Name of
Future
Projects or
Programs
Joint Project with Other
Suppliers? Potable
or NonPotable
Planned
Implementation
Year
Planned
for Use in
Year
Type
Expected
Increase in
Water
Supply to
Supplier Yes/No If Yes, Supplier
Name
N/A - - - - - -
Notes:
1. Corresponds to WUE Table 6-7R
DRAFT
Page | 6-22
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
6.3 Energy Use
CWC 10621.2
(a) In addition to the requirements of Section 10631, an urban water management plan shall include any of the following information that the urban water supplier can readily obtain:
(1) An estimate of the amount of energy used to extract or divert water supplies. (2) An estimate of the amount of energy used to convey water supplies to the water treatment plants or distribution systems.
(3) An estimate of the amount of energy used to treat water supplies. (4) An estimate of the amount of energy used to distribute water supplies through its distribution systems.
(5) An estimate of the amount of energy used for treated water supplies in comparison to the amount used for nontreated water supplies.
(6) An estimate of the amount of energy used to place water into or withdraw from storage. (7) Any other energy-related information the urban water supplier deems appropriate.
Table 6-16 summarizes the City’s supply facilities energy intensity using the total utility approach.
Table 6-16: Water Supplies – 2025 Actual
Enter Start Date for Period 1/1/2025
Urban Water Supplier Operational Control
End Date 12/31/2025
Sum of All Water
Processes
Non-Consequential
Hydropower
Total Utility Hydropower Net Utility
Volume of Water Entering Process (AF) 5,122
Energy Consumed (kiloWatts per hour
(kWh))
5,444,758
Energy Intensity (kWh/AF) 1,063
Notes:
1. Corresponds to WUE Table O-1A
DRAFT
Page | 7-1
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
CHAPTER 7 WATER SERVICE RELIABILITY AND DROUGHT
RISK ASSESSMENT
New Requirements for 2025 Update
For 2025, DWR requires expanded quantitative reliability assessments, including five-year drought risk analyses and updated dry-year sequences. Agencies must also assess reliability under climate stress conditions and describe any new limitations identified since 2020 (e.g., SGMA pumping reductions, environmental flow requirements). This chapter now also integrates SB 552 requirements for small water supplier coordination when applicable. The level of climate modeling and scenario documentation is substantially greater than in 2020.
7.1 Constraints on Water Sources Considerations
CWC 10631(c)(2)
For any water source that may not be available at a consistent level of use, given specific legal, environmental, water quality, or climatic factors, describe plans to supplement or replace that source with alternative sources or water demand management measures, to the extent practical.
CWC 10634
The plan shall include information, to the extent practical, relating to the quality of existing sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments as described in subdivision (a) of Section 10631, and the manner in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliability.
Currently, the only sources of potable water that the City utilizes are supplier pumped groundwater from the Central Basin and wholesale distributed water through CBMWD. Additional water supplies are obtained by treating wastewater and using it as recycled water for irrigation purposes only. Although these are deemed reliable, each source has unique challenges to ensure that water will continue to be available. These challenges are shown in Table 7-1 and described below.
Table 7-1: Factors Resulting in Inconsistence of Water Supply Water Supply
Sources Legal Environmental Water Quality Climatic Additional Information Central Basin
Groundwater X X X NA
CBMWD Wholesale
Water X NA
Recycled Water X NA
With respect to water quality, the City’s 2024 CCR (Appendix E) summarizes the City’s existing water constituents and concentrations. As shown, the City met all Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) water quality standards.
DRAFT
Page | 7-2
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
7.1.1 Central Basin Groundwater
Although it is deemed the most reliable and most cost-effective water supply source, several factors affect the reliability of the Central Basin supply. Despite these factors, the City still considers optimizing the use of groundwater from the Central Basin a priority for the future.
7.1.1.1 Legal
As the Central Basin is adjudicated, it is subject to legal considerations. The amount of groundwater allowed to be pumped is set at a constant rate by the adjudication agreement. Although it is not anticipated that total water supplies from the Central Basin will decrease as a result of the adjudication, it is unlikely that they will increase with increasing demand. Therefore, alternative ways to supplement groundwater must be considered as increased pumping from the Basin will be legally restricted.
7.1.1.2 Climatic
Groundwater levels are highly dependent on climate issues such as annual rainfall and average temperature. During dry or wet years, the groundwater levels in the Central Basin are dynamic due to the large number of water districts that use it as either a sole or major source of water. Inconsistency in water levels due to drought is generally a short-term event that can significantly impact the water supply to the City. Currently the CBMWD, in conjunction with the City and its other member agencies, has several preventative measures in place to mitigate the effects a drought may have on the overall water supply.
These mitigation measures include maintaining a groundwater recharge system, surplus capacity, and emergency water connections for imported water. For more information on the effects of a drought, see Section 7.2, which identifies the water reliability during a normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry years.
7.1.2 CBMWD Wholesale Water
CBMWD identified that its water supply to the City is considered reliable and sufficient to meet projected demands. However, the reliability of the supply is also dependent on the water quality delivered by the SWP to the MWD. In general, the SWP quality has been considered good, with delivered water meeting the state threshold requirements. But as seawater intrusion into the Bay-Delta increases, water quality can be diminished. In addition, as water moves through the Bay-Delta, levels of total organic carbon and bromide are likely to increase. Water quality can also be affected by the amount of wastewater that is disposed as this provides a means for the transportation of salts and pathogens into clean water supplies.
To prevent these water quality issues from affecting the overall reliability of supply, water quality analyses are conducted throughout the delivery process and at the water treatment plants to ensure water is safe prior to delivery. Furthermore, state regulatory factors have included biological assessments affecting the amount of water delivered from the Delta to the SWP system to prevent degradation of water quality from the Delta. MWD, CBMWD, and the City are diligent in identifying poor water quality and will act immediately to ensure proper treatment so as to maintain a clean source of potable water.
7.1.3 Water Quality
Each of the City’s water sources present its own, unique water quality issues. Issues that may cause concern regarding water quality are described in the subsections below. It should be noted the City of Paramount’s 2024 CCR did not identify any contaminant above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL).
DRAFT
Page | 7-3
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
The following subsections are presented, not to indicate they are the source of current water quality violations in the City’s water supply, but instead they are identified as potential issues of concern that should be monitored to ensure a high-quality water supply.
7.1.3.1 Central Basin Groundwater
Groundwater supplied by the Central Basin has historically met good water quality standards. However, the City has, at times, detected arsenic and manganese content above the MCL in City wells, requiring additional treatment to be performed at the well head to prevent distribution of poor-quality water. In addition to City water testing conducted to ensure water quality is met while contaminant and bacteria presence are at acceptable levels, the CBMWD conducts its own water quality tests and monitoring of wells to ensure that water is acceptable for delivery within its service area as well as its purveyors’ service areas. Groundwater quality varies by well, below is a summary of each well’s water quality.
Arsenic
Arsenic is a toxic chemical that can be found naturally in groundwater. In the United States it is most commonly found in southwest regions and is commonly known to cause skin cancer.
At Well No. 15, arsenic concentrations are naturally occurring and typically range from 6 to 8 ppb, which is below the MCL and therefore does not require treatment. At Well No. 16, arsenic concentrations average approximately 10 ppb and are treated with a ferric chloride feed system to achieve levels of about 3 ppb.
Manganese
In response to more stringent arsenic requirements (as described above), the City augmented the treatment system at Well No. 15 and 16; improvements also included manganese treatment as part of the upgrade. Both wells experience manganese concentrations averaging approximately 40 ppb and are treated to non-detect levels in the finished water.
Since implementation of these treatment systems, arsenic and manganese have been effectively managed in the City’s groundwater supply.
7.1.3.2 CBMWD Wholesale Water
The water quality issues associated with the water supply to the City are consistent with those experienced by the CBMWD and are similar to regional water quality challenges identified by the MWD.
In addition to longstanding concerns related to salinity and certain inorganic and organic constituents in imported supplies from the Colorado River and the SWP, MWD has identified emerging contaminants of concern that may affect water quality management, including PFAS, microplastics, and cyanotoxins associated with harmful algal blooms. These constituents have become an increasing focus of regulatory oversight, monitoring, and treatment planning due to potential public health and operational impacts.
MWD has reported that elevated levels of salinity and chemical constituents, under a theoretical water quality event, could result in a temporary reduction of available supply of up to approximately 15%; however, MWD also notes that operational strategies—such as blending affected supplies with treated or higher‑quality water, adjusting source portfolios, and optimizing treatment processes—can reduce contaminant concentrations to meet potable water quality standards. Similar management approaches are being evaluated and implemented to address emerging contaminants, including advanced treatment DRAFT
Page | 7-4
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
technologies and source water protections. Based on these mitigation measures and regional planning efforts, MWD anticipates no significant long‑term reductions in water supply availability from the Colorado River, SWP, or local groundwater sources due solely to water quality concerns over the UWMP planning horizon.
The City realizes the importance of constantly assuring that the water it distributes meets potable water standards. Although there are no water quality issues that immediately threaten the supply to the City’s customers, the City maintains knowledge of water quality issues to prevent poor quality water from being distributed. The following are descriptions of the most pertinent issues of concern, due to either historically increasing levels of water salinity or threshold reductions (Chromium VI).
Salinity
Since 2020, increased salinity pressure in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta during prolonged drought conditions has influenced the reliability and operational management of SWP supplies delivered to the City through the MWD. Reduced freshwater inflows during water years 2020–2022 increased the risk of saltwater intrusion from San Francisco Bay, prompting the DWR to implement emergency salinity control measures, including the installation of a temporary rock‑fill emergency drought salinity barrier on the West False River in June 2021. The barrier was designed to reduce tidal saltwater intrusion into the central Delta and was maintained through November 2022 due to continued critically dry conditions, limiting the need for additional upstream reservoir releases to repel salinity. While the barrier was effective in reducing salinity levels in the central Delta, it also altered Delta hydraulics and constrained SWP export operations, contributing to reduced pumping flexibility during critical periods. During this same period, SWP allocations were significantly curtailed, including a reduction in March 2022 from 15% to 5%, partly to preserve reservoir storage needed to maintain Delta water quality standards and mitigate salinity intrusion. For Paramount, these conditions did not result in direct salinity‑related service interruptions but increased reliance on operational strategies such as source blending, storage withdrawals, and conservation to maintain delivered water quality below MWD’s salinity management target of 500 mg/L total dissolved solids (TDS). MWD continues to identify salinity management, including emergency barrier deployment and export constraints during dry years, as a contributing factor to reduced SWP reliability, particularly under future drought and sea‑level rise conditions.
Chromium VI (Hexavalent Chromium)
Regulatory oversight of Chromium VI in drinking water has advanced significantly since the adoption of the City’s 2020 UWMP. On April 17, 2024, the SWRCB adopted a new MCL for Chromium-6 of 10 ppb, replacing the prior reliance on a Public Health Goal (PHG) established by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. The regulation became effective October 1, 2024, with compliance dates extending to October 1, 2026 or later depending on system size. While the PHG of
0.02 ppb remains an intentionally conservative, non-enforceable health-protective benchmark rather than a maximum safe level, the new MCL establishes an enforceable standard based on treatment feasibility and statewide implementation considerations.
Chromium-VI continues to occur naturally in groundwater throughout California and has been detected more frequently in groundwater-influenced supplies than in imported surface water. SWP supplies historically exhibit variable but generally low Chromium-VI concentrations, while Colorado River supplies have typically shown non-detectable levels. In response to the new MCL, water agencies across California are evaluating compliance strategies including blending, operational adjustments, and treatment technologies such as ion exchange. Although some agencies have begun issuing public DRAFT
Page | 7-5
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
notices associated with exceedances of the new standard, regulatory guidance indicates that short-term exceedances do not represent an immediate public health emergency but require long-term corrective action. MWD continues comprehensive monitoring of all source waters, including imported surface supplies, and anticipates that compliance with the Chromium-VI MCL can be achieved without significant reductions in water supply availability through coordinated regional treatment and blending strategies.
7.2 Water Service Reliability Assessment
CWC 10631(c)(1)
Describe the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage, to the extent practicable, and provide data for each of the following:
(A) An average water year,
(B) A single dry water year,
(C) Multiple dry water years
Since 2020, water supplies delivered by MWD to agencies dependent on the SWP, including the City, have experienced significant reductions due to prolonged drought, regulatory constraints in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, water quality limitations, and infrastructure capacity losses. From 2020 to 2022, the driest three-year sequence in California’s recorded history was experienced, resulting in critically reduced snowpack runoff and reservoir inflows to the SWP system. In addition to hydrologic shortages, regulatory requirements implemented under state and federal laws to protect endangered fish species, including Delta smelt and winter-run Chinook salmon, have constrained pumping operations in the Delta by limiting export timing and volumes to reduce entrainment risk and protect water quality standards. These constraints have reduced the reliability and consistency of SWP deliveries, particularly during dry years when freshwater inflows are low. In March 2022, the DWR reduced the 2022 SWP allocation from an initial 15% to 5% as drought conditions intensified, citing severely limited runoff, deteriorating water quality conditions in the Delta—including increased salinity intrusion—and critically low reservoir storage, resulting in substantially reduced supplies available to MWD and its member agencies. Water quality challenges associated with low-flow conditions, such as higher salinity, warmer water temperatures, and reduced assimilative capacity in the Delta, have further constrained SWP operations by limiting pumping during periods when exports could adversely affect municipal and agricultural water quality. Concurrently, long-term groundwater overdraft in portions of the San Joaquin Valley has caused land subsidence that has permanently reduced the conveyance capacity of the California Aqueduct by approximately 3%, restricting SWP delivery capacity even during wetter hydrologic periods. Although exceptionally wet conditions in water year 2023 temporarily restored SWP allocations to 100%, MWD continues to identify SWP supplies as highly variable and vulnerable to future drought, climate-driven hydrologic extremes, Delta regulatory requirements, water quality limitations, and ongoing infrastructure constraints, underscoring the importance of conservation and diversified local and regional supplies to maintain long-term water service reliability.
7.2.1 WSRA Year-Type Characterization
All potable water supplies are pumped from the Central Basin or provided through the CBMWD as part of MWD and the SWP. The groundwater supply is available based on the ability of the City to pump the fully allotted amount through the Central Basin adjudication. Since the additional purchased supply is not DRAFT
Page | 7-6
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
directly obtained by the City, the determination of reliability will largely be based on CBMWD and MWD analyses to provide a consistent water supply to the City during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years.
During these years, the City is committed to reducing water demand during times of drought in order to conserve water and improve reliability for future water supplies. For the purpose of this Plan, the Department of Water Resources defines average, single-dry, and multiple dry years as follows.
Average Year: A year, or an averaged range of years, that most closely represents the median water supply available to the agency.
Single-Dry Year: The year that represents the lowest water supply available to the agency.
Multiple Dry Years: The period that represents the lowest average water supply availability to the agency for a consecutive multiple year period (three years or more) To determine the typical normal, single dry year, and five consecutive dry years within the service area, the City reviewed historical rainfall data from the CIMIS Station #174 in Long Beach. The results of the historical rainfall data review are presented in Figure 7-1.
DRAFT
Page | 7-7
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Figure 7-1: Historic Rainfall Data
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Rainfall (inches) 13.7 7.2 7.9 3.3 6.3 5.6 10.1 13.2 5.0 20.2 8.2 8.9 6.2 19.2 17.8 11.9Average (inches) 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3
13.7 7.2
7.9 3.3
6.3 5.6
10.1 13.2
5.0 20.2
8.2 8.9
6.2 19.2
17.8 11.9
0.05.0 10.015.020.025.0
DRAFT
Page | 7-8
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 7-2 identifies the normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years chosen to represent the water supply from CBMWD as well as the percentage/volume of supply that was available for public use. These percentage values do not represent additional supplies through surplus storage. Instead, they demonstrate the water available to be added to the supply system based on the hydrology of those years.
7.2.1.1 Climate Change
According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, the City, and the greater Los Angeles Area, should consider increases in temperature, reduction in precipitation, increased fires, more frequent droughts, and changes in air quality, among others, as potential impacts of climate change. Each of these impacts has the potential to develop into a water shortage scenario for the community. While direct impacts to the City are vague based on current reports, the City recognizes that continued efforts to increase water use efficiency are needed to mitigate the impacts of climate change. The following tables demonstrate the reliable of the City’ water supply through multiple dry-year scenarios. It is likely, based on current information, that the likelihood of these scenarios will increase in the future.
Table 7-2: Supply Augmentation and Other Actions
Year Type Base Type
Available Supplies If Year Type Repeats
Quantification of
available supplies is
not compatible with this
table and is provided
elsewhere
Volume Available
(AFY) % of Average Supply
Average Year 2016 6,852 100%
Single-Dry Year 2018 7,094 104%
Consecutive Dry Years
1 st Year
2011 7,175 105%
Consecutive Dry Years
2 nd Year
2012 7,433 108%
Consecutive Dry Years
3 rd Year
2013 7,308 107%
Consecutive Dry Years
4 th Year
2014 7,151 104%
Consecutive Dry Years
5 th Year
2015 7,289 106%
Notes:
1. Corresponds to WUE Table 7-1R.
DRAFT
Page | 7-9
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
7.2.2 WSRA Supply and Demand Comparison
7.2.2.1 Normal Year
Table 7-3 provides a summary of the City’s projected supply and water demands through 2050. The future demand projections are based on future population projections as described in Section 3.4 and historical per capita demands including the implementation of the required SBX7-7 as described in Section 5.2.
Table 7-3: Normal-Year Supply and Demand Comparison
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Supply Totals (AF) 9,385 9,385 9,385 9,385 9,385
Use Totals (AF) 5,527 5,690 5,859 6,032 6,086
Surplus/(Shortfall) (AF) 3,858 3,695 3,526 3,353 3,299
Notes:
1. Corresponds to WUE Table 7-2R.
7.2.2.2 Single Dry Year
As shown in Table 7-2, 113% of the City’s average supply was available during a single dry year. Table 7-4 provides a summary of the City’s projected supply and demand through 2050 for a single dry year. It is estimated that water demand will increase by 0.2% during a single dry year.
Table 7-4: Single Dry-Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Supply Totals (AF) 9,717 9,717 9,717 9,717 9,717
Use Totals (AF) 5,538 5,701 5,871 6,044 6,098
Surplus/(Shortfall) (AF) 4,179 4,015 3,846 3,673 3,619
Notes:
1. Corresponds to WUE Table 7-3R.
7.2.2.3 Five Consecutive Dry Years
As shown in Table 7-2, an average of 106% of the City’s average supply was available during five consecutive dry years. Table 7-5 provides a summary of the City’s projected supply and demand through 2050 for multiple dry years. It is estimated that water demand will increase by 6% per year during a multidry year event.
DRAFT
Page | 7-10
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 7-5: Five Consecutive Dry-Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
First
Year
Supply Totals (AF) 9,828 9,828 9,828 9,828 9,828
Use Totals (AF) 5,538 5,701 5,871 6,044 6,098
Surplus/(Shortfall) (AF) 4,290 4,126 3,957 3,784 3,730
Second
Year
Supply Totals (AF) 10,181 10,181 10,181 10,181 10,181
Use Totals (AF) 5,870 6,043 6,223 6,407 6,464
Surplus/(Shortfall) (AF) 4,311 4,138 3,958 3,775 3,717
Third
Year
Supply Totals (AF) 10,010 10,010 10,010 10,010 10,010
Use Totals (AF) 6,223 6,406 6,596 6,791 6,852
Surplus/(Shortfall) (AF) 3,788 3,604 3,414 3,219 3,158
Fourth
Year
Supply Totals (AF) 9,795 9,795 9,795 9,795 9,795
Use Totals (AF) 6,596 6,790 6,992 7,199 7,263
Surplus/(Shortfall) (AF) 3,200 3,005 2,803 2,597 2,532
Fifth
Year
Supply Totals (AF) 9,984 9,984 9,984 9,984 9,984
Use Totals (AF) 6,992 7,198 7,412 7,630 7,699
Surplus/(Shortfall) (AF) 2,992 2,786 2,572 2,354 2,285
Notes:
1. Corresponds to WUE Table 7-4R.
7.2.3 WRSA Description of Management Tools and Options
The City coordinates closely with the CBMWD and MWD. The City has and will continue to participate in the following water resource planning efforts:
Implementation of conservation and water‑use efficiency programs consistent with MWD regional objectives and state requirements to reduce demand during normal and dry‑year conditions Participation in MWD‑led water allocation, shortage contingency, and emergency response planning, including compliance with allocation and conservation directives during declared drought emergencies
Coordination with CBMWD and MWD on water quality monitoring, blending, and treatment strategies to manage salinity, emerging contaminants, and regulatory compliance without compromising supply reliability
DRAFT
Page | 7-11
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
7.3 Drought Risk Assessment
CWC 10635(b)
Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, a drought risk assessment for its water service to its customers as part of information considered in developing the demand management measures and water supply projects and programs to be included in the urban water management plan. The urban water supplier may conduct an interim update or updates to this drought risk assessment within the five-year cycle of its urban water management plan update
In accordance with the water code, the City has prepared a DRA in accordance with the water code. The City estimated sufficient water supply should be available to meet demands based on reported additional supplies from CBMWD through MWD and anticipated water conservation efforts set forth in the WSCP and City Ordinance 1050 for Water Conservation. The following section outlines the specific requirements of the water code and explains how the City meets compliance.
7.3.1 DRA Data, Methods, and Basis for Water Shortage Conditions CWC 10635(b)(1)
(1) A description of the data, methodology, and basis for one or more supply shortage conditions that are necessary to conduct a drought risk assessment for a drought period that lasts five consecutive water years, starting from the year following when the assessment is conducted.
Data for the DRA was based on current and historic water demand records for the City and estimated using the same tools used to complete the update to the Urban Water Management Plan. The City population was estimated using linear percentage increases based on the 2021-2029 Housing Element’s 20-year growth window and the Clearwater Specific Plan. Additionally, water supply was calculated utilizing the same methodology used to determine the multiple dry year scenario. Working with historical water supply values and then applying that percent to the current water supply over successive years to develop a multiple dry-year scenario beginning in the current planning year. The values reflect what supply and demand might look like if the City entered into a multiple dry-year scenario beginning in the current year.
The following information was used to support the City’s DRA to identify water production and consumption to its customers and determine restrictions to supply sources:
Los Angeles County All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
City of Paramount Draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
WRD Groundwater Basins Master Plan (GBMP)
Historical rainfall data from precipitation gauge CIMIS Station #174 Long Beach
7.3.2 DRA Individual Water Source Reliability
As identified previously, the City has never had a single year or multiple dry years in which it did not meet 100% of its demand, regardless of regional hydrology or supply constraints. Therefore, there is no basis DRAFT
Page | 7-12
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
in the hydrologic record for reducing supply reliability based upon single and/or multiple dry year conditions when imported water supply is available in addition to historical groundwater production. On this assumption, the City’s supply is presented as 100% reliable for single and multiple dry year periods as summarized in the following sections.
7.3.3 DRA Total Water Supply and Use Comparison
CWC 10635(b)(3)
A comparison of the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use for the drought period.
Sustainable management of its existing resources through water-use efficiency measures will allow the City to serve existing and future water demands during normal years, single dry years, or multiple dry years. Table 7-6 summarizes the five-year drought risk assessment.
Table 7-6: Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment
2026 Total
Total Water Use 5,226
Total Supplies 5,309
Surplus/Shortfall without WSCP Action 83
2027 Total
Total Water Use 5,258
Total Supplies 5,497
Surplus/Shortfall without WSCP Action 238
2028 Total
Total Water Use 5,291
Total Supplies 5,691
Surplus/Shortfall without WSCP Action 400
2029 Total
Total Water Use 5,324
Total Supplies 5,892
Surplus/Shortfall without WSCP Action 569
2030 Total
Total Water Use 5,356
Total Supplies 6,101
Surplus/Shortfall without WSCP Action 744
Notes:
1. Corresponds to WUE Table 7-5R.
DRAFT
Page | 7-13
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
As noted above, CBMWD has stated it can provide sufficient water for the foreseeable future even in multiple dry-year conditions. So, for the purpose of these tables, and deficiencies were met assuming supplemental water could be provided by CBMWD. While CBMWD is available to meet consumer demands, it is more economically sustainable for the City to implement the water conservation measures outlined in City Ordinance 1050 and the WSCP to avoid the need for supplemental water.
DRAFT
Page | 8-1
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
CHAPTER 8 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLANNING
New Requirements for 2025 Update
The 2025 UWMP must include an updated summary of the agency’s WSCP, including any revisions made to comply with SB 552, updated shortage stages, new communication protocols, and supply augmentation or demand response measures added since 2020. There is also a new requirement to document annual WSCP reporting procedures and describe how the WSCP aligns with updated reliability assessments.
8.1 Water Supply Reliability Analysis
This section evaluates the City’s water supply reliability under various conditions as presented in Chapter 7 of the UWMP. Chapter 7 contains an assessment of the water supply reliability for the City’s primary water supply sources: groundwater, imported water, and recycled water. Based on 2025 supply and demand data, projected supply is sufficient to meet projected demand for the next five years even if those years are consecutive dry years.
As described in Chapter 6, the City utilizes both potable and recycled water. The City obtains potable water from two sources: directly pumped groundwater and imported water purchased through the CBMWD, who in turn receives the water through the MWD. Currently, two water utilities serve the community: Golden State Water Company (GSWC) and the City’s Water Department. The City’s water department services the majority of the population; however, two northern portions of the City, above the I-105 Freeway, are serviced by GSWC. The City also purchases recycled water from CBWMD for nonpotable uses. In 2025, the City purchased 1,399 AFY of potable water from CBMWD, 31 AFY of recycled water, and pumped 3,530 AFY of groundwater.
The City began receiving imported water supplies through regional water suppliers following the expansion of metropolitan water infrastructure in Southern California during the mid-20th century.
Imported potable water supplies available to the City of Paramount are delivered through the CBMWD, which serves as the MWD member agency for portions of the City. Under existing agreements, the City has the ability to receive up to 5,883 AFY of imported potable water supplies under its annual pumping agreement with CBMWD plus an additional 60%, subject to availability, contractual provisions, and regional allocation policies, with an effective allocation of 9,412 AFY in the current year. In addition to City provided service, GSWC supplies potable water to limited areas within the City under its separate service arrangements and allocations. The City does not possess independent SWP entitlements, direct surface water rights, or area of origin settlement water entitlements and relies on regional wholesale suppliers and groundwater resources to meet potable water demands.
To identify potential water supply reliability concerns, the following climate change vulnerability screening analysis was completed (including impacts from extreme heat, water quality, sea level rise, flooding, and wildfire), as shown in Table 8-1.
DRAFT
Page | 8-2
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 8-1: Climate Change Vulnerability Screening
Preliminary Assessment Imported Water Level of Risk
I. Water Supply and Demand
Are the water supply diversions sensitive to climate change? 5 Is the water supply source affected by urban or agricultural water demand that might be climate sensitive? 4
Is groundwater a major supply source? 5
Does the water supply source rely on or could it be affected by snowmelt? 5
Does the water supply source come from or could it be
affected by coastal aquifers? Has saltwater intrusion been a problem in the past?
N/A
Does the water supply source rely on or could it be affected by changes in stored water supplies? 4
II. Extreme Heat
Could extreme heat impact operations of the water supply project or diversions? 4
Does the supply source rely on equipment or infrastructure that could be impacted by extreme or prolonged heat? 4
III. Water Quality
Could water quality issues, such as low dissolved oxygen, algal blooms, disinfectant biproducts affect the water supply source?
4 Could reduction in assimilative capacity of a receiving water body affect the water supply source? 3
IV. Sea Level Rise
Is any of the water supply source infrastructure located in area that could be exposed to rising tides? 1
Could coastal erosion affect the water supply source? 1 Is the water supply source dependent on coastal structures, such as levees or breakwaters, for protection from flooding? N/A V. Flooding
Is the water supply or any of its associated infrastructure located within the 200-year floodplain? Does the water supply 3 DRAFT
Page | 8-3
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
8.2 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Procedures In accordance with CWC 10632, the City will conduct an annual water supply and demand assessment, or an annual assessment by July 1st of each year. The City will draft and prepare a written report that discusses the results of the annual water supply and demand assessment.
As a water supplier, the City must prepare an Annual Assessment. The Annual Assessment is a determination of the near-term outlook for supplies and demands and how a perceived shortage may relate to WSCP shortage stage response actions in the current calendar year; this determination is based on known circumstances and information available to the City at the time of the analysis. Starting in 2022, the Annual Assessment will be due by July 1 of every year, as indicated by CWC Section 10632.1.
The Annual Assessment will be primarily based on the City’s ongoing supply-demand tracking process which is exhibited in monthly report by water personnel. These monthly analyses provide key information for Metropolitan to manage resources to meet a range of estimated demands and adjust to changing conditions throughout the year.
By June, Water personnel will present a completed Annual Assessment for approval. Upon approval, City staff will then formally submit the Annual Assessment to the DWR by July 1 each year.
8.2.1 Decision-Making Process
The City will start to evaluate the water supply availability in January and will submit the report to the DWR in June of each year.
Table 8-1: Climate Change Vulnerability Screening
Preliminary Assessment Imported Water Level of Risk
source rely on flood protection infrastructure such as levees or dams?
VI. Wildfire
Is the water supply source located in an area that is expected to experience an increase in wildfire activity or severity? Would a wildfire result in damage to the water supply source infrastructure or interruption of its ability to perform as designed? Could the water supply source be affected by an increase in wildfire activity or severity in an upstream watershed or other adjacent area?
3 Notes:
Level of Risk: 1 – low, 3 – medium, 5 – high
DRAFT
Page | 8-4
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
8.2.2 Data and Methodologies
Because shortages are based on the difference between expected supplies and demand under assumed current year and dry year conditions, the evaluation criteria to be used by the Water Division in the Annual Assessment for determining a shortage include the following:
• Characterization of the current year and dry year scenarios bases on best-available data, • Estimation of available core supplies, and
• Estimate of projected demands
Together, these three criteria provide the necessary information to calculate shortage percentages by dividing the difference between total core supplies and unconstrained demand by total unconstrained demand, under current year and dry year scenarios.
8.3 Six Standard Water Shortage Levels
8.3.1 Establishment of Water Shortage Conditions
The City establishes water shortage conditions pursuant to the authority provided in the Paramount Municipal Code (PMC) and through actions of the City Council. The PMC authorizes the City to regulate water use, implement conservation measures, and enforce restrictions as necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare during periods of reduced water supply or emergency conditions. The PMC defines discrete water‑shortage tiers or stages, and provides the legal framework under which the City Council may declare water shortage or emergency conditions and impose mandatory or voluntary conservation measures by resolution. The WSCP serves as the primary policy document that establishes water shortage levels, identifies supply and demand indicators, and outlines the corresponding response actions that may be implemented during normal, water shortage, or emergency conditions.
Under normal water supply conditions, the City promotes water use efficiency through ongoing conservation programs and requires compliance with permanent water‑use efficiency standards and water‑waste prohibitions established in the City Code and applicable state regulations.
When water supply constraints occur due to drought, regional supply limitations, groundwater conditions, infrastructure constraints, or state mandated actions, the City Council may activate the applicable water shortage stage consistent with the PMC and WSCP. These measures may apply citywide or to specific customer classes or uses and may include enhanced conservation requirements, mandatory water use restrictions, and enforcement actions commensurate with the severity of the shortage.
In the event of a severe or emergency water shortage, the City Council may declare a water supply emergency and implement additional restrictions or allocation based measures as necessary to ensure the continued availability of water for essential public health and safety needs. All water shortage actions are implemented in coordination with regional water suppliers, including the CBMWD, and in compliance with applicable SWRCB requirements.
DRAFT
Page | 8-5
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
8.3.2 Water Shortage Stages
The City developed a six-level rationing plan to be implemented when the City experiences a shortage in the water supply, which is contained in PMC § 13.04, Art. V. According to the plan, the City Council, upon the request of the City Manager, has the authority to declare a stage of action and implement reduction measures.
Table 8-2 provides an outline of each phase and the associated percentage of water supply reduction.
These stages have been updated to comply with the six Standard Water Shortage Stages established by DWR in 2019.
Table 8-2: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Planning Shortage
Level
Stage % Supply
Reduction
Water Supply Condition
1 Stage I:
Moderate (a)
0 – 10% A Level I Water Supply Shortage exists when the City Council determines, in its sole discretion,
that due to drought or other water supply
conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened
shortage exists and a 10% consumer demand
reduction is necessary to make more efficient
use of water and appropriately respond to
existing water conditions.
2 Stage I:
Moderate (b)
11 – 20% A Level II Water Supply Shortage exists when
the City Council determines, in its sole discretion,
that due to drought or other water supply
conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened
shortage exists and a 20% consumer demand
reduction is necessary to make more efficient
use of water and appropriately respond to
existing water conditions.
3 Stage II:
Severe (a)
21 – 30% A Level III Water Supply Shortage exists when
the City Council declares, in its sole discretion,
that due to drought or other water supply
conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened
shortage exists and a 30% consumer demand
reduction is necessary to make more efficient
use of water and appropriately respond to
existing water conditions.
4 Stage II:
Severe (b)
31 – 40% A Level IV Water Supply Shortage exists when
the City Council declares, in its sole discretion,
that due to drought or other water supply
conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened
shortage exists and a 40% consumer demand
reduction is necessary to make more efficient
use of water and appropriately respond to
existing water conditions
5 Stage III:
Critical
41 – 50% A Level V Water Supply Shortage is referred to as a Water Shortage Emergency. A Level V
DRAFT
Page | 8-6
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
condition exists when the City Council declares,
in its sole discretion, a water shortage
emergency and notifies its residents and
businesses that a 50% reduction in consumer
demand reduction is necessary to make more
efficient use of water and appropriately respond
to existing water conditions
6 Stage IV:
Emergency
+51% A Level V Water Supply Shortage is referred to
as a Water Shortage Emergency. A Level V
condition exists when the City Council declares,
in its sole discretion, a water shortage
emergency and notifies its residents and
businesses that a 50% reduction in consumer
demand is necessary to maintain sufficient water
supplies for public health and safety, pursuant to
Water Code Section 350 et seq.
Stage I (a): A moderate water shortage exists when the City Council determines, in its sole discretion, that drought or other water supply conditions have resulted in, or may result in, a water supply shortage requiring up to a 10% reduction in consumer demand. This stage is intended to encourage increased efficiency in water use and early conservation actions to appropriately respond to existing or threatened water supply conditions while maintaining reliable service to all customer classes.
Stage I (b): A continued moderate water shortage exists when the City Council determines, in its sole discretion, that drought or other water supply conditions warrant a 20% reduction in consumer demand.
This stage reflects more pronounced supply constraints and the need for enhanced conservation actions to reduce water use and protect the City’s available supplies. Measures implemented during this stage are intended to further improve efficiency and slow demand growth while avoiding emergency conditions.
Stage II (a): A severe water shortage exists when the City Council declares, in its sole discretion, that drought or other water supply conditions require a 30% reduction in consumer demand. This stage indicates significant stress on available water supplies and necessitates stricter conservation measures and broader compliance to ensure that essential water needs can continue to be met throughout the service area.
Stage II (b): A continued severe water shortage exists when the City Council declares, in its sole discretion, that drought or other water supply conditions require a 40% reduction in consumer demand.
This stage reflects critical supply limitations and the need for aggressive conservation actions across all customer sectors to sustain available supplies and minimize the risk of progressing to emergency conditions.
Stage III: A critical water shortage exists when the City Council declares a Water Shortage Emergency, determining that a 50% reduction in consumer demand is necessary. At this level, water supply conditions are extremely constrained, and emergency conservation measures are implemented to protect remaining supplies and ensure continued availability of water for essential public health and safety needs.
Stage IV: An emergency water shortage represents the most severe supply condition and is also classified as a Water Shortage Emergency. This stage exists when the City Council declares, in its sole DRAFT
Page | 8-7
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
discretion, that drought or other conditions require reductions exceeding 51% to maintain sufficient water supplies for public health and safety, pursuant to CWC Section 350 et seq. Measures implemented under this stage are intended to preserve critical supplies and prioritize essential uses until emergency conditions subside.
Water shortage actions may also be triggered by shortages or mandatory reduction requirements imposed by regional, State, or federal agencies, including CBMWD, MWD, or the SWRCB. The City Manager or designee uses available supply, demand, and operational information to recommend implementation or modification of water shortage response actions to the City Council.
Table 8-3 provides a comparison that shows the City’s water shortage to those mandated by statute.
Table 8-3: Comparison for the City’s 2015 Shortage Levels and the 2025 WSCP Mandated Shortage Levels
Stages from 2015 UWMP Crosswalk 2025 WSCP Mandated Shortage Levels Stage
%
Supply
Reduction
Water Supply
Condition Stage
%
Supply
Reduction
Water
Supply
Condition
Mandatory
compliance
with water
savings
measures
- 0% Always in place 1 0% to 10% Slightly
Restricted
Mandatory
compliance
1 0% to
15%
Reduced surfacewater availability or
emerging drought
2 11% to
20%
Slightly
Restricted
Mandatory
compliance
2 15% to
25%
Multi-year drought
conditions or
allocation reductions
3 21% to
30%
Moderately
Restricted
Mandatory
compliance
3 25% to
35%
Significant
surface-water
curtailments;
emergency risk
4 31% to
40%
Moderately
Restricted
Mandatory
compliance
4 35% to
50%
Extreme shortage;
threat to public
health and safety
5 41% to
50%
Severely
Restricted
Mandatory
compliance
6 51% and
above
Extremely
Restricted
Mandatory
compliance
Notes:
1. Corresponds to WUE Table 8-1.
DRAFT
Page | 8-8
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
8.4 Shortage Response Actions
Chapter 6 of the UWMP discusses the City’s conjunctive management of ground and surface water sources to use resources effectively and sustainably and avoid overuse.
Chapter 6 also further details the City’s participation in recycled water systems; the City is part of an integrated water recycling program that includes the Cities in Los Angeles County as well as water districts, including MWD. Wastewater is collected and treated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) sewage system and sent to either the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) or one of six satellite water reclamation plants (WRPs) as part of the Joint Outfall System (JOS).
8.4.1 Supply Augmentation
Table 8-4 summarizes the restrictions and prohibitions on end users during each stage of water shortage responses implemented by the City in accordance with CWC §10632(a)(4)(A).
Table 8-4: Supply Augmentation and Other Actions
Shortage
Level
Supply Augmentation Methods
and Other Actions by Water
Supplier
Estimated Extent of
Reducing the Water
Shortage Gap
Penalty, Charge,
or Other
Enforcement?
All Stages Reduce Water System Loss High No
4 to 6
Begin Implementation and/or
Develop Agreements with Nearby
Agencies/Water Suppliers
High No
Notes:
1. Corresponds to WUE Table 8-2R.
8.4.2 Demand Reduction
8.4.2.1 Water Waste Prohibitions
The PMC includes specific water use restrictions, detailed in § 13.04, Art. V. In the event of a significant reduction of water supply, the City has six stages of actions to take and policies to implement in order to minimize the impacts of water shortage, prepare for an increase in shortage, and attempt to conserve water to prevent further shortages. Table 8-5 provides an overview of the mandatory prohibitions and the consumption reduction methods the City will implement to compensate for a water shortage of up to 50%.
DRAFT
Page | 8-9
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 8-5: Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Uses
Stage Restrictions and Prohibitions of End Users Penalty, Charge, or Other Enforcement
1 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific
days
Yes
1 Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and
malfunctions in a timely manner
Yes
1 Landscape - Restrict or prohibit runoff from
landscape irrigation
Yes
1 Other - Prohibit use of potable water for washing
hard surfaces
Yes
2 Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative
water features, such as fountains
Yes
2 CII - Restaurants may only serve water upon
request
Yes
2 Other - Prohibit use of potable water for
construction and dust control
Yes
3 Landscape – Increased limit for landscape
irrigation to specific days
Yes
3 Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and
malfunctions in a timely manner
Yes
3 Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative
water features, such as fountains
Yes
4 Other - Prohibit vehicle washing except at
facilities using recycled or recirculating water
Yes
4 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or
prohibition
Yes
4 Main line flushing is allowed for emergency
purposes only
Yes
5 Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and
malfunctions in a timely manner
Yes
6 Additional prohibited uses as determined by the
City Council.
Yes
Notes:
1. Corresponds to WUE Table 8-3R.
DRAFT
Page | 8-10
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Level 1 and 2 Water Supply Shortage (0% - 20% reduction) The following mandatory water conservation requirements apply during such time that the Stage 1 Water Supply Shortage is in effect:
Limits on Watering Days: Watering or irrigation of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to 3 days per week. During the months of November through March, watering or irrigation of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to no more than 2 days per week. This provision does not apply to landscape irrigation systems that exclusively use very low-flow drip type irrigation systems when no emitter produces more than two gallons of water per hour. This provision does not apply to use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off device, or for very short periods for the express purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. Obligation to Fix Leaks, Breaks, or Malfunctions: All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in the water user’s plumbing, distribution, or irrigation system must be remedied within 72 hours of observation and/or notification by the City.
No Excessive Water Flow or Run-Off: Watering or irrigation of any lawn, landscape or other vegetated area in a manner that causes or allows excessive water flow or run-off onto an adjoining sidewalk, driveway, street, alley, gutter or ditch must be repaired within 5 days of observation and/or notification by the City.
No Washing Down Hard or Paved Surfaces: Washing down hard or paved surfaces, including but not limited to sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios or alleys is prohibited except when necessary to alleviate safety or sanitary hazards and only by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a low-volume high pressure cleaning machine equipped to recycle any water used or a low volume high pressure water broom. Re-circulating Water Required for Water Fountains and Decorative Water Features:
Operating a water fountain or other decorative water feature that does not use re-circulating water is prohibited
Limits on Washing Vehicles: Using water to wash or clean a vehicle including but not limited to any automobile, truck, van, bus, motorcycle, boat or trailer whether motorized is prohibited, except by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container or a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle or device.
Drinking Water Served Upon Request Only: Restaurants are prohibited from providing drinking water to any person unless expressly requested by that person. Other Prohibited Uses:
o Use only recycled water for construction site dust control, consolidation of backfill. o The City Council may implement other prohibited water uses as determined by the City after notice to customers.
Level 3 and 4 Water Supply Shortage (21% - 40%)
DRAFT
Page | 8-11
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
The following mandatory water conservation requirements, in addition to the Stage 1 actions, apply during such time that the Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage is in effect:
Limits on Watering: Watering or irrigation of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to 2 days per week. During the months of November through March, watering or irrigation of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to no more than 1 day per week. This provision does not apply to landscape irrigation systems that exclusively use very low-flow drip type irrigation systems when no emitter produces more than 2 gallons of water per hour. This provision does not apply to use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off device, or for very short periods for the express purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. Obligation to Fix Leaks, Breaks or Malfunctions: All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in the water user’s plumbing, distribution, or irrigation system must be remedied within 48 hours of observation and/or notification by the City.
Other Prohibited Uses:
o No filling, cleaning and/or refilling of decorative fountains, ornamental lakes or ponds except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life, provided that such animals have been actively managed within the water feature prior to declaration of this supply shortage stage.
o Residential car washing prohibited. Use car washes available with water recycling systems.
o The filling or topping off of any new or existing residential pools or outdoor spas is prohibited.
o Planting of new turf grass is prohibited.
o Outdoor evaporative mist coolers are prohibited.
o Main line flushing is allowed for emergency purposes only. o The City may implement other prohibited water uses as determined by the City Council, after notice to Customers.
Level 5 and 6 Water Supply Shortage – Emergency Condition (Greater than 41% Reduction) The following mandatory water conservation requirements, in addition to Stage 1 and Stage 2 actions, apply during such time that the Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage is in effect:
No Watering or Irrigating: Watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is restricted in accordance with allotments as set forth by the City during a Stage 3 Water Supply Shortage. This restriction does not apply to the use of recycled water or to the following categories of use:
o Maintenance of existing landscape necessary for fire protection; o Maintenance of existing landscape for soil erosion control; DRAFT
Page | 8-12
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
o Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well-being of protected species;
o Maintenance of landscape within active public parks and playing fields, daycare centers, golf course greens, and school grounds, provided that such irrigation does not exceed 2 days per week;
o Actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects. Obligation to Fix Leaks, Breaks, or Malfunctions: All leaks, breaks, or other malfunctions in the water user’s plumbing, distribution, or irrigation system must be remedied within 24 hours of observation and/or notification by the City.
Other Prohibited Uses: The City may implement other prohibited water uses as determined by the City Council, after notifying customers.
8.4.2.2 Water Conservation Measures
In addition to permanent waste prohibitions, the City promotes efficient water use through ongoing conservation measures and coordination with its regional wholesale water suppliers.
Ongoing conservation measures include:
Public outreach and education promoting efficient water use through the City’s website, public messaging, and billing communications
Promotion of water-efficient practices and technologies Encouragement of timely detection and repair of leaks by customers Participation in and promotion of regional water efficiency programs offered by wholesale agencies
If water shortage conditions are declared, the City may enhance these efforts by:
Expanding public information and public outreach campaigns Increasing conservation messaging through water billing and other communications Directing customers toward water use surveys or efficiency evaluations offered through regional partners
Increasing emphasis on behavior‑based water savings appropriate to the severity of the shortage
8.4.2.3 Water Use Restrictions
During declared water shortage or emergency conditions, the City Council may implement additional water use restrictions by resolution to achieve the required level of water use reduction identified in the WSCP.
Potential water use restrictions include, but are not limited to:
DRAFT
Page | 8-13
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Further limiting or prohibiting outdoor landscape irrigation Restricting irrigation to drip or other high-efficiency systems only Limiting or prohibiting non-essential outdoor water uses Reducing or suspending discretionary system activities such as hydrant flushing, where allowed by regulations
Limiting operation of decorative water features
Implementing water use allocations or water budgets for specific customer classes Imposing enforcement actions, penalties, or surcharges for non-compliance
8.4.3 Operational Changes
In the event of an extreme water shortage, the City will implement some or all of the following operational changes in accordance with CWC §10632(a)(4)(C) and §10632.5(a):
The City shall provide prompt notice to customer whenever the City obtains information that indicates a leak may exist within the end-user’s exclusive control. Evaluate maintenance procedures and alter if needed to reduce operation use of water loss. Evaluate infrastructure repairs, and complete if possible, to reduce operation use of water loss.
The City will continue to evaluate operational and maintenance procedures in order to identify opportunities for improved efficiency in water delivery and reducing water system loss.
8.4.4 Additional Mandatory Restrictions
The City’s customers shall comply to the mandatory water shortage response actions listed in Table 8-5 associated with a Level 3 or higher water shortage event in accordance with §10632(a)(4)(D). In the event of a water shortage emergency or severe drought, the City may enact additional mandatory restrictions:
Provide technical information to customers on means to promote water use efficiency
8.4.5 Emergency Response Plan
The City adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in 2023, and continues to maintain the comprehensive plan which outlines the water system response plan in the event of a natural disaster or Citywide power outage.
When activated, the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) coordinates damage assessments, information gathering, and response actions related to impacts on City facilities, infrastructure, and services, including the water distribution system. The LHMP includes the following elements:
Measures to be taken prior to and following an emergency event Information regarding coordination with police and fire department personnel DRAFT
Page | 8-14
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Interdepartmental coordination protocols, including systems for issuing emergency alerts and communicating with residents
Public information and notification procedures
Resources management and logistics planning, addressing personnel, equipment, and facility needs during emergency operations
In the event of a catastrophic interruption or other emergency, the City Council can direct the implementation of the Emergency stage of water conservation action.
The Health and Safety Element (HSE), adopted in 2022 and amended in 2025, provides the foundational policy framework for protecting the community from natural and human‑caused hazards and for guiding emergency preparedness and response activities. The Safety Element identifies public safety risks such as earthquakes, flooding, fire hazards, and hazardous incidents, and establishes goals and policies related to emergency response, infrastructure resilience, and protection of life and property. The HSE includes contemporary climate change analysis and addresses water supply reliability or climate-related stresses, reflecting current conditions, evolving hazards, and modern planning practices.
The following incidents are considered in the HSE:
Urban Fire
Earthquakes
Adversarial Events
Hazardous Material Release
Pipeline Failure
Flooding and Dam Failure
Destructive/Drought Winds
Transportation Accident/Incidents
The UWMP Act requires a catastrophic supply interruption plan. This plan looks at the vulnerability of each source and distribution system to events such as wildfires, flooding, earthquakes, landslides, rockslides, other natural disasters, and unforeseen emergencies. The actions taken to address each catastrophe are consistent with the Safety Element and the County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan (AHMP) (September 2025) presented in
DRAFT
Table 8-6 below:
Page | 8-15
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 8-6: Catastrophic Supply Interruption Actions
Possible
Catastrophe Summary of Actions
Wildfire/
Flooding
Wildfire and flooding events are identified by the LA County AHMP as hazards that can affect access, power supply, communications, and above-ground infrastructure, even in urbanized coastal areas. While these events are not expected to cause a systemwide water supply failure for the City, localized impacts to facilities, pipelines, or electrical service may occur. In the event of wildfire or flooding impacts, the City would notify affected customers, implement voluntary or mandatory water use restrictions as appropriate, and isolate damaged facilities or pipeline segments to limit service impacts. Emergency coordination with regional agencies and utility providers would be initiated, and impacts to the water system would be mitigated through operational redundancies and use of available storage.
Earthquake/
Fault Rupture/
Liquefaction
Earthquakes and associated ground shaking and liquefaction are identified in the LA County AHMP as primary regional hazards with the potential to cause widespread infrastructure damage. In the event of a major seismic event, the City’s EOC would be activated in accordance with the City’s EOP. Damaged portions of the water distribution system would be isolated, system integrity would be assessed, and customers would be notified to limit water use as necessary. The City would rely on available stored water, regional system redundancy, and coordination with wholesale water suppliers to maintain critical service while emergency repairs are undertaken.
Sea Level
Rise/Storm
Surge
The LA County AHMP identifies coastal storms, sea level rise, and storm surge as hazards that may affect low-lying coastal infrastructure over time. While water supply conveyance is largely regional, localized impacts to City facilities or supporting infrastructure could occur during severe coastal storm events. In such cases, the City would implement protective actions for affected facilities, coordinate with regional agencies regarding system status, and implement water use restrictions if necessary to preserve available supplies.
Extreme
Heat/Power
Disruption
Extreme heat events are identified in the LA County AHMP as an increasing hazard with potential indirect impacts on water systems through increased demand and power supply interruptions. In the event of extreme heat or extended power outages, the City would coordinate with electric utilities and regional water suppliers, implement water use restrictions as necessary, and prioritize available water supplies.
8.4.6 Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan
The City provides potable water to its customers from imported supplies delivered through regional wholesale agencies and groundwater wells. The City operates a municipal water distribution system that delivers water throughout its service area through one pressure zone. The City provides wastewater collection service within the water service area; however, wastewater treatment is provided by regional DRAFT
Page | 8-16
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
facilities owned and operated by the LACSD, and the City does not operate its own wastewater treatment plant.
The City’s LHMP evaluates seismic hazards within the City, including earthquake ground shaking, fault rupture, and liquefaction, and assesses potential impacts to critical infrastructure and essential services. . The LHMP provides the primary local basis for identifying mitigation strategies to reduce seismic risk and improve community resilience. In addition, the Los Angeles County AHMP provides a regional assessment of earthquake hazards and associated risks that may affect the City and surrounding jurisdictions. The City’s HSE complements these planning documents by identifying preparedness, detection, and response strategies for earthquakes and outlining procedures for coordinated emergency response and recovery. The following sections provide a summary of the general finding from the AHMP with respect to potential impacts from earthquakes, faults, and liquefaction within the City’s service area.
