Earthquake Ongoing
Preliminary efforts have been made; coordination
with utility departments is needed to assess
infrastructure systems
Develop better understanding of the level of risk
posed by dam failures, including warning times,
flood depths and velocities.
Flood Ongoing
Risk modeling and planning support is being
provided through federal and state partners to
improve understanding of flood impacts
Evaluate and improve notification, evacuation and
response planning for dam failures. Flood Ongoing
Continued coordination with public safety
agencies is needed to refine evacuation and
notification procedures.
Track and map localized flooding events to reduce
property damage.
Flood Removed
There have been no major flooding events in last
5 years. The last occurrence was in 2017 at City
Hall. The City is monitoring localized flooding
incidents continuously to inform future mitigation
and maintenance priorities.
Evaluate critical city water and wastewater
infrastructure such as motor control cabinets and
pumps to minimize flood losses.
Flood Ongoing
Additional coordination with utility departments is
needed to evaluate vulnerabilities and plan for
future improvements.
Ensure that future critical facilities are at high
enough elevations to avoid damage from floods or
dam failures.
Flood Complete
Elevation and drainage considerations are
integrated during site review and development of
critical infrastructure.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-20
Continue to encourage Southern California Edison
to maintain vigorous tree trimming programs and
encourage building owners to trim vegetation
endangering service drops.
Windstorm Complete
The City supports utility efforts and encourages
residents to maintain private property to prevent
service disruptions.
Gather, publicize, and distribute windstorm
preparedness and mitigation brochures from
FEMA, California Public Utilities Commission,
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works
and Southern California Edison.
Windstorm Ongoing
Educational materials are distributed at events
and through public outreach campaigns to
improve household-level preparedness, but need
to be updated to reflect current information.
Create a City-wide database of windstorm
damages, including service request codes and GIS
layers.
Windstorm Ongoing
Tracking systems exist but are not currently
windstorm-specific; further development is needed
to improve data availability
Continue to enhance Lakewood's existing water
conservation measures and programs.
Drought Ongoing
The City is continuously implementing
conservation-oriented landscape and
infrastructure projects. Water capture projects that
were completed will use the water captured to
water the parks.
Continue existing water transfer agreements with
neighboring water utilities. Drought Ongoing
Existing agreements ensure regional water
reliability and support ongoing drought
preparedness efforts.
Evaluate options for increased use of recycled
water. Drought Complete
Evaluations have been completed and
incorporated into stormwater reuse and
conservation projects
Continue to work with regional water agencies to
improve conjunctive water management and urban
runoff water management
Drought Ongoing
Continued coordination is needed to align local
efforts with regional water management
strategies.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.1 Mitigation Progress Monitoring ...............................................................................5-2
5.2 Planning Mechanisms ............................................................................................5-3
5.3 Periodic Assessment Requirements .....................................................................5-12
5.4 Update Requirements ..........................................................................................5-13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5.1: Planning/Regulatory Tools Table ..................................................................5-6 Table 5.2: Administrative/Technical Tools Table ............................................................5-6 Table 5.3: Fiscal Tools Table.........................................................................................5-7 Table 5.4 Grant Funding Tools Table ............................................................................5-7 Table 5.5 Outreach and Partnership Tools....................................................................5-9 Table 5.6: Hazard Mitigation Plan Goals.....................................................................5-14 Table 5.7: Action Item Implementation........................................................................5-16 Chapter 5
Plan Maintenance
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-2
5.1 Mitigation Progress Monitoring
The Mitigation Strategy section in the Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies mitigation actions that have been prioritized based on the loss estimates and the probability of each hazard, which will typically be implemented according to the priority rank. To thoroughly track hazard mitigation status, the City of Lakewood (City) must continuously
monitor and document the progress of the implementation of mitigation actions. Though mitigation actions may be delegated to different departments within the City, the Public Safety Manager will have the responsibility of monitoring overall progress.
To facilitate this monitoring process, Table 5.7: “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. The table can be found at the end of this chapter.
Step 1:
Adopt the
mitigation plan
Step 2:
Implement Plan
Recommendations
Step 3:
Evaluate Your
Planning
Results
Step 4:
Revise the
Plan
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.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-3
5.2 Planning Mechanisms
The City maintains the following processes to incorporate mitigation strategies of the Hazard Mitigation Plan into planning mechanisms:
Website
The City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan will be posted on the City’s website to enable citizens to review and provide feedback regarding mitigation objectives and strategies. Feedback from residents can be incorporated during the annual review or five-year update of the Hazard Mitigation Plan and expand the
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee’s
(HMPC) 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
projects 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 and to the public. Hazard mitigation will be integrated into Public Works programs through its involvement in the HMPC. The Public Works Department has the ability to expand mitigation activities by implementing safety mechanisms throughout the City to §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.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-4
maximize resiliency. Any project improving City-owned structures would likely be carried out or overseen by the Public Works department.
Comissions
To assist the City Council in reviewing prominent issues, the City has established the three (3) commissions listed:
• Community Safety Commission
• Planning and Environment Commission
• Recreation and Community Services Commission
Community Development Department
The City’s Community Development Department oversees planning, zoning, code enforcement, building safety, and housing programs. The Building and Planning Division is responsible for reviewing construction plans and various building inspection activities.
The objective of this Division is to protect the public regarding building design and construction.
Assembly Bill (AB) 2140
Passed in 2006, AB 2140 compliance would allow the City to be considered for additional state cost-share on eligible Public Assistance. To be eligible, the City must have an approved Hazard Mitigation Plan and adopt that plan into the Safety Element of the City’s general plan. Although currently the hazard mitigation plan has not been adopted into the City’s Safety Element, doing so would allow the City to bring in more grant funding and reduce the administrative burden of implementing mitigation projects. The City intends to adopt the current plan into the City’s Safety Element for future planning purposes.
Grant Funding
Grant Funding can be obtained through many different
Federal, State, and specialty organizations. Searching
for and obtaining additional funding for the City allows the City to implement improvement projects while
limiting the burden of project costs. As part of the
implementation strategy of this plan, obtaining grant
funding will be crucial to the success of implementing large mitigation actions. Table 5.4 Grant Funding includes a list of some of the City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-5
programs the City can explore to obtain supplemental funding to implement resiliency action.
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 Planning/Regulatory, Administrative/Technical, Fiscal, Grant funding, and Outreach/Partnership resources available to the City.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-6
Table 5.1: Planning/Regulatory Tools Table
Regulatory Tool Updated Comments
General Plan 1996, Update In Progress The City is currently in the process of updating its General Plan, which guides land use, safety, conservation, and economic development. While the comprehensive update is ongoing, the City adopted its 2021–2029 Housing Element in 2022, Hazard Mitigation Plan 2018 The Hazard Mitigation plan is the ultimate resource for hazard resiliency. Updated every 5 years with input from various neighboring communities and public stakeholders, the plan lays out a pathway for future resiliency efforts.
California State Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, local hazard mitigation planning efforts are meant to be an extension of the state mitigation plan. The state effort sets the tone for future mitigation efforts and draw attention to new areas for improvement within the community.
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards
Mitigation Plan
2020 Also with the County Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 stated that local mitigation plans are intended to be an extension of the County effort. As such, the County further clarifies the tone for the region with regard to resiliency efforts and draws attention to new areas for improvement within the community.
California Water Plan 2023 The state updated the California Water Plan in 2023 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 guide can be used as a springboard for ideas on how the City can build resilience during water shortages.
California Adaptation Planning Guide 2020 FEMA, CalOES, and the California Natural Resources Agency developed the California Adaptation Planning Guide to assist municipalities in recognizing local climate change and to provide guidance addressing potential vulnerabilities. This plan provides a basis for addressing the impacts of climate change for ongoing projects and community initiatives.
City of Lakewood Building Codes –
Article 8 of the Municipal Code
2025 The Building Code sets a standard for structural integrity throughout the City; impacting residences and business alike. The City can use code updates to improve resiliency for earthquake, flood, wind, and environmental-related hazards.
Table 5.2: Administrative/Technical Tools Table
Regulatory Tool Personnel/Resources
City Council The City Council can review and approve mitigation propositions for implementation.
Public Safety Division The Public Safety Manager is responsible for emergency preparedness and hazard mitigation planning. This is the division ultimately responsible for promoting the implementation of hazard mitigation objectives.
Community Development Department The Community Development Department is responsible for all developments within the City. This department will be able to include considerations for local hazards in new projects.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-7
Public Works Department The Public Works 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.
Water Resources Department Manages the city's water utility and operates the city's reclaimed water system. This department can serve as a key resource for hazard mitigation planning by providing data on water infrastructure vulnerabilities, identifying areas at risk of service disruption, and supporting strategies to strengthen system resilience against hazards.
Administrative Services Department Administration is a multi-faceted resource. The City may utilize experts in its many departments.
Table 5.3: Fiscal Tools Table
Regulatory Tool Available for Use
General Fund Yes, with approval
Capital Improvement Plan Yes
Authority to impose taxes for specific
purposes
Yes, with voter approval
Table 5.4 Grant Funding Tools Table
Grant Funding Tool Agency Purpose Contact
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
(PDM)
U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency
To provide funding for States, and communities for cost-effective hazard mitigation activities which complement a comprehensive hazard mitigation program and reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage and deconstruction of property.
