The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOC REGIONAL WATER AND WASTEWATER MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANFINAL. DRAFT REPORT ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER AND WASTEWATER MULTI -HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: MUNICIPAL. WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY FEBRUARY 1, 2012 Fl NAI -DRAFT REPORT ORANGE REGIONAL , WATER 'WASTEWATER MULTI -HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared by Municipal Water District of Orange County 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 February 1, 2012 ��N�� TABLE OF SectionIntroduction ..................................................................................................... 1~Y LIykaz ofPlan ...... —... ......... ...... ................ ... .......... —.... .l-2 12 Pbu/ Purpose and Authority ......................... ----...... —............................... l-3 |] Participating Water Jurisdictions Background .................................................. _\-4 Section Multi -Jurisdictional Participation ................................................................... 2-1 2.1 List of Participating Water Districts and City Public Utilities .......................... ... 2-1 3] Description ofEach Jurisdiction's Participation bothe Planning Process ............. 3'| 3.2 Description of Planning Committee F^rouUion--............................................... 3-2 3.3 Name of Planning Committee and Its Members ................................................... 3'2 3.4 Hazard Mitigation Working Group Meetings ------------------..9-4 3'5 Planning Process Milestones ............. ........ —......................................... ........ 3-j 3.6 Public Involvement ........................ .............. ....... ...... .............................. .......... 3-6 4L1 Overview ofthe Risk Assessment Process ........................................... ................ 4-| 42 Hazard Identification and Screening,......... —...... ........................................... .... 4-3 4.3 Hazard Profiles .......................................... .............. ......... ...................... ........... 4'7 4.4 Vulnerability Assessment ........... ..................... .................................. ............ —4'47 i{ Purpose ofthe Plan ..................... ......................... .......................................... ..... 5-1 52 Regional Considerations, .................. —.................... ........ ....................... ......... 5'5 5.3 Regional Goals and Objectives for Hazard Mitigation Planning for Water ...... ... 5-7 54 Regional Goals and Objectives for Hazard Mitigation Planning for Wastewater............................................................................................................ 5-9 5.5 Implementation through Existing Programs ..... ............................................... ... 5-lO 5.6 Buena Park — Objectives, Goals and Actions ................................. .... —... ........ 5'l3 5'7 E1Toro —0becdvem Goals and Actions ..... ...................................................... 5-25 5.8 GmdcuGnove—Ohecdves Goals and Actions .............. .................... .............. 5-48 5.9 Laguna Beach —Objectives, Goals and Actions ... .................................... —... 5-51 5]0 LoHabra — Objectives, Goals and Actions ...... .............. ...... .................. ...... —_5-62 5]1 MESA — Objectives, Goals and Actions .......... ........................ ................. ........ j-73 5.12 MookooNbguei—Oboudvoa Goals and Actions ... —.................. ........... ........ 5'8l 5]3 M\&D0C— Objectives, Goals and Actions ........................ —....................... .... 5-V4 5]4 Newport Bmuch—Ubeudvoo Goals and Actions .................................. ........... 5'|O] 5]5 0CSD-0huoth/co Goals and Actions ........... —....................................... —5-|l4 5]6 0CWD—Objectives, Goals and Actions .................... ........ ........................... 5-l27 5.17 City u[Orange —Objectives, Goals and Actions ..... ................................... —'5-l34 `-February-2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 6 5]9 Serrano - Objectives, Goals and Actions ... ...... --- ... ...... ... ....... ...... .......... 5'lS2 5.20 South Coast WatcrDistrict- Objectives, Goals and Actions. ......... .... -...... -.5-l65 5.21 8DCWA-Objectives, Goals and Actions ................. .................................. ... 5-/75 522 Trabuoo-Objectives, Goals and Actions ....... ............. ............. .... ......... 5'|85 523 Tuado-Obec|bey Goals and Actions ................................. ........................... 5-lg6 524 Westminster - Objectives, Goals and Actions .................................... -............ 5-2|U PlanMaintenance ............................................................................................ 6- 6l Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan ............................................... ..... 6-1 Appendices-----'-''--'----'-'---'-'---------------.---------. 8.1 '-Februa~-2012 d List of Tables and Figures Table 13-1 Sources of Potable Water for OC Retail Agencies by Sub -Region Table 1.3-2 Existing Water Supply Sources for Water Utilities in Orange County Table 1.3-3 Orange County Potable Water Demands and Supplies, Current/Future Table 1.3-4 Existing Potable Water Storage Volume and Portion Available for Emergency Table 1.3-5 Potable Well Water Production Capacity to Year 2025 by Producer Table ' )3-1 Planning Representatives for Participating Jurisdictions Table 4.2.2-1 Summary of Hazard Identification Results Table 4.2.3-1 Summary of Hazards Excluded from Hazard Profiling Table 4.3-1 Hazard Valuation Loss Summary by Hazard Table 4.3.4.3-1 Palmer Drought Severity Index Table 4.3.5.1-1 1-1 Characteristics of Imported Geologic Faults in Orange County, California Table 4.3.5.2-1 Partial List of Earthquake Events in the Southern California Region Table 4.3.11.2-1 Historic Tornado Events in Orange County (1958-2005) Table 4.4.2.2-1 Possible Loss of Local Water Supply Due to a Earthquake in/near Orange County by Retail Agency as a Percentage of Normal Local Supply Rate Table 4.4.2.2-2 Possible Water Shortage in Event of a Major Earthquake in Orange County by Retail Water Agency Table 4.4.2-1 Unit Replacement Costs of Facilities Table 4.4.2-2 Summary Assets Table 4.4.2-3 Moderate Earthquake Threat - Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure and Exposure Value by Jurisdiction Table 4.4.2-4 High Earthquake Threat — Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure and Exposure Value by Jurisdiction Table 4.4.2-5 Extreme Earthquake — Inventories of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure and Exposure Value by Jurisdiction Table 4.4.2-6 500 -Year Flood Plain — Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure and Exposure Value by Jurisdiction Table 4.4.2-7 100 -Year Flood Plain — Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure and Exposure Value by Jurisdiction Table 4.4.2-8 Slope Over 25%: Landslide Hazard — Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure and Exposure Value by Jurisdiction Table 4A.2-9 Liquefaction — Moderate — Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure and Exposure Value by Jurisdiction Table 4.4.2-10 Liquefaction — High — Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure and Exposure Value by Jurisdiction Table 4.4.2-11 Liquefaction — Very High — Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure and Exposure Value by Jurisdiction Table 4.4.2-12 Low Fire Threat — Inventories of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure and Exposure Value by Jurisdiction 1 -February -2012 111 List of TOM and Figures Table 4.4.2-13 High Fire Threat — Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure and Exposure Value by Jurisdiction Table 4.4.2-14 Extreme Fire Threat — Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure and Exposure Value by Jurisdiction Table 4.4.2-15 Moderate to Extreme Earthquake — Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste Water Line by Jurisdiction Table 4.4.2-16 Flood: 100 -Year and 500 -Year - Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste Water Line by Jurisdiction Table 4.4.2-17 Landslide Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste Water Line by Jurisdiction Table 4.4.2-18 Moderate to Very High Liquefaction — Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste Water Line by Jurisdiction Table 4.4.2-19 Low to Extreme Wildlife/Structure Fire — Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste Water Line by Jurisdiction Table 5.1.2-1 Hazards within Orange County — Orange County Regional Water & Wastewater HMP Table 5.2.2-1 Joint Regional Facilities Lost Estimation Table for Water Table 5.2.2-2 MET Loss Estimation Table for Orange County Facilities Table 5.6-1 Buena Park Loss Estimation Table Table 5.6.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capacity Table 5.6.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5.6.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.6.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Table 5.6.5.1-1 BUENA PARK —Goals and Actions Table 5.7-1 El Toro Loss Estimation Table Table 5.7.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.7.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5.7.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.7.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Table 5.7.5.1-1 ETWD — Goals and Actions Table 5.8-1 Garden Grove Loss Estimation Table Table 5.8.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.83-1 -I Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5.8.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.8.6-1 GARDEN GROVE — Goals and Actions Table 5.9-1 Laguna Beach Loss Estimation Table Table 5.9.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.9.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5.9.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.9.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Table 59.5.1-1 LBCWD — Goals and Actions Table 5.10-1 La Habra Loss Estimation Table 1 -February -2612 iv Table 5.10.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.10.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5.10.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.10.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Table 5.10-5-2 LA HABRA — Goals and Actions Table 5.11 -1 Mesa Loss Estimation Table Table 5.11.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.11.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5.11.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.11.5.1-1 MESA — Goals and Actions Table 5.12-1 Moulton Niguel Loss Estimation Table Table 5.12.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.12.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5.12.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.12.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Table 5.12.6.2-1 MOULTON NIGUEL — Goals and Actions Table 5,13-1 MWDOC Loss Estimation Table Table 5.13.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.133-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5.13.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.13.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Table 5.13.6-1 MWDOC — Goals and Actions Table 5.14-1 Newport Loss Estimation Table Table 5.14.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.14.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5.14.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.14.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Table 5.14.5.1-1 NEWPORT BEACH — Goals and Actions Table 5.15-1 OCSD Loss Estimation Table Table 5.15.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.15.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5.15.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.15.5-1 OCSD — Goals and Actions Table 5.16-1 OCWD Loss Estimation Table Table 5.16.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.16.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5.16.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.16.6-1 OCWD — Goals and Actions Table 5.17-1 Orange Loss Estimation Table Table 5.17.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.17.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity List of Tables and Figures 1 -February -2012 v List of Tables and Figures Table 5.17.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.17.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Table 5.17.6-1 ORANGE — Goals and Actions Table 5,18-1 Santa Margarita Loss Estimation Table Table 5.18.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.18.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5.18.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.18.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Table 5.18.6-1 SWMD — Goals and Actions Table 5.19-1 Serrano Loss Estimation Table Table 5.19.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.19.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5.19.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.19.6-1 SERRANO — Goals and Actions Table 5.20-1 SCWD Loss Estimation Table Table 5.20.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.20.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5.20.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.20.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Table 5.20.5.1-1 SCWD — Goals and Actions Table 5.21-t SOCWA Loss Estimation Table Table 5.21.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.21.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5.21.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.21.5-1 SOCWA — Goals and Actions Table 5.22-1 Trabuco Loss Estimation Table Table 5.22.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.22.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5,22.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.22.5-1 TRABUCO — Goals and Actions Table 5.23-1 Tustin Loss Estimation Table Table 5.23-2 Tustin 2A Worksheet Table 5.23-3 Tustin Historic Fires Above or Within Tustin Watershed Table 5.23.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.23.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5.23.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.23.6-1 TUSTIN — Goals and Actions Table 5.24-1 Westminster Loss Estimation Table Table 5.24.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.24.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5.24.4-1 Fiscal Capability I -February -2012 vi Table 5.24.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Table 5.24.6.1-1 WESTMINSTER — Goals and Actions Table 5.24-1 Westminster Loss Estimation Table Table 5.25-1 Yorba Linda Loss Estimation Table Table 5.25.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Table 5.25.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Table 5.25.4-1 Fiscal Capability Table 5.25.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Table 5.25.6-1 YORBA LINDA — Goals and Actions List Of Tables and Figures 1 -February -2012 vil List of Tables and Figures Figure 1.3-1 Orange County Retail Agencies and Regional Water Facilities Figure 1.31-2 Orange County Retail Agencies and Sub -Areas Figure 1.3.4.1-1 Orange County Water District Basin Areas Figure 1.4.1.1-1 Orange County Sanitation District Service Area Figure 1.4.2-1 SOCWA Regional Wastewater System Figure 2-1 MWDOC Service Area and Member Agencies Figure 4.3-1a Tsunami Inundation Maps for Orange County Figure 4.3-1b Tsunami Inundation Maps for Orange County Figure 4.3-1c -I c Tsunami Inundation Maps for Orange County Figure 4.3-1 d Tsunami Inundation Maps for Orange County Figure 4.3-1e Tsunami Inundation Maps for Orange County Figure 4.3-1 f Tsunami Inundation Maps for Orange County Figure 4.3-2 Earthquake -Orange County MWDOC Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 4.33-3 ) Liquefaction -Orange County MWDOC Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 4.3-4 Flood -Orange County MWDOC Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 4.3-5 Slopes Greater Than 25% Landslide — Orange County MWDOC Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 4.3-6 Urban/Wildland Fire Threat -Orange County MWDOC Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 4.4.2.1-1 Active Geologic Faults in/near Orange County Figure 4.4.2.1-2 Shaking Pattern Due to a Simulated Earthquake Magnitude 6.9 Newport Inglewood Fault Figure 4.4.2.1-3 Shaking Pattern Due to a Simulated Earthquake Magnitude 6.8 Peralta Hills Fault Figure 4.4.2.1-4 Shaking Pattern Due to a Simulated Earthquake Magnitude 7.5 Puente Hills Fault Figure 4.4.2.1-5 Shaking Pattern Due to a Simulated Earthquake Magnitude 6.6 San Joaquin Hills Fault Figure 4.4.2.1-6 Shaking Pattern Due to a Simulated Earthquake Magnitude 6.8 Whittier Fault Figure 5.6-1 Buena Park Water Assets Figure 5.7-1 El Toro Water District Water and Wastewater Assets Figure 5.8-1 Garden Grove Water and Wastewater Assets Figure 5.9-1 Laguna Beach County Water District Water Assets Figure 5.10-1 La Habra Water Assets Figure 5.11-1 Mesa Consolidated Water District Water Assets Figure 5.12-1 Moulton Niguel Water District Water and Wastewater Assets Figure 5.13-1 MWDOC, Joint and MET Water Assets Figure 5.14-1 Newport Beach Water and Wastewater Assets Figure 5.15-1 Orange County Sanitation District Wastewater Assets Figure 5.16-1 Orange County Water District Water Assets Figure 5.17-1 City of Orange Water Assets Figure 5.18-1 Santa Margarita Water District Water and Wastewater Assets 1 -February -2012 Vill List of Tables and figures Figure 5.19-1 South Orange County Wastewater Authority Wastewater Assets Figure 5,20-1 Serrano Canyon Water District Water Assets Figure 5.21-1 South Coast Water District Water and Wastewater Assets Figure 5.22-1 City of Tustin Water Assets Figure 5.23-1 Trabuco Canyon Water District Water and Wastewater Assets Figure 5.23-2 Fire History — Trabuco Canyon Figure 5.24-1 City of Westminster Water Assets Figure 5.25-1 Yorba Linda Water and Wastewater Assets 1 -February -2012 Ix List of Acronyms and Abbreviations AC0E Army Corps ofEngineers ADM Administration AF/yr Acre Feet/ year ALERT Automated Level Evaluation inReal Time AMP AUen'MoCol!oohPipe/ine AUMD Air Quality Management District ATM AufdunkampTransmission Main BPP Basin Production Percentage CA DPH California Department o/Public Health CAL EMA California Emergency Management Agency CAT|C California Anti -Terrorism Information Center CDC California Department ofConservation CO86 Community Development Block Grants CDF-FRAP California Department nfForestry-Fire and Resource Assessment Program CDFG California Department ofFish and Game CDR Center for Demographic Research CFR Code nfFederal Regulations do cubic feet per second CGS California Geological Survey C|PP|on Capital Improvement Plan C|SN California Integrated Seismic Network COE Corps n/Engineers CSSC California Seismic Safety Commission CTP Coastal Treatment Plant DHS Department o[Homeland Security DMA 2000 Disaster Mitigation Act of2O08 ETM Effluent Transmission Main BT Emargenoy|ntertieo EMS Emergency Medical Services EOC Emergency Operations Center EAP Emergency Action Plan EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA -VA Environmental Protection Agency- Vulnerability Assessment EPCRA Emergency Planning and Cnmmunity-Right-To-Know ERP Emergency Response Plan E8R| aGeographic Information System software development firm FBI Federal Bureau nfInvestigation FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps GIS Geographic Information System 0Pm gallons per minute GWR System Groundwater Replenishment System HAZU8 (pg4-97) HCA (p4-125) HN09 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HMP Hazard Mitigation Plan HMVNG Hazard Mitigation Working Group ,-F"bruary-2012 x List of Acronyms and Abbreviations How-to Guide FEMA State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide |RWD Irvine Ranch Water District |bPU Interim Strategic Plan Update JBL Jay B.Latham J0W88 Joint Regional Water Supply System JTM Joint Regional Transmission Main LADVVP Los Angeles Department nfWater and Power LAFCO Local Agency Formation Committee LBCVYD Laguna Beach Canyon Water District LMV Lake Mission Viejo LPG Local Planning Groups LS Lift Station MCL Maximum Contaminant Level Mmxe Mesa Consolidated Water District MET Metropolitan Water District m[Southern California WNVVD Moulton Niguel Water District MOA Memorandum ofAgreement MSL Mean Sea Level MWDOC Municipal Water District o/Orange County NCCP National Communities Conservation Plan NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program N|MS National Incident Management System N[AA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NYVD National Weather Service NCI North Coast Interceptor 0C Orange County 0C44 name ofopotable water service connection OC -88 name ofapotable water service connection OCBC Orange County Business Council OCFA Orange County Fire Authority OCJTTF Orange County Joint Terrorism Task Force OC -MAIN table 4.4.3 -2 -additional section 4insert OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCVVD Orange County Water District OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PDD Presidential Decision Directive PD8i "Palmer Drought Severity Index" PGA Peak Ground Acceleration PID Power Plant PRG Pressure Reducing Station PS Pump Station PSTRG Private Sector Terrorism Response Group PN potable water PNU Participating Water and Wastewater Utilities R -G Name «[areservoir RDMD County o[Orange Resource Development and Management Department RTP Regional Treatment Plant `-February-2012 Xi List of Acronyms and Abbreviations RES Reservoir RMS Reservoir Management Systems RVQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board 8AMP Special Area Master Plan SAR Santa Ana River SARA SupodfundAmendments and Reauthorization Act GAVYPA Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SC Service Connectors 8CADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SCEC Southern California Earthquake Center SCEDC Southern California Earthquake Data Center SCP South County Pipeline SCVYD South Coast Water District SEMS Standardized Emergency Management System SMN0 Santa Margarita Water District SOCWA South Orange County Wastewater Authority SONGS San UnohnNuclear Generating Station STAPLEE Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental Considerations 3A 3A Plant TCN0 TmbucoConyon Water District TDS Total Dissolved Solids TEWG Terrorism Early Warning Working Group Title M&22(potubke) California Drinking Water Regulation TRI Toxic Release Inventory TWG Terrorism Working Group U8ACE United States Army Corps o[Engineers U8FS United States Forest Service USFN8 United States Fish and Wildlife Service USQS United States Geological Survey UOR Upper Oso Reservoir VV1G.E� (pg 4-39) WD Water District WELL Well WEROC Water Emergency Response Organization ofOrange County WIVID Weapons of Mass Destruction NRPLab (pg 4-182) vvu{ Water Storage Tank WTP Water Treatment Plant YVUE Water Use Efficiency WW waste water WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant YLVVD YorbaLinda Water District I -February -2012 X11 SECTIONONE Introduction 64X"E• . ! a � i Across the United States, natural and manmade disasters have led to increasing levels of death, injury, property damage, and interruption of business and government services. The impact on families and individuals can be immense and damages to businesses can result in regional economic consequences. The time, money, and effort to respond to and recover from these disasters divert public resources and attention from other important programs and problems. Correspondingly, in 2007 the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) along with 19 local entities prepared a Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan that identified critical facilities in the county, and mitigation actions in the form of projects and programs to reduce the impact of natural and manmade hazards. This update to the 2007 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan (the Plan) is being prepared for MWDOC and the other participating water and wastewater utilities (PWU). As such, the Plan focuses on water and wastewater facilities in Orange County, California and identifies mitigation actions to reduce the impact of natural and manmade hazards on these critical facilities. The Plan was prepared with input from county residents, responsible officials, and with the support of the State of California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The process to develop the Plan included numerous meetings and coordination with representatives from MWDOC and all of the PWU. The Plan is a guide for MWDOC and the PWU over the next five years toward greater disaster resistance in harmony with the character and needs of the local community. In addition, each agency will utilize current approved planning documents that identify implementation strategies for capital improvement, risk reduction, system upgrades, and operations. These plans complement the Plan and include but are not limited to: All Hazards SEMS/NIMS Emergency Response Plan, Capital Improvement Plans, and Asset Management Plans. In 2007 the hazard mapping was done using a HAZUS based threat analysis tool that an independent consultant utilized for the plan. In some cases participating agencies have added additional hazard threat information, in place of or in addition to the HAZUS based threat analysis. In most cases this is due to local knowledge, history, and experience. In some cases the only mapping available was a few years old, and so some agencies pointed out new relevant development or changes in their community that could affect the accuracy of a hazard map. For the 2012 update there were four hazards that had updated mapping: tsunami, landslide, liquefaction, and fire. Unfortunately, due to lack of monetary means the group was unable to update the GIS HAZUS based maps. In order to incorporate the updated mapping information, the group decided to include copies of the new map information within the plan update, and to do visual reviews of the new maps to determine new threats to infrastructure and property. Any changes in hazard risk based on these visual reviews of maps are reflected throughout the document and in particular within in the Section 5 Loss Estimation Tables. In discussions with the Cal EMA this addition of local knowledge and insight is encouraged and considered to be a valid component of threat assessment, The Plan is a working document that will grow and change as our communities do. This means at times participating agencies may identify a higher criticality then noted in this plan, or a redirection of goals based on new information or updated decisions. In consideration of this concept there may be projects or policies that need to be considered that were not included in this document. All formal updates to the plan will be made every five years as required. The concept of the Hazard Mitigation and the Federal I -February -2012 I —I ??ECTIONONE Intreducthor Hazard Mitigation Project Grant program is to identify a community's most critical needs and provide risk reduction. Therefore all newly identified concepts are then considered a valid component of a community's hazard mitigation program. This section of the Plan includes an overview of the Plan, a discussion of the Plan's purpose and authority, and a description of the relationship between MWDOC and the PWIJ within Orange County. 1.1 PLAN DESCRIPTION/PURPOSE OF PLAN Federal legislation has historically provided funding for disaster relief, recovery, and some hazard mitigation planning. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) is the latest legislation to improve this planning process (Public Law 106-390). This legislation reinforces the importance of mitigation planning and emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. As such, DMA 2000 establishes a pre - disaster hazard mitigation program and new requirements for the national post -disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The Pre -disaster Mitigation Act of 2010 was signed into law in January of 201 1 but does not impact the planning process. The 2010 Act reauthorizes the pre -disaster mitigation program - Section 322 of DMA 2000 specifically addresses mitigation planning at the state and local levels. It identifies the requirements that allow HMGP funds to be used for planning activities, and increases the amount of HMGP funds available to states that have developed a comprehensive, enhanced mitigation plan prior to a disaster. States and communities must have an approved mitigation plan in place prior to receiving pre or post disaster funds. Local mitigation plans must demonstrate that their proposed mitigation measures are based on a sound planning process that accounts for the risk to and the capabilities of the individual communities. State governments have certain responsibilities for implementing Section 3221, including: • Preparing and submitting a standard or enhanced state mitigation plan; • Reviewing and updating the state mitigation plan every three years; • Providing technical assistance and training to local governnients to assist them in applying for HMGP grants and in developing local mitigation plans; and • Reviewing and approving local plans if the state is designated a managing state and has an approved enhanced plan. DMA 2000 is intended to facilitate cooperation between state and local authorities, prompting them to work together. It encourages and rewards local and state pre -disaster planning and promotes sustainability as a strategy for disaster resistance. This enhanced planning network is intended to enable local and state governments to articulate accurate needs for mitigation, resulting in faster allocation of funding and more effective risk reduction projects. FEMA prepared the Final Rule, published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2009 (Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 44, Chapter 1, Part 201 (44 CFR Part 201 and 206), which establishes planning and funding criteria for states and local communities. For federal approval, the following criteria must be met during the planning process: 1 -February -2612 1-2 SECTIONONE introduction • Complete documentation of the planning process. • Detailed risk assessment of hazard exposures in the community. • Comprehensive mitigation strategy, describing goals and objectives, proposed strategies, programs and actions to avoid long-term vulnerabilities. • A planned maintenance process will describe the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating and updating the plan, and the integration of the Plan into other planning mechanisms. • The formal adoption of the Plan by the Board of Directors for each PWU and City Council for each participating city water utility. • Plan review by both Cal EMA and FEMA. The Plan has been prepared to meet FEMA and Cal EMA requirements, thus making MWDOC and the PWU eligible for funding and technical assistance for state and federal hazard mitigation programs. As the cost of the damage from natural disasters continues to increase, the PWU realizes the importance of identifying effective ways to reduce vulnerability to disasters. Hazard mitigation plans assist communities in reducing risk from natural hazards by identifying resources, information, and strategies for risk reduction, while guiding and coordinating mitigation activities throughout the County. The Orange County Water and Wastewater Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a framework for water and wastewater utilities to plan for natural and man-made hazards in Orange County. The resources and background information in the Plan are applicable countywide, providing the groundwork for goals and recommendations for other local mitigation plans and partnerships. The Plan is intended to serve many purposes, including: • Enhance Public 4wa.reness and Understanding — to help residents of the County better understand the natural and manmade hazards that threaten public health, safety, and welfare; economic vitality; and the operational capability of important facilities; • Create a Decision Tool for Management — to provide information so that water and wastewater managers and leaders of local government, may take action to address vulnerabilities to future disasters; • Promote Compliance with State and Federal Program Requirements — to ensure that MWDOC/PWU can take full advantage of state and federal grant programs, policies, and regulations that encourage or mandate that local governments and special districts develop comprehensive hazard mitigation plans; • Enhance Local Policies for Hazard Mitigation Capability — to provide the policy basis for mitigation actions that should be promulgated by MWDOC[PWU to create a more disaster - resistant future; 1 -February -2012 1-3 SECTIONONE introduction • Provide Inter -Jurisdictional Coordination of Mitigation -Related Programming — to ensure that proposals for mitigation initiatives are reviewed and coordinated among MWDOC/PWU within the County; and Achieve Regulatory Compliance — to qualify for certain forms of federal aid for pre- and post - disaster funding, local jurisdictions must comply with the federal DMA 2000 and its implementing regulations (44 CFR Section 201-206). DMA 2000 intends for hazard mitigation plans to remain relevant and current. Therefore, it requires state hazard mitigation plans to be updated every three years and local plans, including MWDOC/PWU, every five years. This means that the Hazard Mitigation Plan for MWDOC uses a "five-year planning horizon." It is designed to carry MWDOC/PWU through the next five years, after which its assumptions, goals, and objectives will be revisited and the updated Plan resubmitted for approval. The Plan provides action items to reduce risk from natural hazards by fostering the development of partnerships and implementation of preventative activities. The resources and information within the Plan: Establish a basis for coordination and collaboration among MWDOC/PWU and the public in the County of Orange-, • Identify and prioritize future mitigation projects; and • Assist in meeting the requirements of federal assistance programs. 1.3 PARTICIPATING WATER JURISDICTIONS BACKGROUND Orange County relies on numerous sources of water and water purveyors to meet the needs of its growing population. There are thirty-one retail water utilities in Orange County. A retail water utility can be a city water department, a water district, or a private water company. Each has a distinct service area and sources of potable water supply. Figure 1.3-1 shows the locations of water utilities and regional facilities in Orange County. Regional water management in Orange County is provided through MWDOC and the Orange County Water District (OCWD), Together, these utilities assist in the management of imported water, Santa Ana River water and the OCWD groundwater basin for over three million residents and businesses in Orange County. MWDOC and OCWD work together to provide water to the thirty one retail utilities in the County. For hazard mitigation planning with respect to water systems, it is important to note that each retail Utility may have different sources of potable water supply and thus different exposures to vulnerability from supply disruptions. It is also important to note that retail utilities with heavy reliance on the imported system can have their supplies disrupted by an outage of either the Diemer Filtration Plant in Yorba Linda or one of the several pipelines leading from the treatment plant. Outages of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) facilities bringing water to the County can also be the cause of imported service disruptions. Utilities relying on local supplies, especially when there are multiple sources such as wells within the OCWD groundwater basin, have a lower risk profile from imported system disruptions. I -February -2012 1-4 SECTIONONE introduction As will be discussed later in the Plan, the most extreme risk to the regional imported water system in Orange County is from earthquakes. Based on the risk profile of having the import system knocked out from an earthquake, the County can be grouped into three regions based on the availability of local groundwater resources to the region. The three regions are: • Brea/La Habra • OCWD (Orange County Water District) Basin • South Orange County The thirty one retail water utilities are shown in Figure 1.3-1 and are grouped by the three regions in Figure 1.3-2 and Table 1.3-1. Table 1.3-2 shows the percentage of sources of potable water utilized by each retail water utility. Some of the water utilities have significantly reduced their potable water (drinking water) demands by creating a non-domestic water system that delivers non -potable water (usually recycled wastewater) for landscape irrigation and other non -drinking water uses. However, the majority of water demand in Orange County is for potable water. Local potable sources can be summarized for the three regions, as follows: I -February -2012 1-5 N N I Figure 1.3-1 Orange County Retail Agencies and Regional Water Facilities Introduction 1 -February -2012 1-6 Z - uoveafea Wate, P�Peloe — MET TmatedVblw Ppehne MET Loaw Aq�-,cv jcrmt Lo� Age,, -y ppelme mapf Reservws Evow- OC Water Retailers and Transmission Mains 1 -February -2012 1-6 SECTIONONE Figure 1.3-2 Orange County Retail Agencies and Sub -Areas Introduction 1 -February -2012 1-7 Edi Table 1.3-1 Sources of Potable Water for OC Retail Agencies by Sub -Region Own Ground Other Sub- Region g Retail Water Agency OCWD Basin Wells Wells not in OCWD Water from Others Surface Water, Treated Met Diemer Treatment Plant Met Treatment Plants Brea/ Brea X X X X LaHabra La Habra X X X X OCWD Anaheim X X X X Basin Buena Park X X X East Orange CWD X X Fountain Valley X X X Fullerton X X X Garden Grove X X X Golden State WC — " East X X " Plac.NL X X X " West OC X X X Huntington Beach X X X Irvine Ranch WD X Xi X X La Palma X X X Mesa WD X X X Newport Beach X X X Orange X X X X Santa Ana X X X Seal Beach X X X Serrano WD X X Tustin X X Westminster X X X Yorba Linda WD X X South EI Toro WD X OC Emerald Bay SD X X Laguna Beach CWD X X Moulton Niguel WD X San Clemente X X San Juan Capistrano X X Santa Margarita WD X South Coast WD X X Trabuco Canyon WD X X X Counts 31 20 8 2 3 31 19 x = Agency can normally receive potable water from this source 1 = IRWD Harding Canyon production is groundwater under the influence of surface water, and must be treated 1 -February -2412 1. -8 i MONE ii &T • The Brea/La Habra region receives groundwater from the San Gabriel Basin in Los Angeles County through California Domestic Water Company and from MET. La Habra also has a small groundwater well within the city. • The OCWD Basin utilities pump 62 to 75 percent of their annual needs from the OCWD groundwater Basin; most of the rest of their supply is MET treated water. Anaheim produces drinking water from its treatment plant served by a MET raw water pipeline. Serrano WD produces potable water from local runoff captured in Irvine Lake which is sometimes augmented with untreated imported water, which is then processed through its treatment plant for its own use, as well as to sell to the City of Orange. • The South Orange County area is about 90% dependent on MET for its potable water supply; local groundwater in the South Orange County area is typically, in much smaller amounts than the OCWD Basin, and is high in TDS (salt). Trabuco Canyon WD has a 6 cfs treatment plant which draws from a MET raw water pipeline for its own use and can provide limited potable water to Santa Margarita WD when needed. Table 1.3-2 Existing Water Supply Sources for Water Utilities in Orange County Retailed Water Utility Metropolitan Water I Ground Water Surface Water Recycled/Non-Pot. Water 2 City of Buena Park 35% 65% EI Toro WD 95% 5% City of Garden Grove 35% 65% City of La Habra 20% 80% Laguna Beach CWD 100% 0% Mesa WD 0% 95% 5% Moulton Niguel WD 81% 0% 19% City of Newport Beach 35% 65% <1% City of Orange 33% 63% 4% Santa Margarita WD 85% 15% Serrano WD 60% 40% South Coast WD 77% 13% 10% Trabuco Canyon WD 75% 5% 0% 20% City of Tustin 20% 80% City of Westminster 35% 65% Yorba Linda WD 50% 50010 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California import water to Southern California from the Colorado River Basin and from Northern California. 2 Recycled municipal wastewater and/or Non -Potable groundwater and surface water. Y -February -2042 1-9 1.3.1 Potable Water System Supplies — Current and Future Introduction Orange County total water demands would have been about 735,000 AF/yr in 2005, however, water use efficiency efforts have shaved off about 58,000 AF/yr of demand. Recycling plus non-domestic supplies are at the 50,000 AF/yr level. This leaves about 627,000 AF/yr of potable water demand in 2005, growing to about 746,000 AF/yr by 2025. At present, about half of OC's potable water supplies are imported from MET. As shown in Table 1.3-3, OC population is projected to rise from 3.1 million to 3.7 million people, and potable water demand is projected to rise at just about the same rate. Potable water supplies that were used in 2005 and are projected for 2025 are summarized by source in Table 13-3. Table 1.3-3 Orange County Potable Water Demands and Supplies, Current/Future 1 -February -2412 1—] 0 2010 2025 % Notes Increase Population (millions) 3.00 3.73.45 15% 2010 actual per 2010 Census; projections per Center for Demographic Research ACRE-FEET a. Water demand before WUE 707,000 840,000 19% Based on MWDOC data(), rounded b. Less WUE 116,000 127,000 27% Based on MWDOC data(2), rounded a — b = Consumptive Water demand 591,000 713,000 21% c. Less Recycling.& Non-domestic 38,000 55,000 45% Recycled & Non -Domestic Projections per supply agencies' responses to MWDOC 5 -yr. Water Demand survey Spring 2011. If the achieved a — b - c = Consumptive Demand for Recycled & Non -Domestic supplies are less than Potable Water 553,000 658,000 19% projected, potable water demand will increase. d. OCWD Basin pumping Projection per agencies' responses to survey 283,000 339,000 20% Spring '05, with assumed BPP of 75%. If Santa Ana River capture is limited, future basin pumping would be less than shown. e. Less Import. Replenishment OCWD's continued purchase of replenishment 19,000 20,000 5% water in future assumes continued availability from MET; otherwise pumping volume would decrease. d — e = OCWD Basin pumping, Increase shown results from projected increase non -imported source water only 264,000 319,000 21% in GWRS production and increased capture of Santa Ana River water. f. Non-OCWD Basin potable water 6,000 13500 125% Increases are projected for San Juan and wells Capistrano Beach Desalters and others. g. Cal Domestic supply to Brea & La Habra 9,500 15,000 125% I h. Ocean Water Desal Plant 70,000 n/a I HB Poseidon 50 mgd and SOCOD 15 mgd 1 -February -2412 1—] 0 SECTIONONE Introduction Table 1.3-3 Orange County Potable Water Demands and Supplies, Current/Future (Continued) OOLD INFO Actual FY 209-10 data collected by MWDOC. Projection per the water suppliers' Urban Water Management Plans of 2010 or as subsequently revised by them. [21 MWDOC has estimated how much water demand has decreased, on a per -capita basis, since 1990. Water Use Efficiency was formerly called Water Conservation. 1.3.2 Emergency Supplies For emergency supply analyses, it is assumed that all local water treatment plants (WTPs) would be run at full capacity. The City of Orange would use any of the Serrano WTP capacity not being used by Serrano. Reservoir storage provides a source of emergency water, but its rate of supply during a system outage event is limited based upon the type and duration of event. For a planned facility outage, it is assumed that tanks would be topped off prior to the outage, and 70% of tank volume would be "available" during the outage period (this reserves 30% for fire fighting purposes). But an earthquake could strike with tank storage at various levels, and it is assumed that only 30% of tank volume would be "available". The "available" volume would be drawn down at a steady rate over the duration of the outage (7 days for a planned outage, 10-31 days for an earthquake). Gross storage volumes and "available" volumes for each water utility are shown in Table 1.3-4. 1.3.3 Imported Water MWDOC is Orange County's imported water wholesaler, supplying 28 water retailers. These entities, comprised of cities and water districts and water companies, are referred to as MWDOC member utilities and provide water to approximately 2.2 million customers. MWDOC represents the interests of its member utilities and is MET's third largest member utility. The cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, and Santa Ana are direct MET member utilities and are not represented by MWDOC. Imported water from Northern California and the Colorado River meet approximately half of the County's water needs. This water is provided by MET, which serves the needs of six counties — Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and San Diego. 1 -February -2612 1-11 2010 2025 % Increase Notes plants. If ocean desal production is less than shown, demand on MET would increase. a—b—c - d — e — f —g - h = MET water needed to meet potable demands 273,500 240,500 -12% By subtraction, Does not include water for replenishment of OCWD Basin. Sum of Potable Supplies 553,000 658,000 19% Rate of Flow — cubic feet per second (CFS) Annual average demand rate 764 909 19% Potable water only Peak month demand rate @1.35 1,030 1,230 19% Potable water only, rounded OOLD INFO Actual FY 209-10 data collected by MWDOC. Projection per the water suppliers' Urban Water Management Plans of 2010 or as subsequently revised by them. [21 MWDOC has estimated how much water demand has decreased, on a per -capita basis, since 1990. Water Use Efficiency was formerly called Water Conservation. 1.3.2 Emergency Supplies For emergency supply analyses, it is assumed that all local water treatment plants (WTPs) would be run at full capacity. The City of Orange would use any of the Serrano WTP capacity not being used by Serrano. Reservoir storage provides a source of emergency water, but its rate of supply during a system outage event is limited based upon the type and duration of event. For a planned facility outage, it is assumed that tanks would be topped off prior to the outage, and 70% of tank volume would be "available" during the outage period (this reserves 30% for fire fighting purposes). But an earthquake could strike with tank storage at various levels, and it is assumed that only 30% of tank volume would be "available". The "available" volume would be drawn down at a steady rate over the duration of the outage (7 days for a planned outage, 10-31 days for an earthquake). Gross storage volumes and "available" volumes for each water utility are shown in Table 1.3-4. 1.3.3 Imported Water MWDOC is Orange County's imported water wholesaler, supplying 28 water retailers. These entities, comprised of cities and water districts and water companies, are referred to as MWDOC member utilities and provide water to approximately 2.2 million customers. MWDOC represents the interests of its member utilities and is MET's third largest member utility. The cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, and Santa Ana are direct MET member utilities and are not represented by MWDOC. Imported water from Northern California and the Colorado River meet approximately half of the County's water needs. This water is provided by MET, which serves the needs of six counties — Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and San Diego. 1 -February -2612 1-11 SECTIONONE Introduction MET "imports" water from the distant Colorado River and Northern California, and treats the raw water to potable quality at its water treatment plants. The MET Diemer Treatment Plant in Yorba Linda can deliver water to all of Orange County via MET feeders and joint -utility pipelines. Additionally, the western portion of Orange County can be served by MET's Jensen Treatment Plant via the Sepulveda Feeder and other feeders. The Brea/La Habra and the OCWD Basin areas obtain some flow from MET's Weymouth Treatment Plant via the relatively small Orange County Feeder. The South Orange County area receives almost all its imported water from MET's Diemer Plant, via the Allen-McColloch Pipeline (AMP) and its extension, the South County Pipeline (SCP), and via the East Orange County Feeder No. 2 (EOCF#2) and its main extensions the Joint Regional Transmission Main (JTM) and Aufdenkamp Transmission Main (ATM). The MET OC -88 South County Pump Station (OC -88 SCPS) is a key facility, boosting water about 300 feet hydraulically from the AMP into the SCP to allow service throughout south Orange County. About 10 cfs of flow from MET can reach Laguna Beach via the south end of the Orange County Feeder and the Coast Supply Line. There are three large lined -and -covered reservoirs in the County of Orange: the joint -agency R-6 Reservoir, the City of Newport Beach's Big Canyon Reservoir, and the joint -agency Upper Chiquita Reservoir in the South Orange County area. Regarding imported water supplies, there are many assumptions that are noted in Table 1.3-3. The largest unknown is the success rate of planned local projects. If the water supply projects do not get built or produce less than planned or are merely delayed, then more MET water will be needed than shown. With the planned local projects plus the continued availability of MET Replenishment water for the OCWD Basin, Table 1.3-3 shows a 120% decrease in Full -Service MET water demand out to 2025. For hazard mitigation purposes relative to water supply in Orange County, the continued heavy reliance on imported water points out the need to ensure the high reliability of the import system both inside of Orange County and those portions of the MET system bringing the water to Orange County. 1.3.4 Groundwater Among all local supplies available to retail agencies, groundwater sources supply the most water. The water supply resources in Orange County result from the existence of the following groundwater basins. • OCWD Groundwater Basin • La Habra Groundwater Basin • San Juan Capistrano Groundwater Basin (San Juan Basin Authority) • San Mateo Basin in San Clemente 1.3.4.1 OCWD Groundwater Basin The Orange County Basin is by far the largest groundwater basin in Orange County, The underlying formations are dominated by a deep structural depression containing a thick accumulation of fresh water - bearing interbedded marine and continental sand, silt and clay deposits. The proportion of fine material generally increases toward the coast, dividing the Basin into forebay and pressure areas. Figure 1.3.4.1-1 shows an overview of the basin areas. The sediments containing easily recoverable fresh water extend to 1 -February -2012 1-12 SECTIONONE Introduction about 2,000 feet below the ground surface near the center of the Basin. Well yields range from 500 to 4,500 gallons per minute (gpm), but are generally 2,000 to 3,000 gpm. Historically, OCWD managed the Basin based upon seeking to increase supply rather than restricting demand. Nonetheless, a Basin Production Percentage (i.e... pumping limitation) is established each year by OCWD to ensure the long term beneficial use of the Basin. Because the Basin is not operated on an annual safe -yield basis, the net change in storage in any given year may be positive or negative; however, over the long term, the Basin must be maintained in an approximate balance to ensure the long-term viability of Basin supplies. Currently, groundwater is produced from approximately 500 active wells within the Basin, approximately 300 of which produce less than 25 AF/yr. Groundwater production from approximately 200 large - capacity or large -system wells operated by the 21 largest water retail utilities accounted for an estimated 97 percent of the total production. Total potable water pumping capacity of OCWD Basin utilities is about 720 cfs (sum of each water supplier's actual peak pumping), and an additional 40 cfs has been installed. For Year 2025, it is assumed that for OCWD Basin utilities, there will be an increase in capacity in proportion to the increase in potable water demand from 2010 to 2025. In the San Juan Basin, both San Juan Capistrano and South Coast WD project to expand their groundwater treatment plants. The projected 2010 and 2025 summer pumping capacities are shown on the right side of Table 1.3-5. 1 -February -2412 1-13 SECTIONONE Figure 1.3.4.1-1 Orange County Water District Basin Areas Introduction Working closely with OCWD, MWDOC has developed projections that incorporate OCWD's operating policies in managing the Basin. The groundwater production for each producer in the Basin is estimated based on a range of assumptions provided by OCWD. Most of the assumptions involve the future I -February -2012 1-14 SECTIONONE Introduction condition of replenishment supplies to the Basin, which will be discussed in detail in the next subsection. The variables used to project the groundwater production are: • Amount of Santa Ana River base flow; • Amount of Santa Ana River storm flow; • Amount of Basin incidental recharge; • Relationship of basin storage and subsurface outflow; • Basin percolation capacity; • Basin well production capacity; • Refill/maintain basin level approach; • Replenishment purchases from imported sources; and • Future annexation activities 1.3.4.2 OCWD Seawater Intrusion Barrier OCWD operates several seawater intrusion barriers to prevent the intrusion of seawater into the groundwater basin. OCWD operates the Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach, and co -funds operation of the Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier in Seal Beach. Since 2008 OCWD's Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) System has been supplying purified wastewater that is used for seawater intrusion barriers, and for groundwater recharge into the basin. The GWRS system now produces about 72,000 AF/yr and is being expanded over the next several years to produce up to 103,000 AF/yr and will likely be expanded one additional time. 1.3.4.3 OCWD Recharge Operations OCWD has developed an extensive system of facilities to divert and store Santa Ana River (SAR) water to recharge water into the basin. OCWD currently encompasses over 229,000 acres of the lower watershed of the SAR below Prado Dam in Orange County. OCWD owns and operates several diversion structures and roughly 1,124 acres of spreading facilities that facilitate the recharge process. Additionally, OCWD implements an extensive water quality monitoring program to assess groundwater quality through the groundwater basin. The OCWD Groundwater Basin is recharged by multiple sources. These include artificial, ie., man-made systems, and incidental or natural recharge. One of OCWD's core activities is refilling or replenishing the Basin to balance the removal of groundwater by pumping. Sources of recharge water include SAR baseflow and storm flow, Santiago Creek Flows, imported supplies purchased from MET, supplemental supplies from the upper SAR Watershed, and purified wastewater from the GWRS plant. 1.3.4.4 OCWD Prado Dam Activities and Prado Dam Conservation Pool Prado Dam is located in Riverside County on the main stem of the SAR upstream of the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The dam was constructed in 1941 to protect against flooding, such as occurred in 1 -February -2012 1-15 SECTIONONE Introduction 1938. 8, The Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) operates the dam, and has long cooperated with OCWD to facilitate groundwater recharge efforts below the dam, as long as the primary flood control benefits of the project are not compromised. Operation of Prado Dam has been adjusted over the years to recognize the secondary goal of conserving water for groundwater recharge. In 1994, the ACOE adopted the Prado Dam and Reservoir Water Control Manual, which instituted the creation of a conservation pool behind Prado Dam to augment OCWD's groundwater recharge operations. Under the tightly controlled conditions of a 2006 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the ACOE, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and OCWD, the ACOE conserves storm water on ACOE and OCWD lands behind the dam on behalf of OCWD. Conserved water is subsequently released for percolation downstream at a rate of approximately 500 cubic feet per second (cfs). OCWD is currently working with the ACOE to expand the ability to store additional conservation supplies. 1.3.5 La Habra Groundwater Basin Currently, the La Habra Basin is non -adjudicated and serves the City of La Habra. The long-term extraction supply has been estimated at 4,500 AF/yr; however, historically the City's extraction rate is approximately 1,100 AF/yr (averaged over the past 15 years), which is considerably less than the potential yield. Thus, the La Habra Basin has not been identified to be in overdraft. The City of La Habra is working to increase production out of the basin. Water quality issues with high TDS and iron and manganese have been historically present and likely require treatment for potable service. 1.3.6 San Juan Capistrano Groundwater Basin This groundwater basin underlies the San Juan Valley and several tributary valleys in southern Orange County and is managed by the San Juan Basin Authority, The basin is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean and otherwise by tertiary semi -permeable marine deposits. San Juan Creek drains the San Juan Valley, and several other creeks drain valley tributaries to the San Juan. Average annual precipitation ranges from 11 to 15 inches. Thickness of the alluvium averages about 65 feet and may reach more than 125 feet. Wells typically yield from 450 to 1,000 gpm. Groundwater modeling of yield from the basin and a Groundwater Management Plan is under preparation at this time and will be completed in late 2012. The results of the study efforts will set the future goals for management of the basin. Historical production from the basin has ranged from 2,000 to 5,000 AF over the years. In 2000, the California State Water Resources Control Board granted a water rights permit of 9,227 AF/yr to San Juan Basin Authority for diversion and use from the San Juan Basin. South Coast Water District also has a water rights permit for production out of the basin in the amount of 972 AF/yr, expandable to 1.300 AF/yr. Member agencies of the San Juan Basin Authority are: City of San Juan Capistrano, Moulton Niguel Water District, Santa Margarita Water District, and South Coast Water District, The city of San Juan Capistrano completed Phase I of the San Juan Basin Desalter Project in December 2004 at a capacity of 4,900 acre-feet per year. Production and treatment of water over the years has been variable due to a variety of water quality issues and MTBE contamination. They recently completed additional treatment that should allow them to reach full production in 2012 and potentially expand the plant for higher levels of production. South Coast Water District has had an operating groundwater treatment facility for several 1 -February -2412 1-16 SECTIONONE Introduction years which has been producing about 800 AF/yr of potable water out of the basin. Plans are being made to expand the facility up to 2,000 AF/yr, For wastewater collection and treatment in Orange County, there are two regional agencies that are responsible for the trunk line collection, treatment, biosolids management, and ocean outfalls for treated wastewater disposal. These agencies are the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), which covers north and central Orange County, and the South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA), which covers south Orange County. Following are descriptions of these agencies. 1.4.1 Orange County Sanitation District Facilities and History Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) began operations in 1954, replacing the Orange County Joint Outfall Sewer. Formed under the County Sanitation District Act of 1923, OCSD was comprised of nine revenue areas until 1998, when it consolidated into a single district. Today, OCSD is the third largest wastewater discharger in the western United States, providing sewer service for 23 cities and the unincorporated areas of north and central Orange County. Its capital facilities include 11 regional trunk lines, two treatment plants, two discharge outfalls and two emergency weir outlets. OCSD owns and operates 176 miles of local sewer and 406 miles of trunk sewer, for a total of 582 miles of sewer. OCSD's formation was not only to address the need for sewage collection, treatment and disposal facilities for a growing Orange County. Its formation also facilitated public financing for sewer systems in Orange County, which the previous organization was unable to accomplish. A bond election in 1949 allowed OCSD to buy treatment and disposal facilities serving the cities of Anaheim, Santa Ana, Fullerton, and Orange, as well as the sanitary districts in Placentia, Buena Park, La Habra and Garden Grove. The bond election also financed the beginning of a network of trunk sewer systems throughout Orange County. OCSD formally took control of sewer management in 1954 when Plant No. 2 and Ocean Outfall No. I were constructed. Ocean Outfall No. 2 was subsequently constructed in the 1970's. 1.4.1.1 OCSD Capital Facilities OCSD manages its facilities through the preparation and implementation of wastewater master plans. These plans outline the improvements to collection, treatment and disposal facilities required to manage flows over a selected planning horizon. The District's 2009 Facilities Master Plan (the "Master Plan") was completed and adopted by the Board of Directors in December 2009. The Master Plan updated the planning processes set forth in the 1989 Master Plan, the 1999 Strategic Plan, and the 2002 Interim Strategic Plan Update. The Master Plan also incorporates and implements the levels of services defined by the District's Board of Directors that are included in the District's 2009 Five -Year Strategic Plan. The result is a plan that integrates research, facilities planning, water conservation and reclamation, sludge reuse, other wastewater programs and financial planning into a single unified approach. A key component of the Master Plan was the updating of flow projections and the collection system hydraulic modeling. A capital improvement program was developed to implement the required sewer capacity and rehabilitation improvements through the year 2030. 1 -February -26'2 1-17 SECTIONONE Introduction The Master Plan continues to support the July 17, 2002 Board of Directors' Resolution No. OCSD 02-14, "Establishing the Policy for Level of Treatment of Wastewater Discharged into the Ocean." This resolution established the District's policy to treat all wastewater discharges into the ocean to secondary treatment standards thereby providing for continued public safety, marine ecosystem protection, and water reclamation opportunities. To implement this policy, District staff was directed to immediately proceed with the planning, design, and implementation of treatment methods that will allow the agency to meet Clean Water Act secondary treatment standards. The District currently estimates that it will complete these improvements by December 2012 at a total capital improvement cost of $623.1 million to reach secondary treatment discharge standards. In the interim, the District operates the plants to maximize available secondary treatment and to reduce effluent biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solid discharges below currently allowed limits. Figure 1.4.1.1-1 shows the OCSD service area. OCSD serves more than 87 percent of the population in Orange County, representing over 2.5 million people. It has been estimated that OCSD will be serving a population of over 2.8 million people in 2020. OCSD provides sewer service for over 210,000 acres within Orange County (approximately 35 percent of the county's land area). Land use in the OCSD service area consists of a mixture of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and open space categories. The south and west portions of the OCSD area are largely developed, while the north and east portions are less developed. 9 1 1.4.1.2 Overview of Existing OCSD System The OCSD sewer system collects wastewater through an extensive system of regional pipelines, pump stations and force mains, with diversions installed between trunk sewer systems. Wastewater is treated at two treatment facilities, and an outfall system is available for ocean disposal of treated wastewater. The treatment plants currently operate under a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board as established in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) Permit No. CA01 10604 that permits the discharge of treated wastewater through an ocean outfall system to the Pacific Ocean. 1 -February -2012 1 —1 $ SECTIONONE Introduction Reclamation Plant No, I 7-� 1.4.1.3 OCSD Trunk Sewer Systems M OCSD owns, operates, and maintains twelve trunk sewer systems that are located throughout the service area. The trunk systems include approximately 400 miles of sewer pipes and force mains, ranging in size from 12 to 120 inches in diameter (interplant), as well as twenty pump stations. The trunk sewer system also includes nine interconnections (to convey flow between main trunk systems) and 87 diversion structures (to convey flow between sewer pipes within a main trunk system). The trunk sewer systems are 1 -February -2012 1 -19 Introduction currently conveying approximately 210 million gallons per day (mgd); or with a flow split of approximately ISO mgd to Plant No. I and approximately 90 mgd to Plant No. 21. This split reflects that a portion of the raw wastewater tributary to Plant No. I is diverted to Plant No. 2 via a 120 -inch interplant pipeline. 1.4.1.4 OCSD Treatment Plant System OCSD has two wastewater treatment plans. Plant No. I is located in the City of Fountain Valley, approximately four miles inland of the Pacific Ocean and adjacent to the Santa Ana River. Influent wastewater entering Plant No. I passes through the metering structure, mechanical bar screens, grit chambers and the primary clarifiers, before undergoing secondary treatment via trickling filters or activated sludge processes. The secondary treatment processes consists of treatment tanks and secondary clarifiers. Secondary effluent is diverted to OCWD for tertiary treatment before reuse. The remainder of the secondary effluent flows through the interplant line to Plant No. 2 where it's either used as plant water or it goes to the outfall booster pump and directly to the ocean outfall for final disposal. Plant No. 2 is located in the City of Huntington Beach, adjacent to the Santa Ana River and east of the Pacific Coast Highway. Untreated wastewater entering Plant No. 2 passes through magnetic flow meters, mechanical bar screens and grit removal chambers. Flow then passes through the primary clarifiers before undergoing secondary treatment via trickling filters or oxygen -activated sludge processes. Treated effluent from Plant Nos. I and 2 are blended together before being release into the ocean outfall system. Interconnections exist between Plant Nos. I and 2. These interconnections include a digester gas pipeline, communications cables, Plant No. I effluent lines to the Ocean Outfall Booster Station and a raw wastewater interplant pipeline. Solids treatment at both Plant No. I and 2 includes dissolved air floatation, thickening of waste activated sludge, anaerobic sludge digestion and belt press dewatering. Both plants also have facilities for odor control, chemical addition and digester gas utilization for electrical generation. 1.4.1.5 OCSD Ocean Outfall System The ocean outfall system includes three discharge structures. The primary ocean outfall (Outfall No. 2) was put in service in 1971 and is approximately 27,400 feet long including a 6,000 -foot diffuser section. The primary outfall is 120 inches in diameter and discharges treated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean, at a depth of approximately 200 feet some four and a half miles offshore. The primary outfall has a capacity of approximately 480 mgd. The emergency outfall (Outfall No. 1), originally constructed in 1954 and modified in 1965, is approximately 7,000 feet long, including a 1,000 -foot diffuser section. The emergency outfall is 78 inches in diameter and is located at a depth of approximately 65 feet, a mile and a half offshore. The emergency outfall has a capacity of approximately 245 mgd. OCSD's NPDES permit specifies that this outfall can be used for emergencies only, The Santa Ana River emergency overflow weirs discharge directly to the Santa Ana River, and are also limited for emergency use only. 1.4.1.6 OCSD Strategic Planning Annually, the OCSD Strategic Plan is updated to cover a new five-year horizon. The process includes the General Manager's Office initiated the planning effort with the Executive Management Team, then solicited input and ideas from managers and supervisors. The staff -generated ideas are presented to the 1 -February -2012 1-20 L=11EISIM Introduction Board of Directors during a workshop, where Board Members discussed and deliberated changes and additions to the plan. Driven by its Mission, Vision and Core Values, this Strategic Plan continues the District's aggressive efforts to meet the sanitation, health, and safety needs of the more than 2.5 million people it serves while protecting the environment. Z:� This Strategic Plan continues to chart a focused roadmap, of success for the future of the District. It addresses critical operations and construction issues, financial and budgeting challenges, and gives a clear and concise direction to staff, ratepayers, regulatory agencies, and the general public. 1.4.1.7 Communities Included within OCSD's Service Area • Anaheim • Brea • Buena Park • Cypress • Fountain Valley • Fullerton • Garden Grove • Huntington Beach • Irvine • La Habra • La Palma • Los Alamitos • Newport Beach • Orange • Placentia • Santa Ana • Seal Beach • Stanton • Tustin • Villa Park • Yorba Linda • Costa Mesa Sanitary District • Midway City Sanitary District • Irvine Ranch Water District • Unincorporated areas 1 -February -2012 1-21 SECTIONONE Introduction 1.4.2 South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) The mission of the South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) is to collect, treat, beneficially reuse, and dispose of wastewater and biosolids in an effective and economical manner that respects the environment, maintains the public's health and meets or exceeds all local, state and federal regulations to the mutual benefit of SOCWA's ten member agencies and the general public in South Orange County. SOCWA provides, at a minimum, full secondary treatment at all of its regional wastewater facilities, and also has active water recycling, industrial waste (pretreatment), biosolids management and ocean/shoreline monitoring programs to meet the needs of its members and the requirements of the applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. In order to strike this balance, SOCWA manages a series of ongoing environmental programs, each designed to play an important role in fulfilling the Agency's mission. Programs related to Hazard Mitigation Planning include acquiring, constructing, maintaining, repairing, managing, operating and controlling facilities for the collection, transmission, treatment and disposal of wastewater and biosolids, the reclamation and reuse of wastewater for beneficial purposes, and the production, transmission, storage and distribution of non- domestic water. SOCWA was created on July 1, 2001 as a Joint Powers Authority with no taxing authority (Joint Powers Authority Signatories listed below). SOCWA is the legal successor to the Aliso Water Management Agency (AWMA) (1972), South East Regional Reclamation Authority (SERRA) (1970) and South Orange County Reclamation Authority (SOCRA) (1991). Figure 1.4.2-1 shows the service area and the major facilities. 1.4.2.1 SOCWA Joint Powers Member Agencies • City of Laguna Beach (Laguna Beach) • City of San Clemente (San Clemente) • City of San Juan Capistrano (San Juan Capistrano) • El Toro Water District (ETWD) • Emerald Bay Service District (EBSD) • Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) • Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD) • Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) • South Coast Water District (SCWD) • Trabuco Canyon Water District (TCWD) 1 -February -2012 1-22 Figure 1.4.2-1 SOCWA Regional Wastewater System Introduction 1-Feb,.@,Y-2012 1-23 1.4.2.2 Communities Included within SOCWA • Aliso Viejo • Coto de Caza • Dana Point • Emerald Bay • Ladera Ranch • Laguna Beach • Laguna Hills • Laguna Niguel • Laguna Woods • Lake Forest • Las Flores • Mission Viejo • Rancho Santa Margarita • San Clemente • San Juan Capistrano • Talega • Trabuco Canyon 1.4.2.3 SOCWA Treatment Plants Operated Regional Treatment Plant (RTP) 12.0 mgd Jay B. Latham (JBL) 13.0 mgd Coastal Treatment Plant (CTP) 6.7 mgd 3A Plant (3A) 6.0 mgd Introduction SOCWA also operates the Effluent Transmission Main (ETM) and the Aliso Creek and San Juan Creek Ocean Outfalls. The City of Laguna Beach operates the North Coast Interceptor (NCI) on a contract basis on behalf of SOCWA. MNWD operates the Alicia Parkway Purnp Station on behalf of SOCWA, and the City of San Clemente operates the San Clemente Land Outfall. 1.4.2.4 SOCWA Ocean Outfall System The ocean outfall system includes two discharge structures. The Aliso Creek Outfall was put in service in 1978 and is approximately 7,900 feet offshore in a SW direction from the mouth of Aliso Creek. This outfall has a capacity of approximately 50 mgd, but currently discharges approximately 21 mgd. The outfall suffered damage in 1992 from coastal storms and was repaired in 1993. The second outfall is the San Juan Creek Outfall built in 1978. It is 10,550 feet offshore in a SW direction from Doheny Beach at San Juan Creek. This outfall has a design capacity of 24 mgd gravity flow and an additional 80 mgd pumped flow. Its current Flow rate is about 19 mgd. 1 -February -2012 1-24 SECTIONONE Introduction Table 1.3-4 Existing Potable Water Storage Volume and Portion Available for Emergency Sub- 3: U) .h 0 0 0 0) p70 -0 C -0 0 eLy Retail Water Agency 0 0 .9 4) ? 0 = 2) 0 2) E Ui Region 0 0 Ui co 2 0 & U 4) E 4) j '15 Le L UJ u- LU 0 I.- MG Brea/ Brea 67.0 30% 20 39 LaHabra La Habra 17.5 30% 5 15 6 Subtotal Brea/La Habra 84.5 25 54 4 1 1 OCWD Anaheim 29.0 33% 9 9 Basin Buena Park 20.0 30% 6 6 East Orange CWD (2) 1.8 30% .5 .5 Fountain Valley 10.0 30% 3 3 Fullerton 69.5 30% 26 44 Garden Grove 53.0 30% 16 16 Golden State -East OC (2) 4.0 30% 1 1 Golden State Plac./YL 3.4 30% 1 1 Golden State West OC 4.5 30% 1 1 Huntington Beach 55.0 30% 43 43 Irvine Ranch WD 143. 30% 43 43 0 La Palma 4,5 30% 8 8 Mesa Consol. WD 28.0 30% 8 8 Newport Beach 194. 70% 136 136 0 Orange 41,0 (2) 30% 12 12 Santa Ana 49.0 30% 14.7 147 Seal Beach 7.0 30% 21 2.1 Serrano WD 9.0 30% 2.7 2.7 Tustin (2) 12.0 30% 3.6 3.6 Westminster 16.0 30% 4.8 4.8 Yorba Linda WD 49.0 30% 147 14.7 Subtotal Basin 318. 318.7 1 -February -2612 1-25 SECTIONONE Introduction Table 1.3-4 Existing Potable Water Storage Volume and Portion Available for Emergency (Continued) Sub- LT O 0 0 0 4) -0 G 0 Region Retail Water Agency 0 - .2 0 0 & e 0 4) 4, W 0 U) 0o �5 U) - 0 Lm *- E Ui UJIE of 2 4) E 4) u- LU U- UJI LU 7 South El Toro WD 124.5 124.5 97% 120.8 12.0 30% 3.6 124.4 OC Laguna Bch CWD 34.0 50% 17.0 17.0 Moulton Niguel 83.3 13.0 2.4 98.7 97% 95.7 72.0 65% 46.8 142.5 San Clemente 27.3 29.0 7.0 63.2 97% 61.3 22.1 30% 6.6 67.9 San Juan Capo 16.3 .51 16.8 97% 16.3 14.8 30% 4.4 20.7 Santa Margarita WD 102 102.5 137.5 240.0 97% 232.8 * 30% 30.8 263.6 5 South Coast WD 14.6 13.0 27.2 97% 26.3 21.6 30% 6.5 32.8 SDCWA San Onofre 17 5.0 8.7 70% 6.1 30% U Trabuco Canyon WD 10.0 30% 3.0 3.0 Subtotal South County 118. 244.0 275.0 48.0 12.0 579,0 559.3 678.0 1 7 Year 2005 storage volumes reported to MWDOC. Share of volume of EOCWD Wholesale system reservoirs (about 18 mg) is not known. 1 -February -2012 1-26 ki N Table 1.3-5 Potable Well Water Production Capacity to Year 2025 by Producer Introduction Sub- Region Retail Water Agency Historical Peak Month Pumping Historical Pumping apacity(l) Conjunctive Use Wells (2) Exist, Summer Pumping Capacity (3) Increase (4) 2025 Summer Pumping Capacity AF cfs Brea/ Brea LaHabra La Habra 226 3.7 17 3.7 Subtotal 3.7 3.7 3.7 OCWD Anaheim 6,481 107.4 5.0 112.4 10.1 122.6 Basin Buena Park 1,430 23.7 5.0 28.7 2.6 31.3 East Orange CWD 164 2.7 21 0.0 21 Fountain Valley 1,255 20.8 20.8 0.8 21.6 Fullerton 2,530 41.9 41.9 5.0 47.0 Garden Grove 3,766 62.4 5.0 67.4 2.0 69.5 Golden State -East 209 3.5 3.5 0.2 3.7 Gold. State- Plac.NL 529 8.8 8.8 0,5 93 Gold. State -West OC 1,451 24.1 5.0 291 1.7 303 Huntington Beach 2,749 45.6 45.6 0.0 45.6 Irvine Ranch WD 5,906 97.9 100.3 21.1 121.6 La Palma 284 47 4.7 0.2 4.9 Mesa WD 1,857 30.8 30.8 8.0 38,8 Newport Beach 1,455 24.1 241 2.3 26.4 Orange 3,203 53.1 53,1 1,6 54.7 Santa Ana 5,117 84.8 10.0 94.8 2.8 97.7 Seal Beach 440. 7.3 73 0.0 7.3 Serrano WD 339 5.6 5.6 0.0 5.6 Tustin 1,210 20.1 20.1 1.5 21.5 Westminster 1,396 23,1 5.0 281 2.0 30.1 Yorba Linda WD 1,610 26.7 5.0 31.7 1.0 32.6 Subtotal Basin 719.1 40.0 761.59 62.2 824.7 South El Toro WD OC Emerald Bay SD Laguna Bch CWD 1 -February -2012 1-27 SECTIONONE Introduction 1. Source: M DOC's records of maximum monthly pumping, however, the numbers have been adjusted down if pumping capacity has decreased since the pumping was recorded. lRWlYs existing capacity number is DRWF "Clear' 80 efs (conservative) plus RATS 10 cfs plus IDP 7.7 cfs potable water plus OPA well 1.8 cfs plus Harding Canyon 0.8 cfs. 2. 8 conjunctive use wells were constructed with money from MET in exchange for MET getting storage capacity in the CCWD Basin. 3, Some agencies have limitation in Summer due to small basins drying up. 4. Basin agencies assumed to increase well capacity in proportion to increase in water demand. Mesa Water increase is the expansion of its Colored Water treatment facility. South OC agency increases are per their projections. 1 -February -2012 1-28 Historical Exist. 2025 Sub- Peak Historical Conjunctive Summer Increase Summer Region Retail Water Agency Month Pumping Use Wells Pumping (4) Pumping Pumping Capacity(l) (2) Capacity Capacity (3) Moulton Niguel San Clemente 142 2.4 2.4 2.4 San Juan Capo 527 81 61 4.1 10.3 Santa Margarita WD South Coast WD 82 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.8 Trabuco Canyon WD 174 2,9 0 0 Subtotal South County 15.3 9.9 5.5 15.4 TOTAL Orange County 7381 40.0 777.2 67.7 845.8 1. Source: M DOC's records of maximum monthly pumping, however, the numbers have been adjusted down if pumping capacity has decreased since the pumping was recorded. lRWlYs existing capacity number is DRWF "Clear' 80 efs (conservative) plus RATS 10 cfs plus IDP 7.7 cfs potable water plus OPA well 1.8 cfs plus Harding Canyon 0.8 cfs. 2. 8 conjunctive use wells were constructed with money from MET in exchange for MET getting storage capacity in the CCWD Basin. 3, Some agencies have limitation in Summer due to small basins drying up. 4. Basin agencies assumed to increase well capacity in proportion to increase in water demand. Mesa Water increase is the expansion of its Colored Water treatment facility. South OC agency increases are per their projections. 1 -February -2012 1-28 SECTIONTWO Multi -Jurisdictional Participation SECTION 2 MULTI -JURISDICTIONAL PARTICIPATION 2.1 LIST OF PARTICIPATING WATER DISTRICTS AND CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES Descriptions of each Participating Water and Wastewater Utility (PWU) are provided below. This section is organized first by utilities that have regional management responsibilities that extend to several water districts or city utilities including: Municipal Water District of Orange County, Orange County Water District, Orange County Sanitation District, and South Orange County Wastewater Authority. Participating water and wastewater utilities are then presented in alphabetical order, including: City of Buena Park, El Toro Water District, City of Garden Grove, City of La Habra, Laguna Beach County Water District, Mesa Water District, Moulton Niguel Water District, City of Newport Beach, City of Orange, Santa Margarita Water District, Serrano Water District, South Coast Water District, Trabuco Canyon Water District, City of Tustin, City of Westminster and Yorba Linda Water District. 2.1.1 Municipal Water District of Orange County (Service Population: 2.2 million) MWDOC's Mission Statement is to provide reliable, high-quality water supplies from MET and other sources to meet present and future needs, at an equitable and economical cost and to promote water use efficiency for all Orange County. MWDOC is a regional water wholesaler and resource planning utility, managing all of Orange County's imported water supply with the exception of water imported to the cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, and Santa Ana. MWDOC serves more than 2.2 million residents in a 600 -square -mile service area (see Figure 2-1). Its commitment is to ensure water reliability for the communities it serves. To that end, MWDOC focuses on sound planning and appropriate investments in water supply, regional delivery infrastructure and emergency preparedness. As a regional wholesaler, MWDOC's most significant roles are broadly applicable to all of its member utilities. A key goal of MWDOC is to provide broad -reaching services and programs that the retail utilities cannot reasonably provide as single entities. MWDOC is governed by an elected seven -member Board of Directors, each board member representing a specific area of the County. Each director is elected to a four-year term by voters who reside within one of the seven divisions within the MWDOC service area. I -February -2012 2-1 Multi -Jurisdictional Participation Figure 2-1 MWDOC Service Area and Member Agencies 1 -February -2612 2-2 SECTIONTWO Multi -Jurisdictional Participation The Orange County Water District (OCWD) manages the large groundwater basin that provides reliable, high-quality groundwater to 20 cities and water utilities and their 2.4 million customers. OCWD was formed in 19333 by a special act of the California Legislature [Water Code App §40-1 et seq.], which authorized OCWD to represent water users and landowners in litigation (with upstream users) and empowered OCWD to protect the water supply and protect the groundwater basin. The mission of OCWD is to provide local water retailers with a reliable, adequate, high-quality water supply at the lowest reasonable cost in an environmentally responsible manner. With years of proper planning and investment, OCWD has more than doubled the output of the groundwater basin. The groundwater basin, which underlies north and central Orange County, provides between 2/3rds and 3/4ths of the water needed in that area; imported water meets the balance of the water demand. Groundwater is pumped by water utilities before being delivered to customers. Groundwater is a great value at approximately one-half the cost of imported water. OCWD purchases through MWDOC some imported water supplies for recharge operations and for operating and maintaining the seawater intrusion barrier. Today, OCWD is managed by a ten -member Board of Directors, with three appointed from the cities of Anaheim, Fullerton and Santa Ana, and the remainder of the Board publicly elected from geographic divisions within the OCWD service area. OCWD is known internationally for its -tradition of innovation." OCWD built the first advanced wastewater purification plant to provide water to prevent seawater intrusion into Orange County's groundwater basin. Today, OCWD and OCSD are partners in the world's largest advanced wastewater purification project, called the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) that is currently being expanded to provide 100,000 AF/yr of water for seawater barrier and groundwater replenishment purposes. 