator requests additional information and will document previous requests. If the requested information is not received within 30 calendar days from the date of the request, FEMA will consider the application to be incomplete and not approvable.
Formal
If the Regional Administrator does not receive the requested information within 30 calendar days, he or she will determine the requested project application be ineligible for funding under HMGP. The second formal letter is a denial.
Part VI. Application Review Information
57
Figure 4: RFI Flowchart
Part VI. Application Review Information
58
The Regional Administrator may choose to allow more time, with justification. FEMA encourages Applicants to coordinate early with the State or eligible Indian Tribal government to identify potential technical assistance. If technical data is not readily available, the subapplicant should coordinate with Grantee to determine whether the project should be phased in order to develop required data. States or Indian Tribal governments with Grantee status could contact the FEMA regional office to request technical assistance, relevant training or other needed support.
B.3
Selection
FEMA selects eligible subapplications based on priorities set by the Applicant or program priorities, if applicable. For more information for the PDM Program, see Part IX, B.5, for FMA, see Part IX, C.4.
B.4
Notification
For the PDM Program and FMA, during the review and selection process FEMA will notify Applicants as to whether subapplications have been identified for further review, determined eligible but will not be funded, or determined ineligible for funding. A determination of “identified for further review” is not notification or guarantee of an award. FEMA will work with Applicants on subapplications identified for further review. Applicants will be notified of activities required, such as an EHP review; verification of subapplicant commitments; verification of hazard mitigation plan status; and of the date by which all required activities must be completed. Comments may be provided by FEMA on subapplications determined ineligible so that subapplicants can modify their subapplication for resubmission in future grant cycles. The PDM Program and FMA have specific ranking criteria in addition to those described in this part. For information about ranking criteria and on the review and selection process for the PDM Program, see Part IX, B.4; and FMA, see Part IX, C.4.
B.5
Reconsideration Process
For the FMA and PDM programs, FEMA will reconsider its determination of a subapplication evaluated on a competitive basis only when there is an indication of a substantive technical or procedural error by FEMA. Only information provided in the submitted subapplication is considered supporting documentation for the request for reconsideration. The amount of funding available for Applicant management costs will not be reconsidered. FEMA may evaluate subapplications on a competitive basis when: Submitted subapplications exceed available funds; Law or regulation requires the administration of a competitive program; or Part VI. Application Review Information
59
Circumstances merit the administration of funds in a competitive manner. Applicants must send requests for reconsideration based upon technical or procedural error to FEMA within the time specified in the notification letter to the Applicant. A FEMA decision to uphold or overturn a decision regarding a subapplication evaluated on a competitive basis is final. B.5.1
Consideration of Additional Information
FEMA may, at its discretion, notify Applicants that it will consider additional information in support of a subapplication. FEMA will accept supplemental or corrected data in support of a subapplication when: Submitted subapplications do not exhaust available program funds; Law or regulation do not require the administration of a competitive program; or When determined appropriate by the program office. Instructions for submitting supplemental data will be provided within the FEMA notification letter, if applicable. For information on appeal and administration of HMGP subapplications, see Part IX, A.11.
Part VI. Application Review Information
60
PART VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION Part VII describes how successful Applicants will receive award information. Additionally, this part describes administrative requirements from the time an award is made through closeout and the maintenance actions that must occur after an activity is complete.
A. Notice of Award FEMA will provide an award package to the Applicant for successful subapplications. Subapplicants will receive notice of award from the Applicant. Award packages for the PDM Program and FMA include an award letter, FEMA Form 76-10A, Obligating Document for Awards/Amendments, and Articles of Agreement, EHP, and/or other conditions that must be signed by the Applicant in eGrants and returned to FEMA for approval before funds can be obligated. For HMGP, award packages for subgrants include an approval letter, an obligation document, and EHP and/or other conditions. When the Applicant or subapplicant accepts an award, they are denoted as Grantee and subgrantee, respectively. The Grantee and subgrantee agree to abide by the grant award terms and conditions as set forth in the Articles of Agreement or the FEMA-State Agreement.
B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements B.1
Cost-Share Documentation
Requirements for cash and third-party in-kind contributions can be found in 44 CFR Section 13.24. Third-party in-kind and cash contributions are only allowable for eligible program costs. The following documentation is required for cash and third-party in-kind contributions: Record of donor; Dates of donation; Rates for staffing, equipment or usage, supplies, etc.; Amounts of donation or value of donation; and Deposit slips for cash contributions. Such documentation must be kept on file by the Grantee and subgrantee.
Part VII. Award Administration Information
61
B.2
Scope of Work Changes
SCOPE CHANGE In accordance with 44 CFR Section 13.30, Grantees and subgrantees must request FEMA’s Grantees must obtain FEMA’s prior approval approval for a change in scope after the grant has whenever there is a proposed SOW change. been awarded. The change must be consistent Requests for changes to the SOW after award are with the intent of the program. Requests must be made in writing and demonstrate the need for a permissible as long as they are consistent with change. the intent of the program. Requests must be made in writing and demonstrate the need for the scope change. The request also should include a revised scope, schedule, and budget. Any SOW changes are subject to all programmatic requirements. All approvals will be at FEMA’s discretion.
B.3
Budget Changes
Grantees and subgrantees are permitted to rebudget within BUDGET CHANGE the approved direct cost budget to meet unanticipated In limited cases, Grantees and requirements and may make limited program changes to subgrantees are permitted to make the approved budget. For more information on direct cost adjustments within the approved direct cost category to meet unanticipated categories, please see OMB Circular A-87 and 2 CFR Part requirements. 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments. Unless expressly waived by FEMA, the following types of post-award changes to budgets will require the prior written approval of FEMA: B.3.1
Non-construction Projects
Non-construction subgrant adjustments of more than 10 percent in any direct cost categories; and Any changes that would result in additional funding to the grant. B.3.2
Construction Projects
All construction cost adjustments that lead to the need for additional funds. When budget changes are made, all programmatic requirements continue to apply. Additional information regarding budget adjustments and revisions can be found in 44 CFR Section 13.30. B.3.3
Cost Overruns and Underruns
A cost overrun or underrun can result from a scope, schedule, or budget change.
Part VII. Award Administration Information
62
Grantees must notify FEMA prior to redirecting funds from an underrun to other approved subgrants for which an overrun has been requested. The subgrant must continue to meet programmatic eligibility requirements including cost share.
B.4
Program Period of Performance
The POP is the period during which the Grantee is expected to complete all grant activities and to incur costs. The POP for the Program begins with the opening of the application period and ends no later than 36 months from the close of the application period.
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE With the publication of this HMA Unified Guidance, the POP for the Program begins with opening of the application period and ends no later than 36 months from the close of the application period.
FEMA will not establish activity completion timelines for individual subgrants. Grantees are responsible for ensuring that all approved activities are completed by the end of the grant POP. B.4.1
Extensions
Requests for extensions to a grant POP will be evaluated by FEMA but will not be approved automatically. The Regional Administrator can extend the POP for up to 12 months with justification. All requests to extend the grant POP beyond 12 months from the original grant POP end date must be approved by FEMA Headquarters. All extension requests must be submitted to FEMA at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the grant POP and justifications must be submitted in writing. The justification must include: Verification that progress has been made as described in quarterly reports; Reason(s) for delay; Current status of the activity/activities; Current POP termination date and new projected completion date; Remaining available funds, both Federal and non-Federal; Budget outlining how remaining Federal and non-Federal funds will be expended; and Plan for completion, including updated schedule.
B.5
Requests for Advances and Reimbursements
The Grantee’s responsibility of an HMA grant is to process requests for advances and reimbursements of funds. The Grantee should establish accounting procedures to disburse money to subgrantees in a timely manner and should provide to subgrantees a POC for information on requesting and receiving the funds, records that must be maintained, forms to be used, and timelines for requesting the funds. Part VII. Award Administration Information
63
For the PDM Program and FMA, Payment and Reporting System (PARS) is used to transfer funds between FEMA and Grantees. Grantees shall submit to FEMA a copy of the Standard Form (SF-425). For HMGP, the Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Payment Management, Payment Management System, SMARTLINK, is used to transfer funds between FEMA and Grantees. Grantees shall submit to FEMA a copy of the SF-425. B.5.1
Strategic Funds Management
In accordance with the needs of the Disaster Relief Fund as well as Grantee priorities and ability to execute the project in a timely manner, FEMA may elect to provide funding for certain projects in incremental amounts, including advance payments (Strategic Funds Management or SFM). SFM allows FEMA to schedule obligations to be available when the State is ready to execute an HMGP subgrant or components of the subgrant. SFM also allows for incremental obligations as needed within the 3-year POP requirements to support project activities as described in the project work schedule. SFM does not allow funds to be advanced for an HMGP project that is not approved and eligible.
B.6
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STRATEGIC FUNDS MANAGEMENT, PHASED PROJECTS, PRE-AWARD COSTS, AND ADVANCE ASSISTANCE SFM is designed to provide incremental funding for eligible activities when the funds are required. Phased projects are those that receive funding for only certain complex activities that are approved to allow the Applicant to develop a full work scope/data package to support the full project description. Pre-award costs are eligible costs incurred by the Applicant in advance of receiving funds. These activities are reimbursed when the project is approved and funded. Advance Assistance provides States and Indian Tribal governments with resources to develop mitigation strategies and obtain data to prioritize, select, and develop complete HMGP applications in a timely manner.
Program Income
FEMA encourages Grantees and subgrantees to generate program income to help defray program costs. Program income is gross income received by the Grantee or subgrantee directly generated by a grant-supported activity or earned only as a result of the grant during the grant POP. Program income may be derived from use or rental of real or personal property acquired with grant funds, and sale of commodities or items fabricated under the grant award. Subgrantees deduct this income from total project costs as specified in 44 CFR Section 13.25(g)(1). This income may not count towards the non-Federal cost share.
B.7
Federal Income Tax on Mitigation Project Funds
FEMA mitigation payments that benefit property owners through the mitigation of their structures are not subject to Federal income taxation. FEMA mitigation payments to acquire a property will be treated as an involuntary conversion for tax purposes. These tax relief measures Part VII. Award Administration Information
64
are effective for such payments made in all prior years. For more information, property owners should consult the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office or a tax advisor.
B.8
Noncompliance
If a Grantee or subgrantee materially fails to comply with any term of an award, whether stated in a Federal statute or regulation, an assurance, a State Administrative Plan or application, a notice of award, or elsewhere, including in this guidance, FEMA may take one or more of the following actions, as appropriate: Temporarily withhold cash payments pending correction of the deficiency by the Grantee or subgrantee; Disallow (that is, deny both use of funds and matching credit for) all or part of the cost of the activity or action not in compliance; Wholly or partly suspend or terminate the current award for the Grantee’s or subgrantee’s HMA grant program(s); Withhold further awards for HMA grant program(s); or Take other remedies that may be legally available. Additional details can be found in 44 CFR Section 13.43.
C. Reporting Requirements Grantees and subgrantees must maintain records of work and expenditures. Grantees submit quarterly financial and performance reports to FEMA on January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30. The first quarterly reports are due within 30 days of the end of the first Federal quarter following the initial grant award. FEMA may waive the initial reports. The Grantee shall submit quarterly financial status and performance reports thereafter until the grant ends. Failure to submit financial and performance reports to FEMA in a timely manner may result in an inability to access grant funds until proper reports are received by FEMA. Grantees are encouraged to contact FEMA should this occur. The PDM Program and FMA quarterly reports can be submitted via eGrants. For HMGP, quarterly performance reports can be submitted via NEMIS or a hard copy to the Region. PDM Program and FMA quarterly financial reports must be submitted via PARS.
C.1
Federal Financial Reports
Grantees shall submit a quarterly Federal Financial Report (FFR). Obligations and expenditures must be reported on a quarterly basis through the FFR (SF-425), which is due to FEMA within 30 days of the end of each calendar quarter (e.g., for the quarter ending March 31, the FFR is due no later than April 30). A report must be submitted for every quarter of the POP, including Part VII. Award Administration Information
65
partial calendar quarters, as well as for periods where no grant activity occurs. Future awards and fund drawdowns may be withheld if these reports are delinquent. The final FFR is due 90 days after the end date of the POP. OMB has directed that the FFR (SF-425) replace the use of the SF-269, SF-269A, SF-272, and SF-272A. The SF-425 consolidates the Federal Status Report and the Federal Cash Transaction Report into a single report. The SF-425 is intended to provide Federal agencies and grant recipients with a standard format and consistent reporting requirements. Reporting periods and due dates: October 1 – December 31; Due January 30 January 1 – March 31; Due April 30 April 1 – June 30; Due July 30 July 1 – September 30; Due October 30 FEMA may suspend drawdowns from SMARTLINK or PARS if quarterly financial reports are not submitted on time.
C.2
Performance Reports
The Grantee shall submit a quarterly performance report for each grant award. Performance reports should include: Reporting period, date of report, and Grantee POC name and contact information; Project identification information, including FEMA project number (including disaster number and declaration date for the HMGP), subgrantee, and project type using standard eGrants/NEMIS project type codes; Significant activities and developments that have occurred or have shown progress during the quarter, including a comparison of actual accomplishments to the work schedule objectives established in the subgrant; Percent completion and whether completion of work is on schedule; a discussion of any problems, delays, or adverse conditions that will impair the ability to meet the timelines stated in the subgrant; and anticipated completion date; Status of costs, including whether the costs are: (1) unchanged, (2) overrun, or (3) underrun. If there is a change in cost status, the report should include a narrative describing the change. Also, include amount dispersed to subgrantee by activity; A statement of whether a request to extend the grant POP is anticipated; Incremental funding amounts (SFM) and progress completed;
Part VII. Award Administration Information
66
For acquisition projects, the Grantee must notify FEMA on the current status of each property for which settlement was completed in that quarter; and FEMA may require additional information as needed to assess the progress of a grant. FEMA may suspend drawdowns from SMARTLINK or PARS if quarterly performance reports are not submitted on time.
C.3
Final Reports
The Grantee shall submit a Final SF-425 and Performance Report no later than 90 days after the end date of the POP, per 44 CFR Section 13.50.
D. Closeout D.1
Subgrant Closeout
Upon subgrant completion, the Grantee must ensure that: Each subgrant has been completed in compliance with the approved SOW. The Grantee must conduct a site visit or collect photographs for a project subgrant to ensure the approved SOW was completed; Each subgrant has been completed in compliance with all environmental mitigation conditions attached to it; Actual expenditures have been documented and are consistent with the SF-424A or SF424C; All program income has been deducted from total project costs as specified in 44 CFR Section 13.25(g)(1); All project work was performed in accordance with all required permits and applicable building codes as modified or protected by the approved project; For projects involving an insurable facility, the required hazard insurance (e.g., NFIP) has been secured; Geospatial coordinates, in the form of latitude and longitude with an accuracy of +/- 20 meters (64 feet), have been provided for the project. For minor localized flood reduction, hazardous fuels reduction, and soil stabilization projects, an accurate recording of the official acreage, using open file formats geospatial files (i.e., shapefiles), has been submitted; For new or updated hazard mitigation plans, a final copy of the FEMA-approved and community-adopted plan has been submitted; and For planning related activities, the activity is consistent with 44 CFR Parts 201 or 206 (HMGP). Part VII. Award Administration Information
67
For project-specific requirements, see the Appendices and the Addendum to this HMA Unified Guidance. Grantees should close out subgrants as activities are completed. In addition, as cost underruns are identified, the Grantee should submit de-obligation requests to FEMA. The subgrantee is required to keep records for at least 3 years from the date when the Grantee submits to FEMA the single or final expenditure report for the subgrantee in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 705 and 44 CFR Section 13.42. For additional information about closeout for property acquisition and structure demolition or relocation projects, see Addendum, Parts A.13 and A.15. For additional information about closeout for mitigation reconstruction projects, see Addendum, Part D.9.
D.2
Grant Closeout
The Grantee has up to 90 days following the expiration of the grant POP to liquidate valid expenditures incurred during the POP. Cost underruns remaining after the post-POP liquidation period date must be reported to FEMA for de-obligation. The closeout process for the Grantee involves the following steps: The Grantee ensures all subgrants have been closed out as identified in Part VII, D.1; The Grantee reconciles/adjusts subgrant costs, ensures that non-Federal share costs are documented, and ensures that all costs submitted are eligible according to the FEMAapproved SOW; The Grantee receives and processes cost adjustments or returns unobligated funds to FEMA via SMARTLINK or PARS. Final payment is made to the Grantee; The Grantee submits a closeout letter to FEMA with supporting documentation, including:
Statement that SOW(s) has been completed as approved and all EHP requirements have been satisfied;
SF-425 (for PARS, the final SF-425 is also submitted via PARS);
SF-270, Request for Advance or Reimbursement, if applicable, or request for deobligation of unused funds, if applicable;
FEMA Form 20-18, Report on Government Property, if applicable; and
The Grantee notifies FEMA that the grant is ready for final closeout. The Grantee must maintain the complete grant closeout records file for at least 3 years from the submission date of its single or last expenditure report in accordance with 44 CFR Section 13.42. For HMGP, FEMA can track closeouts using the Project Closeout module in NEMIS.
Part VII. Award Administration Information
68
D.2.1
Update of Repetitive Loss Database
Grantees with projects that mitigate a repetitive loss property, as identified by the NFIP, must update the NFIP Repetitive Loss Database as project activities are completed. For acquisition and demolition or relocation projects, Grantees must provide this update when there is no longer an insurable structure on the property; and For elevation, reconstruction, floodproofing, and minor flood control projects, Grantees must provide this update when the approved activity is complete or otherwise effective. The NFIP defines a repetitive loss property as any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the NFIP within any rolling 10-year period since 1978. At least two of the claims must be more than 10 days apart but within 10 years of each other. A repetitive loss property may or may not be currently insured by the NFIP. Please note this definition of repetitive loss property is different from the FMA definition of repetitive loss property located in Part IX, C.1. To gain access to sensitive NFIP data, government officials are required to obtain a User Name and Password for access to Data Exchange, the Repetitive Loss Database that is managed by the NFIP Legacy Systems Contractor. Currently, only two access accounts are permitted per State and are reserved for the State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) and the State NFIP Coordinator or their designee. To obtain a User Name and Password for access to Data Exchange, send an email with your name, title, contact information, and the reason that access to Data Exchange is needed to FEMA. Once FEMA authorizes you for NFIP Legacy Systems access to Data Exchange, you will be notified via email. To maintain accurate, up-to-date records for all repetitive loss properties mitigated as a result of HMA grant funds, FEMA requires that the Grantee submit FEMA Form AW-501, NFIP Repetitive Loss Update Worksheet (OMB 1660-0022). Form AW-501 must be submitted along with documentation supporting the change in the mitigated status of a structure (e.g., elevation certificate). This form must be submitted for each property mitigated with HMA grant funds prior to closeout. The AW-501 form and instructions for completing and submitting it can be found on the FEMA Web site: http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3244. Detailed AW-501 forms for individual repetitive loss properties can be obtained by accessing Data Exchange and selecting the link to AW-501 data after selecting to look up property by property locator or repetitive loss number. States accessing NFIP data via the electronic systems (Data Exchange) are advised of, and must acknowledge, the sensitive nature of the information and the need to prevent the release of the data to unauthorized users. When the data is released to a local government by either the State or the appropriate FEMA Regional Office, the local government must be notified in writing that the records relating to individuals and individual properties are:
Part VII. Award Administration Information
69
being made available through the FEMA routine use policy for the specific purposes of mitigation planning, research, analysis, and feasibility studies consistent with the NFIP and for uses that further the floodplain management and hazard mitigation goals of the States and FEMA.
Part VII. Award Administration Information
70
PART VIII. FEMA CONTACTS Part VIII identifies resources that may help Applicants and subapplicants request HMA funds. If requested, FEMA will provide technical assistance to both Applicants and subapplicants regarding: General questions about the HMA programs; Specific questions about subapplications after the application period opens; Feasibility and effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and EHP compliance during the application period; and The eGrants application processes. For additional technical assistance resources, including HMA application and award resources, see Part X, C.7. FEMA encourages Applicants and subapplicants to seek technical assistance early in the application period by contacting their appropriate FEMA Regional Office. Table 6 shows which States are served by each FEMA Region. Contact information for FEMA Regional Offices is provided at http://www.fema.gov/regionaloperations. Contact information for each SHMO is provided at http://www.fema.gov/state-hazardmitigation-officers.
Table 6: FEMA Regions FEMA Region
Serving
I
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont
II
New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
III
Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia
IV
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
V
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
VI
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
VII
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
VIII
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
IX
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands
X
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
Part VIII. FEMA Contacts
71
PART IX. ADDITIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE Part IX provides additional information applicable to assistance available under each particular HMA grant program. This section supplements the information provided in Parts I through VIII, and the unique project type guidance included in the Addendum. Part IX does not provide all of the information necessary to apply for funding through an HMA program and must be read in conjunction with other relevant sections of this guidance.
A. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Most of the information that an Applicant or subapplicant needs to apply for an HMGP award or that a Grantee or subgrantee needs to manage a HMGP award is provided in Parts I through VIII, and Part X. This section contains supplemental guidance specific to HMGP.
A.1
Grantee Request for HMGP Funds
HMGP is authorized through a Presidential major disaster declaration for activities that provide a beneficial impact to the disaster area. A Governor may request that HMGP funding be available throughout the State or only in specific jurisdictions. For information regarding the declaration process and authorization of HMGP, see 44 CFR Part 206, Subpart B, and seek assistance from the appropriate FEMA Regional Office. The Governor’s Authorized Representative (GAR) serves as the grant administrator for all funds provided under HMGP 44 CFR Section 206.438 (d). The GAR responsibilities include providing technical advice and assistance to eligible subapplicants and/or subgrantees and ensuring that all potential subapplicants are aware of available assistance for the submission of all documents necessary for grant award.
A.2
State Administrative Plan
The State Administrative Plan is a procedural guide that details how the Grantee will administer HMGP. Grantees must have a current Administrative Plan approved by FEMA before receiving HMGP funds. The State Administrative Plan may become an annex or chapter of the State’s overall emergency response and operations plan or comprehensive mitigation program strategy. At a minimum, the State Administrative Plan must: Designate the State agency that will act as Grantee; Identify the SHMO; Identify staffing requirements and resources, including a procedure for expanding staff temporarily following a disaster, if necessary;
Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
72
Establish procedures to guide implementation activities, including Grantee management costs and distribution of subgrantee management costs; and Comply with 44 CFR Section 206.437. A.2.1
Designation of Grantee and SHMO
Typically, the agency designated to act as Grantee manages the State responsibilities for Federal and State disaster assistance and is responsible for meeting the mitigation planning requirement. Although a single agency may administer the funding, the Governor may establish an interagency mitigation team to manage the State mitigation program. The SHMO is typically responsible for managing the State’s mitigation program, coordinating the mitigation team, and developing as well as implementing the hazard mitigation plan. States often rely on staff from the emergency management agency or other State agencies to augment the staff of the SHMO following a disaster. A.2.2
Staffing Requirements and the Mitigation Team
The State Administrative Plan should identify the positions and minimum number of personnel needed to implement HMGP. Key positions may include clerical, administrative, and financial management staff; program specialists to support mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation activities and to conduct BCAs; and environmental planners. However, the organizational structure of the staff should remain flexible as it may be augmented as needed with emergency management agency staff, staff from other State agencies, or temporary staff or contractors hired to administer HMGP effectively. The State Administrative Plan should include a procedure for expanding staff resources and using HMGP management costs. The mitigation team may include representatives of agencies involved with emergency management, natural resources, floodplain management, environmental issues and historic and archeological preservation, soil conservation, transportation, planning and zoning, housing and economic development, building regulations, infrastructure regulations or construction, public information, insurance, regional and local government, academia, business, and non-profit organizations. With the varied backgrounds and specialized expertise of members, the team creates interagency, interdisciplinary insight regarding risks and potential solutions. The interagency aspect of the team can diffuse political pressure on the Grantee agency and increase the availability of resources. The mitigation team may support the Grantee agency by: Developing a comprehensive mitigation strategy; Supporting development and implementation of the State Mitigation Plan; Communicating with local governments regarding State mitigation priorities; Building public and business/industry support for mitigation initiatives;
Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
73
Reviewing, assigning priority, and recommending mitigation actions for implementation; and Seeking funding for implementation of mitigation measures. A.2.3
Procedures to Guide Implementation Activities
The State Administrative Plan must establish procedures to: Identify and notify potential subapplicants of the availability of HMGP funding; Provide potential subapplicants information on the application process, program eligibility, and deadlines; Determine subapplicant eligibility; Provide information for environmental and floodplain management reviews in conformance with 44 CFR Parts 9 and 10; Process requests for advances of funds and reimbursements; Monitor and evaluate the progress and completion of funded mitigation activities; Review and approve cost overruns; Process appeals; Provide technical assistance as required to subgrantees; Comply with the administrative requirements of 44 CFR Parts 13 and 206; Comply with audit requirements of 44 CFR Section 13.26 and OMB Circular A-133; and Provide quarterly progress reports to FEMA on funded mitigation activities. A.2.4
Sliding Scale
The maximum amount of HMGP funding available is calculated using a “sliding scale” formula based on a percentage of the estimated total Federal assistance under the Stafford Act, excluding administrative costs for each Presidential major disaster declaration. Applicants with a FEMAapproved State or Tribal Standard Mitigation Plan may receive: Up to 15 percent of the first $2 billion of the estimated aggregate amount of disaster assistance; Up to 10 percent for the next portion of the estimated aggregate amount more than $2 billion and up to $10 billion; and Up to 7.5 percent for the next portion of the estimated aggregate amount more than $10 billion and up to $35.333 billion.
Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
74
Applicants with a FEMA-approved State or Indian Tribal Enhanced Mitigation Plan are eligible for HMGP funding not to exceed 20 percent of the estimated total Federal assistance under the Stafford Act, up to $35.333 billion of such assistance, excluding administrative costs authorized for the disaster. THE HMGP FINAL LOCK-IN
A.2.5
Management Costs
The Grantee must amend its State Administrative Plan to include procedures for determining the reasonable amount or percentage of management costs that it will pass through to the subgrantee, as well as closeout and audit procedures before FEMA will obligate any management costs (see 44 CFR Sections 207.4(c) and 207.7(b)). The State will determine the amount, if any, of management costs it will pass through to the subgrantee. FEMA has not established any minimum for what constitutes a reasonable amount. A.2.6
Because lock-in estimates are subject to change, FEMA will not obligate more than 75 percent of any estimate before the final lock-in is calculated. Total State Management Cost (SMC) (4.89% of Total Available HMGP): Prior to 12 Months: FEMA obligates up to 75 percent of total HMGP funding separate from SMC At 12 Months: FEMA establishes the full HMGP ceiling amount
Submission and Approval Deadlines
At 18 Months: For a catastrophic disaster, the final lock-in amount PD\ EH adjusted upon
A State may forward a new or updated State Administrative Plan to FEMA for approval at any time. A State should review and update their plan annually and must review and update it following a Presidential major disaster declaration if required to meet current policy guidance or changes to the administration of the program. If a review indicates that there will be no changes to the current State Administrative Plan, the Grantee should notify FEMA of this within 90 days of the disaster declaration.
A.3
HMGP Funding
FEMA will determine the funding it will make available for the HMGP by a lock-in, which will act as a ceiling for funds available to a Grantee, including its subgrantees. The level of HMGP funding available for a given disaster is based on a percentage of the estimated total Federal assistance under the Stafford Act, excluding administrative costs for each Presidential major disaster declaration, as described in 44 CFR Section 206.432(b) and Part III, A of this guidance. An initial estimate will be provided within 35 days of the disaster declaration or soon thereafter, in conjunction with calculation of the preliminary lock-in amount(s) for management costs. The 6-month estimate is no longer the floor or a guaranteed minimum funding for HMGP. The 12-month lock-in is the maximum amount available. Prior to 12 months, total obligations are
Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
75
limited to not more than 75 percent of any current estimate, without the concurrence of the Regional Administrator or Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) with Disaster Recovery Manager authority and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). FEMA will establish the HMGP funding ceiling for each disaster at 12 months after the disaster declaration. This amount, also known as the “lock-in” value for HMGP, is the maximum that FEMA can obligate for eligible HMGP activities. The OCFO will continue to provide HMGP estimates prior to 12 months; however, these estimates will not represent a minimum or floor amount. In rare circumstances, when a catastrophic disaster has resulted in major fluctuations of projected disaster costs, FEMA may, at the request of the Grantee, conduct an additional review 18 months after the disaster declaration. If the resulting review shows that the amount of funds available for HMGP is different than previously calculated, the final lock-in amount will be adjusted accordingly. The Grantee must justify in writing to the Regional Administrator any requests to change the amount of the lock-in or perform subsequent reviews. The Regional Administrator will recommend to the Chief Financial Officer whether to approve the change. Changes to the lockin will not be made without the approval of the Chief Financial Officer. The Chief Financial Officer may change the amount of the lock-in if it is determined that the projections used to determine the lock-in were inaccurate to such a degree that the change to the lock-in would be material, or for other reasons in his or her discretion that may reasonably warrant such changes. The Chief Financial Officer will not make such changes without consultation with the Grantee and the Regional Administrator.
A.4
HMGP Management Costs
The amounts, allowable uses, and procedures for HMGP management costs are established in 44 CFR Part 207. Examples of allowable management costs are listed in Part IV, D.1.3. HMGP management costs will be provided at a rate of 4.89 percent of the HMGP ceiling. The Grantee, in its State Administrative Plan, will determine the amount, if any, of management costs it will pass through to the subgrantee (see Part IX, A.2.5). Management costs are provided outside of and separate from the HMGP ceiling amount. There is no additional cost-share requirement for HMGP management costs. FEMA will establish the amount of funds that it will make available for management costs by a lock-in, which will act as a ceiling for management cost funds available to a Grantee, including its subgrantees. FEMA will determine, and provide to the Grantee, management cost lock-ins at 30 days (or soon thereafter), at 6 months, and at 12 months from the date of declaration, or upon the calculation of the final HMGP lock-in ceiling, whichever is later.
Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
76
Upon receipt of the initial 30-day lock-in, Grantees may request that FEMA obligate 25 percent of the estimated lock-in amount(s) to the Grantee. No later than 120 days after the date of declaration, the Grantee must submit documentation to support costs and activities for which the projected lock-in for management cost funding will be used. In extraordinary circumstances, FEMA may approve a request by a Grantee to submit supporting documentation after 120 days. FEMA will work with the Grantee to approve or reject the documentation submitted within 30 days of receipt. If the documentation is rejected, the Grantee will have 30 days to resubmit it for reconsideration and approval. FEMA will not obligate any additional management costs unless the Grantee’s documentation is approved. The documentation for management costs must include: A description of activities, personnel requirements, and other costs for which the Grantee will use the management cost funding provided under this part; The Grantee’s plan for expending and monitoring the funds provided under this part and ensuring sufficient funds are budgeted for grant closeout; and An estimate of the percentage or amount of pass-through funds for management costs provided under this part that the Grantee will make available to subgrantees, and the basis, criteria, or formula for determining the subgrantee percentage or amount (e.g., number of projects, complexity of projects, etc.). Upon receipt of the 6-month management costs lock-in, and if the Grantee can justify a bona fide need for additional management costs, the Grantee may submit a request to the Regional Administrator for an interim obligation. Any interim obligation must be approved by the Chief Financial Officer and will not exceed an amount equal to 10 percent of the 6-month lock-in amount, except in extraordinary circumstances. The Grantee must justify in writing to the Regional Administrator any requests to change the amount of the lock-in or the cap, extend the time period before lock-in, or request an interim obligation of funding at the time of the 6-month lock-in adjustment. The Regional Administrator will recommend to the Chief Financial Officer whether to approve the extension, change, or interim obligation. Extensions, changes to the lock-in, or interim obligations will not be made without the approval of the Chief Financial Officer. For additional information on HMGP management costs see 44 CFR Part 207.
A.5
Eligible Subapplicants
In addition to the eligible subapplicants described in Part IV, A.1, PNP organizations may act as the subapplicant for HMGP. PNP organizations or institutions that own or operate a PNP facility are defined in 44 CFR Section 206.221(e). Each subapplication from a PNP must include either:
Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
77
An effective ruling letter from the IRS granting tax exemption under Section 501(c), (d), or (e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended; or State certification, under State law, of non-profit status. A qualified conservation organization, as defined at 44 CFR Section 80.3(h), is the only PNP organization eligible to apply for property acquisition and demolition or relocation projects.
A.6
Submission of HMGP Subapplications
The Grantee must submit all HMGP subapplications to FEMA within 12 months of the date of the disaster declaration. Upon written request and justification from the Grantee, FEMA may extend the application submission timeline in 30- to 90-day increments not to exceed a total extension of 180 days, in the event of extraordinary conditions. For additional information see 44 CFR Section 206.436. Additional time may be available based on meeting the criteria of the Stafford Act, Section 301. To qualify, the requestor must justify how the event for which the additional time is needed created the situation in which the Grantee cannot meet the regulatory administrative deadline. Extensions beyond regulatory time limits will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Stafford Act Section 301 provides relief for the rare circumstance when the magnitude of the event for which the extension is requested prevents the Grantee from meeting program administrative requirements. The Grantee must make the request to the Flood Insurance and Mitigation Administration Associate Administrator by submitting through the Regional Administrator, or if there is a Joint Field Office submit through the FCO. The Regional Administrator or FCO will provide his or her comments or concurrence and forward the request. The maximum time available is 90 days. The request must describe the conditions that preclude the Grantee from meeting the administrative requirements and must include a summary of current status, planned actions to meet the extension, and any resources that may be required. FEMA will consider the request and will provide a decision within 30 days.
A.7
Grant Cost-share Requirements
HMGP grants are required to have at least a 25 percent non-Federal cost share. The Grantee may choose to meet the cost-share requirement by ensuring a minimum 25 percent non-Federal share for the overall HMGP grant award, rather than on an individual activity basis. Grantees choosing this option should develop a cost-share strategy as part of their Administrative Plan for review and approval by FEMA. If an Applicant chooses to fund individual projects with non-Federal cost shares below 25 percent, the Applicant must notify FEMA. If an Applicant intends to implement this approach, the State Administrative Plan must explain how the Applicant will: Apply this approach in a fair and impartial manner to all subapplications; Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
78
Monitor the cost share for the overall grant throughout the POP; and Address any cost-share shortfalls that may occur during the POP and at closeout. If, at closeout, the non-Federal cost share of the grant is less than 25 percent of the total amount, FEMA will recoup the amount of Federal funds needed to bring the cost share into compliance.
A.8
Post-Disaster Code Enforcement Projects
HMGP will fund extraordinary post-disaster code enforcement costs. Extraordinary needs associated with enforcing local building codes during post-disaster reconstruction may include the performance of building department functions, such as building inspections, and the performance of Substantial Damage determinations under the NFIP. A post-disaster code enforcement project may be funded through HMGP if: The Grantee assesses existing building code and/or zoning and land use management regulations and determines that they adequately address the identified natural hazard risks. The Grantee determines that the local community has adopted a building code consistent with a recent edition of the International Code Series, conforms to State-model or Statemandated building codes, and, if the local community participates in the NFIP, has local floodplain management measures in place that meet the minimum requirements for participation in the NFIP; The Grantee evaluates the building department and determines that its organization, funding, and enforcement and inspection processes are sufficient to ensure proper enforcement of all applicable laws and ordinances during normal operations; and The Grantee evaluates the building department and identifies deficiencies, and the local community agrees to address any deficiencies identified in this evaluation as a condition of receiving the subgrant. This agreement can be a simple statement attached to the evaluation and should include an implementation schedule that is mutually satisfactory to the Grantee, the subgrantee, and FEMA. The agreement should include an acknowledgment by the subgrantee that failure to meet the agreed upon implementation schedule can result in the loss of all current and/or future building department assistance used to support post-disaster operations. The State’s assessment can be accomplished through various mechanisms. Any assessment should include a discussion of the community’s compliance with the NFIP. Suggested approaches include (but are not limited to): Employing a mutual-aid agreement among communities to use other local building officials; Entering into a contractual agreement with a State or regional government entity that is well versed in building codes and proper administration of a building department;
Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
79
Entering into a contractual agreement with one of the model building code organizations; Employing building code experts temporarily; Deploying FEMA mitigation staff knowledgeable of building codes and proper building department administration. Former local building officials can often provide the requisite knowledge; or Requesting the Hazard Mitigation Technical Assistance Program. HMGP funds only extraordinary post-disaster code enforcement costs. Extraordinary postdisaster code enforcement costs are the costs to ensure disaster-resistant codes are implemented during disaster reconstruction after normal costs of the building department are deducted. Costs might include staffing, equipment purchases, office rental, transportation, supplies, and similar expenses. Extraordinary costs equal disaster costs minus normal costs and cost of fees or fee waivers. Disaster costs can be determined by the payroll and office expenses during the period of assistance. If the subapplicant must purchase new equipment, only the equivalent rental cost of this equipment for the period of assistance is considered a disaster cost. The revenues generated by fees for inspections or permits, whether collected or not, must be deducted; Normal costs can be determined from a monthly average of payroll and office expenses during the most recent 12-month period that does not included Federal, State, or local disaster declarations; and If a community has already received Federal assistance for meeting emergency building inspection needs (such as determining habitability), these costs must be deducted in determining extraordinary costs.
A.9
Advance Assistance
Advance Assistance is authorized by the SRIA, which allows advancing up to 25 percent of the HMGP ceiling or $10 million to Applicants, whichever is less. The purpose of Advance Assistance is to provide States and Tribes resources to develop mitigation strategies and obtain data to prioritize, select, and develop complete HMGP applications in a timely manner. FEMA expects States and Tribes that receive Advance Assistance to submit complete project applications up to or over the HMGP ceiling by the application deadline.
Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
ADVANCE ASSISTANCE FEMA may provide up to 25 percent (with a limit of $10 million) of the amount of estimated HMGP costs to States and Indian Tribal governments in advance of incurring eligible costs. FEMA expects States that receive Advance Assistance to submit complete project applications up to or over the available HMGP ceiling by the final HMGP project application deadline.
80
FEMA will continue to implement Advance Assistance on a pilot basis for any State or Indian Tribal government having a declaration with an open application period. Advance Assistance is not automatic. States and Tribes may request Advance Assistance by submitting an HMGP application form to the Regional Mitigation Division Director. The application must identify the proposed use of the funds, including costs in sufficient detail for each proposed activity and milestones for submitting completed HMGP applications to FEMA. Advance Assistance is subject to the HMGP cost-share requirements and SFM (i.e., FEMA will not obligate funds until the State has an immediate need for the funds). Advance Assistance is part of the HMGP ceiling amount. States may use Advance Assistance for the following activities: Obtain staff or resources to develop a cost-share strategy and identify potential match funding; Evaluate facilities or areas to determine appropriate mitigation actions; Incorporate environmental considerations early into program decisions; Collect data for BCAs, environmental compliance and other program requirements; Scope and prioritize hazard mitigation projects (including State coordination of local projects) to incorporate sustainability, resilience, and renewable building concepts; Develop hazard mitigation projects, including engineering design and feasibility actions; Incorporate SFM principles into mitigation project work schedules and budgets that will facilitate compliance with the legislative requirement to expend obligated funds within 24 months; Conduct meetings, outreach, and coordination with potential subapplicants and community residents to identify potential participants for property acquisition and demolition or relocation projects; Conduct engineering design and feasibility studies for larger or complex community drainage projects or critical facility retrofits (such as for phased projects); Conduct hydrologic and hydraulic studies for unmapped flood zones or Approximate A Zone areas where communities propose to submit hazard mitigation projects; Perform professional cost estimation services to aid consistency in project budgeting across subapplications; Rectify data consistency needs for other project application categories, such as EHP, cost sharing mechanisms, and work schedules; and Complete necessary documents for deed restricting properties such as acknowledgement of voluntary participation, or Model Acknowledgement of Conditions for Mitigation of Property in a Special Flood Hazard Area with FEMA Grant Funds for property acquisition projects. Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
81
Requirements and Deliverables Associated with Advance Assistance and Resulting HMGP Applications may include: Documentation of Advance Assistance Accomplishments: Applicants must submit documentation to FEMA to support that they accomplished all activities listed in their Advance Assistance application. Submission of Projects up to the HMGP Ceiling: FEMA expects States that receive Advance Assistance to submit complete project applications up to or over the available HMGP ceiling by the final HMGP project application deadline. Accounting for Use of Advance Assistance Funds: For accounting and audit purposes, the State must submit sufficient financial detail to demonstrate that no costs claimed under Advance Assistance are duplicated in subsequent HMGP project applications or in State Management Cost budgets. Documentation of Environmental Considerations: The Applicant must document that effects to environmental and historic resources were considered early in the planning and project scoping processes. This requirement is in addition to ensuring environmental compliance. For additional information on Advance Assistance, please see Appendix L, Advance Assistance Optional Application.
A.10 Phased Projects In general, sufficient technical information is provided by the Applicant or subapplicant to allow FEMA to make an eligibility determination on a subapplication. The costs to obtain this information are generally eligible as pre-award costs (See Part V, F.2 for more information). However, in rare circumstances it is beyond the subapplicant’s technical and financial resources to provide the complete technical information required for a full eligibility or environmental review of a complex project. The Applicant and FEMA may provide technical assistance to the subapplicant to develop this complete body of technical data by approving a subapplication to complete a Phase I design, engineering, environmental, or feasibility study. The Phase I study provides FEMA with a technical body of information mutually concurred on by the subapplicant, the Applicant, and FEMA to determine project eligibility. If the results of the Phase I review indicate that the project meets HMGP requirements, the project would then be eligible for funding for construction under a Phase II approval. Phase I study funding is part of the project’s total estimated cost, and is subject to HMGP cost-share requirements. The use of a Phase I study should be limited to complex projects that require technical or environmental data beyond the scope of that generally required for a typical HMGP project. The following provides guidelines and outlines the process for selecting projects for Phase I/Phase II project approval.
Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
82
A.10.1 Pre-Screening Process The project must meet the following pre-screening criteria for a conditional Phase I approval in the following sequence: State or Indian Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan – The proposed project must be in conformance with the State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan; Justification for Selection of the Proposed Project – Justification must be provided for the selection of the proposed solution after consideration of a range of options; Potential Cost-effectiveness – The project demonstrates potential cost-effectiveness based on a preliminary assessment of anticipated project benefits and cost. The subapplicant must be aware that this preliminary assessment is solely for the purpose of the Phase I prescreening process and is not the final cost-effectiveness determination; EHP Review – Initial environmental review to identify major EHP compliance issues. The Phase I study is categorically excluded from NEPA review; and Hydrologic and Hydraulic or Other Relevant Technical Data – The subapplicant provides available hydrologic and hydraulic data based on existing models and other relevant technical data, as appropriate. A.10.2 Phase I Conditional Approval The Applicant and FEMA may approve projects meeting the above pre-screening requirements for technical assistance under a Phase I conditional approval. FEMA and the Applicant will coordinate closely to ensure mutual concurrence on all data and technical information as the Phase I technical review process proceeds. The sequence for the process is as follows: Hydrologic and Hydraulic or Other Relevant Technical Data – If appropriate, the Applicant and FEMA will review the hydrologic and hydraulic or other technical data provided by the subapplicant; Preliminary Engineering Design – Based upon the technical data, the subapplicant develops a preliminary engineering design and layout and cost estimates with ad-hoc technical assistance from the Applicant and FEMA; EO 11988 – If applicable, based upon the technical data and revised engineering design, the project must demonstrate compliance with floodplain management requirements under this EO. If a FIRM amendment or revision will be necessary, the Applicant and FEMA will provide the subapplicant with technical assistance to meet this requirement; Refinement of the Cost-Effectiveness Assessment – Based upon the revised design and cost estimates, the Applicant and FEMA will refine the preliminary assessment of costeffectiveness conducted in the Phase I pre-screening process. This will result in a final
Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
83
BCR to evaluate the project’s cost-effectiveness, which will include all the project costs including Phase I; and EHP Review – The Applicant and FEMA will conduct a review of the revised project design to ensure EHP compliance. The project will meet EHP requirements before Phase II approval. A.10.3 Phase II Approval-Construction Process If the project is determined to be eligible, technically feasible, cost-effective, and compliant with EHP requirements under the Phase I technical review, the project may then be approved for construction under Phase II.
A.11 The 5 Percent Initiative Some mitigation activities are difficult to evaluate using FEMA-approved cost-effectiveness methodologies. Up to 5 percent of the total HMGP funds may be set aside by the Grantee to pay for such activities. These funds are not eligible to be used in situations where the mitigation activities can be evaluated under FEMA-approved cost-effectiveness methodologies but do not meet the required BCA threshold. To be eligible for the 5 Percent Initiative, activities must: Be difficult to evaluate against traditional program cost-effectiveness criteria; Comply with all applicable HMGP eligibility criteria as well as with Federal, State, and local laws and ordinances; Be consistent with the goals and objectives of the State or Indian Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) and local or Tribal mitigation plans; and Be submitted for review with a narrative that indicates that there is a reasonable expectation that future damage or loss of life or injury will be reduced or prevented by the activity. Activities that might be funded under the 5 Percent Initiative include: The use, evaluation, and application of new, unproven mitigation techniques, technologies, methods, procedures, or products; Equipment and systems for the purpose of warning citizens of impending hazards; Purchase of generators or related equipment, such as generator hook-ups; Hazard identification or mapping and related equipment for the implementation of mitigation activities; GIS software, hardware, and data acquisition whose primary aim is mitigation;
Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
84
Public awareness or education campaigns about mitigation; and Evaluation of model building codes in support of future adoption and/or implementation. A.11.1 Availability of Additional Funds for Tornado Mitigation FEMA allows increasing the 5 Percent Initiative amount up to 10 percent for a Presidential major disaster declaration for tornadoes and high winds at the discretion of the Grantee. The increased initiative funding can be used for activities that address the unique hazards posed by tornadoes. To qualify for this funding, the Grantee must, in its State or Indian Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan, or other comprehensive plan, address warning of citizens (ensuring 90 percent coverage), further the safe room concept in construction or rehabilitation of residences or commercial structures, and address sheltering in mobile home parks. The plan, also, must explain how the Grantee will implement an ongoing public education program so that citizens are aware of warning systems and their meaning and the availability of in-home shelter designs. Similar information should be included in the subgrantee’s local or Indian Tribal mitigation plan.
A.12 Appeal Process An eligible subapplicant, subgrantee, or Grantee may appeal any FEMA determination regarding subapplications or applications submitted for funding under HMGP. FEMA will only consider appeals in writing that contain documentation that justifies the request for reconsideration. The appeal should specify the monetary figure in dispute and the provisions in Federal law, regulation, or policy with which the appellant believes the initial action was inconsistent. Whether the appeal is originated by the Grantee or by a subapplicant/subgrantee, the appeal must be submitted in writing to the Regional Administrator by the Grantee. The Regional Administrator is the decision-maker on first appeals. If there is an appeal of the Regional Administrator’s decision on any first appeal, the Assistant Administrator for Mitigation is the decision-maker for the second appeal. In some cases the appeal may involve highly technical issues. In these cases, FEMA may consult independent scientific or technical experts on the subject under appeal. Appellants must make appeals within 60 days after receipt of a notice of the action that is being appealed. The Grantee must forward any appeal from a subapplicant/subgrantee with a written recommendation to the Regional Administrator within 60 days of receipt. Within 90 days following the receipt of an appeal, FEMA will notify the Grantee in writing of the disposition of the appeal or of the need for additional information. If additional information is needed, FEMA will determine a date by which the information must be provided. Within 90 days following the receipt of the requested additional information (or 90 days after the information was due), FEMA will notify the Grantee in writing of the disposition of the appeal.
Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
85
FEMA will provide its decision to the Grantee in writing. If the decision is to grant the appeal, the Regional Administrator will take the appropriate action. Additional information regarding appeals can be found at 44 CFR Section 206.440.
Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
86
B. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program Most of the information that an Applicant or subapplicant needs to apply for a PDM award or that a Grantee or subgrantee needs to manage a PDM award is provided in Parts I through VIII, and Part X. This section contains supplemental guidance specific to the PDM Program.
B.1
Allocation
FEMA will allocate funds for eligible projects to States and Territories consistent with applicable, statutory base and/or maximum allocations in the authorizing and appropriation laws. FEMA will administer the program as directed by Congress.
B.2
Small Impoverished Communities
Grants awarded to small impoverished communities may receive a Federal cost share of up to 90 percent of the total amount approved under the grant award to implement eligible approved activities in accordance with the Stafford Act. A small impoverished community must: Be a community of 3,000 or fewer individuals identified by the State as a rural community that is not a remote area within the corporate boundaries of a larger city; Be economically disadvantaged, with residents having an average per capita annual income not exceeding 80 percent of the national per capita income, based on best available data. For the most current information, go to http://www.bea.gov; Have a local unemployment rate that exceeds by 1 percentage point or more the most recently reported, average yearly national unemployment rate. For the most current information, go to http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm; and Meet other criteria required by the Applicant in which the community is located. Applicants must certify and provide documentation of the community status with the appropriate subapplication to justify the 90 percent cost share. If documentation is not submitted with the subapplication, FEMA will provide no more than the standard 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
B.3
Information Dissemination
Under the PDM Program, subapplicants may include eligible information dissemination activities in their project or planning subapplication. Eligible information dissemination activities include public awareness and education (brochures, workshops, videos, etc.) that directly relate to the eligible mitigation activity proposed in the subapplication. Information dissemination activities are limited to a maximum of 10 percent of the total cost of a subapplication.
Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
87
B.4
Applicant Ranking of Subapplications
Applicants must rank each subapplication included in their grant application in order of their priority for funding. Each subapplication must be assigned a unique rank in eGrants. Applicants must provide an explanation for the rank given to each subapplication and demonstrate how it is consistent with their State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan.
B.5
Selection
FEMA will identify subapplications for further review based on Applicant rank. FEMA may identify a subapplication for further review out of rank order based on considerations such as program priorities, available funds, and policy factors. FEMA will notify Applicants whose subapplications are identified for further review; however, this notification and conducting FEMA-requested pre-award activities are not considered notification or guarantee of a grant award.
Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
88
C. Flood Mitigation Assistance Program Most of the information that an Applicant or subapplicant needs to apply for an FMA award or that a Grantee or subgrantee needs to manage an FMA award is provided in Parts I through VII, and Part IX. This section contains supplemental guidance specific to FMA.
C.1
Eligible Properties
Properties included in a project subapplication for FMA funding must be NFIP-insured at the time of the application submittal. Flood insurance must be maintained through completion of the mitigation activity and for the life of the structure. Residential or non-residential properties currently insured with the NFIP are eligible to receive FMA funds. In order to receive an increased Federal cost share, properties must meet one of the definitions below (consistent with the legislative changes made in the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012): A severe repetitive loss property is a structure that: (a) Is covered under a contract for flood insurance made available under the NFIP; and (b) Has incurred flood related damage – (i) For which 4 or more separate claims payments have been made under flood insurance coverage with the amount of each such claim exceeding $5,000, and with the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeding $20,000; or (ii) For which at least 2 separate claims payments have been made under such coverage, with the cumulative amount of such claims exceeding the market value of the insured structure. A repetitive loss property is a structure covered by a contract for flood insurance made available under the NFIP that: (a) Has incurred flood-related damage on 2 occasions, in which the cost of the repair, on the average, equaled or exceeded 25 percent of the market value of the structure at the time of each such flood event; and (b) At the time of the second incidence of flood-related damage, the contract for flood insurance contains increased cost of compliance coverage.
C.2
Repetitive Loss Strategy
To be eligible for an increased Federal cost share, a FEMA-approved State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan that addresses repetitive loss properties must be in effect at the time of grant award and the property that is being submitted for consideration must be a repetitive loss property. Guidance on addressing repetitive loss properties can be found in the State MultiHazard Mitigation Planning Guidance and in 44 CFR Section 201.4(c)(3)(v). The Repetitive Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Flood Mitigation Assistance Program
89
Loss Strategy must identify the specific actions the State has taken to reduce the number of repetitive loss properties, which must include severe repetitive loss properties, and specify how the State intends to reduce the number of such repetitive loss properties. In addition, the hazard mitigation plan must describe the State’s strategy to ensure that local jurisdictions with severe repetitive loss properties take actions to reduce the number of these properties, including the development of local or Tribal mitigation plans. For information about the Repetitive Loss Database, see Part VII, D.2.1.
C.3
Cost Sharing
Consistent with the legislative changes made in the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, cost-share availability under the FMA program depends on the type of properties included in the grant. For example, severe repetitive loss properties may receive up to 100 percent Federal funding and repetitive loss properties may receive up to 90 percent. In the case of mitigation activities to severe repetitive loss structures:
FEMA may contribute up to 100 percent Federal funding of all eligible costs, if the activities are technically feasible and cost-effective; or
The expected savings to the NFIF from expected avoided damages through acquisition or relocation activities, if the activities will eliminate future payments from the NFIF for severe repetitive loss structures through an acquisition or relocation activity.
In the case of mitigation activities to repetitive loss structures, FEMA may contribute up to 90 percent Federal funding of all eligible costs. In the case of all other mitigation activities, FEMA may contribute up to 75 percent Federal funding of all eligible costs. Structures with varying cost-share requirements can be submitted in one application. Applicants must provide documentation in the project application showing how the final cost share was derived. The final cost share will be entered into the eGrants system and documentation showing how the final cost share was derived must be attached to the application.
C.4
Applicant Ranking of Subapplications
Applicants must rank each subapplication included in their grant application in order of priority for funding. Each subapplication must be assigned a unique rank in eGrants. Applicants must provide an explanation for the rank given to each subapplication and demonstrate how it is consistent with their State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan.
C.5
Selection
FEMA will identify subapplications for further review based on a number of criteria, including but not limited to: savings to the NFIF, applicant rank, and property status (e.g., repetitive loss Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Flood Mitigation Assistance Program
90
property, severe repetitive loss property). FEMA also may identify a subapplication for further review out of rank order based on considerations such as program priorities, available funds, and other factors. FEMA will notify Applicants whose subapplications are identified for further review; however, this notification and conducting FEMA-requested pre-award activities are not considered notification or guarantee of a grant award.
Part IX. Additional Program Guidance: Flood Mitigation Assistance Program
91
PART X. APPENDICES A. Acronyms ABFE
Advisory Base Flood Elevation
ADA
Americans with Disabilities Act
ADR
Alternative Dispute Resolution
ASCE
American Society of Civil Engineers
BCA
Benefit-Cost Analysis
BCR
Benefit-Cost Ratio
BFE
Base Flood Elevation
BIA
Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLM
Bureau of Land Management
CBRA
Coastal Barrier Resource Act
CBRS
Coastal Barrier Resource System
CDBG
Community Development Block Grant
CFDA
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CRS
Community Rating System
DHS
Department of Homeland Security
DOB
Duplication of Benefits
DOI
Department of the Interior
DOP
Duplication of Programs
DOT
Department of Transportation
eGrants
Electronic Grants
EHP
Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation
EO
Executive Order
EOC
Emergency Operations Center
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FCO
Federal Coordinating Officer
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
Part X. Appendix A: Acronyms
92
FIMA
Flood Insurance and Mitigation Administration
FIRM
Flood Insurance Rate Map
FIS
Flood Insurance Study
FMA
Flood Mitigation Assistance
FY
Fiscal Year
GAR
Governor’s Authorized Representative
GIS
Geographic Information System
GSTF
Greatest Savings to the Fund
Hazus
Hazards United States
HMA
Hazard Mitigation Assistance
HMGP
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
HUD
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
HVAC
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IBC
International Building Code
ICC
Increased Cost of Compliance
IRS
Internal Revenue Service
ITP
Independent Third Party
NAP
Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program
NEMIS
National Emergency Management Information System
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NFIA
National Flood Insurance Act
NFIF
National Flood Insurance Fund
NFIP
National Flood Insurance Program
NFPA
National Fire Protection Association
NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPS
National Park Service
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
O&M
Operations and Maintenance
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
OPA
Otherwise Protected Area
PARS
Payment and Reporting System
Part X. Appendix A: Acronyms
93
PDM
Pre-Disaster Mitigation
PNP
Private Non-profit
POC
Point of Contact
POP
Period of Performance
SBA
Small Business Administration
SEI
Structural Engineering Institute
SF
Standard Form
SFHA
Special Flood Hazard Area
SFM
Strategic Funds Management
SHMO
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
SOW
Scope of Work
SRIA
Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013
Stafford Act
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
TB
Technical Bulletin
URA
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C.
United States Code
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFA
U.S. Fire Administration
USFS
U.S. Forest Service
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
WUI
Wildland-Urban Interface Area
Part X. Appendix A: Acronyms
94
B. Glossary Applicant: The entity, such as a State, Territory, or Indian Tribal government, applying to FEMA for a grant that will be accountable for the use of the funds. Once grant funds are awarded, the Applicant becomes the “Grantee.” Base Flood: A flood having a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Base Flood Elevation (BFE): The elevation shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Zones AE, AH, A1–A30, AR, AR/A, AR/AE, AR/A1–A30, AR/AH, AR/AO, V1–V30, and VE that indicates the water surface elevation resulting from a flood that has a 1 percent chance of equaling or exceeding that level in any given year. Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA): A quantitative procedure that assesses the cost-effectiveness of a hazard mitigation measure by taking a long-term view of avoided future damages as compared to the cost of a project. Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR): A numerical expression of the cost-effectiveness of a project calculated as the net present value of total project benefits divided by the net present value of total project costs. Biomass: Biological material derived from living, or recently living organisms. Building: A structure with two or more outside rigid walls and a fully secured roof that is affixed to a permanent site; a manufactured home or a mobile home without wheels, built on a chassis and affixed to a permanent foundation, that is regulated under the community’s floodplain management and building ordinances or laws. “Building” does not mean a gas or liquid storage tank or a recreational vehicle, park trailer, or other similar vehicle. Clean-site certification: A letter from the appropriate local, State, Indian Tribal, or Federal entity determining that no further remedial action is required to protect human health or the environment. Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS): A geographic unit designated to serve as a protective barrier against forces of wind and tidal action caused by coastal storms and serving as habitat for aquatic species. Congress restricted Federal spending and assistance for development-related activities within CBRS units to protect them from further development. Federal flood insurance is unavailable in these areas. CBRS units are identified on FEMA FIRMs. Coastal High Hazard Area: An area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high velocity wave action from storms or seismic sources.
Part X. Appendix B: Glossary
95
Combustible material: Any material that, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, will ignite and burn or will add appreciable heat to an ambient fire. Community Rating System (CRS): A program developed by FEMA to provide incentives for those communities in the NFIP that have gone beyond the minimum floodplain management requirements to develop extra measures to provide protection from flooding. Cost-effectiveness: Determined by a systematic quantitative method for comparing the costs of alternative means of achieving the same stream of benefits for a given objective. The benefits in the context of hazard mitigation are avoided future damages and losses. Cost-effectiveness is determined by performing a BCA. Cost share: The portion of the costs of a federally assisted project or program not borne by the Federal Government. Defensible space: An area that is either natural or manmade, where material capable of allowing a fire to spread unchecked has been treated, cleared, or modified to slow the rate and intensity of an advancing wildfire and to create an area for fire-suppression operations to occur. Dwelling: A building designed for use as a residence for no more than four families or a singlefamily unit in a building under a condominium form of ownership. Elevated Building: A building that has no basement and a lowest floor that is elevated to or above the BFE by foundation walls, shear walls, posts, piers, pilings, or columns. Solid perimeter foundations walls are not an acceptable means of elevating buildings in Zones V and VE. Environmental Benefits: Environmental benefits are direct or indirect contributions that ecosystems make to the environment and human populations. For FEMA BCA, certain types of environmental benefits may be realized when homes are removed and land is returned to open space uses. Benefits may include flood hazard reduction; an increase in recreation and tourism; enhanced aesthetic value; and improved erosion control, air quality, and water filtration. Equipment: Tangible, nonexpendable, personal property having a useful life of more than 1 year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit. A Grantee may use its own definition of equipment provided such definition would at least include all equipment defined above. Federal Agency: Any department, independent establishment, Government corporation, or other agency of the executive branch of the Federal Government, including the U.S. Postal Service, but not the American National Red Cross. Federal Cognizant Agency: The Federal agency responsible for reviewing, negotiating, and approving cost allocation plans or indirect cost proposals developed on behalf of all Federal agencies. The OMB publishes a list of Federal Cognizant Agencies.
Part X. Appendix B: Glossary
96
Firebreak: a strip of cleared land that provides a gap in vegetation or other combustible material that is expected to slow or stop the progress of a wildfire. Fire-proofing: Removal or treatment of fuels to reduce the danger of fires igniting or spreading. (e.g., fire-proofing roadsides, campsites, structural timber). Fire-resistant material: Material that has a property that prevents or retards the passage of excessive heat, hot gases, or flames under conditions of use. Fire retardant: A chemical applied to lumber or other wood products to slow combustion and flame spread. Fire Severity Zone: Three concentric zones around a building used to determine the most effective design for defensible space. Flammability: The relative ease with which fuels ignite and burn regardless of the quantity of the fuels. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): Official map of a community on which FEMA has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. Floodplain: Any land area that FEMA has determined has at least a 1 percent chance in any given year of being inundated by floodwaters from any source. Floodplain Management: The operation of an overall program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood damage, including but not limited to, emergency preparedness plans, flood control works, and floodplain management regulations. Floodway: The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. Communities regulate development in these floodways to ensure that there are no increases in upstream flood elevations. Freeboard: Freeboard is a factor of safety usually expressed in feet above a flood level for purposes of floodplain management. “Freeboard” tends to compensate for the many unknown factors that could contribute to flood heights greater than the height calculated for a selected size flood and floodway conditions, such as wave action, bridge openings, and the hydrological effect of urbanization of the watershed. Fuel break: A natural or manmade change in fuel characteristics that affects fire behavior so that fires burning into them can be more readily controlled. Fuel condition: Relative flammability of fuel as determined by fuel type and environmental conditions.
Part X. Appendix B: Glossary
97
Governor’s Authorized Representative (GAR): The individual, designated by the Governor, who serves as the grant administrator for all funds provided under HMGP; the person empowered by the Governor to execute, on behalf of the State, all necessary documents for disaster assistance. Grant: An award of financial assistance for a specified purpose by the Federal government to an eligible Grantee. Grantee: The entity, such as a State, Territory, or Indian Tribal government to which a grant is awarded and that is accountable for the use of the funds provided. The Grantee is the entire legal entity even if only a particular component of the entity is designated in the grant award document. Green Open Space: Green open space is land that does not directly touch a natural body of water, such as a river, lake, stream, creek, or coastal body of water. Hazardous fuels reduction: An area strategically located in relation to predicted fire hazard and occurrence where the vegetation has been permanently modified or replaced so that fires burning into it can be more easily controlled (e.g., vegetation management activities). Hazard mitigation planning: A process used by governments to identify risks, assess vulnerabilities, and develop long-term strategies for protecting people and property from the effects of future natural hazard events. HMGP Lock-In Ceiling: The level of HMGP funding available to a Grantee for a particular Presidential major disaster declaration. Identified for Further Review: Subapplications identified for further review contain sufficient information for a preliminary determination of cost-effectiveness and feasibility. In certain instances, FEMA may work with Applicants to confirm cost-effectiveness and feasibility. Identification for further review is not a notification of award. Ignition-resistant construction: Construction standards based on use of fire-resistant materials, non-combustible materials, and 1-hour fire-rated assemblies. Increased Cost of Compliance: Coverage for expenses a property owner must incur, above and beyond the cost to repair the physical damage the structure actually sustained from a flooding event, to comply with mitigation requirements of State or local floodplain management ordinances or laws; acceptable mitigation measures are structure elevation, dry floodproofing, structure relocation, structure demolition, or any combination thereof.
Part X. Appendix B: Glossary
98
Indian Tribal Government: A federally recognized governing body of an Indian or Alaska Native Tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian Tribe under the Federally Recognized Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a. This does not include Alaska Native corporations, the ownership of which is vested in private individuals. Indirect cost: Cost that is incurred by a Grantee for a common or joint purpose benefitting more than one cost objective that is not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefited. Indirect cost rate: Percentage established by a Federal department or agency for a Grantee to use in computing the dollar amount it charges to the grant to reimburse itself for indirect costs incurred in doing the work of the grant activity. Management costs: Any indirect costs, administrative expenses, and any other expenses not directly chargeable to a specific project that are reasonably incurred by a Grantee or subgrantee in administering and managing a grant or subgrant award. For HMGP, management cost funding is provided outside of Federal assistance limits defined at 44 CFR Section 206.432(b). Manufactured (Mobile) home: A structure, transportable in one or more sections that is built on a permanent chassis and designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. Mitigation: Any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from a hazard event. Mitigation activity: A mitigation measure, project, plan, or action proposed to reduce risk of future damage, hardship, loss, or suffering from disasters. The term “measure” is used interchangeably with the term “project” in this program. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): Provides the availability of flood insurance in exchange for the adoption of a minimum local floodplain management ordinance that regulates new and Substantially Improved development in identified flood hazard areas. Non-combustible material: Material of which no part will ignite and burn when subjected to fire, such as any material conforming to ASTM E 136. Nonflammable: Material unlikely to burn when exposed to flame under most conditions. Non-Federal funds: Financial resources provided by sources other than the Federal Government. The term does not included funds provided to a State or local government through a Federal grant unless the authorizing statute for that grant explicitly allows the funds to be used as cost share for other Federal grants.
Part X. Appendix B: Glossary
99
Non-Residential structure: Includes, but is not limited to small business concerns, places of worship, schools, farm buildings (including grain bins and silos), pool houses, clubhouses, recreational buildings, mercantile structures, agricultural and industrial structures, warehouses, hotels and motels with normal room rentals for less than 6 months’ duration, and nursing homes. Office of Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation: Integrates the protection and enhancement of environmental, historic, and cultural resources into the FEMA mission and FEMA programs and activities; ensures that FEMA activities and programs related to disaster response and recovery, hazard mitigation, and emergency preparedness comply with Federal environmental and historic preservation (EHP) laws and Executive orders; and provides EHP technical assistance to FEMA staff, local, State, and Federal partners, and Grantees and subgrantees. Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs): Designation created by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act. Flood insurance is restricted in OPAs even though they are not in the CBRS and may receive other forms of Federal assistance. OPAs are identified on FEMA FIRMs. Period of Performance (POP): The period of time during which the Grantee is expected to complete the grant activities and to incur and expend approved funds. Pile burning: Piling removed vegetation into manageable piles and burning the individual piles during safe and approved burning conditions. Post-FIRM Building: A building for which construction or Substantial Improvement occurred after December 31, 1974, or on or after the effective date of an initial FIRM, whichever is later. Practicable: An action that is capable of being done within existing constraints. The test of what is practicable depends upon the situation and includes consideration of all pertinent factors, such as environment, cost, and technology. Pre-FIRM Building: A building for which construction or Substantial Improvement occurred on or before December 31, 1974, or before the effective date of an initial FIRM. Prescribed burning: The deliberate and managed use of fire ignited by management actions to meet specific fuels management objectives. Presidential Major Disaster: Any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought) or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under the Stafford Act to supplement the efforts and available resources of States, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.