FEMA
500 C Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20472
Phone (202) 646-4621
www.fema.gov
Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program
U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency
To prevent future losses of lives property due to disasters; to implement State of local hazard mitigation plans; to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during immediate recovery from a disaster; and to provide funding for previously identified mitigation measures to benefit the disaster area.
FEMA
500 C Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20472
Phone (202) 646-4621
www.fema.gov
Flood Mitigation Assistance
(FMA)
U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency
To help States and communities plan and carry out activities designed to reduce the risk of flood damage to structures insurable under the NFIP.
FEMA
500 C Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20472
Phone (202) 646-4621
www.fema.gov
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-8
Emergency Management
Performance Grants (EMPG)
U. S. Department of Homeland
Security; Federal Emergency
Management Agency
To encourage the development of comprehensive emergency management at the State and local level and to improve emergency management planning, preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery capabilities.
FEMA
500 C Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20472
Phone (202) 646-4621
www.fema.gov
Community Development Grant
Program (CDBG)
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development To develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment. Principally for low-to-moderate income individuals.
HUD
451 7th Street, S. W.
Washington, DC 20410-7000
Phone: (202) 708-3587
www.hud.gov
Public Assistance Program (PA)
U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency
To provide supplemental assistance to States, local governments, and certain private nonprofit organizations to alleviate suffering and hardship resulting from major disasters or emergencies declared by the President. Under Section 406, Public Assistance funds may be used to mitigate the impact of future disasters.
FEMA
500 C Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20472
Phone (202) 646-4621
www.fema.gov
Emergency Watershed
Protection
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resource
Conservation Service
To provide emergency technical and financial assistance to install or repair structures that reduce runoff and prevent soil erosion to safeguard life and property.
NRCS
PO BOX 2890
Washington, DC 20013
Phone: (202) 720-3527
www.nrcs.usda.gov
Disaster Mitigation and
Technical Assistance Grants
U.S. Department of
Commerce, Economic
Development Administration
To help States and localities to develop and /or implement a variety of disaster mitigation strategies.
EDA
Herbert C. Hoover Building
Washington, DC 20230
Phone: (800) 345-1222
www.eda.gov
Watershed Surveys and
Planning
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resource
Conservation Service
To provide planning assistance to Federal, State, and local agencies for the development of water coordination and related land resources programs in watersheds and river basins NRCS
PO Box 2890
Washington, DC 20013
Phone: (202) 720-3527
www.nrcs.usda.gov
National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP)
U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency
To mitigate earthquake losses that can occur in many parts of the nation providing earth science data and assessments essential for warning of imminent damaging earthquakes, land-use planning, engineering design, and emergency preparedness decisions.
FEMA
500 C Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20472
Phone (202) 646-4621
www.fema.gov
Engineering for Natural
Hazards
National Science Foundation Supports fundamental research that advances knowledge for understanding and mitigating the impact of natural hazards on constructed civil infrastructure National Science Foundation
Phone: (703) 292-7024
https://www.nsf.gov
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-9
Table 5.5 Outreach and Partnership Tools
Regulatory Tool Available for Use
City Website 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 Mutual Aid Agreements As part of expanding its resilience to the impacts of hazard events, the City will periodically review its current mutual aid agreements, identify gaps, and secure new agreements to expand its available mutual resources when necessary.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-10
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 events. 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: Expand Public Safety Department’s programs to provide specialized natural disaster training and safety for City personnel and the public, as appropriate. • Grant Funding: Expand search for grant funding specifically to assist with aging infrastructure improvements, water reliability, energy efficiency, and facility upgrades. • Outreach/Education: Engage City commissions and committees 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. The City has made meaningful progress in implementing mitigation strategies by leveraging existing resources and enhancing interdepartmental coordination. Since the previous planning cycle, the City completed efforts to ensure that future critical facilities are elevated to avoid flood or dam failure damage, supported Southern California Edison’s tree-trimming programs to reduce windstorm-related outages, and evaluated the use of recycled water—now incorporated into local conservation and stormwater reuse projects. These completed actions reflect the City's ongoing commitment to integrating mitigation into planning and operations. Additional efforts, such as seismic risk assessments, interagency communication improvements, and public education campaigns, remain active and continue to build community resilience.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-11
Available Planning Mechanisms to Incorporate Mitigation Requirements
The City uses the following local planning mechanisms for incorporating the mitigation requirements of the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
General Planning
The City is responsible for updating and incorporating mitigation actions and concepts into 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, among other things. Mitigation actions from the Hazard Mitigation Plan will be reviewed during the update of the General Plan 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.
Emergency Operations Plan
The City maintains an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) that includes profiles and specific responses for earthquakes, flooding, windstorms, and drought that are 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.
Capital Improvements Program
The City maintains a Capital Improvements Program
(CIP) with projects that are budgeted for at least a fiveyear period. Engineering mitigation projects are included within the CIP. Additionally, the projects
already included within the CIP are reviewed for
mitigation improvements (e.g., areas prone to flooding
are configured with mitigation elements, current
seismic design criteria is applied to construction, facility locations are reviewed for special hazards, etc.).
Progress for Planning Mechanism Incorporation
As mentioned, the City was able to make progress from the 2018 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan by implementing several of the suggested mitigation actions. Under the direction of the City’s Public Safety Manger, the Plan update will be able to be incorporated into future planning efforts.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-12
5.3 Periodic Assessment Requirements
Mitigation planning is an ongoing process, and as such, the Hazard Mitigation Plan 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 2018
Plan, an annual assessment will be completed to
document any changes in 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 major effects on City’s hazard vulnerabilities that would impact the conclusions or actions associated with the Hazard Mitigation Plan. In addition, these reviews will track the progress of proposed mitigation actions and the incorporation of mitigation planning in other City planning documents. As needed, these reviews can be used to promote mitigation action with the City or alter mitigation strategies within the plan, as appropriate.
If any of the above-mentioned goals have not made progress, Plan objectives can be brought to department heads for approval. The criteria for progress will be evaluated by the completion of mitigation actions, references of this Plan in planning mechanisms, and the frequency with which public comments, particularly from representatives of vulnerable groups are obtained.
Prior to the fifth year of the revision cycle and after the third annual review, these annual observations will be evaluated to determine what changes should be implemented in the required Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. The results of the annual evaluations will be folded back into each phase of the planning process and should yield decisions on how to update each section of the Plan. The official Plan update is expected to begin one year prior to the five-year anniversary date.
The City’s Public Safety Manager has the responsibility of implementing these annual and fiveyear requirements. During the annual review, if any updates are deemed minor, then the Management Analyst or designee will perform the updates. However, if more major updates are required, then the HMPC will be reconvened to discuss the effects on the Plan. For the fifth-year revision, the entire HMPC 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 HMPC members are responsible for providing updates for the Plan to the Public Safety Manager, as §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.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-13
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.
5.4 Update Requirements
The Emergency Management and Assistance regulations (44 CFR Part 201) state that it is the responsibility of local agencies (i.e., the City) 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.” As stated in Section 5.3, this responsibility lies with the Public Safety Manager. 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 CalOES/FEMA Additionally, the risk assessment portion of the plan will be reviewed to determine if the information should be updated or modified. Each division/department 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.
Plan Update
The City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan was last updated in 2018. During HMPC Meeting #2, the Plan goals were reviewed for consistency and applicability to the City, along with the goals from the 2023 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2020 Los Angeles County All-Hazards Mitigation Plan. Table 5.6 illustrates the changes in the priorities of the Plan.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-14
Table 5.6: Hazard Mitigation Plan Goals
2018 Plan Goals Current Plan Goals
Reduce the Threat to Life and Safety/
Reduce the Threats to Lakewood Buildings,
Facilities, and Infrastructure
Protect Life and Property
Enhance Emergency Response Capability,
Emergency Planning and Post-Disaster
Recovery
Imrpove Emergency Management Capabilities
and Post- Disaster Recovery
Vigorously Seek Funding Sources for
Mitigation Actions Explore Funding Sources for Mitigation Actions Increase Public Awareness of Natural
Hazards and Enhance Education and
Outreach Efforts
Enhance Public Awareness and Education
Incorporate Mitigation Planning into Natural
Resource Management and Land Use
Planning
Protect the Environment
As shown in Table 5.6, the overall intent of the Plan goals remains consistent with the 2018 LHMP; however, the goals have been refined for clarity and focus. For example, “Reduce the Threat to Life and Safety and “Reduce the Threat to Lakewood Buildings, Facilities, and Infrastructures” was updated to “Protect Life and Property,” and “Increase Public Awareness of Natural Hazards” was revised to “Enhance Public Awareness and Education.” Details of the Plan goals and objectives can be found in Chapter 4 of this Plan.
Continued Public Involvement
To facilitate ongoing public input, the completed and adopted Hazard Mitigation Plan will be posted on the City’s website and social media outlets 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 updating the Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City will solicit participation from HMPC participants to discuss any issues that need to be addressed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan update. Public participation will be solicited through public notices and advertised on the website.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-15
The goal of outreach regarding update meetings is to solicit public involvement in the HMPC, 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 the release of a public survey and discussions at City events. Results from the survey highlighted the hazards that were of most concern to the community. The City can use the
information from the survey results when deciding which mitigation action to implement. It can generally be assumed that actions reducing risk for the top-rated hazards will be well received by the community. More detailed information regarding the survey results can be found in Chapter 1 and Appendix D.
