DOCSLIB.ORG

2019-2020 SAR Monitoring Annual Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

• SECTION 11 Santa Ana Region 2019-2020 Monitoring Annual Report P8/235139 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SANTA ANA REGION 2019-2020 Monitoring Annual Report Executive Summary Strawberry Creek SMC Bioassessment Trend Site Monitoring was conducted by the Riverside County Watershed Protection Program during the 2019-2020 monitoring year to address the objectives of the Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) of the 2010 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit. This report presents the results of this ninth year of monitoring under the MRP of the 2010 MS4 Permit. The MRP is limited to the area of Riverside County under Permittee jurisdiction within the Santa Ana River Watershed, referred to throughout this report as the Santa Ana Region or SAR. The climate of the SAR is SAR Boundary and Monitoring Sites Mediterranean, characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, rainy winters. Annual precipitation ranges from less than 10 inches in the alluvial valleys to over 36 inches in the mountains. In general, shading from the coastal western boundary of the Santa Ana Mountains translates to very little precipitation throughout valley areas of the inland SAR. Under natural conditions, the majority of streams in the SAR are ephemeral, meaning they are dry and only flowing during and immediately after rain. PERMITTEES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - SANTA ANA REGION MONITORING ANNUAL REPORT 2019-2020 YEAR 1 MONITORING ANNUAL REPORT Monitoring and Assessment Requirements During the 2019-2020 monitoring year, the SAR Monitoring Program was implemented in accordance with the requirements of the 2010 MS4 Permit. All wet and dry weather monitoring components of the MS4 outfall monitoring program, receiving water monitoring program, and bioassessment monitoring (through participation in the Southern California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition [SMC] regional monitoring program) were completed. In addition, illicit connection/ illegal discharge inspections were conducted, and appropriate illicit discharge detection and elimination procedures were implemented. The Permittees also participated in Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Task Forces, which implemented the monitoring and reporting requirements of the Middle Santa Ana River (MSAR) Bacterial Indicator TMDL and the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL. Special studies were also conducted to address specific research or management actions that are not addressed by the Permit-prescribed monitoring program. Summary of the 2019-2020 SAR Monitoring Program Monitoring Monitoring No. Stations Completed? Program Component Sampling Frequency MS4 Outfall MS4 Outfall 2 Dry Events, 3 Wet Events 7 Stations Monitoring Monitoring ? Dry weather, scheduled and monitored per Permittee IC/ID Monitoring IC/ID Investigations Local Implementation Plan ? Receiving Water 2 Dry Events, 2 Wet Events* 3 Stations (1 wet only, 1 Monitoring dry only, 1 wet and dry) ? Water Column 2 Dry Events, 2 Wet Events 3 Stations Toxicity Receiving Water ? Monitoring Follow-up Toxicity Sampling as necessary Analyses ? SMC Bioassessment 1 Dry Event (2020) 2 Condition, 2 Trend Monitoring Program Sites ? TMDL/ 303(d) Listed Waterbody Monitoring -MSAR Bacterial Indicator TMDL Monitoring -Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Monitoring Special Studies Regional Monitoring Programs ? -SMC LID BMP Special Study -Hydromodification Monitoring Program -Salinity Management Program Post-Fire Monitoring Studies MSAR - Middle Santa Ana River, LID - Low Impact Development, BMP - Best Management Practices *During the 2019-2020 monitoring year, an additional wet weather event was sampled for chemistry at one receiving water station. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - SANTA ANA REGION MONITORING ANNUAL REPORT 2019-2020 YEAR 2 MONITORING ANNUAL REPORT Assessment and Reporting The 2019-2020 monitoring year water quality data, in conjunction with historical monitoring results, were used to evaluate the status and trends of conditions in receiving waters and discharges from the MS4 that may impact beneficial uses of receiving waters in the SAR. Water quality sampling results were compared to Basin Plan water quality objectives (WQOs), California Toxics Rule WQOs, and standards from the Statewide Bacteria Provisions ? statistical threshold values (STVs) or TMDL numeric targets for E. coli, as applicable. Sample results from MS4 outfall stations were compared to these receiving water WQO criteria for comparison purposes only. Large and/ or high intensity precipitation is needed to generate flow in ephemeral receiving waters. If a site was dry or flow was insufficient for sample collection, dry weather events were classified as visited, not Santa Ana River sampled (VNS). Data Assessment Overview 7 Core Outfalls - Comparison to WQOs 3 Receiving Water Stations - Trend Analysis - Persistence Analysis - Frequency Analysis - Land Use and Sources Evaluation - Model Monitoring Program Management Questions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - SANTA ANA REGION MONITORING ANNUAL REPORT 2019-2020 YEAR 3 MONITORING ANNUAL REPORT Wet Weather Monitoring Results Summary - MS4 outfall data were more frequently above WQOs than receiving water station data. MS4 discharges are not required to meet WQOs, which are applicable to receiving water data only for compliance. - E. coli was above receiving water WQOs during at least one wet weather event at six MS4 outfall stations and the Perris Valley Channel at Nuevo Road receiving water station. - Dissolved copper concentrations were above receiving water WQOs during at least one wet weather event at all seven MS4 outfall stations and the Temescal Channel at Main receiving water station. - pH was outside of the Basin Plan WQO range at five MS4 outfall stations (one event each) but in range at receiving water stations. - Total nitrogen exceeded at two MS4 outfall stations (one event each) Wet weather conditions at the Magnolia Center Outfall and also once at Temescal Channel at Main receiving water station. Spatial Overview of 2019-2020 Wet Weather Monitoring Results Only parameters with concentrations exceeding receiving water WQOs are shown below. For these parameters, statistically significant long-term trends and results that persistently exceed WQOs are also presented as symbols on the map. Trends varied among parameters and stations. While dissolved copper was above WQOs, total copper concentrations were found to be decreasing at two MS4 outfalls and the Temescal Channel at Main receiving water station. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - SANTA ANA REGION MONITORING ANNUAL REPORT 2019-2020 YEAR 4 Progress Toward Numeric Goals MONITORING ANNUAL REPORT Dry Weather Monitoring Summary - Three of the seven MS4 outfall stations and one receiving water station were VNS during dry weather monitoring events. Perris Line J Outfall - E. coli was below the WQO at the one receiving water station where dry weather samples were collected. - Dissolved copper was below the WQO at all MS4 outfalls and the sampled receiving water station during dry weather. - Chronic toxicity to P. subcapitata growth was observed in both dry weather samples at Santa Ana River at Highgrove. - Nitrogen-Nutrients met WQOs during dry weather at all MS4 outfall and receiving water stations, where applicable, except total nitrogen during a single dry weather event at the North Norco Outfall. - 4,4' DDT had slight exceedances of the receiving water WQO at three of the four outfalls sampled in dry weather. - Nitrate showed a decreasing trend at Santa Ana River at Highgrove and two MS4 outfall stations, although total organic nitrogen was increasing and dissolved oxygen decreasing at the two outfalls. - E. coli concentrations showed an increasing trend at Magnolia Center Outfall and University Wash Channel. Total and dissolved copper were found to be increasing at Santa Ana River at Highgrove. Frequency of VNS Results at SAR MS4 Outfall Stations During the 2010 MS4 Permit term, VNS results have been frequent during dry weather events as shown in the figure below that illustrates in orange the proportion of outfalls that were VNS during each year. During the 2019-2020 monitoring year, three of the seven MS4 outfall stations were reported as VNS during both dry weather events. These same three MS4 stations have been VNS for all dry weather monitoring activities conducted in accordance with the 2010 MS4 Permit. Two additional outfalls that are historically VNS were sampled during the 2019-2020 year, due to a flowing lateral from one outfall and a changed flow regime at the other outfall (resulting from sediment buildup within the storm drain). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - SANTA ANA REGION MONITORING ANNUAL REPORT 2019-2020 YEAR 5 Progress Toward Numeric Goals MONITORING ANNUAL REPORT Bioassessment Monitoring Results The bioassessment component of the receiving water monitoring program was fulfilled through District participation, on behalf of the Permittees, in the SMC Regional Watershed Monitoring Program (RWMP). Bioassessment monitoring was conducted at two condition sites and two long-term trend sites in June 2020 within the SAR, which has a large number of engineered and modified flood control channels. - At the Strawberry Creek trend site, the California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) benthic health score was in the likely intact range during the 2020 survey. The California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) score indicated fair physical habitat quality. No significant trend was identified at Strawberry Creek based on 2015-2020 CSCI scores. - At the Cucamonga Channel trend site, a fully hardened ? engineered channel,
Recommended publications
  • Mitigation Plan for City of Yucaipa