Part X. Appendix B: Glossary
100
Private non-profit (PNP): Any non-governmental agency or entity that currently has: (i) an effective ruling letter from the Internal Revenue Service granting tax exemption under section 501(c), (d), or (e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; or (ii) satisfactory evidence from the State that the organization or entity is a non-profit one organized or doing business under State law. Project: Any mitigation measure or action proposed to reduce risk of future damage, hardship, loss, or suffering from disasters. Public Assistance: Supplementary Federal assistance provided under the Stafford Act to State and local governments or certain PNP organizations other than assistance for the direct benefit of individuals and families. For further information, see 44 CFR Part 206, Subparts G and H. Fire Management Assistance Grants under section 420 of the Stafford Act are also considered Public Assistance. Replacement cost value: The cost to replace property with materials of like kind and quality, without any deduction for depreciation. Riparian Area: The land that directly abuts a natural body of water, such as a river, lake, stream, creek, or coastal body of water. Slash: The accumulation of vegetative materials such as tops, limbs, branches, brush, and miscellaneous residue results from forest management activities such as thinning, pruning, timber harvesting, and wildfire hazard mitigation. Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA): The land in the floodplain within a community subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. An area having special flood, mudflow, or flood-related erosion hazards, and shown on a Flood Hazard Boundary Map or a FIRM as Zone A, AO, A1–A30, AE, A99, AH, AR, AR/A, AR/AE, AR/AH, AR/AO, AR/A1– A30, V1–V30, VE, or V. State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO): The representative of a State government who is the primary point of contact with FEMA, other Federal agencies, and local units of government in the planning and implementation of pre- and post-disaster mitigation activities. Structural fire protection: The protection of homes or other buildings from wildland fire. Subapplicant: The entity, such as a community/local government, Tribal government, or PNP, that submits a subapplication for FEMA assistance to the Applicant. Once funding is awarded, the subapplicant becomes the “subgrantee.” Subgrant: An award of financial assistance under a grant by a Grantee to an eligible subgrantee. Subgrantee: The entity, such as a community/local government, Tribal government, or PNP to which a subgrant is awarded and who is accountable to the Grantee for the use of the funds provided. Part X. Appendix B: Glossary
101
Substantial Damage: Damage of any origin sustained by a building whereby the cost of restoring the building to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the building before the damage occurred. Wildfire: An uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, exposing and possibly consuming structures. Wildland-Urban Interface Area: That geographical area where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with wildland or vegetative fuels. All terms not listed above are used consistent with the term definitions used in 44 CFR unless otherwise specified.
Part X. Appendix B: Glossary
102
C. Additional Resources Description
Web Link or Contact Information
1. NFIP Resources National Flood Insurance Program
http://www.floodsmart.gov
Floodplain Management
http://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program
Map Service Center
http://msc.fema.gov Telephone: (877) FEMA-MAP (336-2627)
FIRMs
http://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-1/floodinsurance-rate-map-firm
ABFEs
Mississippi: http://www.fema.gov/news-release/abfes-are-bestresources-mississippians-rebuilding-now Louisiana: http://www.fema.gov/news-release/2006/02/06/postkatrina-policy-building-elevations
Flood Insurance Studies
http://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-2/floodinsurance-study-fis
FEMA Form AW-501
http://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program1/mitigated-properties-updates
2. Mitigation Planning and Risk Assessment Resources Hazard Mitigation Planning Overview
http://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-planning-overview
Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (FR302-094-1)
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=7209
Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?fromSearch=fromse arch&id=4859
Mitigation Planning Guidance
http://www.fema.gov/mitigation-planning-laws-regulationsguidance
Mitigation Planning Policies
http://www.fema.gov/mitigation-planning-laws-regulationsguidance
Mitigation Ideas: A Resource for Reducing Risk to Natural Hazards
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=6938
Integrating Hazard Mitigation Into Local Planning: Case Studies and Tools for Community Officials
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=7130
Mitigation Planning How-To Guides (FEMA)
http://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-planning-resources
Hazard Mitigation Planning Risk Assessment
http://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-planning-riskassessment
IS-318: Mitigation Planning for Local and Tribal Communities
http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/courseOverview.aspx?code =is-318
IS-328: Plan Review for Local Mitigation Plans
http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/courseOverview.aspx?code =IS-328
Hazus
http://www.fema.gov/hazus
USGS National Map
http://nationalmap.gov/
USGS Natural Hazards Gateway
http://www.usgs.gov/natural_hazards/
Part X. Appendix C: Additional Resources
103
Description
Web Link or Contact Information
3. Benefit-Cost Analysis Resources BCA Software and Helpline
Telephone: (866) 222-3580 Email: bchelpline@dhs.gov
BCA Overview
http://www.fema.gov/benefit-cost-analysis
BCA Policies
http://www.fema.gov/benefit-cost-analysis
4. Feasibility and Effectiveness Resources Engineering Helpline
Telephone: (866) 222-3580 Email: enghelpline@dhs.gov
Engineering Case Studies
http://www.fema.gov/grant-applicant-resources
Property Acquisition Projects
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1861
Structure Elevation Projects
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1862
Minor Localized Flood Reduction Projects
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1863
Non-Structural Seismic Retrofit
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1865
Structural Seismic Retrofit
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1866
Wind Shutters
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1864
5. EHP Resources EHP Program
http://www.fema.gov/environmental-planning-and-historicpreservation-program
EHP Helpline
Telephone: (866) 222-3580 Email: ehhelpline@dhs.gov
EHP Guidance
http://www.fema.gov/environmental-planning-and-historicpreservation-program/environmental-historic-preservation-1
EHP eLearning Tool
http://www.fema.gov/environmental-planning-and-historicpreservation-program/elearning-tool-fema-grant-applicants-45
EHP Policies
http://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-assistance-policy
EHP Training
http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/IS253a.asp
National Register of Historic Places
http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/
6. eGrants and NEMIS (HMGP) Resources FEMA Enterprise Service Desk – for HMGP (NEMIS-MT) issues
Telephone: (888) HLP-FEMA (1-888-457-3362) Email: fema-enterprise-service-desk@fema.dhs.gov
FEMA Enterprise Service Desk – eGrants issues
Telephone: (877) 611-4700
eGrants Resources Web site
http://www.fema.gov/mitigation-egrants-system
eGrants Applicant Quick Reference Guide
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3266
eGrants Subapplicant Quick Reference Guide
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3267
eGrants System for Grant Applicants online course (IS-31)
http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/is31a.asp
eGrants System for Subgrant Applicants online course (IS-30)
http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/is30a.asp
Part X. Appendix C: Additional Resources
104
Description
Web Link or Contact Information
eGrants Internal System online course (IS-32)
http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/courseOverview.aspx?code =is-32
MT eGrants Internal Quick Reference Guide
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?fromSearch=fromse arch&id=5885
NEMIS-MT Frequently Asked Questions:
http://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-grant-program/nationalemergency-management-information-system-mitigation-module http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=4913
NEMIS-MT User Manual
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=4909
7. HMA Application and Award Resources HMA Overview
http://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-assistance
HMA Helpline
Telephone: (866) 222-3580 Email: hmagrantshelpline@dhs.gov
HMA Policies
http://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-assistance-policy
8. Acquisition Project Resources Model Deed Restriction
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=6327
Model Acknowledgement of Conditions for Mitigation in Special Flood Hazard Area
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3592
Model Statement of Assurances
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=6365
Notice of Voluntary Interest
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3595 http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3596
Statement of Voluntary Participation
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3333
9. Mitigation Reconstruction References
ASCE/SEI 24-05, Flood Resistant Design and Construction, January 2006 ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 2005 International Building Code (IBC), 2006 edition International Code Council, Reducing Flood Losses Through the International Codes, 3rd Edition, 2008 FEMA P-55, Coastal Construction Manual, 4th Edition, August 2011 FEMA P-424, Design Guide for Improving School Safety in Earthquakes, Floods and High Winds, December 2010 FEMA 489, Mitigation Assessment Team Report: Hurricane Ivan in Alabama and Florida, August 2005 FEMA P-499, Home Builder’s Guide to Coastal Construction Technical Fact Sheet Series, December 2010 FEMA 543, Design Guide for Improving Critical Facility Safety from Flooding and High Winds, January 2007 FEMA 549, Mitigation Assessment Team Report: Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast, July 2006 FEMA 550, Recommended Residential Construction for Coastal Areas: Building on Strong and Safe Foundations, 2nd Edition, December 2009 FEMA 551, Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures, March 2007 FEMA 577, Design Guide for Improving Hospital Safety in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds: Providing Protection to People and Buildings, June 2007
Part X. Appendix C: Additional Resources
105
Description
Web Link or Contact Information
10. Structure Elevation References ASCE/SEI 24-05, Flood Resistant Design and Construction, January 2006 FEMA P-55, Coastal Construction Manual, 4th Edition, August 2011 FEMA P-259, Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential Structures, 3rd Edition, January 2012 FEMA P-312, Homeowners Guide to Retrofitting, 2nd Edition, December 2009 FEMA 347, Above the Flood: Elevating Your Flood Prone House, May 2000 FEMA P-499, Home Builder’s Guide to Coastal Construction Technical Fact Sheet Series, December 2010 FEMA Technical Bulletin TB-1, Openings in Foundation Walls and Walls of Enclosures, 2008 FEMA Technical Bulletin TB-5, Free-of-Obstruction Requirements, 2008 FEMA Technical Bulletin TB-9, Design and Construction Guidance for Breakaway Walls, 2008 FEMA Form 81-31, NFIP Elevation Certificate, February 2013
Part X. Appendix C: Additional Resources
106
D. Referenced Regulations, Statutes, Directives, and Guidance Reference
Description
Web Link
2 CFR Part 215, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations (OMB Circular A-110)
This part contains Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance to Federal agencies on the administration of grants to and agreements with institutions of higher education, hospitals, and other non-profit organizations. The guidance sets forth standards for obtaining consistency and uniformity in the agencies’ administration of those grants and agreements.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title 02/2cfr215_main_02.tpl
2 CFR Part 220, Cost Principles For Educational Institutions (OMB Circular A21)
Establishes principles for determining costs applicable to grants, contracts, and other agreements with educational institutions.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ circulars_a021_2004
2 CFR Part 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments (OMB Circular A-87)
Establishes principles and standards for determining costs for Federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with State and local governments and federally recognized Indian Tribal governments.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/te xt/textidx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title 02/2cfr225_main_02.tpl
2 CFR Part 230, Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations (OMB Circular A-122)
Establishes principles for determining costs of grants, contracts and other agreements with nonprofit organizations.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ circulars_a122_2004
26 CFR Section 1.170A-14, Qualified Conservation Contributions
Discusses deductions allowable for charitable contributions of interests in properties.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgibin/retrieveECFR?gp=13&SID=7 e3a7c14f52556f38d469032c58a 4507&ty=HTML&h=L&r=SECTI ON&n=26y3.0.1.1.1.0.2.19
40 CFR Part 312, Innocent Landowners, Standards for Conducting All Appropriate Inquiries
Provide standards and practices for “all appropriate inquiries” for the purposes of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act sections 101(35)(B)(i)(I) and 101(35)(B)(ii) and (iii).
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title 40/40cfr312_main_02.tpl
44 CFR Part 9, Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands
Sets forth policy, procedure, and responsibilities to implement and enforce Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management, and EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/C FR-2008-title44-vol1/xml/CFR2008-title44-vol1-part9.xml
44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Considerations
FEMA procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Provides policy and procedures to enable FEMA officials to account for environmental considerations when authorizing/approving major actions that have a significant impact on the environment.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/C FR-2008-title44-vol1/xml/CFR2008-title44-vol1-part10.xml
44 CFR Part 13, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments
Establishes uniform administrative rules for Federal grants and cooperative agreements and subgrants to State, local, and Indian Tribal governments.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/C FR-2008-title44-vol1/xml/CFR2008-title44-vol1-part13.xml
REGULATIONS
Part X. Appendix D: Referenced Regulations, Statutes, Directives, and Guidance
107
Reference
Description
Web Link
44 CFR Section 59.1, General Provisions, Definitions
Defines terms used in the Emergency Management and Assistance Federal Regulations
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/C FR-2008-title44-vol1/xml/CFR2008-title44-vol1-part59.xml
44 CFR Part 60, Criteria for Land Management and Use
Contains regulations for sale of flood insurance; criteria to determine the adequacy of a community’s floodplain management regulations; and the minimum standards for the adoption of floodplain management regulations in flood-prone areas.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/C FR-2008-title44-vol1/xml/CFR2008-title44-vol1-part60.xml
44 CFR Sections 60.3(b)(5) and (c)(4), Criteria for Land Management and Use and Floodplain Management Criteria for Floodprone Areas
Regulations regarding obtaining the elevation of residential and non-residential structures.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/C FR-2008-title44-vol1/xml/CFR2008-title44-vol1part60.xml#seqnum60.3
44 CFR Part 79, Flood Mitigation Grants
Prescribes actions, procedures, and requirements for the administration the Flood Mitigation Assistance grant programs.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/C FR-2008-title44-vol1/xml/CFR2008-title44-vol1-part79.xml
44 CFR Part 80, Property Acquisition and Relocation for Open Space
Provides actions, procedures, and requirements for the administration of FEMA mitigation assistance for projects to acquire property for open space purposes under all Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/C FR-2008-title44-vol1/xml/CFR2008-title44-vol1-part80.xml
44 CFR Part 201, Mitigation Planning
Provides information on requirements and procedures for mitigation planning as required by the Stafford Act.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/C FR-2008-title44-vol1/xml/CFR2008-title44-vol1-part201.xml
44 CFR Part 206, Federal Disaster Assistance for Disasters Declared On or After November 23, 1988
Prescribes policies and procedures for implementing the sections of Public Law 93-288 (the Stafford Act) that are delegated to the director of FEMA, including the administration of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/C FR-2008-title44-vol1/xml/CFR2008-title44-vol1-part206.xml
44 CFR Part 207, Management Costs
Implements section 324, Management Costs, of the Stafford Act, providing actions, procedures, and policies for HMGP management costs.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/C FR-2008-title44-vol1/xml/CFR2008-title44-vol1-part207.xml
49 CFR Part 24, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs
Promulgates rules to ensure that owners of real property displaced or acquired by Federal or federally assisted programs are treated fairly, consistently, and equitably, and that agencies who implement these regulations do so efficiently and cost effectively.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/te xt/textidx?c=ecfr;rgn=div5;view=text;no de=49%3A1.0.1.1.18;idno=49;si d=4c3367f93b8162bf6daaf0a88f e20a0e;cc=ecfr
49 CFR Part 29, Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement)
This part adopts a government-wide system of debarment and suspension for nonprocurement activities.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title 49/49cfr29_main_02.tpl
Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Subpart 31.2
The FAR codifies and publishes uniform policies and procedures for acquisition by all executive agencies. Subpart 31.2 refers to Contracts with Commercial Organizations.
http://www.acquisition.gov/far/
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, Sections 170(h) (3) and (4)
Provides definitions for qualified conservation organizations and conservation purpose, including specific information regarding historic structure certification.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscod e/text/26/170
Part X. Appendix D: Referenced Regulations, Statutes, Directives, and Guidance
108
Reference
Description
Web Link
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, Sections 501(c), (d), and (e)
Provides criteria for tax-exempt organizations.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscod e/text/26/501
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Technical Bulletin 3-93, NonResidential Floodproofing – Requirements and Certification
Provides guidance on the NFIP regulations concerning watertight construction and the required certification for floodproofed non-residential buildings in Zones A, AE, A1–A30, AR, AO, and AH whose lowest floors are below the Base Flood Elevation.
http://www.fema.gov/library/view Record.do?id=1716
Immigration and Nationality Act
Provides a definition for the term “national of the United States.”
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/u scis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9a c89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoi d=f3829c7755cb9010VgnVCM1 0000045f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextch annel=f3829c7755cb9010VgnV CM10000045f3d6a1RCRD
Appalachian Regional Commission Funds, 40 U.S.C. 14321(a)(3), Grants and other assistance
Provides information on the authority of the Appalachian Regional Commission to make grants for administrative expenses and lists what those expenses may and may not include. Also provides information on what the local development district’s contributions should be.
http://www.arc.gov/about/USCod eTitle40SubtitleIV.asp#14321
Bunning-BereuterBlumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-264), Part 102
A bill to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to reduce losses to properties for which repetitive flood insurance claim payments have been made.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PL AW-108publ264/pdf/PLAW108publ264.pdf
Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act. P.L. 112-141 July 6, 2012
Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act that proposed changes to Mitigation Assistance Grants related to Flood Mitigation.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PL AW-112publ141/pdf/PLAW112publ141.pdf
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/ cor/coord/titlevi.php
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (Public Law 97-348; 16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
Designated various undeveloped coastal barrier islands, depicted by specific maps, for inclusion in the Coastal Barrier Resource System. Areas so designated were made ineligible for direct or indirect Federal financial assistance that might support development, including flood insurance, except for emergency life-saving activities.
http://uscode.house.gov/downlo ad/pls/16c55.txt
Endangered Species Act (Public Law 93-205; 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544)
Prohibits Federal agencies from funding actions that would jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or adversely modify critical habitat.
http://epw.senate.gov/esa73.pdf
Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
Promotes the national welfare by improving the economic stability of agriculture through a sound system of crop insurance.
http://www.agriculturelaw.com/lin ks/cropins/statute.htm
STATUTES
Part X. Appendix D: Referenced Regulations, Statutes, Directives, and Guidance
109
Description
Web Link
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Public Law 91–190; 42 U.S.C. 4321 and 4331–4335)
Declares a national policy that encourages productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; promotes efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; enriches the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and establishes a Council on Environmental Quality.
http://www.nps.gov/history/locallaw/FHPL_NtlEnvirnPolcy.pdf
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 created the Federal Insurance Administration and made flood insurance available for the first time. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 made the purchase of flood insurance mandatory for the protection of property located in the Special Flood Hazard Area.
http://www.fema.gov/library/view Record.do?id=2216
National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-325)
Amended the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, providing tools to make the NFIP more effective in achieving its goals of reducing the risk of flood damage to properties and reducing Federal expenditures for uninsured properties that are damaged by floods.
http://www.fema.gov/library/view Record.do?id=2217
National Historic Preservation Act (Public Law 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)
Establishes a program for the preservation of historic and prehistoric resources deemed important to our understanding of prehistory and U.S. history and created the National Register of Historic Places.
http://www.achp.gov/docs/nhpa %202008-final.pdf
National Register of Historic Places
The official list of the Nation’s historic places worthy of preservation. It is part of a national program to support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect our historic and archeological resources.
http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/
Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, 7 U.S.C. 7333
Provides financial assistance to producers of noninsurable crops when low yields, loss of inventory, or prevented planting occur due to natural disasters.
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/ne wsReleases?area=newsroom&s ubject=landing&topic=pfs&newst ype=prfactsheet&type=detail&ite m=pf_20110830_distr_en_nap.h tml
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a)
Regulates the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personal information by Federal executive branch agencies.
http://www.justice.gov/opcl/privst at.htm
Public Health and Welfare, 42 U.S.C. 5133, PreDisaster Hazard Mitigation
Authorizes the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscod e/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00005 133----000-.html
Public Health and Welfare, 42 U.S.C. 5154 (a), Insurance
Contains information on compliance with certain regulations and maintaining insurance in regard to Applicants and subapplicants requesting assistance to repair, restore, or replace damaged facilities under this code.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscod e/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00005 154----000-.html
Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980, (Public Law 96-422) Part 501(e)
Allows the President to exercise authorities over Cuban and Haitian immigrants identical to the authorities exercised in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1158.
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/c omp2/F096-422.html
Reference
Part X. Appendix D: Referenced Regulations, Statutes, Directives, and Guidance
110
Description
Web Link
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
Constitutes the statutory authority for most Federal disaster response activities, especially as they pertain to FEMA and FEMA programs.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/st afford_act.pdf
Secure Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act of 2000, 16 U.S.C. 500
Contains information regarding payment and evaluation of receipts to State or Territory for schools and roads, moneys received, projections of revenues, and estimated payments.
http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/b ills.text/106/h/h2389.pdf
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646)
Ensures that people whose real property is acquired, or who move as a result of projects receiving Federal funds, will be treated fairly and equitably and will receive assistance in moving from the property they occupy.
http://uscode.house.gov/downlo ad/pls/42c61.txt
EO 11988, Floodplain Management
Requires Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative.
http://www.fema.gov/plan/ehp/eh plaws/eo11988.shtm
EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands
Requires Federal agencies, in planning their actions, to consider alternatives to wetland sites and limit potential damage if an activity affecting a wetland cannot be avoided.
http://www.fema.gov/environmen tal-planning-and-historicpreservation-program/executiveorder-11990-protection-wetlands
EO 12898, Environmental Justice for Low-Income and Minority Populations
Directs Federal agencies “to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations in the United States.”
http://www.fema.gov/environmen tal-planning-and-historicpreservation-program/executiveorder-12898-environmentaljustice
EO 12372, July 14, 1982, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs
Fosters an intergovernmental partnership and strengthens federalism by relying on State and local processes for State and local coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
http://www.archives.gov/federalregister/codification/executiveorder/12372.html
EO 12416, April 8, 1983, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs
Amends Section 8 of EO 12372 regarding the content of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget’s report and to whom the report is submitted.
http://www.archives.gov/federalregister/codification/executiveorder/12372.html
EO 12699, January 5, 1990, Seismic Safety of Federal and Federally assisted or Regulated New Building Construction
Requires that each Federal agency responsible for the design and construction of each new Federal building shall ensure that the building is designed and constructed in accord with appropriate seismic design and construction standards.
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/FED/F MEO/eo12699.pdf
Provides a best practices approach in reducing damages from natural hazards to assist in protecting manufactured homes from floods and other hazards.
http://www.fema.gov/library/view Record.do?id=1577
Reference
DIRECTIVES
GUIDANCE FEMA P-85, Protecting Manufactured Homes from Floods and Other Hazards (2nd Edition, November 2009)
Part X. Appendix D: Referenced Regulations, Statutes, Directives, and Guidance
111
Reference
Description
Web Link
FEMA 317, Property Acquisition Handbook for Local Communities (October 1998)
A “how to” guide to help communities work through one specific hazard mitigation alternative known as property acquisition (also referred to as “buyout”).
http://www.fema.gov/library/view Record.do?id=1654
FEMA P-320, Taking Shelter from the Storm: Building a Safe Room for Your Home or Small Business (3rd Edition, August 2008)
Guide to help homeowners decide if they should build a shelter in their house; provides various shelter designs that can be given to a contractor/builder.
http://www.fema.gov/plan/preven t/saferoom/fema320.shtm
FEMA P-361, Design and Construction Guidance for Community Safe Rooms (2nd Edition, August 2008)
A guidance manual for engineers, architects, building officials, and prospective shelter owners that presents important information about the design and construction of residential and community safe rooms that protect people during tornado and hurricane events.
http://www.fema.gov/library/view Record.do?fromSearch=fromsea rch&id=1657
FEMA P-424, Design Guide for Improving School Safety in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds (December 2010)
This manual is intended to provide guidance for the protection of school buildings from natural disasters. This volume concentrates on grade schools, K-12. FEMA P-424 covers earthquakes, floods, and high winds. Its intended audience is design professionals and school officials involved in the technical and financial decisions of school construction, repair, and renovations.
http://www.fema.gov/library/view Record.do?id=1986
FEMA 489, Mitigation Assessment Team Report: Hurricane Ivan in Alabama and Florida (August 2005)
Summarizes the observations, conclusions, and recommendations that resulted from post-disaster assessments sponsored by FEMA in response to Florida’s 2004 hurricane season.
http://www.fema.gov/library/view Record.do?id=1569
FEMA P-499, Home Builder’s Guide to Coastal Construction Technical Fact Sheet Series (December 2010)
Presents information aimed at improving the performance of buildings subject to flood and wind forces in coastal environments.
http://www.fema.gov/technologytransfer/home-builders-guidecoastal-construction-technicalfact-sheet-series-fema-p-499
FEMA 543, Design Guide for Improving Critical Facility Safety from Flooding and High Winds: Providing Protection for People and Buildings (January 2007)
Provides building professionals and decision-makers with information and guidelines for implementing a variety of mitigation measures to reduce the vulnerability to damage and disruption of operations during severe flooding and high-wind events. It concentrates on critical facilities (hospitals, schools, fire and police stations, and emergency operation centers).
http://www.fema.gov/library/view Record.do?id=2441
FEMA 549, Mitigation Assessment Team Report: Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast (July 2006)
Evaluates and assesses damage from the hurricane and provides observations, conclusions, and recommendations on the performance of buildings and other structures impacted by wind and flood forces.
http://www.fema.gov/library/view Record.do?id=1857
FEMA P-55, Coastal Construction Manual, (4th Edition, August 2011)
Provides a comprehensive approach to sensible development in coastal areas based on guidance from over 200 experts in building science, coastal hazard mitigation, and building codes and regulatory requirements.
http://www.fema.gov/library/view Record.do?id=1671
Part X. Appendix D: Referenced Regulations, Statutes, Directives, and Guidance
112
Reference
Description
Web Link
FEMA P-550, Recommended Residential Construction for Coastal Areas: Building on Strong and Safe Foundations (2nd Edition, December 2009)
Provides recommended designs and guidance for rebuilding homes destroyed by hurricanes in the Gulf Coast. The manual also provides guidance in designing and building less vulnerable new homes that reduce the risk to life and property.
http://www.fema.gov/library/view Record.do?id=1853
FEMA 551, Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures (March 2007)
This manual is intended to provide guidance to community officials for developing mitigation projects that reduce or eliminate identified risks for floodprone structures.
http://www.fema.gov/library/view Record.do?id=2737
FEMA 577, Design Guide for Improving Hospital Safety in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds: Providing Protection to People and Buildings (June 2007)
The intent of the Design Guide is to provide its audience with state-of-the-art knowledge on the variety of vulnerabilities faced by hospitals exposed to earthquakes, flooding, and high-winds risks, as well as the best ways to mitigate the risk of damage and disruption of hospital operations caused by these events.
http://www.fema.gov/library/view Record.do?id=2739
FEMA P-804, Wind Retrofit Guide for Residential Buildings (December 2010)
The purpose of this Guide is to provide guidance on how to improve the wind resistance of existing residential buildings. The content of this document should serve as guidance on retrofitting existing buildings for improved performance during high-wind events in all coastal regions.
http://www.fema.gov/library/view Record.do?id=4569
Mitigation Planning Guidance
This guidance provides information on preparing and updating mitigation plans in compliance with the mitigation planning regulations found at 44 CFR Part 201.
http://www.fema.gov/mitigationplanning-laws-regulationsguidance
Mitigation Planning How-To Guides (FEMA)
The guides focus on initiating and maintaining a planning process that will result in safer communities and are applicable to jurisdictions of all sizes and all resource and capability levels.
http://www.fema.gov/hazardmitigation-planning-resources
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2012–2013)
The generally accepted standards for professional appraisal practice in North America. Standards are included for real estate, personal property, business, and mass appraisal.
http://www.USPAP.org
Hazard Mitigation Assistance Tool for Identifying Duplication of Benefits (January 2013)
This guide provides instruction on what constitutes Duplication of Benefits in the use of Hazard Mitigation Assistance funds for property mitigation. It gives direction regarding verification processes and actions that can be taken to ensure that Duplication of Benefits does not occur.
http://www.fema.gov/library/view Record.do?fromSearch=fromsea rch&id=6815
Guides FEMA interactions with American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal governments.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F R-1999-01-12/html/99-642.htm
OTHER RESOURCES Government-to-Government Relations with American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Governments. January 12, 1999 (Federal Register vol. 64 no. 7)
Part X. Appendix D: Referenced Regulations, Statutes, Directives, and Guidance
113
Reference
Description
Web Link
OMB Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs (October 29, 1992)
Specifies certain discount rates that will be updated annually when the interest rate and inflation assumptions in the budget are changed.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ circulars/a094/a094.html
OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and NonProfit Organizations (revised June 27, 2003 and June 26, 2007)
Sets forth standards for obtaining consistency and uniformity among Federal agencies for the audit of States, local governments, and non-profit organizations expending Federal awards.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ default/files/omb/assets/a133/a1 33_revised_2007.pdf
ASCE/SEI 24-05, Flood Resistant Design and Construction (2006)
Provides minimum requirements for flood-resistant design and construction of structures located in flood hazard areas.
https://secure.asce.org/files/esto re/5419/40818_40818.pdf
ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (2005)
Provides requirements for general structural design and includes means for determining dead, live, soil, flood, wind, snow, rain, atmospheric ice, and earthquake loads, and their combinations that are suitable for inclusion in building codes and other documents.
https://secure.asce.org/files/esto re/896/40809_40809.pdf
ASTM International Standard E1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (2005)
Defines good commercial and customary practices for conducting an environmental site assessment of a parcel of commercial real estate.
http://www.astm.org/Standards/ E1527.htm
ASTM International Standard E2247-08, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property (2008)
This practice is intended for use on a voluntary basis by parties who wish to assess the environmental condition of forestland or rural property of 120 acres or greater taking into account commonly known and reasonably ascertainable information.
http://www.astm.org/Standards/ E2247.htm
International Building Code (International Code Council)
The scope of this code covers all buildings except three-story, and one- and two-family dwellings and townhomes. This comprehensive code features time-tested safety concepts, structural, and fire and life-safety provisions covering means of egress, interior finish requirements, comprehensive roof provisions, seismic engineering provisions, innovative construction technology, occupancy classifications, and the latest industry standards in material design.
http://publicecodes.cyberregs.co m/icod/ibc/index.htm
International Code Council, International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (2012)
Contains provisions addressing fire spread, accessibility, defensible space, water supply, and more for buildings constructed near wildland areas.
http://publicecodes.cyberregs.co m/icod/iwuic/2012/index.htm
Part X. Appendix D: Referenced Regulations, Statutes, Directives, and Guidance
114
Reference
Description
Web Link
International Code Council, Reducing Flood Losses through the International Codes (3rd Edition, 2008)
This guide is intended to help community officials decide how to integrate the 2006 edition of the International Codes (I-Codes) into their current floodplain development and regulatory processes in order to meet the requirements to participate in the NFIP.
http://www.fema.gov/library/view Record.do?id=2094
International Residential Code for One- and TwoFamily Dwellings (International Code Council)
A comprehensive code for homebuilding that brings together all building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical provisions for one- and two-family residences.
http://publicecodes.cyberregs.co m/icod/irc/index.htm
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 225, Model Manufactured Home Installation Standard (2009 Edition)
Includes updated criteria covering the anchoring of the home and protection against seismic events, floods, and wind. Rules apply to single- and multisection units.
http://www.nfpa.org/catalog/prod uct.asp?pid=22509
NFPA 703, Standard for Fire-Retardant Treated Wood and Fire-Retardant Coatings for Building Materials
Provides enforcers, engineers, and architects with the industry’s most advanced criteria for defining and identifying fire retardant-treated wood and fireretardant coatings for building materials.
http://www.nfpa.org/catalog/prod uct.asp?pid=70312
NFPA 914, Code for Fire Protection of Historic Structures
Intended to improve or upgrade the fire protection features in a wide range of historic buildings, and address ongoing operations as well as renovation and restoration projects.
http://www.nfpa.org/catalog/prod uct.asp?pid=91410
NFPA 1141, Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Development in Suburban and Rural Areas
Provides recommendations for planning and installing fire protection infrastructure for new developments in a community.
http://www.nfpa.org/catalog/prod uct.asp?pid=114112
NFPA 1144, Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards for Land Development in Suburban and Rural Areas
Covers minimum design, construction, and landscaping elements for structures in the wildland/urban interface.
http://www.nfpa.org/cataloghttp:/ /dnrc.mt.gov/forestry/Fire/Preven tion/documents/WUIrewrite/NFP A1144.pdf/
NFPA 5000 Code, Building Construction and Safety Code (2012 Edition)
Combines regulations controlling design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of buildings and structures, with fire and life-safety requirements found in NFPA codes and standards.
http://www.nfpa.org/catalog/prod uct.asp?pid=500012
Firewise Communities
A multi-agency effort designed to reach beyond the fire service by involving homeowners, community leaders, planners, developers, and others in the effort to protect people, property, and natural resources from the risk of wildland fire—before a fire starts.
http://www.firewise.org/
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis
Produces economic account statistics that enable government and business decision-makers, researchers, and the American public to follow and understand the performance of the Nation’s economy.
http://www.bea.gov
Part X. Appendix D: Referenced Regulations, Statutes, Directives, and Guidance
115
Reference U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics
Description An independent national statistical agency that collects, processes, analyzes, and disseminates essential statistical data to the American public, the U.S. Congress, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, business, and labor.
Part X. Appendix D: Referenced Regulations, Statutes, Directives, and Guidance
Web Link http://stats.bls.gov
116
E. Eligibility and Completeness Review Checklist for Project Subapplications Applications submitted to FEMA that do not contain at least the basic components listed below may be immediately denied because there is no method to determine eligibility without this data. Additional information may be requested during FEMA review. This information is required for all submittals, including potential substitutions. Application Component
Yes
No
Comment
General Documentation included in the subapplication? Is this a phased project? Technical Assistance Needed? Subapplicant is encouraged to contact the State (Applicant) to request application development assistance. FEMA resources may be available but will only be provided if requested by the Applicant. Applicants Eligible Applicant is identified (State or local government; eligible Private, non-profit organization; or Indian Tribal government) Applicant participates in the National Flood Insurance Program Plan Requirement Project conforms with State Mitigation Plan per 44 CFR Part 201 Project conforms with Local Mitigation Plan per 44 CFR Part 201 Project conforms with Indian Tribal Mitigation Plan per 44 CFR Part 201 Scope of Work SOW describes the proposed solution Alternatives considered as part of the decision-making process Project includes photographs of each structure and general project area Project includes appropriate maps that orient the reviewer to the entire project area Latitude and longitude are provided for each structure SOW justifies the proposed solution as the best option over a range of alternatives Project site is clearly identified using maps, GPS coordinates, or other means Project addresses a repetitive problem or a significant risk to public health
Part X. Appendix E: Eligibility and Completeness Review Checklist for Project Subapplications
117
Application Component
Yes
No
Comment
Project solves a problem independently or constitutes a functional portion of a solution Schedule A work schedule of 3 years or less is provided Budget/Match Source A cost estimate/budget is provided that supports the SOW If project requires phased or incremental funding, the budget reflects amounts estimated for each funding increment Non-Federal cost shares and match sources are identified Project should identify potential Duplication of Benefits such as Insurance, Small Business Administration loans if information is available during project development Cost-effectiveness and Feasibility Project includes a benefit-cost analysis, or alternate costeffectiveness documentation, such as Substantial Damage verification, and located in a riverine floodplain; or a narrative supporting cost-effectiveness and request for consideration under 5 percent HMGP discretionary funding Project includes technical information to support proposed action. For example, level of protection for drainage projects, engineering data to support proposed seismic retrofits, and population data to support safe room placement and size. Elevations are technically feasible. Environmental and Historic Preservation Project includes information and documentation to demonstrate conformance with 44 CFR Part 9.6 and Part 10 Project demonstrates that it minimizes harm to the environment Project includes construction date for each structure Project includes all available information relating to known historic, archaeological, or environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., critical Coastal Barrier Resources Act or Otherwise Protected Area) All appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies have been consulted Project includes environmental coordination letters or contact information to obtain required coordination information Assurances FEMA Form 20-16A, Assurances Non-Construction Programs FEMA Form 20-16B, Assurances Construction Programs FEMA Form 20-16C, Certifications Regarding Lobbying, etc.
Part X. Appendix E: Eligibility and Completeness Review Checklist for Project Subapplications
118
Application Component
Yes
No
Comment
SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Considers long-term changes to the area it proposes to protect and has manageable future maintenance and modification requirements Acquisition Demolition / Relocation Information Project confirms compliance with timelines and all other criteria set forth in 44 CFR Part 80 requirements Project includes Voluntary Participation Documentation for each property Documentation (if needed) that the property owner is National of United States or qualified alien For properties that are to be relocated, will the structure be relocated outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area? Elevation Information Project identifies the Base Flood Elevation or Advisory Base Flood Elevation Project includes finished floor elevation (Elevation certificate is preferred) Project includes proposed elevation height of the structure Designed and Implemented consistent with ASCE/SEI 24-05 Safe Room Information Project includes population size and basis Designed and implemented consistent with FEMA P-320 or FEMA P-361 Wind Retrofit Information Project includes proposed level of protection Designed and implemented consistent with P-804 Drainage Information Project includes initial technical information to support size, costs and local permitting requirements
Part X. Appendix E: Eligibility and Completeness Review Checklist for Project Subapplications
119
F. Safe Room Application Using Pre-Calculated Benefits Expedited HMGP Application for Residential Safe Rooms The State must have an approved State Administrative Plan and State Hazard Mitigation Plan prior to grant award.
If a local jurisdiction is the subapplicant, they must have an approved local mitigation plan in place (or receive an Extraordinary Circumstances exception) prior to grant award.
Each safe room included in this project must meet the criteria of FEMA P-320, Taking Shelter From the Storm, Building a Safe Room For your Home or Small Business, or FEMA P-361, Design and Construction Guidance for Community Safe Rooms.
Safe rooms cannot be placed in floodways, velocity zones, Coastal A Zones, or areas subject to coastal storm surge inundation associated with a Category 5 hurricane.
If a residential safe room is sited in a Special Flood Hazard Area, the structure must be insured for Flood Damage, and a deed notice must be conveyed to retain this requirement.
This project conforms with applicable Hazard Mitigation Grant Program eligibility criteria for all projects.
Applicant may request approval for pre-award costs. Implementation costs incurred prior to grant award are not eligible for reimbursement.
State (Grantee) Information Disaster number: ____________________________ Eligible subapplicant:
_____ State or local government
Does the project conform to the State/local mitigation plan?
_____ Private non-profit entity _____ Yes
_____ No
Applicant Information Project Title: Residential Safe Room Construction/Installation Applicant ___________________________________________________________________________ Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) Code ________________________________________ Federal Tax ID Number (if required) ______________________________________________________ Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number _________________________________________ Community NFIP Status:
Participating Community ID # ______________ In Good Standing ______ Non-participating _____ CRS _____
Legislative District(s) __________________________________________________________________
Part X. Appendix F: Safe Room Application Using Pre-Calculated Benefits
120
Application prepared by: Name ______________________________________________________________________________ Title _______________________________________________________________________________ Address _____________________________________________________________________________ City/State/Zip ________________________________________________________________________ Telephone __________________ Email ___________________________________________________ Applicant Agent* _____________________________________________________________________ Title _______________________________________________________________________________ Address ____________________________________________________________________________ City/State/Zip ________________________________________________________________________ Telephone__________________ Email____________________________________________________ * Individual authorized to sign financial and legal documents on behalf of the Applicant
Project Information 1. History of hazards and description of the vulnerability to be mitigated Sample language: This project is being submitted in response to the recent, severe weather and tornado activity nationwide. It is the intent of the State and affected local jurisdictions to support the placement and availability of safe rooms as a means of providing life-safety level protection for our citizens. 2. Scope/description: Project includes population size and basis Sample language: This project proposes to fund the purchase, construction/installation, and verification of 150 residential safe rooms. These safe rooms will be constructed and installed to meet FEMA P-320 or FEMA P-361 design and construction criteria, prior to reimbursement by the Applicant to the property owner; the safe rooms will be verified by a qualified professional to meet FEMA P-320 standards. Prior to closeout, all property-specific data will be provided for entry into NEMIS in order to capture full information for each mitigated property. 3. Project Useful Life: (30 years). 4. Property and Structure Information
Address, including geo-location Floodplain map and flood zone information Structure age Photographs
Part X. Appendix F: Safe Room Application Using Pre-Calculated Benefits
121
Proposed action:
Safe room placed inside structure (no ground disturbance)
Safe room placed above/below ground outside the structure (ground disturbance)
Additional information if identified by FEMA/State/Applicant Environmental and Historic Preservation Compliance Each site must be reviewed to determine compliance with environmental and historic preservation compliance requirements and to prepare necessary documentation. FEMA’s Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Hazard Mitigation Safe Room Construction (June 2011) provides efficiencies for completing the environmental review for this project. NOTE: FEMA may enter into agreements or other negotiated arrangements with the respective State Historic Preservation Officers and Indian Tribes to allow for expedited review in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Describe alternatives considered for this project: Sample language: Alternative 1 – Do nothing. This alternative will not result in substantial risk reduction and will leave many citizens exposed to future tornado and high-wind damages, including loss of life. Alternative 2 – Community safe room or evacuation. Tornadoes do not allow for sufficient time to relocate household members to an off-site facility, and evacuation is not viable as travel in severe weather exposes evacuees to another set of risks and hazards with little certainty that they can reach safe haven.
Project Implementation Narrative Briefly describe the Applicant’s process for selecting and prioritizing participants; describe any limits to funding, the proposed project management actions to be taken during implementation and any variations from standard quarterly reporting; and provide a list (or form) to be submitted by property owners to validate eligible costs. Sample language:
This project limits the amount reimbursable to property owner to up to 50 percent of the cost of the safe room, not to exceed $3,500 OR This project limits the amount of each safe room to$7,000 (or other value).
Participants were prioritized based on damaged areas and dates costs were incurred. Participants will be accepted as long as funds are available. Over submittals will be considered if additional funds become available.
Quarterly reports will include current totals of completed, verified sites and associated costs for each completed site.
Part X. Appendix F: Safe Room Application Using Pre-Calculated Benefits
122
Applicant reserves the right to expand this project as long as the application period is open. Site verification form will be provided for each site location (Attachment 2). Project Work Schedule (not to exceed 3 years) Sample: 0–6 months: Initiate outreach-marketing; identify participants 3–12 months: Verify FEMA P-320 or FEMA P-361 criteria and all program eligibility requirements have been met for known sites. 12 months (prior to application period closing): Revise project if necessary to include more participants. 12–30 months: Provide quarterly progress reports indicating volume of completed verified actions; complete project implementation. 30–36 months: Collect all closeout data and complete data dissemination to local emergency medical services.
Cost-effectiveness Review Sample language: A cost-effectiveness evaluation has been performed for residential safe rooms in the (State of _____________ / County of ________________) and produced benefits as reflected on Table 1. These benefits are based on general sampling statewide and are based on 3 persons per household served by each safe room. Options for capturing additional benefits: If the benefits listed in Table 1 are not sufficient to produce a ratio greater than 1:1 for this project, additional benefits may be obtained by increasing household population, where appropriate, verifying the structure type (manufactured housing produces more benefits than standard construction), and/or using a more specific local valuation that may include higher benefits based on specific risk. Technical support is available if needed.
Budget/Funding Information Sample budget: Cost Item Data Collection
Quantity
Est. Cost Each
Total Est. Cost
Est. Fed Share
150
$100
$15,000
$15,000
Estimated Match Share (1)
—
Material/Construction
150
$5,000
$750,000
$525,000
Project Management
150
$200
$30,000
$30,000
—
Inspection Certification
150
$200
$30,000
$30,000
—
Design/Engineering Review
150
$200
$30,000
30,000
—
Part X. Appendix F: Safe Room Application Using Pre-Calculated Benefits
$225,000
123
Quantity
Est. Cost Each
Total Est. Cost
Est. Fed Share
Estimated Match Share
Verification/Closeout
150
$100
$15,000
$15,000
—
Outreach
—
—
$15,000
$15,000
—
—
—
$15,000
$15,000
—
NA
NA
$900,000
$675,000
$225,000
Cost Item
Data Dissemination
(2)
Grand Total NOTES:
Line items for Data Collection, Project Management, Design, and Outreach could be phased. This would allow limited fund release to identify participants and collect data to complete required environmental and historic preservation reviews. General-cost line items are samples, not all costs may be required; amounts are variable. Additional line items may be included as necessary. These values are based on historical submittals and averages. (1) This example limits reimbursement to property owner to $3,500. (2) With property owner authorization, provide safe room geo-data to local emergency medical services in usable format.
All Federal Share Obligations of $1,000,000 or More Must Complete the Large Project Notification Process Prior to Approval Aggregate Benefits By State (Abridged List) Alabama
$13,336.96
Nebraska
$9,921.78
Arkansas
$16,717.85
North Carolina
$5,723.26
Georgia
$5,290.98
Ohio
$11,469.38
Illinois
$13,685.72
Oklahoma
$18,366.36
Iowa
$14,962.87
Pennsylvania
$4,065.90
Indiana
$18,126.34
South Carolina
$6,139.38
Kansas
$14,005.75
South Dakota
$5,230.17
Kentucky
$13,554.96
Tennessee
$13,579.58
Louisiana
$9,921.94
Texas
$5,421.32
Michigan
$6,522.49
Virginia
$3,936.05
Missouri
$15,654.96
West Virginia
$4,973.50
Mississippi
$20,067.64
Wisconsin
$9,025.48
Minnesota
$7,092.39
Final Documentation and Certification Variable by State/Region (FEMA/State/Applicant may include additional items) Property Owner Name Property Address, including geo-location for Safe Room Verification of FEMA P-320 or FEMA P-361 criteria Installation Inspection Conforms to Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment
Conforms to Local Floodplain Ordinance (if applicable) Flood Insurance Deed Tag (if applicable) Final Cost list Property owner permission to distribute GEOlocation to local emergency medical services (optional)
Part X. Appendix F: Safe Room Application Using Pre-Calculated Benefits
124
G. Generator FAQ Eligibility of Generators under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program General Eligibility and Application Development 1.
How does the information in this guidance differ from current practice? This Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Guidance establishes that the purchase and installation of generators for the protection of critical facilities is an eligible, stand-alone project type under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and is no longer limited only to the 5 Percent Initiative. Generators that constitute a functional portion of an otherwise eligible mitigation solution (critical or not) remain eligible.
2.
Are generators still eligible under the 5 Percent Initiative? Yes. If there is insufficient data to evaluate a generator project using a standard, HMA-approved Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) method, the project may be eligible under the 5 Percent Initiative, as described in current HMA Unified Guidance. To perform this evaluation, a narrative description of the project’s cost-effectiveness must be provided in lieu of a BCA. However, when data is available to perform a standard, HMA-approved BCA, the standard method must be used.
3.
Are eligible critical facilities limited to those listed in this guidance? No. The critical facilities listed in this guidance are not exhaustive. Eligible critical facilities are generally meant to include, but not be limited to, facilities such as hospitals, fire stations, police stations, and water and waste water treatment plants.
4.
Must the generator be permanently installed in, or anchored to, the critical facility, or can it be portable? Generators for a single facility or building should be permanently installed on site. Portable generators are eligible provided that they meet all HMGP requirements as described in 44 CFR Section 206.434, Eligibility. The Applicant must ensure that the generator will be in place to protect the facility functions specified in the project application. The Application should describe relevant transport, hook up, and fuel supply and storage requirements at multiple facilities and how these will be executed if the generator is portable.
5.
Is the purchase of generators for residential structures an eligible activity? No. The purchase of a generator for the singular purpose of maintaining power for a single residential structure is not an eligible activity.
6.
If a generator is required by code, is the purchase of a generator for these facilities eligible? Yes, provided that the generator project meets all HMGP requirements as described in 44 CFR Section 206.434, Eligibility.
Part X. Appendix G: Generator FAQ
125
7.
What size generator is appropriate for a facility? This will vary by facility and usage. It is not always necessary for the generator to support facility operations to their full capacity, but it should be sized appropriately to ensure the facility is able to provide uninterrupted critical functions in the event of future power outages.
8.
Is there a National Emergency Management Information System (NEMIS) code for generators as a stand-alone project type? Yes. The new NEMIS code for stand-alone generator projects is 601.2 – Generator Regular. The NEMIS code for generator projects as part of the 5 percent discretionary allowance is 601.1 – Generator.
Cost-effectiveness 9.
Will FEMA develop a separate BCA module for generators? No. A separate module is not necessary to perform the analysis. The Damage Frequency Assessment (DFA) module is able to perform this analysis for multiple hazards and project types. If you experience problems using the DFA module, contact the BC helpline at bchelpline@fema.dhs.gov.
10. What are the key elements of a BCA for generator projects? Key inputs required are: a.
Project Useful Life: According to OMB Circular A-76, Performance of Commercial Activities, the useful life for generators or generator sets is 19 years. This value can be used as the default useful life value when performing the BCA. It may be altered based on manufacturer warranty or other documentation that can demonstrate that the generator may be able to provide service for longer than 19 years. Analysts should use the 19-year project useful life first.
b.
Project Costs: The cost of generators varies by size, installation, and purpose. The generator’s size and specifications should be reasonable, appropriate, and necessary to continuing critical functions of the facility. The exact costs for generators, installation, and components should be provided by the subapplicant and included in the costs when performing the BCA.
c.
Facility and Value of Service: Analysis for facilities for potable water, waste water, police stations, fire stations, and hospitals can be quickly performed using FEMA’s BCA toolkit and the DFA module, which provides service values for these facilities. To use these values, the analyst will need some information regarding the population served by the facility. For example, if a generator is to be installed at a waste water treatment plant, the analyst will need to know how many customers are served by the facility, as well as how many days the facility was not able to operate because of power failure. These values can typically be obtained from the facility manager and can be provided on official letterhead for documentation purposes.
Part X. Appendix G: Generator FAQ
126
d.
Recurrence Determination: Recurrence information used in the analysis may vary by location or by cause of power failure, such as wind or flood. See FAQ #17 for additional information.
e.
Other Benefits: Other benefits (or costs avoided) may be included if they are addressed by the generator project.
11. What information is needed to perform a BCA for generator projects? Information needed for performing the BCA will vary by facility. However, the following inputs are required to run the BCA module: 11.1 For all BCAs performed, the subapplicant must provide the following: a. The total project cost b. Useful life (19 years for generators) c. Estimated yearly maintenance costs d. The frequency of the event used in analysis that would cause a power failure demonstrating the need for a backup power source (generator) e. The number of days that service was affected (without power) To calculate the value of services (benefits to society), the following inputs must be included for each specified facility type: 11.2 For Water or Waste Water Services: a. The number of customers affected by the power outage at the treatment plants 11.3 For Hospitals a. The number of people served by the hospital b. The distance in miles between the hospital being analyzed and the hospital that would treat these people in the event the hospital was inoperative c. The number of people normally served by the alternate hospital 11.4 For Police Stations a. The type of station (metropolitan, city, or rural) b. The number of people served by the police station c. The number of officers that work at the station and would serve the same area if the station were shut down as a result of a disaster 11.5 For Fire Stations a. The number of people served by the station b. The type of area served by the fire station (urban, suburban, rural, wilderness) c. The distance in miles to the nearest fire station that would provide protection for the area normally served by the fire station affected
Part X. Appendix G: Generator FAQ
127
d. Does the fire station provide emergency medical services? Value of service for hospitals, police, and fire stations are in the DFA module by selecting Non Residential Buildings for the Facility Type for Loss of Function in the DFA modules as shown in the screen shots below.
12. Are the benefits limited to damages avoided to the facility? No, benefits are not limited to just damages avoided. The value of service for critical facilities can be used to demonstrate cost-effectiveness. The value of services for critical infrastructure and facilities are included in the BCA toolkit, which is available at http://www.fema.gov/benefit-costanalysis. All costs associated with power failure that would be mitigated by a generator should be considered. Additional losses can be included in the BCA if those losses are a direct result of interrupted power service that a generator would have mitigated. For waste water treatment plants, additional costs are sometimes required to bring the facility back to operating status after an extended power failure. This may include removal of sludge in equipment or additional man hours needed to bring the facility back to operational status. Those additional costs can be included above and beyond the value of service costs if a generator would have prevented those additional costs. 13. Can an Applicant consider multiple hazards in the BCA? Yes. Multiple hazards may disrupt power supply. The Applicant will need to provide the frequency of each hazard used in its analysis. 14. How does an Applicant develop the return interval for an event requiring the use of a generator? The recurrence interval used in the analysis will depend on the hazard that caused or will cause the facility to lose power. For example, in the New York City metropolitan area, winds of 85 miles per hour could equate to a 25-year recurrence interval. For other hazards, such as extreme snow fall, information about prior snow fall totals could be validated to estimate the recurrence interval. Recurrence interval data can be obtained from a number of sources, such as the National Weather Service for rainfall and ice storms and the U.S. Geological Survey for floods. If three or more past
Part X. Appendix G: Generator FAQ
128
events resulted in power failure, the DFA module can calculate the recurrence interval based on the years of the events. Question #17 provides some useful tools to assist in frequency determination. Generally, two events are required to perform the analysis. Applicants/subapplicants are encouraged to provide as much historical damage information as they can. Projects submitted with one frequency will be considered acceptable. 15. In the case of a water treatment plant, is the cost of providing temporary water or other emergency protective measures considered a future cost avoided? Yes. If the generator will negate the need for temporary water in the future, then those costs should be included in the analysis. 16. Are environmental benefits included in the BCA? To the extent they can be captured and justified, environmental costs associated with raw sewage discharge can be included in the BCA for waste water treatment plants. FEMA does not have a default value for these associated costs, and these costs will vary by location. The Applicant/ subapplicant should include all reasonable costs that will be mitigated by having a backup generator installed at a facility. 17. What resources are available to determine recurrence interval values? Recurrence intervals may be determined by using some of the tools provided below:
If the facility lost power as a result of wind damage to power lines feeding the facility, the
analyst can utilize the Advanced Technology Council Wind Speed tool available at http://www.atcouncil.org/windspeed/index.php to determine the frequency of the coastal wind event.
If power outages are attributed to flooding, recurrence information for the flooding event should be used in the analysis. The National Weather Services provides the Precipitation Frequency Data Server at http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/, which can be utilized to establish a frequency for various precipitation events.
U.S. Geological Survey stream gauge data can also be used to extrapolate frequency information for flood events, details of which can be found in the Supplement to the Benefit-Cost Analysis Reference Guide in the FEMA library at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=4830.
National Snow and Ice Data Center (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation) at http://nsidc.org/data/search/data-search.html.
Insurance claims, BureauNet information, damage repair records, data from the State/local
agency, or local government Newspaper accounts citing credible sources (other than homeowner accounts) could be used in conjunction with the DFA module’s unknown frequency calculator. Using this method may require more time as three events are required for analysis.
Part X. Appendix G: Generator FAQ
129
18. How should emergency operations centers (EOCs) be evaluated for inclusion in the BCA toolkit? Finding the value (in loss of service terms) of a State Emergency Operation Center to prove costeffectiveness of a generator project is difficult. FEMA will allow reasonable and justified “loss of service” costs for State and local EOCs that are identified by the Grantee to be entered into the DFA module to evaluate cost-effectiveness of an EOC generator project. Another or additional option is to investigate the costs of remobilizing an EOC to an alternate / continuity of operations location that could be avoided should the EOC be supplied with an uninterruptible power source such as a generator.
Scenarios Different power failure scenarios at various facilities are outlined below. For analysis purposes, each facility was reviewed using 4 days of loss of service due to power failure at the 25-year recurrence. The 25-year recurrence interval for the test cases is based on observed wind speeds and the frequency was extrapolated using the Advanced Technology Council Wind Speed tool for the New York metropolitan area. Other project locations should use the appropriate recurrence intervals for the hazard being mitigated. Analysis was performed using the DFA module in the BCA Toolkit. The scenarios are for demonstration purposes only. Dollar amounts and frequency intervals were chosen for comparison purposes only. Analysts should use the appropriate values for the facility being examined. For those performing the analysis, assistance is available through the benefit-cost helpline at bchelpline@fema.dhs.gov or at 1-855-540-6744. The helpline is not allowed to perform or review analyses but can provide answers to specific questions regarding methodologies. When performing the BCA, inputs used in the module should be documented, as with all analysis. Documentation sources may include, but are not limited to, correspondence with facility or site managers, data available from the county or facility Web site, information from other government Web sites, media releases, engineering analysis, and letters from the facility manager. Discussion of data documentation is available in the BCA training materials available on FEMA.gov. There are no special or extraordinary data documentation requirements for this project type. Scenario 1: The Purchase and Installation of a Generator at an Urban Police Station Assumptions:
The police station has 119 officers who serve up to 27,000 residents The police station loses power and the efficiency of the police station drops to 50 percent
(assumes 50 percent of the force are working out of other facilities or within the community)
The power is not fully restored for 4 days The project useful life for the generator is 19 years The project cost is $50,000
Part X. Appendix G: Generator FAQ
130
Benefit-Cost Ratio:
The resulting benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is 1.23 Scenario 2: The Purchase and Installation of a Generator at an Urban Fire Station Assumptions:
The fire station has 119 firefighters who serve up to 27,000 residents The fire station loses power and the efficiency of the fire station drops to 50 percent The power is not fully restored for 4 days The project useful life for the generator is 19 years The project cost is $50,000 Benefit-Cost Ratio:
The resulting BCR is 0.80 Scenario 3: The Purchase and Installation of a Generator at an Urban Hospital Assumptions:
The hospital serves up to 27,000 residents The power is not fully restored for 4 days The project useful life for the generator is 19 years The project cost is $200,000 Benefit-Cost Ratio:
The resulting BCR is 1.0 Scenario 4: The Purchase and Installation of a Generator at a Rural Area Water Treatment Plant (Potable Water) Assumptions:
The water treatment plant serves up to 15,000 customers The plant loses power for 3 days A 100-year recurrence interval is used The project cost is $200,000 Benefit-Cost Ratio
The resulting BCR is 1.05
Part X. Appendix G: Generator FAQ
131
Scenario 5: The Purchase and Installation of a Generator at an Urban Area Waste Water Treatment Plant Assumptions:
The waste water treatment plant serves up to 500,000 residents The waste water treatment plant loses power and there is no service The power is not fully restored for 4 days The project useful life for the generator is 19 years The project cost is $1,500,000 Benefit-Cost Ratio:
The resulting BCR is 24.8
Part X. Appendix G: Generator FAQ
132
H. Eligibility and Completeness Review Checklist for Planning Subapplications Applications submitted to FEMA that do not contain at least the basic components listed below may be immediately denied because there is no method to determine eligibility without this data. Additional information may be requested during FEMA review. This information is required for all submittals, including potential substitutions. Application Component
Yes
No
Comments
General Documentation included in the subapplication? Technical Assistance Needed? Subapplicant is encouraged to contact the State (Applicant) to request application development assistance. FEMA resources may be available but will only be provided if requested by the Applicant. Applicants Applicant included management costs for delivery of technical assistance for mitigation planning (e.g., plan reviews, planning workshops, training) Scope of Work (SOW) Proposed planning activity is consistent with 44 CFR Part 201 Proposed planning activity is described, including whether it will result in a new or updated hazard mitigation plan (including public involvement, identification of hazards, development of a comprehensive risk/vulnerability assessment, identification of mitigation goals and strategies, and plan implementation) or enhance an existing mitigation plan through a planning-related activity Participating jurisdiction(s) are identified and described A statement is provided on how the overall planning effort will be coordinated SOW is consistent with work schedule and cost estimate (describes entire planning process) For mitigation plan updates, the SOW describes the process that each jurisdiction will complete to review each section of the previous plan and address gaps, as needed; new information (including hazard, land use, and development trends); how the previous plan was implemented; and what process will be used Copy of the plan review document (i.e., review tool or crosswalk) from the FEMA approval of the previous plan is included, if available/applicable
Part X. Appendix H: Eligibility and Completeness Review Checklist for Planning Subapplications
133
Application Component
Yes
No
Comments
Schedule Work schedule of 3 years or less is provided and allows sufficient time for State and FEMA reviews; preparation of required revisions, if needed; formal adoption by the jurisdiction(s); and FEMA approval Cost Estimate Cost estimate supports the SOW and is reasonable for the jurisdictions participating Assurances FEMA Form 20-16A, Assurances Non-Construction Programs FEMA Form 20-16C, Certifications Regarding Lobbying, etc. SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
Part X. Appendix H: Eligibility and Completeness Review Checklist for Planning Subapplications
134
I.
EHP Checklist
“Yes” indicates that the environmental regulation or statute may apply to your project. Environmental Regulation or Statute
Yes
No
National Historic Preservation Act 1.A
Would the proposed project affect, or is the proposed project in close proximity to, any buildings or structures 50 years or more in age?
1.B
Will the proposed project involve disturbance of ground?
Endangered Species Act and Wildlife Coordination Act 2.A
Are federally listed or endangered species, or their critical habitat, present in or near the project area and, if so, which species are present?
2.B
Will the proposed project remove or affect vegetation?
2.C
Is the proposed project in or near (within 200 feet), or likely to affect, any type of waterbody or body of water?
Clean Water Act, Rivers and Harbors Act 3.A
Will the proposed project involve dredging or disposal of dredged material, excavation, the addition of fill material, or result in any modification to water bodies or wetlands designated as “waters of the United States” as identified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or on the National Wetland Inventory?
Executive Order 11988 (Protection of Floodplains) and Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) 4.A
Does a Flood Insurance Rate Map, Flood Hazard Boundary Map, hydrological study, or some other source indicate that the project is located in, or will affect, a 100-year floodplain, a 500-year floodplain (if a critical facility), an identified regulatory floodway, or an area prone to flooding?
4.B
Is the proposed project located in, or will it affect, a wetland as listed in the National Wetland Inventory?
4.C
Will the proposed project alter a watercourse, water flow patterns, or a drainage way, regardless of its floodplain designation?
4.D
Is the proposed project located in, or will it affect, a floodplain or wetland? If yes, the 8-step process summarized in Appendix J must be completed.
Coastal Zone Management Act 5.A
Is the proposed project located in the State’s designated coastal zone?
Farmland Protection Policy Act 6.A
Will the proposed project convert more than 5 acres of “prime or unique” farmland outside city limits to a non-agricultural use?
Resource Conservation Recovery Act and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 7.A
Is there reason to suspect there are contaminants from a current or past use on the property associated with the proposed project?
7.B
Are there are any studies, investigations, or enforcement actions related to the property associated with the proposed project?
7.C
Will any project construction or operation activities involve the use of hazardous or toxic materials?
Part X. Appendix I: EHP Checklist
135
Environmental Regulation or Statute 7.D
Yes
No
Are any of the current or past land uses of the property associated with the proposed project or are any of the adjacent properties associated with hazardous or toxic materials?
Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice for Low Income and Minority Populations) 8.A
Are there any low-income or minority populations in the project’s area of effect or adjacent to the project area?
Other Environmental/Historic Preservation Laws (including applicable State laws) or Issues 9.A
Are other environmental/historic preservation requirements associated with this project?
9.B
Are any controversial issues associated with this project?
9.C
Have any public meetings been conducted, or public comment solicited, on the proposed project?
Part X. Appendix I: EHP Checklist
136
J. 8-Step Decision Making Process for Floodplain Management Considerations Step 1.
Determine whether the proposed action is located in a wetland and/or the 100-year floodplain (500-year floodplain for critical actions) and whether it has the potential to affect or be affected by a floodplain or wetland (see 44 CFR Section 9.7).
Step 2.
Notify the public at the earliest possible time of the intent to carry out an action in a floodplain or wetland, and involve the affected and interested public in the decision-making process (see 44 CFR Section 9.8).
Step 3.
Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating the proposed action in a floodplain or wetland (including alternative sites, actions, and the “no action” option) (see 44 CFR Section 9.9). If a practicable alternative exists outside the floodplain or wetland, FEMA must locate the action at the alternative site.
Step 4.
Identify the potential direct and indirect impacts associated with the occupancy or modification of floodplains and wetlands and the potential direct and indirect support of floodplain and wetland development that could result from the proposed action (see 44 CFR Section 9.10).
Step 5.
Minimize the potential adverse impacts and support to or within floodplains and wetlands to be identified under Step 4, restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains, and preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values served by wetlands (see 44 CFR Section 9.11).
Step 6.
Reevaluate the proposed action to determine first, if it is still practicable in light of its exposure to flood hazards, the extent to which it will aggravate the hazards to others, and its potential to disrupt floodplain and wetland values, and second, if alternatives preliminarily rejected at Step 3 are practicable in light of the information gained in Steps 4 and 5. FEMA shall not act in a floodplain or wetland unless it is the only practicable location (see 44 CFR Section 9.9).
Step 7.
Prepare and provide the public with a finding and public explanation of any final decision that the floodplain or wetland is the only practicable alternative (see 44 CFR Section 9.12).
Step 8.
Review the implementation and post-implementation phases of the proposed action to ensure that the requirements stated in 44 CFR Section 9.11 are fully implemented. Oversight responsibility shall be integrated into existing processes.
Part X. Appendix J: 8-Step Decision Making Process for Floodplain Management Considerations
137
K. Section 106 Process under the National Historic Preservation Act
Part X. Appendix K: Section 106 Process under the National Historic Preservation Act
138
Part X. Appendix K: Section 106 Process under the National Historic Preservation Act
139
L. Application for Advance Assistance Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Advance Assistance Pilot Optional Application The State of _____________ requests $____________ in Advance Assistance1 for DR_________ pursuant to Section 1104 of the Sandy Recovery and Improvement Act (SRIA) of 2013 to accelerate implementation of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The State will use Advance Assistance to develop mitigation strategies and obtain data to prioritize, select and develop complete HMGP applications in a timely manner, as described in the Project Description (Work Scope) below. Disaster and Project Number ____________________________________________________________ Project Title: Advance Funding Request Applicant ___________________________________________________________________________ Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) Code ________________________________________ Applicant’s Agent and Contact Information ________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________
Project Description (Work Scope) List proposed activities, estimated costs and deliverables. (See Advance Assistance Frequently Asked Questions for list of eligible activities). Activity
Estimated Cost
Deliverable
1. 2. 3. (Etc.)
Work Schedule Following is a schedule of proposed milestones by quarter for all major activities by which the State proposes to monitor progress for Advance Assistance:
1
States may apply for up to 25 percent of the estimated total HMGP grant amount or $10 million, whichever is less.
Part X. Appendix L: Application for Advance Assistance
140
Q1 (First Quarter Following Initial Approval) Activity
Milestone
Deliverables
1. 2. 3. (Etc.)
Budget Information Total Estimated Cost (Federal and non-Federal cost) _________________________________________ Total Federal Cost ____________________________________________________________________
Line Item Budget The State may request that FEMA obligate Advance Assistance funds incrementally, based on when the State needs the funds. Please list the obligation schedule by activity below. Activity
Initial Amount Requested
Second Amount Requested
Third Amount Requested
Total Requested
1, 2, 3. (Etc.)
Additional Information Section Provide any relevant information or explanation.
Part X. Appendix L: Application for Advance Assistance
141
HAZARD ANALYSIS
The hazard identification and ranking were obtained primarily from the Paramount Hazard Identification Workshop. The Hazard Identification Workshop was conducted as a participatory Steering Committee workshop to identify the potential hazards within the City. The Hazard Identification Workshop was facilitated using an interactive software spreadsheet that asked specific questions on potential hazards and then rated them accordingly. These questions guide the team in the correct facilitation and application of the program. The following information summarizes the Hazard Identification Workshop risk ranking results, including the descriptions of each hazard factor, and provides the specific descriptor choices for each risk factor and description. Additionally, a risk ranking matrix is provided to designate the overall ranking score and categorization of each hazard.
Hazard Identification and Risk Ranking Each hazard profile included a profile ranking of the hazard (ranging from low risk to high risk). The Steering Committee determined this initial profile ranking based on all of the hazard identification and profile research summarized and group discussion and evaluation of all of the data, including numerical rankings (1-5) of the following criteria: •
Consequence/Severity – How widespread is the impact area?
•
Secondary Effects – Could the event trigger another event and separate response?
•
Probability/Frequency – Historical view of how often this type of event occurs locally and projected recurrence intervals.
•
Warning/Onset – Advance warning of the event, or none.
•
Duration – Length of elapsed time where response resources are active.
•
Recovery – Length of time until lives and property return to normal.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
C-1
Table C.1: Risk Factor for Hazard Identification Risk Factor
Probability/ Frequency
Description
Prediction of how often a hazard will occur in the future
Physical Damage - structures and lifelines Consequence/ Economic Impact – loss of Severity function for power, water, sanitation, roads, etc.