If Plan revisions are needed, the City will request involvement from vulnerable groups within the community. Public announcements via the City website will be supplemented by targeted outreach materials, such as letters and surveys, delivered directly to representatives of vulnerable populations. This approach will help ensure that outreach efforts are comprehensive and inclusive. Based on feedback received during the Weingart Senior Center event, the City will also consider a two-step outreach process when engaging residents aged 65 and older.
Many attendees of the event expressed a preference for receiving informational handouts in advance of public meetings to allow time for review and thoughtful input. In response, the City may hold two separate senior-focused events spaced approximately two weeks apart—one to distribute materials and present planning information, and a second to collect feedback after residents have had time to reflect.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-16
Table 5.7: Action Item Implementation
Action ID Action Description Responsible Department Completion Timeframe
Status Details/Status Summary
2025.HMP.01 Incorporate structural seismic strengthening into new and ongoing City structures and assets to ensure that facilities remain operational
Public Works Long Open
2025.HMP.02 Implement seismic studies to determine vulnerable locations throughout critical City facilities and implement structural improvements accordingly
Public Works Long Open
2025.HMP.03 Increase public education efforts regarding earthquake preparedness by expanding existing online outreach through social media, newsletters, and website updates
Communications
Department
Short Open
2025.HMP.04 Improve public outreach through multiple City platforms regarding air quality, focusing on vulnerable populations such as the elderly and very young, by providing clear guidance for protecting health during poor air quality events Communications
Department
Short Open
2025.HMP.05 Support public health efforts during disease outbreaks by distributing materials provided by public health agencies through multiple City platforms to ensure timely access to clear health protection guidance Communications
Department
Short Open
2025.HMP.06
Increase outreach and training for preselected Medical Points of Distribution (MPOD) sites in the city by regularly conducting training sessions for city staff and local volunteers to ensure operational readiness and effective coordination during emergencies
Public Safety
Department
Short Open
2025.HMP.07 Conduct a study to assess the capacity of existing water lines and infrastructure, identifying areas where flow rates and water pressure can be improved to better support fire suppression efforts during urban fire events Water Resources
Department Long Open
2025.HMP.08 Adjust the cycle of vegetation trimming in the City by identifying and prioritizing species that grow more aggressively, ensuring that trees and shrubs are regularly maintained to reduce the risk of windstorm damage Environmental
Resources Division
Short Open
2025.HMP.09 Develop and distribute recommendations for residents on how to protect their properties from windstorm damage, including recommended mitigation measures and best practices Communications
Department
Short Open
2025.HMP.10
Increase tree plantings around buildings to provide shade for parking lots and along public rights-of-way, prioritizing high-traffic areas and vulnerable populations, to reduce heat exposure and mitigate the urban heat island effect
Public Works Medium Open
2025.HMP.11
Develop and distribute educational materials through City platforms to raise awareness of the benefits of cool roofing, including its role in cooling buildings, reducing heat-related health risks, and improving overall energy efficiency
Communications
Department
Short Open
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-17
2025.HMP.12
Explore developing a process to ensure access to City pools during high heat events by advertising them as cooling options alongside cooling centers, and, if pool use is restricted, temporarily expand access to those who might not typically have access, and prioritize vulnerable populations if capacity limits are reached Recreation and
Community Services/
ERD
Medium Open
2025.HMP.13 Establish and maintain a mass notification system for the City, ensuring it is ready to deliver timely alerts and services during emergencies by conducting regular system setup, testing, and staff training Public Safety
Department
Short Open
2025.HMP.14 Make active shooter training available in multiple languages, including English, by providing translated materials and conducting sessions in languages spoken by the Limited English Proficient (LEP) population within the City Communications
Department
Medium Open
2025.HMP.15 Conduct cybersecurity risk assessments of City systems to identify vulnerabilities and implement necessary measures and updates to protect against cyber threats. Administrative Services Medium Open 2025.HMP.16 Distribute outreach materials to residents on how to respond during power outages, including safety tips, emergency contacts, and resources for maintaining essential services Communications
Department
Short Open
2025.HMP.17 Coordinate with utility providers to establish a prioritization plan for power restoration to critical City facilities, ensuring rapid response during emergencies
Public Works/ Water
Department
Medium Open
2025.HMP.18 Assess the feasibility of expanding reclaimed water use and identify new locations on City properties for the installation of drought-tolerant landscaping to enhance water conservation and drought resilience Public Works/ Water
Department Long Open
2025.HMP.19 Explore possible incentives for alternative landscaping and other water saving initiatives for additional areas Environmental
Resources Division
Medium Open
2025.HMP.20 Provide the public with updated information on the impacts of a release, including first response actions and community resources for relief, through accessible City platforms Communications
Department
Short Open
2025.HMP.21 Organize and conduct awareness and training courses for City personnel, including courses from the Paradigm Pipeline Organization, to enhance preparedness and response capabilities for emergency situations City Personnel Medium Open 2025.HMP.22
Conduct an updated commodity flow study to identify specific vulnerabilities in commercial transport routes, such as chokepoints or high-risk areas, and collaborate with regional agencies to develop contingency plans for mitigating disruptions that could affect public safety and businesses Administration/ Public
Works
Medium Open
2025.HMP.23 Expand coordination with Long beach Airport (and expand to other regional airports) to identify opportunities to reduce the vulnerability of residents to aviation incidents Administration/ City
Manager’s Office
Medium Open
2025.HMP.24 Assess drainage capacities throughout the City to identify areas of concern and prioritize improvements to reduce flood risk and enhance stormwater management
Public Works Long Open
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-18
2025.HMP.25 Ensure public outreach materials, including City and County mental health resources, are available in multiple languages on City platforms to ensure equitable access to important information Communications
Department
Short Open
2025.HMP.26 Identify elderly care facilities that may require assistance during evacuation scenarios and develop contingency plans to secure housing and shelter for impacted residents Community
Development/ Recreation
and Community Services
Short Open
2025.HMP.27
Reevaluate and update evacuation routes to ensure they are accessible, effective, and safe for all residents during an emergency event and provide the updated routes to the public through City communication platforms Community Development Short Open City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan A-1
ANNEX A. 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.
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.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan A-2
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 Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan A-3
Frequency - A measure of how often events of a particular magnitude are 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 City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan A-4
mitigation actions after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the program is to 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 counter-clockwise 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.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan A-5
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 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 City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan A-6
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.
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 City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan A-7
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 Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan B-1
ANNEX B. 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.
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
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
SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—
42 USC 5133
note.
42 USC 5121
note.
Disaster
Mitigation Act of
2000.
Oct. 30, 2000
[H.R. 707]
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 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 President.
42 USC 5133.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00003 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 114 STAT. 1554 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
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 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.
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00005 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 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:
‘‘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.
‘‘(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. 42 USC 5134.
Deadline.
President.
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:
‘‘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— President.
42 USC 5165.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 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.
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 President.
42 USC 5165a.
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:
‘‘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:
‘‘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.
President.
42 USC 5165c.
42 USC 5165b
note.
Deadline.
Regulations.
42 USC 5165b.
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.’’.
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.’’.
President.
President.
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00011 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 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—
President.
Regulations.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00013 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 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 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:
42 USC 5172
note.
Deadline.
Deadline.
President.
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
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00017 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 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 18-
month 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 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’’.
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 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.
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.
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).
SEC. 209. STUDY REGARDING COST REDUCTION.
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.
Deadline.
42 USC 5121
note.
Deadline.
42 USC 5121
note.
42 USC 5174
note.
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.
‘‘(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.
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 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.
SEC. 304. DISASTER GRANT CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES.
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—
42 USC 5205.
42 USC 5187
note.
President.
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 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 Deadline.
42 USC 5206.
42 USC 3796b
note.
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
Deadline.
42 USC 5121
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00025 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 114 STAT. 1576 PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 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
(4) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
Approved October 30, 2000.
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 City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan B-1
ANNEX B. 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.
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) [email protected].
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)
[email protected].
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
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
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
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:00 Feb 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM pfrm02 PsN: 26FER2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 8845 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,
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,
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
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 10:58 Feb 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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
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
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
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 10:58 Feb 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 26FER2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 8847 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
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:
Type of collection/forms No. of respondents
Hours per responseAnnual burden
hours
Update state or tribal mitigation plans (standard state mitigation plans) .................................... 18 320 5,760 State review of local plans .......................................................................................................... 500 local plans
8 4,000
States develop Enhanced State Mitigation Plans ....................................................................... 7 100 700 Local or tribal governments develop mitigation plans ................................................................. 500 local plans
300 150,000
Total burden ......................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 160,460 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
contacting Ms. Anderson at (202) 646–
2625 (voice), (202) 646–3347 (facsimile),
or by e-mail at
[email protected].
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
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
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:00 Feb 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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,
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 Purpose.
201.2 Definitions.
201.3 Responsibilities.
201.4 Standard State Mitigation Plans.
201.5 Enhanced State Mitigation Plans.
201.6 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,
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
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:00 Feb 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM pfrm02 PsN: 26FER2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 8849 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
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
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
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 10:58 Feb 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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
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
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
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 10:58 Feb 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 26FER2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 8851 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
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
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.