2.1.3 Orange County Sanitation District (Service Population: 2.5 million) The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) is responsible for safely collecting, treating, and disposing wastewater (sewage) and industrial waste in central and northwest Orange County. Owning 400 miles of wastewater pipeline, OCSD serves 2.5 million residents in 21 cities, three special districts and the unincorporated areas within north and central Orange County. The District is governed by a board of 25 individuals; 24 board members are elected officials appointed by the cities and special districts served, and one is a representative from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. OCSD treats approximately 210 million gallons of wastewater each day and releases it into the ocean five miles from shore and approximately 200 feet below the surface. The one -mile -long diffuser section on the five -mile ocean outfall contains 503 portholes through which treated wastewater are slowly released. Up to seventy million gallons of treated wastewater is reclaimed each day for use by the Orange County 1 -February -2412 2-3 SECTIONTWO Multi -Jurisdictional Participation Water District to supplement the recharge of the groundwater basin, landscape irrigation, and injection into the sweater intrusion barrier along the coast." In addition to its primary role of managing wastewater for north and central Orange County, OCSD is also concerned about ocean water quality and protecting the coastline from urban runoff contamination. This is why OCSD charter was modified to allow OCSD to accept dry weather urban runoff contaminated with bacteria in the sewer system. The dry weather urban runoff is then treated with the raw sewerage entering the plants and disinfected before it is released to the ocean outfall system. Currently, OCSD recycles all biosolids produced for beneficial use by the agricultural industry and runs an award-winning ocean monitoring program that evaluates water quality, sediment quality and sea life. 2.1.4 South Orange County Wastewater Authority (Service Population: 500,000) The South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) was created July 1, 2001 as a Joint Powers Authority. SOCWA was formed under and pursuant to Goverment Code Section 6500 and is the legal successor to the Aliso Water Management Utility, the South East Regional Reclamation Authority and the South Orange County Reclamation Authority. SOCWA is comprised of 10 member utilities including the City of Laguna Beach, City of San Clemente, City of San Juan Capistrano, El Toro Water District, Emerald Bay Service District, Irvine Ranch Water District, Moulton Niguel Water District, Santa Margarita Water District, South Coast Water District and Trabuco Canyon Water District. SOCWA provides wastewater treatment, effluent and biosolids disposal, and water recycling at regional facilities in the southern part of Orange County, SOCWA is governed by a Board of Directors. As members of SOCWA's Board of Directors (one Director from each Member Agency) they each balance the interests of their own respective District or City while continuing the purpose and mission of SOCWA's Project Committees. 2.1.5 City of Buena Park (Service Population: 80,800) The City of Buena Park (Buena Park) was incorporated in 1953; Buena Park is situated in central Orange County, with a land area of 10.3 square miles serviced by the City's water utility. Buena Park is a public municipality and is governed by an elected City Council consisting of a mayor and four councilpersons. The cities of La Mirada, Fullerton, Anaheim, La Palma, and Cypress bound Buena Park. Buena Park has a water system with three pressure zones. The water system consists of eight active wells, one 20 million gallon reservoir, one booster pump station and numerous pressure reducing stations. In addition, there are four imported water supply connections with MET. Water supply is transported to approximately 80,800 consumers through 225 miles of pipeline and approximately 18,900 service connections. Groundwater is the primary source of water for Buena Park, and historically has accounted for about 58 percent of total water supply. Groundwater is drawn from eight municipal wells that are drilled down to about 1000 feet into the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The second source of water is imported water from MET through MWDOC. 1 -February -2012 2-4 SECTIONTWO multi -jurisdictional Participation The El Toro Water District (ETWD) was formed in September 1960 under provisions of the California Water District Law (Division 13, Section 34000 et seq. of the Water Code of the State on California). The District is governed by a publicly elected Board of Directors consisting of five Board Members. The Board of Directors establishes District policies and Rules and Regulations. The District's service area, which is nearly completely developed, includes 5,350 acres in South Orange County. ETWD is bordered by the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) to the north, the Laguna Beach County Water District (LBCWD) to the west, the Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD) to the west and south, and the Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) to the south and east. The District also shares a small border with Trabuco Canyon Water District (TCWD) in the northern part of the District. The District provides water and sewer service to over 51,000 customers in the cities of Laguna Woods, Laguna Hills, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo and Aliso Viejo. ETWD's responsibilities as authorized by the California Water District Law are: • Treatment and distribution of potable water for domestic consumption, irrigation and fire protection. • Collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater. • Treatment and distribution of recycled water. All of the District's domestic water demands are met from the supply imported from MET through MWDOC. ETWD receives imported (potable) water from MET via the Allen-McColloch Pipeline (AMP) and the East Orange County Feeder #2 (EOCF#2). 2.1.7 City of Garden Grove (Service Population: 171,042) The City of Garden Grove (Garden Grove), recognizing the importance of the groundwater basin underlying the City, established a Municipal Water Department in 1958. The Department is the principle water retailer within the boundaries of Garden Grove. Imported water is purchased by Garden Grove from MET through MWDOC to alleviate over depletion of the groundwater basin. The percentage of import to well water changes periodically and is dependent upon OCWD groundwater projections. Garden Grove has 12 wells strategically located throughout the City, with a pumping capacity of over 38,850 gallons per minute. In 2010, the sale of water bonds allowed the City to take on many capital improvement projects to provide a safe and abundant water supply for the citizens of Garden Grove. The improvements included building a new water supply well, two new reservoirs, and upgrades to the City's import water connections and water distribution system. Careful planning and management of utility services ensures that a reliable source of potable water is readily available to the City's water users, now at a population of 173,000. The Water Services Division consists of a professional staff responsible for ongoing operation, maintenance, repair and improvements to the City's water system. Garden Grove is governed by a five member council. Each position is an elected position, including the position of mayor. Revenue is 7 -February -2412 2-5 SECTIONTWO Multi -Jurisdictional Participation collected through bi-monthly water rates. Since the LAFCO Reorganization No. 14 1, City staff has also been responsible for the operation and maintenance of 320 miles of sewer lines, and three lift stations located throughout the City. 2.1.8 City of La Habra (Service Population: 58,974) The City of La Habra (La Habra) was incorporated under general law on January 20, 1925, with a population of 3,000. Today, La Habra is a bedroom community located in northern Orange County with a population of nearly 62,000 residents in 7.3 square miles. La Habra operates under a five member Council/Manager form of government who also act as the board of the Water/Sewer Division. La Habra possesses 125 miles of all gravity sewer pipelines with a replacement cost of $145,000,000 and 143 miles of water pipeline with a replacement cost of $110,000,000. There are three water storage tanks, one water well, six booster stations, 57 pressure reducing valves and 21 pressure zones. La Habra receives water from MET through MWDOC and from California Domestic Water Company from the San Gabriel Groundwater Basin. 2.1.9 Laguna Beach County Water District (Service Population: 19,820) Laguna Beach County Water District (Laguna Beach) is well known as a unique beach community and artist's colony. The District provides water services to 19,820 people within an 8.5 square mile area, including portions of the City of Laguna Beach, a portion of Crystal Cove State Park and the community of Emerald Bay. Laguna Beach serves approximately 4,100 acre feet of water annually to its 8,488 customers. There are 21 water storage reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 33.5 million gallons. Laguna Beach staff operates and maintains 36 pumps in I1 pumping stations and 135 miles of distribution pipelines ranging in diameter from 4 to 16 inches. The area's sewer and storm drain services are managed by the Water Quality Department of the City of Laguna Beach. The department is organized into two divisions: Wastewater and Water Quality. Wastewater is responsible for maintaining 95 miles of sewer lines, 26 pump stations and the four -mile North Coast Interceptor that transmits sewage to the regional treatment plant operated by SOCWA. Water Quality is a new division formed to implement the water quality permit approved by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2002. The new permit identifies multiple tasks cities and counties must complete to comply with the permit and reduce water pollution. 2.1.10 Mesa Water District (Service Population: Over 100,000) Mesa Water District (Mesa) is a public utility serving more than 100,000 users within an 18 square -mile area, which includes Costa Mesa, part of Newport Beach and the John Wayne Airport. Mesa commenced operations on January 1, 1960 by acquiring the assets and obligations and assuming the responsibility of consolidating the City of Costa Mesa's Water Department, Fairview County Water District, Newport Heights Irrigation District and Newport Mesa County Water District. Mesa set a precedent with this merger as the first California water utility to consolidate two or more water utilities and assume both their assets and debts. Mesa is governed by a publicly elected Board of Directors comprised of five directors. The Board of Directors establishes the water rates. Mesa strives to provide its customers with 100 percent groundwater, which is pumped from Orange County's natural groundwater basin via nine wells. Since its I -F.bl..,Y-2012 2-6 SECTIONTWO Multi -Jurisdictional Particioation formation in 1960, Mesa's goal has been to produce the highest quality drinking water for all of our customers. 2.1.11 Moulton Niguel Water District (Service Population: over 160,000) Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD) was formed in November 1960 under provisions of the California Water District Law, Division 13 of the Water Code of the State of California. The District is governed by a publicly elected Board of Directors comprised of seven directors. The Board of Directors establishes the water and sewer rates. MNWD is located in the southern portion of the County of Orange and provides water and sewer service to over 160,000 customers. The District is almost entirely developed and encompasses almost all of the cities of Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Hills, about half of the city of Mission Viejo, and a portion of Dana Point. All of the potable water is imported water from MET through MWDOC and approximately 20% of the District's demand is supplied by recycled water serving landscape irrigation services. 2.1.12 City of Newport Beach (Service Population: 64,465) The City of Newport Beach (Newport Beach) is a charter city established in 1906 and governed by a Council/Manager form of government, The City's current population consists of approximately 86,000 permanent residents, which can peak at approximately 100,000 seasonally. The City's current service area services approximately 64,465 residents according to 2010 Orange County Retail Water Agency Census estimates. The Utilities Division of the City's Municipal Operations Department is responsible for providing water service, wastewater collection, oil and gas production, electrical services, and street lights to the citizens of Newport Beach, All City rates for services are set by Municipal Ordinance. Newport Beach has two sources of water: groundwater pumped from four wells in Fountain Valley and imported water from MET via MWDOC. At this time, Newport Beach pumps 65 percent of its water from wells and imports the remaining 35 percent. 2.1.13 City of Orange (Service Population: 138,000) The City of Orange is located in northern Orange County, serving an area of 23.6 square miles. The City of Orange's water system was established in October 1904 serving a population of 1,216 people. Since then, the water system has grown tremendously to support a current population of over 138,000 people. The City's water system is comprised of 16 groundwater wells, 8 connections to the imported water supply, 18 water storage tanks with a total storage capacity of over 42 million gallons, 18 pumping stations, 437 miles of pipelines, and over 34,000 service connections. Orange's water comes from two sources: the primary source is groundwater from OCWD, which makes up 64% to 75% of the supply; the second source is imported water purchased from MET through MWDOC. The city also utilizes local supply through an agreement with Serrano Water District who provides treated local runoff captured in Irvine Lake. The governing body of the City of Orange is a five -member Council. Under a council-manager form of government, a mayor is elected every two years and four council. members are elected to four-year terius alternating on a two-year basis. The City Manager, who is the administrative official of the City, is I -February-2012 2-7 SECTIONTWO Multi-Jurisdietional Participation appointed by the City Council. The water rate structure and all other regulations must be approved by City Council before becoming effective. 2.1.14 Santa Margarita Water District (Service Population: 150,000) Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) established in December 1964 under provisions of the California Water District Law (Section 34000 et seq. of the California Water Code), includes 62,674 acres in the southeastern corner of Orange County. SMWD is bounded on the north by El Toro Road in the City of Lake Forest, on the east by the Cleveland National Forest, on the south by United States Marine Corp Camp Pendleton and Orange County border and on the west by the City of San Juan Capistrano and Moulton Niguel Water District. SMWD is responsible for inter -utility coordination and long range planning to meet future water supply and wastewater treatment needs for its service area. The Cities of Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, a portion of San Clemente and the incorporated communities of Coto de Caza, Las Flores and Ladera Ranch, as well as the remaining undeveloped portion of the Rancho Mission Viejo are within the service boundary of SMWD. The governing body of SMWD (and all improvement districts therein) is a five -member Board of Directors, publicly elected at large for staggered four-year terms. SMWD's responsibilities as authorized by the California Water District Law are: • Distribution of domestic water for consumption and fire protection. • Collection and treatment of wastewater. • Distribution of recycled water along with the collection and distribution of urban return flows for irrigation purposes. Nearly 100% of the District's annual domestic water demands are imported from MET through MWDOC. SMWD receives imported (potable) water from MET via the regional distribution system located in Orange County (Allen-McColloch Pipeline and the East Orange County Feeder No. 2). 2.1.15 Serrano Water District (Service Population: 6,500) Serrano Water District (Serrano) was formed in 1927 under the California Water Code and serves a population of 6,500 in the City of Villa Park and a small portion of the City of Orange. Serrano is an independent governmental body with an elected Board of Directors. It is separate and distinct from the City of Villa Park's Municipal Government. Serrano receives its water supply mostly from local surface water which is stored in Santiago Reservoir (Irvine Lake) and groundwater from three wells located within the City of Villa Park. Annually, Serrano provides about 3,500 acre-feet of water serving primarily large lot single family homes and one shopping center. About once every 10 years, Serrano supplements its local water supply with raw imported water from MET through MWDOC. Serrano owns a percentage of the capacity of Irvine Lake and the dam forming the lake; Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) owns the balance. Serrano is the managing district for the Irvine Lake facility and its recreational aspects. The annual operation of Irvine Lake varies depending on the amount of local runoff. 1 -February -2612 2-8 SECTIONTWO Multi -Jurisdictional Participation The water Serrano receives out of Irvine Lake can be either locally generated runoff, imported water or some combination thereof. Water is supplied from Irvine Lake to the Serrano treatment plant, located about 1.5 miles away, through a 24" gravity flow supply line that has a capacity of about 17 cubic feet per second (efs). Serrano's existing water treatment plant can produce about 3,000 gallons per minute (gpm) and its wells can produce about 4,000 gpm for a peak supply of about 7,000 gpm. In recent years, Serrano has been using their treatment plant to supply 1,000 to 1,500 acre-feet of water to the City of Orange through interconnections. 2.1.16 South Coast Water District (Service Population: 40,000) South Coast Water District (SCWD) is a public utility, formed by popular vote and owned by the people it serves. SCWD is a special district operating under state law, completely independent of county government. A Board of Directors, elected by the voters of the District, has the power to establish policies, fix rates, construct and maintain facilities and perform any other act necessary to provide water and sanitation service for present and future consumers. Day-to-day operations are administered by a general manager who is appointed by the Board of Directors. SCWD has gone through several consolidations and reorganizations to accommodate the needs of the community, as well as to provide the most efficient water and sanitary services possible. At this time the District serves approximately 12,300 water and 17,800 sewer accounts. The area serviced by SCWD has an estimated population of 40,000 residents and two million visitors a year. The District purchases imported water from MET through MWDOC. Due to the District's hilly terrain, much of the water must be pumped and stored in reservoirs to maintain constant pressure. The District's total water storage capacity of approximately 22 million gallons is maintained in 15 reservoirs. Water is moved to upper elevations through approximately 147 miles of local mains using a system of nine pump stations. As an additional safeguard to assure the water supply, the District maintains a series of "inter -ties" with neighboring water districts which can be activated in an emergency. Additionally, recycled water is used for landscape irrigation on parks, golf courses, playgrounds and greenbelt areas. Using recycled water for landscaping irrigation frees up imported drinking water for other uses. In April of 2000, SCWD accepted the responsibility for operations and maintenance of what is now identified as the Joint Regional Water Supply System (JRWSS). The JRWSS provides water transmission over a 26 mile service area to approximately 200,000 residents. JRWSS operates two storage/regulating reservoirs located in San Clemente: Bradt Reservoir with a capacity of 48 mg, and the Schlegel Reservoir with a capacity of 12 mg. 2.1.17 Trabuco Canyon District (Service Population: 14,000) The Trabuco Canyon Water District (TCWD) is a county water district organized and operating pursuant to Section 30,000 and following of the Water Code of the State of California. The District was organized on February 26, 1962 under Division XII of the California Water Code. The District is governed by a five -member Board of Directors elected to alternating four-year terms at elections held every two years. 1 -February -2412 2-9 SECTIONTWO Multi -Jurisdictional Participation Trabuco Canyon Water District is located in the southeastern portion of Orange County at the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains and encompasses approximately 9,100 acres. The terrain within the District is generally steep hills and canyons throughout the central area of the District. The east and west sides consist of more gentle terrain made up primarily of rolling hills. Elevations within the District range from approximately 900 feet above mean sea level in the lower Aliso Creek area and the southern area of Dove Canyon, to nearly 2,400 feet in the northeasterly portion of the District adjacent to the Cleveland National Forest. Prior to 2000, the District was entirely within the unincorporated area of Orange County. In 2000, the City of Rancho Santa Margarita was incorporated and now covers the eastern portion of the District. TCWD serves an estimated population of 14,907 in the City of Rancho Santa Margarita, and an unincorporated area of Orange County. The District provides water, wastewater and recycled water service to major communities within the District's service area. The District's sources of water supply are imported treated water, imported surface water treated at the District's water treatment plant, and treated local groundwater. To provide reliability and redundancy, the District's system is interconnected with adjacent utilities including Santa Margarita Water District, Irvine Ranch Water District, and El Toro Water District. 2.1.18 City of Tustin (Service Population: 66,500) The City of Tustin is a General Law city, governed by a 5 -member non partisan generally elected city council under the council-manager form of government. The City is staffed with approximately 285 full- time employees with approximately 22 full-time employees within the Water Services Division. The City of Tustin (Tustin) bought the privately held Tustin Water Works in 1980. Tustin serves a population of approximately 66,500 people, with 14,500 service connections. The service area totals 8.4 square miles which includes most of the incorporated area of the City of Tustin and unincorporated areas north of the City. Currently, supply deliveries are 84 percent from groundwater and 16 percent from imported water. There are seven untreated or "clear" groundwater wells that pump directly into the distribution system. Two treatment plants treat groundwater from five additional wells to potable standards for delivery into the system. At several sites, water is blended with other well water or imported water to reduce nitrate concentrations below the State Maximum Contaminant level (MCL). The water system is divided into three pressure zones. The average ground elevations for Zones 1, 2, and 3 are 210 feet, 280 feet, and 400 feet above mean sea level, respectively. Currently, Tustin has approximately 13.83 mg of storage capacity in its six existing reservoirs and three booster stations. Water is delivered through 170 miles of 1.5 -inch to 20 -inch water mains. 2.1.19 City of Westminster (Service Population: 93,000) Westminster is located on eleven square miles of broad, flat coastal plain in western Orange County, 5 miles from the Pacific Ocean and 25 miles southeast of Los Angeles. It is a general law city that operates under the Council—Manager Form of government, which is responsible for establishing water rates, 1-F.b,,a,y-2012 2-10 SECTIONTWO Multi -Jurisdictional Participation The Westminster Water Division currently provides potable water to 90,000 residents and the business community using 20,290 service connections. At present, Westminster has 10 active wells and three import water connections. Two of the three imported water interties (OC -09 and OC -35) are owned and operated by the West Orange County Water Board. The third pipeline (OC -53) is owned and operated by the City. On average, 74 percent of drinking water is produced by wells and 26 percent is imported. The Water Division does not manage wastewater disposal or recycled water for the City. Wastewater is handled by the Midway City Sanitation District. 2.1.20 Yorba Linda Water District (Service Population: 77,000) Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD) is an independent special district that provides water and sewer service to residents and businesses within its service area. The District's history dates back to 1909, when local farmers and ranchers formed the Yorba Linda Water Company. In 1959, the voters elected to create a public utility with the assets of the Water Company, and the YLWD was formed under the California Water District Law, Division 13 of the Water Code of the State of California, The District is governed by a publicly elected Board of Directors comprised of five Directors who serve four year terms. The Directors set District policies and programs, provide general oversight of District activities, set water and sewer rates, and employ the general manager to direct the activities of the District. YLWD provides water and sewer services to most of Yorba Linda, and to portions of Placentia, Anaheim, Brea, and unincorporated Orange County. From 1959 through the mid-1970s, the District experienced a gradual transition from a rural, agriculturally orientated area to a suburban community. In 1978, YLWD Board of Directors agreed to annex lands to the east of then current boundaries that more than doubled the District's size. YLWD purchases imported water from MET through MWDOC to provide up to 50% of its demand for its more than 23,000 service connections. The remaining water comes from the District's local production wells which are pumped from the OCWD groundwater basin. 1 -February -2012 2-11 SECTIONTHREE Planninu Process Documentatio! SECTION 3 PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION I 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF EACH JURISDICTION'S PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS Representatives from all participating water and wastewater utilities provided input into the Plan update process. Because the operations of water and wastewater facilities is confidential for security reasons only approved MWDOC/PWU staff participated in portions of the planning process that included discussions concerning the locations and operations of critical facilities. The public was informed of the planning process through public notices, the PWU's and MWDOC website, and was invited to participate in local workshops to discuss hazards identified in the County as well as the MWDOC/PWU mitigation goals and objectives. Confidential data was excluded from these public meetings. The planning process for the Orange County Regional Water and Wastewater Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan involved ten water districts, two regional wastewater agencies, and the public utilities departments for eight cities-, a total of 20 jurisdictions participated in the planning process. MWDOC served as the lead for the plan update, monitored planning progress, and met with participating jurisdictions as needed to assist with updating capabilities assessments and assets worksheets. The MWDOC/PWU participated in the planning process by exchanging information, discussing planning strategies, sharing goals, resolving issues, and monitoring progress. The periodic MWDOC and PWU meetings included discussions of the planning process with neighboring jurisdictions, but all Hazard Mitigation Working Group (HMWG) meetings were private due to the confidential nature of the data discussed. The participating jurisdictions benefited from working closely together because many of the hazard mitigation issues identified are shared by neighboring jurisdictions. Due to organizational and staffing changes undergone by many PWU's within the last few years, the first planning meeting in November focused on making sure each jurisdiction's representative was familiar with the Hazard Mitigation Plan and update requirements. In addition, each planning meeting focused on a specific section of the plan to review and start to update. PWU's that missed scheduled planning meetings met with MWDOC staff at separate dates and locations to cover what was discussed in the meeting and to ensure all jurisdictions were on the same page. Several HMWG members met individually with MWDOC staff specifically to discuss hazard -related goals, objectives and actions. Preliminary goals, objectives and actions developed by jurisdiction staff were reviewed with their respective management and/or representatives for approval. PWU's were asked to update their asset information, including what risks were present for any new assets. To do this HMWG members were encouraged to compare their detailed jurisdiction -level maps that illustrate locations of critical facilities with the profiled hazard maps to. Data received from the HMWG were added to the hazard database and used in the modeling process described in the Risk Assessment portion of the Plan (Section 4). Updated hazard -related data was received from multiple sources, including: • FEMA • CalEMA OaShared\WEROCtHazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RemsionNSection 3 Hkdocl.February-2012 3-1 SECTIONTHREE Planning Process Documentation California Department of Conservation Center for Demographic Research (CDR) - provided earthquake shake, epicenter and fault data • California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection • Orange County, Sheriff's Department, Emergency Management Bureau All PWU's provided MWDOC staff with edits to critical facility maps within their jurisdictions. Kelly Hubbard, the project coordinator for MWDOC requested input on the plan revision process from all PWU*s, formulated a project timeline with specific objectives, and hosted monthly planning committee meetings beginning in early November 2011. MWDOC also provided an opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional utilities involved in hazard mitigation activities, and utilities that have the authority to regulate development, as well as business, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process by reviewing the plan online or by attending the public workshops. Some of those parties are listed in Section 3.3 below. The committee was formed as an advisory body to undertake the planning process and meeting dates were set for all members of the committee to attend. Jurisdictional representatives included but were not limited to utility engineers, planners and emergency management officers. 3.3 NAME OF PLANNING COMMITTEE AND ITS MEMBERS The HMWG is comprised of representatives from the 20 participating water and wastewater utilities, as listed above in Section 2.1. Although several jurisdictions sent several representatives to the HMWG meetings, each jurisdiction selected a lead representative who acted as the liaison between their jurisdictional Local Mitigation Planning Team and the HMWG. Each local team, made up of other jurisdictional staff/officials met separately and provided additional local -level input to the leads for inclusion into the Plan. Participants in the planning process are listed below in Table 31.3-1. The lead representatives for each district are highlighted. Table 3.3-1 Planning Representatives for Participating Jurisdictions Name utility Title Joan Lyle City of Buena Park Associate Engineer Mike Grisso City of Buena Park Utilities Manager Zack Barrett City of Garden Grove Water Quality Supervisor Dave Entsminger City of Garden Grove Water Services Manager Raquel Manson City of Garden Grove Administrative Analyst Les Ruitenchild City of Garden Grove Distribution Supervisor 0:\Shared\WEROC1HazmitX2011PIanUpdale\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 3 HM.docl-February-2012 3-2 SECTIONTHREE Planninu Process Documentation Table 3.3-1 Planning Representatives for Participating Jurisdictions (Continued) Name Utility Title Brian Jones City of La Habra Water and Sewer Manager Thom Coughran City of La Habra Director of Public Works Raymund Reyes City of Newport Beach Management Assistant George Murdoch City of Newport Beach Utilities Manager Bob Baehner City of Orange Acting Water Manager Son T. Tran City of Orange Senior Civil Engineer Kimberly McAllen City of Tustin Office Support Specialist Vivian Filippelli City of Westminster Public Works Analyst Wil Davee City of Westminster Water Supervisor Renzo Marin El Toro Water District Emergency Response Dennis Cafferty El Toro Water District Director of Operations & Engineering Rich Mathis Laguna Beach County Water District Manager of Operations CecilLooneyLaguna Beach County Water District Eric Stiegler Mesa Water District Safety and Emergency Planning Coordinator Victoria L. Beatley Mesa Water District Financial Services Manager Todd Novacek Moulton Niguel Water District Emergency Response Coordinator Matt Collins Moulton Niguel Water District Director of Engineering Crystal Boteler Municipal Water District of Orange County WEROC Program Assistant Kelly Hubbard Municipal Water District of Orange County Emergency Services Manager Lee Jacobi Municipal Water District of Orange County Senior Engineer Karl Seckel Municipal Water District of Orange County Assistant General Manager George Rivera Orange County Sanitation District Security and Emergency Planning Specialist Chuck Steinbergs Orange County Water District Principal Engineer John Kennedy Orange County Water District Executive Director of Local Resources and Administration Steve Francis Santa Margarita Water District Operations Field Superintendent Ron Meyer Santa Margarita Water District Engineering Associate Tim de Turk Serrano Water District Superintendent of Operations Ann Michel Serrano Water District Director of Finance & Administration/Assistant Secretary Mark Cole South Coast Water District Safety and Compliance Coordinator Steve Sanchez South Coast Water District Manager of Support Services WShared\WER0MHazmitQ01I PlanUpdate\Hazrn!t Plan 2011-12 Revision\Sechon 3 HM.docl.February-20112 3-3 SECTIONTHREE Planning Process Documentation Table 3.3-1 Planning Representatives for Participating Jurisdictions (Continued) Name Utility Title Dan Wheeler South Orange County Wastewater Authority Chief Operator Mike Wilson South Orange County Wastewater Authority Assistant General Manager Hector Ruiz Trabuco Canyon Water District District Engineer Michael Perea Trabuco Canyon Water District Water Conservation Hank Samaripa Yorba Linda Water District Project Engineer Steve Conklin Yorba Linda Water District Engineering Manager 3.4 HAZARD MITIGATION WORKING GROUP MEETINGS The HMWG had regular monthly meetings; the following is a list of HMWG meeting dates and content of meetings (see Section 8 for sign -in sheets, meeting agendas, and meeting summaries). In addition, Kelly Hubbard met and coordinated with the participating jurisdictions on various additional dates in person, via telephone or via email. HMWG Meetint! Dates/Results of Mectini! Planning Meetings Schedule & Topics: November 29, 2011 Review of Update Process, Timeline & Requirements Discussion of Shared Resources to Accomplish Update Primary Agency Contact and Commitment to Update Process Distribution and Review of Agency Packet (Sections 1-4 of the plan) December 19, 2011 0 Section 1-4 Agency Packet returned and questions discussed 0 Distribution and Review of Section 5 Agency Packet (Goals & Objectives) 0 Discussion of Regional Goals & Objectives 0 Hazard Maps Review & Discussion January 31, 2012 0 Draft plan distributed via web link for final review Other meetings included individual meetings with jurisdictions, presentations to community and government planning groups, and by individual jurisdictions' governing boards for adoption of the Plan. 0:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Remion\Secton 3 HM.doc1-February-2012 3-4 SECTIONTHREE Planning Process Documentation The plan update required the HMWG to review the original plan content for changes in assets and risks. In cases where new assets were identified the PWU utilized the original hazard risks maps to identify vulnerabilities for those new assets. In areas where the risk has changed the PWU reviewed the new risk maps and potentially impacted assets for vulnerabilities. The HMWG agreed that all mitigation goals and actions would be thoroughly reviewed and updated. Specific milestones in the process included: Risk Assessment (November 2011) - The HMWG used the FEMA list of hazards from the State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide (How-to Guide) to identify if the natural hazards that potentially threaten all or portions of the County have changed. In addition to natural hazards, the HMWG also identified manmade hazards that may threaten all or portions of the County and individual PWU. In the 2007 plan, specific geographic areas subject to the impacts of the identified hazards were mapped using a Geographic Information System (GIS). Due to fiscal restraints no new GIS mapping was completed for this update. Instead PWU's did visual comparisons of new infrastructure and updated hazard maps. The HMWG had access to information and resources regarding hazard identification and risk estimation from several sources noted in Section 3. 1, above. This included hazard specific maps, such as floodplain delineation maps, earthquake shake potential maps, and wildfire threat maps; the locations of infrastructure, critical facilities, and other properties located within each jurisdiction; and an estimate of potential losses or exposure to losses from each hazard. Many of the participating utilities have completed a vulnerability assessment of their critical facilities in compliance with the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. These documents and data were utilized in the HMP planning process. The HMWG also reviewed and updated the history of disasters in the County and assessed the need for specific mitigation actions based on the type and location of damage caused by past events. Finally, the assessment of community vulnerabilities included an update of existing codes, plans, policies, programs, and regulations used by the PWU to determine whether existing provisions and requirements adequately address the hazards that pose the greatest risk to the community. • Goals, Objectives and Alternative Mitigation Actions (December 2011) — Based on this understanding of the hazards faced by the County, a series of goals and objectives were identified in 2007 by HMWG members to guide subsequent planning activities. In addition, a series of alternative mitigation actions were identified to address these goals and objectives. Since the 2007 plan's approval the HMWG received comments indicating that the Goals, Objectives and Actions were too generic and not specific enough to truly provide for future mitigation planning. For this plan update the HMWG discussed ways in which to improve this area of the plan. MWDOC staff reformatted Section 5 to better facilitate the understanding of each PWU's Goals, Objectives and Actions. There was also an extensive discussion of mitigation projects completed within last 5 years, as well as proposed future projects to provide further guidance to the group in this reassessment. One of the significant discussions the HMWG had was that many of the actions identified in the 2007 plan were actually Best Management Practices (BMPs). For the purpose of this plan we are considering BMPs to be actions or activities that PWU's should undertake on a regular, if not 0:\Shared\WEROCkHazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revisjon\Section 3 Hkdoc1-February-2012 3-5 SECTIONTHREE Planning Process Documentation daily basis, as a component of operating a water utility. Although, many of these actions increase the resiliency of the water utility to withstand hazards, these BMPs are not solely hazard mitigation focused as much as they are operations focused. For this reason all actions noted as BMPs in Section 5 of this plan will be removed from the 2017 iteration of this document. • Mitigation Plan and Implementation Strategy (January 2011) — As each PWU developed their mitigation actions, they also updated the priorities for action from among all the alternatives identified. Each agency will utilize current approved planning documents that identify specific implementation strategies for capital improvement, risk reduction, system upgrades, and operations, which include details regarding who is responsible for project management, estimated costs, possible funding sources, and timelines for implementation. These plans complement the Plan and include but are not limited to: 3.2 Strategic Plans 3.3 Capital Improvement Plans 3.4 General Plans 3.5 EPA Vulnerability Assessments and ERP 3.6 Asset Management Plan • Work Group Meetings (November 2011- February 2012) — As listed in Section 3.4, a series of meetings were held in which the HMWG considered the probability of a hazard occurring in an area and its impact on public health and safety, property, the economy, and the environment, and the mitigation actions that would be necessary to minimize impacts from the identified hazards. The meetings evolved as the update process progressed, and were designed to aid the jurisdictions in completing a thorough review of the hazards within their jurisdictions, their existing capabilities and mitigation goals and action items for the Mitigation 3.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Water and wastewater facility location and operational information is confidential for security reasons due to the need to ensure public safety. As a result, public participation was restricted to two public workshops wherein the participating jurisdictions shared the mitigation planning process and their goals and objectives to increase the safety and security of their facilities and therefore enhance the safety of the community. MWDOC published news releases on the planning process and progress, and posted information on its website for public review. The HMWG also invited non -participating utilities and districts that they have co-operative agreements with to the public workshops to inform them of plan progress and invite input. Meetings with the HMWG, internal meetings within each PWU, two public workshops, a webpage with a "contact us" link on the MWDOC website, and a weblink on most of the PWU's websites to the MWDOC site served as methods to obtain input and identify priorities in developing goals for reducing risk and preventing loss from natural hazards in Orange County. Public involvement included: • Public Workshops to educate citizens, public officials, non -participating utilities and districts, and business leaders about the hazard mitigation planning process. Topics included hazard mitigation planning and its benefits, steps in the hazard mitigation planning process, and the importance of Q\SharedtWEROC%Hazmit12011PIanUpdate%Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 3 Wdoc1-February-2012 3-6 SECTIONTHREE Punning Process Documentation community input and participation, especially to suggest mitigation goals to be incorporated into the Plan. Public Meeting Dates: Public Workshop: January 17, 2012 Public Workshop: January 30, 2012 • MWDOC's Website had the approved 2007 plan for review and comment posted on it for over one month. One inquiry was received regarding accessing the plan, but no comments were received regarding the plan's content. Following the completion of the 2012 revised plan it is MWDOC's plan to permanently post the most current copy of the plan to the MWDOC website for year around public review and comment. Public Response and Comments were solicited to develop a list of potential mitigation actions based upon noted vulnerabilities and potential solutions. The 2007 Plan was posted, public meetings were advertised and citizens were invited to participate by reviewing the hazards maps and the 2007 plan, and discussing the hazard mitigation purpose. Two public meetings were organized and held, but no general citizens outside of the water or wastewater community attended. See Appendix B for a summary of the workshops. • Press Releases were prepared and released to solicit public review and comment. See Appendix C for copies of press releases and public notices. Press Release Dates: December 2011: Invited public comment via PWUs websites January 9, 2012: Announced planning process and the Public Workshops via press release • A Hazard Mitigation Plan Web Site was developed to provide the public with information. Items posted on the web site included public meeting announcements, PowerPoint presentations, a Hazard Mitigation Fact Sheet, hazard maps, the 2007 plan, and links to FEMA guidance documents. Anyone viewing the site could choose a "contact us" link to provide comment via email. Public involvement was also invited as each of the twenty agencies posted the agendas for adoption of the 2012 Update to the Hazard Mitigation Plan. During this process it was estimated that 75 members of the public were exposed to the concepts and processes involved in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Public input into PWU hazard mitigation activities over the last 5 years has primarily been provided following times of disaster. After Action processes and elected body reporting of responses and lessons learned have provided the public and coordinating agencies with the means to provide input into the PWU's emergency plans and hazard mitigation activities. A good example of this process is Yorba Linda Water District's review of lessons learned and subsequent incorporation of recommendations following its response to the Freeway Complex Fire in November of 2008. This disaster resulted in the loss of many homes due to a loss of water pressure in certain areas. The After -Action process and Yorba Lina Water 0:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011 -12 Remsion\Secfion 3 HM clocl-February-2012 3-7 SECTIONTHREE Planning Process Documentation District Elected Board reports addressing community comments and feedback moved the district to enhance their fire mitigation measures. HMWG team members and their corresponding Local Mitigation Planning Teams reviewed several plans, studies, and guides both prior to and during the planning process. These plans included FEMA documents, emergency services documents as well as water district and local general plans and community plans. These included: • County of Orange Hazard Mitigation Plan • Various Vulnerability Assessments and Emergency Response Plans • Various Local Codes and Ordinances • Local Multi -Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, FEMA, July 1, 2008 • FEMA CRS-DMA2K Mitigation Planning Requirements • South Orange County Water Reliability Study (MWDOC) • Executive Summary of the Value of a Reliable Water Supply Study (Appendix D) • Crosswalk Reference Document for Review and Submission of Local Mitigation Plans to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer and FEMA Regional Office. 0:\SharedXWEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisiorASection 3 Wdod-February-2012 3-8 SECTION FOUR RiskAssessment Risk Assessment requires the collection and analysis of hazard -related data to enable local jurisdictions to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions that will reduce losses from potential hazards. The FEMA State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide (How-to Guide) identifies five Risk Assessment steps as part of the hazard mitigation planning process, including: 1) identifying hazards, which involves determining those hazards posing a threat to a study area, 2) profiling hazards, which involves mapping identified hazards and their geographic extent, 3) identifying assets, which assigns value to structures and landmarks in the identified hazard areas, 4) assessing vulnerability, which involves predicting the extent of damage to assets, and 5) analyzing development trends, which assesses future development and population growth to determine potential future threat from hazards. These steps are described in detail in the following sections, first with an overall summary of hazard identification and data collection in Section 4.2, then with a jurisdictional summary of hazards, assets and vulnerability in Section 4.3. 4.1.1 Identifying Hazards Hazard identification is the process of identifying hazards that threaten an area including both natural and man-made events. A natural event causes a hazard when it harms people or property. Such events would include floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunami, coastal storms, landslides, and wildfires that strike populated areas. Man-made hazard events are caused by human activity and include technological hazards and terrorism. Technological hazards are generally accidental and/or have unintended consequences (for example, an accidental hazardous materials release). Terrorism is defined by the Code of` Federal Regulations as "...unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Natural hazards that have harmed the County in the past are likely to happen in the future; consequently, the process of identifying hazards includes determining whether or not the hazard has occurred previously. To identify the potential hazards, extensive research was conducted. In addition to reviewing hazards identified in the Orange County HMP, MWDOC utilized historical hazard data including such sources as newspapers and other records, a literature review in all relevant hazards subject areas, hazard -related GIS data, and engaging in conversation with relevant experts from the community. In addition, a variety of sources were used to determine the full range of potential hazards within Orange County. Even though a particular hazard may not have occurred in recent history in Orange County, it is important during the hazard identification stage to consider all hazards that may potentially affect the study area. 4.1.2 Profiling Hazards Hazard profiling entails describing the physical characteristics of past hazards such as their magnitude, duration, frequency, and probability, creating base maps of the study area and then collecting and mapping hazard event profile information obtained from various Federal, State, and local government utilities. Some new hazard maps have become available since the 2007 study was completed. The maps were obtained from the following websites for each corresponding hazard: 1 -February -2012 0AShared\WER001HazmiA201 I PlanUpdate\Hazrnjt Plan 2011-12 Remion\Section 4 Wdoc 4-1 SECTION FOUR RiskAssessment State of California Department of Conservation — Tsunami: It f 1 )_=5..t 1C1 t C.s.,.i; a. State of California Department of Conservation — Landslide: .., "gin t f =c< ` State of California Department of Conservation — Liquefaction: NMI, LIPLI California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection — Fires: Local utilities were contacted to provide more detailed and accurate data for Orange County. Where possible, the hazard data was utilized to update the geographic extent of the hazards in each PWU in the County. Data that could not be evaluated quantitatively were evaluated qualitatively by the HMWG based on their knowledge of their facilities and the probable extent/occurrence of these hazards. The level of risk associated with each hazard in each jurisdiction was also estimated and assigned a risk level depending on several factors unique to that particular hazard. 4.1.3 Identifying Assets (Process Related Discussion) Risk assessment also entails identifying which assets in each jurisdiction will be affected by each hazard type. Assets include any type of structure or facility associated with the operation of water and wastewater infrastructure. An inventory of existing and proposed assets within each PWU was generated. The assets and hazard maps were used to determine the vulnerability to each hazard type. 4.1.4 Assessing Vulnerability (Process Related Discussion) Vulnerability describes the degree to which an asset is susceptible to damage from a hazard. Vulnerability depends on an asset's construction, condition, contents and the economic value of its functions. Like indirect damages, the vulnerability of one facility is often related to the vulnerability of another. Often, indirect effects can be much more widespread and damaging than direct effects; especially when considering that outages at water facilities can result in significant economic consequences and losses in product output and impact to residents and businesses. A vulnerability analysis estimates the extent of injury and damage that may result from a hazard event of a given intensity in a given area. The vulnerability assessment identifies the effects of natural and man-made hazard events by estimating the relative exposure of existing and future population, land development, and infrastructure to hazardous conditions. The assessment helps set mitigation priorities by allowing local jurisdictions to focus attention on areas most likely to be damaged or most likely to require early emergency response during a hazard event. Pursuant to the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 some of the PWU have completed security vulnerability assessments of their water facilities. When available, these assessments were utilized by each PWU to identify hazards affecting their facilities. Further, this information was key in developing objectives and action items to enhance the security of water and wastewater facilities. 1 -February -2012 0ASharedlWER0C1Hazrnit52011 PtanUpdatetHazmit Pian 2011-12 Revision\Section 4 HMdoc 4-2 SECTION FOUR RiskAssessment 4.2 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENINt ,1,21 List of Hazards Prevalent in the JurisdictioT In 2007, the HMWG reviewed hazards listed in the How-to Guide and determined the prevalence of each hazard in Orange County and whether each hazard should be included in the Plan. All hazards identified by FEMA in the How -To -Guides were reviewed. They include: avalanche, coastal storm, coastal erosion, dam failure, drought/water supply, earthquake, expansive soils, extreme heat, flooding, hailstorm, house/building fire, land subsidence, landslide, liquefaction, severe winter storm, tornado, tsunami, wildfire, windstorm, and volcano. Although not required by the FEMA Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, manmade hazards such as hazardous materials release, nuclear materials release, and terrorism were also reviewed by the HMWG. 4.2.2 Hazard Identification Process As summarized above, hazard identification is the process of identifying all hazards that threaten an area, including both natural and man-made events. In the hazard identification stage conducted in 2007, MWDOC worked with the HMWG to determine hazards that potentially threaten Orange County. The hazard screening process involved narrowing the FEMA all-inclusive list of hazards to those most threatening to the Orange County region. Most of the hazards identified in the Orange County HMP were selected by the HMWG to be reviewed in the Plan as hazards that might affect water and wastewater facilities and structures. In addition to these hazards the HMWG determined that there are other hazards that could adversely affect their resources. In 2007 information from FEMA and other nationally and locally available databases were used to map the County's hazards, infrastructure and critical facilities. This initial mapping effort was utilized in the hazard screening process to determine which hazards would present the greatest risk to MWDOC and the PWU. The HMWG indicated that based on the fact that the majority of the development in Orange County is relatively recent (within the last 60 years), an urban type of fire that destroys multiple city blocks is not likely to occur alone, without a wildfire in the urban/wildland interface or a major earthquake occurring first. Therefore, it was determined that house/building fire and wildfire should be addressed as one hazard category in the plan. It was determined that the list of hazards affecting Orange County has not changed since 2007. The final list of hazards profiled for Orange County is: • Tsunamis, • Contamination, • Dam Failure, • Drought/Extreme Heat, • Earthquake, • Liquefaction, I -February -2012 0!1SharedNWEROC\HazmitX2011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 ReOsionkSection 4 Hfj.doc 4-3 kff • Expansive soils, • Floods/Coastal Storms, • High winds/Santa Ana Winds (resulting in power outages), • Landslide/mudslide, • Land Subsidence, • Tornado, • Wildfire/Urban Fire, and • Human caused hazards. Risk Assessment Table 4.2.2-1 shows a summary of the hazard identification results for Orange County. Table 4.2.2-1 Summary of Hazard Identification Results Hazard Data Collected for Hazard Identification Justification for Inclusion Coastal Storms, • Historical Coastlines (NOAA) • Coastal storms prompted 8 Proclaimed States of Erosion • FEMA FIRM Maps Emergency from 1950-1997 • FEMA Hazards website • Coastline stabilization measures have been • Coastal Zone Boundary (California implemented at various times in the past (erosion) Coastal Commission) • Extensive development along the coast • Orange County — Planning and Development Services Ground Water • OCWD Historical Records • In 1956, the water table was 15 -ft below sea level Contamination/ Salt and salt water had encroached several miles inland. Water Intrusion Dam Failure • FEMA-HAZUS MH • Dam failure • FEMA Hazards website • Several dams exist throughout Orange County • Topography (USGS) • Many dams over 30 years old • Increased downstream development Drought/Extreme Long periods without substantial rainfall, The Orange County region relies extensively on Heat Temperatures that hover 10 degrees or imported water. Long periods without substantial more above the average high rainfall in Northern California and in the Colorado River temperature for the region and last for watershed would affect Orange County water supply several weeks more than a local rainfall deficit. Additionally there are regional water conservation and water management programs already in place. Earthquake/ • USGS • Several active fault zones pass through Orange Liquefaction/ • CGS County; Tsunami * URS • Steep slopes or alluvial deposit soils in low-lying • Orange County Tsunami Inundation areas are susceptible to liquefaction during Maps (CA Dept of Conservation) earthquakes or heavy rains. Orange County terrain • Maximum Tsunami Run up Projections has both of these characteristics and lies within (LISCA OES) several active earthquake zones • Historical Tsunami Run ups and Events • Tsunami linked to seismic occurrences in Southern California. 1 -February -2012 O;kShared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 4 HM.doc 4-4 SECTION FOUR Table 4.2.2-1 Summary of Hazard Identification Results (Continued) Risk Assessment Hazard Data Collected for Hazard Identification Justification for Inclusion • CISN • FEMA-HAZUS MH • FEMA Hazards website • Seismic Hazards Zones Map • Faults, Liquefaction (Orange County) • Earthquake (Center for Demographic Research (CDR), Cal State Fullerton, Earth Consultants) Expansive Soils Expansive soils shrink when dry and swell Presents a minor threat to limited portions of the when wet. This movement can exert County enough pressure to crack sidewalks, driveways, basement floors, pipelines and even foundations • State Soils Geographic Data Base (United States Department of Agriculture) Floods • FEMA FIRM Maps • Much of Orange County is located within the 500- • Topography year floodplain • Base flood elevations (FEMA) • Flash floods and other flood events occur regularly • Historical flood records during rainstorms due to terrain and hydrology of • FEMA Hazards website Orange County • FEMA-HAZUS MH • There were 10 Proclaimed States of Emergency • FEMA Hazards website between 1950-1997 for floods in Orange County High Winds/ • County of Orange Historical Data • Wind gusts damage power transmission lines, Santa Ana Winds resulting in loss of power at critical facilities, Landslide • USGS • Steepslopeswithin earthquake zones exist in • Landslide Maps (CGS) Orange County, which creates landslide risk. • FEMA-HAZUS MH • Blue Bird Canyon Landslide in 2005, • FEMA Hazards website • NEH Land Subsidence Occurs when large amounts of groundwater Soils in Orange County area susceptible to have been withdrawn from certain types of subsidence. soils, such as fine-grained sediments. The soil compacts because the water is partly responsible for holding the ground up,_ 1 -February -2012 O:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011 PlanUpdatekHazrnit Plan 2011-12 ReAsion\Section 4 HKdoc 4.5 SECTION FOUR Table 4.2.2-1 Summary of Hazard Identification Results (Continued) Risk Assessment Hazard Data Collected for Hazard Identification Justification for Inclusion Tornado A tornado is a violent windstorm Southern California experiences 30 percent of characterized by a twisting, funnel -shaped tornadoes that occur in California. cloud. It is spawned by a thunderstorm (or sometimes as a result of a hurricane) and produced when cool air overrides a layer of warm air, forcing the warm air to rise rapidly. The damage from a tornado is a result of the high wind velocity and wind- blown debris. Wildfire/ • Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA • Orange County experiences wildfires on a regular Structure Fire Maps (CDF-FRAP) basis • Orange County Fre Authority • 7 States of Emergency were declared for wildfires • CDFG between 1950-2003 • Topography • Terrain and climate of Orange • Local Fire Utilities • Santa Ana Winds • Historical fire records • FEMA Hazards website Human Caused • County of Orange Environmental Health • The federal and state governments have advised Hazards Department Hazardous Materials every jurisdiction to consider the terrorism hazard Division • The potential exists for an accidental release to • San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station occur at SONGS (SONGS) and Department of Defense • Heightened security concerns since September 2001 • The storage and used of chemicals at facilities. • Intentional and non -intentional failures of critical infrastructure. In 2007, data in GIS format was projected into the State Plane, NAD 1983, California Zone VI Coordinate System (US Survey Units Feet), and clipped to the Orange County and Jurisdictional boundaries. Data that was not available in GIS format was either digitized into GIS or kept in its original format and used as a reference. A matrix of all data collected, including source, original projection, scale, and data limitations is included in Section 8. Data and methods that were ultimately used to determine risk levels and probability of occurrence for each hazard are described in detail in the hazard profiling sections. 4.2.3 Hazard Identification Sources Once the hazards of concern for Orange County were determined, available data was collected and used in the analysis. Specific sources included the United States Geological Survey (USGS), California Geological Survey (CGS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) HAZUS, FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), United States Forest Service (USFS), California Department of Forestry — 1 -February -2012 01SharedlwEROC"azmit12011 PlanUpdateiHazmit Pian 2011-12 Revision\Section 4 HM.doc 4-6 SECTION FOUR Risk Assessnal Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CDF-FRAP), National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC), California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN), Orange County Emergency Management Bureau, United States Department of Agriculture, Drought Outlook websites, and input gathered from local jurisdictions, districts and utilities. Table 4.2.2-1 also depicts data sources researched and utilized by hazard, as well as brief justifications for inclusion of each hazard of concern in the Orange County region. Non -Profiled Hazards During the evaluation, the HMWG determined that a number of hazards would not be included in the profiling step because they were not prevalent hazards within the County. Table 4.2.3-1 gives a brief description of those hazards and the reason for their exclusion from the list. Table 4.2.3-1 Summary of Hazards Excluded from Hazard Profiling Hazard Description Reason for Exclusion A mass of snow moving down a slope. There Snowfall in the County mountains not significant; poses Avalanche are two basic elements to a slide; a steep, very minor threat compared to other hazards; no historical snow-covered slope and a trigger record of this hazard in the region. Can occur during thunderstorms that bring Occurs during severe thunderstorms; most likely to occur Hailstorm heavy rains, strong winds, hail, lightning and in the central and southern states; no historical record of tornadoes this hazard in the region. Severe Winter Storm Large amounts of failing or blowing snow and sustained winds of at least 35 miles per hour Minor threat in mountains of the County. No historical occurring for several hours record of this hazard in the region. A volcano is a mountain that is built up by an accumulation of lava, ash flows, and airborne Volcano ash and dust. When pressure from gases and No active volcanoes in Orange County. No historical the molten rock within the volcano becomes record this hazard in the region. strong enough to cause an explosion, eruptions occur A hazard profile is a description of the physical characteristics of a hazard and a determination of various hazard descriptors, including magnitude, duration, frequency, probability, and extent. The hazard data that was collected in the hazard identification process was mapped to determine the geographic extent of the hazards in each jurisdiction in the County and the level of risk associated with each hazard. Most hazards were given a risk level of high, medium or low depending on several factors unique to the hazard. The hazards identified and profiled for Orange County, as well as the data used to profile each hazard, are presented in this section. The hazards are presented in alphabetical order; and this does not signify level of importance to the HMWG. Table 4.3-1 provides a summary of the Hazard Valuation Loss for each mapped hazard. I -February-2012 0ASharedkWER0G\Hazrnft\207 IPlanUpdate\l-lamit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 4 HM.doc 4-7 "I NUO]MR1 NO Table 4.3-1 Hazard Valuation Loss Summary by Hazard Hazard Event Replacement Value $M Earthquake Moderate $2,460 High $5,631 Extreme $717 Flood 100 Year $1,965 500 Year $1,482 Landslide $1,436 Liquefaction Moderate $1,231 High $1,968 Very High $306 Fire Low $1,152 High $443 Extreme $55 4.3.1 Tsunami 4.3.1.1 Nature of Hazard Risk Assessment The phenomenon we call "tsunami" is a series of traveling ocean waves of extremely long length generated primarily by earthquakes occurring below or near the ocean floor. In the deep ocean, the tsunami waves move across the deep ocean with a speed exceeding 500 miles per hour, and a wave height of only a few inches. Tsunami waves are distinguished ftom ordinary ocean waves by their great length between wave crests, often exceeding 60 miles or more in the deep ocean, and by the time between these crests, ranging from 10 minutes to an hour. As they reach the shallow waters of the coast, the waves slow down and the water can pile up into a wall of destruction up to 30 feet or more in height. The effect can be amplified where a bay, underwater features, or harbor or lagoon funnels the wave as it moves inland. Large tsunamis have been known to rise over 100 feet. Even a tsunami 1-3 feet high can be very destructive and cause many deaths and injuries. I -February-2012 OASharedXWEROCkHazmffi201I PlanUpdateNl-lazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionNSection 4 HM,doc 4-8 SECTION FOUR RiskAssessment There are many causes of tsunamis, but the most prevalent is earthquakes. In addition, landslides, volcanic eruptions, explosions, and even the impact of meteorites can generate tsunamis. Not all earthquakes generate tsunamis. To generate a tsunami, the fault where the earthquake occurs must be underneath or near the ocean, and cause vertical movement of the sea floor over a large area, hundreds or thousands of square miles. By far the most destructive tsunamis are generated from large, shallow earthquakes with an epicenter or fault line near or on the ocean floor. The amount of vertical and horizontal motion of the sea floor, the area over which it occurs, the simultaneous occurrence of slumping of underwater sediments due to the shaking, and the efficiency with which energy is transferred from the earth's crust to the ocean water are all part of the tsunami generation mechanism. The sudden vertical displacements over such large areas disturb the ocean's surface, displace water, and generate destructive tsunami waves. Although all oceanic regions of the world can experience tsunamis, the most destructive and repeated occurrences of tsunamis are in the Pacific Rim region. Tsunami waves can travel at the speed of a commercial jet plane, over 500 miles per hour, moving from one side of the Pacific Ocean to the other in less than a day. This great speed makes it important to be aware of the tsunami as soon as it is generated. Scientists can predict when a tsunami will arrive at various locations by knowing the source characteristics of the earthquake that generated the tsunami and the characteristics of the sea floor along the path to the shore from the point of origin. Offshore and coastal features can determine the size and impact of tsunami waves. Reefs, bays, entrances to rivers, undersea features and the slope of the beach all modify the tsunami as it converges on the coastline. People living near areas where large earthquakes occur may find that the tsunami waves can reach their shores within minutes of the earthquake. For these reasons, the tsunami threat to many areas such as Alaska, the Philippines, Japan and the United States West Coast can be immediate (for tsunamis from nearby earthquakes which take only a few minutes to reach coastal areas) or less urgent (for tsunamis from distant earthquakes which take from three to 22 hours to reach coastal areas). When a tsunami reaches the coastline and moves inland, the water level can rise several feet, flooding homes, businesses and infrastructure from several thousand feet to miles inland, depending on the topography. Scientists cannot accurately predict when earthquakes will occur, and as a result they cannot detennine exactly when a tsunami will be generated or how destructive it will be. However, past tsunami height measurements are useful in predicting future tsunami impact and flooding limits at specific coastal locations and communities. 4.3.1.2 Disaster History Tsunamis can be categorized as Pacific -wide or "local." Typically, a Pacific -wide tsunami is generated by a major vertical shift in the ocean floor creating a wave that includes the entire column of water that has the potential to travel long distances. A "local" tsunami can be a component of a Pacific -wide tsunami in the immediate area of the earthquake, or a wave that is confined to the area of generation; such as a landslide within a bay or harbor. Worldwide, tsunamis have resulted in loss of thousands of lives, billions of dollars in damages, and the closure of many local economies. All of the coastal areas in Orange County are susceptible to tsunamis. Although the majority of tsunamis have occurred in Northern California, Southern California has been impacted as well. Since 1812, the 1 -February -2012 0,\Shared\WERC>C\Hazmit12011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RemioniSecfion 4 HM.doc 4-9 SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment California coast has had 14 tsunamis with wave heights higher than three feet; six of these were destructive. The Channel Islands were hit by a big tsunami in the early 1800s. In the 1930's, four tsunamis struck the Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego coastal areas. In Orange County the tsunami wave reached heights of approximately 20 feet above sea level. In 1964, following the Alaska 8.2 earthquake, tidal surges of approximately 4 feet to 5 feet battered the Huntington Harbor causing moderate damages. Most recently on March 11, 2011 Japan experienced a 9.OM earthquake off the East coast of Honshu Island. The earthquake generated a tsunami reaching upwards of 30 feet. The aftermath included over $20 billion in damages, 2.1 million without drinking water, 13,000 dead, and another 15,000 missing. To add to this disaster Japan's Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Plant had significant damages resulting in releases of nuclear gas, water and other materials. The impact of this event on the United States, especially the West Coast was enormous. The entire Western coast prepared for the potential of tsunami waves impacting our communities, possibly the repatriation of US citizens, and public fears of nuclear clouds drifting over the Pacific to our shores. 4.3.1.3 Location and Extentl Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude The historic record indicates that there is a low probability of occurrence of a major tsunami in Orange County. However, smaller scale tsunamis can have severe impacts on coastal communities. As shown on the following series of tsunami run-up maps the entire 43 miles of the County of Orange coastline could be impacted (Figure 4.3-1a through 4.3-1f). The Tsunami maps used for the Plan were created by County of Orange RDMD. The county mapping staff started with the State Office of Emergency Services' Tsunami Inundation Maps, and expanded upon them to show local knowledge of the topography and water ways. Although the State of California has updated the state-wide tsunami maps since the 2007 plan was written, the HMWG wanted to continue to use the County of Orange produced maps for the same reason as noted above. Approximately 89,000 residents would have to be evacuated. The impact could cause loss of life, destroy thousands of high priced homes, greatly affect coastal businesses, and impact tourism. Infrastructure including highways, secondary roads, bridges, and water and wastewater facilities are also at risk. Damage to water and wastewater facilities would further exacerbate the disaster by exposing people to disease and dehydration. The Tsunami maps provided in this document are provided by the County of Orange Resource and Development Management Department. The maps are based on previously produced Tsunami inundation maps that were available from the State office of Emergency Services (now Cal EMA) and then enhanced to project additional inundation based on local knowledge of water ways and land development. 4.3.2 Contamination/Salt Water Intrusion 4.3.2.1 Nature of Hazard When fresh water is withdrawn from aquifers at a faster rate than it is replenished, a drawdown of the water table occurs with a resulting decrease in the overall hydrostatic pressure. When this happens near a coastal ocean area, salt water from the ocean can intrude into the fresh water aquifer. The result is that fresh water supplies become contaminated with salt water. 1 -February -2012 0ASharedXWER0C\Hazmjtk201I PlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 Rewsion\Section 4 HM.dGc 4-10 SECTION FOUR liskAssessment 4.3.2.2 Disaster History In Orange County, by 1956, years of heavy pumping to sustain the region's agricultural economy had lowered the water table by 15 -feet below sea level and saltwater from the Pacific Ocean had encroached as far as five miles inland. The area of intrusion is primarily across a four -mile front between the cities of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach known as the Talbert Gap. The mouth of an alluvial fan formed millions of years ago by the Santa Ana River; the Talbert Gap has since been buried along the coast by several hundred feet of clay. In 1976 the Water Factory 21 Direct Injection Project, operated by OCWD, began injecting highly treated recycled water into the aquifer to prevent salt water intrusion, while augmenting the potable groundwater supply. This system was shutdown to make way for the GWRS Project which began operation in 2008. GWRS provides highly treated water for injection into the seawater barrier system to prevent seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin managed by OCWD. 4.3.2.3 Location of Extent/ Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Massive seawater intrusion has been prevented in Orange County by the OCWD basin management programs. However, the threat of saltwater intrusion along the coast is still present. To prevent further intrusion and to provide basin management flexibility, OCWD operates a hydraulic barrier system. A series of 23 multi -point injection wells four miles inland delivers fresh water into the underground aquifers to form a water mound, blocking further passage of seawater. Continued injection of recycled water into the aquifer is essential to keep saltwater from intruding into the groundwater table and contaminating a major source of the county's potable water. 4.3.3 Dam/Reservoir Failure 4.3.3.1 Nature of Hazard Dam failures can result from a number of natural or human caused threats such as earthquakes, erosion of the face or foundation, improper sitting, rapidly rising flood waters, malicious events, and structural/design flaws. Seismic activity can also compromise dam regulating structures, resulting in catastrophic flooding. A dam failure can cause loss of life, damage to property, the displacement of persons, and other ensuing hazards 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. In the event of a major dam failure, mutual aid from all levels of government would be required for an extended period of time. Recovery efforts would include the removal of debris, clearing roadways, demolishing unsafe structures, assistance in reestablishing public services, and providing continued care and welfare for the affected population. There are 33 dams in Orange County with ownership ranging from the Federal government to Home Owners Associations. These dams hold billions of gallons of water in reservoirs. The major reservoirs are designed to protect Southern California from flood waters and to store domestic and recycled water. The reservoirs range in capacity from 18 acre feet to 196,235 acre feet of water storage. The following is a list of the larger reservoirs and dams in Orange County and their Owners/Operators: Name of Facility Owner/Operator 1 -February -2012 0ASharedXWER0C1Hazrnift201 I PlanUpdatekHazrnft Plan 2011-12 RemionkSection 4 HM.doc 4-11 M N I Santiago Dam/Reservoir (Irvine Lake) Villa Park Dam Sulphur Creek Dam Peters Canyon Dam Walnut Canyon Dam/Reservoir San Joaquin Dam/Reservoir Sand Canyon Dam/Reservoir Rattlesnake Canyon Dam/Reservoir Big Canyon Dam/Reservoir Lake Mission Viejo El Toro R-6 Dam/Reservoir Rossmoor #2 Dam/Reservoir Diemer Filtration Plant Palisades Bradt Dam/Reservoir Portola Dam/Reservoir Syphon Canyon Dam/Reservoir Trabuco Dam & Reservoir Dove Canyon Dam Upper Oso Dam/Reservoir Upper Chiquita Dam/Reservoir Brea Dam Fullerton Dam Carbon Canyon Dam Prado Dam Risk Assessment Serrano Water District/Irvine Ranch Water District County of Orange County of Orange County of Orange City of Anaheim Irvine Ranch Water District Irvine Ranch Water District Irvine Ranch Water District City of Newport Beach Lake Mission Viejo Association El Toro Water District El Toro Water District Metropolitan Water District South Coast Water District Santa Margarita Water District The Irvine Company Trabuco Canyon Water District Dove Canyon Master Association/ Trabuco Canyon Water District Santa Margarita Water District Santa Margarita Water District U. S. Army Corps of Engineers U. S. Army Corps of Engineers U. S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers In addition to reservoirs with dams in Orange County, there are many water storage tanks that are potentially susceptible to failure or damage by natural or manmade events. These water tanks contain millions of gallons of water each and provide an important source of water storage. Their capacity is large enough to cause substantial damage down slope from a tank should one fail. Correspondingly, the history of failure of water storage tanks is considered. Loss of life and damage to structures, roads, and utilities may result from a dam failure. Economic losses can also result. These effects would certainly accompany the failure of any one of the major reservoirs with a dam or storage tanks in the County of Orange. Because dam failure can have severe consequences. FEMA and Cal EMA require all dam owners to develop Emergency Action Plans (EAP) for warning, evacuation, and post -flood actions. Although there has been extensive coordination with County officials in the development of a County Response Plan, the responsibility for developing potential flood inundation maps and facilitation of emergency response is the responsibility of the dam owner. For more detailed information regarding dam failure flooding, and potential flood inundation zones for a particular dam in the County, refer to the County of Orange, Operational Area Emergency Action Plan Dam/Reservoir Failure Annex, 1 -February -2012 0AShared\WER0C\HaZrnft\201 I PlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Secction 4 HM.doc 4-12 NNi 4.3.3.2 Disaster History St. Francis Dam, Disaster of 1928 Risk Assessment In Los Angeles the failure of the St. Francis Dam, and the resulting loss of over 500 lives was a scandal that resulted in the almost complete destruction of the reputation of its builder, William Mulholland. It was he who proposed, designed, and supervised the construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, which brought water from the Owens Valley to the city. The St. Francis Dam, built in 1926, was 180 feet high and 600 feet long. It was located near the City of Saugus in San Francisquito Canyon. The dam failed on March 12, 1928 three minutes before midnight. Its waters swept through the Santa Clara Valley toward the Pacific Ocean about 54 miles away. The valley was devastated before the water finally made its way into the ocean between Oxnard and Ventura. At its peak the wall of water was said to be 78 feet high. At the time the water flowed through Santa Paula, 42 miles south of the dam, the water was estimated to be 25 feet deep. Almost everything in its path was destroyed: livestock, structures, railways, bridges, and orchards. In the end Ventura County lay below 70 feet of mud and damage estimates topped $20 million. Baldwin Hills Dam, Disaster of 1963 The Baldwin Hills Dam collapse sent a 50 -foot wall of water down Cloverdale Avenue on Dec. 14, 1963. Five people were killed. Sixty-five hillside houses were ripped apart, and 210 homes and apartments were damaged. The flood swept northward in a V-shaped path roughly bounded by La Brea Avenue, Jefferson Boulevard, and La Cienega Boulevard. The earthen dam that created a 19 -acre reservoir to supply drinking water to West Los Angeles residents ruptured at 3:38 p.m. A pencil thin crack widened to a 75 foot gash allowing 292 million gallons to surge out in 77 minutes. The cascade caused an unexpected ripple effect that is still being felt in Los Angeles and beyond. It prompted the end of urban -area earthen dams as a major element of water storage systems, and a tightening of the Division of Safety of Dams control over reservoirs throughout the state. Westminster Water Tank Failure, Disaster of 1998 In September of 1998, a 5 million gallon municipal water storage tank in the City of Westminster ruptured as a result of corrosion and construction defects. There was no loss of life, but damage was extensive. The flow of water from the 32 year old tank destroyed most of the storage facility as well as several private residences. Additionally, there were approximately 30 more homes inundated with water and silt. Through the Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement the County of Orange Public Works Department assisted the City of Westminster in the clean up and temporary repair of the streets. City employees, the Orange County Fire Authority, neighboring fire services, and the Red Cross were on- site for days assessing the damage and assisting residents. Water storage for the City was non-existent following this event while the other 5 million gallon tank of similar age and construction was removed from service as a precautionary measure. I -February-2012 0:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate4Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 4 HM.doc 4-13 SECTION FOUR R!Sk Assessmeil A new reservoir facility came on-line in March 2003 consisting of two eight million gallon water storage tanks, a 17 million gallon per day booster station, and a new groundwater well with 3,000 gpm capacity. All new construction has passed rigorous inspections and has obtained the required permits from the California Department of Public Health. Location of Extent/ Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Reservoirs with Dams Impacting the PWU Big Canyon Reservoir is a 600 acre foot potable water storage facility constructed in 1959 and owned by the City of Newport Beach. It is located in the San Joaquin Hills overlooking Newport Bay. Big Canyon Reservoir is retained on three sides by a homogenous earth filled embankment dam, while the east side was formed by a slope cut. At its maximum section the dam embankment is 65 feet high. The spillway is an ungated concrete lined overflow structure located on the west side of the reservoir. The bottom of the reservoir and the cut slopes are lined with minimum 5 foot thick clay blanket, and the entire inside surface, including the embankments and cut slopes, is overlain with a three inch thick porous asphalt pavement. The reservoir is covered with a reinforced polypropylene weight -tensioned floating cover that was installed in 2004. Dove Canyon Dam is an earth -filled dam completed in 1990. The dam is located in the Dove Canyon residential community within the City of Rancho Santa Margarita, Orange County. The dam is owned by the Dove Canyon Master Association (DCMA). DCMA owns and operates recreational facilities situated immediately downstream of the dam crest on compacted backfill. The recreational facilities were included in the construction documents for the Dam and approved by the State Division of Safety of Dams. The impounded reservoir is located on land owned by Trabuco Canyon Water District (TCWD) and is used to store up to about 415 acre-feet of runoff. TCWD mid DCMA have an agreement to operate and maintain the dam and reservoir. TCWD utilizes storage in the reservoir to supplement its recycled water demands for landscape irrigation. The impounded water can be stored to an elevation of 1090 feet, approximately I I feet below the top of the dam crest's elevation of 1101 feet, MSL. El Toro Reservoir is an earth -filled dam owned by the ETWD. The impounded reservoir has a storage capacity of about 850 acre-feet with a surface area of approximately 20.6 acres, The reservoir is presently being used for operational and emergency storage for the ETWD, Santa Margarita Water District and Moulton Niguel Water District. ETWD also owns and operates Rossmoor #2 a dam/reservoir also known as the Water Recycling Effluent Holding Pond. If problems occur at either location, operations personnel at the El Toro Water District who will notify the Sheriff's Department Control One of dam failure or possible dam failure. Palisades Bradt Reservoir provides up to 48 million gallons of potable water storage with a 146 foot high, zoned, earthen embankment dam constructed in 1963. The bottom and internal slopes of the reservoir are lined and the reservoir surface has a floating cover. The dam has a low-level outlet, an emergency outlet, and an emergency spillway. The upstream watershed that contributes inflow to the reservoir has an area of 19 acres. 