Vulnerability
Impact Area - area impacted by a hazard event Secondary Impacts Capability of triggering additional hazards Onset - Period of time between initial recognition of an approaching hazard and when the hazard begins to impact the community
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Descriptors
Value
Infeasible event - not applicable due to geographic location characteristics
0
Rare event - occurs less than once every 50 years
1
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive)
2
Regular event - occurs between once a year and once every 7 years
3
Frequent event - occurs more than once a year
4
No damage
1
Minor/slight damage to buildings and structures, no loss of lifelines
2
Moderate building damage, minor loss of lifelines (less than 12 hours)
3
Moderate building damage, lifeline loss (less than 24 hours)
4
Extensive building damage, widespread loss of lifelines (water, gas, electricity, sanitation, roads), loss of life
5
No physical damage, no secondary impacts
1
Localized damage area
2
Localized damage area, minor secondary impacts, delayed hazard onset
3
Moderate damage area, moderate secondary impacts, moderate warning time
4
Widespread damage area, significant secondary impacts, no warning time
5
C-2
Each profile includes a ranking of the hazard. The hazard rankings were determined by assigning each hazard the appropriate risk factors as described above. The risk factors were then used with a hazard ranking matrix to determine the final hazard score. The following table provides the matrix used for determining each hazard’s score. Table C.2: Risk Ranking Matrix Probability/Frequency Description
Risk Ranking Matrix Probability/Frequency Value
Rare Event: Occurs less than once every 50 years Vulnerability
1 1 2 3 4 5
Probability/Frequency
Infrequent Event: Occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive)
Value
Vulnerability
2 1 2 3 4 5
Probability/Frequency
Regular Event: Occurs between once a year and once every 7 years
Value
Vulnerability
3 1 2 3 4 5
Probability/Frequency Value
Frequent Event: Occurs more than once a year Vulnerability
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Consequence/Severity 1 1 2 3 4 5
2 2 4 6 8 10
3 3 6 9 12 15
4 4 8 12 16 20
5 5 10 15 20 25
Consequence/Severity 1 2 4 6 8 10
2 4 8 12 16 20
3 6 12 18 24 30
4 8 16 24 32 40
5 10 20 30 40 50
Consequence/Severity 1 3 6 9 12 15
2 6 12 18 24 30
3 9 18 27 36 45
4 12 24 36 48 60
5 15 30 45 60 75
Consequence/Severity
4
1
2
1
4
8
2
8
16
3
12
24
4
16
32
5
20
40
3 1 2 2 4 3 6 4 8 6 0
4
5
16
20
32
40
48
60
64
80
80
100
C-3
The hazard scores from the Hazard Ranking Matrix were compared to the hazard rank criteria to finally categorize each hazard with a hazard ranking. The table below provides the value determinations for each hazard ranking. Table C.3: Risk Rank Categorization High Hazard
50 to 100
Moderately High Hazard
25 to 49
Moderate Hazard
15 to 24
Moderately Low Hazard
5 to 14
Low Hazard
1 to 4
The hazard ranking worksheets are provided in the following pages.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
C-4
Table C.4: Hazard Identification and Risk Ranking
Earthquake Rank Factors
Hazard Factor Description
Probability/Frequency Consequence/Severity Vulnerability Risk Comments
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive) Extensive building damage, widespread loss of lifelines (water, gas, electricity, sanitation, roads), loss of life Widespread damage area, significant secondary impacts, no warning time High
Rank 2 5 5 50
Adversarial Events Rank Factors
Hazard Factor Description
Probability Vulnerability Consequence
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive) Moderate building damage, lifeline loss (less than 24 hours), severe injury or disability Moderate damage area, moderate secondary impacts, moderate warning time
Rank 2 4 4
Risk Comments
Moderately High Consider Adversarial events - Jefferey Dorner - targeted LAPD 10 years ago
32
Utility Loss Rank Factors
Hazard Factor Description
Probability Consequence Vulnerability
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive) Minor/slight damage to buildings and structures, no loss of lifelines, first aid injury and no disability Localized damage area
2 3 3
Risk Comments
Moderate
18
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Rank
C-5
Hazardous Material Release Rank Factors
Hazard Factor Description
Rank
Probability Consequence
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive) Moderate building damage, minor loss of lifelines (less than 12 hours), lost time injury but no disability
2 3
Vulnerability Risk Comments
Localized damage area, minor secondary impacts, delayed hazard onset Moderate Focus on World Energy and one other RMP site. 30 years ago, a facility released a hazmat. Some injury.
3 18
Homelessness Rank Factors
Hazard Factor Description
Rank
Probability
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive)
3
Consequence
Minor/slight damage to buildings and structures, no loss of lifelines, first aid injury and no disability
2
Vulnerability Risk Comments
No physical damage, no secondary impacts Moderate
3 18
Urban Fire Rank Factors
Hazard Factor Description
Probability
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive)
2
Consequence
Moderate building damage, minor loss of lifelines (less than 12 hours), lost time injury but no disability
3
Vulnerability
Localized damage area
2
Risk Comments
Moderately Low
12
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Rank
C-6
Pipeline Failure Rank Factors
Hazard Factor Description
Rank
Probability
Rare event - occurs less than once every 50 years
1
Consequence
Moderate building damage, minor loss of lifelines (less than 12 hours), lost time injury but no disability
3
Vulnerability
Localized damage area, minor secondary impacts, delayed hazard onset
3
Risk Comments
Moderately Low The Steering Committee noted that there are many small explosions at the refinery
9
Flood/Dam Failure Rank Factors
Hazard Factor Description
Rank
Probability
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive)
2
Consequence
Minor/slight damage to buildings and structures, no loss of lifelines, first aid injury and no disability
2
Vulnerability
Localized damage area
2
Risk Comments
Moderately Low 8 The Steering Committee noted that the potential flood hazard was previously higher, but, since the previous Plan, additional work has been performed to reduce the risk of Flood. Balancing dam failure probability with localized events
Destructive Winds Rank Factors
Hazard Factor Description
Probability
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive)
2
Consequence Vulnerability Risk Comments
Minor/slight damage to buildings and structures, no loss of lifelines, first aid injury and no disability Localized damage area Moderately Low
2 2 8
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Rank
C-7
Drought Rank Factors
Hazard Factor Description
Rank
Probability
Regular event - occurs between once a year and once every 7 years
3
Consequence Vulnerability
Minor/slight damage to buildings and structures, no loss of lifelines, first aid injury and no disability No physical damage, no secondary impacts
2 1
Risk Comments
Moderately Low According to many new outlets, a “Megadrought” might be expected in the near future.
6
Disease Outbreak Rank Factors
Hazard Factor Description
Probability Consequence Vulnerability Risk Comments
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive) No damage Localized damage area, minor secondary impacts, delayed hazard onset Moderately Low
Rank 2 1 3 6
Civil Unrest Rank Factors
Hazard Factor Description
Probability Consequence Vulnerability Risk Comments
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive) Minor/slight damage to buildings and structures, no loss of lifelines, first aid injury and no disability No physical damage, no secondary impacts Low
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Rank 2 2 1 4
C-8
Transportation Accident/Incident Rank Factors
Hazard Factor Description
Probability Consequence Vulnerability Risk Comments
Regular event - occurs between once a year and once every 7 years No damage No physical damage, no secondary impacts Low The Steering Committee noted that an incident occurred where a car hit a transformer resulting in a loss of power to a hospital
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
Rank 3 1 1 3
C-9
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
In order to facilitate the development of a Hazard Mitigation Plan that includes valuable input from the community, the City of Paramount (City) solicited public involvement on the Hazard Mitigation Planning Steering Committee, which had the primary responsibility of providing guidance for detailing and ranking the hazards included within the Plan. The table on the following page provides the information and attendance for the Steering Committee participants. Participation on the Steering Committee included attending periodic Steering Committee meetings, identifying and ranking hazards, developing mitigation goals and objectives, compiling the asset inventory and conducting the loss estimates, identifying current mitigation efforts and potential mitigation projects, and reviewing chapters of the Plan throughout the development process. The pages following the Steering Committee Participants table provide announcements, presentation materials and discussion topics from the Steering Committee meetings.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
D-1
Name
Affiliation
Title
SCM 1
SCM 2
SCM 3
SCM 4
SCM 5
Ryan Bray
Risk Management Professionals
Project Coordinator
X
X
X
X
X
Terry Cahoon
City of Paramount
Assistant Finance Director
Mike Carrillo
City of Paramount
Finance
X
Bill Clausen
American Red Cross
Volunteer Board Member
X
Jaime DeGuzman
City of Paramount
PT Accountant
Lou Demari
Los Angeles County Fire Department
Captain
Cindy DiPaola
Paramount Unified School District
Director of Operations
X
Dez Ganillo
Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department
Detective
X
Jason Jacobsen
City of Paramount
Management Analyst
X
Stephen Kucharczk
-
Resident
X
Jeff Lee
Los Angeles Fire Department
Fire Prevention Inspector
Adriana Lopez
City of Paramount
Assistant Public Safety Director
X
X
Wendy Macias
City of Paramount
Community Development Planner
X
X
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
D-2
Name
Affiliation
Title
SCM 1
SCM 2
SCM 3
SCM 4
Carlos Mendoza
City of Paramount
Public Safety
X
X
X
X
Sara Ho
City of Paramount
Management Analyst
X
X
X
X
Janene Ottaiano
City of Paramount
Human Resources Manager
X
X
X
X
Tony Pena
City of Paramount
Recreation Supervisor
X
X
X
La Fonda Riggins
Los Angeles County Fire Department
Community Service Representative
X
Carlos Sanchez
Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department
Sergeant
X
Colin Scholtz
Risk Management Professionals
Project Engineer
X
X
X
Martene Vargas
City of Paramount
Recreation Supervisor
Justin Willis
Promise Hospital: Suburban Medical Center
Director of Facilities
X
Michael Zymkowitz
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Detective Bureau Sargent
X
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan
SCM 5
X
X
X
X
X
D-3
Steering Committee Announcements
Potential Steering Committee Participants The following list outlines potential Steering Committee participants that should be invited to the initial meeting. The invitation should be documented to be included in the Hazard Mitigation Plan as evidence of public and stakeholder outreach.
An article
should also be run in the local newspaper and on the City website to solicit public involvement. 1. City of Paramount Planning and Safety Representatives 2. Public Works Representatives 3. Engineering Representatives 4. Local Fire Department Representatives 5. Local Police Department Representatives 6. Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Services Representatives 7. Local Hospital Representatives 8. Local School Representatives 9. Interested Public Representatives 10. Neighboring Communities
Risk Management Professionals
1
Steering Committee Meeting #1
CITY OF PARAMOUNT HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE #1
Ryan Bray Risk Management Professionals, Inc. (949) 282-0123 (877) 532-0806 www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
DISCUSSION TOPICS
• Project Overview and Background • Planning Team Goals
• Risk Assessment & Hazard Ranking • Information Collection
www.RMPCorp.com
PROJECT OVERVIEW
www.RMPCorp.com
DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000 • Revitalized Federal Planning Requirements • State and Local Hazard Mitigation Plans • Plans must be updated every five years • Federal Grant Funding Eligibility • Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) • Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM) • Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 is intended to facilitate cooperation between state and local authorities on risk reduction measures and to expedite funding allocation www.RMPCorp.com
PUBLIC PROCESS
www.RMPCorp.com
• DMA 2000 Stresses Public Participation • An open public involvement process that is comprehensive, starts early and continuous • Coordination with neighboring communities and various interest groups in Plan development
CLIMATE CHANGE • California Adaptation Planning Guide (APG) Revised 2020 • APG released in response to several Executive Orders encouraging research of and response to climate change • Paramount is located in the South Coast Region. The City should consider the following hazards ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪
Increased Temperatures Reduced Precipitation Sea Level Rise Wildfire Risk Public Health (heat and air quality)
www.RMPCorp.com
PLANNING TEAM GOALS
www.RMPCorp.com
Review existing Plan for implementation
Review the list of potential hazards and add additional hazards for the revision
Determine the hazard impacts throughout the City of Paramount
Interface with partner agencies to determine existing mitigation measures
Develop possible approaches to projects which will reduce the impacts
Prioritize mitigation projects for implementation
PLANNING TEAM MEETING SCHEDULE • Meeting #1– Project Initiation and Hazard Identification • Meeting #2 - Review and Update Goals and Objectives • Meeting #3 - Asset Inventory and Vulnerability Assessment • Meeting #4 - Mitigation Action Identification
• Meeting #5 - Mitigation Project Benefit-Cost Review
www.RMPCorp.com
RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
www.RMPCorp.com
RISK ASSESSMENT – POTENTIAL HAZARDS • Earthquake • • HazMat Release/Industrial • Accident/Refinery Explosion • • Terrorism/WMD • Pipeline Failure • • Urban Fire • • Transportation Accident • Drought • Utility Loss www.RMPCorp.com
Flood Severe Weather & Destructive Winds Biological/Human Disease Civil Unrest/Riots Other?
RISK ASSESSMENT – CLIMATE CHANGE HAZARDS • • • • • • • •
Increased Temperatures Reduced Precipitation Sea Level Rise Reduced Tourism Reduced Water Supply Wildfire Risk Public Health – heat and air quality Coastal Erosion
www.RMPCorp.com
RISK RANK METHODOLOGY • The risk ranking is facilitated using an automated interactive software spreadsheet program that asks specific questions on potential hazards and then assigns a relative value to each potential hazard accordingly. • The result of the workshop will be a ranked list of hazards to be studied in detail in the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
www.RMPCorp.com
HAZARD RANKING WORKSHEET www.RMPCorp.com
Interval – Prediction RISK RANKING – • Recurrence of how often a hazard will occur in the future, including projected PROBABILITY/ return intervals FREQUENCY
www.RMPCorp.com
RISK RANKING – CONSEQUENCE/ SEVERITY Consequence/ Severity Rank Descriptors
www.RMPCorp.com
• Physical Damage – Structures and lifelines • Economic Impact – Loss of power, water, sanitation, roads, etc.
RISK RANKING – VULNERABILITY
www.RMPCorp.com
• Impact Area – Area impacted by a hazard event • Secondary Impacts – Capability of triggering additional hazards • Onset - Period of time between initial recognition of an approaching hazard and when the hazard begins to impact the community
RISK RANKING MATRIX
www.RMPCorp.com
CONTACT INFORMATION
Ryan Bray Technical Consultant Ryan.Bray@RMPCorp.com Risk Management Professionals, Inc. (949) 282-0123 (877) 532-0806 www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
Steering Committee Meeting #2
CITY OF PARAMOUNT HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE #2
Ryan Bray Risk Management Professionals, Inc. (949) 282-0123 (877) 532-0806 www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
DISCUSSION TOPICS
www.RMPCorp.com
•
Review Hazard Rankings
•
HMP Goals and Objectives
•
Review and Update Asset Inventory List
HAZARD RANKING REVIEW
www.RMPCorp.com
RISK RANKING METHODOLOGY
• The risk ranking is facilitated using an automated interactive software spreadsheet program that asks specific questions on potential hazards and then assigns a relative value to each potential hazard accordingly. • The result of the exercise was a ranked list of hazards to be studied in detail in the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
www.RMPCorp.com
RISK RANKING METHODOLOGY
www.RMPCorp.com
RISK RANKING METHODOLOGY
www.RMPCorp.com
RISK RANKING
www.RMPCorp.com
MITIGATION GOALS & OBJECTIVES
www.RMPCorp.com
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
www.RMPCorp.com
• Review Previous HMP Goals and Objectives • Engage in discussions to review and develop Goals and Objectives specific to the needs of the City of Paramount
PREVIOUS PLAN GOALS Protect Lives and Property
Support the priorities of the City of Paramount, its mandates, employees, students, residents and the business community.
Promote development consistent with seismic, floodplain and risk management guidance as developed by the City of Paramount and its agencies and/or organizations.
Ensure all codes and standards are consistent with hazard mitigation.
www.RMPCorp.com
Promote the recognition of the real value of hazard mitigation to public facilities, public safety and the welfare of all residents in the City of Paramount.
Support the mitigation efforts of residents, non-profit organizations, communitybased organization and private business throughout the City.
NEXT STEPS…
www.RMPCorp.com
Review Asset Inventory
ASSET INVENTORY
• Types and number of existing and future buildings • Infrastructure • Critical Facilities Loss Estimates • Review each asset category and assign potential percentage of damage expected due to each identified hazard
www.RMPCorp.com
CONTACT INFORMATION
Ryan Bray Technical Consultant Ryan.Bray@RMPCorp.com Risk Management Professionals, Inc. (949) 282-0123 (877) 532-0806 www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
Steering Committee Meeting #3
CITY OF PARAMOUNT HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE #3
Ryan Bray Risk Management Professionals, Inc. (949) 282-0123 (877) 532-0806 www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
DISCUSSION TOPICS
www.RMPCorp.com
•
Validate Asset Inventory List
•
Complete Vulnerability Assessment (Loss Estimate Calculations) ▪
Assign estimated percent damage to each asset from the identified hazards
HAZARD RANKING REVIEW
www.RMPCorp.com
RISK RANKING Rank High Earthquake Moderately High Adversarial Events Moderate Urban Fire Hazardous Materials Release Homelessness Moderately Low Utility Loss Pipeline Failure Flood/Dam Failure Destructive Winds Drought Disease Outbreak Low Civil Unrest Transportation Accident/Incident www.RMPCorp.com
Score 50 32 18 18 18 12 9 8 8 6 6 4 3
ASSET Asset Inventory INVENTORY AND •• Validate Conduct Vulnerability Assessment (Loss Estimates) VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT www.RMPCorp.com
ASSET INVENTORY • Validate Asset Inventory ▪ Types and number of existing and future buildings ▪ Infrastructure ▪ Critical Facilities
www.RMPCorp.com
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ESTIMATES
• Review each asset and assign potential percentage of damage expected due to each identified hazard
www.RMPCorp.com
NEXT STEPS…
www.RMPCorp.com
Develop Mitigation Actions
MITIGATION ACTION WORKSHEET
www.RMPCorp.com
• Summarize mitigation project specifications • Identify project goal categories • Capital Improvements Action Categories • Prevention • Property Protection • Public Awareness • Natural Resource Protection • Emergency Services • Structural Projects
CONTACT INFORMATION
Ryan Bray Technical Consultant Ryan.Bray@RMPCorp.com Risk Management Professionals, Inc. (949) 282-0123 (877) 532-0806 www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
Steering Committee Meeting #4
CITY OF PARAMOUNT HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE #4
Ryan Bray Risk Management Professionals, Inc. (949) 282-0123 (877) 532-0806 www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
DISCUSSION TOPICS
www.RMPCorp.com
•
Review Mitigation Goals and Objectives
•
Develop Potential Mitigation Projects
•
Discuss Next Steps
HAZARD RANKING REVIEW
www.RMPCorp.com
HAZARD RANKING SUMMARY
www.RMPCorp.com
MITIGATION GOALS & OBJECTIVES REVIEW
www.RMPCorp.com
HMP GOALS • Protect Life, Property, and Commerce • Improve Environmental Sustainability • Encourage Participation in Resiliency Efforts • Update Codes & Standards to Promote Resiliency
• Enhance Emergency Management Capabilities www.RMPCorp.com
IDENTIFY POTENTIAL MITIGATION ACTIONS
www.RMPCorp.com
MITIGATION ACTION CATEGORIES • Prevention • Property Protection • Public Education and Awareness
• Natural Resource Protection • Emergency Services • Structural Projects
www.RMPCorp.com
EARTHQUAKE EXAMPLE MITIGATION PROJECTS
www.RMPCorp.com
•
Building Retrofits
•
Anchor Electrical Transformers
•
Install Expansion Joints
•
Reinforce Well Shaft or Install Submersible Pump
•
Restrain Pipes
•
Improve Pipe Materials
•
Install Tank Anchors
•
Install Friction Dampers on Elevated Tanks
ADVERSARIAL EVENTS EXAMPLE MITIGATION PROJECTS
www.RMPCorp.com
•
Emergency Plans
•
Emergency Response Teams
•
Security
•
Training
URBAN FIRE EXAMPLE MITIGATION PROJECTS
www.RMPCorp.com
•
Community Awareness
•
Fire-safe Practices for Structures and Landscaping
•
Enhancement of FireSuppression Capabilities
•
Fire Risk Mapping
HAZMAT RELEASE EXAMPLE MITIGATION PROJECTS
www.RMPCorp.com
•
Emergency Plans
•
Transportation
•
Disposal
•
Emergency Response Teams
•
Industrial Site Buffering
•
Pipeline Location and Design
•
Digging Hotlines
•
Contingency Planning
•
Improvements to Maps and Records
HOMELESSNESS EVENT EXAMPLE MITIGATION PROJECTS
www.RMPCorp.com
•
Emergency Plans
•
Outreach Campaigns
•
Housing Options
•
Rehabilitation Programs
•
Training
UTILITY LOSS EVENT EXAMPLE MITIGATION PROJECTS
www.RMPCorp.com
•
Contingency Planning
•
Enhancement of Emergency Response Teams
•
Emergency Fuel and Water Distribution and Storage Systems
•
Preparedness and Response Plans
PIPELINE FAILURE EXAMPLE MITIGATION PROJECTS
www.RMPCorp.com
•
Emergency Plans
•
Transportation
•
Disposal
•
Emergency Response Teams
•
Industrial Site Buffering
•
Pipeline Location and Design
•
Digging Hotlines
•
Contingency Planning
•
Improvements to Maps and Records
FLOOD/DAM FAILURE EXAMPLE MITIGATION PROJECTS
www.RMPCorp.com
•
Acquisition, Relocation, & Elevation Projects
•
Dry-Floodproofing (e.g., plastic sheeting)
•
Wet-Floodproofing (e.g., water resistant materials)
•
Stormwater Management Ordinances or Amendments
•
Floodplain Ordinances or Amendments
•
Storm Drainage System Improvements
•
Structural Flood Control Measures (e.g., levees, dams, floodwalls) Inundation Zone Mapping
•
Preparedness and Response Plans
•
Notification Systems
•
Structural Storage Tank Reservoir Improvements
DESTRUCTIVE WINDS EXAMPLE MITIGATION PROJECTS
www.RMPCorp.com
•
Implement Tree Trimming
•
Retrofits
•
Anchoring
•
Traffic Light Upgrades
DROUGHT EXAMPLE MITIGATION PROJECTS
www.RMPCorp.com
•
Water Use Ordinances
•
Contingency Plans
•
Emergency Water Distribution and Storage Systems
•
Water Conservation Education
•
System Retrofits
•
Leak Detection Programs
DISEASE OUTBREAK EXAMPLE MITIGATION PROJECTS
www.RMPCorp.com
•
Emergency Planning
•
Coordination with appropriate agencies
CIVIL UNREST EVENT EXAMPLE MITIGATION PROJECTS
www.RMPCorp.com
•
Emergency Plans
•
Emergency Response Teams
•
Security
•
Training
TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT EXAMPLE MITIGATION PROJECTS
www.RMPCorp.com
•
Enhancement of Emergency Response Teams
•
Airport/Freeway/Rail Site Buffering
•
Contingency and Emergency Planning
NEXT STEPS…
www.RMPCorp.com
NEXT STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING • The Next Steering Committee meeting will consist of a Benefit-Cost Review of the identified Mitigation Actions:
www.RMPCorp.com
CONTACT INFORMATION
Ryan Bray Technical Consultant Ryan.Bray@RMPCorp.com Risk Management Professionals, Inc. (949) 282-0123 (877) 532-0806 www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
Steering Committee Meeting #5
CITY OF PARAMOUNT HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE #5
Ryan Bray Risk Management Professionals, Inc. (949) 282-0123 (877) 532-0806 www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
DISCUSSION TOPICS www.RMPCorp.com
• Conduct a Benefit-Cost Review of Mitigation Projects • Discuss schedule for last steps of update process
BENEFIT-COST REVIEW
www.RMPCorp.com
PURPOSE OF BENEFIT-COST REVIEW • FEMA requires the Steering Committee to prioritize actions for implementation • The process is designed to help the Steering Committee weigh pros and cons for each action • RMP’s method utilizes a qualitative methodology with a High, Medium, and Low range ▪ High – Benefits are perceived to exceed costs without further study or evaluations; or the action is critical ▪ Medium – Benefits are perceived to exceed costs, but may require further study or evaluation prior to implementation ▪ Low – Benefits and costs require evaluation prior to implementation
www.RMPCorp.com
BENEFIT-COST REVIEW • Review each identified mitigation project and quantify the benefits and costs of implementing each project ▪ Assign a priority based on the benefit-cost review
www.RMPCorp.com
BENEFIT-COST REVIEW EXAMPLE • Example from FEMA
www.RMPCorp.com
NEXT STEPS…
www.RMPCorp.com
NEXT STEPS…
The Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan will be provided to each member for review. Once comments are implemented, the Public Review Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan will be presented at a City Council meeting: City Council Meeting: Date TBD
www.RMPCorp.com
CONTACT INFORMATION
Ryan Bray Technical Consultant Ryan.Bray@RMPCorp.com Risk Management Professionals, Inc. (949) 282-0123 (877) 532-0806 www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
City Council Meeting and Public Review
2025 County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan Chief Executive Office - Office of Emergency Management
Page 1 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Acknowledgement The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors gratefully acknowledges the following agencies/jurisdictions who contributed to the development of this plan. County Departments Aging and Disabilities
Public Health
Chief Executive Office
Public Social Services
Chief Sustainability Office
Public Works
Beaches and Harbors
Regional Planning
Economic Opportunity
Fire (LACoFD)
Health Services
Internal Services
Human Resources
Sheriff (LASD)
Parks and Recreation Disaster Management Area Coordinators State of California California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) California State Council on Developmental Disabilities (SCCD) External Partners Access Services
Lanterman Regional Center
Alzheimer’s Association
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Catholic Charities
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
City of Beverly Hills
Los Angeles County Metropolitan
City of Long Beach Disability Community Resource Center Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center Emergency Network Los Angeles Habitat for Humanity Harbor Regional Center
Transportation Authority Los Angeles Regional Food Bank Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County Puente Hills Habitat Preservation Authority South Central Los Angeles Regional Center Westside Regional Center
Cover Photo Credits: Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office, Countywide Communications Branch; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
Page 1 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Table of Contents Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................. 1 Letter of Promulgation ........................................................................................................... 2 1
2
3
4
Introduction, Purpose, and Scope ................................................................................ 6 1.1
Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 7
1.2
Scope ......................................................................................................................... 7
1.3
Legal Authority and Requirements ......................................................................... 7
1.4
Plan Organization ..................................................................................................... 8
Planning Process ............................................................................................................. 9 2.1
Overview of the Planning Process ........................................................................ 10
2.2
Stakeholder Engagement...................................................................................... 13
2.3
Public Involvement and Outreach ........................................................................ 18
2.4
Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans and Reports .................................. 19
Community Profile ........................................................................................................ 22 3.1
Los Angeles County Overview .............................................................................. 23
3.2
Geography and Land Use ..................................................................................... 24
3.3
Social Vulnerability ................................................................................................. 25
3.4
Economy and Critical Infrastructure ..................................................................... 28
3.5
Climate and Environmental Conditions ............................................................... 29
3.6
Regional Collaboration and Planning Efforts ...................................................... 30
3.7
Implications for Hazard Mitigation Planning ....................................................... 31
Climate Change ............................................................................................................ 32 4.1
Climate Change Overview .................................................................................... 33
4.2
Integrating Climate Change into Hazard Profiles ............................................... 34
4.3
Climate Mitigation Strategies ................................................................................ 36
4.4
Climate Change Conclusion ................................................................................. 37 Page 3 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
5
6
7
Integrating Access and Functional Needs (AFN) into Hazard Mitigation .............. 38 5.1
AFN Introduction .................................................................................................... 39
5.2
Inclusion of AFN and Vulnerable Populations in Planning ................................ 39
5.3
Assessment of AFN Needs .................................................................................... 40
5.4
Coordination with AFN Support Agencies .......................................................... 42
5.5
AFN Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 42
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment ............................................................... 43 6.1
Hazard Identification Overview............................................................................. 44
6.2
Wildfire..................................................................................................................... 49
6.3
Earthquake .............................................................................................................. 57
6.4
Extreme Heat ........................................................................................................... 67
6.5
Drought .................................................................................................................... 74
6.6
Flooding .................................................................................................................. 82
6.7
Dam Failure ............................................................................................................. 92
6.8
Land Movement .................................................................................................... 102
6.9
Tsunami .................................................................................................................. 114
6.10
Severe Wind and Tornado ............................................................................... 120
6.11
Mass Violence .................................................................................................... 130
6.12
Cybersecurity Incidents .................................................................................... 135
6.13
Transportation Incidents................................................................................... 142
6.14
Public Health Emergencies .............................................................................. 147
Mitigation Strategy...................................................................................................... 152 7.1
Mitigation Strategy Overview.............................................................................. 153
7.2
Mitigation Goals and Objectives ........................................................................ 153
7.3
Existing Mitigation Capabilities .......................................................................... 155
7.4
Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Strategies ......................................... 172 Page 4 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
8
9
7.5
Status of Previous Mitigation Efforts ................................................................... 184
7.6
Prioritization and Implementation of Mitigation Actions ................................. 186
7.7
Integration with Other Plans ............................................................................... 189
7.8
Mitigation Action Plan .......................................................................................... 191
Plan Maintenance........................................................................................................ 196 8.1
Community Participation in Plan Maintenance ................................................. 197
8.2
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Maintenance......................................................... 198
8.3
Criteria for Updating the Hazard Mitigation Plan ............................................. 199
8.4
Plan Update ........................................................................................................... 200
8.5
Integration with Other Plans ............................................................................... 201
Plan Adoption .............................................................................................................. 202 9.1
Plan Adoption Overview ...................................................................................... 203
Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 204
Page 5 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
1 Introduction, Purpose, and Scope
Page 6 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
1.1 Purpose The 2025 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan (AHMP) was developed in collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders representing County Departments and other external stakeholders from cities, local utilities, non-governmental organizations, and state agencies. The purpose of this AHMP is to form the strategic-level foundation for hazard mitigation efforts undertaken by the County of Los Angeles. The 2025 AHMP is an update to the 2020 version of the plan and seeks to maintain the County’s continuing commitment to hazard mitigation as a critical step in reducing hazard risks, making communities safer, and building countywide resilience.
1.2 Scope Hazard mitigation is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards.” This AHMP identifies and profiles hazards, analyzes the people and critical infrastructure at risk, and provides a series of mitigation strategies aimed at reducing hazard risk. The plan also describes actions to integrate vulnerable communities including people with Access and Functional Needs (AFN) into hazard mitigation planning and other efforts. The AHMP is intended to function as a strategic plan for hazard mitigation and, while not an emergency plan, complements the Los Angeles County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan. This plan contains mitigation strategies for County-owned facilities or other areas under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles. Hazard mitigation strategies for incorporated cities within Los Angeles County may be found in that city’s hazard mitigation plan.
1.3 Legal Authority and Requirements Historically local hazard mitigation planning has been driven by federal law. The Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000 amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 with new requirements for hazard mitigation. The DMA of 2000 emphasized the need for state, tribal, and local entities to closely coordinate on hazard mitigation efforts and formed the legal basis for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) current mitigation plan requirements in order to utilize Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant programs. This plan was prepared
Page 7 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
pursuant to the requirements set forth in the DMA of 2000 and other FEMA hazard mitigation policy guidance.
1.4 Plan Organization The AHMP is organized into nine (9) sections, excluding the Appendices, including: 1. Introduction: Discusses the purpose, scope, and legal authority of the plan. 2. Planning Process: Describes the planning process that was undertaken by the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee to create this updated 2025 AHMP. 3. Community Profile: Overviews the unique geographic, climatic, environmental, and socioeconomic factors that make up Los Angeles County and their implications for hazard mitigation planning. 4. Climate Change: Outlines the impacts of climate change in Los Angeles County and potential mitigation and adaptation measures. 5. Integrating AFN into Hazard Mitigation: Discusses strategies for integrating people with Access and Functional Needs (AFN) into prevention and hazard mitigation efforts. 6. Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment: Identifies and profiles nine (9) natural and four (4) human-caused hazards that may impact Los Angeles County including: wildfire, earthquake, extreme heat, drought, flooding, dam failure, land movement, tsunami, severe wind and tornado, mass violence, cybersecurity incidents, transportation incidents, and public health emergencies. 7. Mitigation Strategy: Delineates the overall strategy for the County’s hazard mitigation efforts including goals and objectives, existing mitigation capabilities, and an analysis of mitigation actions. 8. Plan Maintenance: Outlines how the plan will be maintained annually ahead of the next full plan update in five years. 9. Plan Adoption: Discusses updates to the plan and implementation following plan adoption. Following these sections, there are an additional six (6) appendices with supporting materials such as hazard maps, meeting minutes from planning meetings, and information about the public engagement efforts during the planning process.
Page 8 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
2 Planning Process
Page 9 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
2.1 Overview of the Planning Process The 2025 Los Angeles County All-Hazard Mitigation Plan (AHMP) update builds upon the robust all-hazard planning framework established by the 2020 All-Hazards Mitigation Plan, while incorporating new methodologies, stakeholder engagement, and compliance requirements. The planning process for this update emphasized inclusivity, transparency, and the integration of emerging climate adaptation considerations. This planning process followed a structured, phased approach aligned with FEMA’s Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide (2022), 44 CFR requirements, and guidance from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). This approach began with project initiation where the scope, timeline, and stakeholders were defined. Stakeholder and public engagement were prioritized to ensure representation from diverse groups, including historically underrepresented communities and climatevulnerable populations. Data collection and analysis leveraged updated hazard, climate, and vulnerability data from local, state, and federal sources, providing a foundation for enhanced risk and vulnerability assessments. Hazard profiles were updated to include climate projections and cascading impact scenarios. Mitigation strategies were revised and prioritized with a renewed focus on climate resilience and nature-based solutions. Strategies were also developed incorporating people with access and functional needs throughout each component of the AHMP. Finally, methods for monitoring and evaluation of mitigation efforts were defined in the plan maintenance and implementation strategy. Table 2-1 provides a timeline of the major plan update tasks and milestones over the planning process. Table 2-1 AMHP Planning Timeline Date
February 2025
Tasks
People Involved
Reviewed the 2020 AHMP and identified components that require update.
OEM AHMP Project Team
Collected and reviewed existing documents, including the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) along with resources for people with access and functional
OEM AHMP Project Team
Page 10 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Date
Tasks needs and people experiencing homelessness.
People Involved
Met with state Hazard Mitigation
OEM AHMP Project Team, Cal OES Mitigation Division
Planning Team.
February 2025
Identified the initial list of stakeholders and ensured organizations that work with and represent people with access and functional needs were engaged in the planning process. External stakeholders include neighboring communities, local and regional agencies, and others.
OEM AHMP Project Team
Conducted 2025 AHMP Kickoff Meetings with internal stakeholders.
OEM AHMP Project Team, Internal County Stakeholder Group, Cal OES Mitigation Division
Determined hazards to be profiled including both natural (i.e., wildland fire, earthquake, etc.) and human-caused (i.e., cybersecurity, terrorism, etc.).
OEM AHMP Project Team, Internal County Stakeholder Group, External Stakeholder Group
Drafted initial sections of the 2025 AHMP.
OEM AHMP Project Team
Shared drafts of initial sections with internal and external stakeholders for their review.
OEM AHMP Project Team, Internal County Stakeholder Group, External Stakeholder Group, Cal OES Mitigation Division
Met with internal and external stakeholders to obtain feedback on draft plan elements.
OEM AHMP Project Team, Internal County Stakeholder Group, External Stakeholder Group, Cal OES Mitigation Division
Page 11 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Date
March 2025
April/May 2025
Tasks
People Involved
Developed the Public Outreach Engagement Plan to collect feedback from the public on the public draft of the 2025 AHMP.
OEM AHMP Project Team, Cal OES Mitigation Division
Drafted subsequent sections of the 2025 AHMP including updating existing mitigation actions and developing new mitigation actions as needed.
OEM AHMP Project Team
Shared drafts of the subsequent sections with internal and external stakeholders for their review.
OEM AHMP Project Team, Internal County Stakeholder Group, External Stakeholder Group, Cal OES Mitigation Division
Met with internal and external stakeholders to obtain feedback on subsequent draft plan elements.
OEM AHMP Project Team, Internal County Stakeholder Group, External Stakeholder Group, Cal OES Mitigation Division
Drafted final sections of the 2025 AHMP and produced a Final Draft AHMP.
OEM AHMP Project Team
Shared Final Draft of the AHMP with internal and external stakeholders for their review.
OEM AHMP Project Team, Internal County Stakeholder Group, External Stakeholder Group, Cal OES Mitigation Division
Met with internal and external stakeholders to obtain feedback on subsequent Final Draft AHMP.
OEM AHMP Project Team, Internal County Stakeholder Group, External Stakeholder Group, Cal OES Mitigation Division
Produced Final AHMP.
OEM AHMP Project Team
Page 12 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
2.2 Stakeholder Engagement Inclusive stakeholder involvement was essential to the planning process. The County ensured broad representation and participation, consistent with the "Whole Community Approach" outlined in the 2023 Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan (OAEOP). Key stakeholders that comprised the Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee included: •
County departments such as, but not limited to, Public Works, Public Health, and Regional Planning.
•
Cities within the operational area (OA) and neighboring communities through Disaster Management Area Coordinators (DMACs) and city representation.
•
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including environmental and disability advocacy groups.
•
Special District partners managing critical infrastructure.
•
Representatives of academia and school districts.
•
Community representatives from Access and Functional Needs (AFN) populations and historically underrepresented populations.
Regular meetings, workshops, and focus groups were held to gather input and refine mitigation strategies. Stakeholders were contacted and invited to participate in the 2025 AHMP planning process through email (please see email template in Appendix B-3). Stakeholder feedback was documented and incorporated into the plan, ensuring diverse perspectives informed the process. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 includes a list of representatives of each agency that contributed to the planning process. Table 2-2 Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee – Internal Stakeholder Group Department/
Name
Title
Planning Contribution
Agency Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management (OEM AHMP Project Team)
Michael Morin
Emergency Management Coordinator
Matthew Topoozian
Emergency Management Coordinator
Functioned as lead planners, led planning meetings, drafted plan, reviewed mitigation actions submitted by departments.
Page 13 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Department/
Name
Title
Planning Contribution
Agency Karen Haro Emergency Management Coordinator Girma Wollela
Emergency Management Coordinator
Mike Tsao
Administrative Deputy
Henry Lopez
Program Manager
Carin Anderson
Administrative Services Manager
Keilah Kelso
Administrative Services Manager
Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office – AntiRacism, Diversity, and Inclusion Initiative
Cesar Sanchez
Senior Analyst
Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office – Homeless Initiative
Onnie Williams III
Principal Analyst Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Los Angeles County Chief Sustainability Office
Matthew Gosner
Climate Resilience Officer
Los Angeles County Department of Aging and Disabilities
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Page 14 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Department/
Name
Title
Planning Contribution
Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors
Katharine de la Cruz
Administrative Services Manager
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Vanessa Huerta
Safety Officer
Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity
Maritza Dubie
Human Services Administrator
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Los Angeles County Department of Health Services
Elaine Forsyth
Senior Nursing Instructor
Isabel Sanchez
Disaster Services Specialist
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Los Angeles County Department of Human Resources
Kevin Halbritter
Deputy Compliance Officer
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation
Ramon Bernal
Disaster Services Analyst
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
Elizabeth Rubin
Epidemiologist
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services
Manuel Gutierrez
Disaster Services Analyst
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Agency
Page 15 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Department/
Name
Title
Planning Contribution
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Agency Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
Joseph Marble
Disaster Services Analyst
Loni Eazell
Disaster Services Specialist
Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning
Thuy Hua
Supervising Planner
Edgar De La Torre
Principal Regional Planner
Los Angeles County Fire Department
Nick Duvally
Deputy Fire Chief
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Los Angeles County Internal Services Department
Juan-Raul Cardenas
GIS Analyst
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Jordan Kennedy
Sergeant
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Table 2-3 Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee – External Stakeholder Group Department/Agency
Planning Contribution
Access Services
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Alzheimer’s Association California
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Catholic Charities
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Page 16 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Department/Agency
Planning Contribution
City of Beverly Hills Emergency Management Division
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
City of Long Beach Disaster Preparedness & Emergency Communications
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
City of Los Angeles Emergency Management Department
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Disability Community Resource Center
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Disaster Management Area Coordinator, Area A
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Disaster Management Area Coordinator, Area B
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Disaster Management Area Coordinator, Area C
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Disaster Management Area Coordinator, Area D
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Disaster Management Area Coordinator, Area E
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Disaster Management Area Coordinator, Area F
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Disaster Management Area Coordinator, Area G
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Disaster Management Area Coordinator, Area H
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Emergency Network Los Angeles
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Habitat for Humanity
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Page 17 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Department/Agency
Planning Contribution
Harbor Regional Center
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Lanterman Regional Center
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Los Angeles Regional Food Bank
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Puente Hills Habitat Preservation Authority
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
South Central Los Angeles Regional Center
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
Westside Regional Center
Attended planning meetings, reviewed section drafts, and provided feedback.
2.3 Public Involvement and Outreach Public outreach efforts aimed to foster transparency, inclusivity, and fortify public trust. The County engaged the public during the planning process through multiple media formats to share information and collect feedback taking into account language and other access and functional needs. A rolling outreach strategy was used to ensure that as each section was drafted and reviewed by planning stakeholders, it was concurrently made available for public commentary. To accomplish this, each section was posted to the Los Angeles County Hazard Mitigation Program website as it was completed by the planning team. A survey designed to gauge community perceptions of hazard risks and mitigation priorities was used on the website (Appendix D). This approach ensured that the public was a key partner in every step of the planning process and had a voice as Page 18 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
each section was being developed by the planning team. A social media campaign using all LA County OEM social media channels was initiated to direct the public to the survey. To address equity, targeted outreach efforts focused on engaging historically underrepresented communities and AFN populations, using multilingual and accessible materials and culturally appropriate techniques. Aside from public outreach, stakeholders that work with or represent people with access and functional needs, people experiencing homelessness, and a diverse array of cultural groups were targeted to participate in the Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee. These measures ensured that the public had meaningful opportunities to participate in shaping the plan.
2.4 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans and Reports The planning process included a comprehensive review of existing documents and protocols to ensure consistency and alignment. The 2020 All-Hazards Mitigation Plan served as the foundational document for this update. Additionally, key concepts from the 2023 Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan (OAEOP), such as Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) and disaster management areas, were integrated. The Los Angeles County Climate Vulnerability Assessment provided valuable insights into climate risks and social sensitivity, while local Climate Action Plans ensured alignment with municipal climate adaptation initiatives. Furthermore, the 2021 UASI THIRA (Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment) provided critical data for identifying evolving threats and capability targets, enhancing the accuracy and relevance of the plan. The demographic data from the 2020 U.S. Census was utilized to ensure an accurate representation of Los Angeles County's population, now estimated at over 10 million residents. The demographic breakdown includes 48% Hispanic or Latino, 26% White, 15% Asian, 8% African American, and 3% other, with over 40% speaking a language other than English at home, emphasizing the need for multilingual and culturally appropriate outreach.
Page 19 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Table 2-4 Existing Plans, Maps, and Reports Plan, Map, or Report
Information to be Incorporated into the 2025 Updated AHMP
Los Angeles County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan (2023)
Used to inform Section 6: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment and Section 7: Mitigation Strategy
Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan (2024)
Safety element mitigation policies used to inform Section 7 – Mitigation Strategy
Los Angeles County Comprehensive Floodplain Management Plan (2021)
Used to inform Section 6: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment and Section 7: Mitigation Strategy for elements related to flood hazards
County of Los Angeles Floodplain Management Plan Progress Report from (2024)
Used to inform Section 6: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment and Section 7: Mitigation Strategy for elements related to flood hazards
County of Los Angeles Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Progress Report (2021)
Used to inform Section 6: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment and Section 7: Mitigation Strategy for elements related to flood hazards
Los Angeles County 2045 Climate Action Plan (2024)
Used to inform Section 6: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, Section 7: Mitigation Strategy, and Section 4: Climate Change for elements related to hazard risk posed by climate change
Los Angeles County Fire Department Fire Plan (2023)
Used to inform Section 6: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment and Section 7: Mitigation Strategy for elements related to wildland fire hazards
Our County: Los Angeles Countywide Sustainability Plan (2019)
Used to inform Section 6: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, Section 7: Mitigation Strategy, and Section 4: Climate Change for elements related to hazard risk posed by climate change
Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative Strategy Plan (2022)
Used to inform vulnerable populations information across all sections of the plan.
Disability Among Adults in Los Angeles County (2019)
Used to inform vulnerable populations information across all sections of the plan.
Southern California Earthquake Data Center’s Earthquake Catalogs (Current as of 2025)
Historical seismic information used in Section 6: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment.
Page 20 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Plan, Map, or Report
Information to be Incorporated into the 2025 Updated AHMP
Maritime Tsunami Response Playbooks: Background Information and Guidance for Response and Hazard Mitigation Use (2016)
Historical tsunami information used in Section 6: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment.
FEMA Flood Insurance Study, Los Angeles County, California (2020)
Historical flood information used in Section 6: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): Rainfall and Landslides in Southern California (2015)
Historical landslide information used in Section 6: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment.
Burn Scar Information and Maps
Historical fire information used in Section 6: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment.
Page 21 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
3 Community Profile
Page 22 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
3.1 Los Angeles County Overview Los Angeles County is the most populous county in the
United
encompassing array
States, a
diverse
of
communities,
landscapes,
and
infrastructure. According to the most recent census data, Los Angeles County has
a
population
of
approximately 10 million residents of which more than 1 million reside in unincorporated areas. The County’s demographics, geographic features, and economic activities present both unique opportunities and significant challenges for hazard mitigation planning. This updated community profile integrates insights from the 2023 Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan (OAEOP) and reflects changes in population trends, infrastructure development, and climate risks. The County Operational Area (OA) consists of all political subdivisions within the geographical boundaries of Los Angeles County. It encompasses five supervisorial districts, eight Disaster Management Areas (DMAs), 88 incorporated cities, 80 school districts, and approximately 142 special districts.
Page 23 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
3.2 Geography and Land Use Spanning over 4,000 square miles, Los Angeles County features
diverse
terrain,
including
coastal
plains,
valleys, mountains, islands, and deserts. The County’s varied geography includes multiple microclimates that influence its exposure to natural hazards, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, wildfires, floods, and landslides. Urban areas, particularly the City of Los Angeles and its surrounding metropolitan region, are densely populated and heavily developed. In contrast, rural and unincorporated areas often face unique vulnerabilities due to limited infrastructure and resources. Rural areas include the Angeles and Los Padres National Forests, which have small communities, campgrounds, and day use areas. There are also two islands within the County, Santa Catalina and San Clemente. The County also includes a significant amount of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas where residential and commercial development meets underdeveloped wildland with vegetative fuels. Land use within the County is equally diverse, with a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and open spaces. Recent urban development in densely populated areas has increased impervious surfaces like concrete and asphalt, which retain heat and create urban heat islands (UHI) that are much hotter than nearby rural areas. This phenomenon elevates temperatures, especially in low-income communities lacking green spaces for cooling. Additionally, urbanization affects stormwater management by reducing natural drainage and exacerbating flooding risks in low-lying areas. These trends underscore the need for sustainable planning strategies, such as promoting green infrastructure, enhancing stormwater systems, and mitigating heat islands through tree planting and reflective materials. The County’s diverse land use must be carefully managed to reduce vulnerabilities while supporting economic growth and environmental sustainability.
Page 24 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
3.3 Social Vulnerability Social vulnerability is a crucial component to Los Angeles County’s hazard mitigation planning. The County is home to a diverse population with disparities in income, housing stability, and access to resources. The Los Angeles County Anti-Racism, Diversity, and Inclusion (ARDI) Initiative created a comprehensive Equity Explorer, which is a geospatial tool that explores multiple equity data points across Los Angeles County. The ARDI Equity Explorer includes various layers that visualize social equity, economic opportunity, housing and homelessness, health, justice, built environment, and
disaster
recovery
data.
The
public
can
access
this
data
at
ceo.lacounty.gov/ardi/tools. Maps created using data from the ARDI Equity Explorer are in Appendix A-8.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)
defines
social
vulnerability as a community’s capacity to prepare for and respond to the stress of hazardous events ranging from natural disasters to human caused threats. The CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index (Figure 3.1) is designed to identify and quantify communities
experiencing
social
vulnerability. The most recent CDC Social Vulnerability Index score from 2022 for Los Angeles County
indicated
vulnerability socioeconomic
a
high
level
across
four
themes:
status,
of
household
characteristics, racial and ethnic minority
Figure 3.1 CDC Social Vulnerability Index (CDC 2022)
status, and housing type/transportation. Vulnerable populations identified for Los Angeles County that will be considered in the AHMP include:
Page 25 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
Low-Income
Residents:
Individuals living below or near the
poverty
line
are
often
disproportionately affected by disasters due to limited financial resources
for
emergency
preparedness, response, and recovery. •
People
with
Access
Functional
Needs
Individuals
with
and (AFN):
Access
Figure 3.2 Disability Statistics in Los Angeles County (OAEOP 2023)
and
Functional needs have increased challenges
in
preparedness,
evacuation, sheltering, accessing emergency services and recovery. Access
and
Functional
Needs
include but are not limited to people who have any combination in varying degree of: physical disabilities, intellectual disabilities, developmental disabilities, mental health-related
issues,
visual
impairments,
hearing
impairments/deaf,
mobility
impairments,
or
chronic
conditions. AFN
also
include
Figure 3. 3 Breakdown of Language at Home in Los Angeles County (OAEOP 2023)
older adults, infants and children, people living in institutionalized settings, people living below the poverty line or experiencing homelessness, people with limited English proficiency or are non-English speakers, or people who are transportation disadvantaged. •
People Experiencing Homelessness (PEH): With an estimated over 75,000 individuals experiencing homelessness, this population is particularly at risk during extreme weather events and other disasters.
•
Immigration Status: Fear of engaging with government services based on immigration status can prevent residents from accessing critical resources. Page 26 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
Limited English Proficiency: Over 40% of residents speak a language other than English at home, highlighting the need for multilingual and culturally appropriate outreach efforts. Language accessibility is critical to ensure all residents and visitors can obtain information and services during a disaster. See Figure 3.3 for a breakdown of languages spoken at home in Los Angeles County not including American Sign Language.
The figure below highlights certain variables in Los Angeles County that may increase vulnerability to emergencies and disasters. To address these vulnerabilities, the County’s mitigation planning includes equitable strategies designed to reduce risk and enhance resilience among these populations. Targeted outreach, improved access to resources, preparedness education events, and collaboration with community organizations are integral to these efforts.
Figure 3.4 Los Angeles County Vulnerability Variables (OAEOP 2023)
Page 27 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maintains the National Risk Index, a mapping tool that assesses 18 possible hazards a jurisdiction is susceptible to in combination with the amount of loss that could result from those hazards. Los Angeles County ranks as the community with the most risk in the United States according to the FEMA National Risk Index. According to the National Risk Index, hazards with the highest risk for Los Angeles County include earthquake, wildfires, extreme heat, flooding, high winds, and landslides.
Figure 3.5 FEMA National Risk Index (2025)
3.4 Economy and Critical Infrastructure Los Angeles County is a global economic hub, hosting industries such as entertainment, technology, manufacturing, and international trade. The Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach collectively form one of the world’s busiest trade gateways, underscoring the importance of protecting critical infrastructure from hazards including those exacerbated by climate change. Critical facilities provide services and functions essential to a community, especially during and after a disaster. Common types of critical facilities include but are not limited to fire stations, police stations, hospitals, schools, and utilities. Critical facilities may also include places that can be used for sheltering, cooling centers, staging purposes, or other large public gathering spots such as community centers and libraries. Critical facilities include those operated by non-governmental and business partners vital for redevelopment or Page 28 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
economic security. When these are affected by a disaster, the County provides businesses and workers impacted by the disaster with vital information and resources. This allows them to maneuver effectively through disaster response toward recovery using its network of job centers and business hubs. Other critical infrastructure includes the facilities and industries that enable all facets of society to function, including but not limited to the following community lifelines: •
Safety and Security: The myriad of local law enforcement, fire and rescue, emergency management, schools, and other government services that maintain public safety and security.
•
Communications: The interconnected network of infrastructure owners and operators of communications systems such as internet, telephone, cellular and other communications towers, cable, satellite, and more.
•
Transportation Networks: The County’s extensive network of roadways, highways, railways, transit systems, and airports is essential for daily operations and disaster response.
•
Energy Systems: Power generation facilities, energy distribution networks, and pipelines are vulnerable to multiple types of hazards and threats.
•
Water and Wastewater Systems: Drought conditions and aging infrastructure at the over 220 different water agencies in Los Angeles County pose risks to water availability and quality.
•
Healthcare Facilities: Over 100 hospitals and numerous clinics serve the County, requiring robust contingency plans to maintain operations during disasters.
•
Food and Shelter: The vast system of food production (i.e., agriculture), distribution, and retail along with community housing or sheltering.
3.5 Climate and Environmental Conditions Los Angeles County faces escalating risks from climate change, significantly impacting its environment, economy, and communities. These challenges include rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, more frequent and severe extreme weather events, and their cascading effects. These risks highlight the critical need for adaptive planning to protect vulnerable populations, infrastructure, and natural resources. Key climate-
Page 29 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
related considerations referenced in the Los Angeles County Climate Action Plan that will be addressed in this AHMP include, but are not limited to: •
Extreme Weather Events: Extreme temperatures in the Los Angeles region are expected to increase. Both dry and wet extremes are projected to intensify, leading to longer dry periods than historically experienced. These dry periods are expected to be followed by significantly wetter conditions, including atmospheric rivers bringing more intense rainfall. This pattern may result in increased water scarcity, mudslides, and flooding.
•
Sea-Level Rise: Coastal communities are at heightened risk of flooding and erosion, threatening homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure. Sea level rise can exacerbate the impacts of high tides, storm surges, and heavy precipitation, and can lead to increased coastal flooding and shoreline erosion.
•
Increasing Wildfire Risk: Climate change has intensified wildfire seasons, particularly in the County’s mountainous, wildland urban interface (WUI), and new and undeveloped regions. Wildfires are projected to increase in frequency and intensity including in some areas not historically impacted by wildfire.
In response, the County has prioritized integrating climate adaptation strategies into its hazard mitigation planning, as outlined in the Climate Vulnerability Assessment and the OAEOP.
3.6 Regional Collaboration and Planning Efforts Los Angeles County’s size and complexity necessitates collaboration with numerous jurisdictions, agencies, and community organizations. The County is designated as the Operational Area Coordinator and functions as an intermediate level in the State of California’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). In accordance with SEMS, the County serves as the communications and coordination link between local governments within Los Angeles County and the state government. Partnerships with academic institutions, non-profits, and private sector stakeholders support data collection, public engagement, and innovative mitigation strategies. Additionally, the County has also adopted Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) as the primary emergency management coordination structure. ESFs group function-specific stakeholders who will coordinate throughout all phases of emergency management,
Page 30 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
including function-specific mitigation activities. For more information on regional emergency management collaboration and planning, reference the OAEOP.
3.7 Implications for Hazard Mitigation Planning Understanding the community is a critical aspect in hazard mitigation planning. This community profile will inform key considerations in subsequent sections of the AHMP including but not limited to the following: •
Targeted Outreach: Include vulnerable populations and the business community in the planning process through equitable public outreach.
•
Infrastructure Resilience: Prioritize the protection of critical infrastructure, including ports and transportation networks, energy systems, and water and wastewater systems, among others.
•
Climate Adaptation: Develop strategies to mitigate the impacts of climate change, focusing on urban heat islands, sea-level rise, and wildfire risks.
•
Regional Coordination: Strengthen direct collaboration within the OA between the County, local jurisdictions, special districts, unified school districts, the business community and cross-sector non-governmental partners to enhance awareness, preparedness, and response capabilities.
•
Transparent & Open Communication: Ensure communications are accessible, and clear to advance public trust and safety. Develop dashboards to demonstrate progress.
Page 31 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
4 Climate Change
Page 32 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
4.1 Climate Change Overview Climate change refers to the changing effect of the Earth's climate system over time, including changes in temperature, precipitation, and wind patterns. Climate change had significant impacts on Los Angeles County, affecting various aspects of life, environment, infrastructure, and sustainable development, and presents increasing risks from amplified hazards and changing baselines (e.g., sea level) into the future. The rate of climate change has significantly accelerated over the last three decades and trends continues. This plan addresses the effects of climate change related to disasters within the County and strategies to mitigate risks, focusing on preparedness, resilience and equity. Climate change contributes to more frequent and intense disasters, such as floods, wildfires, drought and excessive heat. Rising temperatures and changing weather patterns pose health risks, like heat-related illnesses, respiratory issues, and the spread of diseases. Hazard mitigation efforts aim to reduce the impacts and effects of greater hazards due to climate change. The economic impact of climate change has been substantial, affecting industries such as agriculture, tourism, and insurance with increasing risks due to accelerating climate changes. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are the main driver of climate change, which causes increased frequency, duration, and severity of extreme weather and climate-related disasters. Climate change exacerbates air pollution, leading to poor air quality and health issues. GHG emissions from residential buildings, commercial and institutional facilities, manufacturing industries and construction, energy industries, oil and natural gas systems. transportation, fossil energy, wildfires and other sources contribute to increased particulate matter and other pollutants in the air.
Page 33 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
4.2 Integrating Climate Change into Hazard Profiles Integrating
climate
change
into
hazard profiles involves assessing the current and future impacts of climate change
on
various
hazards
and
incorporating this information into planning and mitigation strategies. This section highlights how climate change relates to these hazards and how the county is addressing climate change through hazard mitigation efforts which help protect the county’s residents and economies from the
Figure 4.1 Sources of GHG Emissions from within Los Angeles County (LA County 2024; 2045 Climate Action Plan)
adverse effects of climate changes and climate-amplified events.
4.2.1 Extreme Heat Increasing temperatures and high heat events is one of the most conspicuous results of and a direct correlation between GHG pollution and climate change. Excessive temperatures in the Los Angeles region are expected to increase significantly more very hot days and warm nights. In addition to increasing baseline temperatures and extreme heat due to climate change, heat islands exacerbate temperatures and high heat events. As development occurs and darker paved surfaces replace open land and vegetation, these areas become warmer forming an “island” of heat. Los Angeles County experiences more frequent and excessive heat due to climate change. This is currently a major risk and with unmitigated GHG emissions increasing heat will lead to even greater health issues, increased energy demand for cooling, and other strains on infrastructure.
4.2.2 Flooding Flooding in Los Angeles County occurs due to extreme rainfall events causing flash floods, riverine flooding, and increased surface water. Coastal areas in Los Angeles County are vulnerable to sea- level rise (SLR), which exacerbates coastal hazards like floods, storm surges, and chronic erosion. Other related hazards include flooding near Page 34 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
the mouths of streams and channels, landslides, and seawater well intrusion. SLR exacerbates the impacts of high tides, storm surges, and heavy precipitation flooding, and continued SLR will lead to more life safety concerns and increased damage to property and infrastructure.
4.2.3 Drought Prolonged droughts have become more common, affecting the water supply, agriculture, and ecosystems of Los Angeles County. Dry and wet extremes are projected to increase and are likely to cause drier periods than what the region has historically experienced. Southern California projected to get drier, while Northern California will increase in temperature. This will result in loss of snowpack within the Sierra Nevada Mountain range, meaning less water for all Californians including farmers, residents, and utilities. The State Water Resource Control Board proclaimed several water conservation emergency regulations due to severe drought conditions that requires commercial, industrial, and residential conservation efforts. Proclamations include: •
January 4, 2022: State Water Board adopted the prohibited wasteful water uses emergency regulation
•
May 24, 2022: the State Water Board adopted the emergency regulation to ban decorative grass watering like non-functional turf irrigation
•
December 7, 2022: the State Water Board readopted the prohibited wasteful water uses emergency regulation,
•
May 26, 2023: the State Water Board readopted the emergency regulation to ban decorative grass watering.
4.2.4 Wildfire A wildfire is an unplanned and uncontrolled fire in an area of combustible vegetation. These fires can easily spread beyond the natural areas primarily involving and have a potential to cause damages outside of the perimeter. Wildfire probability depends on local weather conditions, outdoor activities and any preceding conditions (e.g., lots of rain leading to vegetation growth and then drying conditions), and a potential ignition (e.g., lightning strike, arson, debris burning, electrical equipment failure, car tailpipe, etc.). The frequency and intensity of wildfires has increased driven by higher Page 35 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
temperatures, lower precipitation, lower relative humidity, and prolonged droughts. These events have caused loss of life, destroy and/or damage to property, infrastructure, the environment and pose greater risks due to historical development patterns. The timeline of major wildfire events and acreage burned in Los Angeles County is listed at Section 6.2 of the plan.
4.3 Climate Mitigation Strategies Los Angeles County is actively addressing climate change and implementing hazard mitigation strategies to reduce its impacts and build long-term resilience. The County faces increasing risks from excessive heat, wildfires, droughts, floods, and sea-level rise, all of which threaten communities, infrastructure, and natural resources. To address many of these challenges, the County has developed comprehensive climate plans and strategies that integrate climate adaptation, sustainable land use, emergency preparedness, and environmental conservation. By enforcing building codes, investing in green infrastructure, and strengthening community preparedness, Los Angeles County aims to minimize risks and enhance disaster resilience. These efforts align with state and federal climate policies and are designed to protect both current and future generations while encouraging a more sustainable and livable environment for all.
4.3.1 Climate Resilience Plans and Actions •
Los Angeles County 2045 Climate Action Plan (2045 CAP): Establishes aggressive targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.
•
Water Conservation & Drought Resilience Measures: Implements mandatory water restrictions, promotes rainwater harvesting, and expands groundwater recharge and water recycling projects.
•
Wildfire Mitigation & Vegetation Management Programs: Enforces Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) codes, increases forest management techniques, aligned with Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) principles and practices of our native indigenous communities, and strengthens fire-resistant building and landscape requirements.
Page 36 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
Green Infrastructure & Urban Cooling Initiatives: Expands tree planting aligned with TEK principles and practices, investigates removing hard (paved) surfaces, and planting groundcover, utilizes and promotes public cooling centers and home heat preparedness, and encourages the use of reflective “cool” roofing and surfaces to mitigate the urban heat island (UHI) effect.
•
Heat Action Plan: Develops strategies to reduce the adverse health impacts of excessive heat through public shade structures, cooling centers, building codes, and increased public awareness campaigns for all susceptible to extreme heat.
These strategic actions reflect Los Angeles County’s commitment to tackling climate change. By integrating proactive policies, indigenous-informed practices, communitydriven solutions, and resilient infrastructure, Los Angeles County, is not only mitigating current risks but also preparing for a future where communities can thrive in an everchanging dynamic environment.
4.4 Climate Change Conclusion Through proactive policies and community engagement, Los Angeles County strives to navigate the complexities of a changing climate and safeguard its people, environment, infrastructure and economies. This approach helps minimize the risks and impacts associated with climate-related hazards. Addressing climate change in hazard mitigation help enhance safer, healthier, and more sustainable communities.
Page 37 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
5 Integrating Access and Functional Needs (AFN) into Hazard Mitigation
Page 38 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
5.1 AFN Introduction Modern hazard mitigation planning increasingly recognizes that resilient communities must address the needs of all residents —including those with access and functional needs (AFN). Historically, individuals with disabilities (i.e. including but not limited to, youth, those economically depressed, pregnant, etc.), chronic health conditions, language barriers, or transportation disadvantages have been underrepresented in emergency planning. As evidenced by the best practices for stakeholder inclusion and further
supported
by
national
preparedness
frameworks,
integrating
AFN
considerations leads to plans that are more inclusive and effective. By proactively engaging AFN populations and support agencies in every phase, from preparedness through recovery, a hazard mitigation plan can reduce losses, improve evacuation and sheltering outcomes, and build trust between emergency management agencies and the communities they serve.
5.2 Inclusion of AFN and Vulnerable Populations in Planning A major component of effective mitigation planning is a “whole community” approach. Incorporating AFN voices into the planning process is crucial because these stakeholders offer real-world insights into the challenges they face during emergencies. Key steps to this process include, but are not limited to: •
Stakeholder Engagement: Ensure that representatives from disability advocacy groups, community-based organizations, and service providers (such as local health departments and transportation agencies) are engaged early in the planning process. Their firsthand experiences help identify practical barriers that might otherwise be overlooked.
•
Public Participation: Incorporating public stakeholders through meetings, surveys, and other outreach to capture the diverse needs of AFN populations. This input is vital to overcoming historical marginalization and ensuring that mitigation actions are relevant and equitable to the entire population.
•
Ongoing Interagency Collaboration: Develop a hazard mitigation planning advisory committee and interagency working groups that include AFN stakeholders. These groups can guide both the planning process and the review of existing plans, ensuring that AFN issues are fully integrated from the outset.
Page 39 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
5.2.1 Integrating AFN into the Overall AHMP Integrating AFN considerations is not a stand-alone task; it must be interlaced throughout the entire hazard mitigation planning process. This includes: •
Risk Assessments: Incorporate AFN data into all risk assessments to ensure that the specific vulnerabilities of these populations are reflected in hazard maps and vulnerability index data.
•
Mitigation Strategy Development: Ensure that every mitigation action is examined for its impact on AFN populations. For example, when planning for flood control or wildfire prevention projects, review how these projects can be improved to meet the needs of people with access and functional needs.
•
Plan Review and Update: Ensure planning processes include regular AFN review and updates. Includes but not limited to: o Surveys of community needs
o Consultations with AFN advisory groups •
o Integration of new technological or infrastructural solutions
Funding and Resource Allocation: Clearly identify funding streams and resource commitments for AFN-specific projects. This could involve targeted grants from federal programs (e.g., Hazard Mitigation Assistance), state funding dedicated to accessible infrastructure improvements, and local resources such as the Productivity Investment Fund that can be accessed to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of County operations.
5.3 Assessment of AFN Needs Understanding the specific needs of AFN populations requires both quantitative and qualitative approaches: •
Data Collection and Risk Assessment: Use existing resources, community surveys, outreach and risk assessments to help identify the number and types of individuals with AFN at the local community level. Evaluate the regional geographic distribution, vulnerabilities, and specific requirements before and after emergencies.
Page 40 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan •
Frameworks for Analysis: Adopt structured methodologies such as C‐MIST (Communication, Maintaining Health, Independence, Support, Safety, and Transportation) to assess/ document AFN requirements.
•
C-MIST Explanation o
Communication: Individuals with hearing, vision, cognitive, or speech limitations may require alternative communication methods to receive or express information during emergencies.
o
Medical / Health Needs: People with complex medical conditions rely on medications, medical equipment, or specialized care to maintain their health and prevent complications.
o
Independence: Those who use mobility devices, assistive technology, or service animals need uninterrupted access to maintain their independence and daily functions.
o
Supervision & Safety: Some individuals require continuous support for safety, comfort, or emotional well-being, including those with memory issues, psychiatric conditions, or intellectual disabilities.
o
Transportation: Individuals without personal transportation or with mobility limitations need accessible and reliable options, especially in emergencies and evacuations.
•
Integrating Vulnerability Assessments: Leverage tools from local climate vulnerability assessments and hazard mitigation plan reviews to identify areas where AFN populations overlap with high‐risk zones (e.g., flood plains, Page 41 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
wildfire-prone areas). This integration helps prioritize mitigation actions in regions where vulnerable populations are most exposed.
5.4 Coordination with AFN Support Agencies Effective mitigation planning requires robust coordination with both governmental and nongovernmental agencies that serve AFN populations. Best practices include: •
Formal Partnerships: Establish relationships and partnerships with agencies such as public health departments, social services, transportation authorities, community-based organizations, and disability advocacy organizations. These partnerships ensure that there is clear, ongoing communication and that roles and responsibilities are delineated before, during, and after disasters.
•
Joint Training and Exercises: Conduct regular joint meetings, and exercises that include AFN components and identify additional resources to support the needs of the AFN community. These actions will help prepare all stakeholders to work together during a crisis and help identify gaps in current plans.
•
Outreach and Information Dissemination: Ensure that all information, both pre-incident preparedness messages, response measures and post-incident recovery plans are accessible to all audiences. This includes using multiple languages, various communication formats (e.g., large-print, audio, signlanguage, and digital formats), and culturally appropriate messaging to reach all segments of the community.