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 10:58 Feb 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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 General.
206.401 Local standards.
206.402 Compliance.
§ 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
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.
§ 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 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.
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.
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:00 Feb 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM pfrm02 PsN: 26FER2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 8853 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
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.
(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
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:00 Feb 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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,
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 Restoration of damaged
facilities.
* * * * *
(b) Mitigation planning. In order to
receive assistance under this section, as
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
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 10:58 Feb 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 26FER2 City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan C-1
ANNEX C. HAZARD ANALYSIS
The City of Lakewood (City) hazard identification and ranking was obtained primarily from Hazard Identification exercise. The Hazard Identification exercise was conducted as a participatory Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) exercise to identify the potential hazards within the City. The exercise was facilitated utilizing an automated interactive software spreadsheet program that asked specific questions on potential hazards and then rates them accordingly. These questions guided the team in the correct facilitation and application of the program. The following spreadsheet summarizes the Hazard Identification exercise 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 HMPC determined this
initial profile ranking based on all 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
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 where response resources are active. • Recovery – Length of time until lives and property return to normal.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan C-2
Table C.1 Risk Factors for Hazard Identification
RISK FACTOR DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTORS VALUE
PROBABILITY/ FREQUENCY Prediction of how often a
hazard will occur in the future.
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
CONSEQUENCE/SEVERITY
Physical Damage - structures
and lifelines
Economic Impact – loss of
function for power, water,
sanitation, roads, etc., as
applicable
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 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
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
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan C-3
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 Rank Matrix
PROBABILITY/
FREQUENCY DESCRIPTION RISK RANKING MATRIX
Rare Event:
Occurs less than once every 50
years
Probability/Frequency Consequence/Severity
Value 1 1 2 3 4 5
Vulnerability
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
Infrequent Event:
Occurs between once every 8
years and once every 50 years
(inclusive)
Probability/Frequency Consequence/Severity
Value 2 1 2 3 4 5
Vulnerability
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
Regular Event:
Occurs between once a year and
once every 7 years
Probability/Frequency Consequence/Severity
Value 3 1 2 3 4 5
Vulnerability
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
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan C-4
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 50-100
Moderately High Hazard 25-49
Moderate Hazard 15-24
Moderately Low Hazard 5-14
Low Hazard 1-4
The hazard ranking worksheets are provided in the following pages.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan C5
Table C.4 Hazard Identification and Risk Ranking
EARTHQUAKE
RANK FACTORS HAZARD FACTOR DESCRIPTION RANK
Probability Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive)
2 Consequence Extensive building damage, widespread loss of lifelines (water, gas, electricity, sanitation, roads), loss of life
5 Vulnerability Widespread damage area, significant secondary impacts, no warning time 5 Risk High 50
Comments Includes landslide and subsidence as potential secondary impacts
AIR QUALITY
RANK FACTORS HAZARD FACTOR DESCRIPTION RANK
Probability Frequent event - occurs more than once a year 4 Vulnerability Minor/slight damage to buildings and structures, no loss of lifelines, first aid injury and no disability
2 Consequence Widespread damage area, significant secondary impacts, no warning time 5 Risk Moderately High 40
Comments The team noted that this is a regular event. This terms captures both smoke from wildfires and volcanic eruptions. The team noted that per the census information, the children/elderly make up about 20% of the population and are likely to be impacted to a greater extent.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan C6
DISEASE
OUTBREAK
RANK FACTORS HAZARD FACTOR DESCRIPTION RANK
Probability Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive)
2 Consequence Extensive building damage, widespread loss of lifelines (water, gas, electricity, sanitation, roads), loss of life
5 Vulnerability Localized damage area, minor secondary impacts, delayed hazard onset 3 Risk Moderately High 30
Comments The team discussed recent Covid-19 Pandemic as well as West- Nile Virus.
URBAN FIRE
RANK FACTORS HAZARD FACTOR DESCRIPTION RANK
Probability Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive)
2 Consequence Extensive building damage, widespread loss of lifelines (water, gas, electricity, sanitation, roads), loss of life
5 Vulnerability Localized damage area, minor secondary impacts, delayed hazard onset 3 Risk Moderately High 30
Comments The team noted that the City is primarily built out with not much open space.
Additionally, the team noted that fire from Paramount Petroleum would cause significant damage. The facility is located on the other side of the border and therefore not captured in City maps.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan C7
WINDSTORM
RANK FACTORS HAZARD FACTOR DESCRIPTION RANK
Probability Regular event - occurs between once a year and once every 7 years 3 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 Moderately High 27
Comments The team mentioned a recent mini tornado in Montebello as well as one in Lakewood in 2023/2024 New Years.
EXTREME HEAT
RANK FACTORS HAZARD FACTOR DESCRIPTION RANK
Probability Regular event - occurs between once a year and once every 7 years 3 Vulnerability Moderate building damage, minor loss of lifelines (less than 12 hours), lost time injury but no disability
3 Consequence Localized damage area, minor secondary impacts, delayed hazard onset 3 Risk Moderately High 27
Comments Previously Extreme Temperatures, but renamed to Extreme Heat as city is not prone to freezing temperatures. The team mentioned the potential for a higher demand from fire and medical assistance during High Heat Events. The hazard profile will include brown outs and Public Safety Power Shutoffs. Additionally, the team noted that low income areas may be impacted if they do not have AC units.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan C8
DAM FAILURE
RANK FACTORS HAZARD FACTOR DESCRIPTION RANK
Probability Rare event - occurs less than once every 50 years 1 Consequence Extensive building damage, widespread loss of lifelines (water, gas, electricity, sanitation, roads), loss of life
5 Vulnerability Widespread damage area, significant secondary impacts, no warning time 5 Risk Moderately High 25
Comments The team noted that Whittier Narrows Dam is the main hazard and there is concern that the spillways are not sufficient to handle overflow. Past incident: 1960's dam failure near Culver City was discussed.
ADVERSARIAL
EVENTS
RANK FACTORS HAZARD FACTOR DESCRIPTION RANK
Probability Rare event - occurs less than once every 50 years 1 Vulnerability Extensive building damage, widespread loss of lifelines (water, gas, electricity, sanitation, roads), loss of life
5 Consequence Widespread damage area, significant secondary impacts, no warning time 5 Risk Moderately High 25
Comments The team identified the mall as a potential target because of the high traffic and potential impact to the community. Additionally, the team discussed civil unrest following George Floyd protests (incident in May/June of 2020) City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan C9
POWER LOSS
RANK FACTORS HAZARD FACTOR DESCRIPTION RANK
Probability Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive)
2 Consequence Moderate building damage, lifeline loss (less than 24 hours), severe injury or disability
4 Vulnerability Localized damage area 2
Risk Moderate 16
Comments The team mentioned that solar flares are capable of knocking out the power grid.
Many AC units running simultaneously can potentially blow the transformer.
Additionally, large transmission lines run through the City which may put the City at increased risk for fire. The team mentioned that there was one PSPS due to high winds in the past couple of years.
DROUGHT
RANK FACTORS HAZARD FACTOR DESCRIPTION RANK
Probability Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive)
2 Vulnerability Minor/slight damage to buildings and structures, no loss of lifelines, first aid injury and no disability
2 Consequence Moderate damage area, moderate secondary impacts, moderate warning time 4 Risk Moderate 16
Comments The team noted that the City is on hydroelectric system which has financial impact on the City when water supplies are low and biggest impact from drought was financial.
Additionally, all landscape watering cut off during 2007-2012 drought.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan C10
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
RELEASE
RANK FACTORS HAZARD FACTOR DESCRIPTION RANK
Probability Rare event - occurs less than once every 50 years 1 Consequence Extensive building damage, widespread loss of lifelines (water, gas, electricity, sanitation, roads), loss of life
5 Vulnerability Localized damage area, minor secondary impacts, delayed hazard onset 3 Risk Moderate 15
Comments The team mentioned pipelines running through the City as the main hazard. One of the rail lines transports chlorine. New gas line on Del Amo.
TRANSPORTATION
INCIDENT
RANK FACTORS HAZARD FACTOR DESCRIPTION RANK
Probability Rare event - occurs less than once every 50 years 1 Vulnerability Moderate building damage, lifeline loss (less than 24 hours), severe injury or disability
4 Consequence Localized damage area, minor secondary impacts, delayed hazard onset 3 Risk Moderately Low 12
Comments The team noted that the 605/91/405/710 are corridors for accidents. Additionally, the team discussed Oil and Gas pipelines that run through the City/ Fuel Storage on the west border with Long Beach/Alameda Generating Station (Alameda Stream) pipelines. The team suggested looking at aircraft incidents as the Long Beach Airport is on the border.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan C11
FLOOD
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 Moderately Low 8
Comments This hazard includes intense precipitation. It is meant to capture the natural hazard of heavy rainfall. The team noted that although there have been heavy rain events, there has been no damage to the City. Will include atmospheric rivers in this hazard profile.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan
D-1
ANNEX D. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND
PLANNING PROCESS
Public participation is a crucial component of the Hazard Mitigation Planning process, ensuring that the voices of all community members, including those from vulnerable populations, are incorporated into the development of effective mitigation strategies. For the City of Lakewood (City), the planning team prioritized inclusive outreach through a variety of engagement methods.