    Mitigation Plan for City of Yucaipa

    Yucaipa Valley Water District Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Hazard Mitigation Plan Update FEMA Approval Date: 02-26-2021 Date of District Board Approval 03-09-2021 Yucaipa Valley Water District Hazard Mitigation Plan for Review Sturdivan 2021 Primary Contact During Development Sturdivan Emergency Management Consulting Gary Sturdivan 909-658-5974 [email protected] Agency Primary Contact: John Wrobel Yucaipa Valley Water District (909)-790-7597 [email protected] Yucaipa Valley Water District Hazard Mitigation Plan for Review Sturdivan 2021 Table of Contents SECTION 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1.0 Purpose of the Plan. .................................................................................................... 1.1 Community Profile. ..................................................................................................... 1.1.1 Physical Setting. .......................................................................................................... 1.1.2 History ........................................................................................................................ 1.1.3 Demographics.............................................................................................................. 1.1.4 Population. .................................................................................................................. 1.1.5 Existing Land Use ......................................................................................................
  • Flash Point the Official Publication of the San Luis Obispo Fire Investigation Strike Team, Inc

    Flash Point the Official Publication of the San Luis Obispo Fire Investigation Strike Team, Inc

    Flash Point The Official Publication of the San Luis Obispo Fire Investigation Strike Team, Inc. In this issue Forensic Fire Death Investigation Class 2018 FFDIC Progress Report Proctor Profiles John Madden Awards Active Arson Cases Carr Fire Jeremy Stoke SLOFIST Executive Board John Madden, CEO Barb Kessel, CFO Dr. Elayne Pope, Chief of Train- ing Another successful class with live fire demonstrations in San Luis Obispo. Dr. Robert Kimsey, Secretary- Students from all over the world came to attend the week long class. A spe- Forensic Sciences Director cial thank you to all the proctors and logistical support staff who made this Tim Eckles, Chief of Safety another great workshop. Dennis Byrnes, Chief of Logistics Jeff Zimmerman. Editor SLOFIST is a 501 © (3) Non-profit organization Box 1041, Atascadero, CA 93423 Www.slofist.org Copyright 2018 SLOFIST Inc. Class Objectives Met with Great Results According to John Madden this was the best class so far. A special thank you SLOFIST Directors to all the proctors and logistical support staff who made this another great Jeremy Davis, Chairman of BOD workshop. Hours of preparation made the program run smoothly . The pro- Eric Emmanuelle, Director posed dates for next years class is June 24-28, 2019, please mark your cal- Jeremy Kosick, Director, Web Master endars and plan on attending. Dr. Alison Galloway, Director Several students had the op- Danielle Wishon, Director portunity to explore career options in both the fire ser- vices and law enforcement fields. Intern Lovey Corneil got to suit up and extinguish one of the live burns and at- tack a fire with CDC fire crew in full PPE.
  • Mission Springs Water District Local Hazard Mitigation Plan