5.5 AFN Conclusion A hazard mitigation plan builds a foundation for a resilient, inclusive community. By ensuring that AFN and other vulnerable populations are included in every phase of planning, from initial stakeholder engagement to the development of tailored mitigation actions and coordinated response strategies, communities can minimize disaster impacts and foster long-term resilience. Drawing on best practices from national frameworks and local planning guides, and by implementing ADA-compliant shelter operations, emergency managers can create a plan that truly serves every member of the community. This inclusive approach not only saves lives and property during disasters but also strengthens community trust and the overall effectiveness of emergency management efforts. Page 42 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page 43 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.1 Hazard Identification Overview The hazard identification and risk assessment process provide a foundation for Los Angeles County’s hazard mitigation planning efforts by identifying, profiling, and assessing the risks associated with natural, technological, and human-caused hazards. This section builds on the framework established in the 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan, incorporating insights from the 2023 Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan (OAEOP), the 2024 Los Angeles Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA), the Los Angeles County Climate Vulnerability Assessment, the State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Risk Index. Based on these sources hazards were included and addressed in the 2025 AHMP according to their frequency, severity and impact to Los Angeles County, see below Table 6-1. Hazards that did not meet the threshold of moderate risk will not be prioritized within the plan. Additionally, three new natural hazards (Extreme Heat, Drought, and Severe Wind/Tornado) and four human-caused hazards (Mass Violence, Cyber Incidents, Transportation Incidents, and Public Health Emergencies) are included in the 2025 AHMP. Table 6-1 Hazard Inclusion/ Omission Hazard Earthquake
Comment Hazard is included in the plan due to its high frequency, severity, and impact to Los Angeles County.
Wildfire
Hazard is included in the plan due to its high frequency, severity, and impact to Los Angeles County.
Heat Wave
Hazard is included in the plan due to its high frequency, severity, and impact to Los Angeles County.
Tornado
Hazard is included in the plan due to its high frequency, severity, and impact to Los Angeles County. Tornado is incorporated with the Severe Wind/ Tornado hazard profile.
Land Movement
Hazard is included in the plan due to its high frequency, severity, and impact to Los Angeles County.
Page 44 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Hazard Lightning
Comment Hazard is included in the plan due to its high frequency, severity, and impact to Los Angeles County. Lightening is incorporated with the Wildfire and Flooding hazard profiles.
Flooding
Hazard is included in the plan due to its frequency, severity, and impact to Los Angeles County. The Flooding hazard profile incorporates both Riverine and Coastal Flooding.
Drought
Hazard is included in the plan due to its frequency, severity, and impact to Los Angeles County.
Strong Wind
Hazard is included in the plan due to its frequency, severity, and impact to Los Angeles County. Strong Wind is incorporated with the Severe Wind and Tornado hazard profile.
Tsunami
Hazard is included in the plan due to its frequency, severity, and impact to Los Angeles County.
Winter Weather
Hazard is omitted from the plan due to its minimal frequency, severity, and impact to Los Angeles County.
Hail
Hazard is omitted from the plan due to its minimal frequency, severity, and impact to Los Angeles County.
Avalanche
Hazard is omitted from the plan due to its minimal frequency, severity, and impact to Los Angeles County.
Cold Wave
Hazard is omitted from the plan due to its lack of frequency, severity, and impact to Los Angeles County.
Hurricane
Hazard is omitted from the plan due to its lack of frequency, severity, and impact to Los Angeles County.
Ice Storm
Hazard is omitted from the plan due to its lack of frequency, severity, and impact to Los Angeles County.
Volcanic Activity
Hazard is omitted from the plan due to its lack of frequency, severity, and impact to Los Angeles County.
Page 45 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Los Angeles County faces a wide range of hazards due to its geographic diversity, population density, and economic significance. The following hazards were identified and prioritized from the previously mentioned sources based on historical occurrences, potential impacts, and future risks: 1.
Wildfire
2.
Earthquake
3.
Extreme Heat
4.
Drought
5.
Flooding
6.
Dam Failure
7.
Land Movement
8.
Tsunami
9.
Severe Wind and Tornado
10.
Mass Violence
11.
Cybersecurity Incidents
12.
Transportation Incidents
13.
Public Health Emergencies
Among these hazards, six were identified to be potentially exacerbated by climate change including wildfire, extreme heat, drought, flooding, land movement, and severe wind and tornadoes. Additional human-caused hazards were included based on the 2024 THIRA including mass violence, cybersecurity incidents, transportation incidents, and public health emergencies. The results of the public Personal Disaster Impact Survey validated that these hazards are of significant concern to county residents. A risk assessment table comparing hazards to critical infrastructure is in Appendix C. Table 6-2 Changes in Development and Vulnerability Hazard
Change (Increase/ Decrease)
Reason
Earthquake
No Change
While new construction adheres to modern seismic codes aging infrastructure in high seismic zones remain vulnerable. Continued population growth in older neighborhoods with limited
Page 46 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Hazard
Change (Increase/ Decrease)
Reason retrofitting increases overall exposure.
Wildfire
Increase in Vulnerability
(Lightning)
Urban expansion into WildlandUrban Interface (WUI) areas has increased the number of homes at risk. Post 2020 development in high fire severity zones has continued, though defensible space regulations and new firesafe planning are improving resilience for new builds.
Extreme Heat
Increase in Vulnerability
Population density, urban heat islands, and development in inland valleys increases exposure. Older multi-family units without air conditioning remain a concern. More outdoor workers and people experiencing homelessness (PEH) add to vulnerable population.
Land
Stable to Slight Increase
Movement
Most new development avoids known landslide-prone areas due to zoning and geotechnical review. However, climate-driven precipitation variability and wildfires continue to destabilize slopes in developed areas.
Flooding (Lightning)
Increase in Vulnerability
New impervious surfaces from development increase stormwater runoff. Older flood control infrastructure is strained under heavier, more frequent rain events.
Page 47 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Hazard
Change (Increase/ Decrease)
Reason
Drought
Increase in Vulnerability
Continued population growth and water demand in arid and semiarid zones has outpaced gains in conservation. Agricultural vulnerability persists in high desert areas.
Severe Wind
Increase in Vulnerability
and Tornado
Los Angeles County is experiencing more frequent and intense wind events, including tornadoes. As urban development expands, tree canopies and overhead utilities in densely developed areas continue to contribute to cascading hazards. In response, efforts are underway to underground utility lines in highrisk areas.
Tsunami
Stable
Revised tsunami inundation maps have refined the at-risk zones. New developments in coastal areas are largely outside the updated hazard areas or comply with stricter coastal building codes.
Dam Failure
Stable/ Slight Increase
While no new major dams have been constructed in recent years, downstream development continues to increase population and critical infrastructure exposure within inundation zones.
Page 48 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.2 Wildfire 6.2.1 Nature Wildfires are fast-moving, uncontrolled fires that consume vegetation and rapidly spread, often threatening lives, structures, and infrastructure. These fires can be ignited by natural causes, such as lightning, or human activities, including unattended campfires, downed power lines, and arson. The increasing frequency, duration, and intensity of wildfires in Los Angeles County are possibly linked to the changing climate, with hotter temperatures, prolonged droughts, and reduced humidity levels making the region highly susceptible to fires. Factors Influencing Wildfire Behavior •
• •
Topography: Fires spread more rapidly on steep slopes and are often driven by the Santa Ana winds. Fuel Load: Dense, dry vegetation and high tree mortality increase fire intensity. Weather Conditions: High temperatures, strong winds, and low humidity elevate fire risk, with the changing climate contributing to a lengthened fire season. Page 49 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Wildfires also create secondary hazards such as poor air quality, landslides, flooding, and debris flows—especially in areas with recent burn scars where vegetation loss increases soil instability.
6.2.2 Location Los Angeles County is one of the most wildfire-prone regions in the United States. Based on the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps, significant wildfire risk exists in the Santa Monica Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Palos Verdes Hills, and Puente Hills. The 2024 THIRA and Los Angeles County Climate Vulnerability Assessment identify an increasing risk to communities located in or near these high-risk areas. Los Angeles County has three primary wildfire management zones: • • •
Federal Responsibility Areas (FRAs): Lands administered or controlled by the federal government where federal agencies have administrative and protection responsibility for wildfires. State Responsibility Areas (SRAs): Wildland areas where CAL FIRE is responsible for suppression efforts. Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs): Developed regions where local agencies, such as Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD), provide fire protection.
For a better visual representation of this Wildfire Hazard within the LA County planning area, please reference Appendix A. Included in Appendix A are several Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps for reference.
6.2.3 Extent According to CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps, Los Angeles County contains: • •
386.06 square miles (8.11%) classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) in Local Responsibility Areas, LRAs. 625.01 square miles (13.13%) classified as Very High (FHSZ) in State Responsibility Areas, SRAs.
Wildfires pose a significant threat not only through the immediate damage they cause to lives, property, and natural resources, but also through the secondary hazards that continue after the flames are extinguished. In the aftermath of a fire, communities often face increased risks of flash floods, debris flows, and degraded air quality. These post-fire impacts can compound the initial destruction, placing additional strain on infrastructure, health systems, and recovery efforts.
Page 50 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.2.4 History Los Angeles County has experienced numerous devastating wildfires in recent decades, including: • • • • • • • •
Canyon Fire (1968) – Burned 22,000 acres, destroyed 147 homes, and led to mass evacuations. Old Topanga Fire (1993) – Consumed 16,516 acres, destroying 388 structures and causing three fatalities. Sayre Fire (2008) – Destroyed 489 structures, including over 600 mobile homes. Station Fire (2009) – The largest fire in Los Angeles County history, burning 160,577 acres, destroying 209 structures, and causing two firefighter fatalities. Woolsey Fire (2018) – Burned 96,949 acres, destroyed 1,643 structures, and resulted in three fatalities. Bobcat Fire (2020) – Scorched 115,796 acres, destroying 171 structures and damaging numerous infrastructures in the Angeles National Forest. Palisades Fire (2025) – Resulted in significant destruction and loss of life, burning 23,707 acres, destroyed approximately 6,833 structures, and causing 12 civilian fatalities. Eaton Fire (2025) – Resulted in significant destruction and loss of life, burning 14,021 acres, destroying approximately 9,418 structures, and causing 17 civilian fatalities.
These fires highlight the increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires, emphasizing the urgent need for stronger mitigation and preparedness efforts. The Los Angeles County area has experienced federally declared wildfires and are shown in the table below. There have been no state proclamations for wildfires in the last five years. Federally Declared Wildfire/Fire Management Assistance Declaration in Los Angeles County from 1/1/2020 to 3/28/2025 Date 1/8/2025
Incident Name California Wildfires and
No.
Category
4856
Federal Declaration
5550
Fire Management Assistance Declaration
1/8/2025
Winds California Eaton Fire
1/8/2025 1/7/2025
California Hurst Fire California Palisades Fire
5551 5549
Fire Management Assistance Declaration Fire Management Assistance Declaration
12/10/2024
California Franklin Fire
5548
Fire Management Assistance Declaration
9/11/2024
California Bridge Fire
5537
Fire Management Assistance Declaration
10/16/2020
California Wildfires
4569
Federal Declaration
9/13/2020
California Bobcat Fire
5374
Fire Management Assistance Declaration
Page 51 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.2.5 Probability With several guaranteed wildfires each year, the probability of wildfire ignition in Los Angeles County is gradually increasing, driven largely by climate change. There is a 100% chance of a fire occurring each year within the geographic planning area. Historically, wildfires occurred between June and November, but recent years have shown a year-round fire season due to hotter, drier conditions and more intense weather variability. Longer dry periods, reduced humidity, and increased temperatures, coupled with historic drought and vegetation die-off, have created critically dry fuel beds. These events make even small ignition sources capable of generating major wildfires. Santa Ana winds continue to serve as a major accelerant, contributing to rapid fire spread and severe fire behavior. When combined with urban encroachment into fireprone areas, these conditions elevate both the frequency and destructiveness of wildfires. Projections from the 2024 THIRA and the LA County Climate Vulnerability Assessment confirm that wildfire probability will continue to rise unless significant fuel reduction, land use planning, and climate adaptation strategies are implemented across all jurisdictions. The 2024 THIRA estimates that: • • •
Over 1.2 million residents live in high-risk wildfire zones. Communities near the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) are at the greatest risk, especially those with limited evacuation routes, and the Access and Functional Needs community. Vulnerable populations, including seniors, low-income households, and people with disabilities, face heightened challenges during evacuations.
6.2.6 Vulnerability Los Angeles County faces high wildfire vulnerability due to its extensive WildlandUrban Interface (WUI), with over 1.2 million residents that live in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs). These communities are particularly susceptible because many homes lack defensible space, fire-resistant construction, or adequate emergency access. Vulnerable populations including (but not limited to): seniors, individuals with disabilities, low-income households, and those dependent on electrical medical equipment, face significant evacuation and health risks during wildfire events, especially in WUI communities with limited ingress/egress and high fuel loads.
Page 52 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT BREAKDOWN Population in High-Risk
Percentage of District
Wildfire Zones
Population
District 1
150,000
12%
District 2
75,000
6%
District 3
425,000
30%
District 4
250,000
20%
District 5
500,000
32%
Supervisorial District
Contextual Overview Very High FHSZ in LRA jurisdiction includes dense hillside residential areas under local fire authority responsibility. These are some of the most vulnerable communities due to terrain, vegetation, and constrained emergency access. Critical infrastructure is also at risk, with wildfire exposure threatening fire stations, law enforcement facilities, hospitals, utilities, transportation corridors, and emergency communication systems. Disruption to these essential services during wildfire events can compound vulnerabilities and delay response and recovery. For a better understanding of critical infrastructure at risk please see Appendix C. Total Facilities Affected: •
Very High LRA: 120
•
High SRA: 8
•
Very High SRA: 76
With the continued expansion of developments into fire-prone areas has significantly increased wildfire risk. Many homes in the WUI lack proper defensible space and fireresistant building materials, making them particularly vulnerable. Additionally, limited evacuation routes in some WUI communities create challenges for emergency response and evacuations. Stricter zoning laws, building regulations, and vegetation management policies are the best practices to reduce risk. Page 53 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Department/
Very High FHSZ
Agency
(LRA)
Animal Care and
High FHSZ (SRA)
Very High FHSZ (SRA)
1
0
1
Fire Department
39
1
14
Health Services
1
0
0
Library
7
1
2
LACMA / NHM
1
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
13
1
12
Public Health
52
4
41
Public Works
0
0
0
3
1
3
Control
Office of Education Other County Offices Parks & Recreation
Sheriff’s Department
Wildfires threaten essential infrastructure, including: • • • •
Transportation: Damage to roads and bridges affects evacuation and emergency response. Utilities: Power lines, gas pipelines, and water infrastructure, including dams, are vulnerable to fire damage. Emergency Services: Public safety and healthcare facilities near wildfireprone areas face operational disruptions. Public Services: Parks, libraries, schools, and other public areas could be lost or damaged.
Page 54 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
New emerging patterns suggest that climate change may be influencing wildfire risks in Los Angeles County through: • • •
Extending fire seasons: Historically, peak fire season occurred from June to November, but fires are now starting and burning year-round. Increasing fuel dryness: Higher temperatures and prolonged droughts reduce vegetation moisture levels, making fires more intense. Raising fire frequency: Hotter, drier conditions contribute to more frequent ignitions, particularly in WUI areas.
Extent of Exposure •
Total Area Exposed: 243.72 sq mi
•
Supervisorial Districts (SD) Impacted: o
SD3: 117.95 sq mi (27.29%)
o
SD5: 95.61 sq mi (3.36%)
o
SD1: 16.23 sq mi (4.60%)
o
SD4: 9.10 sq mi (4.27%)
o
SD2: 4.83 sq mi (1.33%)
For a better visual representation of this Wildfire Hazard within the LA County planning area, please reference Appendix A for several Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps.
6.2.7 Impacts Impacts for past fires vary depending on scope and severity, including the January 2025 fires, including the Palisades and Eaton Fires, resulted in widespread destruction across Los Angeles County, burning over 37,000 acres and destroying more than 16,000 structures combined, with nearly 30 civilian fatalities. These events caused cascading impacts such as prolonged power outages, degraded water pressure affecting firefighting and residential supply, and overwhelmed emergency services. Transportation
routes
and
communications
infrastructure
were
disrupted.
Communities, especially in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), experienced major economic losses due to the destruction of homes, businesses, and public facilities. Post-fire hazards like debris flows and landslides further compounded recovery challenges, with water infrastructure contamination and sedimentation requiring emergency remediation. The scope and severity of these fires underscore the increasing vulnerability of critical infrastructure and the urgent need for enhanced mitigation strategies across high-risk zones. Page 55 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Problem Statement Many hillside communities within LRA Very High FHSZ zones face critical access and water supply issues during fires. These areas often include aging structures and narrow roads, complicating firefighting and evacuation. Investments in defensible space, local code enforcement, and community wildfire protection planning are vital to saving lives and minimizing losses.
6.2.8 Mitigation and Preparedness Los Angeles County is implementing a multi-agency approach to mitigate wildfire risks. Key strategies include: • • • • • •
Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs): Strengthening fire prevention measures in high-risk areas. Community Preparedness: Educating residents on wildfire readiness through outreach campaigns, emergency alert systems, and neighborhood preparedness programs. Defensible Space Requirements: Enforcing brush clearance around structures. Enhanced Building Codes: Promoting fire-resistant materials for new developments. Vegetation Management: Reducing fuel loads through prescribed burns and hazardous tree removal. Evacuation Planning: Improving coordination between OEM, LASD, LACoFD, and other jurisdictions to ensure clear evacuation policies and procedures.
Additional details on the County’s proactive and ongoing efforts to reduce wildfire risk, including long-term planning, infrastructure hardening, and community-based initiatives, is located in the dedicated section titled “Mitigation Strategies.”
6.2.9 Summary Wildfires remain one of the most significant hazards in Los Angeles County, posing risks to life, property, and critical infrastructure. The expansion of development into WUI areas, increasing fire severity due to climate change, and ongoing challenges with evacuation and mitigation require proactive, coordinated efforts across agencies. Strengthening fire prevention policies, improving emergency response coordination, and integrating climate adaptation measures are essential to enhancing wildfire resilience for Los Angeles County.
Page 56 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.3 Earthquake 6.3.1 Nature Earthquakes occur due to the sudden release of energy in the Earth's crust, generating seismic waves that cause ground shaking. These events, often triggered by movement along fault lines, vary in intensity depending on factors such as magnitude, depth, and proximity to populated areas. In addition to the initial shaking, secondary hazards such as surface
faulting, liquefaction, landslides,
tsunamis, and aftershocks can worsen the damage. Los Angeles County, located in a highly active seismic region, faces significant risks from these natural events, necessitating extensive
mitigation
efforts
and
preparedness planning. •
The
most
common
effects
of
earthquakes include violent shaking, structural damage, and disruptions to infrastructure. •
Secondary effects can include, but are not limited to, utilities outages, traffic congestion and transportation systems being impassable, and an increase of fire risks, from broken gas and water lines. Page 57 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
Earthquakes occur with little to no warning, making preparedness essential for minimizing loss of life and property.
6.3.2 Location Los Angeles County is one of the most seismically active regions in the United States, with multiple active fault systems capable of generating destructive earthquakes. Major faults include: •
San Andreas Fault – Capable of M 8.0+
•
Newport-Inglewood Fault – M 7.4
•
Malibu Coast Fault System – M 6.7
•
San Fernando Fault – M 6.6
•
Santa Monica Fault – M 7.0
•
Whittier Fault – M 7.2
•
Sierra Madre Fault – M 6.0-7.0
For a better visual representation of this Earthquake Hazard within LA County planning area, please reference Appendix A for earthquake fault maps.
6.3.3 Extent According to US Geological Survey, there are two types of earthquake measurements, magnitude (Mw) and intensity (i). Magnitude is a measure of the energy released at the source of the earthquake. Intensity scale help measure impact on people and structures. Earthquake impact is based on magnitude scale is as follows: •
Great—Mw > 8,
•
Major—Mw = 7.0 – 7.9
•
Strong—Mw = 6.0 – 6.9
•
Moderate—Mw = 5.0 – 5.9
•
Light—Mw = 4.0 – 4.9
•
Minor—Mw = 3.0 – 3.9
•
Micro—Mw < 3
Page 58 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale is from I to XII, which refers I, as not felt and XII as extreme. Figure 6.3.1 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
Over 75% of unincorporated Los Angeles County is at risk for severe to extreme shaking in a future earthquake. The region's dense urban environment, combined with aging infrastructure, increases the likelihood of extensive damage and prolonged recovery times. Faults running beneath critical infrastructure corridors, including freeways and power grids, pose a significant threat to public safety and economic stability of the planning area.
Page 59 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.3.4 History Los Angeles County has a long history of destructive earthquakes, with some of the earliest recorded events dating back to the early 19th century. The San Juan Capistrano Earthquake of 1812 (M 7.5) was among the first to be documented, causing the collapse of Mission San Juan Capistrano and resulting in 40 fatalities. Over the years, the county has experienced numerous significant quakes, including the devastating 1857 Fort Tejon Earthquake (M 7.9), the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake (M 6.6), and the infamous 1994 Northridge Earthquake (M 6.7), which caused billions in damages and led to widespread infrastructure failures. There have been no federal declarations or state proclamations for earthquakes in the last five years. Major Earthquakes in Los Angeles County (1812 – Present) Date December 8, 1812 December 21, 1812 January 9, 1857
July 21, 1952
February 9, 1971
October 1, 1987 February 28, 1990
Magnitude
Name / Location San Juan
7.5
Capistrano Earthquake
7.1
7.9
7.5
6.6
5.9 5.7
Notable Impact Destroyed Mission San Juan Capistrano, killed 40 people.
West Ventura
Caused significant shaking in
Earthquake
Southern California.
Fort Tejon Earthquake Kern County Earthquake San Fernando Earthquake
Largest earthquake on the San Andreas Fault; ruptured 225 miles. Strong shaking felt in Los Angeles; major damage to Bakersfield. 65 deaths, $553 million in damages, collapse of Veterans Hospital.
Whittier Narrows
8 deaths, 200 injuries, $358
Earthquake
million in damages.
Upland Earthquake
30 injuries, $12.7 million in damages. Page 60 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
June 28, 1991
5.6
January 17, 1994 6.7
July 29, 2008
5.5
March 28, 2014
5.1
July 6, 2019
7.1
Sierra Madre
1 death, 100+ injuries, $40
Earthquake
million in damages.
Northridge Earthquake
57 deaths, 8,700 injuries, $40 billion in damages, freeways collapsed.
Chino Hills
8 injuries, minor structural
Earthquake
damage.
La Habra
Few injuries, $10 million in
Earthquake
damages.
Ridgecrest Earthquake
Widespread damage in Southern California, infrastructure impacts.
6.3.5 Probability Trends in Seismic Activity Over 163 earthquakes of M 5.0 or greater have been recorded in Southern California since 1812. The San Andreas Fault remains the greatest seismic hazard, with a 59% chance of an M 6.7+ event in the next 30 years. Future Earthquake Occurrence The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates the following probabilities for a major earthquake in Los Angeles County in the next 30 years: •
60% chance of an M 6.7+ earthquake
•
46% chance of an M 7.0+ earthquake
•
31% chance of an M 7.5+ earthquake
6.3.6 Vulnerability The county’s vulnerability to earthquakes extends beyond physical infrastructure, affecting its residents and essential services. Older buildings, particularly unreinforced masonry and soft-story structures, are at high risk of collapse, posing significant Page 61 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
dangers to residents and businesses. Seismic retrofitting, early warning systems, and stricter building codes have improved resilience, but vulnerabilities remain in older structures and critical infrastructure. Critical Infrastructure at Risk •
Highways, bridges, and transportation routes: A major earthquake could severely disrupt mobility, shipment of goods and services while also delaying emergency response and evacuations. Major highways such as, but not limited to the I-5, I-10, US-101, CA-60, CA-14, I-405, I-710, and I-105 could be impacted.
•
Energy grids and water system: Disruptions could leave millions without power and clean water.
•
Hospitals and emergency services: 325 hospitals and 1,299 fire stations in the Los Angeles County could suffer functional impairments.
•
Unreinforced masonry and soft-story buildings: Many older structures are highly susceptible to collapse during strong ground shaking.
County Specific Critical Facilities Affected: •
Fire Department: 314 facilities (93.18%)
•
Public Works: 201 facilities (87.39%)
•
Health Services: 56 facilities (85.71%)
•
Public Health: 37 facilities (92.50%)
•
Libraries: 78 branches (89.66%)
•
Parks: 179 (97.79%)
•
Education: 70 (85.37%)
Los Angeles County lies at the intersection of multiple major fault lines, including the San Andreas Fault. According to the hazard matrix, the risk of violent ground shaking is prevalent countywide, particularly in urban centers and regions with critical infrastructure. The potential consequences of violent seismic shaking include widespread structural damage, disruption of services, economic losses, and human casualties. Populations at Risk •
The THIRA estimates over 2 million residents could be significantly impacted in a major seismic event, particularly those in high-risk seismic zones.
Page 62 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
People Experiencing Homelessness (PEH) populations: 75,000+ unhoused individuals in Los Angeles County live in areas at risk of violent shaking.
•
Low-income and individuals with access and functional needs (AFN): For more details on impacted population please see Section 5.
Extent of Exposure •
Total Area Exposed: 3,041.91 sq mi
•
Supervisorial Districts (SD) Impacted: o
SD5: 1,950.78 sq mi (69.50%)
o
SD3: 379.41 sq mi (87.99%)
o
SD1: 349.17 sq mi (98.95%)
o
SD2: 362.95 sq mi (99.99%)
o
SD4: 210.92 sq mi (99.10%)
6.3.7 Impacts Los Angeles County has a long history of experiencing damaging earthquakes due to its location along multiple active fault systems, including the San Andreas, NewportInglewood, and Whittier faults. Historic earthquakes such as the 1971 San Fernando (M6.6) and 1994 Northridge (M6.7) events caused catastrophic losses. The San Fernando earthquake resulted in 65 deaths, the collapse of hospital structures, and over $550 million in damages, while the Northridge earthquake caused 57 deaths, more than 8,700 injuries, and an estimated $40 billion in economic losses, including widespread infrastructure failures such as collapsed freeways and damaged utility systems. Impacts from future major seismic events are projected to be even more severe due to population density, aging infrastructure, and increasing development in seismically vulnerable areas. Over 75% of unincorporated Los Angeles County is at risk of severe to extreme ground shaking. Current estimates suggest that a large-magnitude earthquake could displace up to 2.2 million people, injure or kill thousands, and result in over $200 billion in combined economic losses, including $113 billion in property damage and $68 billion in business interruptions.
Page 63 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
The County’s critical systems; power, water, transportation, healthcare, and communications, are especially vulnerable. A major earthquake could impair up to 325 hospitals and 1,299 fire stations and disrupt critical infrastructure for millions. Populations with heightened vulnerability include the 75,000+ people experiencing homelessness, those with access and functional needs, and residents of older, unreinforced masonry and soft-story structures. Without sufficient mitigation, a future earthquake could result in cascading failures across multiple sectors and prolong the County’s recovery for years. These risks highlight the urgency for continued investment in seismic retrofitting, stricter enforcement of building codes, expanding statewide early warning systems, and equitable preparedness programs targeting at-risk vulnerable populations. •
Casualties and injuries: Depending on the time of day and location, thousands could be injured or killed in a severe earthquake.
•
Economic disruption: A significant earthquake could halt business operations, damage supply chains, and force thousands into unemployment.
•
Housing displacement: An estimated 2.2 million residents could be displaced, with tens of thousands requiring emergency sheltering.
Economic Impact A major earthquake in Los Angeles County could result in over $200 billion in economic losses, with a total of $118 trillion-dollar exposure. Losses can include: •
$68 billion in business interruptions
•
$51 billion in lost economic activity
•
$113 billion in property damages
Problem Statement The pervasive exposure of Los Angeles County to violent earthquake shaking presents a systemic threat to public safety, economic stability, and essential services. Nearly all major departments and infrastructure elements are located within high-shaking hazard zones. The extensive reach across all five Supervisorial Districts (SD) amplifies the challenge, highlighting the urgent need for retrofitting, public education, preparedness programs, and resilient design policies. Failure to address this hazard could lead to catastrophic loss of life and functionality in the event of a major seismic event. Page 64 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.3.8 Mitigation and Preparedness Efforts to reduce earthquake risks in Los Angeles County include strengthening building codes, enhancing emergency preparedness, and retrofitting vulnerable structures. Key efforts to mitigate earthquake risks include: •
Strengthening building codes and enforcing retrofitting laws
•
Upgrading critical infrastructure
•
Expanding public education and early warning systems
•
Enhancing emergency response planning
By proactively implementing these measures, Los Angeles County aims to reduce casualties, infrastructure damage, and economic losses in future seismic events. Seismic Retrofitting Programs •
Soft story retrofit program: Mandates seismic upgrades for older apartment buildings.
•
Non-ductile concrete building retrofits: Strengthens older commercial and residential structures.
•
Hospitals and emergency facilities retrofitting:
Ensures critical services
remain operational post-earthquake. Policy and Regulatory Measures •
Assembly Bill (AB) 1857: Strengthens building standards for multi-story structures.
•
AB 2681: Requires cities and counties to inventory vulnerable buildings.
•
Updated California Building Code (CBC): Enforces stricter seismic design criteria for new construction.
•
Public Education: Teaching to Drop, Cover and Hold On; the household preparedness checklist, educate residents on emergency response, retrofitting, and disaster preparedness.
•
Early Warning/ ShakeAlert System: Provides real-time earthquake early warnings to residents via mobile alerts and public messaging.
•
Public earthquake drills: Annual Great California ShakeOut encourages preparedness. Page 65 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.3.9 Summary Los Angeles County remains at high risk for devastating earthquakes, with scientific projections indicating a strong likelihood of a significant seismic event in the coming decades. The region has experienced numerous historic earthquakes, and the potential for future large-scale disasters remains ever-present. While advances in engineering, emergency preparedness, and mitigation efforts have improved resilience, challenges persist, particularly regarding aging infrastructure and vulnerable communities. Continued investments in retrofitting, public education, and early warning systems will be critical in minimizing casualties, economic losses, and recovery challenges in future earthquakes.
Page 66 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.4 Extreme Heat 6.4.1 Nature Extreme heat refers to prolonged periods of high temperatures, often accompanied by high humidity, posing significant health risks such as heat exhaustion and heat stroke. The urban heat island (UHI) effect, prevalent in densely built areas like Los Angeles County, intensifies these conditions by absorbing and retaining heat. The changing climate conditions through time in the region exacerbate for the rising of daily temperature and for the increasing of extreme heat days in the County. This leads to health issues, increase energy demand, and strain on infrastructure.
6.4.2 Location Los Angeles County is particularly susceptible to extreme heat due to its diverse geography and urban density. All of Los Angeles County may experience extreme heat, nonetheless inland regions, including the valleys and high desert areas experience Page 67 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
higher temperatures compared to coastal areas. The urban heat island (UHI) effect can increase temperatures in cities and developed areas than the less developed areas. Urban centers with extensive concrete and asphalt surfaces further amplify heat retention, contributing to elevated temperatures and increased UHI effect in the county.
6.4.3 Extent The severity of heat events in Los Angeles County has been increasing. Projections indicate a significant rise in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, with inland areas potentially experiencing temperatures exceeding 110°F. The urban heat island effect can cause urban areas to be several degrees warmer than their rural counterparts, exacerbating the impact of heat waves. The chart below shows the levels of heat wave impacts used to measure heatwave severity. HeatRisk, an experimental measure developed by the NWS in collaboration with the CDC, classifies heat events by their impact on human health. It ranges from Green (0) which is little or no risk to Magenta (4), which means extreme heat with no overnight relief. Category Green 0 Yellow 1
Orange 2
Red 3
Figure 6.4.1 Risk of Heat-Related Impacts Little to no risk from expected heat. Minor - This level of heat affects primarily those individuals extremely sensitive to heat, especially when outdoors without effective cooling and/or adequate hydration. Moderate - This level of heat affects most individuals sensitive to heat, especially those without effective cooling and/or adequate hydration. Impacts possible in some health systems and in heat-sensitive industries. Major - This level of heat affects anyone without effective cooling and/or adequate hydration. Impacts likely in some health systems, heat-sensitive industries and infrastructure. Extreme - This level of rare and/or long-duration extreme heat with little to no
Magenta
overnight relief affects anyone without effective cooling and/or adequate
4
hydration. Impacts likely in most health systems, heat-sensitive industries and infrastructure.
National Weather Service (NWS), 2024
Page 68 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
August, being the hottest month of the year that the planning area experiences the Figure 6.4.2 below shows, the average high temperature for August 2024 in Los Angeles County. As shown, the temperature varies by location but remains higher than average monthly temperature.
Figure 6.4.2, Mean Max Temperature for August 2024, National Weather Service
6.4.4 History Because of the changing climate conditions and the geographical location, Los Angeles County has been experiencing extreme heat waves in the past years. It has a history of extreme heat events, with temperatures frequently reaching 100 degrees or more, especially during the summer months. In some cases, these extreme heat events are record-breaking heat waves surpassing their all-time highs. Extreme Heat events include: •
August 2020: A severe heatwave led to widespread power outages, affecting nearly 500,000 residents. Page 69 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
September 2020: The San Fernando Valley recorded a record high temperature of 121°F.
•
August 2022: A record-breaking heatwave in late summer exceeded 100°F
•
September 2024: A severe September heatwave pushed temperatures 1020°F above normal, hitting 109°F in Long Beach
The History of Extreme heat events highlight the increasing trend of extreme heat occurrences in the region. There have been no federal declarations or state proclamations for extreme heat in the last five years. Even though there were no declared extreme heat emergencies, the county has issued several heat alerts and taken measures to protect residents from the impacts of heat waves during these periods.
6.4.5 Probability Extreme heat events are an annual occurrence in Los Angeles County, though severity of such events vary per year based on other conditions, such as El Niño. Climate models project a substantial increase in the likelihood of extreme heat events in Los Angeles County. By mid-century, the county could experience more than five major heat waves annually, with some models suggesting up to tenfold increases in frequency. This heightened probability necessitates proactive mitigation and adaptation strategies.
Figure 6.4.3, Average Temperature 1900-2025, NOAA, NCEI, 2025.
6.4.6 Vulnerability Extreme heat poses a significant and growing threat to Los Angeles County, where rising temperatures, urban heat islands, and widespread social vulnerability intersect. Those most at risk include the elderly, low-income households lacking air conditioning, Page 70 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
people experiencing homelessness (PEH), individuals with access and functional needs (AFN), and the County’s large population of outdoor and non-air-conditioned indoor workers. Infrastructure is also strained; electricity demand spikes during heatwaves, often overwhelming the power grid and triggering outages. Water systems experience increased demand and evaporation losses, while roadways and rail lines are subject to buckling or operational delays. In recent years, Los Angeles County has experienced severe consequences from prolonged heat events, reinforcing the urgent need for heat resilience strategies targeting both people and critical services. Los Angeles County–Specific Impacts and Data •
491,600 residents experienced power outages during the August 2020 heatwave.
•
96% of the County’s 1,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines are exposed to moderate to high extreme heat risk.
•
1.7 million residents are considered highly vulnerable due to age, income, disability, or chronic health conditions.
•
Over 300,000 outdoor workers are at elevated risk for heat-related illness and injury.
•
Thousands of heat-related emergency visits occurred during multi-day heat events in 2020 and 2022; especially in neighborhoods with limited shade and high surface temperatures.
•
50+ cooling centers have been activated across the County during recent heatwaves to support at-risk populations.
•
High heat contributes to worsened air quality, increased wildfire smoke exposure, and economic losses due to infrastructure damage, productivity decline, and rising healthcare costs.
6.4.7 Impacts Los Angeles County has faced significant and growing impacts from extreme heatwaves over the past two decades. In August 2020, a prolonged heatwave caused rolling blackouts affecting nearly 500,000 customers, overwhelmed the state’s electrical grid, and forced the activation of emergency conservation protocols. That same summer, the San Fernando Valley hit 121°F, leading to widespread strain on Page 71 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
HVAC systems and increased emergency room visits for heat-related illnesses. The 2022 and 2024 heatwaves brought similar conditions—temperatures over 100°F across the region led to localized transformer failures, asphalt buckling, and strain on water delivery systems due to elevated demand. During these events, outdoor workers, the elderly, and low-income residents without access to cooling systems were among the most affected. Economic activity was disrupted, with reports of business closures, service delays, and increased healthcare costs. In 2024, Long Beach reached a record 109°F, causing a spike in electricity demand and triggering emergency energy alerts across Southern California. Heat-related deaths and hospitalizations have also trended upward, particularly in neighborhoods with low tree canopy and high impervious surfaces. These impacts underscore the need for resilient infrastructure and targeted adaptation strategies to safeguard health and essential services.
6.4.8 Mitigation and Preparedness The most effective way to reduce the negative impacts of an extreme heat event is to develop a comprehensive heat response plan that has individual strategies to effectively manage heat waves during peak seasons of the year. The plan might include forecasting and monitoring, education and awareness, and heat wave response. To address extreme heat, Los Angeles County has implemented several measures: •
Cooling Centers: Establishment of air-conditioned public spaces where residents can seek relief during heatwaves. These centers are facilities such as libraries, community centers, and senior centers. Residents can locate the nearest cooling center using resources provided by the county. Additional resources can be found at https://ready.lacounty.gov/heat/
•
Urban Greening Initiatives: Programs aimed at increasing green spaces, planting trees, and creating parks to provide shade and reduce ambient temperatures. These efforts help mitigate the urban heat island effect.
•
Public Awareness Campaigns: Educational initiatives to inform residents about heat risks, prevention strategies, and resources available during extreme heat events. These campaigns emphasize the importance of hydration, recognizing heat-related illness symptoms, and utilizing cooling centers.
•
Building Codes and Regulations: Incorporation of heat-mitigating designs and materials in new constructions and retrofits, such as cool roofs and reflective
Page 72 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
pavements, to reduce heat absorption. These measures aim to lower indoor temperatures and decrease reliance on air conditioning. These strategies are designed to reduce heat exposure, protect vulnerable populations, and enhance community resilience against extreme heat events.
6.4.9 Summary Extreme heat poses a growing threat to Los Angeles County, with increasing frequency and intensity of heat waves exacerbated by urban heat island (UHI) effects. Understanding these impacts of extreme heat and taking appropriate precautions, residents of Los Angeles County can protect themselves and their communities from this growing climate hazard. The county has undertaken various mitigation efforts, including the establishment of cooling centers, urban greening projects, public education campaigns, and the implementation of heat-conscious building practices. Ongoing adaptation and proactive planning are essential to safeguard public health, infrastructure, and the environment from the adverse effects of extreme heat.
Page 73 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.5 Drought 6.5.1 Nature Drought is a prolonged period of belowaverage precipitation that leads to water shortages, impacting agriculture, ecosystems, and urban water supplies. Unlike other natural disasters, drought develops gradually, making it difficult to predict and mitigate. In Los Angeles County, droughts are a recurring issue due
to
the
region’s
arid
climate
and
dependence on imported water supplies. Drought severity is determined by its duration, intensity,
geographic
extent,
and
water
demand. Climate change is exacerbating these factors, reduced
leading
to
hotter
precipitation,
temperatures,
and
increased
evaporation rates. Wildfires are also projected to increase in frequency and intensity during drought season. There are four common classifications of drought: •
Meteorological Drought: A prolonged period of below-normal precipitation. Page 74 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
Hydrological Drought: A reduction in surface and groundwater levels due to prolonged precipitation deficits.
•
Agricultural Drought: A lack of soil moisture that affects crop growth and livestock sustainability.
•
Socioeconomic Drought: When water shortages impact drinking water supplies, sanitation, public services, and economic activities.
6.5.2 Location Drought is regional in nature and typically affects the entire Los Angeles County planning area. Given the county’s reliance on imported water from the Sierra Nevada snowpack and the Colorado River, reduced availability of these sources significantly increases vulnerability.
6.5.3 Extent Drought is a recurring natural hazard that can severely impact agriculture, water supply, ecosystems, and communities. To monitor and communicate drought conditions across the United States, the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC), in partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), produces weekly U.S. Drought Monitor maps. These maps categorize drought conditions into five levels based on intensity, duration, and impact on various sectors, including agriculture, water resources, and public health. Each drought category reflects a different level of severity, from short-term dry conditions that may slow crop growth, to long-term, widespread water shortages that require emergency response. These classifications help decision-makers, farmers, and water managers respond appropriately to emerging or ongoing drought conditions. See Figure 6.5.1 below for more information.
Page 75 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Drought Categories and Associated Impacts: CATEGORY
D4
D3
D2
D1
D0
DESCRIPTION
EXCEPTIONAL DROUGHT
EXTREME DROUGHT
SEVERE DROUGHT
MODERATE DROUGHT
ABNORMALLY DRY
POSSIBLE IMPACTS
• •
Exceptional and widespread crop/pasture losses Critical shortages of water in reservoirs, streams, and wells Water emergencies and possible mandatory rationing Severe impacts on ecosystems and wildlife habitats
• • • •
Major agricultural losses and pasture failure Widespread water shortages Water use restrictions likely enforced Increased risk of wildfires and heat-related stress
• • • •
Crop and pasture losses becoming likely Water shortages becoming common Local governments may implement water restrictions Hydropower generation and irrigation potentially impacted
• • • •
Noticeable damage to crops and pastures Water levels in streams and reservoirs begin to decline Voluntary water-use restrictions may be requested Some stress on fish and wildlife populations
•
Early signs of drought, with short-term dryness slowing planting and crop growth If improving lingering water deficits as area recovers from drought Pastures or vegetation may show signs of delayed recovery
• •
• •
Figure 6.5.1 Drought Categories and Associated Impacts
These classifications not only help guide resources and planning but also raise awareness about the broader consequences of prolonged dryness. Understanding the extent and severity of drought helps ensure timely response and mitigation efforts at local, state, and federal levels.
Page 76 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Figure 6.5.2, U.S. Drought Monitor, 2025
6.5.4 History Los Angeles County has experienced multiple significant droughts, with some lasting several years. There have been no federal declarations or state proclamations for drought in the last five years.
Page 77 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Notable historical drought periods include: 1. 1917-1921 – A widespread drought affecting most of California. 2. 1976-1977 – One of the driest two-year periods in recorded history. 3. 1987-1992 – A six-year drought that severely impacted water supplies and agriculture. 4. 2007-2009 – A prolonged drought leading to state-imposed water restrictions. 5. 2011-2017 – The most severe drought in modern history, resulting in groundwater depletion and mandatory conservation measures. 6. 2020-2022 – California experienced a significant drought, with Los Angeles County experiencing "abnormally dry" conditions. 7. 2024-2025 – Los Angeles County is continuing to experience abnormally dry conditions, with lower average rainfalls and arid conditions.
Figure 6.5.3, NOAA Drought Severity Index, 2024
The chart above, the Palmer Drought Severity Index, shows how drought conditions have been changing since 1895. The Palmer Drought Severity Index measures how dry or wet an area is by comparing rainfall and temperature to long-term averages. It gives a number (positive or negative) showing drought severity or excess moisture. Los Angeles County was in some form of drought for 376 consecutive weeks from December 20, 2011, until March 14, 2019. The State and the County passed several resolutions and regulations at different times to mitigate drought impacts like water
Page 78 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
conservation regulations. There were no federally declared drought disasters in the area in the past five years in the planning area.
6.5.5 Probability Climate scientists predict that Los Angeles County and the rest of Southern California will get drier, while Northern California will get hotter. Rising temperatures contribute to higher evaporation rates and declining snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, a critical source of water for Southern California. The frequency of extreme droughts is expected to increase, reducing available water resources and heightening competition between urban, agricultural, and environmental needs. Long-term droughts have a 100% of occurring every ten-years, with potential for longer and more destructive drought events due to climate change.
6.5.6 Vulnerability Los Angeles County’s 10 million residents face growing vulnerabilities during prolonged droughts, with over 75% of community water systems exhibiting at least one drought-related risk, such as reliance on a single source or aging infrastructure. The County’s dependence on imported water—serving over 60% of residents—increases exposure to supply disruptions from reduced Sierra Nevada snowpack and Colorado River allocations. All residents, and visitors of Los Angeles County are affected by water shortages during a prolonged drought conditions. Vulnerabilities include: •
Low-income households, often lacking water-efficient appliances and cooling systems.
•
Agricultural industry with over 140,000 acres of irrigated farmland in the County is at risk of reduced water allocation and drying pastures for livestock.
•
Wildland-urban interface (WUI) communities, where over 1 million residents face heightened wildfire risk due to dry vegetation and limited firefighting water supply.
•
Critical infrastructure operations may be impacted by a range of factors from reduced hydropower availability when reservoir levels decrease to power station cooling challenges. Page 79 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
These vulnerabilities illustrate the far-reaching, cross-sector impacts of drought on the County’s economy, environment, and most at-risk communities.
6.5.7 Impacts Over the past five years, Los Angeles County has experienced intensifying drought conditions marked by rising temperatures, reduced snowpack, and persistent water shortages. By 2022, 75% of the County’s community water systems showed at least one drought vulnerability, including reliance on a single water source or aging infrastructure. Public health impacts have also emerged, with 1,113 cases of Valley fever reported in 2020, linked to dry soil and dust exposure. Hydropower reductions during drought periods increased reliance on natural gas, contributing to elevated energy costs for residents. These compounding impacts have strained water supply, health systems, and infrastructure, reinforcing drought as a major and growing hazard for Los Angeles County.
6.5.8 Mitigation and Preparedness To combat increasing drought risks, Los Angeles County has implemented water conservation policies, infrastructure investments, and emergency response measures. Key strategies include: Water Management and Conservation •
Expanding water recycling and desalination programs to reduce reliance on imported water.
•
Implementing drought-tolerant landscaping initiatives to lower residential and commercial water use.
•
Enforcing water efficiency regulations for new developments and upgrading older properties with water-saving strategies.
Infrastructure Improvements •
Enhancing groundwater recharge projects to increase local water storage.
•
Upgrading stormwater capture systems to maximize water retention during rainy seasons.
•
Developing new water storage facilities to provide additional supply resilience.
Community Preparedness and Public Awareness Page 80 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
Launching county-wide conservation campaigns to encourage sustainable water use.
•
Increasing financial incentives for water-efficient appliances and irrigation systems.
•
Strengthening emergency drought response plans to ensure equitable water distribution during crises.
6.5.9 Summary Drought remains a persistent and growing threat to Los Angeles County’s water security and economic stability. Climate change projections indicate more frequent and severe droughts, placing greater strain on water supply systems, public health, and agriculture. By implementing proactive water management strategies, investing in infrastructure resilience, and promoting community awareness, the County can mitigate the long-term impacts of drought and ensure sustainable water resources for future generations.
Page 81 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.6 Flooding 6.6.1 Nature Flooding is a persistent and increasingly severe hazard in Los Angeles County, driven by heavy rainfall, storm surge, stormwater drainage, and rising sea levels. The county’s complex hydrology, which includes rivers, creeks, and an extensive urban flood control system, is highly susceptible to overflow events when precipitation exceeds drainage capacity. The effects of climate change are exacerbating flood risks by intensifying storms, altering precipitation patterns, and increasing sea levels, leading to greater coastal inundation and inland flash floods. Unlike other regions that experience seasonal flooding due to snowmelt, flooding in Los Angeles County primarily occurs during winter storms and atmospheric river events, which bring intense rainfall and lightning over short periods. •
The region’s high degree of urbanization contributes to flash flooding, as paved surfaces prevent natural absorption of water, leading to rapid runoff and street flooding. Page 82 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
Burn scars from recent wildfires further compound flood risks by reducing vegetation cover, destabilizing hillsides, and increasing the likelihood of land movement.
Flooding also creates secondary hazards, including erosion, infrastructure damage, water contamination, and transportation disruptions. Stormwater runoff can overwhelm wastewater treatment facilities, leading to hazardous spills. Landslides and mudflows in post-wildfire areas pose additional risks to homes, roads, and critical infrastructure. These compounding threats highlight the urgent need for comprehensive flood mitigation efforts to protect communities, infrastructure, and the environment.
6.6.2 Location Flood hazards are geographically widespread, with more than 240 square miles of land located within the 100- and 500-year floodplains. Historically significant events, such as the 1938 and 1969 floods, as well as more recent storms in 2023 and 2024, have caused substantial damage to infrastructure, triggered evacuations, and challenged long-term recovery efforts. Socially vulnerable populations, including older adults, individuals with access and functional needs, and low-income households, face disproportionate impacts due to limited financial resources, inadequate insurance coverage, and reduced access to services. The County’s flood control system includes concrete river channels, levees, storm drains, debris basins and reservoirs; has helped mitigate some flood risks but remains vulnerable to high-intensity storms that exceed design capacities. Major Flood-Prone Areas: •
Los Angeles River, San Gabriel River, and Santa Clara River: These major waterways are prone to overflow during extreme storm events, particularly during El Niño years.
•
Ballona Creek and Malibu Creek: These urban watersheds experience rapid runoff and flash flooding, especially in developed areas.
•
Foothills, Valleys, and Recent Burn Scar Areas: Post-wildfire regions face heightened risk of flash floods and debris flows following storms.
•
Antelope Valley: In desert regions, stormwater pools into temporary lakes, causing flooded roadways and infrastructure damage.
Page 83 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
Coastal Communities: Rising sea levels and storm surges threaten beachfront properties, harbors, and businesses.
Urban areas are particularly vulnerable due to impervious surfaces and outdated drainage systems. During intense storms, neighborhoods in Downtown Los Angeles, South LA, and the San Fernando Valley frequently experience street flooding and traffic disruptions, demonstrating the limitations of existing infrastructure in handling modern storm events. For a better visual representation of this Flooding Hazard within the LA County planning area, please reference Appendix A for flood and inundation maps.
6.6.3 Extent Los Angeles County faces a significant and evolving flood risk, with impacts ranging from localized urban inundation to widespread riverine flooding and destructive debris flows. Although the County has invested heavily in flood control infrastructure; including an extensive network of dams and debris basins; these systems are increasingly strained and cannot fully eliminate the threat. A growing number of residents are exposed to dangerous flooding each year, a situation made worse by the limitations of aging infrastructure and the complexities of urban hydrology. Intense rainfall events, especially those associated with atmospheric rivers, are occurring more frequently and with greater severity, often overwhelming drainage systems and resulting in severe flooding of streets and neighborhoods. Compounding this risk are burn scars from recent wildfires, which heighten the likelihood of mudslides and debris flows that threaten both life and property. As climate patterns shift and extreme weather events become more common, the flood vulnerability of Los Angeles County continues to deepen across its diverse geography. Flood severity is typically measured using the 100-year and 500-year flood recurrence intervals, which indicate a 1% and 0.2% annual probability of flooding, respectively. These designations guide floodplain management and mitigation efforts. Key Flood Hazard Statistics in Los Angeles County: •
243.32 square miles (5.11%) of land have a 0.2% annual flood probability.
•
4.19 square miles (0.09%) have a 1% annual flood probability.
Page 84 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Key Flood Hazard Statistics for Unincorporated Los Angeles County: •
64.77 square miles (2.13%) have a 0.2% flood probability.
•
1.23 square miles (0.04%) have a 1% flood probability.
As climate change accelerates sea-level rise and extreme rainfall events, these floodprone areas may expand, affecting more residents, infrastructure, and businesses. FLOOD IMPACT ON LAND AREA 0.2% Annual Flood Probability
1% Annual Flood Probability
Los Angeles County
243.32 sq. mi. (5.11%)
4.19 sq. mi. (0.09%)
Unincorporated LA County
64.77 sq. mi. (2.13%)
1.23 sq. mi. (0.04%)
Area
6.6.4 History Los Angeles County has experienced numerous severe flood events, many of which have caused catastrophic damage to infrastructure, property, and human life. Over the decades, climate variability, rapid urbanization, and an aging flood control system have led to repeated flooding disasters. There have been no federal declarations or state proclamations for earthquakes in the last five years. Below are some of the most significant historical and recent flood events affecting the region. Notable Flood and Lightning Events in Los Angeles County: •
1938 Los Angeles Floods: One of the deadliest floods in county history, caused by weeks of torrential rainfall, resulting in over 100 deaths, the destruction of thousands of homes, and widespread infrastructure damage, particularly to bridges and roadways.
•
1969 Winter Storms: Heavy rains led to massive debris flows in the San Gabriel Mountains, severe urban flooding across Los Angeles, and multiple dam breaches, prompting major evacuations.
•
1992-1993 El Niño Floods: A series of storms triggered landslides, flash flooding, and major coastal erosion, with significant damage to Pacific Coast Highway and residential areas.
•
2017 Winter Storms (DR-4305): Record-breaking rainfall led to significant urban flooding, road closures, and mudslides, with severe impacts across multiple communities. Page 85 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
October 2021: Los Angeles County experienced a rare and intense thunderstorm with a significant amount of lightning.
•
September 2022 Hurricane Kay: A pacific hurricane that caused significant rainfall along with risk of mudflows, coastal flooding, and coastal erosion.
•
January 2023 Atmospheric River Event (DR-4683): Heavy rainfall overwhelmed storm drains, causing significant flooding in Hollywood, Baldwin Hills, and low-lying inland areas, leading to evacuations and infrastructure damage.
•
February 2023 Los Angeles Floods (DR-4699): A series of intense storms caused widespread flash flooding, freeway closures, and landslides, demonstrating the increasing vulnerability of the county's urban areas to extreme precipitation events.
•
August 2023 Tropical Storm Hilary (DR-4750): Several locations in the mountains of Southern California received over 10 inches of rainfall which set daily and/or monthly rainfall records, in many locations in Southern California, including within Los Angeles County. It also created significant threat of flash and riverine flooding prompted the evacuation of numerous vulnerable communities near burn scars in the region.
•
December 2023 Pacific Storm: Storm surges and extreme coastal flooding led to significant erosion along the coastline, particularly impacting Marina del Rey, Long Beach, and Venice Beach.
•
February - March 2024 Atmospheric River Storm (DR-4769): One of the most intense rainfall events in recent history, resulting in severe flash floods, mudslides, and power outages, with many homes and businesses sustaining flood damage.
6.6.5 Probability Flood recurrence in Los Angeles County is influenced by both natural climate variability and the increasing effects of climate change. Historically, severe flooding is most likely during strong El Niño events, which occur approximately every 2 to 7 years and can persist for several months to multiple years. These events bring elevated precipitation levels and increase the likelihood of both inland and coastal flooding. As climate change accelerates, the frequency and intensity of flood-generating events are expected to increase, altering traditional recurrence intervals and expanding the areas at risk. There is a 95% chance of a flooding event occurring each year withing Los Angeles County. Page 86 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Key climate-related drivers include: •
Sea-Level Rise: Projected to rise by 6 inches to over 2 feet by 2050, increasing the risk of tidal and storm surge flooding in coastal communities.
•
Atmospheric River Events: According to the 2024 THIRA, these events are becoming more frequent and intense, leading to elevated flash flood and debris flow risks.
•
El Niño Cycles: Still expected every 2 to 7 years, but with increased variability and storm intensity that can overwhelm local drainage and flood control systems.
These evolving conditions challenge existing floodplain maps and design assumptions, highlighting the need for adaptive planning, updated risk models, and continued investment in resilient infrastructure and flood mitigation strategies.
6.6.6 Vulnerability Los Angeles County faces widespread and layered vulnerabilities to flooding, shaped by a combination of environmental exposure and complex social factors. Physical vulnerability is pronounced in areas located within FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), post-wildfire burn scars, and low-lying urban drainage basins that are prone to flooding. However, the degree of risk is significantly heightened for certain populations who may lack the resources or capacity to prepare for, respond to, and recover from flood events. Socially vulnerable groups, including older adults, individuals with disabilities or access and functional needs (AFN), mobile home residents, people experiencing homelessness, and low-income households; are more likely to reside in structurally vulnerable housing. According to the 2021 Los Angeles County Comprehensive Floodplain Management Plan, more than a quarter of residents living within the 100-year floodplain earn less than $20,000 annually, underscoring the disproportionate economic burden faced by those least able to absorb the costs of recovery. Climate vulnerability data further demonstrates that marginalized communities in flood-exposed areas face elevated risks due to flooding events. The vulnerability landscape is further complicated by a shortage of affordable flood-resilient structures, and an increasing number of residents living in areas newly exposed due to climate-driven changes in precipitation and runoff patterns.
Page 87 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.6.7 Impacts Flooding in Los Angeles County leads to a broad range of direct and cascading impacts on people, infrastructure, environment, and the economy. The County’s extensive network of critical facilities, including hospitals, fire stations, wastewater treatment plants, schools, and power substations. These areas face recurring exposure within both 100- and 500-year floodplains. Damage to these facilities not only compromises their physical integrity but also threatens their functionality during emergency response operations. Flooding often disrupts lifeline services such as electricity, potable water, sanitation, and transportation, with rural and unincorporated areas facing the greatest challenges to rapid restoration. Mobile homes, frequently concentrated in low-lying or underdrained neighborhoods, are especially susceptible to flood damage due to construction limitations and inadequate protective measures. Previous flood events have resulted in significant debris flows, road closures, train stoppages, and damage to public and private structures. Primary Vulnerabilities & Impacts: •
Over 1,470 structures are estimated to be damaged in a 100-year flood event, with total damages exceeding $769.7 million in property losses in unincorporated Los Angeles County.
•
Additionally, more than 180 critical facilities are exposed in the 500-year floodplain, while 70 are within the 100-year floodplain, including transportation assets, utilities, emergency services, and hazardous materials facilities.
•
A 100-year flood event could displace over a thousand people with many requiring sheltering, support and recovery efforts.
•
Approximately 19,563 tons of building-related debris could be generated by a 100year flood event, with clean-up requiring more than 780 truckloads, posing logistical, environmental, and public health challenges.
•
28.6% of households in the 100-year floodplain are economically disadvantaged, earning under $20,000 per year, limiting their ability to evacuate, recover, or pay for mitigation improvements.
•
A large share of flood-prone properties are either uninsured or underinsured. The average flood insurance claim payout is $7,298, which is only about 1% of the 2019 Page 88 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
average replacement cost of structures in the floodplain—indicating significant gaps in financial resilience. •
Wildfire burn scars and post-fire hydrophobic soils significantly increase flood and debris flow risks, particularly in foothill and canyon communities. This hazard continues to grow in severity with climate-driven fire seasons.
Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities in Unincorporated Areas from 100-Year Flood Sector Safety & Security Food, Water & Sheltering Health & Medical Energy Communications Transportation Hazardous Materials Total/Average
Number of Facilities Affected 1 9 0 1 0 59 0 70
Average % of Total Value Damaged Structure Content 7.56 10.24 6.72 18.73 N/A N/A 23.90 47.79 N/A N/A 1.41 8.86 N/A N/A 9.90 21.40
Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities in Unincorporated Areas from 500-Year Flood Sector
Number of Facilities Affected
Safety & Security Food, Water & Sheltering Health & Medical Energy Communications Transportation Hazardous Materials Total/Average
4 41 0 1 2 107 30 185
Average % of Total Value Damaged Structure Content 28.39 37.56 7.73 27.01 N/A N/A 23.90 47.79 5.00 16.00 3.38 19.74 10.00 15.00 13.07 27.18
Charts Source: LA County Public Works; 2021 County Comprehensive Flood Plan
6.6.8 Mitigation and Preparedness
Los Angeles County’s flood mitigation strategy reduces hazard exposure, enhances community resilience, and supports long-term climate adaptation. Grounded in FEMA’s National Mitigation Framework, CalOES planning guidance, and local policy, the County implements both structural and non-structural measures to address current and future flood risks. Core actions include regular maintenance and targeted upgrades to Page 89 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
stormwater infrastructure, restoration of floodplains, and integration of flood hazard data into land use planning. The County also prioritizes the protection of critical facilities and vulnerable housing through site retrofits, property acquisition, and elevation programs. Public outreach is conducted through a bilingual, ADA-accessible Program for Public Information, which promotes flood safety awareness, emergency preparedness, and participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). To ensure that mitigation is both data-driven and community-centered, the County utilizes climate projections and FEMA’s HAZUS modeling to inform investments, while coordinating with regional partners to align local actions with broader watershed strategies. Key components of the approach include: •
Upgrading culverts, debris basins, and drainage systems to manage increased runoff
•
Promoting low-impact development (LID) and incorporating green infrastructure in urban design
•
Updating ordinances and the General Plan to discourage development in high-risk areas
•
Maintaining inventories of repetitive loss areas and prioritizing resources for the most vulnerable populations
This comprehensive strategy ensures Los Angeles County not only meets federal and state standards but advances flood risk reduction in a way that safeguards people, property, and natural systems for the future.
6.6.9 Summary Flooding is one of the most persistent and complex natural hazards in Los Angeles County, intensified by climate change, urbanization, and aging infrastructure. The Los Angeles County region experiences a range of flood types, including stormwater runoff, flash flooding, coastal inundation, and post-wildfire debris flows. These events are most common during winter storms and atmospheric river systems. High-density development, extensive paved surfaces, and fire-damaged hillsides contribute to rapid runoff and increased overall flood vulnerability. Areas along (but not limited to) the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Clara Rivers, as well as coastal communities and foothill regions, are particularly at risk.
Page 90 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Los Angeles County’s mitigation strategy is proactive and multifaceted. It includes infrastructure upgrades, nature-based solutions, land use policy updates, and public education. Core priorities focus on protecting critical facilities, reducing exposure in high-risk housing, and promoting community resilience. Planning efforts are supported by FEMA’s HAZUS risk modeling and local climate projections. Despite progress, more than 750,000 residents remain at risk from major flood events, reinforcing the need for continued investment in comprehensive, flood risk reduction across the county.
6.6.10 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Repetitive Loss (RL) According to the Los Angeles County Public Works, there are 55 Repetitive Loss (RL) properties in 28 RL areas of Unincorporated Los Angeles County as of 2025, and 8 Severe Repetitive Loss Properties (SRLP). A Repetitive Loss (RL) property is any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in any rolling 10-year period since 1978. Updated location information about RL properties in Unincorporated Los Angeles County were not available during the drafting of this plan, but is being finalized and will be included in subsequent hazard mitigation efforts. Data from 2011 showed that 24 RL properties were located in the SFHA. At the time, the Los Angeles County Public Works stated, “the majority of the repetitive losses are associated with localized urban drainage flood problems, even for properties within a FEMA-designated flood zone.” The Los Angeles County Public Works oversees RL mitigation projects.
Page 91 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.7 Dam Failure 6.7.1 Nature Dam failure refers to the structural collapse of a dam that results in the sudden and uncontrolled release of stored water. Such failures can occur due to age-related deterioration, inadequate spillway capacity, structural damage from seismic activity or flooding, and poor maintenance. The catastrophic release of water from a dam failure has the potential to cause human casualties, significant economic loss, and environmental destruction. This type of disaster is particularly dangerous because it can occur suddenly, leaving little time for evacuation or emergency response efforts. The magnitude of flooding from dam failure often exceeds the capacity of downstream channels, causing rapid inundation of surrounding areas. This flooding can lead to extensive property damage, erosion, infrastructure destruction, and contamination of water supplies. Additionally, secondary hazards such as landslides and debris flows can be triggered, compounding the disaster’s impact. The structural stress on dams may rise as dams age, and climate variability increases the frequency of extreme precipitation events. Planning efforts include both dams and debris basins. To simplify language of the plan both reservoir dams and storm water debris basins will be referred to as dams. Page 92 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.7.2 Location Los Angeles County has over 90 dams regulated by the California Department of Water Resources’ Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). Fifteen (15) of these dams and eighteen (18) debris basins are owned and operated by the Los Angeles County Public Works (PW). In 2017, the California Legislature mandated that all state-jurisdictional dams (excluding those classified as Low Hazard) develop dam breach inundation maps and Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) approved by DSOD and Cal OES. Many of these dams are located near highly populated areas, increasing the potential for human and economic impacts during a failure event. Seventy (70) dams are classified as High or Extremely High hazard potential dams, meaning their failure could result in significant loss of life and widespread property damage. The Whittier Narrows Dam, reclassified as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) highest-priority dam safety concern, poses one of the greatest risks due to its potential to flood highly populated areas from Pico Rivera to Long Beach. USACE has determined that an extreme storm event has a 1 in 900 (0.1%) chance of causing catastrophic failure annually. Mitigation actions related to County-owned dams are prioritized based on their hazard level and potential to impact populated areas. For a better visual representation of this Dam Failure Hazard within the LA County planning area, please reference Appendix A for all the County owned dams and debris basins maps.
6.7.3 Extent The Federal Guidelines for Inundation Mapping of Flood Risks Associated with Dam Incidents and Failures (FEMA P-946, 2013) categorizes dam hazards into four classifications: •
Low Hazard: Minimal damage expected, no loss of life.
•
Significant Hazard: Potential for property damage and economic disruption.
•
High Hazard: Likely to result in loss of life and significant damage to critical infrastructure.
•
Extremely High Hazard (DSOD Classification): Could cause large-scale fatalities and inundate areas with over 1,000 residents.
Given the population density of Los Angeles County, a dam failure classified as High or Extremely High Hazard would likely cause substantial human casualties, displace entire communities, and inflict severe economic and environmental damage. Table 6-3 and 6-4 below shows a list of dams and debris basins owned by PW along with their hazard classifications. Potential mitigation actions described in this AHMP are only applicable to the dams and debris basins owned by PW and implementation of these actions are the responsibility of the PW Stormwater Engineering Division – Dams Section. Page 93 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Table 6-3: Los Angeles County PW Dam Hazard Status Dam Name
Hazard Status
Location
Big Dalton
Extremely High
Glendora, CA
Big Santa Anita
Extremely High
Monrovia, CA
Big Tujunga No. 1
Extremely High
Tujunga, CA
Cogswell
Extremely High
Azusa, CA
Devils Gate
Extremely High
LA Canada Flintridge, CA
Live Oak
Extremely High
La Verne, CA
Morris
Extremely High
Azusa, CA
Pacoima
Extremely High
Pacoima, CA
Puddingstone
Extremely High
San Dimas, CA
Puddingstone Diversion
High
La Verne, CA
San Dimas
Extremely High
La Verne, CA
San Gabriel No. 1
Extremely High
Azusa, CA
Sawpit
Extremely High
Monrovia, CA
Sierra Madre
High
Sierra Madre, CA
Thompson Creek
Extremely High
Claremont, CA
Table 6-4: Los Angeles County PW Debris Basin Hazard Status Debris Basin Name
Hazard Status
Location
Bailey Debris Basin
High
Sierra Madre, CA
Big Dalton Debris Basin
High
Glendora, CA
Blanchard Debris Basin
High
Tujunga, CA
Brand Debris Basin
High
Glendale, CA
Eaton Wash Debris Basin
Extremely High
Pasadena, CA
La Tuna Debris Basin
Extremely High
Sun Valley, CA
Laguna Regulating Basin
Significant
Alhambra, CA
Little Dalton Debris Basin
Extremely High
Glendora, CA
Lower Sunset Debris Basin
High
Burbank, CA
Morgan Debris Basin
High
Glendora, CA
Rubio Debris Basin
High
Altadena, CA
Santa Anita Debris Basin
Low
Arcadia, CA
Sawpit Debris Basin
Extremely High
Monrovia, CA Page 94 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Debris Basin Name
Hazard Status
Location
Schoolhouse Debris Basin
High
Los Angeles, CA
Sierra Madre Villa
Extremely High
Sierra Madre, CA
Stevenson Ranch
High
Stevenson Ranch, CA
Stough Debris Basin
Extremely High
Burbank, CA
Wilson Debris Basin
High
Los Angeles, CA
6.7.4 History Los Angeles County has experienced one of the deadliest dam failures in U.S. history: •
St. Francis Dam Failure (March 12-13, 1928): o Released 12.4 billion gallons of water o At least 411 fatalities
o Devastated towns from San Francisquito Canyon to Ventura County
o Resulted in sweeping changes to California dam safety regulations and the creation of state oversight for civil engineers
While no major dam failures have occurred in recent decades, concerns over aging dam infrastructure, seismic risks, and increasing climate variability have raised alarms about future risks. Studies indicate that many California dams, including those in Los Angeles County, require structural updates to withstand modern hydrological conditions and potential seismic activity. There have been no federal declarations or state proclamations for dam failure in the last five years.