To ensure a well-rounded and inclusive outreach effort, the City utilized a combination of digital, in-person, and formal presentation methods to engage residents throughout the hazard mitigation planning process. Outreach activities were intentionally designed to meet people where they are—both physically and in terms of how they consume information. This approach helped the planning team connect with a broader cross-section of the community, including families, older adults, working professionals, and individuals who may be more difficult to reach through traditional communications.
A public survey was launched and hosted on the City’s website, offering a convenient and accessible way for residents to share their perspectives on local hazards and preparedness. The survey was promoted across City communication platforms to maximize visibility and encourage participation.
In-person outreach was conducted at the City’s farmers market and at the Palms Park Community Center, two highly frequented locations that attract a wide demographic mix.
At these locations, planning team members operated outreach booths to distribute materials, explain the hazard mitigation planning process, and collect feedback from passersby. Recognizing the importance of reaching vulnerable populations, the team also conducted direct outreach at the Weingart Senior Center, a popular facility for older adults in the community. This ensured that voices from a population that may face increased risk during emergencies were heard and included in the planning process. Additionally, a public workshop was hosted to provide a more structured opportunity for community members to learn about hazard risks, ask questions, and provide input. Approximately 15 individuals attended the workshop, which included a presentation and interactive City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan
D-2
discussion. To further promote transparency and participation, the planning team presented updates to the Planning and Environment Commission and made the full draft plan publicly available on the City’s website.
These efforts culminated in a formal presentation of the Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan to the City Council, creating additional visibility for the project and allowing for final comments and questions from both the public and City leaders. By using multiple channels and tailoring outreach strategies to different audiences, the City was able to generate broad engagement in the planning process.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-3
Survey Content and Responses
This section includes the survey questions followed by the responses received. Over a period of several weeks, the City received 125 responses from the public through the online survey. Those responses were tabulated and listed below.
1. In the past five years, have you or someone in your household experienced a disaster such as an Earthquake, Urban Fire, Windstorm, Civil Unrest, or Hazardous Materials Release? Answer Choices Responses Number Count
Yes 36% 45
No 64% 80
Total 100% 125
2. If yes, which of these disasters have you or someone in your household experienced? (Click all that apply) Answer Choices Responses Number Count
Earthquake 59.18% 29
Air Quality Issues 61.22% 30
Disease Outbreak 55.10% 27
Urban Fire 8.16% 4
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-4
Windstorm 26.53% 13
Extreme Heat 40.82% 20
Dam Failure 0% 0
Adversarial Events 8.16% 4
Power Loss 38.78% 19
Drought 30.61% 15
Hazardous Materials Release 0% 0
Transportation Incident 2.04% 1
Flood 0% 0
3. How concerned are you about the following disasters affecting the City of Lakewood? Completely
Unconcerned
Moderately
Unconcerned Concerned– Moderately Concerned
Extremely
Concerned Total
Earthquake
1.57%
2 7.87%
10 32.28%
41 37.80%
48 20.47%
26 127
Air Quality Issues
3.23%
4 17.74%
22 29.84%
37 28.23%
35 20.97%
26 124
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-5
Disease Outbreak
8.73%
11 26.19%
33 36.51%
46 16.67%
21 11.90%
15 126
Urban Fire
10.40%
13 30.40%
38 29.60%
37 19.20%
24 10.40%
13 125
Windstorm
8.80%
11 37.60%
47 26.40%
33 22.40%
28 4.80%
6 125
Extreme Temperatures
9.60%
12 26.40%
33 23.20%
29 26.40%
33 14.40%
18 125
Dam Failure
45.24%
57 28.57%
36 15.87%
20 4.76%
6 5.56%
7 126
Adversarial Events
12.20%
15 25.20%
31 38.21%
47 15.45%
19 8.94%
11 123
Power Loss
2.36%
3 20.47%
26 29.13%
37 32.28%
41 15.75%
20 127
Drought
3.97%
5 19.84%
25 30.95%
39 22.22%
28 23.02%
29 126
Hazardous Materials
Release
12.10%
15 24.19%
30 35.48%
44 15.32%
19 12.90%
16 124
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-6
Mass Transportation
Incident
20.33%
25 43.09%
53 27.64%
34 5.69%
7 3.25%
4 123
Flood
20.63%
26 33.33%
42 25.40%
32 12.70%
16 7.94%
10 126
4. Have you ever received or requested information on ways to make your family and/or home safer from local hazards? Answer Choices Responses Number Count
Yes 46.09% 59
No 53.91% 69
Total 100% 128
5. How recently did you receive this information?
Answer Choices Responses Number Count
None of the Above 35.78% 39
Within the Last 6 months 22.02% 24
Between 6 and 12 Months Ago 5.50% 6
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-7
Between 1 and 2 Years Ago 9.17% 10
Between 2 and 5 Years Ago 6.42% 7
5 Years Ago or More 7.34% 8
I Don’t Remember 13.76% 15
Total 100% 128
6. From whom did you last receive this information?
Answer Choices Responses Number Count
News Media 22.58% 21
Government Agency 26.88% 25
Insurance Agent or Company 9.68% 9
Utility Company 20.43% 19
American Red Cross 9.68% 9
Other Non-Profit Organization 6.45% 6
Web Search 12.90% 12
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-8
Unsure 29.03% 27
Other (Responses include: Public Libraries, Lakewood CERT, Lakewood Survive for 7 Workshop, Emergency Fair, City of Lakewood Facebook, City Newsletters, Marathon Petroleum, Local Realtors)
23.66% 22
7. What are the best ways for you to receive information about making your home and family safer from local disasters? (Please check all that apply)
Answer Choices Responses Number Count
Newspaper Stories 17.97% 23
Newspaper Ads 1.56% 2
Television News 27.34% 35
Television Ads 7.81% 10
Radio News 14.06% 18
Radio Ads 3.91% 5
Schools 9.38% 12
Outdoor Advertisements (Billboards, etc.) 10.16% 13
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-9
Books 0.78% 1
Mail 64.84% 83
Fire Department/Resue 17.19% 22
Internet Search 41.41% 53
Fact Sheet or Brochure available at City Facility or Event 45.31% 58 Chamber of Commerce 7.81% 10
Public Workshop/Meeting 26.69% 38
Magazine 3.91% 5
Social Media 46.09% 59
Other (Responses include: Email, Online Newsletter, E-Magazine) 10.16% 13
8. What steps, if any, have you or someone in your household taken to prepare for a disaster? (Check all that apply) Answer Choices Responses Number Count
Food 67.48% 83
Water 77.24% 95
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-10
Flashlight 92.68% 114
Batteries 83.74% 103
Battery Powered Radio 43.09% 53
Medical Supplies (First Aid Kit) 74.80% 92
Fire Extinguisher 67.48% 83
Mosit Towelettes, Garbage Bags, and Plastic Ties for Personal Sanitation 60.16% 74 Dust Mask or Cotton T-Shirt (For Air Filtering) 55.28% 68 Plastic Sheeting and Duct Tape (To Shelter in Place) 18.70% 23 Wrench or Pliers to Shut Off Utilities 60.16% 74
Clothing 46.34% 57
Sleeping bag or Warm Blanket for Each Person 48.78% 60
Prescription Medications 50.41% 62
Important Family Documents (Copies of Insurance Policies, ID, and Bank Account Records)
48.78% 60
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-11
Other (Responses include: Money, Firearm, Portable Toilet, Pet Supplies Kit, Handheld Water Purifier, Camping Equipment, Maps, Phone Chargers)
6.50% 8
9. Our household has: (Check all that apply)
Answer Choices Responses Number Count
Smoke Detection in Each Room of the House 84.75% 100
Received First Aid/ CPR Training 48.31% 57
Made a Fire Escape Plan 26.27% 31
Developed a Reconnection Plan (Where to Go and Who to Call After a Disaster) 21.19% 25 Discussed Utility Shutoffs 29.66% 35
7.63% 9
10. How long have you lived in the City of Lakewood?
Answer Choices Number Count
Under 1 Year 1
1 to 2 Years 3
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-12
3 to 4 Years 10
5 to 10 Years 13
11 to 20 Years 24
21 to 30 Years 26
31 to 40 Years 20
41 to 50 Years 7
More than 50 Years 20
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan
D-13
Inferences
The results of the public survey served three main purposes. It created a profile of the group of responders, provided insight regarding the methods the public would like to receive safety information, and, lastly, it provided the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) with the public’s opinion of the hazard ranking. Conclusions drawn from the collected responses for each of these areas are discussed in more detail in the following subsections
Participant Profile
The public survey responses collected during the Plan update process offer important insights into the community’s awareness of local hazards, preparedness behaviors, and communication preferences. A significant portion of respondents reported having lived in City for over a decade, with many residents indicating more than 20, 30, or even 50 years in the city. This suggests a community with deep roots and long-standing familiarity with local conditions. These long-term residents likely bring historical knowledge of past hazard events and a personal investment in the city’s future safety and resilience.
A notable number of respondents indicated that they or someone in their household had experienced a disaster in the last five years. While these experiences varied, many respondents mentioned exposure to earthquakes, air quality issues, and disease outbreaks. These experiences may have shaped residents’ views on hazard severity, reinforcing the importance of including both high-impact and frequently occurring events in the LHMP. While some hazards like dam failure or flooding were less commonly experienced or cited as concerns, their low visibility point to a need for increased public education on less obvious but potentially damaging risks.