1 -February -2012 0!\SharedkWEROCkHazmit\2011PIanUpdateXHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revisian\Section 4 HM.doc 4-14 SECTION FOUR RiSkAssessment Peters Canyon Dam is an earth -filled structure owned by the County of Orange and has a capacity of 626 acre feet at the spillway pipe elevation of 537 feet MSL. Water storage varies from 200 acre feet to 600 acre feet depending on seasonal rain amounts. Alerting would come primarily from the Park Ranger at Peters Canyon Regional Park who would notify the Sheriff Department, Control One of darn failure or possible dam failure. Prado Dam is owned and operated by the Army Corps of Engineers, and was constructed for the primary purpose of providing protection from floods for Orange County, California. Installation of the Seven Oaks Dam in San Bernardino County has lessened the potential likelihood of a Prado Dam failure due to upper Santa Ana River flooding. Portola Dam is located near the northern end of Canada Gobernadora in southern Orange County; within the Coto de Caza gated community. Canada Gobernadora flows north to south and confluences with San Juan Creek approximately 7.5 miles upstream of the Pacific Ocean. Portola Dam is an earth -filled structure situated about 8 miles north of San Juan Creek with a maximum recycled water (or domestic water blend) storage capacity of 586 AF and a high water elevation of 936 feet. An inundation study and compliance report for Portola Dam was done in 1980 to allow construction permitting by the State of California. This study indicated that if the dam was breached, a potential maximum flow rate of 22,645 CFS may be expected after about three hours once the reservoir level drops to half -full, or when the water surface elevation is at elevation 920 feet. Should such an event occur, Portola Dam would potentially empty in just over six hours. The Canada Gobernadora valley channel area between the dam and San Juan Creek has been developed with a golf course and lined on each side by thousands of homes positioned just at or above the 100 year flood plain. If a dam break occurred, the flow would likely destroy streets crossing the flood plain, damage the water, sewer and recycled water pipeline infrastructure in them and may also affect some or many home locations near the stream channel. Streets in Coto de Caza certain to be affected are: Trigo Trail, Via Pajaro, Via Conejo, Vista Del Verde, San Miguel, Cantamar and South Bend Road. Along with the golf course and the equestrian center, additional District facilities that are anticipated to be damaged or destroyed by a dam break in Coto de Caza and farther down stream are: • Coto Lift Station and force main • South Ranch lift station and force main • South County pipeline • Ortega Lift Station (Talega) force mains • Talega recycled water transmission main • Chiquita Land Outfall pipeline Per the compliance report, after entering San Juan Creek, the dam break inundation flood area would be about the same as the 100 -year flood plain all the way down to the Pacific Ocean. Santiw4o Dam is an earth fill dam with a 25,000 acre-feet capacity reservoir (Irvine Lake). The dam is jointly owned by the Irvine Ranch Water District and the Serrano Water District. Villa Park Dam is a flood control dam located downstream from Santiago Dam. It is an earth -fill structure with a capacity of 1 -February -2012 4:kSharedkWEROCWazmit,2011PIanUpdate4Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RemionlSecfion 4 HMAc 4-15 ACTION FOUR RiSkAssessmew 15,600 acre-feet and is owned by the Orange County Flood Control District. Initial alerting is expected from Dam keepers who are on duty at both Santiago Dam and Villa Park Dam. Trabuco Dam is an earth -filled dam completed in 1984. The damns located adjacent to the Robinson Ranch residential community within the City of Rancho Santa Margarita, Orange County. The dam and impounded reservoir is owned and operated by the Trabuco Canyon Water District (TCWD). TCWD utilizes the reservoir to store up to approximately 135 acre-feet of reclaimed water produced from the Robinson Ranch Wastewater Treatment Plant located adjacent to the reservoir. The reclaimed water can be stored to an elevation of 1274 feet, approximately 6 feet below the top of the dam crest's elevation of 1280 feet, MSL. Upper Oso Reservoir (UOR) and Dam are located within the Cities of Mission Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita near the northern end of the Oso Creek watershed in southern Orange County. Upper Oso Dam is an earth -filled structure situated between El Toro Road and Los Alisos Boulevard nearly 10 miles north of the Trabuco Creek confluence point. UOR has a high water elevation of 953 feet and stores up to 4000 acre feet of recycled water for landscape irrigation that is mainly used within Santa Margarita and Moulton Niguel Water Districts. A compliance analysis and inundation study report was prepared for Upper Oso Dam in 1979 to allow for construction permitting by the State of California. This study indicated that if the dam was breached, a potential maximum flow rate exceeding 250,000 cubic feet per second may be expected when the water surface elevation drops to about elevation 935 feet. Should such an event occur, UOR could potentially empty in about a half hour. Immediately downstream of the UOR dam, a long bridge for State Route 241 crosses the flood channel and may not experience problems during a major flood event. Just upstream of Los Alisos Boulevard, some commercial property lies adjacent to the Oso Creek channel and may be affected. About three miles down stream on Oso Creek and upstream of Olympiad Road, a large basin area was created (now a sports park) to capture and attenuate major discharges from UOR before they entered Lake Mission Viejo (LMV). LMV is created by a dam lying under Alicia Parkway. A UOR darn breach may also overflow Lake Mission Viejo and damage the dam to point where it could release stored water and create a catastrophic flood hazard all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Downstream of LMV, two golf courses have been developed within the Oso Creek channel area and numerous commercial properties are on adjacent sides. Housing tracts have been built above the 100 year flood plain but if a dam break occurred, the flow from UOR and LMV would likely destroy streets crossing the flood plain and damage the water, sewer and recycled water pipeline infrastructure in them. In addition to the many pipelines crossing the flood plain, District facilities that are anticipated to be damaged or destroyed by a UOR dam break are: • Eastbrook RW Pump Station • Lakeside Pump Station • South County Pipeline • Oso Creek Water Reclamation Plant • Oso Creek Trunk Sewer 1 -February -2012 0ASharedkWER0C14.azrnitQ01 1 PlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 RewsionkSeclion 4 HM,doc 4-16 SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment • Oso Barrier RW Pump Station and Pipelines Due to proximity and elevation, a significant number of the residential and commercial properties in many areas close to the banks of Oso Creek and farther downstream would likely be flooded for short period of time and damaged. Streets in Mission Viejo and farther south likely to be affected by a dam failure are: Los Alisos Boulevard, Santa Margarita Parkway, Olympiad Road, Alicia Parkway, Jeronimo Road, Marguerite Parkway, Casta del Sol, La Paz Road, Oso Parkway, Interstate 5, Camino Capistrano, Del Obispo Street, Stonehill Drive and Pacific Coast Highway. Upper Chiquita Reservoir (UCR) — SMWD constructed the Upper Chiquita Reservoir to provide the South Orange County region with substantial new water reserves to meet customer demand during disruptions of water deliveries. These interruptions can be unanticipated, like the break of the Allen McColloch Pipeline in 1999, or planned, like the shutdowns of the Diemer Filtration plant in Yorba Linda to complete improvements or maintenance and repairs. The Upper Chiquita Reservoir Emergency Storage Reservoir consists of an earthfill dam structure and a covered, domestic water reservoir with a storage volume of 750 acre feet. The reservoir footprint is approximately 19.7 acres with a surface area of approximately 15.4 acres and has a High Water Level (HWL) of 860 feet. In addition to the dam and reservoir, the site contains the following facilities: • Floating Cover • Access Roads • Spillway and Drainage Facilities • Inlet/Outlet Facilities and Pipelines • Pump Station • Disinfection Equipment • Pipeline connection to the South Orange County Pipeline The Upper Chiquita reservoir site is located on the western side of Chiquita Canyon north of Oso Parkway and west of the current terminus of State Route 241 (SR -241) within the City of Rancho Santa Margarita, east of the community of Las Flores in southern Orange County. A portion of the site is encumbered within the Transportation Corridor Agency's (TCA) Chiquita Canyon Perimeter Conservation Easement. The closest developed areas are the Tesoro High School campus (located across Oso Parkway and south of the reservoir site) and the residential community of Las Flores (approximately 0.8 -mile west of the site). Additional land uses in the proximity to the reservoir site include a neighborhood park, Crestview Park, located just over 300 00 feet west of the site, and the SMWD Las Flores Reservoir, located approximately 250 feet west of the site. Under an extreme catastrophic dam failure scenario, the flood zone would exceed the FEMA 100 -year floodplain in the Canada Chiquita Channel. Under this extreme scenario, land use categories that would be affected include the Oso Parkway, SR -2141 and the Tesoro High School. Once the flood waters reach the San Juan Creek the flood flows would be less than the FEMA 100 -year flood. 1 -February -2092 0:\SharedXWEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Secfion 4 HMAOC 4-17 SECTION FOUR RiSkAssessment The Upper Chiquita Reservoir is located on the western slope of Chiquita Canyon, just north of Oso Parkway in the City of Rancho Santa Margarita. Completed in October 2011, the 244 -million gallon Upper Chiquita Reservoir is the largest domestic water reservoir built in south Orange County in nearly 45 years. Information regarding UCR: • Storage capacity of approximately 244 million gallons of domestic water (750 acre-feet) is contained in a lined and covered reservoir. • Surface area of approximately 17.8 acres • A regional partnership between SMWD (lead agency), Moulton Niguel Water District, City of San Juan Capistrano, City of San Clemente and South Coast Water District (storage owners) • Capable of providing upwards of 168,000 families with approximately 200 gallons of fresh water a day for one week • Included in the South Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan, which designates habitat conservation and species protection measures to ensure an environmentally sensitive design • Reservoir is not visible from homes in local neighborhoods, including Las Flores and Wagon Wheel • Earthen embankment significantly reduces any visual impacts while traveling west along Oso Parkway near Highway 241 • Reservoir design conforms to the rigorous standards set forth by the State of California • Safety features, including piezometers (moisture sensors), to continually monitor water levels and test for irregularities 4.3.4 DroughVExtreme Heat 4.3.4.1 Nature of Hazard Many governmental utilities, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the California Department of Water Resources, as well as academic institutions, such as the University of Nebraska -Lincoln's National Drought Mitigation Center and the National Drought Mitigation Center, generally agree that there is no clear definition of drought. Drought is highly variable depending in what part of a state, the country or globe one is situated. Drought in its simplest definition is an extremely dry climatic period where the available water falls below a statistical average for a particular region. Drought is also defined by factors other than rainfall., including: vegetation conditions, agricultural productivity, soil moisture, water levels in reservoirs and stream flow. In effect, there are essentially three forms of drought: meteorological or hydrological drought, agricultural drought, and regulatory. A meteorological or hydrological drought is typically defined when there is a prolonged period of less than average precipitation resulting in the water level in aquifers, lakes or above ground storage reservoirs falling below sustainable levels. An agricultural 1 -February -2012 O:XShared\WEROCV4azmifl2011PIanUpdateiHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Sectjon 4 HM.doc 4-18 SECTION FOUR RiskAssessment drought occurs when there is insufficient moisture for an average crop yield. Agricultural drought can be caused by the overuse of groundwater, poor management of cultivated fields, as well as lack of precipitation. A regulatory drought can occur when the availability of water is reduced due to imposition of regulatory restrictions on the diversion and export of water out of a watershed to another area. A significant percentage of water in Southern California is imported from other regions (Colorado River and Northern California) via aqueducts. Correspondingly drought in California can be made worse by water availability conditions in the regions at which the water originates. 4.3.4.2 Disaster History A significant drought, reported by many of the ranchers in southern California, occurred in 1860. The great drought of the 1930s, coined the "Dust Bowl," was geographically centered in the Great Plains yet ultimately affected water shortages in California. The drought conditions in the plains resulted in a large influx of people to the west coast. Approximately 350,000 people from Arkansas and Oklahoma immigrated mainly to the Great Valley of California. As more people moved into California, including Orange County increases in intensive agriculture led to overuse of Santa Ana River watershed and groundwater resulting in regional water shortages. Several bills have been introduced into Congress in an effort to mitigate the effects of drought. In 1998, President Clinton signed into law the National Drought Policy Act, which called for the development of a national drought policy or framework that integrates actions and responsibilities among all levels of government. In addition it established the National Drought Policy Commission to provide advice and recommendations on the creation of an integrated federal policy. The most recent bill introduced into Congress was the National Drought Preparedness Act of 2003, which established a comprehensive national drought policy and statutorily authorized a lead federal utility for drought assistance. Currently there exists only an ad-hoc response approach to drought unlike other disasters (e.g., hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes) which are under the purview of FEMA. 4.3.4.3 Location of Extent! Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Of the many varied indexes used to measure drought, the "Palmer Drought Severity Index" (PDSI) is the most commonly used drought index in the United States. Developed by meteorologist Wayne Palmer, the PDSI is used to measure dryness based on recent temperature compared to the amount of precipitation. It utilizes a number range, 0 as normal, drought shown in terms of minus numbers, and wetness shown in positive numbers (Table 4.3.4.3-1). The PDSI is most effective at analyzing long-range drought forecasts or predications. Thus, the PDSI is very effective at evaluation trends in the severity and frequency of prolonged periods of drought, and conversely wet weather. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) publish weekly Palmer maps, which are also used by other scientists to analyze the long-term trends associated with global warming and how this has affected drought conditions. Table 4.3.4.3-1 Palmer Drought Severity Index -4.0 or less (Extreme Drought) 1 +2.0 or +2.9 (Unusual Moist Spell) 1 -February -2012 0AShared\WER0CkHazrnft120 I I PlanUpdateNamit Plan 2011-12 RevisiOMSeclion 4 HM.doc 4-19 SECTION FOUR RiskAssessment -3.0 or -3.9 (Severe Drought) +3.0 or +3.9 (Very Moist Spell) -2.0 or -2.9 (Moderate Drought) +4.0 or above (Extremely Moist) -1 The University of Nebraska -Lincoln has published many of these Palmer Drought Index maps analyzing trends over the past one hundred years (National Drought Mitigation Center 2005; Figure 1). In coastal southern California, from 1895 to 1995, severe droughts occurred 10 to IS percent of the time. From 1990 to 1995, severe droughts occurred 10 to 20 percent of the time and as recently as 1989, a severe drought was documented that lasted for six years. More recently, between 1999 and 2004, a six-year drought on the Colorado River basin has resulted in a draw down of Colorado River water storage by more than 50%. Beginning in 2008, regulatory restriction in exporting water via the State Water Project combined with unusually dry weather patterns resulted in two years of water rationing in Southern California. Recovery in 2010 and 2011 has increased the availability of supplies for the next several years. Based on the years of recorded water trends in southern California, it is quite apparent that droughts and water shortages can occur. Paleo records indicate that much more extreme events can occur than those on record. Droughts in southern California also have corollary effects such as extensive devastation to forests in the mountains of San Bernardino, San Jacinto and Palomar Mountains. Drought weakens trees which make them susceptible to infestation by bark -beetles. In turn dry vegetation and beetle infested trees are more susceptible to fire than healthy forests. 4.3.5 Earthquake/Liquefaction 4.3.5.1 Nature of Hazard - Earthquakes Earthquakes are considered a major threat to the County, especially when focusing on water and wastewater facilities and pipelines that run throughout the County. A significant earthquake along one of the major faults could cause substantial casualties, extensive damage to infrastructure, fires, and other threats to life and property. Significant damages and outages of water and wastewater facilities could also occur. The effects could be aggravated by aftershocks and by secondary effects such as fire, landslides and dam failure. A major earthquake could be catastrophic in its effects on the population, and could exceed the response capability of the local communities and even the State. Following major earthquakes, extensive search and rescue operations may be required to assist trapped or injured persons. Emergency medical care, food/water and temporary shelter would be required for injured or displaced persons. In the event of a truly catastrophic earthquake identification and burial of the dead would pose difficult problems. Mass evacuation may be essential to save lives. Emergency operations could be seriously hampered by the loss of communications, damage to transportation routes within, to, and out of the disaster area, and by the disruption of public utilities and services. With damage to critical water and wastewater infrastructure there will be significant public health concerns, such as dehydration or exposure to contaminated water, and the potential for reduced fire protection due to limited sources of water. Facilities at greatest risk from severe earthquakes are dams and pipelines. Additionally, damage to water and sewer lines that service commercial and industrial areas could have a significant impact on the economy of the region. 1 -February -2012 0:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 ReAsion\Secton 4 Wdoc 4-20 • to + 1,9 (Near Normal) The University of Nebraska -Lincoln has published many of these Palmer Drought Index maps analyzing trends over the past one hundred years (National Drought Mitigation Center 2005; Figure 1). In coastal southern California, from 1895 to 1995, severe droughts occurred 10 to IS percent of the time. From 1990 to 1995, severe droughts occurred 10 to 20 percent of the time and as recently as 1989, a severe drought was documented that lasted for six years. More recently, between 1999 and 2004, a six-year drought on the Colorado River basin has resulted in a draw down of Colorado River water storage by more than 50%. Beginning in 2008, regulatory restriction in exporting water via the State Water Project combined with unusually dry weather patterns resulted in two years of water rationing in Southern California. Recovery in 2010 and 2011 has increased the availability of supplies for the next several years. Based on the years of recorded water trends in southern California, it is quite apparent that droughts and water shortages can occur. Paleo records indicate that much more extreme events can occur than those on record. Droughts in southern California also have corollary effects such as extensive devastation to forests in the mountains of San Bernardino, San Jacinto and Palomar Mountains. Drought weakens trees which make them susceptible to infestation by bark -beetles. In turn dry vegetation and beetle infested trees are more susceptible to fire than healthy forests. 4.3.5 Earthquake/Liquefaction 4.3.5.1 Nature of Hazard - Earthquakes Earthquakes are considered a major threat to the County, especially when focusing on water and wastewater facilities and pipelines that run throughout the County. A significant earthquake along one of the major faults could cause substantial casualties, extensive damage to infrastructure, fires, and other threats to life and property. Significant damages and outages of water and wastewater facilities could also occur. The effects could be aggravated by aftershocks and by secondary effects such as fire, landslides and dam failure. A major earthquake could be catastrophic in its effects on the population, and could exceed the response capability of the local communities and even the State. Following major earthquakes, extensive search and rescue operations may be required to assist trapped or injured persons. Emergency medical care, food/water and temporary shelter would be required for injured or displaced persons. In the event of a truly catastrophic earthquake identification and burial of the dead would pose difficult problems. Mass evacuation may be essential to save lives. Emergency operations could be seriously hampered by the loss of communications, damage to transportation routes within, to, and out of the disaster area, and by the disruption of public utilities and services. With damage to critical water and wastewater infrastructure there will be significant public health concerns, such as dehydration or exposure to contaminated water, and the potential for reduced fire protection due to limited sources of water. Facilities at greatest risk from severe earthquakes are dams and pipelines. Additionally, damage to water and sewer lines that service commercial and industrial areas could have a significant impact on the economy of the region. 1 -February -2012 0:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 ReAsion\Secton 4 Wdoc 4-20 SECTION FOUR RiSkAssessment Extensive mutual aid for an extended period of time may be required to bring water and wastewater services back online. Large faults that could affect Orange County include the Elsinore Fault, the Newport -Inglewood Fault, the Peralta Fault, the Puente Hills Fault, the San Andreas Fault, the San Jacinto Fault, and the Whittier Fault. Smaller faults include the Norwalk Fault and the El Modena Faults (Figure 43-2). In addition, newly studied thrust faults, such as the San Joaquin Hills Fault and the Puente Hills Fault could also have a significant impact on the County. Each of the major fault systems are described briefly below and are presented in alphabetical order. This order does not place more danger on one fault over another; it is simply for organizational purposes. Elsinore Fault Zone: Located in the northeast part of the county, this fault follows a general line easterly of the Santa Ana Mountains into Mexico. The main trace of the Elsinore Fault zone is about 112 miles long. The last major earthquake on this fault occurred in 1910 (M 6.0), and the interval between major ruptures is estimated to be about 250 years. SCEC reports probable earthquake magnitudes for the main trace of the Elsinore fault to be in the range of 6.5 to 7.5. At the northern end of the Elsinore Fault zone, the fault splits into two segments: the 25 mile long Whittier Fault (probable magnitudes between 6.0 and 7.2), and the 25 mile long Chino Fault (probable magnitudes between 6.0 and 7.0). The location of the Whittier Fault makes it especially critical to the Diemer Filtration Plant in Yorba Linda and pipelines bringing water into Orange County and/or from the Diemer Plant which is located very near to this fault. Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone: Extends from the Santa Monica Mountains in a South East direction through the western part of Orange County through the City of Newport Beach and slightly offshore the city's boundaries and was the source of the destructive 1933 Long Beach earthquake (magnitude 6.4), which caused 120 deaths and considerable property damage. SCEC reports probable earthquake magnitudes for the Newport -Inglewood fault to be in the range of 6.0 to 7.4. Peralta Hills Fault: Only limited information is available to paleoseismically characterize the fault. No studies have been undertaken to determine the timing of earthquakes. There is a strong geomorphic expression along Lincoln Blvd west of Tustin Ave in the City of Orange. Some believe the fault is not active while others believe it is active. On-going research has linked the fault as a back thrust with the Elsinore fault, with a potential magnitude of (TA6.8), Puente Hills Thrust Fault: This is another recently discovered blind thrust fault that runs from northern Orange County to downtown Los Angeles. This fault is now known to be the source of the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake. Recent studies indicate that this fault has experienced four major earthquakes ranging in Magnitude from 7.2 to 7.5 in the past 11,000 years, but that the recurrence interval for these large events is on the order of several thousand years. San Andreas Fault Zone: As the dominant active fault in California it is the main element of the boundary between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates. The longest and most publicized fault in California, it extends approximately 650 miles from Cape Mendocino in northern California to east of San Bernardino in southern California, and is approximately 35 miles northeast of Orange County. This fault was the source of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which resulted in some 700 deaths and millions of dollars in damage. It is the southern section of this fault that is currently of greatest concern to the scientific community. Geologists can demonstrate that at least eight major earthquakes (Richter Magnitude 7.0 and larger) have occurred along the Southern San Andreas Fault in the past 1200 years 1 -February -2012 0:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSeclion 4 HIVI.doc 4-21 SECTION FOUR RiskAssessmell with an average spacing in time of 140 years, plus or minus 30 years. The last such event occurred in 1857 (Fort Tejon earthquake). Based on that evidence and other geophysical observations, the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (SCEC, 1995) has estimated the probability of a similar rupture (M 7.8) in the next 30 years (1994 through 2024) to be about 50%. The range of probable magnitudes on the San Andreas Fault Zone is reported to be 6.8 - 8.0. San Jacinto Fault Zone: Located approximately 30 miles north and east of the county. The interval between ruptures on this 130 mile long fault zone has been estimated by SCEC to be between 100 and 300 years, per segment. The most recent event (1968 M6.5) occurred on the southern half of the Coyote Creek segment. SCEC reports probable earthquake magnitudes for the San Jacinto fault zone to be in the range of 6.5 to 7.5. San Joaquin Hills Fault: A recently discovered southwest -dipping blind thrust fault originating near the southern end of the Newport -Inglewood Fault close to Huntington Beach, at the western margins of the San Joaquin Hills. Rupture of the entire area of this blind thrust fault could generate an earthquake as large as M 7.3. In addition, a minimum average recurrence interval of between about 1650 and 3100 years has been estimated for moderate-sized earthquakes on this fault (Grant and others, 1999). In addition to the major faults described above, the rupture of a number of smaller faults could potentially impact Orange County, including the Norwalk Fault (located in the north of the county in the Fullerton area) and the El Modena Fault (located in the City of Orange area). As indicated, there are a large variety of earthquake events that could affect Orange County. (The earliest recorded earthquake in California occurred in Orange County in 1769.) Predicted ground shaking patterns throughout Southern California for hypothetical scenario earthquakes are available from the United States Geological Survey as part of their on-going "ShakeMap" program. These maps are provided in terms of Instrumental Intensity, which is essentially Modified Mercalli Intensity estimated from instrumental ground motion recordings. ShakeMaps in graphical and GIS formats are available on the USES website at: 1-ittr,:/'/'eai-�,hUL!aVie_ .-i-isks,�oshy-,keiVia,-;,sc./'shake/areliive-icenario.hti- 1. In addition, MWDOC hired Earth Consultants International to prepare specific ground acceleration and shaking maps for five fault earthquake scenarios in Orange County. The maps are included in Section 4.4.2.1 in the discussion of earthquake impacts to water agencies. Table 4.3.5.1-1 summarizes the characteristics of the important geologic faults in Orange County I -February -2012 0:\SharedlVVEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 4 HMAoc 4-22 �ffyl Risk Assessment Table 4.3.5.1-1 Characteristics of Imported Geologic Faults in Orange County, CA (1) The magnitude shown represents the fault's average behavior. Reference: "Five Earthquake Scenarios Ground Motion Maps for Northern Orange County" prepared for Municipal Water District of Orange County by Earth Consultants International, July 22, 2005, EARTHQUAKE AS A THREAT TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE The most recent significant earthquake event affecting southern California was the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. At 4:31 A.M. on Monday, January 17, a moderate, but very damaging earthquake with a magnitude of 6.7 struck the San Fernando Valley. In the following days and weeks, thousands of aftershocks occurred, causing additional damage to affected structures. In this earthquake, 57 people were killed and more than 1,500 people seriously injured. 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. Out of the approximately 66,000 structures inspected approximately 15,000 structures were moderately to severely damaged, which left thousands of people temporarily homeless. Several collapsed bridges and overpasses created commuter havoc on the freeway system. Extensive damage was caused by ground shaking, but earthquake triggered liquefaction and dozens of fires also caused additional severe damage. The extremely strong ground motion felt in large portions of Los Angeles County resulted in record economic losses. The fact that the earthquake occurred early in the morning on a holiday 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 of dollars. For decades, partnerships have flourished between the USGS, Cal Tech, the California Geological Survey and California universities to share research and educational efforts with Californians. Tremendous earthquake mapping and mitigation efforts have been made in California in the past two decades, and public awareness has risen remarkably during this time. Major federal, state, and local government utilities and private organizations support earthquake risk reduction. These partners have made significant contributions in reducing the adverse impacts of earthquakes. 4.3.5.2 Earthquake History Southern California and Orange County have experienced several powerful earthquakes. To better understand the potential for damaging earthquakes in southern California, the scientific community has reviewed historical records and conducted extensive research on faults that are the sources of the 1 -February -2612 0ASharedkWER0C\Hazrnit1201 1 PlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision'Gection 4 Wdoc 4-23 Newport- San Joaquin Inglewood Peralta Hills Puente Hills Whittier (onshore) Hills Fault Type Strike -slip Thrust Blind thrust Blind thrust Strike -slip Slip Rate (mm/yr) 1 +/-0.5 Unknown, 0.7+/-0.4 0.5+/-0.2 2.5+1-1.0 Prob. <1 Magnitude(l) 6.9 6.8 7.5 6.6 6.8 Recurrence Interval (years) 2,200-3,900 Unknown 2,750 1,600-3,100 1,100 Last Activity (years ago) M6.3 in 1933 Unknown <3,000 200-300 1,600-2,000 (1) The magnitude shown represents the fault's average behavior. Reference: "Five Earthquake Scenarios Ground Motion Maps for Northern Orange County" prepared for Municipal Water District of Orange County by Earth Consultants International, July 22, 2005, EARTHQUAKE AS A THREAT TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE The most recent significant earthquake event affecting southern California was the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. At 4:31 A.M. on Monday, January 17, a moderate, but very damaging earthquake with a magnitude of 6.7 struck the San Fernando Valley. In the following days and weeks, thousands of aftershocks occurred, causing additional damage to affected structures. In this earthquake, 57 people were killed and more than 1,500 people seriously injured. 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. Out of the approximately 66,000 structures inspected approximately 15,000 structures were moderately to severely damaged, which left thousands of people temporarily homeless. Several collapsed bridges and overpasses created commuter havoc on the freeway system. Extensive damage was caused by ground shaking, but earthquake triggered liquefaction and dozens of fires also caused additional severe damage. The extremely strong ground motion felt in large portions of Los Angeles County resulted in record economic losses. The fact that the earthquake occurred early in the morning on a holiday 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 of dollars. For decades, partnerships have flourished between the USGS, Cal Tech, the California Geological Survey and California universities to share research and educational efforts with Californians. Tremendous earthquake mapping and mitigation efforts have been made in California in the past two decades, and public awareness has risen remarkably during this time. Major federal, state, and local government utilities and private organizations support earthquake risk reduction. These partners have made significant contributions in reducing the adverse impacts of earthquakes. 4.3.5.2 Earthquake History Southern California and Orange County have experienced several powerful earthquakes. To better understand the potential for damaging earthquakes in southern California, the scientific community has reviewed historical records and conducted extensive research on faults that are the sources of the 1 -February -2612 0ASharedkWER0C\Hazrnit1201 1 PlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision'Gection 4 Wdoc 4-23 SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment earthquakes occurring in southern California. Historical earthquake records can generally be divided into records of the pre -instrumental period and the instrumental period. In the absence of instrumentation, historic records of past earthquakes are based on observations and the level of information is often dependent upon population density in the area of the earthquake, Since California was sparsely populated in the 1800s., detailed information on pre -instrumental earthquakes is relatively sparse. However, two very large earthquakes, the Fort Tejon in 1857 (7.9) and the Owens Valley in 1872 (7.6) are evidence of the tremendously damaging potential of earthquakes in southern California. Other notable earthquakes that have impacted southern California include the 1910 Glen Ivy Hot Springs earthquake (Elsinore Fault Zone, M 6.0), the 1933 Long Beach earthquake (Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone, M 6.4), the 1952 Kern County and Lander earthquakes (M 7.3 )), the 1971 San Fernando earthquake (San Fernando Fault Zone, M 6.6), the 1987 Whittier earthquake (Whittier Fault Zone, M 5.9), and the 1994 Northridge earthquake (Pico Thrust, M 6.7). The 1987 Whittier Quake caused damage to the Puente Hills Reservoir in La Habra and after inspection the reservoir was found to have cracks in the concrete lining. Damage from some of these earthquakes was limited because they occurred in areas which were sparsely populated at the time they occurred. However, developed areas were much more severely affected. The economic losses from the 1933 Long Beach earthquake were estimated at $40 million in damage, and 115 Lives were lost. The seismic risk is much more severe today than in the past because the population at risk is in the millions, rather than a few hundred or a few thousand persons. Earthquakes of great magnitudes have caused lasting effects in developed regions. Clearly, no community in southern California is beyond the reach of a damaging earthquake. The historical earthquake events that have affected southern California are listed below in Table 4.3.5.2-1 (County of Orange 2004:99-115; URS 2004:4-15). Table 4.3.5.2-1 Partial List of Earthquake Events in the Southern California Region Southern California Region Earthquakes with a Magnitude 5.0 or Greater 1769 Los Angeles Basin (M 6.0) 1925 Santa Barbara (M 63) 1800 San Diego Region (M 6.5) 1933 Long Beach (M 6.3) 1812 Wrightwood (M 7.0) 1941 Carpentaria (M 5.9) 1812 Santa Barbara Channel (M 7.0) 1952 Kern County (M 7.7) 1827 Los Angeles Region (M 5.5) 1954 West of Wheeler Ridge (M 5.9) 1855 Los Angeles Region (M 6.0) 1971 San Fernando (M 6.5) 1857 Great Fort Tejon Earthquake (M 8,3) 1973 Point Mugu (M 5.2) 1858 San Bernardino Region (M 6.0) 1986 North Palm Springs (M 6.0) 1862 San Diego Region (M 6.0) 1987 Whittier Narrows (M 5.8) 1892 San Jacinto or Elsinore Fault (M 6.5) 1992 Landers (M 7.3) 1893 Pico Canyon (M 5.8) 1992 Big Bear (M 6.2) 1894 Lytle Creek Region (M 6.0) 1994 Northridge (M 61) 1894 E. of San Diego (M 5.8) 1999 Hector Mine (M 7.1) 1 -February -2012 0AShared\WER0C\Hazrnit1201 I PlanUpdatelHamit Plan 2011-12 RekfisiWSection 4 HMAOC 4-24 �1 N Risk Assessment Table 4.3.5.2-1 Partial List of Earthquake Events in the Southern California Region (Continued) Southern California Region Earthquakes with a Magnitude 5.0 or Greater 1899 Lytle Creek Region (M 5.8) 2004 San Luis Obispo (M unknown) 1899 San Jacinto and Hemet (M 6.4) 2008 Greater Los Angeles Area (M 5.5) 1907 San Bernardino Region (M 5.3) 2008 Borrego Springs (M 5.4) 1910 Glen Ivy Hot Springs (M 5.5) 2009 El Centro/Baja, Ca (M 5.9) 1916 Tejon Pass Region (M 5.3) 2010 El Centro/Baja, Ca (M 7.2) 1918 San Jacinto (M 6.9) 2010 El Centro/Baja, Ca (M5.7) 1 1923 San Bernardino Region (M 6.0) 4.3.5.3 Location of Extend Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude A Southern California Earthquake Center report (SCEC, 1995) indicated that the probability of an earthquake of Magnitude 7 or larger in southern California before the year 2024 is 80 to 90 percent. The SCEC and the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities also determined the prospect of a significant earthquake along the region's major faults: Elsinore Fault Zone: SCEC reports probable earthquake Magnitudes for the main trace of the Elsinore fault to be in the range of 6.5 to 7.5. The two northern segments, the Whittier Fault and the Chino Fault, have probable Magnitudes of 6.0 - 7.2 and 6.0 - 7.0, respectively. The Whittier Fault location is extremely critical because it crosses the two main sources of untreated water being brought into the County (Yorba Linda Feeder and the Lower Feeder) and it passes very close to the Diemer Filtration Plant which serves as the treatment facility for the bulk of Orange County. MET does not have a back up system to supply treated water to many parts of central and southern Orange County in the event of an outage of the Diemer Plant. • Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone: SCEC reports probable earthquake Magnitudes for the Newport -Inglewood fault to be in the range of 6.0 to 7.4. • Puente Hills Thrust Fault: Recent studies indicate that this fault has experienced four major earthquakes ranging in Magnitude from 7-1 to 7.5 in the past 11,000 years, but that the recurrence interval for these large events is on the order of several thousand years. • Peralta Hills Fault: The Earth Consultants International study for MWDOC indicates that this may be a back thrust fault to the Elsinore fault and may be capable of a M6.8. • San Andreas Fault Zone: Based on that evidence and other geophysical observations, the fault has estimated the probability of a rupture with an M 7.8 in the next 30 years (1994 through 2024) to be about 50%. (SCEC, 1995) The range of probable Magnitudes on the San Andreas Fault Zone during this period is reported to be 6.8 - 8.0. I -February-2012 0ASharedkWER0C1Hazmd1201I PlanUpdateNamit Plan 2011-12 Re\fisiontSecfion 4 HM.doc 4-25 SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment 0 San Joaquin Hills Fault: Recent reports have determined that the blind thrust fault can generate an earthquake as large as M 7.3. In addition, a minimum average recurrence interval of 1650 to Z:1 3 100 years has been estimated for moderate-sized earthquakes on this fault. • San Jacinto Fault Zone: SCEC reports probable earthquake Magnitudes for the San Jacinto fault zone to be in the range of 6.5 to 7.5. Although the San Andreas Fault Zone is capable of producing an earthquake with a magnitude of 8+ on the Richter scale, some of the smaller faults have the potential to inflict greater damage on the urban core of the Los Angeles Basin. Seismologists believe that a 6.0 earthquake on the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone would result in far more death and destruction than a larger earthquake on the San Andreas Fault Zone, due to the San Andreas' relatively remote location from the urban centers of southern California. From a water system perspective, either the Whittier Fault, if it affects the supply coming into the County from MET, or the Puente Hills Fault has the potential to interrupt the largest number of pipelines and well supplies in the County. The areas of Orange County most susceptible to damage from earthquakes based on the shaking intensity hazard map include Yorba Linda Water District and the Cities of La Habra and Newport. These communities can be severely impacted by landslides, liquefaction, extensive infrastructure damage, fire, dam failure, and other secondary earthquake affects. A major earthquake could be catastrophic in its effect on the population, and could exceed the response capability of the local communities and even the State. Although the above noted water utilities are most likely to experience "extreme" shaking, all of the County's water utilities fall within a moderate to extreme shaking intensity zone and therefore should expect the potential of damage from an earthquake. Earthquakes that occur outside of southern California and Orange County but that could have a significant impact on drinking water supplies would include disruptions of the Colorado River Aqueduct, the State Water Project (especially at an area such as the Edmonston Pumping Station and Porter Tunnel bringing water over and through the Tehachapi) and in the Bay -Delta Region where failure of levees and flooding of islands with salt water from San Francisco Bay could disrupt water supplies for months or years. Orange County is 50% dependent on supplies from beyond its borders to meet the drinking water needs. This leaves us exposed to these occurrences from outside the region. Liquefaction Nature of Hazard Liquefaction is the phenomenon that occurs when ground shaking causes loose soils to lose strength and act like viscous fluid. Liquefaction causes two types of ground failure: lateral spread and loss of bearing strength. Lateral spreads develop on gentle slopes and entails the sidelong movement of large masses of soil as an underlying layer liquefies. Loss of bearing strength results when the soil supporting structures liquefies and causes structures to settle and/or collapse from weakened foundations. 1 -February -2012 0:1SharedXWEROC\H2zmit\2011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RemionkSectjon 4 HM,doc 4.26 Liquefaction Disaster History Risk Assessment The California Department of Conservation (CDC) performed a study of areas susceptible to liquefaction in Orange County. The study was based on historic occurrences of liquefaction, such as damage to the King Harbor area of Redondo Beach during the Northridge earthquake of 1994, as well as shake models of the numerous faults in the County in conjunction with an evaluation of soils that are susceptible to liquefaction. Historic accounts of damage to structures from liquefaction are not readily available. However, the study conducted by the CDC found several areas in the County to be at risk to liquefaction. Liquefaction - Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Recognizing active faults in the region, and the presence of geologically young, unconsolidated sediments and hydraulic fills, the potential for liquefaction to occur has been long recognized in the Orange County area. The CDC study determined that the most extensive liquefaction zones occur along the Santa Ana River; including along the Santa Ana River at Featherly Regional Park, the Green River Golf Course in East Anaheim, Weir Canyon Road south of the Riverside Freeway, Santiago Creek, Santiago Reservoir (Irvine Lake), and in Irvine Park and Fremont Canyon. In the El Toro area liquefaction zones exist along Aliso, Serrano, Oso, Santiago and San Diego creeks, as well as in Borrego Canyon and in some areas north and east of the Marine Corps Air Station. Areas in Tustin susceptible to liquefaction include all areas north of the Irvine boundary to approximately Chestnut Avenue, and from Irvine Boulevard at Browning Avenue west to the Santa Ana boundary. Santa Ana is affected from Flower Street east to the Tustin city boundary, from First Street south to the San Diego Freeway. The potential exists in areas of loose soils and/or shallow groundwater in earthquake fault zones throughout the County. Figure 4.3.6 displays the location and extent of areas with a risk of liquefaction. Data used to profile liquefaction hazard included probabilistic Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and a Scenario Earthquake Shake map for faults in Orange County along with existing liquefaction hazard areas from local maps. Liquefaction hazards were modeled as collateral damages of earthquakes using HAZUS-MH, which uses base information and NEHRP soils data to derive probabilistic peak ground accelerations much like the PGA map from USGS. Soils were considered because liquefaction risk may be amplified depending on the type of soil found in a given area. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) rates soils from hard to soft utilizing ratings from Type A through Type E. The hardest soils being Type A and the softest soils rated at Type E. Liquefaction risk was considered high if there were soft soils (Types D or E) present within an active fault zone. Liquefaction risk was considered low if the PGA risk value was less than 0.3, and hard soils were present (Types A -C). For example, an area may lie in a PGA zone of 0.2, which would be a low liquefaction risk in hard soils identified by the NEHRP. However, if that same PGA value is found within a soft soil such as Type D or E, a PGA of 0.2, when multiplied by 1.4 or 1.7 (amplification values for type D and E soil, shown below), would become a PGA value of at least 0.28 to 0.3. This would increase the liquefaction risk to high. Areas where soil types D or E are located are illustrated in Figure 4.3.6. 1 -February -2012 0 kShared\WER=HazmitN201 1 PlanUpdatekl-lamit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Secbon 4 HM Aoc 4 - 47 r�ffl 11 qHT11YOUPOIS Soil Amplification Factors 4.3.6 Expansive Soils 4.3.6.1 Nature of Hazard Risk Assessment According to a scientific paper published in the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (Day 1994), .,expansive soil is a worldwide problem that causes extensive damage to civil engineering structures." Expansive soils are particularly problematic in the southwestern United States and especially in southern California, where there exists large clay deposits compounded by "alternating periods of rainfall and drought." In essence, the problem with constructing on expansive soils is that the clay, often times referred to as adobe, expands rapidly during the rainy season and contracts gradually during the dry season causing "shrink -swell." Shrink -swell is particularly problematic for "slab -on -grade" foundations which can be placed directly on expansive soil which are constantly in a state of movement as the soil expands and contracts causing the foundation to fatigue and crack. Buildings with balloon frame construction are also susceptible to bowing and cracking when built on expansive soils. Shrink and swell can affect water/wastewater facilities particularly buildings or structures built using slab on grade or balloon frame construction techniques. Expansive soil is also known to "creep" on unstable slopes eventually leading to landslides. Typically, this is found when expansive soil underlies compact topsoil. As the expansive soil expands -contracts, the compact topsoil slides or creeps downhill. Facilities built on unstable slopes with underlying expansive soils are prone to movement and can be damaged or completely destroyed in extreme circumstances. 4.3.6.2 Disaster History In 1980, Krohn and Slosson (1980) made an assessment and cost estimate of the damage caused by expansive soils throughout the United States. They estimated that approximately $7 billion in property damage was reportedly attributed to construction on expansive soils. While no recent figures have been identified, the increase in construction activity in areas of expansive soil, especially in southern California, will undoubtedly cause this number to increase. J. David Rogers of the University of Missouri found that "expansive soils are the second leading cause of property damage in the United States. I -February-2012 OASharedNWEROC1lazrnit5201 lPlanUpdatekHazrnR Plan 2011-12 RemionkSecfion 4 HM,doc 4-28 Soil Type Harder ......... ........ Softer CBS Ian MOMM MOMMM MOMOM MOOMO1.1 4.3.6 Expansive Soils 4.3.6.1 Nature of Hazard Risk Assessment According to a scientific paper published in the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (Day 1994), .,expansive soil is a worldwide problem that causes extensive damage to civil engineering structures." Expansive soils are particularly problematic in the southwestern United States and especially in southern California, where there exists large clay deposits compounded by "alternating periods of rainfall and drought." In essence, the problem with constructing on expansive soils is that the clay, often times referred to as adobe, expands rapidly during the rainy season and contracts gradually during the dry season causing "shrink -swell." Shrink -swell is particularly problematic for "slab -on -grade" foundations which can be placed directly on expansive soil which are constantly in a state of movement as the soil expands and contracts causing the foundation to fatigue and crack. Buildings with balloon frame construction are also susceptible to bowing and cracking when built on expansive soils. Shrink and swell can affect water/wastewater facilities particularly buildings or structures built using slab on grade or balloon frame construction techniques. Expansive soil is also known to "creep" on unstable slopes eventually leading to landslides. Typically, this is found when expansive soil underlies compact topsoil. As the expansive soil expands -contracts, the compact topsoil slides or creeps downhill. Facilities built on unstable slopes with underlying expansive soils are prone to movement and can be damaged or completely destroyed in extreme circumstances. 4.3.6.2 Disaster History In 1980, Krohn and Slosson (1980) made an assessment and cost estimate of the damage caused by expansive soils throughout the United States. They estimated that approximately $7 billion in property damage was reportedly attributed to construction on expansive soils. While no recent figures have been identified, the increase in construction activity in areas of expansive soil, especially in southern California, will undoubtedly cause this number to increase. J. David Rogers of the University of Missouri found that "expansive soils are the second leading cause of property damage in the United States. I -February-2012 OASharedNWEROC1lazrnit5201 lPlanUpdatekHazrnR Plan 2011-12 RemionkSecfion 4 HM,doc 4-28 SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment 4.3.6.3 Location of Extentl Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Expansive soils in southern California are problematic. The California Building Code specifically addresses expansive soils in Sections 1804.4, 1806.5 and 1815. The California Health and Safety Code Section 17954 states that "If the preliminary soil report indicates the presence of critically expansive soils or other soil problems which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects, such ordinance shall require a soil investigation of each lot in the subdivision" and "The soil investigation shall be prepared by a civil engineer who is registered in this state." Several cities in southern California have established guidelines for construction in areas of expansive soils. MWDOC and the PWU generally conduct soil surveys prior to construction of water and wastewater facilities and take the specific circumstances into consideration during design and construction. 4.3.7 Flood/Coastal Storm 4.3.7.1 Nature of Hazard Orange County covers 789 square miles and its landscape varies from mountainous terrain (on the northeast and southeast) to floodplains (in the central and western section). The County's rapid growth and transformation from an agricultural community to an urban community has changed flood control practices in the region. Water from rivers and creeks that originate in the mountains are controlled through reservoirs, dams, diversion structures and developed plains. Although there is a countywide system of flood control facilities, many of these are not designed for or capable of conveying runoff from major storms, such as the Standard Project Flood (a major flood that can be expected to occur from a severe combination of meteorological and hydrological conditions) or the 100 -year flood. To provide quantitative information for flood warning and detection, Orange County began installing its ALERT (Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time) system in 1983. Operated by the County's Environmental Resources Section of the Resource Development and Management Department (RDMD) in cooperation with the National Weather Service, ALERT uses remote sensors located in rivers, channels and creeks to transmit environmental data to a central computer in real time. Sensors are installed along the Santa Ana River, San Juan Creek, Arroyo Trabuccl Creek, Oso Creek, Aliso Creek, as well as flood control channels and basins. The field sensors transmit hydrologic and other data (e.g., precipitation data, water levels, temperature, wind speed, etc.) to base station computers for display and analysis. In addition, seven pump stations (Huntington Beach, Cypress, Seal Beach, Los Alamitos, Rossmoor, Harbor -Edinger, and South Park) which regulate storm water discharge to flood control channels are utilized. 4.3.7.2 Disaster History Residents reported damaging floods caused by the Santa Ana River, known as "Great Floods," as early as 1770 (notes of Father John Crespi). Major floods in Orange County along the Santa Ana River occurred in 1810, 1815, 1825, 1862, 1884, 1891, 1916, 1927, 1938, 1969, 1983, and 1993. The greatest flood in terms of water flow occurred in 1862 with an estimated flow rate of 317,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). 1 -February -2012 O:4Shared\WEROC\Hazmi82011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RemsionNSection 4 HMAOC 4-29 RCTION FOUR Risk ftsenue-nt This flood was three times greater than the Great Flood of 1938 which had an estimated flow of 110,000 cfs. Great Flood of 1862 - The flood of January 1862, called the NOACHIAN deluge of California, was unusual in two ways: 1) the storm causing the flood occurred during a very severe drought spanning 1856 to 1864; and 2) the flood lasted 20 days, which is considered an extremely long duration. Under normal circumstances, major floods last only a few days. The only structure left standing along this portion of the Santa Ana River was the Aqua Manisa chapel and residents gathered on the small point of high -land to take refuge from the storm. Miraculously, there were no recorded deaths. Great Flood of 1916 - The flood on January 27, 1916 inundated a large area along the Santa Ana River, including Main Street in downtown Santa Ana where the water was three feet deep. Adjacent farm lands, which later became the City of Westminster, were also flooded. Three vehicular bridges and three railroad bridges were washed away by the flood and four people drowned. Great Flood of 1938 - The flood of 1938 is considered the most devastating flood to occur in Orange County during the 20"' Century, and affected all of southern California. The storm began on February 27 and lasted until March 3. In the Santa Ana Basin, 34 people died and 182,300 acres were flooded. All buildings in Anaheim were damaged or destroyed. Two major railroad bridges, seven vehicular bridges, and the little town of Atwood were completely destroyed. The Santa Ana River inundated the northwestern portion of Orange County and train service to and from Santa Ana was cancelled. Damage exceeded $50 million. Great Flood of 1969 - The floods of January and February were the most destructive on record in Orange County. Previous floods had greater potential for destruction, but the County was relatively undeveloped when they occurred. During the flood of 1969 rain fell almost continuously from January 18 to January 25, resulting in widespread flooding, Orange County was declared a national disaster area on February 5. A second storm hit on February 21 and lasted until February 25 bringing rain to the already saturated ground. This second storm culminated in a disastrous flood on February 25th. The storm resulted in the largest peak outflow from Santiago Reservoir since its inception in 1933. The reservoir at Villa Park Dam reached its capacity for the first time since its construction in 1963; the dam had a maximum inflow of 11,000 cfs. The outlet conduit was releasing up to 4,000 cfs yet the spillway overflowed at 1:30 p.m. and continued for 36 hours. The maximum peak outflow from the dam reached 6,000 cfs. Although the safety of the dam was never threatened the outflow caused serious erosion downstream in the cities of Orange and Santa Ana and in some parks and golf courses. A Southern Pacific Railroad bridge, water and sewer lines, a pedestrian over crossing, and three roads washed out. Approximately 2,000 Orange and Santa Ana residents were evacuated from houses bordering Santiago Creek. Great Flood of 1983 - El Nino rains caused the flood of 1983. The intense downpour and high tides often associated with El Nino (due to the presence of a low pressure system) affected intense shoreline flooding. Meanwhile the Santa Ana River crested its sides near the mouth of the ocean; creating a disaster for the low-lying areas of Huntington Beach; floodwaters were three to five feet deep. Great Floods of 1993 - In 1993, El Nino caused more flooding. An intense storm was concentrated in the Laguna Canyon Channel area extending from Lake Forest to downtown Laguna Beach. In spite of a 1 -February -2012 09SharedkWERWHazmi8201 I PlanUpdatekHazrnft Plan 2011-12 RemionkSection 4 HM Am 4-30 SECTION FOUR Risk assessment valiant effort to save downtown met -chants by sandbagging, the stores were flooded. Laguna Canyon Road was damaged extensively, as well as homes and small businesses in the Laguna Canyon Channel. There were no fatalities reported. Great Flood of 1995 - In 1995 a disaster was declared in Orange County after extremely heavy and intense rains exceeded the storm runoff capacity of local drainage systems in many Orange County cities and regional Flood Control District systems. As a result widespread flooding of homes and businesses occurred throughout these cities. There were approximately 1000 people evacuated and extensive damage sustained to both private and public property. Great Floods of 1997/1998 - El Nii10 Storms that occurred during this period created extensive storm damage to private property and public infrastructure, with damages reaching approximately $50 million. Storm conditions caused numerous countywide mudslides, road closures, and channel erosion. Hillside erosion and mudslides forced the continual clearing of roads of fallen trees and debris. Protective measures, such as stabilizing hillside road slopes with rock or K -rail at the toe of slopes, were taken to keep the normal flow of transportation. Harbors, beaches, parks, and trails also sustained substantial storm damage. In 1992 several coastal storms affected many coastal utilities storm drain and sewage treatment processes. SOCWA reported significant cracks and damage to its Aliso Creek Ocean outfall. 2010/2011 Winter Storms — On January 26, 2011 California received Presidential Declaration for the Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Debris and Mud Flows that occurred December 17, 2010 through January 4, 2011. At the time of the declaration the State of California incurred well over $75 million in damages. while Orange County sustained over $36 million in damages. Orange County sustained extensive damage sustained to private and public property, as well as critical infrastructure. 4.3.7.3 Location of Extentl Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude The Santa Ana River, flowing through the heart of Orange County to the Pacific Ocean is the county*s greatest flood threat (Figure 43-4 floodplain map). Critical wastewater lines are located within the Santa Ana River channel carrying human waste as well as hazardous chemicals. Should the river flood, sediment overlying this line may be eroded away and expose portions of the lines. Exposure of the line during a flood episode would make it vulnerable to direct impact from debris as well as the force of the water, potentially resulting in a line break. A rupture along this critical line would result in the exposure of the downstream population and environment to the human waste and hazardous waste it carries. The flood of 1938 wiped out roads, bridges, and railroads near the river and took 34 lives when an eight - foot wall of water swept out of the Santa Ana Canyon, The communities of Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Garden Grove were the hardest hit. This flood was a catalyst for construction of Prado Dam, which was developed as part of the Army Corps of Engineers flood control protection plan. Government officials* estimate that today without the protection of Prado Dam, a flood of this magnitude would cause as many as 3,000 deaths and exceed $25 billion in damages. More than 110 acres would be flooded with three feet of water and 255,000 structures would be damaged (S. Gold, in the Los Angeles Times, in 1999). I -February-2012 01Shared\WER0C\Hazmit\201 I PlanUpdate\Hazrnit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Sectmn 4 HM,doc 4 -g1 SECTION FOUR RiskAssessment The Army Corp of Engineers. tasked with the project of increasing the level of protection at Prado Dam from the current 70 -year level to a 190 -year level of protection, has completed the raising of the dam, but has not yet completed the enhanced spillway. Further, portions of the County not inundated by river overflow during a 100 -year event could be subject to flooding from overflow of water drainage facilities currently inadequate for carrying the 100 -year discharge. Other areas subject to flooding during severe storms include areas adjacent to Atwood Channel, Brea Creek Channel, Fullerton Creek Channel, Carbon Creek Channel, San Juan Creek Channel, and East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel. Areas adjacent to Santiago Creek and Collins Channel in the central portion of the County and large portions of the San Diego Creek watershed in the City of Irvine and unincorporated areas of the County are also subject to inundation. In the southern portion of the county canyon areas are subject to flooding. The continued development in these areas has made the flood hazard even greater. In 1992, the City of Buena Park was affected by a flooding episode in which their city hall flooded and the water system had minor main breaks needing repair. In 1998, the Moulton Niguel Water District was affected by flooding when a major failure in two separate locations occurred along the Oso-Trabuco Trunk sewer system. The water district's 18 -inch gravity sewer pipeline along Aliso Creek has also historically been affected by flooding over the past 25 years. Moulton Niguel suffered another failure of a force -main wastewater pipeline which was lost in Trabuccl Creek flooding in 2010. The Santa Margarita Water District was affected by flooding in 1980 when Oso Creek flooding and bank failures cost nearly $300,000 in damages to trunk sewer lines and an access road. The South Orange County Wastewater Authority has also experienced damage to its facilities resulting from flooding. In the 1980s the JB Latham Facility flooded resulting in an additional facility having had to be built. The Coastal Treatment Plant was flooded several times between 1992 and 1998. A three-mile stretch of the AWMA access road was also flooded each year with major flooding episodes in 1998 and 2005. SOCWA's 3A Plant has also been subject to flooding from the Oso Creek. In 2005 severe storms caused flooding, mudslides and heavy surface flows in the San Juan Creek which broke a 16** and 10" sewer force main and eroded a protective cover over a 48" domestic pipeline at a repair cost of nearly 3 million dollars. 4.3.8 High Winds/Santa Ana Winds 4.3.8.1 Nature of Hazard Santa Ana winds are generally defined as warm, dry winds that blow from the east or northeast (offshore). The complex topography of southern California combined with various atmospheric conditions creates numerous scenarios that may cause widespread or isolated Santa Ana events. Commonly, Santa Ana winds develop when a region of high pressure builds over the Great Basin (the high plateau east of the Sierra Mountains and west of the Rocky Mountains including most of Nevada and Utah). Clockwise circulation around the center of this high pressure area forces air down slope from the high plateau. The air warms as it descends toward the California coast at the rate of 5 degrees Fahrenheit per 1,000 feet due to compression of the air mass. The air is dry since it originated in the desert, and it dries out even more as it is compressed. Santa Ana winds often blow with exceptional speed in the Santa Ana Canyon and forecasters at the National Weather Service in Oxnard and San Diego usually place speed minimums on these winds and reserve the use of "Santa Ana" for winds greater than 25 knots. 1 -February -2012 0AShared\VVER0GVHazmitQ0 I I PlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Seclion 4 HMAGC 4-32 �I N 4.342 Disaster History Risk Assessment Santa Ana wind conditions can result in two general disaster conditions. The most common is fire fanned by the high winds. This was the situation in 1993 in Laguna Beach when a massive fire destroyed a number of homes in the hills around Laguna Beach and the 2008 Freeway Complex Fire that destroyed a number of homes in northern Orange County and cost more than $16.1 million. Fires are a concern to the water utilities both due to the potential affect to its infrastructure, but also in terms of the utilities' obligation to provide water pressure for firefighting efforts. The second concern with Santa Ana wind conditions is the potential for direct damage to buildings and infrastructure as a result of the high winds. The falling of trees can break pipelines, as well as have negative effects on the buildings themselves. Of a higher concern is that Santa Ana winds can adversely affect power utilities that have transformers and power lines, in turn affecting the ability of some water and wastewater utilities to operate when back up generation is unavailable. 4.3.8.3 Location of Extentl Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Santa Ana winds commonly occur between October and February, with December having the highest frequency of events. Summer events are rare. Wind speeds are typically 35 knots through and below passes and canyons with gusts to 50 knots. Stronger Santa Ana winds can have gusts greater than 60 knots over widespread areas with gusts greater than 100 knots in some areas. Frequently, the strongest winds in the basin occur during the night and morning hours due to the absence of a sea breeze. The sea breeze which typically blows onshore daily, can moderate the Santa Ana winds during the late morning and afternoon hours. Santa Ana winds are an important forecast challenge because of the high fire danger associated with them. 4.3.9 Landslide/Mudslide > 25 Percent 4.3.9.1 Nature of Hazard Landslide is a general term for a falling mass of soil or rocks. A mudslide (debris flow) is a flow of very wet rock and soil. The primary effects of landslides/ mudslides can include: • Abrupt depression and lateral displacement of hillside surfaces over distances of up to several hundreds of feet. • Disruption of surface drainage. • Blockage of flood control channels and roadways. • Displacement or destruction of improvements such as roadways, buildings, and water wells. Landslides are a type of 'mass wasting' which denotes any down slope movement of soil and rock under the direct influence of gravity. The term 'landslide' encompasses events such as rock falls, topples, slides, spreads, and flows. Landslides can be initiated by rainfall, earthquakes, volcanic activity, changes in groundwater, disturbance and change of a slope by man-made construction activities, or any combination of these factors. Landslides can occur underwater, causing tidal waves and damage to coastal areas. These landslides are called submarine landslides (USGS Fact Sheet 0071-40, Version 1.0). 1 -February -2012 0:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevlsioMSecuon 4 Hkdoc 4-33 SECTION FOUR HiskAssessment Failure of a slope occurs when the force that is pulling the slope downward (gravity) exceeds the strength of the earth materials that compose the slope. They can move slowly, (millimeters per year) or can move quickly and disastrously, as is the case with debris -flows. Debris -flows can travel down a hillside of speeds up to 200 miles per hour (more commonly, 30 — 50 miles per hour), depending on the slope angle, water content, and type of earth and debris in the flow. These flows are initiated by heavy, usually sustained, periods of rainfall, but sometimes can happen as a result of short bursts of concentrated rainfall in susceptible areas. Burned areas charred by wildfires are particularly susceptible to debris flows, given certain soil characteristics and slope conditions _nsnca. LycAw ). A debris or mud flow is a river of rock, earth and other materials, including vegetation that is saturated with water. This high percentage of water gives the debris flow a very rapid rate of movement down a slope. This high rate of speed makes debris flows extremely dangerous to people and property in its path. Earthquakes often trigger flows.' Debris flows normally occur when a landslide moves down-slope as a semi -fluid mass scouring, or partially scouring soils from the slope along its path. Flows are typically rapid moving and also tend to increase in volume as they scour out the channel. Flows often occur during heavy rainfall, can occur on gentle slopes, and can move rapidly for large distances. Wildland fires on hills covered with chaparral are often a precursor to debris flows in burned out canyons. The extreme heat of a wildfire can create a soil condition in which the earth becomes impervious to water by creating a waxy -like layer just below the ground surface. Since the water cannot be absorbed into the soil, it rapidly accumulates on slopes, often gathering loose particles of soil into a sheet of mud and debris. Debris flows can often originate miles away from unsuspecting persons, and approach them at a high rate of speed with little warning. Natural processes can cause landslides or re -activate historical landslide sites. The removal or undercutting of shoreline -supporting material along bodies of water by currents and waves produces countless small slides each year. Seismic tremors can trigger landslides on slopes historically known to have landslide movement. Earthquakes can also cause additional failure (lateral spreading) that can occur on gentle slopes above steep streams and riverbanks. The following landslide accounts comprise only a fraction of the southern California landslide history: * 1978 Bluebird Canyon, Orange County The cost of recovery was $52.7 million (2000 dollars) with 60 houses destroyed or damaged. Unusually heavy rains in March of 1978 may have contributed to initiation of the landslide. Although the 1978 slide area was approximately 3.5 acres, it is suspected to be a portion of a larger, ancient landslide. 0 1980 Southern California Slides The damage was estimated at $1.1 billion in 2000 dollars. Heavy winter rainfall in 1979-80 caused damage in six southern California counties. In 1980, the rainstorm started on February 8 Robert Olsen Associates, Metro Regional Hazard Mitigation and Planning Guide. (June 1999) Metro 1 -February -2012 0AShared\WER00Hazmit\201I PlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 Remion\Sectlon 4 HM,doc 4-34 Risk Assessment with 5 days of continuous rain and 7 inches of precipitation. Slope failures were beginning to develop by February 15 and then very high-intensity rainfall occurred on February 16. As much as 8 inches of rain fell in a 6 hour period in many locations. Records and personal observations in the field on February 16 and 17 showed that the mountains and slopes literally fell apart on those two days. 0 1983 San Clemente, Orange County The damage to California Highway I was estimated at $65 million in 2000 dollars. Litigation at that time involved approximately $43.7 million (2000 dollars). • 1994 Northridge, California earthquake landslides As a result of the magnitude 6.7 Northridge, California, earthquake, more than 11,000 landslides occurred over an area of 10,000 km2. Most were in the Santa Susana Mountains and in mountains north of the Santa Clara River Valley. They destroyed dozens of homes, blocked roads, and damaged oil -field infrastructure. It caused deaths from Coccidioidomycosis (valley fever) the spore of which was released from the soil by the landslide activity and blown toward the coastal populated areas. • March 1995 Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, Southern California Above normal rainfall triggered damaging debris flows, deep-seated landslides, and flooding. Several deep-seated landslides were triggered by the storms, the most notable was the La Conchita landslide, which in combination with a local debris flow, destroyed or badly damaged 11 to 12 homes in the small town of La Conchita, about 20 km west of Ventura. There also was widespread debris -flow and flood damage to homes, commercial buildings, and roads and highways in areas along the Malibu coast that had been devastated by wildfire 2 years before. • 1998 Laguna Niguel, Orange County, Landslide During the 1997/1998 El Nino Season, heavy rainfall increased movement on the site of an ancient landslide in Laguna Niguel. The storms in December 1997 had accelerated its movement and in early 1998, a crumbling hillside forced the evacuation of 10 hilltop homes and more than 10 condominium units resting below. Ultimately four of the hilltop homes collapsed, failing down hillside into the void created by the slide area. The condominium complex has since been demolished and the site remains open space. • 2005 Blue Bird Canyon, Laguna Beach, Orange County; Landslide On June 1, 2005, Bluebird Canyon in Laguna Beach experienced a landslide. It would appear that exceptionally heavy rainfall during the winter period was the underlying cause of the instability in an ancient landslide. A 30 -acre piece of hillside between 50 to 60 feet deep broke free and fell on the homes below; 15 homes were destroyed and 321 others had varying levels of damage. The approximate cost of damage was about $35 million. • 2005 SCWD landslide impact to the Joint Regional Transmission Line Following a year of heavy rainfall, a slope failure occurred in Laguna Niguel in an area that included a section of the Joint Regional Transmission Pipeline. The pipeline had to be shutdown and a temporary pipeline was routed around the slide area while evaluations of the stability of the 1 -February -2012 0AShared\WER0CNHazrntt\201 I PlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 4 HM,doc 4.35 Risk Assessment area were made. Ultimately, the pipeline will be rerouted around the unstable area or located back in the slope after it has stabilized. Because the problem occurred in the winter/spring period and there are other pipelines into South Orange County, no water shortages were experienced. 4.3.9.3 Location of Extentl Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Vulnerability assessments for landslides assist in predicting how different types of property and population groups may be affected by a slide. Data that includes specific landslide -prone and debris flow locations in the county can be used to assess the population and total value of property at risk from future landslide occurrences. Factors included in assessing landslide risk include population and property distribution in the hazard area, the frequency of landslide or debris flow occurrences, slope steepness, soil characteristics, and precipitation intensity. This type of analysis could generate estimates of the damages to the county due to a specific landslide or debris flow event. At the time of publication of this plan, data was insufficient to conduct a quantitative risk analysis based on soils and vegetation in the County. However, slopes of greater than 25 percent were identified and mapped as areas of greatest possible risk for a landslide in the county (Figure 4.3-5). Rain induced landslides were reported in Santa Margarita in 1980, 1993, 1995 and 2005. In 1980 rains washed out an access road in Coto De Caza uncovering an 8" water line. The same series of storms also exposed a 21" trunk sewer line along the Oso Creek in Mission Viejo resulting in damages of $300,000. In 1993 bank failures caused many pipelines to break which had to be replaced, relocated, or re -protected at a cost of nearly 2.1 million dollars. A slope failure in 1995 caused pipeline failures costing nearly $30,000 and in 2005 a reservoir slope failure in Talega Valley cost $350,000. Landslides also affected the South Orange County Water Authority's Aliso Creek Effluent Transmission Main, when landslides have continually caused an erosion problem along Aliso Creek and affecting a 36 -inch pipeline carrying treated wastewater. By the shear nature of water running downhill, several critical pipelines, water storage tanks, reservoirs are located in areas that can be affected by landslides. 