8.4.6.1 Faults, Earthquakes, and Liquefaction
Per the AHMP, the following provides a description of major faults within Los Angeles County:
Over 163 earthquakes of M 5.0 or greater have been recorded in Southern California since 1812. The San Andreas Fault remains the greatest seismic hazard, with a 59% chance of an M 6.7+ event in the next 30 years… Los Angeles County has a long history of experiencing damaging earthquakes due to its location along multiple active fault systems, including the San Andreas, Newport-Inglewood, and Whittier faults.
The City’s HSE describes the regional risk:
The Steering Committee ranked earthquake as the greatest threat to the City. The City does not have any seismic faults within its boundaries but is still in the vicinity of several known active and potentially active earthquake faults. … many of these faults are known to be capable of a magnitude 6.0 or greater earthquake… This report focused on the four faults that could most seriously impact the area:
1. San Andreas Fault
2. Newport-Inglewood Fault
3. Whittier-Elsinore Fault
4. Palos Verdes Fault
8.4.6.2 Seismic Risk
Per the California Department of Conservation Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (EQ Zapp) and the area maps included in the LHMP, the City’s existing water distribution facilities were not identified to be within critical fault or landslide hazard zones, but are still susceptible to the risks of ground shaking. They City boundaries, however, are within a critical liquefaction zone.
8.4.6.3 Mitigation
In the event of a system disruption to existing water supplies from an earthquake, fault rupture, or liquefaction response actions are described in the City’s LHMP.
DRAFT
Page | 8-17
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
8.4.7 Shortage Response Action Effectiveness
Efficacy of demand reduction efforts is difficult to estimate or predict, but water savings are a function of the extent to which public information campaigns reach water users and the degree of consumer response to those messages. Consistent with the Communications Plan in the following section, anticipated shortages will involve an appropriately sized outreach campaign to address the targeted demand reduction, which depends on the combined effectiveness of other shortage response actions.
As shown in the following table, reduction responses are designed to reduce demands up to approximately 50% of water demands. This WSCP contains six levels at which water reduction responses will be applied to achieve appropriate levels of use reduction. Table 8-7 gives examples of estimated savings by each level using the estimated 2025 demand of 5,122 AF.
Actual reductions and base demands are based on a formula that includes various factors such as actual local supply production, population growth, and conservation.
Table 8-7: Estimated Demand Reduction
Water Shortage
Level
Approximate Percent
Reduction Example Base Demand Estimated Demand Reduction 1 10%
5,122 AF
512 AF
2 20% 1,024 AF
3 30% 1,537 AF
4 40% 2,049 AF
5 50% 2,561 AF
6 55% 2,817 AF
Notes:
1. 55% used for estimation purposes
8.5 Communication Protocols
Effectual reduction of water usage begins with effectual communication; both with the public and heads of City management. Water personnel are responsible for communicating increasing water shortage conditions and educating both the public and City management about the necessity and way to conserve limited water supplies. In additional, Water personnel will collaborate with CBMWD and the MWD to improve water reliably and infrastructure. Water personnel will strive to; Motivate the public to:
o Increase conservation
o Follow voluntary or mandatory water use guidelines
o Participate in water-saving incentive programs
DRAFT
Page | 8-18
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Raise awareness about:
o Water shortage and/or drought conditions
o Water sources, supplies, and reserves
o Local, regional, and state regulations
Educate the public about:
o Water supply reliability
o Water infrastructure and delivery
o Water quality
Prepare City Management for:
o Varying water supply conditions
o Escalating supply shortage levels
Conservation as a way of life remains central to messaging during normal supply conditions. Regional rebate programs, indoor and outdoor water use efficiency, investments to maintain infrastructure, emergency preparedness, local supply programs, water quality, and regional supply reliability are among some of the themes that make up normal supply period’s communications mix to encourage ongoing conservation actions. Below is a snapshot of the various strategies involved:
Social Media
City Website
Community Events
Education Outreach
Business Outreach
8.6 Compliance and Enforcement
The City will endeavor to achieve water use reduction targets when possible through voluntary compliance measures which will include existing and enhanced water conservation communication, education, outreach, and incentive programs.
8.6.1 Compliance and Enforcement Protocols
In the event that water target reductions are not met and/or water shortages occur that cannot be met simply through voluntary measures, the City may enact compliance and enforcement protocols to ensure compliance. These measures may include:
Water waste and/or enforcement protocols
Warning and citation protocols
DRAFT
Page | 8-19
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
8.6.2 Penalties for Excessive Use
In the event of a water supply shortage, violators can face a maximum fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for no more than 30 days. Table 8-8 describes the penalties associated with single and recurring violations which are outlined in the ordinance. This includes a first warning and subsequent fines increasing from $100. On the fifth violation, a notice of intent to install a flow restrictor, with the financial burden of the installation of a flow restrictor lying on the suspected violator of the ordinance, will be implemented.
Table 8-8: Penalties and Charges
Violation Stage 1 Penalty or Charge Stages 2 & 3 Penalty or Charge
First Violation Written courtesy door hanger
describing the violation and
deliver a copy of this ordinance
by mail
Fine not to exceed $100
Second Violation Fine not to exceed $100 Fine not to exceed $200 Third Violation Fine not to exceed $150 Fine not to exceed $250 Fourth Violation Fine not to exceed $200 Fine not to exceed $250 Fifth Violation Fine not to exceed $250 and
the City may install a Flow
Restrictor with the financial
burden of the Flow Restrictor
lying on the suspected violator
Fine not to exceed $500 and
the City may install a Flow
Restrictor with the financial
burden of the Flow Restrictor
lying on the suspected violator
The procedures for administration, implementation, enforcement, and appeal of water conservation violations, fines, and penalties are set forth in PMC § 13.04.600 and related enforcement provisions, including authority to issue notices of violation, citations, and administrative penalties for non‑compliance.
8.7 Legal Authorities
CWC Section 350 et seq. authorizes any public entity to declare a water shortage emergency and, upon declaration of that emergency, adopt regulations and restrictions on the delivery and consumption of water in order to conserve water resources during the period of the emergency and until the supply of water available for distribution by the suppliers has been replenished or augmented. For the City, the City Council, along with the City manager, has the ability to declare a state of water shortage and enforce response actions appropriate to the scenario. City Ordinance 1050 lays out the City’s plan for implementing reduction measures depending on the severity of the shortage. In 2020, the water code was updated mandating additional water shortage levels be added through the development of the WSCP. This plan seeks to build off the existing ordinance, adding the additional measures to meet Water Code 10635.
DRAFT
Page | 8-20
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
8.7.1 Legal Authorities
The Water Division, through the Water Division Superintendent, shall be responsible for administration and enforcement of the provisions of the WSCP. The Department will monitor and determine when a water shortage exists or is projected to exist and make a recommendation to the City Manager.
8.7.2 Declaration of Water Shortage Condition or Emergency and Implementation of Water Shortage Response Actions
The City Council, along with the City Manager, has the ability to declare a state of water shortage and enforce response actions appropriate to the scenario. City Ordinance 1158 lays out the City’s plan for implementing reduction measures depending on the severity of the shortage. In 2020, the water code was updated mandating additional water shortage levels be added through the development of this WSCP. This plan seeks to build off the existing ordinance, adding the additional measures to meet Water Code 10635.
8.7.3 Proclamation of Local Emergency
In the event of a local emergency that would affect water supplies, the City shall contact the following agencies:
CBMWD
MWD
Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management
Division of Drinking Water (DDW)
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
8.7.4 Withdrawal of Water Shortage Condition and Water Response Actions Water shortage response actions will continue to be in effect until the Water Division has determined that water shortage conditions have improved. Upon recommendation from the Department and City Manager, the City Council may, by resolution, declare a reduction or elimination of the water shortage response action.
8.8 Financial Consequences of WSCP
8.8.1 Financial Impacts and Mitigation Action
The City purchases imported water from CBMWD at a two-tiered rate structure. This rate structure promotes water conservation and regional supply reliability. The City is committed to a voluntary purchase agreement with CBMWD, which outlines the amount of water to be purchased at a Tier 1 rate and the cost of the Tier 2 rate for water purchases that exceed the Tier 1 allotment.
In order to further promote water conservation and supply reliability, the City has adopted a similar rate structure for its customers. The City utilizes a two-tier structure for each customer account category. The DRAFT
Page | 8-21
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
City’s water rate schedule is updated on a yearly basis. See the City’s website for water current rates.
Note that 1 unit is equivalent to 100 cubic feet or 748 gallons.
Variation in the amount of revenues is already part of the City’s financial planning. Revenues vary according to weather patterns and the availability of water supplies. In dry years, local demands increase, and the City may receive higher than anticipated revenues due to increased sales volumes. In contrast, in wet years, demands decrease, and revenues drop due to lower sales volumes. Such revenue surpluses and shortages could cause instability in water rates. To mitigate this risk, the City maintains financial reserves, with a minimum and target balance, to stabilize water rates during times of reduced water sales. The reserves hold revenues collected during times of high-water sales and are used to offset the need for revenues during times of low sales. The City’s practice of using reserves to buffer unexpected increases or decreases in budgeted revenue also applies to unexpected expenditure increases or decreases resulting from shortage responses.
8.8.2 Reporting Cost of Compliance with Excessive Water Use Prohibition During Drought Emergency
In compliance with Water Code Section 366, the City shall report on the cost of compliance, including rate structures or excessive water use ordinances, in the event of any of the following:
Governor declared statewide drought emergency
City moves to a local water shortage condition requiring mandatory reductions Governor declared local drought emergency
8.9 Monitoring and Reporting
Consistent with California Governor’s Executive Order B-29-25, the City is currently monitoring and comparing monthly consumption and production rates to the same months in 2013 in order to determine levels of water usage reduction. These rates rely on groundwater pumping and water purchase transaction records as well as end user meter readings to determine water quantities. Should water shortage conditions remain, the City will continue to use these methods to document and analyze measurable progress in water savings against previous years.
8.10 WSCP Refinement Procedures
The WSCP is meant to be an adaptive management plan that is subject to evaluation and refinement as needed to ensure that the provisions and measures contained in the plan are effective and achieving the desired results of effectively managing the City’s water supply during water shortage conditions. Water shortage response actions will include the appropriate level of water shortage risk tolerance and be periodically evaluated to ensure the strategies employed are appropriate for the water shortage level.
The WSCP will be periodically re-evaluated to ensure that its shortage risk tolerance is adequate, and the shortage response actions are effective and up to date based on lessons learned from implementing the WSCP. The WSCP will be revised and updated during the UWMP update cycle to incorporate updated and new information. For example, actions that are no longer applicable for reasons such as program expiration will be removed. However, if revisions to the WSCP are warranted before the UWMP is updated, the WSCP will be updated outside of the UWMP update cycle. In the course of preparing the DRAFT
Page | 8-22
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Annual Assessment each year, City staff will routinely consider the functionality the overall WSCP and will prepare recommendations for the City Council if changes are found to be needed.
8.11 Special Water Feature Distinction
The City did not identify any special water features.
8.12 Plan Adoption, Submittal, Availability, and Amendment Procedures As was done for the 2025 UWMP update, the WSCP will be made available during update years to the public and neighboring agencies. Drafts will be advertised on the City website and by email to interested stakeholders. Each June, the City will hold a public hearing to answer questions regarding the plan and for the City Council to approve the WSCP prior to submission to the DWR.
The notice of the public hearing, held May 26, 2026 at the City’s office, was sent to the City of Long Beach, Golden State Water Company, and Central Basin Municipal Water District on June 3, 2026, in accordance with CWC §10632(a)(c). A copy of the letters from the City to the City and County are included in Appendix A of this WSCP.
Table 8-9: Notification to Cities and Agencies
City Name 60 Day Notice Notice of Public Hearing
City of Long Beach X
Golden State Water
Company X
Central Basin Municipal
Water District X
A public hearing was held on June 23 , 2026 at the City’s office. The public hearing provided opportunity for community input. The WSCP update was adopted by the City on June 23, 2026 by approval of Resolution 26:021. A copy of the resolution can be viewed in Appendix F.
Within 30 days of adoption, the City will submit the WSCP update to the DWR for review. During the DWR review process the City will coordinate with DWR reviewers as necessary. The City will use the online submittal tool located at www.wuedata.water.ca.gov.secure/ developed by the DWR to electronically submit the WSCP update.
Within 30 days of adoption, the City will submit a CD of the adopted WSCP to the California State Library at the following address:
California State Library
Government Publications Section
P.O. Box 942867
Sacramento, CA 94237-001
Attention: Coordinator, Urban Water Management Plans
DRAFT
Page | 8-23
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Within 30 days of adoption, the City will submit an electronic copy of the adopted WSCP update to the City of Long Beach and the County of Los Angeles electronically in accordance with CWC Section 10632(a)(c). A copy of the transmittals to said agencies will be included in Appendix A.
Within 30 days of adoption, the City will have a copy of the WSCP update available for public review at the City Office (see address below) during normal business hours and available on the City’s website, https://www.paramountcity.gov/.
City of Paramount
16400 Colorado Ave
Paramount, CA 90723
Phone – 562.220.2000
DRAFT
Page | 9-1
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
CHAPTER 9 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES
New Requirements for 2025 Update
The 2025 update expands reporting requirements for demand management, including documentation of program effectiveness, cost-benefit considerations, and integration with the SB 606/AB 1668 framework.
Agencies must now report on performance measures for CII customers and provide more detailed explanations of outreach, education, landscape transformation programs, and conservation tracking methods. Compared to 2020, the level of detail required for conservation reporting is significantly higher.
9.1 Demand Management Measures for Retail Suppliers
CWC 10631(f)
(A)…The narrative shall describe the water demand management measure that the supplier plans to implement to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20. (B) The narrative pursuant to this paragraph shall include descriptions of the following water demand management measures: (i) Water waste prevention ordinances. (ii) Metering. (iii) Conservation pricing. (iv) Public education and outreach. (v) Programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss. (vi) Water Conservation program coordination and staffing support. (vii) Other demand management measures that have a significant impact on water use as measured in gallons per capita per day, including innovative measures, if implemented.
The City works with the CBMWD to implement water conservation techniques to reduce the total demand of water throughout the City and CBMWD. Together, the City and CBMWD implement the seven required Demand Management Measures (DMMs) within the City. CBMWD is an early signatory to the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding Urban Water Conservation in California. CUWCC represents a diverse group of water supply agencies dedicated to establishing guidelines toward implementing conservation measures and managing supply demands.
The City has implemented the required DMMs per CWC 10631 to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20 and described in Chapters 5 and 8. In the past 5 years, the City has maintained its rebate programs, metering, and water waste prevention. Table 9-1 summarizes the Best Management Practices (BMPs)/DMMs.
DRAFT
Page | 9-2
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 9-1: CUWCC BMP Organization and Names and UWMP DMMs Category BMP # BMP Name DMM # DMM Name
BMP 1:
Utility Operations
1.1 Operations
Practices 5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss
1.2 Water Loss
Control 1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances
1.3 Metering with
Commodity Rates 2 Metering
1.4 Retail
Conservation
Pricing
3 Conservation Pricing
BMP 2:
Public Education
and School
Education
2 Public Education
and School
Education
4 Public Education and Outreach
6 Water Conservation Program
Coordination and Staffing
Support
BMP 3:
Residential
Programs
3 Residential
Programs
3 Conservation Pricing
4 Public Education and Outreach
6 Water Conservation Program
Coordination and Staffing
Support
BMP 4:
Commercial,
Industrial, and
Institutional
4 Commercial,
Industrial, and
Institutional
3 Conservation Pricing
4 Public Education and Outreach
6 Water Conservation Program
Coordination and Staffing
Support
BMP 5:
Landscape
5 Landscape
3 Conservation Pricing
6 Water Conservation Program
Coordination and Staffing
Support
9.1.1 Implementation Over the Past Five Years
CWC 10631(f)
Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following: (1)(A)…a narrative description that addresses the nature and extent of each water demand management measure implemented over the past five years.
DRAFT
Page | 9-3
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Implementation for each DMM is partially covered in the following sections. Significant increases in rebate usage demonstrates that conservation efforts within the City are effective and that continued progress for water conservation targets are being met.
9.1.2 Implementation to Achieve Water-Use Targets
CWC 10631(f)
Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following: (1)(A)…The narrative shall describe the water demand management measures that the supplier plans to implement to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20.
Continued outreach and support for rebates are the City’s prime method of implementation. As stated in following sections, CBMWD provides the support for rebates for its associated agencies.
The City implemented the required DMM per CWC 10631 to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20. Baseline and target 2020 GPCD are described in Chapter 5 of the UWMP. It is anticipated that the City will adopt its WSCP (see Chapter 8) at its July 2026 Council meeting which outlines measures the City will take to achieve water use targets.
9.1.3 Required Demand Management Measures
9.1.3.1 Water-Waste Prevention Ordinances
The City adopted a "Water Conservation and Water Supply Program," by Ordinance Number 1050 on September 2, 2014, which is actively enforced in drought situations. The Ordinance outlines three stages of water supply shortage, and the stage may be determined by the City. To enforce Ordinance 1050, the City will issue warnings and subsequent citations, possibly up to termination of service, to customers exceeding the conservation constraints. The City has currently determined that it is in a Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage of the Ordinance, which requires a number of water conservation measures to be inplace within the City including the reduction of consumer demand to meet anticipated demands. A copy of the Ordinance is located in Appendix G for reference.
9.1.3.2 Metering
CWC 526 (a)
…Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, an urban water supplier that, on or after January 1, 2004, received water from the Federal Central Valley Project under a water service contract or subcontract…shall do both of the following: (1) On or before January 1, 2013, install water meters on all service connections to residential and nonagricultural commercial buildings…located within its service area.
CWC 526 (a) …An urban water supplier that is not subject to Section 526 shall do both the following: (1) Install water meters on all municipal and industrial service connections located within its service area on or before January 1, 2025.
DRAFT
Page | 9-4
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
The City estimates that there are no unmetered connections within City limits since there has never been a flat rate charged for water use within any sector. Therefore, no program for retrofitting existing unmetered connections needs to be identified. The City currently bills its retail customers (residence and commercial) according to meter consumption, and requires meters for all new connections and bills by volume-of-use.
9.1.3.3 Conservation Pricing
The City purchases imported water from CBMWD at a two-tiered rate structure. This rate structure promotes water conservation and regional supply reliability. The City is committed to a voluntary purchase agreement with CBMWD, which outlines the amount of water to be purchased at a Tier 1 rate and the cost of the Tier 2 rate for water purchases that exceed the Tier 1 allotment.
In order to further promote water conservation and supply reliability, the City has adopted a similar rate structure for its customers. The City utilizes a two-tier structure for each customer account category. The City’s water rate schedule is updated on a yearly basis. This rate structure is always in places and is not dependent on a water shortage for implementation. The rates are also not treated as penalties for excessive water use, they are intended as a signal to customers to encourage lower water use. See the City website for water rates. Note that 1 unit is equivalent to 100 cubic feet or 748 gallons.
9.1.3.4 Public Education and Outreach
The City and CBMWD work together to raise public awareness regarding many different issues regarding water and water supply. These issues include information pertaining to runoff pollution, water quality, and water conservation. The City and CBMWD have implemented several ways to educate the public about these broad topics that ultimately pertain to water use by the City customers.
The City provides public information via city-wide events, flyers, and direct mailings to customers.
Additionally, customers can attend regular meetings of the Public Works Commission to receive information about the water system. Through its membership in CBMWD, the City is active in the California Water Awareness Campaign (CWAC), which is an association formed to coordinate efforts throughout the state during “May is Water Awareness Month”. With this effort, water agencies throughout the state, large and small, can tap into a large pool of knowledge and materials to promote a water awareness message not only in May, but throughout the year. CBMWD has also launched its “In a Drought, Shut Your Tap!” campaign, which the City also participates in.
School Education Programs
Water and environmental education are critical components of an effective outreach strategy. CBMWD offers a variety of elementary through high school programs free of charge to all schools within the City’s service area. The following list shows the educational programs offered by CBMWD:
Water Squad Investigations (Grades 4-12)
Water Wanderings (Grades 4-5)
Think Watershed (Grades 4-6)
Think Earth! It’s Magic (Grades K-5)
DRAFT
Page | 9-5
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Think Water! It’s Magic (After School Program for Grades K-5) PEAK (professional development for teachers)
Solar Cup (Grades 9-12)
Water is Life” Poster Contest (Grades 4-8)
Waterlogged (Grades 9-12)
Conservation Connection: Water & Energy in Southern California (Grades 5-8)
9.1.3.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss The City completes an annual pre-screening system audit of its potable water system to determine the need for a full-scale system audit. The system audit is performed by tracking the actual metered water use, which can be compared to total well production. Production is tracked monthly and reviewed annually to determine if the system exhibits significant losses.
Using 2025 data from the City Water Audit data provided, verifiable use as a percent of total production is calculated comparing actual metered sales (4,975 AF) against total supply into the system as measured at the wellhead and import water meters (5,122 AF). Based upon this data, the City has approximately 3% loss in their system, which did not require the implementation of system audits.
9.1.3.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support As a member agency of CBMWD, the City takes advantage of the CBMWD’s water conservation coordinator that works with cities and water agencies to enhance their conservation efforts. This close collaboration between CBMWD’s conservation coordinator and City staff provides for a successful execution of the DMMs. In addition, CBMWD’s conservation coordinator represents all member agencies at regional and statewide workshops and organizations. Conservation coordination within the City is an auxiliary responsibility of existing staff. Additionally, CBMWD’s conservation coordinator also seeks Federal, State, and local funding to develop new programs that member agencies, such as the City of Paramount, can partner on and provide additional benefits to customers.
9.1.3.7 Other Demand Management Measures
The following subsections outline DMMs not categorized above.
Water Survey Programs for Residential Customers
Residential surveys evaluate all the water-using devices inside the home such as toilets, faucets, showerheads, etc. A trained surveyor checks for leaks and tests the flows indoor and outdoor. Once the survey is completed, recommendations are provided for retrofitting certain water use devices, and educational materials are also supplied to the resident. Residential surveys provide the City with a great opportunity to provide their customers with a program that offers customer outreach opportunities.
Currently, surveys are completed on an as needed basis.
DRAFT
Page | 9-6
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Residential Plumbing Retrofit
Residential plumbing retrofit recommends the distribution and retrofit of low-flow showerheads, Ultra-low flow toilets, and faucet aerators, as well as the adoption of enforceable ordinances.
The City and CBMWD distributes retrofit equipment, such as low-flow showerheads, at city-wide events such as the annual Safety Fair. Availability of conservation devices are also promoted within City publications. In addition, these items are distributed to any resident who makes a request.
Residential Rebates
Below is a summary of rebates provided by the City, to its residences. High-Efficiency Washing Machines
As a member agency of CBMWD, the City participates in CBMWD’s High-Efficiency Clothes Washer (HECW) Program. This program has exceeded all expectations and continues to be one of CBMWD’s more successful programs. New HECWs cost more than regular inefficient models, in general, but by providing rebates starting at $85 (along with other utility/store incentives); consumers are choosing to purchase the new HECWs. The HECWs also have other benefits; not only do they use 55% less water but also save 60% electricity and use less detergent. A high-efficiency washer will save approximately 34% to 80% of water usage compared to a traditional clothes washer (American Cleaning Institute, “High Efficiency Washers and Detergents”, 2010, www.cleaninginstitute.org). Residential ULFT Replacement Programs
The City participated in CBMWD’s Ultra-Low Flush Toilet (ULFT) Program. Technology standards in the last 10 years have replaced the 1.6 gallon per flush (gpf) ULFT and the High-Efficiency 1.28 gpf Toilets (HET) with 0.8 gpf HETs. Today, CBMWD only distributes HETs at a rebate value of $40 for qualifying products.
HETs have been a key element in the conservation success CBMWD has experienced over the years.
Free HET distribution events have provided thousands of free toilets to local residents throughout CBMWD’s service area. Since 2005, CBMWD has completed more than 5,000 HET installations in single family, multifamily and commercial, industrial and institutional facilities throughout CBMWD’s service area. CBMWD receives requests to participate in various local partnerships to provide disadvantaged residents with HETs. CBMWD’s service area is home to many disadvantaged residents and the need for free, water conserving toilets remains high. Given the current economic state, the conservation coordinator for CBMWD is focusing attention on securing additional sources of funding to make HET programs possible. Since 2005, 921 ULFTs or HETs were installed through this program in the City. Rotating Sprinkler Nozzles
The City participates, through CBMWD, in a program to replace all standard sprinkler nozzles with rotating sprinkler nozzles. Rotating sprinkler nozzles can save, on average, up to 1,300 gallons per year compared to standard nozzles (MWD, “Choosing Rotating Sprinkler Nozzles for Your Landscape”, 2014, www.bewaterwise.com), and provide for more focused watering on landscaped areas. CBMWD offers a $2 rebate, per nozzle.
Weather-Based Irrigation Controllers
DRAFT
Page | 9-7
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Residential Weather-Based Irrigation Controllers (WBICs) are programmable to use irrigation based on the weather in the area. The US EPA has published WaterSense® requirements for certification of devices/controllers. In general, all WaterSense®-certified controllers must utilize evapotranspiration data from the site to regulate or adjust irrigation. The City, through CBMWD, offers a $35 to $80 rebate, depending on size of landscaping and number of units used. Rain Barrels
Rain barrels collect rain water from the roof and/or gutters and diverts the water to a collection basin (barrel). The water can later be used for irrigation by removing it from the barrel and irrigating plants or lawn areas. The City, through CBMWD, offers a rebate at $35 per barrel (up to two barrels), with a minimum size of 50 gallons and maximum number of 4 barrels per household.
Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Programs
The City participates in a region-wide CII rebate program developed by CBMWD in partnership with MWD. CBMWD participates in MWD’s region-wide commercial “Save A Buck” rebate program which provides water conservation devices to be utilized in commercial, industrial and institutional facilities.
These rebates are promoted to the businesses, schools and facilities throughout the City’s service area.
Rebates are offered for weather-based and central computer irrigation controllers, large rotary nozzles, rotating nozzles for pop-up spray heads, HETs, multi-family HETs, zero water urinals, laminar flow restrictors, in-stem flow restrictors, and water savings incentive programs.
Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives
Despite the urbanization of Southern California, the region is dotted with large turf areas that require year-round irrigation to keep them green. Some of these areas within the include parks, schools, and street medians. The City is working along with CBMWD to reduce demand for water for irrigation purposes by providing recycled water in its service area. In addition to the MWD’s region-wide “SoCal Water$mart” and “Save A Buck” rebate programs, CBMWD also offers various large landscape conservation programs including:
A District-wide large landscape managed irrigation program, incorporating maintenance, monitoring and tracking of individual property water savings Federal and State grants providing over 2,000 smart controllers to residential and commercial customers
A city partnership program to install Smart Irrigation Controllers in parka and street medians A commercial landscape research grant to improve water use efficiency at schools, parks and open public spaces.
Most of the large landscape areas within the City are already taking advantage of recycled water, which helps to conserve potable water.
DRAFT
Page | 9-8
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
9.2 Demand Management Measures for Wholesale Suppliers
9.2.1 Required Demand Management Measures
The City is not a wholesale agency and is not required by DWR to complete Section 9.2.
9.2.2 Wholesale Demand Management Measures
The City is not a wholesale agency and is not required by DWR to complete Section 9.2.
DRAFT
Page | 10-1
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
CHAPTER 10 PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AND
IMPLEMENTATION
New Requirements for 2025 Update
There have been no changes to the requirements for the plan adoption, submittal, and implementation since the 2020 Update.
10.1 Plan Completion Timeline
Efforts to complete the 2025 UWMP began in March 2026. Notification Letters were provided to necessary agencies, cities and counties in May of 2026. The City will adopt the 2025 UWMP and WSCP at the June City Council meeting.
10.2 Notice of Plan Preparation
The City notified the agencies listed in Table 10-1 at least sixty (60) days prior to the public hearing of the preparation of the 2025 Plan and invited them to participate in the development of the Plan. A copy of the notification letters sent to these agencies is provided in Appendix A.
Table 10-1: Notice to Cities and Counties
Agency 60-Day Notice Notice of Public
Hearing
CBMWD X
Golden State Water
Company X
City of Long Beach X
Notes:
1. Corresponds to WUE Table 10-1R.
10.3 Notice of Public Hearing
The public hearing was noticed in the local newspaper as prescribed in Government Code 6066. This notice included time and place of hearing, as well as the location where the UWMP and WSCP is available for public inspection. A copy of the newspaper notice is included in Appendix I.
10.4 Public Hearing and Adoption
Prior to adopting the 2025 UWMP and WSCP, the City held a public hearing at the June 2026 City Council meeting, which included input from the community regarding the City’s draft 2025 UWMP and WSCP. As part of the public hearing, the City provided information on determination of its water use targets and action plan in case of severe water shortage conditions.
DRAFT
Page | 10-2
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
10.5 Plan Submittal
10.5.1 Submitting a UWMP and Water Shortage Contingency Plan to DWR Within 30 days of adoption of the 2025 UWMP by the City Council, the City will submit the adopted 2025 UWMP to DWR, as required by CWC 10621 and 10644. The 2025 UWMP will be submitted through DWR’s “Water Use Efficiency (WUE) Data Online Submittal Tool” website.
DWR previously provided a checklist to make determine if an UWMP has addressed the requirements of the CWC. The City has completed the DWR checklist by indicating where the required CWC elements can be found within the City’s 2025 UWMP (see Appendix J).
10.5.2 Electronic Data Submittal
Within 30 days of adoption of the 2020 Plan, the City will also submit all data tables associated with the 2020 Plan through DWR’s “WUE Data Online Submittal Tool” website.
10.5.3 Submitting a UWMP, Including WSCP, to the California State Library Within 30 days of adoption of the 2025 UWMP by the City Council, a copy (compact disc (CD) or hardcopy) of the 2025 Plan will be submitted to the State of California Library. A copy of the letter to the State Library will be maintained in the City’s file. The 2025 Plan will be mailed to the following address if sent by regular mail:
California State Library
Government Publications Section
P.O. Box 942837
Sacramento, CA 94237-0001
Attention: Coordinator, Urban Water Management Plans
The 2025 Plan will be delivered to the following address if sent by courier or overnight carrier:
California State Library
Government Publications Section
914 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814
10.5.4 Submitting a UWMP to Cities and Counties
Within 30 days of adoption of the 2025 Plan by the City Council, a copy of the 2025 UWMP will be submitted to the County of Los Angeles Registrar/Recorders office and City’s office. A copy of the letter to the County of Los Angeles will be maintained in the City’s file.
10.6 Public Availability
The adopted 2025 UWMP is available on City’s website at https://www.paramountcity.gov/ and at the City Hall at 16400 Colorado Avenue between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Thursday and Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
DRAFT
Page | 10-3
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
10.7 Notification to Public Utilities Commission
The section is not applicable to the City.
10.8 Plan Implementation
The City will implement the strategies set forth in the plan immediately upon adoption by the City Council.
Details on the implementation of specific sections are detailed in their respective sections of the plan.
10.9 Amending an Adopted UWMP or WSCP
10.9.1 Amending a UWMP or WSCP
If the City amends the adopted 2025 UWMP, the amended UWMP will undergo adoption by the City’s governing board. Within 30 days of adoption, the amended UWMP will then be submitted to DWR, the State of California Library, the County of Los Angeles Registrar/Recorders office, and the City’s office.
The City submits copies of its 2025 UWMP to the following agencies within 30 days after adoption:
The California DWR
The California State Library
Los Angeles County
Additionally, any amendments or changes to the plan will be submitted to the above agencies within 30 days after adoption.
10.9.2 Submitting Revised Water Shortage Contingency Plan If the City amends the adopted 2025 WSCP, the amended WSCP will undergo adoption by the City’s governing board. Within 30 days of adoption, the amended WSCP will then be submitted to DWR, the State of California Library, the County of Los Angeles Registrar/Recorders office, and the City’s office.
10.10 California Department of Water Resources Review of Submitted Plans After the adopted UWMP is submitted to DWR, DWR will review the UWMP using the provided checklist (Appendix J) and determine whether the UWMP addresses Water Code requirements.
DRAFT
Appendix A
Notification Letters
DRAFT
DRAFT
Appendix B
City of Paramount 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
LA County 2025 Hazard Mitigation Plan
CBMWD Strategic Plan 2021 - 2026
DRAFT
City of Paramount
Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan
August 2022
Prepared By:
Risk Management Professionals
8717 Research Drive, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92618 949/282-0123 www.RMPCorp.com
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan TOC-1
Table of Contents
PLAN ADOPTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 Plan Requirements and Objectives ............................................................ES-1 ES.2 Mitigation Definition ....................................................................................ES-4 ES.3 Planning Process Summary........................................................................ES-5 ES.4 Hazard Analysis...........................................................................................ES-6 ES.5 Mitigation Strategies and Implementation Plan.........................................ES-8 ES.6 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan.......................................ES-13 CHAPTER 1: PLANNING PROCESS
1.1 Narrative Description of the Planning Process ............................................1-1
1.2 Steering Committee & Public Involvement ...................................................1-6
1.2.1 Steering Committee Participant Solicitation ...................................................1-6
1.2.2 Steering Committee Participants....................................................................1-7
1.2.3 Steering Committee Meeting Descriptions .....................................................1-9
1.2.4 Public Meetings & Outreach ........................................................................1-16
1.3 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans...............................................1-18 DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan TOC-2
CHAPTER 2: PLANNING AREA PROFILE
2.1 Region Description.........................................................................................2-1
2.2 Development Trends ......................................................................................2-3
2.3 Population.......................................................................................................2-7
2.4 Demographics.................................................................................................2-7 CHAPTER 3: RISK ASSESSMENT
3.1 Risk Assessment............................................................................................3-4
3.2 Hazard Identification and Profiling................................................................3-7
3.2.1 Hazard Profiling...........................................................................................3-10
3.2.2 Trends in Perceived Vulnerability.................................................................3-11
3.3 Earthquake Hazard Profile ...........................................................................3-13
3.3.1 Earthquake Hazard Information and Background ........................................3-13
3.3.2 Earthquake History ......................................................................................3-17
3.3.3 Earthquake Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude.....................................3-24
3.4 Adversarial Events Hazard Profile...............................................................3-35
3.4.1 Adversarial Events Hazard Information and Background .............................3-35
3.4.2 Adversarial Events History...........................................................................3-37
3.4.3 Adversarial Events Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude .........................3-38
3.5 Urban Fire Hazard Profile.............................................................................3-39
3.5.1 Urban Fire Hazard Information and Background..........................................3-39
3.5.2 Urban Fire History .......................................................................................3-40
3.5.3 Urban Fire Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ......................................3-46
3.6 Hazardous Material Release Hazard Profile................................................3-48
3.6.1 Hazardous Material Release Hazard Information and Background..............3-48
3.6.2 Hazardous Material Release History............................................................3-50
3.6.3 Hazardous Material Release Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ..........3-52 DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan TOC-3
3.7 Homelessness Hazard Profile.....................................................................3- 55
3.7.1 Homelessness Information and Background................................................3-55
3.7.2 Homelessness History .................................................................................3-57
3.7.3 Homelessness Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude................................3-60
3.8 Utility Loss Hazard Profile ...........................................................................3-64
3.8.1 Utility Loss Information and Background......................................................3-64
3.8.2 Utility Loss History ......................................................................................3- 65
3.8.3 Utility Loss Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude......................................3-66
3.9 Pipeline Failure Hazard Profile ....................................................................3-67
3.9.1 Pipeline Failure Hazard Information and Background ..................................3-67
3.9.2 Pipeline Failure History................................................................................3-68
3.9.3 Pipeline Failure Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ..............................3-69
3.10 Flood and Dam Failure Hazard Profile ........................................................3-70
3.10.1 Flood Hazard Information and Background................................................3-70
3.10.2 Flood History .............................................................................................3-72
3.10.3 Dam Failure Hazard Information and Background .....................................3-74
3.10.4 Dam Failure History ...................................................................................3-77
3.10.5 Flood Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude............................................3-79
3.10.6 Dam Failure Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude..................................3-82
3.11 Destructive Winds Hazard Profile................................................................3-84
3.11.1 Destructive Winds Information and Background ........................................3-84
3.11.2 Destructive Winds History..........................................................................3-85
3.11.3 Destructive Winds Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ........................3-87
3.12 Drought Winds Hazard Profile .....................................................................3-89
3.12.1 Drought Information and Background ........................................................3-89
3.12.2 Drought History..........................................................................................3-91
3.12.3 Drought Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ........................................3-92
3.13 Disease Outbreak Hazard Profile.................................................................3-94 DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan TOC-4
3.13.1 Disease Outbreak Information and Background.........................................3-94
3.13.2 Disease Outbreak History..........................................................................3-95
3.13.3 Disease Outbreak Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude.........................3-98
3.14 Civil Unrest/Riots Hazard Profile .................................................................3-99
3.14.1 Civil Unrest/Riots Information and Background..........................................3-99
3.14.2 Civil Unrest/Riots History ...........................................................................3-99
3.14.3 Civil Unrest/Riots Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude........................3-101
3.15 Transportation Accident/Incident Hazard Profile .....................................3-103
3.15.1 Transportation Accident/Incident Information and Background ................3-103
3.15.2 Transportation Accident/Incident History..................................................3-104
3.15.3 Transportation Accident/Incident Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude 3-104
3.16 Climate Change ..........................................................................................3-106
3.17 Asset Inventory...........................................................................................3-107
3.18 Loss Estimates ...........................................................................................3-116 CHAPTER 4: MITIGATION STRATEGIES
4.1 Mitigation Goals and Objectives....................................................................4-1
4.2 Identification of Mitigation Recommendations.............................................4-4
4.3 National Flood Insurance Program Compliance...........................................4-9
4.4 Prioritization of Mitigation Recommendations ...........................................4-10
4.5 Implementation Strategy..............................................................................4-17 DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan TOC-5
CHAPTER 5: PLAN MAINTENANCE
5.1 Mitigation Progress Monitoring.....................................................................5-2
5.2 Planning Mechanisms ....................................................................................5-3
5.2.1 Process to Incorporate the Mitigation Strategy into Other Planning Mechanisms ..................................................................................................5-3
5.2.2 Process to Incorporate Mitigation Strategy into Other Planning Mechanisms...............................................................................................5-13
5.3 Periodic Assessment Requirements...........................................................5-15
5.4 Update Requirements...................................................................................5-17
5.4.1 Plan Update.................................................................................................5-18
5.4.2 Continued Public Involvement .....................................................................5-19
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Glossary
Appendix B: Regulations
Appendix C: Hazard Analysis
Appendix D: Public Participation & Planning Process Documentation DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table of Contents
ES.1 Plan Requirements and Objectives...........................................................ES-1 ES.2 Mitigation Definition ...................................................................................ES-4 ES.3 Planning Process Summary ......................................................................ES-5 ES.4 Hazard Analysis..........................................................................................ES-6 ES.5 Mitigation Strategies and Implementation Plan.......................................ES-8 ES.6 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan .....................................ES-13 List of Tables
Table ES.1: City of Paramount Hazard Ranking Summary ........................................ES-6 Table ES.2: Loss Estimate Summary .........................................................................ES-7 Table ES.3: Mitigation Action Summary....................................................................ES-10 DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-1
ES.1 Plan Requirements and Objectives
The City of Paramount (City) Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) is a living document that reflects ongoing hazard mitigation activities. Hazard mitigation involves strategies to reduce short- and long-term vulnerability to identified hazards. This document serves as the framework for the ongoing identification and implementation of hazard mitigation strategies developed in the City.
The City adopted its original All-Hazard Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2004 and updated the Plan in 2015. This serves as an update to the 2015 Plan.
Background Information
In 2000, the Congress of the United States determined that disasters and, more importantly, lack of preparedness for disasters, were significant causes of loss of life, human suffering, loss of income, property loss and damage. Further, because disasters often disrupt the normal functioning of governments and communities and adversely affect individuals and families with great severity, special measures designed to assist the efforts of the affected States in expediting the rendering of aid, assistance, and emergency services, and the reconstruction and rehabilitation of devastated areas, were necessary.
As a result, Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 200), or Public Law 106-390, to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. This provides an opportunity for States, Tribal governments, and local jurisdictions to apply for assistance from the Federal government in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and damage which results from such disasters by:
a. revising and broadening the scope of existing disaster relief programs; b. encouraging the development of comprehensive disaster preparedness and assistance plans, programs, capabilities, and organizations by the States and by local governments;
c. achieving greater coordination and responsiveness of disaster preparedness and relief programs;
d. encouraging individuals, States, and local governments to protect themselves by obtaining insurance coverage to supplement or replace governmental assistance; e. encouraging hazard mitigation measures to reduce losses from disasters, including development of land use and construction regulations; and DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-2
f. providing Federal assistance programs for both public and private losses sustained in disasters.
DMA 2000 allows State, Tribal, and local jurisdictions to obtain Federal assistance through pre-disaster hazard mitigation planning. As part of the requirements for receiving Federal grants for improving a locality’s resistance to disasters, each locality must determine their existing vulnerabilities and develop a plan to reduce or eliminate these vulnerabilities and must have this plan approved by the appropriate State officials. Upon approval of this plan, each locality is eligible to receive various types of pre- and post-disaster assistance, such as the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) under the Stafford Act.
The PDM program provides funds for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation actions prior to a disaster event. These grants are funded and approved through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on a competitive basis. The HMGP provides grants to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. These grants are funded by FEMA but are distributed by the State.
In California, that agency is the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES).
FEMA has developed guidance to assist communities in developing both the vulnerability assessments and plans to reduce or eliminate their vulnerabilities to disasters. These tools, coupled with techniques from the safety and security industries were used to develop the City HMP. Additional information regarding the HMGP and PDM programs can be found in FEMA’s “Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance” document, located in FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance portal (http://www.fema.gov/hazardmitigation-assistance). Additional information including guidance and regulations can be found at the California Emergency Management Agency’s Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Program portal
(http://hazardmitigation.calema.ca.gov/plan/local_hazard_mitigation_plan_lhmp).
In order to be eligible for certain Federal disaster assistance and mitigation funding, the City of Paramount is required to have a CalOES- and FEMA-approved Hazard Mitigation Plan in place. As a result, the City obtained grant funding to update this document to fulfill CalOES and FEMA requirements and provide direction and guidance on implementing hazard mitigation actions on a hazard-level, probability, and cost-priority basis. The overall goal of the HMP is to reduce the potential for damage to critical assets from natural and man-made hazards. In addition, the Plan describes past and current hazard mitigation activities and philosophies and outlines future mitigation goals and strategies.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-3
FEMA Requirements
FEMA requires that the HMP meet certain requirements. First, the planning process must be open and public, and must allow the public to have an opportunity to comment during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval. Second, the process must allow other local jurisdictions to be involved in the planning process. Third, the Plan must incorporate, if appropriate, existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.
FEMA expects that each HMP have the following information:
1. Documentation of the planning process used to develop the plan
2. A risk assessment that provides a factual basis for upgrades and recommendations
3. A description of the natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction
4. A description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to these natural hazards
5. A description of land usage, and an estimate of losses should a disaster occur
6. A mitigation strategy
7. A plan maintenance process
8. Documentation that the plan has been adopted by the jurisdiction’s governing body
9. Review by the State Hazard Mitigation Officer
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-4
ES.2 Mitigation Definition
Mitigation is the ongoing effort to prevent or lessen future emergency or disaster incidents, and the impacts they might have on people, property, and the environment. Examples of mitigation activities include the following:
• Legislation, laws and regulations;
• Variances;
• Zoning and land use management;
• Engineering and building codes;
• Hazard mitigation plans & teams;
• Technical guidance & assistance;
• Financial assistance;
• Hazard Identification;
• Risk Analysis;
• Evaluation;
• Research; and
• Education.
Mitigation decreases the demand for emergency response resources, reduces the principal causes of injuries and deaths, enables a quicker lifesaving response and economic recovery because the community infrastructure remains intact, and it reduces the societal impacts of the emergency because it results in less disruption to the social environment. In essence, mitigation is the foundation of sustainable community development.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-5
ES.3 Planning Process Summary
Hazard mitigation planning is a dynamic process built on realistic assessments of past and present information that enables the City to anticipate future hazards and provide mitigation strategies to address possible impacts and identified needs. The overall approach to the HMP included developing a baseline understanding of the natural and man-made hazards, determining ways to reduce those risks, and prioritizing mitigation recommendations for implementation.
To complete these objectives, the City compiled a qualified team with various expertise, including risk management, public safety and health, engineering and public works, water infrastructure, and emergency response agencies to participate on a Steering Committee to guide the development of the comprehensive City HMP. In addition, the Steering Committee solicited public involvement throughout the planning process, including inviting participation on the Steering Committee, allowing the public to comment during the drafting stage, and making the draft Plan available to allow the public to comment on the Hazard Mitigation Plan content. Chapter 1: Planning Process, contains descriptions of the Planning process, including information on the Steering Committee and public involvement.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-6
ES.4 Hazard Analysis
The City is vulnerable to a wide range of natural and human-made hazards that threaten life and property. In order to identify the hazards that the City and neighboring communities perceive as the largest threat, each member of the Steering Committee participated in the Hazard Identification Exercise during the first Steering Committee Meeting. The Committee brainstormed potential hazards based on past incidents that have impacted the City and information incorporated from other studies. Each identified hazard was then qualitatively ranked based upon hazard probability/frequency, consequence/severity, and the City’s overall vulnerability using an interactive model. Section 3.2 Hazard Identification, contains detailed information regarding the hazard ranking. Table ES.1 provides a summary of the hazard ranking.
Table ES.1: Hazard Ranking Summary
Hazard Rank
High
Earthquake
Moderately High
Adversarial Events
Moderate
Utility Loss
Hazardous Materials Release
Homelessness
Moderately Low
Urban Fire
Pipeline Failure
Flood/Dam Failure
Destructive Winds
Drought
Disease Outbreak
Low
Civil Unrest
Transportation Accident/Incident
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-7
Asset Inventory and Loss Estimates
In addition to the hazard profiles, the Risk Assessment contains a detailed asset inventory that lists the City’s assets, such as buildings, parks, public facilities, and critical non-City assets, such as hospitals and schools. This asset inventory was used in the vulnerability assessment to estimate potential losses for each hazard. The Steering Committee reviewed each hazard and assigned a potential percentage of damage expected. This also included loss of function values for lifeline and emergency service interruptions.
Section 3.17 Loss Estimates, includes a detailed breakdown of the vulnerability assessment calculations.
Table ES.2: Loss Estimate Summary
Hazard Estimated Losses
Earthquake $138,559,000
Hazardous Materials Release / Industrial
Accident / Refinery Explosion Hazards $17,988,000
Adversarial Events $36,910,000
Pipeline Failure $10,104,000
Urban Fire $22,858,000
Transportation Accident / Incident $3,602,000
Drought $2,516,000
Dam Failure $478,000
Utility Loss $15,676,000
Flood $4,630,000
Severe Weather and Destructive Winds $4,938,000
Biological / Human Disease $874,000
Civil Unrest / Riots $6,334,000
Note: A total value is not included since it is not expected for all hazards to occur simultaneously.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-8
ES.5 Mitigation Strategies and Implementation Plan
Plan Goals and Objectives
As part of the development process, Plan goals and objectives were revalidated to provide a framework for mitigating hazards and proposing potential mitigation actions. The goals are consistent with the California State Hazard Mitigation Plan and the LA County Hazard Mitigation Plan and were developed by the Steering Committee. Paramount’s overall Plan goals are:
1. Protect lives and property
2. Support the priorities of the City of Paramount, its mandate, employees, students, residents, and the business community
3. Promote development consistent with seismic, floodplain and risk management guidance as developed by the City of Paramount and its agencies and/or organizations
4. Promote the recognition of the real value of hazard mitigation to public facilities, public safety and the welfare of all residents in the City of Paramount
5. Support the mitigation efforts of residents, non-profit organizations, communitybased organizations and private business throughout the City
6. Ensure all codes and standards are consistent with hazard mitigation In addition to the overall Plan goals, individual objectives were developed that more specifically address mitigation strategies. Section 4.1 Mitigation Goals and Objectives contains the full list of the Plan goals and objectives.
Mitigation Strategies
Mitigation strategies are administrative and/or engineering project recommendations to reduce the vulnerability to the identified hazards. The Steering Committee identified specific mitigation actions to reduce the impact or likelihood of the hazards. The specific objectives served as a starting point for developing the mitigation actions, and additional actions were taken from the City’s Capital Improvements Plan.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-9
Implementation Plan
Following the identification of mitigation actions, a simplified Benefit-Cost Review was applied in order to prioritize the mitigation actions for implementation. The priority for implementing mitigation actions depended upon the overall cost effectiveness of the action, when taking into account monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits associated with each action. Additionally, the following questions were considered when developing the Benefit-Cost Review:
• How many people will benefit from the action?
• How large an area is impacted?
• How critical are the facilities that benefit from the action? • Environmentally, does it make sense to do this project for the overall community? The Benefit-Cost Review yielded a relative priority ranking (High, Medium, or Low) for each mitigation action. Mitigation actions identified as high-priority are typically implement before lower ranked action. Results from the Benefit-Cost Review are located in Chapter
4.4 Prioritization of Mitigation Recommendations. The Steering Committee considered responsible departments, funding resources, and estimated implementation timeframe when developing the implementation plan.
Chapter 4 Mitigation Strategies contains additional information regarding the mitigation strategies and implementation plan. Table ES.3 on the following pages provides a summary of each mitigation action, including the hazard(s) mitigated, responsible agency/department, and relative priority rank taken from the Benefit-Cost Review.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-10
Table ES.3: Mitigation Action Summary
Action ID Mitigation Action Hazards Mitigated Responsible Agency/Department Priority
LHMP.2015.01 Consider performing a seismic evaluation of City buildings and perform seismic retrofits accordingly.
Earthquake Engineering
Building and Safety
High
LHMP.2015.02 Consider performing a seismic evaluation of the water pumping stations and water pipelines and perform seismic retrofits accordingly.
Earthquake Engineering
Public Works
High
LHMP.2015.03 Continue to coordinate with LA County to ensure sewer systems and local connections are assessed accordingly.
Earthquake Public Works Medium
LHMP.2015.04 Consider upgrading the Maintenance Building to function as a dedicated secondary EOC.
Earthquake Public Safety
Planning
High
LHMP.2015.05 Consider configuring the dedicated shelter station (Progress Park) with an emergency generator for backup power.
Earthquake Planning
Parks and Recreation
Medium
LHMP.2015.06 Consider configuring the secondary shelter station (Paramount Park) with an emergency generator for backup power.
Earthquake Planning
Parks and Recreation
Medium
LHMP.2015.07 Consider providing public education materials to residents in mobile home parks in regards to urban fires.
Urban Fires Public Safety Low
LHMP.2015.08 Continue to coordinate between Hazardous Materials Owners/Operators and appropriate response agencies.
Hazardous Materials
Release
Public Safety Medium
LHMP.2015.09 Consider configuring critical City locations (e.g., major intersections, refinery, City buildings, Community Building, Plaza) with appropriate surveillance equipment.
Terrorism Public Works
Planning
High
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-11
Action ID Mitigation Action Hazards Mitigated Responsible Agency/Department Priority
LHMP.2015.10 Continue to coordinate with pipeline companies to maintain the ongoing integrity of natural gas and hazardous materials pipelines.
Pipeline Failure Public Works Medium
LHMP.2015.11 Consider contracting with Jankovic and a secondary contract (e.g., DeWitt) to obtain backup fuel supplies for the City fleet.
Utility Loss Public Safety High
LHMP.2015.12 Consider ensuring that existing contracts for priority on obtaining emergency supplies and food with local businesses are continually updated.