6.7.5 Dam Coordination Los Angeles County Public Works coordinates with local, state, and federal agencies to mitigate flood risk hazards to downstream communities from its dams. At the local level, PW works with cities and public agencies during development of Emergency Action Plans (EAP). This provides local stakeholders with the opportunity to review the EAP, provide feedback, and confirm responsibilities and roles during an EAP activation. At request from local jurisdictions, PW may provide tours of its dam facilities, where information on dam safety and the potential hazards associated with dam failures are shared. At the state level, PW works with the DSOD to meet compliance with state dam safety standards and flood management at all of PW’s dams. This includes annual dam Page 95 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
inspections, review, approval, and oversight of dam construction projects, review of dam safety monitoring, and oversight of other dam safety regulatory activities. PW also coordinates with various state agencies, including DSOD, Cal OES, and Caltrans during development of EAPs. At the federal level, PW works with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to meet compliance with state dam federal standards and flood management at PW’s San Gabriel Dam, which is under FERC jurisdiction. This includes annual dam inspections, review, approval, and oversight of dam construction projects, review of dam safety monitoring, EAP coordination, and oversight of other dam safety regulatory activities. PW also coordinates with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on operations of interconnected dam facilities and emergency response planning for USACE facilities that may be in the pathway of dam failure impacts. Information Sharing PW provides critical information to relevant local, state, and federal stakeholders to address hazard mitigation related to dam safety. This includes: •
•
Emergency Action Plans (EAPs): EAPs outline the roles, responsibilities, and procedures to follow in the event of a dam emergency. The EAPs include inundation maps, which show areas that would be affected by a dam failure, helping to identify populations at risk. These plans are shared with stakeholders to ensure a coordinated response. Due to the sensitive nature of information contained within the EAPs, they are confidential and not released to the general public. Inundation Maps: Inundation maps are critical tools for identifying areas and populations at risk in the event of a dam failure. They also indicate potential impacts on critical infrastructure facilities such as hospitals, schools, and transportation networks. These maps are shared with relevant stakeholders recognized in the EAP and are available to the general public through the DSOD Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher.
6.7.6 Probability Los Angeles County contains over 90 state-jurisdictional dams, with approximately 70 classified as High or Extremely High Hazard by the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD), meaning their failure could result in loss of life and significant property damage.
Page 96 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Although comprehensive failure probabilities are not published for each dam, FEMA and DSOD guidance suggest that the general annual probability of failure for High Hazard dams nationwide ranges from 0.01% to 0.1% (or 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000) depending on maintenance, age, seismic vulnerability, and other site-specific factors. Applying this range to Los Angeles County: •
The aggregate annual probability of a significant dam failure event in the county—across one or more of the 70 high-risk dams—is estimated at between 0.1% and 0.5% annually, factoring cumulative exposure and different hazard classifications. (Such as earthquake or flood related)
•
Climate change, aging infrastructure, and seismic activity in Los Angeles County increase systemic risk across multiple structures simultaneously.
In summary, while the individual likelihood of failure for any one dam is very low, the overall countywide probability of at least one major dam failure event is low but still warrants continued vigilance, maintenance, and emergency planning.
6.7.7 Vulnerability A catastrophic dam failure in Los Angeles County could have severe consequences for hundreds of thousands of residents. The densely populated nature of the county, combined with the location of several large dams near residential and commercial areas, increases the potential for widespread displacement, loss of life, and economic damage. The 2024 THIRA identifies multiple high-risk zones where dam failure could result in extensive flooding and mass evacuations. •
•
•
High-risk dams, among others, pose a significant threat to densely populated communities. A breach in any of these dams could inundate entire neighborhoods, affecting more than 500,000 residents in low-lying areas and floodplains. Socially vulnerable populations, including elderly individuals, the AFN community, people experiencing homelessness, low-income communities, and non-English-speaking residents face heightened risks during evacuations and recovery due to limited mobility, financial constraints, and access to resources. Educational and healthcare institutions are at risk, with several schools, hospitals, and long-term care facilities located in flood-prone areas. A major dam failure could result in school closures, displacement of students, and disruption of healthcare services.
Page 97 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
Evacuation and emergency sheltering demands would be substantial, requiring the rapid mobilization of resources to support displaced residents. Temporary shelters, emergency medical services, and logistical support would need to be activated to accommodate evacuees.
Los Angeles County relies heavily on dams and reservoirs for water storage, flood control, and supply regulation. Catastrophic dam failure poses an acute threat to life and property, especially in low-lying, highly populated downstream areas. Extent of Exposure •
Total Area Exposed: 490.64 sq mi
•
Supervisorial Districts (SD) Impacted:
•
o
SD5: 223.88 sq mi (7.97%)
o
SD1: 162.25 sq mi (45.98%)
o
SD2: 66.57 sq mi (18.32%)
o
SD3: 25.76 sq mi (5.97%)
o
SD4: 12.17 sq mi (5.72%)
Critical Facilities Affected: o
Fire Department: 112 (33.22%)
o
Public Works: 92 (40.00%)
o
Health Services: 29 (44.62%)
o
Public Health: 17 (42.50%)
o
Libraries: 30 (34.48%)
o
Parks: 65 (35.50%)
o
Education: 34 (41.46%)
Problem Statement Dam failure, while rare, can have catastrophic consequences in densely populated downstream areas. With significant portions of critical infrastructure exposed— particularly in SD1 and SD5—planning for emergency evacuations, early warning systems, infrastructure hardening, and downstream development regulation is critical to saving lives and reducing loss.
Page 98 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
A failure or breach of a High Hazard Potential Dam (HHPD) in Los Angeles County would result in catastrophic consequences for downstream communities, with the greatest vulnerabilities concentrated in densely populated urban areas. Rapid and massive flooding would likely inundate residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, and industrial zones within minutes to hours, depending on proximity and topography. Critical infrastructure—including hospitals, fire and police stations, schools, and major transportation corridors—would be severely impacted, disrupting emergency services and evacuation routes. Thousands of people, including vulnerable populations such as those with Access and Functional Needs (AFN), elderly residents, and low-income households, would face immediate life-threatening conditions, displacement, and limited access to medical care or shelter. Economic losses would be compounded by damage to utilities, including power substations and water systems, potentially leaving large swaths of the region without essential services. The sheer scale of devastation from a dam failure, especially at facilities such as Whittier Narrows or Castaic Dam, underscores the critical importance of continued risk reduction, early warning systems, and dam rehabilitation efforts.
6.7.8 Data Limitations A limitation of this AHMP is that planning efforts only covered PW-owned dams in Los Angeles County. Future mitigation planning should include other dam owners and operators in Los Angeles County such as the US Army Corps of Engineers. The data on high-hazard dams reviewed during the 2025 AHMP planning process was generally suitable for the analysis required. Future opportunities for obtaining additional data to be considered in the next update to the plan should: • • • •
Incorporate more current information as it becomes available. Assess any new or updated EAPs for dams owned by Los Angeles County. Identify and review more current structural or condition assessment data to inform future risk assessments. Involve other dam owners within Los Angeles County in future planning efforts.
6.7.9 Impacts A dam failure in Los Angeles County would have catastrophic and immediate consequences for life, property, and critical infrastructure, particularly in the densely populated downstream areas. The sudden release of impounded water from a High or Extremely High Hazard dam could inundate neighborhoods within minutes, allowing little to no time for evacuation. More than 500,000 residents live within identified dam inundation zones, many of whom are in socially vulnerable populations—including Page 99 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
individuals with limited mobility, low-income households, and people experiencing homelessness—making rapid evacuation and sheltering especially challenging. County-owned high hazard potential dams and their locations are listed in Table 6-3. Inundation maps for County-owned high hazard potential dams are listed in Appendix A-7. Critical infrastructure is also at significant risk. Hospitals, fire stations, law enforcement facilities, emergency operations centers, schools, and wastewater treatment plants located in downstream zones may be damaged or rendered inoperable, severely disrupting emergency response and life-sustaining services. Major transportation routes such as interstates, rail lines, and arterial roads could be submerged or washed out, impeding rescue and recovery efforts. Additionally, power substations, water distribution networks, and telecommunications infrastructure could suffer cascading failures, contributing to widespread outages and prolonged recovery periods. The economic consequences of dam failure would be immense. Beyond property damage, business operations in inundated areas would halt, leading to loss of employment, tax revenue, and economic activity. Industrial zones (especially those near major flood control reservoirs or channels) could potentially release hazardous materials if overwhelmed, posing secondary environmental and public health hazards. Debris accumulation, sedimentation, and contamination could severely impact ecosystems, water quality, and flood control infrastructure downstream, complicating both emergency cleanup and long-term environmental recovery. Given the scale of potential impacts, dam failure is considered a stable low-probability but high-consequence hazard in Los Angeles County, requiring continued investment in structural mitigation, emergency preparedness, and public awareness to reduce the severity of its effects.
6.7.10 High Hazard Potential Dams Goals Goal 1: Enhance resilience across dam/debris basin infrastructure, including highhazard potential dams, and other critical facilities within dam inundation zones. Goal 2: Encourage structural reinforcement or retrofits for aging and vulnerable dams. Goal 3: Ensure all dams/ debris basins have updated Emergency Action Plans (where applicable) and updated dam inundation mapping consistent with state standards.
Page 100 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.7.11 Mitigation and Preparedness Los Angeles County and state agencies have implemented various mitigation efforts to reduce the risks associated with dam failures: • • •
Structural Reinforcements: Upgrading spillways, strengthening earthen dams, and implementing seismic retrofitting measures. Emergency Action Plans (EAPs): Mandated by DSOD for all High and Extremely High hazard dams to guide evacuation and response efforts. Early Warning Systems: Improved flood monitoring and automated alert systems to notify at-risk communities in real-time.
6.7.12 High Hazard Potential Dam Prioritization The risk assessment within the 2025 AHMP considers the county planning area’s vulnerability and potential impacts related to HHPDs. Mitigation actions and planning efforts that are related to mitigating long-term vulnerabilities to County-owned HHPDs will automatically be given a HIGH priority as described in the overall mitigation action prioritization criteria in Section 7.6. The County Departments responsible for implementing the associated mitigation actions, along with the priority, potential funding source, and expected time frame are listed in Section 7.8.
6.7.13 Summary Los Angeles County has 90 state-jurisdictional dams, with 70 classified as High or Extremely High hazard, meaning their failure could result in widespread loss of life and economic devastation. While regulatory oversight has improved dam safety, aging infrastructure, seismic threats, and increased storm intensity remain challenges. Continued investment in retrofits, early warning systems, and emergency planning is essential to mitigating the risk of catastrophic dam failures.
Page 101 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.8 Land Movement 6.8.1 Nature Land movement refers to the downward movement of rock, soil, or debris along a slope due to gravity. This process can occur suddenly or gradually over time, depending on
contributing
factors
such
as
soil
composition, slope stability, and external triggers. Land movement encompass a variety
of
mudflows, slumps,
movement rockfalls,
land
types
including
debris
flows,
land
subsidence,
and
soil
movement. In Los Angeles County, the diverse
topography
and
geological
formations make certain areas more prone to land movement, particularly during periods of intense precipitation, seismic activity, or human land-use modifications. Climate change exacerbates land movement by increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as heavy rainfall and flooding, which can lead to accelerated erosion and heightened landslide risks. Page 102 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Land movement often occur in conjunction with other natural hazards, exacerbating their impact. Some of the primary contributing factors include: •
Seismic Activity: Earthquakes can destabilize slopes, leading to land movement and rockfalls. The force of seismic shaking can cause sudden failures, particularly in areas with pre-existing instability.
•
Heavy Rainfall and Flooding: The likelihood of land movement increases after successive storms. Prolonged or intense rainfall saturates soil, reducing its cohesion and triggering slope failures.
•
Coastal Erosion: Waves and storm surge erode coastal cliffs, leading to instability and eventual collapse, particularly in areas such as County beaches and coastal communities, many of which have previously experienced significant erosion.
•
Wildfires: Loss of vegetation due to fires reduces the soil’s ability to retain moisture, making slopes more susceptible to erosion and land movement during subsequent rain events.
•
Burn Scars: Wildfire burn scars significantly elevate the risk of land movement by stripping the land of stabilizing vegetation. Areas affected by major fires such as the Woolsey Fire (2018), Bobcat Fire (2020), Bridge Fire (2024), Eaton Fire (2025), and Palisades Fire (2025) have shown increased susceptibility to land movement due to reduced soil stability and rapid runoff during rainstorms.
6.8.2 Location Los Angeles County is home to multiple regions susceptible to land movement due to steep slopes, unstable geology, and weather patterns. The California Geological Survey (CGS) Landslide Susceptibility Map highlights high-risk areas. For a better visual representation of the Land Movement Hazard within the LA County planning area, please reference Appendix A for maps that show areas that are susceptible to land movement and recent burn scars. Potential land movement areas include (but are not limited to): •
Santa Monica Mountains
•
San Gabriel Mountains
•
Sierra Pelona Mountains
•
Baldwin Hills
•
Puente Hills
•
Palos Verdes Hills
Page 103 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
These areas are particularly vulnerable due to their steep terrains, weak rock formations, and history of slope movement. Additionally, human activities such as grading, excavation, and construction in these regions can further destabilize the ground, increasing the likelihood of land movement. Areas impacted by past wildfires, known as burn scars, are also highly susceptible to land movement, as the loss of vegetation reduces soil stability and increases erosion risks during heavy rains. This is particularly concerning in wildfire-prone areas such as the Santa Monica Mountains and the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, where post-fire land movement have historically caused significant damage.
6.8.3 Extent The extent of land movement in Los Angeles is significant and varied, influenced by its unique geological setting. According to the 2011 CGS Landslide Susceptibility Map, approximately 750 square miles (15.75%) of Los Angeles County fall within high-risk landslide zones. The highest concentrations of deep-seated landslide susceptibility are distributed as follows: Table 6-5 Landslide Susceptibility Map High-Risk Landslide Zones (sq. miles)
Percentage of Total Land Area
Los Angeles County
750.02
15.75%
Unincorporated Areas
577.63
18.99%
Supervisorial District 1
17.29
7.02%
Supervisorial District 2
2.73
1.68%
Supervisorial District 3
114.61
26.58%
Supervisorial District 4
105.12
23.89%
Supervisorial District 5
509.31
18.14%
Area
Page 104 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.8.4 History Land movement have historically caused significant damage in Los Angeles County, often resulting in property destruction, infrastructure damage, and road closures. There have been no federal declarations or state proclamations for dam failure in the last five years. Some of the most notable events include: •
1956 – Portuguese Bend Landslide: A massive landslide on the Palos Verdes Peninsula began in 1956 and remains active today. The movement of land has displaced homes and infrastructure, highlighting the region’s ongoing geologic instability.
•
1994 – Northridge Earthquake-Induced Land movement: The earthquake triggered more than 11,000 moving events, primarily in the Santa Susana Mountains and San Gabriel Mountains, causing extensive road and structural damage.
•
March 1995 – Pacific Palisades Landslide: Heavy rains weakened the coastal bluffs, leading to a 300-foot-wide collapse that buried part of the Pacific Coast Highway under 30 feet of debris.
•
March 2005 – Sunset Mesa Landslide: A slope failure near Malibu caused over 20,000 cubic yards of debris to block roadways and damage property.
•
July 2023 – Peartree Lane Land Movement (Rolling Hills Estates): A sudden slope failure resulted in the displacement of 12 homes, which were red-tagged due to structural instability.
•
September 2024 – Accelerated Land Movement in Rancho Palos Verdes: A significant increase in land movement, with certain areas shifting up to four inches per week toward the ocean, threatening roads and over 250 residential properties.
6.8.5 Types of Land Movement Debris Flow/ Mudflow/ Soil Movement Debris flow involves the rapid movement of a dense mixture of water, soil, rock, and organic material down a slope. This process can have significant impacts on landscapes, ecosystems, and human infrastructure. Debris flows are characterized by their fluid-like behavior and ability to transport large objects, such as boulders and trees. They can travel at high speeds making them highly destructive. The composition of a debris flow can vary, but it typically includes: Page 105 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
Water: A crucial component that facilitates movement.
•
Soil and Rock: These provide the bulk of the material in a debris flow.
•
Organic Material: Includes vegetation and other natural debris that get caught in the flow.
Mudflows are rapid movements of water-saturated earth materials that can cause significant damage to both natural environments and human settlements. Mudflows are characterized by their fluid-like motion, which occurs when soil, rocks, and debris become saturated with water. This saturation reduces the friction between particles, allowing the mass to move downhill under the influence of gravity. Key characteristics include: •
Speed and Volume: Mud flows can travel at speeds up to 35 miles per hour and can carry large volumes of material, including rocks, trees, and even vehicles.
•
Consistency: The consistency of a mud flow can vary from a thick, viscous slurry to a watery flow. This depends on the proportion of water to solid materials.
•
Path: Mud flows typically follow existing drainage patterns, such as river channels and valleys, but can also carve new paths, leading to unpredictable and widespread damage.
Soil movement is a natural process that significantly impacts the environment and human activities. It involves the displacement of soil particles due to various natural and human caused factors. Key characteristics include: •
Landslides: Often occurring in hilly areas, landslides involve the downward movement of rock and soil. They can be sudden and fast-moving, making them particularly dangerous.
•
Soil Creep: This is a slow and gradual movement of soil down a slope, often unnoticed until significant damage occurs.
•
Soil Liquefaction: During an earthquake, saturated soil can temporarily lose its strength and behave like a liquid, causing structures to sink or tilt.
Causes In Los Angeles County, several factors contribute to the occurrence of debris flows/mudflows/ soil movement: •
Heavy Rainfall and Storm Events: Intense and prolonged rainfall, often associated with storms, can saturate the soil, reducing its stability and triggering debris flows. Page 106 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
The region's Mediterranean climate, with wet winters and dry summers, creates conditions conducive to such events. •
Wildfires: Los Angeles County frequently experiences wildfires, which can burn and destabilize vegetation that normally helps hold soil in place. The loss of vegetation increases the risk of soil erosion and, consequently, debris flows during subsequent rainfalls.
•
Steep Terrain: The county's mountainous terrain, including areas like County mountainous areas, is particularly prone to debris flow. The steep slopes facilitate the rapid movement of debris downhill.
•
Soil Composition: Certain soil types, such as clay-rich soils, can become highly unstable when saturated with water, making them more susceptible to debris flow.
•
Human Activity: Urban development, road construction, and deforestation can alter natural landscapes and exacerbate conditions that lead to debris flow.
•
Seismic Activity: Los Angeles County is situated in a highly active seismic zone, making it prone to earthquakes. Seismic activity can lead to soil liquefaction, landslides, and ground shaking, all contributing to soil displacement.
Land Subsidence Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth's surface due to various natural and human-induced factors. This hazard can have significant impacts on the environment, infrastructure, and communities. A reduction in land elevation is one of the most noticeable features of land subsidence, leading to significant changes in the landscape. This phenomenon can occur due to natural processes, such as the dissolution of limestone, as well as human activities like the excessive extraction of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. Furthermore, land subsidence increases the risk of flooding because the lower elevation can lead to poor drainage and water accumulation. As the ground sinks, it often results in the formation of depressions, fissures, and sinkholes, which can dramatically alter the geography and infrastructure of the area. •
Depressions: Are sunken or low-lying areas on the Earth’s surface, often formed by natural or man-made processes.
•
Fissures: Are a long, narrow crack or linear opening in the Earth’s crust.
•
Sinkholes: Are holes in the ground causes by the collapse or sinking of surface material into an underlying void. Page 107 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Causes •
Groundwater Extraction: One of the primary causes of land subsidence in Los Angeles County is the excessive extraction of groundwater. As water is pumped out of underground aquifers, the ground above can sink or settle, leading to subsidence.
•
Oil and Gas Extraction: The removal of oil and natural gas from beneath the earth's surface also contributes to land subsidence. This extraction can create voids and reduce pressure in subterranean layers, causing the ground to sink.
•
Natural Soil Compaction: Over time, natural processes such as soil compaction can lead to gradual subsidence. In areas with loose or unconsolidated soils, the weight of overlying materials compacts the ground, resulting in a lowering of the land surface.
Rock Falls Rock falls are a natural geological phenomenon where rock fragments break free from a steep slope or cliff and tumble downward. These events can range from small pebbles dislodging to massive boulders crashing down with significant force and impact. Rock falls are characterized by: •
Speed and Suddenness: Rock falls occur quickly and without much warning, making them particularly dangerous.
•
Varied Sizes: The size of the falling material can range from small pebbles to large boulders, impacting the severity of the event.
•
Path Predictability: While the initial trigger point is often identifiable, the path of descent can be unpredictable due to varying terrain and obstacles.
Causes The primary causes of rock falls include: •
Weathering and Erosion: Over time, weathering processes such as freeze-thaw cycles, chemical weathering, and the action of water can weaken rock structures. Erosion can undermine the base of slopes, making rocks more susceptible to falling.
•
Seismic Activity: Los Angeles County is located in a seismically active region. Earthquakes can dislodge rocks from cliffs and steep slopes, triggering rock falls. Page 108 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
Heavy Rainfall: Intense or prolonged rainfall can saturate the ground, increasing the weight and pressure on rock faces. This saturation can lead to the loosening and collapse of rocks.
•
Human Activity: Construction, mining, and other human activities can destabilize rock formations. The vibrations from heavy machinery and blasting can initiate rock falls.
6.8.6 Probability Landslides and other land movement events happen in Los Angeles County fairly often, especially after heavy rain or in areas that recently had wildfires or are prone to sliding. •
Small landslides (like debris flows) are most likely during years with heavy rain, especially El Niño years. These happen every 2 to 7 years; there is 14% to 50% chance each year during those cycles.
•
In high-risk zones (like steep mountain slopes with a history of movement), probability is 1–2% chance per year, especially following multi-year wet periods or major wildfires.
•
Some areas of the County have been experiencing continuous sliding.
6.8.7 Vulnerability Land movement pose risks to life, property, and essential infrastructure. The 2024 THIRA projects that approximately 1.2 million residents in Los Angeles County could be directly or indirectly affected by land movement. The most at-risk populations include: •
Residents of hillside and canyon communities such as Malibu, Topanga, and the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
•
Homeowners in coastal bluff areas that are facing erosion-driven slope failures.
•
Communities in wildfire burn scar areas, where the loss of vegetation increases landslide probability during heavy rains.
•
The Access and Functional Needs (AFN) community who may face challenges in evacuating or leaving landslide-prone areas.
Page 109 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Contextual Overview Los Angeles County’s diverse topography includes many hillside communities susceptible to deep-seated landslides, especially after wildfire or heavy rain. These hazards can isolate communities, damage property, and disrupt lifelines. Extent of Exposure •
Total Area Exposed: 284.57 sq mi
•
Supervisorial Districts (SD) Impacted:
•
o
SD5: 151.96 sq mi (5.41%)
o
SD3: 90.23 sq mi (20.93%)
o
SD4: 25.94 sq mi (12.20%)
o
SD1: 13.77 sq mi (3.90%)
o
SD2: 2.68 sq mi (0.74%)
Critical Facilities Affected: o
Fire Department: 41 (12.17%)
o
Public Works: 32 (13.91%)
o
Health Services: 12 (18.46%)
o
Public Health: 4 (10.00%)
o
Libraries: 9 (10.34%)
o
Parks: 27 (14.92%)
o
Education: 8 (9.76%)
Problem Statement Landslides pose a serious risk to hillside communities and access routes, especially in areas recovering from wildfire. Current development and road infrastructure may not be resilient against slope failure. Mitigation actions should include slope stabilization, targeted buyouts or relocations, and early warning systems.
Page 110 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.8.8 Impacts Los Angeles County's diverse landscape and dense population make it highly susceptible to the effects of land movement, affecting critical infrastructure and raising significant economic, social, and safety concerns. Transportation Networks Los Angeles County's extensive transportation network is vital for daily commutes, goods transport, and emergency services. Land movement can severely impact these systems: •
Road Damage: Causes closures, hazardous driving conditions and costly repairs, as seen annually on Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), and many other local roads.
•
Bridge Compromise: Affects structural integrity, necessitating closures and expensive reconstructions.
•
Public Transit Disruptions: Impacts train tracks and bus routes, leading to delays and service interruptions.
•
Rail Systems: Track misalignment can cause delays and potential derailments, affecting both passenger and freight lines.
Water Supply Systems The county's water delivery system is complex and vulnerable to land movement: •
Compromised Pipelines: Leads to ruptures or leaks, disrupting supply and requiring major repairs.
•
Reservoir Impact: Landslides can affect water quality and storage capacity.
Energy Infrastructure Land movement poses risks to Los Angeles County's energy infrastructure, including: •
Electrical Grid Vulnerabilities: Land movement can damage power lines and substations, causing outages.
•
Gas Pipeline Risks: Soil shifts can result in gas leaks or explosions, endangering safety.
Page 111 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Communication Systems Reliable communication is critical, and land movement can disrupt: • Telecommunication Towers: Structural damage can impair cellular and internet services. •
Underground Cables: Earth shifts can damage cables, affecting connectivity.
Emergency Services Facilities •
Hospitals and Fire Stations: Essential for emergency response, but structural damage could impede operations, underscoring the need for resilient construction and strategic planning.
Economic Impacts •
Infrastructure Damage: Leads to costly repairs and maintenance of roads, bridges, and buildings.
•
Property Loss: Homeowners face financial losses due to property damage or devaluation.
Environmental Impacts •
Ecosystem Disruption: Soil movement can lead to habitat loss and affect local flora and fauna.
•
Increased Pollution: Erosion can result in sediment runoff, degrading water quality in rivers and oceans.
For a better visual representation of the Land Movement Hazard within the LA County planning area, please reference Appendix A for maps that show areas that are susceptible to land movement and recent burn scars.
6.8.9 Mitigation Strategies To reduce the impact of land movement, Los Angeles County has implemented several mitigation and preparedness strategies, including: •
Land Use and Development Regulations: Restricting development in high-risk landslide zones to prevent new structures from being built on unstable terrain.
•
Infrastructure Resilience: Reinforcing existing infrastructure through slope stabilization projects, retaining walls, and improved drainage systems. Page 112 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
Stabilization Regulations: Implementing stricter grading and excavation regulations to minimize the destabilization of slopes.
•
Public Awareness Campaigns: Enhancing landslide early notifications by monitoring potential movement areas and precipitation thresholds.
•
Evacuation Planning: Developing evacuation plans for at-risk communities, ensuring residents receive timely alerts and clear guidance.
•
Public Education: Conducting public education campaigns to inform residents about recognizing landslide warning signs and preparedness measures.
•
Operational Area Coordination: Increasing coordination across state, federal, and Office of Emergency Management officials with local jurisdictions to improve forecasting and response efforts.
6.8.10 Summary Land movement remains a significant hazard in Los Angeles County, particularly in steep and coastal regions. The Palos Verdes Peninsula, Santa Monica Mountains, and San Gabriel Mountains are among the most vulnerable areas, with climate change and human activities exacerbating risks. By implementing land-use regulations, infrastructure reinforcements, and emergency response improvements, the County can enhance resilience and reduce losses in the future. Local governments and communities must actively monitor and manage contributing factors to effectively mitigate the impacts of land subsidence.
Page 113 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.9 Tsunami 6.9.1 Nature This section characterizes tsunamis as high-energy, long-wavelength ocean waves
generated
primarily
by
significant offshore seismic events (such
as
subduction
zone
earthquakes), submarine landslides, or volcanic eruptions. In the context of Los
Angeles
County,
tsunamis
represent a relatively infrequent but potentially high-impact hazard that could
produce
rapid
coastal
inundation and surge impacts. Characteristics: •
Triggered mainly by distant, largemagnitude seismic events.
•
Features long wavelengths and prolonged arrival times.
•
Capable of producing rapid, deep inundation along low-lying coastal areas.
•
In summary, tsunamis are dynamic natural phenomena with the potential to cause sudden coastal flooding and damage if a triggering event occurs.
Page 114 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.9.2 Location The updated tsunami hazard profile focuses on the coastal areas of Los Angeles County. The new zone map—developed using enhanced modeling techniques and updated coastal geomorphology data—highlights areas along the Pacific shoreline that are at risk. These include regions adjacent to the Los Angeles Basin, parts of Long Beach, Santa Monica Bay, and other low-elevation coastal zones. For a better visual representation of Tsunami Inundation zones within the LA County planning area, please reference Appendix A for a “Tsunami Inundation Area” map. Important Details: •
Coastal segments from the western margins of the Los Angeles Basin extending to the border with Orange County.
Overall, the coastal areas of Los Angeles County, containing our communities and infrastructure, face heightened exposure.
6.9.3 Extent Using the latest hydrodynamic and inundation modeling, the updated tsunami inundation (zone) map provides a refined view of the extent of potential flooding. The map illustrates how tsunami waves could propagate inland, showing revised boundaries that account for current sea-level conditions and future sea-level rise projections. Highlights: •
Inundation depths and reach have been recalculated, with some areas potentially experiencing water levels up to several feet in depth.
•
The inland reach of flooding varies by local topography, with flat, low-lying areas showing the greatest potential for impacts. Impacted areas include, but are not limited to, Long Beach, The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, Marina del Rey, Venice and Santa Monica.
•
Critical infrastructure within the updated zones has been identified to prioritize mitigation and evacuation routes for planning.
In essence, the extent of tsunami impacts is now mapped more precisely, offering local decision-makers a clearer view of potential flooding depths and distances inland.
Page 115 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.9.4 History Historically, significant tsunami events in the Los Angeles region are rare, though distant seismic events (for example: the 1960 Chilean tsunami, or the most recent 2022 Tonga tsunami) have been known to produce measurable impacts. Historical records combined with geological studies indicate that while tsunamis have occurred in the past, their frequency is low compared to other hazards. However, the region’s proximity to major tectonic boundaries necessitates ongoing vigilance. Historical Context: •
Past events have been sporadic but can serve as valuable lessons for preparedness.
•
Historical inundation records and sediment studies confirm that tsunamis have reached the Los Angeles coast in prehistory.
•
Lessons learned from past minor events underscore the importance of maintaining updated hazard maps.
Thus, while historical tsunami events are infrequent, they provide a critical context for understanding future risks and guiding preparedness measures. There have been no federal declarations or state proclamations for tsunami in the last five years.
6.9.5 Probability The probability of a tsunami affecting Los Angeles County is generally low when compared to more frequent hazards like earthquakes or floods. Nevertheless, the potential for a distance source tsunami generated by a distant, large seismic event remains a realistic risk. Updated probabilistic assessments—incorporating recent seismic data and tsunami modeling indicate that while the overall likelihood is low, the consequences in the event of a tsunami can be severe. Probability Considerations: •
Low annual probability but high consequence if an event occurs; Los Angeles County has about a 2% annual chance.
•
Distance source events from subduction zones across the ocean contribute most to the risk.
•
Continuous monitoring and updated modeling are essential to reassess the risk over time.
•
In summary, the probability of a tsunami remains low, but due to the potential for high-impact outcomes, it warrants continuous study and preparedness. Page 116 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.9.6 Vulnerability Coastal vulnerability in Los Angeles County is significantly influenced by factors such as urban density, low-elevation terrain, aging infrastructure, and socio-economic conditions. The updated tsunami zone map now better delineates areas where these vulnerabilities are most pronounced, highlighting communities that may have limited evacuation routes and fewer resources to recover from rapid inundation. About 75,000 people live in parts of Los Angeles County that could be flooded by a tsunami. Many people also work in these coastal areas, and around 660 unhoused individuals live there, making them especially at risk because they may not have easy access to shelter or transportation. Tourism adds even more people to these areas, especially during busy weekends or holidays. Places like Santa Monica can see up to 300,000 visitors a day during peak times. This makes evacuating harder if a tsunami warning is issued. Roads near the coast can quickly become crowded, and visitors may not know the best way to leave. Traffic could slow down emergency plans, so it’s important to have clear signs, early warnings, and good traffic control to help people get to safety quickly. Factors: •
High population density in low-lying coastal areas.
•
Critical infrastructure (e.g., hospitals, utilities, ports and shipping, transportation networks) located within the inundation zones.
•
Socio-economic and language barriers that may hinder effective emergency response.
•
Limited natural barriers in some coastal segments.
•
Vulnerable communities include those with high population densities and critical infrastructure near the coast.
Ultimately, the vulnerability of the region is compounded by both physical exposures and social factors, underscoring the need for targeted mitigation efforts. Contextual Overview Coastal communities in Los Angeles County, including ports and tourist zones, are at risk from tsunamis. These rare but highly destructive events can inundate coastal infrastructure with little warning.
Page 117 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Extent of Exposure •
Total Area Exposed: 32.89 sq mi
•
Supervisorial Districts (SD) Impacted:
•
o
SD4: 15.83 sq mi (7.43%)
o
SD3: 12.59 sq mi (2.92%)
o
SD2: 2.03 sq mi (0.56%)
Critical Facilities Affected: o
Fire Department: 16 (4.75%)
o
Public Works: 9 (3.91%)
o
Health Services: 3 (4.62%)
o
Public Health: 1 (2.50%)
o
Libraries: 5 (5.75%)
o
Parks: 13 (7.26%)
o
Education: 3 (3.66%)
Problem Statement Tsunamis can cause rapid and catastrophic coastal flooding. With critical coastal infrastructure and residential areas exposed, especially in SD4 and SD3, there is a need for robust evacuation planning, vertical evacuation shelters, and community outreach to enhance preparedness and reduce vulnerability.
6.9.7 Impacts Should a tsunami occur, the potential impacts on Los Angeles County could be extensive. Parts of Los Angeles County that could be impacted by a Tsunami are Marina Del Rey, Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach, and other beach communities in low lying areas. The updated impact assessments reflect possible scenarios ranging from significant property damage to loss of life and long-term economic disruption. The new zone map aids in quantifying these impacts by providing detailed inundation depths and spatial extents, thereby allowing for better risk communication and planning.
Page 118 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Potential Impacts: •
Severe flooding of coastal infrastructure and residential areas.
•
Disruption of transportation, utility services, and emergency response operations.
•
Economic losses in key sectors such as tourism, shipping, and local commerce.
•
Social impacts including displacement, loss of livelihoods, and challenges in emergency sheltering.
In short, the potential impacts of a tsunami are far-reaching, necessitating robust mitigation, evacuation, and recovery planning to minimize harm. For a better visual representation of Tsunami Inundation zones within the LA County planning area, please reference Appendix A for a “Tsunami Inundation Area” map.
6.9.8 Summary The updated tsunami section for the 2025 AHMP incorporates the latest scientific findings and mapping techniques to provide a more precise understanding of tsunami risks in Los Angeles County. By integrating an updated inundation zone map, the revision clarifies the spatial extent of potential flooding and highlights the vulnerabilities in coastal communities. This comprehensive update is designed to guide decision-makers in enhancing preparedness, targeting mitigation strategies, and strengthening community resilience. Key Takeaways: •
Nature: Tsunamis are infrequent but high-energy events capable of rapid coastal inundation.
•
Location & Extent: The updated zone map identifies vulnerable coastal areas with revised inland flood extents.
•
History & Probability: Historical events are rare; however, distance events remain a realistic risk.
•
Vulnerability & Impacts: High population density and critical infrastructure in coastal zones amplify risk, with potential for severe economic and social disruption.
This updated section is intended to serve as a critical tool for policymakers, emergency managers, and community stakeholders as they work together to reduce the long-term risks associated with tsunamis and enhance overall regional resilience.
Page 119 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.10 Severe Wind and Tornado 6.10.1 Nature Severe
wind
and
tornadoes
pose
significant threats to life, property, and infrastructure,
though
they
differ
in
frequency and intensity within Los Angeles County. Severe wind events, particularly Santa Ana winds, are a recurring natural hazard
that
can
cause
widespread
damage, including downed power lines, tree falls, and structural damage. These winds
originate
from
high-pressure
systems over the Great Basin, funneling dry and warm air through mountain passes into the coastal and valley regions at high speeds. Additionally, storm-driven winds, microbursts, straight-line winds and gust fronts associated with severe weather can create hazardous conditions, often leading to transportation disruptions, fire hazards, and prolonged power outages. Page 120 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Tornadoes, while relatively rare in the region, have been recorded and can cause localized but intense damage. These violent windstorms form when unstable atmospheric conditions produce rotating updrafts, resulting in a funnel cloud that contacts the ground.
6.10.2 Location Severe wind events affect the entire Los Angeles County planning area, with the strongest occurrences in canyon passes, valleys, and coastal regions. The Santa Ana winds are most intense in the fall and winter months, particularly impacting areas in the Valley, and foothill communities of the County. Storm-driven winds, on the other hand, can impact any part of the county and vary in intensity based on weather patterns. These winds can reach speeds of 60 to 80 mph, sometimes exceeding those thresholds, leading to significant damage. Tornadoes are more sporadic in occurrence and can develop in various parts of the county, particularly in lowland areas where severe thunderstorms have the potential to form rotating systems.
6.10.3 Extent Winds and breezes are common occurrences in LA County. As wind speeds increase so does the potential for a catastrophic event. Hot dry winds can reach high speeds as they descend from the inland desert regions, creating not only critical wind events but also extremely dangerous fire conditions and contributing to the spread of wildfires. The winds are classified in the Beaufort Wind Scale, see Figure 6.10.1 below. Beaufort wind scale is an empirical scale that relates wind speed to observed conditions at sea or land. It uses numerical scale from 1-12 to describe wind force based on visual observations of the effects of the wind and gives quantitative measures of the wind. For example, o is described as ‘calm’ a sea like a mirror while 12 described as hurricane force with devastating conditions. Tornadoes are classified using the Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale Figure 6.10.2. The Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale is specifically used to rate the intensity of tornados based on the damage they cause (damage indicators) such as building types, and trees. It ranges from EF-0 to EF-5, with increasing numbers indicate stronger tornados and more severe damage. While tornadoes in the region typically do not exceed EF-1 Page 121 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
intensity, they can still produce damaging winds above 100 mph, capable of tearing roofs off buildings, uprooting trees, and overturning vehicles.
Beaufort Wind Scale:
Appearance of Wind Effects Force
Wind WMO (Knots) Classification
On the Water
On Land
0
Less than 1
Calm
Sea surface smooth and mirror-like
Calm, smoke rises vertically
1
1-3
Light Air
Scaly ripples, no foam crests
Smoke drift indicates wind direction, still wind vanes
2
4-6
Light Breeze
Wind felt on face, leaves Small wavelets, crests glassy, rustle, vanes begin to no breaking move
3
7-10
Gentle Breeze
Leaves and small twigs Large wavelets, crests begin constantly moving, light to break, scattered whitecaps flags extended
4
11-16
Moderate Breeze
Dust, leaves, and loose Small waves 1-4 ft. becoming paper lifted, small tree longer, numerous whitecaps branches move
17-21
Moderate waves 4-8 ft taking Small trees in leaf begin Fresh Breeze longer form, many whitecaps, to sway some spray
22-27
Strong Breeze
Larger waves 8-13 ft, whitecaps common, more spray
Near Gale
Sea heaps up, waves 13-19 ft, Whole trees moving, white foam streaks off resistance felt walking breakers against wind
5
6
7
28-33
Larger tree branches moving, whistling in wires
Page 122 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
8
9
10
11
12
Gale
Moderately high (18-25 ft) waves of greater length, edges of crests begin to break into spindrift, foam blown in streaks
Twigs breaking off trees, generally impedes progress
Strong Gale
High waves (23-32 ft), sea begins to roll, dense streaks of foam, spray may reduce visibility
Slight structural damage occurs, slate blows off roofs
48-55
Storm
Very high waves (29-41 ft) with overhanging crests, sea white with densely blown foam, heavy rolling, lowered visibility
Seldom experienced on land, trees broken or uprooted, "considerable structural damage"
56-63
Exceptionally high (37-52 ft) Violent Storm waves, foam patches cover sea, visibility more reduced
34-40
41-47
64+
Hurricane
Air filled with foam, waves over 45 ft, sea completely white with driving spray, visibility greatly reduced Figure 6.10.1 Beaufort Wind Scale
Page 123 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Enhanced Fujita Scale: THE ENHANCED FUJITA SCALE (EF SCALE) EF RATING
3 Second Gust (MPH)
EF 0
65-85 MPH
EF 1
86-110 MPH
EF 2
111-135 MPH
EF 3
136-165 MPH
EF 4
166-200 MPH
EF 5
Over 200 MPH
DAMAGE Light: Branches broken, minor roof damage Moderate: Roofs damaged; trees uprooted Considerable: Roofs torn off, large trees down Severe: Homes destroyed; cars lifted Devastating: Houses leveled; debris airborne Incredible: Homes swept away; total destruction Figure 6.10.2 Enhanced Fujita Scale
6.10.4 History Los Angeles County has experienced multiple severe wind events and occasional tornadoes in recent history which caused destructions, and wildfires. There have been no federal declarations or state proclamations for Severe Wind & Tornadoes in the last five years. Some notable incidents include: •
November-December 2011: A wind event caused more than $35 million in damages and severely impacted several foothill communities and unincorporated areas.
•
December 2019: An EF-0 tornado touched down in South Los Angeles, causing minor roof damage and downing power lines.
•
January 2021: A severe windstorm impacted the region, leading to damage across multiple communities and emergency response efforts to clear roadways.
•
September 2021: An EF-0 tornado developed near the community Lake of Los Angeles; %no damage was reported. Page 124 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan •
April 2023: An EF-0 tornado recorded in Cerritos causing tree damage.
•
March 2023 (DR# 4699): An EF-1 tornado struck Montebello, one of the strongest tornadoes recorded in the area, causing significant damage to commercial structures and vehicles.
•
May 2023: An EF-0 tornado occurred near the communities of Carson and Compton damaging buildings and vehicles.
•
August 2023 (DR# 4750): Tropical Storm Hillary impacting Los Angeles County.
•
February 2024: Strong winds impacting across Eastern Santa Monica Mountain and Santa Clarita Valley.
•
March 2024: Strong winds impacting areas around San Gabriel Valley.
•
January 2025 (DR# 4856): A severe windstorm impacted the region, leading to a Potentially Dangerous Situation (PDS), red flag conditions. Several fires broke out in the area, which exhibited extreme fire behavior, causing widespread destruction.
•
March 2025 (DR# 4856): As part of a storm event, an EF-0 tornado struck Pico Rivera, California, at 3:15am, with wind speeds reaching up to 85 mph.
6.10.5 Probability Severe wind events are a regular occurrence in Los Angeles County, with a high probability, 99% chance recurring annually. Santa Ana winds are particularly common during the cooler months, and climate patterns suggest that extreme wind events may become more frequent due to changing weather dynamics. Because wind events and tornados are localized in nature, probability vary from one area to another and is difficult to determine percentage of happening in one area. Tornadoes remain a lowprobability hazard, 10% chance, in the planning area; however, given past occurrences, they cannot be ruled out entirely. Atmospheric conditions capable of producing tornadoes may arise during severe thunderstorms, particularly in winter storm systems that generate strong wind shear. While the likelihood of an EF-2 or stronger tornado is minimal, the potential for localized damage remains. The Santa Ana winds occur ten to twenty-five times annually and can last for several days, posing a recurring threat of damage and disruption in Los Angeles County.
Page 125 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.10.6 Vulnerability Severe wind and tornadoes can be extensive, affecting both infrastructure and public safety. High-wind events pose a risk to critical infrastructure, particularly power lines, communication systems, and transportation networks. Buildings, especially older structures and mobile homes, are vulnerable to wind-related damage, including roof failures, window breakage, and structural collapse. In addition to physical damage, severe wind events can cause significant economic disruptions. Prolonged power outages impact businesses, healthcare facilities, and emergency response services. Road closures and debris blockages hinder mobility and commerce, while wind-driven wildfires, a secondary hazard of Santa Ana winds, can lead to devastating losses. Public safety is also a major concern, with risks of flying debris, vehicle accidents, overturned vehicles, and respiratory issues caused by airborne dust and pollutants stirred up by high winds. Severe wind and tornado events disproportionately impact certain populations and infrastructure in Los Angeles County due to both geographic exposure and socioeconomic vulnerabilities. These hazards can disrupt critical services, exacerbate existing inequalities, and significantly damage structures not built to withstand extreme wind conditions. Vulnerable Populations Out of the county’s estimated 10.2 million residents, the following populations are considered especially vulnerable: •
Older Adults (65+): Approx. 1.6 million residents (15.5%)—more likely to suffer injury or health complications during wind-related power outages and evacuation events.
•
Access and Functional Needs (AFN) Populations: Estimated 1.7 million individuals (17%) including those with disabilities, limited mobility, or communication barriers.
•
Low-Income Households: Over 13% of households fall below the poverty line and may lack the resources for structural mitigation or relocation during prolonged outages. Page 126 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan •
People Experiencing Homelessness (PEH): Over 75,000 individuals (2024 LAHSA count), at direct risk from falling debris and lack of shelter during windstorms.
•
Mobile Home Residents: Approximately 98,000 units countywide, concentrated in inland valleys and foothill communities that are highly exposed to Santa Ana winds.
•
Children Under Age 5: Around 600,000 countywide, vulnerable to respiratory complications from airborne particulates and debris stirred by strong winds.
•
Economic Impact: Business disruptions, increased insurance claims, and the costs of emergency response and recovery add financial burdens to local communities.
Critical Infrastructure at Risk Severe wind and tornado events can cause widespread cascading failures in vital systems, including: •
Power Infrastructure: Los Angeles County contains over 20,000 miles of overhead power lines vulnerable to high-wind damage and fire ignition.
•
Medical Facilities: Over 350 licensed hospitals and health clinics, many reliant on uninterrupted power and access for vulnerable patient populations.
•
Transportation Corridors: Major highways (I-5, I-10, US-101) and over 3,100 bridges, particularly in canyon and foothill areas, are susceptible to obstruction by fallen trees and debris.
•
Communication Towers: Over 800 critical telecom sites serve the county’s emergency communications and can be disrupted by high wind gusts.
•
Schools: Approximately 2,300 public K–12 schools and 100+ college campuses face operational disruptions from power outages or infrastructure damage during events.
6.10.7 Impacts Severe wind and tornado events pose significant threats to critical infrastructure, public safety, and community operations in Los Angeles County. High winds, such as those during Santa Ana events, regularly damage power lines, uproot trees, and disable Page 127 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
transportation corridors. A notable example occurred in January 2025, when widespread windstorms caused power outages for more than 200,000 customers, including approximately 127,000 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) customers and over 52,000 Southern California Edison (SCE) customers. During this same period, wildfires exacerbated by the strong winds impacted several medical facilities, disrupting critical health services and requiring the emergency relocation of patients. Tornadoes, while rare, have also demonstrated destructive capacity in localized areas. In March 2025, an EF-0 tornado touched down in Pico Rivera, downing power lines and trees and obstructing roadways, highlighting the potential for tornadic activity to impact urban communities. These hazards not only endanger life and property but also threaten economic continuity and the functioning of emergency services, particularly in vulnerable neighborhoods and areas with aging infrastructure.
6.10.8 Mitigation and Preparedness Efforts to mitigate the effects of severe wind and tornadoes should focus on improving structural resilience, enhancing early warnings and alerts, and increasing public awareness of such events. Severe Wind and Tornado Mitigation •
Strengthening building codes to require wind-resistant design features. Promoting the use of wind-resistant materials and construction techniques in new developments.
•
Conducting regular tree-trimming and vegetation management to reduce infrastructure damage risks.
•
Retrofitting and reinforcing critical infrastructure, such as power lines and utility systems, to withstand high-wind conditions.
•
Implementing public education campaigns on windstorm preparedness and safety measures.
•
Leveraging early warning alerting and preparedness messaging, as well as integrating emergency messaging with local broadcast and mobile networks.
Page 128 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.10.9 Summary Severe wind and tornadoes, though differing in frequency, remain potential hazards for Los Angeles County. Santa Ana winds and storm-driven gusts regularly impact the region, causing damage to infrastructure and increasing wildfire risks. While tornadoes are rare, their occasional occurrence necessitates preparedness and mitigation efforts. By implementing stronger building codes, reinforcing critical infrastructure, and enhancing preparedness and public awareness, the county can reduce its vulnerability to these hazards, helps to better protect its residents from potential hazards of severe winds and tornado and improve community resilience.
Page 129 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.11 Mass Violence 6.11.1 Nature This section outlines the defining characteristics of mass violence, which includes intentional, highimpact incidents such as terrorism, active
shooter
events,
vehicle-
rammings, and other coordinated attacks. Understanding the nature of these
events
developing
is
effective
critical
for
mitigation
strategies. •
Mass violence includes both targeted
attacks
ideologically
(e.g.,
motivated
terrorism) and opportunistic acts (e.g., active shooters or violent
assaults
in
public
spaces). •
These incidents are characterized by their low warning time, high lethality, and potential to incite widespread fear and panic.
Page 130 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan •
Acts of mass violence may be perpetrated by individuals, small groups, or
well-organized
networks,
and
involve
can
firearms,
explosives, vehicles, or biological agents. •
These attacks often aim to
disrupt
societal
functions,
damage
infrastructure, or exploit vulnerabilities
in
soft
targets such as schools, places of worship, or entertainment venues. In summary, the nature of mass violence lies in its deliberate intent to inflict harm on groups and
disrupt
making measures
public
strong
order,
mitigation
essential
for
protecting life and property of Los Angeles County.
6.11.2 Extent The potential extent of mass violence is characterized by its ability to cause widespread disruption and significant loss of life and property.
Page 131 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan •
Events can result in many casualties and severe physical and psychological impacts.
•
Mass violence can disrupt essential services, strain emergency response systems, and create cascading socioeconomic effects.
•
The overall disruption may extend far beyond the immediate scene, affecting broader community resilience.
In essence, while these events may be rare, their extensive impacts necessitate comprehensive planning and resilient infrastructure.
6.11.3 History Historical data illustrates that mass violence has evolved over time, with earlier events shaping current mitigation strategies and more recent incidents underscoring emerging vulnerabilities. Previous mitigation and other plans referenced events such as large-scale terrorist attacks and active shooter incidents. •
Recent events in the last five years include high-profile active shooter incidents at schools, public transportation hubs, and commercial centers, as well as vehicle-ramming attacks in urban areas.
Overall, the historical trend shows that while frequency remains low, the severity of mass violence incidents has escalated, necessitating continual updates to mitigation strategies.
6.11.4 Location Mass violence incidents tend to occur in areas where people naturally congregate, including urban centers, transportation hubs, educational and religious institutions, shopping centers, and public events and venues. •
Public spaces such as transit stations, stadiums, malls and other locations where large number of people assemble, are considered higher-risk areas.
•
Critical infrastructure location, like government buildings and commercial center, are often targeted.
•
Certain events may also occur in areas lacking adequate physical security or surveillance.
Page 132 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Thus, identifying and securing high-density locations is a key focus for mitigating the effects of mass violence.
6.11.5 Probability The probability of mass violence incidents is difficult to predict precisely; however, the potential for occurrence is recognized as a persistent low-frequency, high-impact risk that requires constant vigilance. •
Such incidents are statistically rare yet present a disproportionate risk due to their catastrophic consequences.
•
Threat assessments and intelligence reports indicate that evolving tactics may increase probability over time.
•
Continuous monitoring and updated threat analyses (e.g., via THIRA processes) are essential in quantifying risk levels.
In summary, while mass violence events are not common, their inherent unpredictability and high severity demand that communities prepare as if an incident could occur at any time.
6.11.6 Vulnerability Mass violence depends on a variety of factors, including physical infrastructure design, public awareness, security preparedness, and interagency coordination. •
Critical vulnerabilities include open public spaces with minimal physical barriers or limited or ineffective safety / security protocols in place.
•
Gaps in training and preparedness among first responders can exacerbate the situation during an active incident.
•
Social vulnerabilities—such as communication gaps or lack of multilingual emergency information—may hinder rapid response and community resilience.
Thus, reducing vulnerability involves investing in infrastructure hardening, robust security measures, regular training exercises, and effective public communication strategies.
Page 133 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.11.7 Impacts The impacts of mass violence events are multifaceted, life safety, community stability, and the local economy. •
Immediate impacts include fatalities, injuries, and trauma among affected populations.
•
Secondary impacts may encompass prolonged disruption of local services, economic downturns, and lasting psychological effects on communities.
•
Long-term consequences can involve extensive resource allocation for recovery and mitigation, further straining public systems.
Mass violence inflicts immediate harm and often triggers a chain of secondary impacts that complicate community recovery and strain long-term resilience efforts.
6.11.8 Summary In conclusion, mitigating the hazards of mass violence requires an integrated, multilayered approach that spans prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. Communities must implement measures to secure high-risk locations, upgrade physical and digital security, enhance interagency coordination, and continuously update training and threat assessments. •
Mitigation strategies include physical security enhancements (e.g., barriers and surveillance), regular active shooter drills, improved emergency communication systems, and coordinated law enforcement and public health responses.
•
Investment in resilience-building measures and community outreach helps to ensure that, in the event of an incident, communities can recover quickly and effectively.
This section underscores that while mass violence events are rare, their potential for high impact demands rigorous preparedness and adaptive mitigation strategies to safeguard lives and maintain community functionality.
Page 134 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.12 Cybersecurity Incidents 6.12.1 Nature Cybersecurity
incidents
refer
to
disruptive events affecting digital networks and systems. These events involve the unauthorized electronic or physical access of information systems that jeopardizes or disrupts the
integrity,
confidentiality,
or
availability of information. Cyber incidents can range from minor targeted data breaches to largescale
ransomware
attacks
and
distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) events
that
compromise
critical
infrastructure. Common types of cybersecurity incidents include, but are not limited to: •
Data Breaches: The compromise, unauthorized disclosure, or unauthorized acquisition of information. Page 135 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
Malware: Malicious hardware, firmware, or software that is intentionally included or inserted in a system for a harmful purpose.
•
Ransomware: A type of malicious software designed to lock access to a system until a ransom payment is received. Note that ransom payment is not a guarantee that system access will be restored by the threat actor.
•
Denial of Service (DoS): An attack meant to shut down a machine or network, rendering it inaccessible to its intended users.
•
Distributed Denial of Service (DDos): A DoS attack that uses numerous hosts to perform the attack.
•
Insider Threats: When an insider (e.g., an employee or vendor) uses their authorized access, wittingly or unwittingly, to do harm to an organization.
•
Phishing Attacks: The fraudulent practice of sending emails purporting to be from reputable senders in order to induce individuals to reveal information or download malware by clicking on a link.
Key characteristics of a cybersecurity incident include: Rapid Onset: Impacts to operations can occur suddenly and evolve quickly. •
Sophistication: Can be highly sophisticated with state or non-state actors involved.
•
Hybrid Attacks: May involve both cyber and physical components due to interdependencies.
•
Non-Malicious Incidents: Technological failures that cause similar impacts to cybersecurity incidents may also occur due to non-malicious reasons such as a software or hardware issue.
Understanding the inherent digital nature and complex characteristics of these incidents is critical to developing effective prevention and mitigation strategies.
6.12.2 Location Unlike traditional hazards that have a physical geographic footprint, cybersecurity incidents are inherently transboundary. However, their effects manifest locally through the disruption of critical services and systems and necessitate regionally coordinated preparedness and response efforts.
Page 136 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Jurisdictional Relevance: •
Impact local government networks and county infrastructure.
•
Affect public and private sector systems within Los Angeles County.
•
Disrupt critical infrastructure such as utilities and cause cascading impacts.
•
Involve cyber nodes that, while globally distributed, converge on regional networks.
Critical Sectors Impacted: •
Hospitals and healthcare facilities.
•
Financial, banking, or payroll systems.
•
Transportation providers and systems.
•
Utilities such as electricity, gas, and water.
•
Emergency response and public safety agencies.
6.12.3 Extent The extent of cybersecurity incidents is measured not only by the volume of compromised data or financial loss but also by the potential disruption to essential services and critical infrastructure. Scope of Impacts: •
Rapid spread across interconnected digital systems.
•
Potential for cascading failures that disrupt multiple sectors.
•
Economic losses that may run into millions of dollars.
Measurable Factors: •
Number of systems compromised.
•
Downtime of critical infrastructure and services.
•
Financial costs from remediation and lost productivity.
The extensive reach of cybersecurity incidents—both in terms of economic impact and service disruption—highlights the need for robust digital defenses, continuity of operations planning, backup systems and redundancies, disaster recovery strategies, and regional cyber response coordination.
Page 137 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.12.4 History Historically, cybersecurity incidents have evolved from isolated breaches to coordinated attacks that leverage global networks. Early cybersecurity incidents focused on data theft and vandalism. More recent attacks have grown increasingly sophisticated and targeted critical infrastructure or use complex ransomware. Cyber threat actors include state-sponsored groups along with non-state groups such as criminal enterprises and terrorist organizations. Recent years have seen cybersecurity incidents affecting large corporations, public entities including local governments, and critical infrastructure sectors. Previous major cybersecurity incidents have included: •
2024 Los Angeles County Superior Court Ransomware Attack: Resulted in the shutdown of nearly every court system, a multi-day closure of the court, and cascading impacts to operations.
•
2024 Hospital Group Attack: A major hospital company experienced an attack that caused IT and phone system outages and disrupted patient care at several Los Angeles County hospitals.
•
2024 Telecommunication Industry Attacks: A series of attacks against telecommunications providers in the United States resulted in compromised customer data.
•
2023 City Attack: A cybersecurity incident at a city within Los Angeles County caused city IT systems to be taken offline.
•
2022 Aviation Industry Attacks: A series of cybersecurity incidents targeting the airports and airlines caused transportation system disruptions.
The historical progression from rudimentary attacks to highly coordinated cybersecurity incidents underscores the growing importance of proactive risk management in the digital realm.
6.12.5 Probability The probability of cybersecurity incidents occurring is increasing as digital interconnectivity expands and as attackers continue to innovate their methods.
Page 138 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Risk Trends: •
Rapid expansion of the Internet of Things (IoT), the network of internetconnected devices ranging from smart refrigerators to autonomous vehicles, has added new attack vectors to the threat landscape.
•
Increasing sophistication of cybercriminal methods including zero-day exploits, a previously unknown cybersecurity vulnerability.
•
Growing frequency of reported incidents nationally and globally.
Contributing Factors: •
Inadequate cybersecurity measures in legacy systems still being used by organizations.
•
Underinvestment in cyber defense infrastructure or cybersecurity expertise.
•
Greater digital reliance in everyday operations without proper continuity of operations planning.
Given current trends and technological developments, the likelihood of cybersecurity incidents remains high, necessitating ongoing vigilance and enhanced preparedness measures. As cybersecurity incidents continue to increase in frequency, the potential for an incident to cause cascading and widespread impacts to critical infrastructure increases as well.
6.12.6 Vulnerability Vulnerability in the context of cybersecurity refers to the susceptibility of digital systems to attack. This is influenced by both technological and organizational factors including, but not limited to: outdated software or use of legacy systems, insufficient patch management, inadequate segmentation and defense-in-depth strategies, and lack of cybersecurity training among personnel. Organizational challenges also contribute to cybersecurity vulnerability including, but not limited to: budget constraints, gaps in coordination, and rapid technology adoption without corresponding security protocols. According to the 2024 Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA), over 616,000 people may be affected by a large-scale cybersecurity incident with cascading impacts to utilities. Over 123,000 of those impacted in the THIRA scenario are estimated to have access and functional needs and over 77,000 people are Page 139 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
estimated to have limited English proficiency. Depending on the utilities affected by the incident, a widespread amount of the population could be without utility service for an extended period. Addressing these vulnerabilities is essential to reduce the risk and potential disruption of cybersecurity incidents, calling for both technical upgrades and improved interagency coordination.
6.12.7 Impacts The impacts of cybersecurity incidents are multifaceted, affecting economic stability, public safety, and critical infrastructure operations. Direct Impacts: •
Disruption of
critical services (e.g., healthcare, emergency response,
transportation, etc.). •
Extended duration Continuity of Government or Continuity of Operations event.
•
Financial losses due to ransom payments, remediation costs, and potential legal fees.
•
Loss, compromise, or unauthorized release of sensitive data.
Indirect impacts: •
Erosion of public trust in digital services and affected institutions.
•
Cascading effects on physical infrastructure (e.g., power grid, water systems, wastewater, etc.).
•
Long-term economic repercussions from reduced competitiveness.
•
The significant impacts—both direct and cascading—of cybersecurity incidents necessitate comprehensive mitigation and recovery strategies that address both technical and socioeconomic dimensions.
6.12.8 Summary In summary, cybersecurity incidents represent an evolving and critical threat that intersects with multiple aspects of community resilience and safety. Key Takeaways: •
Cyber incidents are dynamic, sophisticated, and far-reaching in impact
•
They affect local systems despite their global nature Page 140 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
Historical trends and increasing digital dependency heighten both probability and vulnerability
•
Impacts extend beyond financial loss to include service disruption and cascading infrastructure failures
Cybersecurity incidents demand a proactive, coordinated response that integrates robust technical defenses with cross-sector planning and recovery efforts. By understanding the nature, scope, and potential consequences of these incidents, communities can build more resilient digital and physical infrastructures to safeguard against this growing threat.
Page 141 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.13 Transportation Incidents 6.13.1 Nature This section describes the inherent characteristics of transportation incidents that can disrupt the continuous flow of people, goods, and emergency services across Los Angeles County. Transportation incidents can be triggered by a variety of factors including natural events, human error, and deliberate acts. Other characteristics include: •
Affected Modes of Transportation: Incidents can involve any mode of transportation such as multi-vehicle collisions, hazardous material spills, rail derailments, aviation incidents, and maritime disruptions.
•
Cascading Impacts: Disruptions to the transportation system often have the potential to trigger cascading failures due to the interconnected design of highways, rail networks, airports, and seaports.
•
Contributing Factors: Incidents may be influenced by both predictable factors (e.g., rush-hour congestion) and unpredictable occurrences (e.g., extreme weather or infrastructure failure).
6.13.2 Location The county’s network encompasses highways, rail, airports, ports, and local roads that are critical to regional mobility and commerce.
Page 142 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
Freeways: Los Angeles County boasts an extensive freeway system with over 1,200 miles of high-capacity roads including corridors such as I-5, I-405, I-10, I-710, and I-210.
•
Major Transportation Hubs: The County is home to three commercial airports including Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Long Beach Municipal Airport (LGB), and the Hollywood Burbank Airport (BUR) along with several general aviation airports. The County owns and operates Brackett Field Airport, Compton/Woodley Airport, San Gabriel Valley Airport, General William J. Fox Airfield, and Whiteman Airport. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which are two of the busiest ports in the United States and vital for national and international trade, are also in Los Angeles County. Additionally, Los Angeles Union Station serves as the largest passenger rail station on the west coast.
•
Other Transportation Networks: The county includes robust passenger rail, bus, and paratransit systems, along with freight rail systems, emerging mobility options such as taxis and rideshare services, and enhanced bicycle networks. This comprehensive network is the backbone for daily commuting, freight movement, and emergency response across the region.
6.13.3 Extent The scope of transportation incidents spans multiple modes of travel and can have widespread consequences across the county’s integrated infrastructure. Road incidents may include multi-vehicle collisions, hazardous material spills, and roadway fires impacting multiple vehicles with potential delays in emergency responses. •
Rail disruptions can impede commuter and freight services, impacting both local transit and regional connectivity.
•
Air and maritime incidents—such as delays at major airports or disruptions at port facilities—can significantly affect commerce, supply chains, and public safety.
•
Cascading effects across interconnected transportation modes may exacerbate congestion and strain additional infrastructure systems such as power, water, and emergency communications.
The extensive and interdependent nature of these networks means that an incident in one area can quickly influence multiple transportation systems.
Page 143 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.13.4 History Los Angeles County has a long record of transportation-related incidents that have disrupted mobility and commerce. •
2024 Vincent Thomas Bridge Fire: A semi-truck carrying lithium-ion batteries overturned and caught fire, causing the bridge to be closed for several days.
•
2023 I-10 Freeway Fire: A fire in a pallet yard below the I-10 freeway in Downtown Los Angeles caused an eight-day closure for repairs and major cascading disruptions.
•
2020 Delta Air Lines Flight 89 Fuel Drop: Shortly after takeoff from LAX, a Boeing 777 encountered engine problems and conducted a fuel dump over populated areas, injuring over 50 people on the ground.
•
2008 Chatsworth Metrolink Derailment: A Metrolink passenger train collided with a Union Pacific freight train injuring over 130 people and causing 25 deaths.
•
2007 Newhall Pass Tunnel Fire: A multi-vehicle collision involving over 30 vehicles caused a fire within the tunnel injuring 10 people and causing 3 deaths.
The historical record reinforces the need to learn from previous events to enhance future preparedness and resilience.
6.13.5 Probability The likelihood of transportation incidents in Los Angeles County remains elevated due to several converging factors including, but not limited to: •
High daily traffic volumes on freeways and arterials increase the risk of multivehicle accidents and congestion-related incidents.
•
Aging infrastructure—including bridges, road surfaces, and rail systems—creates a persistent risk of failure, particularly under extreme weather conditions and during peak usage periods.
•
The county’s role as a major hub for freight and commuter traffic means that even minor incidents can escalate rapidly into larger disruptions.
•
The frequent movement of hazardous materials and the increasing reliance on just-in-time delivery systems further elevate the risk of incidents with potentially severe consequences.
Page 144 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Together, these factors contribute to a consistently high probability of transportation incidents impacting the region.
6.13.6 Vulnerability The vulnerability of Los Angeles County’s transportation system is compounded by its interdependent design and its critical role in the regional economy. • • •
•
Limited redundancy in key corridors means that a disruption on one freeway or rail line can quickly overload alternate routes. Aging and overburdened infrastructure is less resilient to extreme events, leading to longer recovery times after incidents. The county’s economic dependence on uninterrupted transportation for daily commuting and commercial freight increases exposure to significant losses during disruptions. Complex interdependencies between transportation systems, emergency services, and other critical sectors make the network highly sensitive to cascading failures.
This systemic vulnerability calls for coordinated, multi-agency efforts to bolster resilience and implement proactive mitigation measures.
6.13.7 Impacts Transportation incidents can produce both immediate and long-lasting effects on public safety, commerce, and overall quality of life. 1. Traffic and Mobility: Disruptions can lead to severe congestion affecting hundreds of thousands of commuters and freight vehicles, delaying emergency services and disrupting daily operations. 2. Economic Loss: Interruptions in the movement of goods and people can result in substantial financial losses, impacting local businesses and the broader regional economy. 3. Public Safety: Extended delays in emergency response and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) transport times. 4. Cascading Disruptions: An incident in one mode (e.g., a major highway closure) can ripple through the transportation network, affecting rail, air, and maritime operations simultaneously and complicating recovery efforts. These impacts highlight the critical need for robust mitigation strategies to manage both direct and indirect consequences of transportation incidents. Page 145 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.13.8 Summary Los Angeles County’s transportation network is among the most extensive and complex in the nation, serving millions of residents and underpinning a vital economic ecosystem. The diverse transportation modes, while facilitating mobility and commerce, also create vulnerabilities due to overlapping infrastructure and high traffic volumes. •
•
Aging infrastructure, coupled with the continuous movement of hazardous materials and the increasing pressures of daily usage, contributes to a high probability of incidents. Historical data demonstrate that even localized incidents can have far-reaching impacts, including prolonged traffic congestion, economic disruptions, and public safety challenges.
In conclusion, mitigating transportation incident risks in Los Angeles County requires an integrated, countywide approach that combines infrastructure upgrades, enhanced emergency response, and proactive maintenance strategies. Addressing these challenges is essential to safeguard public safety, ensure economic stability, and maintain the region’s critical mobility infrastructure.