4.3.10.1 Nature of Hazard The United States Geological Survey (USGS) defines land subsidence as a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the ground surface as a result of subsurface movement of underlying geologic units (Galloway et al. 2005). Scientists at the USGS have determined that nearly 17,000 square miles in 45 states have been directly affected by land subsidence, caused by aquifer -system compaction, drainage of organic soils, underground mining, hydro -compaction, natural compaction, sinkholes, and thawing permafrost. More than 80 percent of land subsidence is caused by over -use of groundwater and the increasing development of land and water resources threatens to worsen existing land -subsidence problems [while initiating] new ones" (Galloway et al. 2005). Land subsidence in California is mainly caused by groundwater pumping in areas where aquifer recharge is exceeded. Known as "over -drafting," the dewatering of aquifers has led to lower water tables and subsidence, resulting in damage to infrastructure, water quality and in coastal areas has resulted in the 1 -February -2012 0ASharedkWER0C\HazrnitQ01 I PlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 Remsion\Section 4 HM.doc 4-36 SECTION FOUR RiskAssessment intrusion of seawater. As the Galloway et al. (2005) notes "the compaction of unconsolidated aquifer systems that can accompany excessive groundwater pumping is by far the single largest cause of subsidence" and "the overdraft of such aquifer systems has resulted in permanent subsidence and related ground failures," thus "the extraction of this resource for economic gain constitutes 'groundwater mining' in the truest sense of the ten -n." Over -drafting is further exacerbated in hot geographic regions with a large population; this includes much of the southern California. 4.3.10.2 Disaster History The relationship between subsidence and groundwater pumping was not fully recognized until 1928 when O.E. Meinzer, scientist with the USFS, realized that aquifers were compressible (Galloway, et al. 2005). By the 1950s, the USGS made a concerted effort to measure the amount of ground subsidence. In 1952, Joseph Poland studied large discrepancies between the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey for the Santa Clara and San Joaquin valleys. Poland noted that the increased use of groundwater correlated with the amount of ground subsidence. Poland's work led to the verification of "consolidation theory" or compressible aquifers, as well as leading to the development of "definitions, methods of quantification, and confirmation of the interrelationship among hydraulic -head declines, aquitard (clay) compaction, and land subsidence" (Galloway, et al. 2005) 4.3.10.3 Location of Extentl Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Currently, land subsidence severely affects much of the west Coast. The major land -subsidence affected area of Orange County exists between Newport Beach and Huntington Beach and five miles inland from this point (OCWD 2001). This area is referred to as the Talbert Gap, which formed millennia ago from alluvial deposition from the Santa Ana River. With nearly a century of underground water aquifer pumping to sustain the intensive grazing and agriculture practices, by 1956 the water table had lowered to below sea level allowing saltwater from the Pacific Ocean to intrude through the Talbert Gap. Allowed to continue unchecked, the continued intensive groundwater pumping regime and intruding seawater would have drastically altered the environmental landscape of Orange County, ultimately leading to substantial land subsidence. As a result of studies identifying subsidence and saltwater intrusion in Orange County, OCWD began a massive management program to minimize the loss of aquifer -stored water and reduce saltwater intrusion. However, this does not negate the fact that millions of dollars have been spent throughout the county and the State in an effort to mitigate adverse effects from intensive groundwater pumping leading to ground subsidence. 4.3.11 TornadoMater Spout 4.3.11.1 Nature of Hazard A tornado is defined as a violently rotating column of air extending from the base of a thunderstorm to the ground. Air moves very rapidly upward around a tornado center. The most violent tornadoes have wind speeds of 300 mph or more and are capable of tremendous destruction. Tornados are produced during severe thunderstorms, which are created near the junction between warn moist air and cold dry air. Tornados derive their energy from the heat contained in warm, moist air 1 -February --2012 0:',SharedkWEROC1Hazmit12011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 ReAsion\section 4 HM,doc 4-37 SECTION FOUR RiskAssessment masses. Tornados do not form during every thunderstorm. They occur when the moist, warm air is trapped beneath a stable layer of cold dry air by an intervening layer of warm dry air. This is called an inversion. If this is disturbed, the moist air will push through the stable air that is holding it down. This warm air will then condense as the latent heat it holds is released. This air will then spiral upwards. With the help of different types of winds, this spiral gains speed, producing a tornado (County of Orange 2004:155; FEMA 2004). Tornados can accompany tropical storms and hurricanes as they move onto land; a tornado that forms over water is known as a waterspout. A tornado path is generally less than 6/10 of a mile wide. The length of the path ranges from a few hundred meters to dozens of kilometers and a tornado will rarely last longer then 30 minutes. Tornados have been recorded as lifting and moving objects weighing more then 300 tons up to 30 feet. They can also lift homes off of their foundations and move them up to 300 feet. They collect an incredible amount of debris, which whirls out of their winds at high velocities. Some tornados are clearly visible, while rains or low clouds may obscure others. Before a tornado hits, the wind may diminish and the air may became still. A cloud of debris often marks the location of a tornado, even if no funnel is evident. In an average year, 800 tornadoes are reported across the United States, which cause 80 deaths and over 1,500 injuries. While many people associate tornados with the Midwest, tornados have occurred in every state. In California, one third of the state's tornados occur in Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, or San Diego counties (FEMA 2004). The severity of a tornado is measured through the Fujita Scale, which categorizes tornados based on damage discovered (not recorded wind speeds). Named after creator Tetsuya Theodore Fujita of the University of Chicago in 1971, the scale includes the following categories: • F-0: 40-72 mph, chimney damage, tree branches broken • F-1: 73-112 mph, mobile homes pushed off foundation or overturned • F-2: 113-157 mph, considerable damage, mobile homes demolished, trees uprooted • F-3: 158-205 mph, roofs and walls torn down, trains overturned, cars thrown • F-4: 206-260 mph, well -constructed walls leveled • F-5: 261-318 mph, homes lifted off foundation and carried considerable distances, autos thrown as far as 100 meters To mitigate the damage associated with tornados, several steps and measures can be taken. Orange County has implemented numerous measures, which are designed to protect the County's residents, infrastructure, and assets. These actions are based on preparedness and include: • Maintaining telephone contact with the National Weather Service (NWS). • Monitoring the NWS "tornado watches" and "tornado warnings" issued to the public and government utilities. • Continuing public education regarding watches and warnings. 6:1SharedNWEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate4Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 4 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 4-38 dEffzl�* Risk Assessment • Gaining access to and creating considerable cooperation with local media. • Encouraging power and utility companies to have restoration plans and mitigation efforts in place. • Establish debris clearance requests with outside utilities. • Shelter agreements with the Red Cross are established or updated to provide shelter operations. • Broadcasts using all emergency radio frequencies to all emergency services utilities are issued for all watches and warnings 4.3.11.2 Disaster History California, and specifically Orange County, have experienced numerous tornadoes and their affects. Between 1958 and 2005, there have been at least 29 confirmed tornadoes in Orange County. Table 4.3-4 summarizes these disasters: O:NSharedXWEROCtHazmitX2011PIanUpdatetHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Secfion 4 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 4-39 Table 4.3.11.2-1 Historical Tornado Events in Orange County (1958-2005) Risk Assessment Date Type Magnitude Death Injury Property Damage 4/1/1958 Tornado FO 0 0 OK 2/19/1962 Tornado FO 0 0 OK 4/8/1965 Tornado FO 0 0 OK 11/7/1966 Tornado FO 0 0 3K 1117/1966 Tornado F2 0 0 3K 3/16/1977 Tornado F1 0 4 2.51VI 2/9/1978 Tornado F3 0 6 2.51VI 1/31/1979 Tornado F1 0 0 OK 1119/1982 Tornado FO 0 0 3K 11/9/1982 Tornado F1 0 0 3K 1/13/1984 Tornado FO 0 0 3K 3/16/1986 Tornado F1 0 0 2.51VI 1/18/1988 Tornado FO 0 0 25K 1/18/1988 Tornado FO 0 0 OK 2/28/1991 Tornado FO 0 0 OK 3/27/1991 Tornado F1 0 0 OK 12/7/1992 Tornado F1 0 0 250K 12/7/1992 Tornado F1 0 0 3K 12/29/1992 Tornado FO 0 0 3K 1117/1993 Tornado FO 0 1 5.0m 1/18/1993 Tornado FO 0 0 50K 2/8/1993 Tornado FO 0 0 50K 11/11/1993 Tornado FO 0 2 1K 2/7/1994 Tornado FO 0 0 500K 11/11/1997 Tornado F1 0 0 0 12121/1997 Tornado F1 0 0 15K 2/24/1998 Tornado FO 0 0 20K 2/24/2001 Tornado FO 0 0 50K 2/19/2005 Tornado FO 0 0 15K (Reference: NOAA Satellite and Information Service, 2006) 1 -February -2012 0-\SharedlWER0C\l-lazmA2011 PlanUpdateNazmit Plan 2011-12 Re'Asion\Section 4 HM.dac 4-40 SECTION FOUR RiskAssessment Based on these data, Orange County has experienced only one tornado greater than F-2, and never suffered a casualty from a tornado. The majority of the tornados have been either an FO or F 1. The first reported tornado was in 1958, and they have continued somewhat frequently. Historically, most tornadoes occur between November and March within Orange County, and tornadoes have caused approximately $13 million in total damage. The worst tornado in the county's history occurred on February 9, 1978. It was an F3 tornado that injured six people and caused $2.5 million in damage. The tornado originated in Irvine and traveled two miles. At its greatest width, the tornado was 67 yards wide. Another devastating tornado occurred on January 17, 1993. Known as the Lake Forest Tornado, the tornado was actually categorized as an FO, but caused $5 million in damage to infrastructure. There was one person injured in the tornado, as well. 4.3.11.3 Location and Extent(Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Tornadoes have struck every state, but most impact the area known as 'Tornado Alley" during the spring. Tornado Alley extends from Nebraska to central Texas. Orange County, California is not within this area, but is susceptible to tornadoes. Tornadoes in Orange County can strike any part of the County, including coastal areas, and are not regulated to a season, like spring (most occur during winter in the County). There is a possibility that Orange County can be impacted by a major tornado (F3 or greater). Accordingly, the dense population and developed parts of the County can be affected significantly. The impacts of a tornado to water and wastewater would be from the resulting power outages and potential impacts to buildings. Overall, tornadoes are not typically a large threat in Orange County. 4.3.12 Wildland/Urban Fire 4AI2.I Nature of Hazard A variety of fire protection challenges exist within Orange County, including structure fires, urban fires, wildland fires, and fires at the wildland/urban interface. This hazard analysis focuses on wildland fires, but also addresses issues specifically related to the wildland/urban interface. There are three categories of interface fires: the classic wildland/urban interface exists where well-defined urban and suburban development presses up against open expanses of wildland areas, the mixed wildland/urban interface is characterized by isolated homes, subdivisions and small communities situated predominantly in wildland settings, and the occluded wildland/urban interface existing where islands of wildland vegetation occur inside a largely urbanized area. Certain conditions must be present for significant interface fires to occur. The most common conditions include: hot, dry and windy weather, the inability of fire protection forces to contain or suppress the fire, the occurrence of multiple fires that overwhelm committed resources, and a large fuel load (dense vegetation). Once a fire has started, several conditions influence its behavior, including fuel topography, weather, drought, and development. Orange County has two distinct areas of risk for wildland fire (Figure 4.3-6). The foothills and lower mountain areas are most often covered with scrub brush or chaparral. A key challenge Orange County faces regarding the wildfire hazard is the increasing number of houses being built in the wildland/urban interface. Every year the growing population has expanded further and further into the hills and mountains, including forest lands. The increased "interface" between urban/suburban areas and open 1 -February -2012 0ASharedNWERWHazmiA201 1 PlanUpdateNazrnit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 4 Wdoc 4-41 SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment space areas has produced a significant increase in threats to life and property from fires and has pushed existing fire protection systems beyond original or current design and capability. Several critical water and wastewater facilities are located near the wildland/urban interface; vegetation management is a critical component to maintaining safe water/wastewater facilities in these areas. It should be noted that the maps used to indicate fire threat were largely created for wildland fire evaluation, and did not include to the extent preferred the threat analysis for urban wildland interfaces. The magnitude of the California 2003 fires is the result of three primary factors: (1) severe drought, accompanied by a series of storms that produce thousands of lightning strikes and windy conditions; (2) an infestation of bark beetles that had killed thousands of mature trees; and (3 )) the effects of wildfire suppression over the past century that has led to buildup of brush and small diameter trees in the forests. These same factors are present in Orange County. 4.3.12.2 Disaster History Large fires have been part of the Southern California landscape for millennia. "Written documents reveal that during the 19th century, human settlement of southern California altered the fire regime of coastal California by increasing the fire frequency. This was an era of very limited fire suppression, and yet like today, large crown fires covering tens of thousands of acres were not uncommon. The USGS website describes one of the largest fires in Los Angeles County (60,000 acres), occurring in 1878. The largest fire according to the USGS site in Orange County's history, in 1889, was over half a million acres. Figure 6 lists some of the historic fires from 1961 to 2003. During the 2002 fire season, more than 6.9 million acres of public and private lands burned in the United States, resulting in loss of property, damage to resources and disruption of community services. Taxpayers spent more than $1.6 billion to combat more than 88,400 fires nationwide. Many of these fires burned in wildland/urban interface areas and exceeded the fire suppression capabilities of those areas. According to the California Division of Forestry (CDF), there were over 7,000 reportable fires in California in 2003, with over one million acres burned. According to CDF statistics, in the October 21003 Firestorms, over 4.800 homes were destroyed and 22 lives were lost. The fall of 2003 marked the most destructive wildfire season in California history. In a ten day period, 12 separate fires raged across Southern California in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties. The massive Cedar Fire in San Diego County alone consumed of 2,800 homes and burned over 250,000 acres. Since the fires of 2003, several Other large fires have burned in southern California that included portions of Orange County. Most recently, the Sierra Fire took place in Orange and Riverside Counties between February 6-12, 2006, and burned 10,584 acres. At 9:0 ]am on November 15, 2008 the Corona Fire Department responded to calls reporting a brush -fire in Riverside County. Upon arrival it became apparent to first responders the fire would be significant and of a highly destructive nature. At the time of the alarm a Red -Flag Warning had been in effect due to low - humidity levels, high temperatures, and strong Santa Ana winds. These conditions along with the terrain of the areas burned facilitated the rapid growth and spread of the fire and significantly affected first responder's efforts of containment and in the protection of property and lives. Initial calls reported the fires location as west of the Green River exit off of the 91 Freeway in Riverside County. From there the fire quickly advanced in a Northwesterly direction towards Orange County where the fire split into two 1-F-.b..,Y-2012 0ASharedNWER0CkHazrnit1201 1PlanUPdaWHazrnit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 4 HM.doc 4-42 SECTION FOUR RiskAssessment separate branches shortly after crossing over the county line, the first branch of the fire followed the Santa Ana river basin southwest into Anaheim hills, and the second continued northwest into Yorba Linda. Both branches of the fire became of concern to the water utilities of Orange County as the fire threatened infrastructure or moved into the service areas of Anaheim, Brea, the Yorba Linda Water District, and MET's Diemer Filtration Plant facility. Eventually, the fire burned through approximately 30,305 acres and damaged or destroyed over 300 structures in Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties. 4.3.12.3 Location of Extent/ Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude California experiences large, destructive wildland fires almost every year and Orange County is no exception. Wildland fires have occurred within the county, particularly in the fall, ranging from small, localized fires to disastrous fires covering thousands of acres. The most severe fire protection problem in the unincorporated areas is wildland fire during Santa Ana wind conditions. The combination of the need for water fire flow and the potential for power failure due to winds is a dangerous combination. 4.3.13 Manmade Hazards 4.3.13.1 Nature of Hazard Manmade hazards are distinct from natural hazards in that they result directly from the actions of people. Two types of manmade hazards include: non -malicious and malicious. Non -malicious hazards refer to incidents that can arise from human activities such as the manufacturing, storage, transport, and use of hazardous materials, which include toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, and infectious substances. Non -malicious hazards are assumed to be accidental and their consequences unintended. Malicious, on the other hand, encompasses intentional and criminal acts involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or conventional weapons. WMD can involve the deployment of biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological weapons with the result of affecting a large percentage of the population either directly or indirectly. Conventional weapons and techniques include the use of arson, incendiary explosives, armed attacks, intentional hazardous materials release, and cyber -terrorism (attack via computer). Typically, conventional weapons have a very specific target and are limited in scope and affect. Non -Malicious Hazards Non -malicious hazards can occur because of human carelessness, technological failure, and natural hazards. When caused by natural hazards, these incidents are known as secondary hazards, whereas intentional acts are terrorism. Hazardous materials releases, depending on the substance involved and type of release, can directly cause injuries and death and contaminate air, water, and soils. While the probability of a major release at any particular facility or at any point along a known transportation corridor is relatively low, the consequences of releases of these materials can be very serious. Some hazardous materials present a radiation risk. Radiation is any form of energy propagated as rays, waves or energetic particles that travel through the air or a material medium. Radioactive materials, e.g., uranium, plutonium, radium, and thorium, are composed of unstable atoms. An unstable atom gives off its excess energy until it becomes stable. The energy emitted is radiation. The process by which an atom 0ASharedkWER00Hazrnitk201 I PlanUpdatelHamit Plan 2011-12 RemionkSeCtion 4 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 4-43 SECTION FOUR RiskAssessment changes from an unstable state to a more stable state by emitting radiation is called radioactive decay or radioactivity. Radiological materials have many uses including: • use by doctors to detect and treat serious diseases, • use by educational institutions and companies for research, • use by the military to power large ships and submarines, and • use as a critical base material to help produce the commercial electrical power that is generated by a nuclear power plant. Radioactive materials, if handled improperly, or radiation accidentally released into the environment, can be dangerous because of the harmful effects of certain types of radiation on the human body and the human environment. The longer a person is exposed to radiation and the closer the person is to the radiation source, the greater the risk. Although radiation cannot be detected by the senses, scientists can easily detect it with sophisticated instruments that can detect even the smallest levels of radiation. Under extreme circumstances, an accident or intentional explosion involving radiological materials can cause very serious problems. Consequences may include death, severe health risks to the public, damage to the environment, and extraordinary loss of, or damage to, property. Terrorism Following a number of serious international and domestic terrorist incidents during the 1990's and early 2000's, citizens across the United States have paid increased attention to the potential for deliberate, harmful terrorist actions by individuals or groups with political, social, cultural, and religious motives. There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism, and it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. However, terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 CFR, Section 0.85). The Federal Bureau of Investigation further characterizes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. However, the origin of the terrorist or person causing the hazard is far less relevant to mitigation planning than the hazard itself and its consequences. Terrorists can utilize a wide variety of agents and delivery systems. The dams in Orange County are considered as potential terrorist targets. The weapon most likely used could include explosives with the goal of collapsing the dam. Such an event would result in a dam failure and an inundation event with little or no warning. The potential of using other types of weapons such as chemical or biological are considered low due to the large amount of material that would be required to contaminate the water system. This scenario would only apply to those dams where the reservoirs are used for drinking water. Another very significant concern is cyber terrorism. All of Orange County's water utilities utilize Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition systems (SCADA) which operate over telecommunication lines and/or radio systems. These systems are vulnerable to hacking and leave utilities open to malicious acts. I -February-2012 0ASharedNWER0C\HazrnM201 I PlanUpdaWl-lazrnit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Secfion 4 HMAOC 4-44 SECTION FOUR RiskAssessment 4.3.13.2 Disaster History Hazardous Material Releases Hazardous materials can include toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, infectious substances. and hazardous wastes. The State of California defines a hazardous material as a substance that is toxic, ignitable or flammable, or reactive and/or corrosive. An extremely hazardous material is defined as a substance that shows high acute or chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, bio -accumulative properties, persistence in the environment, or is water reactive (California Code of Regulations, Title 22). "Hazardous waste," a subset of hazardous materials, is material that is to be abandoned, discarded, or recycled, and includes chemical, radioactive, and bio -hazardous waste (including medical waste). An accidental hazardous material release can occur wherever hazardous materials are manufactured, stored, transported, or used. Such releases can affect nearby populations and contaminate critical or sensitive environmental areas. With respect to water or wastewater systems, concerns arise regarding exposure to these materials via contact or ingestion of drinking water and or discharge of contaminated water into the ocean where exposure to the marine environment and public would be of concern. Numerous facilities in Orange County generate hazardous wastes in addition to storing and using large numbers of hazardous materials. Although the scale is usually small, emergencies involving the release of these substances can occur daily at both fixed sites and on the County's streets and roadways. Facilities that use, manufacture, or store hazardous materials in California must comply with several state and federal regulations. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA Title 111), which was enacted in 1986 as a legislative response to airborne releases of methyl isocyanides at Union Carbide plants in Bhopal, India and in Institute, West Virginia. SARA Title 111, also known as the Emergency Planning and Community -Right -To -Know Act (EPCRA), directs businesses that handle, store or manufacture hazardous materials in specified amounts to develop emergency response plans and report releases of toxic chemicals. Additionally, Section 312 of Title III requires businesses to submit an annual inventory report of hazardous materials to a state -administering utility. The California legislature passed Assembly Bill 2185 in 1987, incorporating the provisions of SARA Title III into a state program. The community right -to -know requirements keep communities abreast of the presence and release of hazardous wastes at individual facilities. Additional information about the chemicals handled by manufacturing or processing facilities is contained in the U.S. EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database. The TRI is a publicly available EPA database that contains information on toxic chemical emissions and waste management activities reported by certain industry groups as well as federal facilities. This inventory was established under EPCRA and expanded by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. Facilities that exceed threshold emissions levels must report TRI information to the U.S. EPA, the federal enforcement agency for SARA Title 111. Chemical air emissions, surface water discharges, underground injections, and releases to land are considered chemical releases. The release of a biological agent capable of causing illness in people is considered an infectious release. The only known release of radiological agents into the air in the County was the result of an accident at San Onotre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). In 1981, an accidental "ignition" of hydrogen gases in a holding tank of the SONGS caused an explosion which bent the bolts of an inspection hatch on the tank, allowing radioactive gases in the tank to escape into a radioactive waste 1 -February -2012 O:1Shared\WEROCVHazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionlSection 4 HM.doc 4-45 SECTION FOUR Risk Assessmell room. From there, the radioactive material was released into the atmosphere. The plant was shut down for several weeks following the event (W.I.S.E. Vol.3 No.4 p.18). This incident occurred during the plant's operation of its Unit I generator, which has since been decommissioned. No serious injuries occurred. On February 3, 2001, another accident occurred at SONGS when a circuit breaker fault caused a fire that resulted in a loss of offsite power. Published reports suggest that rolling blackouts during the same week in California were partially due to the shutdown of the SONGS reactors in response to the 3 -hour fire. Although no radiation was released and no nuclear safety issues were involved, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission sent a Special Inspection Team to the plant site to investigate the accident. Terrorism While Orange County has not experienced any high profile attacks by groups or individuals associated with international terrorist organizations, Orange County has several groups for advisory notification, investigation, and analysis of terrorist events and activities. These groups include: Terrorism Working Group (TWG): TWG was formed in 1998 to address first responder safety issues, incident management and public health consequences of WMD incidents that result from acts of terrorism. TWG membership consists of law enforcement, fire departments, hazardous materials, public and environmental health, emergency medical services (EMS), the FBI, bomb squads, hospitals, ambulance companies, vector control, animal control, coroner, and volunteer law enforcement advisory components. Orange County Terrorism Early Warning Group (TEWG): Orange County's TEWG is a multi- disciplinary subcommittee (including law, health, fire) of the Terrorism Working Group. It is designed to obtain and analyze information and intelligence needed to formulate an effective response to threats and acts of terrorism. As part of the TEWG mission, a threat and vulnerability assessment of potential terrorist targets in Orange County was developed in August 2001. After September 11 th, the Orange County TEWG became fully integrated into the national mutual aid structure, thereby increasing the number of participants. Orange County Private Sector Terrorism Response Group (PSTRG): The PSTRG was formed in December 2001 to create a private sector partnership with the TEWG to effectively address private sector safety, incident management, employee education and public health consequences of potential attacks on the critical infrastructure within Orange County. Two large groups involved with PSTRG are the Orange County Business Council, of which 80% of the major businesses in Orange County are members, and TechNet, a consortium of 28 high-tech firms. The objectives of the PSTRG include physical resource sharing, information exchange, virtual reach -back capabilities, and subject/industry matter experts cross - utilization. The PSTRG is an instrument which allows the Sheriffs Department to maximize all resources and prepare community members for the potential of terrorism and recovery in its aftermath. Orange County Intelligence Assessment Center (OCIAQ: Immediately after the September 11, 2001, attacks on America, Sheriff Mike Corona, along with the Orange County Chiefs of Police, the FBI and the California Department of Justice met to discuss the formation of a Joint Terrorism Task Force, As a I -February -2012 0:\SharedXV'�EROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 201142 RevisioMSetion 4 HM.doc 4-46 SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment result, local police and fire departments joined with five State and Federal departments to comprise the FBI -led OCIAC. Law Enforcement Mutual Aid: Orange County law enforcement has long recognized the need for standardization and uniformity of organization and response on the part of public safety providers involved in major multi -discipline and multi jurisdictional incidents. The collaborative efforts of Orange County law enforcement leaders over the past 53 years have forged a collective voice in mutual assistance and mutual aid. All major components tasked with public safety (law, fire, health, emergency management) are actively involved in developing emergency plans and insuring emergency preparedness. 4.4 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Vulnerability describes how exposed or susceptible to damage an asset is, and depends on an asset's construction, condition, contents and the economic value of its functions. A vulnerability analysis predicts the extent of injury and damage that may result from a hazard event of a given intensity in a given area on the existing and future built environment. Like indirect damages, the vulnerability of one element of the community is often related to the vulnerability of another. Indirect effects can be much more widespread and damaging than direct effects. For example, damage to a major water utility line could result in significant inconveniences and business disruption that would far exceed the cost of repairing the utility line. MWDOC has developed data to help evaluate the economic impacts from short-term (10 days) to long term (3 -years) shortages from either emergency or drought induced shortages. This will be discussed in a later section. Following the events of September 11, 2001, the EPA received a supplemental appropriation to improve the safety and security of the water supply systems. As a result. the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 was adopted. The EPA is the federal agency assigned to ensure that the Act's regulations regarding water are enacted at each level of government. The Bioterrorism Act requires water utilities to conduct a vulnerability assessment, which also includes updating their Emergency Response Plan (ERP). Within six months after submitting the vulnerability assessment to the EPA, the ERP must also be amended to address counterterrorism measures. The authorization to conduct a vulnerability assessment falls under Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 63, issued on May 22, 1998. Under this directive, the EPA was designated as the lead federal agency to assess and address vulnerabilities of the nation's water supply infrastructure. Pursuant to the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 some of the participating water utilities have completed vulnerability assessments for their water and wastewater facilities. These assessments were utilized by each PWU to identify hazards that could not be modeled in GIS that may affect their facilities. Further, this information was a component in developing objectives and action items to enhance the security of water and wastewater facilities. 4.4.1 Asset Inventory Hazards that occur in Orange County can impact critical facilities located in the County. For this HMP update, a critical facility is defined as public infrastructure used to provide potable water to the public and to maintain wastewater services in order to maintain public health and safety. Critical facilities associated with potable water services located within the PWU include: wells, water storage tanks, reservoirs with 1 -February -2012 0:\SharediWEROCAHazmjt\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RemionkSection 4 HMAOC 4-47 �I N Risk Assessment dams, water treatment plants, pump stations, pressure reducing stations, emergency interties, service connections, pipelines, and administrative buildings and utility yards (Table 4.4.2-2). Critical facilities associated with wastewater services located within the PWU include- wastewater treatment plants, lift stations, pipelines, and administrative buildings and utility yards. GIS and other modeling tools were used to map these types of critical facilities in 2007 within PWUs to determine which would most likely be affected by each of the profiled hazards. Orange County covers 948 square miles with several different climate patterns and types of terrain, which allows for several hazards to affect several different parts of the County and several jurisdictions at once or separately. The hazards are described in Section 43. The 2007 mapping work was reviewed to update the hazard assessment for the 2012 update. 4.4.2 Estimating Potential Exposure and Losses GIS analysis was used in 2007 to estimate exposure to water and wastewater infrastructure from earthquakes, flooding, structure fire/wildfire, landslide and liquefaction. An analysis conducted by MWDOC was also used to look at potential short term and longer term outages of the regional and local water systems based on shaking that could occur from any of the five major faults within Orange County. Although other hazards are addressed in the plan, including tsunami, dam failure, drought and Santa Ana winds, suitable GIS data for these hazards either was not available (tsunami and dam failure) or the data was not suitable for GIS modeling (drought and Santa Ana winds). For these hazards, quantitative analyses were not performed. Vulnerability assessments associated with these hazards is based on historic incidents, described in Section 4.3 and the knowledge that water and wastewater experts have of their critical facilities and the susceptibility of those facilities to these hazards. When appropriate, PWUs noted these hazards in their objectives and action items in Section 5.0. The specific methods and results of the GIS analyses updated to 2012 is presented below. The results are shown as potential exposure in millions of dollars. For water and wastewater infrastructure pipelines, the length of exposure/impact is given in miles. Other critical facilities are identified by structure type. Exposure characterizes the value of structures within the hazard zone, and is shown as estimated exposure based on the overlay of the hazard on the critical facilities which are assigned a cost of replacement for each type of structure exposed. These replacement costs for the critical facilities were identified by each PWU. The loss or exposure value is then determined with the assumption that the given structure is totally destroyed (worst case scenario), which is not always the case in hazard events. This assumption was valuable in the planning process, so that the total potential damage value was identified when determining capabilities and mitigation measures for each PWU. Table 4.4.2-1 provides abbreviations and average replacement costs used for critical facilities and infrastructure listed in all subsequent exposure/loss tables. Table 4.4.2-2 provides the total inventory and exposure estimates for the critical facilities and infrastructure by jurisdiction. Table 4.4.2-3 to 4.4.2-19 shows the estimated exposure for infrastructure by jurisdiction. The costs identified in the far right column reflect cost of replacement in a worse case scenario (defined as the highest cost submitted from among all of the PWUs in the study process, excluding the regional facilities (this would have the effect of overstating the local costs). For any detailed proposals to be provided to FEMA, actual costs for mitigation and detailed estimates of the benefits of the mitigation measure will be prepared and submitted. The costs included herein provide a relative measure of the impacts of the various hazards. For example, Garden Grove may have identified a 1 -February -2012 0AShared\VVER0C\lAazmit\201I PlanUpdate\Hazrnft Plan 2011-12 Revision\Sedon 4 HM.doc 4-48 SECTION FOUR RiskAssessment cost of $3 million to replace a well and Buena Park may identify a cost of $3.5 million to replace a well but; in this instance, $3.5 million would be used as the replacement cost for all wells within the PWU. This methodology was used for consistency across the PWUs and selection of the highest cost helps assure that those PWUs with more expensive infrastructure have their needs met when requesting grants. For details on exposure of facilities by PWU, please refer to Section 5, General Overview of Assets, Goals and Objectives. Section 5 presents each of the PWUs in alphabetical order, identifying estimated loss associated with each of the hazards and a discussion of their capabilities to address these losses (administratively, fiscally, technically, etc.) A discussion of each PWU's goals, objectives and action items identified to help mitigate their infrastructure against hazards identified in the risk analysis is also presented in Section 5. Tables 4.4.2-3 to 4.4.2-14 are organized by hazard threat. For example, Table 4.4.2-3 represents loss estimates for Moderate Earthquake threat (based on USGS modeling) and Table 4.4.2-4 represents loss estimate, for High Earthquake threat. It is important to note that FEMA mandates that an asset or facility can only be recognized by one level of a particular hazard. For example, El Toro shows that a total of 22 facilities will be damaged by a Moderate Level Earthquake threat where as 33 facilities will be damaged by a High Earthquake threat. These 33 do not reflect an addition of I I facilities, but rather reflect unique facilities that may be damaged by the event. Tables 4.4.2-14 to 4.4.2-19 reflect loss to features to pipelines based on the same hazards discussed above, and using the same methodology. Numbers reflected include potable water (PW) and waste water (WW) pipelines per mile distance of line that would be deemed destroyed by the event. These tables seem to clearly reflect that for many districts, their greatest potential losses, in terms of value, are pipelines in their jurisdictions. Regionally, MWDOC and the PWU are committed to upgrading existing lines, designing alternate operating facilities and delivery routes for water, and maintaining them to assure flexibility of operations and a safe water supply and a reliable wastewater management system. Specific hazard types were classified as follows: Hazard Basis of Exposure Moderate Earthquake Peak ground acceleration of 0.5 to 0.6 g High Earthquake Peak ground acceleration of 0.6 to 0.8 g Extreme Earthquake Peak ground acceleration of 0.8 to1,2 g Landslide Slopes > 25% Liquefaction Moderate Soil Type D or E with PGA of <0.3 Liquefaction High Soil Type D with PGA of >0.3 1 -February -2012 0:\Shared\WERCC1Hazmit'2011PIanUpdate9Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Secfion 4 HM,doc 4-49 SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment Hazard Basis of Exposure Liquefaction Very High Soil Type E with PGA of >03 Little or No Fire Threat Urban Areas without Vegetation Moderate Fire Threat Urban Area with Little Vegetation High Fire Threat Foothill Areas with High Vegetation Very High Fire Threat Lower Mountain Areas with High Vegetation Extreme Fire Threat Mountain Areas with High Forestation 4.4.2.1 MWDOC Analysis of Water System Needs During Outage Situations The following analysis provides an estimate of the water shortages that utilities might incur in the event of supply interruption caused by a powerful earthquake. It is noted that it is difficult to predict exactly what part of a water supply/distribution system will fail in an earthquake. Therefore, this analysis is intended to provide a feel for the range of possible shortages that would result from a powerful earthquake striking within OC. MWDOC has adopted a policy that every retail utility is to have the ability to sustain a seven-day interruption of imported water from MET water during average demand conditions. Therefore, this analysis analyzed a planned MET facility outage (or "shutdown") of 7 days duration during average demand conditions. But, an outage due to a powerful earthquake could occur at any time of year. The worst condition would be in summer when demands are highest. Therefore, the emergency scenarios analyzed were an emergency outage at either maximum month (1.35 times annual average) or "hot summer" (1.52 times annual average) demand level. Emergency outages of the water system can be due to a variety of causes including earthquake, flood, power interruption, electronics failure, aging of facilities and human error, et al. Most of these except earthquakes would result in only local impacts. Earthquakes have the potential to inflict significant damage over large areas. There are at least five geologic faults that could produce earthquakes that could cause significant water system outages in OC. These fault lines are shown in Figure 4.4.2.1-1. Magnitude and other data on these faults were previously summarized on Table 4.3.5.7-1. The San Andreas Fault can generate a more powerful quake, but it is over 50 miles from OC. The simplest earthquake model would have a point epicenter, from which energy waves would travel radially away, producing ground acceleration and shaking of intensity decreasing in perfect circular patterns. In Southern California, earthquakes tend to occur along several -mile long fault lines so the 1 -February -2012 0:\Shared\WEROC\HazmitQ011P[anUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 Re0sionkSection 4 HM,doc 4-50 Risk Assessment energy pattern is a narrow ellipse or oval shape rather than circular. Figures 4.4.2.1-2 through 6 show the shaking intensity patterns for five simulated events on local faults. These specific shaking maps provide the ability for any of the PWUs to tailor the estimated earthquake damage provided by the GIS analysis to their specific service areas. Damage resulting from earthquakes could consist of broken water and transmission mains, disruption of treatment plants, separation of inlet/outlet lines at storage tanks, damage to well casings or at wellhead piping, and a variety of other problems to water systems. It is not possible to determine exactly what damage will occur due to earthquakes to the OC water systems due to different ages of facilities, pipe materials, methods of construction, soils, etc. However, anecdotal evidence provides a good indication of what might be expected, Sylmar (San Fernando), CA, 1971 Magnitude 6.6 - The entire water supply of the small city of San Fernando was lost in the 1971 Sylmar quake due to either well, pump or reservoir damage. Due to pipe leaks, reservoir cracks, and lack of controls, the five city reservoirs emptied within a few hours. The city then contracted for water trucks to bring in drinking water, and for portable toilets. Emergency interconnections were made to neighboring water systems. About 500 leaks in the San Fernando system were repaired, and 28,000 feet of water pipe had to be replaced. Several wells and reservoirs had to be repaired or abandoned. The MET Jensen Filtration Plant, and then still under construction, suffered severe structural damage to its finished water reservoir. On the influent pipe, a joint opened 4V2 to 6 inches with an offset of about 4 inches. The effluent pipe failed in lateral shear. Loma Prieta, CA, 1989 Magnitude 7.1 - Water service was maintained to most of the millions of San Francisco Bay area residents following the Loma Prieta quake of October 17, 1989. East Bay Municipal Utility District suffered over 100 pipeline breaks, the worst of which was a 60 -inch main break that took 5 days to repair. The City and County of San Francisco reported 115 breaks; 65 of the breaks were in the Marina area and were repaired within 5 days. The City of Santa Cruz experienced 50 breaks, issued a boil -water order; and service was restored to almost the entire city within one week. • Northridge, CA 1994 Magnitude 6.7 - A MET feeder (main trunk line) ruptured, and was repaired in 3 days. The most damage was incurred by the Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (LADWP) that suffered over 1,000 breaks: The Northridge quake caused damage at 15 locations in three transmission systems [LA Aqueducts I & 2, MET Foothill Feeder], 74 locations in water trunk lines [24" and larger], with damage concentrated in the LADWP Van Norman complex, and 1,013 locations in the LADWP distribution piping system. LADWP's water system facilities incurred extensive damage throughout the San Fernando Valley and in the Sherman Oaks area. There was also localized damage to water supply systems in the West Los Angeles area and throughout the eastern San Fernando Valley. Immediately following the earthquake, approximately 100,000 customers were without water, and a citywide "boil 2 ,Using GIS to Assess Water Supply Damage from the Northridge Earthquake" O'Rourke, Thomas and S. Toprak. NCEER Bulletin Vol. I I No. 3 July, 1997. 1 -February -2012 0ASharedNWER0C\HazmiA2011 PlanUpdaWl-lamit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 4 HMA00 4.51 SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment water" advisory was issued. Within 5 days, water service was restored to all but a few thousand customers; after 10 days, less than 100 scattered customers were without water. All "boil water" orders were lifted after 12 days. The Department of Water and Power estimates that repairs of earthquake damage to the city's water system cost approximately $40 million in 1995 dollars.' Several water tanks in the region had to be taken out of service because of broken and damaged valves/connections. One tank in Valencia collapsed totally. But, there were no reported wells damaged by the 1994 Northridge quake, although well supply was interrupted in places due to power outages. With power restored, groundwater supply then depended on whether the street mains in the vicinity of the well were intact or not. 3 '`Preparing for the Big One" — Saving Lives Through Earthquake Mitigation in Los Angeles, CA US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Jan. 1995. 1 -February -2012 0:1SharedtWEROCXHazmitX2011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 4 HM.doc 4-52 I k a Figure 4.4.2.1-1 Active Geologic Faults in/near Orange County Risk Assessment S�wp rz U My E Los An-oel�-s F AU I N" 4- u - SAN J0Ay tl PA 16, -4— Active Geologic Fauft Active Geologic Faults In/Near Orange County San Diegu', cu"am, 1 -February -2012 0A$haredXWER0C\Hazrnit4201 I PlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 Re\fisionkSeton 4 HM,doc 4-53 Risk Assessment Figure 4.4.2.1-2 Shaking Pattern Due to a Simulated Earthquake Magnitude 6.9 Newport Inglewood Fault 1 -February -2012 OAShared\WERWHazmtN201 -Febnjary-2612 OASharedXWERWHazrnttQOj I PlanUpdateXHamit Plan 2011-12 Revisim\Section 4 Hmdw 4-54 dEff EIN�191 Risk Assessment Figure 4.4.2.1-3 Shaking Pattern Due to a Simulated Earthquake Magnitude 6.8 Peralta Hills Fault +► Pattern Due • a Simulated Earthquake «• 6.8 Peralta Hills Fault =411 1 -February -2012 O:kSharedkWEROCkHazmit\2011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionNSection 4 HM,doc A-55 Risk Assessment Figure 4.4.2.1-4 Shaking Pattern Due to a Simulated Earthquake Magnitude 7.5 Puente Hills Fault Shaking Pattern Due to a Simulated Earthquake Magnitude 7.5 Puente Hills Fault O:kShared\WEROC\Hazmit12011PlanUpdatelHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisioMSection 4 HIVI.doc 1 -February -2012 4-56 Risk Assessment Figure 4.4.2.1-5 Shaking Pattern Due to a Simulated Earthquake Magnitude 6.6 San Joaquin Hills Fault • Pattern Due to a "• • Magnitude 6.6 San • Hills Fault I -February-2012 OAShared\VVERMI-lamit\201 I PlanUpdateXl-lazrnit Plan 2011-12 RevisiorASecoon 4 HM.do, 4 57 dliffTE�Ipk Risk Assessment Figure 4.4.2.1-6 Shaking Pattern Due to a Simulated Earthquake Magnitude 6.8 Whittier Fault OASharecftWERMHazmjt6201 I PlanUpdateNamit Plan 2011-12 RemionNSecfian 4 HM,doc 1 -February -2012 4-58 SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment 4.4.2.2 Percentage of Water Supply Outage Caused by Earthquake Loss of water supply in a major earthquake could range from zero to 100% depending on the specifics of the earthquake and the impacts to the local and regional water system. The percentage of supply loss depends very much on whether there are redundant supply systems, such as local wells and the MET imported water system. It is not possible to determine exactly what damage a certain earthquake will cause to the individual water systems in Orange County that have different pipe materials, different tank construction, different soils, etc. The approach taken herein is to derive a "supply loss function", an educated estimate of "local" (non -MET) supply loss (or temporary interruption) due to a major earthquake. The percent of local supply loss will increase with quake magnitude and decrease with distance from the subject fault. The local supply loss function is shown at the top of Table 4.4.2.2-1. The assumed percentage of temporary local supply losses for each water utility due to strong quakes on each of five faults are shown in the main portion of the Table 4.4.3-6. These percentages are based on the assumed magnitude of the particular quake and on each utility's proximity to the subject fault. The entire service area of each utility is assumed to suffer the same loss of local supply. For example, for Huntington Beach in a Newport -Inglewood 6.9 quake, the shaking intensity map indicates shaking intensity VIII, and the loss function gives 40% loss of local supply, which is well water. That is, in this scenario, Huntington Beach temporarily loses 40% of its well water supply that is normally 45.6 cts (see Section 1.3 Table 1.3- 5); 60% or 27.4 cfs remains available to deliver to customers. In addition to the local supply loss, a powerful quake could also damage the MET Diemer Water Treatment Plant and/or the MET distribution feeders. Pipelines crossing a particular fault are more likely to be damaged than pipelines not crossing. Due to the existence of mainline valves and feeder interconnections, other portions of a MET feeder may remain in service while one reach is severed. An estimate of water supply outage including both MET system damage and local supply (wells and local water treatment plants) loss is shown on Table 4.4.2.2-2. I -February -2012 0:\SharedkWEROCl4azmit\2011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisjonNSection 4 HMAc 4-59 i Risk Assessment Table 4.4.2.2-1 Possible Loss (I) of Local Water Supply due to Earthquake in/near Orange County by Retail Agency as a Percentage of Normal Local Supply Rate .....M„.fd ,.a..a_„_„,,w . „,,a Newport- Inglewood M6.8 Peralta Hills M6.8 Puente Hills M7.5 San Joaquin Hills M6.6 Whittler Fault M6.8 Sub- Region Local Supply Loss to as a Function of Quake Intensity Intensity <V VI VII Vill IX X !°°Loss 1 10 Y0 40 60 80 Intensity <V VI VII VIII IX X /° °Loss 1 10 20 40 60 80 Intensity <V VI VII VIII IX X ° !° Loss 10 20 40 fi0 80 Intensity <V VI VII Vill IX X ° 1° Loss 10 20 40 60 80 Intensity <V VI VII VIII ix X °I°Loss 1 10 20 40 60 80 Brea/ Brea VI VII IX VI Vill La Habra La Habra VI VII IX VI Vill OCWD Anaheim VII Vill IX VII VII Basin Buena Park VII VIII IX VII VII East Orange CWD VI VIII VIII Vil VII Fountain Valley Vill VII VII VIII VI Fullerton VII VIII IX VII VII Garden Grove Vill VII Vill Vil Vii Golden State -East VI VIII VIII VII Vil Golden, State- Plac.NL VI VIII IX VII VIII Golden State -West OC VII VII VIII VII VII Huntington Beach III VII VII VII VI Irvine Ranch WD VII VII VII Vill VI La Palma VII VII VIII VII VII Mesa WD Vill VII VII VIII VI Newport Beach VIII VII -V1 I Vill VI Orange VII VII VII VII VII Santa Ana VII VII VII VIII VII Seal Beach VIII VII VII VIl VI Serrano WD V1 Vill Vill Vll Vil Tustin VII VII VIII Vill VII Westminster Vill VII VII VII VI Yorba Linda WD VI VIII IX VI VIII South El Toro WD VI VI Vl Vill VI 0C Laguna Beach CWD Vi VI VI VIII VI Moulton Niguel VI VI VI VIII VI San Clemente VI VI VI VII VI San Juan Capistrano VI VI VI VII VI Santa Margarita WD VI VI V1 VII VI South Coast WD Vi VI VI VII VI SDCWA San Onofre VI VI VI VII VI f 11 The rsnceihla Ince Trabuco Canyon WD of tonal wntar e„rv,l„ �h...,,, k„ a VI er.. _ : VI ,. I . ... VI VII VI -em aamage coma mance aamage to well columns or the wellhead piping, damage to well pump equipment, damage to distribution system piping, potable water tanks, et al. Indirect causes could include electrical power outage, electronic device problems, sewage contamination, et al. In general, problems are expected to be worse the closer the subject area is to the active fault, although soil conditions can also be a significant factor. The magnitudes of losses shown here are somewhat speculative. Lass factor does not apply to imported (Metropolitan) water supply. (2) 'Characteristic' Moment Magnitude of earthquake faults in or near Orange County. Source: Five Earthquake Scenario Ground Motion Maps for Northern Orange Comfy report prepared by Earth Consultants International for MWDOC in July 2005. t -February -2012 0ASharectV`JEROC\Hazmit12011 PlanUpdatelHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revisionbsection 4 HM.doc 4-60 SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment Table 4.4.2.2-2 Possible Water Shortage in Event of a Major Earthquake in Orange County by Retail Water Agency Scale of Shortage: over 25% *over 50% •••over 75% ••••over90% Sub- Retail Water Agency Newport- Inglewood Peralta Hills Fault Puente HillsFault Fault (1) San Joaquin Hills Fault Whittier Fault (1) Brea/ Brea •••• *0 La Habra La Habra ,,,, 0 Anaheim „ Buena Park East Oran e CWD • Fountain Valle Fullerton „ 0 Garden Grove Golden State -East •• ,• „ Golden State- Plac.NL ,,, *0 Golden State -West OC • • • OCWD _Huntington Beach , Basin Irvine Ranch WD • •• • La Palma , Mesa WD • , Newport Beach • , Orange , Santa Ana Seal Beach • 0 Serrano WD Tustin , Westminster Yorba Linda WD EI Toro WD • •• • • •• ,. •• La una Beach CWD ,,, ••• Moulton Niguel •••• ,,, 000 South San Clemente • • , • . • OC San Juan Capistrano •• • Santa Margarita WD *00 0000 South Coast WD • • • 0'0 • SDCWA San Onofre ••• .•• .•• ••• ,,, Trabuco Canyon WD • ,,, ovu— mvvuuu s eartnquaxe outage assessment as descnbed m Section 4.4.2.1. (1) In these scenarios, it is assumed that water from other MET treatment plants is not available to Orange County. 1 -February -2012 0ASharedtWER0C1Hazmit12011 PlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 201142 RevisionlSection 4 HM.dac 4-61 SECTION FOUR Risk Assessment 4.4.2.3 Economic Impacts from Water Shortages MWDOC and the Orange County Business Council (OCBC-) analyzed the impacts of water shortages for both short-term emergency situations and for longer-term drought situations. "Determining the Value of Water Supply Reliability in Orange County California" was published in September 2003. The findings from the study are included in Appendix A. Use of the data provides a basis for -valuing the benefits of mitigation projects that reduce shortages. Cost impact evaluations were run for the three regions of Orange County (Brea/La Habra, OCWD, South Orange County) under the following scenarios: Emergency Shortages: 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% for durations of 10, 20, 30 and 60 days. Drought Shortages: 5% and 20%, for durations of one, two and three years. The loss estimation values performed via the GIS system (Section 4.4) did not include the economic impacts due to business losses and residential inconveniences from suffering shortages. It is expected that specific proposals submitted to FEMA for funding will include these estimates, as they can be considerable. For example, a 10 -day shortage of 80% in South Orange County will involve business impacts of $238 million and residential impacts of $55 million for a total impact of $293 million in 2002 dollars. An 80% shortage can easily occur in South Orange County in the event one of the major fault lines experiences a major earthquake that could disrupt the Diemer Filtration Plant (single source of treated imported water to South Orange County) or the two main pipelines that deliver the water to South Orange County. 4.4.3 At Risk Populations At -risk populations were addressed in the Orange County HMP and the HMWG anticipates those same populations would be at risk by hazards that affect water and wastewater infrastructure. However, individuals working within the facilities (i.e. administrative buildings, wastewater treatment plants) that are found to be at risk from specific hazards would be at risk if a disaster occurred during working hours. Land use was analyzed as a component of the Orange County HMP. The PWU in the Orange County Water and Wastewater Multi -Jurisdictional HMP took land use patterns into consideration in developing their goals and objectives for mitigating hazards within their jurisdictions. 4.4.5 Analysis of Development Trends Development trends were analyzed as a component of the Orange County HMP developed by the County and participating cities, The PWUs in the MWDOC HMP took these development trends into consideration in developing their goals and objectives for mitigating hazards within their jurisdictions. 4.5 MULTI -JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSMENT It should be noted that in 2007 individual risk assessment maps were completed for each of the 19 PWUs districts as well as MWDOC. Hazard profile maps were created at a 1:24,000 scale. Critical facility 1 -February -2012 O'\SharedkWEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Rem.oMSecUon 6 HMAoc 4-62 Risk Assessment information, infrastructure and hazard areas for each of the jurisdictions were reviewed for the 2012 update with respect to the Hazard maps. Jurisdictional HMWG leads worked within their Planning teams to review damage and identify their jurisdictional Goals, Objectives, and Mitigation Measures. Due to concern for sensitivity of information depicted on these localized maps, only the County -scale maps are included in the Plan. 4.5.1 Data Limitations It should be noted that the analysis presented here is based upon "best available data". See Appendix B for a complete listing of sources and their unique data limitations (if any). Data used in updates to this plan should be reassessed upon each review period to incorporate new or more accurate data if/when possible. 1 -February -2012 0AShared\WER0CtHazmitQ0I I PlanUpdatekHazrntt Plan 2011-12 Rewsion%ecfion 4 HM.doc 4 -63 Table 4.4.2-1 Unit Replacement Costs of Facilities $1,000's(l) Risk Assessment Abbreviation Name Replacement Cost ($1,000's) WST Water Storage Tank $20,000 RES Reservoir (with a dam) $50,000 WTP Water Treatment Plant (Diemer Filtration Plant) $350,000 WTP Water Treatment Plant by retail agency $10,000 PS Pump Station (South County Pump Station) $35,000 PS Retail Water Agency Pump Station $2,000 PRS Pressure Reducing Station (MET facility) $52,000 PRS Pressure Reducing Station for retail agency $300 EIT Emergency Interties $300 SC Service Connector $2,000 ADM Administration (large administration building) $30,000 LS Wastewater Pump Station/Lift Station by OCSD/SOCWA $4,000 LS Wastewater Pump Station/Lift Station by retail agency $1,000 WWTP Wastewater Water Treatment Plant $30,000 WELL Well $3,500 PP Power Plant (MET Yorba Linda Power Plant) $12,000 uaacu 66 11tv, 111yllubt uust wr cypicai Taciiiry irom among the PVVUS'facility values submitted. These results are conservatively high replacement costs for some retail agencies. 1 -February -2012 OAShared\WERO0H.azrnitX20j I PianUpdateMazrnit Plan 2011-12 ReOsion\Section 4 HM.doc 4-64 I'm I coo lueld WOUPO)i I$IeM o — 0 — o — c — o — 0 — - 0 - o - c - - - - - - - o— - - - - - - - - - - o- - --- — al{ladid we,;skS jaWM opelod o> o o n o — — o — 0 — - — - — -- — - — - — - — — — - — - — — SI!OAJOSO}JpWe(] - - - - - - - - o- - $110M - o- — - - - — - — - — - — - — — — — — - — - — — — — — o- — — - - suoRels IPI Jamas suo!pauuo 0 Phin mm 4UL'Id UOPWel0ab Alem / Jalemalsem — - - — — — - - — — - - - — - - auiladi d WO)SAS A)Iemalsft sq!mpej gaunaluleV4 - - — - - - - — — — - - — SUO!139UUOO 00!NaS alqelOd 4: CS N SIMPAH a!PRIUI A3ue6JRW3 0 z P Ln X suolloguUO3 Jalem POIJOCWI - - -- - - - — - - - — - - Uql8lS 6UIOVG�j alnssald �2 Su4.4e15 dwnd — zz fuel 96ejolS laleM — - - - -- �2 A-:� au!ladi wglsAS jejuni 9jqeiod �2 7-t j lueld luawleall JaleM — - - ,- - — - - - - - — - - 6 sj!o/uaSa8/swe(] — — — — — — — — — -- sliam ginjonjiseilul/4.1mej 1-5 :v'-; 5 i5 9 3: . i5 -t-;5 Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 O 0 o o q o a N o o care N a o 113 0 0 cri o 1 o 0 0, 0, 0� 01 0 b O 01 0 0 01 01 o o o 6 O 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 o - 0 o o o o o o 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0101, 0 010 0 0 to 6. O 0 0 01 O O 0 0 0 0 0 o olo 0 0 .1. O o o 0 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 6 O 0 0 01 01 O oi 0 01 0 0 o o .1 01 01 0 1 01 01 0 0 0 0� 0 0 01 0 0 0 '1 a 01 o Ui 'i 0 0 01 -1, oil 0 01 0 NI o ti is 01 O 0 2 cc < o 0 0 A Iz- CL 'n cc a, O 0 v m .L d v L �' 'R O a W c w 0 4 L F V C .,y C C W u .� .� v 0 �' 0 `c a 8 �p U6> M ar O O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t9 fR ER iH b3 Hi ih ID 9 1? q O O a O o o o o o 0 0 LC 0 0 0 0 O 0 010 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ]o 0 0 0 0 ol 0 cn z LU L. 0 0 u2j m lul 0 2 2 2 z 0 0 0 In 0 (n U) 1 3'o q al LU � a, w w < I I — — — — - — — — — — — — — - — - - — — to — — q );j , 0M 0 0 3 0 — O m 0 0 qo ol� C . c� M oq N ll) 0 q 0 1 -a � KY �, O O o C 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 fY 0 010 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O a 0 M O 0 N a 0 N C 0 N 0 0 E7 0 O 0 l 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CIO 0 0 0 a 0 0 01 01 0 0 –1 CI 0 ol Ol 0 N .1 al a o a a qg 0-0 0 0 –10 Or 6 N 0 0 O 0 ol 0 0. 01 0.. 0 0 Cl 0 0 IS 0 0 0 0, 0, 0 0 0 to 1 1 0 010 0 0 010 0 0 - N –101M o 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 '10 I 0 0 010 fit 0 0 0 0 0101.10 O 0 010 010 010 0 0 0 01010 0 01 01 Ti Clmmo-'322�z000wo m Lu 0 Z E 0 a a z- o 0 w 0 w 8 H U 9 F ti O Vf do too 0 0 —0 0 ti T-0 O —5 —C, —0 o 0 o ol 0 ra O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 CIO 0-0 w z 0 0 1 0 uj 0 - 2 t C3 O ol r 19 W M 7 Ini O> Off. 1-1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - q o O O 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 .10 01 O O 01 01 01 O 0 0 Ji N O O a O O0 . . . 0 0 01 0, 01 O 0 01 01 01 O0-0 CJ O 01010,0 0 0101010 0 0 01 0--ONOO 110 In -1 01 M ID 0 01 ID 0 0 "1 a o p 0 0 0-0-0 C, 101-001]00u 00 0 0 ay w z c 0 E 0- win U) a- W (n < In Of t 0 Z 0 m Lu 'r,< I 0 cli od - to - - YA - - - — - - - c c o C5 0 0 01 0 a 5 4 6 qj c:i 6 6 6 C; 0 C5 6 Nd ro ci 6 O -N rr 0O 0 0 0 0 o r. c 01 c - c a 0 0 9 1 l T 9. 01 CL a 00 0 OU 0 00 O O 0 O O p 6-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-000000 '10 0 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 o Ol 0 01 OF _0 O 0 6 a 0 6 0 0 o O 0 0-0 O 0 it'i 0 O—OT 0 0 .1 —0-0 0 0 0 Ol 0 a O 0 C-01 Ol O Ol Ol O 0-0 O 0 O 0 0 0-- 1. O c a N a 4 p O 3-0 O Ij 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OFT m 0 0 0 0 61 O m q o C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 —'1—' 7 IT 1 Ol -1 .1 O-0—. UJ U 4t03: "S O 2 A Co < Iz In Of t 0 Z 0 m Lu 'r,< I 0 A 0 \aCL 6y$ U) ly t o M LU U) 6-1 P Al SE MNI lot O. — — - — — — — - — - - — — — — — — - -- q 0 09 0 0 0 d o o 0 0 0 0 g 0 - 08 06 819810s-""� 6 C5 6 0 I 9 � I C? ol ol 0 0 0 a 01.1 0 0 0 o a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o cc cc 0 ol 0 0 0 0-0— 0 0 01 0 01 0 T 0o 01 0 01 0 01 01 0 o 0 0 0 0---o l ol 0 ol OT—Ot 0 Vi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 0 U} ca co 000000 —0 o 0 o d O o 0 w T TFF rz z maai 03 Lw -U 0, z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 c ff C I U) ly t o M LU U) 6-1 P Al SE qj 0 v M a prop m 1n o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 q M c1 N W 6 o "i ol of o olo o o o o o ow o o o o o o o o o o o 3 o 3-3-3 O o o o o til O O o o o o o o o o—o o o o 6 ti o ol ol o o o ololo o o o o o o o o 0 o o ol al o 0 of o o ol ol ol o o ol o ol o ol ol o a o—o—o O O o o ol o I o I a -1 of of ol o U1 o -1 - o o o o o. o o . a a o o o c o olo . olc --o oa o o o l N o o ol o o olo o o o o o T ol ol o 0 0 o ol olol,, o ol ml o. o o o ol ol o o o -I o F- o o N—o _0 --3-5 o 0 o O N al .1 o a N O O O N a Q o N a Nl a o i� EL 4f 0 0 pz� co z 0 0 O in ai u) w 0 Lu Lu 0 � 1 3: fL w V) < O U) M < Iq li 0 �li ! "! q 4 - — - — - - — - — N N — — — — — — - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 Oo 0 0 6 6 c6 0 0 0 Ni I Oi 0 0 0 Ol Ol 0 0- 0 Ol Ol 0 0. 0 Ol 0 0. 0. 0 - - - Ol 0, 0 0 do I 0 olO 0 01010 0 O 010 0 0 a 0 a 0 010 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 O a O O O O O O o 0 S 0 OO O b O O O 4 O O p O O O O O O 0 0 a 0 0l O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 010 4 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 Ol Ol 0 Ol o 0, Ol 0 OO a. l Ol 0 01 I 0 0 0 01 01 0 O O Ol Ol 0. 0 0 Ol 0 4 0 Ol o Ol 0 o al 0 Ol 0 0. Ol a 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 —1 0 01 O N O 01 01 0 01 01 01 C O 01 —1 01 01 M Ol Ol 0 0 0 0 0 clolV 0 0 01]01V 0 0 0 0 3: 0 0 O O d 0 O O O O O O O O 0, C, 0 0 0 Of 0 0 Ol Ol 01 0 0 - co XT 0 0 0 vs cn 0 w U) M < ? 91 -i — — — — — — — — - — — - - O Q5 q q q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O to O O 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 O 0 010 o O 0 0 0 0 S S —S 3 0 0 0 0 wO O 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 CJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 —0-0-0-0-3 b o 0 0 0 01 o o o 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 10 0 0 3 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 0 010 010 0 0 0 0 0. o 0 'D —0 o o 0 0 0 rn 6 O O O O O O O O O o O O O O 6 O T -o —0 T —0 0 O O a 0 0 0 ol 6 ol o o ol S al -1 .1 0 01 01 C) < c E 0 , � v 3: 8 o W n z 0 0 V) I LU W 0 01 1 V) �t 3: >- O I 4j d q I [I bli Table 4.4.2-15 Moderate to Extreme EarthquakO) Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste Water Line by Jurisdiction Moderate Earthquake High Earthquake Extreme Earthquake JURISDICTION 1 7 Buena Park 139.67 0 -0 93.47 0 0 0 El Toro WD 8.64 9.73 0 0 0 Garden Grove 272.97 1.2 7 34.87 - 0 - 0t La Habra 0 0 6.43 n 0 13.25 0 Laguna Beach WD 0 0 16.73 -0 -0 0 MESA 0 --46.34 0 32E.8 0 -0 -0 MWDOC 0 -0-0 43.08 0 0 0 MNWD 30.63 .88 - 0 0 Newport Beach 0 061.60 37-29 3.27 2.24 OCSD 0 2870 -71.59 - - ---�51-88 -- 0 9.72 OCWD 0 -0 --T6 79 -0 0 Orange 310.00 0 158.59 0 0 0 SMWD 103.69 12.83 4.07 0-0 0 SCWD 018 0 25,92 0 -0 -0 Serrano 0.28 0 25.92 0 0 - 0 - 0 SOCWA 0 12.14 0 25,64 0 0 Trabuco 26.66 0 0.3 0 0 0 Tustin 183.71 0 11.79 -0 0 0 Westminster 45.23 0 210.64 0 0 0 Yorba Linda WD 0 --55.03 0 -0 18.09 - 6-01 �3-70 --- 4.71 JOINT --46.34 -0 --68,27 0 -0 0 MET (1) Moderate high and extra-. earth 1, , ---- 4308 1 0 1 0 1 - Ll respectively, 1 4-- . even defined as having peak ground accelerations of 0,5 to 0.6g, 0,6 to 0.8g and 0.8 to 1.2g, (2) Based on the highest cost for typical facility from among the PWUs' facility values submitted. These results are conservatively high replacement costs for some retail agencies. Pipeline is measured in miles and includes 12" and larger pipes with some exceptions. Abbreviation Key PWL Miles of Potable Water Line WWL Miles of Wastewater or Recycled Water Line I -February -2012 O:XSharedkWEROCNHazmit12011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisjontSe'�fio, 4 HMAOC 4-78 t 403�10' Table 4.4.2-16 Flood: 100 -Year and 500 -Year Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste Water Line by Jurisdiction JURISDICTION Flood -100 Year Flood 500 Year PWL WWL PWL WWL Buena Park 2.94 0 198.96 243.17 El Toro WD 0.83 0 0.16 0 Garden Grove 14.07 64.67 44.16 0 La Habra 0.34 0 0.75 0 Laguna Beach WD 0A3 0 0.10 0 MESA 8.81 0 2.24 0 MWDOC 0 7.21 36.30 0 MNWD 3.52 0 2.17 0 Newport Beach 10.1 9.61 5.83 4.50 OCSD 0 10.89 0 196.15 OCWD 0 47.89 0 11.07 Orange 29.26 0 103.31 0 SMWD 5.80 0.55 0A7 0 SCWD 1.09 0 0.57 0 Serrano 1.09 0 0.57 0 SOCWA 0 8.38 0 4.96 Trabuco 1.32 0 0.23 0 Tustin 2.07 0 6155 0 Westminster 72.66 0 18171 0 Yorba Linda WD 3.54 0.87 6.52 0.60 JOINT 0 9.56 15.55 0 MET 1 0 7.21 36.30 0 k , t5asea on me nignest cost Tor typical tacility trom among the PWUs'facility values submitted. These results are conservatively high replacement costs for some retail agencies. (2) Pipeline is measured in miles and includes 12' and larger pipes with some exceptions. Abbreviation Key PWL Miles of Potable Water Line WWL Miles of Wastewater or Recycled Water Line 1 -February -2012 0AShared\WER0C\Hazrni',A201 I PlanUpdateiHazrntt Plan 2011-12 Re\fisionkSection 4 HM,doc 4-79 M41 Table 4.4.2-17 Landslide Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste Water Line by Jurisdiction JURISDICTION Landslide PWL WWL Buena Park 0.10 0 El Toro WD 0.94 0 Garden Grove 0 0 La Habra 0.37 0 Laguna Beach WD 4.55 0 MESA 0.15 0 MWIDOC 11.87 0 MNWD 25.16 0 Newport Beach 2.07 2.79 OCSD 0 5.96 OCWD 0 0.24 Orange 30.60 0 SMWD 2273 2.66 SCWD 3.45 0 Serrano 3.45 0 SOCWA 0 622 Trabuco 3.70 0 Tustin 0.25 0 Westminster 0.09 0 Yorba Linda WD 12.60 0.35 JOINT 11.90 0 MET 11.87 0 (1) Pipeline is measured in miles and includes 12' and larger pipes with some exceptions. Abbreviation Key PWL Miles of Potable Water Line WWIL Miles of Wastewater or Recycled Water Line I -February-2012 0:NShared\WER0C\HazmitQ01I PlanUpdatell-lamit Plan 2011 -12 RevisionkSection 4 HM,doc 4-80 M41 Table 4.4.2-18 Moderate to Very High Liquefaction Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste Water Line by Jurisdiction JURISDICTION Moderate Liquefaction High Liquefaction Very High Liquefaction PWL WWL PWL WWL PWL WWL Buena Park 44.40 0 175.90 0 0 0 El Toro WD 0 0 0 0 0 0 Garden Grove 23.73 129.28 17.56 84.72 0 0 La Habra 0 0 0 0 0 0 Laguna Beach WD 0 0 0 0 0 0 MESA 0 0 8.34 0 0 0 MWIDOC 21.32 0 10.77 0 0.37 0 MNWD 0 0 0 0 0 0 Newport Beach 0 0 6.85 0A1 0 0 OCSD 0 141.27 0 213.10 0 12.98 OCWD 0 4.95 0 41.46 0 1.54 Orange 216.05 0 20.77 0 0 0 SMWD 8.66 3.27 0 0 0 0 SCWD 0 0 0 0 0 0 Serrano 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOCWA 0 0 0 1.68 0 0 Trabuco 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tustin 76.48 0 61.21 0 0 0 Westminster 48.33 0 207.54 0 0 0 Yorba Linda WD 0 0 9.15 0.13 0 0 JOINT 18.29 0 14.81 0 1.75 0 MET 21.32 0 10.77 0 0.37 0 (1) Pipeline is measured in miles and includes 12" and larger pipes with some exceptions, Abbreviation Key PWL Miles of Potable Water Line WWL Miles of Wastewater or Recycled Water Line I -February -2012 0:1,Shared\WEROC1Hazmit12OIIPlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Secdon 4 Wdoc 4-81 Table 4.4.2-19 Low to Extreme Wildlife/Structure Fire Inventory of Potable Water Line and Waste Water Line by Jurisdiction Miles IJURISDICTION Low Wildlife/Structure Fire PWL WWL High Wildlife Structure Fire PWL WWL Extreme Wildlife/Structure Fire PWL WWL Buena Park 5.51 0 0 0 0 0 El Toro WD 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 Garden Grove 0.87 3.83 0 0 0 0 La Habra 0.31 0 0 0 0 0 Laguna Beach WD 0.30 0 1.31 0 0.01 0 2.79 0 0.08 0 0 0 MWDOC 15.79 0 9.42 0 0.25 0 1MESA MNWD 9.14 0 1.25 0 0.20 0 Newport Beach 3.26 5.88 0.10 0.57 0 0 UCSD0 24.59 0 1.30 0 0 OCWD 0 14.98 0 0,14 0 0 Orange 12.34 0 107 0 0 0 Santa Marqarita 2164 5.03 5.20 1.46 0.32 0A6 SCWD 0.19 0 0.24 0 0 0 Serrano 0.19 0 024 0 0 0 SOCWA 0 4.16 0 3.17 0 0 Trabuccl 2.70 0 0.93 0 1.33 0 Tustin 1.55 0 0 0 0 0 Westminster 5.70 0 0 0 0 0 Yorba Linda WD 8.84 0.59 5.11 0.23 0.02 0 JOINT 22.62 0 7.58 0 0.12 0 MET 15.76 0 9.42 0 0.25 0 Cil Pipeline is measured in miles and includes 12" and larger pipes with some exceptions. (2) Tustin disagrees with the Hazus methodology assessment of Wildfire& building fire threats within the City of Tustin and surrounding unincorporated water service areas, Abbreviation Key PWL Miles of Potable Water Line WWL Miles of Wastewater or Recycled Water Line 1 -February -2012 O:\Shared\VJEROG1Hazmit\2011 PlanUpdateNazrnit Plan 2011-12 ReAfision\Section 4 HM.doc 4-82 2 � g !*!! §JOm «±ty � - •� a�®x�� c �:r>;• /N. / \\}i ....... .. . !!!! G 6 :.� .. •!i!G} !_!!!: § ;!! � \ ;I;. ......... ~ � - U � � . � k Q « ±»\� .: » !�•* 7 \ / »%2 ® :« (\ON / /!I � # � {/§; , \ : » .,;, � � . . . . . ��2°� k / k {)\} � . � >:,a«� _®.�? U � a ƒ \. � ^ . � . w42»©-\ � ~ � ..� � y� \� \ \< �� \{}\ � m . � :\ ? 2 ®� �©G©<�°: °� � � ©� 2 \ i; ! )!!! : � . 7 Q «y22:»«<� � � »2 \ - .».rte � � v � ` _ � � !r! . - `��`~ ~ ~� � ^ 2 m ,<a° y O § :»`«�«� � ��/ /\ =;r!», :;:,1.. !!. . , �`! �\\§!� :,m » � , . . ......... / \ \(` � � � � � � � ,_,:,,. (y �� a srT i1 < r iqj a a ..+ ON ^GE t !{}{ Mali (\ON Pxux'i txFt P/Pze[{ rmt7asfanbg spxulg4{$$9LS1L3Fi�t5/dnbt� PX l"It P—N Po" � 1 � � y �a �- w a� 1-14 x�, -� v✓. k~ ' ;i `.. r z CL h 4 6 0 Z g i e} CS O „s 43Lu tn a z�c z _ MU-1 � g N f to a Q p y 5 J � g � � r � y �tc-LWSL aP.p+Vunf spx+try£Lt45GLLi1ELt�e!G fad-_:& SECTION FIVE General Overview of Assets, Goals and Objectives • 5 GENERAL • OF ASSETS, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 5.1 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN Planning is the cornerstone to successful hazard mitigation efforts. Citizens, local government, and private interests with proactive policies can reduce the damages and impacts to the man-made environment in harms way. Benefits realized by implementing hazard mitigation measures include: • Saving lives by removing people from hazard prone situations. • Limiting property damage by regulating development in hazard areas. • Reducing economic impacts by minimizing outages of essential services during and after these events. • Saving money for taxpayers by reducing the need for services during a disaster. • Speeding disaster recovery and post -disaster relief funds. • Demonstrating a strong commitment to the health and safety of the community. Relocating people, institutions, and businesses from hazard prone areas saves property and lives. Removal or protection of the structures means that there is less to pay for disaster recovery or for services during an event. Having alternative service plans for essential services, such as water, protects structures from fire and allows residents and businesses to continue functioning or to restore normal functions quicker following a disaster. Post -event, recovery crews will have less to do because there will be less damage. Implementation of these measures speeds the overall recovery process. 5.1.1 Develop Mitigation Goals and Objectives Mitigation goals are defined as general guidelines explaining what each jurisdiction wants to achieve in terms of hazard and loss prevention. Goal statements are typically long-range, policy -oriented statements representing jurisdiction -wide visions. Objectives are statements that detail how each jurisdiction's goals will be achieved, and typically define strategies or implementation steps to attain identified goals. Other important inputs to the development of jurisdiction -level goals and objectives include performing reviews of existing local plans, policy documents, and regulations for consistency and complementary goals, as well as soliciting input from the public. Each jurisdiction reviewed the Risk Assessment presented in Section 4 and utilized the information as a guideline for developing mitigation goals and objectives. Other information was considered, especially local knowledge of the risks and mitigation options. Jurisdictional leads then met with their individual LRP to identify appropriate jurisdiction -level goals, objectives, and mitigation action items. Section 5 of the Plan incorporates each of the twenty (20) PWUs: 1) mitigation goals and objectives, 2) mitigation actions (listed in priority order), 3) an implementation plan, and 4) documentation of the mitigation planning process. Each of these steps is described below. u.ionareaivvtKU',kHazrnitIZO11PIanUpdatelHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 5 HMAOC �1-February-2012 5-1 SECTION FIVE General overview of Assets, Goals and Objectives Mitigation actions that address the goals and objectives developed in the previous step were identified, evaluated, and prioritized. These actions form the core of the mitigation plan. Jurisdictions conducted a capabilities assessment, reviewing existing local plans, policies and regulations for any other capabilities relevant to hazard mitigation planning. An analysis of their capability to carry out these implementation measures with an eye toward hazard and loss prevention was conducted. The capabilities assessment required an inventory of each jurisdiction's legal, administrative, fiscal and technical capacities to support hazard mitigation planning. After completion of the capabilities assessment, each jurisdiction evaluated and prioritized their proposed mitigations. The methodology that jurisdictions used to identify, evaluate, and prioritize mitigation actions based on existing local conditions, is the STAPLEE technique highlighted in FEMA's Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3). Using this method each jurisdiction considered the Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental (STAPLEE) opportunities and constraints of implementing a particular mitigation action: 0 Social Criteria — This includes community consensus and acceptability of implementation of the plan without disenfranchisement of a particular segment of the community. During the process for adoption of the plan, community meetings were held, notices were published and posted on websites and the final approval from each jurisdiction took place in a public setting. Based on these meetings the local support for hazard mitigation projects was high. • Technical criteria — This addresses the feasibility of projects and actions and the technical capacity of each PWU for implementation of projects. This criterion is evaluated for each PWU in Section Five in a specific table that considers the Administrative and Technical Capability. • Administrative criteria — The Administrative capacity for implementing projects is evaluated for each PWU in Section Five in a specific table that considers the Administrative and Technical Capability. 