DOCSLIB.ORG

2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Please Answer the Following Questions to Provide Feedback and Suggestions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Please Answer the Following Questions to Provide Feedback and Suggestions OCTOBER 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND................................................................................................ 1 PLAN AUTHORITY ..................................................................................................................... 2 PLAN ADOPTION ....................................................................................................................... 3 PLAN USE .................................................................................................................................. 3 CHAPTER 2—PLANNING PROCESS ....................................................................................... 5 PROCESS OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 5 PLANNING TEAM ....................................................................................................................... 5 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS ................................................................................. 7 SUPPORTIVE RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 3—CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... 11 RELEVANT PLANS AND PROGRAMS .................................................................................... 11 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION CAPACITIES ........................................................................ 15 PREVIOUSLY IMPLEMENTED MITIGATION MEASURES ...................................................... 16 DISTRICT ASSETS .................................................................................................................. 19 CHAPTER 4—DISTRICT PROFILE ......................................................................................... 25 AREA AT A GLANCE ................................................................................................................ 25 DEMOGRAPHICS .................................................................................................................... 26 ECONOMIC TRENDS ............................................................................................................... 29 ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................. 30 EVACUATION ROUTES ........................................................................................................... 31 CHAPTER 5—HAZARD IDENTIFICATION, ANALYSIS, AND ASSESSMENT ....................... 33 HAZARD ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 33 HAZARD PRIORITIZATION ...................................................................................................... 35 SUMMARY OF PAST DISASTERS .......................................................................................... 38 HAZARD PROFILES................................................................................................................. 39 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................. 95 R14163 i Page CHAPTER 6—MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION STRATEGY .............................................. 101 MITIGATION GOALS .............................................................................................................. 101 UPDATES FROM PREVIOUS PLAN ...................................................................................... 101 INTEGRATION ....................................................................................................................... 102 ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION ACTIONS .................................................................................. 102 PRIORITIZATION ................................................................................................................... 104 COST ESTIMATES ................................................................................................................. 104 MITIGATION ACTIONS .......................................................................................................... 104 CHAPTER 7—PLAN MAINTENANCE ................................................................................... 115 IMPLEMENTATION, UPDATES, AND ENHANCEMENT ........................................................ 115 MONITORING......................................................................................................................... 116 CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT................................................................................... 117 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................... 119 APPENDIX A: RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION ...................................................................... 121 APPENDIX B: HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM MEETING MATERIALS ............. 123 APPENDIX C: PUBLIC OUTREACH ..................................................................................... 127 APPENDIX D: PREVIOUS MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................................... 141 APPENDIX E: SOURCES...................................................................................................... 171 APPENDIX F: CRITICAL FACILITIES LIST .......................................................................... 177 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Planning Team Meeting Topics ........................................................................ 