All Public Safety High
LHMP.2015.13 Consider providing training to City personnel on how to access priority phone services in the event of an emergency.
All Public Safety High
LHMP.2015.14 Consider configuring the EOCs with 2-way communication capabilities to facilitate emergency communications with the Paramount School District.
All Public Safety High
LHMP.2015.15 Consider ensuring that flood mitigation remains a priority. Flood Public Safety Low LHMP.2015.16 Consider educating residents about maintaining trees on private property (e.g., mobile home park) to mitigate the effects of severe wind.
Severe Weather and
Destructive Wind
Administrative Services Low
LHMP.2015.17 Consider providing education to the public on the effects of drought.
Drought Public Safety High
LHMP.2015.18 Consider evaluating the merits of implementing an incentive program for residents to develop alternative landscaping.
Drought Administrative Services High
LHMP.2015.19 Consider evaluating the merits of upgrading the reclaimed water service area to encompass all City resources.
Drought Public Works Low
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-12
Action ID Mitigation Action Hazards Mitigated Responsible Agency/Department Priority
LHMP.2015.20 Consider ensuring that the mass notification system (i.e. Reverse 9-1-1 System) is used as needed.
Dam Failure,
Earthquake, etc.
Public Safety High
LHMP.2015.21 Continue to coordinate with first responders (e.g., Fire Departments, California Highway Patrol, etc.) to mitigate the effects of transportation incidents.
Transportation
Accidents
Public Safety Medium
LHMP.2015.22 Continue to coordinate with LA County Sheriff’s Department to ensure adequate communications are maintained in the event of civil unrest.
Civil Unrest Sherrif’s Department
Public Safety
High
LHMP.2015.23 Consider ensuring EOC training is provided to key City personnel as necessary.
All Public Safety High
LHMP.2015.24 Consider ensuring that new development complies with applicable building codes and considers hazard mitigation.
All Planning Low
LHMP.2015.25 Consider coordinating efforts for resurfacing and retrofitting the LA Bridge in accordance with the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP).
Earthquake Public Works Medium
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-13
ES.6 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan
The Hazard Mitigation Plan is a living document that reflects ongoing hazard mitigation activities and requires monitoring, evaluating, and updating to ensure the mitigation actions are implemented. To facilitate the Hazard Mitigation Planning process and adhere to regulatory requirements, the Plan will be reviewed annually and any major revisions will be incorporated into the five-year update. In addition, public involvement will be requested when applicable. Chapter 5 Plan Maintenance outlines the update requirements and Planning Mechanisms the City has in place for ongoing hazard mitigation.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-i
PLANNING PROCESS
Table of Contents
1.1 Narrative Description of the Planning Process .................................................1
1.2 Steering Committee & Public Involvement........................................................6
1.2.1 Steering Committee Participant Solicitation ....................................................6
1.2.2 Steering Committee Participants.....................................................................7
1.2.3 Steering Committee Meeting Descriptions......................................................9
1.2.4 Public Meetings & Outreach..........................................................................16
1.3 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans ...................................................17 List of Tables
Table 1.1: Steering Committee Participants...................................................................... 8 DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-1
1.1 Narrative Description of the Planning Process
§201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include:
(1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval;
(2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia, and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and
(3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.
§201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.
Hazard mitigation planning is a dynamic
process built on realistic assessments of
past and present information that
engages the City of Paramount (City) to
anticipate future hazards and provide
meaningful strategies to address
possible impacts and identified needs.
The hazard mitigation planning process
involves the following tasks:
• Organizing resources
• Assessing risks
• Developing mitigation strategies, goals, and priorities • Adopting a plan
• Implementing the plan
• Monitoring progress
• Revising the plan as necessary
The overall approach to updating the Hazard Mitigation Plan included building off the baseline understanding of the natural hazards as defined in the original 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan and determining ways to continue reducing those risks and prioritizing Implement Plan &
Monitor Progress
Organize Resources
Assess Risks
Develop a
Mitigation Plan
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-2
those recommendations for implementation. The following task descriptions provide a detailed narrative of the overall project progression.
Organize Resources
Identify Stakeholders and Compile Steering Committee
Steven Coumparoules, Management Analyst for the City Public Safety Department, contacted local and public groups to form a Steering Committee and invited and coordinated participation from the appropriate law enforcement, emergency response, health organizations, City representatives, and public representatives. The Steering Committee was responsible for providing essential insight into the past natural hazard events, current natural hazard vulnerability (including specific locations), critical assets, and possible mitigation projects. The invitations were sent out via email and the first Steering Committee Meeting was advertised on the City’s website. The following groups were invited to participate in the plan development:
• City Key Personnel (Finance, City Planning, Public Safety, Recreation, Analytical, and Recreation)
• Los Angeles County Fire Department
• Kindred Hospital
• The American Red Cross
• Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
• Paramount Unified School District
• City Residents
Public Process
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires an “Open and Public Process” for developing the Hazard Mitigation Plan. This process requires, at a minimum, that the public be allowed to comment on the Plan during the drafting phase and prior to adoption. In addition to soliciting public involvement in the Steering Committee, the City conducted a public meeting to allow for the public comment during the drafting stage of the Plan prior to submittal of the plan for FEMA review. The public meeting was held on October 4, 2022.
Documentation of public outreach is provided in Appendix D.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-3
Risk Assessment
Identify Hazards
This task was designed to identify all the natural and human-made hazards that might affect the City and then narrow the list to the hazards that are most likely to occur. The hazards included natural, technical, and human-caused events, with an emphasis on the effect of natural disasters on the City’s critical facilities. In order to compile the list, the Project Team built upon the list of hazards identified in the 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan and then continued to research newspapers, historical records, and websites to determine any additional hazards. In addition, the Steering Committee reviewed a list of hazards that have affected the City in the past with specific information regarding frequency, magnitude, and associated consequences. A Hazard Identification exercise was conducted during the first Steering Committee Meeting to identify and evaluate each selected hazard. The following hazards were included in the Hazard Mitigation Plan:
• Earthquake
• Adversarial Event
• Urban Fire
• Hazardous Materials Release
• Homelessness
• Utility Loss
• Pipeline Failure
• Flood/Dam Failure
• Destructive Winds
• Drought
• Disease Outbreak
• Civil Unrest
• Transportation Accident/Incident
This list is not all-inclusive to the hazards discussed during the Hazard Identification exercise. Hazards not thought to pose significant risk to the City were not included. In addition, some items were captured as sub-items of the hazards listed above. For DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-4
example, climate change is discussed with hazards where the impact of changes in weather patterns could act as a catalyst for those scenarios.
Profile Hazard Events
The hazard event profiles consist of either a map indicating the area impacted by each hazard or an important piece of data regarding the characteristics of hazard events within the City and surrounding area. To update the detailed hazard profiles, the Project Team researched and reviewed relevant open-source natural hazard studies and mapping projects. In addition, the City supplied any hazard studies that have been developed specifically for the City. This task determined the hazard magnitude, frequency, and location characteristics (e.g., predicted ground acceleration values, fault locations, flood plains, etc.) that were used as the design-basis for the loss estimates and hazard ranking.
Asset Inventory
The purpose of this task was to determine the quantity of City facilities and assets that lie in the different hazard areas and what proportion of the City this represents. The asset inventory was compiled with data taken from the City’s 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan during a Steering Committee meeting and including any new or recently acquired facilities. The completed asset inventory enabled the Planning Team to estimate losses resulting from hazard events and to determine where resources should be allocated to address mitigation issues.
Loss Estimates
The Project Team developed loss assessment tables for each specific hazard that identify potential damages with the City, critical infrastructure, and buildings. This task was crucial in determining which assets are subject to the greatest potential damages and which hazard event is likely to produce the greatest potential losses. The conclusion of this task precipitated a comprehensive loss estimate (vulnerability assessment) for each identified hazard for each specific asset in terms of damages, economic loss, and the associated consequences.
Mitigation Strategy Development
Develop Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The Project Team, based upon information provided by the Steering Committee, discussed the mitigation features and resources that the City currently has in place. These mitigation features provided a framework to determine where practical improvements DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-5
could be made and where sufficient improvements would be prohibitive due to cost, schedule, or impracticality of implementation.
For each of the hazard events, mitigation goals and objectives were developed with the intention of reducing or eliminating the potential hazard impacts. The mitigation goals and objectives were developed at a Steering Committee Meeting to provide the basis for determining the associated mitigation projects.
Identify and Prioritize Mitigation Actions
Mitigation strategies are administrative and/or engineering project recommendations to reduce the vulnerability to the identified hazards. It was imperative to have City Planners and community developers involved in this phase of the Plan in order to develop strategies and projects that will mitigate the hazards cost-effectively, as well as ensure consistency with the City’s long-term mitigation goals and capital improvements. At a Steering Committee Meeting, a team-based approach was used to brainstorm mitigation projects based on the identified hazards and associated loss estimates. The evaluation and prioritization of the mitigation actions produced a list of recommended mitigation actions to incorporate into the mitigation Plan. A separate Steering Committee meeting was held to conduct a Benefit-Cost Review for each proposed mitigation action to determine the relative priority level of the recommendation.
Implementation & Monitoring
Prepare an Implementation Strategy
The Project Team developed an action plan to detail how the mitigation recommendations will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the City. During the Hazard Mitigation Plan creation process, the Project Team coordinated with the Steering Committee to determine the mitigation project implementation strategy (including identifying responsible departments, funding resources, and estimated implementation timeframe).
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-6
1.2 Steering Committee & Public Involvement
While the City and Risk Management
Professionals had lead responsibility for the
update of the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan,
neighboring communities, agencies,
businesses, and other interested parties were
invited to participate on the Steering Committee
to review the Hazard Mitigation Plan during each
phase of the document development. In order to
compile a list of Steering Committee participants,
the Project Team assessed community support
through active community leaders and invited
public participation during each of the planning meetings. Each member of the Steering Committee participated in all aspects of the planning process. §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include:
(1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval;
(2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia, and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and
§201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.
1.2.1 Steering Committee Participant Solicitation
The City solicited participation in the Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee by contacting both internal and external stakeholders. Internal stakeholders included members of various City departments. External stakeholders were comprised of representatives from local agencies and neighboring communities, including the Los Angeles County Fire and Sheriff’s Departments, the Red Cross, Paramount Unified School District and Kindred Hospital. Emails were sent out to key players requesting their participation on the Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee. In addition, members of the public were invited to attend the Steering Committee Meetings.
STEP 1: ASSESS COMMUNITY
STEP 2: BUILD THE PLANNING TEAM
COMPILE STEERING COMMITTEE TO
GUIDE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
DEVELOPMENT
STEP 3: ENGAGE THE PUBLIC
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-7
1.2.2 Steering Committee Participants
The City brought together personnel from management, finance, City planning, public safety, and recreation departments to ensure the Steering Committee included all departments and provided a mechanism for receiving input from each participant.
Additionally, the City compiled historical hazard data, provided relevant planning documents for incorporation into the Plan, and coordinated participation with the public.
Each draft chapter was reviewed by the Steering Committee and specific comments and input were incorporated into the plan. The multidisciplinary Steering Committee assembled enabled the City to work together and incorporate each individual’s expertise to provide for a comprehensive Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed with assistance and advice from participants from the City and several neighboring agencies. Table 1.1 provides a list of the Steering Committee participants. Individuals are listed in alphabetical order by last name.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-8
Table 1.1: Steering Committee Participants
Name Affiliation Title SCM 1 SCM 2 SCM 3 SCM 4 SCM 5
Ryan Bray Risk Management Professionals Senior Technical Consultant X X X X X Chris Campbell-Joy Red Cross Disaster Program Specialist X X X X John Carver City of Paramount
Planning Department Planning Director X X
Steven Coumparoules City of Paramount
Public Safety Management Analyst X X X X X
Danny Elizarraras
City of Paramount
Public Safety Management Analyst X X X X
Sarah Ho City of Paramount
Public Works Assistant Director X X X X
John King City of Paramount
Planning Department Assistant Planning Director X X
Norman Mamea City of Paramount
Public Works Water Superintendent X X
Anthony Martinez City of Paramount Management Analyst II X X X Bill Pagett Contract – City Engineer Deputy City Engineer X X X Alex Rodriguez Kindred Paramount Hospital
DRAFT
Safety Officer X
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-9
The Steering Committee met five times during the course of the project to discuss project progress and obtain valuable input and information for documenting the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The meetings are detailed over the subsequent pages. Appendix D – Public Participation contains copies of the presentations used at each meeting, specific meeting handouts, and sign in sheets.
1.2.3 Steering Committee Meeting Descriptions
Steering Committee Meeting #1 – Project Initiation, Hazard Identification, and Information Collection
July 22, 2021
Meeting Attendees:
• Ryan Bray
• Chris Campbell-Joy
• John Carver
• Steve
Coumparoules
• Danny Elizarraras
Reál
• Sarah Ho
• Norman Mamea
• Anthony Martinez
• Bill Pagett
• Alex Rodriguez
During the Project Initiation, Hazard Identification, and Information Collection Meeting of the Steering Committee, Risk Management Professionals presented an overview presentation that detailed the objectives and scope of the project. After a review of the project schedule and key tasks, the Steering Committee discussed each participant’s areas of expertise, resultant member responsibilities, and the community meeting process.
The Steering Committee
discussed the hazards to
include in the Plan. To
effectively characterize the
City’s risk and vulnerability,
Risk Management
Professionals facilitated a
discussion of the historical
hazards with the Committee
members during this meeting.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-12
This meeting also served as a forum to discuss information for the Plan’s background information and asset inventory.
The Steering Committee determined the initial hazard profile ranking through a facilitated workshop using an automated interactive software spreadsheet that asked specific questions on potential hazards and then assigned a relative value to each potential hazard accordingly, including numerical rankings (1-5) of the following criteria:
• Consequence/Severity – How wide spread is the impact area? • Secondary Effects – Could the event trigger another event and separate response?
• Probability/Frequency – Historical view of how often this type of event occurs locally and projected recurrence intervals.
• Warning/Onset – Advance warning of the event, or none. • Duration – Length of elapsed time in which response resources are active. • Recovery – Length of time until lives and property return to normal.
Chapter 3: Risk assessment outlines the methodology used for hazard rankings. All Steering Committee participants were requested to provide existing plans and technical studies, GIS data, and identify existing mitigation features as part of a detailed information request.
Steering Committee Meeting #2 – Hazard Risk Rank Review, Mitigation Goals and Objectives
August 12, 2021
Meeting Attendees:
• Ryan Bray
• Chris Campbell-Joy
• John Carver
• Steve
Coumparoules
• Danny Elizarraras
Reál
• Anthony Martinez
• Bill Pagett
The hazard risk ranking from Steering Committee Meeting #1 was reviewed, updated, and validated by the Steering Committee with a review of the hazard profiles. Additionally, the Plan’s mitigation goals and objectives were updated with the intention of reducing or eliminating the potential hazard impacts, which also provided the basis for determining the associated mitigation projects. The Steering Committee reviewed the goals and objectives from the City’s 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan, the 2018 California State Multi-Hazard DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-13
Mitigation Plan, and the 2019 Los Angeles County Hazard Mitigation Plan as a baseline for determining the City’s current mitigation goals and objectives.
Steering Committee Meeting #3 – Asset Inventory and Vulnerability Assessment September 9, 2021
Meeting Attendees:
• Ryan Bray
• Chris Campbell-Joy
• Steve
Coumparoules
• Sarah Ho
• John King
• Norman Mamea
• Anthony Martinez
The asset inventory was developed to determine the quantity of buildings, facilities, and other assets in the City that lie in the different hazard areas and what proportion of the City this represents. The asset inventory included locations and specifications for general buildings: city well sites, civic buildings, parks, hospitals, schools, and other facilities. The asset inventory was reviewed by the Steering Committee for completeness and assignments we given to those who could retrieve missing information.
The asset inventory was then used to develop loss estimates for all hazard scenarios.
The hazard probabilities and recurrence intervals were applied to the City assets to determine which assets were subject to the greatest potential damages and which hazard events were likely to produce the greatest potential losses.
Additionally, each Steering Committee participant was given a Mitigation Activity Identification worksheet to document potential projects to be discussed during Steering Committee Meeting #4.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-13
Steering Committee Meeting #4 – Mitigation Action Identification October 28, 2021
Meeting Attendees:
• Ryan Bray
• Steve
Coumparoules
• Danny Elizarraras
Reál
• Sarah Ho
• John King
The purpose of this meeting was to identify potential mitigation actions and projects that will reduce the impact of identified hazards. First, the mitigation goals and objectives from Steering Committee Meeting #2 were reviewed and validated with the Steering Committee. Then, during the meeting, the Steering Committee participants brainstormed possible projects and actions to mitigate the effects of the identified hazards. This was done using the hazard profiles, hazard-specific objectives, and asset-specific loss estimates as starting points. In addition, the Capital Improvements Plan was reviewed as necessary to see if any capital improvement projects considered hazard mitigation.
As the mitigation projects were identified, the Steering Committee discussed the mitigation action implementation plan according to the following characteristics:
• Mitigation Action Category – Prevention, Property Protection, Public Education and Awareness Natural Resource Protection, Emergency Services, and Structural Projects
• Corresponding Goals and Objectives
• Responsible Department – Building and Safety Division of the Planning Department, Engineering Division of the Public Works Department, Administrative Services, Planning, Public Works, etc.
• Resources – General Fund, Grant Programs, Staff Time, Capital Improvements etc.
• Implementation Timeframe – Ongoing, Short-Term (within two years), Mediumterm (between three and ten years), and Long-Term (greater than ten years) • Whether or not the project protects new or future buildings DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-14
Steering Committee Meeting #5 – Mitigation Action Benefit-Cost Review January 13, 2022
Meeting Attendees:
• Ryan Bray • Chris Campbell-Joy
Steve
Coumparoules
• Danny Elizarraras
Reál
• Sarah Ho
During the fifth Steering Committee Meeting, the identified mitigation actions from Steering Committee Meeting #4 were reviewed and validated with the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee then performed a high-level benefit-cost review on each of the identified mitigation actions. The review consisted of identifying all benefits and costs associated with implementing each mitigation action. Typical benefits include:
• Avoided physical damages (e.g., to buildings, infrastructure, and equipment) • Avoided loss of function costs (e.g., loss of utilities and lifelines) • Avoided casualties
• Avoided emergency management costs (e.g., emergency operations center costs, evacuation/rescue costs, and other management costs)
Once the benefits and costs were estimated, a relative priority was assigned for each action based upon the evaluation.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-16
1.2.4 Public Meetings & Outreach
The City actively solicited public involvement through several advertisements and other media. The City posted an advertisement on its website to invite the public to participate in Steering Committee Meetings and all Steering Committee Meetings were open to the public. Although residents were invited to each meeting, no residents participated in any of the Steering Committee meetings.
Members of the public were also able to provide direct input for Plan development and attend the Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Meeting in order to review the Plan during the drafting stage with the Steering Committee Meeting and provide comments.
The Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Meeting was held on October 4, 2022. Copies of the Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan were available for interested members of the public and a presentation was prepared to provide an overview of the planning process and the results of the analyses. However, no members of the public attended.
Following the Public Meeting, the draft Plan was posted on the City’s website for a comment period. Members of the public were instructed to submit specific comments to the Project Team via phone.
By the close of the comment period, no comments had been received from the public.
Additional information on the Public Meeting, including the sign in sheet and presentation, can be found in Appendix D.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-17
1.3 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans
§201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include:
(3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.
While developing the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Project Team reviewed existing plans (detailed below) and incorporated relevant information into the planning efforts.
City of Paramount 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City’s 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan is crucial in comparing the previous mitigation ideas and attitudes to the City’s current needs and concerns. The project team referred to this Plan constantly throughout the updating process. The Plan provides insight into hazard ranking, hazard history, previously proposed mitigation projects, etc.
City of Paramount General Plan
The City of Paramount 2007 General Plan, with several 2022 revisions, contains guidelines and policies that serve as the City’s vision for future planning and development.
Mitigation projects defined in the Hazard Mitigation Plan will be required to align with the objectives outlined in the General Plan. Proposal mitigation actions are found in Chapter 4 of this Plan.
The Hazard Mitigation Plan is identified in the Health and Safety Element of the General Plan, and Health and Safety Policy Element 43 sets regular updates to the Hazard Mitigation Plan to reduce the level of injury, property damage, and community disruption.
Policy EJ-3.5 of the Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan states “Coordinate and integrate hazard mitigation activities with emergency operations plans and procedures.”
Paramount Urban Water Management Plan
The City’s Urban Water Management Plan is updated every five years to monitor water supply issues and mitigate drought situations. It was updated most recently in 2021. As part of the Urban Water Management Plan updates, the City will review the drought hazard profile in the Hazard Mitigation Plan and incorporate the drought mitigation actions identified in the plan.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-18
Paramount Climate Action Plan
The City Council adopted the Paramount Climate Action Plan in 2021. The Climate Action Plan outlines strategies, goals, and actions for reducing City’s municipal and communitywide greenhouse gas emissions and for preparing the community for the anticipated impacts of climate change. Strategy CR3 of the Resilient Community Adaptation Actions of the Climate Action Plan is to “Ensure that emergency planning, public health planning, and adaptation efforts prioritize vulnerable populations.” City of Paramount Emergency Operations Plan
The City periodically updates the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The EOP, last updated in 2017, includes specific response procedures for earthquake, hazardous material incident, flooding, etc. In order to ensure the plan includes an appropriate response, the City will incorporate the Risk Assessment element of the Hazard Mitigation Plan into the Emergency Operations Plan update as appropriate.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-15
State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018)
The Hazard Mitigation Plan was reviewed to ensure consistency between the State and City Plan, with respect to identified hazards and vulnerability, goals and objectives, and mitigation actions. The State goals served as the basis for developing the goals at the City level. City goals and objectives are outlined in Chapter 4.
County of Los Angeles 2019 All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
LA County’s All-Hazards Mitigation Plan was reviewed to ensure consistency between the County and City Plan. The County Plan, updated in 2019, outlines the County’s approach to hazard mitigation, focusing on natural hazards, human-caused events, and technological emergencies.
California Fire Plan
The State Board of Forestry and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection have developed the Fire Plan for wildland fire protection in California. The plan defines a level of service measurement, considers assets at risk, incorporates the cooperative interdependent relationships of wildland fire protection providers, provides for public stakeholder involvement, and creates a fiscal framework for policy analysis. This information was used when developing the Urban Fire hazard profile.
California Water Plan
The state updated the California Water Plan in 2018 in order to address drought hazard mitigation over the long term. This Plan outlines the state’s approach to integrated water management and sustainability. This information was used when developing the drought hazard profile.
California Adaptation Planning Guide 2020
FEMA, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), and the California Natural Resources Agency developed the California Adaptation Planning Guide to assist municipalities in recognizing local climate change and to provide guidance with addressing potential vulnerabilities. The information was used to identify potential hazards and to provide background information that allowed the Steering Committee to make educated decisions regarding mitigation actions designed to alleviate the effects of climate change.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-i
PLANNING AREA PROFILE
Table of Contents
2.1 Region Description ..........................................................................................2-1
2.2 Development Trends........................................................................................2-3
2.3 Population.........................................................................................................2-7
2.4 Demographics ..................................................................................................2-7 List of Tables
Table 2.1: Projected Growth for the City of Paramount .................................................2-7 Table 2.3: Demographic Estimates ................................................................................2-9 List of Figures
Figure 2.1: City of Paramount Overview Map ................................................................2-2 Figure 2.2: City of Paramount General Plan Zoning Map ..............................................2-6 Figure 2.3: City of Paramount Area Plans Map..............................................................2-7 DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-1
2.1 Region Description
The City of Paramount (City) is a municipality characterized by a combination of residential, industrial, and commercial developments. The City was incorporated in 1957 as a General Law City. Paramount is located in the southwestern part of Los Angeles County, California, about 16 miles southwest of the City of Los Angeles. The City is bordered by Compton, Lynwood, and unincorporated Los Angeles County to the west, South Gate and Downey to the north, Bellflower to the east and south, and Long Beach to the south. The City is located near four of the major Los Angeles County freeways, including Interstates 105, 710, 605 and California State Route 91. Additionally, the City is in close proximity to Los Angeles International Airport, Long Beach Municipal Airport, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and is about 16 miles east of the Pacific Ocean.
The City has a total area of 4.8 square miles or 3,072 acres.
The City’s climate is consistent with coastal southern California and is generally characterized by warm summers and cool winters. According to National Center for Environmental Information, average temperatures range from the average high at 76.5 degrees to the average minimum annual temperature at 55.5. Precipitation occurs mainly in the winter months with an average annual rainfall of 11.46 inches. December, January, and February are the wettest month on average with ~2.5 inches of rainfall each month.
Figure 2.1 provides an overview of Paramount.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-2
Figure 2.1: City of Paramount Overview Map
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-3
2.2 Development Trends
§201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.
The City is 4.73 square miles in area. The following describes land use designations for Paramount. These descriptions are excerpted from the City General Plan (2007) in an attempt to designate the proposed general distribution and intensity of uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, public facilities, and other categories of public and private uses.
At the time of this report, there were no plans for land use redistribution or large capital projects that would impact the City’s vulnerability.
Residential Land Uses
Single-Family Residential
• Land uses within this designation are characterized by single-family detached residential development. This land is intended to provide for the maintenance and preservation of the existing single-family neighborhoods in the City and to permit new infill development. The maximum development intensity permitted under this land designation is 8 dwelling units per acre.
Multiple-Family Residential
• This land use designation provides for higher density residential development at intensities of up to 22 dwelling units per acre.
Commercial & Industrial Land Uses
Commercial
• This land use designation applies to a wide range of land uses involved in retail sales and services. Development included in this land use designation may be characterized by smaller neighborhood commercial establishments, community shopping centers, office developments, and other service-related activities.
Industrial
• The industrial land use classification includes those land uses involved in manufacturing, processing, and warehousing activities.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-4
Business Park
• The Business Park land use designation promotes planned development that integrates light industrial, limited retail commercial, and office uses into contemporary development designs. Commercial and office uses should be of a type that serve and reinforce the light manufacturing establishments that are part of the development.
Public/Quasi-Public (P/PQ)
• This designation includes publicly owned lands and properties for quasi-public institutions containing existing or proposed support uses for local communitywide or regional support facilities. Examples of land uses include, but are not limited to, schools, parks, power line easements, flood control facilities, churches, and similar uses that are ancillary to quasi-public uses.
Specific Area Plans
• There are six Area Plans that have been developed for key neighborhoods and districts in the City. These Area Plans are designed to establish more specific policies to selected area of the City, including areas targeted for special revitalization and redevelopment opportunities. The six area designations are:
o Central Business District Area Plan;
o Central Industrial District Area Plan;
o Clearwater East Area Plan;
o Clearwater North & Howe/Orizaba Area Plan; (consolidation into North Paramount Gateway Specific Plan currently in progress)
o Clearwater West Area Plan; and
o Somerset Ranch Planned Community.
Figures 2.2 and 2.3 illustrate the City of Paramount’s land use (zoning) and area plan designations, respectfully, and were update in 2022 from the 2007 revision of the General Plan.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-5
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-6
Figure 2.2: City of Paramount General Plan Zoning Map
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-7
Figure 2.3: City of Paramount Area Plans Map
2.3 Population
Since its incorporation in 1957, the City’s population has increased by an annual rate of about 2.46% from 1960 to 1970. After a decade of decreased growth from 1970 to 1980, the City boomed between 1980 and 2005, growing 60% in those years due to City development efforts. The City’s population is expected to increase by only 9.5% between 2020 and 2040. Population growth is expected to grow slowly as development opportunities become increasingly limited and the City reaches its potential for building out. Table 2.1 provides the City’s projected population growth to 2040.
Table 2.1: Projected Growth for the City of Paramount
Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population 55,461 57,404 58,919 60,218 61,266
Source: E-1 Cities, Counties, and the State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change (1/1/2020) and P-2A Total Population for California and Counties (2010 – 2060)
2.4 Demographics
When considering the impacts of hazard scenarios on the community, the City is cognizant that some portions of the community will be impacted to a greater extent than others. A better understanding of how disasters impact the community, even disproportionately, can help guide resiliency efforts to better serve the entire community. Although other factors may be present, this section will focus on how low economic status and age can exacerbate the impacts of a hazard scenario. At the time of this report, economic status and age are the clearest indicators of increased/reduced suffering during a disaster situation based on the information available.
Economic Status
The July 2017 issue of the Supplemental Research Bulletin published by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSA) states that disasters are experienced differently by people in poverty, even at the preparedness stage. The Supplemental Research Bulletin also notes, according to a 2004 report by Fothergill and Peek, impoverished people are likely to have less access to education regarding DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-8
vulnerabilities to disasters and are therefore, typically not able to be as prepared. It is also speculated that preparedness actions may be costly, and possibly too expensive, for people with low incomes to be able to implement. Furthermore, the poor generally are assumed to have to live in homes with lower quality construction which are more susceptible to the impacts of disasters. The bulletin also cites a 1983 report (Rossi, Wright, Weber-Burdin, & Pereira) which found higher rates of injury during natural disasters for lower income households. This also may be tied to the high cost of preparedness measures leaving the poor at a higher rate of vulnerability. World Bank and GFDRR report authors note that people in poverty around the world are more likely than others to live in areas at high risk of disaster impacts. They explain that this may be the case because these more dangerous areas are less expensive, or simply more available, in parts of the world with limited space for housing (Hallegatte et al., 2017).
Age
According to a statement from the Red Cross, “new research has found that older adults are more vulnerable and experience more casualties after natural disasters compared to other age groups”. While not universal, older adults are more likely to have a greater prevalence for chronic conditions, multi-morbidity, cognitive impairment, and medical concerns that other age groups. Generally, older adults are more likely to be dependent on assistive devises and caregivers, more likely to be isolated, more likely to have gaps in preparedness, and potentially be at higher risk for psychological distress. All of these factors increase the potential for injury during a disaster event.
Youth can also be factor in determining the impacts of disasters on the community; especially long-term. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), children may experience anxiety, fear, sadness, sleep disruption, irritability, difficulty concentrating, and anger outburst following a disaster. Furthermore, the CDC states children under 8 years of age are at particular risk for long-term mental health issues after experiencing a disaster.
City Vulnerability
To estimate the impacts of low income and population age on the City, Table 2.3 summarizes some of the applicable estimates provided by the 2020 United States Census regarding the economic status of the community.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-9
Table 2.3: Demographic Estimates
Estimate Category Census Estimates
Population (2020) 53,733
Persons under 5 years 6%
Persons under 18 years 27.4%
Persons 65 years and over 8.6%
Households (2015-2019) 14,207
Persons per household (2015-2019) 3.82
Households with a computer (2015-2019) 91.1%
Households with a broadband internet subscription, percent (2015-2019)
79.8%
High School graduate or higher, percent of persons aged 25 years+ (2015-2019)
64.8%
Bachelor’s degree or higher percent of persons aged 25 years+ (2015-2019
11.3%
Median Household income (in 2019 dollars, 2015-2019) $55,670 Per capita income in past 12 months (in 2019 dollars 2015-2019) $18,073 Persons in poverty, percent 16.7%
Source: United State Census Bureau
Although many inferences could be made based on the table above, it is clear 16.7% of the community is recorded being at or below poverty level. Additionally, 8.6% of the community is over the age of 65 while 6% are under the age of 5. While each of these groups represent a small portion of the City, it can be assumed this percentage of the public with be impacted by disasters at a higher degree than the rest of the community.
As the City moves forward, considerations for these small sectors of the population should be made to provide effective resilience measures.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-i
RISK ASSESSMENT
Table of Contents
3.1 Risk Assessment.................................................................................................3-4
3.2 Hazard Identification and Profiling .......................................................................3-7
3.2.1 Hazard Profiles .........................................................................................3-10
3.3.1 Trends in Perceived Vulnerability..............................................................3-11
3.3 Earthquake Hazard Profile.................................................................................3-13
3.3.1 Earthquake Hazard Information and Background......................................3-13
3.4.2 Earthquake History ...................................................................................3-17
3.3.3 Earthquake Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude..................................3-24
3.4 Adversarial Events.............................................................................................3-35
3.4.1 Adversarial Events Hazard Information and Background ..........................3-35
3.4.2 Adversarial Events History ........................................................................3-37
3.4.3 Adversarial Events Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude.......................3-38
3.5 Urban Fire Hazard Profile ..................................................................................3-39
3.5.1 Urban Fire Hazard Information and Background .......................................3-39
3.5.2 Urban Fire History.....................................................................................3-40
3.5.3 Urban Fire Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ...................................3-46
3.6 Hazardous Material Release..............................................................................3-48
3.6.1 Hazardous Material Release Hazard Information and Background ...........3-48
3.6.2 Hazardous Material Release History.........................................................3-50
3.6.3 Hazardous Materials Release Hazard Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude.................................................................................................3-52
3.7 Homelessness...................................................................................................3-55
3.7.1 Homelessness Hazard Information and Background.................................3-55
3.7.2 Homelessness History ..............................................................................3-57
3.8.3 Homelessness Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude.............................3-60
3.8 Utility Loss Hazard Profile..................................................................................3-64
3.8.1 Utility Loss Hazard Information and Background.......................................3-64
3.8.2 Utility Loss History ....................................................................................3-65
3.8.3 Utility Loss Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude...................................3-66
3.9 Pipeline Failure Hazard Profile ..........................................................................3-67
3.9.1 Pipeline Failure Hazard Information and Background ...............................3-67 DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-1
3.9.2 Pipeline Failure History .............................................................................3-68
3.9.3 Pipeline Failure Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude............................3-69
3.10 Flood and Dam Failure Hazard Profile...............................................................3-70
3.10.1 Flood Hazard Information and Background.............................................3-70
3.10.2 Flood History..........................................................................................3-72
3.10.3 Dam Failure Hazard Information and Background..................................3-74
3.10.4 Dam Failure History ...............................................................................3-77
3.10.5 Flood Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ........................................3-79
3.10.6 Dam Failure Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude..............................3-82
3.11 Destructive Winds Hazard Profile ......................................................................3-84
3.11.1 Destructive Winds Hazard Information and Background ........................3-84
3.11.2 Destructive Winds History ......................................................................3-85
3.11.3 Destructive Winds Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude .....................3-87
3.12 Drought Hazard Profile ......................................................................................3-89
3.12.1 Drought Hazard Information and Background ........................................3-89
3.12.2 Drought History ......................................................................................3-90
3.12.3 Drought Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude.....................................3-92
3.13 Disease Outbreak Hazard Profile ......................................................................3-94
3.13.1: Disease Outbreak Hazard Information and Background ........................3-94
3.13.2 Disease Outbreak History ......................................................................3-95
3.13.3 Disease Outbreak Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude.....................3-98
3.14 Civil Unrest/Riots Hazard Profile........................................................................3-99
3.14.1 Civil Unrest/Riots Hazard Information and Background.........................3-99
3.14.2 Civil Unrest/Riots History.......................................................................3-99
3.14.3 Civil Unrest/Riots Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude ...................3-101
3.15 Transportation Accident/Incident Hazard Profile ..............................................3-103
3.15.1 Transportation Accident/Incident Hazard Information and Background 3-103
3.15.2 Transportation Accident/Incident Hazard History..................................3-104
3.15.3 Transportation Accident/Incident Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude...............................................................................................3-104
3.16 Climate Change...............................................................................................3-106
3.17 Asset Inventory................................................................................................3-107
3.18 Loss Estimates ................................................................................................3-116 DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-2
List of Figures
Figure 3.1: Southern California Historic Earthquakes Map .........................................3-24 Figure 3.2: City of Paramount Earthquake Fault Map.................................................3-26 Figure 3.3: Southern California Earthquake Fault Map ...............................................3-27 Figure 3.4: City of Paramount Peak Ground Acceleration Map...................................3-32 Figure 3.5: Liquefaction Zones in Los Angeles County...............................................3-34 Figure 3.5: Los Angeles County Fire Threat Map .......................................................3-46 Figure 3.6: City of Paramount Facilities and Transportation Routes Map ...................3-54 Figure 3.7: Crimes Involving Homeless Individuals ....................................................3-59 Figure 3.8: Violent Crime Rate ...................................................................................3-60 Figure 3.9: Relationship Between Homelessness and Housing Prices .......................3-61 Figure 3.10: Homeless Encampments in Los Angeles County ...................................3-62 Figure 3.11: City of Paramount FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) .................3-80 Figure 3.12: City of Paramount FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) .................3-81 Figure 3.13: Maximum Flood Depth for Whittier Narrows Dam Failure .......................3-83 Figure 3.15: Annual Runoff in California.....................................................................3-91 Figure 3.16: Western United States Drought Conditions, 2021...................................3-92 Figure 3.17: Nations With Confirmed Cases H5N1 Avian Influenza (July 7, 2006) .....3-96 Figure 3.18: Nations with confirmed Cases H1N1 (August 4, 2009) ...........................3-97 Figure 3.19: City of Paramount Transportation Map .................................................3-105 List of Tables
Table 3.1: Risk Factors for Hazard Identification ..........................................................3-8 Table 3.2 Hazard Ranking Matrix .................................................................................3-9 Table 3.3: Hazard Rank Categorization......................................................................3-10 Table 3.4: City of Paramount Hazard Ranking Summary ...........................................3-11 Table 3.5: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale................................................................3-15 Table 3.6 Southern California Historical Earthquakes.................................................3-17 Table 3.7: San Andreas Fault Information ..................................................................3-28 Table 3.8: Newport-Inglewood Fault Information ........................................................3-28 Table 3.9: Whittier-Fault Information ..........................................................................3-29 Table 3.10: Elsinore Fault Information........................................................................3-30 Table 3.11: Palos Verdes Fault Information................................................................3-30 Table 3.12: Mercalli Intensity and Corresponding Peak Group Acceleration...............3-33 DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-3
Table 3.13: Southern California Historical Fires (2005-2020) .....................................3-42 Table 3.14: Types of Hazardous Material Incidents....................................................3-49 Table 3.15: ERNS Spills and Accidents in California in 2013......................................3-51 Table 3.16: EPA Regulated Facilities in Paramount ...................................................3-53 Table 3.17: HUD Homelessness Classification...........................................................3-56 Table 3.18: Homeless Population in Los Angeles County ..........................................3-57 Table 3.19: Demographics of Paramount Homeless Population.................................3-62 Table 3.20: Economic Impacts of Loss of Electric Power ...........................................3-66 Table 3.21: Historical Flooding Damage in Los Angeles County ................................3-73 Table 3:22: Dam Failure Events in California .............................................................3-78 Table 3.23: Historical Destructive Wind Damage in Los Angeles County ...................3-86 Table 3.24: Traffic Fatalities in California (2014-2019) .............................................3-104 Table 3.25: Structural Replacement Values .............................................................3-108 Table 3.22: Loss of Function Values – Utilities & Lifelines........................................3-109 Table 3.24: Asset Inventory......................................................................................3-111 Table 3.25: Loss of Function ....................................................................................3-115 Table 3.26: Loss Estimates / Vulnerability Assessment – Earthquake through Homelessness.......................................................................................3-117 Table 3.27: Loss Estimates / Vulnerability Assessment –Utility Loss through Destructive Winds ....................................................................................................3-119 Table 3.28: Loss Estimates / Vulnerability Assessment –Utility Loss through Destructive Winds ....................................................................................................3-121 Table 3.29: Loss Estimates Summary ......................................................................3-123 DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-4
3.1 Risk Assessment
The Risk Assessment is the foundation of the hazard mitigation planning process. As noted in FEMA’s “State and Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guide,” Risk Assessment is the process of measuring the potential impacts of hazards by estimating the existing vulnerability to the identified hazards.
The Risk Assessment consists of four key steps:
Hazard Identification, Hazard Profiling, Asset
Inventory, and Loss Estimates. This chapter
includes the Hazard Identification and Hazard
Profiling steps to evaluate the hazards of primary
concern to local decision-makers to provide a
basis for the Loss Estimates. Additionally, the Risk
Assessment provides a basis for the evaluation of
mitigation projects and measures that can help
reduce the impacts of a hazard when one occurs.
Step 1: Identify Hazards
This step identified all the natural and humanmade hazards that might affect the City of Paramount (City) and then narrowed the list to the hazards that are most likely to occur.
These hazards included natural, technical, and human-caused events, with an emphasis on the effect of natural disasters on critical facilities, services, and roadways (e.g., government buildings, schools, hospitals, and public services including police and fire).
The Steering Committee participated in a Hazard Identification Workshop during the first Steering Committee Meeting to identify and rank the potential hazards within the City.
Step 2: Profile Hazard Events
The hazard event profiles consist of either a map indicating the area impacted by each hazard or key information regarding the characteristics of hazard events within the planning area. To develop detailed hazard profiles, relevant open-source natural hazard studies and mapping projects were reviewed and documented within this report. In addition, the City supplied natural hazard studies (e.g., microbursts, flood, etc.) that included specific hazard and emergency information. This planning step determined the natural hazard magnitude, frequency, and location characteristics (urban fire, fault locations, flood plains, etc.) that were used as the design-basis for the loss estimates.
STEP 1: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
STEP 2: HAZARD PROFILING
USE RISK ASSESSMENT OUTPUTS
TO PREPARE A HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN
STEP 4: LOSS ESTIMATE
STEP 3: ASSET INVENTORY
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-5
Step 3: Inventory Assets
The purpose of this step was to determine the quantity of buildings, people, and assets in the City that lie in the different hazard areas and what proportion of the City this represents.
The asset inventory was completed using spatial Geographic information Systems (GIS) asset locations and specifications for the following assets:
• General Buildings: City Well Sites, Civic Buildings, Parks, etc. • Critical Facilities: Hospitals and Schools.
The development of the comprehensive inventory facilitated the development of loss estimates for all hazard scenarios.
Step 4: Loss Estimates
The loss estimate step relied on detailed information regarding the hazard probability and maps that were completed as part of the hazard profiles. This information was used to apply the hazard probabilities and recurrence intervals to the assets and inventory (buildings and infrastructure) of the City. This step was critical in determining which assets were subject to the greatest potential damages and which hazard event was likely to produce the greatest potential losses.
The HAZUS-MH software package, which implements the FEMA-developed methodology and runs on a GIS platform, was used to map, and display earthquake hazard data, as well as the results of damage and economic loss estimates for buildings and infrastructure within the City. To estimate potential losses for the other hazards, detailed spreadsheets, including the asset inventory and potential hazards, were used to estimate the monetary impact of each hazard to the City.
In estimating losses, HAZUS-MH and the spreadsheets take into account various impacts of a hazard event such as:
• Physical damage: damage to public buildings, schools, critical facilities, and infrastructure;
• Economic loss: lost jobs, business interruptions, repair, and reconstruction costs; and
• Social impacts: impacts to people, including requirements for shelters and medical aid.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-6
The conclusion of this step precipitated a comprehensive loss estimate (vulnerability assessment) for each identified hazard for each specific asset in terms of damages, economic loss, and the associated consequences for the City.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-7
3.2 Hazard Identification and Profiling
§201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type, location, and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events.
§201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in `paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community.
§201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment] must also address National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insured structures that have been repetitively damaged floods. §201.6(c)(2)(iii): For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction’s risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area.
The hazard identification and ranking were obtained from the hazard identification exercise which took place during the initial Steering Committee meeting. Each hazard profile includes a summary of the hazard identification exercise identified risk factors and overall rank for each hazard, in addition to the detailed hazard description, historical occurrences, and projected future probability, magnitude, and frequency.
The hazard identification exercise was conducted during the first Steering Committee Meeting to identify the potential hazards within the City. Since this is an update to the City’s 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan, the original Plan was used as the starting point for discussing the hazards that can potentially affect the City. The Steering Committee also reviewed hazards discussed in FEMA’s “State and Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guide.” Chapter 1 and Appendix D include additional information (e.g., presentation, signin sheets, etc.) on the first Steering Committee Meeting.
The hazard identification exercise was facilitated using an automated interactive spreadsheet program that asked specific questions on potential hazards and then ranked them accordingly. These questions guided the Committee in the correct facilitation and application of the program. Table 3.1 summarizes the hazard identification exercise risk factors, lists the descriptions of each factor, provides the specific descriptor choices for each risk factor and description, and their associated values used for ranking. It should be noted that the hazards were qualitatively ranked against each other, and the probability/frequency, consequence/severity, or vulnerability may not accurately reflect any actual hazard occurrence.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-8
Table 3.1: Risk Factors for Hazard Identification
Risk Factor Description Descriptors Value
Probability/
Frequency
Prediction of how often a
hazard will occur in the future
Infeasible event - not applicable due to geographic location characteristics 0 Rare event - occurs less than once every 50 years 1
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8 years and once every 50 years (inclusive) 2
Regular event - occurs between once a year and once every 7 years 3 Frequent event - occurs more than once a year 4
Consequence/
Severity
Physical Damage - structures
and lifelines
Economic Impact – loss of
function for power, water,
sanitation, roads, etc.
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 DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-9
Each profile includes a ranking of the hazard, ranging from low hazard to high hazard. The hazard rankings were determined by assigning each hazard the appropriate risk factors as described above. The risk factors were then used with a hazard ranking matrix to determine the final hazard score. Table 3.2 provides the matrix used for determining each hazard’s score.
Table 3.2 Hazard Ranking Matrix
Probability/Frequency Description Hazard 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
Frequent Event:
Occurs more than once a year
Probability/Frequency Consequence/Severity
Value 4 1 2 3 4 5
Vulnerability
1 4 8 12 16 20
2 8 16 24 32 40
3 12 24 36 48 60
4 16 32 48 64 80
5 20 40 60 80 100
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-10
The hazard scores from the Hazard Ranking Matrix were compared to the hazard rank criteria to finally categorize each hazard with a hazard ranking. Table 3.3 provides the value determinations for each hazard ranking.
Table 3.3: Hazard Rank Categorization
Hazard Ranking Matrix Value
High Hazard 50 to 100
Moderately High Hazard 25 to 49
Moderate Hazard 15 to 24
Moderately Low Hazard 5 to 14
Low Hazard 1 to 4
3.2.1 Hazard Profiles
The following sections present additional information regarding the hazards of concern as hazard profiles. The hazard profiles are designed to assist communities in evaluating and comparing the hazards that can impact their community by comparing a number of hazard factors. Each type of hazard has unique characteristics, and the impact associated with a specific hazard can vary depending on the magnitude and location of each event. For the purposes of this report, a hazard event is a specific, uninterrupted occurrence of a particular type of hazard. Furthermore, the probability of occurrence of a hazard in a given location impacts the priority assigned to that hazard. Finally, each hazard will impact different communities in different ways, based on geography, local development, population distribution, age of buildings, and mitigation measures already implemented.
Table 3.4 provides the hazard ranking summary for the City.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-11
Table 3.4: City of Paramount Hazard Ranking Summary
Hazard Rank Score
High
Earthquake 50
Moderately High
Adversarial Events 32
Moderate
Hazardous Material Release 18
Urban Fire 18
Homelessness 18
Moderately Low Hazard
Utility Loss 12
Pipeline Failure 9
Flood/Dam Failure 8
Destructive Winds 8
Drought 6
Disease Outbreak 6
Low Hazard
Transportation Accident/Incident 3
Civil Unrest/Riots 2
3.3.1 Trends in Perceived Vulnerability
As illustrated above, the Steering Committee reviewed its perceived vulnerability to determine the potential impact of each hazard to the City. The Steering Committee began with the hazards identified in the 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan and used the lists as a springboard in determining current perceived vulnerability For example, the City redefined the Terrorism hazard as Adversarial Events to broaden the scope to include office/school violence. City staff are cognizant of the increasing frequency of adversarial events, although the City has never experience one. In response, the Steering Committee increased its perceived vulnerability to Adversarial Events. Secondly, the City included homelessness as an identified hazard. Continued reports of increased homelessness throughout Los Angeles County coupled with increasing hazards to those experiencing homeless and the surrounding community prompted the City to take action in identifying homelessness as a perceived hazard in order to take action to protect the community.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-12
The 2020 Los Angeles County All-Hazards Mitigation Plan considered the potential for Tsunami and Wildfire, but these were deemed not to be applicable to the City due to a lack of proximity to the ocean and the lack of open “wild areas”. As a result, Tsunami was not included in the Plan and Wildfire was adapted to Urban Fire to be more in line with the City’s vulnerabilities
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-13
3.3 Earthquake Hazard Profile
Earthquake Risk Assessment Summary
Risk Rank: High
Probability/
Frequency:
Infrequent event - occurs between once
every 8 years and once every 50 years
(inclusive)
Consequence/
Severity:
Extensive building damage, widespread
loss of lifelines (water, gas, electricity,
sanitation, roads), loss of life
Vulnerability:
Widespread damage area, significant
secondary impacts, no warning time
Hazard Risk Rank
Score:
50 3.3.1 Earthquake Hazard Information and Background
Plate tectonics is a starting point for
understanding the forces within the Earth
that cause earthquakes. Plates are thick
slabs of rock that make up the outermost
100 kilometers of the Earth. The term
"tectonics" describes the deformation of the
Earth's crust, the forces producing such
deformation, and the geologic and structural
features that result. The constant motion of the plates causes stress in the brittle upper crust of the Earth. These tectonic stresses build as the rocks are gradually deformed. The rock deformation, or strain, is stored in the rocks as elastic strain energy. When the strength of the rock is exceeded, rupture occurs along a fault. The rocks on opposite sides of the fault slide past each other as they spring back into a relaxed position. The strain DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-14
energy is released partly as heat and partly as elastic waves called seismic waves. The passage of these seismic waves produces the ground shaking in earthquakes.
Faults are more likely to produce future earthquakes if they have rapid rates of movement, have had recent earthquakes along them, experience greater total displacements, and are aligned so that movement can relieve the accumulating tectonic stresses. Geologists classify faults by their relative hazards. “Active” faults, which represent the highest hazard, are those that have ruptured to the ground surface during the Holocene period (about the last 11,000 years). In contrast, “potentially active” faults are those that displaced layers of rock from the Quaternary period (the last 1,800,000 years). Determining if a fault is “active” or “potentially active” depends on geologic evidence, which may not be available for every fault.
Shaking
The amount of energy released during an earthquake is usually expressed as a magnitude and is measured directly from the earthquake as recorded on seismographs. An earthquake’s magnitude is expressed in whole numbers and decimals (e.g., 6.8).
Seismologists have developed several magnitude scales. One of the first was the Richter Scale, developed in 1932 by the late Dr. Charles F. Richter of the California Institute of Technology. The most commonly used scale today is the Moment Magnitude (Mw) Scale.
Moment magnitude is related to the total area of the fault that ruptured and the amount of offset (displacement) across the fault. It is a more uniform measure of the energy released during an earthquake.
The other commonly used measure of earthquake severity is intensity. Intensity is an expression of the amount of shaking at any given location on the ground surface. In general, it decreases with distance from the source of an earthquake, but it may be increased or decreased by several factors.