Page 146 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.14 Public Health Emergencies 6.14.1 Nature Public health emergencies in Los Angeles County encompass a broad spectrum
of
potential
hazards,
including
infectious
disease
outbreaks,
environmental
health
hazards, and Chemical, Biological, Radiological,
Nuclear,
Explosives
(CBRNE) hazards. Given the county's diverse population, urban density, and economic significance, public health hazards require a coordinated response
among
government
agencies, healthcare institutions, and community partners. Public health emergencies refer to incidents that pose a significant threat to the health of a population. These include, but are not limited to: •
Pandemics (e.g., COVID-19, Influenza)
•
Bioterrorism (e.g., Anthrax, Smallpox, botulism) Page 147 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
Vector-borne diseases (e.g., West Nile Virus, Zika)
•
Foodborne and waterborne illnesses
•
Chemical and radiological exposure
•
Climate-related health threats (e.g., extreme heat, poor air quality, wildfires)
The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health (DPH) and the Emergency Medical Services Agency (EMS) collaborate to monitor threats, prevent outbreaks, and mitigate impacts when emergencies arise.
6.14.2 Location and Extent Los Angeles County, home to over 9.7 million residents, is the most populous county in the United States. Its diverse geography (i.e., urban, coastal, mountainous, and rural) and demography lead to a range of public health vulnerabilities. Public health emergencies can originate from local, regional, national, or global sources, impacting specific neighborhoods or the entire county. The extent of public health threats varies based on: •
The nature of the threat, such as transmission dynamics or availability of medical countermeasures.
•
Population density (higher risks in urban centers for communicable diseases)
•
Access to healthcare infrastructure
•
Environmental conditions (air pollution, extreme heat events)
6.14.3 History Public health emergencies in Los Angeles County have included: • •
2022 Monkeypox Outbreak o Approximately 2,500 cases were reported in Los Angeles County.
COVID-19 Pandemic (2020–Present)
o Over 3 million cases, 450,000 hospitalizations, and 45,000 deaths reported in the county alone.
•
2018 Hepatitis A Outbreak o Primarily affecting unhoused populations, requiring mass vaccination efforts.
•
2016-2017 West Nile Virus Outbreaks o Multiple cases of mosquito-borne infections leading to severe illness and fatalities.
Page 148 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
2015-2016 Zika Virus Outbreak o No cases of local mosquito-borne transmission, but there were 122 cases reported in the County, with 121 being travel-related.
•
2015 Meningococcal Disease Cluster o An outbreak among men who have sex with men (MSM) led to a targeted vaccination campaign.
•
2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic o Thousands of hospitalizations; schools and businesses affected.
6.14.4 Probability and Emerging Risks The 2024 Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) identifies that pandemics and bioterrorism remain high-probability threats. Future public health risks also include: •
Emergence of infectious diseases driven by global travel and climate change.
•
Increased incidence of heat-related illnesses amid rising temperatures.
•
Increased prevalence of respiratory diseases due to declining air quality.
•
Rise of antimicrobial-resistant infections due to overuse of antibiotics.
The County of Los Angeles DPH continually assesses health threats and updates preparedness plans to address evolving concerns.
6.14.5 Vulnerability and Systemic Impacts Certain populations in Los Angeles County may be disproportionately affected by public health emergencies: •
At-risk populations may be different for different hazards before, during, and after an emergency. It is important to assess each hazard in turn to identify those who may be disproportionately affected to improve preparedness and response efforts.
Public health emergencies strain the healthcare system, disrupt economic activity, and create mental health burdens. The 2024 THIRA report noted that: •
Healthcare infrastructure overload is a major concern during pandemics.
•
Potential economic loss from business closures during a prolonged public health crisis could exceed billions of dollars.
Page 149 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
6.14.6 Mitigation Strategies and Preparedness Efforts Los Angeles County employs several mitigation and preparedness strategies: •
Mass Vaccination Campaigns o Annual flu shots, COVID-19 vaccinations, and outbreak-specific immunization efforts.
• • •
Points-of-Dispensing (POD) sites o Disease Surveillance & Early Warning Systems
Syndromic surveillance for emerging threats. o Targeted sampling surveillance.
Healthcare Infrastructure Strengthening o Expanding hospital capacity for medical surge, and emergency medical resources.
• •
Community Outreach & Public Health Education o Disseminating critical information in multiple languages.
Emergency Stockpiles (Strategic National Stockpile(SNS))
o Deployment of antibiotics, antivirals, and personal protective equipment (PPE) in crisis situations.
•
Coordination with Federal & State Agencies o Collaboration with FEMA, CDC, and the California Department of Public Health to enhance response capabilities.
•
Anthrax Threat Simulations o The County of Los Angeles Metro system assessed as a high-risk area for bioterrorism response.
6.14.7 Summary Public health emergencies pose significant challenges to Los Angeles County, impacting healthcare systems, vulnerable populations, and economic stability. While the COVID-19 pandemic provided a major stress test for response efforts, ongoing preparedness, surveillance, and mitigation strategies aim to protect residents from future threats. Key Takeaways: •
Los Angeles County faces diverse health threats, including pandemics, bioterrorism, and climate-related illnesses. Page 150 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
Vulnerable populations may suffer disproportionate impacts during public health crises.
•
Preparedness efforts focus on surveillance, vaccination, emergency response, and coordination with federal and state partners.
•
Future threats include emerging infectious diseases, heat-related illnesses, and antimicrobial resistance.
By continuing investments in public health preparedness, Los Angeles County aims to reduce risks and strengthen resilience against future health emergencies.
Page 151 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
7 Mitigation Strategy
Page 152 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
7.1 Mitigation Strategy Overview The Mitigation Strategy section of the All-Hazard Mitigation Plan (AHMP) presents Los Angeles County’s strategic blueprint for reducing risks and vulnerabilities posed over the long term associated with the hazards identified in the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment section. The strategies identified in this section drive mitigation activities based on existing capabilities while also identifying areas of potential future investment to build resilience across communities, critical facilities, and other infrastructure within Los Angeles County.
7.2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives Mitigation goals are the long-term vision that the County hopes to achieve by implementing the various mitigation strategies described in this AHMP, as well as the broad guidelines that have shaped mitigation strategy development. •
•
•
Goal 1: Protect life, property, infrastructure, the environment, and the economy through equitable mitigation strategies aimed at reducing risks of natural and human-caused hazards. o Objective 1-1: Integrate vulnerable populations, including people with Access and Functional Needs (AFN), into the implementation of any potential mitigation actions. o Objective 1-2: Implement mitigation strategies that enhance resilience to disaster impacts across residential areas, commercial areas, infrastructure, high-hazard potential dams, and other critical facilities. o Objective 1-3: Inform strategic investments in climate adaptation, development, and redevelopment that are centered in equity and resilience. Goal 2: Enhance community-wide partnerships in hazard mitigation across all levels of government, the private sector, and the public. o Objective 2-1: Build a culture of disaster resilience and awareness of local hazards through public engagement, education, and outreach. o Objective 2-2: Strengthen direct coordination among Los Angeles County Operational Area partners to unify efforts for mitigation activities. o Objective 2-3: Utilize a whole community approach to address disparities in outcomes posed by the hazards identified in this AHMP. Goal 3: Enhance planning, response, and recovery through hazard identification, assessment, mitigation, and resilience activities. Page 153 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
o Objective 3-1: Establish and maintain coordination between hazard mitigation activities and other emergency management functions. o Objective 3-2: Integrate hazard mitigation activities into preparedness for future large-scale planned events within Los Angeles County. Goal 4: Ensure eligibility for FEMA grant funding to maximize equitable investment in hazard mitigation actions. o Objective 4-1: Continue to meet all requirements for existing hazard mitigation grant programs used by the County. o Objective 4-2: Expand the County’s ability to participate in grant programs not currently utilized by the County.
7.2.1 Changes in Mitigation Goals The AHMP Advisory Committee reviewed the 2020 AHMP goals and updated them to reflect the most current County concerns and priorities. Therefore, the 2025 AHMP has introduced new goals and objectives to build a more resilient community. Table 7-1 (below) compares the 2025 AHMP goals with previous 2020 AHMP goals; all other goals above are new goals and objectives developed by the AHMP Advisory Committee. Mitigation priorities change through time depending on the type of disaster impacting Los Angeles County, vulnerability, the strategies implemented, as well as other needs of the community. Priorities are also made based on current countywide Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) studies, National Risk Index Assessment, State Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP) and other local plans and guides. The previous 2020 AHMP integrated hazard data into several operational plans including but not limited to the General Plan, Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan (OAEOP), amongst others. Addressing these changes will help to address Los Angeles County hazard priorities and to have mitigation strategies focused on the hazards that impact the region at most. The plan also added additional hazards and addressed a larger vulnerable population. Table 7-1 Mitigation Goal Updates Goals Addressed in
Goals for 2025-2030
2020 AHMP
Planning Period
Build a culture and
Goal 2 (see above).
Changes
Goal expanded;
practice disaster
previous goal
resilience
integrated as an Page 154 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Goals Addressed in
Goals for 2025-2030
2020 AHMP
Planning Period
Changes objective under Goal 2 in the current AHMP.
Better plan for, respond
Goal 3 (see above).
to, and recover from,
Previous goal replaced with new goal.
hazards and disasters including climate change, drought, earthquake, dam failure, flood, landslide, tsunami, and wildfire that affect Los Angeles County. More successfully adapt
Goal 1 (see above).
to hazards and disasters
Previous goal replaced with new goal.
including climate change, drought, earthquake, dam failure, flood, landslide, tsunami, and wildfire that affect Los Angeles County.
7.3 Existing Mitigation Capabilities The mitigation strategies developed as part of this AHMP seek to maximize existing mitigation capabilities identified as currently available within the Los Angeles County Operational Area. These existing capabilities have been updated to reflect changes in human, technical, financial, legal, regulatory, education, and outreach resources since the 2020 AHMP.
Page 155 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
7.3.1 Authorities, Policies, and Legal/Regulatory Resources There are several existing authorities, policies, and other legal or regulatory resources applicable to hazard mitigation efforts in Los Angeles County. From the County Code of Ordinances to completed plans, these form the cornerstone of hazard mitigation activities by providing a foundation rooted in data, research, planning, Technical Ecological Knowledge (TEK) provided by our state and locally recognized indigenous communities, and elected officials’ authority. The County aims to expand and improve upon these identified capabilities by adopting this AHMP, once approved, into the Safety Element of the Los Angeles County General Plan. This action will contribute to the County’s ability to be considered for an additional cost-share on Public Assistance projects through the California Disaster Assistance Act. Table 7-2 provides an overview of existing capabilities related to authorities, policies, and legal/regulatory resources.
Table 7-2 Authorities, Policies, and Legal/Regulatory Resources Authority, Policy, or Resource
Description
Hazards Addressed
Potential to Affect Development
Los Angeles County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan (2023)
Establishes the coordinated emergency management system within the Los Angeles County Operational Area to prepare for, respond to, and recover from the effects of large-scale emergencies regardless of cause, location, or complexity.
All-Hazard
No
Los Angeles County General Plan (2024)
Provides the policy framework for how and where the unincorporated County will grow through the year 2035.
All-Hazard
Yes
Los Angeles County Comprehensive Floodplain
Reviews existing floodplain management programs in the County and recommends enhancements to them through 35
Flood
Yes
Land Movement Page 156 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Authority, Policy, or Resource
Description
Hazards Addressed
Management Plan (2021)
mitigation actions. This plan is currently being reviewed and updated with completion targeted for early 2026.
Los Angeles
Analyzes Repetitive Los Areas
Flood
County
within Los Angeles County and
Land
Comprehensive fulfills Community Rating System Floodplain
requirements.
Potential to Affect Development
Yes
Movement
Management Plan Repetitive Loss Area Analysis (2021) County of Los
Provides an annual update on the
Flood
Angeles
implementation of the action plan
Floodplain
identified in the Comprehensive
Land
Management
Floodplain Management Plan and
Plan Progress
on the implementation and
Report (2024)
evaluation of outreach projects.
County of Los
Provide an annual update on the
Angeles
implementation of the action plan
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis
Yes
Movement
Flood
Yes
Wildfire
Yes
identified in the Repetitive Loss
Area Analysis to ensure there is a Progress Report continuing and responsive (2023) planning process. Los Angeles County Fire Plan (2023)
Describes the wildfire environment, history, and pre-fire management strategies to enhance the protection of lives, property, and natural resources from wildland fire.
Page 157 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Authority, Policy, or Resource
Description
Los Angeles
Delineates the County’s path
Wildfire
County 2045
toward
Climate Action
Extreme
meeting the goals of the Paris
Heat
Agreement and achieving carbon
Drought
Plan (2024)
neutrality for unincorporated Los Angeles County. Our County: Los Angeles Countywide Sustainability Plan (2019)
Hazards Addressed
Potential to Affect Development Yes
Flooding
Outlines how local governments and stakeholders can enhance the well-being of all County communities while adapting to climate change and reducing damage to the natural environment, particularly focusing on communities disproportionately burdened by pollution.
Wildfire
Los Angeles
Aims to minimize public and
Flood
County
private losses resulting from flood
Floodplain
conditions via uniformly applied
Land
Management
regulations in flood prone,
Ordinance
mudflow, or flood related erosion
Yes
Extreme Heat Drought Flooding
Yes
Movement
areas. Los Angeles
To build a new structure (or an
County Code –
addition equal to or greater than
Title 32: Fire
50% of existing square footage),
Code
the Los Angeles County Fire Code
Wildfire
Yes
requires review of its location, type of construction, topography, slope, amount and arrangement of vegetation, and overall site Page 158 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Authority, Policy, or Resource
Description
Hazards Addressed
Potential to Affect Development
settings—in order to create defensible space necessary for effective fire protection of homes in High Fire Severity Zones. Los Angeles
Establishes the regulations
Wildfire
County Code –
governing land use and
Title 22:
development and defines zoning
Earthquake
Planning and
for unincorporated Los Angeles
Zoning
County. Includes the Hillside
Yes
Land Movement
Management Area Ordinance (Chapter 22.104), the Residential Design Standards Ordinance, and the Hillside Design Guidelines. These include requirements for development in Hillside Management Areas, which are defined as areas with 25% or greater natural slopes. The guidelines include specific and measurable design techniques that can be applied to residential, commercial, industrial, and other types of projects. Los Angeles
Enhances the design and
Extreme
County Code –
construction of buildings via
Heat
Title 31: Green
building concepts with positive (or
Building
reduced negative) environmental
Drought
Standards
impacts, and encourages
Code
sustainable construction practices
Yes
Page 159 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Authority, Policy, or Resource
Description
Hazards Addressed
Potential to Affect Development
across planning and design, energy efficiency, water conservation, material and resource efficiency, and environmental air quality. Los Angeles
Legally declares both improved
County Brush
and unimproved properties a
Clearance
public nuisance, and where
Program
necessary, requires the clearance
Wildfire
Yes
Yes
of hazardous vegetation thereby creating defensible space for effective fire protection of property, life, and the environment. The Brush Clearance Program is a joint effort between the County of Los Angeles Fire Department and the County of Los Angeles Department of Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures, Weed Hazard, and Pest Abatement Bureau (Weed Abatement Division). Los Angeles
Provides minimum standards to
Earthquake
County Code –
regulate the design, construction,
Title 26:
installation, quality of materials,
Wildfire
Building Code
use, occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings, structures, grading, and certain equipment. Regulates construction Page 160 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Authority, Policy, or Resource
Description
Hazards Addressed
Potential to Affect Development
near a known active earthquake fault (Chapter 1, Section 113), the materials and construction methods for construction in a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Area (Chapter 7A), structural design as it relates to earthquake hazards (Chapter 16, Section 1613), repair of certain buildings in High Earthquake Damage Areas (Chapter 94), earthquake hazard reduction for concrete tilt-up buildings (Chapter 95) and unreinforced masonry buildings (Chapter 96), among others. The Building Code also includes provisions for emergency housing during a proclaimed emergency.
7.3.2 Human and Technical Resources Existing human and technical resources across County Departments enable the County to plan, manage, conduct, and execute its wide range of hazard mitigation activities. The resources below represent a high degree of expertise in all facets of hazard mitigation available to support mitigation activities. The County aims to expand and improve upon these identified capabilities by expanding potential hazard training opportunities available to the Los Angeles County Operational Area. Additionally, as various special events are scheduled in Los Angeles County over the next five years, the County should seek to expand coordination and technical resources related to mass violence, cyber, and other special event-related hazards.
Page 161 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Table 7-3 provides an overview of existing capabilities related to human and technical resources. Table 7-3 Human and Technical Resources Resource
Department/Agency
Emergency
Los Angeles County
Management
Office of Emergency
Coordinator(s)
Management
Principal Activities Related to Hazard Mitigation •
• •
Engineer(s),
Los Angeles County
Building
Public Works and Fire
Inspector(s),
Department
•
Maintains and updates the Los Angeles County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan and Los Angeles County All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Coordinates local response and recovery activities in the Emergency Operation Center and in the field. Works closely with local, state, and federal partners to support planning, training, exercise, public information, and resource coordination. Oversees the effective, efficient, fair, and safe enforcement of County of Los Angeles Building and Fire Codes.
Code Enforcement Officer(s), Fire Marshalls, and Other Technical Staff Engineer(s),
Los Angeles County
Construction
Public Works
•
Provides direct (or contract) civil, structural, and mechanical engineering services, including contract, project, and construction management.
•
Maintains and operates a wide range of local equipment and facilities and assists members of the public by
Project Managers, and Other Technical Staff Engineer(s),
Los Angeles County
Project
Public Works
Page 162 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Resource
Department/Agency
Principal Activities Related to Hazard Mitigation providing sufficient clean fresh water, reliable sewer services, street maintenance, storm drainage systems, street cleaning, streetlights, and traffic signals.
Manager(s), Equipment Operators, Maintenance and Construction Staff, and Other Technical Staff Floodplain
Los Angeles County
Administrator
Public Works
Planner(s), Engineer(s), and Technical Staff
Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning
•
• •
•
•
Enforces the floodplain management ordinance ensuring that development proposals do not increase flood risk and that new developments are not located below the 100-year flood level. In addition, the floodplain administrator is responsible for planning and managing flood risk reduction projects throughout Los Angeles County. Develops and maintains the Los Angeles County General Plan, including the Safety Element. Develops area plans based on the Los Angeles County General Plan to provide more specific guidance for the development of more specific areas. Reviews proposed development, capital improvements, and other physical projects involving property for consistency and conformity with the Los Angeles County General Plan. Anticipates and acts on the need for applicable new plans, policies, and code changes.
Page 163 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Resource
Department/Agency
Principal Activities Related to Hazard Mitigation • •
Procurement Services Manager
Los Angeles County Internal Services Department
Comptroller
Los Angeles County
Personnel
Auditor – Controller
County Counsel
Los Angeles County
Personnel
Counsel
Fire Department Personnel
Los Angeles County Fire Department
Sheriff’s
Los Angeles County •
Department
Sheriff’s Department
Applies the approved plans, policies, code provisions, and other regulations to proposed land uses. Provides a full range of municipal financial services and administers several licensing measures.
•
Provides financial and grant services.
•
Provides legal services for the County.
•
Provides fire protection services including response, fire prevention, and mitigation activities for the County. Provides law enforcement services in the County.
Personnel
7.3.3 Financial Resources and Programs There are many existing financial resources, grant programs, and other funding mechanisms that enable current and future hazard mitigation activities. Sources for these resources and programs vary widely from local funding out of the County’s General Fund to state and federal programs that aim to help local jurisdictions accomplish their hazard mitigation goals. The amount of funding available is variable and project-specific for many of these programs. Similarly, grant awards are based on the specific projects that are identified as the basis for the grant application. Table 7-4 provides an overview of existing capabilities related to financial resources and programs.
Page 164 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Table 7-4 Financial Resources and Programs Resource or Program
Administrator
Purpose
Chief General Fund
Executive
Program operations and specific projects.
Office General obligation bonds are appropriately used for the construction and/or acquisition of General
Auditor -
Obligation Bonds Controller
improvements to real property broadly available to residents and visitors. Such facilities include but are not limited to: libraries, hospitals, parks, public safety facilities, and cultural and educational facilities. Revenue bonds are used to finance capital projects that:
Special Tax and Revenue Bonds
Controller
1. Have an identified budgetary stream for repayment (e.g., specified fees, tax receipts); 2. Generate project revenue but rely on a broader pledge of general fund revenues to reduce borrowing costs; or 3. Finance the acquisition and installation of equipment for the local jurisdiction’s general governmental purposes. Cost-sharing program between Cal FIRE and private landowners, which focuses on the use of
Vegetation Management
Cal FIRE
Program
prescribed fire and/or mechanical means, for addressing wildland fire fuel hazards and other resource management issues on State Responsibility Area (SRA) lands.
Wildfire Emergency and Mitigation Funds
Cal FIRE
Administers funding from FEMA, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Forest Service for Page 165 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Resource or Program
Administrator
Purpose certain types of wildfire emergency and mitigation funding. Created by the California Earthquake Authority
California
California
Residential
Earthquake
Mitigation
Authority
Program Public Health Emergency Preparedness Cooperative Agreement
and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, “Earthquake Brace + Bolt: Funds to Strengthen Your Foundation” is the first incentive program offered by the California Residential Mitigation Program.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Funds are intended to upgrade state and local public health jurisdictions’ preparedness and response to bioterrorism, outbreaks of infectious diseases, and other public health threats and emergencies. Administered by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), HMGP
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
FEMA
(HMGP)
supports pre- and post-disaster mitigation plans and projects available to California communities after a presidentially declared disaster has occurred in California. Available annually as a nationally competitive
Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM)
FEMA
Grant Program
Available annually as a nationally competitive FEMA
Grant Program Homeland Security
supports pre-disaster mitigation plans and projects.
Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)
Cal OES grant, the PDM Grant Program
Cal OES grant, the PDM Grant Program supports pre-disaster mitigation plans and projects.
FEMA
Builds and sustains preparedness technical assistance activities in support of the four Page 166 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Resource or Program
Administrator
Purpose
Preparedness
homeland security mission areas (i.e.,
Technical
prevention, protection, response, recovery) and
Assistance
homeland security program management.
Program Provides equipment, protective gear, emergency vehicles, training, and other Assistance to
FEMA/U.S.
resources needed to protect the public and
Firefighters Grant
Fire
emergency personnel from fire and related
Program
Administration
hazards. Available to fire departments and nonaffiliated emergency medical services providers.
Land and Water
U.S.
Supports the protection of federal public lands
Conservation
Department of and waters and voluntary conservation on
Funds
the Interior
private land. Offers means by which communities may
Community
U.S.
Action for a
Environmental
Renewed
Protection
Environment
Agency (EPA)
organize/take action to reduce toxic pollution (e.g., in stormwater, etc.) through financial and technical assistance. Communities create partnerships that implement solutions to reduce releases of toxic pollutants and that minimize toxic exposures. A loan program that provides low-cost financing to eligible entities on state and tribal
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
lands for water quality projects, including all EPA
types of non-point source, watershed protection or restoration, estuary management projects, and more traditional municipal wastewater treatment projects.
Page 167 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Resource or Program
Administrator
Purpose Acquisition of real property, relocation and
Community Block U.S.
demolition, rehabilitation of residential and
Grant Program
Department of non-residential structures, construction of
Entitlement
Housing and
public facilities and improvements (e.g.,
Communities
Urban
water/sewer facilities, streets, neighborhood
Grants
Development
centers, etc.), and the conversion of school buildings for eligible purposes.
High Hazard Potential Dams (HHPD) Grant
Provides FEMA
design,
and
construction assistance in the form of grants for the rehabilitation of eligible high hazard Provides funding to eligible entities to address
State and Local Grant Program
planning,
potential dams.
Program
Cybersecurity
technical,
FEMA
cybersecurity risks and threats to information systems owned or operated by, or on behalf of, state, local, or tribal governments.
7.3.4 Education and Outreach Resources Engagement with the communities of Los Angeles County is an important component of mitigation efforts. The County of Los Angeles has multiple methods, formats, and venues to conduct outreach with community members and provide education on the hazard landscape in Los Angeles County. These activities ensure mitigation efforts align with community goals and include community input. Table 7-5 shows a list of existing resources for education and outreach. Table 7-5 Education and Outreach Resources Resource or Program
Agencies Potentially Involved
Purpose
Preparedness
Office of Emergency
Engage with community
Fairs
Management, Fire
members to provide education Page 168 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Resource or Program
Agencies Potentially Involved
Purpose
Department, Sheriff’s
on hazards found in Los
Department, Public Works,
Angeles County and
Board of Supervisors
emergency preparedness for homes and businesses. Receive input and feedback on
Personal Disaster
Office of Emergency
Impact Surveys
Management
the hazard landscape from community members in Los Angeles County to inform the 2025 AHMP. Receive input and feedback on
AHMP Draft
Office of Emergency
sections of the AHMP from
Review Surveys
Management
community members in Los Angeles County.
Homeless Outreach Services Team (HOST)
Conduct outreach to People Sheriff’s Department,
Experiencing Homelessness in
Homelessness Services
areas prone to wildfires or
Organizations
flooding based on weather conditions.
Community Emergency Response Teams
Fire Department
(CERT) Explorer
Fire Department, Sheriff’s
Programs
Department
Youth Climate Commission
Chief Sustainability Office
Educate community members about disaster preparedness and response in their communities. Educate youth about disaster preparedness and response in their communities. Educate and obtain input from youth on climate change impacts and mitigation efforts.
Page 169 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
7.3.5 National Flood Insurance Program Participation The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is administered by FEMA and provides affordable flood insurance to participating communities through a network of insurance providers. NFIP regulations must be enforced in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). Flood insurance is required for structures in SFHAs with federally backed loans (e.g., most mortgages, Small Business Administration (SBA) loans) and FEMA grants along with any structures with SBA loans, regardless of flood zone. Flood insurance is required to be maintained for the life of the federally backed loan and in perpetuity, regardless of change in ownership, in the case of FEMA grants. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted the County Floodway Ordinance (Los Angeles County Code Title 11, Chapter 11.60) in March 1980. This ordinance included the first County Floodway Maps and paved the way for the County to begin participation in NFIP on behalf of unincorporated residents. The County’s participation means that residents (owners and renters) in the unincorporated communities within Los Angeles County are eligible for NFIP flood insurance and Federal flood disaster assistance. The first FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) became effective on December 2, 1980. Since 1980, the County has continued robust participation in NFIP. The FEMA FIRMs were digitized in September 2008 and have been revised over the years by numerous Letters of Map Change and by large-scale Physical Map Revisions for the Ballona Creek watershed and several watersheds in the Santa Monica Mountains (Triunfo Creek, Topanga Canyon and others) in December 2018, the Los Angeles County coastline in April 2021, and the Santa Clara River watershed in June 2021. These maps are available to the public on the Los Angeles County Public Works (PW) website at dpw.lacounty.gov/floodzone. Los Angeles County also participates in the NFIP’s Community Rating System (CRS) program. The CRS program is a voluntary program for communities that engage in community floodplain management activities, which exceed the minimum NFIP standards. CRS communities benefit from a discount on flood insurance rates and improved floodplain management programs. CRS uses a class rating system between 1 and 9 to determine flood insurance premium reductions for residents. As of April 1, 2022, Los Angeles County is a Class 6 CRS community; therefore homeowners and
Page 170 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
renters who live in a SFHA can receive up to a 20% discount on their flood insurance policies. The County’s implementation and enforcement of local floodplain management regulations for development in SFHAs are covered in Los Angeles County Building Codes with the most recent update completed in 2023. Title 26, Chapter 1, includes requirements for development within flood hazard areas. Other relevant ordinances include other chapters in Title 26 (Building Code) along with Titles 27 (Electrical Code), Title 28 (Plumbing Code), Title 29 (Mechanical Code), Title 30 (Residential Code), and Title 33 (Existing Building Code). Implementation and enforcement are also covered in the Los Angeles County Subdivision Code (Title 21) and Planning and Zoning Code (Title 22). The NFIP for unincorporated communities is administered by the Department of Public Works (LACPW) Stormwater Engineering Division, which serves as the County’s floodplain manager, coordinates with LACPW’s Building and Safety and Land Development Divisions and with the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning in their enforcement of the County’s floodplain management regulations, and participates in FEMA’s Community Assisted Visits, which typically occur on a 5-year cycle. LACPW continues to enforce NFIP regulations for building permit applications determined by Building and Safety officials to be substantial improvement or repair of substantial damage. Los Angeles County also requires all residential buildings undertaking substantial improvement to have their lowest floor elevated 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation. Additionally, Los Angeles County conducted a Repetitive Loss Area Analysis in 2020, which serves as a specific plan for reducing damage from flooding in repetitive loss areas. After an event, Public Works staff assess the unincorporated area buildings within the extent of the event. The assessment will identify the buildings that appear to have damages affecting 50 percent or greater of the building. If such a building is in floodprone areas identified by FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps, County maps (Floodway Maps or Assessor’s Maps), or identified by Public Works to be in a Repetitive Loss Area, will undergo further evaluation by Public Works staff on whether the building meets FEMA’s definition of substantial improvement/substantial damage (SI/SD). A building that meets FEMA’s SI/SD definition will be required to have the entire building upgraded to meet National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) standards ( Title 44, Code Page 171 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
of Federal Regulations, Section 60.3). Los Angeles County Code Title 26, Section 110.1 requires the County to enforce as a minimum the current Federal Flood Plain Management Regulations defined in Title 44, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 60.3, for buildings, structures, and grading located in whole or in part in flood hazard areas. (Ord. 2013-0048 § 2, 2013; Ord. 2010-0053 § 2, 2010; Ord. 95-0065 § 3 (part), 1995.)
7.4 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Strategies Potential mitigation actions were identified for each hazard identified in Section 6 in an effort to ensure as comprehensive a mitigation strategy as possible. Multiple mitigation options were then analyzed against the goals and objectives delineated in this section with a focus on new and existing buildings. A combination of new and ongoing mitigation actions aimed at reducing the effects of the identified hazards were compiled into the list of mitigation actions in the following subsection. This list includes a wide range of potential types of mitigation actions, including: • • • •
Local Plans and Regulations. Structure and Infrastructure Projects. Natural Systems Protection. Education and Awareness Programs.
A notable update to the 2025 AHMP was the integration of human-caused threats and corresponding potential mitigation actions. The AHMP Planning Team also reviewed FEMA’s Mitigation Ideas document to incorporate national best practices in the list of potential mitigation actions.
Page 172 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
7.4.1 Mitigation Strategies
01 Title: Support and Expand Countywide Vegetation Management and Fire Prevention Efforts
Source: Los Angeles County Fire Department Type: Natural Systems Protection Description: Conduct passive protection measures such as creating defensible space buffers around residential and non-residential
structures
through
flammable
vegetation,
managing
hazardous
fuels,
creating
landscaping
and
construction,
vegetation,
among
others.
the
removal
and/or
firebreaks, and
Hazard: Wildfire
of
reducing
fire-resistive
clearing
Engage
dead Hazard: Severe indigenous Wind/Tornado
communities to inform vegetation management and fire
prevention practices aligned with Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK).
02 Title: Enhance Community Engagement in Wildfire Protection and Prevention
Source: Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning Type: Education and Awareness Programs Description: Engage residents and businesses in high fire Hazard: Wildfire risk communities to educate them on community-focused mitigation and risk reduction strategies, emergency preparedness and evacuation readiness, and opportunities to get involved in fire safety-related community initiatives. Hazard: Severe Engage indigenous communities to inform protection and Wind/Tornado prevention practices aligned with Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK).
Page 173 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
03 Title: Perform Post-Fire Flooding, Debris Flow, and Mud Flow Risk Assessments and Mitigation Activities
Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Type: Structure and Infrastructure Projects Description: Following a wildfire, assess burn scar for Hazard: Wildfire significant mud and debris flow risks to produce mud and debris flow phase maps for first responding agencies to
prepare for potential evacuations. Recommend mitigation Hazard: Flooding strategies to prevent mud and debris flow impacts.
04 Title: Strengthen Operational Continuity Capabilities for Critical Facilities Source: Los Angeles County Department Public Health, among others. Type: Structure and Infrastructure Projects Description: Conduct robust continuity planning to ensure Hazard: Wildfire the continued performance of essential functions in the event critical facilities are impacted by various hazards.
Hazard: Extreme Heat
Build capabilities that support operational continuity such Hazard: Severe as alternate or uninterrupted power supply, workforce Wind/Tornado development
and
cross-training,
emergency
communications, and data backup or failover hardware.
Hazard: Cyber Incidents
Page 174 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
05 Title: Incorporate Hazards in Local Planning, Land Use, and Development Codes
Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and Regional Planning Type: Local Planning and Regulations leverage Hazard: Wildfire opportunities to strengthen relevant ordinances that Description:
Develop,
maintain,
and
govern land use, building codes, and development in
Hazard: Earthquake
high-risk hazard areas. Incorporate mitigation actions in Hazard: Land Movement community planning such as Community Wildfire Plans, Flood Management Plans, and the County General Plan, among many others.
Hazard: Severe Wind/Tornado
Hazard: Flooding
06 Title: Increase Public Awareness of Climate Change Effects on Local Hazards
Source: Los Angeles County Chief Sustainability Office Type: Education and Awareness Programs Description: Engage with communities on ways climate Hazard: Wildfire change impacts various natural hazards along with mitigation actions and available resources for climate
Hazard: Extreme Heat
adaptation and resilience. Efforts should focus on how Hazard: Drought communities can take action or support existing County programs including funding available to the public. Public
Hazard: Land Movement
engagement efforts should be accessible, ensure people Hazard: Severe with Access and Functional Needs are included in Wind/Tornado outreach, and use materials with multiple language options.
Hazard: Flooding
Page 175 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
07 Title: Expand Stormwater Management, Drainage, and Outlet Planning Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Type: Local Planning and Regulations Description: Continue robust stormwater management Hazard: Flooding programs. Conduct studies to inform measures to improve outlet and drainage planning and prevent flood damage Hazard: Drought to communities in high-risk areas. These efforts should also prevent flood damage to County-maintained roadways, Hazard: Transportation including evacuation egress and emergency services Incident ingress, while supporting potential groundwater recharge.
08 Title: Construct and Maintain Localized Flood Control Improvements Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Type: Structural and Infrastructure Projects Description: Maintain existing flood control mechanisms by drainage system maintenance, sediment and debris clearance, and other actions. Leverage opportunities to
Hazard: Flooding
construct flood control improvements.
Page 176 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
09 Title: Preserve Floodplains as Public Use Open Spaces Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, among others. Type: Natural Systems Protections Description: Preserve and expand public use open spaces that capture stormwater with the aim of reducing localized flooding
while
also
providing
green
space
and
recreational opportunities to communities. Prioritize floodplains and watersheds in County-owned public use open spaces near flood risk areas. Use stormwater best
Hazard: Flooding
management practices in projects involving open spaces to support natural water collection and conservation. Incorporate floodplain preservation into future park improvements.
10 Title: Harden Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from Seismic Damage Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Type: Structure and Infrastructure Projects Description: Conduct seismic assessments to prioritize Hazard: Earthquake retrofitting and other seismic mitigation actions such as bracing or seismic shutoff valves. Efforts should focus on Hazard: Land Movement critical facilities for community lifelines such as hospitals, public safety facilities, utility sites, high-hazard potential
dams, and transportation assets (i.e., bridges, roadways, Hazard: Dam Failure airports, and others).
Page 177 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
11 Title: Prevent Impacts to the Transportation System Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Type: Structure and Infrastructure Projects Description: Hazard impacts to the transportation system in Los Angeles County have far-reaching potential for
Hazard: Earthquake
cascading effects across multiple lifelines. Mitigation
activities for multiple hazards should focus on preventing Hazard: Land Movement or lessening impacts to transportation. Activities may include stabilization efforts along County-maintained Hazard: Transportation roads, reinforcing transportation assets, or other seismic Incident mitigation actions.
12 Title: Continue Efforts to Enhance Dam Safety and Reduce Long-Term Vulnerabilities with High Hazard Potential Dams
Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Type: Structure and Infrastructure Projects Description: Upgrade infrastructure to ensure the longterm integrity and safe operation of County-owned dam Hazard: Earthquake facilities. Potential actions could include strengthening of dams,
sediment
inspections,
management
continuous
activities,
maintenance,
regular
integrating
advanced technologies, and emergency preparedness Hazard: Dam Failure efforts.
Page 178 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
13 Title: Assess Water Resilience in Los Angeles County Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Type: Local Planning and Regulations Description: Conduct assessments and studies to monitor the water supply and develop recommendations for other water systems. Identify potential secondary water sources Hazard: Drought or other contingency measures for ensuring water system resilience during drought conditions.
14 Title: Expand Drought-Tolerant Landscaping and Design Source: Los Angeles County Chief Sustainability Office and Department of Regional Planning Type: Natural Systems Protection Description: Integrate drought mitigation into landscaping and design measures undertaken by the County. Prioritize native and drought-tolerant plants when selecting landscaping designs. Use permeable materials for pavers, driveways, walkways, and roadways to reduce runoff and promote
groundwater
recharge
that
Hazard: Drought
incorporate
indigenous- informed practices aligned with Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK).
Page 179 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
15 Title: Address Urban Heat Islands by Investing in Green Infrastructure and Cooling Strategies
Source: Los Angeles County Chief Sustainability Office, Department of Regional Planning, Department of Economic Opportunity, Department of Public Health, and Department of Public Works, among others. Type: Local Planning and Regulations Description: Increase shade cover provided by vegetation such as planting native and drought-tolerant trees along with smaller plants such as shrubs, grasses, and groundcover. Increase the tree canopy in County parks and open concrete or asphalt spaces in the public right of way or County-owned parking lots. Conduct assessments to identify communities considered urban heat islands that are at highest need for an increase in tree canopy or other heat mitigation activities. Advance cooling strategies such as constructing shade structures, installing splash pads, operating cooling centers, modernizing air conditioning
Hazard: Extreme Heat
systems, and expanding the availability of cool roofing infrastructure that reflects heat away from buildings. Ensure mitigation actions address heat impacts faced by people with Access and Functional Needs. Many of these actions have a secondary benefit mitigating the effects of climate change by promoting carbon sequestration, the capture and storage of CO2 from the atmosphere. Additionally, increasing green space and shade cover in urban areas can advance environmental justice.
Page 180 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
16 Title: Increase Coastal Resilience, Prevent Erosion, and Protect Shorelines Source: Los Angeles County Chief Sustainability Office and Department of Beaches and Harbors Type: Natural Systems Protection Description: Conduct activities to replace sediment lost due to erosion or coastal storms. Assess the need for other Hazard: Flooding sediment protection measures such as planting certain types of vegetation. Consider activities that prevent wind from blowing sand off beaches and impacts from storm surge in high-risk areas. These actions help protect coastal roadways and other infrastructure along with ensuring
Hazard: Tsunami
recreation opportunities remain for residents and visitors.
17 Title: Conduct Multi-Discipline Training and Exercise Programs Source:
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Office of Emergency
Management Type: Education and Awareness Programs Description: Identify opportunities for joint training and Hazard: Mass Violence exercises for mass violence and cyber incident response across disciplines of law enforcement, fire and emergency medical services, medical examiner, private sector, and others. Each training and exercise should include mass Hazard: Cyber Incidents violence rescue and evacuation techniques for AFN populations.
Page 181 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
18 Title: Strengthen Partnerships and Coordination Among Local Agencies Source:
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Office of Emergency
Management Type: Education and Awareness Programs Description: Expand collaborative agreements with other Hazard: Mass Violence agencies to share resources during large-scale emergencies. Strengthen partnerships with local agencies for resource sharing. Enhance response capabilities Hazard: Cyber Incidents during major incidents.
19 Title: Incorporate Mass Violence Prevention and Mitigation Efforts into Special Event Planning
Source:
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Office of Emergency
Management Type: Education and Awareness Programs Description: Use physical security measures such as bollards, water-filled barricades, vehicle barriers, and others. Identify mitigation measures for upcoming special events such as the World Cup, Super Bowl, and Olympics. Conduct special event training on topics such as crowd management,
sporting
evacuation.
Incorporate
event
safety,
Family
and
stadium
Assistance
Center
Hazard: Mass Violence
readiness into special event planning.
Page 182 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
20 Title: Extreme Heat Risk Education and Safety Outreach for Residents and Vulnerable Workers
Source: Los Angeles County Chief Sustainability Office, Department of Economic Opportunity, Department of Public Health, and Department of Public Works Type: Education and Awareness Programs Description: Implement outreach and education to workers in low-wage and high hazard industries in LA County that are disproportionately impacted by extreme heat. Partner with organizations providing services to people with Access and Functional Needs on heat Hazard: Extreme Heat response strategies. Expand awareness of cooling centers and other heat respite options for unhoused populations. Increase workforce development opportunities to expand the availability of green infrastructure.
21 Title: Increase Field Response and Coordination Capabilities Source:
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Office of Emergency
Management Type: Education and Awareness Programs Description: Enhance field coordination capabilities at large-scale planned events and no-notice incidents such
Hazard: Wildfire
as wildfires, mass violence, and others. Potential actions could
include
investments
in
new
redundant
communications systems, response vehicles, alert and Hazard: Mass Violence warning capabilities, and other field operations equipment.
Page 183 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
22 Title: Strengthen Public Health Prevention and Preparedness Measures Source: Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management, Department of Public Health, Department of Health Services, and Fire Department Type: Education and Awareness Programs Description: Continue and expand mass vaccination and immunization
efforts.
Coordinate
healthcare
surge
preparedness and response efforts. Conduct disease surveillance,
monitor
early
warning
systems,
and
coordinate outbreak response. Educate communities and businesses about health implications related to wildfire Hazard: Public Health recovery and hazardous materials. Liaise with health Emergencies system partners to understand hospital surge capacity within the County. Maintain and deploy emergency stockpiles. Incorporate potential climate change-related infectious
disease
implications
into
public
health
preparedness planning.
7.5 Status of Previous Mitigation Efforts Table 7-6 below shows the status of mitigation strategies described in the 2020 AHMP. Departments have made significant progress on some of these mitigation strategies, partially but not fully completing some of these efforts. As such, each strategy from the 2020 AHMP have been rolled into the mitigation strategies described in this section. Table 7-6 Status of Mitigation Efforts 2020 AHMP Strategy Red Flag Warning Public Outreach
Status Not Completed/ Ongoing
2025 AHMP Strategy Enhance Community Engagement in Wildfire Protection and Prevention
Page 184 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
2020 AHMP Strategy Vegetation Management Program Fireproof Coating of Critical Facilities Auxiliary Power for Critical
Status Not Completed/ Ongoing Not Completed/ Ongoing Not
Facilities
Completed/
Earthquake-Resistant Ductile
Not
Iron Pipes Replacement Watershed Ecosystem
Ongoing Completed/ Ongoing Not
Restoration
Completed/
Green Streets / Living Streets
Not
Ongoing Completed/ Ongoing
Coordinated Data Collection and Database Systems Brush Clearance Program
Not Completed/ Ongoing Not Completed/ Ongoing
Wildland Urban-Interface Ordinance Urban Forest Management Plan
Not Completed/ Ongoing Not Completed/ Ongoing
2025 AHMP Strategy Support and Expand Countywide Vegetation Management and Fire Prevention Efforts Enhance Community Engagement in Wildfire Protection and Prevention Strengthen Operational Continuity Capabilities for Critical Facilities Harden Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from Seismic Damage Preserve Floodplains as Public Use Open Spaces Expand Drought-Tolerant Landscaping and Design Strengthen Partnerships and Resource Coordination Among Local Agencies Support and Expand Countywide Vegetation Management and Fire Prevention Efforts Incorporate Hazards in Local Planning, Land Use, and Development Codes Address Urban Heat Islands by Investing in Green Infrastructure and Cooling Strategies Page 185 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Status
2020 AHMP Strategy
2025 AHMP Strategy
Community Wildfire Protection Not Completed/ Plans Ongoing
Support
Completed/
Fuel Trailer Project
Not
Ongoing Completed/ Ongoing
Planning, Land Use, and Development Codes
Not
Pre-Disaster Professional
Incorporate Hazards in Local
Strengthen Operational Continuity Capabilities for Critical Facilities Strengthen Operational Continuity Capabilities for Critical Facilities
7.6 Prioritization and Implementation of Mitigation Actions Potential mitigation actions were prioritized using the FEMA National Risk Index (NRI) score and information from the 2024 Los Angeles Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA), which both address hazards by frequency, severity, and impact. Both the NRI and THIRA follow established processes and use a standardized risk assessment methodology. The NRI incorporates multiple variables including physical impacts posed by hazards in addition to social vulnerability data that communicates risks specific to a certain community. Table 7-7 provides an overview of the NRI results for Los Angeles County across 18 hazards. Hazards rated as Relatively Low, Not Applicable, or No Rating were not included in this AHMP as they are uncommon in frequency in Los Angeles County; all other hazards are covered in this plan. Table 7-7 FEMA National Risk Index Hazards Hazard
NRI Score
Score Description
Covered in Plan?
(out of 100.0) Earthquake
100.0
Very High
Yes | Section 6.3
Wildfire
99.9
Very High
Yes | Section 6.2
Extreme Heat
98.4
Relatively High
Yes | Section 6.4
Tornado
97.6
Relatively High
Yes | Section 6.10 Page 186 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Hazard
NRI Score
Score Description
Covered in Plan?
(out of 100.0) Landslide
96.3
Relatively High
Yes | Section 6.8
Lightning
95.0
Relatively High
Yes | Section 6.2/ 6.6
Riverine Flooding
90.8
Relatively Moderate
Yes | Section 6.6
Drought
73.8
Relatively Moderate
Yes | Section 6.5
Strong Wind
73.5
Relatively Moderate
Yes | Section 6.10
Tsunami
63.5
Relatively Moderate
Yes | Section 6.10
Winter Weather
48.6
Relatively Low
Not Prioritized
Hail
48.1
Relatively Low
Not Prioritized
Coastal Flooding
43.3
Very Low
Not Prioritized
Avalanche
33.7
Very Low
Not Prioritized
Cold Wave
0.0
No Rating
Not Prioritized
Hurricane
N/A
Not Applicable
Not Prioritized
Ice Storm
N/A
Not Applicable
Not Prioritized
Volcanic Activity
N/A
Not Applicable
Not Prioritized
The THIRA is a process that communities undertake to assess risk and set capability targets to focus their preparedness efforts and strengthen response and recovery capabilities. There are three primary focuses of the THIRA: threat and hazard identification, impacts analyses that include the specific demographics of the community, and a description of existing response and recovery capabilities. The 2024 Los Angeles/Long Beach THIRA was reviewed as part of this hazard mitigation planning effort and all threats and hazards identified were included as part of this AHMP. Additionally, the THIRA’s identification of several human-caused threats with potential to impact Los Angeles County influenced the decision to include such threats in this AHMP. Table 7-8 shows a crosswalk of the hazards and threats identified in the THIRA and their corresponding sections in this AHMP. Page 187 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Table 7-8 2024 THIRA and 2025 AHMP Crosswalk 2024 THIRA
2025 AHMP Hazard/Threat
Hazard/Threat Name
Name
Covered in Plan?
Biological Attack
Public Health Emergencies
Yes | Section 6.14
Complex Coordinated
Mass Violence
Yes | Section 6.11
Cyber Attack
Cyber Incident
Yes | Section 6.12
Earthquake
Earthquake
Yes | Section 6.3
Flood
Flooding
Yes | Section 6.6
Pandemic – Human
Public Health Emergencies
Yes | Section 6.14
Radiological Attack
Public Health Emergencies
Yes | Section 6.14
Transportation Accident
Transportation Incident
Yes | Section 6.13
Wildfire
Wildfire
Yes | Section 6.2
Terrorist Attack
Additional criteria used to prioritize potential mitigation actions also included the following components: • • • • • • • • •
Actions that prioritize equity and integrate vulnerable populations, including people with AFN. Potential benefits of the action to prevent a major hazard. Actions that have social support to build a culture and practice of resilience. Cost of the action versus the potential benefit to prevent a major hazard. Availability of funding and actions that support grant requirements. Political support to remedy or prevent a major health or safety hazard. Actions that are technically, legally, environmentally, and economically feasible. Actions that the County has the administrative capabilities to implement. Actions that are related to mitigating long-term vulnerabilities to Countyowned High Hazard Potential Dams will automatically be given a HIGH priority.
7.6.1 Priority Levels •
High-Priority Mitigation Actions: are essential and require immediate attention to address critical risks and safeguard life, property, or essential systems. Page 188 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
•
Medium-Priority Mitigation Actions: are important but less urgent, supporting overall risk reduction and resilience goals while allowing for planned implementation.
•
Low-Priority Mitigation Actions: address lower-risk concerns or long-term objectives and can be deferred without immediate impact to safety or core functions.
7.6.2 Changes in Criteria The 2014 Los Angeles County AHMP’s Mitigation Action Matrix was prioritized using the Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Environmental, and Economic (STAPLEE) method, which FEMA had recommended as a prioritization procedure in the early to mid-2000s. The 2020 AHMP replaced the use of STAPLEE with a more streamlined prioritization process that included the following: •
To remedy or prevent a major health/safety hazard, a mitigation project must have political support.
•
To build a culture and practice of disaster resilience, a mitigation project must have social support.
•
To meet FEMA HMA grant criteria, a mitigation project must be technically, legally, environmentally, and economically feasible and the jurisdiction must have the administrative capabilities to implement it.
This prioritization method used in the 2020 AHMP has been adapted and incorporated into the prioritization criteria described previously in Section 7.6.
7.7 Integration with Other Plans The County of Los Angeles ensures that mitigation is a countywide effort with multiple departments contributing to critical activities that reduce hazard risks. These actions are captured in other discipline-specific plans in addition to the AHMP, including those listed in Table 7-9.
Page 189 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Table 7-9 AHMP Integration with Other Plans Plan
Authored By
Hazard(s)
Covered in Plan?
Comprehensive
Los Angeles County
Flood
Yes
Floodplain
Department of Public
Management Plan
Works
Repetitive Loss Area
Los Angeles County
Flood
Yes
Analysis Report
Department of Public Los Angeles County
Wildfire
Yes
Department of Regional
Extreme Heat
Works Climate Action Plan
Planning
Flooding Drought
Sustainability Plan
Los Angeles County Chief
Wildfire
Sustainability Office
Extreme Heat
Yes
Flooding Drought County Fire Plan
Los Angeles County Fire
Wildfire
Yes
Department
Page 190 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
7.8 Mitigation Action Plan Table 7-10 represents a Mitigation Action Plan to reduce risks of the hazards identified in this AHMP. Notably, many County departments include discipline-specific mitigation actions within other related plans mentioned in the above section. Some actions that mitigate risk of natural hazards that are covered elsewhere may not be explicitly listed or may be referred to in general terms while specific details are available in other related plans. Table 7-10 Mitigation Action Plan Action
Priority
Hazard
No.
01
02
03
Action Name
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
Wildfire
Support and Expand Countywide
Severe
Vegetation Management and Fire
Wind/Tornado
Prevention Efforts
Wildfire
Enhance Community
Severe
Engagement in Wildfire
Wind/Tornado
Protection and Prevention
Wildfire
Perform Post-Fire Flooding,
Potential
Expected
Lead
Funding
Time
Agencies
Source
Frame
HMGP
Annual
LACoFD, PW
HMGP
Quarterly
LACoFD, DRP, OEM, LASD
HMGP, FMA Annual
Debris Flow, and Mud Flow Risk Flooding
PW, LACoFD, OEM
Assessments and Mitigation Activities
04
HIGH
Wildfire Extreme Heat
UASI, SHSP
Annual
OEM,
PW,
DPH, Page 191 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Action
Priority
Hazard
No.
Action Name Severe
Strengthen Operational
Wind/Tornado
Continuity Capabilities for Critical
Cyber Incidents
Facilities
Wildfire
Potential
Expected
Lead
Funding
Time
Agencies
Source
Frame LACoFD, LASD, ISD
HMGP, FMA 1-3 Years
DRP, PW
FMA, Prop 4 Annual
DRP,
Earthquake 05
HIGH
Land Movement Severe
Incorporate Hazards in Local Planning, Land Use, and Development Codes
Wind/Tornado Flooding Wildfire
CEO
Extreme Heat Drought 06
MEDIUM Land Movement Severe
CSO,
Increase Public Awareness of Climate Change Effects on Local Hazards
Wind/Tornado Flooding Page 192 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Action
Priority
Hazard
No.
07
Action Name
HIGH
Flooding
Expand Stormwater
Drought
Management, Drainage, and
Transportation
Potential
Expected
Lead
Funding
Time
Agencies
Source
Frame
FMA
1-5 Years
PW
FMA
1-5 Years
PW
Outlet Planning
Incident 08 09
HIGH
Flooding
MEDIUM Flooding Earthquake
10
HIGH
Land Movement Dam Failure Earthquake
11
MEDIUM
Land Movement
Construct and Maintain Localized Flood Control Improvements Preserve Floodplains as Public
FMA, Prop 4 1-5 Years
PW, DRP, DPR
HMGP
1-5 Years
PW, ISD
HMGP
1-5 Years
PW, LASD
Use Open Spaces Harden Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from Seismic Damage Prevent Impacts to the Transportation System
Transportation Incident Page 193 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Action
Priority
Hazard
No.
12
Action Name
HIGH
Earthquake Dam Failure
13
MEDIUM Drought
14
MEDIUM Drought
Conduct Seismic Strengthening
HIGH
Extreme Heat Flooding
16
17
HIGH
HIGH
Tsunami Mass Violence Cyber Incidents Mass Violence
18
MEDIUM
Cyber Incidents
Expected
Lead
Funding
Time
Agencies
Source
Frame
FMA, HHPD
1-5 Years
PW
Prop 4
1-5 Years
PW, DRP
Prop 4
1-5 Years
DPR,
at County-Owned Dams Assess Water Resilience in Los Angeles County Expand Drought-Tolerant Landscaping and Design Address Urban Heat Islands by
15
Potential
DRP,
PW, CSO CSO,
DRP,
Investing in Green Infrastructure
DEO,
DPH,
and Cooling Strategies
PW, DPR
Increase Coastal Resilience,
Prop 4
1-5 Years
FMA, Prop 4 1-5 Years
Prevent Erosion, and Protect
CSO,
DBH,
PW
Shorelines Conduct Multi-Discipline Training
UASI, SHSP
1-5 Years
and Exercise Programs Strengthen Partnerships and Resource Coordination Among
LASD, OEM, LACoFD
UASI, SHSP
1-5 Years
LASD, OEM, LACoFD
Local Agencies Page 194 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Action
Priority
Hazard
No.
Action Name Incorporate Mass Violence
19
MEDIUM Mass Violence
Potential
Expected
Lead
Funding
Time
Agencies
Source
Frame
UASI, SHSP
1-5 Years
Prevention and Mitigation Efforts
LASD, OEM, LACoFD
into Special Event Planning Extreme Heat Risk Education and 20
21
HIGH
HIGH
Extreme Heat
Prop 4
1-5 Years
CSO,
DEO,
Safety Outreach for Residents
DPH,
PW,
and Vulnerable Workers
DAD
Public Health
Strengthen Robust Public Health
UASI, SHSP, 1-5 Years
DPH,
Emergencies
Prevention and Preparedness
PHEP, HPP
DHS,
Measures 22
MEDIUM
Wildfire Mass Violence
LACoFD
Increase Field Response and Coordination Capabilities
Agency Key: CEO = Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office CSO = Los Angeles County Chief Sustainability Office DAD=Los Angeles Department of Aging and Disabilities DBH = Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors DEO = Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity DHS = Los Angeles County Department of Health Services DPH = Los Angeles County Department of Public Health DPR = Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation PW = Los Angeles County Public Works DRP = Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning ISD = Los Angeles County Internal Services Department
OEM,
UASI, SHSP
1-5 Years
LASD, OEM, LACoFD
LACoFD = Los Angeles County Fire Department. LASD = Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department OEM = Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office - Office of Emergency Management Grant Program Key: FMA = Flood Mitigation Assistance HMGP = Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HPP = Hospital Preparedness Program PHEP = Public Health Emergency Preparedness SHSP = State Homeland Security Program UASI = Urban Area Security Initiative
Page 195 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
8 Plan Maintenance
Page 196 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
8.1 Community Participation in Plan Maintenance The Hazard Mitigation Plan will be reviewed regularly, acknowledging the dynamic nature of hazard landscapes and the evolving understanding of risks. Stakeholders’ engagement will be prioritized throughout the development and monitoring process, fostering transparency and accountability. To maintain transparency and community involvement, the County has outlined several measures for continued public participation: •
Public Access to Hazard Mitigation Documents: A copy of the 2025 AHMP will be maintained on the Los Angeles County Hazard Mitigation Program website along with contact information. Los Angeles County OEM will notify the public of any changes or updates, including mitigation projects identified in the plan as they are implemented, via social media, and traditional local media channels.
•
Annual Public Engagement Opportunities: Los Angeles County OEM will endeavor to hold multiple in-person public engagement opportunities for hazard mitigation to keep the public informed of progress on hazard mitigation projects, obtain ongoing public feedback, and educate the public about the County’s hazard mitigation efforts.
•
Online Portal: A Los Angeles County Hazard Mitigation Program website will be established to provide the public with more information on hazard mitigation and project updates. This portal will serve as a mechanism to obtain continuous public feedback as projects are implemented and offers access to mitigation resources.
•
Standing Advisory Committee: The Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee will be expanded to a standing status and will meet at least once per year or more often as determined necessary to support hazard mitigation projects. The standing Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee will be comprised of representatives from diverse community groups to provide ongoing input and oversight of hazard mitigation efforts. The standing Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee will also serve as an important forum for future updates of the AHMP.
These activities ensure that the community remains informed and actively engaged in the plan’s implementation and maintenance.
Page 197 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
8.2 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Maintenance To ensure the continued effectiveness of this All-Hazard Mitigation Plan (AHMP), effective monitoring and evaluation will be conducted throughout the plan implementation period. Regular assessments will monitor progress and evaluate the achievements of the intended outcomes. Performance metrics will be developed to quantify the impact of each mitigation action, allowing for data driven adjustments and refinements. The plan will be reviewed annually to assess progress on mitigation actions. Annual review will include the following elements: •
Annual Review Worksheets: Every year, LA County OEM will email each member of the Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee an Annual Review Worksheet to complete. As shown in Appendix E, the Annual Review Worksheet reflects the FEMA Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Tool and includes the following sections: planning process, hazard profile, risk assessment, and mitigation strategy. Each member of the Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee will email completed worksheets back to LA County OEM to review. LA County OEM will summarize these findings and email them out to the committee. Additionally, the findings from the review worksheets will be presented to the full Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee at its next regular meeting.
•
Mitigation Progress Project Reports: Mitigation actions will be monitored and updated using the Mitigation Project Progress Report. During each annual review, each department or agency currently administering a mitigation project will submit a progress report to LA County OEM. For projects that are being funded by a FEMA mitigation grant, FEMA quarterly reports may be used as the preferred reporting tool. As shown in Appendix E, the progress report will discuss the current status of the mitigation project, including any changes made to the project, identify implementation problems, and describe appropriate strategies to overcome them.
•
Post-Incident Mitigation Review: Following a major disaster event impacting Los Angeles County, a post-disaster review will be initiated by LA County OEM to evaluate the need to update the AHMP based on the circumstances of the disaster and incorporate any specific mitigation actions required due to the Page 198 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
incident. If LA County OEM finds that an update to the AHMP is needed, the Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee will be convened to begin drafting the update.
8.3 Criteria for Updating the Hazard Mitigation Plan The All-Hazards Mitigation Plan (AHMP) is required to be updated every five years in compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) and FEMA guidance (44 CFR § 201.6). The update process is not merely an administrative requirement but a critical mechanism to evaluate the plan’s effectiveness in reducing risk and guiding mitigation strategies. 1. Review of Past Actions and Effectiveness The update process begins with a thorough review of the mitigation actions outlined in the previous plan. This includes: •
Evaluating the implementation status of each action (completed, in progress, not started).
•
Assessing the impact and effectiveness of completed actions in reducing hazard risk.
•
Determining if the objectives are still relevant or require modification based on new data or circumstances.
2. Integration of New Data and Changing Conditions •
Hazard profiles and risk assessments are updated with new hazard event data, climate science, and changes in development or land use.
•
Demographic shifts and infrastructure changes are reviewed to reassess vulnerability.
•
Technological advancements or improved modeling tools (e.g., Hazus, National Risk Index) are incorporated to refine risk analysis.
3. Community and Stakeholder Input The update process must actively include community participation to maintain transparency and ensure the plan reflects local priorities. This includes: Page 199 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan •
Public workshops and surveys.
•
Targeted outreach to vulnerable populations including those with Access and Functional Needs (AFN).
•
Feedback from County departments, cities, NGOs, and regional partners.
4. Performance Evaluation and Metrics To ensure effectiveness, the plan maintenance strategy includes: •
Annual progress reports that monitor implementation progress and identify barriers.
•
Metrics to evaluate the reduction of risk or exposure over time.
•
Documentation of lessons learned from real events and exercises to inform changes.
5. Revision of Goals, Objectives, and Actions Based on the evaluation findings, the plan’s goals and mitigation actions are revised to improve alignment with current capabilities, risk levels, and funding opportunities. Each updated action includes: •
Clear responsibilities.
•
Realistic timelines.
•
Evaluation metrics to measure future success.
8.4 Plan Update The 2025 LHMP includes an updated methodology for future revisions, ensuring compliance with federal and state guidelines. A full plan update will occur every five years. •
2030 AHMP Update Kickoff: LA County OEM will convene the Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee for a meeting to review the worksheet findings and endeavor to begin the process of updating the AHMP in approximately November 2028. The planning process should begin a minimum of 18 months prior to the plan’s expiration. LA County OEM, in consultation with the Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee, will develop a work plan for the update, conduct Page 200 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
research and review relevant documentation, determine hazards to be included in the 2030 AHMP, and begin the process to draft an updated AHMP. •
Plan Submission and Adoption: Once updated, the plan is submitted to Cal OES and FEMA for review. Upon conditional approval, it must be adopted by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and participating jurisdictions to maintain eligibility for FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grants.
8.5 Integration with Other Plans Los Angeles County is committed to ensuring that hazard mitigation planning is not a standalone effort, but a fully integrated component of broader County planning initiatives. By strategically weaving the goals, objectives, and actions of the All-Hazards Mitigation Plan (AHMP) into a variety of local and regional plans such as the General Plan, Capital Improvement Plans, Climate Action and Adaptation Plans, and departmental strategic plans; the County promotes a more cohesive and effective approach to building long-term resilience. This integration is achieved through ongoing collaboration with County departments, cities, and regional agencies to align land use, infrastructure development, and emergency preparedness efforts with identified hazard risks. Embedding hazard mitigation principles into existing policies and planning mechanisms ensures that they become an inherent part of decisionmaking processes, project funding prioritization, and long-term investment strategies ultimately reducing vulnerabilities and enhancing the resilience of communities across Los Angeles County. The Los Angeles County AHMP will be shared across all jurisdictions within the operational area. Those jurisdictions will have the opportunity to incorporate the 2025 AHMP into their established planning process. The Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee will assess the plan at a yearly basis, acknowledging the dynamic nature of hazard landscapes and the evolving understanding of risks. The OEM Hazard Mitigation Program will make the AHMP available for all county departments to incorporate into departmental planning efforts, and other relevant documents produced by Los Angeles County departments.
Page 201 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
9 Plan Adoption
Page 202 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
9.1 Plan Adoption Overview Plan Adoption addressed Element F of the Local Mitigation Plan Regulation Checklist under single jurisdiction plan requirement. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors officially adopted the 2025 All Hazard Mitigation Plan (AHMP) through a formal resolution on September 9, 2025. A scanned copy of the resolution is included in Appendix F. The Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management (OEM) will retain the resolution for its records, while copies will be submitted to both Cal OES and FEMA. This Plan adoption completes the mitigation planning process and department agencies, stakeholders, and community’s commitment to the goals and actions. It also recognizes the current planning process and acknowledges changes from the past five years and validates the priorities for hazard mitigation actions. It makes the community eligible for certain FEMA assistance that can fund some mitigation actions. After being adopted by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the 2025 AHMP transitions into the implementation phase. The success of the plan hinges on the integrating its mitigation strategies and actions into the local plans and policies. The mitigation action items collectively establish a robust framework to guide the County’s hazard mitigation strategies over the next five years. To ensure these strategies are effective, actionable and well aligned with the county’s long term resilience goals, the Planning Advisory Committee has set clear objectives. Their prioritized approach focuses on seamlessly blending mitigation actions with current policies, plans, and emphasizing collaboration and coherence throughout.