    Mission Springs Water District Local Hazard Mitigation Plan

    Mission Springs Water District Local Hazard Mitigation Plan CalOES Approval Date: XX-XX-XXXX FEMA Approval Date: XX-XX-XXXX Date of District Board Approval XX-XX-XXXX Mission Springs Water District Hazard Mitigation Plan 2021 Primary Contact During Development Sturdivan Emergency Management Consulting Gary Sturdivan Mobile: (909)658-5974 Email: [email protected] Agency Primary Contact: Bassam Alzammar Mission Springs Water District Phone: (760)660-4943 Email: [email protected] Mission Springs Water District Hazard Mitigation Plan 2021 Table of Contents SECTION 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………... 1.0 Purpose of the Plan………………………………………………………………… 1.1 Authority…………………………………………………………………………… 1.2 Community Profile…………………………………………………………………. 1.3 Physical Setting……………………………………………………………………. 1.4 Demographics……………………………………………………………………… 1.5 Existing Land Use…………………………………………………………………. 1.6 Development Trends………………………………………………………………. SECTION 2. Plan Adoption…………………………………………………………………... 2.1 Adoption by Local Governing Body ........................................................................... 2.2 Promulgation Authority .............................................................................................. 2.3 Primary Point of Contact ............................................................................................. SECTION 3. Planning Process……………………………………………………………...... 3.1 Preparing for the Plan ................................................................................................. 3.2 Planning Team ...........................................................................................................
  • Palms to Pines Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan

    Palms to Pines Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan

    Palms to Pines Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan PALMS TO PINES STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTES 243 AND 74 June 2012 This document was produced by USDA Forest Service Recreation Solutions Enterprise Team with support from the Federal Highway Administration and in partnership with the USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, the Bureau of Land Management, the California Department of Transportation, California State University, Chico Research Foundation and many local partners. The USDA, the BLM, FHWA and State of California are equal opportunity providers and employers. In accordance with Federal law, U.S. Department of Agriculture policy and U.S. Department of Interior policy, this institution is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720- 5964 (voice and TDD). Table of Contents Chapter 1 – The Palms to Pines Scenic Byway .........................................................................1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Benefits of National Scenic Byway Designation .......................................................................... 2 Corridor Management Planning .................................................................................................
  • Unit Strategic Fire Plan

    Unit Strategic Fire Plan

    Unit Strategic Fire Plan CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire May 2020 CAL FIRE/Riverside Unit Strategic Fire Plan Page 1 Table of Contents SIGNATURE PAGE .........................................................................................3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................4 SECTION I: UNIT OVERVIEW UNIT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................6 UNIT PREPAREDNESSAND FIREFIGHTING CAPABILITIES ............................... 12 SECTION II: COLLABORATION DEVELOPMENT TEAM .................................................................................................................... 14 SECTION III: VALUES AT RISK IDENTIFICATION OF VALUES AT RISK ............................................................ 17 COMMUNITIES AT RISK ................................................................................. 22 SECTION IV: PRE‐FIRE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FIRE PREVENTION ........................................................................................ 24 ENGINEERING & STRUCTURE IGNITABILITY................................................... 27 INFORMATIONANDEDUCATION ................................................................... 28 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ..................................................................... 29 SECTION V: PRE‐FIRE MANAGEMENT TACTICS DIVISION / BATTALION / PROGRAM PLANS .................................................. 41 APPENDIX A: HIGH PRIORITY PRE‐FIRE PROJECTS .......................................
  • Cold, Powerful Thanksgiving Storm Begins Hitting Southern California Today – San Bernardino Sun

    Cold, Powerful Thanksgiving Storm Begins Hitting Southern California Today – San Bernardino Sun