The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale and Corresponding Richter Scale Magnitudes Shaking intensity is often described using the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, which rates an earthquake’s effects based on human observation. While an earthquake has only one magnitude it may have many intensity values, which will generally decrease with distance from the epicenter. Table 3.5 lists the Modified Mercalli Scale’s various intensity levels and corresponding Richter Scale magnitudes.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-15
Table 3.5: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
Mercalli Intensity Description
Richter
Scale
Magnitude
I Instrumental Detected only by a seismograph
II Feeble Noticed by sensitive people 0.1 to 3.4
III Slight Like the vibrations due to a passing truck 3.5 to 4.2 IV Moderate Felt by people while walking; rocking of
loose objects, including standing vehicles
4.3 to 4.8
V Rather Strong Felt generally; most sleepers are awakened and bells ring
VI Strong
Trees sway and all suspended objects
swing; damage by over-turning and falling of
loose objects 4.9 to 5.4
VII Very Strong General alarm; walls crack; plaster falls VIII Destructive
Car drivers seriously disturbed; masonry
fissured; chimneys fall; poor constructed
buildings damaged
5.5 to 6.1
IX Ruinous Some houses collapse where ground begins
to crack, and pipes break 6.2 to 6.9
X Disastrous
Ground cracks badly; many buildings
destroyed, and railway lines bent; landslides
on steep slopes
7.0 to 7.3
XI Very
disastrous
Few buildings remain standing; bridges
destroyed; all services (railway, pipes, and
cables) out of action; great landslides and
floods
7.4 to 8.1
XII Catastrophic Total Destruction; objects thrown into air; ground rises and falls in waves 8.1 +
Amplification of Seismic Shaking
Although seismic waves radiate from their source like ripples on a pond, the radiation is not uniform due to the complex nature of an earthquake rupture, the different paths the waves follow through the earth, and the different rock and soil layers near the earth’s surface. Large earthquakes begin to rupture at their hypocenter deep in the earth and the fault ruptures outward from that point. Because the speed of an earthquake rupture on a DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-16
fault is similar to the speed of seismic waves, waves closer to the epicenter can be compounded by waves from farther along the rupture, creating a pulse of very strong seismic waves that moves along the fault in the direction of the fault rupture. Seismic waves may also be modified as they travel through the earth’s crust.
As seismic waves approach the ground surface, they commonly enter areas of loose soils where the waves travel more slowly. As the waves slow down, their amplitude increases, resulting in larger waves with frequencies that are more likely to damage structures.
Waves can also be trapped within soft sediments between the ground surface and deep, hard basement rocks, their destructive energy multiplying as they bounce back and forth, producing much greater shaking at the ground surface.
Ground Failure
Fissuring, settlement, and permanent horizontal and vertical shifting of the ground often accompany large earthquakes. Although not as pervasive or as costly as the shaking itself, these ground failures can significantly increase damage and under certain circumstances can be the dominant cause of damage.
Fault Rupture
The sudden sliding of one part of the earth’s crust past another releases the vast store of elastic energy in the rocks as an earthquake. The resulting fracture is known as a fault, while the sliding movement of earth on either side of a fault is called fault rupture. Fault rupture begins below the ground surface at the earthquake hypocenter, typically between three and ten miles below the ground surface in California. If an earthquake is large enough, the fault rupture will actually travel all the way to the ground surface, severely damaging structures built across its path.
Liquefaction
In addition to the primary fault rupture that occurs right along a fault during an earthquake, the ground many miles away can also fail during the intense shaking. One common type of failure occurs when soft, water-saturated soil settles, causing the water to eject sediment particles as it works its way to the ground surface. This phenomenon, known as liquefaction, turns the soil into a fluid, causing it to lose the ability to support buildings and other structures. Areas susceptible to liquefaction include places where sandy sediments have been deposited by rivers along their course or by wave action along beaches.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-17
Landslides
Landslides are the result of the down-slope movement of unstable hillside materials under the influence of weathering and gravity over time. Strength of rock and soil, steepness of slope, and weight of the hillside material all play an important role in the stability of hillside areas. Weathering and absorption of water can weaken slopes, while the added weight of saturated materials or overlying construction can increase the chances of slope failure.
Sudden failure can be triggered by heavy rainfall, excavation of weak slopes, and earthquake shaking, among other factors.
3.4.2 Earthquake History
To indicate the potential for an earthquake event, Table 3.6 lists all significant recorded earthquakes in Southern California, and the associated magnitudes (excerpted from the Southern California Earthquake Data Center).
Table 3.6 Southern California Historical Earthquakes
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4 Magnitude > 7.5
Magnitude Year Earthquake Name
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1922 Parkfield Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1923 North San Jacinto Fault Earthquake Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1925 Santa Barbara Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4 1927 Lompoc Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1933 Long Beach Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1934 Parkfield Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1937 San Jacinto Fault ("Terwilliger Valley") Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4 1940 Imperial Valley Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1941 Santa Barbara Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1941 Torrance-Gardena Earthquakes
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4 1942 Fish Creek Mountains Earthquake Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1946 Walker Pass Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4 1947 Manix Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1948 Desert Hot Springs Earthquake
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-18
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4 Magnitude > 7.5
Magnitude Year Earthquake Name
Magnitude > 7.5 1952 Kern County Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1952 Bakersfield Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1954 San Jacinto Fault Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1966 Parkfield Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4 1968 Borrego Mountain Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1970 Lytle Creek Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4 1971 San Fernando (Sylmar) Earthquake Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1973 Point Mugu Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1975 Galway Lake Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1978 Santa Barbara Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1979 Malibu Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1980 White Wash Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1982 "Anza Gap" Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1986 North Palm Springs Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1986 Oceanside Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4 1987 Elmore Ranch/Superstition Hills Earthquakes
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1988 Tejon Ranch Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1988 Upland Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1988 Pasadena Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1989 Malibu Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1989 Newport Beach Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1989 Montebello Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1990 Upland Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1991 Sierra Madre Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1992 Joshua Tree Earthquake
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-19
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4 Magnitude > 7.5
Magnitude Year Earthquake Name
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4 1992 Landers Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1992 Big Bear Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1992 Mojave (Garlock) Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1993 Wheeler Ridge Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4 1994 Northridge Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 1995 Ridgecrest Earthquakes
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1996 Coso Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1997 Calico Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1998 Coso Earthquakes
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1998 Crafton Hills (Redlands) Earthquake Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1998 San Bernardino Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 1998 Whiskey Springs (Big Bear City) Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4 1999 Hector Mine Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 2001 Anza Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 2002 Laguna Salad Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4 2003 San Simeon Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 2005 Mettler Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 2008 Chino Hills Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 2009 Inglewood Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 2009 Baja California Earthquake
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4 2010 Sierra El Mayor Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 2011 Calexico Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 2012 Brawley Earthquakes
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 2012 Westmoreland Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 2013 Isla Vista Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 2014 Brea Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 2016 Borrego Springs Earthquake
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-20
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4 Magnitude > 7.5
Magnitude Year Earthquake Name
Magnitude 6.5 to 7.4 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake
Magnitude 5.5 - 6.4 2020 Searles Valley Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 2020 Lone Pine Earthquake
Magnitude 4.5 - 5.4 2020 South El Monte
Source. Southern California Earthquake Date Center
Southern California Historic Earthquakes
One of the best indicators of earthquake potential is learning the earthquake history of the area. The following is a discussion on large earthquakes that affected the City and Southern California in general, which were also included in Table 3.6. 1857 Fort Tejon Earthquake
On January 9, 1857, one of the greatest recorded earthquakes in the United States occurred. The Fort Tejon earthquake measured 7.9 on the Richter Scale and left a surface rupture scare of over 350 kilometers along the San Andreas Fault. Strong shaking was said to have lasted for over a minute, and water from the Los Angeles River was reportedly thrown out of its bed. Damage was not nearly as serious as it would be today since Southern California was sparsely populated at the time. Were the Fort Tejon earthquake to occur today, the damage would easily run into billions of dollars, and the loss of life would be substantial. The present-day communities of Wrightwood and Palmdale lie upon or near the 1857 rupture area.
1933 Long Beach Earthquake
In 1933, the Long Beach 6.4 magnitude earthquake struck the Los Angeles Basin on March 10. The earthquake occurred on the Newport-Inglewood Fault, causing serious damage in Long Beach and other communities. The earthquake resulted in 120 deaths and over $50 million in property damage. Most of the damaged buildings were of unreinforced masonry. The following images of the damage were taken from the Southern California Earthquake Data Center website.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-21
1971 Sylmar Earthquake (San Fernando)
On February 9, 1971, the Los Angeles basin
shook for over one minute. There were 65
deaths and a financial cost of over $500
million. The earthquake resulted in a crack in
the Van Norman Dam where an 80-square
mile area had to be evacuated due to fear the
dam would break. Numerous people were
trapped in buildings and fires were started
from natural gas line breaks. Two hospitals
collapsed killing nine people. The Veterans
Administration Hospital had seven deaths
(photo left) and the Olive View Hospital had
two deaths. Following this earthquake, the
Alquist Hospital Seismic Act was passed.
1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake
In October 1987, the Whittier Narrows
Earthquake struck the Los Angeles area with a
5.9 magnitude earthquake. This earthquake
occurred on a fault system not previously known
for seismic activity. There were 8 deaths and 200
injuries. The earthquake damage was estimated
at $358 million.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-22
1994 Northridge Earthquake
On January 17, 1994, the Northridge
Earthquake 6.7 magnitude struck the Los
Angeles area. There were 57 deaths and over
1,500 people were injured. The earthquake
caused billions of dollars in damage and
disrupted the lives of thousands of residents,
schools, and businesses in Southern
California.
For days afterward, thousands of homes and businesses were without electricity; tens of thousands had no gas; and nearly 50,000 had little or no water. Approximately 15,000 structures were moderately to severely damaged, which left thousands of people temporarily homeless. Over 66,500 buildings were
inspected. Nearly 4,000 were severely damaged and
over 11,000 were moderately damaged. Several
collapsed bridges and overpasses created commuter
havoc on the freeway system. Ground shaking caused
extensive damage, but the earthquake triggered
liquefaction and dozens of fires also caused additional severe damage. This extremely strong ground motion
in large portions of the Los Angeles Basin resulted in
record economic losses.
However, the earthquake occurred early
in the morning on a holiday. This
circumstance considerably reduced the
potential effects. Many collapsed
buildings were unoccupied, and most
businesses were not yet open. The direct
and indirect economic losses ran into the
tens of billions.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-23
2019 Ridgecrest Earthquakes
The 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake event
s began on July 4, 2019, with a
magnitude 6.4 quake near the town of
Ridgecrest. Then, at 6:32PM on July
6th, 2019, a 7.1 magnitude struck again
east of the town. This quake moved
along 30 miles of Garlock strike-slip
fault line and was followed by 26,000
aftershocks over multiple days. The shaking was felt in Stockton, Las Vegas, and downtown Los Angeles; near the City. According to the United States Geological Survey, five people were injured, 50 homes were structurally damaged, and many more homes were damaged by fire from broken gas lines and power outages. Damages from the quake were estimated to exceed $100,000,000 USD.
Even if the epicenter of a major earthquake is not located directly within the City, the aftershocks associated with that earthquake can cause significant damage. The hazards associated with aftershock earthquakes are the same as mainshock earthquakes and may cause significant damage and disruption. The primary difference between mainshock and aftershock earthquakes is aftershock earthquakes are categorized by the following two guidelines. First, it must occur within one rupture length of the mainshock rupture surface, or alternatively, within an "aftershock zone" based upon early aftershock activity and defined by seismologists. Second, it must occur within that designated area before the seismicity rate in that area returns to its "background", meaning pre-mainshock, level.
Figure 3.1 from the Southern California Earthquake Data Center details the locations and magnitudes for historic Southern California earthquakes.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-24
Figure 3.1: Southern California Historic Earthquakes Map Southern California Earthquake Data Center at Caltech
3.3.3 Earthquake Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude
The Steering Committee ranked earthquake as the greatest threat to the City. The City does not have any seismic faults within its boundaries but is still in the vicinity of several known active and potentially active earthquake faults. As discussed below, many of these faults are known to be capable of a magnitude 6.0 or greater earthquake. A major earthquake occurring in or near the City may cause many casualties, extensive property damage, fires, and hazardous material spills, and other ensuing hazards. The effects could be aggravated by aftershocks and by the secondary effects of fire, hazardous material accidents, and possible failures of pipelines and waterways. As shown in previous earthquakes, the time of day could have a significant effect on the number of casualties and the damages incurred. Such an earthquake could exceed the response capabilities DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-25
of the City, requiring disaster relief and aide support from other local governments and organizations.
Fault Zones
There are many faults and fault zones throughout southern California. After reviewing maps of California and specifically the Southern California area, the research resulted in earthquakes that could impact the City. Faults that were reviewed include: the San Andreas, Newport-Inglewood, San Jacinto, El Modena, Cristianitos, El Modena, Norwalk, San Joaquin Hills, Peralta Uplift, Whittier-Elsinore, and Palos Verdes. These faults, all considered active, are capable of producing earthquakes in the 4.5 – 8+ range. This report focused on the four faults that could most seriously impact the area.
1. San Andreas Fault
2. Newport-Inglewood Fault
3. Whittier-Elsinore Fault
4. Palos Verdes Fault
A major earthquake along any of these four faults could result in substantial casualties and damage resulting from collapsed buildings, damaged roads and bridges, fires, flooding, and other threats to life and property. There may still be unmapped earthquake faults throughout Southern California that could also affect the City. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 provide the local earthquake faults in Southern California and in the areas around the City.
In addition, Tables 3.7 through 3.11 give fault-specific information form the Southern California Earthquake Data Center for local faults that could affect the City.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-26
Figure 3.2: City of Paramount Earthquake Fault Map
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-27
Figure 3.3: Southern California Earthquake Fault Map
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-28
The San Andreas Fault
Table 3.7: San Andreas Fault Information
Type of fault: Right-lateral strike-slip
Length: 1200 km
Nearby
Communities:
Parkfield, Frazier Park, Palmdale, Wrightwood, San
Bernardino, Banning, Indio
Last Major
Rupture:
January 9, 1857 (Mojave segment); April 18, 1906 (Northern segment)
Slip rate: 20-35 mm/yr.
Interval Between
Major Ruptures:
Average of about 140 years on the Mojave segment;
recurrence interval varies greatly from under 20 years (at Parkfield only) to over 300 years
Probable
Magnitudes: 6.8-8.0
Source: Southern California Earthquake Data Center at Caltech This fault marks the boundary between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates and is capable of producing earthquakes in the magnitude 8+ range. It has been scientifically determined through a carbon dating process that a major earthquake on this fault has occurred approximately every 145 years plus or minus 20 years. The last major earthquake on the Mojave segment of the Fault occurred in 1857 (157 years ago as of 2014). The San Andreas Fault is considered one of the most active faults in the world today, and a major earthquake up to an 8.3 magnitude is expected to occur again within the next 20 years. The Fault traverses the Southern California region and is located approximately 70 miles east of the City. The ground shaking of an 8.3 magnitude earthquake on the Southern San Andreas Fault would result in serious damage in Southern California, including the City.
The Newport-Inglewood Fault
Table 3.8: Newport-Inglewood Fault Information
Type of fault: Right lateral; local reverse slip associated with fault steps Length: 75 km
Nearby
Communities:
Culver City, Inglewood, Gardena, Compton, Signal Hill, Long Beach, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa
Last Major
Rupture March 10, 1993, MW 6.4
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-29
Slip rate: 0.6 mm/yr.
Interval Between
Major Ruptures: Unknown
Probable
Magnitudes: 6.0-7.4
Source: Southern California Earthquake Data Center at Caltech The Newport-Inglewood Fault is considered the second most active fault in California. It runs from the City of Inglewood through Huntington Beach and out into the Pacific Ocean in the Newport Beach area. This fault is capable of producing earthquakes in the range of
6.3 to 7.5 magnitude. The 6.5 magnitude, 1933 Long Beach earthquake occurred on the Newport-Inglewood fault causing 120 deaths and severe damage. Unreinforced masonry buildings collapsed leaving people trapped beneath the rubble.
Earthquakes are to be considered a major threat to the City. When scientists refer to the San Andreas Fault, they often call it “The Big One.” In 1990, the Los Angeles Times newspaper did a series of articles on the Newport-Inglewood Fault and described it as “The Bigger One.” Both faults would cause considerable damage; however, a 7.5 magnitude Newport-Inglewood earthquake could be more severe to the City than an 8.3 on the San Andreas due to the fault’s proximity to the City. The cost estimates of damage are much greater for the Newport-Inglewood worst-case scenario than the San Andreas worst-case scenario.
Whittier-Elsinore Fault
Table 3.9: Whittier-Fault Information
Type of fault: Right-lateral strike-slip with some reverse slip Length: 40 km
Nearby
Communities: Yorba Linda, Hacienda Heights, Whittier
Most Recent
Surface Rupture Holocene
Slip rate: Between 2.5 and 3.0 mm/yr.
Interval Between
Major Ruptures: Unknown
Probable
Magnitudes: 6.0-7.2
Source: Southern California Earthquake Data Center at Caltech The Whittier Fault runs along the Chino Hills range between Chino Hills and Whittier.
Earthquakes with surface rupture on the Whittier Fault are estimated to have return DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-30
intervals for a M6.5 and M7.5 of 100 and 1,200 years, respectively. An unpublished paleoseismic investigation suggests that the Whittier segment has not moved for 2,000 years. Since the average interval between major characteristic (extreme) events on the Whittier segment is estimated to be on the order of 1,200 years, the fault is considered long overdue. The Whittier fault joins the Chino Fault near Prado Dam where they merge into the Elsinore Fault.
Table 3.10: Elsinore Fault Information
Type of fault: Right-lateral strike-slip
Length: 180 km
Nearby
Communities: Temecula, Lake Elsinore, Julian
Last Major
Rupture May 15, 1910; Magnitude 6
Slip rate: Roughly 4.0 mm/yr.
Interval Between
Major Ruptures: Roughly 250 years
Probable
Magnitudes: 6.5-7.5
Source: Southern California Earthquake Data Center at Caltech The Elsinore Fault trends along the eastern base of the Santa Ana Mountains and is one of the largest in Southern California, and in historical times, has been one of the quietest.
The main trace of the Elsinore Fault has only seen one historical event greater than magnitude 5.2, which was the M6.0 Elsinore Earthquake of 1910.
At the northern end, the fault splays into several faults, creating the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone. A “characteristic” Magnitude M6.9 on the northwest segment of the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone has been estimated to have a return period of 450 years. This “characteristic” earthquake would be expected to cause ground movement on the order of 3 to 6 feet, with peak horizontal ground accelerations up to 1 g. Most structures built prior to 1997 were designed to withstand peak ground accelerations of up to 0.4 g, so a “characteristic” earthquake along this fault zone would have devastating consequences.
Palos Verdes Fault
Table 3.11: Palos Verdes Fault Information
Type of fault: Right-reverse
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-31
Length: Roughly 80 km
Nearby
Communities: San Pedro, Palos Verdes Estates, Torrance, Redondo Beach Most recent
surface rupture: Holocene offshore; Late Quaternary onshore; Slip rate: Between 0.1 and 3.0 mm/yr.
Interval between
major ruptures: Unknown
Probable
magnitudes:
6.0 – 7.0 (or greater); fault geometries may allow only partial rupture at any one time.
Source: Southern California Earthquake Data Center at Caltech The Palos Verdes Hills Fault is capable of a 6.0-7.0 magnitude earthquake. It has two main branches and continues southward as the Palos Verdes-Coronado Bank Fault Zone.
This fault is located off the coast of Redondo Beach and Torrance and continues southward through the Palos Verdes peninsula and offshore, outside the San Pedro Bay.
The issue of concern is the fault causing shaking and liquefaction within the City.
Peak Ground Acceleration
The Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) mapping represents peak horizontal acceleration of the ground on firm-rock conditions. The approach of representing peak horizontal ground acceleration on firm-rock is a common and widely used method of showing ground accelerations. The development of probabilistic acceleration maps is a result of three types of basic input parameters:
1) Attenuation of ground shaking with distance from the earthquake source; 2) Frequency of earthquakes within an area or region, termed recurrence; and 3) The character and extent of regions and faults that generate earthquakes.
According to the following Peak Ground Acceleration Map, the City is located in an area that will experience a PGA ranging from 0.50 g to 0.70 g with 10% exceedance in 50 years (0.0021 annual probability).
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-32
Figure 3.4: City of Paramount Peak Ground Acceleration Map DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-33
According to Table 3.12 below (provided by the United States Geographic Survey), this PGA value is typically associated with a range of 4.9 to 5.4 magnitude earthquakes. Thus, there is a 0.21% annual possibility of a 4.9 to 5.4 magnitude earthquake affecting the City.
Table 3.12: Mercalli Intensity and Corresponding Peak Group Acceleration Mercalli
Intensity
Richter
Intensity
Acceleration
(%g)
Velocity
(cm/s)
Perceived
Shaking
Potential
Damage
3.5 < 0.17 < 0.1 Not Felt None
4.2 – 4.3 0.17 - 1.4 0.1 - 1.1 Weak None
4.8 1.40 – 3.9 1.1 - 3.4 Light None
4.9 – 5.4 3.9 - 9.2 3.4 - 8.1 Moderate Very light
5.5 – 6.0 9.2 - 18 8.1 - 16 Strong Light
6.1 18 - 34 16 - 31 Very Strong Moderate
6.2 34 - 65 31 - 60 Severe
Moderate
to Heavy
6.9 65 - 124 60 - 116 Violent Heavy
> 7.0
> 124 > 116 Extreme
Very
Heavy
Liquefaction Zone
The term Liquefaction Zone represents areas where the underlying soil foundations may become fluidized and experience liquefaction during an earthquake. Liquefaction refers to a phenomenon where saturated sand and silt take on the characteristics of a liquid during the intense shaking of an earthquake. This can cause the soil to sink, spread, and possibly collapse under the weight of aboveground structures. This can cause underground pipes to float and possibly rupture, severe damage to electrical grids and utility poles, and worstcase scenario cause severe damage to buildings leading to a structural collapse. Figure
3.5 shows all the liquefaction zones in Los Angeles County.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-34
Figure 3.5: Liquefaction Zones in Los Angeles County
The City has been impacted by earthquakes numerous times over the years. Typical of many locations in Southern California, seismic building standards have prevented these earthquakes from causing any severe damage within the City. However, as noted above, the potential for a large-scale earthquake is possible. Based on data the proximity of identifies fault lines and the information demonstrated in the PGA maps, it is clear the whole community are at risk to the impacts of an earthquake event. Given the frequency, and likelihood, of earthquake occurrences in the area coupled with the possibility of a large-scale scenario and community impacts, the City has ranked earthquakes as the hazard with highest vulnerability for the City.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-35
3.4 Adversarial Events
Adversarial Events
Risk Rank: Moderate
Probability/
Frequency:
Infrequent event - occurs between once
every 8 years and once every 50 years
(inclusive)
Consequence/
Severity:
Moderate building damage, lifeline loss
(less than 24 hours), severe injury or
disability
Vulnerability:
Moderate damage area, moderate
secondary impacts, moderate warning
time
Hazard Risk Rank
Score:
32 3.4.1 Adversarial Events Hazard Information and Background An adversarial event is used to describe what has traditionally been referred to as terrorism. Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of a political or social objective.
A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a type of weapon that can bring significant harm to a large number of people or structures. Examples of WMD include nuclear radiological, biological, or chemical agents. Aside from attacking local targets, terrorists might also use WMD to inflict harm on a large population.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has categorized two types of terrorism in the United States.
International Terrorism involves terrorist activity committed by groups or individuals who are foreign-based and/or directed by countries or groups outside the United States, or whose activities transcend national boundaries.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-36
Domestic Terrorism involves groups or individuals whose terrorist activities are directed at elements of our government or population without foreign direction.
Well-known international terrorist groups include Islamic Fundamentalist groups, such as the Al-Qaeda; European terrorists, including the Red Brigade in Italy, Spain’s ETA, and the Japanese Red Army; separatist groups, such as Sierra Luminoso, and the so-called “Shining Path” in Peru. Add to these a host of narco-terrorists, such as the Medellin and Cali drug cartels.
In the United States, a number of animal rights activists; environmentalist groups; white supremacists, such as the League of Aryan nations; and groups including the Covenant, Sword and Arm of the Lord, New World Order, and skinheads have been responsible for acts of terrorism on US soil. Added to these are groups like the KKK, survivalists, such as the Freemen in Montana, anti-government or anti-authority violent extremists, and doomsday cults, such as David Koresh in Waco, Texas, and Jim Jones in Guyana.
There are a number of methods a terrorist may use to carry out their objective, including attacks of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, explosive, and cyber nature. In addition, terrorists conduct hijackings, assassinations, armed assaults, kidnappings/hostage taking, arson fires, sabotage of critical infrastructures such as utilities and transportation, and the dissemination of confidential or otherwise sensitive information for the planning of terrorist attacks.
Chemical
Chemical agents involve the use of chemical compounds to kill or seriously injure victims.
There are numerous kinds of chemical weapons, and their effectiveness is determined by a number of factors, including age, purity, weather conditions, wind direction, and means of dissemination.
Biological
Biological agents include microbes, such as bacteria or viruses, and toxins derived from plants or animals that can cause illness or death. Illegal facilities that manufacture these substances are difficult to detect because they employ fermentation technology commonly used in the production of legitimate products such as antibiotics, vaccines, and consumables.
Radiological and Nuclear
Radiological or nuclear terrorism is the use of radioactive materials and/or nuclear explosives, as well as any terrorist actions against nuclear facilities by individuals or DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-37
groups, to inflict harm on a population and advance political or social objectives. Sources of radiological material include nuclear fuel cycle waste, medical and dental equipment, military weaponry, and machines used in private industry.
Explosive
The impact of a bombing depends largely on the type, size, and placement of the device used. Additionally, a WMD in combination with an explosive device expands the lethality, physical damage, and economic disruption. The use of an explosive device can also inflict significant disruption of society through destruction of critical infrastructure and widespread fear amongst the target population.
Cyber
Cyber terrorism is a premeditated, politically motivated attack against information, computer systems, computer programs, and data which result in violence against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents. Cyber terrorists can be domestic or international. Classification of being a cyber-terrorist depends on if the terrorist relies on cyber terrorism to further their cause or uses it in addition to conventional terrorism.
Additional Terrorism Methods
Additional terrorism methods include hijackings, kidnappings, and the taking of hostages; armed assaults and mass shootings; assassinations of public figures; sabotage of transportation systems and utility infrastructure; the dissemination of confidential information that would aid terrorist organizations when planning an attack; arson fires; and many other means of disrupting normal society or endangering lives and property.
3.4.2 Adversarial Events History
The United States has proven to be a high priority target for both domestic and international terrorists. Acts of terror have become increasingly alarming in their magnitude in recent years. Examples of this include the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P.
Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and the attacks of September 11th, 2001, on the World Trade Center complex and the Pentagon. However, not all attacks are of this magnitude. The United States has also been subject to smaller scale attacks in the past such as the Boston Marathon Bombing in 2013 and the Pulse Night Club shooting in 2016.
Specifically, the City has not been directly impacted by terrorism events in the past.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-38
3.4.3 Adversarial Events Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude While the City has never fallen victim to a terrorist attack, the City recognizes the potential for a terrorism event to impact the City. Given current escalating terrorism trends, the threat of a terrorist event within the United States is a credible possibility and the City ranked the probability of terrorism accordingly during the Hazard Identification Workshop.
Although Paramount does not have any hard targets within the City’s boundaries, the potential threat exists due to its proximity to the City and County of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Airport, and other identified targets.
Additionally, the City completed a Security Vulnerability Assessment to comply with the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. The Security Vulnerability Assessment evaluated the City’s vulnerability to malevolent attacks, including terrorism and contamination, and developed recommendations to protect against the malevolent attacks. However, because of the security sensitive nature of the information, the terrorism risk assessment results are not repeated as part of the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-39
3.5 Urban Fire Hazard Profile
Urban Fire Risk Assessment Summary
Risk Rank: Moderate
Probability/
Frequency:
Regular event - occurs between once a
year and once every 7 years
Consequence/
Severity:
Moderate building damage, minor loss
of lifelines (less than 12 hours), lost
time injury but no disability
Vulnerability: Localized damage area
Hazard Risk Rank
Score:
18 3.5.1 Urban Fire Hazard Information and Background
Fire is a rapid oxidation process that can lead to uncontrolled burning, exposing and possibly consuming structures. Fires often spread quickly and are usually signaled by dense smoke that may fill the area for miles around. Fires can be human caused through acts such as arson or can be caused by natural events such as lightning. Fires are typically classified according to the following categories:
• Urban fires are primarily those associated with structures and the activities in and around them.
• Wildland fires occur in forests or other generally uninhabited areas and are fueled primarily by natural vegetation.
• Urban Interface fires occur where development and forest interface, with both vegetation and structures providing fuel, and are sometimes referred to as urbanwildland interface fires.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-40
The following factors contribute significantly to aforementioned fire behavior:
• Slope/Topography: As slope increases, the rate of fire spread increases. South facing slopes are also subject to greater solar radiation, making them drier and thereby intensifying fire behavior.
• Fuel: Weight and volume are the two methods of classifying fuel, with volume also referred to as fuel loading. Each fuel is assigned a burn index (the estimated amount of potential energy released during a fire), an estimate of the effort required to contain a fire, and an expected flame length.
• Weather: Variations in weather conditions have a significant effect on the occurrence and behavior of fires.
Firestorms that occur during extreme weather (e.g., high temperatures, low humidity, and high winds) have high intensity making fire suppression virtually impossible. These events typically burn until the conditions change, or the fuel is exhausted. Even small fires can threaten lives, deplete resources, and destroy properties. It is also important to note that in addition to affecting people, fires may severely affect livestock and pets. Such events may require the emergency watering/feeding, shelter, evacuation, and even burying of animals.
Fire Secondary Events
The aftermath of a fire can be as disastrous if not more so than the fire. A particularly destructive fire burns away plants and trees that prevent erosion. If heavy rains occur after such a fire, landslides, ash flows, and flash floods can occur. This can result in property damage outside the immediate fire area, and can affect the water quality of streams, rivers, and lakes.
Fire as a Secondary Event
In addition to typical ignition sources for fires, earthquakes and floods have the potential to rupture buried gas lines, and high winds or accidents could cause overhead electric lines to break, creating ignition sources for fires. Catastrophic earthquakes could cause widespread urban fires, as multiple gas and electrical lines could be broken or disrupted.
3.5.2 Urban Fire History
Los Angeles County is well known as one of the world's great urban centers, but the county is also home to the 655,000-acre Angeles National Forest and a large portion of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreational Area. Thousands of homes are located in foothill DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-41
communities near these great natural areas, creating unique challenges for local fire agencies. This combination of abundant natural areas and densely populated urban areas has created several challenges and hazards in the past. 2018 Pico Rivera Apartment Fire
Around 4 p.m. on February 22, 2018,
a fire was reported an apartment
building in the 9100 block of Burke
Street. The fire, which started in the
attic of the structure, quickly engulfed
the first and second floors.
Fortunately, only 3 injuries were
reported, but around 300 residents
were displaced after more than 141 units were impacted by the fire; 45 of them with fire and smoke damage. More than 100 firefighters were dispatched to fight the flames while City officials worked with property owners to provide hotel vouchers for displaced residents. Due to the need for critical repairs, residents could not begin to return home for at least 3 to 5 days after the fire. Although specifics were not provided to the public, in the aftermath, the Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department stated that investigators believed a problem with the building’s plumbing caused the fire. Pico Rivera is less than 10 miles from the City.
2018 Wildfire Season
The 2018 wildfire season in California was one
of the deadliest seasons in California’s
recorded history. There was a total of 8,527
reported fires during this period which burned
more than 1,627,652 acres according to The
Sacramento Bee. Notable fires included the
Thomas Fire in Santa Barbara County which
burned 281,893 acres and the Mendocino Complex Fire with burned more than 459,000 acres becoming the largest complex fire in California history. Estimated damages are more than $3 billion to clear debris and $11.8 billion to victims according to NBC News.
As temperatures began to cool in late November and the fire subsides, the death toll was estimated at around 104 that year with more injured.
2017 Canyon Fire II
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-42
On the morning of October 9, 2017, a fastmoving brush fire was noted near the 91 freeways and Gypsum Canyon Road. By noon,
the fire had scorched 800 acres and by 6:00AM
the following day, the fire had spread to 7,500
acres damaging at least 24 structures and
dozens of homes. By the time, the fire was fully
contained on October 17, 2017, 9,217 acres
had been burned, 25 structured has been destroyed, and 55 more were damaged. 16,570 people had to be evacuated from their homes in Anaheim, Orange, and the City. 2017-2018 Thomas Fire
The Thomas Fire started December 4th, 2017, near Santa Paula and burned for three weeks raging across Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. The fire consumed over 280,000 acres before it was extinguished on January 12, 2018. 8,500 firefighters from all over the United States were deployed to fight the fire and over 1,063 structures, mostly houses, were destroyed before it was extinguished. The Thomas Fire was almost immediately followed by massive mudslides in Montecito, CA triggered by a combination of heavy rainfall and the charred
landscape. On January 9th, 2018,
massive flows of mud and debris
traveling at 20 miles per hour
demolished homes and businesses in
the area. Over 400 homes were
damaged or destroyed, and 21 people
were killed.
Table 3.13 provides a selection of recent fires in Los Angeles County and is taken from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection historical fire archives.
Table 3.13: Southern California Historical Fires (2005-2020) Fire Name Date Description
Topanga Fire 9/28/2005 The Topanga Fire burned 24,175 acres in the Chatsworth area.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-43
Fire Name Date Description
Empire Fire 7/22/2006 The Empire Fire burned 1,094 acres on Catalina Island near the airport.
Quail Fire 8/13/2006 The Quail Fire burned 4,864 acres near the northbound Interstate 5 at Quail Lake Road in Gorman.
Cross Fire 8/28/2006 The Cross Fire burned 665 acres near Placerita Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road in Santa Clarita.
Pines Fire 9/19/2006
The Pines Fire burned 113 acres in the Angeles
National Forest near the Angeles Forest Highway and
Angeles Crest Highway Junction.
Island Fire 5/10/2007 The Island Fire burned 4,750 acres near Avalon on Catalina Island.
Gorman Fire 5/19/2007 The Gorman Fire burned 2,500 acres at the edge of Los Padres National Forest.
Canyon Fire 7/7/2007 The Canyon Fire burned 815 acres near Agua Dulce Canyon and 14 Freeway.
North Fire 9/2/2007 The North Fire burned 2,200 acres 6 miles southwest of Acton in the Angeles National Forest.
Ranch Fire 10/20/2007 The Ranch Fire burned 58,401 acres near Townsend Peak southwest of Templin Highway and Interstate 5.
Buckweed
(Agua Dulce)
Fire
10/21/2007 The Buckweed (Agua Dulce) Fire burned 38,000 acres near Mint Canyon Road and Sierra Highway.
Canyon Fire 10/21/2007 The Canyon Fire burned 4,521 acres in the Malibu Canyon south of the Pacific Coast Highway.
Magic Fire 10/22/2007 The Magic Fire burned 2,824 acres near the Magic Mountain Parkway and The Old Road.
Corral Fire 11/24/2007 The Corral Fire burned 4,901 acres near Malibu Creek State Park.
Santa Anita
Fire 4/26/2008
The Santa Anita Fire burned 584 acres in the mountains
above the cities of Sierra Madre and Arcadia in the
Angeles National Forest.
Big Horn Fire 5/13/2008 The Big Horn Fire burned 490 acres North of Mt. Baldy Village near Claremont.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-44
Fire Name Date Description
Sesnon Fire 10/13/2008 The Sesnon Fire burned 14,703 acres in the Porter Ranch Community, Twin Lakes, and Indian Hills area.
Marek Fire 10/28/2008 The Marek Fire burned 4,824 acres near the West Side Little Tujunga Canyon.
Sayre Fire 11/14/2008 The Sayre Fire burned 11,262 acres near Sylmar.
Osito Fire 7/15/2009 The Osito Fire burned 304 acres north of Castaic in the Angeles National Forest.
Morris Fire 8/25/2009 The Morris Fire burned 2,168 acres by San Gabriel Canyon near Morris Dam.
Station Fire 8/26/2009
The Station Fire burned 160,577 acres over 3 weeks by
Highway 2, 1.5 miles north of USFS Angeles Crest
Station.
PV Fire 8/27/2009 The PV Fire burned 235 acres near Rancho Palos Verdes.
Crown Fire 7/29/2010
The Crown Fire burned 14,000 acres over 6 days, north
of Sierra Highway at Anthony Road, southwest of
Palmdale.
Mint Fire 9/17/2011 The Mint Fire burned 634 acres near the Sierra Highway at Mint Canyon Road, north of Agua Dulce.
5 Mile Fire 7/6/2012 The 5 Mile Fire burned 525 acres off the I-5, north of Parker Road near Castaic.
Lake Fire 05/28/2013 The Lake Fire burned 712 acres off the southbound I-5 and Lake Hughes Road.
Magic Fire 6/10/2013 The Magic Fire burned 149 acres around Magic Mtn Parkway in Valencia.
Hunters Fire 6/2/2014 The Hunters Fire burned 677 acres near the southeast shore of Lake McClure.
Gulch Fire 9/10/2014 The Gulch Fire burned 1,375 acres east of Bella Vista.
Black Fire 9/13/2014 The Black Fire burned 403 acres north of Lake Mendocino.
Highway Fire 4/18/2015 The Highway Fire burned 1,049 acres near Prado Basin.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-45
Fire Name Date Description
Park Hill Fire 6/20/2015 The Park Hill Fire burned 1,791 acres east of Santa Margarita.
Swedes Fire 7/29/2015 The Swedes Fire burned 400 acres off Swedes Flat Road, 3 miles north of Bangor.
Thomas Fire 12/4/2017 The Thomas Fire burned 280,000 acres across Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties.
Rye Fire 12/5/2017 The Rye Fire burned 7,000 acres in Santa Clarita near Rye Canyon Loop.
Creek Fire 12/20/2017 The Creek Fire burned 15,619 acres 4 miles east of Sylmar.
Stone Fire 6/4/2018 The Stone Fire burned 1,352 acres near Anthony Road in Agua Dulce.
Woolsey Fire 11/8/2018 The Woolsey Fire burned 96,949 acres across many cities north of LA County.
Saddleridge
Fire 10/10/2019 The Saddleridge Fire burned 7,500 acres off the 210 FWY near Yarnell Street Tick Fire 10/24/2019 The Tick Fire burned 4,615 acres near Tick Canyon Road
Soledad Fire 7/5/2020 The Soledad Fire burned 1,300 acres near Soledad Canyon Road and the 14 Fwy
Lake Fire 8/12/2020 The Lake Fire burned 31,000 acres near Lake Hughes.
Bobcat Fire 9/6/2020 The Bobcat fire burned 115,796 acres in the central San Gabriel Mountains
Source: Major Incident Archive – Fire Department (lacounty.gov) (for fires after 2015) DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-46
3.5.3 Urban Fire Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude
Since the City consists of urban terrain with minimal open space, the expected type of fire is an urban fire. Additionally, the existence of several petroleum and hazardous materials facilities within the City also contribute to the fire threat. In addition, the Santa Ana winds typically occur during the fire season. These winds blow hot, dry air from the southern California deserts to the coasts, fueling regional wildfires and making fires much more difficult to contain. Urban fires often consume buildings with the potential to spread to adjoining buildings; however major urban fires are highly unlikely.
Wildfires are a major environmental hazard that have historically cost California more than $800 million each year and contribute to "bad air days" throughout the state. Heat and smoke from fires can be more dangerous than the flames. Inhaling smoke can sear the lungs, and fire also produces poisonous gases that cause disorientation and drowsiness, eventually leading to asphyxiation. As a result, asphyxiation is the leading cause of fire deaths, exceeding burns by a three-to-one ratio.
Figure 3.5 illustrates the fire threat to the City. As shown in the figure, the expected fire hazard is low.
Figure 3.5: Los Angeles County Fire Threat Map
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-47
Fires and Climate Change
Increased usage of fossil fuels for transportation and electricity, along with increased deforestation has led to the overloading of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2). These heat trapping emissions act as a blanket and increase the overall atmospheric temperature, thus warming the planet. As summers get hotter and longer, the conditions for wildfires increase exponentially. Fires, including both wild and urban fires, in the U.S. have been on an increasing trend and the effects of climate change has shown to aggravate the frequency and duration of urban fires.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-48
3.6 Hazardous Material Release
Hazardous Material Release
Risk Rank: Moderate
Probability/
Frequency:
Infrequent event - occurs between
once every 8 years and once every 50
years (inclusive)
Consequence/
Severity:
Moderate building damage, minor loss
of lifelines (less than 12 hours), lost
time injury but no disability
Vulnerability:
Localized damage area, minor
secondary impacts, delayed hazard
onset
Hazard Risk Rank
Score:
18 3.6.1 Hazardous Material Release Hazard Information and Background A Hazardous material is any substances that can pose a significant risk to the general population if released. These substances may be highly toxic, reactive, corrosive, flammable, radioactive or infectious. They are present in nearly every community in the United States, where they may be manufactured, used, stored, transported, or disposed.
Because of their nearly ubiquitous presence, there are hundreds of hazardous material release events annually that contaminate air, soil, and groundwater resources, potentially triggering millions of dollars in clean-up costs, human and wildlife injuries, and occasionally cause human deaths.
Accidents which result in chemical clouds or release of hazardous materials into public water or sewer systems may affect outlying neighborhoods or the community at large.
Depending upon the scale of the release, large segments of the residential and the business populations may need to be evacuated quickly for extended periods of time.
Effective emergency planning with regard to hazardous materials, therefore, requires the DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-49
concentrated efforts of the Fire and Police Departments as well as other public safety officials and private organizations, such as the Red Cross. Hazardous material releases may occur from any of the following:
Table 3.14: Types of Hazardous Material Incidents
Fixed-Site
Includes all releases involving the production and manufacturing, handling, and storage of a hazardous product at a single facility as well as any releases that may occur at a designated hazardous waste disposal site.
Transportation
Includes all releases that occur while the product is in transit from one facility to another or enroute to be disposed of at a designated hazardous waste disposal site, of which the main concerns for the City are the 105, 710, 605, and 91 freeways.
Intentional
Spills and
Releases
Includes all criminal acts and acts of terrorism in which a hazardous material is used to intentionally cause injuries and/or fatalities, damage the environment and/or property, or advance a political or social agenda. Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction will be discussed in further detail in the Adversarial Events section of this document.
In response to concerns over the environmental and safety hazards posed by the storage and handling of toxic chemicals, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) in 1986. To reduce the likelihood of hazardous material releases, EPCRA established specific requirements on federal, state, and local governments, Indian tribes, and industry to plan for hazardous materials emergencies.
EPCRA’s Community Right-to-Know provisions help increase the public's knowledge and access to information on chemicals at individual facilities, their uses, and releases into the environment. States and communities working with facilities can use the information to improve chemical safety and protect public health and the environment. Under EPCRA, hazardous materials must be reported to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), even if they do not result in human exposure. Hazardous material releases may include the following:
• Air emissions (e.g., pressure relief valves, smokestacks, broken pipes, water, or ground emissions with vapors)
• Discharges into bodies of water (e.g., outflows to sewers, spills on land, water runoff, contaminated groundwater)
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-50
• Discharges onto land
• Solid waste disposals in onsite landfills
• Transfer of wastewater to public sewage plants
• Transfers of waste to offsite facilities for treatment or storage In addition to human-caused events, natural hazards may cause the release of hazardous materials and complicate response activities. The impact of earthquakes may be particularly damaging to facilities due to loss of structural integrity or failure of containment facilities. The threat of any hazardous material event may be magnified due to restricted access, reduced fire suppression and spill containment, and even complete cut-off of emergency response personnel and equipment.
In recognition of the dangers associated with keeping hazardous substances, the California State legislature has enacted several laws regulating the use and transport of identified hazardous materials. In particular, Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code requires all businesses using these materials to inform local government agencies of the materials and quantities stored on site. This disclosure enables emergency response agencies to respond quickly and appropriately to accidents involving dangerous substances. Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, and Title 19 of the California Code of Regulation, describes the requirements for chemical disclosure, business emergency plans, and community right to know programs. According to these state requirements, a business that uses or handles hazardous materials in amounts equal to or greater than 55 gallons, 500 pounds or 200 cubic feet at any one time must prepare a business emergency plan and chemical inventory. The inventory must be updated annually, and the business plan every two years. The chapter also has incorporated certain requirements from Federal Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III for chemicals designated as acutely hazardous. These regulations apply to industrial accidents, refinery explosions and incidences of high-volume releases.
3.6.2 Hazardous Material Release History
According to the Emergency Response Notifications System (ERNS), there were over 2,143 spills and accidents in California during 2013. As illustrated in Table 3.15 below, the majority of these incidents were caused by mobile vehicles, which represent a threat to the City due to multiple transportation routes that run in close proximity to the City.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-51
Table 3.15: ERNS Spills and Accidents in California in 2013 Type of Incident Number of Incidents
Fixed site (e.g., incident at a building) 651
Continuous release 1
Storage tank, drilling platform, or pipeline 176
Unknown sheen on water 313
Mobile vehicle (plane, truck, train, ship,
etc.) 1,002
Other or unknown 0
Total 2,143
2012 Richmond Refinery Fire
On August 6, 2012, a piping segment at the number 4 Crude Unit at a Chevron refinery in Richmond, California, failed leading to a release of hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbon vapor cloud then ignited, resulting in a large, uncontrolled fire. The fire burned for several hours before being contained later that night. The picture below illustrates the smoke plume from the fire.
Photo taken from a Cal/OSHA presentation on 2/26/2014
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-52
According to the final investigation report completed by the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, over 15,000 residents surrounding the refinery sought medical treatment for respiratory irritation. The incident tied up many local emergency response agencies and shut down local service for the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART).
Although the 2012 Richmond Refinery Fire did not impact the City, the incident illustrates the potential major impacts to residential areas that a release of this magnitude could have on the City.
Altair Paramount/World Energy, previously known as the Paramount Petroleum, operated the Paramount Refinery within the City. The refinery is required to file a site-specific emergency response contingency and evacuation plan. The refinery has had several minor incidents in the past, and a major accident could endanger many of the residents around the facility.
3.6.3 Hazardous Materials Release Hazard Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude
Hazardous material emergencies can occur during transportation and all major highways are susceptible to releases of toxic and flammable chemicals. While the City Paramount has taken measures to reduce the potential for hazardous materials events, the City is still surrounded by Interstates 105, 710, 605, and California State Route 91. Due to the volume of traffic and the nature of the materials transported, there is a risk of a hazardous material leak or spill within the City. The ongoing use, production, and transportation of hazardous materials in and through the City pose constant and real threats to the safety of the community. An accidental release of a hazardous substance into the environment has the potential to cause localized or widespread upset.
Refineries are subject to multiple safety and environmental regulations, including the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP), the Environmental Protection Agency’s Risk Management Plan (EPA RMP), California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) Process Safety Management (PSM) Program, and the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPPC) Plans. The Paramount Refinery’s compliance with these and other regulatory programs is designed to decrease the probability of catastrophic failures.
While there is currently no mechanism to assign a true probability of a fixed-site or transportation hazardous material emergency, it is important to consider a relatively high DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-53
likelihood of occurrence and conduct planning and training accordingly. This can be done by analyzing the previous chemical releases. Table 3.16 shows all EPA regulated facilities within Paramount and their respective quantity of hazardous materials released. It should be noted that this table is solely meant to provide insight into the facilities in Paramount and is not meant to be a risk assessment for each facility.
Table 3.16: EPA Regulated Facilities in Paramount
Facility Name Address
Quantity Released
in 2020 (lbs)
Chemicals
Released
Press Forge 7700 Jackson St 80,525 70.5% Nickel &
29.5% Chromium
Surface Treatment &
Inspection Inc
7517 Jefferson St 40,8560 93.5% Nitrate
Compounds, 6.5%
Nitric Acid
Altair Paramount
(World Energy
Refinery)
14700 Downey
Ave
2,421 86.5% Ammonia,
13.5%
Hydrocarbons
The Jankovic
Company
14066 Garfield
Ave
270 100%
Hydrocarbons
Aerocraft Heat
Treating Company
15701 Minnesota
Ave
244 69.3% Nickel,
26.2% Chromium,
4.5% Cobalt
Carlton Forge Works 7743 Adams St 51 66.7% Nickel,
13.7% Chromium,
13.7% Cobalt,
5.9% Copper
Robertson’s Ready
Mix Plant 23
7277 E.
Rosecrans
7 100% Lead
Compounds
Ace Clearwater
Enterprises
14105 Garfield
Ave
2 100% Lead
Compounds
Weber Metals 16706 Garfield
Ave
0 N/A
R &S Processing Co 15712 Illinois Ave 0 N/A
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-54
It should be noted that each facility handles a variety of chemical and not all chemical releases are equal. Figure 3.6 provides an overview of these facilities’ location relative to the transportation corridors throughout the City, including Interstates 105, 710, 605 and the 91 freeway, which are considered major shipping and transportation routes. The circle size is used to represent quantity released.
Figure 3.6: City of Paramount Facilities and Transportation Routes Map
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-55
3.7 Homelessness
Homelessness
Risk Rank: Moderate
Probability/
Frequency:
Infrequent event - occurs between
once every 8 years and once every 50
years (inclusive)
Consequence/
Severity:
Moderate building damage, minor loss
of lifelines (less than 12 hours), lost
time injury but no disability
Vulnerability:
Localized damage area, minor
secondary impacts, delayed hazard
onset
Hazard Risk Rank
Score:
18 3.7.1 Homelessness Hazard Information and Background According to the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) being homeless refers to an individual or family lacking a fixed, regular, or adequate nighttime residence. This includes individuals or families living in a hotel/motel, individuals living in a shelter, individuals fleeing domestic violence and having no other residence, and individuals who have changed residence two or more times in the preceding 60 days.
As of January 4
th 2012, HUD classifies homelessness into four categories: Traditionally homelessness often referred to as literally homeless, Imminent Risk of Homelessness, Homeless Under other Federal Statutes, and Fleeing/Attempting to Flee Domestic Violence. Table 3.17 defines each of these categories.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-56
Table 3.17: HUD Homelessness Classification
Category Definition
Category 1: Literally
Homeless
Individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, meaning:
(i) Has a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not meant for human habitation;
(ii) Is living in a publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangements
(including congregate shelters, transitional housing, and hotels and motels paid for by charitable organizations or by federal, state, and local government programs); or
(iii) Is exiting an institution where (s)he has resided for 90 days or less and who resided in an emergency shelter
or place not meant for human habitation immediately
before entering that institution
Category 2:
Imminent Risk of
Homelessness
Individual or family who will imminently lose their primary nighttime residence, provided that:
(i) Residence will be lost within 14 days of the date of application for homeless assistance;
(ii) No subsequent residence has been identified; and
(iii) The individual or family lacks the resources or support networks needed to obtain other permanent housing
Category 3:
Homeless under
other Federal
Statutes
Unaccompanied youth under 25 years of age, or families with children and youth, who do not otherwise qualify as homeless under this definition, but who:
(i) Are defined as homeless under the other listed federal statutes;
(ii) Have not had a lease, ownership interest, or occupancy agreement in permanent housing during the 60 days
prior to the homeless assistance application;
(iii) Have experienced persistent instability as measured by two moves or more during in the preceding 60 days;
and
(iv) Can be expected to continue in such status for an
extended period of time due to special needs or
barriers
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-57
Category Definition
Category 4: Fleeing/Attempting to
Flee Domestic Violence
Any individual or family who:
(i) Is fleeing, or is attempting to flee,
domestic violence;
(ii) Has no other residence; and
(iii) Lacks the resources or support networks
to obtain other permanent housing
According to HUD, there are many reasons for which an individual may become homeless, with the most common being poverty, lack of affordable housing, employment discrimination, substance abuse or mental health challenges, LGBTQ kids who are rejected by family, domestic violence, lack of familial ties, and kids who age out of foster care. According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), the rise in homelessness is primarily a result of stagnant income, rising housing prices, lack of investment in mental health services, lack of tenant protections, and discriminatory land use. Additionally, they noted that mass incarceration has escalated the aforementioned factors. An estimated 60% of Los Angeles homeless population has cycled through the criminal justice system
3.7.2 Homelessness History
According to Security.org, seven out of the top ten cities with the largest rate of homelessness per capita are in California, and the top six are all in California. Los Angeles has the fourth highest per capita homelessness rate and the second largest homeless population behind New York City. As the City is part of Los Angeles County, it is very susceptible to homelessness. Table 3.18 shows the change in homelessness in Los Angeles County over past 4 years and is based on the yearly LAHSA homeless count.