The community’s concern about hazards also reflects recent events and environmental changes. Earthquakes remain on top of the mind for many, likely due to the region’s history and the ongoing possibility of a major seismic event. Concerns about air quality and disease outbreaks are consistent with recent wildfire seasons and the COVID-19 pandemic, both of which had widespread, tangible impacts. Other concerns, such as power loss and drought, indicate an awareness of how infrastructure and climate conditions can disrupt daily life. On the other hand, the relatively low concern for City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan
D-14
transportation-related incidents or dam failure may suggest these hazards are not well understood by the public or perceived as unlikely to occur in the City.
In terms of personal preparedness, most households reported having essential supplies like flashlights, water, food, and medical kits. This indicates a general awareness of the need to be self-sufficient during an emergency. However, fewer respondents had taken planning steps such as creating family communication strategies or fire escape plans. This points to a preparedness gap. Residents may be ready for short-term disruptions, but not necessarily for the more complex realities of extended disasters. The fact that fewer households had engaged in CPR or first aid training also suggests a potential vulnerability in immediate response capacity within the community.
Overall, the survey results illustrate a community that is engaged and aware, with a strong foundation of preparedness but also areas where further education and outreach could increase resilience. This feedback helped shape how the City can communicate risk, prioritize mitigation strategies, and strengthen partnerships with the public in future hazard planning efforts.
Methods for Successful Outreach
Public education and outreach are essential components of hazard mitigation, as they help build community awareness, encourage preparedness behaviors, and reduce the impacts of future hazard events. Although the City has existing outreach efforts in place, the HMPC sought to better understand how residents prefer to receive emergency preparedness information. By gathering this feedback, the HMPC aimed to improve future outreach strategies by aligning them more closely with community preferences and behaviors.
As reported in the survey, less than half of respondents stated that they had recently received emergency preparedness information. However, a significantly larger number of residents indicated that they had taken at least some steps to prepare for an emergency, such as keeping flashlights, food, water, or medical supplies in their homes. This discrepancy suggests that many residents are proactive about preparedness even in the absence of formal messaging from the City. This reveals that the participating group is City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan
D-15
generally aware of the need for personal readiness, even if information is not widely or frequently disseminated.
When asked about how they would like to receive emergency information, respondents indicated a preference for a combination of traditional and digital methods. Direct mail remains highly trusted among residents, while online resources, including social media and internet searches, were also cited as common sources. The popularity of brochures and flyers distributed at public events or City facilities indicates a continued appreciation for printed materials that are locally available. The HMPC acknowledged that while digital tools offer quick and broad reach, tangible distribution methods continue to play an important role in reaching a diverse audience. These insights suggest that the most successful outreach campaigns will be those that utilize multiple channels and are accessible.
Based on feedback received during the event held at the Senior Center, the City recognizes the unique communication needs of residents aged 65 and older. Many attendees expressed a preference for receiving informational handouts prior to the meeting to allow time for review and thoughtful response. In response, the City is considering adopting a two-step outreach process for the senior population by holding two separate events approximately two weeks apart. The first would be to present information and the second to gather feedback. This approach is intended to provide seniors with ample time to absorb the materials and prepare their input, promoting more meaningful engagement and better inclusion of this important demographic in the planning process.
An interesting consideration was noted regarding the popularity of the City website as an outreach method. While this platform received strong support from survey participants, it is important to note that the survey itself was advertised on the City website. As such, this result may reflect a response bias, with participants already familiar with the website being more likely to take the survey and select that option. Still, the volume of participation in the survey suggests that the City website is an effective and relevant communication tool.
As such, the HMPC recommends continued and increased use of the City website for sharing preparedness information, while also expanding outreach efforts through other widely trusted sources.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan
D-16
Other outreach channels that received strong support from residents included internet resources, traditional mail, and information directly from trusted authorities such as the Fire Department. The HMPC concluded that these methods should be prioritized in future outreach efforts. As the City moves forward with the implementation of mitigation strategies, it will continue to explore how best to integrate these preferences into public awareness campaigns.
Hazard Profiling
To fulfill FEMA’s requirement to include the public in the planning process, the survey participants were asked to rank the hazards identified in the first HMPC meeting. The participants ranked the hazards based on their level of concern. The results were tallied and organized greatest to least to create a public hazard ranking. The list created by the HMPC and the public ranking were reviewed side by side as shown below.
HMPC Hazard Ranking Survey Participant Hazard Rankin
Earthquake Earthquake
Air Quality Air Quality
Disease Outbreak Drought
Urban Fire Urban Fire
Windstorm Windstorm
Extreme Heat Extreme Heat
Dam Failure Disease Outbreak
Adversarial Events Power Loss
Power Loss Adversarial Events
Drought Hazardous Materials Release
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan
D-17
Hazardous Materials Release Transportation Incident
Transportation Incident Flood
Flood Dam Failure
The HMPC reviewed the hazard rankings provided by both the public survey participants and found that, overall, the two lists were very similar. Earthquake and air quality were top concerns for both groups, and while there were slight differences in the ordering of some hazards, no hazard was ranked significantly higher or lower by one group compared to the other. These small variations likely reflect differences in perspective. The HMPC came to the conclusion that survey participants tended to prioritize hazards with direct, personal impacts, such as air quality and power loss, while the HMPC focused more on hazards with broader implications for citywide operations and infrastructure, such as dam failure and hazardous materials release. The HMPC acknowledged that public perceptions are often shaped by recent experiences or media coverage, whereas its own rankings were informed by technical data, past events, and thorough risk assessments. With these two items in mind- the strong alignment between rankings and the unique insight provided by the public- the HMPC agreed to use the public’s input as a guide for identifying which mitigation actions would likely be well received by the community. The HMPC assumed that when the City implements mitigation measures addressing hazards that present the highest level of public concern, those actions will help reduce anxiety surrounding those risks and be viewed positively by residents. As such, the HMPC intends for the City to continue referencing this feedback as a way to meaningfully incorporate public opinion into future mitigation planning and implementation efforts.
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan
D-18
Potential Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee
Participants
The following list outlines potential HMPC participants that were invited to participate in the Plan update. Documentation of invitations to be included during the plan update process can be found at the end of this Annex.
1. City of Lakewood Public Works
2. City of Lakewood Public Safety
3. City of Lakewood Water
Resources
4. City of Lakewood Administrative
Services
5. City of Lakewood Planning
Division
6. City of Lakewood Planning and
Environment Commission
7. SoCal Edison
8. Golden State Water Company
9. Tenet Health
10. Macerich Commercial Real
Estate
11. Care Solace Mental Health Care
12. Paramount Unified School
District
13. ABC Unified School District
14. Bellflower Unified School District
15. Long Beach Unified School
District
16. American Red Cross
17. YMCA
18. City of Bellflower
19. City of Paramount
20. City of Signal Hill
21. City of Los Alamitos
22. City of Cypress
23. City of Artesia
24. City of Cerritos
25. City of Long Beach
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan
D-19
Planning Process
The following sections provide additional information and supporting documentation about the planning process implemented by the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee to update the Hazard Mitigation Plan. For descriptions of the content of each Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee meeting, please refer to Chapter 1.
What is an LHMP? An LHMP is a plan that seeks to enhance the resilience of communities, reducing their vulnerability to damage, loss, or disruption from natural or human-caused hazards. The planning process includes assessing the risk of hazards that pose a risk to the community, identifying vulnerabilities within the community, documenting the resources for risk reduction, and identifying and developing mitigation strategies that will improve the City’s resiliency. The resulting document, the LHMP, serves as a municipality's guide for enhancing community resilience.
Why Have an LHMP? The update of the City’s LHMP will not only ensure that the City is eligible to receive FEMA hazard mitigation funds but will also lead the City in developing a safer, more sustainable community. While the City cannot entirely eliminate natural and human-caused risks to the community, the LHMP aims to enhance community safety. By conducting a thorough evaluation of potential threats and crafting a unified approach to address them, the LHMP fosters better coordination and collaboration among the City, public agencies, businesses, service providers, and residents. Together, these efforts strive to minimize the impacts of both natural and human-induced hazards on the community.
What Hazards Will the LHMP Protect Against?
Why Get Involved? Your engagement in the planning process is vital as it brings diverse perspectives and experiences to the table. As community members, you have unique insights into local hazards and vulnerabilities based on your lived experiences and observations. Your input helps us identify risks more comprehensively and develop targeted strategies that address the specific needs of our community. Together, we can develop a hazard mitigation plan that reflects the collective wisdom and resilience of our community, better preparing us to address future challenges and protect the well-being of all our residents.
Earthquake Air Quality
Disease
Outbreak
Urban Fire Windstorm Extreme
Temperatures
Dam
Failure
Adversarial
Events
Power Loss Drought
HazMat
Release
Transportation
Incident
Flood
Climate
Change
City of Lakewood’s Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
What is an LHMP?
An LHMP is a plan that seeks to enhance the resilience of communities, reducing their vulnerability to damage, loss, or disruption from natural or human-caused hazards. The planning process includes assessing the risk of hazards that pose a risk to the community, identifying vulnerabilities within the community, documenting the resources for risk reduction, and identifying and developing mitigation strategies that will improve the City’s resiliency. The resulting document, the LHMP, serves as a municipality's guide for enhancing community resilience.