    11/27/2019 Cold, powerful Thanksgiving storm begins hitting Southern California today – San Bernardino Sun NEWSCALIFORNIA NEWS Cold, powerful Thanksgiving storm begins hitting Southern California today Graphic courtesy of the National Weather Service By CITY NEWS SERVICE || [email protected] || PUBLISHED: November 27, 2019 at 5:56 am || UPDATED:UPDATED: November 27, 2019 at 6:01 am https://www.sbsun.com/2019/11/27/cold-powerful-thanksgiving-storm-begins-hitting-southern-california-today/ 1/4 11/27/2019 Cold, powerful Thanksgiving storm begins hitting Southern California today – San Bernardino Sun LOS ANGELES — A storm out of the Gulf of Alaska will slide into Southern California today — Wednesday, Nov. 27 — and unleash rain, snow and cold winds through Thanksgiving while causing rough seas and wreaking havoc on thethe region’sregion’s roads,roads, forecastersforecasters said.said. A winter storm warning signifying an expectation of difficult travel conditions will be in effect in the San Gabriel Mountains from 4 a.m. today until 4 a.m. Friday. Most mountain areas will get 6 to 12 inches of snow — including 3-6 inches in thethe Grapevine,Grapevine, whichwhich couldcould snarlsnarl InterstateInterstate 55 —— butbut upup toto 2424 inchesinches ofof snowsnow isis expected to accumulate at higher elevations. Graphic courtesy of the National Weather Service The snow level will be at between 5,000 and 7,000 feet this morning but dip down to 3,000 feet tonight, according to the NWS. “Travel could be very difficult to impossible,” warned an NWS statement. “The hazardous conditions could result in temporary road closures. Gusty winds could bring down tree branches and cause power outages.” A winter storm warning is also scheduled until 10 p.m.
  • Mandatory Moratorium on Non-Renewals After Recent Wildfire Activity

    Mandatory Moratorium on Non-Renewals After Recent Wildfire Activity

    RICARDO LARA CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMMISSIONER BULLETIN PURSUANT TO INSURANCE CODE SECTION 675.1(b) AMENDED* TO: All Admitted and Non-Admitted1 Insurers Writing Residential Property Insurance in California FROM: Commissioner Ricardo Lara DATE: December 18, 2019 RE: Mandatory Moratorium on Non-Renewals After Recent Wildfire Activity *This bulletin supplements the bulletin of the same title issued on December 5, 2019 to provide additional information regarding ZIP Codes within or adjacent to the fire perimeters for the fires identified in the Governor’s various Emergency Declarations discussed herein. Recent insurer actions in California have created considerable disruption for California’s residents; particularly those who live in or near regions of the state potentially threatened by wildfires. The Commissioner continues to receive information from Californians who have struggled to obtain residential property insurance coverage in the voluntary market. In August of this year, the Department of Insurance published data, which shows an increasing trend of non-renewals for people at risk of wildfires.2 California’s property insurers are retreating from areas they identify as having higher wildfire risk. In many communities across the state, finding affordable comprehensive fire insurance has become difficult. So difficult that real estate transactions have stalled or been cancelled. If this trend is allowed to continue, it could further disrupt local real estate markets and cause property values to decline, reducing tax revenue available for vital services to residents such as fire protection, community fire mitigation, law enforcement, road repairs, and hospitals in these communities. Commissioner Lara has met with many of these affected communities and policyholders over the last year who are facing non-renewals and rising premiums.
  • Fiscal Year 2019/20 Proposed Operating Budget