Table 3.18: Homeless Population in Los Angeles County
2017 2018 2019 2020
Los Angeles County 57,794 52,765 58,936 66,436
Service Planning Area
(SPA) 6
9,036 8,343 9,543 13,012
Paramount 111 107 114 85
Note: Homeless population is based on a yearly count that occurs on a single night in January, actual homeless population is estimated to be higher.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-58
Although the homeless population of Paramount decreased in 2020, the overall homeless population of SPA 6 increased by 36% and the homeless population of Los Angeles County increased by 13%.
In order to truly understand the homeless population, it is necessary to understand the demographics and root cause of their homelessness. In Los Angeles County, 12% are underage, 32% are female, 20% are in a family unit, 17% are physically disabled, 38% are chronically homeless, 24% have substance abuse disorders, 22% suffer from serious mental illness, and 29% have experienced domestic violence.
Accompanying the increase in homeless population is an increase in homeless encampments. Large homeless encampments such as those in Venice Beach, Skid Row, and Anaheim pose severe threats to public health due to the accumulation of waste, human excrement, and drug paraphernalia. Additionally, encampments often occur near vital public spaces such as beaches, parks, and riverbeds, which limits their accessibility and increases the probability of public exposure.
2018 Anaheim Encampment Public Health Hazard
Neighboring Orange County is also facing
an increase in homelessness leading
many to seek refuge in homeless
encampments. The largest encampment
was the Anaheim encampment, a 1000-
person two-mile encampment near the
Angel’s stadium and the Santa Ana River.
The city deemed this encampment to be a
public health hazard due to the
accumulation of human waste, drug paraphernalia, and trash. Previous cleanup efforts found substantial human waste, 315 tons of trash, and 4,600 needles. This created a public health crisis, decreased public accessibility to the river trails, polluted the river, and disrupted routine maintenance on the flood channels. Because of this, the city of Anaheim decided to relocate residents of the encampment to shelters across Orange County.
Crime Rate Among Homeless Population
The rapid increase in homelessness has coincided with an even sharper increase in crimes involving homeless individuals. Figure 3.7 on the following page shows the increase in homelessness compared to the change in crimes involving homeless DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-59
individuals. All data is relative to data from 2015 and was provided by the LAPD as part of the LAPD Open Data Portal.
Figure 3.7: Crimes Involving Homeless Individuals
This drastic increase in crime is amplified by the fact that a majority of crimes involving homelessness are violent crimes. Figure 3.8 on the following page compares the overall rate of violent crime to the
DRAFT
rate of violent crime involving homeless individuals.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-60
Figure 3.8: Violent Crime Rate
3.8.3 Homelessness Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), the rise in homelessness is primarily a result of stagnant income, rising housing prices, lack of investment in mental health services, lack of tenant protections, and discriminatory land use. As the price of housing continues to increase and the economic downturn from the pandemic continues, it is expected that these issues may worsen. This relationship price of housing and homelessness can be seen in
DRAFT
figure 3.9 on the following page.
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-61
Figure 3.9: Relationship Between Homelessness and Housing Prices
Although the rate of homelessness is increasing in Los Angeles County, Paramount has historically been less affected. According to a September 2020 Forbes article that mapped all reported homeless encampments from 2019 to 2020, not a single encampment was reported in or near Paramount, with the closest encampments being in North Wilmington and Watts. Figure 3.10 shows all homeless encampments near Paramount.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-62
Figure 3.10: Homeless Encampments in Los Angeles County Although no homeless encampments were reported in 2020, the City was made aware of a recent encampment. This encampment is located between the intersections of the 710 and the 105 freeways and the 710 freeway and Rosecrans Avenue. In order to better understand the history of encampments in Paramount, it is important to understand the makeup of the Paramount homeless population.
Table 3.19: Demographics of Paramount Homeless Population Place of
Refuge
2017 2018 2019 2020
Car 16 2 12 22
Van 25 7 18 18
RV or Camper 9 23 19 11
Tents 14 34 0 0
Makeshift
Shelters
17 8 6 0
Street 30 33 59 33
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-63
From this data it is clear that a majority of the city’s homeless population resides in vehicles and there has been a sharp decrease in the number of people residing in makeshift shelters (encampments), possibly due to the “Plan to Prevent and Combat Homelessness” which was developed alongside the City of Bellflower and PATH, a nonprofit organization.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-64
3.8 Utility Loss Hazard Profile
Utility Loss Risk Assessment Summary
Risk Rank: Moderately Low
Probability/
Frequency:
Infrequent event - occurs between once
every 8 years and once every 50 years
(inclusive)
Consequence/
Severity:
Minor/slight damage to buildings and
structures, no loss of lifelines, first aid
injury and no disability
Vulnerability: Localized damage area
Hazard Risk Rank
Score:
8 3.8.1 Utility Loss Hazard Information and Background
Utility loss includes losses of power, water, sewer, and other critical services. A power outage is the loss of the electricity supply to an area. In addition to natural hazards, power failure can result from a defect in a power station, damage to a power line or other part of the distribution system, a short circuit, or overloading of electricity mains.
A power outage may be referred to as a blackout if power is lost completely, or as a brownout if some power supply is retained, but the voltage level is below the minimum level specified for the system, and a short circuit indicates a loss of power for a short amount of time (usually seconds). Some brownouts, called voltage reductions, are made intentionally to prevent a full power outage.
The absence of electrical power at City facilities for extended periods can, in some areas, preclude water deliveries where pumping is necessary. This will result in a loss of water and sewer services to the local area. In and of itself, these short duration utility losses, typically do not generate large hazards that can dramatically impact the City. However, utility losses in conjunction with other hazards can make response efforts much more difficult. For example, since water is typically pumped from a source, a loss of water during DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-65
a fire will decrease the effectiveness of firefighting systems, or a sewer system failure in conjunction with a flood will result in increased localized flooding in residences and the streets. Since water and sewer systems usually require power sources for the pumps, adequate backup power should be available for critical systems in the event of a power failure.
3.8.2 Utility Loss History
California Energy Crisis
The 2000-2001 California Electricity Crisis brought to light many critical issues surrounding the state’s power generation and distribution system, including its dependency on out-ofstate resources. Although California has implemented effective energy conservation programs, the state continues to experience both population growth and weather cycles that contribute to a heavy demand for power. The 2000 and 2001 blackouts occurred due to losses in transmission or generation and/or extremely severe temperatures that lead to heavy electric power consumption.
2011 Southwest Blackout
In September of 2011, five separate power grids serving nearly 7 million people in southern California, western Arizona, and parts of Mexico went out in the span of 11 minutes. The power outage, termed the 2011 Southwest Blackout, was the largest power failure in California history and lasted over twelve hours.
Affected metropolitan areas were crippled from the loss of traffic signals; as a result, trains stopped running and freeways experienced extreme congestion. Public gas stations were also unable to pump fuel, leaving many stranded vehicles. The power outage also caused several sewer pumping stations to fail, resulting in contaminated beaches and potentially unsafe water supplies. Restaurants and grocery stores also suffered large losses from spoiled food.
2020/2021 Rolling Blackouts
During the summers of 2020 and 2021, historically high temperatures, a drought and wildfires compounded to cause rolling blackouts throughout California. Wildfires damaged infrastructure throughout northern California while triple digit temperatures led to a sharp increase in air conditioning and electricity usage. This increased stress on an already vulnerable power grid threatened to damage the electrical infrastructure. In response, electric companies began to implement rolling blackouts. Although severe infrastructure DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-66
and personnel damage was avoided, as climate change continues to increase daily temperatures, blackouts may become more common and more severe.
3.8.3 Utility Loss Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude Currently, there is no mechanism to calculate the probability of utility losses, without evaluating the failure as a cascade effect from natural hazards (e.g., earthquakes).
However, California has implemented numerous conservation measures to ensure an adequate power supply, and the City has worked with its water suppliers to ensure an adequate water supply.
Additionally, in order to evaluate the damage inflicted by a power outage, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has assigned economic values to the loss of electric power. Table 3.16 summarizes the loss estimates per capita per day, excerpted from FEMA’s “What is a Benefit? Guidance on Benefit-Cost Analysis of Hazard Mitigation Projects.”
Table 3.20: Economic Impacts of Loss of Electric Power
Category Estimated Economic Impact
Reduced regional economic activity1 $87
Impacts on Residential Customers
• Direct economic losses
• Disruption economic impact
• Total Best estimate
$30 to $35
$63 to 85
$101
Total economic impacts $188
1 This value of reduced regional economic activity is based on national economic data. If desired, more detailed estimates could be made for specific metropolitan areas using NAICS data in the economic census referenced above.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-67
3.9 Pipeline Failure Hazard Profile
Pipeline Failure Risk Assessment Summary
Risk Rank: Moderately Low
Probability/
Frequency:
Rare event - occurs less than once
every 50 years
Consequence/
Severity:
Moderate building damage, minor loss
of lifelines (less than 12 hours), lost time
injury but no disability
Vulnerability:
Localized damage area, minor
secondary impacts, delayed hazard
onset
Hazard Risk Rank
Score:
9 3.9.1 Pipeline Failure Hazard Information and Background Pipeline transport is an economic method for transporting large quantities of oil or natural gas over land. Where possible, pipelines are built above the surface; however, in more developed, urban, or environmentally sensitive areas they are buried underground. The oil and natural gas infrastructure is utilized to provide resources for national defense, heating and cooling homes, generating power for business, and providing fuel. Oil and/or gas underground pipelines are present in the City.
Government regulations require that buried fuel pipelines must be protected from corrosion. Typically, corrosion control is by use of pipeline coating in conjunction with cathodic protection. Natural gas can explode when mixed with air in certain concentrations and ignited by a spark or flame creating major hazards when pipelines fail. The National Transportation Safety Board has documented cases where natural gas from ruptured pipelines resulted in flash fires and explosions, causing fatalities and property damage.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-68
3.9.2 Pipeline Failure History
Compared to other methods of fuel transportation, pipelines are considered the safest means to transport vast quantities of petroleum and natural gas (compared to rail or truck).
However, failure incidents regularly occur, causing substantial losses to property and life.
According to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, there has been an annual average of 287.5 significant pipeline failure incidents for the past twenty years.
These events have resulted in a total of 256 deaths, 1,142 injuries, and over $10,728,930,041 in property damage.
Pipeline failures are caused by a variety of factors. The most common cause is corrosion of the pipeline. Corrosion weakens the structural integrity of the pipeline and makes it more susceptible to rupture and failure. Accidental rupture at a construction site from excavation is another common failure cause. Many natural gas and oil pipelines are buried underground, becoming a potential hazard for excavation projects. Other sources of failure include natural forces such as earthquakes, equipment failure and operations failure, materials failures, including defects and fatigue, and weld failures, as occurred in the wellknown 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion. No pipeline failures have occurred within the City; however, the prevalence of hazardous and flammable gas and liquid distribution pipelines throughout the City gives the potential for a future event. 2010 San Bruno Pipeline Explosion
On September 9, 2010, a 30-inch steel natural gas transmission pipeline owned by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) ruptured in a residential neighborhood in San Bruno, California.
The rupture released approximately 47.6 million standard cubic feet of natural gas. The released gas then ignited, resulting in an explosion and fire that killed 8, injured 60, and forced the evacuation of many more people. The fire also caused substantial property damage, destroying 38 homes, and damaging 70 homes. The rupture created a crater 72 feet long by 26 feet wide in the middle of the street. The ruptured pipe segment was 28 feet long, weighed approximately 3,000 pounds, and was found 100 feet from the crater.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-69
An investigation was immediately conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). A review of PG&E records revealed that the pipeline had been labeled in PG&E drawings as seamless API 5L Grade X42 pipe. However, upon examination of the ruptured pipe segment, the NTSB found that it was actually constructed of smaller segments of pipe of unknown origin welded together. The NTSB concluded that the poorly welded pipe section had a visible seam weld flaw that grew over time. As a result, the pipe was not as strong as the listed API 5L Grade X42 steel pipe and ruptured under increased pressure during electrical maintenance at the Milpitas Terminal.
3.9.3 Pipeline Failure Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude Although there are various generalized pipeline failure probabilities, failure is dependent upon specific pipeline construction material, joint type, soil, diameter, length, etc., the existence of natural gas and liquid pipelines within the City indicates the potential for a pipeline failure incident. Some of the most common sources of pipeline incidents occurs from corrosion construction equipment rupturing or penetrating buried lines. Maintaining pipeline integrity (including replacing corroded pipelines), maintaining accurate piping maps, and ensuring adequate personnel training for construction and excavation in pipeline areas are important to prevent the occurrence of significant pipeline failures.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-70
3.10 Flood and Dam Failure Hazard Profile
Flood Risk Assessment Summary
Risk Rank: Moderately Low
Probability/
Frequency:
Infrequent event - occurs between once
every 8 years and once every 50 years
(inclusive)
Consequence/
Severity:
Minor/slight damage to buildings and
structures, no loss of lifelines, first aid
injury and no disability
Vulnerability: Localized damage area
Hazard Risk Rank
Score:
8 3.10.1 Flood Hazard Information and Background
Historically, a flood is the most common type of disaster, either natural or human-made.
Land along rivers, lakes, and coastlines are particularly susceptible to flooding.
The primary responsibility of the local governments during widespread flooding is to protect public safety. Secondary is protection of the environment, followed by property such as highways, streets, bridges, and structure protection.
The types and causes off flooding that can occur within the City are the result of:
• Heavy rains
• Flood control channel overflow
• Wastewater flooding within residences as a result of lift station failures • Coastal, tropical, and/or hurricane storms
• Accidents such as reservoir leaks and water main breaks • High water table
What are Floods?
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-71
A flood occurs any time a body of water rises to
cover what is usually dry land. Floods have many
causes, including heavy rains, spring snowmelt,
coastal storms, and dam or levee failure. When
flooding occurs, affected areas may sustain
damage to structures and personal property, as
well as severe damage to the environment in the
form of soil erosion and deforestation and damage to utilities and transportation systems.
Floods can take several hours to days to develop; the following flood characterization designates the amount of time for response:
• Flood Watch – a flood is possible in the area.
• Flood Warning – flooding is already occurring or will occur soon in the area. • Flash Flood Watch – a flash flood is possible in the area. Seek immediate shelter or higher ground.
• Flash Flood Warning – flooding is already occurring or will occur soon in the area.
Flash floods can occur without warning, during heavy rain in mountainous regions ensure that precautions and flash flood warnings are adhered to.
Despite its generally dry conditions, the City experiences periodic winter storms and thunderstorms that can result in flash floods. Under storm conditions, the region’s stream systems pose a potential threat.
Alluvial Fan Flooding
Alluvial fan flooding occurs in the steep arid or semiarid mountains found throughout California. Alluvial fans are fan-shaped deposits of eroded rock and soil carried out of mountains and into valley floors by landslides, mudslides, mudflows, and surface runoff.
At the beginning of the valley, alluvial fans are steep and narrow with boulders and other course material. The deposited material becomes increasingly fine as the gradient decreases and the material, mainly gravels, sand and mud, spreads.
When rain falls, runoff from the canyon walls flows as a high-velocity sheet that channels into rivulets, and then to natural drainage courses. The rapidly moving water often carries large boulders and other material from the watershed depositing them into runoff channels, blocking the flow of water. Floodwater then spills out onto the fan, with each event finding a new channel that soon fills up with deposits and overflows. Flooding in alluvial fans often can cause greater damage than clear-water flooding.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-72
Flash Flooding
A flash flood is a rapid flooding of low-lying areas, rivers and streams that is caused by the intense rainfall associated with a thunderstorm, or multiple thunderstorms. Flash floods also occur when human-made structure, such as a dam, collapses. Flash flooding occurs when the ground under a storm becomes saturated with water so quickly that it cannot be absorbed. The runoff collects in low-lying areas and flows rapidly downhill. As a result, anything in its path is suddenly in rising water. A typical flash flood begins with a slowmoving thunderstorm. This usually takes longer to move out of the affected areas and causes the area to endure a greater amount of rainfall for a longer period of time. In addition, a thunderstorm may pass over an affected area repeatedly, dumping even more rainfall.
The heavy rainfall associated with these storm systems contributes to urban flooding in a number of ways. Primarily, heavy rainfall will often overwhelm the capacity of the conventional drainage system made up of storm drains, catch basins, sewers, and additional natural mechanisms for storm-water management. These systems typically cannot handle more than one or two inches of rainfall per hour before they begin to backup and overflow. This amount is further diminished if the storm drains, and other components of the storm-water management system, have not been adequately maintained, are clogged with debris such as trash or natural waste, or are old and in a state of disrepair.
Heavy rainfall, combined with storm-water runoff, can cause local waterways to rise and overflow their banks.
3.10.2 Flood History
A flood event in Los Angeles County can range from a few isolated areas where a number of streets are flooded preventing temporary access to homes and businesses, to numerous homes inundated with several feet of water causing millions of dollars of damage. Floods in the Paramount area can cause extensive damage to residential and business properties, parks and recreational facilities, road and highway infrastructure, and critical utility facilities.
To indicate the potential for a flooding event, Table 3.17 below, taken from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, lists an excerpt of large-scale flooding events that have resulted in damage within Los Angeles County.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-73
Table 3.21: Historical Flooding Damage in Los Angeles County Date Injuries Fatalities Property Damage ($) Crop Damage ($) 2/17/1994 1 0 0 0
2/20/1994 0 0 50,000 0
1/04/1995 0 1 50,000,000 0
1/10/1995 0 0 500,000 0
2/07/1998 0 3 0 0
10/20/2004 0 1 0 0
1/09/2005 0 1 0 0
1/11/2005 0 0 2,000,000 0
2/20/2005 0 0 1,000,000 0
12/21/2005 1 0 0 0
9/22/2007 0 0 300,000 0
11/26/2008 0 0 10,000 0
1/19/2010 0 0 0 3,000,000
10/11/2012 0 0 0 0
2/28/2014 0 0 0 0
Historical Flooding Events
Los Angeles County Flood of 1938
According to the Suburban Emergency Management Project, the Los Angeles County Flood of 1938 was caused by two oceanic storms that swept through the Los Angeles Basin to the San Gabriel Mountains in late February and early March of 1938. Rainfall from the two storms totaled nearly 9.5 inches over a three-day period, resulting in a large natural disaster. The flood was responsible for destroying 5,601 homes, damaging another 1,500, and killing nearly 110 people. The Los Angeles River reached a maximum flood rate of 130,000 cubic feet per second. As a result, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers channelized the local rivers and built more flood control dams.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-74
The above photographs are courtesy of California State University Northridge. The photograph on the left illustrates flooding of the Los Angeles River along Victory Blvd.
The photograph on the right illustrates the levee failures along the Los Angeles River.
Periodic Flooding
In early 1995, heavy winter rains caused local flooding events in Los Angeles County near the City. Public Works crews worked around the clock to barricade flooded streets, clear fallen trees, open blocked storm drains, and restore power to traffic signals. Many sandbags were dispensed to residents to provide additional flooding protection.
Besides natural disasters, other factors such as dam failure may also cause flooding.
3.10.3 Dam Failure Hazard Information and Background
A dam is a barrier preventing the flow of water or loose solid materials (such as soil or snow) or a barrier built across a watercourse for impounding water. Dams are artificial barriers, which are 25 feet or more in height or have an impounding capacity of 50 acrefeet or more.
Advantages of Dams
Dams are important because they provide water for drinking, for industry, irrigation, fishing and recreation, water for hydroelectric power production, water for navigation in rivers, and other needs. Dams also protect people by reducing or preventing floods.
Causes of Dam Failure
Dam failures can result from a number of natural or human-made causes such as earthquakes, erosion of the face or foundation and improper sitting of the dam, rapidly DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-75
rising floodwaters, and structural/design flaws. Dam failure can result in severe flood events to lower-lying areas.
Impacts of Dam Failure
A dam failure will cause loss of life, damage to property, and other ensuing hazards, as well as the displacement of persons residing in the inundation path. Damage to electric generating facilities and transmission lines could also impact life support systems in communities outside the immediate hazard areas.
A catastrophic dam failure, depending on the size of the dam and the population downstream, could exceed the response capability of local communities especially overtaxing the public safety personnel and resources.
Types of Dams
There are four general types of dams: Arch, Buttress, Gravity, and Embankment. Each of these types of dams has different failure characteristics.
Arch Dams
Arch dams are best suited to narrow canyons where they divert the force of the water behind the dam to the sides of the canyon in order to help support the weight. Therefore, arch dams need not be as thick as gravity dams since the dam itself supports less weight making them less expensive to construct. Arch dams may carry less weight than other dams; however, they are affected by the same kinds of force. These forces include pressure of the water, weight of the water, and weight of the dam.
Buttress Dams
Buttress dams can also be called Ambursen dams after the American engineer who used this type of dam in the early 20th century. Originally, buttress dams were used in areas requiring irrigation, but where the land was not capable of supporting the size and weight of other types of dams. Generally, buttress dams are built in wide valleys. The name "buttress" dam comes from the structure of the dam itself. The dam is supported at intervals by several buttresses, concrete slabs reinforced with steel, which form a watertight seal against the river. There are two main types of buttress dams: flat slab and multiple arches.
Gravity Dams
Gravity dams serve the same purposes as arch and buttress dams; however, they differ in structure and method of retaining water. This type of dam is solid and triangular in DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-76
shape; therefore, it requires a large amount of concrete or other construction material. The immense weight of the concrete provides stabilization and allows the dam to maintain control of the water.
Embankment Dams
Embankment dams in the US prior to 1930 had a poor track record. Of those over 490 feet high, almost 10% failed, usually due to overtopping in a flood. Overtopping is when the water level in the reservoir reaches maximum height and begins to flow over the top of the dam.
The South Fork dam in Johnstown, PA was one of the first to use rockfills, or loose rocks, on the downstream face. This dam failed after being overtopped in 1889, killing over 2,000 people.
Embankment dams are massive dams made of earth or rock. Embankment dams usually have some sort of waterproof interior (called the core), which is covered with earth or rock fill. Grass may even be grown on the earth fill. Water will seep in through the earth or rock fill but should not seep into the core. They rely on the weight to resist the flow of water, similar to concrete gravity dams.
The embankment dam is the only dam type that is not made of concrete. Embankment dams may be made of earth or rock, both of which are pervious to water that is, water can get into it. As seen in the figure below, the water seeps into the core material and should stop at the seepage line. The core material is usually more watertight than the rock or earth that is on the outside of the dam, but the core material is still not totally impervious to water.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-77
The diagram shown to the right
is an example of an
embankment configuration. It
could be any combination of
earth, rock, and core material
in any number of
arrangements.
3.10.4 Dam Failure History
The City has never been impacted by a dam failure. There has been a total of 45 dam failures in California. Failures have occurred for a variety of reasons; the most common failure being overtopping. Other dams have failed due to specific shortcomings in the dam itself or an inadequate assessment of the surrounding geomorphologic characteristics.
The first notable dam failure occurred in 1883 in Sierra County, while the most recent failure occurred in 1965. The most catastrophic dam failure was William Mulholland’s infamous St. Francis Dam, which failed in 1928 and resulted in at least 431 fatalities.
Because of this failure and widespread public exposure to the potential risks associated with the approximately 1500 water storage dams in California, in 1929 the State Legislature enacted legislation providing for supervision over non-federal dams in the State. Before the enactment of this legislation, either the State Engineer or the State Railroad Commission exercised State supervision over dams. This supervision was limited in scope and extended to less than half of the dams in the State. The statute enacted in 1929 provided for:
• examination and approval or repair of dams completed prior to the effective date of the statute, August 14, 1929;
• approval of plans and specifications, and supervision of construction of new dams, and of the enlargement, alteration, repair, or removal of existing dams; and • supervision over maintenance and operation of all dams of jurisdictional size.
Overall, there have been at least 460 deaths from dam failures in California, as outlined in Table 3.19.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-78
Table 3:22: Dam Failure Events in California
Year
Failed Dam Location Cause of Failure/Deaths
1883 English Sierra County Dam Crumbles to foundations, decay of timber used
1892 Long Valley
Creek San Jacinto Heavy rains, dam carried away by flood 1895 The Angels Calaveras County Undetermined during flood, poor foundation/ 1 death reported
1896 Vernon Heights Oakland Shallow foundation
1898 Snake Ravine Stanislaus
County Poor compaction
1905 Piedmont No.1 Oakland Outlet pipe sheared off at core wall
1906 San Andreas San Mateo
County Crack along axis
1912 Morena San Diego Overtopping
1916 Lower Otay San Diego Leakage and overtopping due to inadequate spillway
1918 Lake Hodges San Diego Cracks in pier
1963 Baldwin Hills Los Angeles Leak through embankment
turned into washout/ 3 Deaths
1964 Hell Hole Rubicon River Failed during construction due to unprecedented rains
1965 Matilija Ventura Bad foundation and concrete
disintegrating
Note: Information was taken from UC Davis Civil & Environmental Engineering:
http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lund/dams/dam_history_page/failures.htm Although no significant dam failure has occurred in California within the last half century, California contains several high-hazard dams that could pose a risk in the future. As a whole, the U.S. dam infrastructure received a D by the American Society of Civil Engineers and several near misses have shown how vulnerable the aging dams are.
The Oroville Dam Crisis.
Built in 1968, the Oroville dam is the tallest dam in the country and forms Lake Oroville, the second largest reservoir in California. The dam and its corresponding hydroelectric power plant provide water and electricity to much of Sacramento and the surrounding area. The dam had been regarded as a marvel of modern engineering, however during the 2000’s several notable environmental and civil engineering groups, including DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-79
American Rivers, raised concerns regarding the dam’s emergency spillway and its foundation. These concerns were largely ignored until February 2017. On February 7th, after a period of heavy rain, a large crater appeared in the main spillway causing it fail and blocking the release of water leading to an increase in reservoir level. This caused 188,000 people in the surrounding Butte and Sacramento counties to be evacuated. As the heavy rain continued for several days, the emergency spillway had to be used on February 11th.
It quickly became clear that the emergency spillway would not withstand this event. The hillside eroded causing large chunks of the concrete spillway and sediment to be washed into the feather river.
Photo taken from American Rivers, 2020.
The environmental and economic damage caused to the surrounding communities is impossible to measure, however, in total, the repairs alone cost the State over $1 billion.
This failure threatened the lives of thousands and put at risk the electrical and water infrastructure of Northern California.
3.10.5 Flood Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude
Portions of the City are prone to urban flooding, also sometimes referred to as ponding, due to debris accumulation on storm drains and aged drainage systems. Low-lying areas of the City such as the All-American Park and the western boundary of the City are particularly susceptible to flooding during heavy rains.
Figures 3.7 and 3.8 on the following pages provide FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the City, as well as Southern California. According to the maps, the majority of DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-80
the City is located in 100-year flood plains. The 100- and 500-year recurrence intervals indicate a 0.01 and 0.002 annual probability of a flooding event, respectively.
Figure 3.11: City of Paramount FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-81
Figure 3.12: City of Paramount FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-82
3.10.6 Dam Failure Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude There are two major dams that could potentially affect the City in the event of a dam failure:
Whittier Narrows and Hansen Dams. The Whittier Narrows Dam is on the San Gabriel River at the southern end of the San Gabriel Valley. The Hansen Dam is located on the northern edge of the San Fernando Valley.
In 2016, the Army Corps of Engineers deemed the 62-year-old Whittier Narrows Dam to be one of 13 high hazard dams in the country and increased its risk of failure to “very high urgency”. They determined that the risk of dam failure due to erosion had been understated and therefore routine maintenance was insufficient. Without significant improvements and routine maintenance, erosion damage is likely to cause dam failure leading to flooding that can potentially affect over one million Southern California residents. Because of this, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began the Whittier Narrows Dam Project in 2019 with the goal to begin repairs in late 2022 and finish by late 2026.
However, the project construction has not yet been funded. If the dam were to fail as is, the City would be in the direct path and would incur significant damages and loss of lives.
Figure 13 shows the maximum flood depth for the case of the Whittier Narrows Dam failing.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-83
Figure 3.13: Maximum Flood Depth for Whittier Narrows Dam Failure
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-84
3.11 Destructive Winds Hazard Profile
Destructive Winds Risk Assessment Summary
Risk Rank: Moderately Low
Probability/
Frequency:
Infrequent event – occurs between once
every 8 years and once every 50 years
(inclusive)
Consequence/
Severity:
Minor/slight damage to buildings and
structures, no loss of lifelines, first aid
injury and no disability
Vulnerability: Localized damage area
Hazard Risk Rank
Score:
8 3.11.1 Destructive Winds Hazard Information and Background Wind can be described as the flow of air caused by a difference in air pressure within the Earth’s atmosphere. Differences in atmospheric pressure cause air to move from high pressure areas to lower. The greater the difference between the two pressure areas, the greater the speed at which the air moves from one pressure area to the other. Strong winds have been known to cause minor property damage and in extreme cases destroy large structures in its path.
The Beaufort Scale is widely used to describe wind speeds based on observed ocean conditions. Since its most recent modification in the 1940s, the scale utilizes a seventeenlevel system ranging from no air flow to winds that exceed 140 miles per hour (mph; 120 knots) and describe wind speeds in empirical terms. According to this scale, air speeds during a windstorm usually fall between 65 mph (56 knots) and 72 mph (63 knots). Winds of this speed and greater have been known to cause tornado-like property damage and could inhibit utility, telecommunications, and transportation systems in and around the City.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-85
Santa Ana Winds
The Santa Ana Winds are a seasonal phenomenon in Southern California occurring between October and March. As stated by Professor Robert Fovell of the UCLA Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, the Santa Ana winds are winds originating from high pressure systems in the Great Basin that are pushed southwest towards the California coast. As the wind passes through mountains and descends through canyons, namely the Santa Ana Canyon, they are compressed, leading to an increase in temperature, approximately 5°C for every 1000 ft. As the wind moves through canyons and passes, the wind accelerates to speeds of 40 mph (35 knots) with gusts up to about 70 mph (60 knots). These hot and dry winds then reach the coastal cities at high speeds causing crop damage, property damage, and potentially fatalities. Each year, these winds cost the San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties millions of dollars in property and infrastructure damage. While generally overlooked in Paramount because they typically lose most of their energy as they pass through more inland cities, Santa Ana winds have been reported to have caused property damage, power outages, blocked roads due to fallen trees, increased fire threats, and even loss of life as the result of a secondary impact.
Microburst
As stated by the National Weather Service, a microburst is a downdraft in a thunderstorm that is less than 2.5 miles in scale. Microbursts can be driven by a number of factors including mid-level dry air entrainment, cooling beneath the thunderstorm cloud base, sublimation, and the existence of rain and/or hail within the thunderstorm. Although microbursts are not widely recognized as tornadoes, they can cause comparable, and in some cases worse, damage than some tornadoes.
3.11.2 Destructive Winds History
To indicate the potential for a severe storm event, Table 3.18 lists an excerpt of largescale severe storms extracted from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, including lightning, thunderstorms winds, tornadoes, and winds that have resulted in extensive regional damage. This list is not considered to be comprehensive, since severe storms are an annual event causing minor damages and economic disruption (closed roads, fallen power lines, etc.). Although most events have some financial impact, this list by NOAA only includes an estimate that was made at the time of the event and does not consider minor damages.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-86
Table 3.23: Historical Destructive Wind Damage in Los Angeles County Date Fatalities Injuries Property Damage ($)
8/07/1990 0 8 0
2/23/1993 0 0 50,000
4/25/1994 0 0 5,000
3/14/1996 0 1 0
12/14/1996 1 2 0
1/20/1997 0 4 0
7/20/1998 0 1 0
5/23/1999 1 0 0
7/13/1999 0 1 0
2/23/2000 0 1 0
4/20/2001 0 1 0
7/28/2003 0 1 0
11/12/2003 0 0 3,500,000
1/07/2005 0 0 5,000,000
9/01/2007 0 0 0
09/03/2017 0 0 0
10/09/2017 0 0 0
10/15/2018 0 0 0
10/10/2019 0 0 0
Note: Property Damage may not have been reported for each incident From this list, it is clear that destructive winds typically coincide with Santa Ana winds season, fall to early November. Although these winds were typically dampened and DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-87
weakened by surrounding counties prior to reaching Los Angeles County, there have been several instances in which they caused severe damage.
In April 2000, a microburst ripped
through 4.9 square miles of the City.
Hardest hit were the mobile homes
where at least 141 structures were
reported to have sustained damage,
ranging from total loss to minor
structural damage. The local Fire
Department estimated at least
$843,000 in damage losses. Families
were immediately placed in a Red
Cross Shelter at a nearby park.
3.11.3 Destructive Winds Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude Taking into account that Santa Ana Winds and thunderstorms are (typically) an annual occurrence in Southern California, strong winds are very likely to continue to occur although infrequently in the City. In the past, high winds have toppled trees, damaged traffic signals, and in rare cases caused life threatening injuries to residents. Therefore, it is necessary to consider destructive winds as a hazard. The figures on the following page provide information and trends for the aforementioned hazards, including average weather information for the City.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-88
City of Paramount Average Weather Data
Average Monthly Temperature
Average Wind Speed
Figure 14: City of Paramount Average Weather and Wind Speeds Note: Data taken from AreaVibes.com
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-89
3.12 Drought Hazard Profile
Drought Risk Assessment Summary
Risk Rank: Low
Probability/
Frequency:
Infrequent event - occurs between
once every 8 years and once every 50
years (inclusive)
Consequence/
Severity:
Minor/slight damage to buildings and
structures, no loss of lifelines, first aid
injury and no disability
Vulnerability:
No physical damage, no secondary
impacts
Hazard Risk Rank
Score:
6 3.12.1 Drought Hazard Information and Background
A drought or an extreme dry periodic climate is an extended period where water availability falls below the statistical requirements for a region. Drought is not a purely physical phenomenon, but rather an interplay between natural water availability and human demands for water supply. The precise definition of drought is made complex owing to political considerations, but there are generally four types of conditions that are referred to as drought:
• Meteorological drought is brought about when there is a prolonged period with less than average precipitation.
• Agricultural drought is brought about when there is insufficient moisture for average crop or forage production. This condition can arise, even in times of average precipitation, owing to soil conditions or agricultural techniques. • Hydrologic drought is brought about when the water reserves available in sources such as aquifers, lakes, and reservoirs fall below the statistical average. This condition can arise, even in times of average (or above average) precipitation, when increased usage of water diminishes the reserves.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-90
• Socioeconomic drought associates the supply and demand of water services with elements of meteorological, hydrologic, and agricultural drought. Socioeconomic drought occurs when the demand for water exceeds the supply as a result of weather-related supply shortfall.
Due to the extensive nature of water supply infrastructure – reservoirs, groundwater basins, and inter-regional conveyance facilities – mitigation for the effect of short-term dry periods is implicit for most systems. Defining when a drought begins is a function of drought impacts to water users. Hydrologic conditions constituting a drought for water users in one location may not constitute a drought for water users elsewhere, or for water users having a different water supply. Individual water suppliers may use criteria such as rainfall/runoff, amount of water in storage, or expected supply from a water wholesaler to define their water supply conditions.
Drought is a gradual phenomenon. Although droughts are sometimes characterized as emergencies, they differ from typical emergency events. Most natural disasters, such as floods or wildland fires, occur relatively rapidly and afford little time for preparing for disaster response. Droughts, however, occur slowly and over a multi-year period. There is no universal definition of when a drought begins or ends. Impacts of drought are typically felt first by those most reliant on annual rainfall – ranchers engaged in dryland grazing, rural residents relying on wells in low-yield rock formations, or small water systems lacking a reliable source. Drought impacts increase with the length of a drought, as carry-over supplies in reservoirs are depleted and water levels in groundwater basins decline.
Droughts may cause a shortage of water for human and industrial consumption, hydroelectric power, recreation, and navigation. Water quality may also decline, and the number and severity of wildland fires may increase. Severe droughts may result in the loss of agricultural crops and forest products, undernourished wildlife and livestock, lower land values, and raise unemployment.
3.12.2 Drought History
As stated in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan, the City has three water sources:
groundwater, imported water (surface), and recycled water. The City also has emergency mutual-aid domestic water connections with the City of Long Beach, the City of Downey, and Golden State Water Company. Currently, two water utilities serve the community. The City’s water department services the majority of Paramount. Two northern portions of the City, above the I-105 Freeway, are serviced by Southern California Water Company. The City boundaries, as shown previously in Figure 2.1 provides an estimate of the service area of the City.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-91
The City provides potable water service to its residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional customers within the City limits. The City’s current water system includes two wells; two imported water connections; approximately 130 miles of water transmission and distribution mains; and appurtenant valves, hydrants, and equipment. Currently the City does not have any storage reservoirs, although the groundwater basin acts as ground storage for the City.
The City overlies the Central Groundwater Basin (Central Basin). Upon the Central Basin’s adjudication in 1965, the City was allocated an annual pumping right, which currently stands at 5,883 acre-feet per year plus 20% carryover rights. Well No. 13 and Well No. 14 are the City’s two existing groundwater wells. This infrastructure has allowed the City to provide adequate water services to its residence and businesses since its incorporation.
Because water systems are interconnected, the regional impacts of drought may have adverse impacts for the City. It is important to consider droughts that have occurred and currently are occurring throughout the state. Figure 3.9 provides the annual runoff in California for the last century and is provided by the United States Geological Survey.
Figure 3.15: Annual Runoff in California
Figure 3.16 illustrates the current state of drought in California and is provided by the U.S. Drought Monitor.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-92
Figure 3.16: Western United States Drought Conditions, 2021 As stated by the California Department of Water Resources, the western U.S. is entering a third year of a severe drought. After previously lifting drought restrictions on April 2nd, 2017, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a drought state of emergency on October 19th, 2021 and encouraged civilians to minimize water usage. This triggered municipalities to take preventative actions. While the City has continued to provide potable water to its residents, the County of Los Angeles has imposed conservation measures to circumvent potential drought hazards. The City will rely on the previously discussed infrastructure to maintain water services for its residents.
3.12.3 Drought Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude
For years, the City has enjoyed an abundant supply of high-quality water. However, as water demand continues to increase statewide, and the supply fluctuates with the drought conditions the City must be even more conscientious about the water supply and maximize the efficient use of this precious natural resource. The City and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California work closely together to evaluate new and innovative water management and supply development programs, including water reuse and recycling, recharge facility construction, ocean DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-93
and brackish water desalination, surface storage, and water use efficiency programs. These efforts are helping to enhance long-term water reliability and water quality.
As a result of the inherent uncertainty in the Colorado River and State Water Project supplies given various hydrologic, environmental, and legal considerations, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has undertaken several planning initiatives to broaden its water resource’s reliability. The 2020 update to their Integrated Resources Plan, outlines strategies and implementation plans to better manage resources, including the development of local resources and the furthering of existing conservation efforts to meet the Water Conservation Act of 2009.
These measures are anticipated to provide a buffer for member agencies to rely upon in times of drought and long-term climatic changes.
Drought and Climate Change
Increased population and exploitation of fossil fuels during the past century has led to longer and more prevalent droughts in many parts of the U.S. The global warming phenomenon has led to increased rainfall instead of snowfall in many regions resulting in increased flooding. This, combined with earlier and rapid melting of snow, has led to fluctuation in water availability and resulted in increased floods in wet regions and drought in dry regions. As Southern California temperatures rise and water sources are depleted, the potential for droughts in California, including the District’s service area, are expected to continue to increase.
As mentioned in Section 3.17, District personnel would recognize decreased water supply and decreased precipitation, common impacts of climate change, as a drought scenario. As mitigation activities focused on water supply reliability are indifferent to the root cause of water shortage, the Steering Committee has chosen to blend the applicable impacts of climate change with its drought mitigation efforts. All mitigation actions for drought described in Chapter 4 also consider the impacts of climate change.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-94
3.13 Disease Outbreak Hazard Profile
Disease Outbreak Risk Assessment Summary
Risk Rank: Low
Probability/
Frequency:
Rare event - occurs less than once every 50
years
Consequence/
Severity:
No damage
Vulnerability:
Localized damage area, minor secondary
impacts, delayed hazard onset
Hazard Risk Rank
Score:
3 3.13.1: Disease Outbreak Hazard Information and Background A disease outbreak happens when a disease occurs in greater numbers than expected in a community of region or during a certain season. A pandemic is an outbreak of an infectious disease that spreads across a large region. A flu pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus emerges for which people have little or no immunity, or possibly for which there is no vaccine.
The disease spreads easily person-to-person, causes serious illness, and can sweep across the country and around the world in very short time.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, an especially severe influenza pandemic could lead to high levels of illness, death, social disruption, and economic loss.
Numerous people in a wide range of locations will become seriously ill at the same time. Impacts can range from school and business closings to the interruption of basic services such as public transportation and food delivery. Additionally, a substantial percentage of the population will require some form of medical care. Health care facilities can be overwhelmed, creating a shortage of hospital staff, beds, ventilators, and other supplies.
In order to define and prepare for an influenza pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) has developed a global influenza preparedness plan, which defines the stages of a pandemic, DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-95
outlines the role of WHO, and makes recommendations for national measures before and during a pandemic. The pandemic phases are detailed below:
• Interpandemic period:
• Phase 1: No new influenza virus subtypes have been detected in humans. • Phase 2: No new influenza virus subtypes have been detected in humans, but an animal variant threatens human disease.
• Pandemic alert period:
• Phase 3: Human infection(s) with a new subtype but no human-to-human spread. • Phase 4: Small cluster(s) with limited localized human-to-human transmission. • Phase 5: Larger cluster(s) but human-to-human spread still localized. • Pandemic period:
• Phase 6: Pandemic: increased and sustained transmission in general population.
3.13.2 Disease Outbreak History
There have been several major outbreaks that have resulted in many fatalities in the past. More recently however, there have been fewer outbreaks of biological diseases that cause catastrophic loss of life. However, there continue to be outbreaks of biological/human diseases.
Recent Influenza Outbreaks
Influenza (flu) season occurs every year, but some years may be worse than others when a new strain emerges. Health professionals were concerned in 2006 that the continued spread of a highly pathogenic avian H5N1 virus across eastern Asia and other countries represented a significant threat to human health. The H5N1 virus has raised concerns about a potential human pandemic because:
• It is especially virulent
• It is being spread by migratory birds
• It can be transmitted from birds to mammals and in some limited circumstances to humans, and
• Like other influenza viruses, it continues to evolve.
The following map indicates the locations of confirmed cases of the H5N1 avian influenza virus:
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-96
Figure 3.17: Nations With Confirmed Cases H5N1 Avian Influenza (July 7, 2006)
In addition, there was an outbreak of H1N1, known as the swine flu, in 2009. Figure 3.18 illustrates how widespread the strain became in 2009.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-97
Figure 3.18: Nations with confirmed Cases H1N1 (August 4, 2009) Middle East Respiratory Syndrome
Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is a respiratory infection caused by a virus. The first patient found to be infected with MERS was in London in 2012. MERS is suspected to spread from an infected person’s respiratory secretions through close contact. According to the WHO, as of June 2014, there have been 707 confirmed cases of MERS resulting in at least 252 fatalities.
An additional 113 cases have been reported by Saudi Arabia. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in the U.S., there have been two confirmed cases of MERS. Both were healthcare providers who recently traveled from Saudi Arabia. Even though the MERS situation in the U.S. is a low risk to the general public, the CDC is closely monitoring the situation.
Ebola
Ebola, previously known as Ebola hemorrhagic fever, is a rare and deadly disease caused by infection with one of the Ebola virus species. Researchers believe that the virus is animal-borne and that bats are the most likely reservoir. Ebola is spread through direct contact from an infected person through blood or body fluids, infected objects or through contact with infected animals.
According to the CDC, there have been four cases of Ebola diagnosed in the U.S. in 2014. Of the four cases, two of them had travelled back from Africa and the other two were involved in treating one of the infected persons. The medical and public health professionals across the U.S. along with the CDC are taking precautions to ensure the Ebola situation in the U.S. is at a low risk to the general public.
2015 California Measles Outbreak
On January 5, 2015, five patients were hospitalized for suspected cases of measles all tied to December travels to Disneyland in Anaheim, California the previous year. By February 2015, 125 measles cases could be linked to the Disney theme park across several states with additional cases reported in Canada and Mexico. The event sparked national concern and exacerbated debates about vaccination rights throughout the country. Although the number of victims in this instance do not rival the MERS outbreak mentioned about, this event was close enough to the City to impact the public. Disneyland caters to more than 16 million guests annually, many of them coming from Southern California: including citizens of the City.
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
The novel coronavirus outbreak began in Wuhan China when, on December 31, 2019, the WHO identified a pneumonia-like illness impacting dozens. By January 11, 2020, according to ABC NEWS, China reported its first death due to the Coronavirus. Ten days later, the U.S. confirmed DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-98
its first case of the virus. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at the time of this report, the U.S. has reported 45,655,635 COVID-19 cases and 740,348 deaths including victims from all 50 states.
According to Harvard Health Publishing, coronaviruses are common and often are the cause of colds and other upper respiratory infections. SARS-CoV-2, short for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, is the official name for the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19. While severity can very between cases, common symptoms include fever, aches, cough, fatigue, chills, headache, loss of appetite, and loss of smell. Generally, symptoms appear withing six days of exposure, but in some cases, symptoms have taken up to 13 days to materialize. According to the World Health Organization, current evidence suggests that the virus spreads mainly between people who are in close contact with each other. A person can be infected when aerosols or droplets containing the virus are inhaled or come directly into contact with the eyes, nose, or mouth.
3.13.3 Disease Outbreak Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude It is difficult to predict the probability and severity of the next disease outbreak pandemic. In contrast to many other illnesses, highly contagious disease spread rapidly and often unexpectedly. The City has limited medical capabilities; however, the City will work with the Los Angeles County of Department of Health and other outside organizations in the event of an outbreak.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-99
3.14 Civil Unrest/Riots Hazard Profile
Civil Unrest/Riots Failure Risk Assessment Summary
Risk Rank: Low
Probability/
Frequency:
Rare event - occurs less than once every
50 years
Consequence/
Severity:
Minor/slight damage to buildings and
structures, no loss of lifelines, first aid injury
and no disability
Vulnerability: No physical damage, no secondary impacts Hazard Risk Rank
Score:
4 3.14.1 Civil Unrest/Riots Hazard Information and Background Civil Unrest is generally the result of, and a form of protest against, some form of socio-political problem. It typically consists of a disruption of normal, orderly conduct in urban areas, or an outbreak of rioting or violence that is of a large nature. Examples of Civil disorders or Civil Strife, as it is sometimes referred to, might include illegal parades, sit-ins, riots, sabotage, and other forms of crime. It is typically spurred by specific events, such as criminal trials, sporting events, or political disfavor. Damages to local City buildings, critical facilities, and infrastructure resulting from these types of demonstrations could potentially leave residents of Paramount without critical resources. Incidents of Civil Unrest often occur sporadically and without warning.
In addition to the physical losses a demonstration can bring to the City, they often require response from local authorities which diminish their ability to provide services to other parts of the City. If a demonstration were to occur in conjunction with a hazardous event, it would be possible for the authorities to be overwhelmed leaving the city vulnerable to extensive damages.
3.14.2 Civil Unrest/Riots History
The City is located in close proximity to the City of Los Angeles which has been the host of several demonstrations of civil unrest historically.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-100
Watts Riot 1965
As stated by the Martin Luther King Jr Research and
Education Institute, the Watts Riot was a six-day race riot that began on August 11th, 1965 and lasted until August 17th.
By the time, the National Guard was able to restore peace, 34 were dead, 1,032 were injured, 3,438 citizens had been arrested and the City of Los Angeles has sustained over $40 million in damages. The riot was started after police officers allegedly mistreated Marquette Fry, a 21-year-old African American man, after pulling him over for drunk driving. While the facts about the incident are unclear, rumors of police misconduct spread throughout the community inciting six days of chaos. It is estimated that between 31,000 and 35,000 adults actively participated in destroying and looting local neighborhoods.
Los Angeles Riot 1992
The Los Angeles Riot was a race riot that
manifested after Rodney King, an African
American man, was beaten by a group of
police officers that stopped him for driving
intoxicated on March 3, 1991, according to
U.S News. The Los Angeles District Attorney
charged the four officers for excessive force
and for a year the case was covered heavily
by the media. On April 29th, 1992, the jury acquitted all four officers of assault and three of the fours of using excessive force. Within the first half hour of the announcement of the verdict, at least 300 people gathered outside the Los Angeles County courthouse to protest. By the time the six-day demonstration was over the numbers of protesters had swelled, the City had sustained $1 billion in property damages, and widespread looting, assault, arson, and murder had been reported all over the city. Over 2,000 had been injured and 53 had been killed before Mayor Bradley declared the end of the riot on May 4th, 1992.
May Day Demonstration
On March 29th, 2006, according to the Los Angeles Times, over 500,000 gathered in the heart of Los Angeles, California to protest Congressional efforts to intensify illegal immigration legislation.
While the protest was peaceful, several businesses had to shut down operations and traffic hazards resulted from the demonstration. In the City, students from the local high school made a DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-101
mass exodus and walked onto the 91 freeway. Local authorities mobilized to return the students to safety. Only one injury was reported and none on the students were injured.
Klu Klux Klan Rally
On February 28, 2016, violence broke out during a Klu Klux Klan rally in Anaheim, CA. Around noon, seven Klan members arrived at Pearson Park when counter-protesters swarmed Klan members setting off a series of brawls up and down West Cypress Street. When police arrived on the scene, 5 were hurt and 13 were arrested.
Orange County District Attorney, Tony
Rackauckas, issued the following statement
regard the following legal proceedings. “This
case is not about who was holding the protest
rally, their racist message, or who was counterprotesting. This is about the mob mentality turning violent, which shut down neighboring
streets, access to the park, and endangered the community as a whole.” Black Lives Matter Demonstrations
The group Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an
activist movement which campaigns against
violence and racism directed towards black
people. BLM regularly organizes
demonstrations in response to shooting deaths
of people of color by law enforcement
throughout the nation including protests in and
near Los Angeles County. During the months of
May and June of 2020, hundreds of thousands
of protesters, including over 10,000 in Los Angeles County, marched in response to the death of George Floyd. These protests were generally peaceful and non-violent but often involved blocking traffic and occasionally involved clashes with police.
3.14.3 Civil Unrest/Riots Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude The potential for Civil Unrest is difficult to predict. Demonstrations are often unplanned and arise out of the result of an emotional response to current social and political issues. The threat of disturbances are always present as local governments attempt to respond to changes in the political climate. For example, the State of California is currently attempting to finalize its position on issues such as the increasing cost of education, healthcare and housing, the protocol for dealing with immigration, and many other issues that could potentially recreate the events of DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-102
previous riots. The City has dealt with small protests and civil unrest in the past but acknowledges the potential for larger demonstrations. As a result, the City has decided to include civil unrest in the Hazard Mitigation Plan update.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-103
3.15 Transportation Accident/Incident Hazard Profile
Transportation Accident/Incident Failure Risk Assessment Summary Risk Rank: Low
Probability/
Frequency:
Regular event - occurs between once a
year and once every 7 years
Consequence/
Severity:
No damage
Vulnerability:
No physical damage, no secondary
impacts
Hazard Risk Rank
Score:
3 3.15.1 Transportation Accident/Incident Hazard Information and Background Freeway accidents occur very frequently in the Los Angeles County region. In the last few years, California has averaged about 3,300 freeway accident-related deaths. Major local transportation routes include Interstates 105, 710, 605 and California State Route 91, creating local traffic congestion and increasing the potential for transportation accidents in the City.