What Hazards Will the LHMP Protect Against?
Earthquake Air Quality
Disease
Outbreak
Urban Fire Windstorm Extreme
Temperatures
Dam
Failure
Adversarial
Events
Power Loss Drought
HazMat
Release
Transportation
Incident
Flood
Climate
Change
City of Lakewood’s Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan
Update
What is a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP)?
An LHMP is a plan that seeks to enhance the resilience of communities, reducing their vulnerability to damage, loss, or disruption from natural or human-caused hazards. The planning process includes assessing the risk of hazards that pose a risk to the community, identifying vulnerabilities within the
community, documenting the resources for risk reduction, and identifying and developing mitigation strategies that will improve the City’s resiliency.
Why is Lakewood Updating the LHMP?
The update of the LHMP not only leads the City in developing a safer, more sustainable community for its residents and businesses, but also ensures that the City is eligible to receive FEMA Hazard Mitigation Funds to improve community
resiliency!
HOW YOU CAN GET
INVOLVED:
Join us during public meetings
and workshops! Share your
experiences and insights with us
through the online survey
located here:
Help us reach more people!
Encourage your friends, family,
and neighbors to get involved in
the planning process.
To learn more about
upcoming events, access
resources, or get involved, refer to the City’s
website for the
latest information and updates.
Outlook
City of Lakewood - LHMP Update Community Stakeholder Invite From Kaitlin Sanchez <[email protected]>
Date Thu 8/29/2024 5:41 PM
To Francisco Ontiveros <[email protected]>; Veronica Copeland <[email protected]>; Ryan Bowman <[email protected]>; Michael McDade <[email protected]>; Derek Nguyen <[email protected]>; Anthony Manzano <[email protected]>; Gill Pacheco ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; 'Khoi Dao' <[email protected]>; Paul Kuykendall <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Wilfred Cochico <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Caitlin Cariaso <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc Shireen Kulkarni <[email protected]>; Joshua Yordt <[email protected]>; Chuck Martucci <[email protected]>
Good afternoon,
The City of Lakewood is beginning the update to its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Plan seeks to identify hazard vulnerabilities for the community and brainstorm potential actions to help build resiliency. Once the plan is approved through the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the plan will entitle the City to grant funding opportunities to assist in implementing the proposed resiliency actions. In order to better understand regional vulnerabilities, and the way the community is impacted, FEMA guidelines suggest involving various stakeholders to obtain a more well-round perspective.
As such, we are assembling a planning team as part of the process, with members drawn from numerous community stakeholder organizations and agencies. The City of Lakewood would like to invite you, or a member of your team, to participate in the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) meetings to guide the update process. During the HMPC meetings, you will have the opportunity to provide background knowledge and experience relevant to the group you represent.
We are planning to hold five meetings, once a month at Lakewood City Hall, 5050 Clark Ave., Lakewood 90712.
The first meeting will be held on Monday, September 16 at 9:00am in the Executive Board Room.
Below is a general overview for our Committee Meetings:
Meeting #1: Project Overview/Hazard Identification and Profiling Meeting #2: Goals and Objectives
Meeting #3: Vulnerability Assessment
Meeting #4: Mitigation Strategy Development
Meeting #5: Benefit-Cost Review
Please confirm your interest in participating in this important community project. If you cannot participate but know someone from our community who may be interested, please pass along the invitation and provide us with a name and an email address where we can send future meeting invitations.
Please free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information on the planning process.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Outlook
City of Lakewood - Community Outreach for LHMP
From Kaitlin Sanchez <[email protected]>
Date Wed 1/15/2025 2:30 PM
To '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc Shireen Kulkarni <[email protected]>
1 attachment (229 KB)
City of Lakewood LHMP Flyer 1.pdf;
Good afternoon members of the Lakewood Interfaith Council, My name is Kaitlin Sanchez, and I am the Public Safety Manager for the City of Lakewood. I am writing you today to share that the city has an important emergency management project we are currently working on – an update of the city’s the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). The LHMP is a plan that seeks to enhance the resilience of communities, reducing their vulnerability to damage, loss, or disruption from natural or human-caused hazards. While the city cannot entirely eliminate natural and human-caused risks to the community, the LHMP aims to enhance community safety.
Community involvement is needed in the LHMP planning process to bring diverse perspectives and experiences into the project. Community members have unique insights of local hazards and vulnerabilities based on their experiences and observations within the community. To facilitate community involvement at this phase in the project, we are inviting the community to participate in an online survey.
I’d like to ask for your consideration in sharing this opportunity with your congregations.
I’ve attached a flier with more information and a QR code which leads directly to the survey. I am happy to provide physical copies of the flier as well. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like more information on the LHMP update project.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing from you!
Outlook
City of Lakewood - Community Outreach for LHMP
From Kaitlin Sanchez <[email protected]>
Date Wed 1/15/2025 2:30 PM
To '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <WF[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <WF-Lakewood[email protected]> Cc Shireen Kulkarni <[email protected]>
1 attachment (229 KB)
City of Lakewood LHMP Flyer 1.pdf;
Good afternoon Irene and Sandra,
My name is Kaitlin Sanchez, and I am the Public Safety Manager for the City of Lakewood. I am writing you today to share that the city has an important emergency management project we are currently working on – an update of the city’s the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). The LHMP is a plan that seeks to enhance the resilience of communities, reducing their vulnerability to damage, loss, or disruption from natural or human-caused hazards. While the city cannot entirely eliminate natural and human-caused risks to the community, the LHMP aims to enhance community safety.
Community involvement is needed in the LHMP planning process to bring diverse perspectives and experiences into the project. Community members have unique insights of local hazards and vulnerabilities based on their experiences and observations within the community. To facilitate community involvement at this phase in the project, we are inviting the community to participate in an online survey.
I’d like to ask for your consideration in sharing this opportunity with your residents. I’ve attached a flier with more information and a QR code which leads directly to the survey. I am happy to provide physical copies of the flier as well. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like more information on the LHMP update project.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing from you!
www.RMPCorp.com
CITY OF LAKEWOOD
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
Shireen Kulkarni
Ryan Bray
Risk Management Professionals, Inc.
(949) 282-0123
www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
MEETING AGENDA
• Project Overview and Background
• Steering Committee Goals
• Risk Assessment Background
• Hazard Identification and Ranking
www.RMPCorp.com
PROJECT OVERVIEW
www.RMPCorp.com
DISASTER MITIGATION ACTION 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)
Building Resilient Infrastructure Communities (BRIC)
• 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
DMA 2000 Stresses Public Participation:
• An open public involvement process that is
comprehensive, continuous and starts early
• Coordination with neighboring communities and
various interest groups in Plan development
www.RMPCorp.com
FOCUS ON SENSITIVE
POPULATIONS
• New guidance requires a targeted effort to
address portions of the population which may be
at greater risk to the impacts of a hazard event.
• Identifying Factors
Age – Maturity & Youth
− Persons under 5 Years – 6.1%
− Persons over 65 Years – 15.6.0%
Economic Standing
− Persons in poverty – 6.7%
Limited English Proficiency
− Spanish, Asian/Pacific Island Languages,
Other Indo-European languages– 5%
Disabilities(Hearing, Vision, Cognitive,
Ambulatory, Self-Care, and Independent Living
Difficulties)
− With a disability– 10.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2022 American Community Survey 5- Year Estimates) www.RMPCorp.com
FEMA’S NEW GUIDANCE ON
STAKEHOLDERS
Local/Regional agencies
involved in Hazard
Mitigation activities
(Public works, emergency
management)
Agencies that have the
authority to regulate
development (Zoning,
planning, community, and
economic development
departments)
Neighboring Communities
(Adjacent local
governments)
Representatives of
Businesses, Academia,
and other Private
Organizations (Private
utilities)
Representatives of
Nonprofit Organizations
(Housing, healthcare, or
social service agencies)
www.RMPCorp.com
CLIMATE CHANGE
• California Adaptation Planning Guide (APG) released Spring 2020
• APG released in response to several Executive Orders
encouraging research of and response to climate change
• The City of Lakewood is in the Southern portion of Los Angeles County. The City should consider some of the following hazards Increased Temperatures
Reduced Precipitation
Sea Level Rise
Wildfire Risk
Public Health (heat and air quality)
www.RMPCorp.com
STEERING COMMITTEE GOALS
• 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
• Interface with partner agencies to determine existing mitigation measures
• Develop possible approaches to projects which will
reduce the impacts
• Prioritize mitigation projects for implementation
www.RMPCorp.com
RISK ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGY
www.RMPCorp.com
RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
• Risk Assessment provides the foundation for the mitigation planning process, which is focused on identifying and prioritizing actions to reduce risk to hazards
• FEMA recommended steps for conducting a risk assessment Describe Hazards
Identify Community Assets
Analyze Risks
Summarize Vulnerability
• Risk Management Professionals incorporates each of these steps into the Plan update process and has acquired CalOES and FEMA approval using this methodology many times.
www.RMPCorp.com
FEMA’S NATIONAL RISK INDEX
• The National Risk Index is a dataset
and online tool to help illustrate the
United States communities most at
risk for 18 natural hazards. It was
designed and built by FEMA in close
collaboration with various
stakeholders and partners in
academia, local, state and federal
government, and private industry.