0 Political criteria — This refers to having political support from stakeholders for moving forward with projects. The political support needed for implementation of projects is typically generated by the staff and governing body of the entity involved in working with stakeholders. During preparation of the Plan political support was evident at several key junctures: during two community meetings, in presentation of the concept to multiple county wide emergency groups, and during the approval of the plan by each governing board of the PWU. o Leizal criteria — This covers whether or not the local entity has the legal authority to implement identified goals and actions. This was specifically covered in Section Five for each entity in a specific table that considers the Legal and Regulatory Capability. a Economic criteria — Economic criteria should take into consideration the cost-effectiveness of an action and the benefits derived from the project. This is a primary motivation for implementing mitigation projects at water and wastewater utilities. Past disasters have shown the cost -benefit of mitigating water utilities against identifiable hazards. For example, several years ago the cold weather system that impacted a majority of the United States resulted in pipeline breaks across the State of California. Those ruptures primarily occurred on a specific type of pipeline that has been gradually phased out of use in California. The replacement of this type of pipeline prior to u:ibnarecilvvt:HC)(;',Hazmft\2011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionNsection 5 HM.doc I -February-2012 5-2 SECTION FIVE General Overview of Assets, G081S and Objectives the cold front could have not only prevented the cost of pipeline breaks, but also costs related to flooding, landslides, loss of water supply, other secondary affects of the broken pipelines. • MWDOC conducted a study in 2004 that identified business loss estimates based on water system outages of different lengths of time (Section 4.4.2.3 summarizes the data, with the full study attached as Appendix A). An example of information found in the study shows that a 10 -day 80% reduction in water to South Orange County would result in a financial impact of $293 million dollars to both businesses and residents alike. Longer outages during many disaster situations are probable and would be proportionally more devastating. Each affected agency would share in the economic impacts based on its mix of business and residential customers. • In addition to the consideration of the secondary costs of response, business loss impacts, and recovery due to loss of water service, the PW also considered the Loss Estimation Tables presented in Section 4 of Plan. The final prioritization that was completed by each agency depended on these underlying economic premises combined with identification of facilities critical to continued operations of the system. Much of this effort was completed with informal cost -benefit analysis based on the knowledge and expertise of the participants (many of them certified operators, water quality experts, or engineers), previous planning documents, and the concepts identified above. • Environmental criteria — Most of the projects included in the plan have only short-term environmental impacts that would occur during the construction phase and can mostly be mitigated to some degree. A more important aspect is that the environment will benefit from having a working water and wastewater system (especially in preventing potential spills or untreated wastewater discharges). The capacity for each entity to deal with the regulatory aspects of implementing the projects was reviewed for each agency in Section Five. This ensures that full regulatory compliance for each project being implemented can be attained. This STAPLEE review of hazards and potential mitigation actions resulted in the current list of acceptable and realistic actions that address the hazards identified as affecting each jurisdiction (table below with hazards that do not pose a threat indicated by an "N"). In consideration of the fact that water and waste -water services fulfill a basic human need that must be continued to protect public health and safety, the goals and objectives of each PWU were determined to be of equal priority. Actions identified within each Goal and Objective was then listed in priority order (highest priority first within each objective). Goals are numbered for reference, Objectives are identified by letter, and then actions are numbered for both reference and priority. Following each set of PWU goals, objectives and actions, there is a table cross-referencing that utility's goals with the identified hazards. 0:1SharedkWEROCkHazmitk2011PianUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionlSection 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-3 to: ao cc a ca CA a um 4D 3: go I ejnl!e:i JOmOd lepajeW snopiezBH z SPJezeH spew-uew U01 poelenbi-I eouaplsqnS puel z z /SI!OS OAlsuedx3 itiOnoia AeGH OwOJlx3 z z z z !weuns.L z z z z z z z z z z OpeujojL z z z z z z Z, z z z z oplispnW OP!Ispuel z z z z z ajnlleq jue.L jo4eM/ejnl!e:i Luea Z e4enbLI:PB3 ejj4 ueqjn /Puelplim z z w1o4slpool:f F— PJezeH c 0 >t 0. Z c 0 m 0 0, 0 R 0 c L) 0 E Fu oQ ca uj 1 0 1 13:1 M -1 M -1 2 101 E 2 1 1c, z I" 0 0 u 1 0 1 m WIMIM 4) 0 o 0 SECTION FIVE Generai overview ot Assets, cesis and Objectives Momr-1 Each jurisdiction will prepare a strategy for implementing the mitigation actions identified in the previous step. The implementation strategies will identify who is responsible for each action, what kind of funding mechanisms and other resources are available or will be pursued, and when the strategies will be completed. Each agency will utilize current approved planning documents that identify specific implementation strategies for capital improvement, risk reduction, system upgrades, and operations, which include details regarding who is responsible for project management, estimated costs, possible funding sources, and timelines for implementation. These plans complement the Hazard Mitigation Plan and include but are not limited to: A. Strategic Plans B. Capital Improvement Plans C. General Plans D. EPA Vulnerability Assessments and Emergency Response Plans E. Asset Management Plans Each jurisdiction determined that the Risk Assessment identified all of the significant hazards that exist for the overall regional planning area. Although certain hazards (e.g. coastal hazards) affect limited jurisdictions, no new or previously unidentified hazards were identified by any of the jurisdictions for inclusion in the jurisdictional -specific elements of this Plan. 5.2 REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS This section of the Plan incorporates the goals, objectives, and actions developed by the HMWG for each jurisdiction as well as the regional planning area as a whole. The Plan includes specific goals, objectives, and mitigation action items that each of the participating jurisdictions developed to help minimize the effects of the specified hazards that potentially affect their jurisdiction. In addition, regional goals, objectives, and actions were identified for the HMWG for both water and wastewater. It is envisioned that the mitigation actions for the most part will be implemented on a jurisdiction -by - jurisdiction basis. MWDOC will provide facilitation, as appropriate, of this process to help reduce duplication of efforts between jurisdictions and to spearhead coordination of initiatives and action items that could be accomplished more efficiently on a regional level. In its role as a regional planning agency, MWDOC will act as lead on water related hazard mitigation projects that are regional in nature, such as projects including projects that cross several jurisdictional boundaries and work planned on behalf of MET. OCSD and SOCWA will take the lead on wastewater related hazard mitigation projects that are regional in nature and within their individual service areas. The Risk Assessment (Section 4) indicates that each participating jurisdiction is susceptible to a variety of potentially serious hazards in the region. The approach to emergency planning in California has been comprehensive in its planning for and preparedness to respond to all hazards utilizing the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and a coordinated Incident Command System. A program managed by MWDOC, the Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County (WEROC), acts 0:1SharedkWEROCkHazmit%2011PIanUpdatekHazmi', Plan 2011-12 ReAsIWSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-5 SECTION FIVE General Overview of Assets, Goals and Objectives as coordination point (Area Command) to support an effective emergency response to major disasters by the thirty four Orange County water and wastewater utilities. WEROC provides services that promote planning and preparedness activities for both the utilities, as well as its own Emergency Operations Center (EOC) staff. WEROC also helps maintain two turn -key EOCs. WEROC receives guidance from a steering committee, which includes representatives from Orange County water utilities, MET, the County of Orange and the California Department of Health Service's Office of Drinking Water. WEROC and its steering committee help ensure water and wastewater utilities remain current with state and national emergency response procedures and plans for potential disasters. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that in addition to having emergency response and emergency preparedness documents, regions should develop and maintain a document outlining measures that can be implemented before a hazard event occurs that would help minimize the damage to life and property. MWDOC has accepted the role of coordinating the development the Hazard Mitigation Plan as a multi jurisdictional plan. All hazard mitigation planning efforts within the region are the responsibility of the jurisdictions. The capabilities of the jurisdictions to perform hazard mitigation planning are detailed in the annex for each jurisdiction, starting with Buena Park in Section 5.6. 5.2.1 Regional Fiscal Resources One of MWDOC's primary roles in coordinating the development of the Plan is to identify and obtain grant funding for preparing and implementing certain aspects of the Plan. This is consistent with WEROC's role, as a program managed by MWDOC, for hazard mitigation and preparedness. MWDOC applied for and received a grant from FEMA for the development and implementation of the Multi - Jurisdictional HMP in 2007. WEROC has received other grants to improve the Emergency Operations Centers and to secure water trailers for distribution of drinking water during disasters and will continue to provide guidance to the PWU with hazard mitigation project grant applications and their implementation. Additional fiscal capabilities of the jurisdictions to implement a hazard mitigation project are detailed in their individual write-ups. 5.2.2 Joint Facilities and MET Loss Calculations The following Tables 5.2.2-1 and 5.2.2-2 present the Joint Facilities and MET loss calculations determined via the GIS loss analysis. These are defined as follows: Joint Facilities are defined as those regional facilities owned by one or more local agencies, including situations in which there is partial ownership by MET. These facilities are generally pipelines that were constructed under a Joint Powers Authority with investments made by several agencies. This also includes the East Orange County Feeder No. 2 and the South County Pipe I line, which include both local ownership and ownership by MET. The El Toro R-6 Reservoir is considered a Joint Facility since it serves ETWD, SMWD and MNWD. MET Facilities are defined as those facilities owned 100% by MET, which treat water in Orange County or convey water in Orange County. The facilities include the Diemer Treatment Plant, 01SharedXWER0G1Hazrn!t1201 I PlanUpdate\Hazrn1t Plan 2011-12 Revision\Sectlon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-6 SECTION FIVE General Overview of Assets, Goals and Objectives the Lower Feeder, Allen McColloch Pipeline, the Orange County Reservoir, MET power plants and the South County Pump Station. The Regional Loss calculations do not include the residential, business or landscape costs of short term emergency or longer term drought shortages as outlined by MWDOC in Section 4. Therefore, the values noted may be understated. We have left the detailed calculation and application of these additional loss values up to each agency to work out to determine their priority needs and mitigation actions. 5.3 REGIONAL GOALS AND • FOR HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING FOR WATER The regional goals and objectives for hazard mitigation planning for water in Orange County can be broken into the following areas: Goal 1: Evaluation of Existing Water System Vulnerability. Goal 2: Emergency Operations and Response Planning. Goal 3: Build New Storage, Regional Interconnections, and Local Resources to better respond to emergency situations. Goal 4: Monitor and Maintain Water Quality. Goal 5: Monitor and Maintain Water System Security. Each of these is outlined in more detail below. Goal 1: Evaluation of Existing Water System Vulnerability — involves evaluations to determine the areas of risk to the continuation of delivery of water in the event of a disaster situation, evaluation of methods to facilitate recovery or to provide alternate delivery systems during and following a disaster. (All Hazard). A. Work with those responsible for importing our water into the region to evaluate the reliability and recovery time of the systems. B. Evaluate the reliability and flexibility of the regional and local water delivery systems within Orange County. C. Identify vulnerable locations for pipeline outages and develop systems to protect those areas, if feasible, or develop systems to allow delivery of water to customers via alternative systems. Goal 2: Emergency Operations and Response Planning — involves planning exercises and keeping the Emergency Operations systems in a state of readiness to proceed in the event of a disaster. (All Hazard). A. Maintain and exercise the emergency preparedness plan. 0AShared1WER0C1HazmlA201 I PlanUpdate\Hamit Plan 2011-12 RevisionlSection 5 Hkdoc 1 -February -2012 WA SECTION FIVE General Overview of Assets, Goals and Objectives B. Improve the emergency response system, C. Improve on the coordination and operational flexibility to reroute water supplies, D. Keep current on earthquake and other hazards. GOAL 3: Build New Storage, Regional Interconnections, and Local Resources —involves construction or implementation of systems to improve emergency response or alternative systems of delivery. A. Support MET proceeding with reliability improvements to the Diemer Filtration Plant. B. Support MET on assuring response efforts for pipeline failures. C. Improve the ability to transfer water from the OCWD service area to areas of need. D. Develop the ability to control irrigation on a regional basis to help reduce emergency water needs. E. Develop additional local resources to improve system reliability. F. Build new regional storage to help serve emergency needs and system reliability. G. Build new regional interconnections to serve emergency needs, H. Strengthen portions of the systems deemed to be vulnerable. I. Develop systems to delivery water when other critical systems suffer outages. Goal 4: Monitor and Maintain Water Quality — involves monitoring of water quality constituents to ensure safe drinking water supplies. (TS, CO, DF, DH, EQ, LQ, ES, FS, LM, LS, HC). A. Monitor quality and develop an alert system to man -induced water contamination. B. Monitor and protect against groundwater contamination, C. Provide clean-up response when necessary. Goal 5: Monitor and Maintain Water System Security — Involves the use of deterrent or early warning systems to ensure the integrity of the water systems. (CO, DF, HC). A. Deter access to key facilities. B. Look into early warning system for water quality alerts to contaminants that might have been intentionally introduced into the system, C. Maintain GIS mapping system of assets and hazards and delivery systems. U18haredkWER0CkHaztnjt1201 lPlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 ReVision\Sectlon 5 HKdoc 5-8 SECTION FIVE General Overview of Assets, Goals and Objectives Table 5.5-1 Regional Wastewater — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) 5.4 REGIONAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING FOR WASTEWATER Orange County Sanitation District and the South Orange County Wastewater Authority are the regional wastewater entities for north and south Orange County, respectively. OCSD and SOCWA have the regional facilities, the responsibility and the resources to assist its members with respect to hazard mitigation and response to emergency situations. Following are five major goals for hazard mitigation planning purposes by the regional wastewater entities. The five goals are followed up with detailed objectives and actions: Goal 1: Minimize damages to facilities/infrastructure due to natural disasters. Goal 2: Minimize disruption of service due to hazard -induced outages. Goal 3: Eliminate or minimize wastewater spills and potential contamination of potable supplies. Goal 4: Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and infrastructure due to human -caused hazards. Goal 5: Promote public understanding, support and demand for hazard mitigation. The objectives and actions under each of the five goals are listed below: Goal 1: Minimize damages to facilities/infrastructure due to natural disasters. A. Protect existing assets with the highest vulnerability and greatest service value to the effects of natural disasters. B. Reduce the High Fire Threat to facilities/infrastructure. C. Evaluate impacts to facilities from earthquake, tsunami, winter storm and Prado Dam failure (OCSD only for Prado Dam). Goal 2: Minimize disruption of service due to hazard -induced outages. A. Provide backup system for critical facilities. B. Take the appropriate steps to respond to any emergency that could affect OCSD operations and the community. Goal 3: Eliminate or minimize wastewater spills and potential contamination to potable supplies. O:lSharedXWEROC1Hazmit12011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionXSectlon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-9 SECTION FIVE General Overview of Assets, Goals and Objectives Table 5.5-1 Regional Wastewater — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) A. Protect potable water from contamination. Goal 4: Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and infrastructure due to human -caused hazards. A. Develop a comprehensive approach to reduce damage and loss due to human caused hazards. B. Increase the knowledge of employees and the public of extremely hazardous substance handling procedures and terrorism awareness. Goal 5: Promote public and corporate understanding, support and demand for hazard mitigation. MWDOC, OCSD and SOMA, along with each PWU will update their respective General Plans and Emergency Response Plans with changes that affect both the specific jurisdictions as well as changes that affect the overall, multi jurisdictional planning area. O:kSharedXWEROCXHazmit%2011PIanUpdate%Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revislon\Section 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-10 O � U3 O iH O ffl p NY tp ar fA O Hi p fR d Hi a fA O b3 6 �i-1 d H3 O ao �� o o� �� om a mm� �� <c N••'s wa* �•,, O V O vOi v 0 y _N d rn O en d O O y d O y d d W N C d a sa 01, p� O W a r w � 3�a 3 y O O y S 4 o O 6 p O O y O M � O i - W y K C o Ca O O O i d O ua a y N o +:o d o� 00 oy o� o� oy a� p0 o� oy o� a� a� o� o o� o a� W o O O O O y O O O y O O O y J N si E E $ 3 c xn E 3 _ 3 3 E $ 5 E E IL t tll iii 'tW �EX. i15 W !ll W �a�f :ll lt� m W W B ' v a I I I I m a Y 4w W � 3 M i- d tO M T M W d' O �Y M M M N M tp h p O O a h ss en sv � ss et c» ss ss vs ut � a a o o0 Tfa 0 0 0 00O } tH Gi rA O O OT M cA — W M cn cn yr � w r as w a a � o O' O' M co O O O �• O O O O� O� �r O W cV c N ww M ti o O O� d o o � N 1 Io.i _w m W as vs .sz o O Q O yy, N J M V3 63 b9 Fy 6 O O O� O� O� O� O� O O� O� u jo 'w o w � o 0 lol I'Di I'D101- N 0 o O o o a o o o� O� a d � o d In 4 ur o vs o wa 0 esr w o Q a 101 o a P � o 0 o o o� O� a t o o M w 0 0 0 0 01, o t C, o ol, ol, 0 N j C 0 x- E $ E $.E S. E k E $. E $. E $ E $. E $ E W Ln ' w Z' LZ 6u,o w w ' � ur o w ' u'1 o Ln T T .; -- g .� o E � T � G Vs ti J � General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE 13UENA PARK Goals and Objectives The City of Buena Park (Buena Park) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details. Buena Park Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section (Table 5.6-1). 5.6.1 Capability Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Buena Park's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.6.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of Buena Park are shown in Table 5.6.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Buena Park. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the City's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.6.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Regulatory Tools Local Authority State Authority Other Level Jurisdiction Authority Comments (ordinances, codes, plans) {Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Buena Park (Building Dept) A. Building code Yes Yes Yes OCFA (Fire) AQMD (Air Quality) B. Zoning ordinance Yes No No Buena Park (Planning) C. Subdivision ordinance or Yes No No Buena Park regulations (Building) 0ASharedWER0C`iHazmM201 I PlanUpdate\Hazm it Plan 2011-12 RevislonNSection 5 HM.doc I -February -2012 5-13 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE BUENA PARK Goals and Oblectives Table 5.6.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) Regulatory Tools Local Authority State Other Level (ordinances, codes, plans) (Yes/No) Authority Jurisdiction Authority Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) D. Growth management ordinances "smart Buena Park (Management Plan) (also called growth" or anti- Yes Yes No sprawl programs) County of Orange LAFCO Buena Park (Engineering E. Site plan review requirements Yes Yes Yes Planning) OCFA (Fire) Buena Park (Permits) F. General or comprehensive plan Yes No No Buena Park (Master Plan) G. A capital improvements plan Yes No No Buena Park (CIP Plan) IH An economic development plan Yes No No Buena Park (Master Plan) SEMS 1. An emergency response plan Yes Yes Yes NIMS WEROC Buena Park (EOC) J. A post -disaster recovery plan Yes Yes Yes NIMS Buena Park K. A post -disaster recovery ordinance Yes Yes Yes County of Orange State of California L. Real estate disclosure No Yes No State Real Estate requirements Board N. CA DPH (Security Issues) Yes Yes Yes Vulnerability Assessment State Health 0. Title 22 Potable Water Yes Yes Yes Services Air Quality I AQMD Yes Yes Yes Emergency EPA / VA & ERP Yes Yes Yes Generators I i I Reporting 5.6.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in Buena Park and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Buena Park, as shown in Table 5.6.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific O:kSharedkWEROC1Hazmit12011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevislonlSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 - 5-14 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE BUENA PARK Goals and Objectives resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. Table 5.6.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of Buena Park / Planners & Engineers land development and land management Yes City Hires (Outside Private Consultants) practices B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in City Coordinates With Outside Consultants construction practices related to buildings Yes City Building Dept. (City Inspectors) and/or infrastructure Engineering Dept. (City Engineer & Const. Inspectors) C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding Yes City Coordinates with Outside Consultants of natural and/or human -caused hazards D. Floodplain manager Yes County Of Orange E. Surveyors Yes City Coordinates With Outside Consultants F. Staff with education or expertise to assess the Yes City Staff County of Orange community's vulnerability to hazards WEROC / Staff City Personnel / Engineering Tech. G. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Yes City Coordinates With Outside Consultants H. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the Yes City Coordinates With Cal State Fullerton community I. Emergency manager Yes City Engineer / EOC City Manager / EOC Manager J. Grant writers Yes Engineering Dept. / Assoc. Engineer K. Lab Specialist & Lab Staff No OCWD Clinical Lab. of San Bernardino 5.6.4 Fiscal Capability Table 5.6.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Buena Park such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for 0:1Shared\WEROCiHazmit\2011PlanUpdate%Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionXSWIon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-15 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE BUENA PARK Goals and Objectives new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. Table 5.6.4-1 Fiscal Capability 5.6.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Table 5.6.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) A. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Yes B. Capital improvements project funding Yes C. Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes D. Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes E. Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes Yes F. Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes G. Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes H. Incur debt through private activity bonds Unknown I. Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas Yes 5.6.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Table 5.6.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment 03SharedXWEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdatetHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-16 Programs, Effect on Loss Reduction Plans, Point of Contact Agency Name Policies, Name, Address, Comments (Mission/Function) Regulations, Phone, Email Support Facilitate Hinder Funding, or Practices B.P. / City Hall 6650 Beach Blvd. 1.Building Dept. Buena Park, CA 90622 X 714-562-33636 A. City of Buena Park (Owner) 2.Planning Dept. 714 - 562-3620 X 3.Engineering 714 - 562-3670 X Dept. 4.Manager 714 — 562-3550 X 03SharedXWEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdatetHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-16 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE BUENA PARK Goals and Objectives 5.6.5.1 City of Buena Park Goals Listed below are Buena Park's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. Once developed, City staff presented them to the Buena Park City Council for their approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Buena Park's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. For the City Buena Park, following are five major potential goals for hazard mitigation planning purposes. The five goals are followed up with detailed objectives and actions: Goal 1: Minimize damages to facilities/infrastructure due to natural disasters. A. Protect existing assets with the highest vulnerability and greatest service value to the effects of natural disasters. B. Protect the public water supply from contamination caused by backflow or back - siphonage in the event of an earthquake. C. Protect potable water from contamination 0:\SharedkWEROCiHazmit\2011PIanUpdatekHazmlt Plan 2011-12 RevisiWSection 5 HIVI.doc 1 -February -2012 5-17 Programs, Effect on Loss Reduction Agency Name Plans, Policies, Point of Contact (Mission/Function) Regulations, Name, Address, Comments Funding, or Phone, Email Support Facilitate Hinder Practices I Division Chief Jerry Hunter X B. OCFA / Fire 714-527-0537 2.Battalion Chief 714 - 527 5509 X 5.6.5.1 City of Buena Park Goals Listed below are Buena Park's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. Once developed, City staff presented them to the Buena Park City Council for their approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Buena Park's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. For the City Buena Park, following are five major potential goals for hazard mitigation planning purposes. The five goals are followed up with detailed objectives and actions: Goal 1: Minimize damages to facilities/infrastructure due to natural disasters. A. Protect existing assets with the highest vulnerability and greatest service value to the effects of natural disasters. B. Protect the public water supply from contamination caused by backflow or back - siphonage in the event of an earthquake. C. Protect potable water from contamination 0:\SharedkWEROCiHazmit\2011PIanUpdatekHazmlt Plan 2011-12 RevisiWSection 5 HIVI.doc 1 -February -2012 5-17 SECTION FIVE BUENA PARK General Overview of Assets, Goals and Objectives D. Protect assets from a major Earthquake event. E. Reduce the High Fire Threat to the District facilities/infrastructure. Goal 2: Minimize disruption of service due to hazard induced outages A. Provide backup system for critical facilities. B. Improve response time. Goal 3: Eliminate or minimize wastewater spills Goal 4: Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and infrastructure due to human caused hazards A. Develop a comprehensive approach to reduce damage and loss due to human caused hazards. B. Increase the knowledge of employees and the public of extremely hazardous substance handling procedures and terrorism awareness. Goal 5: Promote public understanding, support and demand for hazard mitigation. A. Educate the public regarding natural and man-made hazards and opportunities for mitigation actions to protect local residents and businesses. B. Promote a partnership between the local, county, state governments to identify, prioritize, and implement mitigation actions. C. Promote hazard mitigation in the business community. D. Use the public media to cover mitigation activities. E, Develop full cooperation with all outside agencies regarding human caused hazards. 0:1SharedkWEROC1Hazmjtt2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionlSection 5 HRdoc 1 -February -2012 5-18 Z 0 Q Pd' w W a Y d CY. Z W D m N � 6 R O W 69 t3 41 :..C6 0 ® N o 0 In d o 0 g N M11) cJ N O o ti O i[i O O 10 SS a Esr » Eds ei E» Ea e3 Ea e3 of Eds ^' v M v r M J N N N W EA E9 fiT b4 ER fPr Edi fH EA fd3 q :.. a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 1 l ut Eds E/3 ss Edr Ea ex E» u> rd> E» ci 0 o 0 o 0 0 o O O o 0 J lo e9 H3 fA Ki VT di ab f$ EH EPr fI} fH N O O O O N 0 0 O N O O O o , O M �O tE: t0 � O 6 EH EA EA fH di fA fdj dH H} di fPr oOO1 1.101 1 H# Eft ER 0 0I 0 O G o 0 0 0 w IC,C,O l I0 rR ff3 (d> fA 0 d3 fR di fA V3 ER r O O O O O U7 0 6 O O O O o N N IC, a Fn EH E2 E» Eli E» ER Ed> bs EA O O a O o O o 0 I O O O p N N N a EFi ea En Edr en E» Efs E» » es :o o 0 0 o a o 0 a o 0 0 0 � r F V} E9 EA fd3 fA mi K} fA K3 64 c 0 0 o 0 0 o o o O � M w I di ER ffl E9 EA fA vs Ef3 fA EA H3 e3 O (h «i &3 H3 63 fA EA 64 F9 H} E!3 (# EdY J C : y— Gi d � N N � N N N x E $. p E E F E o. E �. Lit E S. �_ S. E �5. p E_ » E § E_ u. E_ $ w W l W W W i W W W W X6X LU W W W v LZ v i W J St 6 ro y a m cs o Y n, r ? v � C '✓ OED '6C d � C � O O i"v- v c_ m -o w _ o s g O @ Q O M1 v 6 S N v E x � w v- _ v 4 O m m - � V H � G s� s - w � o c a -q w E s uEn C o � _ = ro 3 M � E v Zs 'ao V ~ R G � J � U 0 W G �J6 a. x T E E T m p m s 0 M ` m C '- v 15 ;c 0 3 y v 3 s m y v E a E � >_ g ^O m o m d d 0 N .� c O = t9 v y`a y E ° a ° o m E ` d a y '6 2 m a T '.. tg m mp mM ag 0 C)F Z C E Z `L` N N N L O O O O G1 d N �� -@C N MO ate.. O. m O E" h O 3 tlP C C1 C ..O43T p V v y •- '6 d '� '6 3° E E m *v.` .G ,o u N sR C T 4 E _ v l5q (.Ti p c m v s a E ..� ._ e. c c n °- "` Ep O w m c 3 Vis+ ¢° N n vvztv a Z m a` a E c4 V � C > o d > N N N w 5 > J µ N c v U Z Z Z d u a c m 3 "^ c c c C q M o E J R N P E s to s o o E E h (07 N N m v Y r -I N g N O E E E E E E E E E E s 1 Z W m F m Q v x x C� G � a � c v 'u 3 'S 6t U m 'v0 N a L a a 0 a a 3' 3 3 m m > z a o u a° ti w o v > E � o c ai v sc c v o 0 p_ u E o a d _ V O u a v i q CL a c Q a E E w — a m _3 ° E v v i° m °c q a o E ti g a a J O' asn ° m 4°7 s E E E :E 0 0 E 2 11, -E t '= t Fa. 0 E M 1 0 nam C- 0 V o F- E O x E 3: E Z z z 0 u c c c 00 a CL M °'7E! o w E E E E E E E E E Qc c c CM c 0 0 C, O E E E E E E E ;Ei E E E E o El E Ell '2 72 72 '2 -2 '2 -2 -e 75 75 E E E ------ E la� x x z a m r �2 72 0 LU 0 m CL C. c :2 'E '5 CL -0 -0 tE 0 ED 41 cr2 w > 2.2 't, .2 t5 0 q 72 > Toro i> 0 �2 t tb B > 0 u CL o Z:i U0 a E 3 E 'ate 7L a A 75 c no E D c o w o 0 o o E t5 0 o a m co V Sl o a. co 0 0 ga a E o > > > E o E G S V E E V E T E 2 E T x x c,a a c c c c cc c c c c o E o E E E E E E E E c .2 c .2 o c o c c c c c tl1 u; o D E, iR i E E E E E E E E i5 E E E E E 2 E 2 E E 'E -2 E a E 75 E E E t E, E z to X x x x co z < lo I o o p o cL 7E 3: o c S > 72 o v E u 'a o c ,:, o Ic Z5 3: Z c o o LL cc i� z 5� a Zb 2 ol c o w c —o c oc c c o E o E 75 c ao o o L E o c u o o c 75 E 15 o E V -2 c o 'T c . z c > E o- o 2 2 c t; m -j6 E o a 2 u mc o u . Q . o tE o o E o s 7F, E 2 o 3: x 75 > > E .c o ,2 E E E a. o 4E, E ol — E Ew .2: c c c t :B cE OD . 2 w c .0 -M w 0 D V .2 w c 0 -F. zC c 2 j m 0 C 0 a > 0 0 0 0 E C, z Z -C -IF al aim 21 2 2bo m E 0 El 0 0 E E 0 E 0 ol 0 2 E 0 0 CL t- w 0 to E 0 E E E E E E P E v E O c 0 c c c c O W E -2 E E E E E .2 .2 E E E E E E N 0 'E 72 'E "E cr 75 -5 75 E m E£ E El co ar 15 400 a 76 NO MT C J, 2 30 >z co 0 - 'Z- 0 ? 4� 0 c W C 0 N a mw z. uo 20 muo b °°c. C- a m 75 c a .2 3: W t5 Qj -16 aPE ol In -o c 12 E > �2 > o c 0 E o° < u a E 7 -0 c E a. L 0 zz w 1 21 E 0 E R > C c 0 o '6 -Fa —0 tf V v°1 ' 0 0 d d }'15 2 -1 0 a co m j 0 it00 > i30> E 0 E 0 E C > 0 E E > 0 E w 0 > 0 E > 0 E Z x x C a c c c c a c c c c ,o S 0 W E: 'C' P E t E a 0 c 0 E o 'a 0 ol 'E -E -2 7E w m -IF M -IF 43 5 75 0 cl E 75 75 75 E E 0 E E E S E E L E E E x x 5x x x x x x 0 0 E a'tf c 0 E -5 16E yr0 q, 0 �i t 5 wo m" Im 0 U cn 'Z0 l< u w C < u > c w - W ol 0 -0 co O .a ic .2 c -ie O 2 E w S CW o 0 'm E CL 0 w E E tax oc E 0 :L = E 2 .2 o c EL m c IxL '76 o - 7E u c a c w C, E -T x 1 0 -z ICn 'v w 29 0 5i�w 0 — .- . - o B , mcC u 0 0 a 0 C 0 0 E 0 o> V 2 E 0 0 u TL_,u b ts 0 0 'L U 0 Ol- E Edi _ o 0 u 0 u or s 4! 0 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE EL TORO WD Goals and Objectives The El Toro Water District (ETWD) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details. ETWD's Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section (Table 5.7-1). 5.7.1 Capability Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides ETWD's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.7.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of ETWD are shown in Table 5.7.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of ETWD. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the District's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.7.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability 0:1SharedkWEROC1Hazmit12011PianUpdatelHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevislonlSection 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-25 Local State Other Level Regulatory Tools Authority i Authority Jurisdiction Comments (ordinances, codes, plans) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Authority (Yes/No) Building code ETWD, City of Lake Forest, City of Yes No Yes Laguna Woods, City of Laguna Hills, City of Aliso Viejo, County Zoning ordinance Yes No No Local Cities and County Subdivision ordinance or regulations NA NA NA Local Cities and County 0:1SharedkWEROC1Hazmit12011PianUpdatelHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevislonlSection 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-25 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE EL TORO WD Goals and ObjectiV4 Table 5.7.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) 5.7.3 Administrative and Technical Capabilities The following is a summary of existing departments in ETWD and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of ETWD, as shown in Table 5.7.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources 0AShared\WER0C1HazmlA201 1 PlanUpdate\Hazrn1t Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-26 Local state Other Level Regulatory Tools Authority Authority Jurisdiction Comments (ordinances, codes, plans) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Authority (Yes/No) Special purpose ordinances County, Local Cities, OCFA, Army (floodplain management, storm water Corp of Engineers, RWQCB & management, hillside or steep slope No Yes Yes State Fish & Game ordinances, wildfire ordinances, hazard setback requirements) Growth management ordinances Local Cities & County (also called "smart growth" or anti- No No Yes sprawl programs) Site plan review requirements Yes Yes Yes OCFA, Local Cities, County, DSOD, CRWQCB & DFG General or comprehensive plan Yes No No ETWD Master Plan A capital improvements plan Yes No No ETWD Master Plan An economic development plan Yes No Yes Coordination with Cities An emergency response plan Yes Yes Yes ETWD, SEMS, NIMS, EPA & WEROC A post -disaster recovery plan Yes No Yes ETWD & NIMS — Funding DAMS Yes Yes Yes DSOD & CRWQCB VA & ERP Yes Yes Yes USEPA & OES Title 17 & 22 No Yes Yes CA -DPH & County Health Care Agency Wastewater Yes Yes Yes CRWQCB & County Health Care Agency Air Quality No I Yes Yes SCAQMD Safety No Yes Yes Cal OSHA Waste Discharge Requirements No Yes No State Water Resources Control Board 5.7.3 Administrative and Technical Capabilities The following is a summary of existing departments in ETWD and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of ETWD, as shown in Table 5.7.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources 0AShared\WER0C1HazmlA201 1 PlanUpdate\Hazrn1t Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-26 General Overview of Assets, IN FIVE EL TORO WD Goals and Objectives available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. Table 5.7.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position * Planner(s) or engineer(s) with No District coordinates with outside consultants knowledge of land development and land management practices * Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in Yes District coordinates with outside consultants & in - construction practices related to house staff as directed by the Director of buildings and/or infrastructure Operations and Engineering * Planners or Engineer(s) with an Yes District coordinates with outside consultants & In - understanding of natural and/or human- house staff as directed by the Director of caused hazards Operations and Engineering 0 Floodplain manager No County of Orange — RDMD 0 Surveyors No District coordinates with outside consultants * Staff with education or expertise to Yes For current facilities and potential Hazards specific assess the community's vulnerability to to ETWD facilities hazards & Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS No District Coordinates with outside consultants 0 Scientists familiar with the hazards of the No District Coordinates with outside consultants community * Emergency Manager Yes General Manager & Director of Operations # Grant writers No District Coordinates with outside consultants 9 Lab Staffl Specialist Yes WRP Labs, Senior Lab Tech, & Lab Tech - Construction inspector Yes Operations 5.7.4 Fiscal Capability Table 5.7.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to ETWD such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. O:kSharedkWEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionXSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-27 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE EL TORO WD Goals and Objectives Table 5.7.4-1 Fiscal Capability 5.7.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Table 5.7.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Agency Name Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) A. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) No B. Capital improvements project funding Part of Water Rate C. Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes (subject to voters approval) D. Fees for water, sewer service (Rate Structure) Yes E. Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes Yes F. Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes (subject to voters approval) G. Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes (subject to voters approval) H. Incur debt through private activity bonds Yes I. Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas No I J. Grants Yes 5.7.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Table 5.7.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Agency Name Programs, Plans, Policies, Point of Contact Agency, Effect on Loss Reduction Support Facilitate (Mission/Function) Regulations, Funding, or Phone Comments Practices A Building Code City of Lake Forest B. Zoning Code Building Department x ETWD C. Subdivision Ordinance 949-461-3400 A. Building Code City of Mission Viejo B. Zoning Code Building Department x C. Subdivision Ordinance 949-470-3000 A. Building Code City of Laguna Hills B. Zoning Code Building Department x C. Subdivision Ordinance 949-707-2600 A. Building Code City of Laguna Woods B. Zoning Code Building Department x C. Subdivision Ordinance 949-639-0500 A. Building Code City of Aliso Viejo B. Zoning Code Building Department x C. Subdivision Ordinance 949-425-2500 A. Building Code County of Orange B. Zoning Code 714-433-6000 x C. Subdivision Ordinance ETWD A, Building Code Director of Operations & x Engineering 1 949-837-7050 1 1 1 0:'xSharedkWEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionlSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-28 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE EL TOROWD to and Objectives Table 5.7.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment (Continued) Agency Name Programs, Plans, Policies, Point of Contact Agency, Effect on Loss Reduction Support Facilitate Hinder (Mission/Function) Regulations, Funding, or Phone Comments Practices IETWD D-1 Special Purpose Local Cities x Ordinances D-2 Special Purpose County of Orange x Ordinances 714-433-6000 D-3 Special Purpose Orange County Fire Authority x Ordinances 714-573-6000 D-4 Special Purpose Army Corps of Engineers x Ordinances 916-557-5100 D-5 Special Purpose Department of Fish & Game ETWD Ordinances 909-484-0459 x D-6 Special Purpose Regional Water Quality Ordinances Control Board — Region 8 x 951-782-4130 D-7 Special Purpose Regional Water Quality Ordinances Control Board - Region 9. x 858-467-2952 E-1 Growth Management Local Cities x Ordinances E-2 Growth Management County of Orange x Ordinances 714-433-6000 F-1 Site Plan Review County of Orange x 714-433-6000 Orange County Fire F-2 Site Plan Review Authority x 714-573-6000 F-3 Site Plan Review Local Cities x F-4 Site Plan Review Division of Safety Of Dams x 916-799-3055 Regional Water Quality F-5 Site Plan Review Control Board — Region 8 x 951-782-4130 Regional Water Quality F-6 Site Plan Review Control Board - Region 9. x 858-467-2952 F-7 Site Plan Review Department of Fish & Game x 909-484-0459 0:\SharedIWEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdateNHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionXSectlon 5 Hm.doc 1 -February -2012 5-29 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE EL TORO WD Goals and objectives Table 5.7.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment (Continued) Agency Name Programs, Plans, Policies, Point of Contact Agency, Effect on Loss Reduction Support Facilitate Hinder (Miss ion/Function) Regulations, Funding, or Phone Comments Practices ETWD G-1 General Comprehensive Director of Operations & x Plan Engineering 949-837-7050 ETWD H-1 Capital Improvements Director of Operations & Plan Engineering x 949-837-7050 1-1 Economic Development Local Cities x Plan 1-2 Economic Development ETWD General Manager or Plan CFO x 949-837-7050 ETWD ETWD J-1 Emergency Response Director of Operations & Plan Engineering x 949-837-7050 J-2 Emergency Response SEMS x Plan 800-852-7550 J-3 Emergency Response NIMS x Plan 301447-1200 J-4 Emergency Response WEROC x Plan 714-593-5010 J-5 Emergency Response USEPA x Plan 714-712-2888 K-1 Post Disaster Plan NIMS x 301-447-1200 ETWD K-2 Post Disaster Plan Director of Operations & x Engineering 949-837-7050 ETWD No -1 DAMS Director of Operations & x Engineering 949-837-7050 No -2 DAMS Division of Safety Of Dams x 916-799-3055 Regional Water Quality No -3 DAMS Control Board — Region 8 x 951-782-4130 0:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 ReAslon\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-30 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE EL TORO WD Goals and Objectives Table 5.7.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment (Continued) Agency Name Programs, Plans, Policies, Point of Contact Agency, Effect on Loss Reduction Support Facilitate Hinder (Mission/Function) Regulations, Funding, or Phone Comments Practices Regional Water Quality No -3 DAMS Control Board - Region 9. x 858-467-2952 ETWD 0-1 VA & ERP Director of Operations & x Engineering 949-837-7050 0-2 VA & ERP USEPA x 714-712-2888 0-3 VA & ERP OES x 800-852-7550 California Dept of Health P-1 Title 17 & 22 Services x 714-558-4410 County of Orange Health ETWD P-2 Title 17 & 22 Care Agency x 714-433-6000 ETWD Q-1 Wastewater Director of Operations & x Engineering 949-837-7050 County of Orange Health Q-2 Wastewater Care Agency x 714-433-6000 Regional Water Quality Q-3 Wastewater Control Board — Region 8 x 951-782-4130 Regional Water Quality Q-4 Wastewater Control Board - Region 9, x 858-467-2952 South Coast Air Quality R-1 Air Quality Management District x 909-396-2900 S-1 Safety Cal OSHA x 800-963-9424 S-2 Safety OSHA 800-321- 800-321- 6742 0AShared\WER0C1HazmftV01I PlanUpdate\Hazm1t Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-31 SECTION FIVE EL TORO WD General overview of Assets, Goals and Objectives Listed below are ETWD's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the District has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the District's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, District representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. Once developed, District staff presented them to the ETWD Board for approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. A specific meeting was held with the ETWD Community Advisory Group to get their input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard - related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by ETWD's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. Implementation Strategy The El Toro Water District Strategy for implementation of the following goals consists of the following components: • Capital Replacement and Refurbishment Program (CRRP) — Capital projects or equipment acquisitions will be included in the Districts current fiscal years CRRP or in the on-going five and ten year plans. • Operations and Maintenance Budget — The ability to continue the critical O&M programs designed to preserve and extend the useful life of the water and wastewater infrastructure is maintained and accommodated in the annual O&M budget. Alternative Funding Sources — Whenever possible the District will pursue alternative funding in the form of grants or low interest loans in an effort to maximize the District's ability to protect, preserve and enhance the infrastructure. • Staff will make use of outside consultant sources as appropriate to conceive, develop and implement projects • ETWD coordinates with neighboring and regional agencies to explore any cooperative regional projects. OAShared\WEROCkHazmitVOIlPlanUpdatelHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 5 HM,doc 1 -February -2012 5-32 SECTION FIVE EL TORO WD General overview of Assets, Goals and Objectives Goal 1: Operations & Maintenance Design and implement an Operations and Maintenance Program that will preserve the integrity and reliability of the facilities and infrastructure. A. Equipment Maintenance to Maintain Critical Equipment Reliability. I . Continue aggressive Preventive Maintenance Program, 2. Scheduled replacement of equipment that reaches the end of its useful service life. B. Collection System Maintenance to Prevent Sewer Overflows. 1. Continue regular sewer pipeline cleaning program. 2. Continue regular sewer pipeline CCTV inspection program. 3. Continue Fats, Oils and Grease Control Program, C. Emergency Preparation. 1. Keep Emergency Response Plan up-to-date. 2. Continue to maintain current emergency supplies at the Main Office and WRP sites. D. Infrastructure Maintenance. 1. Maintain regular operations site visits / monitoring program at each facility. 2. Conduct routine site inspections of structures and facilities. 3. Follow-up to correct structural or other identified deficiencies. 4. Provide routine maintenance around facilities to avoid the chance of fire threat by reducing the fuel source. E. Water Quality. 1. Continue operation and enforcement of backflow prevention program. 2. Strictly enforce standard separation between water infrastructure and wastewater or recycled water facilities. F. Design Standards 1. Construct new facilities to comply with structural design criteria which will mitigate seismic structural impacts. Goal 2: Minimize damages to facilities / infrastructure due to natural disasters A. Protect existing assets with the highest vulnerability and greatest service value to the effects of natural disasters. 0AShared\WER0MHazrnW01 I PlanUpdat6Hazrnft Plan 2011-12 RevislonkSection 5 HM.doc I -February-2012 5-33 SECTION FIVE EL TORO WD General Overview of Assets, Goals and Objectives C. Protect assets from a major Earthquake event. D. Improve Response to disaster related failures. Goal 3: Minimize disruption of service due to hazard induced outages A. Obtain additional sources of emergency water supply. B. Preserve or enhance emergency storage. C. Diversify Source of Potable Water Import Supply. D. Provide Backup systems for critical facilities. Goal 4: Eliminate or minimize wastewater spills A. Provide emergency wet well storage to extend response time to lift station failures. B. Minimize Intrusion and Infiltration into sewer collection system. C. Provide protection for sewer force mains. D. Preserve the integrity of the sewer collection system. Goal 5: Human Caused Hazards Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and infrastructure due to human caused hazards A. Enhance Security of ETWD Facilities, B. Improve detection abilities. C. Increase the knowledge of employees and the public of extremely hazardous substance handling procedures and terrorism awareness. Goal 6: Protect communities from potential earthquake induced dam inundation A. Maintain Stability of R-6 Reservoir Dam. B. Maintain Readiness Posture of ETWD Operations Staff. 0AShared\WER=HazmitX201 I PlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 RevisionNSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-34 as n M C,0101 0 olol 0 IR N q 9 q 0 0 q 9 m �o 0O cc 00 cc, . C, O0 0 0 M m fD O sj ol O C, 0101 C, m m 0 C, 0 F 0 q g q q q M In q q q g gl 0 o o 0 ol ol a ol o '101 01 Cll 0 ol d o lol I ,Cll N N w 0 0 1 ol 0 C, 0 o Ml ".q 'R 0 o 00 o 01 0 110 0 -101 to Va H3 Vh ifl 'co oh 7 0 1 -1 1'1} cl o l 'o ol o o 0 o 0 I lo 10 co� q 0 ol al 0 C, o o q o cn 0 N go d 0 ol 0 o 0 C> o o 0 ci O C> 0 d O O N O O 0 10 Vt 1. a. Z � z w z 3 z w tz w z L� z 13 L� 7 E r LF sa o c .0 c en w Q Q 0 o o. o 0 W 0 0O bb bcq C Own E O V CM LA w 0 cc 0 u t5 0v (D 0 t9 2- 0 a4 rn % E E E "0N c E 'a E cp -0 0 a, 0 0 vt. c 0 c 0 c 0 E 1 C, 5 2 ro0 C C 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 404 c 0 cc .a 2 . , , w 31 Z U 'm 0 0 -r. E —0 < Cc, th - 0 < > "E 2 t Eo c m E 91 u o c . t - E w0 -V a� —0 '0 , w o z) M -S V, 0 0 �E o > o'o c o ai �c Cc c < t c c tm t E . mc E -5 E > -6 -5 E E 'D Z 0 w E E 50 lz 2- E 20 qp 'a w cQ o o 2 Q0 u m j u w E 0 ,1, °o 6 .18 0 S x L J o z = �c o z nF o. c o > o L4 o c o c- 0 -o c to bD 76 cQOM a� o o E > o u o o> ao tw > > E Qo E o E �s o E o vi cu u w x x o ao 'o o E E v E� E No no oo u c o o u o c _o n c� 0 c� o C� V o c ir o 2 c o Co o cl I u o i o c c c V1 VF Z o E E E E E . 5o 7E E t % 75 -5 o w oil 75 2 to z c a Ll o o 72 -a c O t o :E t < o z > > o c a c o c o q°o c z c o o o c 8 o > , w —o I�o , o > m s w t 76 91 0 2 — t a f O > > c N ts a c6 .2 Qw o ww c w w a o w I = o c a c m o 'a I -o E Jm O ni o ol E > o ,tt > o Q cc wo 0 cL o a c o cc o t t o o w o o O o oo u �o u o z z w .Q CE �2 o 2 Q 0 Ic CW lw V i5 0 < 0 0 0 E E s V c v 'a E t5 2 tg :e r2 tg --e -C tg a tg 2 v tg t9 Q A :i 7, j5 E IT 0 0 E E 0 fT to J aC, C� C� C� C� 0 0 O I D D E E E E JO 2i 7EE E -E 0 75 75 75 2 ml I 72 z 0 T 0 < - E , 0 C > b5 > 0 E E a 2 as is o ,_ SE G f = r I ti E > 0 ,2 E ZD E o 6 cc 'D CO C 7!� cw - .- -t �j E w 0 5 a w N 0 75 CL = a w a c = 0 - 2 . u 72 w m i2 E mo E :tf E E E w-1 E 0 2 ME w -z 0 w v w Q- C C 0 -C m z2 0 - 0 CL °v s - 0 0 E b li " a, - 't E = E - x E E E E E In \\\ 0 > > > > > > > E 0 E 0 E 0 E a E 0 E\ 0 0 E \\/� %ƒ\ƒ co co m 'o 0, m \ � RE c 7g c E 72 E E a.\ 00 cx \�� E \\) C 115, —0 E 10 m c oc Z; t w t2 2 0 w 0 3: U CL U m a SECTION FIVE GARDEN GROVE General Overview of Assets Goals and Objectives The City of Garden Grove (Garden Grove) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details. Garden Grove Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section (Table 5.8-1). 5.8.1 Capability Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Garden Grove's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.8.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of Garden Grove are shown in Table 5.8.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Garden Grove. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the City's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.8.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability 0AShared\WERMHazrnM201 1 PlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 RevisioMSecfion 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-40 Local State Other Level Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Authority Jurisdiction Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Authority (Yes/No) Local cities GG FIRE A. Building code Yes Yes No A.Q.M.D. State Health Dept. Some Exceptions Apply B. Zoning ordinance Yes Yes No LOCAL C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations Yes Yes No Local cities County of Orange D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain Yes Yes No County of Orange management, storm water management, Regional Water Quality 0AShared\WERMHazrnM201 1 PlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 RevisioMSecfion 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-40 TIT, rdwil W Z �*:! Table 5.8.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) General Overview of Assets, Goals and Objectives 5.8.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in Garden Grove and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations 0:'iSharedNWEROC',Hazmit12011PIanUpdate%Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision5Secflon 5 HM,doc 1 -February -2012 5-41 Local State Other Level Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Authority Jurisdiction Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Authority hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire Control Board (RWQCB) ordinances, hazard setback requirements) E. Growth management ordinances (also Local cities called "smart growth" or anti -sprawl Yes Yes No County of Orange programs) Local cities F. Site plan review requirements Yes Yes No County of Orange OCFA Permits G. General or comprehensive plan Yes Yes No Master Plan H. A capital improvements plan Yes Yes No City staff 1. An economic development plan Yes No No Local cities SEMS J. An emergency response plan Yes Yes Yes NIMS WEROC K. A post -disaster recovery plan Yes Yes Yes NIMS Local cities L. A post -disaster recovery ordinance Yes Yes Yes County of Orange State of California F.E.M.A M. Real estate disclosure requirements Yes Yes No N. Metrolink & Caltrans Yes Yes No O. NCCP Yes Yes Yes P. CA DPH (Security Issues) Yes Yes Yes Vulnerability Assessment Q. Waste Discharge Requirements No I Yes I No I State Water Resources Control Board 5.8.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in Garden Grove and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations 0:'iSharedNWEROC',Hazmit12011PIanUpdate%Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision5Secflon 5 HM,doc 1 -February -2012 5-41 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE GARDEN GROVE Goals and Objectives Table 5.8.6-1 GARDEN GROVE — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Garden Grove, as shown in Table 5.8.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. Table 5.8.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land development and land management Yes Economic Development Department practices & Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in District coordinates with outside consultants construction practices related to buildings Yes In-house and Consultants and/or infrastructure Engineering Department C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding of natural and/or human- Yes coordinates with outside consultants caused hazards D. Floodplain manager No County of Orange E Surveyors No Outside consultant F. Staff with education or expertise to assess No County of Orange the community's vulnerability to hazards G. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS No Outside Consultant K Scientists familiar with the hazards of the No County community I. Emergency manager Yes GG FIRE J. Grant writers No K. Lab Specialist No Contractual lab O:kSharedIWEROC'iHazmit12011PIanUpdateiHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisiorASection 5 HM,doc 1 -February -2012 5-42 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE GARDEN GROVE Goals and Objectives Table 5.8.6-1 GARDEN GROVE — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) 5.8.4 Fiscal Capability Table 5.8.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Garden Grove such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers, or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. Table 5.8.4-1 Fiscal Capability 5.8.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are Garden Grove's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- 0AShanedkWER0C\Hazrnffi201 1PlanUpdate\Hazrnit Plan 2011-12 RevisloMSectlon 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-43 Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) A. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Yes B. Capital improvements project funding Yes C. Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes No D. Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes E. Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new develop ments/homes Yes F. Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes G. Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes H. Incur debt through private activity bonds No 1. Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas Yes J. Grants Yes 5.8.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are Garden Grove's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- 0AShanedkWER0C\Hazrnffi201 1PlanUpdate\Hazrnit Plan 2011-12 RevisloMSectlon 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-43 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE GARDEN GROVE Goals and Objectives Table 5.8.6-1 GARDEN GROVE — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. The Garden Grove LPG members were Zack Barrett, Robert Bermudez, Brent Hayes, Les Ruitenschild, and Don Tunison. Once developed, City staff presented them to the Garden Grove City Council for their approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Garden Grove's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. 5.8.6 City of Garden Grove Goals The City of Garden Grove has developed the following five goals and objectives for their Hazard Mitigation Plan. Goal 1: Minimize damages to facilities / infrastructure due to natural disasters. A. Protect existing assets from the effects of natural disasters. B. Support existing efforts to mitigate natural disaster hazards. C. Protect potable water from contamination. Goal 2: Minimize disruption of service due to hazard induced outages. A. Provide backup system for critical facilities. Goal 3: Eliminate or minimize wastewater spills. Goal 4: Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and infrastructure due to human caused hazards. A. Develop a comprehensive approach to reduce damage and loss due to human caused hazards. B. Increase the knowledge of City employees and the public of extremely hazardous substance handling procedures and terrorism awareness. Goal 5: Promote hazard mitigation and promote public understanding. 0ASharedkWER0CkHazrnft\201 I PlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-44 T.. Q Q dP F Lu fn O 0 Z w In Q C7 a� N � M a N a � v9 M fA M O J J W V3 EA EA EA s» rn a» Ess » Fz � bs za- ws ca G O N J M N3 N3 H} tiR iA O U3 V3 O O W O 69 O ja Q q M M Ci cH d O O O tH O �.i a 4A r C o Ff3 � fiJ p ci ws w O w w Ers N a a o v fn a sn ur av ea ssr ca a o ci w w w ess En us .» VS M W z .a W q Ess 6 «+s ea O Ess O cr xa o to .a o o us 0 ur 0 O � to Efi Esi rH tH N J H E Q d G p 9s W lll Llf w' W W 1: � w w Z W= w W w d � ; � a u r� �- t O E 0 0 E 0 t O E t w o c 43 0 E t as CL E -E c m 0 OC E c Z, E toc c o :2 o E -E 'o E < ac E 0� E 0 0 0 co ti EE M 2 o 2 o 2, C c m 1: d2 is"a E E E E E co o a o Iv o L o a o o p > > > o o E o E z ol o c cL v is m f6o E m EE E o E E eD op ss m t5 co m 41 2 (D 2 (D U o try p, 2 ID .2 72 -2 T s dm '2 'T 7E Ti 13 o qo o lb o w w T, o w w o w w o 7E w w L) E 2 72 IS 76-2 —0 a'76 0 0 Z tb 1) 0 5 41'T ol 0 'D C 7R o E E E 3 2i co o a cc o m o y as u cm Ix 46 O igIT E cl cl o c� 0 c ci I o 0 c� o o 8 0 o c� o cl o z > m c > '0 m tlo 72 > o co Im 5 2- E5 A .u. IoD 0 �6 76 '70 0 -ja 8L c 2 2 c 75 0 :2 -s c > 8, Z. oc L a 0 c oUJ > x 0 w C v 'S E w g 00 N@ W c 0 O� cw .2 m E w 72 c c 27 2 c v w w C 0 t @ .0 I E E p E > c m a o am 10 0 a m 0 0 0 > 0> cc ba c 0 C z in �41 0 w E 0 r: 1. o E E p E E E E E 2 V0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 a u > ac gu '10 I.0 10 c Iz or CL z ZG > > LL c m N c C) 3c m w > > >w < 0 < w Cc N > > 41 t o > x L ld) 7E 0 a IL m -7p P,- a. -0 80 > 72 CL 0 Z17 :p 0 z c = . 0 �2 C Z t 0 c w 79 E 'a 72 E 0 E 0 E 3: 2 E E o UO o a 0 0 > 0 E wE ti c 6. 72 LL to to fn N 6t t 0 E E E as an v T M m Z E cr '0 2 75 c M z t; cc c T c CL z > p 76 LL '! 2 7E Y 6i 0 72 7E J :Z; to CL 72 75 E y 0 �2 E t2 CL tg F m ? > E E > sz pE 72 s E E o 2 75 0 General Overview of Assets, SECTIONFIVE LAGUNA BEACH Goals and Objectives Laguna Beach County Water District (Laguna Beach) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details. Laguna Beach Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section (Table 5.9-1). 5.9.1 Capability Assessment Laguna Beach is currently developing their capabilities. The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Laguna Beach's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.9.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of Laguna Beach are shown in Table 5.9.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Laguna Beach. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.9.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability 0:\Shared\WEROC%Hazmit\2011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevislonlSection 5 HM.doc I -February-2012 5-51 Local Does Higher Level Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority State Jurisdiction Comments (Yes/No) Prohibit? Authority (Yes/No) (Yes/No) A. Building code Yes No No Back flow prevention B. Zoning ordinance Yes No No City of Laguna Beach C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations Yes No No City of Laguna Beach 0:\Shared\WEROC%Hazmit\2011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevislonlSection 5 HM.doc I -February-2012 5-51 General overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE LAGUNA BEACH Goals and Objectives Table 5.9.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) 5.9.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in Laguna Beach and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Laguna Beach, as shown in Table 5.93-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. 0:tShared',WEROC1Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionXSecflon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-52 Local Does Higher Level Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority State Jurisdiction Comments (Yes/No) Prohibit? Authority (Yes/No) (Yes/No) The County of Orange has flood D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain and fire control responsibilities in the management, stormwater management, No Na Yes unincorporated areas. The City of hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire Laguna Beach has storm water and ordinances, hazard setback requirements) fire control responsibilities within the city corporate limits. E. Growth management ordinances (also called "smart growth" or anti -sprawl No No No programs) F. Site plan review requirements Yes No No G. General or comprehensive plan No No No H. A capital improvements plan Yes No No 1. An economic development plan No No No J. An emergency response plan Yes No Yes SEMS/NIMS K. A post -disaster recovery plan Yes No Yes L. A post -disaster recovery ordinance No No No M. Real estate disclosure requirements No No Yes 5.9.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in Laguna Beach and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Laguna Beach, as shown in Table 5.93-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. 0:tShared',WEROC1Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionXSecflon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-52 General overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE LAGUNA BEACH Goals and Objectives Table 5.9.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land NO The City of Laguna Beach is responsible for land development and land management practices management with in the corporate limits. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in The Laguna Beach County Water District and theCity construction practices related to buildings and/or YES of Laguna Beach have engineers trained in infrastructure construction practices. Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding of natural and/or human -caused hazards NO Floodplain manager NO The County of Orange is responsible for flood plain management. Surveyors NO Staff with education or expertise to assess the YES Laguna Beach County Water District Engineering community's vulnerability to hazards Department Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZLIS NO Scientists familiar with the hazards of the community NO Emergency manager YES The Laguna Beach County Water District General Manager Grant writers YES The Laguna Beach County Water District Engineering Department 5.9.4 Fiscal Capability Table 5.9.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Laguna Beach such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. O:kSharedkWEROC',Hazmit12011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevislornSection 5 HM,doc I -February -2012 5-53 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE LAGUNA BEACH Goals and Objectives Table 5.9.4-1 Fiscal Capability Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) NO Capital improvements project funding YES Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes NO Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service YES Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes YES Incur debt through general obligation bonds YES Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds NO Incur debt through private activity bonds NO Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas NO 5.9.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are Laguna Beach's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, Laguna Beach has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the Laguna Beach planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, LBCWD representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. Once developed, LBCWD staff presented them to the LBCWD Board of Directors for their approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Laguna Beach's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. 0ASharedkWER0C\Hazrnffi201 1 PlanUpdate\HazmJt Plan 2011-12 RevisiornSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-54 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE LAGUNA BEACH Goals and objectives Table 5.9.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment 0ASharechWER=HazrnitV01 I PlanUpdateNI'lamit Plan 2011-12 RevisionlSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-55 Programs, Plans, Effect on Loss Reduction Agency Name Policies, Regulations, Point of Contact, Comments (Mission/Function) Funding, or Address, Phone Support Facilitate Hinder Practices San Diego Regional 1. Water Quality Joanne Lim Water Quality Board (858) 637-5583 (RWQCB) YES YES NO City of Laguna Beach 1. Public Works and Steve May Responsible Engineering with in (949) 497-0351 YES YES NO for storm water the corporate limits and waste of the city water 2. Construction of Bob Koch Inspection and public works (949) 497- 0340 YES YES NO project projects with in the coordination city corporate limits Laguna Beach County I.Water distribution Renae Hinchey Water District (949) 493-1041 District Manager of YES YES NO the Laguna Beach County Water District 2. Water Distribution James R. Nestor, and maintenance District Engineer and Director of YES YES NO Operations County of Orange Orange County 2009 Edinger Ave. Health Care Santa Ana, CA YES YES NO Agency. 92705 State of California, Department of 20 Civic Center Department of Health Health Services Plaza, Services Division of Drinking Santa Ana, CA Water and 92701 YES YES NO Environmental Management California Coastal Carl Schwing Commission South 200 Oceangate, Coast District loth Floor YES YES NO Long Beach, CA 90802 0ASharechWER=HazrnitV01 I PlanUpdateNI'lamit Plan 2011-12 RevisionlSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-55 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE LAGUNA BEACH Goals and Objectives Goal 1: Reduce the District's Vulnerability to Disruption. A. Provide and maintain security at all reservoir and pump station sites. B. Consider options to access alternative supplies from the OCWD groundwater basin and/or other projects to improve reliability. Goal 2: Reduce Water Service Outages and Maintain Reliability During Disastrous Events. A. Reduce water service outages from distribution and storage facilities B. Maintain reliable water operations during earthquake, flood or fire storm. 0ASharedkWER0CXHa7r9it201 lPlanUpdate\Hazm it Plan 2011-12 Revislon\Section 5 HM,doc I -February-2012 5-56 ip M O W O O tq O O O 4's F T ffi V} d369 (fl E9 V3 EA Ffl 64 O O O O O O O a O O O O ' 0 O O O O a O O O O O O 5 O O O O ® O O O O CS a O O O O O O 1� co O V' a in v O O O M d a d o 0 J Inl a =0 0 0 o a o ws 0 w 0 us 0 o d o w 3 .a Q ua o 0 o O o o o vz vs vi .n O O O O. O O a O ` O ` O O O' � J O M to N o sr> O O O O O O O O O • O p� G sf1 O di M oo O ` W O H3 O V3 O Vi 01, Nk O O O to O ` U a vt v> 0 w Esr frr «v r aN yr r � +» o O o N <r � a d T lcl 101, OI=t N O v E9 V! a O ;,= 0 0 0 .fr a o i 0 0 Q Cl n a jo 101, 101, o 0 o a O o a ojc 0 101 joli w CY ea � us v en w h l V3 H FFY H3 V3 N 0 J C = v Qt i d y v N N y� � N K. ¢ O F O. E d �_ Q. p S �_X4 py 6 p w w W w w XG , w til 3 W w � ttl X6a( � W �d�5S , ttJ _�(( W J � O m m s75 0 2 ti co m 40 0 v c 0 -E 7E CL E am apa 0 c 0 CL DO ca C3 co w tlo 'a 03 w co co u 0 E Ew E YY O 0 0 E, -1 ac Qoj z CL 41, Lu O M, 15 w c U M, 0 7 a S 0 0 t9 M E -C 0C W Ca E Wa I a > > w 0 , .? > �4 < E .2 m w w 1.0 L, wE R -�!a 3: 2 C=L tm 0 > m c 0 m c w ca ' w 0 -n w E E E > c w f OIL oc m, mo > a W Ox 0 m a w 'c -a CL c o c. CL ww 72 w2 S o -2an 2 -o . C w 2 'wo t CL EQ. 2 c 2 2 t.; .1 2CL w a ca Q.w A E I CL m w G. -a 9 'o z° = g a> -a z c.7 c CL 3: E Q. w w CL 0 cc w w E c 72 "a E 'a E C 15 - - T Ld rn c E w E E w 'o 0 0 75 w t 43 0 E a 0 -u ? 0 a 0 CL R 2 o > c `� bo 0 E w . 2 c m 0 wm 0 u 0 w '0 2 0 0 0 m .2 E E E e T c 0 c a 0 aa o 6p a > 0 0 0 6p u 0 a > 0 N Z c o x E E < E E 0> E 0 Q E V 0 48 '0 'a co '0 '0 co m '0 m '0 m w OD 40 co m 0 C 0 E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 14 < z OL M 2 m (L > > > m z Wo E c E E 7S m c m 41, c C 0 > w c 0 72 .9 41 0 0 .Qu 0 0 0 3: 2 P2 vi < Cr < C:: C lw 00 o CL !! 0 co cc 0 o 0 0 0 v 'C" t� > -0 > o G 8: m 0 ma 0 z E -- 'S 0 16 0 - m 0 U� 2 E > 0 z- .0 0 VC m 0 4; .0 0 M �5; 0 1 - 5 E u = C, 0 0 0 > a -C Mv -.E tT > E 'o c m m C 2 t5 2 0, mo -a m 2 2 m 2 UN 0„m m E 2 < 6 2 CL u o 2 co > �E 2 a, c 2 2 E 2 E E _3 . 2 on IS -6 0 0 S �S m �5 c w 'a w -a -a -a o Z'1� I�V a 7a E E E E E z -2 I o o 2 > E o wo 'a 7a o. E o o E o o E o E o E o E o E M o U u u u u E 4(5 Z t5 c t5 15 co co co m co 'om m co m ca 'o m m as m U m en m on M on E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E —z —Z z z z z z Z z z E� E L t O E E E 2 E E :E .2 .2 �2 .2 E E E c E E z b Z7 E o. w 9 T 2! 75 0 c Z5 c t c t'o o a b aa w s 2 co -a 'r. o cc D4 a a t2 -o E E 76 c r. w V cL E as m 1w ia , '? T o s z u yD CNw E c E �s clt 2 No m 2 rb o A, �e > o E -as t5 4� Z7 .c E E E E E E E w E E E E E E 2 ,2 A: ca _ | � G, 0 c 0 - CL E E E P E t 0 _ | � G, 0 st \y - CL E E P E t E _ | � G, 0 40 CL \\� 0 \\\/ General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE LA HABRA Goals and Objectives The City of La Habra (La Habra) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details. La Habra Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section (Table 5.10-1). 5.10.1 Capability Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiseaI capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides La Habra's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.10.2 Existing Institutions, Pians, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of La Habra are shown in Table 5.10.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of La Habra. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the City's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site pian review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.10.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Regulatory Tools Local State Other Level Jurisdiction {ordinances, codesP } , plans) Authority Authority Authority Comments {YeslNo} {Yes/No} {Yes/No} A. Building code Yes No No Planning, Code Enforcement B. Zoning ordinance Yes No No Planning C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations Yes No No Planning D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain County of Orange management, storm water management, hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire yes Yes Yes Army Corps of Engineers ordinances, hazard setback requirements) RWQCB,USFWS/CDRG E. Growth management ordinances (also called "smart growth" or anti -sprawl Yes No No Planning programs) 0ASharedlWeR0C\Hazmit12011PIanUpdatelHazmlt Plan 2011-12 RewslonlSecbon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-62 General Overview of Assets, LA HABRA Goals and Objectives Table 5.10.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Local Authority (Yes/No) State Authority (Yes/No) Other Level Jurisdiction Authority (Yes/No) Comments F. Site plan review requirements Yes No No Planning G. General or comprehensive plan Yes No No City General Plan H. A capital improvements plan Yes No No Water Master Plan I. An economic development plan Yes No No Community Development J. An emergency response plan Yes No No SEMS, WEROC,NIMS K A post -disaster recovery plan Yes No No NIMS L. A post -disaster recovery ordinance Yes No No M. Real estate disclosure requirements Yes No No State Board of Realtors N. Caltrans No Yes No 0. CA DPH (Security Issues) Yes No No Vulnerability Assessment P. Title M & 22 (potable) Yes Yes Yes USEPA Q. Waste Discharge Requirements No Yes No State Water Resources Control Board 5.10.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in La Habra and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of La Habra, as shown in Table 5.10.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community, 0:1Shared\WER00NHazrn!tQ0I I PlanUpdateXHaztnit Plan 2011-12 Revislon\Section 5 HM-doc I -February-2012 5-63 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE LA HABRA Goals and Objectives Table 5.10.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land development and Yes Public Works (Engineers) land management practices Planning (Planners) B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained Building Officials/Public Works in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure Yes Engineers)& Contractors C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an Public Works (Engineers) understanding of natural and/or Yes Planning (Planners) human -caused hazards D. Floodplain manager No County of Orange E. Surveyors Yes Public Works Traffic Engineers (Technicians) F. Staff with education or expertise to assess the community's vulnerability No WEROC / County of Orange to hazards G. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Yes Center for Demographic Research, CSUF H. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the community No County of Orange, Cal Tech, local Universities I. Emergency manager Yes Police / Public Works / Water Manager Senior Water Worker J. Grant writers Yes Public Works / Administrative Analyst K. Lab Specialist No Clinical Labs, Contracted AMULM�� Table 5.10.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to La Habra such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. 0:\SharedNWEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdatetHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionNSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-64 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE LA HABRA Goals and Objectives Table 5.10.4-1 Fiscal Capability Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) No Capital improvements project funding Yes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes No Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developmentsthomes Yes Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes Incur debt through private activity bonds Yes Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas Yes Grants Yes 5.10.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are La Habra's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. Once developed, City staff presented them to the La Habra City Council for their approval. 0dSharedkWEROC\Hazmjt12011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Re\fision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-65 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE LA HABRA Goals and Objectives Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by La Habra's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. Table 5.10.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment O:kSharedkWEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdateXHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revislon\Sectlon 5 HM,doc I -February-2012 5-66 Programs, Plans, Effect on Loss Reduction Agency Name Policies, Title (Mission/Function) Regulations, Address Comments Funding, or Phone Contact Support Facilitate Hinder Practices CITY OF LA HABRA Water/Sewer Manager WATER DIVISION 1. Water Division 621 West Lambert Road 1. The mission of the Best Management La Habra, CA 90631 x x La Habra Water Practices Division is; to provide (562) 905-9792 safe, high quality drinking water and Water/Sewer Manager also to ensure 100 2. Vulnerability 621 West Lambert Road percent fire protection Assessment La Habra, CA 90631 x x and adequate water pressure to the (562) 905-9792 residents of La Habra; to provide Water/Sewer Manager these water delivery 3.Water Emergency 621 West Lambert Road services at the lowest Response Plan / WEROC SEMS, NIMS La Habra, CA 90631 x x possible cost in a safe working (562) 905-9792 environment for all Water/Sewer Manager City Water Division employees, 4.Urban Water 621 West Lambert Road Management Plan La Habra, CA 90631 x x (562) 905-9792 Water/Sewer Manager 621 West Lambert Road 5. Water Master Plan x x La Habra, CA 90631 (562) 905-9792 O:kSharedkWEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdateXHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revislon\Sectlon 5 HM,doc I -February-2012 5-66 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE LA HABRA Goals and Objectives Table 5.10.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment (Continued) 0:1SharedXWEROC\Hazmjt12011PlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revislon\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-67 Programs, Plans, Effect on Loss Reduction Agency Name Policies, Title (Mission/Function) Regulations, Address Comments Funding, or Phone Contact Support Facilitate Hinder Practices Planning Manager CITY OF LA HABRA 201 East La Habra Blvd. COMMUNITY 1 City General Plan x x DEVELOPMENT La Habra, CA 90631 (562) 905-9700 Police Department CITY OF LA HABRA 2. City Emergency 150 North Euclid Street POLICE Management Plan La Habra, CA 90631 x x (562) 905-9750 Assistant Chief Fire Station #1 1. Inventory Program of Hazardous Waste 850 West La Habra Blvd x x La Habra, CA 90631 (562) 691-4692 County Fire Assistant Chief Fire Station #1 2. Fire Code Inspections 850 West La Habra Blvd x x La Habra, CA 90631 (562) 691-4692 Director Los Angeles District US Army Corps of 1. Reservoir Regulation Engineers Prado Dam 915 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 980 x x Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 452-3908 0:1SharedXWEROC\Hazmjt12011PlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revislon\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-67 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE LA HABRA Goals and Objectives Table 5.10.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment (Continued) 5.10.6 City of La Habra Goals The City of La Habra has developed two goals for their Hazard Mitigation Plan. Goal 1: Minimize damages to facilities/infrastructure due to natural disasters. Goal 2: Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and infrastructure due to human caused hazards. 5.10.7 Objectives and Actions Goal 1: Minimize damages to facilities/infrastructure due to natural disasters. A. Protect existing assets with the highest vulnerability to the effects of natural disasters. B. Coordinate and support existing efforts to mitigate natural disaster hazards. Goal 2: Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and infrastructure due to human caused hazards A. Develop a comprehensive approach to reduce damage and loss due to human caused hazards. 0AShared\WER0C1HazrnM201 1 PlanUpdaWl-lamit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HIVI.doc 1 -February -2612 5-68 Programs, Plans, Effect on Loss Reduction Agency Name Policies, Title (Mission/Function) Regulations, Address Comments Funding, or Practices Phone Contact Support Facilitate Hinder 1. Enhance legitimate 370 Amapola Ave. Ste 114 US Fish & Wildlife use & enjoyment of Service migratory birds & other Torrance, CA 90501 X X wildlife (310) 328-1516 Division of Drinking Water & U.S .Environmental 1. Water Quality; Environmental Management Protection Agency/ regulate and update California DPH Office of Drinking drinking water quality P.O. Box 942732-MS216 X X Water standards. Sacramento, CA 94234 - 4320 (916) 323-6111 5.10.6 City of La Habra Goals The City of La Habra has developed two goals for their Hazard Mitigation Plan. Goal 1: Minimize damages to facilities/infrastructure due to natural disasters. Goal 2: Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and infrastructure due to human caused hazards. 5.10.7 Objectives and Actions Goal 1: Minimize damages to facilities/infrastructure due to natural disasters. A. Protect existing assets with the highest vulnerability to the effects of natural disasters. B. Coordinate and support existing efforts to mitigate natural disaster hazards. Goal 2: Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and infrastructure due to human caused hazards A. Develop a comprehensive approach to reduce damage and loss due to human caused hazards. 0AShared\WER0C1HazrnM201 1 PlanUpdaWl-lamit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HIVI.doc 1 -February -2612 5-68 General overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE LA HABRA Goals and Objectives B. Increase the knowledge of government employees and the public of extremely hazardous substance handling procedures and terrorism awareness. 0:XSharedXWER0C\HazrnM2011PlanUpdateXHazrnft Plan 2011-12 RevisionNSection 5 HM.doc I -February-2012 5-69 W N m ux a = m o u> e3 ss � s9 e» us e3 e3 ea » er O N w O m O o O 10 M p to p N p O O O N p O O O tt} O 101-7 O O O O O O O O eH f9 cA tH ,f3 W 64 d p O t0 Ci O O O O O O O O O a Jth O O O O O O O O O O O W Ys 6R b3 o O• oil o o o� Vf o o� sA o o� a loll Ilol r o o� o lol o M o wr 0 0o •» fn o w 0 0 o o o o � 0 ur ip '. p O en O V ivJq 6 O .a O Ol t� p� O� a� O� O� U N 64 1� o O to M .— 64 O oll O� v3 O N O tq O O� n� W lo O d' co M �.. M cn M O o� O� O� 11i O� O N y M G O.' I'D 1,9 a a o• O � o w o• o a o an a O yr o o a d C+ O O O O O O o O O O O O VJ M W M b3 eA b3 � tR vj O Hi O O v} O O � N di eA <ti ,H tH ,A N J C : O - d �� N x- $� $� $Z $E $E $E $E $E $E $E $E $ W w w w w' w' w' w' w' w' w' w' w O 7 h C — i W N J O E E d 0 0 cz o mV T c 0 > 01 Q -6 0 E -0 m E E v c C, w0' t, E Z —0 —0 cL w m o 2 < E 0 0 a` m 0 E 3: 3: Z z 0 u m c co w co ca m ho m c co cw M om w oaa 0 .0 6 o E v v v E E W e4 E 0 E w E E W" c w wo E E w 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 —C 0 a o va a D '5 -5 75 Qv x i L° 0 0 0 co c t4 EL CL Lu V a > t 7 9 0 0 77, 0 m 7aV d - L) r—I 0 x 7g, S w o 0 M t5 v WC0 }\{j( E < c 0 E 75 2 2 75 2 �E75 X x x t9 C, E \ \� z Z General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MESA Goals and Objectives A The Mesa Consolidated Water District (Mesa) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction, See Section 4 for additional details. Mesa Loss Assessment (Table 5.11-1) is located at the end of this section. 5.11.1 Capability Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Mesa's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.11.