In addition to freeway accidents, a number of freight trains pass through the City hauling various types of hazardous materials. A major train derailment that occurs in a heavily populated industrial area can result in significant damage and potential loss of life. Both freeway and rail accidents can be a further hazard if the impacted vehicles are transporting hazardous materials. As noted in the hazardous material release hazard profile, accidents in these cases can result in hazardous materials releases.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-104
3.15.2 Transportation Accident/Incident Hazard History
The City is located in close proximity to several busy highways and railways. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, California has averaged 3299 deaths a year, which is the second highest of any state, behind Texas. Table 3.20, taken from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, presents recent traffic fatalities in California.
Table 3.24: Traffic Fatalities in California (2014-2019) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Average
Highway
Fatalities
3107 3387 3837 3884 3563 3606 3299
Rail Fatalities 128 131 140 157 151 194 127
3.15.3 Transportation Accident/Incident Probability, Frequency, and Magnitude Due to the high volume of commuter traffic traveling through the City Paramount, there is a high potential of a freeway accidents. In the event of a major incident, these roadways could be populated by vehicles carrying hazardous chemicals and flammable materials which could create the potential for fire, hazardous material releases, and other harmful events.
Interstate 710, which is on the western side of the City, connects the region to the Long Beach Harbor. Heavy trucks with hazardous materials are frequently found on this interstate, highlighting the increased potential for a major traffic accident in Paramount.
Figure 3.12 on the following page depicts the transportation routes for the City.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-105
Figure 3.19: City of Paramount Transportation Map
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-106
3.16 Climate Change
With the release of the updated California Adaptation Planning Guide (APG) in June 2020, the City aimed to include the effects of climate change into the Hazard Mitigation Plan update, Paramount is located in the South Coastal Region of California. As a result, and in tandem with the adopted Paramount Climate Action Plan, the City considered the following climate change impacts as recommended by the APG;
• Increased Temperatures
• Reduced Precipitation
• Sea Level Rise
• Reduced Tourism
• Reduced Water Supply
• Wildfire Risk
• Public Health – Heat and Air Quality
• Coastal Erosion
The Steering Committee engaged in a discussion to determine which impacts posed a viable threat to the City. While some impacts clearly applied to the City, some required additional research. Studies were conducted to look at recorded trends for sea level rise, wildfire, and regional temperature increases. The result of the study was the following list of perceived, feasible impacts that might affect the City over the next 5 to 10 years. • Increased Temperatures
• Reduced Precipitation
• Reduced Water Supply
• Fire Risk
After reviewing the results of each of these impacts, the Steering Committee decided to include hazards in the Plan update that represented how the impacts would be felt by the City. For example, increased temperatures, reduced precipitation, and reduced water supply would be recognized as a drought. Additionally, increased temperatures and reduced precipitation might result in a fire hazard. Therefore, the Steering Committee identified Drought and Urban Fire Hazards. Any information regarding the effects of these impacts on the City will be found under the hazard profiles listed above. Additionally, mitigation strategies that apple to these impacts will be classified under Drought and Urban Fire in the mitigation action identified in Chapter 4.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-107
3.17 Asset Inventory
§201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area
A critical step required to complete the Risk Assessment is to develop a detailed asset inventory and document potential asset damages due to each identified hazard. The calculated loss estimates (vulnerability assessment) will be based on the values determined during the initial asset inventory. In order to produce accurate loss estimates, the City developed a comprehensive inventory of all assets, including asset locations.
In order to develop loss estimates, specific values were assigned to the critical City facilities in the asset inventory. The following tables summarize the assigned values, as well as the sources utilized as the basis for the values including the following:
• FEMA’s “Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model, HAZUS MR5”
• FEMA’s guidance document entitled “What is a Benefit? - Guidance on Benefit-Cost Analysis of Hazard Mitigation Projects, Draft. Revision 2.0” Replacement Values
Table 3.25 provides a mechanism for determining the cost per square foot for replacing assets. Using this table, the Steering Committee reviewed the asset inventory list and discussed and documented approximate square footages (based upon available building plans and expert knowledge) and building descriptions in order to identify the appropriate replacement cost for each asset. In order to adjust the assessment values which were determined to be low, an 19% increase was added to account for inflation. The rate was provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (2007-2021).
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-108
Table 3.25: Structural Replacement Values
Facility
Category
Facility Sub-Category Description
Replacement
Cost ($/SF)
Hospital
Medium 2-3 Stories, 55,000 SF $144.60
Large 4-8 Stories, 200,000 SF $124.60
Medical
Office / Clinic
Small 1 Story, 7,000 SF $118.01
Medium 2 Stories, 7,000 SF $129.82
General
Government
Services
Town Hall, Small 1 Story, 11,000 SF $90.30
Town Hall, Medium 2-3 Stories, 18,000 SF $112.94
Courthouse, Small 1 Story, 30,000 SF $130.71
Courthouse, Medium 2-3 Stories, 60,000 SF $136.81
Post Office 13,000 SF $86.83
Emergency
Response
Police Station 2 Stories, 11,000 SF $136.10
Fire Station, Small 1 Story, 6,000 SF $105.53
Fire Station, Medium 2 Stories, 10,000 SF $110.34
Schools /
Libraries
High School 130,000 SF $92.80
Elementary School 45,000 SF $90.22
Jr. High School 110,00 SF $95.21
Library 2 Stories, 22,000 SF $103.94
Religious School 1 Story, 10,000 SF $112.19
Colleges /
Universities
College Classroom 2-3 Stories, 50,000 SF $114.68
College Laboratory 1 Story, 45,000 SF $119.51
Vocational School 40,000 SF $93.96
Note: Values were listed from FEMA’s “Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model, HAZUS MR4”
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-109
Loss of Function Values
In order to provide a mechanism for evaluating the importance of lifelines and critical services, the following tables were used to identify per capita values for each category.
Based upon the population in the City, the following values were assigned.
Table 3.22: Loss of Function Values – Utilities & Lifelines Loss of Electric Power Cost of Complete Loss of Service Reduced Regional Economic
Activity1
$87
Impacts on Residential Customers $101
Total Economic Impact $188
Loss of Potable Water Service
Cost of Complete
Loss of Service
Cost of Water
Unsafe for Drinking
Reduced Regional Economic Activity $35 $8.75
Impacts on Residential Customers $68 $34
Total Economic Impact $103 $43
Loss of Wastewater Service
Cost of Complete
Loss of Service
Cost of Partial
Treatment Only
Reduced Regional Economic Activity $33.50 $8.50
Impacts on Residential Customers None None
Total Economic Impact $33.50 $8.50
Note: The values listed in this table were obtained from FEMA’s guidance document entitled “What is a Benefit? - Guidance on Benefit-Cost Analysis of Hazard Mitigation Projects, Draft. Revision 2.0” DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-110
Future Developments
Currently, there are no planned developments for new future buildings within the City; however, the hazard maps included previously in this report and loss estimates are dynamic and the calculations will be updated to account for future developments as the potential arises. The hazard maps will also be used as a tool to pre-identify areas that are not conducive for construction.
The Asset Inventory Summary tables for the City are presented on the following pages.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-111
Table 3.24: Asset Inventory
Type Name Address Square
Footage
Cost /
Square
Foot
Structure
Value
Contents
Value %
Contents
Value TOTAL
Public
Buildings City Hall 16400 Colorado Ave. 15,195 112.94 1,716,123 100% 1,716,123 $3,273,487 Public
Buildings City Yard 15300 Downey Ave. 38,455 130.71 5,026,453 100% 5,026,453 $6,221,004 Public
Buildings
Public Recreation
Facility - Paramount
Park
14410
Paramount
Blvd.
42,450 112.94 4,794,303 100% 4,794,303 $5,537,089
Public
Buildings
Public Recreation
Facility
15500 Downey
Ave. 3,778 90.30 341,153 100% 341,153 $3,100,136
Public
Buildings
Public Recreation
Facility- Dills Park
6500 San Juan
St. 620 90.30 55,986 100% 55,986 $439,716
Public
Buildings
Public Recreation
Facility
7700 Somerset
Blvd. 282 90.30 25,465 100% 25,465 $100,308
Public
Buildings
Splash Pad
restroom/office
14618 Orange
Ave. 1,476 90.30 133,283 100% 133,283 $529,381
Public
Buildings Activity Center 15538 Colorado Ave. 3,644 110.34 402,079 150% 603,118 $528,503 Public
Buildings
Public Recreation
Facility Roosevelt
13451 Merkel
Ave 2,000 90.30 180,600 100% 180,600 $395,992
Public
Buildings
Public Recreation
Facility
14400 Gundry
Ave. 4,000 90.30 361,200 100% 361,200 $1,281,388
Public
Buildings
Concession Stand -
Alondra MS
16200 Downey
Ave. 1,200 90.30 108,360 100% 108,360 $150,596
Public
Buildings Concession Stand 15500 Downey Ave. 0 90.30 0 100% 0 $107,299 Public
Buildings
Water Product
Facility Wellsite 13
storage building
15123 Vermont
Ave. 0 136.10 0 100% 0 $757,913
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-112
Public
Buildings
Water Product
Facility Wellsite 14
15966 Downey
Ave.
0 136.10 0 100% 0 $1,589,467
Public
Buildings Concession Stand
14410
Paramount
Blvd.
2,000 90.30 180,600 100% 180,600 $375,500
Public
Buildings Clearwater Building
16401
Paramount
Blvd.
8,439 90.30 762,042 100% 762,042 $2,252,219
City Property Computer
Equipment
Various
Locations 0 NA NA NA NA $648,943
City Property Various Fine Arts Various
Locations 0 NA NA NA NA $1,594,114
City Property Mobile & Scheduled
Equipment
Various
Locations 0 NA NA NA NA $1,200,950
City Property On Premises Auto Various
Locations 0 NA NA NA NA $2,579,317
City Property Various Fountains Various
Locations 0 NA NA NA NA $3,327,843
City Property Storing Facility/ RV
parking
8546 Somerset
Blvd. 5,711 NA NA NA NA $0
City Property Storing Facility/ RV
parking
8550 Somerset
Blvd. 14,000 NA NA NA NA $0
City Property Parking Authority
Lot
15922 Colorado
Ave. 61,698 35.78 2,207,554 150% 3,311,332 $5,518,886
City Property Parking Lot
15341
Paramount
Blvd.
15,500 34.78 539,090 50% 269,545 $808,635
City Property
Parking Authority
Lot APN: 7103-007-
910
Colorado Ave.
just
South of Alondra
Blvd.
0 34.78 0 50% 0 $0
City Property
Parking Authority
Lot APN:7103-007-
904
Colorado Ave.
just 0 34.78 0 50% 0 $0
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-113
South of Alondra
Blvd.
City Property
Parking Authority
Lot APN:7103-007-
903
Colorado Ave.
just
South of
Alondra Blvd.
0 34.78 0 50% 0 $0
Police Sheriff Substation
15001
Paramount
Blvd.
15,000 110.34 1,655,100 150% 2,482,650 $3,721,810
Police Parking Lot - Sheriff
Substation
7919 Somerset
Blvd.
6,249 34.78 217,340 50% 108,670 $326,010
Parks All-American Park 13330 Orizaba
Ave. 217,800 NA NA NA NA $116,517
Parks Dills Park 6500 San Juan
St.
548,856 NA NA NA NA $0
Parks Howard Hall Pocket
Park
15525
Paramount
Blvd.
29,106 NA NA NA NA $0
Parks Wilbarn Pocket
Park 8335 Rosecrans 1,625 NA NA NA NA $0
Parks Somerset/Colorado
Pocket Park 7826 Somerset 15,000 NA NA NA NA $0
Parks
Dills Park Public
Recreation
Restroom
15009 San
Antonio Ave. 650 90.30 58,695 100% 58,695 $370,411
Parks Garfield Park 14751 Garfield
Ave. 34,832 NA NA NA NA $0
Parks Meadows Park 15753 Gundry
Ave. 13,250 NA NA NA NA $0
Parks Pequeno Park 13931 Downey
Ave. 5,227 NA NA NA NA $0
Parks Carosmith Pocket
Park
16316 Ansmith
St. 3,000 NA NA NA NA $0
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-114
Parks Garfield Community
Garden
NW Corner of
Garfield Ave.
and
Petterson St.
0 NA NA NA NA $0
Parks Cortland/Orange
Community Garden
Cortland Ave./
Orange Ave. 0 NA NA NA NA $0
Water Water Well 15 6503 Somerset
Blvd.
600 90.30 54,180 100% 54,180 $4,500,000
Water Wellsite 16 16317 Garfield
Ave. 16,333 NA NA NA NA $0
Subtotal $51,353,434
With Inflation $61,110,586
Note: Values were listed from FEMA's "Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model, HAZUS MR5" Note: Inflation estimated using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (2007-2021, or $1 to $1.19) Unless otherwise notes, all locations are in the City of Paramount, CA 90723.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-115
Table 3.25: Loss of Function
Loss of Function / Continuity Premium (1 day) - City of Paramount Population: 53,955
Category Value Per Person Value Per Day Continuity Premium Total Fire Service - $3,536 10 $35,360
Police Service - $6,148 10 $61,480
Water Service $93 $5,017,815 - $5,017,815
Electricity $126 $6,798,330 - $6,798,330
Wastewater $41 $2,212,155 - $2,212,155
Subtotal $14,125,140
Note: Values were listed from FEMA's "BCA Reference Guide, June 2009" DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-116
3.18 Loss Estimates
§201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate Loss Assessment Calculations
The Steering Committee reviewed each asset category and assigned a potential percentage of damage expected due to each identified hazard. In addition, if there were identified lifeline or emergency service interruptions, the loss of function values were also included. The tables of the following pages identify each asset category, name, total value, and the percent damage/damage value for each asset. The damages for each asset are totaled for each hazard to obtain the overall loss estimate for each hazard.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-117
Table 3.26: Loss Estimates / Vulnerability Assessment – Earthquake through Homelessness City of Paramount
Vulnerability Assessment Calculations Earthquake Adversarial Events Urban Fire HazMat Release Homelessness Type Name TOTAL %
Damage
Loss
Estimate
%
Damage
Loss
Estimate
%
Damage
Loss
Estimate
%
Damage
Loss
Estimate
%
Damage
Loss
Estimate
Public
Buildings City Hall 16400 Colorado Ave.,Paramount CA 90723 $3,895,450 80% $3,116,360 40% $1,558,180 5% $194,772 2% $77,909 2% $77,909 Public
Buildings City Yard 15300 Downey Ave.,Paramount CA 90723 $7,402,995 75% $5,552,246 20% $1,480,599 5% $370,150 2% $148,060 2% $148,060 Public
Buildings
Public Recreation
Facility - Paramount
Park
14410 Paramount Blvd.,
Paramount CA 90723 $6,589,136 30% $1,976,741 5% $329,457 5% $329,457 2% $131,783 2% $131,783 Public
Buildings
Public Recreation
Facility
15500 Downey Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $3,689,162 30% $1,106,749 5% $184,458 5% $184,458 2% $73,783 2% $73,783 Public
Buildings
Public Recreation
Facility- Dills Park
6500 San Juan St.,
Paramount CA 90723 $523,262 20% $104,652 5% $26,163 5% $26,163 2% $10,465 5% $26,163 Public
Buildings
Public Recreation
Facility
7700 Somerset Blvd.,
Paramount CA 90723 $119,367 30% $35,810 5% $5,968 5% $5,968 2% $2,387 2% $2,387 Public
Buildings
Splash Pad
restroom/office
14618 Orange Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $629,963 30% $188,989 5% $31,498 5% $31,498 2% $12,599 2% $12,599 Public
Buildings Activity Center 15538 Colorado Ave.,Paramount CA 90723 $628,919 80% $503,135 5% $31,446 5% $31,446 2% $12,578 2% $12,578 Public
Buildings
Public Recreation
Facility Roosevelt
13451 Merkel Ave,
Paramount CA 90723 $471,230 20% $94,246 5% $23,562 5% $23,562 2% $9,425 2% $9,425 Public
Buildings
Public Recreation
Facility
14400 Gundry Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $1,524,852 30% $457,456 5% $76,243 5% $76,243 2% $30,497 2% $30,497 Public
Buildings
Concession Stand -
Alondra MS
16200 Downey Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $179,209 20% $35,842 5% $8,960 5% $8,960 2% $3,584 2% $3,584 Public
Buildings Concession Stand 15500 Downey Ave.,Paramount CA 90723 $127,686 20% $25,537 5% $6,384 5% $6,384 2% $2,554 2% $2,554 Public
Buildings
Water Product Facility
Wellsite 13 storage
building
15123 Vermont Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $901,916 10% $90,192 5% $45,096 5% $45,096 2% $18,038 2% $18,038 Public
Buildings
Water Product Facility
Wellsite 14
15966 Downey Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $1,891,466 10% $189,147 10% $189,147 5% $94,573 2% $37,829 2% $37,829 Public
Buildings Concession Stand 14410 Paramount Blvd.,Paramount, CA 90723 $446,845 20% $89,369 5% $22,342 5% $22,342 2% $8,937 2% $8,937 DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-118
Public
Buildings Clearwater Building 16401 Paramount Blvd.,Paramount CA 90723 $2,680,141 50% $1,340,070 5% $134,007 5% $134,007 2% $53,603 2% $53,603 City
Property Computer Equipment Various Locations $772,242 6% $46,335 5% $38,612 5% $38,612 2% $15,445 2% $15,445 City
Property Various Fine Arts Various Locations $1,896,996 30% $569,099 5% $94,850 5% $94,850 2% $37,940 2% $37,940 City
Property
Mobile & Scheduled
Equipment Various Locations $1,429,131 20% $285,826 5% $71,457 5% $71,457 2% $28,583 2% $28,583 City
Property On Premises Auto Various Locations $3,069,387 25% $767,347 5% $153,469 5% $153,469 2% $61,388 2% $61,388 City
Property Various Fountains Various Locations $3,960,133 30% $1,188,040 5% $198,007 5% $198,007 2% $79,203 2% $79,203 Police Sheriff Substation 15001 Paramount Blvd.,
Paramount CA 90723 $4,428,954 20% $885,791 50% $2,214,477 5% $221,448 2% $88,579 2% $88,579 Parks All-American Park 13330 Orizaba,
Paramount CA 90723 $138,655 20% $27,731 5% $6,933 5% $6,933 2% $2,773 5% $6,933 Water Water Well 15 6503 Somerset Blvd,
Paramount CA 90723 $5,355,000 10% $535,500 10% $535,500 5% $267,750 2% $107,100 2% $107,100 Water Wellsite 16 16317 Garfield Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $5,355,000 10% $535,500 10% $535,500 5% $267,750 2% $107,100 2% $107,100 Fire Service $35,360 50% $17,680 50% $17,680 10% $3,536 50% $17,680 10% $3,536 Police Service $61,480 50% $30,740 75% $46,110 5% $3,074 50% $30,740 25% $15,370 Water Service $5,017,815 60% $3,010,689 5% $250,891 5% $250,891 2% $100,356 1% $50,178 Electricity $6,798,330 35% $2,379,416 5% $339,917 7% $475,883 2% $135,967 1% $67,983 Wastewater $2,212,155 35% $774,254 5% $110,608 5% $110,608 2% $44,243 0% $0 Earthquake $26,558,804 Adversarial
Events $9,018,274 Urban Fire $4,167,271
HazMat /
Industrial
Accident
$1,658,298 Homelessness $1,486,237
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-119
Table 3.27: Loss Estimates / Vulnerability Assessment –Utility Loss through Destructive Winds City of Paramount
Vulnerability Assessment Calculations Utility Loss Pipeline Failure Flood/Dam Failure Destructive Winds Type Name TOTAL %
Damage
Loss
Estimate
%
Damage
Loss
Estimate
%
Damage
Loss
Estimate
%
Damage
Loss
Estimate
Public Buildings City Hall 16400 Colorado Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $3,895,450 1% $38,954 2% $77,909 1% $38,954 0% $0 Public Buildings City Yard 15300 Downey Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $7,402,995 1% $74,030 10% $740,299 1% $74,030 0% $0 Public Buildings Public Recreation Facility -
Paramount Park
14410 Paramount Blvd.,
Paramount CA 90723 $6,589,136 1% $65,891 2% $131,783 1% $65,891 0% $0 Public Buildings Public Recreation Facility 15500 Downey Ave., Paramount CA 90723 $3,689,162 1% $36,892 2% $73,783 1% $36,892 0% $0 Public Buildings Public Recreation FacilityDills Park
6500 San Juan St.,
Paramount CA 90723 $523,262 1% $5,233 2% $10,465 5% $26,163 0% $0 Public Buildings Public Recreation Facility 7700 Somerset Blvd., Paramount CA 90723 $119,367 1% $1,194 2% $2,387 1% $1,194 0% $0 Public Buildings Splash Pad restroom/office 14618 Orange Ave., Paramount CA 90723 $629,963 1% $6,300 2% $12,599 1% $6,300 0% $0 Public Buildings Activity Center 15538 Colorado Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $628,919 1% $6,289 2% $12,578 1% $6,289 0% $0 Public Buildings Public Recreation Facility
Roosevelt
13451 Merkel Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $471,230 1% $4,712 2% $9,425 1% $4,712 0% $0 Public Buildings Public Recreation Facility 14400 Gundry Ave., Paramount CA 90723 $1,524,852 1% $15,249 2% $30,497 1% $15,249 0% $0 Public Buildings Concession Stand - Alondra
MS
16200 Downey Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $179,209 1% $1,792 2% $3,584 1% $1,792 0% $0 Public Buildings Concession Stand 15500 Downey Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $127,686 1% $1,277 2% $2,554 1% $1,277 0% $0 Public Buildings Water Product Facility
Wellsite 13 storage building
15123 Vermont Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $901,916 1% $9,019 2% $18,038 1% $9,019 0% $0 Public Buildings Water Product Facility
Wellsite 14
15966 Downey Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $1,891,466 1% $18,915 2% $37,829 1% $18,915 0% $0 Public Buildings Concession Stand 14410 Paramount Blvd., Paramount, CA 90723 $446,845 1% $4,468 2% $8,937 1% $4,468 0% $0 DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-120
Public Buildings Clearwater Building 16401 Paramount Blvd., Paramount CA 90723 $2,680,141 1% $26,801 2% $53,603 1% $26,801 0% $0 City Property Computer Equipment Various Locations $772,242 1% $7,722 2% $15,445 1% $7,722 0% $0 City Property Various Fine Arts Various Locations $1,896,996 1% $18,970 2% $37,940 1% $18,970 0% $0 City Property Mobile & Scheduled
Equipment Various Locations $1,429,131 1% $14,291 2% $28,583 1% $14,291 0% $0 City Property On Premises Auto Various Locations $3,069,387 1% $30,694 2% $61,388 1% $30,694 0% $0 City Property Various Fountains Various Locations $3,960,133 1% $39,601 2% $79,203 1% $39,601 0% $0 Police Sheriff Substation 15001 Paramount Blvd.,
Paramount CA 90723 $4,428,954 5% $221,448 2% $88,579 1% $44,290 0% $0 Parks All-American Park 13330 Orizaba Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $138,655 1% $1,387 2% $2,773 5% $6,933 0% $0 Water Water Well 15 6503 Somerset Blvd.,
Paramount CA 90723 $5,355,000 1% $53,550 2% $107,100 1% $53,550 0% $0 Water Wellsite 16 16317 Garfield Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $5,355,000 1% $53,550 2% $107,100 1% $53,550 0% $0 Fire Service $35,360 3% $1,061 10% $3,536 5% $1,768 5% $1,768 Police Service $61,480 5% $3,074 10% $6,148 5% $3,074 5% $3,074 Water Service $5,017,815 1% $50,178 2% $100,356 1% $50,178 0% $0 Electricity $6,798,330 100% $6,798,330 2% $135,967 10% $679,833 50% $3,399,165 Wastewater $2,212,155 10% $221,216 2% $44,243 20% $442,431 0% $0 Utility
Loss $7,902,170 Pipeline Failure $2,211,801 Flood $1,868,417 Severe
Weather /
Destructive
Winds
$3,445,444
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-121
Table 3.28: Loss Estimates / Vulnerability Assessment –Utility Loss through Destructive Winds City of Paramount
Vulnerability Assessment Calculations Drought Disease Outbreak Civil Unrest / Riots Transportation Accident Type Name TOTAL %
Damage
Loss
Estimate
%
Damage
Loss
Estimate
%
Damage
Loss
Estimate
%
Damage
Loss
Estimate
Public
Buildings City Hall 16400 Colorado Ave.,Paramount CA 90723 $3,895,450 0% $0 0% $0 20% $779,090 1% $38,954 Public
Buildings City Yard 15300 Downey Ave.,Paramount CA 90723 $7,402,995 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $74,030 Public
Buildings
Public Recreation Facility -
Paramount Park
14410 Paramount
Blvd.,
Paramount CA 90723
$6,589,136 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $65,891
Public
Buildings Public Recreation Facility 15500 Downey Ave.,Paramount CA 90723 $3,689,162 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $36,892 Public
Buildings
Public Recreation FacilityDills Park6500 San Juan,
Paramount CA 90723 $523,262 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $5,233 Public
Buildings Public Recreation Facility 7700 Somerset Blvd.,Paramount CA 90723 $119,367 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $1,194 Public
Buildings Splash Pad restroom/office 14618 Orange Ave.,Paramount CA 90723 $629,963 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $6,300 Public
Buildings Activity Center 15538 Colorado Ave.,Paramount CA 90723 $628,919 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $6,289 Public
Buildings
Public Recreation Facility
Roosevelt
13451 Merkel Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $471,230 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $4,712 Public
Buildings Public Recreation Facility 14400 Gundry Ave.,Paramount CA 90723 $1,524,852 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $15,249 Public
Buildings
Concession Stand - Alondra
MS
16200 Downey Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $179,209 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $1,792 Public
Buildings Concession Stand 15500 Downey Ave.,Paramount CA 90723 $127,686 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $1,277 Public
Buildings
Water Product Facility
Wellsite 13 storage building
15123 Vermont Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $901,916 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $9,019 Public
Buildings
Water Product Facility
Wellsite 14
15966 Downey Ave,
Paramount CA 90723 $1,891,466 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $18,915 Public
Buildings Concession Stand
14410 Paramount
Blvd.,
Paramount, CA 90723
$446,845 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $4,468
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-122
Public
Buildings Clearwater Building
16401 Paramount
Blvd.,
Paramount CA 90723
$2,680,141 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $26,801
City Property Computer Equipment Various Locations $772,242 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $7,722 City Property Various Fine Arts Various Locations $1,896,996 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $18,970 City Property Mobile & Scheduled
Equipment Various Locations $1,429,131 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $14,291 City Property On Premises Auto Various Locations $3,069,387 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $30,694 City Property Various Fountains Various Locations $3,960,133 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $39,601 Police Sheriff Substation
15001 Paramount
Blvd.,
Paramount CA 90723
$4,428,954 0% $0 0% $0 20% $885,791 1% $44,290
Parks All-American Park 13330 Orizaba Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $138,655 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $1,387 Water Water Well 15 6503 Somerset Blvd.,
Paramount CA 90723 $5,355,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $53,550 Water Wellsite 16 16317 Garfield Ave.,
Paramount CA 90723 $5,355,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $53,550 Fire Service $35,360 0% $0 50% $17,680 20% $7,072 10% $3,536 Police Service $61,480 0% $0 50% $30,740 20% $12,296 10% $6,148 Water Service $5,017,815 10% $501,782 0% $0 0% $0 1% $50,178 Electricity $6,798,330 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $67,983
Wastewater $2,212,155 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 1% $22,122
Drought $501,782
Biological
/ Human
Disease
$48,420
Civil
Unrest /
Riots
$1,684,249 Transportation
Accident
$814,623
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-123
Table 3.29 summarizes the loss estimates for each hazard.
Table 3.29: Loss Estimates Summary
Hazard Estimated Losses
Earthquake $26,559,000
Adversarial Event $9,018,000
Utility Loss $7,902,000
Urban Fire $4,167,000
Destructive Winds $3,454,000
Pipeline Failure $2,212,000
Flood $1,868,000
Civil Unrest $1,684,000
HazMat Industrial Accident $1,658,000
Homeless $1,486,000
Transportation Accident $815,000
Drought $502,000
Biological/Human Disease $48,000
*Values are rounded to the nearest thousand Vaa
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-i
MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Table of Contents
4.1 Mitigation Goals and Objectives....................................................................4-1
4.2 Identification of Mitigation Recommendations.............................................4-4
4.3 National Flood Insurance Program Compliance...........................................4-9
4.4 Prioritization of Mitigation Recommendations ...........................................4-10
4.5 Implementation Strategy..............................................................................4-17 List of Tables
Table 4.1: Overall Plan Goals and Objectives .................................................................1 Table 4.2: Mitigation Action Identification ........................................................................5 Table 4.3: NFIP Participation...........................................................................................9 Table 4.4: Mitigation Action Prioritization: Benefit-Cost Review.....................................11 Table 4.5 Ongoing Mitigation Strategies........................................................................18 DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-1
4.1 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
To structure goals and objectives that produce
appropriate mitigation actions, the hazard
profiles and loss estimates were thoroughly
reviewed to identify patterns in the location of
potential hazard events and the vulnerability of
the infrastructure identified within those
locations. This information was used to update
the existing goals to better mitigate the effects
of natural hazard events in alignment with
current trends throughout the City of Paramount
(City).
The mitigation goals listed in table 4.1 provide
guidelines for developing mitigation projects to
provide prioritized hazard reduction. The goals
are based on the findings of the Risk
Assessment and input from the Steering
Committee and characterize long-term hazard reduction targets and the enhancement of current mitigation capabilities.
§201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.
Table 4.1 includes the Plan goals and corresponding mitigation objectives. These strategies were developed and reviewed by the Steering Committee utilizing knowledge of the local area (including high-hazard areas and sensitive populations), review of past efforts, findings of the risk assessment, and identification of mitigation projects.
Table 4.1: Overall Plan Goals and Objectives
1. Protect Loved, Property, and Commerce
• Strategy 1.1: Identify mitigation action to reduce loss of lives and property • Strategy 1.2: Implement mitigation action to reduce loss of lives and property, where feasible.
• Strategy 1.3: Provide resources and information to the business community to encourage economic resilience.
STEP 1: DEVELOP MITIGATION
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
STEP 2: IDENTIFY & PRIORITIZE
MITIGATION ACTIONS
STEP 5: DEVELOP COMPLETE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
STEP 4: DOCUMENT THE
MITIGATION PLANNING PROCESS
STEP 3: PREPARE AN
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-2
• Strategy 1.4: Utilize existing studies and date to support mitigation strategies which reduce vulnerability to identified hazards
2. Improve Environmental Sustainability
• Strategy 2.1: Expand tools and resources provided to residents to support environmental improvement campaigns.
• Strategy 2.2: Educate the public on the impacts of environmental issues to encourage individual action and support of City endeavors.
3. Encourage Participation in Resiliency Efforts
• Strategy 3.1: Gain support of the City Administration, Department heads, lead Agencies, and the pubic to promote participation in implementation of hazard mitigation strategies.
• Strategy 3.2: Education the public on the impacts of environmental issues to encourage individual action and support of City endeavors.
4. Update Codes and Standards to Improve Resiliency
• Strategy 4.1: Stay current with State and County guidance for resiliency • Strategy 42: Review and update other City of Paramount programs to identify current and future mitigation goals and objective in compliance with all City, county, state, and Federal requirements.
5. Enhance Emergency Management Capabilities
• Strategy 5.1: Maintain active presence in regional planning efforts to improve interagency coordination in emergency management
• Strategy 5.2: Conduct interdepartmental trainings on aspects of emergency management providing guidance on the roles of leaders, department heads, and the public
• Strategy 5.3: Continue to expand avenues to obtain alternate emergency resources with an emphasis on executing agreements prior to an emergency situation.
It should be noted the overall priorities for mitigation planning did not change much from the last Hazard Mitigation Plan revision in 2015. However, the current plan goals were DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-3
revised to be clearer and more direct. Figure 4.1 provides and over of the mitigation process.
Figure 4.1 Mitigation Processing
As illustrated in the figure, the hazard mitigation process involves building off previous steps in order to improve mitigation efforts for the identified hazards.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-4
4.2 Identification of Mitigation Recommendations
§201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure.
Mitigation strategies are administrative and/or engineering project recommendations to reduce the City’s vulnerability to the identified hazards. Vital City employees are required in the development of strategies and projects that are designed to mitigate these hazards and solve problems cost-effectively, as well as ensure consistency with the City’s longterm mitigation goals and capital improvements. During the fourth Steering Committee meeting, a team-based approach was utilized to brainstorm mitigation projects based on the identified hazards and associated loss estimates. In addition, FEMA’s local Mitigation Planning Handbook and the California Adaptation Planning Guide were used to identify action to mitigation the effects of climate change.
The evaluation and prioritization of the mitigation actions was used as an aid to produce a list of recommended mitigation actions to incorporate into the mitigation plan. Each of the mitigation recommendations listed in Table 4.2 fell into one or more of the following categories:
• Prevention – planning and zoning, building codes, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and storm water management
• Property Protection – acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofits, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass
• Personnel Education and Awareness – outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and education programs
• Natural Resource Protection – sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation
• Emergency Services – warning systems, emergency response services, and protection of critical facilities
• Structural Projects – dams, levees, floodwalls, seawalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-5
Table 4.2: Mitigation Action Identification
Mitigation Activity
Hazards
Mitigated
Mitigation Action
Category
Corresponding Goals
Responsible
Department
Resources
Estimated
Project Cost
Timeframe
Protects
New
Buildings
Protects
Existing
Buildings
LHMP.2022.01: Consider performing a seismic
evaluation for critical facilities and infrastructure and perform structural improvements accordingly.
Earthquake Property Protection Goal 1: Protect Life and Property
Planning
(Building and
Safety),
Public Works
Grants $15,000
(per evaluation)
Long N Y
LHMP.2022.02: Consider configuring the dedicated
shelter station (Paramount Park) with an emergency
generator for backup power.
Earthquake Emergency Services Goal 1: Protect Life and
Property
Goal 5: Enhance Emergency
Management Capabilities
Public Works Grants $25,000 Long N Y
LHMP.2022.03: Consider using solar as an alternate
power source for critical facilities and to run emergency generators.
Earthquake,
Power Outage,
Climate
Change
Emergency Services Goal 2: Improve
Environmental Sustainability
Public Works Grants $1,000,000 per
project
Medium N Y
LHMP.2022.04: Consider providing public education
materials with regards to urban fires.
Urban Fires Personnel Education
and Awareness
Goal 1: Protect Life and
Property
Public Safety Grants $3,000 Medium Y Y
LHMP.2022.05: Consider improving coordination
between HazMat Owners/Operators and appropriate
response agencies.
HazMat
Release
Personnel Education
and Awareness
Goal 1: Protect Life and
Property
LA Fire/
Public Safety
Staff Time Staff Time Ongoing Y Y
LHMP.2022.06: Consider configuring critical City
locations with appropriate surveillance equipment
Adversarial
Events
Emergency Services Goal 5: Improve Emergency
Service and Management
Capability
Public Safety Grants $100,000 per
project
Medium Y Y
LHMP.2022.07: Consider installing and expanding the
current LPR camera system throughout the City to
assist responders in tracking suspicious or suspected
individuals throughout the City.
Adversarial
Events
Emergency Services Goal 5: Enhance Emergency
Management Capabilities
Public
Safety/Public
Works
Grant $80,000/unit Long N N
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-6
Mitigation Activity
Hazards
Mitigated
Mitigation Action
Category
Corresponding Goals
Responsible
Department
Resources
Estimated
Project Cost
Timeframe
Protects
New
Buildings
Protects
Existing
Buildings
LHMP.2022.08: Consider implementing cybersecurity
measures to protect against attacks (i.e. ransomware)
Adversarial
Events
Prevention Goal 1: Protect Lives,
Property, and Commerce
IT Division
(Administrative
Services)
General
Budget/Gra
nt Funding
Technology
Costs unknown
Est. $10k-$250k
Medium N N
LHMP.2022.09: Continue coordination with pipeline
companies to maintain the ongoing integrity of natural
gas and hazardous pipelines.
Pipeline Failure Prevention Goal 5: Improve Emergency
Service and Management
Capability
Public Works Staff Time Staff Time Ongoing Y Y
LHMP.2022.10: Consider ensuring that existing
contracts for priority on obtaining emergency supplies
and food with local business are updated.
All Emergency Services Goal 5: Improve Emergency
Service and Management
Capability
Recreation Staff Time Staff Time Short N N
LHMP.2022.11: Consider ensuring that flood mitigation
remains a priority.
Flood Prevention Goal 1: Protect Life and
Property
Public Works Staff Time Staff Time Ongoing Y Y
LHMP.2022.12: Consider educating residents about
maintaining trees on private property (particularly for mobile home parks) to mitigate the effects of severe
wind.
Wind Personnel Education
and Awareness
Goal 5: Improve Emergency
Service and Management
Capability
Personnel
Education
and
Awareness
Staff Time Staff Time Ongoing Y Y
LHMP.2022.13: Expand existing tree maintenance
program to include considerations for the impact of
climate change on the tree population to prevent decay
and eventual falls leading to asset damage and
personal injury.
Wind Improve
Environmental
Sustainability
Goal 1: Protect lives, Property,
and Commerce
Public Works Staff Time Staff Time Short N N
LHMP.2022.14: Install Max Wells to catch stormwater
runoff and improve water supply resilience.
Drought Prevention Goal 2: Improve
Environmental Sustainability
Public Works Street
Restrict
funds
$60,000 per unit Short N N
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-7
Mitigation Activity
Hazards
Mitigated
Mitigation Action
Category
Corresponding Goals
Responsible
Department
Resources
Estimated
Project Cost
Timeframe
Protects
New
Buildings
Protects
Existing
Buildings
LHMP.2022.15: Expand public outreach regarding
drought and available incentive programs for residents
to develop alternative landscaping as well as
implement other water saving initiatives.
Drought Prevention Goal 3: Encourage
Participation in Resiliency
Efforts
Prevention Grants $10,000 Medium Y Y
LHMP.2022.16: Consider ensuring that the mass
notification system (i.e. Nixle) is ready for service and used as needed.
Dam Failure,
Earthquake,
etc.
Emergency Services Goal 5: Improve Emergency
Service and Management
Capability
Emergency
Services
Staff Time $40,000
annually
Ongoing Y Y
LHMP.2022.17: Consider coordination with first
responders (e.g., Fire, CHP) to mitigate the effects of transportation incidents.
Transportation
Accidents
Emergency Services Goal 5: Improve Emergency
Service and Management
Capability
Emergency
Services
Staff Time Staff Time Ongoing N N
LHMP.2022.18: Consider ensuring adequate
communications with LASD in the event of civil unrest.
Civil Unrest Emergency Services Goal 5: Improve Emergency Service and Management
Capability
Emergency
Services
Staff Time Staff Time Ongoing N N
LHMP.2022.19: Continue ensuring EOC training is
provided, as necessary.
All Personnel Education
and Awareness
Goal 2: Promote Public
Awareness and Outreach
Personnel
Education
and
Awareness
General Staff Time Short N N
LHMP.2022.20: Consider ensuring that new
development complies with new and future building and
zoning codes and considers hazard mitigation for new
developments.
All Prevention Goal 1: Protect Life and
Property
Prevention Staff Time Staff Time Ongoing Y N
LHMP.2022.21: Consider retrofitting the LA Bridge in
accordance with the CIP.
Earthquake Property Protection Goal 1: Protect Life and Property
Property
Protection
Grant $115,000 Short N Y
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-8
Mitigation Activity
Hazards
Mitigated
Mitigation Action
Category
Corresponding Goals
Responsible
Department
Resources
Estimated
Project Cost
Timeframe
Protects
New
Buildings
Protects
Existing
Buildings
LHMP.2022.22: Consider installing buffer zones in
targeted areas to prevent encampments from entering
into Consider retrofitting the LA Bridge in accordance
with the CIP. hazardous areas (i.e. near railroad tracks) Homelessness Prevention/
Structural
Projects/Emergency
Services
Goal 1: Protect Lives,
Property, and Commerce
Public Safety General
Fund, Grant
funding
$5,000-
$100,000 based
on project size
and scope.
Medium N Y
LHMP.2022.23: Consider obtaining outside funding to
support and expand existing measures to support and
rehabilitate the homeless population (i.e. job-prep, rent support, mental health support, etc.)
Homelessness Prevention/
Emergency Services
Goal 1: Protect Lives,
Property, and Commerce
Goal 3: Encourage
Participation in Resiliency
Efforts
Public Safety General
Fund, Grant
Funding,
Sponsorshi
p
Staff Time to
establish donor
relationships
Medium N N
LHMP.2022.24: Work with State representatives to
implement the Middle Mile Project to reinforce
broadband service capabilities throughout the City.
Disease
Outbreak
Prevention Gateway
Council of
Governments/
Administratio
n
State
Funded,
Staff Time
Staff Time Long No No
Notes: 1 Values provided by Steering Committee
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-9
4.3 National Flood Insurance Program Compliance
§201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a Federal program enabling property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losses in exchange for State and community floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damages. Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between communities and the Federal Government. If a community adopts and enforces a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risk to new construction in floodplains, the Federal Government will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses. This insurance is designed to provide an alternative to disaster assistance and reduce the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods.
Table 4.3 summarizes the City of Paramount’s participation in the program Table 4.3: NFIP Participation
CID Community
Name County Init. FHBM Identified
Init. FIRM
Identified
Curr. Eff.
Map Date
Reg-Emer.
Date Tribal
065049 City of
Paramount
Los
Angeles 03/31/72 07/06/98 NSFHA 02/20/79 No
Continued Compliance
As part of the City’s continued compliance with NFID, the City of Paramount General Plan includes multiple Health & Safety Policies aimed at reducing flooding throughout the City by expanding flood control capabilities in open areas and structures. In addition, the City coordinates with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to identify flooding hazards throughout the City and make improvements.
Flood Recommendations/Repetitive Loss Properties
The Steering Committee did not identify any repetitive loss properties with the City.
However, Mitigation Action LHMP.2022.12 was included this Plan a placeholder to help ensure flood mitigation remains a priority in mitigation efforts.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-10
4.4 Prioritization of Mitigation Recommendations
§201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.
A simplified Benefit-Cost Review was applied in order to prioritize the mitigation recommendations for implementation. The priority for implementing mitigation recommendations depends upon the overall cost effectiveness of the recommendation, when taking into account monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits associated with each action. Additionally, the following questions were considered when developing the Benefit-Cost Review:
• How many people will benefit from the action?
• How large an area is impacted?
• How critical are the facilities that benefit from the action? • Environmentally, does it make sense to do this project for the overall community? Table 4.6 provides a detailed benefit-cost review for each mitigation recommendation, as well as a relative priority rank (High, Medium, and Low) based upon the judgment of the Steering Committee. The general category guidelines are listed below:
• High – Benefits are perceived to exceed costs without further study or evaluation • Medium – Benefits are perceived to exceed costs, but may require further study or evaluation prior to implementation
• Low – Benefits and costs evaluation requires additional evaluation prior to implementation
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-11
Table 4.4: Mitigation Action Prioritization: Benefit-Cost Review Mitigation Activity Benefits (Pros) Costs (Cons) Priority LHMP.2021.01: Consider performing a
seismic evaluation for critical facilities
and infrastructure and perform structural
improvements accordingly.
• Avoided physical
damage
(~$30,000,000)
• Avoided loss of function
costs
• Avoided casualties
• Avoided Emergency
Management Cost
• $135,000 (evaluation for
multiple City buildings)
• $2,000,000 - $5,000,000
(estimated retrofits for
multiple City buildings,
actual costs will vary
depending on results of
evaluation)
• $650,000 (potential costs
associated with temporary
relocations during retrofits)
High
LHMP.2021.02: Consider configuring
the dedicated shelter station
(Paramount Park) with an emergency
generator for backup power.
• Avoided Emergency
Management Cost
• Avoided Loss of
Function
• $200,000 for generator
purchase and building
modifications (installation of
transfer switch)
Medium
LHMP.2021.03: Consider using solar as
an alternate power source for critical
facilities and to run emergency
generators.
• Avoided Emergency
Management Cost
• Avoided Loss of
Function
• Reduced
Environmental Impact
(switching from diesel
to solar)
• ~$300K-$500k per location
for panels, solar storage,
and building modifications
(based on size)
DRAFT
Medium
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-12
Mitigation Activity Benefits (Pros) Costs (Cons) Priority LHMP.2021.04: Consider providing
public education materials with regards
to urban fires.
• Avoided physical
damage
• Avoided casualties
(historical injuries in
Paramount)
• Avoided Emergency
Management Cost
• $10,000 (materials and
postings)
Low
LHMP.2021.05: Consider improving
coordination between HazMat
Owners/Operators and appropriate
response agencies.
• Avoided physical
damage
• Avoided casualties
(historical injuries in
Paramount)
• Avoided Emergency
Management Cost
• Staff Time
Low
LHMP.2021.06: Consider configuring
critical City locations with appropriate
surveillance equipment
• Avoided physical
damage
• Avoided casualties
• Avoided Emergency
Management Cost
• $100,000 (for several new
facilities)
• $10,000 (upgrades to an
existing facility)
Low
LHMP.2021.07: Consider installing and
expanding the current LPR camera
system throughout the City to assist
responders in tracking suspicious or
suspected individuals throughout the
City.
• Avoided physical
damage
• Avoided casualties
• Avoided Emergency
Management Cost
• $80K (Cost per Unit)
• Installing costs
• Administration/Management
Costs
DRAFT
High
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-13
Mitigation Activity Benefits (Pros) Costs (Cons) Priority LHMP.2021.08: Consider implementing
cybersecurity measures to protect
against attacks (i.e. ransomware)
• Avoided Loss of
Function
• Avoided loss of
Security
• Avoided Public Impact
• Upgraded Technology costs
• Ongoing personnel
education (Staff Time) Medium
LHMP.2021.09: Continue coordination
with pipeline companies to maintain the
ongoing integrity of natural gas and
hazardous pipelines.
• Avoided physical
damage
• Avoided casualties
• Avoided Emergency
Management Cost
• Staff Time
Medium
LHMP.2021.10: Consider ensuring that
existing contracts for priority on
obtaining emergency supplies and food
with local business are updated.
• Avoided Emergency
Management Cost
• Staff Time
High
LHMP.2021.11: Consider ensuring that
flood mitigation remains a priority.
• Avoided Emergency
Management Cost
• Staff Time Low
LHMP.2021.12: Consider educating
residents about maintaining trees on
private property (particularly for mobile
home parks) to mitigate the impacts of
severe wind.
• Minimize physical
damage
• Avoided Power
Outages
• $10,000 for campaign
materials
• Staff Time
DRAFT
Low
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-14
Mitigation Activity Benefits (Pros) Costs (Cons) Priority LHMP.2021.13: Expand existing tree
maintenance program to include
considerations for the impact of climate
change on the tree population to
prevent decay and eventual falls leading
to asset damage and personal injury.
• Minimize physical
damage
• Avoided Power
Outages
• Avoided Injuries
• Avoided Emergency
Management Cost for
debris removal and
cleanup
• Administration Costs
• $40K for
Planning/Inspection Costs
• Additional contracted labor
costs for maintenance
services
High
LHMP.2021.14: Install Max Wells to
catch stormwater runoff and improve
water supply resilience.
• Avoided loss of function
• Reduced
Environmental Impact
• $75-100k for Well and
installation costs. High
LHMP.2021.15: Expand public outreach
regarding drought and available
incentive programs for residents to
develop alternative landscaping as well
as implement other water saving
initiatives.
• Avoided loss of function
• Reduced
Environmental Impact
• $10,000 for campaign
materials
High (currently
ongoing)
LHMP.2021.16: Consider ensuring that
the mass notification system (i.e. Nixle)
is ready for service and used as
needed.
• Avoided Emergency
Management Cost
• $11,400 (annually)
High (done
annually)
LHMP.2021.17: Consider coordination
with first responders (e.g., Fire, CHP) to
mitigate the effects of transportation
incidents.
• Avoided Emergency
Management Cost
• Staff Time
Medium
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-15
Mitigation Activity Benefits (Pros) Costs (Cons) Priority LHMP.2021.18: Consider ensuring
adequate communications with LASD in
the event of civil unrest.
• Avoided Emergency
Management Cost
• Avoided Physical
Damages
• Avoided injuries
• Staff Time
High
LHMP.2021.19: Continue ensuring EOC
training is provided, as necessary.
• Avoided Emergency
Management Cost
• Staff Time High
LHMP.2021.20: Consider ensuring that
new development complies with new
and future building and zoning codes
and considers hazard mitigation for new
developments.
• Avoided physical
damage
• Avoided Environmental
Impacts
• Avoided Injuries
• Staff Time
Medium
LHMP.2021.21: Consider retrofitting the
LA (Rosecrans) Bridge in accordance
with the CIP.
• Avoided physical
damage
• Avoided loss of function
• Staff Time
• $385,000 in design costs
• <$2,000,000 in construction
costs
Medium (in the
current CIP)
LHMP.2021.22: Consider installing
buffer zones in targeted areas to
prevent encampments from entering
into hazardous areas (i.e. near railroad
tracks)
• Avoided Injuries
• Avoided Physical
Damages
• Avoided local
Environmental Impacts
• Avoided Debris
Removal and Cleanup
costs.
• ~$25k per project in
construction costs
• Staff Time/Administration
Costs
DRAFT
Medium
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-16
Mitigation Activity Benefits (Pros) Costs (Cons) Priority LHMP.2021.23: Consider obtaining
outside funding to support and expand
existing measures to support and
rehabilitate the homeless population
(i.e. job-prep, rent support, mental
health support, etc.)
• Avoided Casualties
• Avoided local
Environmental Impacts
• Reduction in calls for
service (50-60% of
current calls are
transient-related)
• Improvement of the
quality of life for
impacted individual(s)
• Staff Time to establish
donor relationships High
LHMP.2022.24: Work with State
representatives to implement the Middle
Mile Project to reinforce broadband
service capabilities throughout the City.
• Avoided Loss of
Function
• Avoided Illnesses
• Avoided Emergency
Management Costs
• Staff Time High
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-17
4.5 Implementation Strategy
Mitigation Actions classified as high-priority mitigation actions are meant to provide the most significant vulnerability reduction, as related to cost and probability, and are typically implemented before lower ranked improvements. The City, however, may find that under some circumstances a recommendation classified as low-priority mitigation action may need to be implemented before a higher priority recommendation. The priority levels associated with each improvement are indicated on the “Mitigation Action Prioritization:
Benefit-Cost Review” table in the previous section.
2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan Strategies
The Steering Committee reviewed the mitigation strategies and actions form the 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The 2015 Plan outlined mitigation strategies scheduled for completion in the near future and additional project for consideration. However, as many of these projects are contingent on the City receiving grant funding to implement, some of these have yet to be implemented.
Several Mitigation Strategies from the 2015 Plan have been carried through into the current Plan revision. Table 4.5 provides some of the mitigation strategies from the 2015 and their correlation to the current Plan. The table includes a column denoting whether or not an action was completed since the last Plan update.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-18
Table 4.5 Ongoing Mitigation Strategies
2015 Plan Mitigation Strategies Correlated Current Mitigation Strategies Completed LHMP.2015.01: Consider performing a seismic evaluation
of City buildings and perform seismic retrofits accordingly LHMP.2021.01: Consider performing a seismic
evaluation for critical facilities and infrastructure and perform structural improvements accordingly.