Page 203 of 204
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
Appendices
Page 204 of 204
JULY 1, 2021
Strategic Plan 2021 - 2026
Central Basin Municipal Water District
Central Basin Municipal Water District Strategic Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS Strategic Planning Process…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 Message from the Board President..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 Mission, Vision & Values……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 Current Sate Analysis (SWOT)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 Summary of Accomplishments……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 Focus Areas & Goals……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Business Value Decision Making…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9 Key Performance Indicators………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10 Annual Goals & Budget Planning……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
2
Central Basin Municipal Water District Strategic Plan Strategic Planning Process This strategic plan represents the five year planning cycle for the Central Basin Municipal Water District and builds upon the previous strategic plan. The key elements of the strategic planning process are outlined in Figure 1 below. Figure 1 – Strategic Planning Process: Step I:
Understand the mission, vision and business value proposition
Step V:
Step II:
Key Performance Indicators & Budget Development
Perform Current State Analysis (SWOT)
Step IV:
Step III:
Business Value Decision Making
Focus Areas: Goals
What follows in this document is a strategic plan that includes the following sections: Introduction Step I: Mission, Vision and Values; Step II: Current State Analysis; Step III: Focus Areas: Goals; Step IV: Business Value Decision Making; and Step V: Determination of Key Performance Indicators & Budget Development. 3
Central Basin Municipal Water District Strategic Plan Message from the Board President Welcome to the Central Basin Municipal Water District’s (“CBMWD” or “District”) Five-Year Strategic Plan. This document is a blueprint for how CBMWD will respond to current challenges and make the best of future opportunities for the benefit of its customers. It confirms its mission and goals as a public agency dedicated to providing high quality water service to the nearly two million residents in CBMWD's service area. It establishes approaches for the preservation of our precious resources for future generations utilizing the principles of sustainability and prudent fiscal practices. It also outlines the specific goals, strategies, and objectives we will pursue to move us from where we are to where we want to be and establishes a process to measure our progress. The Strategic Plan for Central Basin Municipal Water District represents a collaborative effort that recognizes the significant water supply challenges facing the communities in our service area and the need to improve our region’s water reliability as well as support local water resource development. The Central Basin Municipal Water District will bring value to the region through developing trust-based relationships with its member agencies (customers) who rely on CBMWD as a strategic partner to support local water resource development as well as provide an imported water supply to our service area. The implementation of the Strategic Plan will require strong collaboration with our communities, fellow water utilities, and State and Federal regulatory agencies. The Strategic Plan will be reviewed with the Board and member agencies (purveyors) and adapted as conditions change. The District’s Board of Directors and staff are charting a course for continued success in the future through the development and execution of this Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan defines the vision, mission, values, goals, and future business strategy for CBMWD. Our commitments to the communities we serve fall into four areas: water supply, financial integrity, education & advocacy, and energy & technology. These commitments are established as the four goals of the Strategic Plan. Our Board actions will consistently support these commitments and staff will track the progress against this plan. We the Central Basin Municipal Water District Board, are confident the Strategic Plan will help us achieve the expectations of those we serve in the months and years to come. On behalf of the Board of Directors, this strategic plan is presented for publication:
Mr. Arturo Chacon Director Division III Board President Central Basin Municipal Water District
4
Central Basin Municipal Water District Strategic Plan Introduction CBMWD is a public agency that was formed by the California Legislature in 1952 for the purpose of providing an adequate supply of water within its service area. CBMWD purchases imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), an agency which provides the region with imported water. CBMWD wholesales the imported water to cities, mutual water companies, investor- owned utilities and private companies in southeast Los Angeles County. CBMWD also supplies water used for groundwater replenishment and provides the region with recycled water for municipal commercial, and industrial use. The District serves 24 cities with an overall population of 1.7 million. CBMWD was established to help mitigate the over-pumping of underground water resources in southeast Los Angeles County. CBMWD founders realized they would have to curtail the use of relatively inexpensive yet diminishing local groundwater by providing the region with imported water. In 1954, CBMWD became a member agency of MWD. The CBMWD Directors appoint two representatives to the 37-member MWD Board of Directors; CBMWD is one of the largest member agencies of MWD. Today, in addition to imported water, CBMWD provides recycled water for irrigation, commercial applications, and industrial processes. Mission, Vision and Values The strategic planning process reaffirms the mission and vision of the Central Basin Municipal Water District, the strategic priorities to accomplish the vision, and reconfirms values to maintain as the Central Basin Municipal Water District works towards meeting these priorities. Mission The mission of the Central Basin Municipal Water District is to deliver reliable and high-quality water, as well as recycled water services to its customers and communities through effective and collegial partnerships with its retailers and other wholesalers. Vision Statement Central Basin Municipal Water District is an innovative, responsive, and effective steward of the water service and management responsibility entrusted to it. Values CBMWD will embody the following core values in the setting and implementation of its policies and practices: Integrity - CBMWD and its representatives will consistently adhere to high moral and ethical principles; Collaboration - CBMWD, and its representative, swill cooperatively work together and with stakeholders to further the mission and goals of the organization; Customer Service - CBMWD, and its representatives, will professionally and responsively serve the needs of its customers; Fair, open, and responsive - CBMWD, and its representative, swill engage its stakeholders and interact with them in a fair, open, and honest manner; Accountability - CBMWD, and its representatives, will take responsibility for and be accountable for all its actions; Innovation - CBMWD, and its representatives will encourage and value the introduction of new ideas and methods. 5
Central Basin Municipal Water District Strategic Plan Current State Analysis A current state analysis, or environmental scan, is a review of everything that impacts the Central Basin Municipal Water District – either positively or negatively. It is an exercise to consider all assets and opportunities for the Central Basin Municipal Water District. It also identifies gaps, or vulnerabilities, that could impede the Central Basin Municipal Water District’s success. An environmental scan is always limited – we can never know everything or predict the future. However, it is also a useful tool to consider the operating environment that can affect the success of the Central Basin Municipal Water District’s efforts. Figure 3 below outlines the Current State Analysis process. Figure 3 – Current State Analysis Process
Strengths on which we want to build upon
Identify weaknesses that are critical to address vs those that are not
Identify and select opportunities that are aligned with our mission and vision
Identify and find ways to minimize obstacles that may impact our strategic plan
What follows is a summary of feedback on Central Basin Municipal Water District’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that would be identified by community members, our strategic business partners, our customers/member agencies (purveyors), district staff, and the Board. Strengths The Central Basin Municipal Water District’s strengths include: Recycled Water Capacity/Allocation Stable Financial Outlook Mixed Governance Model Regional Presence (Service Area) Engineering & Infrastructure Expertise Improving Financial Reserves & Investments Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Member Agency Diversity of our service area 6
Central Basin Municipal Water District Strategic Plan Weaknesses The Central Basin Municipal Water District also has areas where improvement is needed. Weaknesses can be changed – they are not fixed qualities. Weaknesses identified include: Governance Instability Brand/Reputation & Public and Media Relations Customer Relationships Position Control Recycled Water Customer Growth Capital Investment Imported Water Connections Capital Investment Recycled Water System & Pump Stations Governance Protocols & Compliance with Administrative Code Strategic Plan Implementation, Goal Development & Performance, and Data Driven Decision Making Opportunities At times there are changes in the operating environment that can benefit the Central Basin Municipal Water District. It is important to recognize these changes and take advantage of opportunity. These include: Recycled Water Demand Lower the cost of Imported Water Imported Water Connection (Reliability, Conservation, Local Supply Demands) Improved Governance Efficiency & Administrative Code Compliance Improved Relationships with Customers Diversification of Services & Revenue Energy & Technology Innovations Internal Controls & Long-term Fiscal Stability Improve Education, Outreach & Public and Media Relations Protect Governance Protocols & Compliance with Administrative Code Threats Threats are those things that the Central Basin Municipal Water District has no or little control over. That does not mean that the Central Basin Municipal Water District is helpless. It means that the Central Basin Municipal Water District has to take purposeful steps to mitigate the negative impact of those threats. These include: Climate Change Seismic, Natural & Man-made Disasters Fiscal & Human Resources Water Quality Compliance Pressures on Customers Political Distractions & Expenditure of Fiscal/Human Capital on Non-Mission Critical Issues Declining Imported Water Demand Governance Instability & Ineffectiveness Targeted Legislation Adversely Impacting District Governance and Operations Summary of Accomplishments from Previous 5 Year Plan It is useful to include at the beginning of the current strategic plan, key accomplishments achieved during the previous five year planning horizon. Figure 2 presents a summary of the Central Basin Municipal Water District’s accomplishments.
7
Central Basin Municipal Water District Strategic Plan Figure 2 - Accomplishments of the Central Basin Municipal Water District’s last five years: CBMWD is considered a leader for education and outreach due to its award winning education program Governor Newsom signed legislation preserving CBMWD’s two seats on the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California CBMWD received the certificate of transparency from the Special District Leadership Foundation for completion of all transparency program requirements designed to promote transparency in operations and governance to the public and other stakeholders Montebello Golf Course connected to our recycled water system CBMWD has been recognized for excellence in technology by MISAC every year since 2007 CBMWD complied with and implemented all of the state auditor recommendations from the 2015 state audit Activities from the 2015 strategic plan that had significant progress and/or were completed, are not carried forward into the current strategic plan. Activities that were not completed in the last planning horizon have been incorporated into the current strategic plan where appropriate. FOCUS AREAS: Goals Based upon the Mission, Vision, Values, Previous Five Year Accomplishments and the Current State Analysis, the Central Basin Municipal Water District should determine and define focus areas that will assist the Central Basin Municipal Water District in achieving its goals. Below are the four focus areas including Central Basin Municipal Water District’s one-year, three-year and fiveyear goals for each focus area. 1. Water Supply: CBMWD will partner with retailers and wholesalers to provide a level of regional water reliability that ensures customers'/member agencies’ (purveyors’) water needs are met: 1.1 One-year Goal: Increase recycled water sales by 20%. 1.2 Three-year Goal: Connect (2) customers to imported water supply. Increase recycled water sales by 30%. 1.3 Five-year Goal: Connect (4) customers to imported water supply. Increase recycled water sales by 40%. 2. Financial Integrity: CBMWD will manage its financial resources in a responsible, effective, and transparent fashion: 2.1 One-year Goal: Improve reserves to $8.5M. Maintain DCR of 120%+. Refund eligible bonds. 2.2 Three-year Goal: Improve reserves to $9.5M. Maintain DCR of 120%+. Lower Imported Water Rates. 2.3 Five-year Goal: Implement a new rate structure that stabilizes imported water revenue, lowers imported water costs, provides improved services to customers (no additional cost), provides sufficient capital improvement program investment, maintains 120%+ DCR, and grows reserves to $12.5M. 3. Education & Advocacy: CBMWD will proactively educate, engage, inform, and provide support services to our K14 educational communities, customers/member agencies (purveyors), and service area residents related to water conservation and local water demand management resources available for: recycled water, water efficiency, groundwater, and stormwater programs/projects. 3.1 One-year Goal: Grow on-site recycled water retrofit program and water conservation outreach. 8
Central Basin Municipal Water District Strategic Plan 3.2 Three-year Goal: Initiate one stormwater project. Add one new industrial recycled water customer. Reestablish our K14 educational outreach and educational program. Provide local resource development and groundwater support to our customers in collaboration with WRD. 3.3 Five-year Goal: Establish partnership(s) to provide certification and training opportunities for K14 students interested in a career as a water operator and/or civil engineer. Formalize support of ongoing local resource development and groundwater support with interested customers, small water systems and mutual water companies in collaboration with WRD. 4. Energy & Technology: CBMWD will implement energy and technology initiatives that result in efficient, cost effective and zero energy operations. 4.1 One-year Goal: Assess the options and solutions for technology and energy innovation/implementation. 4.3 Three-year Goal: Implement technology and energy solutions that results in a reduction of operational costs and/or improves revenues by 10%. 4.3 Five-year Goal: Implement technology and energy solutions that results in a reduction of operational costs, recovery of non-revenue water and/or improvement of revenues by 30%. Be a net-zero energy utility. Business Value Decision Making Determining which activities to focus on first is one of the greatest challenges of implementing a strategic plan. A process to prioritize the activities needs to be undertaken in order to focus the Central Basin Municipal Water District’s resources in implementing its strategic plan and leading to successful outcomes. The key benefits and costs of each activity should be outlined as much as possible. Figure 4 below outlines this process. Figure 4 – Activity Prioritization Process
The above analysis can be organized into tables shown in Figure 5 on the following page. 9
Central Basin Municipal Water District Strategic Plan Figure 5 – Activity Table Example
Focus Area: Energy & Technology: Goal: One-Year Goal: Move to Hosted (SAAS) Tyler Technologies Activities
Owner
Timeline
Benefits (Value)
Estimated Costs
Estimated Benefits ($)
Transition to more secure and affordable ERP system
IT, GM, Finance Staff
1 month
Tyler Technologies has been our ERP provider for over 10 years
-
-
Start transition
IT, NICP, Tyler Tech, Finance Staff
6 months
Tyler has a hosted ERP solution with Improved security and disaster recovery
$10,000
-
Complete Transition
IT, GM, NICP, Tyler Tech, Finance Staff
2 months
Reduced operating, software, service & equipment costs
$165,000
$45,000/yr cost savings
Based upon each activity’s cost/benefit analysis, the Central Basin Municipal Water District can now prioritize all of the activities identified for each strategic priority. This prioritization of activities will be reflected in the multiyear financial plan as well as the annual budget, which are described in more detail in separate documents. Determination of Key Performance Indicators & Budget Development Based on the goal, each activity should have specific key performance indicators that are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timely (S.M.A.R.T.) making the vision more concrete by defining how success is measured. Performance indicators are used to monitor progress towards strategic priorities, closing the gap between the current state and the desired state, as defined by the vision. They will help track the realization of strategic priorities, measuring the progress towards realizing the vision. Performance indicators should focus on desired outcomes for strategic priorities. When determining key performance indicators, the following principles should be kept in mind: Link to the Central Basin Municipal Water District’s goals; Limit to the select few that measure success; Guide desired decisions and behaviors; Can be easily understood and measured; and Are relevant to all Central Basin Municipal Water District’s stakeholders. Once the Central Basin Municipal Water District has defined its key performance indicators, targets can be set, which are the value of a key performance indicator at a specific moment in time. Targets can be set on a yearly basis or by the end of the five year plan and focus on outcomes or actions. In order to keep track of the progress towards achieving the strategic plan and the Central Basin Municipal Water District’s vision, a process to monitor and measure performance must be put in place. An owner should be identified for each process and the frequency of reporting should be specified and should aim to be at least annually, if not quarterly.
10
Central Basin Municipal Water District Strategic Plan It is possible that certain activities may need to be revisited and recalibrated due to changes in the internal and external environment and reprioritized depending on the results attained each year. Budget Development In order to gain the full benefit of the strategic plan, it must be implemented in a way that helps to guide all actions of the staff and Board; furthermore, it must remain an integrated part of the annual budget planning process and supported by data-driven strategic decision making. The Annual Budget Planning Document will ensure the annual budget development process is aligned to the strategic plan and focus area goals.
11
Central Basin Municipal Water District Strategic Plan Annual Budget Planning Document Focus Area: Water Supply: CBMWD will partner with retailers and wholesalers to provide a level of regional water reliability that ensures customers'/member agencies’ (purveyors’) water needs are met:
GOAL
Annual Budget
1-YR
3-YR
5-YR
Increase Recycled Water Development
$50,000
4,150/AF
4,950/AF
6,500/AF
Districtwide grant writing, leak detection, UWMP services
$500,000
20% participation
50% participation
80% participation
Water Conservation & Efficiency Participation
$350,000
1 Project
3 Projects
5 Projects
Professional Services & Support
$500,000
1 Project
2 Projects
3 Projects
12
Central Basin Municipal Water District Strategic Plan
Annual Budget Planning Document Focus Area: Financial Integrity: CBMWD will manage its financial resources in a responsible, effective, and transparent fashion:
GOAL
Annual Budget
1-YR
3-YR
5-YR
-
124.8%
125%
125%
Rate Structure affordable and adequate (REV)
$10,545,240
$10,860,575
$11,186,392
$11,521,984
Annual CIP Budget
$1,300,000
$1,750,000
$1,950,00
$2,100,000
RTS & Capacity Charges
$969,753
$940,660
$912,440
$885,067
DCR of 120% or higher
13
Central Basin Municipal Water District Strategic Plan
Annual Budget Planning Document Focus Area: Education & Advocacy: CBMWD will proactively educate, engage, inform, and provide support services to our K14 educational communities, customers/member agencies (purveyors), and service area residents related to water conservation and local water demand management resources available for: recycled water, water efficiency, and stormwater programs/projects:
GOAL
Annual Budget
1-YR
3-YR
5-YR
On-site Retrofit Program Participation
$75,000
1 Project
2 Projects
3 Projects
Water Conservation & Efficiency Participation
$50,000
1 Project
2 Projects
3 Projects
K14+ Educational Outreach
$50,000
1 District
3 Districts
5 Districts
Community Outreach & Education
$250,000
1 Project
3 Projects
4 Projects
14
Central Basin Municipal Water District Strategic Plan
Annual Budget Planning Document Focus Area: Energy & Technology: CBMWD will implement energy and technology initiatives that result in efficient, cost effective and zero energy operations:
GOAL
Annual Budget
1-YR
3-YR
5-YR
Reduce On-site Technology Infrastructure
$150,000
20% CloudHosted
60% CloudHosted
80% CloudHosted
Zero Energy Footprint
$600,000
-
50% Progress
100% Zero Energy
1 Proof of Concept
1 Implementation
1 Proof of Concept
1 Implementation
SMART Utility Implementation
$250,000
Artificial Intelligence: CIP Planning Software
$50,000
15
CBMWD Recycled Water System CBMWD Recycled Water System
Appendix C Water Loss Audits
AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Reporting Worksheet ?
Click to access definition
+
Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
Water Audit Report for: City of Paramount (1910105) Reporting Year: 2020 7/2019 - 6/2020
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades
All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ---------->
WATER SUPPLIED Volume from own sources: + Water imported: + Water exported: +
?
8
?
7
?
n/a
5,318.250 acre-ft/yr 203.540 acre-ft/yr 0.000 acre-ft/yr
?
3
+
? ?
3
+
5,575.900 acre-ft/yr
WATER SUPPLIED:
Pcnt:
+
Value: -54.110
acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration Enter positive % or value for over-registration
.
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION Billed metered: Billed unmetered: Unbilled metered: Unbilled unmetered:
+
?
7
5,098.090 acre-ft/yr
+
?
n/a
+
?
n/a
acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
+
?
5
13.940 acre-ft/yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:
? Click here: for help using option buttons below
Pcnt: 1.25%
463.870 acre-ft/yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) Apparent Losses Unauthorized consumption: +
?
13.940 acre-ft/yr
acre-ft/yr
Use buttons to select percentage of water supplied OR value
5,112.030 acre-ft/yr
?
Value: 13.940 24061
Pcnt: 0.25%
Value: 13.570
1.50% 0.25%
1.000
acre-ft/yr
Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed ? 4 Customer metering inaccuracies: + 77.636 acre-ft/yr 5 ? Systematic data handling errors: + 12.745 acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed
Apparent Losses:
?
104.321 acre-ft/yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL) Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses:
?
359.549 acre-ft/yr
acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
463.870 acre-ft/yr
WATER LOSSES: NON-REVENUE WATER NON-REVENUE WATER:
477.810 acre-ft/yr
?
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA Length of mains: + Number of active AND inactive service connections: + Service connection density:
?
9
?
8
177.6 miles 7,604 43 conn./mile main
?
Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? Yes (length of service line, beyond the property ? Average length of customer service line: + ft boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility) Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Average operating pressure: + 5 70.0 psi ?
COST DATA Total annual cost of operating water system: + Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): + Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): +
?
10
?
8
?
5
$9,926,450 $/Year $3.40 $/100 cubic feet (ccf) $701.70 $/acre-ft Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
*** YOUR SCORE IS: 70 out of 100 *** A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION: Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components: 1: Volume from own sources 2: Customer metering inaccuracies 3: Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses)
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0
Reporting Worksheet
1
AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Worksheet Water Audit Report for: City of Paramount Audit Year: 2021 Jul 01 2020 - Jun 30 2021
Fiscal
Click 'n' to add notes Click 'g' to determine data validity grade
To access definitions, click the input name
FWAS v6.0 American Water Works Association. Copyright © 2020, All Rights Reserved.
To edit water system info:
go to start page
All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR Water Supplied Error Adjustments choose entry option:
WATER SUPPLIED Volume from Own Sources: n Water Imported: n Water Exported: n
VOS WI WE
n/a
3,165.530 Acre-ft/Yr 2,205.400 Acre-ft/Yr 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr
WATER SUPPLIED:
5,370.930 Acre-ft/Yr
g g g
4 4
n n n
g g g
percent percent percent
10 3 n/a
acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
If entering an Error Adjustment, select under- or overregistration
.
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION Billed Metered: Billed Unmetered: Unbilled Metered: Unbilled Unmetered:
BMAC BUAC UMAC UUAC
n n n n
g g g g
5,134.696 0.000 0.000 12.837
5 n/a n/a 3
under-registration VOSEA select….. WIEA select….. WEEA
Acre-ft/Yr Acre-ft/Yr Acre-ft/Yr
choose entry option: 0.25% default 24061
Acre-ft/Yr
acre-ft/yr
Default option selected for Unbilled Unmetered, with automatic data grading of 3
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:
5,147.533 Acre-ft/Yr
WATER LOSSES
223.397 Acre-ft/Yr
Apparent Losses SDHE CMI UC
choose entry option:
Default option selected for Systematic Data Handling Errors, with automatic data grading of 3 Systematic Data Handling Errors: n g 3 12.837 Acre-ft/Yr 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr Customer Metering Inaccuracies: n g 2 Unauthorized Consumption: n g 3 12.837 Acre-ft/Yr
0.25% 0.25%
default percent default
acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
under-registration
acre-ft/yr
Default option selected for Unauthorized Consumption, with automatic data grading of 3
Apparent Losses:
25.673 Acre-ft/Yr
Real Losses:
197.724 Acre-ft/Yr
WATER LOSSES:
223.397 Acre-ft/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER:
236.234 Acre-ft/Yr
Real Losses
NON-REVENUE WATER
SYSTEM DATA Length of mains: n Number of service connections: n Service connection density:
Lm Nc
Lp
g g
6 10
Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop/property line? Average length of (private) customer service line: n g 1
AOP
Average Operating Pressure: n
g
8
Customer Retail Unit Charge: n Variable Production Cost: n
g g
9
177.6 miles 7,400 42 conn./mile main
(including fire hydrant lead lengths) (active and inactive)
select... 6.0 ft
(average distance between property line and meter)
70.0 psi
COST DATA CRUC VPC
$2.94 $/100 cubic feet (ccf) $663.74 $/acre-ft
Total Annual Operating Cost $/yr (optional input)
WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY TIER: Click 'g' for 1 parameter(s), then complete all visible data grading questions to enable the Data Validity Score to calculate
go to dashboard
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION TO IMPROVE DATA VALIDITY:
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS:
Based on the information provided, audit reliability can be most improved by addressing the following components:
OPTIONAL: If targets exist for the operational performance indicators, they can be input below: Unit Total Losses: Unit Apparent Losses: Unit Real LossesA: Unit Real LossesB:
gal/conn/day gal/conn/day gal/conn/day gal/mile/day
If entered above by user, targets will display on KPI gauges (see Dashboard)
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0
Worksheet
1
AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Reporting Worksheet ?
Click to access definition
+
Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
Water Audit Report for: City of Paramount (1910105) Reporting Year: 2022 7/2021 - 6/2022
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades
All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ---------->
WATER SUPPLIED Volume from own sources: + Water imported: + Water exported: +
?
8
?
7
?
n/a
2,705.610 acre-ft/yr 2,606.050 acre-ft/yr 0.000 acre-ft/yr
+
?
+
? ?
+
5,311.660 acre-ft/yr
WATER SUPPLIED:
Pcnt:
Value: acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration Enter positive % or value for over-registration
.
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION Billed metered: Billed unmetered: Unbilled metered: Unbilled unmetered:
+
?
7
5,152.544 acre-ft/yr
+
?
n/a
+
?
n/a
acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
+
?
5
13.750 acre-ft/yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:
? Click here: for help using option buttons below
Pcnt: 1.25%
145.366 acre-ft/yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) Apparent Losses Unauthorized consumption: +
?
13.279 acre-ft/yr
acre-ft/yr
Use buttons to select percentage of water supplied OR value
5,166.294 acre-ft/yr
?
Value: 13.750 24061
Pcnt: 0.25%
Value: 13.570
2.00% 0.25%
1.000
acre-ft/yr
Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed ? 3 Customer metering inaccuracies: + 105.154 acre-ft/yr ? Systematic data handling errors: + 12.881 acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed
Apparent Losses:
?
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL) Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses:
?
acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
131.314 acre-ft/yr
14.052 acre-ft/yr 145.366 acre-ft/yr
WATER LOSSES: NON-REVENUE WATER NON-REVENUE WATER:
159.116 acre-ft/yr
?
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA Length of mains: + Number of active AND inactive service connections: + Service connection density:
?
9
?
9
177.6 miles 7,400 42 conn./mile main
?
Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? Yes (length of service line, beyond the property ? Average length of customer service line: + ft boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility) Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Average operating pressure: + 5 70.0 psi ?
COST DATA Total annual cost of operating water system: + Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): + Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): +
?
10
?
9
?
5
$8,443,184 $/Year $34.32 $/100 cubic feet (ccf) $1,957.17 $/acre-ft Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
*** YOUR SCORE IS: 69 out of 100 *** A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION: Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components: 1: Customer metering inaccuracies 2: Water imported 3: Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses)
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0
Reporting Worksheet
1
AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Reporting Worksheet ?
Click to access definition
+
Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
Water Audit Report for: City of Paramount (1910105) Reporting Year: 2023 7/2022 - 6/2023
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades
All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ---------->
WATER SUPPLIED Volume from own sources: + Water imported: + Water exported: +
?
8
?
7
?
n/a
2,712.160 acre-ft/yr 2,328.220 acre-ft/yr 0.000 acre-ft/yr
+
?
+
? ?
+
5,040.380 acre-ft/yr
WATER SUPPLIED:
Pcnt:
Value: acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration Enter positive % or value for over-registration
.
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION Billed metered: Billed unmetered: Unbilled metered: Unbilled unmetered:
+
?
7
4,692.480 acre-ft/yr
+
?
n/a
+
?
n/a
acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
+
?
5
13.750 acre-ft/yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:
? Click here: for help using option buttons below
Pcnt: 1.25%
334.150 acre-ft/yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) Apparent Losses Unauthorized consumption: +
?
12.601 acre-ft/yr
acre-ft/yr
Use buttons to select percentage of water supplied OR value
4,706.230 acre-ft/yr
?
Value: 13.750 24061
Pcnt: 0.25%
Value: 13.570
2.00% 0.25%
1.000
acre-ft/yr
Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed ? 3 Customer metering inaccuracies: + 95.765 acre-ft/yr ? Systematic data handling errors: + 11.731 acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed
Apparent Losses:
?
120.097 acre-ft/yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL) Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses:
?
214.053 acre-ft/yr
acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
334.150 acre-ft/yr
WATER LOSSES: NON-REVENUE WATER NON-REVENUE WATER:
347.900 acre-ft/yr
?
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA Length of mains: + Number of active AND inactive service connections: + Service connection density:
?
9
?
9
177.6 miles 7,400 42 conn./mile main
?
Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? Yes (length of service line, beyond the property ? Average length of customer service line: + ft boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility) Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Average operating pressure: + 5 70.0 psi ?
COST DATA Total annual cost of operating water system: + Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): + Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): +
?
10
?
9
?
5
$8,813,350 $/Year $34.32 $/100 cubic feet (ccf) $2,025.38 $/acre-ft Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
*** YOUR SCORE IS: 69 out of 100 *** A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION: Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components: 1: Customer metering inaccuracies 2: Water imported 3: Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses)
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0
Reporting Worksheet
1
AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Worksheet Water Audit Report for: City of Paramount Audit Year: 2024 Jul 01 2023 - Jun 30 2024
FY
Click 'n' to add notes Click 'g' to determine data validity grade
To access definitions, click the input name
FWAS v6.0 American Water Works Association. Copyright © 2020, All Rights Reserved.
To edit water system info:
go to start page
All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR Water Supplied Error Adjustments choose entry option:
WATER SUPPLIED Volume from Own Sources: n Water Imported: n Water Exported: n
VOS WI WE
n/a
2,811.950 Acre-ft/Yr 2,183.650 Acre-ft/Yr 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr
WATER SUPPLIED:
4,995.600 Acre-ft/Yr
g g g
4 7
n n n
g g g
percent percent percent
10 3 n/a
acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
If entering an Error Adjustment, select under- or overregistration
.
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION Billed Metered: Billed Unmetered: Unbilled Metered: Unbilled Unmetered:
BMAC BUAC UMAC UUAC
n n n n
g g g g
4,769.000 0.000 0.000 11.923
8 n/a n/a 3
under-registration VOSEA select….. WIEA select….. WEEA
Acre-ft/Yr Acre-ft/Yr Acre-ft/Yr
choose entry option: 0.25% default 24061 13.750
Acre-ft/Yr
acre-ft/yr
Default option selected for Unbilled Unmetered, with automatic data grading of 3
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:
4,780.923 Acre-ft/Yr
WATER LOSSES
214.678 Acre-ft/Yr
Apparent Losses SDHE CMI UC
choose entry option:
Default option selected for Systematic Data Handling Errors, with automatic data grading of 3 Systematic Data Handling Errors: n g 3 11.923 Acre-ft/Yr 72.624 Acre-ft/Yr Customer Metering Inaccuracies: n g 3 Unauthorized Consumption: n g 3 11.923 Acre-ft/Yr
0.25% 1.50% 0.25%
default percent default
acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
under-registration
acre-ft/yr
Default option selected for Unauthorized Consumption, with automatic data grading of 3
Apparent Losses:
96.469 Acre-ft/Yr
Real Losses:
118.208 Acre-ft/Yr
WATER LOSSES:
214.678 Acre-ft/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER:
226.600 Acre-ft/Yr
Real Losses
NON-REVENUE WATER
SYSTEM DATA Length of mains: n Number of service connections: n Service connection density:
Lm Nc
Lp
g g
8 5
Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop/property line? Average length of (private) customer service line: n g 10
184.9 miles 7,556 41 conn./mile main
(including fire hydrant lead lengths) (active and inactive)
Yes
ft Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading of 10 has been applied
AOP
Average Operating Pressure: n
g
7
Customer Retail Unit Charge: n Variable Production Cost: n
g g
10
(average distance between property line and meter)
65.0 psi
COST DATA CRUC VPC
9
$4.19 $/100 cubic feet (ccf) $948.51 $/acre-ft
Total Annual Operating Cost $9,145,505
$/yr (optional input)
WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY TIER: *** The Water Audit Data Validity Score is in Tier III (51-70). See Dashboard tab for additional outputs. ***
go to dashboard
A weighted scale for the components of supply, consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION TO IMPROVE DATA VALIDITY:
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS:
Based on the information provided, audit reliability can be most improved by addressing the following components:
OPTIONAL: If targets exist for the operational performance indicators, they can be input below:
1: Volume from Own Sources (VOS) 2: Customer Metering Inaccuracies (CMI) 3: Water Imported (WI)
Unit Total Losses: Unit Apparent Losses: Unit Real LossesA: Unit Real LossesB:
gal/conn/day gal/conn/day gal/conn/day gal/mile/day
If entered above by user, targets will display on KPI gauges (see Dashboard)
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0
Worksheet
1
AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Worksheet Water Audit Report for: City of Paramount Audit Year: 2025 Jul 01 2024 - Jun 30 2025
Fiscal
Click 'n' to add notes Click 'g' to determine data validity grade
To access definitions, click the input name
FWAS v6.1 American Water Works Association. Copyright © 2025, All Rights Reserved.
To edit water system info:
go to start page
All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR Water Supplied Error Adjustments choose entry option:
WATER SUPPLIED Volume from Own Sources: n Water Imported: n Water Exported: n
VOS WI WE
n/a
2,778.980 Acre-ft/Yr 2,289.100 Acre-ft/Yr 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr
WATER SUPPLIED:
5,121.903 Acre-ft/Yr
g g g
4 7
n n n
g g g
10 4
1.90% 0.00%
n/a
percent percent percent
acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
.
Billed Metered: Billed Unmetered: Unbilled Metered: Unbilled Unmetered:
UUAC
n n n n
g g g g
4,962.660 0.000 0.000 12.407
5 n/a n/a 3
WIEA WEEA If entering an Error Adjustment, select under- or overregistration
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION BMAC BUAC UMAC
under-registration VOSEA
Acre-ft/Yr Acre-ft/Yr Acre-ft/Yr
choose entry option: 0.25% default 24061
Acre-ft/Yr
acre-ft/yr
Default option selected for Unbilled Unmetered, with automatic data grading of 3
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:
4,975.067 Acre-ft/Yr
WATER LOSSES
146.837 Acre-ft/Yr
Apparent Losses SDHE CMI UC
choose entry option:
Default option selected for Systematic Data Handling Errors, with automatic data grading of 3 Systematic Data Handling Errors: n g 3 12.407 Acre-ft/Yr 47.092 Acre-ft/Yr Customer Metering Inaccuracies: n g 7 Unauthorized Consumption: n g 3 12.407 Acre-ft/Yr
0.25% 0.94% 0.25%
default percent default
acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
under-registration
acre-ft/yr
Default option selected for Unauthorized Consumption, with automatic data grading of 3
Apparent Losses:
71.905 Acre-ft/Yr
Real Losses Real Losses:
74.932 Acre-ft/Yr
WATER LOSSES:
146.837 Acre-ft/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER:
159.243 Acre-ft/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
SYSTEM DATA Length of mains: n Number of service connections: n Service connection density:
Lm Nc
Lp
g g
10 10
Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop/property line? Average length of (private) customer service line: n g 10
184.9 miles 7,556 41 conn./mile main
(including fire hydrant lead lengths) (active and inactive)
Yes
ft Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading of 10 has been applied
AOP
Average Operating Pressure: n
g
9
Customer Retail Unit Charge: n Variable Production Cost: n
g g
10
(average distance between property line and meter)
65.0 psi
COST DATA CRUC VPC
5
$4.57 $/100 cubic feet (ccf) $918.87 $/acre-ft
Total Annual Operating Cost $4,656,893
$/yr (optional input)
Click here to calculate carbon emissions ---> carbon
WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY TIER: *** The Water Audit Data Validity Score is in Tier III (51-70). See Dashboard tab for additional outputs. ***
go to dashboard
A weighted scale for the components of supply, consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION TO IMPROVE DATA VALIDITY:
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS:
Based on the information provided, audit reliability can be most improved by addressing the following components:
OPTIONAL: If targets exist for the operational performance indicators, they can be input below:
1: Volume from Own Sources (VOS) 2: Billed Metered (BMAC) 3: Water Imported (WI)
Unit Total Losses: Unit Apparent Losses: Unit Real LossesA: Unit Real LossesB:
gal/conn/day gal/conn/day gal/conn/day gal/mile/day
If entered above by user, targets will display on KPI gauges (see Dashboard)
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0
Worksheet
1
Appendix D AWWA Standards
Table 1. Standards
UPDATED: 1/30/2026
System name Paramount City Of
PWSID CA1910105
Baseline Real Loss (gpscd) Baseline Real Loss (gpmd) 61.8
-
Real Loss Standard (gpscd)
Real Loss Standard (gpmd)
Required Real Loss Reduction from Baseline (%)
30-yr Benefit-Cost Ratio*
20.2
-
67
12.1
**Apparent loss standards are equal to the baseline apparent loss, expressed here in gallons per connection per day, calculated from information in Table 2. *Benefit-cost ratios are only calculated for those with standards requiring reduction, not for those maintaining current real water loss. The model does not calculate benefit-cost ratios for those maintaining real water loss. NOTE: Negative Real Losses are replaced with 0 gpcd to calculate a standard.
Table 2. Data for Standards
System Name Paramount City Of
PWSID CA1910105
Real Loss (AF/yr) 515.2
Length of Mains (mi) 165.7
Number of Connections
Variable Production Cost ($)
Avg Operating Pressure (psi)
Apparent Loss (AF/yr)
7444.5
506.2
68.8
113.8
Appendix E 2024 Consumer Confidence Report
Since 1991, California water utilities have been providing information on water served to its consumers. This report, prepared in April 2025, is a snapshot of the tap water quality that we provided last year. Included are details about where your water comes from, how it is tested, what is in it, and how it compares with state and federal limits. We strive to keep you informed about the quality of your water, and to provide a reliable and economic supply that meets all regulatory requirements.
WHERE DOES MY TAP WATER COME FROM?
HOW IS MY DRINKING WATER TESTED?
Your tap water comes from 2 sources: groundwater and surface water. We pump groundwater from local, deep wells. We also use Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s (MWD) surface water from both the Colorado River and the State Water Project in northern California. These water sources supply our service area shown on the adjacent map. The quality of our groundwater and MWD’s surface water supplies is presented in this report.
Your drinking water is tested regularly for unsafe levels of chemicals, radioactivity and bacteria at the source and in the distribution system. We test weekly, monthly, quarterly, annually or less often depending on the substance. State and federal laws allow us to test some substances less than once per year because their levels do not change frequently. All water quality tests are conducted by specially trained technicians in state-certified laboratories.
HOW DO I READ THE WATER QUALITY TABLE? Although we test for over 100 substances, regulations require us to report only those found in your water. The first column of the water quality table lists substances detected in your water. The next columns list the average concentration and range of concentrations found in your drinking water. Following are columns that list the MCL and PHG or MCLG, if appropriate. The last column describes the likely sources of these substances in drinking water. To review the quality of your drinking water, compare the highest concentration and the MCL. Check for substances greater than the MCL. Exceedance of a primary MCL does not usually constitute an immediate health threat. Rather, it requires testing the source water more frequently for a short duration. If test results show that the water continues to exceed the MCL, the water must be treated to remove the substance, or the source must be removed from service.
WHAT ARE DRINKING WATER STANDARDS? The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) limits the amount of certain substances allowed in tap water. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) regulates tap water quality by enforcing limits that are at least as stringent as the Federal EPA’s (USEPA). Historically, California limits are more stringent than the Federal ones. There are two types of these limits, known as standards. Primary standards protect you from substances that could potentially affect your health. Secondary standards regulate substances that affect the aesthetic qualities of water. Regulations set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for each of the primary and secondary standards. The MCL is the highest level of a substance that is allowed in your drinking water. Public Health Goals (PHGs) are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency. PHGs provide more information on the quality of drinking water to customers, and are similar to their federal counterparts, Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs). PHGs and MCLGs are advisory levels that are non-enforceable. Both PHGs and MCLGs are concentrations of a substance below which there are no known or expected health risks.
WHY DO I SEE SO MUCH COVERAGE IN THE NEWS ABOUT THE QUALITY OF TAP WATER? The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity. Contaminants that may be present in source water include: • Microbial contaminants, including viruses and bacteria, that may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife. • Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, that can be naturally-occurring or result from urban stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining or farming. • Pesticides and herbicides, which may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential uses. • Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, that are byproducts of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban stormwater runoff, agricultural application, and septic systems. • Radioactive contaminants, which can be naturally occurring or be the result of oil and gas production and mining activities. In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the USEPA and the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) prescribe regulations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations and California law also establish limits for contaminants in bottled water that provide the same protection for public health.
Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the USEPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791). You can also get more information on tap water by logging on to these helpful web sites: www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/safedrinking-water-information (USEPA’s web site) www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/ drinkingwater/Chemicalcontaminants.html (State Board web site) If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problem, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with services lines and home plumbing. The City of Paramount is responsible for providing high quality drinking water, but cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing components. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline or at www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.
SHOULD I TAKE ADDITIONAL PRECAUTIONS? Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immunocompromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers. The USEPA/Centers for Disease Control guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection of Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants are available from the USEPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791).
SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT
SOME HELPFUL WATER CONSERVATION TIPS
MWD completed an assessment of its Colorado River and State Water Project supplies in 2002. Colorado River supplies are considered most vulnerable to recreation, urban/storm water runoff, increasing urbanization in the watershed, and wastewater. State Water Project supplies are considered most vulnerable to urban/storm water runoff, wildlife, agriculture, recreation and wastewater. A copy of the assessment can be obtained by contacting MWD at (213) 217-6850.
• Fix leaky faucets in your home – save up to 20 gallons every day for every leak stopped
The City of Paramount conducted an assessment of its groundwater supplies in 2003. Groundwater supplies are considered most vulnerable to chemical/petroleum processing/storage, metal plating/finishing/fabricating, dry cleaners, automobile gas stations, automobile body shops, automobile repair shops, junk/scrap/salvage yards, and plastics/synthetics producers.
• Adjust your sprinklers so that water lands on your lawn/garden, not the sidewalk/driveway – save 500 gallons per month
A copy of the Source Water Assessment is available by contacting the Paramount Public Works Department at (562) 220-2020.
HOW CAN I PARTICIPATE IN DECISIONS ON WATER ISSUES THAT AFFECT ME? The public is welcome to attend Public Works Commission meetings located at Paramount City Hall, 16400 Colorado Avenue, Paramount, CA 90723. Meetings are held on the 1st Thursday of each month at 6:00 p.m.
HOW DO I CONTACT MY WATER AGENCY IF I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WATER QUALITY? If you have specific questions about your tap water quality, please contact Adriana Figueroa, Director of Public Works at (562) 220-2020.
• Save between 15 and 50 gallons each time by only washing full loads of laundry
• Use organic mulch around plants to reduce evaporation – save hundreds of gallons a year • Use a water-efficient showerhead. They are inexpensive, easy to install, and can save you up to 750 gallons a month. Visit www.epa.gov/watersense for more details.
Visit us at www.paramountcity.gov
On behalf of the City of Paramount’s Water Divison, we appreciate you taking the time to review the 2024 Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). Our Water Division works hard every day to deliver safe, clean, and reliable water, maintaining 130 miles of water lines, upgrading smart meters, and improving infrastructure to better serve you. Thank you for your trust and support!
En nombre de la División de Agua de la Ciudad de Paramount, agradecemos su tiempo para revisar el Informe de Confianza del Consumidor (CCR) de 2024. Nuestra División de Agua trabaja arduamente todos los días para brindar agua segura, limpia y confiable, manteniendo 210 kilómetros de tuberías, modernizando medidores inteligentes y mejorando la infraestructura para brindarle un mejor servicio. ¡Gracias por su confianza y apoyo!
-CITY OF PARAMOUNT WATER DIVISION
Results are from the most recent testing performed in accordance with state and federal drinking water regulations. The State allows monitoring for some contaminants less than once per year because the concentrations of these contaminants do not change frequently. Some of the data, though representative, are more than one year old. Los resultados provienen de las pruebas más recientes realizadas de acuerdo con las regulaciones estatales y federales sobre agua potable. El Estado permite el monitoreo de algunos contaminantes menos de una vez al año porque las concentraciones de estos contaminantes no cambian con frecuencia. Algunos de los datos, aunque representativos, tienen más de un año.
Desde 1991, las agencias proveedoras de recursos hidráulicos de California han emitido información sobre el agua que se provee al consumidor. Este informe, elaborado en abril de 2025, es una instantánea de la calidad del agua del grifo que proporcionamos el año pasado. Incluímos detalles sobre el origen del agua que toma, cómo se analiza, que contiene, y cómo se compara con los límites estatales y federales. Nos esforzamos por mantenerle informado sobre la calidad de su agua, y proveerle un abastecimiento confiable y económico que cumpla con todos los requisitios.
¿DE DÓNDE PROVIENE EL AQUA QUE TOMO? Su agua de la llave proviene de 2 fuentes: de las aguas naturales (subterránea) y de aguas superficiales (de los ríos). Bombeamos aguas naturales de profundos pozos locales. También usamos agua superficial de la agencia Metropolitan Water District del Sur de California (MWD) importada del Río Colorado y del proyecto State Water Project del Norte de California. Estas dos fuentes de agua nos abastecen en las áreas de servicio que se muestran en el mapa adjunto. Este reporte informa sobre la calidad de nuestra agua subterranea y el abastecimiento del agua superficial del MWD.
¿CUALES SON LOS ESTÁNDARES DEL AGUA POTABLE? La Agencia de Protección Ambiental estadounidense (USEPA) limita la cantidad de ciertas sustancias permitidas en el agua del grifo. En California, la Junta de Control de Recursos Hídricos del Estado (State Water Board) regula la calidad del agua de beber siguiendo normas que sean al menos tan estrictas como las normas federales. Históricamente, los límites de California son más rigurosos que los Federales. Hay dos tipos de límites conocidos como estándares. Los estándares primarios lo protegen de sustancias que potencialmente podrían afectar su salud. Las normas establecen los Niveles Contaminantes Máximos (MCL, en inglés) que se permite del contaminante primario o secundario en el agua de beber. Los abastecedores de agua deben asegurarse de que la calidad de esta cumpla con los Niveles Contaminantes Máximos (o MCLs, en inglés). No todas las sustancias tienen un Nivel Contaminante Máximo.
El plomo y el cobre, por ejemplo, son regulados, por cierto nivel de acción. Si cualquier sustancia química sobrepasa el nivel de acción, se dará la necesidad de un proceso de tratamiento para rebajar los niveles en el agua de beber. Los abastecedores de agua deben cumplir con los Niveles Contaminantes Máximos para asegurar la calidad del agua. Las Metas para la Salud Pública ( MSP [o PHGs, en inglés]) son establecidas por la agencia estatal de California-EPA. Las PHGs proveen más información con respecto a la calidad del agua, y son similares a los reglamentos federales nombrados Metas para Los Niveles de Contaminante Maximos (MNCM [o MCLGs, en inglés]). Las PHGs y MCLGs son metas a nivel recomendable. Las PHG y MCLG son ambas definidas como los niveles de contaminantes en el agua potable por debajo de los niveles donde no se esperan riesgos a la salud y no enforzables. Ambos niveles PHG y MCLG son concentraciones de una sustancia en las que no hay riesgos a la salud aún conocidos.
¿CÓMO SE ANALIZA MI AGUA POTABLE? El agua que toma se analiza regularmente para asegurarnos de que no halla niveles altos de sustancias químicas, de radioactividad o de bacteria en el sistema de distribución y en las tomas de servicios. Estos análisis se llevan a cabo semanal, mensual, trimestral, y anualmente o con más frecuencia, dependiendo de la sustancia analizada. Bajo las leyes estatales y federales, se nos permite analizar algunas sustancias menos frecuentemente que los periodos anuales porque los resultados no cambian.
¿CÓMO INTERPRETO MI INFORME DE CALIDAD DEL AGUA? Aunque analizamos más de 100 sustancias, las normas nos requireren que reportemos solo aquellas que se encuentran en el agua. La primer columna en la tabla de la calidad de agua muestra la lista de las sustancias detectadas en el agua. La siguiente columna muestra la lista de la concentracion promedio y el rango de concentraciones que se hallan encontrado en el agua que usted toma. En seguida están las listas de el MCL, el PHG y el MCLG, si estos son apropiados. La última columna describe las probables fuentes u origen de las sustancias detectadas en el agua potable. Para revisar la calidad de su agua de beber, compare los valores por encima del promedio, mínimos y máximos y el Nivel Contaminante Máximo. Revise todos los químicos que se encuentran por encima del Nivel Contaminante Máximo. Si los químicos sobrepasan el Nivel Contaminante Máximo no significa que sea detrimental a la salud de inmediato. Más bien, se requiere que se realizen análisis más frecuentemente en el abastecimiento del agua por un corto período. Si los resultados muestran sobrepasar el MCL, el agua debe ser tratada para remover esa sustancia, o el abastecimiento de esta debe decomisionarse.
¿POR QUÉ HAY TANTA PUBLICIDAD SOBRE LA CALIDAD DEL AGUA POTABLE? Las fuentes del agua potable (de ambas agua de la llave y agua embotellada) incluye ríos, lagos, arroyos, lagunas, embalses, manantiales, y pozos. Al pasar el agua por la superficie de los suelos o por la tierra, se disuelven minerales que ocurren al natural, y en algunas ocasiones, material radioactivo, al igual que pueden levantar sustancias generadas por la presencia de animales o por actividades humanas. Entre los contaminantes que puenden existir en las fuentes de agua se incluyen: • Contaminantes microbiales como los viruses y la bacteria, los que pueden venir de las plantas de tratamiento de aguas negras, de los sistemas sépticos, de las operaciones de ganadería, y de la vida salvaje. • Contaminantes inorgánicos, como las sales y los metales, los cuales pueden ocurrir naturalmente o como resultado del desagüe pluvial, industrial, o de alcantarillado, producción de gas natural y petróleo, minas y agricultura.
• Pesticidas y herbicidas, los cuales pueden venir de varias fuentes tales como la agricultura, del desagüe pluvial, y de usos residenciales. • Contaminantes de otras sustancias químicas orgánicas, incluyendo químicos orgánicos volátiles y sintéticos que son productos de procesos industriales y de la producción de petróleo, y que pueden provenir de las estaciones de gasolina, desagües pluviales urbanos, y agricultura applicación y de sistemas sépticos. • Contaminantes radioactivos, los cuales puenden ocurrir naturalmente o que puenden ser resultados de las actividades de la producción de gas natural y minería. A fin de asegurar que el agua de la llave es segura para beber, la Agencia de Protección Ambiental de Los Estados Unidos (USEPA) y el Tablero de Control de Recursos de Echar agua Estatal (Bordo Estatal) prescriben regulaciones que limitan la cantidad de ciertos contaminantes en el agua proporcionada por sistemas de agua públicas. Las regulaciones de la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de Estados Unidos y la ley de California también establecen límites para los contaminantes en el agua embotellada que brindan la misma protección para la salud pública. Toda el agua potable, incluyendo el agua embotellada, puede contener cantidades pequeñas de ciertos contaminantes. La presencia de contaminantes no necesariamente indica que haya algún riesgo de salud. Para más información acerca de contaminantes y riesgos a la salud favor de llamar a la USEPA encargada de proteger el agua potable al teléfono (1-800-426-4791). Usted puede obtener más información sobre el agua potable al conectarse al Internet en los siguientes domicilios: www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/ safe-drinking-water-information (el sitio Web del USEPA) www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/ drinkingwater/Chemicalcontaminants.html (sitio Web de Bordo Estatal)
Si presente, los niveles elevados del plomo pueden causar el problema de salud serio, sobre todo para mujeres embarazadas y chiquitos. El plomo en el agua potable es principalmente de materiales y componentes asociados con líneas de servicios y a casafontanería. Cuidad de Paramount es responsable de proporcionar el agua potable de alta calidad, pero no puede controlar la variedad de materiales usados en la fontanería de componentes. Cuando su agua ha estado sentándose durante varias horas, usted puede minimizar el potencial para la exposición de plomo limpiando con agua su grifo durante 30 segundos a 2 minutos antes de usar el agua para beber o cocinarse. Si usted está preocupado por el plomo en su agua, usted puede desear hacer probar su agua. La información en el plomo en el agua potable, probando métodos, y pasos que usted puede tomar para minimizar la exposición está disponible de la Línea directa de Agua Potable Segura o en www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.
¿DEBERÍA TOMAR OTRAS PRECAUCIONES? Algunas personas pueden ser más vulnerables a los contaminantes en el agua potable que el público en general. Las personas que tienen problemas imunológicos, o sea esas personas que estén en tratamiento por medio de quimoterapia cancerosa; personas que tienen órganos transplantados, o personas con SIDA o desordenes imunológicos, personas de edad avanzada, y los bebés que son particularmente suseptibles a ciertas infecciones. Estas personas deben de consultar a sus proveedores de salud médica. Las guias de la USEPA/Centros de Control de Enfermedades aconsejan cómo disminuir los riesgos para prevenir la infección de Cryptosporidium y otros contaminantes microbiales están disponibles por teléfono de la USEPA encargada de proteger el agua potable al teléfono (1-800-426-4791).
VALORACIÓN DE SU ABASTECIMIENTO DE AGUA MWD terminó un gravamen de sus fuentes del proyecto del agua del río y del estado de Colorado en 2002. Las fuentes del río de Colorado se consideran las más vulnerables a la reconstrucción, salida urbana/de la precipitación excesiva, aumentando la urbanización en la línea divisoria de las aguas, y las aguas residuales. Las fuentes del proyecto del agua del estado se consideran las más vulnerables a salida, a fauna, a agricultura, a reconstrucción y a las aguas residuales urbanas/de la precipitación excesiva. Una copia del gravamen se puede obtener por MWD que entra en contacto con en (213) 217-6850. La ciudad de Paramount condujo un gravamen de sus fuentes de la agua subterránea en 2003. Grlas fuentes del oundwater se consideran las más vulnerables al proceso/almacenaje, galjanoplastia de metal/el acabar/ el fabricar, tintoreros, gasolineras del automóvil, tiendas de cuerpo del automóvil, talleres de reparaciones del automóvil, yardas de la chatarra/del desecho/del salvamento, y plásticos/productores del producto químico/del petróleo de los sintéticos. Una copia de la Evaluación de la fuente de agua está disponible comunicándose con el Departamento de Obras Públicas de Paramount al (562) 220-2020.
¿CÓMO PUEDO PARTICIPAR EN LAS DECISIONES SOBRE ASUNTOS ACERCA DEL AGUA QUE ME PUEDAN AFECTAR ? El público es agradable assistir a las reuniones de la Comisión de las obras públicas situadas en la ciudad pasillo, avenida de 16400 Colorado, Paramount, CA de Paramount 90723. Las reuniones se celebran en el primer Jueves de cada mes en 6:00 P.M.
¿CÓMO ME PONGO EN CONTACTO CON MI AGENCIA DEL AGUA SI TENGO PREGUNTAS SOBRE LA CALIDAD DEL AGUA? Si tiene preguntas específicas sobre la calidad del agua de su grifo, comuníquese con Adriana Figueroa, Director de Obras Públicas al (562) 220-2020.
ALGUNAS EXTREMIDADES PROVECHOSAS DE LA CONSERVACIÓN DEL AGUA • Arreglar los grifos que gotean en su hogar excepto hasta 20 galones cada día por cada detenido de fugas • Guardar entre 15 y 50 galones por cada vez que el lavado sólo cargas completas de ropa • Ajuste sus regaderas de modo que el agua caiga en su césped / jardín, no la acera / calzada - excepto 500 galones por mes • Utilice pajote orgánico alrededor de las plantas para reducir la evaporación - guardar cientos de galones por año • Usan cabezal de ducha eficiente de agua. Ellos son baratos, fáciles para instalar, y pueden salvarle hasta 750 galones por mes. Visite www.epa.gov/watersense para obtener más información.
Visítenos en www.paramountcity.gov
Appendix F City Resolution to Adopt the UWMP-WSCP
Appendix G Ordinances
CITY OF PARAMOUNT LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ORDINANCE NO. 1050 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARAMOUNT, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A WATER CONSERVATION AND WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM AND REGULATIONS WHEREAS, a reliable minimum supply of potable water is essential to the public health, safety and welfare of the people and economy of the southern California region; WHEREAS, Southern California is a semi-arid region and is largely dependent upon imported water supplies. A growing population, climate change, environmental concerns and other factors in other parts of the State and western United States, make the region highly susceptible to water supply reliability issues; WHEREAS, careful water management that includes active water conservation measures not only in times of drought, but at all times, is essential to ensure reliable minimum supply of water to meet current and future water supply needs; WHEREAS, Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution declares that the general welfare requires that water resources be put to beneficial use, waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and conservation of water be fully exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof; WHEREAS, California Water Code Section 375 et seq. requires water suppliers to adopt and enforce a comprehensive water conservation program to reduce water consumption and conserve supplies; WHEREAS, on January 17, 2014 the Governor proclaimed a state of emergency caused by the dry conditions, which called for Californians to reduce water use twenty percent (20%); WHEREAS, the State of California Water Resources Control Board, responding to the Governor’s call for water conservation, adopted provisions requiring urban water agencies to place mandatory water use restrictions on outdoor water use or to implement Water Shortage Contingency Plans to accomplish same;
Ordinance No. 1050 Page 2
WHEREAS, California Water Code Section 350 et seq. authorizes any public entity, including a special district, to declare a water shortage emergency and, upon declaration of that emergency, adopt regulations and restrictions on the delivery and consumption of water in order to conserve water resources during the period of the emergency and until the supply of water available for distribution by the suppliers has been replenished or augmented; WHEREAS, the adoption and enforcement of water conservation and supply shortage program is necessary to manage the City’s potable water supply in the short- and long-term and to avoid or minimize the impacts of drought and shortage within the City. Such a program is essential to ensure a reliable and sustainable minimum supply of water for the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, based upon the above findings, the City’s legal counsel advises, and the Council finds, that actions taken pursuant to this ordinance are categorically exempt from CEQA according to 14 California Code of Regulations 15301 and 15307. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARAMOUNT, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Paramount Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding thereto Chapter 46, Article V. to read as follows: Article V. Water Conservation. Sec. 46-9. Declaration of purpose and intent. (a)
The purpose of this ordinance is to establish a water conservation and supply shortage program that will reduce water consumption within the City through conservation, enable effective water supply planning, assure reasonable and beneficial use of water, prevent waste of water, and maximize the efficient use of water within the City to avoid and minimize the effect and hardship of water shortage to the greatest extent possible.
(b)
This ordinance establishes three stages of water supply shortage response actions to be implemented during times of declared water shortage or declared water shortage emergency, with increasing restrictions on water use in response to worsening drought or decreasing supplies and emergency conditions.
Sec. 46-10. Definitions. The following words and phrases whenever used in this ordinance shall have the meaning defined in this section:
Ordinance No. 1050 Page 3
“City” means the City of Paramount. “Landscape irrigation system” means an irrigation system with pipes, hoses, spray heads, or sprinkling devices that are operated by hand or through an automated system. “Person” means any natural person or persons, corporation, public or private entity, governmental agency or institution or any other user of water provided by the City. “Potable water” means water which is suitable for drinking. “Recycled water” means the reclamation and reuse of non-potable water for beneficial use. Sec. 46-11. Application. (a)
The provisions of this ordinance apply to any person in the use of any potable water provided by the City.
(b)
The provisions of this ordinance do not apply to uses of water necessary to protect public health and safety or for essential government services, such as police, fire and other similar emergency services.
(c)
The provisions of this ordinance do not apply to the use of recycled water.
(d)
The provisions of this ordinance do not apply to the use of water by commercial nurseries and commercial growers to sustain plants, trees, shrubs, crops or other vegetation intended for commercial sale.
(e)
This ordinance is intended solely to further the conservation of water. It is not intended to implement any provision of federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations relating to protection of water quality or control of drainage or runoff. Refer to the local jurisdiction or Regional Water Quality Control Board for information on any state based ordinances and stormwater management plans.
Sec. 46-12. Stage 1 water supply shortage. (a)
A Stage 1 Water Supply Shortage condition exists when the City determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought or other supply reductions, a consumer demand reduction is required in order to ensure that sufficient supplies will be available to meet anticipated demands. Upon the declaration of a Stage 1 Water Supply Shortage condition, the City shall implement the mandatory Stage 1 conservation measures identified in this section. These requirements are in addition to the water conservation items stated in the Waste Water Ordinance.
Ordinance No. 1050 Page 4
(b)
Water conservation measures: The following water conservation requirements apply during a declared Stage 1 Water Supply Shortage: (1)
Limits on watering: Watering or irrigation of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to 3 designated days per week. During the months of November through March, watering or irrigation of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to no more than 2 designated days per week. This provision does not apply to landscape irrigation systems that exclusively use very low-flow drip type irrigation systems when no emitter produces more than 2 gallons of water per hour. This provision does not apply to use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self closing water shut-off device, or for very short periods for the express purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. The days per week designated for use of irrigation shall be determined by the Director of Public Works and shall not be implemented until publically noticed.
(2)
Obligation to fix leaks, breaks or malfunctions: All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in the water user’s plumbing, distribution, or irrigation system must be remedied within seventy two (72) hours of observation and/or notification by the City.
(3)
No excessive water flow or run-off: Watering or irrigation of any lawn, landscape or other vegetated area in a manner that causes or allows excessive water flow or run-off onto an adjoining sidewalk, driveway, street, alley, gutter or ditch must be repaired within 5 days of observation and/or notification by the City.
(4)
No washing down hard or paved surfaces: Washing down hard or paved surfaces, including but not limited to sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios or alleys is prohibited except when necessary to alleviate safety or sanitary hazards and only by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a low-volume high pressure cleaning machine equipped to recycle any water used or a low volume high pressure water broom.
(5)
Re-circulating water required for water fountains and decorative water features: Operating a water fountain or other decorative water feature that does not use re-circulating water is prohibited.
(6)
Limits on washing vehicles: Using water to wash or clean a vehicle including but not limited to any automobile, truck, van, bus, motorcycle, boat or trailer whether motorized or not is prohibited, except by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container or a handheld hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle or device.
Ordinance No. 1050 Page 5
(7)
Drinking water served upon request only: Restaurants are prohibited from providing drinking water to any person unless expressly requested by that person.
(8)
Use only recycled water for construction site dust control, consolidation of backfill.
(9)
Other prohibited uses: The City Council may implement other prohibited water uses as determined by the City after notice to customers.
Sec. 46-13. Stage 2 water supply shortage. (a)
A Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage condition exists when the City determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought or other supply reductions a consumer demand reduction is required in order to ensure that sufficient supplies will be available to meet anticipated demands. Upon the declaration of a Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage condition, the City shall implement the mandatory Stage 2 conservation measures identified in this section.
(b)
Conservation measures: In addition to the prohibited uses of water identified in Section 46-12, the following additional water conservation requirements apply during a declared Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage: (1)
Limits on watering: Watering or irrigation of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to 2 designated days per week. During the months of November through March, watering or irrigation of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to no more than 1 designated day per week. This provision does not apply to landscape irrigation systems that exclusively use very low-flow drip type irrigation systems when no emitter produces more than 2 gallons of water per hour. This provision does not apply to use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self closing water shut-off device, or for very short periods for the express purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. The days per week designated for use of irrigation shall be determined by the Director of Public Works and shall not be implemented until publically noticed.
(2)
Obligation to fix leaks, breaks or malfunctions: All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in the water user’s plumbing, distribution, or irrigation system must be remedied within forty eight (48) hours of observation and/or notification by the City.
Ordinance No. 1050 Page 6
(3)
No filling, cleaning and/or refilling of decorative fountains, ornamental lakes or ponds except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life, provided that such animals have been actively managed within the water feature prior to declaration of this supply shortage stage.
(4)
Residential car washing prohibited: Use car washes available with water recycling systems.
(5)
The filling or topping off of any new or existing residential pools or outdoor spas is prohibited.
(6)
Planting of new turf grass is prohibited.
(7)
Outdoor evaporative mist coolers are prohibited.
(8)
Main line flushing is allowed for emergency purposes only.
(9)
Other prohibited uses: The City may implement other prohibited water uses as determined by the City Council, after notice to customers.
Sec. 46-14. Stage 3 water supply shortage – emergency condition. (a)
A Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage condition is also referred to as an “emergency” condition. A Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage condition exists when the City declares a water shortage emergency in a manner and upon the grounds set forth in California Water Code Section 350 et seq. Upon the declaration of a Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage condition pursuant to California Water Code Section 350 et seq., the City will implement the mandatory Stage 3 conservation measures identified in this section.
(b)
Additional conservation measures: In addition to the prohibited uses of water identified in Sections 46-12 and 46-13 the following water conservation requirements apply during a declared Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage Emergency: (1)
Limited watering or irrigating: Watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is restricted in accordance with allotments as set forth by the City during a Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage. This restriction does not apply to the use of recycled water or to the following categories of use, subject to the hardship waiver provisions as described in Section 46-16: a.
Maintenance of existing landscape necessary for fire protection;
b.
Maintenance of existing landscape for soil erosion control;
Ordinance No. 1050 Page 7
c.
Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well-being of protected species;
d.
Maintenance of landscape within active public parks and playing fields, daycare centers, golf course greens, and school grounds, provided that such irrigation does not exceed 2 days per week;
e.
Actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects.
(2)
Obligation to fix leaks, breaks or malfunctions: All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in the water user’s plumbing, distribution, or irrigation system must be remedied within twenty four (24) hours of observation and/or notification by the City.
(3)
Other prohibited uses: The City may implement other prohibited water uses as determined by the City Council, after notifying customers.
Sec. 46-15. Procedures for determination/notification of water supply shortage. (a)
Determination and notification of a Stage 1 or Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage condition: The existence of a Stage 1 or Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage condition will be declared by resolution of the Council adopted at a regular or special public meeting held in accordance with State law. The mandatory conservation measures applicable to Stage 1 and Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage conditions, respectively, shall take effect on the tenth day after the date the shortage condition is declared. Within five days following the declaration of the shortage condition, the City shall publish a copy of the resolution once in a newspaper used for publication of official notices. If the City Council establishes a water allocation, the City shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement or by another mailing to the address to which the City customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. A water allocation shall be effective on the fifth day following the date of mailing or at such later date as specified in the notice.
(b)
Determination and notification of a Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage condition (“emergency” condition): The existence of a Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage condition may be declared in accordance with the requirements and procedures specified in California Water Code Section 350 et seq. The mandatory conservation measures applicable to a Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage condition shall take effect immediately upon the City Council declaration of a “Water Shortage Emergency” pursuant to California Water Code Section 350 et seq. As soon as practicable
Ordinance No. 1050 Page 8
following the Council’s declaration of a “Water Shortage Emergency,” the City shall publish a copy of the declaration once in a newspaper used for publication of official notices. If the City Council establishes a water allocation, the City shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement or by another mailing to the address to which the City customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. A water allocation shall be effective on the fifth day following the date of mailing or at such later date as specified in the notice. Sec. 46-16. Hardship waiver. (a)
Undue and disproportionate hardship: If, due to unique circumstances, a specific requirement of this ordinance would result in undue hardship to a person using water or to property upon which water is used, that is disproportionate by the impacts to water users generally or to similar property or classes of water users, then the person may apply for a waiver to the requirements as provided in this section.
(b)
Written finding: The waiver may be granted or conditionally granted only upon a written finding of the existence of facts demonstrating an undue hardship to a person using water or to property upon which water is used, that is disproportionate to the impacts to water users generally or to similar property or classes of water use due to specific and unique circumstances of the user or the user’s property: (1)
Application: Application for a waiver shall be on a form prescribed by the City and shall be accompanied by a non-refundable processing fee in an amount set by resolution of the Council.
(2)
Supporting documentation: The application may be accompanied by photographs, maps, drawing and other information, including a written statement of the applicant.
(3)
Required findings for variance: An application for a waiver shall be denied unless the appropriate authority finds, based in the information provided in the applications, supporting documents, or such additional information as may be requested, and on water use information for the property as shown by the records of the City or its Agent, all of the following: a. That the waiver does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other residents and businesses;
Ordinance No. 1050 Page 9
b.
That because of special circumstances applicable to the property or its use, the strict application of this ordinance would have a disproportionate impact on the property or use that exceeds the impacts to similarly situated residences and businesses;
c.
That the authorizing of such waiver will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties, and will not materially affect the ability of the City to effectuate the purpose of this ordinance and will not be detrimental to the public interest; and
d.
That the condition or situation of the subject property or the intended use of the property for which the waiver is sought is not common or general in nature.
(4)
Approval authority: The Director of Public Works (or designee) shall exercise approval authority and act upon any completed application no later than ten (10) days after submittal and may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the waiver. The applicant requesting the waiver shall be promptly notified in writing of any action taken. Unless specified otherwise at the time a waiver is approved the waiver applies to the subject property during the term of the mandatory water supply shortage condition.
(5)
Appeals to the Council: An applicant can appeal a decision or condition to the City Manager on a waiver application to the City of Paramount within 10 days of the decision upon written request for a hearing. The request shall state the grounds for the appeal. At a public meeting, the City of Paramount shall act as the approval authority and review the appeal following the regular waiver procedure. The decision of the City of Paramount is final.
Sec. 46-17. Penalties and violations. (a)
Misdemeanor: Any violation of City ordinances may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than thirty (30) days, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both.
(b)
Civil penalties: Civil penalties for failure to comply with any provisions of the ordinance shall be as follows: Stage 1 (1)
First violation: The City shall issue a written courtesy door hanger describing the violation and deliver a copy of this ordinance by mail.
Ordinance No. 1050 Page 10
(2)
Second violation: A second violation within the preceding twelve (12) calendar months is punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00).
(3)
Third violation: A third violation within the preceding twelve (12) calendar months is punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00).
(4)
Fourth violation: A fourth violation is punishable by a fine not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200.00).
(5)
Fifth and subsequent violations: A fifth and subsequent violation is punishable by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00). a. Water flow restrictor: In addition to any fines, the City may install a water flow restrictor device of approximately one gallon per minute capacity for services up to one and one-half inch size and competitively sized restrictors for larger services after written notice of intent to install a restrictor for a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours.
Stages 2 & 3 (1)
First violation: The first violation is punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00).
(2)
Second violation: A second violation within the preceding twelve (12) calendar months is punishable by a fine not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200.00).
(3)
Third violation: A third violation within the preceding twelve (12) calendar months is punishable by a fine not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00).
(4)
Fourth violation: A fourth violation is punishable by a fine not to exceed three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00).
(5)
Fifth and subsequent violations: A fifth and subsequent violation is punishable by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00). a. Water flow restrictor: In addition to any fines, the City may install a water flow restrictor device of approximately one gallon per minute capacity for services up to one and one-half inch size and competitively sized restrictors for larger services after written notice of intent to install a restrictor for a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours.
Ordinance No. 1050 Page 11
b. Termination of service: In addition to any fines and the installation of a water flow restrictor, the City may disconnect and/or terminate a customer’s water service. (c)
Cost of flow restrictor and disconnecting service: A person or entity that violates this ordinance is responsible for payment of the City charges for installing and/or removing any flow restricting device and for disconnecting and/or reconnecting service per the City’s schedule of charges, then in effect as a charge for installing and/or removing any flow restricting device shall be paid to the City before the device is removed. Nonpayment shall be subject to the same schedules as nonpayment of basic water rates.
(d)
Separate offenses: Once the City issues a violation for a particular offense, no further notice of violation will be issued for the same offense until such time as the penalty for the offense has been paid or the 10 day period to appeal has expired, whichever occurs first. If an appeal is timely filed after a violation is served, then no further notice of violation for the same offense will be issued until the appeal has been heard and a decision on that appeal rendered.
(e)
Notice of hearing: (1)
The City shall issue a Notice of Violation by mail or personal delivery at least ten (10) days before taking enforcement action and said notice shall describe the action to be taken. A customer may appeal the Notice of Violation by filing a written notice of appeal with the City no later than the close of business on the day before the date scheduled for enforcement action. Any Notice of Violation not timely appealed shall be final. Upon receipt of a timely appeal, a hearing on the appeal shall be scheduled in a timely manner, and the City shall mail written notice of the hearing to the customer at least ten (10) days before the date of the said hearing.