• The Risk Index leverages available
source data for natural hazard and
community risk factors to develop a
baseline risk measurement for each
United States county and Census
tract.
www.RMPCorp.com
FEMA’S NATIONAL RISK INDEXIDENTIFIED HAZARDS
• Drought: Relatively Low
• Earthquake: Very High
• Heat Wave: Relatively High
• Landslide: Relatively High
• Lightning: Relatively High
• Riverine Flooding: Relatively Moderate
• Strong Wind: Relatively Moderate
• Tornado: Relatively High
• Tsunami: Relatively Moderate
• Wildfire: Very High
www.RMPCorp.com
FEMA’S NATIONAL RISK INDEX
www.RMPCorp.com
RISK ASSESSMENT – HAZARDS
FROM THE PREVIOUS PLAN
Earthquake
Flood
Windstorm
Drought
Other Hazards
• Extreme Temperatures
• Landslide
• Wildland/Urban Fire
• Subsidence
• Volcanic Event
www.RMPCorp.com
RISK ASSESSMENT –
POTENTIAL HAZARDS
HAZARDS RESULTING FROM CLIMATE CHANGE
• Increased Temperatures
• Reduced Precipitation
• Sea Level Rise
• Reduced Tourism
• Reduced Water Supply
• Wildfire Risk
• Public Health (heat and air quality)
www.RMPCorp.com
RISK RANK METHODOLOGY
• The risk ranking is facilitated using an
automated interactive 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
www.RMPCorp.com
RISK RANKING –
PROBABILITY/FREQUENCY
• Recurrence Interval – Prediction of how often a
hazard will occur in the future, including projected
return intervals
www.RMPCorp.com
RISK RANKING –
CONSEQUENCE/SEVERITY
Physical Damage – Structures and lifelines
Economic Impact – Loss of power, water, sanitation,
roads, etc.…
www.RMPCorp.com
RISK RANKING - VULNERABILITY
• Impact Area – Area impacted by a hazard event
Secondary Impacts – Capability of triggering additional hazards
Onset - Period between initial recognition of an approaching hazard and when the hazard begins to impact the community www.RMPCorp.com
RISK RANKING - MATRIX
www.RMPCorp.com
RISK RANK CATEGORIZATION
Risk Rank Equation
Risk = Probability x Consequence x Vulnerability
www.RMPCorp.com
QUESTIONS?
Shireen Kulkarni
Ryan Bray
[email protected]
[email protected]
Risk Management Professionals, Inc.
(949) 282-0123
(949) 385-6004
www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
CITY OF LAKEWOOD
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING #2
Shireen Kulkarni
Ryan Bray
Risk Management Professionals, Inc.
(949) 282-0123
www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
MEETING AGENDA
• Review Hazard Ranking
• Review Previous HMP Mitigation Goals and Objectives
• Engage in discussions to review and develop Goals and Objectives specific to the needs of the City
• Align Goals and Objectives with State and County Goals www.RMPCorp.com
HAZARD RANKING REVIEW
www.RMPCorp.com
HAZARD RANKING SUMMARY
www.RMPCorp.com
MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
www.RMPCorp.com
OVERALL PLAN GOALS (2018)
• Reduce the Threat to Life Safety
• Reduce the Threat to Lakewood Buildings,
Facilities, and Infrastructure
• Enhance Emergency Response Capability,
Emergency Planning, and Post-Disaster Recovery
• Vigorously Seek Funding Sources for Mitigation
Actions
• Increase Public Awareness of Natural Hazards and
Enhance Education and Outreach Efforts
• Incorporate Mitigation Planning into Natural
Resource Management and Land Use Planning
www.RMPCorp.com
NEXT STEPS…
www.RMPCorp.com
ASSET
INVENTORY
• Types and number of
existing and future
buildings
• Infrastructure
• Critical Facilities
Review
Asset
Inventory
• Review each asset
category and assign
potential percentage of
damage expected due to
each identified hazard
Loss
Estimates
• Identify groups that face
an increased risk for each
identified hazard
Identify
Vulnerable
Populations
www.RMPCorp.com
QUESTIONS?
Shireen Kulkarni
Ryan Bray
[email protected]
[email protected]
Risk Management Professionals, Inc.
(949) 282-0123
www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
CITY OF LAKEWOOD
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
COMMITTEE MEETING #3
Shireen Kulkarni
Ryan Bray
Risk Management Professionals, Inc. (949) 282-0123
www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
MEETING
AGENDA
• Develop Asset Inventory List
• Validate Vulnerability Assessment with Loss Estimate
Calculations
• Discuss Sensitive Populations at Risk from Identified Hazard Events
www.RMPCorp.com
ASSET INVENTORY &
LOSS ESTIMATES
www.RMPCorp.com
ASSET INVENTORY
• Asset Inventory
Types and number of existing and future buildings
Infrastructure
Critical facilities
Review each asset and assign potential percentage of damage expected due to each identified hazard
www.RMPCorp.com
COMMUNITY IMPACTS
www.RMPCorp.com
COMMUNITY IMPACTS
• Current FEMA guidance places high
importance on the evaluation of people at
risk to hazards
• Special attention must be provided to
identified vulnerable groups.
• Vulnerable Populations for Lakewood
include:
Elderly (+65 years)
Youth (Under 17 but particularly under 10)
Economically Disadvantaged
English Language Proficiency
www.RMPCorp.com
LAKEWOOD BY THE NUMBERS
Census Information (2020)
Population: 78,135
Under 5yrs: 6.1%
Over 65yrs: 14.1%
Persons in Poverty: 6.0%
www.RMPCorp.com
NEXT STEPS…
www.RMPCorp.com
MITIGATION
ACTIONS
• Summarize mitigation project
specifications
• Identify project goal
categories
• Capital Improvements
Develop Mitigation
Actions
• Prevention
• Property Protection
• Public Awareness
• Natural Resource Protection
• Emergency Services
• Structural Projects
Action Categories
www.RMPCorp.com
QUESTIONS?
Shireen Kulkarni
Ryan Bray
[email protected]
[email protected]
Risk Management Professionals, Inc.
(949) 282-0123
www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
CITY OF LAKEWOOD
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
COMMITTEE MEETING #4
Shireen Kulkarni
Ryan Bray
Risk Management Professionals, Inc. (949) 282-0123
www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
MEETING
AGENDA
• Develop Asset Inventory List
• Validate Vulnerability Assessment with Loss Estimate
Calculations
• Discuss Survey Responses
• Discuss Sensitive Populations at Risk from Identified Hazard Events
www.RMPCorp.com
ASSET INVENTORY &
LOSS ESTIMATES
www.RMPCorp.com
ASSET INVENTORY/ VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENT
• Asset Inventory
-Types and numbers of existing and
future buildings
-Infrastructure
-Critical Facilities
• Review each asset and assign potential
percentage of damage expected due to
each identified hazard
www.RMPCorp.com
COMMUNITY IMPACTS
www.RMPCorp.com
COMMUNITY IMPACTS
• Current FEMA guidance places high
importance on the evaluation of people at
risk to hazards
• Special attention must be provided to
identified vulnerable groups.
• Vulnerable Populations for Lakewood
include:
Elderly (+65 years)
Youth (Under 17 but particularly under 10)
Economically Disadvantaged
English Language Proficiency
www.RMPCorp.com
MITIGATION
ACTIONS
• Summarize mitigation project
specifications
• Identify project goal
categories
• Capital Improvements
Develop Mitigation
Actions
• Prevention
• Property Protection
• Public Awareness
• Natural Resource Protection
• Emergency Services
• Structural Projects
Action Categories
www.RMPCorp.com
NEXT STEPS…
www.RMPCorp.com
QUESTIONS?
Ryan Bray
Shireen Kulkarni
[email protected]
[email protected]
Risk Management Professionals, Inc.
(949) 282-0123
www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
CITY OF LAKEWOOD
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
STEERING COMMITTEE #5
Shireen Kulkarni
Ryan Bray
Risk Management Professionals, Inc.
(949) 282-0123
www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
DISCUSSION TOPICS
• Review Public Feedback
• Review Mitigation Actions/Revise if Needed
• Begin Benefit-Cost Review of Mitigation Projects
• Discuss schedule for last steps of update process
www.RMPCorp.com
PUBLIC OUTREACH EVENTS
• “Very safe neighborhood”
• “Consider burying power lines- long term
investment that could save money down
the road”
• “Better Signage for Senior Center location
in event of an emergency”
• “Information on what to do in the event of
an emergency would be helpful”
www.RMPCorp.com
PUBLIC INPUT RESULTS
• Total Responses: 123
• In the past five years, 65% of people have
not experienced a hazard event
• For those who have, it was mainly
earthquake, air quality issues, disease
outbreak, or power loss
• About half of residents have received
information about how to make themselves
safer
www.RMPCorp.com
www.RMPCorp.com
MITIGATION ACTION REVIEW/
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.
www.RMPCorp.com
CONTACT
INFORMATION
Shireen Kulkarni
Ryan Bray
[email protected]
Risk Management Professionals, Inc.
(949) 282-0123
(877) 532-0806
www.RMPCorp.com