No
LHMP.2015.02: Consider performing a seismic evaluation
of the water pipelines and perform seismic retrofits
accordingly.
This action was lumped into LHMP.2021.01 in the
2022 update. Modified
LHMP.2015.03: Continue to coordinate with LA County to
ensure sewer systems and local connections are assessed accordingly.
Completed
Yes
LHMP.2015.04: Consider upgrading the Maintenance
Building to function as a dedicated secondary EOC.
Completed
Yes
LHMP.2015.05: Consider configuring the dedicated shelter station (Progress Park) with an emergency generator for backup power.
LHMP.2021.02: Consider configuring the dedicated
shelter station (Paramount Park) with an emergency
generator for backup power.
No
LHMP.2015.06: Consider configuring the secondary shelter station (Paramount Park) with an emergency generator for backup power.
Duplicate
No
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-19
LHMP.2015.07: Consider providing public education
materials to residents in mobile home parks in regard to urban fires.
LHMP.2021.04: Consider providing public education
materials with regards to urban fires. Ongoing
LHMP.2015.08: Continue to coordinate between
Hazardous Materials Owners/Operators and appropriate
response agencies
LHMP.2021.05: Consider improving coordination
between HazMat Owners/Operators and appropriate
response agencies.
No
LHMP.2015.09: Consider configuring critical City locations (e.g., major intersections, refinery, City buildings,
Community Center, Progress Plaza) with appropriate
surveillance equipment.
LHMP.2021.06: Consider configuring critical City
locations with appropriate surveillance equipment
Ongoing
LHMP.2015.10: Continue to coordinate with pipeline
companies to maintain the ongoing integrity of natural gas and hazardous pipelines
LHMP.2021.09: Continue coordination with pipeline
companies to maintain the ongoing integrity of
natural gas and hazardous pipelines.
Ongoing
LHMP.2015.11: Consider contracting with Jankovich and a secondary contract (e.g., DeWitt) to obtain backup fuel supplies for the City fleet.
LHMP.2021.10: Consider ensuring that existing
contracts for priority on obtaining emergency
supplies and food with local business are updated.
Ongoing
LHMP.2015.12: Consider ensuring that existing contracts for priority on obtaining emergency supplies and food with local business are updated.
Compiled into LHMP.2021.10
DRAFT
Ongoing
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-20
LHMP.2015.13: Consider providing training to City
personnel on how to access priority phone services in the event of an emergency.
Completed
Yes
LHMP.2015.14: Consider configuring the EOCs with 2-way
radios to facilitate emergency communications with the
Paramount School District.
Completed
Yes
LHMP.2015.15: Consider ensuring that flood mitigation
remains a priority
LHMP.2021.11: Consider ensuring that flood
mitigation remains a priority.
Ongoing
LHMP.2015.16: Consider educating residents about
maintaining trees on private property (e.g., mobile home park) to mitigate the effects of severe wind.
LHMP.2021.12: Consider educating residents about
maintaining trees on private property (particularly for mobile home parks) to mitigate the impacts of severe
wind.
Ongoing
LHMP.2015.17: Consider providing education to the public to the effects of drought
Completed
Yes
LHMP.2015.18: Consider evaluating the merits of
implementing an incentive program for residents to develop alternative landscaping
LHMP.2021.15: Expand public outreach regarding
drought and available incentive programs for
residents to develop alternative landscaping as well
as implement other water saving initiatives.
DRAFT
Ongoing
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-21
LHMP.2015.19: Consider evaluating the merits of
upgrading the reclaimed water service area to encompass all City resources
LHMP.2021.14: Install Max Wells to catch
stormwater runoff and improve water supply
resilience.
Ongoing
LHMP.2015.20: Consider ensuring that the mass
notification system (i.e. reverse 9-1-1 System) is used as needed
LHMP.2021.16: Consider ensuring that the mass
notification system (i.e. Nixle) is ready for service and used as needed.
Ongoing
LHMP.2015.21: Continue to coordinate with first
responders (e.g., Fire Departments, California Highway
Patrol, etc.) to mitigate the effects of transportation incidents.
LHMP.2021.17: Consider coordination with first
responders (e.g., Fire, CHP) to mitigate the effects of transportation incidents.
Ongoing
LHMP.2015.22: Continue to coordinate with LA County
Sheriff’s Department to ensure adequate communications
are maintained in the event of civil unrest.
LHMP.2021.18: Consider ensuring adequate
communications with LASD in the event of civil
unrest.
Ongoing
LHMP.2015.23: Consider ensuring EOC training is
provided to key City personnel as necessary.
LHMP.2021.19: Continue ensuring EOC training is
provided, as necessary.
Completed/
Ongoing
LHMP.2015.24: Consider ensuring that new development
complies with building codes and considers hazard
mitigation.
LHMP.2021.20: Consider ensuring that new
development complies with new and future building
and zoning codes and considers hazard mitigation
for new developments.
DRAFT
Ongoing
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-22
LHMP.2015.25: Consider coordinating efforts for
resurfacing and retrofitting the Los Angeles River Bridge in accordance with the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP).
LHMP.2021.21: Consider retrofitting the LA
(Rosecrans) Bridge in accordance with the CIP.
On schedule to be
completed
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-i
PLAN MAINTENANCE
Table of Contents
5.1 Mitigation Progress Monitoring .........................................................5-2
5.2 Planning Mechanisms.........................................................................5-3
5.2.1 Process to Incorporate the Mitigation Strategy into Other Planning Mechanisms..........................................................................................5-3
5.2.2 Process to Incorporate the Mitigation Strategy into Other Planning Mechanisms........................................................................................5-13
5.3 Periodic Assessment Requirements ...............................................5-15
5.4 Update Requirements .......................................................................5-17
5.4.1 Plan Update ........................................................................................5-18
5.4.2 Continued Public Involvement.............................................................5-19 List of Tables
Table 5-1: Action Item Implementation
DRAFT
...............................................................20 City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-2
5.1 Mitigation Progress Monitoring
The Mitigation Strategy report in the Hazard
Mitigation Plan (HMP) identifies mitigation
actions that have been prioritized based on the
loss estimates and the probability of each
hazard, which will typically be implemented
according to the priority rank. To thoroughly track
hazard mitigation status, the City of Paramount
(City) must continuously monitor and document
the progress of the implementation of mitigation
actions. Though mitigation actions may be
delegated to different departments within the
City, the Public Safety Department Director, or
designee, will have the responsibility of
monitoring overall progress.
§201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.
To facilitate this monitoring process, Table 5-1: “HMP Action Item Implementation” was developed to provide a mechanism for monitoring the overall implementation progress.
The table is designed to monitor mitigation actions according to project managers, project status, and project milestones.
STEP 1: ADOPT THE MITIGATION PLAN
STEP 2: IMPLEMENT THE PLAN
RECOMMENDATIONS
MONITOR MITIGATION PLAN
EFFECTIVENESS
STEP 4: REVISE THE PLAN
STEP 3: EVALUATE YOUR PLANNING
RESULTS
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-3
5.2 Planning Mechanisms
§201.6(c)(4)(ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate.
5.2.1 Process to Incorporate the Mitigation Strategy into Other Planning Mechanisms
The City maintains the following processes to incorporate mitigation strategies of the Hazard Mitigation Plan into planning mechanisms.
Website
The City’s HMP will be posted on the City website to enable citizens to review and provide feedback regarding mitigation objectives and strategies. Feedback from residents can be incorporated during the annual review of five-year update of the HMP and expand the Steering Committee’s understanding of the public’s opinion on hazard vulnerability. In addition, the website can be used as a vehicle to maintain an ongoing conversation with the public regarding upcoming mitigation project and provide an avenue for hazard education.
City Council
The City Council is responsible for approving projects, plans and programs on a City-wide level. By providing mitigation planning concepts to the City Council, mitigation actions and projects will be incorporated into relevant planning efforts. Department heads can expand mitigation efforts by working with Council Members to encourage the inclusion of mitigation goals and objectives for any project or planning efforts which are reviewed by the City Council.
Public Works Department
The Public Works Department provides infrastructure and maintenance services to City assets to the public. Hazard mitigation will be integrated into Public Works programs through its involvement in the Steering Committee. The Public Works Department has the ability to expand mitigation activities by implementing safety mechanisms throughout the City to maximize resiliency. The Public Works Department, through the Sustainability DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-4
Division, is the lead department for administering and monitoring the Paramount Climate Action Plan. Strategy CR3 of the Resilient Community Adaptation Actions of the Climate Action Plan is to “Ensure that emergency planning, public health planning, and adaptation efforts prioritize vulnerable populations.”
Planning Department
The City Planning Department ensures development within the City is consistent with the Paramount General Plan goals and policies, as well as in the best interests of the City.
The Planning Department is involved in the development of land use; general planning; zoning requirements; and residential, commercial, and industrial projects. In this way, mitigation measures can be incorporated into potential projects and the Department, particularly the Building and Safety Division, can enforce building codes which support hazard mitigation. The Hazard Mitigation Plan is identified in the Health and Safety Element of the General Plan, and Health and Safety Policy Element 43 sets regular updates to the Hazard Mitigation Plan to reduce the level of injury, property damage, and community disruption. Policy EJ-3.5 of the Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan states “Coordinate and integrate hazard mitigation activities with emergency operations plans and procedures.”
Resource Tables
This section serves as a high-level capability assessment of the City’s resources through which hazard mitigation objectives may be achieved. The following subsections attempt to document the Regulatory, Administrative/Technical, Fiscal, Grant funding, and Outreach/Partnership resources available to the City.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-5
Table 5.1: Regulatory Tools Table
Regulatory Tool Updated Comments
General Plan 2007 2007
2022
The General Plan outlines how the City is organized with regard to areas such as land use, safety, different conservation efforts, and economic resilience and develop. The City comprehensively updated its plan in August 2007. In February 2022, the City Council adopted an updated Health and Safety Element and adopted a new Environmental Justice Element.
Urban Water Management
Plan
2020 Plan outlines forecasts for drought probability and magnitude while expanding upon awareness of drought hazard vulnerability.
Administrative/Technical Resources
Table 5.2: Administrative/Technical Tools Table
Administrative/Technical Tool Personnel/Resources
Sheriff's Department The Sheriff's Department is able to support public outreach and may assist in identifying areas of improvement for resistance to civil unrest and adversarial events.
City Council City Council can review and approve mitigation propositions for implementation.
Public Safety Department The Public Safety Department is responsible for monitoring and promoting Hazard Mitigation objectives and disaster preparedness efforts.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-6
Planning Department The Planning Department is response for all developments within the City. This department will be able to include considerations for local hazards into new projects.
Public Works The Public Department is responsible for street improvements and overall City maintenance. This department can implement hazard mitigation activities as part of planned maintenance and City upgrades.
Administrative Services Department The Department of Administrative Services is organized and responsible for coordinating the day-to-day activities of various internal operations and supplying specialized staff to all operating departments.
Fiscal Resources
Table 5.3: Fiscal Tools Table
Fiscal Tool Available for Use
General Fund Yes, with approval
Capital Improvement Plan Yes, with approval
Authority to impose taxes for specific purposes Yes, with voter approval Grant Funding
Table 5.4: Grant Funding Tools Table
Grant Funding Tool Agency Purpose Contact
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-7
Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Program
(PDM)
U.S. Department of
Homeland Security,
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
To provide funding for States, and
communities for cost-effective hazard
mitigation activities which complement a
comprehensive hazard mitigation program
and reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage
and deconstruction of property.
FEMA
500 C. Street, SW
Washington, DC 20472
Phone: (202) 646-4621
www.fema.gov
Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program
U.S. Department of
Homeland Security,
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
To prevent future losses of lives property due
to disasters; to implement State of local
hazard mitigation plans; to enable mitigation
measures to be implemented during
immediate recovery from a disaster; and to
provide funding for previously identified
mitigation measures to benefit the disaster
area.
FEMA
500 C Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20472
Phone (202) 646-4621
www.fema.gov
Flood Mitigation
Assistance (FMA)
U.S. Department of
Homeland Security,
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
To help States and communities plan and
carry out activities designed to reduce the risk
of flood damage to structures insurable under
the NFIP.
FEMA
500 C Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20472
Phone (202) 646-4621
www.fema.gov
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-8
Emergency
Management
Performance Grants
(EMPG)
U. S. Department of
Homeland Security;
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
To encourage the development of
comprehensive emergency management at
the State and local level and to improve
emergency management planning,
preparedness, mitigation, response, and
recovery capabilities.
FEMA
500 C Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20472
Phone (202) 646-4621
www.fema.gov
Community
Development Grant
Program (CDBG)
U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development
To develop viable urban communities by
providing decent housing and a suitable living
environment. Principally for low-to-moderate
income individuals.
HUD
451 7th Street, S. W.
Washington, DC 20410-7000
Phone: (202) 708-3587
www.hud.gov
Public Assistance
Program (PA)
U.S. Department of
Homeland Security,
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
To provide supplemental assistance to
States, local governments, and certain
private nonprofit organizations to alleviate
suffering and hardship resulting from major
disasters or emergencies declared by the
President. Under Section 406, Public
Assistance funds may be used to mitigate the
impact of future disasters.
FEMA
500 C Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20472
Phone (202) 646-4621
DRAFT
www.fema.gov
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-9
Emergency Watershed
Protection
U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural
Resource Conservation
Service
To provide emergency technical and financial
assistance to install or repair structures that
reduce runoff and prevent soil erosion to
safeguard life and property.
NRCS
PO BOX 2890
Washington, DC 20013
Phone: (202) 720-3527
www.nrcs.usda.gov
Disaster Mitigation and
Technical Assistance
Grants
U.S. Department of
Commerce, Economic
Development
Administration
To help States and localities to develop and
/or implement a variety of disaster mitigation
strategies.
EDA
Herbert C. Hoover Building
Washington, DC 20230
Phone: (800) 345-1222
www.eda.gov
Watershed Surveys and
Planning
U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural
Resource Conservation
Service
To provide planning assistance to Federal,
State, and local agencies for the
development of coordination water and
related land resources programs in
watersheds and river basins
NRCS
PO Box 2890
Washington, DC 20013
Phone: (202) 720-3527
DRAFT
www.nrcs.usda.gov
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-10
National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction
Program (NEHRP)
U.S. Department of
Homeland Security,
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
To mitigate earthquake losses that can occur
in many parts of the nation providing earth
science data and assessments essential for
warning of imminent damaging earthquakes,
land-use planning, engineering design, and
emergency preparedness decisions.
FEMA
500 C Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20472
Phone (202) 646-4621
www.fema.gov
Engineering for Natural
Hazards
National Science
Foundation
Supports fundamental research that
advances knowledge for understanding and
mitigating the impact of natural hazards on
constructed civil infrastructure
National Science Foundation
Phone: (703) 292-7024
https://www.nsf.gov
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-11
Outreach and Partnership Resources
Table 5.5: Outreach and Partnership Tools
Outreach/Partnership Tools Comments
City Website The City website is an open forum for providing hazard information and for accepting ongoing comments from the public. The City website will likely be the main avenue for maintaining an open dialogue with the public for hazard mitigation throughout the planning period.
Public Outreach The City holds several training opportunities throughout the year. Public safety training will be able to be expanded to include hazard-specific information to improve hazard awareness.
Mutual Aid Agreements As part of expanding its resilience to the impacts of hazard events, the City intends to review its current mutual aid agreements, identify gaps, and secure new agreements to expand its available mutual resources.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-12
Building on Existing Capabilities
As part of the Plan update, potential improvements to the City’s existing capabilities were discussed. The City is cognizant of the need to continually evaluate its efforts and take an active role in promoting resiliency within the City. The City currently utilizes its Public Safety Department to train its staff and reach out to the community regarding preventative and preparedness strategies for hazard event. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) directs funding to improve infrastructure and the City continually searches for grant opportunities to allow the City to accomplish additional improvements that address hazard mitigation efforts for public facilities. In addition to the City’s current efforts, the following is a list of potential new initiatives that would improve the City’s ability to promote resiliency.
• Regulatory/Fiscal: Enhance the CIP proposal procedure to include a Mitigation/Resiliency element to be considered for each project proposal. The intent is to consider how each CIP project might contribute to mitigation efforts, citing the HMP when proposed projects align with hazard mitigation planning efforts.
• Administrative: Add a Geographic Information System (GIS) Mapping Professional to the Public Safety Department to increase the City’s understanding of vulnerability to hazards through mapping products and drive resilience efforts, focusing on those areas which present the highest vulnerability. • Grant Funding: Expand search for grant funding specifically to assist with aging infrastructure improvements, rehabilitation of open spaces, energy efficiency, and facility upgrades.
• Outreach/Education: Engage City commissions and increase volunteer opportunities to work with the public to gain community participation in resiliency efforts and voluntary resilience projects for privately-owned properties.
Progress for Mitigation Incorporation
The sections above demonstrate the many resources available to the City for successful mitigation action implementation. Some of these resources have already provide their usefulness through successful action implementation over the last planning period. For example, the City successfully upgraded the Maintenance Building to function as a dedicated secondary Emergency Operations Center (EOC). This function was completed through the Public Safety Department utilizing budgetary resources. Additionally, the Public Safety Department successfully configured the EOC with 2-way radios to connect the City to the Paramount School District. Additionally, the City is in the process of DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-13
resurfacing/retrofitting the Rosecrans Avenue Bridge over the Los Angeles River utilizing funds set forth in the 2015 HMP utilizing Capital Improvement Plan funding.
5.2.2 Process to Incorporate the Mitigation Strategy into Other Planning Mechanisms
The City uses the following local planning mechanisms for incorporating the mitigation requirements of the HMP.
General Planning
The City of Paramount is responsible for updating and incorporating mitigation actions and concepts into the 2007 General Plan. In February 2022, the City Council adopted a revised Health and Safety Element and adopted a new Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan. The General Plan is evaluated on a periodic basis, which includes a review of the policies and programs associated with land use and development. Action Items from the Hazard Mitigation Plan will be reviewed during the next scheduled update of the plans and incorporated, as applicable. As part of this review, ordinances and codes will be reviewed to ensure they are consistent with the mitigation strategies and referred to the appropriate regulatory authority, as needed.
Urban Water Management Plan
The City is responsible for updating and incorporating mitigation actions and concepts into its Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP is updated every five years, which includes a review of the policies and programs associated with providing adequate water supplies to meeting demands under a range of water supply conditions. Action Items from the HMP will be reviewed during the next scheduled update of the UWMP and incorporated as applicable. As part of this review, ordinances and codes were reviewed to ensure they are consistent with the mitigation strategies and referred to the appropriate regulatory authority, as needed. The UWMP was updated for 2020, with its next revision scheduled within the next five years.
Emergency Operations Plan
The City maintains an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) that includes profiles and specific responses for earthquake, hazardous materials incident, flooding, and several other hazards mentioned in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The City will incorporate the risk assessment into the EOP in addition to using emergency scenarios outlined in the report to flush out potential mitigation actions.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-14
Capital Improvements Plan
The City of Paramount maintains a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) with projects that are budgeted for at least a five-year period. Engineering mitigation projects are included within the CIP’s. Additionally, the projects already included within the Capital Improvements Plans are reviewed for mitigation improvements (e.g., areas prone to flooding are configured with mitigation elements, new reservoirs are reviewed to ensure they configured with seismic flexible joints, current seismic design criteria are applied to pipeline construction, facility locations are reviewed for special hazards, etc.).
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-15
5.3 Periodic Assessment Requirements
§201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.
Mitigation planning is an ongoing process, and as such, the HMP should be treated as a living document that must grow and adapt in order to keep pace with changes within the City. Continuing from the 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan, an annual assessment will be completed to document those changes including site hazards (e.g., updated FIRM maps, contemporary seismic studies, etc.) or the installation and purchase of new equipment (e.g., back-up generators, emergency response equipment, etc.) to ensure they do not have any effect on City hazard vulnerabilities that would impact the conclusions or actions associated with the Hazard Mitigation Plan. In addition, these reviews will track the progress/status of proposed mitigation actions, progress of implemented actions, the incorporation of mitigation planning in other City planning documents and record any fiscal or policy issues that arise which reduce mitigation progress. As needed, these reviews can be used to promote mitigation action with the City or alter mitigation strategies within the plan, as appropriate. It should be noted that specific mitigation actions may be assigned to individuals across different departments based on the scope of the project.
However, as mentioned below, the Public Safety Department Director, or designee, will take responsibility for tracking progress as it applies to mitigation planning. Actual project management will be handled by the assigned individual.
Prior to the fifth year of the revision cycle, these annual observations will be reviewed to determine what changes should be implemented in the required Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. The results of the annual evaluations should be folded back into each phase of the planning process and should yield decisions on how to update each section of the Plan.
The Public Safety Department Director, or designee, has the responsibility of implementing these annual and five-year requirements. During the annual review, if any updates are deemed minor, then the Public Safety Department Director or designee will perform the updates. However, if more major updates are required, then the Steering Committee (in whole or in part) will be contacted via email and reconvened to discuss the DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-16
effects on the Plan. For the fifth-year revision, the entire Steering Committee will reconvene in order to use their expertise to update the Plan in its entirety.
In addition to these periodic requirements, any significant modification to the City’s facilities should be considered with respect to a possible impact on the Hazard Mitigation Plan. All Steering Committee members are responsible for providing updates for the Plan to the Public Safety Department Director, or designee, as necessary. As noted in the following section, the completed Hazard Mitigation Plan will be available on the City’s website to allow the public to continue to be involved during these periodic reviews.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-17
5.4 Update Requirements
§201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.
§201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.
The Emergency Management and Assistance regulations (44 CFR Part 201) state that it is the responsibility of local agencies to “at a minimum, review and, if necessary, update the local mitigation plan every five years from date of plan approval to continue program eligibility”. The evaluation procedures listed below will provide insight into the major changes that need to be included in the five-year update and resubmission to FEMA:
• Annual Hazard Mitigation Plan review with respect to changes in hazard vulnerability (e.g., additional hazards identified, natural hazard events, etc.) • Annual Hazard Mitigation Plan review with respect to development of new facilities • Five-year comprehensive update to address the findings of the annual reviews • Re-submittal of the updated Hazard Mitigation Plan to CalEMA/FEMA Additionally, the risk assessment portion of the plan will be reviewed to determine if the information should be updated or modified. Each jurisdiction responsible for the various implementation actions will report on:
• Status of their projects,
• Implementation processes,
• Any difficulties encountered,
• How coordination efforts are proceeding, and
• Strategies that should be revised.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-18
5.4.1 Plan Update
The City’s HMP was last updated in 2015. During the second Steering Committee Meeting, as part of the current planning effort, the Plan goals were reviewed for consistency and applicability to the City, along with the goals from the 2018 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2019 Los Angeles County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Table
5.6 illustrated the changes in the priorities of the Plan. Although the language was streamlined, the intent of the overall goals for the State, County, and City were unchanged during the update process.
Table 5.6: Hazard Mitigation Plan Goals
2015 Plan Goals Current Plan Goals
1. Protect lives and property 1. Protect Lives, Property, and Commerce
2. Support the priorities of the City of
Paramount, its mandate, employees,
students, residents, and the business
community.
2. Improve Environmental Sustainability
3. Promote development consistent with
seismic, floodplain and risk management
guidance as developed by the City of
Paramount and its agencies and/or
organizations.
3. Encourage Participation in Resiliency
Efforts
4. Promote the recognition of the real
value of hazard mitigation to public
facilities, public safety, and the welfare of
all residents in the City of Paramount.
4. Update codes and standards to improve
resiliency
5. Support the mitigation efforts of
residents, non-profit organizations,
community-based organization, and
private business throughout the City.
5. Enhance Emergency Management
Capabilities
6. Ensure all codes and standards are
consistent with hazard mitigation.
As shown in Table 5.6, the overall Plan goals did not change. However, Plan objectives were updated to further clarify how the City wanted to achieve the Plan Goals. Details of the Plan objectives can be found in Chapter 4 of this Plan.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-19
5.4.2 Continued Public Involvement
To facilitate ongoing public input, the completed and adopted HMP will be posted on the City’s website to allow the public to remain engaged and provide feedback. The website will include a link to a contact form allowing the public to submit comments. When updated the HMP, the City will solicit participation from Steering Committee participants to discuss any issues that need to be addressed in the HMP update. Public Participation will be solicited through public notices and advertised on the website.
The goal of outreach regarding update meetings is to solicit public involvement in the Steering Committee, which brainstorms the hazards facing the City and discusses ways to mitigate those hazards. The public was encouraged to participate in the hazard mitigation process through taking part in the Steering Committee DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-20
Table 5.7: Action Item Implementation
Action ID Recommendation Description
Responsible
Department
Implementati
on Timeframe
Status
Details/Status
Summary
LHMP.2022.01 Consider performing a seismic
evaluation for critical facilities and
infrastructure and perform structural
improvements accordingly
Planning
(Building and
Safety), Public
Works
Long Open
LHMP.2022.02 Consider configuring the dedicated
shelter station (Paramount Park) with an
emergency generator for backup power.
Public Works Long Open
LHMP.2022.03 Consider using solar as an alternate
power source for critical facilities and to
run emergency generators.
Public Works Medium Open
LHMP.2022.04 Consider providing public education
materials with regards to urban fires.
Public Safety Medium Open
LHMP.2022.05 Consider improving coordination
between HazMat Owners/Operators and
appropriate response agencies.
LA Fire/ Public
Safety
DRAFT
Ongoing Open
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-21
Action ID Recommendation Description
Responsible
Department
Implementati
on Timeframe
Status
Details/Status
Summary
LHMP.2022.06 Consider configuring critical City
locations with appropriate surveillance
equipment
Public Safety Medium Open
LHMP.2022.07 Consider installing and expanding the
current LPR camera system throughout
the City to assist responders in tracking
suspicious or suspected individuals
throughout the City.
Public
Safety/Public
Works
Long Open
LHMP.2022.08 Consider implementing cybersecurity
measures to protect against attacks (i.e.,
ransomware)
IT Division
(Administrative
Services)
Medium Open
LHMP.2022.09 Continue coordination with pipeline
companies to maintain the ongoing
integrity of natural gas and hazardous
pipelines.
Public Works Ongoing Open
LHMP.2022.10 Consider ensuring that existing contracts
for priority on obtaining emergency
supplies and food with local business are
updated.
Community
Services
Short Open
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-22
Action ID Recommendation Description
Responsible
Department
Implementati
on Timeframe
Status
Details/Status
Summary
LHMP.2022.11 Consider ensuring that flood mitigation
remains a priority.
Public Works Ongoing Open
LHMP.2022.12 Consider educating residents about
maintaining trees on private property
(particularly for mobile home parks) to
mitigate the effects of severe wind.
Personnel
Education and
Awareness
Ongoing Open
LHMP.2022.13 Expand existing tree maintenance
program to include considerations for the
impact of climate change on the tree
population to prevent decay and
eventual falls leading to asset damage
and personal injury.
Public Works Short Open
LHMP.2022.14 Install Max Wells to catch stormwater
runoff and improve water supply
resilience.
Public Works
DRAFT
Short Open
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-23
Action ID Recommendation Description
Responsible
Department
Implementati
on Timeframe
Status
Details/Status
Summary
LHMP.2022.15 Expand public outreach regarding
drought and available incentive
programs for residents to develop
alternative landscaping as well as
implement other water saving initiatives.
Prevention
Medium Open
LHMP.2022.16 Consider ensuring that the mass
notification system (i.e., Nixle) is ready
for service and used as needed.
Emergency
Services Ongoing Open
LHMP.2022.17 Consider coordination with first
responders (e.g., Fire, CHP) to mitigate
the effects of transportation incidents.
Emergency
Services
Ongoing Open
LHMP.2022.18 Consider ensuring adequate
communications with LASD in the event
of civil unrest.
Emergency
Services
Ongoing Open
LHMP.2022.19 Consider ensuring adequate
communications with LASD in the event
of civil unrest.
Personnel
Education and
Awareness
DRAFT
Short Open
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-24
Action ID Recommendation Description
Responsible
Department
Implementati
on Timeframe
Status
Details/Status
Summary
LHMP.2022.20 Consider ensuring that new development
complies with new and future building
and zoning codes and considers hazard
mitigation for new developments.
Prevention Ongoing Open
LHMP.2022.21 Consider retrofitting the Rosecrans
Avenue Bridge over the LA River in
accordance with the CIP.
Property
Protection
Short Open
LHMP.2022.22 Consider installing buffer zones in
targeted areas to prevent encampments
from entering into hazardous areas (i.e.,
near railroad tracks)
Public Safety Medium Open
LHMP.2022.23 Consider obtaining outside funding to
support and expand existing measures
to support and rehabilitate the homeless
population (i.e., job-prep, rent support,
mental health support, etc.)
DRAFT
Public Safety Medium Open
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-25
Action ID Recommendation Description
Responsible
Department
Implementati
on Timeframe
Status
Details/Status
Summary
LHMP.2022.24 Work with State representatives to
implement the Middle Mile Project to
reinforce broadband service capabilities
throughout the City.
Gateway Council
of Governments/
Administration
Long Open
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan A-1
GLOSSARY
Active fault - For implementation of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (APEFZA) requirements, an active fault is one that shows evidence of, or is suspected of having experienced surface displacement within the last 11,000 years. APEFZA classification is designed for land use management of surface rupture hazards. A more general definition (National Academy of Science, 1988), states "a fault that on the basis of historical, seismological, or geological evidence has the finite probability of producing an earthquake" (see potentially active fault).
Aftershocks - Minor earthquakes following a greater one and originating at or near the same place.
Asset - Any man-made or natural feature that has value, including, but not limited to people, buildings, infrastructure like bridges, roads, and sewer and water systems; lifelines like electricity and communication resources; or environmental, cultural, or recreational features like parks, dunes, wetlands, or landmarks.
A zone - Under the National Flood Insurance Program, area subject to inundation by the 100-year flood where wave action does not occur or where waves are less than 3 feet high, designated Zone A, AE, A1-A30, A0, AH, or AR on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
Base flood - Flood that has a 1 percent probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Also known as the 100-year flood.
Bedrock - The solid rock that underlies loose material, such as soil, sand, clay, or gravel.
Contour - A line of equal ground elevation on a topographic (contour) map.
Critical facility - Facilities that are critical to the health and welfare of the population and that are especially important following hazard events. Critical facilities include, but are not limited to, shelters, police and fire stations, and hospitals.
Debris - (Seismic) The scattered remains of something broken or destroyed; ruins; rubble; fragments. (Flooding, Coastal) Solid objects or masses carried by or floating on the surface of moving water.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan A-2
Debris flow - A saturated, rapidly moving saturated earth flow with 50 percent rock fragments coarser than 2 mm in size which can occur on natural and graded slopes.
Duration - How long a hazard event lasts.
Earthquake - Vibratory motion propagating within the Earth or along its surface caused by the abrupt release of strain from elastically deformed rock by displacement along a fault.
Epicenter - The point at the Earth's surface directly above where an earthquake originated.
Erosion - Under the National Flood Insurance Program, the process of the gradual wearing away of landmasses. In general, erosion involves the detachment and movement of soil and rock fragments, during a flood or storm or over a period of years, through the action of wind, water, or other geologic processes.
Essential facility - Elements that are important to ensure a full recovery of a community or state following a hazard event. These would include government functions, major employers, banks, schools, and certain commercial establishments, such as grocery stores, hardware stores, and gas stations.
Extent - The size of an area affected by a hazard or hazard event.
Fault - A fracture in the continuity of a rock formation caused by a shifting or dislodging of the earth's crust, in which adjacent surfaces are differentially displaced parallel to the plane of fracture.
Fault slip rate - The average long-term movement of a fault (measured in cm/year or mm/year) as determined from geologic evidence.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) - Independent agency created in 1978 to provide a single point of accountability for all Federal activities related to disaster mitigation and emergency preparedness, response, and recovery.
Flash flood - A flood event occurring with little or no warning where water levels rise at an extremely fast rate.
Flood - A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from (1) the overflow of inland or tidal waters, (2) the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source, or (3) mudflows or the sudden collapse of shoreline land.
Floodplain - Any land area, including watercourse, susceptible to partial or complete inundation by water from any source.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan A-3
Frequency - A measure of how often events of a particular magnitude is expected to occur. Frequency describes how often a hazard of a specific magnitude, duration, and/or extent typically occurs, on average. Statistically, a hazard with a 100-year recurrence interval is expected to occur once every 100 years on average and would have a 1 percent chance – its probability – of happening in any given year. The reliability of this information varies depending on the kind of hazard being considered.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) - A computer software application that relates physical features on the Earth to a database to be used for mapping and analysis.
Ground motion - The vibration or shaking of the ground during an earthquake. When a fault ruptures, seismic waves radiate, causing the ground to vibrate. The severity of the vibration increases with the amount of energy released and decreases with distance from the causative fault or epicenter, but soft soils can further amplify ground motions.
Ground rupture - Displacement of the earth's surface as a result of fault movement associated with an earthquake.
Hailstorm – Storm associated with spherical balls of ice. Hail is a product of thunderstorms or intense showers. It is generally white and translucent, consisting of liquid or snow particles encased with layers of ice. Hail is formed within the higher reaches of a well-developed thunderstorm. When hailstones become too heavy to be caught in an updraft back into the clouds of the thunderstorm (hailstones can be caught in numerous updrafts adding a coating of ice to the original frozen droplet of rain each time), they fall as hail, and a hailstorm ensues.
Hazard - A source of potential danger or adverse condition. Hazards in this how-to series will include naturally occurring events such as floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunami, coastal storms, landslides, and wildfires that strike populated areas. A natural event is a hazard when it has the potential to harm people or property.
Hazard event - A specific occurrence of a particular type of hazard.
Hazard identification - The process of identifying hazards that threaten an area.
Hazard mitigation - Sustained actions taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk from hazards and their effects.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) – Authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, HMGP is administered by FEMA and provides grants to states, tribes, and local governments to implement hazard mitigation actions after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the program is to DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan A-4
reduce the loss of life and property due to disasters and to enable mitigation activities to be implemented as a community recovers from a disaster.
Hazard Mitigation Plan – A collaborative document in which hazards affecting the community are identified, vulnerability to hazards assessed, and consensus reached on how to minimize or eliminate the effects of these hazards.
Hazard profile - A description of the physical characteristics of hazards and a determination of various descriptors including magnitude, duration, frequency, probability, and extent. In most cases, a community can most easily use these descriptors when they are recorded and displayed as maps.
Hazardous Material Facilities – Facilities housing industrial and hazardous materials, such as corrosives, explosives, flammable materials, radioactive materials, and toxins.
HAZUS (Hazards U.S.) - A GIS-based nationally standardized earthquake loss estimation tool developed by FEMA.
Hurricane - An intense tropical cyclone, formed in the atmosphere over warm ocean areas, in which wind speeds reach 74-miles-per-hour or more and blow in a large spiral around a relatively calm center or "eye." Hurricanes develop over the north Atlantic Ocean, northeast Pacific Ocean, or the south Pacific Ocean east of 160°E longitude. Hurricane circulation is counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere.
Hydrology - The science of dealing with the waters of the earth. A flood discharge is developed by a hydrologic study.
Infrastructure - Refers to the public services of a community that have a direct impact on the quality of life. Infrastructure includes communication technology such as phone lines or Internet access, vital services such as public water supplies and sewer treatment facilities, and includes an area's transportation system such as airports, heliports; highways, bridges, tunnels, roadbeds, overpasses, railways, bridges, rail yards, depots; and waterways, canals, locks, seaports, ferries, harbors, drydocks, piers and regional dams.
Landslide - A general term covering a wide variety of mass-movement landforms and processes involving the downslope transport, under gravitational influence, of soil and rock material en masse.
Liquefaction - Changing of soils (unconsolidated alluvium) from a solid state to weaker state unable to support structures, where the material behaves similar to a liquid as a DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan A-5
consequence of earthquake shaking. The transformation of cohesionless soils from a solid or liquid state as a result of increased pore pressure and reduced effective stress.
Magnitude - A measure of the strength of a hazard event. The magnitude (also referred to as severity) of a given hazard event is usually determined using technical measures specific to the hazard.
Mitigation plan - A systematic evaluation of the nature and extent of vulnerability to the effects of natural hazards typically present in the state and includes a description of actions to minimize future vulnerability to hazards.
Nor'easter - An extra-tropical cyclone producing gale-force winds and precipitation in the form of heavy snow or rain.
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) - The greatest amplitude of acceleration measured for a single frequency on an earthquake accelerogram. The maximum horizontal ground motion generated by an earthquake. The measure of this motion is the acceleration of gravity (equal to 32 feet per second squared, or 980 centimeter per second squared), and generally expressed as a percentage of gravity.
Potentially active fault - A fault showing evidence of movement within the last 1.6 million years (750,000 years according to the U.S. Geological Survey) but before about 11,000 years ago, and that is capable of generating damaging earthquakes.
Probability - A statistical measure of the likelihood that a hazard event will occur.
Replacement value - The cost of rebuilding a structure. This is usually expressed in terms of cost per square foot and reflects the present-day cost of labor and materials to construct a building of a particular size, type, and quality.
Retrofit - Any change made to an existing structure to reduce or eliminate damage to that structure from flooding, erosion, high winds, earthquakes, or other hazards Richter scale - A numerical scale of earthquake magnitude devised by seismologist C.F.
Richter in 1935. Seismologists no longer use this magnitude scale because of limitations in how it measures large earthquakes and prefer instead to use moment magnitude as a measure of the energy released during an earthquake.
Risk - The estimated impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and structures in a community; the likelihood of a hazard event resulting in an adverse condition that causes injury or damage. Risk is often expressed in relative terms such as a high, moderate, or low likelihood of sustaining damage above a particular threshold due to a specific type of hazard event. It also can be expressed in terms of potential monetary losses associated with the intensity of the hazard.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan A-6
Seismicity - Describes the likelihood of an area being subject to earthquakes.
Tectonic plate - Torsionally rigid, thin segments of the earth's lithosphere that may be assumed to move horizontally and adjoin other plates. It is the friction between plate boundaries that cause seismic activity.
Topographic - Characterizes maps that show natural features and indicate the physical shape of the land using contour lines. These maps may also include manmade features.
Tornado - A violently rotating column of air extending from a thunderstorm to the ground.
Tsunami - Great sea wave produced by a submarine earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption.
Vulnerability - Describes how exposed or susceptible to damage an asset is. Vulnerability depends on an asset's construction, contents, and the economic value of its functions.
Like indirect damages, the vulnerability of one element of the community is often related to the vulnerability of another. For example, many businesses depend on uninterrupted electrical power – if an electric substation is flooded, it will affect not only the substation itself, but a number of businesses as well. Often, indirect effects can be much more widespread and damaging than direct ones.
Vulnerability assessment - The extent of injury and damage that may result from a hazard event of a given intensity in a given area. The vulnerability assessment should address impacts of hazard events on the existing and future built environment.
Wildfire - An uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, exposing and possibly consuming structures.
Zone - A geographical area shown on a Flood Insurance Rate Map. 100-year flood – A flood that has a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. This flood event is also referred to as the base flood. The term "100-year flood" can be misleading; it is not the flood that will occur once every 100 years. Rather, it is the flood elevation that has a 1- percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. Therefore, the 100-year flood could occur more than once in a relatively short period of time. The 100-year flood, which is the standard used by most federal and state agencies, is used by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as the standard for floodplain management to determine the need for flood insurance. 500-year flood – A flood that has a 0.2-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any one year.
DRAFT
City of Paramount Hazard Mitigation Plan B-1
REGULATIONS
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390) facilitates a new and revitalized approach to mitigation planning. DMA 2000 amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by repealing the previous mitigation planning provisions (Section 409) and replacing them with a new set of mitigation plan requirements (Section 322). This new section emphasizes the need for state, Tribal, and local entities to closely coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. The following pages provide a description of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, as well as the Interim Final Rule for mitigation planning.
DRAFT
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00001 Fmt 6579 Sfmt 6579 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
114 STAT. 1552 PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
Public Law 106–390
106th Congress
An Act
To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to authorize a program for predisaster mitigation, to streamline the administration of disaster relief, to control the Federal costs of disaster assistance, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000’’.
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I—PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION
Sec. 101. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 102. Predisaster hazard mitigation.
Sec. 103. Interagency task force.
Sec. 104. Mitigation planning; minimum standards for public and private structures.
TITLE II—STREAMLINING AND COST REDUCTION
Sec. 201. Technical amendments.
Sec. 202. Management costs.
Sec. 203. Public notice, comment, and consultation requirements.
Sec. 204. State administration of hazard mitigation grant program.
Sec. 205. Assistance to repair, restore, reconstruct, or replace damaged facilities.
Sec. 206. Federal assistance to individuals and households.
Sec. 207. Community disaster loans.
Sec. 208. Report on State management of small disasters initiative.
Sec. 209. Study regarding cost reduction.
TITLE III—MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 301. Technical correction of short title.
Sec. 302. Definitions.
Sec. 303. Fire management assistance.
Sec. 304. Disaster grant closeout procedures.
Sec. 305. Public safety officer benefits for certain Federal and State employees.
Sec. 306. Buy American.
Sec. 307. Treatment of certain real property.
Sec. 308. Study of participation by Indian tribes in emergency management.
TITLE I—PREDISASTER HAZARD
MITIGATION
SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—
42 USC 5133
note.
42 USC 5121
note.
Disaster
Mitigation Act of
2000.
Oct. 30, 2000
[H.R. 707]
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00002 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000 114 STAT. 1553
(1) natural disasters, including earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding, and wildfires, pose great danger to human life and to property throughout the United States; (2) greater emphasis needs to be placed on—
(A) identifying and assessing the risks to States and
local governments (including Indian tribes) from natural disasters;
(B) implementing adequate measures to reduce losses
from natural disasters; and
(C) ensuring that the critical services and facilities
of communities will continue to function after a natural disaster;
(3) expenditures for postdisaster assistance are increasing without commensurate reductions in the likelihood of future losses from natural disasters;
(4) in the expenditure of Federal funds under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), high priority should be given to mitigation of hazards at the local level; and
(5) with a unified effort of economic incentives, awareness and education, technical assistance, and demonstrated Federal support, States and local governments (including Indian tribes) will be able to—
(A) form effective community-based partnerships for
hazard mitigation purposes;
(B) implement effective hazard mitigation measures
that reduce the potential damage from natural disasters; (C) ensure continued functionality of critical services; (D) leverage additional non-Federal resources in
meeting natural disaster resistance goals; and
(E) make commitments to long-term hazard mitigation
efforts to be applied to new and existing structures.
(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this title is to establish a national disaster hazard mitigation program—
(1) to reduce the loss of life and property, human suffering, economic disruption, and disaster assistance costs resulting from natural disasters; and
(2) to provide a source of predisaster hazard mitigation funding that will assist States and local governments (including Indian tribes) in implementing effective hazard mitigation measures that are designed to ensure the continued
functionality of critical services and facilities after a natural disaster.
SEC. 102. PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Title II of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 203. PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION.
‘‘(a) DEFINITION OF SMALL IMPOVERISHED COMMUNITY.—In this section, the term ‘small impoverished community’ means a community of 3,000 or fewer individuals that is economically disadvantaged, as determined by the State in which the community is located and based on criteria established by the President. ‘‘(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The President may establish a program to provide technical and financial assistance to States and local governments to assist in the implementation of President.
42 USC 5133.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00003 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
114 STAT. 1554 PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
predisaster hazard mitigation measures that are cost-effective and are designed to reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of property, including damage to critical services and facilities under the jurisdiction of the States or local governments. ‘‘(c) APPROVAL BY PRESIDENT.—If the President determines that a State or local government has identified natural disaster hazards in areas under its jurisdiction and has demonstrated the ability to form effective public-private natural disaster hazard mitigation partnerships, the President, using amounts in the National Predisaster Mitigation Fund established under subsection (i) (referred to in this section as the ‘Fund’), may provide technical and financial assistance to the State or local government to be used in accordance with subsection (e).
‘‘(d) STATE RECOMMENDATIONS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—
‘‘(A) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The Governor of each State
may recommend to the President not fewer than five local governments to receive assistance under this section.
‘‘(B) DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION.—The recommendations under subparagraph (A) shall be submitted to the President not later than October 1, 2001, and each October 1st thereafter or such later date in the year as the President may establish. ‘‘(C) CRITERIA.—In making recommendations under
subparagraph (A), a Governor shall consider the criteria specified in subsection (g).
‘‘(2) USE.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), in providing assistance to local governments under this section, the President shall select from local governments recommended by the Governors under this subsection. ‘‘(B) EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.—In providing
assistance to local governments under this section, the President may select a local government that has not been recommended by a Governor under this subsection if the
President determines that extraordinary circumstances justify the selection and that making the selection will further the purpose of this section.
‘‘(3) EFFECT OF FAILURE TO NOMINATE.—If a Governor of
a State fails to submit recommendations under this subsection in a timely manner, the President may select, subject to the criteria specified in subsection (g), any local governments of the State to receive assistance under this section.
‘‘(e) USES OF TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Technical and financial assistance provided under this section— ‘‘(A) shall be used by States and local governments
principally to implement predisaster hazard mitigation
measures that are cost-effective and are described in proposals approved by the President under this section; and ‘‘(B) may be used—
‘‘(i) to support effective public-private natural disaster hazard mitigation partnerships; ‘‘(ii) to improve the assessment of a community’s
vulnerability to natural hazards; or
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00004 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000 114 STAT. 1555
‘‘(iii) to establish hazard mitigation priorities, and
an appropriate hazard mitigation plan, for a community. ‘‘(2) DISSEMINATION.—A State or local government may use not more than 10 percent of the financial assistance received by the State or local government under this section for a fiscal year to fund activities to disseminate information regarding cost-effective mitigation technologies.
‘‘(f ) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—The amount of financial assistance made available to a State (including amounts made available to local governments of the State) under this section for a fiscal year—
‘‘(1) shall be not less than the lesser of—
‘‘(A) $500,000; or
‘‘(B) the amount that is equal to 1.0 percent of the
total funds appropriated to carry out this section for the fiscal year;
‘‘(2) shall not exceed 15 percent of the total funds described in paragraph (1)(B); and
‘‘(3) shall be subject to the criteria specified in subsection (g).
‘‘(g) CRITERIA FOR ASSISTANCE AWARDS.—In determining
whether to provide technical and financial assistance to a State or local government under this section, the President shall take into account—
‘‘(1) the extent and nature of the hazards to be mitigated; ‘‘(2) the degree of commitment of the State or local government to reduce damages from future natural disasters; ‘‘(3) the degree of commitment by the State or local government to support ongoing non-Federal support for the hazard mitigation measures to be carried out using the technical and financial assistance;
‘‘(4) the extent to which the hazard mitigation measures to be carried out using the technical and financial assistance contribute to the mitigation goals and priorities established by the State;
‘‘(5) the extent to which the technical and financial assistance is consistent with other assistance provided under this Act;
‘‘(6) the extent to which prioritized, cost-effective mitigation activities that produce meaningful and definable outcomes are clearly identified;
‘‘(7) if the State or local government has submitted a mitigation plan under section 322, the extent to which the activities identified under paragraph (6) are consistent with the mitigation plan; ‘‘(8) the opportunity to fund activities that maximize net benefits to society;
‘‘(9) the extent to which assistance will fund mitigation activities in small impoverished communities; and
‘‘(10) such other criteria as the President establishes in consultation with State and local governments.
‘‘(h) FEDERAL SHARE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Financial assistance provided under this section may contribute up to 75 percent of the total cost of mitigation activities approved by the President.
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00005 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
114 STAT. 1556 PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
‘‘(2) SMALL IMPOVERISHED COMMUNITIES.—Notwithstanding
paragraph (1), the President may contribute up to 90 percent of the total cost of a mitigation activity carried out in a small impoverished community.
‘‘(i) NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND.—
‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The President may establish in the Treasury of the United States a fund to be known as the ‘National Predisaster Mitigation Fund’, to be used in carrying out this section.
‘‘(2) TRANSFERS TO FUND.—There shall be deposited in the Fund—
‘‘(A) amounts appropriated to carry out this section,
which shall remain available until expended; and
‘‘(B) sums available from gifts, bequests, or donations of services or property received by the President for the purpose of predisaster hazard mitigation.
‘‘(3) EXPENDITURES FROM FUND.—Upon request by the
President, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer from the Fund to the President such amounts as the President determines are necessary to provide technical and financial assistance under this section.
‘‘(4) INVESTMENT OF AMOUNTS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current withdrawals. Investments may be made only in interestbearing obligations of the United States. ‘‘(B) ACQUISITION OF OBLIGATIONS.—For the purpose
of investments under subparagraph (A), obligations may
be acquired—
‘‘(i) on original issue at the issue price; or
‘‘(ii) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the
market price.
‘‘(C) SALE OF OBLIGATIONS.—Any obligation acquired
by the Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the market price.
‘‘(D) CREDITS TO FUND.—The interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the Fund shall be credited to and form a part of the Fund.
‘‘(E) TRANSFERS OF AMOUNTS.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The amounts required to be
transferred to the Fund under this subsection shall
be transferred at least monthly from the general fund
of the Treasury to the Fund on the basis of estimates
made by the Secretary of the Treasury.
‘‘(ii) ADJUSTMENTS.—Proper adjustment shall be
made in amounts subsequently transferred to the
extent prior estimates were in excess of or less than
the amounts required to be transferred.
‘‘( j) LIMITATION ON TOTAL AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.— The President shall not provide financial assistance under this section in an amount greater than the amount available in the Fund.
‘‘(k) MULTIHAZARD ADVISORY MAPS.—
‘‘(1) DEFINITION OF MULTIHAZARD ADVISORY MAP.—In this
subsection, the term ‘multihazard advisory map’ means a map VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00006 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000 114 STAT. 1557
on which hazard data concerning each type of natural disaster is identified simultaneously for the purpose of showing areas of hazard overlap.
‘‘(2) DEVELOPMENT OF MAPS.—In consultation with States, local governments, and appropriate Federal agencies, the President shall develop multihazard advisory maps for areas, in not fewer than five States, that are subject to commonly recurring natural hazards (including flooding, hurricanes and severe winds, and seismic events).
‘‘(3) USE OF TECHNOLOGY.—In developing multihazard
advisory maps under this subsection, the President shall use, to the maximum extent practicable, the most cost-effective and efficient technology available.
‘‘(4) USE OF MAPS.—
‘‘(A) ADVISORY NATURE.—The multihazard advisory
maps shall be considered to be advisory and shall not
require the development of any new policy by, or impose any new policy on, any government or private entity.
‘‘(B) AVAILABILITY OF MAPS.—The multihazard advisory
maps shall be made available to the appropriate State
and local governments for the purposes of—
‘‘(i) informing the general public about the risks
of natural hazards in the areas described in paragraph
(2);
‘‘(ii) supporting the activities described in subsection (e); and ‘‘(iii) other public uses.
‘‘(l) REPORT ON FEDERAL AND STATE ADMINISTRATION.—Not
later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this section, the President, in consultation with State and local governments, shall submit to Congress a report evaluating efforts to implement this section and recommending a process for transferring greater authority and responsibility for administering the assistance program established under this section to capable States. ‘‘(m) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority provided by this section terminates December 31, 2003.’’.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Title II of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131 et seq.) is amended by striking the title heading and inserting the following:
‘‘TITLE II—DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
AND MITIGATION ASSISTANCE’’.
SEC. 103. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.
Title II of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131 et seq.) (as amended by section 102(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 204. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall establish a Federal interagency task force for the purpose of coordinating the implementation of predisaster hazard mitigation programs administered by the Federal Government. 42 USC 5134.
Deadline.
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00007 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
114 STAT. 1558 PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
‘‘(b) CHAIRPERSON.—The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall serve as the chairperson of the task force.