(2)
Pending receipt of a written appeal or pending a hearing pursuant to an appeal, the City may take appropriate steps to prevent the unauthorized use of water as appropriate to the nature an extent of the violations and the current declared water Stage condition.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase in this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is for any reason held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the ordinance or the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall be adopted thereby. The City Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases or the application thereof to any person or circumstance be held invalid.
Ordinance No. 1050 Page 12
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption, shall be certified as to its adoption by the City Clerk, and shall be published once in the Paramount Journal within 15 days after its adoption together with the names and members of the City Council voting for and against the Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Paramount this 2nd day of September, 2014.
Diane J. Martinez, Mayor ATTEST:
Lana Chikami, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. XXX
City of Paramount Water Conservation Ordinance
June, 2011
Table of Contents
Water Conservation Ordinance Section I:
Title
1
Section II:
Findings
1
Section III:
Declaration of Purpose of Intent
2
Section IV:
Definitions
2
Section V:
Application
2
Section VI:
Stage 1 Water Supply Shortage
3
Section VII:
Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage
3
Section VIII:
Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage
4
Section IX:
Procedures, Determination and Notification
5
Section X:
Hardship Waiver
6
Section XI:
Penalties and Violations
7
Section XII:
Severability
8
Section XIII:
Effective Date
8
ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PARAMOUNT ESTABLISHING A WATER CONSERVATION AND WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGE PROGRAM AND REGULATIONS Section I:
Title
This ordinance will be known at the City of Paramount Water Conservation Program. Section II:
Findings
WHEREAS, a reliable minimum supply of potable water is essential to the public health, safety and welfare of the people and economy of the southern California region; WHEREAS, Southern California is a semi-arid region and is largely dependent upon imported water supplies. A growing population, climate change, environmental concerns and other factors in other parts of the State and western United States, make the region highly susceptible to water supply reliability issues; WHEREAS, careful water management that includes active water conservation measures not only in times of drought, but at all times, is essential to ensure reliable minimum supply of water to meet current and future water supply needs; WHEREAS, Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution declares that the general welfare requires that water resources be put to beneficial use, waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and conservation of water be fully exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof; WHEREAS, California Water Code Section 375 et seq. requires water suppliers to adopt and enforce a comprehensive water conservation program to reduce water consumption and conserve supplies; WHEREAS, California Water Code section 350 et seq. authorizes any public entity, including a special district, to declare a water shortage emergency and, upon declaration of that emergency, adopt regulations and restrictions on the delivery and consumption of water in order to conserve water resources during the period of the emergency and until the supply of water available for distribution by the suppliers has been replenished or augmented; WHEREAS, the adoption and enforcement of water conservation and supply shortage program is necessary to manage the City’s potable water supply in the short- and long-term and to avoid or minimize the impacts of drought and shortage within the City. Such a program is essential to ensure a reliable and sustainable minimum supply of water for the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, based upon the above findings, the City’s legal counsel advises, and the Board finds, that actions taken pursuant to this ordinance are categorically exempt from CEQA according to 14 California Code of Regulations 15301 and 15307.
Ordinance No. TSD-67
Page 1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED THAT THE BOARD OF THE CITY OF PARAMOUNT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section III.
Declaration of Purpose and Intent
a.
The purpose of this ordinance is to establish a water conservation and supply shortage program that will reduce water consumption within the City through conservation, enable effective water supply planning, assure reasonable and beneficial use of water, prevent waste of water, and maximize the efficient use of water within the City to avoid and minimize the effect and hardship of water shortage to the greatest extent possible.
b.
This ordinance establishes three stages of water supply shortage response actions to be implemented during times of declared water shortage or declared water shortage emergency, with increasing restrictions on water use in response to worsening drought or decreasing supplies and emergency conditions.
Section IV. a.
Definitions
The following words and phrases whenever used in this ordinance shall have the meaning defined in this section: 1. 2.
3. 4. 5.
Section V.
“City” means the City of Paramount. “Landscape Irrigation System” means an irrigation system with pipes, hoses, spray heads, or sprinkling devices that are operated by hand or through an automated system. “Person” means any natural person or persons, corporation, public or private entity, governmental agency or institution or any other user of water provided by the City. “Potable Water” means water which is suitable for drinking. “Recycled Water” means the reclamation and reuse of non-potable water for beneficial use. Application
a.
The provisions of this ordinance apply to any person in the use of any potable water provided by the City.
b.
The provisions of this ordinance do not apply to uses of water necessary to protect public health and safety or for essential government services, such as police, fire and other similar emergency services.
c.
The provisions of this ordinance do not apply to the use of recycled water.
d.
The provisions of this ordinance do not apply to the use of water by commercial nurseries and commercial growers to sustain plants, trees, shrubs, crops or other vegetation intended for commercial sale.
e.
This ordinance is intended solely to further the conservation of water. It is not intended to implement any provision of federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations relating to protection of water quality or control of drainage or runoff. Refer to the local jurisdiction or Regional Water Quality Control Board for information on any state based ordinances and stormwater management plans.
Water Conservation Ordinance
Page 2
Section VI:
Stage 1 Water Supply Shortage
a.
A Stage 1 Water Supply Shortage condition exists when the City determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought or other supply reductions, a consumer demand reduction is required in order to ensure that sufficient supplies will be available to meet anticipated demands. Upon the declaration of a Stage 1 Water Supply Shortage condition, the City shall implement the mandatory Stage 1 conservation measures identified in this section. These requirements are in addition to the water conservation items stated in the Waste Water Ordinance.
b.
Water Conservation Measures: The following water conservation requirements apply during a declared Stage 1 Water Supply Shortage: 1.
2.
Limits on Watering: Watering or irrigation of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to 3 days per week. During the months of November through March, watering or irrigation of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to no more than 2 days per week. This provision does not apply to landscape irrigation systems that exclusively use very low-flow drip type irrigation systems when no emitter produces more than 2 gallons of water per hour. This provision does not apply to use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self closing water shutoff device, or for very short periods for the express purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. Obligation to Fix Leaks, Breaks or Malfunctions: All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in the water user’s plumbing, distribution, or irrigation system must be remedied within seventy two (72) hours of observation and/or notification by the City.
3.
No Excessive Water Flow or Run-Off: Watering or irrigation of any lawn, landscape or other vegetated area in a manner that causes or allows excessive water flow or runoff onto an adjoining sidewalk, driveway, street, alley, gutter or ditch must be must be repaired within 5 days of observation and/or notification by the City.
4.
No Washing Down Hard or Paved Surfaces: Washing down hard or paved surfaces, including but not limited to sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios or alleys is prohibited except when necessary to alleviate safety or sanitary hazards and only by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a lowvolume high pressure cleaning machine equipped to recycle any water used or a low volume high pressure water broom.
5.
Re-Circulating Water Required for Water Fountains and Decorative Water Features: Operating a water fountain or other decorative water feature that does not use recirculating water is prohibited.
6.
Limits on Washing Vehicles: Using water to wash or clean a vehicle including but not limited to any automobile, truck, van, bus, motorcycle, boat or trailer whether motorized or not is prohibited, except by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container or a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self closing water shut-off nozzle or device.
7.
Drinking Water Served Upon Request Only: Restaurants are prohibited from providing drinking water to any person unless expressly requested by that person.
8.
Use only recycled water for construction site dust control, consolidation of backfill.
Water Conservation Ordinance
Page 3
9.
Other Prohibited Uses: The Board of Directors may implement other prohibited water uses as determined by the City after notice to customers.
Section VII.
Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage
a.
A Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage condition exists when the City determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought or other supply reductions a consumer demand reduction is required in order to ensure that sufficient supplies will be available to meet anticipated demands. Upon the declaration of a Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage condition, the City shall implement the mandatory Stage 2 conservation measures identified in this section.
b.
Conservation Measures: In addition to the prohibited uses of water identified in Section VI, the following additional water conservation requirements apply during a declared Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage: 1.
2.
3.
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Limits on Watering: Watering or irrigation of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to 2 days per week. During the months of November through March, watering or irrigation of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to no more than 1 day per week. This provision does not apply to landscape irrigation systems that exclusively use very low-flow drip type irrigation systems when no emitter produces more than 2 gallons of water per hour. This provision does not apply to use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self closing water shutoff device, or for very short periods for the express purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. Obligation to Fix Leaks, Breaks or Malfunctions: All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in the water user’s plumbing, distribution, or irrigation system must be remedied within forty eight (48) hours of observation and/or notification by the City. No filling, cleaning and/or refilling of decorative fountains, ornamental lakes or ponds except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life, provided that such animals have been actively managed within the water feature prior to declaration of this supply shortage stage. Residential car washing prohibited. Use car washes available with water recycling systems. The filling or topping off of any new or existing residential pools or outdoor spas is prohibited. Planting of new turf grass is prohibited. Outdoor evaporative mist coolers are prohibited. Main line flushing is allowed for emergency purposes only. Other Prohibited Uses: The City may implement other prohibited water uses as determined by the Board of Directors, after notice to Customers.
Section VIII. a.
Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage – Emergency Condition
A Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage condition is also referred to as an “Emergency” condition. A Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage condition exists when the City declares a water shortage emergency in a manner and upon the grounds set forth in California Water Code Section 350 et seq.
Water Conservation Ordinance
Page 4
Upon the declaration of a Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage condition pursuant to California Water Code Section 350 et seq., the City will implement the mandatory Stage 3 conservation measures identified in this section. b.
Additional Conservation Measures: In addition to the prohibited uses of water identified in Sections VI and VII the following water conservation requirements apply during a declared Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage Emergency: 1.
2.
3.
Section IX. a.
Limited Watering or Irrigating: Watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is restricted in accordance with allotments as set forth by the City during a Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage. This restriction does not apply to the use of recycled water or to the following categories of use, subject to the hardship waiver provisions as described in Section X: a. Maintenance of existing landscape necessary for fire protection; b. Maintenance of existing landscape for soil erosion control; c. Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the wellbeing of protected species; d. Maintenance of landscape within active public parks and playing fields, daycare centers, golf course greens, and school grounds, provided that such irrigation does not exceed 2 days per week; e. Actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects. Obligation to Fix Leaks, Breaks or Malfunctions: All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in the water user’s plumbing, distribution, or irrigation system must be remedied within twenty four (24) hours of observation and/or notification by the City. Other Prohibited Uses: The City may implement other prohibited water uses as determined by the Board of Directors, after notifying customers. Procedures for Determination/Notification of Water Supply Shortage
Determination and notification of a Stage 1 or Stage 2, Water Supply Shortage condition: The existence of a Stage 1 or Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage condition will be declared by resolution of the Board adopted at a regular or special public meeting held in accordance with State law. The mandatory conservation measures applicable to Stage 1 and Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage conditions, respectively, shall take effect on the tenth day after the date the shortage condition is declared. Within five days following the declaration of the shortage condition, the City shall publish a copy of the resolution once in a newspaper used for publication of official notices. If the Board of Directors establishes a water allocation, the City shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement or by another mailing to the address to which the City customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for ongoing water service. A water allocation shall be effective on the fifth day following the date of mailing or at such later date as specified in the notice.
b.
Determination and notification of a Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage condition (“Emergency” condition): The existence of a Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage condition may be declared in accordance with the requirements and procedures specified in California Water Code Section 350 et seq. The mandatory conservation measures applicable to a Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage condition shall take effect immediately upon the Board of Directors declaration of a “Water
Water Conservation Ordinance
Page 5
Shortage Emergency” pursuant to California Water Code Section 350 et seq. As soon as practicable following the Board’s declaration of a “Water Shortage Emergency,” the City shall publish a copy of the declaration once in a newspaper used for publication of official notices. If the Board of Directors establishes a water allocation, the City shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement or by another mailing to the address to which the City customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for ongoing water service. A water allocation shall be effective on the fifth day following the date of mailing or at such later date as specified in the notice. Section X.
Hardship Waiver
a.
Undue and Disproportionate Hardship: If, due to unique circumstances, a specific requirement of this ordinance would result in undue hardship to a person using water or to property upon which water is used, that is disproportionate by the impacts to water users generally or to similar property or classes of water users, then the person may apply for a waiver to the requirements as provided in this section.
b.
Written Finding: The waiver may be granted or conditionally granted only upon a written finding of the existence of facts demonstrating an undue hardship to a person using water or to property upon which water is used, that is disproportionate to the impacts to water users generally or to similar property or classes of water use due to specific and unique circumstances of the user or the user’s property: 1.
2. 3.
Application: Application for a waiver shall be on a form prescribed by the City and shall be accompanied by a non-refundable processing fee in an amount set by resolution of the Board. Supporting Documentation: The application may be accompanied by photographs, maps, drawing and other information, including a written statement of the applicant. Required Findings for Variance: An application for a waiver shall be denied unless the appropriate authority finds, based in the information provided in the applications, supporting documents, or such additional information as may be requested, and on water use information for the property as shown by the records of the City or its Agent, all of the following: a. b.
c.
d.
4.
That the waiver does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other residents and businesses; That because of special circumstances applicable to the property or its use, the strict application of this ordinance would have a disproportionate impact on the property or use that exceeds the impacts to similarly situated residences and businesses; That the authorizing of such waiver will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties, and will not materially affect the ability of the City to effectuate the purpose of this ordinance and will not be detrimental to the public interest; and That the condition or situation of the subject property or the intended use of the property for which the waiver is sought is not common or general in nature.
Approval Authority: The City Manager (or designee) shall exercise approval authority and act upon any completed application no later than ten (10) days after submittal and may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the waiver. The applicant
Water Conservation Ordinance
Page 6
requesting the waiver shall be promptly notified in writing of any action taken. Unless specified otherwise at the time a waiver is approved the waiver applies to the subject property during the term of the mandatory water supply shortage condition. 5.
Appeals to the Board: An applicant can appeal a decision or condition to the City Manager on a waiver application to the City of Paramount within 10 days of the decision upon written request for a hearing. The request shall state the grounds for the appeal. At a public meeting, the City of Paramount shall act as the approval authority and review the appeal following the regular waiver procedure. The decision of the City of Paramount is final.
Section XI.
Penalties and Violations
a.
Misdemeanor: Any violation of City ordinances may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than thirty (30) days, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both.
b.
Civil Penalties: Civil penalties for failure to comply with any provisions of the ordinance shall be as follows: Stage 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
First Violation: The City shall issue a written courtesy door hanger describing the violation and deliver a copy of this ordinance by mail. Second Violation: A second violation within the preceding twelve (12) calendar months is punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00). Third Violation: A third violation within the preceding twelve (12) calendar months is punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00). Fourth Violation: A fourth violation is punishable by a fine not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200.00). Fifth and Subsequent Violations: A fifth and subsequent violation is punishable by a fine not to exceed two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00). a. Water Flow Restrictor: In addition to any fines, the City may install a water flow restrictor device of approximately one gallon per minute capacity for services up to one and one-half inch size and competitively sized restrictors for larger services after written notice of intent to install a restrictor for a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours.
Stages 2 & 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
First Violation: The first violation is punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00). Second Violation: A second violation within the preceding twelve (12) calendar months is punishable by a fine not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200.00). Third Violation: A third violation within the preceding twelve (12) calendar months is punishable by a fine not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00). Fourth Violation: A fourth violation is punishable by a fine not to exceed three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00). Fifth and Subsequent Violations: A fifth and subsequent violation is punishable by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00). a. Water Flow Restrictor: In addition to any fines, the City may install a water flow restrictor device of approximately one gallon per minute capacity for
Water Conservation Ordinance
Page 7
b.
services up to one and one-half inch size and competitively sized restrictors for larger services after written notice of intent to install a restrictor for a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours. Termination of Service: In addition to any fines and the installation of a water flow restrictor, the City may disconnect and/or terminate a customer’s water service.
c.
Cost of Flow Restrictor and Disconnecting Service: A person or entity that violates this ordinance is responsible for payment of the City charges for installing and/or removing any flow restricting device and for disconnecting and/or reconnecting service per the City’s schedule of charges, then in effect as a charge for installing and/or removing any flow restricting device shall be paid to the City before the device is removed. Nonpayment shall be subject to the same schedules as nonpayment of basic water rates.
d.
Separate Offenses: Once the City issues a violation for a particular offense, no further notice of violation will be issued for the same offense until such time as the penalty for the offense has been paid or the 10 day period to appeal has expired, whichever occurs first. If an appeal is timely filed after a violation is served, then no further notice of violation for the same offense will be issued until the appeal has been heard and a decision on that appeal rendered.
e.
Notice of Hearing: 1.
2.
The City shall issue a Notice of Violation by mail or personal delivery at least ten (10) days before taking enforcement action and said notice shall describe the action to be taken. A customer may appeal the Notice of Violation by filing a written notice of appeal with the City no later than the close of business on the day before the date scheduled for enforcement action. Any Notice of Violation not timely appealed shall be final. Upon receipt of a timely appeal, a hearing on the appeal shall be scheduled in a timely manner, and the City shall mail written notice of the hearing to the customer at least ten (10) days before the date of the said hearing. Pending receipt of a written appeal or pending a hearing pursuant to an appeal, the City may take appropriate steps to prevent the unauthorized use of water as appropriate to the nature an extent of the violations and the current declared water Stage condition.
Section XII.
Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase in this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is for any reason held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the ordinance or the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall be adopted thereby. The Board of Directors hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases or the application thereof to any person or circumstance be held invalid. Section XIII.
Effective Date
This Ordinance is effective upon adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of __________, 20__.
Water Conservation Ordinance
Page 8
Appendix H Submittal Tables
Submittal Table 2-1 Retail: Public Water Systems Public Water System Number
Public Water System Name
Number of Municipal Connections 2025
Volume of Water Supplied 2025 (AF)
7,556
5,122
7,556
5,122
Add additional rows as needed CA1910105
Paramount -- City, Water Department Total
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3. NOTES:
Submittal Table 2-2: Plan Identification Type of Plan
Select One
Individual UWMP If Water Supplier is also a member of a SB X7-7 Regional Alliance, select name from the drop-down. Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) If Supplier selected RUWMP, select name from the drop-down. NOTES:
Name of Regional Alliance or RUWMP (Drop Down List)
Submittal Table 2-3: Supplier Identification Type of Supplier (select one or both) Supplier is a wholesale supplier Supplier is a retail supplier Fiscal or Calendar Year (select one) UWMP Tables are in calendar years UWMP Tables are in fiscal years If using fiscal years provide month and date that the fiscal year begins (mm/dd)
Units of measure used in UWMP (Select from the drop down list). Unit
AF
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. NOTES:
Submittal Table 2-4 Retail: Water Supplier Information Exchange Water Code Section 10631(h) The retail Supplier has informed the following wholesale supplier(s) of projected water use. Wholesale Water Supplier Name Add additional rows as needed
Central Basin Municipal Water District NOTES:
10631(h) An urban water supplier that relies upon a wholesale agency for a source of water shall provide the wholesale agency with water use projections from that agency for that source of water in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available.
Submittal Table 3-1 Retail: Population - Current and Projected Water Code Section 10631(a) Population Served
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
52,371
53,962
55,602
57,292
59,033
2050(opt)
NOTES:
CWC 10631(a) describe the current and projected population of the service area including current and projected population…
Submittal Table 4-1 Retail: Total Uses for Potable and Non-Potable Water — Actual Water Code Section 10631(d)(1) 2025 Actual Water Use
Use Type Drop down list May select each use multiple times These are the only use types that will be recognized by the WUEdata online submittal tool
Add additional rows as needed Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Landscape Agricultural Industrial Other (optional) Distribution System Water Loss
Additional Description (as needed)
Potable or Non-Potable (OPTIONAL) Drop down list
Potable Potable Potable Potable Potable Potable Potable Potable
Volume (AF)
1,172 2,253 525 105 47 508 365 147 Subtotal Potable 5122 Subtotal Non-Potable 0 Total 5,122 DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3. NOTES:
Submittal Table 4-2 Retail: Total Uses for Potable, and Non-Potable Water — Projected Water Code Section 10631(d)(1) Projected Water Use (Report To the Extent that Records are Available)
Use Type Drop down list May select each use multiple times These are the only Use Types that will be recognized by the WUEdata online submittal tool
Additional Description (as needed)
Potable or NonPotable (OPTIONAL) Drop down list
2030 (AF)
2035 (AF)
2040 (AF)
2045 (AF)
Single Family
Potable
1,266
1,305
1,345
1,385
Multi-Family
Potable
2,437
2,511
2,587
2,666
Commercial
Potable
567
585
602
621
Landscape
Potable
550
566
584
601
Agricultural
Potable
114
117
121
125
Industrial Other (optional) Distribution System Water Loss
Potable Potable Potable
2050 opt (AF)
Add additional rows as needed.
51 52 54 55 395 407 419 432 147 147 147 147 Subtotal Potable 5,527 5,690 5,859 6,032 0 Subtotal Non-Potable 0 0 0 0 0 Total 5,527 5,690 5,859 6,032 0 DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3. NOTES:
Submittal Table 4-3 Retail: Inclusion in Water Use Projections Water Code Section 10631 (a), 10631 (d)(4)(A), and 10631 (d)(4)(B) Are Future Water Savings Included in Projections? Drop down list (y/n)
No
If "Yes" to above, state the section or page number, in the cell to the right, where citations of the codes, ordinances, or otherwise are utilized in demand projections are found. Optional Suppliers may complete Optional Submittal Table 4-4 R to quantify the expected savings. Are Lower Income Residential Demands Included In Projections? Drop down list (y/n)
Optional If the method for accounting Lower Income Residential Demands has been included, provide page number where this accounting can be found. DWR NOTES: Additional guidance is provided in Appendix K. NOTES:
CWC10631 (d) (4) (A) Water use projections, where available, shall display and account for water savings estimated to result from adopted codes, standards, ordinances, or transpotation and land use plans identified by the urban water supplier, as applicable to the service area.
CWC 10631 (d) (4) (B) to the extent that an urban water supplier reports the information described in subparagraph (A), an urban water supplier shall do both of the following: (i) Provide citations of the various codes, standards, ordinances or transportation and land use plans utilized in making the projections. (ii) Indicate the extent that the water use projections consider savings from codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans. Water use projections that do not account for these water savings shall be noted of that fact. CWC 10631(a) Water use projections required by section 10631 shall include projected water use for single-family and multifamily residential housing needed for lower income households, as identified in the housing element of any city, county, or city and county, in the service area of the supplier .
No
Submittal Table 4-5 Retail: Water Loss Audit Reporting Water Code Section 10631(d)(3)(A) Public Water System ID # Reported Submitted to DWR Water Reporting Period in Table 2-1 R Loss Audit Program (yes/no) Report submittal status for all five years for each Public Water System as available. Add rows as needed 2020 Yes Yes 2021 2022 Yes Yes 2023 2024 Yes DWR NOTES: Suppliers will provide a link to the WUEdata submittals of their Water Loss Audit Reports. NOTES:
CWC 10631(d)(3) (A) The distribution system water loss shall be quantified for each of the five years preceding the plan update, in accordance with rules adopted pursuant to Section 10608.34.
Submittal Table 4-6 Retail: Progress Towards 2028 Water Loss Standard Water Code Section 10631(d)(3)(C) Public Water System ID # Reported in Submittal Table 2-1 R
Did the Water Board Calculate a Water Loss Standard for this Public Water System? (y/n) If no, Supplier will not complete this row.
State Water Board Standard 2028 Real Water Loss Standard per Unit per day
Units for Real Water Loss
61.8
Gallons per Service Connection per Day (GPSCD)
Drop down list
Real Water Loss Most Recent AWWA Water Loss Audit Number of Units (Connections or Miles corresponding with units selected)
Volume of Total Real Loss (from AWWA Water Loss Audit) (AF)
State Water Board Standard Real Water 2028 Apparent Loss Per Unit Water Loss per Day Standard per Unit per Day
Apparent Water Loss Most Recent AWWA Water Loss Audit
Units for Apparent Water Loss
Number of Connections
Volume of Total Apparent Loss (from AWWA Water Loss Audit) (AF)
Gallons per Service Connection per Day (GPSCD)
7,556
71.9
Apparent Water Loss Per Unit per Day
Add additional rows as needed.
CA1910105
Yes
7,556
74.9
8.9
13.6
Water Board's Calculated Water Loss Standards DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) for Water Loss MUST remain consistent with units reported in Submittal Table 2-3. The units reported in Submittal Table 2-3 are used in this table's calculations. NOTES:
8.5
Submittal Table 5-1 Retail: SB X7-7 2020 Target Progress Water Code Section 10608.40 Check the box if the Supplier was not an Urban Water Supplier during or before the 2020 UWMP reporting cycle. Proceed to the next table. Only for suppliers that did not meet the Target in 2020 See DWR NOTES below.
Was Supplier part of a Regional Alliance merger or Target or consolidation since Individual Target? Drop down list 2020?
No
Individual Target
2020 Target
114
Did Supplier Achieve Targeted Actual 2020 GPCD Reduction for 2020?
89
Yes
Actual 2025 GPCD (From SB X7-7 Compliance Form)
Did Supplier meet the 2020 Target in 2025?
NA
DWR NOTES: Suppliers calculating a 2025 GPCD will need to complete and submit SB X 7-7 Compliance Tables to verify the use of SB X7-7 Methodologies. Suppliers that were part of a merger or consolidation since 2020 see Chapter 5 and Appendix P for guidance. NA=Not Applicable NOTES:
10608.40 Urban water retail suppliers shall report to the department on their progress in meeting their urban water use targets as part of their urban water management plans submitted pursuant to Section 10631.
Submittal Table 6-1 Retail: Groundwater Volume Pumped Water Code Section 10631(4) and 10631(4)(c) Check the box if the Supplier does not pump groundwater. Proceed to the next table. Check the box if all or part of the groundwater described below is desalinated. (OPTIONAL) Groundwater Type Drop Down List May use each category multiple times
Potable or Non-Potable (OPTIONAL) Drop down list
Location or Basin Name
2021 (AF)
2022 (AF)
2023 (AF)
2024 (AF)
2025 (AF)
Central Basin
3,166
2,106
2,712
2,812
2,779
3,166
2,106
2,712
2,812
2,779
Add additional rows as needed
Alluvial Basin
Potable
Total
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3. NOTES
10631(4) If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier, all of the following information: (C) A detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records.
Submittal Table 6-2 Retail: Wastewater Collected Within Service Area Water Code Section 10633(a) Check the box if there is no wastewater collection system. Proceed to the next table. Percentage of 2025 service area served by wastewater collection system (OPTIONAL) Percentage of 2025 service area population served by wastewater collection system (OPTIONAL) Wastewater Collection Name of Wastewater Collection Agency
Recipient of Collected Wastewater
Wastewater Volume Metered Volume of Wastewater Collected from UWMP or Estimated? Service Area 2025 (AF) OPTIONAL Drop Down List
Name of Wastewater Is WWTP Treatment Plant (WWTP) and Located Within Place ID Number UWMP Area? Drop down list
Drop Down List
Add additional rows as needed LACSD
Estimated
139
A.K. Warren Water Resource Facility, Place ID 234156
No
LACSD
Estimated
139
Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant, Place ID 235826
No
LACSD
Estimated
139
Los Coyotes WRP, Place ID 238646
No
San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant, Place ID 260156
No
LACSD
Estimated
139
LACSD
Estimated
139
LACSD
Estimated
139
LACSD
Estimated
139
Total Wastewater Received from UWMP Service Area in 2025:
Long Beach WRP, Place ID 238562 Pomona Water Reclamation Plant, Place ID 250700 La Canada WWRP, Place ID 237748
No No No
973
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3. Additional Guidance: See Appendix M, Section M.21 for detailed guidance on this table. NOTES:
Submittal Table 6-3 Retail: Wastewater Treatment and Outcomes Within UWMP Service Area Water Code Section 10633(b) Check the box if no wastewater is treated or disposed of within the UWMP service area. Proceed to the next table.
2025 Outcomes of Treated Wastewater Does This Plant Treat Wastewater Wastewater Treatment Generated Plant Name and Place ID Outside the Number UWMP Service Drop down list Area? (OPTIONAL) Drop down list
2025 Volume of Wastewater Water Recycled Within Received from Total 2025 UWMP Service Area UWMP Service Volume of (enter data as applicable) Area Water (As Reported in Treated (AF) Submittal Table 6-2 R) (AF) Treatment Level Volume Drop down list (AF)
Water Recycled Outside of UWMP Service Area (enter data as applicable)
Treatment Level Drop down list
Volume (AF)
Effluent Discharge that is not a Permitted Recycled Water Use (enter data as applicable)
Treatment Level Drop down list
Volume (AF)
Required Discharge for Instream Flow
Delivered to Another Entity for Additional Treatment
(enter data as applicable)
(enter data as applicable)
Treatment Level Drop down list
Volume (AF)
Treatment Level Drop down list
Volume (AF)
Add additional rows as needed A.K. Warren Water Resource Facility, Place ID 234156
Yes
139
139
Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant, Place ID 235826
Yes
139
139
Secondary, Undisinfected
Los Coyotes WRP, Place ID 238646
Yes
139
139
Secondary, Disinfected - 23
Yes
139
139
Yes
139
139
Yes
139
139
Yes
139
139
San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant, Place ID 260156 Long Beach WRP, Place ID 238562 Pomona Water Reclamation Plant, Place ID 250700 La Canada WWRP, Place ID 237748
Total
973
973
0
0
0
0
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3. IPR: Indirect Potable Reuse would have the treatment level of its end use requirement in the Level of Treatment drop-down. Additional Guidance: See Appendix M, Section M.21 for detailed guidance on this table. NOTES:
0
Name of other entity
Submittal Table 6-4 Retail: Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Within Service Area Water Code Section 10633 (c),(d),(e) Check box if recycled water is not used and is not planned for use within the service area of the supplier. The supplier will only complete the column on "Potential Recycled Water Use" and submit an accompanying narrative on the feasibility of that potential recycled water use. Name(s) of Facility/ies Producing (Treating) the Recycled Water (OPTIONAL) : Name of Supplier Operating the Recycled Water Distribution System (OPTIONAL) : Volume of Supplemental Water Added in 2025 (OPTIONAL) : Source of 2025 Supplemental Water (OPTIONAL) :
LACSD Central Basin MWD 0
Potential Recycled Water Use Potable or Non-Potable Use Type Drop down list
(after treatment if treated) (OPTIONAL) Drop down list
Additional Information (as needed)
2025 (AF)
2030 (AF)
2035 (AF) 2040 (AF) 2045 (AF) 2050 (AF) Volume
Narrative page number (OPTIONAL)
Add additional rows as needed Landscape irrigation (exc golf courses)
Non-Potable
Industrial use
Non-Potable
253
253
253
253
253
13 13 13 13 13 Subtotal Potable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Non-Potable 266 266 266 266 266 0 0 Total 266 266 266 266 266 0 0 0 DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3. Additional Guidance: See Appendix M, Section M.21 for detailed guidance on this table. Potential recycled water use: a description of the feasibility of these uses must be included in the narrative. Multiple Producers: If you have multiple recycled water producers, submit a separate table for each. NOTES:
10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier... and shall include... (c) A description of the recycled water currently being used in the supplier’s service area, including, but not limited to, the type, place, and quantity of use d) A description and quantification of the potential uses of recycled water, including, but not limited to, agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, wildlife habitat enhancement, wetlands, industrial reuse, groundwater recharge, indirect potable reuse, and other appropriate uses, and a determination with regard to the technical and economic feasibility of serving those uses. (e) The projected use of recycled water within the supplier’s service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected pursuant to this subdivision.
Submittal Table 6-5 Retail: 2020 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2025 Actual Water Code Section 10633(e) Check the box if recycled water was not used in 2025 nor previously projected for use in 2020. Proceed to the next table. Use Type Drop Down list
2020 Projection for 2025 (AF)
2025 Actual Use (AF)
245 44 23
253 0 13
312
266
Add additional rows as needed
Landscape irrigation (exc golf courses) Golf course irrigation Industrial use
Total DWR NOTES:
Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure reported in Submittal Table 2-3 Additional Guidance: See Appendix M, Section M.21 for detailed guidance on this table.
NOTES:
10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier. The preparation of the plan shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning agencies that operate within the supplier’s service area, and shall include all of the following: (e) ...a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected pursuant to this subdivision
Submittal Table 6-6 Retail: Methods to Encourage Future Recycled Water Use Water Code Section 10633(f) Check the box if the Supplier does not plan to expand recycled water use in the future. Supplier will not complete the table below but will provide narrative explanation. Provide page location of narrative in the UWMP Name of Action
Description
Planned Implementation Year
Expected Increase in Recycled Water Use (AF)
Add additional rows as needed
Total (AF) Unit Conversion to AF
0 0
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) MUST remain consistent with units reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3. The unit conversion to Acre Feet addresses the Water Code's requirement that this value be provided in acre-feet. NOTES:
10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier. The preparation of the plan shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning agencies that operate within the supplier’s service area, and shall include all of the following: (f) a description of actions, including financial incentives, which may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water, and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre feet of recycled water used per year.
Submittal Table 6-7 Retail: Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs Water Code Section 10631(f) Check the box if there are no expected future water supply projects or programs that provide a quantifiable increase to the agency's water supply. Proceed to the next table. Check the box if some or all of the supplier's future water supply projects or programs are not compatible with this table and are described in a narrative format. Provide page location of narrative in the UWMP Joint Project with other suppliers? Name of Future Projects or Programs
Drop Down List (yes/no)
If Yes, Supplier Name
Additional Description (as needed)
Expected Increase in Potable or Non-Potable Planned Planned for Use in Water Supply (after treatment if treated) Implementation Year Type (OPTIONAL) to Supplier Drop Down List Year Drop Down list (This may be a range) (AF)
Add additional rows as needed
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure reported in Submittal Table 2-3. NOTES:
Submittal Table 6-8 Retail: Water Supplies — Actual Water Code Section 10631(b) 2025
Water Supply Drop down list May use each category multiple times. These are the only water supply categories that will be recognized by the WUEdata online submittal tool
Additional Description (as needed)
Potable or Non-Potable (after treatment if treated) (OPTIONAL) Drop Down list
Actual Volume (AF)
Potable Potable Potable Non-Potable
4,583 0 539 278 5,122 278 5,400
Total Entitlement (OPTIONAL) See 'DWR Notes' below (AF)
Add additional rows as needed
Groundwater (not desalinated) Other (optional) Purchased or Imported Water Recycled Water
CBMWD Carryover CBMWD CBMWD
Subtotal Potable Subtotal Non-Potable
Total
5,883 3,530
9,413 0 9,413
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3. Total Entitlement: e.g. Water Right, Groundwater Allocation, Contracted Amount. NOTES:
10631. A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter that shall do all of the following... (b) Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a), providing supporting and related information...
Submittal Table 6-9 Retail: Water Supplies — Projected Water Code Section 10631 (b) Projected Water Supply (Report to the Extent Practicable)
Water Supply Drop down list May use each category multiple times. These are the only water supply categories that will be recognized by the WUEdata online submittal tool
Additional Detail on Water Supply
2030
Potable or Non-Potable (after treatment if treated) (OPTIONAL) Drop Down list
2035
Total Entitlement Reasonably (OPTIONAL) Available See 'DWR Notes' Volume (AF) below (AF)
Reasonably Available Volume (AF)
2040
2045
2050 (opt)
Total Entitlement Total Entitlement Total Entitlement Reasonably Reasonably (OPTIONAL) (OPTIONAL) (OPTIONAL) Available Available See 'DWR Notes' See 'DWR Notes' See 'DWR Notes' Volume (AF) Volume (AF) below (AF) below (AF) below (AF)
Reasonably Available Volume (AF)
Total Entitlement (OPTIONAL) See 'DWR Notes' below (AF)
Add additional rows as needed
Groundwater (not desalinated) Other (optional) Purchased or Imported Water Recycled Water
CBMWD
Potable
5,883
5,883
5,883
5,883
5,883
5,883
5,883
5,883
5,883
5,883
Carryover CBMWD CBMWD
Potable Potable Non-Potable
2,664 500 338
3,530
2,664 500 338
3,530
2,664 500 338
3,530
2,664 500 338
3,530
2,664 500 338
3,530
9,047 338 9,385
9,413 0 9,413
9,047 338 9,385
9,413 0 9,413
9,047 338 9,385
9,413 0 9,413
9,047 338 9,385
9,413 0 9,413
9,047 338 9,385
9,413 0 9,413
Subtotal Potable Subtotal Non-Potable
Total DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. Total Entitlement: e.g. Water Right, Groundwater Allocation, Contracted Amount. NOTES:
10631. A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter that shall do all of the following... (b) Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year
Optional Submittal Table O-1A: Recommended Energy Reporting - SINGLE DELIVERY PRODUCT - WATER SUPPLY PROCESS APPROACH Water Delivery Product drop down list (If delivering more than one type of product recommend using Table O1C)
Retail Potable Deliveries
Start Date of Reporting Period End Date of Reporting Period
1/1/2025 12/31/2025
Is upstream embedded energy included in the values reported?
Only for Water Delivery Products Under the Urban Water Supplier's Operational Control
Non-Consequential Hydropower (if applicable)
Water Management Process
No Units for Water Volume
Volume of Water Entering Process Energy Consumed (kWh)
AF N/A
Energy Intensity (kWh/vol. converted to MG)
N/A
Extract and Divert
Place into Storage
Conveyance Treatment Distribution 5,122 5,444,758
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,262
Total Utility See DWR NOTES
Hydropower
0 5,444,758
5,444,758 0.0
Net Utility
0.0
0.00
DWR NOTES: Total Utility:The volume of water entered in the “Total Utility” column should equal the volume of water entering the distribution system (excluding recycled water); in most cases, this is the total volume calculated in UWMP Table 4-1: 2025 Actual Total Uses for Potable and Non-Potable Water. Note if recycled water is included in your Submittal Table 4-1, you must exclude it from your volume in this table. Quantity of Self-Generated Renewable Energy 0 kWh Data Quality (Estimate, Metered Data, Combination of Estimates and Metered Data)
Data Quality Narrative:
Narrative:
NOTES:
Optional Submittal Table 7-1 Retail: Basis of Water Year Data (Reliability Assessment) Available Supplies if Year Type Repeats Base Year
Year Type
If not using a calendar year, type in the last year of the fiscal, water year, or range of years, for example, water year 20242025, use 2025
Check the box if quantification of available supplies is not compatible with this table and is provided elsewhere in the UWMP. Location: [insert location from UWMP] Quantification of available supplies is provided in this table as either volume only, percent only, or both.
Average Year
2016
Volume Available (AF) 6,852
Single-Dry Year Consecutive Dry Years 1st Year Consecutive Dry Years 2nd Year Consecutive Dry Years 3rd Year Consecutive Dry Years 4th Year Consecutive Dry Years 5th Year
2018 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
7,094 7,175 7,433 7,308 7,151 7,289
% of Average Supply 100% 104% 105% 108% 107% 104% 106%
DWR NOTES: Supplier may use multiple versions of Submittal Table 7-1 R if different water sources have different base years and the supplier chooses to report the base years for each water source separately. If a Supplier uses multiple versions of Submittal Table 7-1 R, in the "Note" section of each submittal table, state that multiple versions of Submittal Table 7-1 R are being used and identify the particular water source that is being reported in each submittal table. Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table reports the units of measure reported in Submittal Table 2-3. NOTES:
Submittal Table 7-2 Retail: Normal Year Supply and Use Comparison Water Code Section 10635 (a) 2030 (AF)
2035 (AF)
2040 (AF)
2045 (AF)
2050 (AF)
Supply totals (autofill from Submittal Table 69 R)
9,385
9,385
9,385
9,385
9,385
Use totals (autofill from Submittal Table 42 R)
5,527
5,690
5,859
6,032
6,086
Surplus/(shortfall)
3,858
3,695
3,526
3,353
3,299
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions WSCP - supply augmentation benefit WSCP - use reduction savings benefit Revised Surplus/(shortfall) DWR NOTES : Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.
NOTES:
If you choose to fill these optional tables, please paste the combin OPTIONAL Submittal Table 7-2 Retail: Normal Year Supply and Use Comparison - POTABLE
Supply totals (autofill from Submittal Table 6-9 R) Use totals (autofill from Submittal Table 4-2 R) Surplus/(shortfall)
2030 (AF) 2035 (AF)
2040 (AF)
2045 (AF)
2050 (AF)
9,047
9,047
9,047
9,047
9,047
5,527
5,690
5,859
6,032
6,086
3,520
3,357
3,188
3,015
2,961
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions WSCP - supply augmentation benefit WSCP - use reduction savings benefit Revised Surplus/(shortfall) NOTES:
lease paste the combined information in the submittal table to the left. OPTIONAL Submittal Table 7-2 Retail: Normal Year Supply and Use Comparison NON-POTABLE 2030 (AF) 2035 (AF) Supply totals (autofill from Submittal Table 6-9 R) Use totals (autofill from Submittal Table 4-2 R) Surplus/(shortfall)
Revised Surplus/(shortfall) NOTES:
2045 (AF)
2050 (AF)
338
338
338
338
338
0
0
0
0
0
338
338
338
338
338
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions WSCP - supply augmentation benefit WSCP - use reduction savings benefit
2040 (AF)
Submittal Table 7-3 Retail: Single Dry Year Supply and Use Comparison Water Code Section 10635(a)
2030 (AF) 2035 (AF) 2040 (AF) 2045 (AF)
2050 (AF)
Supply totals
9,717
9,717
9,717
9,717
9,717
Use totals
5,538
5,701
5,871
6,044
6,098
Surplus/(shortfall)
4,179
4,016
3,846
3,673
3,619
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions WSCP - supply augmentation benefit WSCP - use reduction savings benefit Revised Surplus/(shortfall) DWR NOTES : Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. NOTES
10635. (a) Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. This water supply and demand assessment shall compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the long-term total projected water use over the next 20 years, in fiveyear increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years.
Submittal Table 7-4 Retail: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Use Comparison Water Code Section 10635(a) 2030 (AF) 2035 (AF) 2040 (AF) 2045 (AF) 2050 (AF) Supply totals Use totals Surplus/(shortfall) OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions WSCP - supply augmentation benefit WSCP - use reduction savings benefit Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
9,828 5,538 4,290
9,828 5,701 4,127
9,828 5,871 3,957
9,828 6,044 3,784
9,828 6,098 3,730
Supply totals Use totals Surplus/(shortfall) Second year OPTIONAL WSCP Actions WSCP - supply augmentation benefit WSCP - use reduction savings benefit Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
10,181 5,870 4,311
10,181 6,043 4,138
10,181 6,223 3,958
10,181 6,407 3,774
10,181 6,464 3,717
Supply totals Use totals Surplus/(shortfall) Third year OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions WSCP - supply augmentation benefit WSCP - use reduction savings benefit Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
10,010 6,223 3,787
10,010 6,406 3,604
10,010 6,596 3,414
10,010 6,791 3,219
10,010 6,852 3,158
Supply totals Use totals Surplus/(shortfall) Fourth year OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions WSCP - supply augmentation benefit WSCP - use reduction savings benefit Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
9,795 6,596 3,199
9,795 6,790 3,005
9,795 6,992 2,803
9,795 7,199 2,596
9,795 7,263 2,532
Supply totals Use totals Surplus/(shortfall) OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions WSCP - supply augmentation benefit WSCP - use reduction savings benefit Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
9,984 6,992 2,992
9,984 7,198 2,786
9,984 7,412 2,572
9,984 7,630 2,354
9,984 7,699 2,285
First year
Fifth year
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.
NOTES:
Submittal Table 7-5 Retail: Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment Water Code Section 10635(b)(3) 2026
Total
Total Water Use (AF) Total Supplies (AF) Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action
5,226 5,309 83
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF) WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF) Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
2027
Total Total Water Use (AF)
5,258
Total Supplies (AF)
5,497
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action
239
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF) WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF) Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
2028
Total Total Water Use (AF)
5,291
Total Supplies (AF) Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action
5,691 400
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF) WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF) Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
2029
Total
Total Water Use (AF) Total Supplies (AF) Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action
5,324 5,892 568
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF) WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF) Revised Surplus/(shortfall)
2030
Total Total Water Use (AF) Total Supplies (AF)
5,356 6,101
Surplus/Shortfall w/o WSCP Action
745
OPTIONAL Planned WSCP Actions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP - supply augmentation benefit (AF) WSCP - use reduction savings benefit (AF) Revised Surplus/(shortfall) DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. NOTES:
10635 (b) Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, a drought risk assessment for its water service... The drought risk assessment shall include each of the following: (1) A description of the data, methodology, and basis for one or more supply shortage conditions that are necessary to conduct a drought risk assessment for a drought period that lasts five consecutive water years, starting from the year following when the assessment is conducted. (2) A determination of the reliability of each source of supply under a variety of water shortage conditions. This may include a determination that a particular source of water supply is fully reliable under most, if not all, conditions. (3) A comparison of the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use for the drought period. (4) Considerations of the historical drought hydrology, ...
Submittal Table 8-1: Cross-reference for Standard vs Supplier Shortage Levels Water Code Section 10632(a)(3)(B) Check the box if the Supplier uses the Standard six levels of water shortage. Proceed to the next table. Standard Shortage Levels
Percent Shortage Range
Suppliers Shortage Levels
Percent Shortage Range
1
Up to 10%
N/A
0%
2
Up to 20%
1
Up to 15%
3
Up to 30%
2
15 to 25%
4
Up to 40%
3
25 to 35%
5
Up to 50% 4
35 to 50%
6 NOTES:
>50%
Submittal Table 8-2 Retail: Supply Augmentation and Other Actions Water Code Section 10632(a)(4)(A),(C) and (E) Is the Supplier completing this table using the standard six levels? (yes/no)
Shortage Level
Supply Augmentation Methods and Other Actions by Water Supplier Drop down list These are the only categories that will be accepted by the WUEdata online submittal tool
How much is this going to reduce the shortage gap? Additional Explanation or Reference Volume or Percentage Drop down
Shortage Gap Reduction Value (May be a range) (AF)
(OPTIONAL)
Add additional rows as needed
All Stages Other Actions (describe) 4-6 Other Purchases
Reduce Water System Loss
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. NOTES: 10632(a)(4) Shortage response actions that align with the defined shortage levels and include, at a minimum, all of the following: (A) Locally appropriate supply augmentation actions. (C) Locally appropriate operational changes. (E) For each action, an estimate of the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation of the action.
Submittal Table 8-3 Retail: Demand Reduction Actions Water Code Section 10632(a)(4)(B),(D), and (E) Yes
Is the Supplier completing this table using the standard six levels? (yes/no) Demand Reduction Actions
Shortage Level
Drop down list These are the only categories that will be accepted by the WUEdata online submittal tool. Select those that apply.
How much is this going to reduce the shortage gap? Volume or Percentage Drop down
Shortage Gap Reduction Value (May be a range) (AF)
Penalty, Charge, or Other Additional Explanation or Reference Enforcement? (OPTIONAL) For Retail Suppliers Only Drop Down List
Add additional rows as needed
1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3
Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific days Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a timely manner Landscape - Restrict or prohibit runoff from landscape irrigation Other - Prohibit use of potable water for washing hard surfaces Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains CII - Restaurants may only serve water upon request Other - Prohibit use of potable water for construction and dust control Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a timely manner
Percentage
10
Yes
Percentage
10
Yes
Percentage
10
Yes
Percentage
10
Yes
Percentage
20
Yes
Percentage
20
Yes
Percentage
20
Yes
Percentage
30
Yes
Percentage
30
Yes
3
4 4
Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as Percentage fountains Other - Prohibit vehicle washing except at facilities using recycled or Percentage recirculating water Landscape - Other landscape restriction Percentage or prohibition
30
Yes
40
Yes
40
Yes
4
Other
Percentage
40
5
Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a timely manner
Percentage
50
6
Other
Percentage
55
Main line flushing is allowed for emergency purposes only
Yes Yes
Additional prohibited uses as determined by the City Council
Yes
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. NOTES:
10632(a)(4) Shortage response actions that align with the defined shortage levels and include, at a minimum, all of the following: (B) Locally appropriate demand reduction actions to adequately respond to shortages. (D) Additional, mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices that are in addition to state-mandated prohibitions and appropriate to the local condition (E) For each action, an estimate of the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation of the action.
Submittal Table 10-1 Retail: Notification to Cities and Counties Water Code Section 10621(b) and 10642 City Name
60 Day Notice Drop Down (yes/no)
Notice of Public Hearing Drop Down (yes/no)
Add additional rows as needed City of Long Beach
Yes
Yes
County Name
60 Day Notice
Drop Down List
Drop Down (yes/no)
Notice of Public Hearing Drop Down (yes/no)
Add additional rows as needed
NOTES:
CWC 10621 (b)Notify at least 60 days prior to the public hearing any city or county within which the supplier provides water that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. CWC 10642 The water supplier is to provide the time and place of the hearing to any city or county within which the supplier provides water.
Appendix I Newspaper Notification
CITY OF PARAMOUNT 16400 COLORADO AVENUE PARAMOUNT, CALIFORNIA (562) 220-2020 crequest@paramountcity.gov NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (UWMP) AND WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN UPDATES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Paramount will conduct a public hearing to review and approve the City’s 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (2025 UWMP), including the proposed Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP). The purpose of the hearing is to consider public comments prior to recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed 2025 UWMP, including the proposed WSCP. The public hearing will be held at the City Council meeting scheduled to be held at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 23, 2026 in the Council Chamber at Paramount City Hall, 16400 Colorado Avenue, Paramount, California. Participants may provide their comments orally, in writing, or via email at crequest@paramountcity.gov. Email comments must be received by 4:45 p.m. on Tuesday, June 23, 2026. Additional options for public participation may be provided at the time the agenda is posted. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s office at (562) 220-2220 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. Any correspondence regarding this matter should be sent to the City Clerk, City Hall, 16400 Colorado Avenue, Paramount, California. Any and all persons interested in the matter contained herein may appear and be heard at the above-mentioned time and place. If you have any questions, please contact Michelle Müller at (562) 220-2020. /s/ Heidi Luce City Clerk DATE OF PUBLICATION: June 11 and June 18, 2026 PARAMOUNT JOURNAL (Three affidavits please)
Appendix J Checklist
Retail (x = required)
Wholesale (x = required)
Order
x
x
1
Chapter 1
10615
A plan shall describe and evaluate sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation and demand management activities.
Introduction and overview
n/a
x
x
1
Chapter 1
10630.5
Each plan shall include a simple description of the Supplier’s plan including water availability, future requirements, a strategy for meeting needs, and other pertinent information. Additionally, a Supplier may also choose to include a simple description at the beginning of each chapter.
Plan preparation
n/a
2025 Guidebook Location
Water Code Section
x
x
2.1
Section 2.1
10620(b)
x
n/a
2.5
Section 2.5
10644
x
x
2.5
Section 2.5
10644
x
x
2.5
Section 2.5
10644
x
x
2.4
Section 2.4
10642
x
x
2.4
Section 2.4.2
10620(d)(3)
x
n/a
2.4
Section 2.4.1
10631(h)
n/a
x
2.4
Section 2.4.1
10631(h)
x
x
3
Chapter 3.0
10631(a)
x
x
3.3
Section 3.3
10631(a)
x
x
3.4
Section 3.4.1
10631(a)
x
x
3.4
Section 3.4.2
10631(a)
x
x
3.5
Section 3.5
10631(a)
x
Optional
4.2
Sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4
10631(d)(1)
x
Optional
4.3
Section 4.3.1
10631(d)(3)(A)
x
n/a
4.3
Section 4.3.2
10631(d)(3)(C)
x
n/a
4.2
Section 4.2.5.4
10631.1(a)
x
n/a
4.2
Section 4.2.5.3
10631(d)(4)(A)
x
n/a
4.2
Section 4.2.5.3
10631(d)(4)(B)
x
n/a
4.2
Section 4.2.5.3
10631(d)(4)(B)(ii)
x
x
4.2
Section 4.2.5.6
10635(b)
n/a
x
5.1
Section 5.1
10608.36
x
n/a
5.2
Section 5.2
10608.4
x
x
6.1
Section 6.1
10631(b)(2)
x
x
6.1
Sections 6.1 and 6.2
10631(b)(1)
x
x
6.2
Section 6.2.2
10631(b)(4)(C)
x
x
6.2
Section 6.2.2
10631(b)(4)(A)
x
x
6.2
Section 6.2.2
10631(b)(4)(B)
x
x
6.2
Section 6.2.2
10631(b)(4)(B)
Summary as Applies to UWMP
Subject
Every person that becomes a Supplier shall adopt UWMP within one year after it has become a Plan preparation Supplier. Supplier shall report the Public Water Systems number, volume of delivered water, and number of Plan preparation connections that are included in this UWMP. Supplier shall report if this UWMP is an individual UWMP and whether the Supplier belongs to a regional Plan preparation UWMP or regional alliance. Supplier shall report whether the data is in fiscal or calendar years and the units of measure used for Plan preparation reporting water volumes. Provide supporting documentation that the Supplier has encouraged active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the Plan preparation preparation of the plan and contingency plan. Coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other Plan preparation Suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable. Retail Suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their Wholesale Supplier(s)—if Plan preparation any—with water use projections from that source.
Wholesale Suppliers will provide their Suppliers with identification and quantification of the existing and Plan preparation planned sources of water available from the Wholesale Supplier to the Supplier during various water year types. Describe the Supplier service area. System description Describe the climate of the Supplier’s service area. Provide the current and projected service area populations for 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045 and optionally 2050. Describe other social, economic, and demographic factors affecting the Supplier’s water management planning. Describe the land uses within the service area… include the current and projected land uses within the existing or anticipated service area affecting the Supplier’s water management planning. Describe the land uses within the service area. Quantify past, current, and projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors.
Relevant Submittal Table
n/a
2025 UWMP Location
1-1, 2-5
2-1 2-2 2-3 n/a
2-5
n/a
2-5
2-4 R
6-1
2-4 W
6-1
n/a
3-2
System description
n/a
3-2
System description
3-1
3-2
System description
n/a
3-2
System description and baselines n/a
3-2
System water use
4-1 and 4-2
4-1
Report the distribution system water loss for each of the five years preceding the plan update.
System water use
4-5
Retail Suppliers shall provide data to show the distribution loss standards were met. Include projected water use needed for lower income housing projected in the service area of the Supplier. In projected water use, include estimates of water savings from adopted codes, plans, and other policies or laws. Provide citations of codes, standards, ordinances, or plans used to make water use projections. To the extent that a Supplier reports the information described in subparagraph (A), an urban water Supplier shall… Indicate the extent that the water use projections consider savings from codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans. Water use projections that do not account for these water savings shall be noted of that fact. Demands under climate change considerations must be included as part of the drought risk assessment. Wholesale Suppliers shall include an assessment of present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies to help their Retail Suppliers achieve targeted water use reductions.
System water use
4-6
System water use
4-3
System water use
4-3
Retail Suppliers shall report on their compliance in meeting their water use targets. Reporting requirements will vary depending on whether the Supplier: - Was considered an urban retail water supplier in 2020, - Met its 2020 target in 2020, or - Was part of a merger or consolidation since 2020. Chapter 5 Subsections 5.2.1, 5.2.2, and 5.2.3 address each of these situations.
System water use
4-3
System water use
4-3
System water use
n/a
Baselines and targets
n/a
Baselines and targets
5-1
When multiple sources of water supply are identified, describe the management of each supply in System supplies relationship to other identified supplies. Provide a discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal, single dry year, and a drought lasting five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, including changes in supply System supplies due to climate change. Indicate whether groundwater is an existing or planned source of water available to the Supplier. If Water supplies and recycled groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water… (include) a detailed description water and analysis of the location, amount and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the Supplier for the past five years. Indicate whether a groundwater sustainability plan or groundwater management plan has been adopted System supplies by the Supplier or if there is any other specific authorization for groundwater management. Include a copy of the plan or authorization. Describe the groundwater basin. System supplies Indicate if the basin has been adjudicated and include a copy of the court order or decree and a System supplies description of the amount of water the Supplier has the legal right to pump. For unadjudicated basins… (include) information as to whether DWR has identified the basin as a highor medium-priority basin in the most current official departmental bulletin… For unadjudicated basins… describe efforts by the Supplier to coordinate with sustainability or groundwater agencies to achieve sustainable groundwater conditions. If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water… (include) a detailed description and analysis of the location, amount and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the Supplier for the past five years. Provide a detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped. Identify and quantify the existing and planned sources of water available for 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045 and optionally 2050.
Water supplies and recycled water Water supplies and recycled water
Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long-term basis.
7-2
n/a n/a
6-1
n/a
6-1
n/a
6-2
n/a
6-2
n/a
6-2
n/a
6-2
x
x
6.2
Section 6.2.2
10631(b)(4)(B)
x
x
6.2
Section 6.2.2
10631(b)(4)(B)
x
x
6.2
Section 6.2.2.
10631(b)(4)(C)
x
x
6.2
Section 6.2.2
10631(b)(4)(D)
x
x
6.1
Section 6.1
10631(b)
x
x
6.2
Section 6.2.7
10631(c)
x
n/a
6.2
Section 6.2.5
10633(a)
x
x
6.2
Section 6.2.5
10633(b)
x
x
6.2
Section 6.2.5
10633(c)
Describe the recycled water currently being used in the Supplier's service area.
System supplies (recycled water) 6-4
x
x
6.2
Section 6.2.5
10633(d)
Describe and quantify the potential uses of recycled water and provide a determination of the technical and economic feasibility of those uses.
System supplies (recycled water) 6-4
x
x
6.2
Section 6.2.5
10633(e)
Describe the projected use of recycled water within the Supplier's service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, System supplies (recycled water) 6-4 and 6-5 and 20 years, and describe the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected.
System supplies
n/a
System supplies
6-9
System supplies
6-8 and 6-9
System supplies
n/a
Describe the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the Supplier’s service area with quantified System supplies (recycled water) 6-2 amount of collection and treatment and the disposal methods. Describe the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, System supplies (recycled water) 6-3 and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project.
6-5
x
x
6.2
Section 6.2.5
10633(f)
Describe the actions that may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year.
System supplies (recycled water) 6-6
x
x
6.2
Section 6.2.5
10633(g)
Provide a plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the Supplier's service area.
System supplies (recycled water) n/a
x
x
6.2
Section 6.2.6
10631(g)
x
x
6.2
Section 6.2.10
10631(f)
x
x
6.3
Section 6.3 and Appendix O
10631.2(a)
7.1
Section 7.1
10634
Describe desalinated water project opportunities for long-term supply. System supplies Describe the expected future water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken by the water System supplies Supplier to address water supply reliability in average, single-dry, and for a period of drought lasting five consecutive water years. System suppliers, energy The UWMP must include energy information, as stated in the code, that a Supplier can readily obtain. intensity Provide information on the quality of existing sources of water available to the Supplier and the manner Water supply reliability in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliability. assessment Service Reliability Assessment: Assess the water supply reliability during normal, dry, and a drought Water supply reliability lasting five consecutive water years by comparing the total water supply sources available to the assessment Supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years. Describe water management tools and options to maximize resources and minimize the need to import Water supply reliability water from other regions. assessment Provide a drought risk assessment as part of information considered in developing the demand Water supply reliability management measures and water supply projects. assessment Include a description of the data, methodology, and basis for one or more supply shortage conditions Water supply reliability that are necessary to conduct a drought risk assessment for a drought period that lasts five assessment consecutive years.
x
6-7
6-4
6-7
9-1
O-1A, O-1B, O-1C, and O-2 n/a
x
x
7.2
Section 7.2
10635(a)
x
x
7.2
Section 7.2.3
10620(f)
x
x
7.3
Section 7.3
10635(b)
x
x
7.3
Section 7.3
10635(b)(1)
x
x
7.3
Section 7.3
10635(b)(2)
x
x
7.3
Section 7.3
10635(b)(3)
x
x
7.3
Section 7.3
10635(b)(4)
x
x
8
Chapter 8
10632(a)
x
x
8
Chapter 8
10632(a)(1)
x
x
8.2
Section 8.2
10632(a)(2)(A)
x
x
8.2
Section 8.2
10632(a)(2)(B)
x
x
8.3
Section 8.3
10632(a)(3)(A)
x
x
8.3
Section 8.3
10632(a)(3)(B)
x
x
8.4
Section 8.4
10632(a)(4)(A)
x
x
8.4
Section 8.4
10632(a)(4)(B)
x
x
8.4
Section 8.4
10632(a)(4)(C)
x
x
8.4
Section 8.4
10632(a)(4)(D)
x
x
8.4
Section 8.4
10632(a)(4)(E)
x
x
8.4
Section 8.4.6
10632.5
The UWMP shall include a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan.
x
x
8.5
Section 8.5
10632(a)(5)(A)
Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any current or Water shortage contingency predicted water shortages. planning
n/a
Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any shortage response actions triggered or anticipated to be triggered and other relevant communications.
n/a
Include a determination of the reliability of each source of supply under a variety of water shortage Water supply reliability conditions. assessment Include a comparison of the total water supply sources available to the Supplier with the total projected Water supply reliability water use for the drought period. assessment Include considerations of the historical drought hydrology, plausible changes on projected supplies and Water supply reliability demands under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable assessment criteria. Water shortage contingency Provide a water shortage contingency plan (WSCP) with specified elements below. planning Water shortage contingency Provide an analysis of water supply reliability (from Guidebook Chapter 7) in the WSCP. planning Provide the written decision-making process and other methods that the Supplier will use each year to Water shortage contingency determine its water reliability. planning Provide data and methodology to evaluate the Supplier’s water reliability for the current year and one Water shortage contingency dry year pursuant to factors in the code. planning Define six standard water shortage levels of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% shortage, and greater than 50% shortage. These levels shall be based on supply conditions, including percent reductions in supply, Water shortage contingency planning changes in groundwater levels, changes in surface elevation, or other conditions. The shortage levels shall also apply to a catastrophic interruption of supply. Suppliers with an existing WSCP that uses different water shortage levels must cross reference their Water shortage contingency categories with the six standard categories. planning Suppliers with WSCPs that align with the defined shortage levels must specify locally appropriate supply Water shortage contingency augmentation actions. planning Water shortage contingency Specify locally appropriate demand reduction actions to adequately respond to shortages. planning Water shortage contingency Specify locally appropriate operational changes. planning Specify additional mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices that are in addition to Water shortage contingency State-mandated prohibitions are appropriate to local conditions. planning Estimate the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation Water shortage contingency of the action. planning
x
x
8.5
Section 8.5
10632(a)(5)(B), 10632(a)(5)(C)
x
n/a
8.6
Section 8.6
10632(a)(6)
Retail Supplier must describe how it will ensure compliance with and enforce provisions of the WSCP.
x
x
8.7
Section 8.7
10632(a)(7)(A)
Describe the legal authority that empowers the Supplier to enforce shortage response actions.
x
x
8.7
Section 8.7
10632(a)(7)(B)
x
x
8.7
Section 8.7
10632(a)(7)(C)
x
x
8.8
Section 8.8
10632(a)(8)(A)
x
x
8.8
Section 8.8
10632(a)(8)(B)
x
n/a
8.8
Section 8.8
10632(a)(8)(C)
x
n/a
8.9
Section 8.9
x
x
8.10
Section 8.10
n/a
1-1, 2-5
n/a
7-2
n/a
7-3
n/a 7-5
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 8-1 8-2 8-3 8-2 Table 8-3 8-2 and 8-3
Water shortage contingency plan n/a
Water shortage contingency planning
Provide a statement that the Supplier will declare a water shortage emergency per Water Code Chapter 3. Water Shortage Emergencies . Provide a statement that the Supplier will coordinate with any city or county within which it provides water for the possible proclamation of a local emergency. Describe the potential revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions. Provide a description of mitigation actions needed to address revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions. Retail Suppliers must describe the cost of compliance with Water Code Chapter 3.3, Excessive Residential Water Use During Drought .
10632(a)(9)
Retail Suppliers must describe the monitoring and reporting requirements and procedures that ensure appropriate data are collected, tracked, and analyzed for purposes of monitoring customer compliance.
Water shortage contingency planning
n/a
10632(a)(10)
Describe reevaluation and improvement procedures for monitoring and evaluation the WSCP to ensure risk tolerance is adequate and appropriate water shortage mitigation strategies are implemented.
Water shortage contingency planning
n/a
Analyze and define water features that are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from swimming pools and spas. Make available the WSCP to customers and any city or county where it provides water within 30 days after adoption of the plan. Retail Suppliers shall provide a description of the nature and extent of each demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The description will address specific measures listed in code. Wholesale Suppliers shall describe specific demand management measures listed in code, their distribution system asset management program, and Supplier assistance program. Retail Suppliers shall conduct a public hearing to discuss adoption, implementation, and economic impact of water use targets (recommended to discuss compliance). Notify, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing, any city or county within which the Supplier provides water that the Supplier will be reviewing the UWMP and considering amendments or changes to the plan.
Water shortage contingency planning Water shortage contingency planning
n/a
8.11
Section 8.11
10632(b)
x
x
8.12
Section 8.12
10632(c)
x
n/a
9.1
Sections 9.1
10631(e)(1)
n/a
x
9.2
Sections 9.2
10631(e)(2)
x
n/a
10
Chapter 10
10608.26(a)
x
x
10.2
Section 10.2.1
10621(b)
x
x
10.4
Section 10.4
10621(f)
x
x
10.2
Sections 10.2.2, 10.3, and 10.5
10642
x
x
10.2
Section 10.2.2
10642
x
x
10.3
Section 10.3.2
10642
Each urban water Supplier shall update and submit its 2025 plan to DWR by July 1, 202 6. Provide supporting documentation that the Supplier made the UWMP and WSCP available for public inspection, published notice of the public hearing, and held a public hearing about the UWMP and WSCP. The Supplier is to provide the time and place of the hearing to any city or county within which the Supplier provides water. Provide supporting documentation that the UWMP and WSCP has been adopted as prepared or modified.
7-4
n/a
Water shortage contingency planning Water shortage contingency planning Water shortage contingency planning Water shortage contingency planning Water shortage contingency planning Water shortage contingency planning Water shortage contingency planning
x
7-1
7-2, 7-3, and 7-4
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a
Demand management measures
n/a
Demand management measures
n/a
Plan adoption, submittal, and implementation
n/a
Plan adoption, submittal, and implementation
10-1
Plan adoption, submittal, and implementation
n/a
Plan adoption, submittal, and implementation
n/a
2-5
10-1
2-5
n/a
2-5
Plan adoption, submittal, and implementation Plan adoption, submittal, and implementation
4-7
1-1
Provide supporting documentation that the Supplier has submitted their UWMP to the California State Library. Provide supporting documentation that the Supplier has submitted their UWMP to any city or county within which the Supplier provides water no later than 30 days after adoption.
Plan adoption, submittal, and implementation Plan adoption, submittal, and implementation Plan adoption, submittal, and implementation Plan adoption, submittal, and implementation
x
x
10.4
Section 10.4
10644(a)
x
x
10.4
Section 10.4
10644(a)(1)
x
x
10.4
Sections 10.4.1 and 10.4.2
10644(a)(2)
The UWMP, or amendments to the UWMP, submitted to DWR shall be submitted electronically.
x
x
10.7
Section 10.7.2
10644(b)
If revised, submit a copy of the WSCP to DWR within 30 days of adoption.
x
x
10.5
Section 10.5
10645(a)
Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its UWMP with DWR, the Supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.
Plan adoption, submittal, and implementation
n/a
Plan adoption, submittal, and implementation
n/a
Plan adoption, submittal, and implementation
n/a
x
x
10.5
Section 10.5
10645(b)
Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its WSCP with DWR, the Supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.
x
x
10.6
Section 10.6
10621(c)
If Supplier is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, include its plan and contingency plan as part of its general rate case filings.
n/a n/a n/a n/a
2-2