    Fiscal Year 2019/20 Proposed Operating Budget

    Fiscal Year 2019/20 Proposed Operating Budget This page intentionally left blank City Council Lily Mei, Mayor Raj Salwan, Vice Mayor Vinnie Bacon, Councilmember At-large Teresa Keng, Councilmember, District 1 Rick Jones, Councilmember, District 2 Jenny Kassan, Councilmember, District 3 Yang Shao, Councilmember, Disctrict 4 City Executive Staff Mark Danaj, City Manager Harvey Levine, City Attorney Karena Shackelford, Assistant City Manager Brian Stott, Assistant City Manager Christina Briggs, Economic Development Director Marilyn Crane, Interim Chief Technology Officer/IT Director Allen DeMers, Human Resources Director Susan Gauthier, City Clerk Curtis Jacobson, Fire Chief Hans Larsen, Public Works Director David Persselin, Finance Director Kimberly Petersen, Police Chief Dan Schoenholz, Community Development Director Suzanne Shenfil, Human Services Director Suzanne Wolf, Community Services Director Budget Team Mike Sung, Deputy Director of Finance Chun Chan, Management Analyst II Mario Rosas, Management Analyst II Elisa Chang, Administrative Analyst/Graphic Artist City of Fremont 2019/20 Proposed Operating Budget | i The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of the United States and Canada presented an award for Distinguished Budget Presentation to the City of Fremont for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018. In order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan and as a communications device. The award is valid for a period of one year only. This is the twenty-second consecutive year the City has earned the award. We believe our current budget continues to conform to program requirements.
  • 2018 FIRE DEPARTMENT COMPARISON: Call Average Per Fire Agency Annual Budget Number of Stations Calls Per Year Population Total Personnel Station

    2018 FIRE DEPARTMENT COMPARISON: Call Average Per Fire Agency Annual Budget Number of Stations Calls Per Year Population Total Personnel Station

    IDYLLWILD FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2018/19 FY First Qtr Review OBJECTIVES: • 18/19 FY Department Overview: • Meeting Our Mission. ✓Ensuring the Highest Quality and Professional Service. ❑ Review response data. ❑ Review the IFPD Training and Certification program. ❑ Discuss our Focus and Direction. ❑ Looking Ahead. ✓Financial Responsibility, Efficiency and Reliability. ❑ Revenue review. ❑ Expenditure review. ❑ Fee for service review. (ambulance/mutual aid) ❑ Parity review. OUR MISSION The mission of the Idyllwild Fire Protection District is to protect lives, property and the environment through the provision of comprehensive integrated “All Risk” Fire Protection, Emergency Medical Services and other Emergency Services that result in social, economic and environmental benefits for the people of Idyllwild. OUR CITIZENS ARE OUR MISSION IFPD Response Data (10yr avrg. ) • Medical Aid Service 676 77% • Fire 38 5% • Hazardous Conditions 26 3% • Public Service 64 8% • False Alarm 37 4% • Special Incident type/Other 27 3% • TOTALS: 868 100% IFPD RESPONSE DATA: 2017/18 Response Data 2018/19 Response Data 5.48% 2.74% 6.04% 1.13% False Alarm Special Inc. False Alarm Special Inc. 6.72% 4.15% Public Service Public Service 3.24% 3.40% Hazardous Cond Hazardous Cond 6.72% 7.55% Fire Fire 75.09% 77.74% EMS EMS RESPONSE DATA (CONT.) • Average call Statistics: 2018/19 • Daily : % of overlapping calls: 39.57% ✓ Incident Average – 2.38 Dispatch Times ✓ Daily Transport Average – 1.5 Dispatch to Responding: ▪ Monthly : EMS Calls: .42 sec. ✓ Incident Average – 72 Fire Calls: 1:01 min/sec. ✓ Monthly Transport Average – 44 ▪ Annually : Dispatch to on Scene: ✓ Incident Average – 800-1100 (868 – 10yr.
  • A Water Year to Remember: Fire to Flood Reflections

