Lakewood City Council
February 10, 2026

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 C-5
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 C-6

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 C-7

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 C-8

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 C-9

TRANSPORTATION

INCIDENT

RANK FACTORS HAZARD FACTOR DESCRIPTION RANK
Probability Rare event - occurs less than once every 50 years 2 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 24
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.

Note: This hazard was previously ranked with a frequency of 1 (rare event that occurs less than once every 50 years). However, it was revised to a frequency of 2 to reflect updated considerations, including the 40th anniversary of the 1986 Cerritos Air Disaster and the 2025 aircraft incident in San Diego. These events suggest that the likelihood of similar incidents may be higher than originally assessed. This revision was made in response to comments and input from City Council members.

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.

City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan C-10

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.

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.

City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan C-11
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 outreach effort, the City utilized a combination of digital, inperson, 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 discussion. To further promote transparency and City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-2
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
Answer Choices Responses Number Count
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
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-5
Completely
Unconcerned
Moderately
Unconcerned Concerned– Moderately Concerned
Extremely
Concerned Total
Air Quality Issues

3.23%
4 17.74%
22 29.84%
37 28.23%
35 20.97%
26 124
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

3.97% 19.84% 30.95% 22.22% 23.02%
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-6
Completely
Unconcerned
Moderately
Unconcerned Concerned– Moderately Concerned
Extremely
Concerned Total
Drought 5 25 39 28 29 126
Hazardous Materials
Release

12.10%
15 24.19%
30 35.48%
44 15.32%
19 12.90%
16 124
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
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-7

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
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
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-8
Answer Choices Responses Number Count
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
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
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-9
Answer Choices Responses Number Count
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
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
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-10
Answer Choices Responses Number Count
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
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 City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-11
Answer Choices Responses Number Count
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
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
City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-12
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
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, the City considered balancing the potential need for increased public education with the likelihood for a dam failure or flood incident.

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 transportation-related incidents or dam failure may suggest that since these hazards don’t generally impact the public directly, they may be perceived as less hazardous to the community.

City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-14
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 opportunities for the City to expand training. Residents may be ready for shortterm 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 when they are
not familiar with the City’s information outlets. This
reveals that the participating group is 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 City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-15
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.

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.

City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-16
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
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 City of Lakewood Hazard Mitigation Plan D-17
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 Admin. 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
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

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council

COUNCIL AGENDA
February 10, 2026
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Midyear Budget Review and Adjustments and Presentation of the FY 2026-28 Two-Year Budget Preparation Calendar

INTRODUCTION
The city is currently in the second year of the FY 2024-26 Two-Year Budget adopted in June 2024.

With approximately seven months of FY 2025-26 financial data now available, it is an appropriate time to review current budget estimates and revise them as necessary. Despite ongoing economic volatility and uncertainty, the city continues to perform well and expects this positive trend to continue. Both revenues and expenditures have remained relatively stable. Overall, the city is wellpositioned to maintain service levels and fund planned infrastructure improvements without foreseeable difficulty.

The focus of this report is on the city's operations and the two major funds, the General Fund and the Water Utility Enterprise Fund.

STATEMENT OF FACT
General Fund
The General Fund is the city's largest fund and the one over which the City Council exercises the greatest discretionary authority. The Council approved the city's budget last summer and has since adopted several amendments affecting General Fund expenditures. As a result, the currently adopted budget, inclusive of all year-to-date amendments, projects a surplus of $738,254, with revenues exceeding expenditures by that amount at fiscal year-end.

After reviewing year-to-date financial results, broader fiscal trends, and organizational needs, the revised budget projection is expected to result in a surplus of $202,963. While this represents a reduction of$535,291 from the adopted budget projection, the General Fund remains in a positive position. Moreover, actual year-end results have historically exceeded projections due to the city's conservative budgeting practices and prudent financial management. Accordingly, the revised projection continues to reflect the city's ability to meet service demands and maintain fiscal stability.

3.5