‘‘(c) MEMBERSHIP.—The membership of the task force shall include representatives of—
‘‘(1) relevant Federal agencies;
‘‘(2) State and local government organizations (including Indian tribes); and
‘‘(3) the American Red Cross.’’.
SEC. 104. MITIGATION PLANNING; MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STRUCTURES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5141 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 322. MITIGATION PLANNING.
‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT OF MITIGATION PLAN.—As a condition of receipt of an increased Federal share for hazard mitigation measures under subsection (e), a State, local, or tribal government shall develop and submit for approval to the President a mitigation plan that outlines processes for identifying the natural hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities of the area under the jurisdiction of the government.
‘‘(b) LOCAL AND TRIBAL PLANS.—Each mitigation plan developed by a local or tribal government shall—
‘‘(1) describe actions to mitigate hazards, risks, and
vulnerabilities identified under the plan; and
‘‘(2) establish a strategy to implement those actions.
‘‘(c) STATE PLANS.—The State process of development of a mitigation plan under this section shall— ‘‘(1) identify the natural hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities of areas in the State;
‘‘(2) support development of local mitigation plans;
‘‘(3) provide for technical assistance to local and tribal governments for mitigation planning; and
‘‘(4) identify and prioritize mitigation actions that the State will support, as resources become available.
‘‘(d) FUNDING.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Federal contributions under section 404 may be used to fund the development and updating of mitigation plans under this section. ‘‘(2) MAXIMUM FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION.—With respect to
any mitigation plan, a State, local, or tribal government may use an amount of Federal contributions under section 404 not to exceed 7 percent of the amount of such contributions available to the government as of a date determined by the government. ‘‘(e) INCREASED FEDERAL SHARE FOR HAZARD MITIGATION MEASURES.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If, at the time of the declaration of a major disaster, a State has in effect an approved mitigation plan under this section, the President may increase to 20 percent, with respect to the major disaster, the maximum percentage specified in the last sentence of section 404(a). ‘‘(2) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.—In determining whether to increase the maximum percentage under paragraph (1), the President shall consider whether the State has established— President.
42 USC 5165.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00008 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000 114 STAT. 1559
‘‘(A) eligibility criteria for property acquisition and other types of mitigation measures;
‘‘(B) requirements for cost effectiveness that are related to the eligibility criteria;
‘‘(C) a system of priorities that is related to the eligibility criteria; and ‘‘(D) a process by which an assessment of the effectiveness of a mitigation action may be carried out after the mitigation action is complete.
‘‘SEC. 323. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STRUCTURES. ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—As a condition of receipt of a disaster loan or grant under this Act—
‘‘(1) the recipient shall carry out any repair or construction to be financed with the loan or grant in accordance with applicable standards of safety, decency, and sanitation and in conformity with applicable codes, specifications, and standards; and ‘‘(2) the President may require safe land use and construction practices, after adequate consultation with appropriate State and local government officials.
‘‘(b) EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE.—A recipient of a disaster loan or grant under this Act shall provide such evidence of compliance with this section as the President may require by regulation.’’. (b) LOSSES FROM STRAIGHT LINE WINDS.—The President shall increase the maximum percentage specified in the last sentence of section 404(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(a)) from 15 percent to 20 percent with respect to any major disaster that is in the State of Minnesota and for which assistance is being provided as of the date of the enactment of this Act, except that additional assistance provided under this subsection shall not exceed $6,000,000. The mitigation measures assisted under this subsection shall be related to losses in the State of Minnesota from straight line winds.
(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—
(1) Section 404(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(a)) is
amended—
(A) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘section 409’’ and inserting ‘‘section 322’’; and
(B) in the third sentence, by striking ‘‘The total’’ and inserting ‘‘Subject to section 322, the total’’.
(2) Section 409 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5176) is repealed.
TITLE II—STREAMLINING AND COST
REDUCTION
SEC. 201. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
Section 311 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5154) is amended in subsections (a)(1), (b), and (c) by striking ‘‘section 803 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965’’ each place it appears President.
42 USC 5165a.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00009 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
114 STAT. 1560 PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
and inserting ‘‘section 209(c)(2) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3149(c)(2))’’.
SEC. 202. MANAGEMENT COSTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5141 et seq.) (as amended by section 104(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 324. MANAGEMENT COSTS.
‘‘(a) DEFINITION OF MANAGEMENT COST.—In this section, the term ‘management cost’ includes any indirect cost, any administrative expense, and any other expense not directly chargeable to a specific project under a major disaster, emergency, or disaster preparedness or mitigation activity or measure.
‘‘(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF MANAGEMENT COST RATES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any administrative rule or guidance), the President shall by regulation establish management cost rates, for grantees and subgrantees, that shall be used to determine contributions under this Act for management costs.
‘‘(c) REVIEW.—The President shall review the management cost rates established under subsection (b) not later than 3 years after the date of establishment of the rates and periodically thereafter.’’. (b) APPLICABILITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), subsections (a) and (b) of section 324 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (as added by subsection (a)) shall apply to major disasters declared under that Act on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) INTERIM AUTHORITY.—Until the date on which the President establishes the management cost rates under section 324 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (as added by subsection (a)), section 406(f ) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172(f )) (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act) shall be used to establish management cost rates.
SEC. 203. PUBLIC NOTICE, COMMENT, AND CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS.
Title III of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5141 et seq.) (as amended by section 202(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 325. PUBLIC NOTICE, COMMENT, AND CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS. ‘‘(a) PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT CONCERNING NEW OR MODIFIED POLICIES.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The President shall provide for public notice and opportunity for comment before adopting any new or modified policy that—
‘‘(A) governs implementation of the public assistance
program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency under this Act; and ‘‘(B) could result in a significant reduction of assistance under the program.
President.
42 USC 5165c.
42 USC 5165b
note.
Deadline.
Regulations.
42 USC 5165b.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:30 Dec 27, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00010 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000 114 STAT. 1561
‘‘(2) APPLICATION.—Any policy adopted under paragraph
(1) shall apply only to a major disaster or emergency declared on or after the date on which the policy is adopted.
‘‘(b) CONSULTATION CONCERNING INTERIM POLICIES.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Before adopting any interim policy under the public assistance program to address specific conditions that relate to a major disaster or emergency that has been declared under this Act, the President, to the maximum extent practicable, shall solicit the views and recommendations of grantees and subgrantees with respect to the major disaster or emergency concerning the potential interim policy, if the interim policy is likely—
‘‘(A) to result in a significant reduction of assistance to applicants for the assistance with respect to the major disaster or emergency; or
‘‘(B) to change the terms of a written agreement to
which the Federal Government is a party concerning the
declaration of the major disaster or emergency.
‘‘(2) NO LEGAL RIGHT OF ACTION.—Nothing in this subsection confers a legal right of action on any party. ‘‘(c) PUBLIC ACCESS.—The President shall promote public access to policies governing the implementation of the public assistance program.’’.
SEC. 204. STATE ADMINISTRATION OF HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM.
Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(c) PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION BY STATES.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A State desiring to administer the
hazard mitigation grant program established by this section with respect to hazard mitigation assistance in the State may submit to the President an application for the delegation of the authority to administer the program.
‘‘(2) CRITERIA.—The President, in consultation and
coordination with States and local governments, shall establish criteria for the approval of applications submitted under paragraph (1). The criteria shall include, at a minimum— ‘‘(A) the demonstrated ability of the State to manage
the grant program under this section;
‘‘(B) there being in effect an approved mitigation plan under section 322; and
‘‘(C) a demonstrated commitment to mitigation activities. ‘‘(3) APPROVAL.—The President shall approve an application submitted under paragraph (1) that meets the criteria established under paragraph (2). ‘‘(4) WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL.—If, after approving an
application of a State submitted under paragraph (1), the President determines that the State is not administering the hazard mitigation grant program established by this section in a manner satisfactory to the President, the President shall withdraw the approval. ‘‘(5) AUDITS.—The President shall provide for periodic
audits of the hazard mitigation grant programs administered by States under this subsection.’’.
President.
President.
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00011 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
114 STAT. 1562 PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
SEC. 205. ASSISTANCE TO REPAIR, RESTORE, RECONSTRUCT, OR REPLACE DAMAGED FACILITIES.
(a) CONTRIBUTIONS.—Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
‘‘(a) CONTRIBUTIONS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The President may make contributions— ‘‘(A) to a State or local government for the repair,
restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of a public facility damaged or destroyed by a major disaster and
for associated expenses incurred by the government; and ‘‘(B) subject to paragraph (3), to a person that owns
or operates a private nonprofit facility damaged or
destroyed by a major disaster for the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of the facility and for associated expenses incurred by the person. ‘‘(2) ASSOCIATED EXPENSES.—For the purposes of this section, associated expenses shall include— ‘‘(A) the costs of mobilizing and employing the National Guard for performance of eligible work;
‘‘(B) the costs of using prison labor to perform eligible work, including wages actually paid, transportation to a worksite, and extraordinary costs of guards, food, and
lodging; and
‘‘(C) base and overtime wages for the employees and
extra hires of a State, local government, or person described in paragraph (1) that perform eligible work, plus fringe benefits on such wages to the extent that such benefits were being paid before the major disaster.
‘‘(3) CONDITIONS FOR ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE NONPROFIT
FACILITIES.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The President may make contributions to a private nonprofit facility under paragraph (1)(B) only if—
‘‘(i) the facility provides critical services (as defined by the President) in the event of a major disaster;
or
‘‘(ii) the owner or operator of the facility—
‘‘(I) has applied for a disaster loan under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)); and
‘‘(II)(aa) has been determined to be ineligible
for such a loan; or
‘‘(bb) has obtained such a loan in the maximum
amount for which the Small Business Administration determines the facility is eligible. ‘‘(B) DEFINITION OF CRITICAL SERVICES.—In this paragraph, the term ‘critical services’ includes power, water (including water provided by an irrigation organization or facility), sewer, wastewater treatment, communications, and emergency medical care.
‘‘(4) NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS.—Before making any contribution under this section in an amount greater than $20,000,000, the President shall notify—
‘‘(A) the Committee on Environment and Public Works
of the Senate;
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00012 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000 114 STAT. 1563
‘‘(B) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives; ‘‘(C) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
and
‘‘(D) the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives.’’.
(b) FEDERAL SHARE.—Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
‘‘(b) FEDERAL SHARE.—
‘‘(1) MINIMUM FEDERAL SHARE.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Federal share of assistance under this section shall be not less than 75 percent of the eligible cost of repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement carried out under this section.
‘‘(2) REDUCED FEDERAL SHARE.—The President shall
promulgate regulations to reduce the Federal share of assistance under this section to not less than 25 percent in the case of the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of any eligible public facility or private nonprofit facility following an event associated with a major disaster— ‘‘(A) that has been damaged, on more than one occasion
within the preceding 10-year period, by the same type
of event; and
‘‘(B) the owner of which has failed to implement appropriate mitigation measures to address the hazard that caused the damage to the facility.’’.
(c) LARGE IN-LIEU CONTRIBUTIONS.—Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172) is amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
‘‘(c) LARGE IN-LIEU CONTRIBUTIONS.—
‘‘(1) FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In any case in which a State or
local government determines that the public welfare would not best be served by repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing any public facility owned or controlled by the State or local government, the State or local government may elect to receive, in lieu of a contribution under subsection (a)(1)(A), a contribution in an amount equal to 75 percent of the Federal share of the Federal estimate of the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing the facility and of management expenses.
‘‘(B) AREAS WITH UNSTABLE SOIL.—In any case in which
a State or local government determines that the public
welfare would not best be served by repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing any public facility owned or controlled by the State or local government because soil instability in the disaster area makes repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement infeasible, the State or local government may elect to receive, in lieu of a contribution under subsection (a)(1)(A), a contribution in an amount equal to 90 percent of the Federal share of the Federal estimate of the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing the facility and of management expenses.
‘‘(C) USE OF FUNDS.—Funds contributed to a State
or local government under this paragraph may be used—
President.
Regulations.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00013 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
114 STAT. 1564 PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
‘‘(i) to repair, restore, or expand other selected
public facilities;
‘‘(ii) to construct new facilities; or
‘‘(iii) to fund hazard mitigation measures that the
State or local government determines to be necessary
to meet a need for governmental services and functions
in the area affected by the major disaster.
‘‘(D) LIMITATIONS.—Funds made available to a State
or local government under this paragraph may not be used for—
‘‘(i) any public facility located in a regulatory
floodway (as defined in section 59.1 of title 44, Code
of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation)); or ‘‘(ii) any uninsured public facility located in a special flood hazard area identified by the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001
et seq.).
‘‘(2) FOR PRIVATE NONPROFIT FACILITIES.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In any case in which a person that
owns or operates a private nonprofit facility determines that the public welfare would not best be served by
repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing the
facility, the person may elect to receive, in lieu of a contribution under subsection (a)(1)(B), a contribution in an amount equal to 75 percent of the Federal share of the
Federal estimate of the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing the facility and of management expenses.
‘‘(B) USE OF FUNDS.—Funds contributed to a person
under this paragraph may be used—
‘‘(i) to repair, restore, or expand other selected
private nonprofit facilities owned or operated by the
person;
‘‘(ii) to construct new private nonprofit facilities
to be owned or operated by the person; or
‘‘(iii) to fund hazard mitigation measures that the
person determines to be necessary to meet a need
for the person’s services and functions in the area
affected by the major disaster.
‘‘(C) LIMITATIONS.—Funds made available to a person
under this paragraph may not be used for—
‘‘(i) any private nonprofit facility located in a regulatory floodway (as defined in section 59.1 of title 44, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation)); or ‘‘(ii) any uninsured private nonprofit facility
located in a special flood hazard area identified by
the Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency under the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.).’’.
(d) ELIGIBLE COST.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172) is amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
‘‘(e) ELIGIBLE COST.—
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00014 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000 114 STAT. 1565
‘‘(1) DETERMINATION.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For the purposes of this section, the President shall estimate the eligible cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a public facility or private nonprofit facility—
‘‘(i) on the basis of the design of the facility as
the facility existed immediately before the major disaster; and ‘‘(ii) in conformity with codes, specifications, and
standards (including floodplain management and
hazard mitigation criteria required by the President
or under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.)) applicable at the time at which the
disaster occurred.
‘‘(B) COST ESTIMATION PROCEDURES.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the
President shall use the cost estimation procedures
established under paragraph (3) to determine the
eligible cost under this subsection.
‘‘(ii) APPLICABILITY.—The procedures specified in
this paragraph and paragraph (2) shall apply only
to projects the eligible cost of which is equal to or
greater than the amount specified in section 422.
‘‘(2) MODIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE COST.—
‘‘(A) ACTUAL COST GREATER THAN CEILING PERCENTAGE
OF ESTIMATED COST.—In any case in which the actual cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a facility under this section is greater than the ceiling percentage established under paragraph (3) of the cost estimated under paragraph (1), the President may determine that the
eligible cost includes a portion of the actual cost of the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement that exceeds the cost estimated under paragraph (1).
‘‘(B) ACTUAL COST LESS THAN ESTIMATED COST.—
‘‘(i) GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO FLOOR PERCENTAGE OF ESTIMATED COST.—In any case in which the actual cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a facility under this section is less than 100 percent of the cost estimated under paragraph (1),
but is greater than or equal to the floor percentage
established under paragraph (3) of the cost estimated
under paragraph (1), the State or local government
or person receiving funds under this section shall use
the excess funds to carry out cost-effective activities that reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, or
suffering from a major disaster.
‘‘(ii) LESS THAN FLOOR PERCENTAGE OF ESTIMATED
COST.—In any case in which the actual cost of
repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a
facility under this section is less than the floor percentage established under paragraph (3) of the cost estimated under paragraph (1), the State or local government or person receiving assistance under this section shall reimburse the President in the amount of the
difference.
‘‘(C) NO EFFECT ON APPEALS PROCESS.—Nothing in this
paragraph affects any right of appeal under section 423.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00015 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
114 STAT. 1566 PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
‘‘(3) EXPERT PANEL.— ‘‘(A) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the President, acting through the Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, shall establish an expert panel, which shall include representatives from the construction industry and State and local government.
‘‘(B) DUTIES.—The expert panel shall develop recommendations concerning— ‘‘(i) procedures for estimating the cost of repairing,
restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a facility consistent with industry practices; and ‘‘(ii) the ceiling and floor percentages referred to
in paragraph (2).
‘‘(C) REGULATIONS.—Taking into account the recommendations of the expert panel under subparagraph (B), the President shall promulgate regulations that
establish—
‘‘(i) cost estimation procedures described in
subparagraph (B)(i); and
‘‘(ii) the ceiling and floor percentages referred to
in paragraph (2).
‘‘(D) REVIEW BY PRESIDENT.—Not later than 2 years
after the date of promulgation of regulations under
subparagraph (C) and periodically thereafter, the President shall review the cost estimation procedures and the ceiling and floor percentages established under this paragraph. ‘‘(E) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year after
the date of promulgation of regulations under subparagraph (C), 3 years after that date, and at the end of each 2-year period thereafter, the expert panel shall submit to Congress a report on the appropriateness of the cost estimation procedures.
‘‘(4) SPECIAL RULE.—In any case in which the facility being repaired, restored, reconstructed, or replaced under this section was under construction on the date of the major disaster, the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing the facility shall include, for the purposes of this section, only those costs that, under the contract for the construction, are the owner’s responsibility and not the contractor’s responsibility.’’. (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by paragraph
(1) takes effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and applies to funds appropriated after the date of the enactment of this Act, except that paragraph (1) of section 406(e) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (as amended by paragraph (1)) takes effect on the date on which the cost estimation procedures established under paragraph (3) of that section take effect. (e) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 406 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172) is amended by striking subsection (f ).
SEC. 206. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174) is amended to read as follows:
42 USC 5172
note.
Deadline.
Deadline.
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00016 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000 114 STAT. 1567
‘‘SEC. 408. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS. ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—
‘‘(1) PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE.—In accordance with this
section, the President, in consultation with the Governor of a State, may provide financial assistance, and, if necessary, direct services, to individuals and households in the State who, as a direct result of a major disaster, have necessary expenses and serious needs in cases in which the individuals and households are unable to meet such expenses or needs through other means.
‘‘(2) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ASSISTANCE.—Under paragraph (1), an individual or household shall not be denied assistance under paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of subsection (c) solely on the basis that the individual or household has not applied for or received any loan or other financial assistance from the Small Business Administration or any other Federal agency. ‘‘(b) HOUSING ASSISTANCE.—
‘‘(1) ELIGIBILITY.—The President may provide financial or other assistance under this section to individuals and households to respond to the disaster-related housing needs of individuals and households who are displaced from their predisaster primary residences or whose predisaster primary residences are rendered uninhabitable as a result of damage caused by a major disaster.
‘‘(2) DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE TYPES OF ASSISTANCE.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The President shall determine
appropriate types of housing assistance to be provided
under this section to individuals and households described in subsection (a)(1) based on considerations of cost effectiveness, convenience to the individuals and households, and such other factors as the President may consider appropriate. ‘‘(B) MULTIPLE TYPES OF ASSISTANCE.—One or more
types of housing assistance may be made available under this section, based on the suitability and availability of the types of assistance, to meet the needs of individuals and households in the particular disaster situation.
‘‘(c) TYPES OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE.—
‘‘(1) TEMPORARY HOUSING.—
‘‘(A) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The President may provide
financial assistance to individuals or households to
rent alternate housing accommodations, existing rental
units, manufactured housing, recreational vehicles, or
other readily fabricated dwellings.
‘‘(ii) AMOUNT.—The amount of assistance under
clause (i) shall be based on the fair market rent for
the accommodation provided plus the cost of any
transportation, utility hookups, or unit installation not provided directly by the President.
‘‘(B) DIRECT ASSISTANCE.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The President may provide temporary housing units, acquired by purchase or lease, directly to individuals or households who, because of
a lack of available housing resources, would be unable
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00017 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
114 STAT. 1568 PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
to make use of the assistance provided under subparagraph (A). ‘‘(ii) PERIOD OF ASSISTANCE.—The President may
not provide direct assistance under clause (i) with
respect to a major disaster after the end of the 18-
month period beginning on the date of the declaration
of the major disaster by the President, except that
the President may extend that period if the President
determines that due to extraordinary circumstances
an extension would be in the public interest.
‘‘(iii) COLLECTION OF RENTAL CHARGES.—After the
end of the 18-month period referred to in clause (ii),
the President may charge fair market rent for each
temporary housing unit provided.
‘‘(2) REPAIRS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The President may provide financial
assistance for—
‘‘(i) the repair of owner-occupied private residences,
utilities, and residential infrastructure (such as a private access route) damaged by a major disaster to a safe and sanitary living or functioning condition;
and
‘‘(ii) eligible hazard mitigation measures that
reduce the likelihood of future damage to such residences, utilities, or infrastructure. ‘‘(B) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ASSISTANCE.—A recipient
of assistance provided under this paragraph shall not be required to show that the assistance can be met through other means, except insurance proceeds.
‘‘(C) MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE.—The amount
of assistance provided to a household under this paragraph shall not exceed $5,000, as adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor. ‘‘(3) REPLACEMENT.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The President may provide financial
assistance for the replacement of owner-occupied private residences damaged by a major disaster.
‘‘(B) MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE.—The amount
of assistance provided to a household under this paragraph shall not exceed $10,000, as adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor. ‘‘(C) APPLICABILITY OF FLOOD INSURANCE REQUIREMENT.—With respect to assistance provided under this paragraph, the President may not waive any provision
of Federal law requiring the purchase of flood insurance as a condition of the receipt of Federal disaster assistance. ‘‘(4) PERMANENT HOUSING CONSTRUCTION.—The President
may provide financial assistance or direct assistance to individuals or households to construct permanent housing in insular areas outside the continental United States and in other remote locations in cases in which—
‘‘(A) no alternative housing resources are available;
and
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00018 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000 114 STAT. 1569
‘‘(B) the types of temporary housing assistance
described in paragraph (1) are unavailable, infeasible, or not cost-effective.
‘‘(d) TERMS AND CONDITIONS RELATING TO HOUSING ASSISTANCE.— ‘‘(1) SITES.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any readily fabricated dwelling provided under this section shall, whenever practicable, be located on a site that—
‘‘(i) is complete with utilities; and
‘‘(ii) is provided by the State or local government,
by the owner of the site, or by the occupant who
was displaced by the major disaster.
‘‘(B) SITES PROVIDED BY THE PRESIDENT.—A readily
fabricated dwelling may be located on a site provided by the President if the President determines that such a site would be more economical or accessible.
‘‘(2) DISPOSAL OF UNITS.—
‘‘(A) SALE TO OCCUPANTS.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a temporary housing unit purchased
under this section by the President for the purpose
of housing disaster victims may be sold directly to
the individual or household who is occupying the unit
if the individual or household lacks permanent housing. ‘‘(ii) SALE PRICE.—A sale of a temporary housing
unit under clause (i) shall be at a price that is fair
and equitable.
‘‘(iii) DEPOSIT OF PROCEEDS.—Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the proceeds of a sale under
clause (i) shall be deposited in the appropriate Disaster Relief Fund account.
‘‘(iv) HAZARD AND FLOOD INSURANCE.—A sale of
a temporary housing unit under clause (i) shall be
made on the condition that the individual or household
purchasing the housing unit agrees to obtain and maintain hazard and flood insurance on the housing unit. ‘‘(v) USE OF GSA SERVICES.—The President may
use the services of the General Services Administration to accomplish a sale under clause (i).
‘‘(B) OTHER METHODS OF DISPOSAL.—If not disposed
of under subparagraph (A), a temporary housing unit purchased under this section by the President for the purpose of housing disaster victims—
‘‘(i) may be sold to any person; or
‘‘(ii) may be sold, transferred, donated, or otherwise
made available directly to a State or other governmental entity or to a voluntary organization for the sole purpose of providing temporary housing to disaster victims in major disasters and emergencies if, as a
condition of the sale, transfer, or donation, the State, other governmental agency, or voluntary organization
agrees—
‘‘(I) to comply with the nondiscrimination
provisions of section 308; and
‘‘(II) to obtain and maintain hazard and flood
insurance on the housing unit.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00019 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
114 STAT. 1570 PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
‘‘(e) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO ADDRESS OTHER NEEDS.— ‘‘(1) MEDICAL, DENTAL, AND FUNERAL EXPENSES.—The President, in consultation with the Governor of a State, may provide financial assistance under this section to an individual or household in the State who is adversely affected by a major disaster to meet disaster-related medical, dental, and funeral expenses. ‘‘(2) PERSONAL PROPERTY, TRANSPORTATION, AND OTHER
EXPENSES.—The President, in consultation with the Governor of a State, may provide financial assistance under this section to an individual or household described in paragraph (1) to address personal property, transportation, and other necessary expenses or serious needs resulting from the major disaster. ‘‘(f ) STATE ROLE.—
‘‘(1) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO ADDRESS OTHER NEEDS.—
‘‘(A) GRANT TO STATE.—Subject to subsection (g), a
Governor may request a grant from the President to provide financial assistance to individuals and households in the State under subsection (e).
‘‘(B) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—A State that receives a
grant under subparagraph (A) may expend not more than
5 percent of the amount of the grant for the administrative costs of providing financial assistance to individuals and households in the State under subsection (e).
‘‘(2) ACCESS TO RECORDS.—In providing assistance to
individuals and households under this section, the President shall provide for the substantial and ongoing involvement of the States in which the individuals and households are located, including by providing to the States access to the electronic records of individuals and households receiving assistance under this section in order for the States to make available any additional State and local assistance to the individuals and households.
‘‘(g) COST SHARING.—
‘‘(1) FEDERAL SHARE.—Except as provided in paragraph
(2), the Federal share of the costs eligible to be paid using assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent. ‘‘(2) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO ADDRESS OTHER NEEDS.—
In the case of financial assistance provided under subsection (e)—
‘‘(A) the Federal share shall be 75 percent; and
‘‘(B) the non-Federal share shall be paid from funds
made available by the State.
‘‘(h) MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No individual or household shall receive financial assistance greater than $25,000 under this section with respect to a single major disaster.
‘‘(2) ADJUSTMENT OF LIMIT.—The limit established under
paragraph (1) shall be adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor. ‘‘(i) RULES AND REGULATIONS.—The President shall prescribe rules and regulations to carry out this section, including criteria, standards, and procedures for determining eligibility for assistance.’’. (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 502(a)(6) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5192(a)(6)) is amended by striking ‘‘temporary housing’’.
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00020 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000 114 STAT. 1571
(c) ELIMINATION OF INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY GRANT PROGRAMS.—Section 411 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5178) is repealed.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section take effect 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 207. COMMUNITY DISASTER LOANS.
Section 417 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5184) is amended— (1) by striking ‘‘(a) The President’’ and inserting the following:
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The President’’;
(2) by striking ‘‘The amount’’ and inserting the following:
‘‘(b) AMOUNT.—The amount’’;
(3) by striking ‘‘Repayment’’ and inserting the following:
‘‘(c) REPAYMENT.—
‘‘(1) CANCELLATION.—Repayment’’;
(4) by striking ‘‘(b) Any loans’’ and inserting the following:
‘‘(d) EFFECT ON OTHER ASSISTANCE.—Any loans’’;
(5) in subsection (b) (as designated by paragraph (2))— (A) by striking ‘‘and shall’’ and inserting ‘‘shall’’; and (B) by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘‘, and shall not exceed $5,000,000’’; and (6) in subsection (c) (as designated by paragraph (3)), by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(2) CONDITION ON CONTINUING ELIGIBILITY.—A local
government shall not be eligible for further assistance under this section during any period in which the local government is in arrears with respect to a required repayment of a loan under this section.’’.
SEC. 208. REPORT ON STATE MANAGEMENT OF SMALL DISASTERS INITIATIVE.
Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress a report describing the results of the State Management of Small Disasters Initiative, including—
(1) identification of any administrative or financial benefits of the initiative; and
(2) recommendations concerning the conditions, if any,
under which States should be allowed the option to administer parts of the assistance program under section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172).
SEC. 209. STUDY REGARDING COST REDUCTION.
Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall complete a study estimating the reduction in Federal disaster assistance that has resulted and is likely to result from the enactment of this Act.
Deadline.
42 USC 5121
note.
Deadline.
42 USC 5121
note.
42 USC 5174
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00021 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
114 STAT. 1572 PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
TITLE III—MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 301. TECHNICAL CORRECTION OF SHORT TITLE.
The first section of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 note) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
‘‘This Act may be cited as the ‘Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act’.’’.
SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.
Section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122) is amended— (1) in each of paragraphs (3) and (4), by striking ‘‘the Northern’’ and all that follows through ‘‘Pacific Islands’’ and inserting ‘‘and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands’’;
(2) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
‘‘(6) LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—The term ‘local government’
means—
‘‘(A) a county, municipality, city, town, township, local public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; ‘‘(B) an Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and
‘‘(C) a rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other public entity, for which an application for assistance is made by a State or political subdivision of a State.’’; and
(3) in paragraph (9), by inserting ‘‘irrigation,’’ after ‘‘utility,’’.
SEC. 303. FIRE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 420 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5187) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘SEC. 420. FIRE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The President is authorized to provide assistance, including grants, equipment, supplies, and personnel, to any State or local government for the mitigation, management, and control of any fire on public or private forest land or grassland that threatens such destruction as would constitute a major disaster. ‘‘(b) COORDINATION WITH STATE AND TRIBAL DEPARTMENTS OF FORESTRY.—In providing assistance under this section, the President shall coordinate with State and tribal departments of forestry. ‘‘(c) ESSENTIAL ASSISTANCE.—In providing assistance under this section, the President may use the authority provided under section 403.
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00022 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000 114 STAT. 1573
‘‘(d) RULES AND REGULATIONS.—The President shall prescribe such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out this section.’’. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) takes effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 304. DISASTER GRANT CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES.
Title VII of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 705. DISASTER GRANT CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES.
‘‘(a) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), no administrative action to recover any payment made to a State or local government for disaster or emergency assistance under this Act shall be initiated in any forum after the date that is 3 years after the date of transmission of the final expenditure report for the disaster or emergency.
‘‘(2) FRAUD EXCEPTION.—The limitation under paragraph
(1) shall apply unless there is evidence of civil or criminal fraud.
‘‘(b) REBUTTAL OF PRESUMPTION OF RECORD MAINTENANCE.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In any dispute arising under this section after the date that is 3 years after the date of transmission of the final expenditure report for the disaster or emergency, there shall be a presumption that accounting records were maintained that adequately identify the source and application of funds provided for financially assisted activities.
‘‘(2) AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE.—The presumption described
in paragraph (1) may be rebutted only on production of affirmative evidence that the State or local government did not maintain documentation described in that paragraph. ‘‘(3) INABILITY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTATION.—The inability of the Federal, State, or local government to produce source documentation supporting expenditure reports later than 3 years after the date of transmission of the final expenditure report shall not constitute evidence to rebut the presumption described in paragraph (1).
‘‘(4) RIGHT OF ACCESS.—The period during which the Federal, State, or local government has the right to access source documentation shall not be limited to the required 3-year retention period referred to in paragraph (3), but shall last as long as the records are maintained.
‘‘(c) BINDING NATURE OF GRANT REQUIREMENTS.—A State or
local government shall not be liable for reimbursement or any other penalty for any payment made under this Act if—
‘‘(1) the payment was authorized by an approved agreement specifying the costs;
‘‘(2) the costs were reasonable; and
‘‘(3) the purpose of the grant was accomplished.’’.
SEC. 305. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL AND STATE EMPLOYEES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1204 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b) is amended by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
‘‘(7) ‘public safety officer’ means—
42 USC 5205.
42 USC 5187
note.
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00023 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
114 STAT. 1574 PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
‘‘(A) an individual serving a public agency in an official capacity, with or without compensation, as a law enforcement officer, as a firefighter, or as a member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew;
‘‘(B) an employee of the Federal Emergency Management Agency who is performing official duties of the Agency in an area, if those official duties—
‘‘(i) are related to a major disaster or emergency
that has been, or is later, declared to exist with respect to the area under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.);
and
‘‘(ii) are determined by the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency to be hazardous
duties; or
‘‘(C) an employee of a State, local, or tribal emergency management or civil defense agency who is performing
official duties in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency in an area, if those official duties— ‘‘(i) are related to a major disaster or emergency
that has been, or is later, declared to exist with respect to the area under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.);
and
‘‘(ii) are determined by the head of the agency
to be hazardous duties.’’.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) applies only to employees described in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 1204(7) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (as amended by subsection (a)) who are injured or who die in the line of duty on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 306. BUY AMERICAN.
(a) COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT.—No funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act or any amendment made by this Act may be expended by an entity unless the entity, in expending the funds, complies with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
(b) DEBARMENT OF PERSONS CONVICTED OF FRAUDULENT USE
OF ‘‘MADE IN AMERICA’’ LABELS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—If the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency determines that a person has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing a ‘‘Made in America’’ inscription to any product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not made in America, the Director shall determine, not later than 90 days after determining that the person has been so convicted, whether the person should be debarred from contracting under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.). (2) DEFINITION OF DEBAR.—In this subsection, the term
‘‘debar’’ has the meaning given the term in section 2393(c) of title 10, United States Code.
SEC. 307. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Flood Disaster Deadline.
42 USC 5206.
42 USC 3796b
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00024 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000 114 STAT. 1575
Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4002 et seq.), or any other provision of law, or any flood risk zone identified, delineated, or established under any such law (by flood insurance rate map or otherwise), the real property described in subsection (b) shall not be considered to be, or to have been, located in any area having special flood hazards (including any floodway or floodplain). (b) REAL PROPERTY.—The real property described in this subsection is all land and improvements on the land located in the Maple Terrace Subdivisions in the City of Sycamore, DeKalb County, Illinois, including—
(1) Maple Terrace Phase I;
(2) Maple Terrace Phase II;
(3) Maple Terrace Phase III Unit 1;
(4) Maple Terrace Phase III Unit 2;
(5) Maple Terrace Phase III Unit 3;
(6) Maple Terrace Phase IV Unit 1;
(7) Maple Terrace Phase IV Unit 2; and
(8) Maple Terrace Phase IV Unit 3.
(c) REVISION OF FLOOD INSURANCE RATE LOT MAPS.—As soon
as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall revise the appropriate flood insurance rate lot maps of the agency to reflect the treatment under subsection (a) of the real property described in subsection (b).
SEC. 308. STUDY OF PARTICIPATION BY INDIAN TRIBES IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
(a) DEFINITION OF INDIAN TRIBE.—In this section, the term ‘‘Indian tribe’’ has the meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(b) STUDY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency shall conduct a study of participation by Indian tribes in emergency management.
(2) REQUIRED ELEMENTS.—The study shall—
(A) survey participation by Indian tribes in training,
predisaster and postdisaster mitigation, disaster preparedness, and disaster recovery programs at the Federal and State levels; and
(B) review and assess the capacity of Indian tribes
to participate in cost-shared emergency management programs and to participate in the management of the programs. (3) CONSULTATION.—In conducting the study, the Director shall consult with Indian tribes.
(c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall submit a report on the study under subsection (b) to—
(1) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of
the Senate;
(2) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives;
(3) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
Deadline.
42 USC 5121
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00025 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
114 STAT. 1576 PUBLIC LAW 106–390—OCT. 30, 2000
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 707 (S. 1691):
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106–40 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 106–295 accompanying S. 1691 (Comm. on Environment and Public Works).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
Vol. 145 (1999): Mar. 4, considered and passed House.
Vol. 146 (2000): July 19, considered and passed Senate, amended.
Oct. 3, House concurred in Senate amendment with an
amendment.
Oct. 5, Senate concurred in House amendment with an
amendment.
Oct. 10, House concurred in Senate amendment.
Æ
(4) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
Approved October 30, 2000.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:55 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00390 Frm 00026 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6580 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL390.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL390 DRAFT
Tuesday,
February 26, 2002
Part III
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
44 CFR Parts 201 and 206
Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program; Interim Final
Rule
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 10:58 Feb 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 26FER2 DRAFT
8844 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Parts 201 and 206
RIN 3067–AD22
Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program
AGENCY: Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule addresses State
mitigation planning, identifies new
local mitigation planning requirements,
authorizes Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP) funds for planning
activities, and increases the amount of
HMGP funds available to States that
develop a comprehensive, enhanced
mitigation plan. This rule also requires
that repairs or construction funded by a
disaster loan or grant must be carried
out in accordance with applicable
standards and says that FEMA may
require safe land use and construction
practices as a condition of grantees
receiving disaster assistance under the
Stafford Act.
DATES: Effective Date: February 26,
2002.
Comment Date: We will accept
written comments through April 29,
2002.
ADDRESSES: Please send written
comments to the Rules Docket Clerk,
Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street, SW., room 840, Washington, DC
20472, (facsimile) 202–646–4536, or
(email) [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Margaret E. Lawless, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20472,
202–646–3027, (facsimile) 202–646–
3104, or (email)
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
Throughout the preamble and the rule
the terms ‘‘we’’, ‘‘our’’ and ‘‘us’’ refer to
FEMA.
Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (Stafford Act or the Act),
42 U.S.C. 5165, enacted under § 104 the
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, (DMA
2000) P.L. 106–390, provides new and
revitalized approaches to mitigation
planning. This section: (1) Continues
the requirement for a Standard State
Mitigation plan as a condition of
disaster assistance; (2) provides for
States to receive an increased
percentage of HMGP funds (from 15 to
20 percent of the total estimated eligible
Federal assistance) if, at the time of the
declaration of a major disaster, they
have in effect a FEMA-approved
Enhanced State Mitigation Plan that
meets the factors listed in this rule; (3)
establishes a new requirement for local
mitigation plans; and (4) authorizes up
to 7 percent of the HMGP funds
available to a State to be used for
development of State, tribal, and local
mitigation plans. We will give Indian
tribal governments the opportunity to
fulfill the requirements of § 322 either as
a grantee or a subgrantee. An Indian
tribal government may choose to apply
for HMGP funding directly to us and
would then serve as a grantee, meeting
the State level responsibilities, or it may
apply through the State, meeting the
local government or subgrantee
responsibilities.
Section 322, in concert with other
sections of the Act, provides a
significant opportunity to reduce the
Nation’s disaster losses through
mitigation planning. In addition,
implementation of planned, preidentified, cost-effective mitigation measures will streamline the disaster
recovery process. The Act provides a
framework for linking pre- and postdisaster mitigation planning and initiatives with public and private
interests to ensure an integrated,
comprehensive approach to disaster loss
reduction. The language in the Act,
taken as a whole, emphasizes the
importance of strong State and local
planning processes and comprehensive
program management at the State level.
The new planning criteria also support
State administration of the HMGP, and
contemplate a significant State
commitment to mitigation activities,
comprehensive State mitigation
planning, and strong program
management.
The planning process also provides a
link between State and local mitigation
programs. Both State level and local
plans should address strategies for
incorporating post-disaster early
mitigation implementation strategies
and sustainable recovery actions. We
also recognize that governments are
involved in a range of planning
activities and that mitigation plans may
be linked to or reference hazardous
materials and other non-natural hazard
plans. Improved mitigation planning
will result in a better understanding of
risks and vulnerabilities, as well as to
expedite implementation of measures
and activities to reduce those risks, both
pre- and post-disaster.
Section 409 of the Stafford Act, 42
U.S.C. 5176, which required mitigation
plans and the use of minimum codes
and standards, was repealed by the
DMA 2000. These issues are now
addressed in two separate sections of
the law: mitigation planning is in
section 322 of the Act, and minimum
codes and standards are in section 323
of the Act. We previously implemented
section 409 through 44 CFR Part 206,
Subpart M. Since current law now
distinguishes the planning from the
codes and standards in separate
sections, we will address them in
different sections of the CFR. We
address the new planning regulations in
Part 201 to reflect the broader relevance
of planning to all FEMA mitigation
programs, while the minimum
standards remain in Part 206, Federal
Disaster Assistance, Subpart M. The
regulations implementing the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program are in Part
206, Subpart N. This rule also contains
changes to Subpart N, to reflect the new
planning criteria identified in section
322 of the Act.
The administration is considering
changes to FEMA’s mitigation programs
in the President’s Budget for FY 2003.
However, States and localities still
would be required to have plans in
effect, which meet the minimum
requirements under this rule, as a
condition of receiving mitigation
assistance after November 1, 2003.
Implementation Strategy. States must
have an approved hazard mitigation
plan in order to receive Stafford Act
assistance, excluding assistance
provided pursuant to emergency
provisions. These regulations provide
criteria for the new two-tiered State
mitigation plan process: Standard State
Mitigation Plans, which allow a State to
receive HMGP funding based on 15
percent of the total estimated eligible
Stafford Act disaster assistance, and
Enhanced State Mitigation Plans, which
allow a State to receive HMGP funds
based on 20 percent of the total
estimated eligible Stafford Act disaster
assistance. Enhanced State Mitigation
Plans must demonstrate that the State
has developed a comprehensive
mitigation program, that it effectively
uses available mitigation funding, and
that it is capable of managing the
increased funding. All State Mitigations
Plans must be reviewed, revised, and reapproved by FEMA every three years.
An important requirement of the
legislation is that we must approve a
completed enhanced plan before a
disaster declaration, in order for the
State to be eligible for the increased
funding.
We will no longer require States to
revise their mitigation plan after every
disaster declaration, as under former
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:00 Feb 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM pfrm02 PsN: 26FER2 DRAFT
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 8845 section 409 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 5176.
We recommend, however, that States
consider revising their plan if a disaster
or other circumstances significantly
affect its mitigation priorities. States
with existing mitigation plans, approved
under former section 409, will continue
to be eligible for the 15 percent HMGP
funding until November 1, 2003, when
all State mitigation plans must meet the
requirements of these regulations. If
State plans are not revised and
approved to meet the Standard State
Mitigation Plan requirements by that
time, they will be ineligible for Stafford
Act assistance, excluding emergency
assistance.
Indian tribal governments may choose
to apply directly to us for HMGP
funding, and would therefore be
responsible for having an approved
State level mitigation plan, and would
act as the grantee. If an Indian tribal
government chooses to apply for HMGP
grants through the State, they would be
responsible for having an approved
local level mitigation plan, and would
serve as a subgrantee accountable to the
State as grantee.
This rule also establishes local
planning criteria so that these
jurisdictions can actively begin the
hazard mitigation planning process.
This requirement is to encourage the
development of comprehensive
mitigation plans before disaster events.
Section 322 requires local governments
to have an approved local mitigation
plan to be eligible to receive an HMGP
project grant; however, this requirement
will not fully take effect until November
1, 2003. FEMA Regional Directors may
grant an exception to this requirement
in extenuating circumstances. Until
November 1, 2003, local governments
will be able to receive HMGP project
grant funds and may prepare a
mitigation plan concurrently with
implementation of their project grant.
We anticipate that the Predisaster
Mitigation program authorized by
section 203 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 5133,
will also support this local mitigation
planning by making funds available for
the development of comprehensive local
mitigation plans. Managing States that
we approve under new criteria
established under section 404 of the
Act, 42 U.S.C. 5170c(c), as amended by
section 204 of DMA 2000 will have
approval authority for local mitigation
plans. This provision does not apply to
States that we approved under the
Managing State program in effect before
enactment of DMA 2000.
Our goal is for State and local
governments to develop comprehensive
and integrated plans that are
coordinated through appropriate State,
local, and regional agencies, as well as
non-governmental interest groups. To
the extent feasible and practicable, we
would also like to consolidate the
planning requirements for different
FEMA mitigation programs. This will
ensure that one local plan will meet the
minimum requirements for all of the
different FEMA mitigation programs,
such as the Flood Mitigation Assistance
Program (authorized by sections 553
and 554 of the National Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. 4104c
and 42 U.S.C. 4104d), the Community
Rating System (authorized by section
541 of the National Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. 4022), the
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
(authorized by section 203 of the
Stafford Act), the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (authorized by section
404 of the Stafford Act), and the
mitigation activities that are based upon
the provisions of section 323 and
subsections 406(b) and (e) of the
Stafford Act. The mitigation plans may
also serve to integrate documents and
plans produced under other emergency
management programs. State level plans
should identify overall goals and
priorities, incorporating the more
specific local risk assessments, when
available, and including projects
identified through the local planning
process.
Under section 322(d), up to 7 percent
of the available HMGP funds may now
be used for planning, and we encourage
States to use these funds for local plan
development. In a memorandum to
FEMA Regional Directors dated
December 21, 2000, we announced that
this provision of section 322 was
effective for disasters declared on or
after October 30, 2000, the date on
which the Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000 became law. Regional Directors are
encouraging States to make these funds
immediately available to local and
Indian tribal governments, although the
funds can be used for plan development
and review at the State level as well.
As discussed earlier in this
Supplementary Information, subsection
323(a) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C.
5166(a), requires as a precondition to
receiving disaster assistance under the
Act that State and local governments, as
well as eligible private nonprofit
entities, must agree to carry out repair
and reconstruction activities ‘‘in
accordance with applicable standards of
safety, decency, and sanitation and in
conformity with applicable codes,
specifications, and standards.’’ In
addition, that subsection authorizes the
President (FEMA, by virtue of Executive
Order 12148, as amended) to ‘‘require
safe land use and construction practices,
after adequate consultation with
appropriate State and local officials’’ in
the course of the use of Federal disaster
assistance by eligible applicants to
repair and restore disaster-damaged
facilities.
At the same time that we implement
the planning mandates of section 322 of
the Stafford Act, we are also
implementing the Minimum Standards
for Public and Private Structures
provision of section 323 of the Act. This
rule appears at Subpart M of Part 206 of
Title 44 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. As mentioned earlier, the
section 322 planning regulations are in
Part 201, while Part 206, Subpart M
includes only the minimum codes and
standards regulations mandated in
§ 323. The rule to implement § 323 of
the Act reinforces the link between predisaster planning, building and construction standards, and postdisaster reconstruction efforts.
We encourage comments on this
interim final rule, and we will make
every effort to involve all interested
parties prior to the development of the
Final Rule.
Justification for Interim Final Rule
In general, FEMA publishes a rule for
public comment before issuing a final
rule, under the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 533 and 44 CFR
1.12. The Administrative Procedure Act,
however, provides an exception from
that general rule where the agency for
good cause finds the procedures for
comment and response contrary to
public interest. Section 322 of the
Stafford Act allows States to receive
increased post-disaster grant funding for
projects designed to reduce future
disaster losses. States will only be
eligible for these increased funds if they
have a FEMA-approved Enhanced State
Mitigation Plan.
This interim final rule provides the
criteria for development and approval of
these plans, as well as criteria for local
mitigation plans required by this
legislation. In order for State and local
governments to be positioned to receive
these mitigation funds as soon as
possible, these regulations must be in
effect. The public benefit of this rule
will be to assist States and communities
assess their risks and identify activities
to strengthen the larger community and
the built environment in order to
become less susceptible to disasters.
Planning serves as the vital foundation
to saving lives and protecting
properties, having integrated plans in
place can serve to both streamline
recovery efforts and lessen potential
future damages. Therefore, we believe it
is contrary to the public interest to delay
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 10:58 Feb 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 26FER2 DRAFT
8846 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations the benefits of this rule. In accordance
with the Administrative Procedure Act,
5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we find that there is
good cause for the interim final rule to
take effect immediately upon
publication in the Federal Register in
order to meet the needs of States and
communities by identifying criteria for
mitigation plans in order to reduce risks
nationwide, establish criteria for
minimum codes and standards in postdisaster reconstruction, and to allow States to adjust their mitigation plans to
receive the increase in mitigation
funding.
In addition, we believe that, under the
circumstances, delaying the effective
date of this rule until after the comment
period would not further the public
interest. Prior to this rulemaking, FEMA
hosted a meeting where interested
parties provided comments and
suggestions on how we could
implement these planning requirements.
Participants in this meeting included
representatives from the National
Emergency Management Association,
the Association of State Floodplain
Managers, the National Governors’
Association, the International
Association of Emergency Managers, the
National Association of Development
Organizations, the American Public
Works Association, the National League
of Cities, the National Association of
Counties, the National Conference of
State Legislatures, the International
City/County Management Association,
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We
took comments and suggestions
provided at this meeting into account in
developing this interim final rule.
Therefore, we find that prior notice and
comment on this rule would not further
the public interest. We actively
encourage and solicit comments on this
interim final rule from interested
parties, and we will consider them in
preparing the final rule. For these
reasons, we believe we have good cause
to publish an interim final rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(ii) excludes this
rule from the preparation of an
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement, where
the rule relates to actions that qualify for
categorical exclusion under 44 CFR
10.8(d)(2)(iii), such as the development
of plans under this section.
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
We have prepared and reviewed this
rule under the provisions of E.O. 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review. Under
Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993, a significant regulatory
action is subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Executive Order defines
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one
that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
The purpose of this rule is to
implement section 322 of the Stafford
Act which addresses mitigation
planning at the State, tribal, and local
levels, identifies new local planning
requirements, allows Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (HMGP) funds for
planning activities, and increases the
amount of HMGP funds available to
States that develop a comprehensive,
enhanced mitigation plan. The rule
identifies local mitigation planning
requirements before approval of project
grants, and requires our approval of an
Enhanced State Mitigation plan as a
condition for increased mitigation
funding. The rule also implements
section 323 of the Stafford Act, which
requires that repairs or construction
funded by disaster loans or grants must
comply with applicable standards and
safe land use and construction practices.
As such the rule itself will not have an
effect on the economy of more than
$100,000,000.
Therefore, this rule is a significant
regulatory action and is not an
economically significant rule under
Executive Order 12866. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
reviewed this rule under Executive
Order 12866.
Executive Order 12898, Environmental
Justice
Under Executive Order 12898, Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994, we incorporate
environmental justice into our policies
and programs. The Executive Order
requires each Federal agency to conduct
its programs, policies, and activities that
substantially affect human health or the
environment, in a manner that ensures
that those programs, policies, and
activities do not have the effect of
excluding persons from participation in
our programs, denying persons the
benefits of our programs, or subjecting
persons to discrimination because of
their race, color, or national origin.
No action that we can anticipate
under the final rule will have a
disproportionately high or adverse
human health and environmental effect
on any segment of the population.
Section 322 focuses specifically on
mitigation planning to: Identify the
natural hazards, risks, and
vulnerabilities of areas in States,
localities, and tribal areas; support
development of local mitigation plans;
provide for technical assistance to local
and tribal governments for mitigation
planning; and identify and prioritize
mitigation actions that the State will
support, as resources become available.
Section 323 requires compliance with
applicable codes and standards in repair
and construction, and use of safe land
use and construction standards.
Accordingly, the requirements of
Executive Order 12898 do not apply to
this interim final rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)) and concurrent with the
publication of this interim final rule, we
have submitted a request for review and
approval of a new collection of
information, which is contained in this
interim final rule. Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, a person may
not be penalized for failing to comply
with an information collection that does
not display a currently valid Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) control
number. The request was submitted to
OMB for approval under the emergency
processing procedures in OMB
regulation 5 CFR 1320.1. OMB has
approved this collection of information
for use through August 31, 2002, under
OMB Number 3067–0297.
We expect to follow this emergency
request with a request for OMB approval
to continue the use of the collection of
information for a term of three years.
The request will be processed under
OMB’s normal clearance procedures in
accordance with provisions of OMB
regulation 5 CFR 1320.10. To help us
with the timely processing of the
emergency and normal clearance
submissions to OMB, we invite the
general public to comment on the
collection of information. This notice
and request for comments complies
with the provisions of the Paperwork
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 10:58 Feb 25, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 26FER2 DRAFT
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 DRAFT
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 DRAFT
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 DRAFT
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 DRAFT
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.