    A Water Year to Remember: Fire to Flood Reflections

    A Water Year to Remember: Fire to Flood Reflections Panelists: Jeremy Lancaster Supervising Engineering Geologist California Geological Survey Rachael Orellana Flood Risk Program Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tom Fayram Deputy Director County of Santa Barbara Pubic Works Department Moderator: Melissa Weymiller Jon Frey Project Manager Engineering Manager Flood Risk Management Program Santa Barbara County U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control District A Water Year to Remember: Fire and Flood Reflections Floodplain Management Association Annual Conference Reno, Nevada Wednesday, 2018 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Jeremy Lancaster – Sup. Engineering Geologist California Geological Survey 2017 Wildfires – Historic Context California Wildfires Years over 1 million acres since 1987 Year Fires Acres 2017 9,133 1,248,606 2008 6,255 1,593,690 2007 6,043 1,520,362 1999 11,125 1,172,850 1987‐2016 average: 555,700 acres Source: CAL FIRE http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/radarArchive.php Post‐Wildfire Hazards to Life and Property PHYSICAL HAZARD EXPOSURE CHEMICAL HAZARD EXPOSURE • Flooding – 2 to 3 Times the • Incinerated household and Water industrial waste • Debris Flow – 20 Foot thick • Runoff laden with toxic soil boulder laden surge fronts • Degradation of water quality • Rockfall – Can be triggered by wind after a fire! • Hazard Trees – They fall on things! Public knowledge of these hazards generally lacking! Atlas Fire Napa/Solano Counties January 9, 2018; 5pm 2.6 inches, January 8‐ 10 • 1 Death ‐ debris slide/debris flow on CA‐121 ~5pm at Wooden Valley Road • CA‐121 Closed for one day Detwiler Fire March 22, 2018; 6:15p Mariposa County • 2 Deaths • 2 Residences flooded • High School flooded • Elementary School flooded • 11 Roadway Crossings Flooded Slinkard Fire May 21, 2018; 6:27p Mono County • U.S.
  • Safety Element

    Safety Element

    TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 6: Safety Element 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND CONTENT ...................................................................................................................... 1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................................... 2 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER DOCUMENTS .............................................................................................................. 3 Other General Plan Elements .................................................................................................................... 3 Area Plans .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan ....................................................................................... 3 RELATIONSHIP TO THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ....................................................................... 4 HAZARD REDUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 4 2. ISSUES AND POLICIES ............................................................................................................................ 6 CODE CONFORMANCE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
  • Authors: Regan Galinato, Eric Green, Hazen O'malley, Parmida Behmardi

    Authors: Regan Galinato, Eric Green, Hazen O'malley, Parmida Behmardi

    Authors: Regan Galinato, Eric Green, Hazen O’Malley, Parmida Behmardi1 ANTHRO 25A: Environmental Injustice Instructor: Prof. Dr. Kim Fortun Department of Cultural Anthropology Graduate Teaching Associates: Kaitlyn Rabach Tim Schütz Undergraduate Teaching Associates Nina Parshekofteh Lafayette Pierre White University of California Irvine, Fall 2019 1 A total of eight students contributed to this case study, some of whom chose to be anonymous. TABLE OF CONTENTS What is the setting of this case? [Collective Response] 3 How does climate change produce environmental vulnerabilities and harms in this setting? [Regan Galinato] 6 What factors -- social, cultural, political, technological, ecological -- contribute to environmental health vulnerability and injustice in this setting? [Collective Response] 10 Who are the stakeholders, what are their characteristics, and what are their perceptions of the problems? [Collective Response] 15 What have different stakeholder groups done (or not done) in response to the problems in this case? 17 How have big media outlets and environmental organizations covered environmental problems related to worse case scenarios in this setting? 19 What local actions would reduce environmental vulnerability and injustice related to fast disaster in this setting? [Parmida Behmardi] 21 What extra-local actions (at state, national or international levels) would reduce environmental vulnerability and injustice related to fast disaster in this setting and similar settings? [Hazen O’Malley] 25 What kinds of data and research would be useful in efforts to characterize and address environmental threats (related to fast disaster, pollution and climate change) in this setting and similar settings? 29 What, in your view, is ethically wrong or unjust in this case? [Eric Green] 31 BIBLIOGRAPHY (GENERATE WITH ZOTERO) 34 FIGURES 38 APPENDIX 40 1.