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of Mesa are shown in Table 5.11.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Mesa. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the District's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.11.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability O:XSharedIWEROC1Hazmit12O11PlanUpdateXHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisjoMSecflon 5 Hkdoc 1 -February -2012 5-73 Local State Other Level Regulatory Tools Authority Authority Jurisdiction Comments (ordinances, codes, plans) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Authority (Yes/No) Local Cities OCFA A. Building code Yes No Yes AQMD HCA < State/County Local Cities B, Zoning ordinance Yes No Yes County of Orange Coastal Commission Local Cities C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations Yes No Yes County of Orange O:XSharedIWEROC1Hazmit12O11PlanUpdateXHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisjoMSecflon 5 Hkdoc 1 -February -2012 5-73 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MESA Goals and Oaiectives Table 5.11.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) O:tSharedlWEROC1Hazmit12011PIanUpdatelHazmit Plan 2011-12 ReYsloMSectton 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-74 Local State Other Level Regulatory Tools Authority Authority Jurisdiction Comments (ordinances, codes, plans) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Authority (Yes/No) County of Orange Army Corps of Engineers USFWS/CDFG D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain Coastal Commission management, storm water management, No No Yes Regional Water Quality hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire ordinances, hazard setback requirements) Control Board (RWOCB) SAWPA OCFA CDFtForest Service E. Growth management ordinances (also Local Cities called "smart growth" or anti -sprawl Yes No Yes County of Orange programs) OCFA Local Cities F. Site plan review requirements Yes No Yes County of Orange OCFA G. General or comprehensive plan Yes No No MCWD MCWD H. A capital improvements plan Yes No Yes RWOCB LAFCO Local Cities I. An economic development plan Yes No Yes MCWD NIMS J. An emergency response plan Yes No Yes SEMS WEROC K. A post -disaster recovery plan Yes No Yes NIMS Local cities L. A post -disaster recovery law Yes No Yes AOMD CA DPH School District M. Real estate disclosure requirements No No Yes County Tax O:tSharedlWEROC1Hazmit12011PIanUpdatelHazmit Plan 2011-12 ReYsloMSectton 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-74 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MESA Goals and Objectives Realtor 5.11.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in Mesa and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Mesa, as shown in Table 5.11.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. Table 5.11.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land development and land management practices No District coordinates with outside consultants Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure Yes In house and with outside consultants Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding of natural and/or human -caused hazards Yes In house and with outside consultants Floodplain manager No County of Orange Surveyors No District coordinates with outside consultants Staff with education or expertise to assess the community's vulnerability to hazards Yes In house and with outside consultants Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Yes In house and with outside consultants Scientists familiar with the hazards of the community No District coordinates with outside consultants Emergency manager Yes Risk Management Coordinator WEROC Grant writers Yes District Engineer Office of the General Manager 01Shared\WER0C%HazmitX201I PlanUpdatelHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revislon\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-75 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MESA Goals and Objectives Table 5.11.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity (Continued) Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position Other — Lab Specialist No District coordinates with outside consultants Other — Water Quality Yes Water Quality Coordinator 5.11.4 Fiscal Capability Table 5.11.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Mesa such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. Table 5.11.4-1 Fiscal Capability Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) No Capital improvements project funding Yes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes (with voter approval) Fees for water service Yes Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes Yes Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes Incur debt through private activity bonds Yes Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas Yes Grants Yes O:\Shared\WER00\Hazmit12011PlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revislon\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-76 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MESA Goals and Objectives 5.11.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are Mesa's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the District has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the District's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, District representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. Once developed, District staff presented them to the Mesa Board of Directors for their approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Mesa's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. 5.11.5.1 Mesa WD Goals Goal 1: Reduce District's Vulnerability to Disruption. A. Improve site security, B. Improve response time. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: District constructs site improvements as respective facilities are scheduled for replacement or refurbishment. Projects are implemented as funding is approved as part of annual budget process or available through financial assistance programs. Goal 2: Minimize Water Service Loss and Ensure Reliable Supply During Disaster Events A. Prevent water loss from reservoirs, B. Increase available water supplies. • IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: 0 Contract for engineering studies for site-specific recommendations for structural stiffening. Contract for engineering studies on feasibility and site(s) of new well(s). 0:iShared\WEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Rewslon\SeGfion 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-77 General overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MESA Goals and Objectives Coal 3: Protect Imported Water Reliability A. Improve security of MET sources B. Maintain local internes • IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: District staff will coordinate with neighboring water districts, MWDOC, and MET to prioritize and implement projects on a regional basis. Continue to coordinate with neighboring districts for interties. 0ASharedMER0C1Hazrnft4201lPlanUpdate\Hazrnft Plan 2011-12 Revislon\Sectjon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-78 O � E9 H} f9 to 6i H! EH di fA b3 fH E9 O p O O O O O O O O O S O Fn ua En ,A J a M oa «n yr to sa to � vs w W "3 tq fA EPo fA M aR a `n H tEa u4 w va o yr J M to O N 4 va O O V O O tR O O O O O �y O � a 6 V o N +� 69 W M V3 W tH 64 r• � O h W �J -; O � M to O� 43 O O� O� O� tH O O� e3 O� esY V1 0 Q 101, O M O O O O O n O Ci O vx O �s r p .n O v� — p sn O a yr O O aT 3 1O11 W tri p O b4 O tri d O O to O to O O F VT O C C4 N _ � _ ` � y QQ O �Q OO p O oo OO p p5 O� tl W W 3 W W W W W W 3 W z W= W W I W ti u � D Q W W � J 3 O' p 0 IV W V o L L 11 cl o o O > r, a bo bIy N Oloo Vz CL LL cc) w m w m w co w co w M w co Oaq m w m oA co O W r N hp E E O o o o t0jja o o ci c ® c, .2 2 -2 72 "2 72 72 "E Z, Z 75 -5 t t 75 75 75 75 rC 2 z t; LL 12 ri t9 o ce cL r - i4 r 4.1 'A > w CI v E General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MOULTON NIGUEL Goals and Objectives The Moulton Niguel Water District (Moulton Niguel) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details. Moulton Niguel Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section (Table 5.12-1). 5.12.1 Capability Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Moulton Niguel's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.12.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of Moulton Niguel are shown in Table 5.12.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Moulton Niguel. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the District's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.12.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability O:NSharedkWEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdateXHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\SeGtion 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-81 Local State Other Level Regulatory Tools Authority Authority Jurisdiction Comments (ordinances, codes, plans) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Authority (Yes/No) Cities of Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, A. Building code No No Yes Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, Dana Point, O.C.F.A., AQMD B. Zoning ordinance No No Yes Coastal Commission Local cities C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations No No Yes County of Orange O:NSharedkWEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdateXHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\SeGtion 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-81 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MOULTON NIGUEL Goals and Objectives Table 5.12.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) 5.12.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in Moulton Niguel and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Moulton Niguel, as shown in Table 5.12.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. 0:ASharedlWER0GiHazmM2091PlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2019-12 Revislon9Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February-2012 5-82 Local State Other Level Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Authority Jurisdiction Authority Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (yes/No) D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain management, storm water management, County of Orange hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire No Yes Yes Army Corps. of Engineers ordinances, hazard setback Fish & Game - Fed. & State requirements) RWQCB E. Growth management ordinances (also called "smart growth" or anti -sprawl No No Yes Local cities, County of Orange programs) Local cities, O.C.F.A. F. Site plan review requirements Yes No Yes County of Orange, O.C.T.A., Cal Trans G. General or comprehensive plan Yes No No MNWD Master Plan H. A capital improvements plan Yes No No MNWD 1. An economic development plan No No Yes Local cities J. An emergency response plan Yes Yes Yes SEMS, NIMS, WEROC, ERP K. A post -disaster recovery plan No No Yes NIMS L. A post -disaster recovery ordinance No No No M. Real estate disclosure requirements No No No N. Waste Discharge Requirements No Yes No IState Water Resources Control Board 5.12.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in Moulton Niguel and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Moulton Niguel, as shown in Table 5.12.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. 0:ASharedlWER0GiHazmM2091PlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2019-12 Revislon9Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February-2012 5-82 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MOULTON NIGUEL Goals and Objectives Table 5.12.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position A) Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land development and land management Yes Engineering Department, local cities and outside practices consultants B) Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in construction practices related to buildings Yes Engineering Department, local cities and outside and/or infrastructure consultants C) Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding of natural and/or human- No caused hazards D) Floodplain manager Yes County of Orange E) Surveyors Yes Outside consultant F) Staff with education or expertise to assess the community's vulnerability to hazards Yes County of Orange G) Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Yes Engineering Department, local cities and outside consultants H) Scientists familiar with the hazards of the community Yes County of Orange 1) Emergency manager Yes Director of Engineering and Operations J) Grant writers Yes Director of Engineering and Operations, and outside consultants K) Lab Tech. Yes SOCWA 01SharedlWEROCtHazmit12011PIanUpdatelHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revislon\Section 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-83 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MOULTON NIGUEL Goals and Objectives 5.12.4 Fiscal Capability Table 5.12.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Moulton Niguel such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. Table 5.12.4-1 Fiscal Capability O:1Shared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisioMsection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-84 Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) 1. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) No 2. Capital improvements project funding Yes 3. Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes 4. Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes 5. Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes Yes 6. Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes 7. Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes & Incur debt through private activity bonds No 9. Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas No 10. Grants Yes O:1Shared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisioMsection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-84 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MOULTON NIGUEL Goals and Objectives 5.12.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Table 5.12.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Agency Name Programs, Plans, Point of Contact Effect on Loss Reduction (Mission/Function) Policies, Regulations, Name, Address, Comments Funding, or Practices Phone, Email Support Facilitate Hinder City of Laguna MNWD 1. Building Code Niguel Building x Department City of Laguna 2. Building Code Niguel Building x Department 3. Building Code City of Mission Viejo x Building Department 4 Building Code. City of Aliso Viejo x Building Department 5. Building Code City of Laguna Hills x Building Department 6. Building Code City of Dana Point x Building Department 7. Building Code Orange County Fire x Authority 8. Building Code AQMD x 9. Zoning Ordinance Coastal Commission x MNWD 1. Subdivision Local Cities x Ordinance 2. Subdivision County of Orange x Ordinance 3. Flood Plain County of Orange x Management 4. Flood Plain Army Corps of x Management Engineers 0ASharedkWER0C1,Hazrnit1201 I PlanUpdat6l-lazrnit Plan 2011-12 RevislornSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-85 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MOULTON NIGUEL Goals and Objectives Table 5.12.5-1 Local Nlitigation Capability, Assessment (Continued) Agency Name Programs, Plans, Point of Contact Effect on Loss Reduction (Mission/Function) Policies, Regulations, Name, Address, Comments Funding, or Practices Phone, Email Support Facilitate Hinder MNWD 5. Flood Plain Fish & Game -Federal x Management 6. Flood Plain Management Fish & Game -State x 7. Flood Plain Regional Water Management Quality Control Board x 8. Growth Management Local Cities x 9. Growth Management County of Orange x 10. Site Plan Local Cities x Requirements 11. Site Plan County of Orange x Requirements 12. Site Plan OCTA x Requirements 13. Site Plan Cal Trans x Requirements 14. Site Plan Orange County Fire Requirements Authority x 15. General Plan MNWD Director of x Engineering 16. Capital Improvement MNWD Director of x Plan Engineering 17.Economic Local Cities x Development Plan 0AShared\WER0C\Haznnt1201 1PlanUpdate\Hazmft Plan 2011-12 RemloMSection 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-86 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MOULTON NIGUEL Goals and Objectives Table 5.12.5-1 Local lWitigation Capability Assessment (Continued) Agency Name Programs, Plans, Point of Contact Effect on Loss Reduction (Mission/Function) Policies, Regulations, Name, Address, Comments Funding, or Practices Phone, Email Support Facilitate Hinder MNWD 18. Emergency SEMS X X Response Plan 19. Emergency Response Plan NIMS X 20. Emergency Response Plan WEROC X 21. Post Disaster Plan NIMS X 22. Grants MNWD Director of X Finance 5.12.6 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are Moulton Niguel's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the District has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the District's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, District representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. The LPG members were Frani Bailey, Larry Ballew, Phil Lawler, Ray McDowell, Tom Stephenson. Once developed, District staff presented them to the Moulton Niguel Board of Directors for their approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the O:kSharedkWEROC\HazmitX2011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 ReWsion\Section 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-87 SECTION FIVE MOULTON NIGUEL General Overview of Assets, Goals and Objectives hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Moulton Niguel's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. 5.12.6.1 Moulton Niguel WD Goals The Moulton Niguel Water District has developed the following five goals for their Hazard Mitigation Plan. Goal 1: Reduce District's Vulnerability to Disruption Goal 2: Minimize Water Loss (Ensure Reliable Supply) During Disaster Events Goal 3: Protect Imported Water Reliability Goal 4: Protect The Public Water Supply from Contamination Caused by Backflow or Back - siphonage in the Event of an Earthquake Goal 5: No Sewer Spills 5.12.6.2 Objectives and Actions Goal 1: Reduce District's Vulnerability to Disruption. A. Improve site security. B. Improve response time. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: District constructs site improvements as respective facilities are scheduled for replacement or refurbishment. Projects are implemented as funding is approved as part of annual budget process or available through financial assistance prograrns.Goal 2: Minimize Water Loss (Ensure Reliable Supply) During Disaster Events. A. Reduce reservoir water losses. B. Increase available water supplies. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: Contract for engineering studies for site-specific recommendations for structural stiffening and flexible coupling installation. Acquire funding to install seismic valves. Continue to coordinate with neighboring districts for interties. Goal 3: Protect Imported Water Reliability. A. Obtain an emergency source of imported water, 0:kShared\WEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionNSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-88 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MOULTON NIGUEL Goals and Objectives B. Increase Emergency Potable Water Storage. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: District staff will coordinate with neighboring water districts, MWDOC and MET to prioritize and implement projects on a regional basis. Goal 4: Protect the Public Water Supply from Contamination Caused by Backflow or Back - siphonage in the Event of an Earthquake. A. Upgrade all potential hazardous potable water services with the required backflow prevention device to prevent backpressure or back -siphonage that could contaminate the public water supply. B. Require all single check fire systems in the District to be upgraded to a Double Check Detector Assembly. Single check fire systems cannot be tested to determine if they are working properly. The Double Check Detector Assembly can be tested and requires an annual test to determine if it is functioning properly. The water quality in fire systems has been proven not safe for human consumption. The District conducted random tests on fire system water quality and found maximum contaminant levels for potable water including iron, lead, cadmium, manganese, and total coliform. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: The Cross Connection Control Department will investigate and determine the degree of hazard at all potential hazardous sites. These investigations are ongoing and each site will be evaluated to determine the correct backflow prevention device required for the site. Goal 5: No Sewer Spills. A. Provide backup system for critical facilities. B. Protect facilities within flood plain area. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: District staff would coordinate with outside consultant to prioritize existing facilities that would be lost or damaged from flooding or earthquakes. 0:\SharedkWEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionNSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-89 Z 0 uj a) U) w D 0 z z 0 2 a, ci O O ate O O (P W 0 q 0 q c, 9 C4 O� 1 11— 1— 1I— 'o 0 N 0 0 M N c; 6 0 a; 6 'I1"I C', I Ic'I 1� y. iv O 01 0 O M 0 0 I 1�2 01. N O1' C> 101 1a I— M 01, —1- —1 b9 10 01, 01, 1 101, T 1] Fl, I -01, 01, 01, 01, 01, 101, 1"1' 101, 10 101, I(D I- C, 0 Nf FA d3 to tH e3 tH II I ER a a Y O c m y 0O a m u v m o � a a � a `c n c � Y c w � c m h a ,Q? >_ a o, v _ p S 3 C O _m � ho m O = N v a £ 'L O W v�- a O E � H V c c a s } wr ,� o m v v =L o y � v5 'O c m = m 0 m � � w a £ ar p w w J N J - m= S 3 uj - 3 a a = O F a (n a � a m C u c 3 aS+ O O 2 w T O S a v y aj c m n £ W > p a £ .� m - Q iE n. ,aur o =. a o 'E E t o c m N d V O c £ m O K y a £ m m m m i= a in do a >- a O m : C '6 'L e N a Y 3 O C a fa i~>, C O a O S w C a a g J a£ f6 6, a o v o° o a. v w a o d N io o v a o v `o cc N_ cc u a V aur v' O_ m s a w v a va £ m a` s m .Y. a cc m a � a Z � a o £ 0 o � u & 6o v a Y o w m E K E V W E V 3 Z 3 Z 3 Z 3 Z 3 Z 3 Z d V v 0 a ,0 c Co c ti m 'a m v 'a ca ar � 0D v -o m v v co ar o m ar v m v •o m v � m ar p co v -o co ar a m 0 O w a O R N J £ (6 O N N £ a £ _£ ~ O O O O c O c O a p C J O N C J c O G O N O O O Y O O O Cc) 0 E 2 @ m m m m > cc> G 75 75 > > 3; CC3 G 75 a 2 W �p W W m Q � X 2 a m N C C G y c Q o = O J v° 3 v° 16 -o a v -o -c 72 -a 'y cc Eco T - uY N C - - N Y - - u O O S L C a m _ _ _ +Y+ ,� Q w vpi c o Ow s yr o i5 c6 6 Y O C a 3 '.c6 C a - S O a o _ `^ a v2 4 c c f° £ £ m c o a o s v c �' q a 9 m ,1 w 3 Y c o c 75 Q p ,c'F o p >= c 'a a d u u Q E£ y c 3 v £ a m£ o> a£ c a v 7E! p a 6 w t 0 0 £ u O 7 Q J '� £ g 3 £ O £ 3 £ 3 £ £ 3 2 £ £ O £ n' m ° jq 'd v S w '6 v L w 'a a 'O a '3 a a v S an gO a a v E c 0 b b �2? t5 2 a T 2 a T 2 2 g a in w 1 0 Z- I E 6,1 Ig v E d E Z E Z 0 =1 E 0 0 0 > o 0 10 '0 = E z z z z 0 E n E u E w E w E cr E a E V V a E 0> E 3 0 E S A 'aA o A CL 7s ti v m co co co co 03 co co M 00 co ca co 0 oA E 0 6 E P E vto E w a 0 w c 0 w c 0 w c -0 t 0 c 0 c c -0 c -0 2i E O E E E 2 E E E E E E E .2 o V 2i 2i 75 _5 75 75 75 75 75 75 '5 3 75 t7, X x x x z b 0 0 0 0 0 m u li w 9� 72 c 2 �6 2 - § t c 0 0 0 t !0y V t o co w c a z CL CL �* d, w a oc, o - 0 - I El E , c E E 41 o c 8 c 0 t co -Z,> 'o c E -2 E 2 �i 'a 7@ 0 76 �q 0 - a = t % .- �g a L' A? E -6 E c w a C, 0 o u CL r u 't u 0 0 E E E E EE 2 N E E E E -0 0 -a = m _0 'o O G o �3 m 'mss 64q Rl m m ?j' 0`A R1 R o y C 3 m a Rs o .a 3 c 3 c v y .vc s s c rl 0 3 v :c °Js`s 3 a3 a m ;6 v i6 h m a a; a c £ tom- "' a aci °3 yr °' ✓s °� v in sc a v ti � a z m a c= a a o 0 o " a` ab 'a > Y O > N bCq 4C0 hCq OOA w Z U w 3 Z t� w 3 Z w d u m � a ,Q a° 70 W m m cvn m m m ovo m m m m m m m t o y5 v hc 0 p O N N E N E v E~ --' O N O C O O h O ti w O p L w p u Lr Y CQ E v o c O � v m a v a a aai v a m a W N m¢ u x x x a } •� N � O C a ro C G �p N c O E C RI c 4 - rC C Rf {L c 4 d R) s C C u N a N a RS O N o v o o le o a @ c o O m o .� F m ; a 4 m a Z i v@ N o m V loO`O n s .c N v ,o 0 It yu E N a_" a O Ws -ao o a>i o c 3 ria o`n v E o c m° •v v a o a Y Q. o v E u d m O v v y a? m 4 `v "�'' o v o c c Y c a£i v nw ts a O o m~ v 41 i6 C = H = C C E H L N O y N a G«n 3 L v tY O E N ��is W v " RTS LL C Q -c 0O y O^ C > N� Is- O. C O vT. V V a4. m V D N C o _3 a N o o ° z a` 0° v 14 'cnn aar v snn v m v General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MWDOC Goals and Objectives Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. Since MWDOC is a regional agency, its specific goals and objectives were included in Section 5.3. See Section 4 for additional details on the hazard risks. The MWDOC Regional Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of Section 5 (Table 5.13-1, the table really pertains to losses by MET or for regional jointly -owned facilities). 5.13.1 Capability Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides MWDOC's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.13.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of MWDOC are shown in Table 5.13.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of MWDOC. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the MWDOC's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.13.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability 0AShared\WER0C\Hazrn[tV01I PlanUpdate\Hazmft Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.dGc I -February-2012 5-94 Local State Other Level Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority AuthorityJurisdiction Authority Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) A. Building Code Yes Yes Office Building -City B. Zoning Ordinance No No No C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations NA NA NA D. Special purpose ordinances (hillside or steep slope ordinances, fire ordinances, Yes Yes Cities, OCFD, USFWS, CDFG hazard setback requirements) 0AShared\WER0C\Hazrn[tV01I PlanUpdate\Hazmft Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.dGc I -February-2012 5-94 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MWDOC Goals and Objectives Table 5.13.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Local Authority (Yes/No) State Authority (Yes/No) Other Level Jurisdiction Authority (Yes/No) Comments E. Growth management ordinances (also called "smart growth" or anti -sprawl programs) NA NA NA F. Site plan review requirements Yes No Yes OCFA, Cities G. General or comprehensive plan Master Plan Yes No No Urban Water Management Plan; master plans of the MWDOC member agencies; MET Integrated Resources Plan. H. A capital improvements plan Yes No No I. An economic development plan NA NA NA J. An emergency response plan Yes Yes Yes SEMS, NIMS, WEROC, OA, MET K. A post -disaster recovery plan Yes Yes Yes NIMS L. A post -disaster recovery ordinance No No No Cities, County, OES, FEMA M. Real estate disclosure requirements NA NA NA N. Material Handling Yes Yes Yes Cities 0. DAMS Yes Yes DODs & RWQCB P. VA & ERP Yes Yes USEPA & OES Q. Title 17 & 22 Yes Yes CA -DPH R. Wastewater Yes Yes CRWQCB S. Air Quality Yes Yes SCAQMD T Safety Yes F Yes CalOsha 5.13.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in MWDOC and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of MWDOC, as shown in Table 5.13.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. O:\SharedlWEROC\HazmiN2011PlanUpdateiHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionXSectlon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-95 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MWDOC Goals and Objectives Table 5.13.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capaciq- Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No DepartmenttAgency and Position A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land development and land management Yes Professional staff plus coordination via outside consultants practices B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in construction practices related to buildings Yes Professional staff plus coordination via outside consultants and/or infrastructure C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding of natural and/or human -caused hazards Yes Professional staff plus coordination Via outside consultants D. Floodplain manager Yes County of Orange E. Surveyors Yes Outside consultants F. Staff with education or expertise to assess the Yes Professional staff plus coordination via outside community's vulnerability to hazards consultants; County of Orange G. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Yes Outside consultants H. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the Yes Professional staff plus coordination via outside community consultants; County of Orange I. Emergency manager Yes Director of the Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County (WEROC) J. Grant writers Yes Professional staff plus coordination via outside consultants K Lab Tech Yes Outside entities. 0AShared\WER0CtiHazmJA201I PlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revislon\Section 5 HM,doc 1 -February -2012 5-96 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MWDOC Goals and Objectives 5.13.4 Fiscal Capability Table 5.13.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to MWDOC such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for. new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. Table 5.13.4-1 Fiscal Capability 5.13.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are MWDOC's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, MWDOC has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and 0ASharedNWER0C\Hazmlt1201'[PlanUpdatekHazinit Plan 2011-12 RevislorASection 5 HM.doc I -February-2012 5-97 Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) A. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) No B. Capital improvements project funding Yes C. Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes No D. Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes E. Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes Yes F. Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes G. Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes H. Incur debt through private activity bonds No I. Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas No J. Grants Yes 5.13.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are MWDOC's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, MWDOC has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and 0ASharedNWER0C\Hazmlt1201'[PlanUpdatekHazinit Plan 2011-12 RevislorASection 5 HM.doc I -February-2012 5-97 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE MWDOC Goals and Objectives objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including MWDOC's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, MWDOC representatives met to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. The LPG members were Kelly Hubbard, Lee Jacobi, Karl Seckel, Michelle Tuchman, Heather Fong, and Keith Lyon. Once developed, MWDOC staff presented them to the MWDOC Board of Directors for their approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by MWDOC's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. Table 5.13.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment NRMIN1i�1, Five major goals for MWDOC were listed in Section 5.3. The only assets specifically owned by MWDOC include its administrative office building and it has contents located in two Emergency Operations Centers, which it leases from other agencies. MWDOC's main goals are to continuing staffing WEROC for the benefit of the water and wastewater entities in the County and to coordinate on regional planning efforts between MET and Orange County and to coordinate among the 28 member agencies it has in Orange County on planning and water resources activities. 0:1SharedXWEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisloMSection 6 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-98 Programs, Plans, Effect on Loss Reduction Agency Name Policies, Title (Mission/Function) Regulations, Address Comments Funding, or Phone Contact Support Facilitate Hinder Practices Karl Seckel 1. Planning x x Assistant General Manager Kelly Hubbard MWDOC 2. WEROC WEROC Programs x x Coordinator 3.Urban Water Matt Stone Management Plan Associate General Manager x x NRMIN1i�1, Five major goals for MWDOC were listed in Section 5.3. The only assets specifically owned by MWDOC include its administrative office building and it has contents located in two Emergency Operations Centers, which it leases from other agencies. MWDOC's main goals are to continuing staffing WEROC for the benefit of the water and wastewater entities in the County and to coordinate on regional planning efforts between MET and Orange County and to coordinate among the 28 member agencies it has in Orange County on planning and water resources activities. 0:1SharedXWEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisloMSection 6 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-98 a c o 0 0 0 O �• nR. � EPr fA fA ar H3 E3 H3 V3 V3 fH V3 fR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q o 0 :Id sv `: 0 ur 0 0 us 0 .» Ea 0 0 Ea 0 Ea 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 o ci d d d d d d Jc W W :: to Ur b9 b4 3 yr ov .,� ur ur Ea yr err w En o o 0 0 0 o O o+ o o a W ci IT En o N o O 6 O 6 O Td O Q =ro o d o o p p o p Cl 0 101, 1, 1 w sr <a «a err yr .» En .» .n r- o w va ar «a an w err N o 5 a o o o o O o 0 0 0 oli o N a 101 a cn «> vs yr o O N W I=! ;::: O eH O O • O O O O O O O O O N o y c x. a E i E R E R E $_ E i E i E $ E W W W W s W V W W' I Wz I W z W W= W o � ra � CL Q 0 a 0 E cL �T a 'T a o a a a N a cl a 2 m 2 m 2 m c o O m 2 m 2 a c a. c a a 2 2 2 o o :E t5 Sc o 2 t oco < t o 4 l o 2 t, o 2E t5 -2 o Z> t c o > o > > o > o > o E E E -a E E E E E j- cc -w E Iv lw Iv > I > > cc c c o o o o o o o o > 'o c r c c c c o c o C —o c Zy mw m 47 75 cL Z t; o. at m > w o c c c c u m C7 pp (D kD L7 0 o > o cx wl E > 2 E E o 7 o o > a a > o 2 L 4) 75 o o ao E Z v o u 0 2 o o o c o c cw o o o- 3 75 cL > > v v o Im o o o o o o o O o 2 �c a «cc o E .2 c �; v° . o o > 76 o > o c tE uo E E — > E o 0 m m m m m m m O m = o ol c IcL a n n. °a' a a v a. v `o..� ry @ m a a d o v O m O m o m O m o m O m m v C QO E R v 4 m ? c N "moo O c N m ac ac o`.c ac ac a.c6 c c v n m a ro 'E c a m m c a m m 5 c a m ro« c a m m ': c o a w w ° c o c u 'c a m m Y c aq o E 'c o m_ v v 19 2 u °� o ° `� a m i° a `m m ° ¢ o t° 3 Y m Q m Q m 4 v° m Q 2 c� m Q u 2 m Q o c3 2 w n O `a o m Q +ca p, o O a` v a Q o v Q v a Z a � w a y u o v v v > v v ori v y v o, ao v E v E v E a E v v v Z E '�z v c ' a m m m m m m o m o a x o A � � IA u �` ai y u v ai v ai v ai a ai a ai m ai v ai y v c W c v d O> '^ m o d > o N v o a o v C) L> v p w o v Q w c > a,o v-c w`-c n`, -6 m o m o 3 m o = E@ o m o o m c u 3 .n .o° i s 3 3 0 3 3 u e E o > E m w E v v y o m m c m C m C m C m c> N C d Y a' v pa m C t0 y„ N °- @ } O E j E o H E E N m O V O G N E o N v LL y 41 C W m m m m m m O $ o c c o ° c C v vLt x`�n. c a y � O E v =on 'co_o sun �_ _m ego o'cn 'co_o m_ m O a x G E 3 S S S S S S N N a tl N �Yn w Yn stir �n c i6 m 3 [6 3 t6 N 3 3 my} m N N � a cato V tD < Q a G c d o V V `v V G N >� ? Y > n 3m U ` o C 4 4 u u u u u u c O O C 3 E 3 V} Y C V N u as- 61 "� f6 C C C ca C c v r y C T o C 3 O c O' o .� v C7 v C? v t7 v l7 v l� v t� „� c m v '° '^ v z N v m L m m N m Q @< O a v u 3 3 0 Io a m a - g o o o o a v mL° o v 3-va > o c o m oo a > o`n v v v c d g m a c o .° LL° a° "- o Y m o N o on ooa m m a o Q as o a v z o° g u o u Q n ° m c ti os o pvpv N mom. N v LL v g d v=o u v u c m a 0 o y o> ° E 3 N m v '$ u v 3 c a v�v, -° o c p c o c o o tl o o o c m c a 3 > o m m p ° 'a .v ova >. a osu rn ° m O m N c G N Yy m _m C 2o S_ m 0@ >' £ ° 7' W N v o a j O wm v 2 o m 4 m c 0 o > ou'_' V o, OJ v u QF �D m w bva 'w m '"� NM '6 c c a y o o c 'G ..., F- m U u c v C m E O Y u m u 3 v`s C v o n aci .a '� oca $�' c va is m m > c c c m c a 7E S 75 c E 'a v i m= a i o 3 a a a °� u°w °�¢O wvoi coca v 3 3 0 c m r r s s s m \ \\ \\ \\ : 0 mt < \\\\j\ 1 Zo E 0 > > u -6 0 E E CL ti 0 E lw > 41 CL E w o p E E ■ j \ } f f 2 2 :lw m w w ho C \j V 0 CL 0 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE NEWPORT BEACH Goals and Objectives The City of Newport Beach (Newport Beach) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details. Newport Beach Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section (Table 5.14-1). 5.14.1 Capability Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Newport Beach's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.14.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of Newport Beach are shown in Table 5.14.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Newport Beach. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the City's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.14.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability 0AShared\WER0C1HazmM201 1PlanUpdate\Hazmft Plan 2011-12 RevisioMSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-103 Local State Other Level Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Authority Jurisdiction Authority Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) City Building Dept. A. Building code Yes Yes Yes City Code & WQ Enforcement AQMD (Air Quality) B. Zoning ordinance Yes No No City Planning Dept. Coastal Commission City Building & Planning C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations Yes No Yes Depts. County of Orange 0AShared\WER0C1HazmM201 1PlanUpdate\Hazmft Plan 2011-12 RevisioMSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-103 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE NEWPORT BEACH Goals and Objectives Table 5.14.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) 0:\SharedkWER0C\HazmM201 I PlanUpdate\Hamit Plan 2011-12 RevWonkSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-104 Local State Other Level Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Authority Jurisdiction Authority Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain RWQCB management, stormwater management, hillside County of Orange or steep slope ordinances, wildfire ordinances, Yes Yes Yes Army Corps o f Engineers hazard setback requirements) Fish & Game — Fed & State CDFG E. Growth management ordinances (also called City's General Plan "smart growth" or anti -sprawl programs) Yes Yes No County of Orange LAFCO F. Site plan review requirements Yes No No City Depts. G. General or comprehensive plan Yes No No City's General Plan H. A capital improvements plan Yes No No City's GIP for Water & Wastewater I. An economic development plan Yes No No City's General Plan J. An emergency response plan NIMS, SEMS Yes No Yes WEROC City EOC K. A post -disaster recovery plan Yes No Yes NIMS L. A post -disaster recovery ordinance No Yes Yes County of Orange State of California M. Real estate disclosure requirements City Ordinance Yes Yes No State Real Estate Board Tax Assessor N. Security Issues Yes Yes No Vulnerability Assessment 0. Title 22 Yes Yes Yes County Health Services USEPA P. Portable Generators Yes Yes Yes AQMD Q. Dam safety No Yes Yes Division of Dam Safety R. Waste Discharge Requirements Yes Yes Yes SWRCB S. NIMS Yes Yes Yes FEMA T. Safety Yes Yes No Cal OSHA U. Water Quality Yes Yes Yes CA DPH USEPA V. Waste Discharge Requirements No Yes No State Water Resources I I Control Board 0:\SharedkWER0C\HazmM201 I PlanUpdate\Hamit Plan 2011-12 RevWonkSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-104 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE NEWPORT BEACH Goals and Objectives The following is a summary of existing departments in Newport Beach and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Newport Beach, as shown in Table 5.14.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. Table 5.14.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land City Public Works Dept. — Engineers development and land management practices Yes City Planning Dept. —Planners City hires outside contractors as needed B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in City Building Dept. — Plan Checkers & Inspectors construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure Yes City Public Works Dept. — Engineers & Inspectors C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding of Yes Contractors or State/Federal Employees natural and/or human -caused hazards E. Floodplain manager Yes County of Orange F. Surveyors Yes Public Works — Surveyor City hires outside contractors as needed City Police, Fire, Public Works, Utilities & General Services G. Staff with education or expertise to assess the Yes IDept. staff County of Orange community's vulnerability to hazards WEROC staff City hires outside contractors as needed City Public Works & MIS staff H. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Yes Center for Demographic Research, CSUF City hires outside contractors as needed 1. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the Yes County of Orange Cal Tech, other Colleges/Universities community State/Federal Employees City Manager/Primary NIMS Responder J. Emergency manager Yes Other designated staff dependent on type of emergency and availability Fire or Police Chief — as necessary Yes Various City staff — Public Works, Planning, City Managers K Grant writers Office, Utilities Dept. City hires outside contractors as needed 0AShared\WER0CkHazrnft1201 lPlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-105 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE NEWPORT BEACH Goals and objectives Table 5.14.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity (Continued) Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position A) No OCWD L. Lab Testing Capital improvements project funding Test America C) Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes nfk., licensed- labs as deemed necessary 5.14.4 Fiscal Capability Table 5.14.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Newport Beach such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. Table 5.14.4-1 Fiscal Capability 5.14.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are Newport Beach's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the 0:\Shared\WER0C!Hazrn1t1201 I PlanUpdatekHazrnit Plan 2011-12 RevislonkSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-106 Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) A) Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Yes B) Capital improvements project funding Yes C) Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes (Prop 218 requires vote of people) D) Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes, Water & Sewer E) Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes Yes, Connection & Permit Fees F) Incur debt through general obligation bonds No (takes vote of public) G) Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Revenue Bonds (supported by revenue stream) H) Incur debt through private activity bonds Yes (Infrastructure to benefit private companies must have greater public benefit) Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas Unknown 5.14.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are Newport Beach's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the 0:\Shared\WER0C!Hazrn1t1201 I PlanUpdatekHazrnit Plan 2011-12 RevislonkSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-106 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE NEWPORT BEACH Goals and Objectives goal. Where appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's plarming documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. The LPG members were Tim Deutsh, Terressa, Moritz, and George Murdoch. Once developed, City staff presented them to the Newport Beach City Council for their approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Newport Beach's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. Table 5.14.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Agency Name Programs, Plans, Policies, Point of Contact Name, Effect on Loss Reduction Support Facilitate 1 Hinder (Mission/Function) Regulations, Funding, or Practices Address, Phone, Email Comments City of Newport Mike Sinacori Beach (Water) Utilities Engineer 3300 Newport Blvd, 1. Master Plan (949) 644-3311 X X Newport Beach, CA msinacori@city.newpoft- 92658 beach.ca.us Mike Sinacod Utilities Engineer 2. GIP (949) 644-3311 X X msinacori@city.newport- beach.ca.us George Murdoch Utilities General Manager 3. Urban Water 949-644-3011 Management Plan Gmurdoch@newport X X beachca,gov 0AShared\WER0CkHazrnit1201 I PlanUpdatekHazrnit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-107 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE NEWPORT BEACH Goals and Objectives Table 5.14.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment (Continued) Agency Name Programs, Plans, Policies, Point of Contact Name, Effect on Loss Reduction Support Facilitate Hinder (Mission/Function) Regulations, Funding, or Practices Address, Phone, Email Comments George Murdoch Utilities General Manager 4. Master Fee Resolution 949-644-3011 x x gmurdoch@newport beachca.gov George Murdoch Utilities General Manager 5. Municipal Code (949) 644-3011 x x gmurdoch@newport beachca.gov City of Newport Mike Sinacon' Beach (Sewer) Utilities Engineer 3300 Newport Blvd. 1. Master Plan (949) 644-3311 x x Newport Beach, CA msinacorJ@city,newport- 92658 beach.Ga.us Mike Sinacon Utilities Engineer 2. CIP (949) 644-3311 x x msinacori@city.newport- beach.ca.us Mike Lynch Utilities Supervisor 3. Waste Discharge Order 949-644-3415 x x RWQCB Mlynch@newportbeach Ca.gov George Murdoch Utilities General Manager 4.Master Fee Resolution 949-644-3011 x x Gmurdoch@newport beachca.gov George Murdoch Utilities General Manager 949-644-3011 5. Municipal Code Gmurdoch@newport x x beachca.gov O:kSharedkWEROC1Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSectlon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-108 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE NEWPORT BEACH Goals and Objectives 5.14.5.1 City of Newport Beach Goals Newport Beach has developed the following seven goals for their Hazard Mitigation Plan. Goal 1: Promote hazard mitigation plans & programs. Goal 2: Promote public understanding, support and demand for effective hazard mitigation. Goal 3: Improve coordination and communication with federal, state, and local governments. Goal 4: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, particularly people and critical facilities/infrastructure due to dam failure. Goal 5: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, particularly people and critical facilities/infrastructure due to natural disasters (earthquakes, Severe Weather & High Tides, Tsunami's and Structural Fire/Wildfires). WSharedXWER0CXHazrnM201 I PlanUpdatell-lamit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-109 z 0 w 0 0 iL 3: w z In gra In O 12 p O O o O cc> 10[ 0 O CII —to 10 1�� Esq 0 t fH O o 0 10 E k k EX. E k E k L F k 9 s k E k W, t� z z LZ f 1� . L� Ili z w Ln Iz T � E f!:� 5i LZ E 0 > O C c w a 0 E 43 J > 2c . e o S !. :2 SP IE5 0§ :tl c = E -E .0- = - f6B E -0 ua 0 0 0 0 m ani E m OD P = A t t t -2 m m c E Lo 2 'r, c 2 o =c :L- -m c v z a w w c o o w j E E o E o j -E o w 5 B O. O. O O c > o a > > > > > E o E o E o E o E o .1 z z m .c V Nom as o c E o E v E E O < Z to Z z co x x x to < - b CZ > .0 z rl m O w -z ro u �6 = < �w < w 'o z z r M .2 c 2 16 S bD o 'o cL m c a o E E E c ia c: a a lo > 2 o w o - D D 9 -o 0 E o x u w EQQ O .2 J ;4 & o o y o o _ C O O m m a E m c C c o O •c O Y 63 o =o ate.. v v m a m C 3 aci m m Y m O 'G oa o tOY m `m °° c u .a w o° o o °c 3° N Tc � Z y v o a a o J m pp N V N u 6 m o E 0 p c x CO p _ CO E N h a v L o v v� > o v t o v W H E C E s s 3 d N 7 N CL 'v w m m `y M E@ c O om ¢ u. Z Z i O E m t c E E c v m v -a E a o c `O E t m E16 m F v m m m E E a E Q E ~ o ° <n 3 a E E E E s w O U O 6 N � C 'a6 y Z � Z `o ` m ° o O m d W a� O a Y d o z v m m 5 S c E 5 a 6' cc E cW G � w E =^ mw U Q O m X X Q � a v u a a w L •� y •C � O � O " d Q V C O � Y _ S O O m m � d G o Q C c o O •c O Y 63 t4 T O Tc a i? o a a o J m pp N V N u 6 p c x CO p _ CO E N h a S L v w v o v t o v 3 = w m `y v a> v m m m E °c° m E E E o a E E aa+ � d c O0 x � c 'c „o m E _ v c v v v ami Q. O. T O O m m � d N O c O 63 t4 T Tc c O J � tG6 c U N V N u p m x CO 03 CO h u't S m `y M E@ c O O 1mR fi O. C i O E o E E c v m v -a E a o c m t m E16 a E Q o ° <n 3 a E E n' N a O 6 N � C 'a6 y m `^ OV WO g O m d W a� O a Y 6' cc E E =^ [511=1 1S1 I1=1 1 1 »ƒ ` \\ .0 m\_ c 0 3: 76 2\ c cc m 0 2U 0 0 04 u > > z z 0 E 0 E IV 0 be C 7f v 0 0 to z lw mm" 'Ll lw 16 CL 01 w ZE 2 T I 75 \ \} \ \ }\\\}}\\\ i3 !? )#) General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE acs® Goals and Objectives Orange County Sanitation District reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details. OCSD Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section (Table 5.15-1). 5.15.1 Capability Assessment OCSD is currently identifying their capabilities. The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides OCSD's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.15.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of OCSD are shown in Table 5.15.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of OCSD. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the OCSD's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.15.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Local Authority (Yes/No) State Authority (Yes/No) Other Level Jurisdiction Authority (Yes/No) Comments A. Building code Yes Yes Yes Local cities O.C.F.A A.Q.M.D. Some Exceptions Apply HCA < State/County B. Zoning ordinance No No Yes We have a Specific Plan for Reclamation Plant No. 1 approved by the City of Fountain Valley, Treatment Plant No. 2 is in the Coastal O:NSharedkWEROC\Hazmft\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisioMSection 5 HM,doc 1 -February -2012 5-114 SECTION FIVE General Overview of Assets, OCSD Goals and Objectives Table 5.15.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) O:NShared\WEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Sectlon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-115 Local State Other Level Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Authority Jurisdiction Authority Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Zone, but the City of Huntington Beach has a LCP. C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations No No Yes Local cities D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain No Yes Yes County of Orange - management, storm water management, Army Corps of Engineers hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire USFWS/CDFG ordinances, hazard setback requirements) Regional Water Quality Control Board SAWPA OCFA CDF/ Forest Service OCSD is a local jurisdiction for dry weather runoff discharges and special purpose discharge permits for groundwater or storm water that cannot be discharged to the storm drains. E. Growth management ordinances (also No No No Local cities called "smart growth" or anti -sprawl County of Orange programs) OCFA Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission F. Site plan review requirements Yes No No Local cities County of Orange OCFA Permits G. General or comprehensive plan I No No Yes OCSD prepares and approves a Master Plan for its facilities. H. A capital improvements plan Yes No No RWQCB Habitat Protection LAFCO 1. An economic development plan No No No J. An emergency response plan Yes Yes Yes SEMS NIMS WEROC K. A post -disaster recovery plan No No Yes NIMS O:NShared\WEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Sectlon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-115 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE OCSD Goals and Objectives Table 5.15.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) O:NShared\WEROCkHazm!tQ011PfanUpdatetHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevislonkSection 5 HM.doc I -February-2012 5-116 Local State Other Level Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Authority Jurisdiction Authority Comments (Yes(No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) L. A post -disaster recovery law No No No M. Real estate disclosure requirements No No No N. Waste Discharge Requirement Yes Yes No State Water Resource Control Board OCSD is a local for the City of Tustin and surrounding unincorporated area near Tustin. O:NShared\WEROCkHazm!tQ011PfanUpdatetHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevislonkSection 5 HM.doc I -February-2012 5-116 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE OCSD Goals and objectives 5.15.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in OCSD and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of OCSD, as shown in Table 5.15.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. Table 5.15.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land Yes District coordinates with outside consultants development and land management practices B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in District coordinates with outside consultants construction practices related to buildings and/or Yes In-house and Consultants infrastructure Engineering Department C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding of Yes District coordinates with outside consultants natural and/or human -caused hazards Consultant with VA & ERP D. Floodplain manager Yes County of Orange E. Surveyors Yes Outside consultant F. Staff with education or expertise to assess the Yes - County of OrangeWEROC community's vulnerability to hazards G. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Yes Outside Consultant County H. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the Colleges/University community Yes Regional Caltech USGS 1. Emergency manager Yes Director of Operations Risk/Safety Department J. Grant writers Yes Michael Gold's Division K Other- Lab Staff/ Specialist Yes Internal 0aSharedXWEROCkHazmit12011PianUpdate4Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 5 HM.doc I -February-2012 5-117 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE OCSD Goals and Objectives 5.15.4 Fiscal Capability Table 5.15.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to OCSD such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. Table 5.15.4-1 Fiscal Capability 01SharedkWER0MHazmlt'201 I PlanUpdateXHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevlsioniSecfion 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-118 Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) A. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) No B. Capital improvements project funding Yes C. Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes D. Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes E. Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes No F. Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes G. Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes H. Incur debt through private activity bonds Yes I. Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas No J. Grants Yes 01SharedkWER0MHazmlt'201 I PlanUpdateXHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevlsioniSecfion 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-118 General Overview of Asse SECTION FIVE OCSD Goals and Objectiv 5.15.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are OCSD's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the OCSD has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the OCSD's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, OCSD representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. The LPG members were Jim Matte and George Rivera. Once developed, OCSD staff presented them to the OCSD Board of Directors for their approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by OCSD's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. 0:tShared\WEROCkHazmit12011PIanUpdate\Hazrnit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-119 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE OCSD Goals and Objectives OCSD reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. Since OCSD is a regional agency providing the underlying support for a number of the agencies, the overall goals and objectives for the wastewater functions were included in the regional Section 5.4. See Section 4 for additional details on the hazards. The OCSD Loss Assessment Table follows. 0ASharedkWER00Hazrnit1201 1 PIanUpdate\Hazmft Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-120 66 O 1p m ux ci ID tV -l" IT I' I' Ol 'D O ol 0 0 0 oil 1O1 2 r. 2 i T 2? E 6' E 8 1 j P z tn z ,g go. z z w z W- W- 3 2 rn E V- T o. xt z p E 0 si 0 c 0 O t5 72 E 0 C, E Eo 4 z 0 0 t 0 �c E 0 0 ?£ ux U, ou 0 >0 s E 0 —1 o x 0 w q E E '0 E E P£ a5 E 0 a a a a0 0 o z z z 9 43 I 43 m IF 0 c 0 2 0 Id t t t V V t ac a Z5 .2 0 0 -16 2 0 16 go 2 1 CL '7 t 0 z 0 0 0 ££ 0 2 t5 -0 w w EL 2 v v E 0 > o •o 0 .2 OW a 0 CL 2 '47,0Nn 0 2 m m o t m :E <1 2 E co < g m !; < t cL E o o w > o E w > o E > o E m > o E V t > o E w w cc w w w x w o E u. m m w m co m m m m m o E 2 E z z z z z z z E, 3: E 2 2 o 2 Tm a 43 Ol > a 43 1Y J t7, o 2 t E ca o r 72 t :2 t 72 :2 t O .2 E cl -F, o v cL t o' E t O Itro .2 cx c 2 m N o E -o E -S 2 o 2 B m B B a m a 0 m 0 m 0 i6 O. m Z C Qt T 6.c L L c . L .2 2C .2 2c - 9 wa Q 2 2 I 2i m 2i c co '0 0 0 0 0 C 0t 0 'a E E E E V E E 0 c LL Opp E ~ 0 tf 0E nOD 0 w 0 bo 0 0 P E 43 V E u z z z z z z z z z z z Ci E E -;9 43 43 43 43 43 < 2 X x x X 0 x x Z 0 w OW CL w t t V t t t 5 a 0 mc 1.7 0 c N .2 0 i> -- 0 3: 0 a ;b 2 o. a x 0 ro T Q T a on is a E 0 0 0 0 a o a, 0 .2 t .2 0 2 t 0 m¢ 0 2i 0 2i CL 0 0 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 v m E E E E E > 0 m cc cc 0 E °an LL D co m O pp E E 0 0 0 0 E00 w w ww c c 43 43 43 76 :F :7c V> < CL. -CC '0 x x 0 c -Z .2 e e 'g.2 .2 0 .2 0 c 0 E Ea E E E E S .-M . . �z 0 Xv E 10 E 0 0 - CL w 0 c . Cc, x-, —w w E E 0 w m 0 > m -0 a w0 cc 0 > c > w _0 E m 0 0 E -2 E 0 Eo 0 0 �c u 0 2 v 2 E E cc0 2 2 m 2 ac asCL m n c a c a c a co w < I < co < o 3:, o I < 0 2i t m < 0 0 0 0 0 w x E E E E w E 0 cc LL p 00 E E w c c E 2 2 2 2 Z z Z z z z z z O E 2 2 2 43 v 43 43 43 -e 43 07 x x x x x x x co E T 3 3 f 72 3 3: t :R t '2p- t t t4 T CL AQ 10 72 -0 0 0 -a E VOL O.=m w .75 o w 0 aa - I > 0 2 CL 0 ;F, E w CL oa a' o w E 0 E -Z5 0 w a 1w 0 E �6 E S w > aci CL E E C, 0 0. E m E > m w w E E E E E w 0 .2 3: .2 3: ?: 2 .2 w e Z5 .in General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE OCWD Goals and Objectives OCWD reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details. OCWD Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section (Table 5.16-1). 5.16.1 Capability Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides OCWD's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.16.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of OCWD are shown in Table 5.16.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of OCWD. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the District's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.16.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Regulatory Tools Local State Other Level Jurisdiction (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Authority Authority Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) A. Building code No Yes Yes B. Zoning ordinance No No Yes C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations No No Yes D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain management, stormwater management, No Yes Yes hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire ordinances, hazard setback requirements) E. Growth management ordinances (also called No No No smart growth" or anti -sprawl programs)_ 0:XShared\WER0C\HazrnftQ0 I I PlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 RevlslontSecfion 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-127 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE 0CVVD Goals and Oblectives Table 5.16.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) 5.16.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in OCWD and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of OCWD, as shown in Table 5.16.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. 0:1Shared\WEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdate\HaziTilt Plan 2011-12 RemioMSectjon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-128 Local State Other Level Regulatory Tools Authority Authority Jurisdiction Comments (ordinances, codes, plans) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Authority (Yes/No) F. Site plan review requirements No No Yes G. General or comprehensive plan No No Yes H. A capital improvements plan Yes No Yes 1. An economic development plan No No Yes I An emergency response plan Yes Yes Yes K. A post -disaster recovery plan No Yes Yes L. A post -disaster recovery ordinance No Yes Yes M. Real estate disclosure requirements No Yes Yes N. Waste Discharge Requirements No Yes No State Water Resources Control Board 5.16.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in OCWD and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of OCWD, as shown in Table 5.16.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. 0:1Shared\WEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdate\HaziTilt Plan 2011-12 RemioMSectjon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-128 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE OCWD Goals and Objectives Table 5.16.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position 1. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of No land development and land management practices 2. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in Yes construction practices related to buildings OCWD- Engineering Department and/or infrastructure 3. Planners or Engineer(s) with an No understanding of natural and/or human - caused hazards 4. Floodplain manager No 5. Surveyors No 6. Staff with education or expertise to assess the No community's vulnerability to hazards 7. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Yes OCWD- Hydrogeology Department 8. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the No community 9. Emergency manager Yes OCWD - Risk/Safety Department 10. Grant writers Yes OCWD - Planning Department 11. Other Yes OCWD - Water Quality Lab 5.16.4 Fiscal Capability Table 5.16.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to OCWD such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers, or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. O:kSha.,edkWEROC1Hazmit12011PIanUpdateXHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-129 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE OCWD Goals and objectives Table 5.16.4-1 Fiscal Capability Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) • Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) No • Capital improvements project funding Yes • Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes No • Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes • Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes No • Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes • Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes • Incur debt through private activity bonds Yes • Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas No 5.16.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are OCWD's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the OCWD has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the OCWD's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, OCWD representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. The LPG members were Chuck Steinburg and William Hunt. Once developed, OCWD staff presented them to the OCWD Board of Directors for their approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by OCWD's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. 0:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit2011PlanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevislonNSection 5 HM.dGc 1 -February -2012 5-130 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE OCWD Goals and Objectives Goal 1: Deter unauthorized access to key facilities at Prado Dam. A. Improve site security. Goal 2: Reduce potential loss to existing infrastructure. A. Increase protection of facilities within flood plain area. Goal 3: Deter unauthorized access to key facilities ay Field Headquarters in Anaheim. A. Improve site security. Goal 4: Maintain continuous operations of key facilities. A. Provide backup system for critical facilities. B. Protect reservoirs from overflow. 0ASharedkWER0C\Hazrn1t1201I PlanUpdat6l-lazinit Plan 2011-12 Re0slon\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-131 i6 m � o co r�'i N m o ti o O Hi eft H3 N3 to di 6? fH K3 Nt tf# E9 o O o O a o o o o a o O 6 0 0 6 6 6 0 efr 0 0 ui 0 0 u> 0 ux 0 0 .» o N N .ai e9 6A to t4 M o o o o 0 o O o o o J J W wt ='00 da 0 0 0 wa as O 01, O a .n ca ll- 1 101, o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� o� o� N J c o M o to M— O H r o MJz! O O O O Q V3 O 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 4 0 tH 0 £9 o N a9 O O O O i O i O O 1 O O O O F- W b3 0 H3 O O O O 01, O O 64 O 4 6 O N Q 1 lo. Cts C N a -:- 0 v� o ca o .fa 4 0 w 0 wr 0 4 ca 0 0 0 o an 0 a 'M o n p o ec p o M o v o O n p o 0 W ' a+) o .- 0 M 0 o o o o O o N df e9 to fR Yi O y dt N N pp 6 pp X. p pp pp pO pO E 6 W W W W W W W W IL W W 3 W W o t1 t0 O C :2 W y J J w E 0 re 0 0 E E o E E 0 a u 0 u 2 o E EE 8 E t/i o 0 VT ss 0 0 0 0 o 0 CaC g a4 or c .2 CL v343 t 0 .2. 'A m N -B fg 'o 2P QO m 10 Lm i6 N i0 General overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE ORANGE Goals and Objectives The City of Orange (Orange) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details. Orange Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section (Table 5.17-1). 5.17.1 Capability Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Orange's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.17.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of Orange are shown in Table 5.17.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Orange. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the City's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.17.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability 0:1SharedNWEROC1Hazmifl2011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevislonNSection 5 HMAoc 1 -February -2012 5-134 Local Does 1Other Level Regulatory Tools Authority State have Jurisdiction Comments (ordinances, codes, plans) (Yes/No) Authority? Authority (Yes/No) (Yes/No) A. Building code Yes No Yes OCFA, AQMD B. Zoning ordinance Yes No No C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations Yes No No D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain management, stormwater management, Regional Water Quality Control hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire Yes No Yes Board (RWQCB), USFWS, ordinances, hazard setback requirements) CDFG 0:1SharedNWEROC1Hazmifl2011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevislonNSection 5 HMAoc 1 -February -2012 5-134 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE ORANGE Goals and Objectives Table 5.17.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Local Authority (Yes/No) Does State have Authority? (Yes/No) Other Level Jurisdiction Authority (Yes/No) Comments E. Growth management ordinances (also called "smart growth" or anti -sprawl programs) Yes No No F Site plan review requirements Yes No No G. General or comprehensive plan Yes No No H. A capital improvements plan Yes No No I. An economic development plan Yes No No J. An emergency response plan Yes No Yes WEROC, SEMS K. A post -disaster recovery plan Yes No Yes NIMS L. A post -disaster recovery ordinance No Yes Yes F.E.M.A., State of CA M. Real estate disclosure requirements Yes Yes No State Realtor Board N. Security Issues Yes Yes No CA DPH via Vulnerability Assessment 0. Safety Yes Yes No Cal OSHA P. Water Quality Yes Yes Yes CA DPH, US EPA 5.17.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in Orange and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Orange, as shown in Table 5.17.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. 0AShared\WER0C\Hazrnit\2011 PlanUpdaWl-lamit Plan 2011-12 RevisionNSecfion 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-135 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE ORANGE Goals and Objectives Table 5.17.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land development and land Yes Public Works/City Engineer management practices B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in construction practices related to buildings Yes Public Works/City Engineer and/or infrastructure C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding of natural and/or human- Yes Public Works/City Engineer caused hazards D. Floodplain manager Yes Orange County Flood Control District E. Surveyors No F. Staff with education or expertise to assess No the community's vulnerability to hazards G. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Yes Public Works / GIS Coordinator H. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the No community I. Emergency manager Yes City Manager Office J. Grant writers Yes City Manager Office K Other— Water Quality Lab Yes Water Division / Water Quality Inspectors 5.17.4 Fiscal Capability Table 5.17.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Orange such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. 0ASharedkWER0CkHazrnffi201 1 PlanUpdate\Hazrnit Plan 2011-12 RevisionNSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-136 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE ORANGE Goals and Objectives Table 5.17.4-1 Fiscal Capability 5.17.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Listed below are Orange's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goat The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. The LPG members were Joe De Francesco and Son Tran. Once developed, City staff presented them to the Orange City Council for their approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the 0ASharedNWER0C\HazmM201 I PlanUpdateiHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revislon\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-137 Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) A. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Yes B. Capital improvements project funding Yes C. Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes D. Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes E. Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes Yes F. Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes G. Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes H. Incur debt through private activity bonds Yes I. Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas Don't know 5.17.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Listed below are Orange's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goat The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. The LPG members were Joe De Francesco and Son Tran. Once developed, City staff presented them to the Orange City Council for their approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the 0ASharedNWER0C\HazmM201 I PlanUpdateiHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revislon\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-137 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE ORANGE Goals and Objectives hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Orange's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. Table 5.17.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment 5.17.6 City of Orange Goals Orange has developed the following Goals for their Hazard Mitigation Plan - Goal 1: Ensure a cost effective, safe, and dependable potable water supply for domestic uses and fire protection. A. Provide and preserve infrastructure, facilities, and programs. B. Reduce the possibility of losses and damage to existing property due to natural hazards. C, Respond quickly and effectively to hazard disasters.Goal 2: Minimize water loss due to natural disasters. A. Reduce water loss as much as possible. B. Increase water supply sources. Goal 3: Provide continuous potable water during natural hazards. A. Improve site security. B. Improve response time. C. Protect potable water from contamination. Goal 4: Minimize damage to facilities and infrastructure. A. Protect existing assets from natural disasters. B. Improve/replace facilities within disaster prone area. 0:\SharedIWEROC1Hazmit\2011PIanUpdatelHazmit Ran 2011-12 RevisionkSection 5 HMAOC 1 -February -2612 5-138 Programs, Plans, Effect on Loss Reduction Agency Name Policies, Point of Contact (Mission/Function) Regulations, Name, Address, Comments Funding, or Phone, Email Support Facilitate Hinder Practices 1. Water Master Plan Water Manager X Provide overall view of the water system Water Division 2. Asset Management Plan Water Manager X Budget planning 5.17.6 City of Orange Goals Orange has developed the following Goals for their Hazard Mitigation Plan - Goal 1: Ensure a cost effective, safe, and dependable potable water supply for domestic uses and fire protection. A. Provide and preserve infrastructure, facilities, and programs. B. Reduce the possibility of losses and damage to existing property due to natural hazards. C, Respond quickly and effectively to hazard disasters.Goal 2: Minimize water loss due to natural disasters. A. Reduce water loss as much as possible. B. Increase water supply sources. Goal 3: Provide continuous potable water during natural hazards. A. Improve site security. B. Improve response time. C. Protect potable water from contamination. Goal 4: Minimize damage to facilities and infrastructure. A. Protect existing assets from natural disasters. B. Improve/replace facilities within disaster prone area. 0:\SharedIWEROC1Hazmit\2011PIanUpdatelHazmit Ran 2011-12 RevisionkSection 5 HMAOC 1 -February -2612 5-138 I• uS C' M m M u N H o V M V3 Hr VS EFS fA tii EA Vr d3 60 V3 V3 O � 0 O O O O O O O O O O O p O O O O S4 O O O O O O O O O O Hr EA d3 fA 64 Eet br PA eA fA fA th M �? N M N OM 616 � Q r M fD N O 0 I O OM O N N O N M O N dr E9 bg V3 ftr +R E» fR Hr 63 Hr Vi J O W HS 63 Eli Err tfr Vr Efl yt Ni Vr HS a E» Els E» Ety v: E5 ur er E9 Err en O O O O d O O , O O 101 10, 101 M O O O O O o M 0 0 O O d 0 O O> Q Vr bi Mr E% fH fJr Hr bi Hi fA &r Ui V d. U} O O N N O N O O a d fl. f Hr EA V} Efr fA N M O O H W aA fR E9 Yr Hr fR HS Efl Efl Eft E9 69 10 O to � O O o O O 1" a ur En � er er � er En er er yr of O O 0 0 0 r O 0 co u? "0 0 '7 O O O N d3 to ER dr 4i H3 dr EH Nr Hr b9 :.o a o d o o o O o o o o «» yr E» En yr er ua Efr Etx Efs n E.s yr '.'.O 0 O p O 0 O O O 0 O VS ch W C EA Vr H3 HS H3 ER H} ff3 N} dr EA r N t• 0 O N N I- N ER £4 !A H3 Esr v3 E9 b3 Er3 Yr 69 EH O `O$ N �I.-. 3 W UJ W W WW 4! IZ, o_' E g V6 > w a a 1. d � E U W W c�_ J J E 0 > tlo 0 uo C c w 0 m E 0 2 T e O a U 21 y Ly c > c a 'r to 00 r. 0 o c E E 0 o v m 2 4: tg c 0 0 C tz 0 0 F' E co 0 c > 0 v a>i c c > W-1 c W 0 0 w ml 49 E 2 cL > > o > o > o 2 R E E l x o o w V co m m aw *D cL D- a m cL co 1; m co oo co o E E go E E E E E F - E E E c o O O 0 o E E E J o o o v -2 is w7E -2 "E"2 72 -IF -a -2 c 'S 5; 75 cG 75 Sc 3 2 5 75 Z> 3 75 75 75 IL t; w In co V z 72 > cL u m c c c c -6 'o Z w = c o c w m c x c o > c _o m E E > o I z c o .2 E 75 w o m z ai Z; c w > c I E E c w c V M a a a vi a C Y f6 a cc 'tp c 'acn m 0z 0o N a; c 16 aa5cc- n c v@NcxaE, 3- ° o -a 0as o ° o o o°o Ic � m OC u g E o E bo V w O o o a bA c o4 > > > bA Nv >>O O o o N'bxyO aQ m a z E v aa ai Eva .' } O 0 K E C w v A v m v m v m w v -a > a i 'y v m c c a m o- m n. n n. a m n m o. m m o m n m a m . n 0 0 a ED o c 0 m c E c bn b' m na on 1- E `v H E c cc O N O O E O O E C o O O O 0 o 0 c c ; 3 3 G o c C o c 0 o 0 v n Y o c 0 o c ti "'��' c �c c me c C c :D c D > E a 03 0 3 3 3 `s 3 3 3 3 E 3 3 3 3 3 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o o a a E E v E E s s t s E E s E s f 2 g 2 cac WG G m WG M () W u X X x X X x X x X m a z a ? E '0 c a 3 N = m 'o ° ;; a N 3 Gl 'O 3 a 72 3 a N N 3 N 3 N 3 01 � 3 a 'II 3 D1 •a 3 03 'B a B p a `m __ n v - ¢ �; `^ ¢ u u v u u o � 7E t 3:`m c ° M a = w 3 c o c Q o c by c m o E v 40 'G O a £@ O a i Q c _ m L c .v H u S a 1 c a' ET a m ac v m > E m a Q. a Im a �+ Y v = i c c „a v a . o v o a o a c a c Y a m` E_ v N w a E c c 3 0 o Q o m o E v w a E m •c °- o .m ,m. `° a 'm 'o $ ',�-� s = m a •c o 4 a 3$ o u a v ¢= is v a c �' a v bares a o a o u a o ''!'-L' Yn sa 0 E N 0c a a m aar Y w 2 -va LL ° o 4 � •E EE E E E c o a v s uo o a t 3 s s a o J a 2 0 0 6 °A J v a o 2i c4 G a General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SMWD Goals and Objectiven A a a a r - - - - - - - - — 0 A A Is 1 0 1 The Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details. SMWD Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section (Table 5.18-1). 5.18.1 Capability Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Santa Margarita's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.18.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of SMWD are shown in Table 5.18.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Santa Margarita. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the District's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.18.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability 0:tShared\WER00\Hazmit\2011PlanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionlSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-142 Local Does State Other Level Regulatory Tools Authority Have Jurisdiction Comments (ordinances, codes, plans) (Yes/No) Authority? Authority (Yes/No) (Yes/No) A. Building code No Yes No Some Exceptions Apply B. Zoning ordinance No No No C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations No No No D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain County of Orange Flood management, storm water management, Control District/ Orange hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire Yes Yes Yes County Fire Authority / ordinances, hazard setback requirements) USACE / USFWS / CDFG (RESOURCE AGENCIES) E. Growth management ordinances (also called No No Na "smart growth" or anti -sprawl programs) 0:tShared\WER00\Hazmit\2011PlanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionlSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-142 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SMWD Goals and Objectives Table 5.18.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Local Authority (Yes/No) Does State Have Authority? (Yes/No) Other Level Jurisdiction Authority (Yes/No) Comments F. Site plan review requirements Yes No No OCFA PERMITS G. General or comprehensive plan No Yes Yes H. A capital improvements plan Yes No No I. An economic development plan No No No J. An emergency response plan No Yes Yes SEMS/NIMS K. A post -disaster recovery plan No No No L. A post -disaster recovery ordinance No No No M. Real estate disclosure requirements No No No Advantageous For District Operations N. Vulnerability Assessment No Yes Yes US EPA 0. Dams Yes Yes RWQCB/ DSOD P. VA ERP Yes Yes USEPP/OES Q. Title 17 & 22 Yes Yes CA DPH R. Waste Water Yes Yes RWQCB S. Air Quality Yes Yes AQMD T. Safety Yes Yes CA OSHA U. Waste Discharge Requirements No Yes No State Water Resources Control Board 5.18.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in SMWD and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of SMWD, as shown in Table 5.18.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. O:XSharedkWEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 5 HM.doc I -February -2012 5-143 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SMWD Goals and Objectives Table 5.18.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land development and land management Yes SMWD ENGINEERING DEPT STAFF practices B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in construction practices related to buildings Yes INHOUSE & CONSULTANTS and/or infrastructure C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding of natural and/or human- No caused hazards D. Floodplain manager No E. Surveyors Yes CONSULTANTS F. Staff with education or expertise to assess the community's vulnerability to hazards Yes ERP G. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS No H. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the community Yes CONSULTANTS E. Emergency manager Yes SMWD Operations Manager J. Grant writers No K Other Yes Lab staff @ Chiquita WRP Lab 5.18.4 Fiscal Capability Table 5.18.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Santa Margarita such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. O:kSharedkWEROCtHazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazfnit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-144 SECTION FIVE General Overview of Assets, SMWD Goals and Objectives Table 5.18.4-1 Fiscal Capability 5.18.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are Santa Margarita's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the District has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the District's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, District representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. The LPG members were Steve Francis, Ron Meyer, and Jaime Aguilar. Once developed, District staff presented them to the SMWD Board of Directors for their approval. 0:SSharedNWEROC1Hamit12o11 PlanUpdataki-lurnit Plan 2011-12 RevislonNSection 5 HM.doc I -February -2012 5-145 Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) A. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) No B. Capital improvements project funding Yes C. Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes D. Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes E. Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes Yes F. Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes G. Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes H. Incur debt through private activity bonds No I. Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas Don't Know 5.18.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are Santa Margarita's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the District has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the District's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, District representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. The LPG members were Steve Francis, Ron Meyer, and Jaime Aguilar. Once developed, District staff presented them to the SMWD Board of Directors for their approval. 0:SSharedNWEROC1Hamit12o11 PlanUpdataki-lurnit Plan 2011-12 RevislonNSection 5 HM.doc I -February -2012 5-145 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SMWD Goals and Objectives Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Santa Margarita's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. Table 5.18.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment 0:\Shared\WER001Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Sectlon 5 Hkdoc 1 -February -2012 5-146 Programs, Plans, Effect on Loss Reduction Agency Name Policies, Point of Contact (Mission/Function) Regulations, Name, Address, Comments Funding, or Phone, Email Support Facilitate Hinder Practices SMWD Finance Manager 1. Insurance 26111 Antonio Pkwy Yes Yes Las Flores CA 92688 (949) 459-6573 SMWD Finance 2. Funding: Capital Manager (Chief Improvement Engineer Program, Capital 26111 Antonio Pkwy Yes Yes Replacement Las Flores CA 92688 Reserve Santa Margarita (949) 459-6589 Water District Sewer System SMWD Operations Field Superintendent 3. Vulnerability 26111 Antonio Pkwy Yes Yes Assignment Las Flores CA 92688 (949) 459-6589 4. Emergency Operation Plans Same as above in #3 Yes Yes 5. Emergency Power Equipment at Same as above in #3 sewage lift station facilities 0:\Shared\WER001Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Sectlon 5 Hkdoc 1 -February -2012 5-146 General overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SMWD Goals and Oblectives Goal 1: Reduce SMWD's Vulnerability to Disaster Related Service Disruptions. A. Improve domestic water system site security. B. Protect existing domestic water assets and ensure public safety. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: SMWD constructs site improvements as facilities are scheduled for upgrade or retrofitting. Projects are implemented as funding is available in the Capital Improvement Program update using remaining bond funds or from specific line items in the Capital Replacement Reserve account. Goal 2: Protect Imported Water Reliability. A. Obtain an emergency source of imported water. B. Increase Emergency Domestic Water Storage. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: SMWD staff will coordinate with neighboring water districts, MWDOC, and MET to prioritize and implement projects on a regional basis. Goal 3: Protect the Public Water Supply from contamination caused by private system backflow in the event of an earthquake. A. To maintain separation of all potential hazardous potable water services with the newer required backflow prevention device to prevent backpressure or back - siphonage that could contaminate the public water supply. B. To require all fire systems in SMWD to be upgraded to meet standards for backflow prevention (possibly using a Double -Check Detector Assembly) that can be tested annually to determine if they are working properly. The water quality in fire systems has been proven not safe for human consumption based on water quality tests that found maximum potable water contaminant levels such as iron, lead, cadmium, manganese, and total coliform. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: The SMWD backflow prevention staff will investigate and determine the degree of hazard at all single - detector check locations. Each potential conversion site will be evaluated to determine the correct backflow prevention device. Goal 4: Eliminate or minimize wastewater spills. A. Provide emergency storage structure for all sewage lift facilities. O:kSharedNWEROC\Hazm!t12011PIanUpdate�Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisioMSecflon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-147 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SMWD Goals and Objectives B. Protect facilities within flood plain areas. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: SMWD staff would coordinate with an outside consultant to prioritize existing facilities that would be lost or damaged from flooding or earthquakes. Goal 5: Protect Chiquita Water Reclamation Plant facilities. A. Provide emergency storage capability at the Influent Lift Station. B. Provide facilities to minimize fire danger to sensitive equipment. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: SMWD staff would coordinate with an outside consultant to review existing facilities and design new improvements that would help mitigate damage from earthquake or fires. Goal 6: Protect communities from potential earthquake induced dam inundation. A. Update recycled water reservoir dam failure inundation studies. B. Advise local agencies of flooding from potential dam failure. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: SMWD staff would coordinate with an outside consultant to review existing facilities and design new improvements that would help mitigate damage from an earthquake. O:XSharedl'4VEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM-doc I -February-2012 5-148 I I I P.- 1 oqmw. @MEMO rammmmmmmmmr, almommmilmol. wom- EMEMEMES Immommmomil ram�-^ ommmommo 11MIMIMIEll wm�N�Mmmmmrl 03�8�M�M�mm 111111111 immommmom Ii1lA1111 i �jijili i 11111111 W 11111111 f! V3 EH H3 Hf W Efl to fH Efi V3 Ni 6 O 04 00 '11 0i3 ]] 'I-li H F ] 0 o , M diI - . oqmw. @MEMO rammmmmmmmmr, almommmilmol. wom- EMEMEMES Immommmomil ram�-^ ommmommo 11MIMIMIEll wm�N�Mmmmmrl 03�8�M�M�mm 111111111 immommmom Rom VG3=�Mvmm- Ii1lA1111 i �jijili i 11111111 Rom VG3=�Mvmm- Ii1lA1111 i 11111111 11111111 Rom VG3=�Mvmm- C - a a w W 0 d p 0 C 4C > 43 E w19 V 0' 0 I= co o m E o 27 .o > o .LL <u o mc m o l E xm w P R s > 0 Z i6 UO 7t- 1 0 O CS 00 CL cl� 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 E E> E u Li u 0 u 0 0 u o U 0 . 3 x G 0 U tw 0 CL LL c 0 c 00 Co m O 0 0 E 0 t E o E m w E E 0 n 0 0 c E C 0 0 0 1 0 m 75 cc wv X X X x X x x c c IT <c C F- t5 0 wlo coCC) 0 W, WW Z v w LZ a �i 06 cr - z CL z m 3: CL Z 0 V 75 Ili vi w 75 75 75 0 U 6 m 2 2 > iz c c o w E �;- 'w > 0 ' V rL w �9 —y}, m Z t E 0 o 77, -a > . (V u 0 W o C c w o a . 0 cl:— o 'z w w tE c cc 0. o 75 > a E < ai E o .2 t 3 o 0 E < p E E > US 0 0 40 0 0 d E 1 E E E 'tl 0 1 1 V v t6 0 0 t5 > -:2 EO z> z J:E - ;6 E 0 0 cz "0 > 0 'a "a > 0 0 E 0 E 0 0 0 E E 0 E E 0 43 0 bD co w 43 0 W m E m 6 E E E E E E �i F- p E w a 0 c 0 2 0 0 V 0 U 0 Y c 0 c D M c E E 04 w 0 75 0 0 0 75 0 0 E E 0 16 0 .2 .2 lk x Z 3: 0 > 0 6 1* E 70 0 w 0 0 0 V v G m M E 0 0 n. O Nw 0 r4 Ft 0 + 0 c C B s a 1� 0 .0 o o c mvaIm E 'O= r- o , o 0 CIf 0 c. E 0m no 0 .0 Gc 0 �w .w C) 0 w u cc CL 0 w -0 > CL 0 v m 15 N c 0 -M :2 E 0 29 c E 3: cc 0 w c 6 o 0 CL 0 tx c c p E 0 v 0 V 0 b L � = 70 2 a s V$ E 0 0 IL E E E E .09 76 11, is 10, 1 0 kv, o = E 2- y 2i abs ami 3 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SERRANO WD Goals and Objectives The Serrano Water District (Serrano) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details. Serrano Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this Section (Table 5.19-1). 5.19.1 Capabilities Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Serrano's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.19.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of Serrano are shown in Table 5.19.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Serrano. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the District's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.19.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability O:NShared\WEROCkHazrnit12011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-152 Does Higher Local State Level Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Prohibit? Jurisdiction Comments (Y/N) (Y/N) Authority I (Y(N) Building code NO YES NO Zoning ordinance NO NO YES Subdivision ordinance or regulations NO NO YES Special purpose ordinances (floodplain management, storm water management, hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire ordinances, hazard NO NO YES setback requirements) O:NShared\WEROCkHazrnit12011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-152 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SERRANO wo Goals and Objectives Table 5.19.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) 5.19.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in Serrano and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Serrano, as shown in Table 5.19.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. 09SharedlWER=Hazmit\2011 PlanUpdate\Hazmit Pian 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc i -February 2012 5-153 Does Higher Local State Level Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Jurisdiction Comments (Y/N) prohibit? Authority ('/N) (Y/N) Growth management ordinances (also called "smart growth" or anti -sprawl programs) NO NO YES Site plan review requirements NO NO YES General or comprehensive plan NO NO YES A capital improvements plan YES NO NO An economic development plan YES NO NO An emergency response plan YES YES YES SEMS/NIMS A post -disaster recovery plan NO YES YES NIMS A post -disaster recovery ordinance NO NO NO Real estate disclosure requirements NO YES YES 5.19.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in Serrano and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Serrano, as shown in Table 5.19.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. 09SharedlWER=Hazmit\2011 PlanUpdate\Hazmit Pian 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc i -February 2012 5-153 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SERRANO WD Goals and Objectives Table 5.19.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources YES/NO Department/Agency and Position Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land YES City of Orange development and land management practices Yes, Serrano Water District/Administration Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes Serrano Water District construction practices related to buildings and/or YES infrastructure Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding of natural and/or human -caused hazards NO Floodplain manager NO Surveyors YES Out Sourced Staff with education or expertise to assess the YES ERP community's vulnerability to hazards Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS NO Scientists familiar with the hazards of the community NO Emergency manager YES Serrano Water District Grant writers YES I Serrano Water District/ Engineering Dept 5.19.4 Fiscal Capability Table 5.19.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Serrano such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. Table 5.19.4-1 Fiscal Capability Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) No Capital improvements project funding Serrano Water District /Engineering Department Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes, Serrano Water District/Administration Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes Yes O:kSharedlWEROCkHazmit12011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 ReAsionkSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-154 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE • WD Goals and Objectives Table 5.19.4-1 Fiscal Capability (Continued) Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes/ Serrano Water District/ Administration/Board of Directors Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds No Incur debt through private activity bonds No Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas No 5.19.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Listed below are Serrano's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the District has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the District's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, District representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. Once developed, District staff presented them to the Serrano Board of Directors for their approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Serrano's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. 5.19.6 Serrano Goals For Serrano, following are five major goals for hazard mitigation planning purposes. The five goals are followed up with detailed objectives and actions: Goal 1: Minimize damages to facilities /infrastructure due to natural disasters. A. Protect existing assets with the highest vulnerability and greatest service value to the effects of natural disasters. O:kShared\WEROC\Hazmit\201!PlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revislon\Section 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-155 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SERRANO WD Goals and Objectives Table 5.19.6-1 SERRANO — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) B. Protect the public water supply from contamination caused by backflow or back - siphonage in the event of an earthquake. C. Protect potable water from contamination. D. Protect assets from a major Earthquake event. E. Reduce the High Fire Threat to the District's facilities/infrastructure. Goal 2: Minimize disruption of service due to hazard induced outages. A. Provide backup system for critical facilities. A. Develop new sources of supply. B. Improve response time. C. Work with the water community in Orange Comity to examine the benefits of storage of water in Irvine Lake for regional benefit. Goal 3: Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and infrastructure due to human caused hazards. A. Develop a comprehensive approach to reduce damage and loss due to human caused hazards. A. Increase the knowledge of employees and the public of extremely hazardous substance handling procedures and terrorism awareness. Goal 4: Protect communities from potential earthquake induced dam inundation. A. Update water reservoir dam failure study for Irvine Lake. B. Provide NIMS and SEMS training for all existing or new employees per EPA guidelines, C. Conduct semi-annual emergency response training exercises for staff. D. Participate and coordinate with WEROC and other member agencies in hazard preparedness. E. Insure sufficient equipment, materials, and communications hardware to respond and recover from natural hazards. F. Develop mutual aid response teams, training, and exercises for natural hazards with local member agencies. Goal 5: Promote public understanding, support and demand for hazard mitigation. 0:\SharedIWEROC\Hazmffl2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc I-February2012 5-156 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SERRANO WD Goals and Objectives Table 5.19.6-1 SERRANO — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) A. Educate the public regarding natural and man-made hazards and opportunities for mitigation actions to protect local residents and businesses. B. Prepare an emergency response preparedness brochure for the local community identifying all types of natural hazards. C. Promote a partnership between the local, county, and state governments to identify, prioritize, and implement mitigation actions. D. Promote hazard mitigation in the business community. E. Use the public media to cover mitigation activities. F. Publish newsletters for the public and business leaders with information regarding hazardous mitigation of natural and man-made hazards. G. Develop full cooperation with all outside agencies regarding human caused hazards. 0:1SharedkWER0C\HazrnM2011 PlanUpdate\Hazrnit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-157 Z 0 4 N LLE w U3 J O Z w U) M N W M Q1 h V M m o cv to v M a a o = � va » v� ea ss ea �r f» fFr ear rrs e> 0 0 ci d a cS o 0 0 o ci o 0 O M N [F O O N � r O O N O fig tH V3 H3 H? fA Ef3 th b3 b9 '� :. ::: N O •- t0 O 0 0 to O O O O V O , 4 J m W to to f9 EH Efl to fA (A H3 a o o va ea ,o 00 O , O� O , O , p , O O O , O E9 J H} E9 Fy to FA fH U) di f9 H3 m �vj £5 fH Pd O Q uS '':. Hi EA b3 eA EH VY H3 iA ffi O N N O O N N a O O O c 0 0 U N a9 :: fA fH V3 fA 69 b3 d3 fA d} d3 O M O 00 O O O o O O a 0 O o O FH ER � W � <.. fl3 fR f3 Vi 64 E9 H3 Vf H? 0 OO 4 OOO4E!3 0o N C .01 IT '01 J 6 fA b3 E9 N} H3 p O O 4 O O O R H3 N loo a 101 va sv ea ca e� F» <n ea ctr 0 0 0 a 0 O O a 0 O O 0 0 O a N o 0 .10 o 0 O r o O 0 0 10 0 0 O 0 0 O �r w v> ea EFr yr Efs M vi W cc U} 4A O , N 10 0 a O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O 0 0 N b3 d3 ° di w N J N O OJ > x� E $E W LL ' W ' W ' W ' W ' 111 ' W ' W ' W a� o, .1 '� m O > r W OJ {L1 I1 12, o. O E a 6 by E 0 p ami 16 L: 0 o ta > 0 �L 3 B CL :2 cw E E 0 IL E �o % E z 0 2 o 3: c m M tg , E to P A! E E 'T lw q C c c .2 -6 o B .2 c b° O° o .2:- cca 0 m c 0 w Z G7 0 0 0 o 0 u EE 0 u E w V 0 E E E CL ;a w > 0 43 -iE > 2 43 0 c < a 'a c . 2 — z . E s u - u E = t 1� F= bo "2 E E E E E < < Z c Y c D z z a 0 c c D c 0 c c S 0 C 0 c a D 0 c c M 0 c c E o Ap S Ap cr Iv w z t; LL 72 ol O 10 t t a a. 'a V V -5 75 -0 lw ol W w I t 4- (Uaw Lu C, 0 m c S 2 U 7b > w cl .2 all 0 E E t5 a7 0 0 E E C, 0 aj 2 _ > 0 0 �z c 0 0 t T 7E E 0 75 N 5 c t� 75 m == =- Z -Z� e 0 2� C c h�M cc Ew E E E co co 0 cl -o w co o a o ca o oa a 45 > o w E > o > bo > o w o E w Co E- L co o Eti m _o E w o" p EE Z z 9Z z o oo 2 oo c 72 m 2 m c ml 75 I- z X GC c E 'E V cl cw o E c I c Iv > :3 E > I o - y° a E o a, t .7, E z x c m 2 t tE w o I N t S su 2 t5 w > 72 . w w E V c -2 t L 2 S 'E t°J cG cin 7i cL 5 o: u m -5 1 E m o E E f E E > tg c 72 C E 0 m W W E E o E ow 0 0 za E 0 m o a Z E 0 0 , 0 > > E 0 EE 0 CL 0 0 E a c r- 'D > 0 E CL ;a ca m co co co co co co cc m co co t 0 -0 T T '00 E E E0 aw E E 0 E c w E ww c c c c u0 c 0 0 -0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y a a 0 a 0 c OC D D M :D M :E c 2 75 tf :2 :2 :2 . :2 :2 CL Z z r CL -C -C E c E 0 > 0 0 0 0 tlA c 4^ 0= 0 2 .a -0 w > 0 u OU 0 o - -2 t lw 0 v c Q u 'L C > - CL 0 2 Z -C 2 - c 0 0 •t C 0 0 E -6 0 c U 0 0, c M c w 0 E E .2 t5 t5 t5 11 - -G 2 . 2 , .9 72 EE c > I u 0 c < > 2 0 E -a 0 c < > E 2 0 0 m co 0 c �a c 2� IV 0 c m WC o 0 c c o w o c c c c, > _w o E E Sc c w o o L o o u >O b=A 61 E CM C o > E o> E cL (D ca co m co m LL cD o c o 0 O c c D o o o c -c D o E� 2 o E 'o c cr o o o o c x x x b c "o M 22 t c ONoc l m o t5 s .i6 o 6 o' c o us c o 0 c6 .2, t5 E 6 a > mc Ima aI-P I- c c > m > c w o 2 z o c wz E E c tg w lo C> o o t4 :2 E 's cL uO 'm a Ic a o o S m x = IQ E y S o w o o u E E 2 o m E 76 E ;B E -F. E -r. E 76 -ro -1 0 m0 m0 c 0 w, , 75 0 M 0 c -a' v E o o t E c c c c c M 0 E 0 '2 E 0 C C 0 C 0 w 0 C, 0 w 0 a Wim- CL m �o m 0 a 0 K W 0 0 u > > > a > > A 0 E 0 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0CL E E w w V E 0 w OD m ca co M m t 0 w E M 0 Ebo 40 w w w to p£ E 0 S 0 S 0 G 0 s 0 S 0 s 0 OA c to c 40 c w c OA c to m 0 O O 0 0 c 0 c 0 Cc c Ef 0 "m 0 0 .9 M M 41 'o c c c 0 0 x x x x x x x -Z 2 M, _c r 0 M M C c 0 CL c c 0 5 3: E c0 Ot om Ic 2 76 c m C T 0 MW S 0 E 0 0 w > 0 E bo c w > w -1 3: -F. tf CL m M x CL X M 0 C I -C c v �6 C M a.L E M" . - 0 , t E E 0 2 c .0 > E . 9 0 > 2 'Ll -0 W 0 �i 'Z 0 3 f6 0 7i 'C' 0 Q1 m, > ME 76 S; 72 E w 0 0 E t2 E I E w - '5 o 0 0 2 E E 0 0 . �r, m M E 'a 0 u 0 U O. CL uo 0 < 0 Z w c c < 0 E \�� : \ co ca (\� 0 c a 3: 0 c 0 0 \ ) � / / \ CL CL lw 0 % 72 o 0 w u > CL SECTION FIVE General Overview of Assets, SCWD Goals and Objectives 5.20 SOUTH COAST WATER DISTRICT — OBJECTIVE, GOALS AND ACTIONS The South Coast Water District (SCWD) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details. SCWD Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section (Table 5.20-1). 5.20.1 Capability Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides SCWD's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.20.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of SCWD are shown in Table 5.20.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of SCWD. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the SCWD's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.20.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Regulatory Tools Local State Other Level Jurisdiction (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Authority Authority Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) A. Building code No Yes No B. Zoning ordinance No No Yes C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations No No Yes D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain management, stormwater management, No Yes Yes hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire ordinances, hazard setback requirements) O:1SharedXWEROC1Hazmit12011PIanUpdatetHazmi', Plan 2011-12 Revislon\Sectlon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 - 5-165 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SCWD Goals and Objectives Table 5.20.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) 5.20.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in SCWD and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of SCWD, as shown in Table 5.20.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. 0:1SharedIWEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdateNHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisioMSection 5 HM, doe 1 -February -2012 5-166 Local State Other Level Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Authority Jurisdiction Authority Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) E. Growth management ordinances (also called "smart growth" or anti -sprawl No No Yes programs) F. Site plan review requirements No No Yes G. General or comprehensive plan No No Yes H. A capital improvements plan Yes No No I. An economic development plan Yes J. An emergency response plan Yes Yes Yes SEMSMIMS K. A post -disaster recovery plan No Yes Yes NIMS L. A post -disaster recovery ordinance M. Real estate disclosure requirements No Yes Yes N. Waste Discharge Requirements No Yes No State Water Resources Control Board 5.20.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in SCWD and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of SCWD, as shown in Table 5.20.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. 0:1SharedIWEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdateNHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisioMSection 5 HM, doe 1 -February -2012 5-166 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SCWD Goals and Objectives Table 5.20.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land development and land Yes City of Dana Point, Laguna Beach & San Clemente management practices B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in construction practices related to buildings Yes South Coast Water District and/or infrastructure C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding of natural and/or human- No caused hazards D. Floodplain manager No E. Surveyors Yes Out Sourced F. Staff with education or expertise to assess the community's vulnerability to hazards Yes ERP G. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Yes South Coast Water District Engineer Dept. H. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the community No 1. Emergency manager Yes South Coast Water District J. Grant writers Yes South Coast Water District/ Engineering Dept 5.20.4 Fiscal Capability Table 5.20.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to SCWD such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. O:XSharedkWEROCNHazmit%2011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisiomSection 5 HM.doc I -February -2012 5-167 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SCWD Goals and Objectives Table 5.20.4-1 Fiscal Capability 5.20.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are SCWD's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the SCWD has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the SCWD's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, SCWD representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. Once developed, SCWD staff presented them to the SCWD Board of Directors for their approval. O:kSharedIWEROCI,Hazmifl2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2©12 5-168 Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) A. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) No B. Capital improvements project funding South Coast Water District /Engineering Department C. Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes, South Coast Water District/Administration D. Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes/South Coast Water District E. Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new Yes/South Coast Water District developments/homes F. Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes/ South Coast Water District/ Administration/Board of Directors G. Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes for Revenue Bonds H. Incur debt through private activity bonds No I. Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas No 5.20.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are SCWD's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the SCWD has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the SCWD's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, SCWD representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. Once developed, SCWD staff presented them to the SCWD Board of Directors for their approval. O:kSharedIWEROCI,Hazmifl2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2©12 5-168 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SCWD Goals and Objectives Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by SCWD's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. Table 5.20.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment 0AShared\WER0C\Ha7rnM201 IPlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Sectlon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-169 Programs, Plans, Effect on Loss Reduction Agency Name Policies, Point of Contact (Mission/Function) Regulations, Name, Address, Comments Funding, or Phone, Email Support Facilitate Hinder Practices San Diego Regional Water Quality Board Region 9 (858) 467-2952 *(SDRWQCB) Cad Schwing California Coastal (562) 590-5071 Commission South 200 Oceargate, Coast District 10th Floor Long Beach, Ca 90802 City of Dana Point Brad Fowler (949) 248-3554 Joe Chiqueter (949) 497-0338 505 Forest Avenue City of Laguna Beach Laguna Beach, California 92651 USA (949) 497-3311 (949) 497-0771 fax 0AShared\WER0C\Ha7rnM201 IPlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Sectlon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-169 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SCWD Goals and Objectives Agency Name (Mission/Function) Programs, Plans, Policies, Regulations, Point of Contact Name, Address, Effect on Loss Reduction Comments Funding, or Phone, Email Support Facilitate Hinder Practices William Cameron (949) 361-6120 City of San Clemente City of San Clemente 100 Avenida Presidio, San Clemente, CA 92672 5.20.5.1 SCWD Goals Goal 1: Reduce District's Vulnerability to Disruption. A. Improve site safety and security. B. Improve response time. Goal 2: Reduce Water Losses and Improve Water Reliability during Disaster Events A. Reduce reservoir water losses. B. Additional water resources. Goal 3: Minimize Sewer Interruptions during Disaster Events A. Establish emergency by-pass for Sewer Beach Interceptor Tunnel and lift stations. 01SharedkWER0C1HazrniA201lPlanUpdatekHazrn1t Plan 2011-12 RevisionNSectlon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-170 c6 ol C, C, .0 i. 0, OC; 0 0 01. ol y.o I0 fA E9 .'101 .—I CT 69 M eo V3 V3 HS O vii C, 0 ol ol Jue jo ol O 0 o 10Vi 1 1 ER 0 64 er .0 0 001 b3 63 ffl o d3 ol fH o o fA o 64 o 0 1 1 101 "Ol 0 jo Ic, C'IcaI LL eo 00 0 00 0 C, to 2; "o 0 e3 V3 H3 J 0 O Qt 2 LD E -E -F: -E E E iz 2 ri III > > m 0 w y 0 —1 c¢ 8. 3: w . I c 0 0 L 0 5 3: E E, w E > E 0 E 0 S Lo - 0 0 c W> 0 2: > c E. -C -C Fy E >z vvS B Uo uo 0 u Z E 0 0 0 to u >0 E 0 0 a E W W d pp co m m co co m co E 0 E 0 -IV E E t t w E c 0 0 c 0 0 0 E E E ot -o m E c E c c 75 t z ca x N ii o > 03 72 y "2 72 72 .2t Z t C t c G m V 0a GJ oc —ou c o w c .2 6 c o > Z o c o s 4 1 c w _o 5 E E E o E o w E w > o ol O o E o c O 75 o o O c 2 c o V 61 o u m E o 6t E E -o ca x m T c pat- .. c v v o m E 0 v 0= i^ ° m o m m c °D E c 0 c o C9 > C m °" y �a m = v o �' m `° y ,a is o .� a ° ¢ v E .-� O c a`i c� .Ex E v 2` E w o° H Q vc .Lv. t-° o aci 3° o 3 z v � > o m a E O a O N m y°C° > d > j aq N N S4 x w v E E 3 3 E E E E! O W pp CL m m m m m m m E vs ao m m Q N 9 FF O O O O O O J O J o C +Nit E E 0 a O 0 o O O o m +n a ✓vi 0 vNi E v H m v Lan aa+ a m Lw aLu m 'a m m y m 'o° m io m m -o m m IF -o m m x a m` x -a m x 'o m x 2 m 2i c'c 75 75 a w m � w w w �S tJ z G �Q } m j N m N Q N O � v m m a 'a_ a vw 4d t ° c v Y T O c� o m C v a c 'O v ON O cn N N Q O M- 9- = c w v 4 m o v a v v 2 c o a` o C C 3 v o o° ° o c° �s v m W a o ro 3 c E E v g \}/3\c o »o$5: ; { � (/f /!} \/\ \I / )\eL t \ co co ){ E{o to }\\ \ \ ( \i ) ƒf\ } $ 72 $ k $ §k �\\ \ - \ \ \ k \ \ 7 ) 76 (k ) E ( General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SOMA Goals and Objectives 5.21 SOCWA — OBJECTIVES, GOALS AND ACTIONS South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details. SOCWA Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section (Table 5.12-1) 5.21.1 Capability Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides SOCWA's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.21.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of SOCWA are shown in Table 5.21.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of SOCWA. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: SOCWA's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. 0ASharedkWER0C1Hazrnffi201 1 PlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011 -12 RevisionXSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-175 General Overview of Assel SECTION FIVE SOMA Goals and Objective@ Table 5.21.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability 0AShared\WER0C%Hazmit12011PIanUpdateWazrn It Plan 2011-12 Revision\Sectjon 5 HM.doc I -February-2012 5-176 Local State Other Level Regulatory Tools Authority Authority Jurisdiction Comments (ordinances, codes, plans) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Authority (Yes/No) A. Building code Local cities O.C.F.A No Yes Yes A.Q.M.D. Some Exceptions Apply HCA < State/County B. Zoning ordinance No No Yes Coastal Commission C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations No No Yes Local cities County of Orange D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain County of Orange - management, storm water Army Corps of Engineers management, hillside or steep slope USFWS/CDFG ordinances, wildfire ordinances, hazard No Yes Yes Regional Water Quality Control Board setback requirements) SAWPA OCFA CDF/ Forest Service E. Growth management ordinances (also Local cities called "smart growth" or anti -sprawl No No No County of Orange programs) OCFA F. Site plan review requirements Local cities Yes No No County of Orange OCFA Permits G. General or comprehensive plan No No No H. A capital improvements plan RWQCB Yes No No Habitat Protection LAFCO I. An economic development plan No No No J. An emergency response plan SEMS Yes Yes Yes NIMS WEROC K. A post -disaster recovery plan No No Yes NIMS L. A post -disaster recovery law No No No M. Real estate disclosure requirements No No No N. Waste Discharge Requirement No Yes No State Water Resource Control Board 0AShared\WER0C%Hazmit12011PIanUpdateWazrn It Plan 2011-12 Revision\Sectjon 5 HM.doc I -February-2012 5-176 SECTION FIVE SOMA Risk Assessment MMM�� The following is a summary of existing departments in SOCWA and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of SOMA, as shown in Table 5.21.4-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. Table 5.21.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land development and land management Yes District coordinates with outside consultants practices B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in District coordinates with outside consultants construction practices related to buildings Yes In-house and Consultants and/or infrastructure Engineering Department C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding District coordinates with outside consultants of natural and/or human -caused hazards Yes Consultant with VA & ERP D. Floodplain manager Yes County of Orange E. Surveyors Yes Outside consultant F. Staff with education or expertise to assess the community's vulnerability to hazards Yes County of Orange- WEROC G. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Yes Outside Consultant County Colleges/University H. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the community Yes Regional Caltech USGS 1. Emergency manager Yes Director of Operations Risk/Safety Department J. Grant writers No K Other- Lab Staff/ Specialist Yes Internal 0:\SharedkWER0CkHazrnjA201 1PlanUpdate\Hazrnit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-177 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SOCWA Goals and Objectives . 4 . Table 5.21.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to SOCWA such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. Table 5.21.4-1 Fiscal Capability 5.21.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are SOCWA's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, SOCWA has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including SOCWA's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, SOCWA representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. The LPG member was Dan Wheeler. Once developed, SOCWA staff presented them to the SOCWA Board of Directors for their approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to 0:XSharedXWER0C1Hazmffi201 1 PlanUpdat6Hamit Plar. 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-178 Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) A. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) No B. Capital improvements project funding Yes C. Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes D. Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes E. Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes No F Incur debt through general obligation bonds No G. Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds No H. Incur debt through private activity bonds No I. Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas No J. Grants Yes 5.21.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are SOCWA's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, SOCWA has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including SOCWA's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, SOCWA representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. The LPG member was Dan Wheeler. Once developed, SOCWA staff presented them to the SOCWA Board of Directors for their approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to 0:XSharedXWER0C1Hazmffi201 1 PlanUpdat6Hamit Plar. 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-178 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE SOCWA Goals and Objectives hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by SOCWA's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. 5.21.6 SOCWA MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES SOCWA reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. Since SOCWA is a regional agency providing the underlying support for a number of the agencies, the overall goals and objectives for the wastewater functions were included in the regional Section 5.4. See Section 4 for additional details on the hazards. 0AShared1WER0C1Haznnt1201I PlanUpdate\Hazrnit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Sectlon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-179 o w £A b4 eY (fr EH M EPr d E% b9 Vl €+Y C4 M o O c? O fA to M (A - 4. O O O O O O Gi O O O O b3 yj zR {p M O q O O O M O O O O O O ¢ o o 3 Q1 O N d'�' Hi 64 fiA fA 64 a a ll� cl o cl o o Jm W M M 69 yJ d3 O O O o d O O o Q d a o o p o N lol lo �y O O —1O o o O O O o o '6 O Q tH aq (A vj q O • O O O O O� O O O O , O O U N tH E9 c/i d3 tR o � w ur � O O O O O O O O O O , O O N O d b} V3 cA Ejy A N d aR H} �Y Vi tg cH O O O O O o O o O rd lo M W �A EH ai3 vb y3 O O O N m W K lol b? f9 63 4H f N J C O Y 3 Y po <3) O po O po3 p�p p� OO O OO� W W 3 W W? W W 3 W, W W W 3 w 3 W W o G d � u s � W o W a v R w K w m F- O w F 6 r x p F `,'•' O z r w r= m W r ¢ d W w a � F x F O U' Ozz 0 Ozz O - p pW �OwUp LLz s zn W ti�`a zw co z �.. ;� Z u.. � F- w g O z a O Z a p z a O w O m o O o w w w w Z Op d w z a '¢ d 2 z a O a J O a J ?� °.r, ur. z O �S v°"i ur. `'S z z 3 z O O d d r a v � - a z v � v z z 'o 'a z a c a-Oi w x z O O z w w @ w N .V K H d a C LL u v u u u u v v E o m � z z r z z z z o o v o o va o u z_ z O v rv_ d o 2 CL w m W W m d v x x x Z e `Sa a J Z. Q d a 6 Z F C7 z F O Z d a 4 LL o o N ' 6 Oc o o r g a o QN VY VI o W 2 Z Vl N •� O O O O a cC d g O O Q d i = m c O F U O F v N c A y dA Y C 'v o o M 'L3 • v a v .� U- E D H o p C— O R_ C OA C 6l R R N R Y ++ c U v E p '6 C C> E 41 i3 > u '- R y L � R E R 3 T C m p R v E O V N tw rc .� O. ,2 v, av+ H O v D, a ¢ ` _ y E O. 3 O N "R6 N �' v E Y C � a a N R o u c o E y 3 i+ C w o o s o C tr_d 0_p W5 L0.6 o x S x x 3 z w o o z z z z z o 0 z z o Q g Q d o 0 0 a a a o o a ' z ~ a s a ~ C O `n ~O `i' W z O A _¢ w a Q T O O ~ z H Z_ w Z w z F Z_ z z F C7 C`) z Z F z w O �' O �' K - W Z z W W O i6 Q a ¢U O t7 OO ¢ K ¢ a ¢ a � }y O O >y 3 0 a v m z a � o- � n w w 0 w 00 > a z >z o ,. z F > o > O > O > O z ,. z > o > a �- > o v y ffl C a LL e E W W K W CL W CG W w W w w W w W y O i- £ E E �= E O O O O O O O O O E c v O> O a0 O z O w ® v5. a ¢ o u O o _ a m O E � y 3 t o x 0 0 o a a o 0 o a CL W W N W Q X X X X X X X X fG Z � � a .a n y } O Q > O O > O O > ems+ > O 0 0 cc a a m � 0 v v a ¢ a a ¢ a � � o m •� CO a ¢ Y o „° o 3 'a :, C m C C ¢ 3 a 3 o o 'm Nom^ O. m a; c^ 'u y V •m amici 0 o '� m y v m 3 m m N o c 0 3 m£ n c -6 n a� c c n c 'c u O E v n E as E '� c `^ v a` m m v .. N n o g c 0 C v .�. O C L v O H v a°J, L m y O o E 3 y L m L m 3 o o E '= >3. a bA `4 am.• C h c `° «> 'fl >` O •f0 �' c u °J a - c :Q � a w n 0 n a c c c > v E n`• c ,�, u v 5 a E c o >. -a E i3 Q, m y 'm u u c a E m cm m E ar U v@ 76 z c c o`D �S_ m c m cow>�E5 '� o� a w y Q o o c naam��na w c m E `�.'A +'. d 4''- p -jV d s0.+ 'O '6 C '6 C m E O tiJ O N Y G N "� c0 'V w .O N C u n 3 p N n ff3 C N 3S E V fl. m 03 £ T 0 0 O O "C C 6 N m Y O u .�a„ m n O N Ltt t +�+ 0 C N C = Q. C p> u -QOM Obi . V5 C E O d W m O LL a p m v � p p N Q C p C 2 6 4.1 a � — £ E a — c m o C% 0 V` Z Z Z O O H v O O O O w z = O Z F H Od d C) r d a a a O Z S ¢ p a�+ Z Q Z u Y Y Y Y F.. CC Y Y Y K Z p m a O Q O O 0 0 ¢ _ O = ti a o Z v � m E U o Z z z Z Z LL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z > O > O > a a ca0 x x p X x Ln x L- v> w w w w W w v y Q d a 0 Q Q Q a Q Q 4 a Q Q H i - c LL t' m `a z E v E j. E£ z Z O Z z O Z O z z O z Z 6 z O z O Z O z O Z O z O v f- Y _ U 0 0 p p Y = 0 O Y = `z = 0 0 O O Y z `z Z Y Z Y Z E o 0 3 3 � mo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m = 0 < 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z z O 0 < s 0 0 0 D p N4 �¢ <t NN Q Q ¢ Q ¢ < 4 Q z ¢ Q < d Q cr ¢ z 4 Q ¢ 4 Q m S. J J ~ m J J J J F J J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ g _ Y F a W W X x 3 X X X X Z L c QQ h G m O Z O v O O O O O O O O O O O CC o m o 0 0 0 0 o o a o ¢ z ¢ e a a ¢ ¢ a a a o 0 c O= m m C tco `•= 3 0 a y C *�^ N m W '`�' 6 0 O .V y u a1 i O Q C aj C h a o .gym. a m '� m m wN m m R " O£ N O Y v L v L o OCA 'cc a 'O N .V vvr c C tt6 d N O N O C v aA V N L 9 } T O m v Ci c N O. a c a' o ° 7E -a L' c v ti v m E m c E v 3 o. N 3 _o a $= ai o. o v oA E 3 n cA a s c o E m e m m o c o E>a 0 v E 'm `6 p m m on c m m o C ami E C E ¢ c O N C .�.+ '� m m L o O w✓ c O CS .y7 m o a c m u a m N fl- m e M o c N am+ 79 c C yr V E V o u ° o ' 'Y s vo aci E N u m ._ <' Q '_' °' m E m - u o Ly o a Y o ✓ o ff 3 w a v O� v o v a E_ w E cm E o 9- E E E E w E E E E E E E wd 7 3 3 3 0 3 o R 0F� 0 \\\\u C,u R/ 00 y§ 00 cc E 0 > 0 0 > 0 > 0 > \\0 2 E 0 40 2CL \ \ \ \ \ 0 2 t-0 0 E \\\ \}\�\ 0 E CL Cu \}j){/{} 5.L c cm ({_})ƒ\{ 0 0 w/\\\\} `\\\ E General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE TRABUCO Goals and Objectives Trabuco Canyon Water District (Trabuco) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility inforination and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4 for additional details. Trabuco Water District Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section Table 5.22-1). 5.22.1 Capability Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Trabuco's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.22.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of Trabuco are shown in Table 5.22.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Trabuco. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.22.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability O:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmlt\2011 PlanUpdate\Hamit Plan 2011-12 Revjsion\Secfion 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-185 Local Does State Other Level Regulatory Tools Authority Regulate? Jurisdiction Comments (ordinances, codes, plans) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Authority (YesiNo) Local cities CA Division of Dams Building code No No Yes O.CRA A.Q.M.D. I Some Exceptions Apply County of Orange Zoning ordinance Yes No Yes City of Rancho Santa Margarita City of Lake Forest Subdivision ordinance or regulations Yes No Yes Local cities County of Orange O:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmlt\2011 PlanUpdate\Hamit Plan 2011-12 Revjsion\Secfion 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-185 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE TRABUCO Goals and Objectives Table 5.22.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) Regulatory Tools Local Does State Other Level Jurisdiction (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Regulate? Authority Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) County of Orange Army Corps of Engineers Special purpose ordinances (floodplain USFWS(CDFG management, stormwater management, hillside or Yes Yes Yes Regional Water Quality steep slope ordinances, wildfire ordinances, hazard Control Board (RWQCB) setback requirements) Resource Agencies OCFA Local cities Growth management ordinances (also called "smart Yes No Yes County of Orange growth" or anti -sprawl programs) Foothill Specific Plan LAFCO Local cities County of Orange Site plan review requirements Yes No Yes OCFA Calif. Legislative Bills and Propositions TCWD Master Plan General or comprehensive plan Yes No No TCWD Urban Water Management Plan A capital improvements plan Yes No No TCWD CIP CA DPH/EPA SEMS An emergency response plan Yes Yes Yes NIMS WEROC MET A post -disaster recovery plan No No Yes NIMS Local cities A post -disaster recovery ordinance No No No County of Orange State of California F.E.M.A Real estate disclosure requirements Yes Yes No State Realtor Board, School Districts Metrolink & Caltrans No No No 0ASharedkWER0C\Ha7.rnft\201 IPlanUpdatekHazrnit Plan 2011-12 RevislorfiSection 5 HIVI.doc 9 -February -2012 5-186 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE TRABUCO Goals and Objectives Table 5.22.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) Regulatory Tools Local Does State Other Level Jurisdiction (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Regulate? Authority Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) construction practices related to buildings Yes District Engineer and outside consultants and/or infrastructure RWQCB SOCWA Waste Discharge Requirements Yes Yes Yes EPA County of Orange State Water Resources Control Board Vulnerability Assessment Yes Yes No EPA CA DPH Air Quality- AQMD No Yes Yes Depending on project location and requirements. 5.22.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in Trabuco and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Trabuco, as shown in Table 5.22.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. Table 5.22.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity StaffiPersonnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land development and land management Yes District Engineer and outside consultants practices B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in construction practices related to buildings Yes District Engineer and outside consultants and/or infrastructure O:lSharedIWEROCVHazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevlsionlSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-187 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE TMBUCO Goals and Objectives Table 5.22.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity (Continued) Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) No understanding of natural and/or human- Yes District coordinates with outside consultants caused hazards Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes No D. Floodplain manager Yes County of Orange E. Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new Sheriffs Department E. Surveyors Yes Outside consultant F. Staff with education or expertise to assess the Yes County of Orange, Emergency Response Plan, Sheriffs community's vulnerability to hazards Dept., Fire Chief MWDOC G. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Yes Center for Demographics Research Outside Consultant County H. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the Yes Orange County Fire Authority community Outside Consultants Local University and Non Profit Research Centers I. Emergency manager Yes MWDOC WEROC Emergency Coordinator J. Grant writers Yes Engineering Department K. Other- Lab Specialist Yes Contract Laboratories, Neighboring Water Districts L. Other- Lab Staff Yes District's Laboratory, Lab Technician, or Operators 5.22.4 Fiscal Capability Table 5.22.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Trabuco such as community development block grants-, capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. Table 5.22.4-1 Fiscal Capability 0:\SharedIWEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-188 Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) A. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) No B. Capital improvements project funding Yes C. Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes No D. Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes(water and sewer) E. Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new Yes 0:\SharedIWEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-188 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE TRABUCO Goals and Objectives Table 5.22.5.1-1 TRABUCO — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) Table 5.22.4-1 Fiscal Capability developments/homes F. Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes G. Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes H. Incur debt through private activity bonds Don't Know 1. Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas Yes J. Other- Grants Yes 5.22.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are Trabuco's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the District has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the District's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, District's representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. Once developed, District's staff presented them to the Trabuco, Board of Directors for their approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Trabuco's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. 5.22.5.1 Trabluclo Canyon WD Goals Goal 1: Reduce District's Vulnerability to Terrorist Acts and Vandalism. A. Increase site security at facilities. B. Increase local authority response time. 0:\SharedNWEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-189 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE TRABUCO Goals and Objectives Table 5.22.5.1-1 TRABUCO — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: District constructs site improvements as respective facilities are scheduled for replacement or refurbishment. Projects are implemented as funding is approved as part of annual budget process or available through financial assistance programs. Goal 2: Reduce Risk of Loss of Water Service Following a Hazard. A. Reduce reservoir water losses. B. Maintain or Increase available water supplies to system. C. Implement erosion control and slope stabilization measures. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: Contract for engineering studies for site-specific recommendations for structural and seismic improvements. Acquire funding to install seismic improvements. Continue to coordinate with neighboring districts for interties. Conduct geotechnical and erosion studies for site specific improvements and measures including rip -rap, drainage, structures/pipes, asphalt paving, and recompaction/fill of slopes and unpaved areas at or above existing infrastructure. Goal 3: Protect Imported Water Reliability and Increase Storage. A. Asses additional sources of emergency water supply. B. Increase Emergency Potable Water Storage. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: District will contract for engineering studies to evaluate additional treatment of Irvine Lake emergency water, and coordinate with neighboring water districts to prioritize and implement projects on a regional basis. District will contract for engineering studies to evaluate system hydraulics and emergency water storage needs. Goal 4: Provide Quick and Accurate System Information. A. Provide up to date record drawings and facility operational manuals. B. Provide immediate access to information to operations, management, and engineering. 0:kShared�WEROCiHazmit12011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revisjon%Secflon 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-190 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE TRABUCO Goals and Objectives Table 5.22.5.1-1 TRABUCO — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: Projects are implemented as funding is approved as part of annual budget process or available through financial assistance programs, Goal 5: Upgrade or Relocate Existing Water Transmission Main A. Structurally upgrade and improve existing water transmission main to withstand substructure or foundational degradation, soil corrosion, and seismic activity. If more feasible, relocate sections of piping and valves. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: Projects are implemented as funding is approved as part of annual budget process or available through financial assistance programs. Contract for engineering studies for site-specific recommendations for structural and seismic improvements. 0:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Rewslon\Sectlon 5 HM-doc 1 -February -2012 5-191 O tO K? 0 0 6 O O ciO C o G9 E9 QS M 6 o C5 0 0 o C5 l o l 6 N 0, ci M 0 " o '1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 1 1 0 '101 1. l l 1 K3 fH b3 EA 10 N 0 o r o K3 d9 64 H3 tfi FR Mi di fA C3 ol 01, ol o ol 0 O C, M Vi V3 O A-1 V3 H3 O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O 0 10 0-_ O 0 010 00 00 10 di IAI fA 63 E E L 0 5; c oo s c 0 o 0 41 *;, i. m o E E - 0 . = 0 - V W 0 - c o 0 S 45 -2 - - c -1; 0 v 19 °c t w _0 0 0 80 r C1 CL 0 Eon E E E E .3, Ao 0 0 0 0 0 z �s 76 ID E p E 0 0 V o mz ki 0 V 8 > 0 F5 o 1 U 5 c O fE o E -0 -0 :F 7E '2 .12E -,5 IT .0 o L, w E E 0 B. 7E 1; 0 :L 0 1; 0 0 c 0 c 10 0 0 c > 0 a - 10 Z=T .s .2 3 , 0 0 75 E E > V -0 > E 'D E zx-d.E o. �o S i5 0 v� 'E H m m d a v O p & a C O O O m y 0 is am+ V m m G7 3 Q W .= p Z O � C O u d v j W N N N o 3 v O m v ,v.. ,v+ .v, v t� � u> u y R N R c m e c= w w c m c m c l7 (7 u C7 r E E E E m c m y a o E E E E E E E E o 0 £ E o F 9 t F Y F E E t O C O O C Y O C O O O Ct O u 0 0 $ o 0 o O v V o o QO Y 0 o E Y v 3 6 O 2 Eo E E E E E E E v v v v v m 3 v v m v '° m S cu .a m iq 'a S o W 3 v S a m S a m 2 a S ._ S -o x a w S w a g m QN Z U w d m c cF y c "m s is y m C cc o 0 4 a 'd'• N d"acs ro o "�' c .o 'a C m g K 3 3 O v t` g E a E it v v ai ai v= c 1E a m a o a c m ° fl. L 6 W C O E v c i O C C. = o C C 0 'm a y O 5 = and V •'' � s m d O � «' O ° � aOp � v � O c � '� a oq � � _ !^ N 3 m tro v=p c U v a m myt = v L N m m a �O '' :° _ L O -a ; c o° m s d v m 3 ,,,, p a c E N C° A C V auv+ Yoro p R E !4 p v v s ✓� N C o= N N `^ E Q 2 V_ C O T m N° d E •X C y W O ro m C ro O N m � N y0 o v O v m,� v a0• v ti "> c m> v w m y 'm m a3: i. = eO c 6 y o Y m Q Y d N yym C 9 v, G '^ v v W w cc 'O N 4 V=£ p0 w O. O O al � o N N 0 •+ _ _° U O a= a v d?° 'm 3 = `o v° o u w° a v S R E a m d v a£ H ° m ami a v° v` a v E 0 0 o a E E E a` �v o a m v o m 3 m m 2ito 2i 2 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE TUSTIN Goals and Objectives The City of Tustin (Tustin) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction, See Section 4.0 for additional details. Tustin Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section (Table 5.23-1). As a note, the City of Tustin disagrees with the Loss Estimates identified by the Hazus program for fire threat to the City. Utilizing Hazus, current jurisdiction infrastructure maps, and fire hazard maps the Loss Estimate shows Tustin has having no fire threat identified. In consideration of recent fire activity Tustin feels it important to note its concern for protection of its infrastructure from fire and has provided additional information supporting their position. Tustin water service facilities have been geographically very close to several major fires in recent years: the 261 Fire in July of 2007 and the Santiago Fire in October of 2007. In each incident Tustin activated its emergency operations center in preparation for potential evacuations, and impact to services. During both the Santiago and 261 fires, OCFA requested the Tustin Police Department to be present at the Incident Command Post to assist in the Planning Section Incident Action Planning process. In addition, while at the Incident Command Post, the OCFA notified Tustin of its vulnerability to urban wildland fires, especially in the northeast portion of the City and the north/central unincorporated water service area. 5.23.1 Capability Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Tustin's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 0ASharedkVVER0CkHazmlA201 1 PlanUpdateWazrnit Plan 2011-12 RevislonNSection 5 HM.doc I -February -2012 5-196 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE TUSTIN Goals and Objectives 5.23.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of Tustin are shown in Table 5.23.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Tustin. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the City's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.23.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Regulatory Tools Local State Other Level Jurisdiction (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Authority Authority Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Local A. Building code Yes No Yes OCFA AQMD UBC B. Zoning ordinance Yes No No C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations Yes No Yes Local County of Orange County of Orange —RDMD D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain Army Corps of Engineers management, storm water management, Yes No Yes USFWS/CDFG Regional Water Quality Control hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire Board (RWQCB) ordinances, hazard setback requirements) OCFA Resource Agencies Local E. Growth management ordinances (also called LAFCO ".smart growth" or anti -sprawl programs) Yes No Yes County of Orange OCFA Local F Site plan review requirements Yes No Yes County of Orange OCFA G. General or comprehensive plan Yes No No H. A capital improvements plan Yes No No I. An economic development plan No No No J. An emergency response plan Yes No Yes Local State O:kSharedlWEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Secfion 5 HM.doc I -February -2012 5-197 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE TUSTIN Goals and Objectives Table 5.23.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) MMM.= The following is a summary of existing departments in Tustin and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Tustin, as shown in Table 5.23.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. O:kSharedXVVEROCkHazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM,doc 1 -February -2012 5-198 Local State Other Level Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Authority Jurisdiction Authority Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) FEMA K A post -disaster recovery plan Yes No No NIMS Local County of Orange State of California L. A post -disaster recovery regulation Yes Yes Yes AQMD EPA FEMA Dept. of Health Services Local M. Real estate disclosure requirements Yes No Yes Tax Assessor State Real Estate Board N. Ca -DPH Yes No Yes O. Title M & 22 (potable) USEPA Yes No Yes P. Air Quality — AQMD Yes No Yes Q. OSHA Yes No Yes R. State Water Code Yes No Yes MMM.= The following is a summary of existing departments in Tustin and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Tustin, as shown in Table 5.23.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. O:kSharedXVVEROCkHazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM,doc 1 -February -2012 5-198 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE TUSTIN Goals and Objectives Table 5.23.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land development and land Yes Community Development, Contract Services management practices B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in Inspectors, Public Works, Building construction practices related to buildings Yes and/or infrastructure In-house and Outside Consultants C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an WEROC: understanding of natural and/or human- Yes Contract Services caused hazards Water Services D. Floodplain manager Yes County of Orange — RDIVID E. Surveyors No Outside F. Staff with education or expertise to assess the community's vulnerability to hazards No Contract Services G. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS No Contract Services H. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the community No County, USGS I. Emergency manager Yes Public Works, Operational Area, WEROC J. Grant writers Yes Planning Dept., Engineering Dep. MMULG.t.iJ� Table 5.23.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Tustin such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. 0AShared1WER0CXHaznn8201I PlanUpdatekHazrnit Plan 2011-12 RevlsiWSectlon 5 HM.doc I -February -2012 5-199 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE TUSTIN Goals and Objectives Table 5.23.4-1 Fiscal Capability Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Yes Capital improvements project funding Yes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Don't Know Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes Yes Incur debt through general obligation bonds No Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes Incur debt through private activity bonds Don't Know Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas Don't Know 5.23.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Tustin will identify their Summary Local Mitigation Capabilities Assessment and contacts for their jurisdiction's yearly update, to be incorporated in the five year update of the Plan. Listed below are Tustin's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. The LPG members were Kimberly McAllen. Once developed, City staff presented them to the Tustin City Council for their approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to 0:\SharedkWEROC\HazmitN2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevislonkSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-200 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE TUSTIN Goals and Objectives hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Tustin's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. 5.23.6 City of Tustin Goals Goal 1: Reduce Agency's Vulnerability to Disruption. A. Improve site security. B. Improve response time. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: Agency constructs site improvements as respective facilities are scheduled for replacement or refurbishment. Projects are implemented as funding is approved as part of annual budget process or available through financial assistance programs. Goal 2: Minimize Water Loss (Ensure Reliable Supply) During Disaster Events. A. Reduce reservoir water losses. B. Increase available water supplies. C. Protect existing assets with the highest vulnerability to the effects of natural disasters. D. Coordinate and support existing efforts to mitigate natural disaster hazards. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: Contract for engineering studies of site-specific recommendations for structural stiffening and flexible coupling installation. Acquire funding to install seismic valves. Continue to coordinate with neighboring districts for interties. Goal 3: Protect Water Pumping and Water Production System Reliability. A. Improve local production capacity. B. Increase Potable Water Storage. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: Staff will coordinate with neighboring water districts, East Orange County Water District, Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) to prioritize and implement projects on a regional basis. Goal 4: Protect the Public Water Supply from Contamination Caused by Backflow or Back - siphonage in the Event of an Earthquake. 0:\SharedkWEROC\Hazmitk2011PianUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevislonkSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-201 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE TUSTIN Goals and Objectives A. Upgrade all potential hazardous potable water services with the required backflow prevention device as needed to prevent backpressure or back -siphonage that could contaminate the public water supply. Goal 5: Protect the public water supply from contamination or service interruption in the event of a fire. A. Adopt policy for design of non -combustibles facilities to reduce the threat and impact of urban/wildfires on structures. B. Provide routine maintenance around the facilities and reduce fuel sources to avoid the chance of fire threat. C. Adopt policy to upgrade existing facilities or install at new facilities fire detection systems that are most effective. 0ASharedkWER00Hazrn1A201I PlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSecton 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-202 M M M O N (D M M M d ("5 N P o m � Er9 fA bS ER iia V3 tH H3 EA Vi EA Efl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O O O a O O �% Efl H3 EA H3 b3 M Vi EF} V> ER EH E9 p P W M O N o 4'S N t0 M N O to O P (p E9 ffl di Hi EA fA Vi di to EH Hi di M O O O P U? O W fA ffi V} EH H? V� to EA V{ f.Y E9} £9 d. ER :.::.. fA EH H3 V3 HJ §n di H3 EA 69 b3 H3 O to fA 49 fA PA HS Hi fA K1 fA fi} tai N ® O O O 4 O O N O O a O O b � O Q EA Vi Efi V! EA ER Y3 Vi EA EA EA P N Q O O N N O N N N N O O O O O d fR fA Ki V3 &'i EH d3 Hi' (H fPr fA O M r M O o 0 , O , Q p O O t - W 1 Efl EA Efl Vi M to A b3 to 69 EA N a �, v do 0 o Qom o0 o a o d N O N N tfi to E3 K fA H3 E9 v3 EfY Hf 4A Hi Ep Ey} p N ® 4 O O � O O a to E» E» Ei3 E» � EI} to EA et tR er 0 0 o O o O o 0 0 o , o o fn M W fA 69 f9 E9 d# H3 fA fH EA ff3 ffi M O 2,c> O O O O O f H t0 bi 64 fA ER 69 E9 di Vi fA Efl Eta C L _E E n E o$. E $ E $. E $,:.0 1i w w' w' w w du' w 10 E o v � � d 3 a � U N P y y p o R � 9 W W J t CA (sluappa') spjeze4 pasnea ueLun4 ja4lo piezet4 j8jmeum4jo z z ajnllej we(I spu!m 46!H z z z z z z z z z z peunsl z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z BUIPOOIJ z = z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z ojenbqlle3 (kl!l!ael jo kipedea 10 pannus oldood jo I)KIpedea jo k3uedn330 onleA le asn uorunj Ci ONUA sluOlUO0 OC! anleA juawa3eldoN 8 8 S S S suo!lejap!SU03 z z z z z 1041013POIsM suoplap1suoo jepadS slassV 3!wOuO33 suopindod alqejauinA fum-i 1-mij x I x O uzN 75fryp 1 i5 s .6 n Im. COD (sluopme) spiezeq pasm uewnq jetilo ws!jojjai PJ2294 leimeu J8410 z z z z z z z z z z z z z ojni!ej wea SPU!M 4611.1 z z z z z z z z z z z peunsl z z z z z z z z z Z Z Z - Z BUIPOOIJ z z z z z z z z z z z = z aNenb4jje3 (Xigpel jo Xped- lo pamas oldood to #)Kipedua jo buednx)o jeA jo asn uopunA anleA sluOluOD o 8 Si 8 onleA juawa3eldaZI cli "i Ill 8� 8 S S S suo!lelap!suoa z z z — T TZZ Tr 1041OPPON14 Z z -1 -Z Z Z i suo!lejop!suoo jepadS slassv 3!WOU033 suo!lelnd0d olqejauinA kmpej Ingpo x x X o E E 65� Cf z z Ea O O T a >. 0 T d T QCc T 6 a m i a Y m vM a `y cc« m E> E je o E E c o E E a ° u m 3 m- 3 C m 3 Cm° 3 M° 3 Cm O£ p, C c u v m Cc C u m@ Cc"5 Y "5 I C u C C u 3 I u m C C u C u 01 L 0 w -o u w Cc u w a u w a `u w -a `v w -a u` w -a u 3 =o v v a w N N N v O O w Z Z z w w w iu z a an t bn v bn v bn m to v bn v on m w v ba v bu m ba a CJ a fD a 47 a m a m a m a m a m a m a m a m ba c m c 'C o b4 c o r a t o `o o a a a 0 o N in vss N vi E E C 3 0 c C 3 0 c c 3 0 c C 3 c c C 3 0 c c 3 0 c C 3 0 c c 3 0 c C 3 0 c C 3 0 c C 3 0 c Y C Y C Y C Y C Y C C Y C Y C Y C Y C Y C L L L J J J J 3 v v a g 3 v cr v a' v u 5 tf g m w m w Em X x x > C � C � W v a a z a a a ¢ E 3 6 o u '- o °m ani v c -o m a n a v o o G > o au 0 a o u a 3 v } >` Na>r 3 N m T� tj m b9 3 C C N a .> •� N C C Y •_ C ._ m C in C 'vi V i V�Y .O lat b�J,i V bb u a C E E 3 'v m 42 -0 c 3 3 3 c c c c - w a a z z m z x w x w x w - w a m v a m m m m m m v m w m v m v m v m v _m m is v m E vc vs E E E E E E E E E m o c 3 c c 3 c c 3 c err v c c c R 3 LS t s as 3 s nn 3 N tl5 dY 9J W x J S ° g g g g @ 0 c 75 75 5 w m en 16 c 0 a Y � V R � y � G 3 ° o n � w C T r o R 0 — tQ y q� is C z N C i b°.O m -a Vb G O C G rG w v '«, w c Y U DO bz O C c d G L C w R .5 N EO d m t V N LL .0 Y y N C > �' v a° ai a , m _o ° a ami oW 75 N L a a° °au m 7i ° ° .o °° m 3 v a C E >°c° +� v o o a v `_' y u= a n s c c o Q„ a t r'a V V U E ..° Q1 c .a d G E N � WWp G W 0 0 0 m General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE TUSTIN Goals and Objectives Table 5.23-3 Tustin Historic Fires above or within Tustin Watershed Historic Fires Above or Within Tustin Watershed Fire -name Acres Cause Area Year Incnum 18754.46 816944069.9 1914 CA1914CNF000000O0005 1084.65 47247305.86 1929 CA1929CNF000000O0017 19114 8330204.64 1942 CA1942CNF000000O0002 Green River 53078.76 2312110901 1948 Nohl 175.62 7650089.88 1951 CA1951ORC00000000258 Irvine Lake 112.84 4915471.61 1956 CA19560RC00000000047 Shoestring 437.23 19045940.11 1957 CA1 9570RCOOOOO000038 Santiago 109.56 4772220.82 1958 CA19580RC000000O0047 138.86 6048901.57 1962 CA1962CNF000000O0005 Paseo Grande 51075.08 Unknown 2224830669 1967 Grundy 1915.29 83430182.08 1975 CA1975ORC000000O0051 MINE 4955.72 2158710003 1977 CA1977RRU00897200709 PASEO 364172 158720269.6 1979 CA1979RRU01715801480 Gypsum 20141 .89 Downed power line 877380838,5 1982 CA19820RC09155801186 Loma Ridge 1434.88 62503177,41 1984 Coal Canyon 449.58 19583636.88 1984 Modjeska 1017.51 Arson 44322839.63 1984 539,69 23508804.47 1985 CA1985RRU01708500000 Green River Fire 134.68 5866773.94 1985 Stagecoach 581.45 Arson 25328070.09 1993 HWY 91 176.56 7690881.76 1995 CA1995RRU00655200000 Baker 6319.53 Undetermined 275278547 1997 ORC97052502 Santiago Canyon 7759.92 Lightning 338022237.6 1998 98045803 Racetrack 51.69 Stolen vehicle set on fire 2251528.08 2000 ORC0071081 Green 2234.33 Power Line 97327372.79 2002 2008311 O:1SharedkWEROCkHazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevislonlSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-208 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE TUSTIN Goals and Objectives Figure 5.23-2 Fire History — City of Tustin O:1SharedNWEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Re'Asion\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-209 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE WESTMINSTER Goals and objectives The City of Westminster (Westminster) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4.0 for additional details. Westminster Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section (Table 5.24-1). 5.24.1 Capability Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Westminster's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.24.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of Westminster are shown in Table 5.24.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Westminster. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the City's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.24.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability 0ASharedWER0C\Hazrn1t1201 1PlanUpdate\Hazmlt Plan 2011-12 RevisjoMSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-210 Local State Other Level Regulatory Tools Authority Authority Jurisdiction Comments (ordinances, codes, plans) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Authority (Yes/No) A. Building code Yes No No Planning, Code Enforcement B. Zoning ordinance Yes No No Planning C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations Yes No No Planning D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain County of Orange management, storm water management, Yes Yes Yes Army Corps of Engineers hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire RWQCB,USFWS/CDRG ordinances, hazard setback requirements) E. Growth management ordinances (also called 11 Yes No Na Planning smart growth" or anti -sprawl programs) 0ASharedWER0C\Hazrn1t1201 1PlanUpdate\Hazmlt Plan 2011-12 RevisjoMSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-210 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE WESTMINSTER Goals and Objectives Table 5.24.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Local Authority (Yes/No) State Authority (Yes/No) Other Level Jurisdiction Authority (Yes/No) Comments F. Site plan review requirements Yes No No Planning G. General or comprehensive plan Yes No No City General Plan H. A capital improvements plan Yes No No Water Master Plan 1. An economic development plan Yes No No Community Development J. An emergency response plan Yes No No SEMS, WEROC,NIMS, WARN K. A post -disaster recovery plan Yes No No NIMS L. A post -disaster recovery ordinance Yes No No M. Real estate disclosure requirements Yes No No State Board of Realtors N. Caltrans No Yes No 0. CA DPH (Security Issues) Yes No No Vulnerability Assessment P. Title M & 22 (potable) Yes Yes Yes USEPA 5.24.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in Westminster and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Westminster, as shown in Table 5.24.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. O:1Shared\WEROC1Hazmit12011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February 2012 5-211 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE WESTMINSTER Goals and Objectives Table 5.24.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge Public Works (Engineers) of land development and land Yes management practices Planning (Planners) B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in construction practices related to buildings Yes Public Works ( Engineers)& Contractors and/or infrastructure C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an Public Works (Engineers) understanding of natural and/or human- Yes caused hazards Planning (Planners) D. Floodplain manager No County of Orange E. Surveyors Yes Public Works Traffic Engineers (Technicians) F Staff with education or expertise to assess No WEROC / County of Orange the community's vulnerability to hazards G. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Yes Public Works Employees I Center for Demographic Research, CSUF H. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the No County of Orange, Cal Tech, local Universities community 1. Emergency manager Yes Public Works / Water Supervisor, Cross Connection J. Grant writers Yes Public Works / Administrative Analyst K. Lab Specialist No Clinical Laboratory of San Bernardino 5.24.4 Fiscal Capability Table 5.24.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Westminster such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. WSharedkWER0C%Hazm1t1201I PlanUpdate\Hazrnit Plan 2011-12 RevlsioniSectlon 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-212 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE WESTMINSTER Goals and Objectives Table 5.24.4-1 Fiscal Capability 5.24.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are Westminster's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment, These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. The LPG members were Vivian Filippelli, and Wil Davee. Once developed, City staff presented them to the Westminster City Council for their approval. 0:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 Hkdoc I -February -2012 5-213 Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) A. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Yes B. Capital improvements project funding Yes C. Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes No D. Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes E. Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes Yes F. Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes G. Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes H. Incur debt through private activity bonds Yes I. Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas Yes J. Grants Yes 5.24.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Goals Listed below are Westminster's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the City has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment, These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the City's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, City representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. The LPG members were Vivian Filippelli, and Wil Davee. Once developed, City staff presented them to the Westminster City Council for their approval. 0:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 5 Hkdoc I -February -2012 5-213 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE WESTMINSTER Goals and Objectives Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Westminster's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. Table 5.24.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment 0:N3hared\WER0CXHazrnft\201I PlanUpdate\Hazrnft Plan 2011-12 RevislomSection 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-214 Programs, Plans, Title Effect on Loss Reduction Agency Name (Mission/Function) Policies, Regulations, Address Comments Funding, or Practices Phone Contact Support Facilitate Hinder City of Westminster 1. Water Division Water Superintendent Water Division Best Management 14381 Olive Street x x Practices Westminster, CA 92683 714 548-3693 Water Superintendent 2. Vulnerability 14381 Olive Street Assessment Westminster, CA 92683 x x 714 548-3693 3.Water Emergency Water Production Supervisor Response Plan / WEROC 14381 Olive Street x x SEMS, NIMS, WARN Westminster, CA 92683 714 548-3694 Water Superintendent 4.Urban Water 14381 Olive Street x x Management Plan Westminster, CA 92683 714 548-3693 1 Water Production Supervisor 5. Water Master Plan 14381 Olive Street x x Westminster, CA 92683 714 548-3694 0:N3hared\WER0CXHazrnft\201I PlanUpdate\Hazrnft Plan 2011-12 RevislomSection 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-214 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE WESTMINSTER Goals and Objectives Table 5.24.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment (Continued) Agency Name Programs, Plans, Title Effect on Loss Reduction (Mission/Function) Policies, Regulations, Address Comments Funding, or Practices Phone Contact Support Facilitate Hinder City of Westminster Planning Manager 1. City General Plan 8200 Westminster Blvd. X X Westminster, CA 92683 714 548-3484 Assistant City Manager 2. City Emergency 8200 Westminster Blvd, Management Plan Westminster, CA 92683 X X 714 548-3172 The mission of the City of Westminster Water Division is; to provide safe, high quality drinking water and also to ensure 100 percent fire protection and adequate water pressure to the residents of Westminster; to provide these water delivery services at the lowest possible cost in a safe working environment for all City Water Division employees. Orange County Fire Assistant Chief Authority 1. Inventory Program of 1 Fire Authority Rd. X X Hazardous Waste Irvine, CA 92602 (714) 573-6100 Assistant Chief 2. Fire Code Inspections 1 Fire Authority Rd. X Irvine, Irvine, CA 92602 (714) 573-6100 US Army Corps of Director Engineers 1, Reservoir Regulation Los Angeles District 915 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 980 X X Prado Dam Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 452-3908 US Fish & Wildlife 1. Enhance legitimate use 370 Amapola Ave. Ste 114 Service & enjoyment of migratory Torrance, CA 90501 X X birds & other wildlife (310) 328-1516 Division of Drinking Water & U.S Environmental 1. Water Quality; Environmental Management Protection Agency/ regulate and update California DPH Office of Drinking drinking water quality P.O. Box 942732-MS216 X X Water standards. Sacramento, CA 94234-4320 (916) 323-6111 0:1SharedkWEROC1Hazmit12011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevislorASection 5 HM.doc I -February-2012 5-215 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE WESTMINSTER Goals and Objectives The City of Westminster has developed two goals for their Hazard Mitigation Plan. Goal 1: Minimize damages to facilities / infrastructure due to natural disasters. Goal 2: Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and infrastructure due to human caused hazards. 5.24.7 Objectives and Actions Goal 1: Minimize damages to facilities / infrastructure due to natural disasters. A. Protect existing assets with the highest vulnerability to the effects of natural disasters. B. Coordinate and support existing efforts to mitigate natural disaster hazards. Goal 2: Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and infrastructure due to human caused hazards. A. Develop a comprehensive approach to reduce damage and loss due to human caused hazards. B. Increase the knowledge of government employees and the public of extremely hazardous substance handling procedures and terrorism awareness. 0ASharedkWER0C\Hazrn16201lPlanUpdate\l-lamit Plan 2011-12 Revislon\Section 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-216 Z 0 Q g H w c» 0 w N LU2 yU 3 s N O N 7 7O N N VOJ O N V N O of f0 N (M1*) h O � ER NY b3 VT H3 to fR M b# EA V3 O O O E9 o o O o o a o 0 0 o d od o d o d o 0 0 0 0 0 N 10 O V! M1 M1 ' s M tfi r. J M �t1 N V V O cD O O d N M1 h N N p OJ M V C M1 t0 O U7 6. N O O M O O H3 M Ni 1+ O O H3 y3 fA fA EA fR EA J m N N N W Hi H3 fH fA O O O d O O O� fR , E9 O H5 O , O O Hf O E$ O b3 H# fA ER vH H3 rl EPr HT b3 Vi M J Qy Q O O O O O O O 6 O O O O O O l 'I O p 0 O O 0 0 O O O O 00 O m O V3 Vi H3 N# b3 Ni H} 64 fA fH N fR +A Vi d3 fi} EA EPr fA EA �,.I N O O 0 0 O r w " o o o N e3 o O O o o H# �» N xq a b} O bi N fri o O � H3 d tH o n a O 0 0 ic, N a N fn o E» pd p o vi ea ®o..� of a vt ®p yr No sr e�x 0 a � fA O V3 O 43 fPr ff} SA H3 EA f9 H fA 4. h 0 V3 d3 K3 f?T *A m M o a o 0 rss o av - H} o p es o 0 va o d est d} o p ua H3 o 0 s� w P 4A 63 N� O O O fA N t0 N� O O b3 N t0 N� O O A p O Vi � f fH N d3 J � �++ w' w' w z w z w w' w' o_ w � S. w E S w' E $. w' E $ w � 12, O_i S W S p J _py S E N_ � y 4t `f v m� a a' C 4 a ao ' v � c Q 0 0- � m .a M O T a s O c C a m o a =� L E hry @ N y Z ¢ w p 9 'E W 3 c a O w n c Z Z .W Z O o o x z N O c b0 a V5 c Oq O. a c o0 c bU O. a a m c CD a oo, 45 e E E E E E E E m m m m m Rm m m m ` d E E c O O O O c "O y = O C O c O o 0 0 N O E t t o E r Y t O o E F- a N V} O O O Q O y} E N N' N p an 0ui V1 0 iR 0 yry 0 N C/Y 0 ut Lt 0 O w 3 > > a 4c J V Op }> > 2 J 3 s° x E v E E E E E E E E E Y v a v a v x v a v v v v v v v a `rm A s w � � W m 3 d rm 3 � u � a3 $ a v c s v a u c O m _ O 65 G a a K K O1 E =1 M a Y G� + aa• rm a� > Y s n E O a E E N V O « c N X a V N$ h G m C m m N holN c v E m 3 wl ro 16 3 ,o a o N c m E o v 4 �_ c a d v . a w'a a s -o v o v m° o o s nv 'p^ iEu i L > o c c o` s c c sn c a o -� B c o Wo o c v o as ro a E s m - o a a w c a3 m o s > d> Y o. a o = `-' — c = c o y o E o Y a o uo E _ a ro l07 U' ii � § a §{){ ` } £ } � > e !\� \// \ \ $ E E E } } E j \ ) c _ § § § �(\ ) \\\ \ _ \�\ � ) e ! & $i { }f2\§ } /kf § \ ){ f E E E {}} 4 4 4 ii � § a General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE YORBA LINDA ! Goals Objectives Table 5.25.6-1 YORBA LINDA — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) 5.25 YORBA LINDA— OBJECTIVE, GOALS AND ACTIONS The Yorba Linda Water District (Yorba Linda) reviewed a set of jurisdictional -level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. See Section 4.0 for additional details. Yorba Linda Loss Assessment Table is located at the end of this section (Table 5.25-1). 5.25.1 Capability Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides Yorba Linda's fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.25.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The legal and regulatory capabilities of Yorba Linda are shown in Table 5.25.2-1, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Yorba Linda. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the District's building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. Table 5.25.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability Regulatory Tools Local State County/Fed (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Authority Authority Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) A. Building code Yes Yes No Local Cities OCFA B. Zoning ordinance Yes No No C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations No No No D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain SAWPA management, storm water management, Yes No No CD Forestry hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire 0ASbared\WER0ClHazmii12011PlanUpdate\Hazmlt Plan 2011-12 RevisioniSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-220 General overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE YORBA LINDA WD Goals and Objectives Table 5.25.6-1 YORBA LINDA — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) Regulatory Tools Local State County/Fed (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Authority Authority Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) ordinances, hazard setback requirements) Yes No No State Parks Table 5.25.2-1 Legal and Regulatory Capability (Continued) Regulatory Tools Local State County/Fed (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Authority Authority Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) E Growth management ordinances (also called Yes No No LAFCO "smart growth" or anti -sprawl programs) F. Site plan review requirements Yes No Yes Orange County Fire Authority Negative Declarations G. General or comprehensive plan Yes Yes No YLWD water master plan H. A capital improvements plan Yes No No YLWD Board of Directors I. An economic development plan No No No Water District is an independentagency J. An emergency response plan Yes No No SEMS, NIMS,WEROC K. A post -disaster recovery plan Yes No No NIMS L. A post -disaster recovery regulation Yes Yes No Cities, County, State, Dept ofHealth Services Board of Realtors M. Real estate disclosure requirements No Yes No Placentia Yorba School Dist N. Air Quality Emissions Yes Yes No SCAQMD 0. Construction Safety Practices Yes Yes No Cal OSHA P. Pressure Vessel Yes Yes No State Dept. of Ind. Safety Wildlife Corridor Conserv. Q. Wildlife Yes Yes Yes Authority(WCCA) USFWS R. Seismicity / Geology Yes Yes No Calif. Div of Mines and Geology O:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmlt\2011PlanUpdate\Hazmlt Plan 2011-12 RevislonkSection 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-221 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE YORBA LINDA WD Goals and Objectives Table 5.25.6-1 YORBA LINDA — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) Regulatory Tools Local State County/Fed (ordinances, codes, plans) Authority Authority Authority Comments (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Gary Meyerhofer Carollo Engineers. And other Civil and/or infrastructure Engineers. C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an Local University and S. Archeological/Paleontology No Yes No Associations, Native American Civil Engineers. D. Floodplain manager No Heritage. FWater Discharge Requirements T No I Yes No State Water Resources Control Board, DAMP 5.25.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity The following is a summary of existing departments in Yorba Linda and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of Yorba Linda, as shown in Table 5.25.3-1, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the Plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. Table 5.25.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No DepartmentlAgency and Position A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge Hunsaker & Associates, Doug Snyder, PE of land development and land management Yes Principal of Planning, Engineering, Surveying practices B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in construction practices related to buildings Yes Gary Meyerhofer Carollo Engineers. And other Civil and/or infrastructure Engineers. C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an Carollo Engineers, Brian Powell, PE understanding of natural and/or human- Yes Program Manager, Security Vulnerabilityand other caused hazards Civil Engineers. D. Floodplain manager No County of Orange, Storm Water Department, RDMD 0:iSharecRWEROC1Hazmit12011PIanUpdatekHazmjt Plan 2011-12 RevisloMSeOon 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-222 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE YORBA LINDA WD Goals and Objectives Table 5.25.6-1 YORBA LINDA — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position E. Surveyors Yes Leighton Consulting, Inc., Tom Benson Jr. PE, GE President of Geotech, Environ, Inspection Engr. City of Yorba Engineering Staff, Mark Stowell, F. Staff with education or expertise to assess Yes Director of Public Works the community's vulnerability to hazards Yorba Linda Water District Engineering Staff Ken Vecchiarelli, Engineering Manager G. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS No DCSE Consulting, Yaz Emrani, President H. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the No Cal Tech Seismology Department, Dr. Kate Hutton, community PND. County of Orange Fire Authority 1. Emergency manager No Kelly Hubbard, WEROC coordinator, Ken Vecchiarelli, GM Yorba Linda Water District 0:\SharedXWEROC1Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmlt Plan 2011-12 RevisloMSecbon 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-223 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE YORSA LINDA WD Goals and Objectives Table 5.25.6-1 VORBA LINDA — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) Table 5.25.3-1 Administrative and Technical Capacity (Continued) Staff/Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Agency and Position J. Grant writers Yes Townsend Public Affairs, Sean Fitzgerald, Consultant, writer. K. Public Information Yes I Damon Micalizza, PID 5.25.4 Fiscal Capability Table 5.25.4-1 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to Yorba Linda such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard -prone areas. Table 5.25.4-1 Fiscal Capability Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know) Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) No Capital improvements project funding Yes, YLWD Capital Budget 5 yr. Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes, Special Assessment Areas Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes, for reimbursement of Water Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes Yes, Water Development fees Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes, for Capital Projects Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes Incur debt through private activity bonds No 0AShared\WER0MHazrnffi201lPlanUpdate\Hazrnft Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 5 HM,doc 1 -February -2012 5-224 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE YORBA LINDA WD Goals and Objectives Table 5.25.6-1 YORBA LINDA — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) I Withhold spending in hazard -prone areas I No I 5.25.5 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Listed below are Yorba Linda's specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the District has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction's current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives and actions were developed to represent a vision of long- term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the District's planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, District representatives met with consultant staff and/or MWDOC to specifically discuss these hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. Once developed, District staff presented them to the Yorba Linda Board of Directors for their approval. Public meetings were held throughout the County to present these preliminary goals, objectives and actions to citizens and to receive public input. At these meetings, specific consideration was given to hazard identification/profiles and the vulnerability assessment results. The following sections present the hazard -related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by Yorba Linda's LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials, and local citizens. Table 5.25.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Agency Name (Mission/Function) Programs, Plans, Policies, Regulations, Point of Contact Name, Address, Effect on Loss Reduction Comments Funding, or Phone, Email Support Facilitate Hinder Practices 1. Old Town Planning Dept. Water Mstr. City of Yorba Linda Redevelopment City of YL X X Plans included Old Town 0AShared\WER00HazrnlA201I PlanUpdate\Hazrnft Plan 2011-12 Revision\Secfion 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-225 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE YORBA LINDA WD Goals and Objectives Table 5.25.6-1 YORBA LINDA — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) Table 5, 25.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment (Continued) Programs, Plans, Effect on Loss Reduction Agency Name Policies, Point of Contact (Mission/Function) Regulations, Name, Address, Comments Funding, or Phone, Email Support Facilitate Hinder Practices iI Provide Metropolitan Water 1. Cross Feeder- MET Engineering X X additional off - District of So Cal City of Placentia OCFA site water supply Orange County Water 1. Ground Water General Manager, Provide District Replenishment OCWD X X added water Program to local aquifer Table 5, 25.5-1 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment (Continued) 0AShare(AWER0C1Hazmit1201 1 PlanUpdatOHamit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-226 Programs, Plans, Effect on Loss Reduction Agency Name Policies, Point of Contact (Mission/Function) Regulations, Name, Address, Comments Funding, or Phone, Email Support Facilitate Hinder Practices iI Reviews all Orange County 1. General Fire Plan Fire Marshall of X X plans for Fire Authority of Orange County OCFA major development Homeland Security, 1. Security USEPA Haz Completed Federal Goverm't Vulnerability Plan Mitigation Director X X and working document 1. Capital Ken Vecchiarelli Approved by Improvement Assist. Gen. Manager X X the Board of Yorba Linda Water Program Directors District 2. Annexations same X X Areas in Master Plan 0AShare(AWER0C1Hazmit1201 1 PlanUpdatOHamit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 5 Wdoc 1 -February -2012 5-226 General overview at Assets, SECTION FIVE YORBA LINDA WD Goals and Objectives Table 5.25.6-1 YORBA LINDA — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) Yorba Linda Water District is a member of the Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County (WEROC) and is actively participating in preparing a Hazard Mitigation Plan for natural and human -caused hazards within the District service area. 0:\Shared\WEROC1Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-227 Programs, Plans, Effect on Loss Reduction Agency Name Policies, Point of Contact (Mission/Function) Regulations, Name, Address, Comments Funding, or Phone, Email Support Facilitate Hinder Practices 3. New Admin Bldg Hank Samaripa,. x x Completed Project Engineer Identified in 4. Zone 3 Pipeline Hank Samaripa, x x CIP Replacement Project Engineer Replacement program Yorba Linda Water District is a member of the Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County (WEROC) and is actively participating in preparing a Hazard Mitigation Plan for natural and human -caused hazards within the District service area. 0:\Shared\WEROC1Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSection 5 HM.doc 1 -February -2012 5-227 General Overview of Assets, SECTION FIVE YORBA LINDA WD Goals and Objectives Table 5.25.6-1 YORBA LINDA — Goals, Objectives and Actions Cross-referenced with Identified Hazards within Orange County (Continued) Goal 1: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, critical facilities and buildings due to Earthquakes. Goal 2: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, people, private property, and critical facilities/infrastructure due to floods. Goal 3: Strengthen the District Emergency Response services to insure preparedness during a major natural hazard event. Goal 4: Protect Yorba Linda Water District assets from a major Earthquake event. Goal 5: Reduce the High Fire Threat to the District facilities/infrastructure. Goal 6: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets and critical facilities and infrastructure due to risk of landslide or mudslide. Goal 7: Increase the reliability of District power and communication systems due to the risk of high wind/Santa Ana wind condition. Goal 8: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing District assets and critical facilities and infrastructure due to liquefaction. Goal 9: Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, facilities, and infrastructure due to human caused hazards. Goal 10: Promote public understanding, support and demand for hazard mitigation. Goal 11: Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, critical facilities, and infrastructure due to Dam Failure/Water Tank Failure. Goal 12: Reduce potential loss and injury to human life and to existing assets, critical facilities, and infrastructure due to Hazardous Material Release into the groundwater basin. O:kShared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdatekHazmit Plan 2011-12 RevislonASectlon 5 HM-doc 1 -February -2012 5-228 n o en ci v w A r. rn err ri of M o m N -o v in ri ;n co N � O N a V -I V3 N3 64 V� V3 V} H3 EA 4i Vt ?4 p et 147 N M O Ci cA rn N p O O O o� M V W O In O O O O O O O M W O N O M J W � M 49 bl v3 •A a> fi9 a .n 0 ur us 0 as .a .a ea 0 0 as o � J o EH .ss c» vi aFr .q e» O O O N O O O O O O 4 ua ss o o tt O .n o N� ds v v w :: :-la O 6 O O O G � O 4 W > � O � to 6) O cA r cv O p Vt M so r N O 6> M tp d O N 0 Ci cJ O a o a a Ino 0 o N v o 0 a I � 0 0 0 0 o O O o o O O � us sa G O O �, O aA r o .sr O O Fn O O va O W � £4 H3 ep N J C d O N ` _ N j t N x E $E $.E $E $E $E $E j,E $E $E $.E $.E $. w' w' w' w' w16 ' w o � o � T i r y �- EN E d N U i a c a a 00 c 0 0 0 m .2 ]2 :i L 0 cc 0 0•0 0 zc. 3 z 0 0 E 0 E 0 3 0 3 3 3 Sc z z z z bo -C -C w E E a a a E 0 0. -i� > 76 > t� > A� 0 C, CL a a a 'a. a: w F E E� E E E E E E 0 E 0 0 0 0 72 t 2 t4 t t t JT 7a-te: w 0 ' c m �o 0 0 0 .0 3: w a CL t5 0 ca 0 2 0 i! 2 it 0 o 16 m u �o W- = i> 0 e 0 0 2 E - M a 0 C 0 0 CL 0 0 =E E E FL c c != 0 �,i Q 0 0 X 0 _0 T tg 0 0 -,6 0 > t > 0 :t - 2 2 2 c c .2 o 0 to w "76 > E E E Z E 6 E! 00 tc E > -0 0 E -0 2 v -, a 3: 0 t 0 2 :5 o �2 2 :5 0 >> w 2 2 S > 0 a 0 0 E E E 18 0 16 -6 2 2 0 0 0 Z c 7Z YtC C c c Q 7p CL > 0 0 0 0 E O o cr w c m m > I c o 0. 15 a Z a � Z, -w �E a E u > 0 E E E E 0 E E 0 0 u u 0 z 0 0 u z u 0 0 w t 15 CL m a co a m CL m co m m co > m m m ca a CL a lu 4, o �o 'a 16 E 16 i5 46 �S E E E E E 0 E E E O 0 0 CD N N -0 -0 -0 7E 72 -e o 0 0 r Z 75 2i an m Lo 0 O T 'T '6 c? E E 0 0 lu 2 LL C v uo T3 N CL C E c E E O. ('w 0 :t-- 0 w Ql 0- w m 75 EO -08 7@ > Va 0 21 0 c �.o a < 3: :tl 0 -6 0 O£ .2 0 m < E 0 wo Vo 0 mT 2 E .8 0 3: N w E , w - c - w c c 0 0 < t 0 C, 0 C c w . w Q c O 0 - .1 . j� c . v a m E a 2 D: m c > y@ 0 0 c -0 0 2 E o 0 E o E w c w V o 0 10 0 0 E x w w E 0 W CL E 0o - s o 2 E t 0 75 W 0 w '0 0 o c z 3£ E E 4= o G , w 'x Ool cc > E c' 7E 0 o_ j5 CL 0 72 0 z I .- �W 2 o c o t�c w 0 0 0 0 E a 0 0 c i5 > :2 45 E :2 E E 2 0 75 No E -00 -0 0 io 0 0 C 0 0 m o c w z 4 c Z5 U 0 0 o 0 o 7@ E m u m :5 z 2 620 0 0 0 7EL 'a E E E E E E 0 E 0 E 0 cL 00 u u u u z -C ,fl nn o0 on on as oa oa m 0 0 co m m co > ca 'EL c a C. 0 u a o o u E a D O O ul 0 EN 6 m c B .2 T E E E E E E o c E E E E E E E E E Im 'a '0 c c IE 15 0 0 E L co a 2 c T 6 w o -5 15 M ca c h B O to 0 0 cO ig 0 E TA0. 0 Y 43 43 3 E 0 10 o zi — c —0 E w E EE 0 o w 6 T E2 Im 0 i> "a c E m 16 u :2 E JT E 0 0 U E E E O 2 2 0 16 �6 li w u m o a a Q o �° '�"' u m a '° o a ¢u o w a '° m o n v mo O 0 0 0 0 =rt �> > z° �'N D >> �,� � > a z°man« v a a z.a Z i E o 0 o g u ° w v ° E o E o o N o. o E o E o E o o v o ° o o N u u u u u u v u d Tia m m m O m O a a a s � a '� o, nu a ❑ O v a um a o E N N F m 1�6 ai E a m a m a a a a a a a v `o Y`a is m m m m m m _E F- E E o m w m v ori a a E E E E E E E E E v° x v h w 3 LL c c � ° F o u � � o 0 - 7E m v � m o v m m yS ys y� a m m m ❑ c c m s s o• o• w m o 3 a 3 � � v m � e � m ti 'm m R m :a C vt c ° m w a' � a aj o t0 c o " c c E o } -ji u Z a Q m Y .. Y a = •v m> c m 3 a _ c ._ ov_ m m ll z v v a c u U m °• m >> s x t6 o S` ui o ami = m aco 'V a iR 3 h a Q a b6 C 4 �. a o y C m❑ c am- 00 c <o c '� d ow .Q. E 'V a w o v T o 3 o .� T g 'x ❑ c -a o i ° v- ° j a o> a on c os_o o p o p c m d o° o "a m ;o �a = `n T °" C c a o a 3 m p 3 o� a o o m o a i6 N= v a « (0 U E o o N °3 i E �° T 0 1% E -�° jai p 0 L o a = u 'v g o m ❑ O a v 'C m 3 v « m a 0 'G b 0 'E -c y -'m c a, m e > a p v ° p °a o m N_ 3 o c N Z > v s N T °c° m « c Q s ° s v a `m E .2. m E c _ o o a 'm o 2 ° o a a +T' o o �6 E a E a v o N �' 'c « a° v Y •� o 5 a E a �LL v an o v@ T« a LI o m p O j ° u c t0 a p C > pp .N ,O m L L a o- ❑ O 6 N .a s v C 'v, o 3> n. °_ E >- $_ c v TS q .�. Y o-o j a -° H E o ° �- o c -Qp m a• '6 E m :c m :a o y o p q 3 m a s a a« a -o @ c o@ a m a s - Y b@ o ca O. C Q. '° 9. N j m aa+ v ws� o o« � z;° a` I E-c'ov°a'an � cG d on `p Oo J = J J S JO W, oUJ Luw Lu wf N ZIP" m 4uj uj a :w co ry w_ L.UJ W z c Ll c co w a r UIZ fLUWC r� f t ji S 3 A _7E E f t i t a tg�r V I W L1 •ys 3a i x� � � � I 1 3 H t%i ,z s LU v F e a to W p < UJ <i ni of k 4 to r ci U W � t C � � U 10 re A q- F ur JU f •J � l J Al tip G d S W .32q n U dul Z z UJ C ta Via, 2 a +A te a� Ix lk f f` 7 q d F } '` f t •, sx '-4 r Ftp , m cx 'o y g* r� LL! ro h Y 4y # t Q Lu _. � a I El J i i 9 1 f fi y C. �f H CE is T t �d l Mims p Vol's fJ P �! f t� f yf i t `l c US US cn d �u r, M 4 # pl = J f y^ f ' "z' e ,t, m U I- tt"}�' <TO t . f 33 j I xii i } •-'��'` ��,. ��' ay°-°. :mss- �e�� .. >"��'.� .,.....—�� c US US cn d 'L T r: kV N 00 W LL LL } J uj W 2 r112 1 A } s c • u a x ro 90 W li #Al } r b y, LT U 8 � �r '• Y t � f rl 1 i m _q � �r '• Y t � f rl 1 i m _q } S 1 1 i m _q i qj s �� i � 1 _� may✓ r' I S1 1 t � r IZ n� D uj s amh- � 4 r r j55 S f mp m �" • y X tet . a• 44 .r i SECTIONSIX Plan maintenance 14 **A 11 IC 1! 11 M a W-11,11 11 This section of the Plan describes the formal process that will ensure that the Plan remains an active and relevant document. The Plan maintenance process includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating the Plan annually and producing a plan revision every five years. This section describes how MWDOC and the participating districts and agencies will integrate public participation throughout the plan maintenance process. Finally, this section includes an explanation of how jurisdictions intend to incorporate the mitigation strategies outlined in this plan into existing planning mechanisms. 6.1 MONITORING, EVALUATING AND UPDATING THE PLAN 6.1.1 Plan Monitoring The PWU participants will be responsible for monitoring the plan annually for updates to jurisdictional goals, objectives, and action items. If needed, these participants will coordinate through the MWDOC to integrate these updates into the Plan. MWDOC will be responsible for monitoring the overall Plan for updates on an annual basis. 6.1.2 Plan Evaluation The Plan will be evaluated by MWDOC and by each participating jurisdiction at least every two years to determine the effectiveness of programs, and to reflect changes in land development or programs that may affect mitigation priorities. The Plan will also be re-evaluated by HMWG leads (or their select jurisdictional representative) based upon the initial STAPPLEE criteria used to draft goals, objectives, and action items for each jurisdiction. MWDOC and PWU representatives will also review the goals and action items to determine their relevance to changing situations in the county, as well as changes in State or Federal regulations and policy. MWDOC and PWU representatives will also review the risk assessment portion of the Plan to determine if this his information should be updated or modified, given any new available data. The coordinating organizations responsible for the various action items will report on the status of their projects, the success of various implementation processes, difficulties encountered, success of coordination efforts, and which strategies should be revised. Any updates or changes necessary will be forwarded to MWDOC for inclusion in further updates to the Plan. It is envisioned that the HMWG and each Local Mitigation Planning Team will meet annually to discuss the status of the Plan. 6.1.3 Plan Updates MWDOC is the responsible agency for updates to the Plan working in conjunction with the PWU's. All PWU participants will be responsible to provide MWDOC with jurisdictional -level updates to the Plan when/if necessary as described above. Every five years the updated plan will be submitted to Cal EMA and FEMA for review. 6.1.4 Implementation Through Existing Programs County and local jurisdictions will have the opportunity to implement recommended action items through existing programs and procedures that are deemed appropriate. Upon adoption of the Plan, the multi - 1 -February -2012 6-1 SECTIONSIX Plan maintenance jurisdictional participants can use the Plan as a baseline of information on the natural hazards that impact their jurisdictions. They will also be able to refer to existing institutions, plans, policies and ordinances defined for each jurisdiction in Section 5 of the Plan (e.g., General Plan, Comprehensive Plan). 6.1.5 Continued Public Involvement MWDOC is dedicated to involving the public directly in review and updates of the Plan. MWDOC and a representative from each participating jurisdiction will be responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the Plan as described above. During all phases of plan maintenance the public will have the opportunity to provide feedback. The most current copy of the Plan will be publicized and permanently available for review on the MWDOC website at www.mwdoc.com/weroc/Hazard-Mitigation. The site will contain contact information to which people can direct their comments and concerns. All public feedback will be forwarded to the appropriate jurisdiction for review and consideration for incorporation (if deemed appropriate) into the next plan update. This information will also be forwarded to MWDOC, responsible for keeping track of public comments on the plan. In addition, copies of the plan will be catalogued and kept at all of the appropriate agencies in the county. The existence and location of these copies will also be posted on the MWDOC website. This will provide the public an outlet for which they can express their concerns, opinions, or ideas about any updates/changes that are proposed to the Plan. 1 -February -2012 6-2 SECTIONSEVEN ABAG Dam Failure Inundation Hazards Guide, http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/damfailure/dfguide.html References Asset Management Plan 2005, Orange County Sanitation District, June 2005, prepared by staff and GHD. City of Torrance, Los Angeles County, 2004. 1) site accessed on March 13, 2005. D.L. Galloway, D.R. Jones, S.E. Ingebritsen,2005. http://xAater.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/fs00165/ USGS Day, R.W., 1994. Swell -shrink behavior of compacted clay. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 120(3):618-622. Determining the Value of Water Supply Reliability in Orange County California, September 2003, prepared by Orange County Business Council for Municipal Water District of Orange County. FEMA website: www.fema.gov "Tornado Background" April 16, 2004; Accessed March 2006. Five Earthquake Scenario Ground Motion Maps for Northern Orange County, July 22, 2005, prepared by Earth Consultants International for Municipal Water District of Orange County. Gold, Scott, "Disaster Prompted $1.3 billion Effort to Tame Santa River, Protect Basin," Los Angeles Times, October 3, 1999. Krohn, J. P. and Slosson, J. E., 1980, Assessment of Expansive Soils in the United States: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Expansive Soils, American society of Civil Engineers, v. 15, p. 596-608. Leake, S.A.2004. Land Subsidence from Ground Water Pumping. USGS. http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/changes/anthropogenic//subside/ NOAA website: www.ncdc.noaa.gov "Query Results," March 13, 2006; Accessed March 2006. http://wikipedia.cot'n Orange County Haz Mat Plan Rogers, J. David, Ph.D., P.E., R.G., http://web.umr.edu/—rogersda/expansive_soils/, site accessed on March 13, 2005, South Orange County Water Reliability Study, Phase 2 System Reliability Plan, Final Report. June 2004, prepared by Municipal Water District of Orange County Tsunamis affecting the West Coast of the United States 1806-1992. KGRD 29. 1 -February -2012 7-1 SECTIONSEVEN Reterences United States Army Corps of Engineers, Standard Project Flood Determinations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Publication number EM 1110-2-141 (1965). URS, Orange County Haz Mat Plan Wikipedia Encyclopedia, "earthquakes," "faults" 2006; accessed March 2006 1 -February -2012 7-2 SECTION 8 APPENDICES Appendix A HMWG Meetings • A-1 November 2011 Meeting • A-2: December 2011 Meeting • A -3: Individual PWU Meetings Appendix B Public Workshops • B-1: Summary • B-2: Quick Question Sheet • B-3: MWDOC Briefing Paper • B-4: WEROC Briefing Paper Appendix C Public Notification • C-1: MWDOC Website • C-2: Press Release • C-3: PWU Public Announcements Appendix D Executive Summary of the Value of a Reliable Water Supply Appendix E MWDOC Hazard Mitigation Data Matrix Appendix F Participating Jurisdiction Adoption of Plan Letters Appendix G CAL EMA Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Crosswalk O:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmitt2011PlanUpdatetHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 8 HM.doc\1-Feb-1ZSDG 8-1 �ff qRTNOW1 Appendices U9 HMWG Meetings A-1: November 2011 Meeting A-2: December 2011 Meeting A-3: Individual PWU Meetings 0:\SharedkWEROC\Hazmit12011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Rewsion\SWion 8 HM.doc\1-FeM2517G 8-2 SECTIONEIGHT MWDOC KICKOFF MEETING AGENDA November 29, 2011 * Welcome and Introductions . Review of Update Process, Timeline & Requirements 0 Discussion of Shared Resources to Accomplish Update • In-house Mapping • Administrative Typing Support • Locations for Public Hearings 0 Primary Agency Contact and Commitment to Update Process . Distribution and Review of Agency Packet (Sections 1-4 of the plan) f., = 0AShared\WER0CkHazmitQ01IPlanUpdateUHamit Plan 2011-12 RwosionNSWion 8 HM.dock1.Feb-12\SDG 8-3 Hazard Mitigation Plan Revision Schedule Last Tuesday of Every Month: November 29 December 27 January 31 February 28 March 27 April 24 Planning Schedule (subject to change): November 0 Review of Update Process, Timeline & Requirements 0 Discussion of Shared Resources to Accomplish Update 0 Primary Agency Contact and Commitment to Update Process 0 Distribution of Agency Packet (Sections 1-4 of the plan) Anpendices Ew December 0 Section 1-4 Agency Packet DUE! 0 Review and Distribution of Section 5 Agency Packet (Goals & Objectives) 0 Discussion of Regional Goals & Objectives 0 Hazard Maps Review & Discussion January 0 Section 5 Agency Packet DUE! 0 Wrap Up! What's Left? Throughout the Month of January: 0 Individual Agency Meetings (throughout the month) 0 Public Hearings (4 Total for plan, Agency must attend 2) February 0 Final Plan Review and Distribution Throughout the Month of February 0 Agency Board Meetings for Plan Approval . March — Submit Final Plan Update 0:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionXSection 8 HlVdoc\1-Feb-12\SDG 8-4 SECTIONEIGHT Kick off Meeting Sign -In Sheet, November 29, 2011 LOETH 0ASharedWEROC\HazMit1201 !PlanUpdateWazrnit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 8 HM.dOc\1-Feb.121SDG 8-5 rt 0ASharedWEROC\HazMit1201 !PlanUpdateWazrnit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 8 HM.dOc\1-Feb.121SDG 8-5 SECTIONEIGHT MWDOC Meeting Summary November 29, 2011 1:00 p.m. — 3:00 p.m. HANDOUTS: • Agenda • PWU Hazard Mitigation Folder GENERAL NOTES & UPDATES: U-1111415 R7 0 1 am still working On following up to some of the initial questions brought up regarding how much grant funding is available and statistics regarding grant awards. I will provide at the December meeting. 0 Review of schedule, project timeline and expectations. Goal is to COMPLETE this process by February! 0 Host Locations for Public Hearings needed for January. I need 2 in the North and 2 in the South. Please email me if your agency can host a hearing in the evening hours. 0 Start the process of getting the Hazard Mitigation Plan on your Elected Board calendar for February. It must be reviewed and approved by your elected board/council! * DECEMBER MEETING CHANGE! Due to many requests the next meeting has been rescheduled to Monday, December 19th from 1-3 pm. • ACTION ITEMS DUE BY DECEMBER MEETING: • MWDOC • Review and Update Sections 1& 3, including all tables. • Review and Update all hazard descriptions, and hazard tables in Section 4. • EVERY AGENCY • Review their own agency description in Section 2 for updates. • Update their own agency Asset Summary worksheet in Section 4. • NEW — Kelly will email each agency separately with their original DETAILED assets sheets. This should help to frame what infrastructure was included in the original plan. • A general glance through all of Sections 1-4 for corrections is helpful. • UPDATES/CHANGES o Written Comments on Packets: You can scan and email me any changes OR Drop off at the MWDOC office in Fountain Valley. 0:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 8 HM,do61-Feb-12\SDG 8-6 SECTIONEIGHT 1! = F77, o Typed Comments: I have attached below the instructions on how to access the Hazard Mitigation Plan online. If you wish to review and make changes in the electronic document, please use the "track changes" function and then email me back your corrections. GOALS BY OBJECTIVES, SECTION 5 The Goals & Objectives in the first plan were VERY generic and not very specific for almost every agency. These need significant work for the plan update. Start to consider Goals & Objectives for your specific utility. What can you do to reduce risks at your agency due to disaster? Consider what your highest risks are. Examples include: • Can you develop a better vegetation management plan? • Do you need to relocate water/wastewater lines that always wash out during storms? • Structural reinforcement of buildings for earthquakes? • Flexible couplings and automatic shut-off valves at reservoirs? 0 Start to make a list of mitigation actions that you have done in the last 5 years. This also needs to be included in the plan update. 0 1 recommend that you put together a small multi -discipline workgroup at the office to discuss project needs within your jurisdiction. a SCHEDULE A MEETING WITH KELLY — Kelly and Karl plan to meet with each agency to go over their assets, goals and objectives. Check your schedule and let me know when in December or January we can meet. • I will be sending out a standard format for the Goals and Objectives. ELECTRONIC COPY OF OC MULTI -AGENCY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN FOUND ONLINE IN MWDOC FTP SITE. 0AShared\WER0CkHazmit1201 1PlanUpdate\Hazmft Plan 2011-12 Rewsion\Section 8 HM.doc11-Feb-12\SDG 8-7 SECTIONEIGHT * Welcome and Introductions 0 Review of Update Process, Timeline & Requirements * Contact List Review • Website — httv-:Hw%vw, mwduc . coni/werocifl azard - 1%4 iti a, at ion o Survey 0 Public Hearings • South County — Moulton Niguel WD • North County - ? 9 Other Outreach 0 Sections 1-4 • Questions? • Spread Sheets Update 9 Section 5 • Review of Handouts • Goals & Objectives Discussion * Maps Updates Needed? 0AShared%WER0MHazrnffi2011PIanUpdateHamit Plan 201i-12Rewsion\Section 8 HM.doc\1-Feb-12\SDG 8-8 SECTIONEIGHT Meeting Sign -In Sheet, December 19, 2011 0 � � � / � \�\ . � . \ � � � } �� ,t 0 —1110 Lwo MC e*'*WftwW1 M � 4 011 r "M WX a NOW OAS __mom ROC\Hazmit\201 I P1 a n Update\Haz mit Plan 2011 - 12 _ sion\Section 8 Wdo6l -Feb-1 2\SDG 8-9 MWDOC Meeting Summary December 19, 2011 1:00 p.m. — 3:00 p.m. Appendices • Agenda • Hazard Mitigation Project Sample* • MyHazards Awareness Map Site — Jh • Agency Specific Section 5 Revised Format and Projects Chart* *Both these items mailed to each agency individually by the following Wednesday. GENERAL NOTES & UPDATES: • Reclaim and Recycle water infrastructure were included in wastewater without separate designation. • WEROC posted the 2007 approved plan to the MWDOC website. The page encourages the public to review the plan and provide comments. A link to the plan was also posted on the WEROC Facebook page at Feedback requested on the idea of doing a public survey as part of the public outreach. Determined that there was not a lot of interest and that it was not necessary. • Hazard Mitigation update contact list updated for the process. List was distributed to those attending this meeting in case anyone wishes to bounce ideas off each other or has questions about what another agency may be doing. • Public Workshops tentative locations (Official Announcements coming soon): o Moulton Niguel Water District a City of Buena Park o Backup — Yorba Linda Water District • Any general changes, recommendations or concerns with the plan should be sent to Kelly no later than Friday, January 20, 2012. ACTION ITEMS: • EVERY AGENCY O:1Shared\WEROC\Hazm!t12011PIanUpdate4Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 8 HM.dod1-Feb-12\SDG 8-10 SECTIONEIGHT I JIT111H o Website Announcement: • Post an announcement and a link to the Hazard Mitigation Plan on the MWDOC website. • Send an e-mail to Kelly with a link to your webpage for documentation. • If you receive comments directly to your agency regarding the plan, please forward these to Kelly for documentation. • Public Outreach: • Send press release of review process and public workshops to local newspapers (template provided). • Include article or announcements for review process and public workshops in agency newsletter and website. • Public Workshops: • Once scheduled, invite your local coordinating partners to attend (i.e. city officials, law enforcement, fire agency, etc.) •Attend AT LEAST one Workshop. • New Infrastructure: • Any new infrastructure needs to be included in Asset Summary sheet on page 4-60. • On a separate sheet of paper list the following for each new piece of infrastructure (excluding pipeline): • Address/Location • Name of Infrastructure • What Risks is the infrastructure subject to? (Fire, Earthquake., etc.) • What is the degree of risk? Reference Hazard Mitigattion maps from 2007 to determine this. You can also use the MyHazards website to assist with this process, o Elected Board Approval: • Schedule the plan for your elected board process to be completed by February 29th. Plan must be approved by each participating.jurisdiction's elected board. 0AShared\WER0C\Hazrnit1201 I PlanUpdatekHamit Plan 2011-12 Re\hsion\Section 8 HM.doc\1-Feb-121,SDG 8-11 SECTIONEIGHT o Section 5 Review and Project Chart — DUE NO LATER than COB January 20, 2013: • Review the revised agency specific component from Section 5 that was distributed at the meeting and emailed. • Fill in the Project Chart Sheet with more accurate and exact action items and goals. Utilize the Project Sample sheet for reference ONLY. • Kelly & Karl are available for individual agency meetings to discuss projects further or to brainstorm. It is also recommended that agencies use a multi -discipline team from the agency to consider the process. • MWDOC • Public Outreach Items: ■ Provide Agencies with a Template Press Release ■ Send press release of review process and Public Workshops to OC Register. ■ Include an ad for the Public Workshops in the OC Register. • Public Workshops: • Coordinate with Buena Park & MNWD to schedule Public Workshops for end of January. • Invite Edison, Gas Companies, MET, WEROC Member Agencies, t:1 OCEMO, and communication utilities, • Elected Board Approval: 0Provide all the agencies with a Template Staff Report. • The Final Plan will be done and available online by February 1, 2012. 0AShared\WER0C\Hazmit1201 I PlanUpdateWamit Plan 2011-112 ReAsioMSection 8 HM.doc\l -Feb-, 2\SDG 8-12 "2VA0B1NE'W INDIVIDUAL PWU MEETINGS Appendices The following is list of agencies that met with Kelly and/or Karl on an individual or group basis for further guidance and additional support Agency Individual/Group Meeting Date Laguna Beach County Water District, La Habra, Orange County Water District, Orange, and Serrano Water District 12/6/2011 Newport Beach 1/6/2012 El Toro Water District 1/12/2012 Orange County Water District 1/16/2012 Orange 1/18/2012 Serrano Water District 1/18/2012 Trabuco Canyon Water District 1/23/2012 0:\Shared\WEROC1Hazmit12011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 8 HM.doc\1-Feb-12\SDG 8-13 SECTIONEIGHT Appendices I a 0 H 4 IMLIMOR"I '3 11, [4) " - B-1: Summary B-2: Fact Sheet B-3: MWDOC Briefing Paper B-4: WEROC Briefing Paper 0:\Shared\WEROC1Hazmitt2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 8 HM.doc\I-Feb-121SDG 8-14 SECTIONEIGHT Public Workshop Sign -In Sheet, January 17, 2011 Orange County Regional Water and Wastewater Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Public Workshop City of Buena Park City Wall, WAx Co*fere*ce Ruo,,-Da*'&-Wwvl. January 17, 2012; 5:00 p.m. — 7*00 p.m. Appendices 0:1SharedVVVEROCkHazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 8 HkdoGI-Feb-12\SDG 8-15 SECTIONEIGHT I., = Public Workshop Sign -In Sheet, January 30, 2011 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Public Workshop Moulton Niguel Water District Board Room, Moulton Niguel Water District 27500 La Paz Rd., Laguna Niguel January 30, 2012; 5:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. 0:1Shared\WEROC\HazmitX2011PIanUpdate}Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision%Section 8 Hfvl.dodlFeb-12tS6G 8-16 REDMAN ".I I Si_ w73 AT 0:1Shared\WEROC\HazmitX2011PIanUpdate}Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision%Section 8 Hfvl.dodlFeb-12tS6G 8-16 SECTIONEIGHT Appendices First Public Workshop — Recap Location: Buena Park City Hall 6650 Beach Blvd Buena Park, CA Date: January 17, 2012 Time: 5-7 p.m. Number of People Attending: 12 Water and/or wastewater service providers Service Providers Represented: City of Buena Park (Michael Grisso) City of Garden Grove (Raquel Manson) City of Orange (Sonny Tran) Orange County Water District (Chuck Steinbergs) Serrano Water District (Ann Michel) City of Westminster (2) Vivian Filippelli Wil Davee Yorba Linda Water District (Hank Samaripa) Municipal Water District of Orange County (4) Karl Seckel Kelly Hubbard Darcy Burke Crystal Boteler 0:1SharedNWEROCIHazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 8 HM,doc\1-Feb-12\SDG 8-17 SECTIONEIGHT Second Public Workshop — Recap Location: Moulton Niguel Water District 27500 La Paz Road Laguna Niguel, CA Date: January 30, 2012 Time: 5-7 p.m. Number of People Attending: 17 Water and/or wastewater service providers Service Providers Represented: El Toro Water District (2) Bob Hill Renzo Marin La Habra (Brian Jones) Laguna Beach County Water District (Rich Mathis) Moulton Niguel Water District (2) Kelly Winsor Todd Novacek City of Newport Beach (George Murdoch) Santa Margarita Water District (Steve Francis) Orange County Sanitation District (George Rivera) South Coast Water District (Mark Cole) South Orange County Wastewater Authority (Dan Wheeler) Trabuccl Canyon Water District (Hector Ruiz) Tustin (Kimberly Allen) Municipal Water District of Orange County (4) Karl Seckel Kelly Hubbard Darcy Burke Crystal Boteler I.,= 3 14 0AShared\WER0C1Hazmit\201I PlanUpdate\Haznnit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Sectjon 8 HM.docXI-Feb-12\SDG 8-18 SECTIONEIGHT 1.- 7 M 7 2E, Hazard Mitigation Planning Fact Sheet Hazard Mitigation Planning Fact Sheet What is a Hazard Mitigation Plan? A Hazard Mitigation Plan (Plan) is a pre -disaster strategic plan written to guide how a community will lower its risk and exposure to disasters. Why revise the Hazard Mitigation Plan? In order for jurisdictions to stay eligible for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds for potential natural and technological hazards, they must have an approved Hazard Mitigation Plan that is updated every 5 years. Hazard Mitigation Plans also facilitate cost savings for utilities in the future — every dollar spent on mitigation results in four dollars saved in response and recovery related costs. What is the purpose of this Workshop? Hazard Mitigation Working Group meetings will be held between November 2011 and February 2012. During this timeframe, the hazards that are regionally important will be revicxed and the risk assessment related to these hazards will be updated. All Plans are required to include open public involvement during Plan formation. Your input is important for development of the specific mitigation goals, objectives, and action items for the Plan. With your input, the Plan will prioritize mitigation measures with appropriate implementation strategies. What elements are included in the Plan Process? OAShared\WEROCXHazmjtVOI IPlanUpdateWamit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Sechon 8 HM.doc\I-Feb-121SDG 8-19 SECTIONEIGHT Appendices When will the Plan be complete? The Final Plan will be posted in February 2012 for adoption by MWDOC and Participating Agencies. The adopted Plan will be submitted to FEMA by March 2012. Who is preparing the Plan? The MWDOC and participating water utilities are reviewing and updating the Plan by utilizing the Hazard Mitigation Working Group who meets monthly for this planning process. In addition, the group utilizes additional key staff at each agency that can provide subject matter expertise and policy direction. O:\Shared\WEROMHazmit\2011PlanUpdate\Hazmlt Plan 2011-12 Rewsion\Section 8 HM.doc\1-Feb-12\SDG 8-20 SECTIQNEIGHT MWDOC Briefing Paper Appendices ovemew i The 1s1ic; al Fater District of Orange Co 1r ty(. *ew is =v rr Iesaie water Supplier I3er aridresource ienn;n age ou. ! Our efforts focus on sound planning and appropriate irrvestments in water supply deae+rafrrraent, water use effar ence, public information, legislative advor y, water education, and emergency prelsaredne-&5, • f 1, D f( --'s sen ice area dieters all of Orate County, with the except<on of the Cities of Anaheim, Fullerton and Santa Aara, We serve Orange County through 28 water retail agencies. ♦ Local mater supplies meet nearly half of Orange CoontVs total waver demai d, To meet the remaining drorrand, . ,W# (, purchases impotted water - fro r northern California and =fie Colorado lover -- through the Metropolitan Water Mstrict of Southern California, MINDOC is govei ned by a sever,- ee r mer Roars of Directors, Each director is elected by the public to represent a specific portion of Orange County, * MWE)OC aisr appoints four reprerentatives to advocale, the interests of Orange County or, the i etropo itan Board, IVIVAMOC-is the hirci largest Metropolitan €mere>der agency and f=olds trey leadership pocitions on the guard of .rectors that oversees policy de—ve istorremt, strategy, and implementation, Peglondl Representation Through icadershir, and re rescrrta ion at Metropolitan, olitan, t71WDOC works to en re water , el,adi;irkr and econorrik, e.f cip- ies f Orange County, his indludesstrong advocacy or, isstres surf tis mater repo, n r— .arming, dreign of Metropolitan faci'it e.,, development of impart d crater rates and charges, and u nsorship of statinvide water policy tf rat supports regional reliabf3it y, MWD has sera rid rn a e than 2 million for prograrns tft ,t support „ r;d improve, Orange County's systems rei,at lity and reduce - emde=,ce on inilsorted water supplies, in addition, VNIVIDOC and its cfisnt ager e; Erase, become recognized leaders r hater use efficiency and ierychng, water Use Effdat Tey P r 3DOC has created award-winning water use eft>cien,cy Programs that target ail water Users, Mang an innovative aPproack PAW00C develops, imolerirents, and evaluates programs treat provide nnjftip9e lsenef.ls, tnduding irrigation efficiency arid pollution p, eve:Trion Our programs include educational r., mFres on water -wise Landscaping, r,,gat.; n performance retort rig, Water use survey, for f Aerr aref industrial r_ r rrers, and €onsurner ,rarer>,tives for water-efftr_ nr devices, To avaluate Che eNc t:veti,e , , f st c `£.'.`voce , MWE)OC conducts stun -fie . to menitor grater swings and urban runoff reduction, Through these water use efficiency programs. Orange County save -s more T- arr 2.9 bbl". gallows of water each year. Street A dress,18700 Word Street, Fountain trafley CA 92708 Phone- Number, 1714,' M34058 We sire ory 0:15haredllNER0C1Hazmitl2011 PlanUpdste\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 8 HM.doc\1-Feb-12\SDG 8-21 SECTIONEIGHT Appendices Pubur Infornwrion IMINVOC is comrrutted to keeping Orange Counteilinformed of current water issues, water -saving Opportunities, and -special events thrvugh its public inforrnation and outreach programs, Our monthly Plectronir newsletter, eCurrents, provides subscribers with important information about our water supisly, pendlp'g legislation and policy issues, and water use eft ciencyactivitles, NXINDOC presents Water Policy Forums and co-sponsors the anisual O.C. Water Surnmit to engage local elected offfficial Is, community leaders, and water industry professionals about the ma or water issues affecting Orange County. Additionally, MWDOCcl"eelops public service announcements.. Participates in community events, and povides informational materials to the public. water E-dumtion MWDOC is a longtime leader'n water education for students. We were cna- of the firs.Water districts in California to offer a water education school program launched In 1973- Today, through a la rtnership with Ekscovery Science Center, we have provided nearly three million Grange County students with grade -specific lessore that for -us on topics like the water cycle, forms of water, and water as an environmental resource. Another feature of our education program is the annual Poster and Slogan Contest, which encourage s students to express ways to save water through drawings or words. The winning posters and slogans are features in an annual water education calendar that is distributed to Orange County efernentary schools. Encouraging students to save 20 gaflons of water per day, the 0,C. Water Hero program (co-sponsored by Orange County Water District) provides students With water conservation kits to make, saving water fun, MIJ03ME= The Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County (WEROC), administered by MWDOC, coordhiates emefgencj response and mutual asci planning for all Orange County water and wastewater agencies, WERO-jr- provides its member agencies and volunteer staff with emergency preparedness and response training, in the event of a major afuscling Orange County, these volunteers would rnobilize at the WER(X_ emergency operations centers to coordinate response, WFRGC works closely with the County of Orange, the Orange County Fire Authority, the Callfarnia Department afRublic Health, and other entities to ensure a holistic approach and a well - c ,00rdinated emergency response, summary The Municipal eater District of Orange County (MWIDOC) is committed to providing a reliable supply of high, quality water for Orange County. Working closely With Metropolitan arA our client agencies, our staff looks for oppotun, 'as to improve Orange Counrys water resources and reliability. By irtegratirig local planning r challenges and regional stakeholder partnerships,MINDOC maximizes %vater system reliability and overall system efficiencies, VVe work to expand Orange County's water supply portfoho by providing planning and local resource development expertise in the areas of recycled water, groundwater, orearn water, and conservation. For more in.111ormation, p1 ntact Dar ry M. Burke Jessica H. Ouwerkerk Director of public Affairs Public Affairs Specialist Municipal Water District Municipal Water District of Orange County of Orange County Phone: Q914) 593-5014 Phone: (734) 593-.5029 E-mail: fft!w- E-mafl: -iowd"erk!- c.orll Phone Number, (7141963-3058 Website: www rnivaac,crinn� 0AShared\WER0C%HazMffi201 1PIanUpdateviamit Plan 2011 -12 Reldsjon\Section 8 HM_d0cu-Feb-121SDG 8-22 SECTIONEIGHT Appendices ee The Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County (WEROC) eras established in 1983 to promote e arrf coordinate cot t - a d ernesency preparedness, Planning, and response efforts on efaif of all garage County viacer and Wastewater age naes, ♦ The foundation of this organization is an Indemnification Agreement between the partir patiriF agencies to facilitate the Sharing of resources. i WER €v serves as the point of contact betaseen local wa'er and ecastewater agencies, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and Orange C,orurrty's Emergency Operations Area, b an the rase of a natural disaster or other emergency situation, W R iC maintair°rs volunteer staff for two Emergency Operations Centers to manage response efforts, * WEROC is a collaboration el 35 Water and waste nate r utilities and is adontristered by the Municipal Water District of Orange County Summary The mate; Emergency Response OsganiaaCon sof Orange County (WER0 , is respon-ible for ernergency panni rg, coordinaticar, and response efforts for all Orange Counly oiter and wastewater agencies. To carry out its mission, WEROC provides ongoing training and support, to its participating rnember ageraue-s, including keeping them up to date on the latest security and anti -terrorism practices, hosting training activities arid providing disaster response se coo- inati n of information, mutual aid and reco-eq, purrs°inn, WERO . works closely with tire t xtrity of Orange, the Ora€~ e Cot inty lice Authority, the California Department of i'ub is Hea;tir and other entity ~s to ensure a vies -coordinated emergency response. For more information, please ntact: Kelly Hubbard crWat Bcrtel r ALL ; na tr EROC Prog, a.s Manager tt ERO Programs s Assistant unici l "°aims District of Orange County Phone: (7141593-501 rr air k. a_x Municipal ipai eater District of Orange County Phone: (7 14) 593-5032 E-mailk„._..... _......"t.._..:..,: _ .'r:.e'�',_.M..... Street Address: 18700 Word Street, Fountain ValleyC 9270 Phone Number. (714) 963-3058 Website., a � _-_'r __. `.. onn- O:tShared\WEROC\Hazmitl2011 PIanUpdatelHazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 8 HM.doctl-Feb-12(SDG 8-23 SECTIONEIGHT Appendices C-1: MWDOC Website C-2: Press Release C-3: PWU Public Notifications O:kSharedWVEROCkHazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Re\AsionXSecfion 8 HM,dockI-Feb-12\SDG 8-24 SECTIONEIGHT MWDOC Website Post December 13, 2011 Appendices Orange County Regional Water and Wastewater Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan permanently= posted to MWDOC website at, Intl 7n'g r,1; i 1 =o, for public review and comment. FROG 0.1SharedtWER0MHazmAQ011PlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 ReOsion\Section 8 HM.do61-Feb-12\SDG 8-25 SECTIONEIGHT Appendices F.11 a 9 8110 13 PRESS RELEASE MWDOC PRESS RELEASE - January 9, 2012 Contact: Kelly Hubbard Office: (714) 593-5010 Mobile: (714) 7111-0283 :snail : Lju " �-�- _� r d, Dgmv d o COUNTY WATER UTILITIES SEEK PUBLIC INPUT IN PLAN UPDATE Courtivvvide Water and Wastewater District Plan Covering Natural and Man-made Disasters Undergoing 5 -Year Update Fountain Valley, CA (Janua-1 9, 2012) - The Municipal Water District of Orange County I"MWDOC) is seeking public input on the update to the 2007 Orange County Regional Water and Wastewater Mufti -Hazard Mitigation Plan (Plan), Tice Plan, which identifres ri's?s posed by natural and man-made disasters - and ways to minimize damage before those disasters occur - is currently being updated by MWDOC and 19 participating Orange County grater and wastewater utilities (see full list below'; - Public input is very important and, residents are encouraged to acbvely participate in the update process. The 20*7 Plan is avaicable for review online at In addition, participating agencies will host two public workshops to facilitate discussions between participating agencies and the public. Comments and questions car be made by attending one of the scheduled public workshops or by suiamit-ling feedback directly to MWDOC at INg , Public comments will be collected unt'd Friday, January 27, 2012, Following review and incorporation of comments and suggestions, the Plan will be presented for approval to each participating utilities' governing boards, Council, the California Emergency Management Agency, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Public workshodswill be held at the following two location= -and times: a. NORTH COUNTY: SOUTH COUNTY: City, of Buena Park City Hall, Main Conference Room 6650 Beach slvd., sueria Park 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.rr, January 17, 2012 Moulton Niguel Water District Board Room 27500 La Paz Rck, Laguna Niguel 5:00 p.m, - 7:00 p.m. January 30, 2012 (continued on next page) Street Address: 18700 Word Street, Fountain Valley CA 92708 Phone Number: (7141969-3058 !C, Twitter,-EVwXx 0AShared\WER0C\Hazmit\201 1PlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RewsionNSection 8 HM.doc\1-Feb-12\SDG 8-26 SECTIONEIGHT P.Opendieft 77 "CIGUINn U ESSEEK, PIU At I U?rI V f 1644 2-2-2 Ile - (cont.) In 2007, MWDOC and the coalition of water and wastewater utilities completed a planning effort to develop a hazard mitigation plan covering each participating jurisdiction, The Plan was funded through a FEMA grant and approved in 2007. Designed to meet the federal regulations set forth by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (which requires all local, county, tribal, and state governments to develop and maintain a multi -hazard mitigation plan for their respective jurisdictions), the Plan allows each participating jurisdiction to receive future hazard mitigation and public assistance funds. Every five years Hazard litigation plans must be updated to maintain eligibility, Participating Jurisdictions include: City of Buena Park El Toro Water District City of Garden Grove City of La Habra Laguna Beach County Water District Mesa Water District Moulton Niguel Water District Municipal Water -District of Orange County City of Newport, Beach City of Orange Orange County Sanitation District Orange County Water District Santa Margarita Water District Serrano Water District South Coast Water District South. Orange County Wastewater Authority Trabuco Canyon Water District City of Tustin City of Westminster Yorba Linda Water District The Municipal Water District of Orange County is a water resource management and planning agency dedicated to ensuring supply and system reliability for the 2.2 million residents we serve through our 28 member agencies. Street Address: 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley CA 92708 Phone Number: (714) 963-3058 Website: www.mwdoc.com 0:%Shared\WEROC\Hazmit1201 ManUpdateWazrnit Plan 2011-12 RemsioMSection 8 Wdo61-Feb-52iSDiS 8-27 SECTIONEIGHT FREE NEWS PRESS - January 13, 2012 County Water Agency Preparing for Disaster I Free News Press T1=1 I= & I i� 11% �—c HOME 80sitirss FEATURED REALTH LMAL NATI00 - WJALD sci MCH FRIDAY JANUARY 13TH 2012 Search Disaster BUENA PARK Calif. {FNP) - It has been five years since the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) created their water resource and Prnergency plan. The district 11 now seeking public comment to improve their 2.007 Orange county Regional Water and Wastewater MuftlHazard Mitigation Plan (Plan), They are focusing on disasters, both manmade and natural. -fhe goal is to 'minimize damage' caused by a disaster before one occurs. 'Public input is Spry important, the district sold In their statement. They are encouraging residents to participate In the process. Each participating agency will host two public workshops. public comments will be reflected until Friday, Tanuiny 27, 2012. the comments will be reviewed by the agency. The District will hold a meeting on January 17, 2012 5:00 p.m, - ?:UO pan. at the liuma Park City Hall in the Main Conference Room, 6650 Beach Blvd,, Enjena Park. Previous Topic: Now Mayor Selected for La Palma Added: )anuary 12th, 2012 Author: Matt Mactionald Category: Local More from category New Mayor Selected ral l<1Palma I -A PALMA Calif. (rNP) Councilman Henry Chamen wa'; selected as the Mayor of to Palma at the last city council (Read Motel La Palma Hoine Pk Ices, Wop Again in November LA PALMA Calif. (FNP) - Home prices fall again in La Palma, arcoi'ding to a mport from the real estate information [Read Morel limit Winds Hit orange County CYPRESS Calif. (CNP) - Lightning and light rain pushed Into Southern California today as forecasters at the National [Read More] Kelly Thomas Me Sues OC that A FULLERTON Calif. (FNP) -- Cathy Cathy Thomas, the mother of Kelly Thomas who was aftegedly killed by pallce In an altercation (Read More) 0:\Shared%WEROC\Hazmiti201 1PlanUpdate\Hazmft Plan 2011-12 Re0sion\Section 8 HM.docN1-FeM21SDG 8-28 SECTIONEIGHT PWU Public Announcements Buena Park Webpage Screenshot len arark,com mirb,,el Snider economic m1la.- C4 guer,�pa,+ mew's F,,,, ne "A jj L NEWS RELEASES COUNTY WATER UTILITIES SEEK PUBLIC INPUT IN PLAN UPDATE o1ffinNIA-11i e 1.111V -el ane DIVAnc t PMe C ovl�Mg Hat", "'M and '16vi, adv qsasliers,-ewrptp� -,ajfm2ir- posted Date, V1112O012 The MunrIial, Waterlai&k-f of Orange Cqumy (MIAMUDC', is seem'gwMr inwjt om Me uwe ta the 2VIF, Orange court, Regxnef 11,vater MOFZ�n-- M04avor'. pan Tne Pw-, w,# ut, deftft-s nm psed by lwwal and Mas-nwcie dis-3--fers - w,-, ways to mwmizza oanwe before those d-isast", c,,--jr smifferfty bek,,g s by FANWIC srd 19 pstvoafing Orange, C"inty water and wa--4twatar Uftes isee- ful `t 3$,=. Rjvc OM is van, boodwt vd restems are elcmaeged to azvvely parkpate in the updatm 71he 2007 Ran navaAable fceeviev- or -Ase "r w-afflor" pw-moan-0 aw� tress wo'lov, t -w 0 ruts= -,-c worw"ops, to facftf.- ftSuswn-1 berweer, pa"to-patko; 8 aro zh,F ov W- Com-rwft and questbns car, Ie inade bt� afte-ning c3 t7 of the S-che �- WoMst"o-'s or by sum -mg feeft&:kdue elt"y to 9 -VA -2-0c at r,,n -5,', pubs, =11mlents wo ie:... l&-Zled WIN criday, jarFuary ZT, 22-0112 FOR-ow"go reva�,q ar"m 000rpofwfisr, of MTOhm.- a w"geswns, tff Pan we be presevAed Iw wproval or each p&-tckAtno 6-,,O*s wg.ernsmg me,w, 5,22 ' -,t Pubft worw-ofisvrf- be ber atthe ftlowft two =31,ws an4 tm-s NORTH COUNTY: Januezy 17, 2012 &W puts,.- 7:00 p.fvf, Ctty of fterra Perk, City Hall- Main Conference Room, SM seaw-h aw- Buena Park. ,-0,j7M. 7:0 U N -e James. y 30 2012 5 00 p, rn, - 7.210 p,,n ,'Mo ,n Nip eoy'Y ate, c3rd Rwr„ 2775-H La Paz- -OJ,- Law,,a H -wet.. t" 2007. hffl-a-3 C and thpwa-Mv, 0f water and, 'w, a -Ste V, wt er v ti - es wa pwmm, pg effort to de vemp a he z a rd�#V4 Ntior, 7ar c --vet g es &, V. Sag ju, %d h:ft', , The PWI ,Mas as f-j-ded th r,,iP, a FE MA grant and appomwed -m 251017. ae sign at to r, thy? faderel; reg U 4twn S Set ft, " tn by th a 0a a Sic, Mk4stan, Ar! df 20N ' V4 hic,"'I -wu k as Al b cat county, 4 r --,a I ar=t statego vei-xne-M S to dev Cop an mwtain a rroufli�-,arvd ntjant r pian ror *'er resped-4e Me Pen akws wch parficoaNng r, receive Mure hazwdmftatw trit, &SsnVince f£., .;,da.. Evey fve years Hazafd ka"I MS,' be mamfar- #7}SA'y. 0:XShared\VVEROC\Hazmift201 1 PlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RewsiontSection 8 HMdoc\1-Feb.12\SDG 8-29 SECTIONEIGHT Laguna Beach County Water District Webpage Screenshot lbs 'd cm r? MD, L s, w he Laguna Beach Ceunty "eiater Dstnct, a n-onvrofit, local go-vc-rnes ent sgenc,� that der _tis rchatin , safe, and vrudeAiv-v"anaged Wtaiiwat,— ser,+e to oJIStOn`o`rS wthm top Dmtnct's scrrce area, We encourage �,ou to �xpfore rjurweb site and learn about tN� Drstrot's testory, waher-wo;e gareen, ser�atecm programs, and much more. Year 2 of "A"Iti-year rate incrase goes into effrrt. �r' apprrej a f1sr lang 5tatep Tf',e first mc'ease a as -s be—q et"e 0, 3"—.an" 1 o" e.ch yeal fhMjqI jaa e_Lan '�arw '— Ze- &'5 te,ed r6les 'ele- "?Coa! �.5Mmer ."mg bdimg pep,oa, Laguna beach foarnters Market! O'ce a Olst vav�e �t 'h� 8�ach Fa—e� , Ma-k8t to cust�"nero q.eo,n"S B"d prc"de FREC E'e'ts page of atle"ner.�e V'e u 'anj �O Appendices vate, Dis"'a 1-f O"an-ge ccwnr� see, or, the jpdase to the C� 5,ge cc."tv Ha -'d T�e ;e �.S P-'-"P�.,5os?^ Out the P'az' art The a sdt a'a' a� colre'e & �I�t amd 'wae�,s and &�tzmct 0:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Rewsjori\Section 8 HM.doc\I-Feb-12\SDG 8-30 SECTIONEIGHT Appendices Mesa Water District Webpage Screenshot 0AShared\WERO0Hazmit\201 IPlanUpdate\Hszmit Plan 2011-12 Rewsion\Section 8 HIVI.doc\I-Feb-12MG 8-31 SECTIONEIGHT I., = Ma0m r r cofplj=pficra Vanj R*�O, CA. 426"'S Deaa,koiolt NWvms and vvdmet� P4.. 0:4Shared\WEROCNHazmjt1201 IPlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 ReAsion\Section 8 HM.doc\I.Feb-12\SDG 8-32 SECTIONEIGHT Orange County Sanitation District Webpage Screenshot z ti - ,oma � Page Seaga; About Construction .,! Busirrr SS Center; sviro ` mental Programs Educaton Document Cen, silim pmnelemmn€ rug, a � t 3 .i,N ...,-.�. MY t. Emu 1z1t;2,012) e� X Meetings & Events �8 s Business Center R: P "G r Construction, ti n roiect M e f X otwas Most ibed Pages 4 J v�. 0aShared\WER0C\Hazmitt2011PlanUpdateWazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisioniSection 8 HM.doctl-Feb-121SDG 8-33 SECTIONEIGHT Orange Webpage Screenshot iff moi A-1 !tali >a Wate, seoces Emais ,il-'W,mt > Select Language Tran-s,-Mte Public Works Water Division Th-Wat�r Dmitnn is resocvrrsb.- for previdam. safe to z1he Cir,, cr nrej f arf, Wr "Warr designing and ccm�rurthng mle systwn ..,et vuppikes the nesidperas and businesses vat h, For m1harpirlabor, regardb,.g UtIfiry Wifing, mciuding new vawor serocce, peras- (:all J714) 744-2233, . .. .... .... ......... .... enf p�s5s� call f 14 5 8 *61 .... . .... ... F�sr after-Imurs efuerger#cies, 7 3 A Ski wast. &16 F-ec�&v Plieneral unformabon, pi use call f714j -188-A16 Street Tree informellor, For cuvena fee scheau,'- and rate5, "fick Te&ncal 0--men-M NunKipaf tVater Cn�sml and 19 oroerpartim Ung, a watcr Pnd v-�oev�ater utihves are updalolu we Oramq� courm, Reg*ra� Water and Wastev,,iber sex .. .. ... ...Plan, YANcn. -was eprcrer, r, Fnbcue; r„f of 21007. , Y'ate, selvloes Iff e-111-1111-11, . .............. l�',GPWCM Samtary Sewer ptan On twernber 12, NMI”' drinkmig 'water supped by the Metrrjpalftn Water D,samc�t 'p the Crry Gf Orange -;,,W lie ff"'Or"date", to a :pec; a, 12,8 pprn (parts per nmilion " � oomkrinRd flluondez ieveis In rip by 's dinmung water, insfi rangt fon, G,C, to m ppb,. por mfowmabon an flUonde, :-.-e 2c —c, Fs. v Pcrn-,A infrrmabon, cilc Tne Or-dnae Coupty Wjot--r Dgt'rjcl rs unaertakkng a projec, unat mil increase th, CO3,0j's g-,,mund,n,zALAr suppkyThe GroUr4wate, RenIpr,;5hMeio System m4 provide Pnough, veatpr to met tne needs of approyuv—tr-€v i4o,oau, ffam4es each, y"ear a-r,,d nH reduce th-e Counbl's depsjence on mlWrted warr- frofn WmNomm _a..:., u" an"d t, e Ruve, Ock, Lhee to learn 0AShared\WER0C\HazmM201 IPlanUpdate\Hazmjt Plan 2011-12 RemsjonNSection 8 HM.dod1-Feb-12\SDG 8-34 SECTIONEIGHT appendices Trabuco Canyon Water District Webpage Screenshot s. E£fj z. MaiaLm too 0ASharedXWEROCXHazmit\201 1PIanUpdateXHazinit Plan 2011-12 Re\hsionXSedon 8 HM.doC\1-Feb-121SDG 8-35 7- The T! a Watef trict sets as its pt -abuco Canyor Dist -Imary objective the I Hazard -Mitigation Plan provision of the most cost effective, reliable water and sewer service � -e ",un --pa" cvla'er Possible for its custorners, Stf Orange C—unty " ?OWDOCI 'S seekng Trabuco Canyon Water District wifl: pubhc :nput or-, the vie " u0odate to the 2007 Provide cconUnuous, reliable, and high quality level of water and Cra"'ge cou"Ity Rcg*na� Ofcasl -tp Isiaze-I and, wastewater services in %1e 6t' quantity fcr press=nt and fi-ftut -e fc -aj !j'o� Muft,4aza'-d Mkt,ganon bcneficai use. t -o- -o.-e an "Nan). * Provids, afl siervices sn a cost-effective and efficlent manner, I * insure compliance with environment -31, safety and regulatory im�aft Ordinance 2012-19 reoulrements. * Novide fc�r reliabillity aOi emergency preparedness, suppgarnenring 3-d * Maintain and imiprove existing infrastructure, rsadootH-g vvasre # Arid we car mit to our customers our constant urs It of these dscha-.-qe prio,earrren-I objectives. and sourre coumv,"o, progfa,ns 9-0--ffd �---rgc Notice of Exemption Trab�orc, H�qh!-4nds preissurs kecuc;ng staltQns P" 0ASharedXWEROCXHazmit\201 1PIanUpdateXHazinit Plan 2011-12 Re\hsionXSedon 8 HM.doC\1-Feb-121SDG 8-35 SECTIONEIGHT Appendices Westminster Webpage Screenshot 0 \Shared\WEROMHazmiA2OI I PlanUpdatekl-fazrnit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 8 HM.doc61-Feb-12SDG 8-36 SECTIONEIGHT Appendices Yorba Linda Water District Webpage Screenshot 0AShared\WEROC\Hazmit\201 IPlanUpdateWamit Plan 2011-12 ReAsion\Section 8 I-IM.do6l-Feb-12WG 8-37 SECTIONEIGHT 1X4 DETERMINING THE VALUE OF WATER SUPPLY RELIABILIY IN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESS COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 2003 FOR MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY 0:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011 PlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisionlSection 8 HM.doc\1-Feb-12\SDG 8-38 SECTIONEIGHT A00endiCeS DETERMINING THE VALUE OF WATER SUPPLY RELIABILIY IN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study provides insights into how to value water supply reliability by providing estimates of the economic impacts of different water shortages that could result in Orange County. Understanding the value of water supply reliability gives planners a too] to aid in assessing infrastructure projects that can increase reliability. This study does not assess the likelihood of different disruptions to water supply, but instead estimates the economic impacts of the resulting water shortages if a particular supply interruption occurs. The economic impact estimates provided herein can be combined with assessments of the likelihood of shortages derived from other studies. Together, that information can give insights into the benefits of projects that reduce the probability or severity of water shortages, allowing water engineers and the public to apply benefit -cost tests to projects that improve water supply reliability. Two types of shortages are examined in this study — short-term emergency disruptions and multiple -year droughts. A range of scenarios was examined for both situations. Those scenarios were: Emergency Disruptions: Water supply reductions of 20%, 40%, 60%and80% for 10. 20, 30, and 60 days. Drought: Water supply reductions of 5% and 20% for one, two, and three years. The estimated economic impacts are separated into business impacts and residential impacts. This allows planners to choose the impacts that best match particular scenarios or projects being studied. For example, residential users are often required to reduce their water usage by more than business customers during water shortages to help preserve the economic base of the area. So a planner might wish to combine the impacts of a 60% reduction in water delivery to residential customers with the impact of a 20% reduction in water delivery to businesses. In addition to residential and business impacts, this report also includes an estimate of the value of landscape losses that would be expected during droughts, and a discussion of the impact of emergency outages on damages from firestorms due to a lack of water supply for firefighting. Orange County is a major metropolitan region whose economy can be substantially slowed by short-term or long-term water disruptions. If Orange County were a country, its gross product in 2002 would rank 35'h in the world — ahead of such nations as Finland, Greece, South Africa, and Thailand. Among metro areas in the United States, Orange County has the 11th largest gross product, behind Los Angeles (2°`) and ahead of Minneapolis/St. Paul (12th) and Seattle (13"). Orange County's population, at close to three 0:NShared\WER0C%HazmR1201I PlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Remsion%Section 8 HM.dW1-Feb-121SDG 8-39 SECTIONEIGHT Appendices million persons, makes it the 5th largest county in the United States. Orange County has more residents than 21 of the country's states, including Utah, Nevada, and Idaho. In a large and economically important region, infrastructure planning should be based on careful assessments of the impacts of possible disruptions to service. This report supports that goal by assessing the economic impact of disruptions to water supply. Orange County obtains its water from three primary locations — a large groundwater basin underneath northern Orange County which is supplied via the Santa Ana River, imported water from the Colorado River and California State Water Project, and local water supply facilities (recycled supplies, groundwater and surface water supplies). It should be noted that the Santa Ana River water also includes imported water from the upstream watershed areas that shows up as irrigation runoff into the river, or via wastewater discharges. Figure I provides a map of the major water facilities in Orange County. Northern Orange County obtains approximately 66-75% of its water from the large subterranean groundwater basin. Brea and La Habra obtain about 60% from local supplies and about 40% from imported water. Southern Orange County (south of Irvine) obtains most of its water from imported water, about 86% of total, and 98% of potable. This imported water is delivered through two pipelines and treated at the Diemer Filtration Plant. The two pipelines are the Allen McColloch Pipeline and the East Orange County Feeder No. 2. The Diemer Filtration Plant, located in Yorba Linda, supplies up to 520 million gallons of water per day (800 cubic feet per second), providing almost 100% of the treated imported supplies to Orange County. The Diemer Plant, the Allen-McColloch Pipeline and the East Orange County Feeder No. 2 pipeline are essential for supplying water, particularly to South Orange County. An outage of any one of the three facilities has the potential to create supply problems until service is restored. In particular, an outage of the Diemer Plant would be an extremely difficult event with which to deal. Because of the differing mix of water sources in Orange County, South Orange County is more vulnerable to emergency disruptions than other areas of the County. In modeling water shortages, this study divides the county into three regions, based on the availability of local groundwater. Those regions are shown in Figure 2 and the resources available to each region are discussed below and included in Table 1: • Brea/La Habra, which receives locally produced water from California Domestic Water Company, limited local wells, and imported water from Metropolitan. This area's water reserves are held in the Orange County Reservoir and tank storage. About 60% of the water used in this area on an annual basis is derived locally as opposed to being provided by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Met). • Orange County's main groundwater basin, which incorporates all of Orange County north of and including Irvine (excluding Brea and La Habra), is managed by Orange County Water District. This region receives the bulk of its water from local wells and imported water from Met. Between 66% and 75% of the water used by this area on an annual basis is derived locally as opposed to being purchased from Metropolitan. This areas' reserves are held in storage within the groundwater basin and limited tank storage. 0:%Shared\WER0C1Hazrnit4201 I Planl.lpdateWazrnft Plan 2011-12 ReAsioMSection 8 HM.do61-Feb-121SDG 8-40 SECTIONEIGHT Appendices South Orange County, which incorporates the remainder of the County, is located south of Irvine. Also included in South Orange County is the area of San Diego County abutting San Clemente. This region receives its water from imported sources primarily along with limited local supplies. This areas' reserves are held in tank storage and storage provided by the El Toro R-6 Reservoir along with several other small reservoirs. Regions as shown in Figure I were defined based on the cities served by local water agencies. Region definitions correspond to differing availability of local water sources, and thus differing vulnerability to water shortages, particularly emergency disruptions that reduce the supply of water imported from the Colorado River or State Water Project. Table 1: Orange County Supplies to Meet Consumptive Demand Projected for 2002-03 by Three Regions Region Source Annual Use by of % Total Supply % of Potable Storage Volume3 Brea/ LaHabra Cal Domestic 12,000 55 100 Local GW 1,200 6 100 Met 8,471 39 100 Recycled -0- 0 Totals 21,671 100% 252 of OCWD Basin 387,010 72 75 Basin! Surface Stream 8,000 1 Met 124,943 23 25 Recycled 16,675 3 Totals 536,628 100% Footnote 4 South OC2 Local GW 2,714 2 2 Met 108,227 86 98 Subtotal Potable 110,941 100 Recycled 14,753 12 Totals 125,694 100% 100% 1,282 of Projections are agency responses to MWDOC's Spring 2002 "5 -Year Survey." Agency projections assumed that the OCWD Basin Pumping Percentage (BPP) would be set at 75%. If the BPP were lower, OCWD GW pumping would be Lower and Met import higher. For 2003-04,the BPP has been set at 66% due to basin overdraft and replenishment constraints. In addition to the amount of Met import shown to meet consumptive demand, there is also Met import purchased to replenish the Groundwater Basin. For 2002-03, OCWD planned to purchase 90,700 of of replenishment supplies. Any purchase of long-term treated (in -lieu) would reduce pumping by an equal amount. 'Basin includes all of Anaheim, Irvine Ranch Water District, Santiago County Water District and Yorba Linda Water District {these areas have portions both within and outside of the groundwater basin. South OC includes SOCWA's San Onofre area as well as the Los Alisos area of IRWD. "Reservoir and tank storage. It is assumed that about 30% of tank storage is available for emergency supply with the rest dedicated to operational and fire-fighfing storage_ °Proportional to pumping capacity (current estimate 500 cfs ± among all producers) O:\SharetAWEROC\Hazmif12011PlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RevisloMSection 8 HM.doc\1-Feb-121SDG 0-41 SECTIONEIGHT Appendices Ayu�.,S# � This study quantifies the economic impact of short-term supply disruptions due to emergency outages and multiple -year water shortages caused by droughts. Economic impact estimates are derived primarily from two sources — estimates of business impacts and estimates of residential impacts. The business impacts are reductions in output or employment that would be caused by water shortages. The residential impacts are values that residents place on the "inconveniences" caused by water shortages. Those "inconveniences" can be large, and can include quantifiable economic losses such as damage to landscape. Yet the value that households place on water supply reliability likely goes well beyond simple measures of, for example, replacement costs for damaged landscapes. Results from other studies in California were adapted to Orange County to provide estimates of economic impacts. Business impacts were based on a survey of firms in San Diego conducted in 1994. Those firms were asked to quantify how water shortages of varying magnitudes would affect their economic output. Residential impacts are based on a survey of households conducted for the California Urban Water Agencies in 1993. In that survey, residents were asked how much they would be willing to pay to avoid water shortages of varying magnitudes. This approach is utilized in this study since more specific economic and non -economic impacts' data is unavailable. A complete estimate of the economic impact of water shortages requires adding together business and Z:1 residential impacts. The data source used for business impacts focused only on reductions in business activity, and the data source used to estimate residential impacts focused on reductions to household water supply and so likely did not capture impacts on business activity. In addition to business and residential impacts, for drought scenarios a separate estimate of damage to landscapes is provided. Landscape impacts were often approximately one to two percent of total impacts and were typically not more than ten percent of total impacts, and so landscape losses are not discussed further in this executive summary. Other impacts, such as losses due to fires based on a inability or reduced ability to fight fires in cases of water shortages in emergencies such as major earthquakes, were not quantified. Incremental fire damage due to interruptions in water supply can be large sources of economic loss, but quantifying those losses requires detailed understanding of the water distribution system, backup supplies of water that can be used for firefighting, and factors such as topography, prevailing winds, and settlement patterns that would contribute to likely locations and extent of fires in the case of a major natural disaster. All of those posed data requirements that were beyond the scope of this study. In the long run, an unreliable water supply could deter business from locating in Orange County or could be an impetus for Orange County firms to locate elsewhere. This study does not attempt to quantify the impact of water shortages on business location decisions and hence the analysis provided herein could underestimate the full economic impact of water shortages. BUSINESS IMPACTS Business Impacts are based on a survey of firms conducted by CIC Research for San Diego County Water Authority (CIC Research, 1993, 1994, and 1999). The San Diego survey asked firms how much they would reduce their output given three different levels of water shortage — 20%, 40%, and 60% 01Shared\WER0CXHazrnit1201 IPlanUpdate\Hurnit Plan 2011-12 RvAsion\Section 8 HM.do61-Feb-121SDG 8-42 SECTIONEIGHT Appendices reductions —for two time periods, 2 months and 6 months. The original study was conducted in 1993, and 690 firms responded, for a 24% response rate. That response rate is within the range of what is expected for surveys of firms. The results are reported for eleven different industry groups. For each industry group, the survey allows one to infer how firms in that group will reduce output in response to water reductions of the specified magnitude and duration. The data was used to form inputs into the IMPLAN input-output model for Orange County. The IMPLAN model takes direct economic inputs and calculates indirect and induced effects. For example, if a manufacturing firm reduces its output, it will buy less from suppliers (indirect effects), and might lay off employees, who then have less income to buy products from other Orange County companies (induced effects). The San Diego survey results were adapted to the economic structure of each of the three Orange County regions by apportioning impacts based on the amount of economic activity in each region. The Basin contains the largest share of the County's economic activity, and so would bear the largest share of business losses if water shortages were to occur in that area. In actuality, because of the benefits of storage provided by the groundwater basin, the basin area is less likely to incur emergency or drought impacts than other portions of Orange County. RESIDENTIAL IMPACTS The residential impacts are based on a contingent valuation study of water customers conducted by Barakat and Chamberlin (1994) for California Urban Water Agencies (CUWA). Contingent valuation is an advanced survey technique used to elicit how persons value products that are not available in a private market. In this case, the contingent value survey examined how persons would value projects that reduce the likelihood of future water shortages. While water is available in some markets (i.e. the market for bottled water), there is no market for improvements in the reliability of public water supply. In the CUWA study, the survey respondents were first given information about the types of lifestyle adjustments that water reductions ranging from 10% to 50% would require of them. Then those persons were asked to vote for a dollar value payment that would guarantee that a specified type of shortage would not occur, and respondents were asked to vote "yes" or "no" on the additional payment as if their bill would increase by the amount specified if a majority of users voted "yes". A range of possible payments and water shortages was offered, to give detailed information about average willingness to pay to avoid water shortages of varying magnitudes. The CUWA survey was conducted in the service area of member water agencies. For this study, we used the results from Orange County where 1,800 households were surveyed, of which 623 completed the survey. Willingness -to -pay values from the CUWA study were expressed as monthly payments. Those payments were converted into a present value by discounting at 5% over a 50 -year planning horizon, to obtain equivalent one-time payments, which were then multiplied by the number of households in each study region to get the residential impacts from water shortages in each region. STUDY FINDINGS 1. The study has produced dollar estimates of economic impacts of given water shortages to both the business and residential sectors of three regions within Orange County, The water shortage scenarios analyzed included both short-term emergency disruptions (10 to 60 days in duration) 0AShared\WEP0C\Hazrnit1,201 1PlanUpdate\Hazrnit Plan 2011-12 Revsion\Section 8 HM.doc\1-Feb-121SDG 8-43 SECTIONEIGHT Appendices and multiple -year drought situations (I to 3 years). The three regions of the County analyzed were defined based on the availability of local supplies and the potential risk of supply reliability impacts. The detailed surnmaries of the various impacts analyzed are included in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5. 2. The data used to develop the dollar estimates for the economic impacts of water shortages was adapted for the Orange County analyses from previous studies conducted by others. Overall, the best available data and studies were used and when assumptions had to be made, they were done in a conservative manner. 3. The results revealed that business impacts are larger than residential impacts. For short-term, emergency disruptions, the difference between business impacts and residential impacts varies depending on the magnitude and length of a shortage. For an 80% water loss in South Orange County for 60 days, business impacts are approximately five times as large as residential impacts. For a 20% water loss in the Basin, business impacts are approximately ten times as large as resident impacts. At low levels of water disruption, resident impacts more closely approximate business impacts. For example, the residential impacts from a 20% water loss for 10 days in South Orange County are about 75% of the business impacts from the same disruption. 4. For total O.C. during an emergency outage that causes a 20% water supply shortfall and lasts from 10 to 60 days, the economic impacts range from $0.4 to $3 billion. 5. For total O.C. during a drought that results in a 5% shortage to the Basin area and 20% shortage outside the basin area for a I to 3 ), year period, the economic impacts range from $15 to $43 ) billion. 6. If shortages were to occur: • South Orange County would experience approximately 12% of the business and employment impacts, but 25% of the residential and landscape losses. South Orange County has a higher dependence on imported water supplies and hence is more vulnerable to supply outages. • The Orange County Basin would experience 84% of the business impacts and 71% of the residential and landscape losses, but has a significant supply of water available from the groundwater basin and hence is somewhat insulated from imported water supply emergency disruptions. 0 Brea/La Habra area would experience about 3% of all impacts. 7. Drought scenarios generally cause a higher level of impact than do emergency outages and exceed all but the worst-case emergency disruptions. The exception is a 60 -day 60% reduction in water supplies to the Basin business sector, which would exceed the impact of a year-long 5% drought in the Basin. (20% reduction in imported supply assuming a 75% BPP.) 8. In most scenarios, about 1/2 of the business losses are in the manufacturing and service sectors. Employment losses are highest in services and retail throughout the County. APPLICATION OF STUDY FINDINGS The data developed in this evaluation need to be applied carefully in evaluating the potential economic impacts of shortages and in evaluating the benefits of projects to improve the supply reliability to any of the three regions in Orange County. The next step in the process, which was beyond the scope of this study, is to develop a portfolio of projects that can help to mitigate or offset potential emergency and drought related shortages. Evaluation of potential projects is being completed as part of the study efforts O:1Shared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 Rem sionlSecfion 8 HM.doc\1-Feb-121SDG 8-44 by Municipal Water District of Orange County in its South Orange County Water Reliability Study and the Orange County Water Reliability Program (also involves work by Orange County Water District). Selected Tables of Results Table 2: Emergency Shortages, Business impacts (2002 dollars in millions) South Orange County Duration Water Reduction 60 days 30 days 20 days 10 days 20% $268 $119 $76 $37 40% $695 $326 $213 $104 60% $1,117 $525 $344 $169 80% $1,543 $732 $482 $238 Basin 20% $1,955 $873 $561 $271 Brea/La Habra 20% $80 $36 $23 $11 40% $211 $98 $64 $31 60% $346 $162 $106 $52 Table 3: Emergency Shortages, Residential Impacts (2002 dollars in millions) outh County Duration Water Reduction 60 days 30 days 20 days 10 days 20% $179 $89 $60 $30 40% $228 $114 $76 $38 60% $273 $137 $91$46 80% 1 1 $55 0AShared\WER0C\Hazrnit\201 1PlanUpdate\Hazrnit Plan 2011-12 Rewsion\Section 8 HM.doc\1-Feb-12\SDG 8-45 SECTIONEIGHT Table 3: Emergency Shortages, Residential Impacts (2002 dollars in millions) (Continued) L= Basin Duration Water Reduction 60 days 30 days 20 days 10 days 20% $501 $250 $167 $83 Brea/La Habra Duration Water Reduction 60 days 30 days 20 days 10 days 20% $24 $12 $8 $4 40% $31 $15 $10 $5 Table 4: Drought, Business Impacts (2002 dollars in millions) South Orange County Duration Water Reduction I year 2 years 3 years 5% $958 $1,917 $2,817 20% $2,817 $5,634 $8,452 Basin Duration Water Reduction I year 2 years 3 years 5% $6,728 $13,455 $20,183 20% $20,438 $40,876 $61,314 Breall-a Habra Duration Water Reduction I year 2 years 3 years 5% $272 $545 $818 20% $837 $1,674 $2,511 O:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit12011PtanUpdatelHazmit Plan 2011-12 Remsion\Section 8 HM.do61-Feb-12\SDG 8-46 SECTIONEIGHT Table 5: Drought, Residential Impacts (2002 dollars in millions) Appendices South Orange County Duration Water Reduction I year 2 years 3 years 5% $962 $1,924 $2,886 20% $1,088 $2,176 $3,263 Basin Duration Water Reduction I year 2 years 3 years 5% $2,695 $5,391 $8,086 20% $3,048 $6,095 $9,143 Brea/La Habra Duration Water Reduction I year 2 years 3 years 5% $130 $259 $389 1 20% $147 $293 $440 0ASharedNWER0C',HazrnitN201 ManUpdateWamit Plan 2011-12 RevisionkSWion 8 HM.dodl-Feb-12\SDG 8-47 SECTIONEIGHT 0AShared\WEROCXHazmit1201 IPlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 ReAsion\Section 8 HM.doc\l-Feb-12\SDG 8-48 SECTIONEIGHT Appendices Three Study Regions in Orange County Bosed on Mix of Locol and Imported Woter Sources Drea/baj Hobra MEAM 01SharedXWER0C\Hazrnit1201 I PlanUpdate\Hazrnit Plan 2011-12 RemioMSecffon 8 HMAWI-Feb-12WG 8-49 SECTIONEIGHT ulluiliq 0:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdate\H.azmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Section 8 HM.doc\I-Feb-12\SDG 8-50 W 42 IC CD I a .2 0) 0 c - 0 r) 0 < 002 N < co co co 0) < z < z z co m Cl) 00 <0 z 'D a) -2 r- Oct a 0, < . 0 0.2- w U) co 16 D CD 00 — c w a t v , < M.2 c < CL ;: 65 a- N Z LL (5 C) (D C-4 (D " (D co 0 ,, W 0- No Z LL 0 a. No Z LL .:z w 22 cli 0 co <0 N c C0 LO 0 Q) Za m Ncli 0 W 0 Nc 0 E.S.Y )d m > 'n Z) 0S CL N S S (n -a U) AJ m 7 D @ io 0 m 0 CD cs 0 E CL cu CL (U 76 (6 a 0 75 > 0 -2 "E P a) c 4) c co 0 CL 2 (13 m o(3)c CUA — cu Ozw 2, c :3 .0 0 , Or E 0 0U0 a m ou o 0 m.2 o z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CL CL CL CL CL 7' Q) (n Q) 0S N N S S AJ m li -(7a 0 7m C 76 (6 a 0 75 U- -2 "E P U- CL 2 D (D U) (1) ca N m mm N N m m c :3 c o C) D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL Q� cl CL CL �2 �2 � �2 � LO W) tc) LO tr) to tr) to tW) r) Lf) to LO to LO CO CO w (0 Q0 (D CN C\l 04 9 C14 N to Z':: 0 A) 47 0 C 0 a w CL a CL W 0 < J� -717 . . .9? < 0. 0 0 0 3 U- D 2 9 X E LL U) LL %0 U) U) D (D N 5 Z) < <my 2 Z) N 2 c c Z) 0 U) < w w<w 0 U- U- L) 00 0 o U") �o C cn Z 0 m E oE Q) LLJ -x 75 'o u 2 8 0 0 73 E 0 O a) m (D L) LL 0- T- < a- FL E 0 m uj LL x r 2 Z' 0 411 LU 0 IL IL w t 78 0 � � CD � CD hu COD 2$/£a) 12 \2\ o#%—m : )\ƒ\4Eo32$\\/$ {/ 2±] m = * \ C14\ _ ( \ }CL \ ƒ \ § % E < f 2 c 2 < \ w — — E LL E Q-\ 0\ / ) cts/ \ 0 ° < ) \ i m i < / } E \ \ \ \ CL A A A Cl) < Cl) to j j j \ \ \ \ \� \ \ / \ \ V § m / \ \ c < / i/ 6/ k/ jam\ / �� E2 \_ `2& §\ CL co 2 //§ x ƒ) /u /)\])�} SECTIONEIGHT Appendices 0AShared%WEROCNHazmitN201 IPlanUpdate\Hazmit Plan 2011-12 RemionXSection 8 HM.dociI-Feb-121SDG 8-53 SECTIONEIGHT Appendices APPENDIX G: 0:\Shared\WEROC\Hazmit\2011PIanUpdateWazmit Plan 2011-12 Revision\Seclion 8 HM.doc\1-Feb-121SOG 54