7 Table 3-1: District Resources to Support Hazard Mitigation Activities .........................11 Table 3-2: Santa Clara Valley Water District Projected 2020 Demand by Customer .....20 Table 3-3: Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Supplies .........................................21 Table 3-4: 2015 Groundwater Inflow and Outflow in the Santa Clara Valley Water District in Acre-Feet (AF).......................................22 Table 3-5: Watersheds in the Santa Clara Valley Water District.....................................22 Table 3-6: Santa Clara Valley Water District Supply Facilities .......................................23 Table 4-1: Key Demographics, Santa Clara County (2015) .............................................26 Table 4-2: Racial and Ethnic Composition of Residents, Santa Clara County (2015) ...27 R14163 ii Page Table 4-3: Educational Attainment of Residents 25+ Years of Age, Santa Clara County (2015) ...............................................................................28 Table 4-4: Language Proficiency of Residents 5+ Years of Age, Santa Clara County (2015) ...............................................................................28 Table 4-5: Top Ten Santa Clara County Employers (2016) .............................................29 Table 5-1: Santa Clara Valley Water District LHMP Hazard Evaluation .........................33 Table 5-2: Hazard Ranking Scores and Weighing Factors .............................................36 Table 5-3: Scores and Threat Levels by Hazard ..............................................................38 Table 5-4: Dams in Santa Clara County ...........................................................................40 Table 5-5: US Drought Monitor Classification Scheme ..................................................48 Table 5-6: Landslide Events in Santa Clara County ........................................................61 Table 5-7: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale ....................................................................74 Table 5-8: Major Faults in and Near Santa Clara County ................................................76 Table 5-9: Earthquake Probabilities Near Santa Clara County .......................................83 Table 5-10: Selected Earthquake Scenarios ......................................................................83 Table 5-11: Beaufort Scale ..................................................................................................85 Table 5-12: Number of District Facilities in Risk Assessment .........................................95 Table 5-13: Facilities within 500 feet of a Dam Inundation Zone ......................................95 Table 5-14: Assets Within 500 feet of the 100-Year Floodplain ........................................96 Table 5-15: Risk to District Facilities from Landslides .....................................................97 Table 5-16: Risk to District Facilities from Ground Shaking ............................................97 Table 5-17: Risk to District Facilities from Fault Rupture .................................................98 Table 5-18: Risk to District Facilities from Liquefaction ...................................................98 Table 5-19: Risk to District Facilities from Land Subsidence ..........................................99 Table 5-20: Risk to District Facilities from Sea Level Rise ...............................................99 Table 5-21: Risk to District Facilities from Wildfire ......................................................... 100 R14163 iii Page Table 6-1: STAPLE/E Review and Selection Criteria ..................................................... 103 Table 6-2: Mitigation Actions .........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Arkstorm Scenario: California's Other "Big One"
    The San Bernardino County Museum Guest Lecture Series The ARkStorm Scenario: California’s other “Big One” Lucy Jones • U. S. Geological Survey Wednesday, January 25, 2012 • 7:30pm • Free Admission Landslides and debris flows. Coastal innundation and flooding. Infrastructure damage. Pollution. Dr. Lucy Jones will give an overview of the ARkStorm Scenario—catastrophic flooding resulting from a month-long deluge like was seen in 1862, and four larger such events in the past 100 years. This type of storm, resulting from atmospheric rivers of moisture, is plausible, and a smaller version hit San Bernardino in December of 2010 with a week’s worth of rain that impacted Highland and the surrounding communities. The ARkStorm Scenario explores the resulting impacts to our social structure and can be used to understand how California’s “other” Big One can be more expensive than a large San Andreas earthquake. Dr. Lucy Jones has been a seismologist with the US Geological Survey and a Visiting Research Associate at the Seismological Laboratory of Caltech since 1983. She currently serves as the Science Advisor for the Natural Hazards Mission of the US Geological Survey, leading the long-term science planning for natural hazards research. She also leads the SAFRR Project: Science Application for Risk Reduction to apply USGS science to reduce risk in communities across the nation. Dr. Jones has written more than 90 papers on research seismology with primary interest in the physics of earthquakes, foreshocks, and earthquake hazard assessment, especially in southern California. She serves on the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council and was a Commissioner of the California Seismic Safety Commission from 2002 to 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • (Ver. 1.1): Hydrogeologic Controls and Geochemical Indicators Of
    Prepared in cooperation with the East Bay Municipal Utility District, City of Hayward, and Alameda County Water District Hydrogeologic Controls and Geochemical Indicators of Groundwater Movement in the Niles Cone and Southern East Bay Plain Groundwater Subbasins, Alameda County, California Scientific Investigations Report 2018–5003 Version 1.1, February 2019 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Hydrogeologic Controls and Geochemical Indicators of Groundwater Movement in the Niles Cone and Southern East Bay Plain Groundwater Subbasins, Alameda County, California By Nick Teague, John Izbicki, Jim Borchers, Justin Kulongoski, and Bryant Jurgens Prepared in cooperation with the East Bay Municipal Utility District, City of Hayward, and Alameda County Water District Scientific Investigations Report 2018–5003 Version 1.1, February 2019 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DAVID BERNHARDT, Acting Secretary U.S. Geological Survey William H. Werkheiser, Deputy Director exercising the authority of the Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2019 First release: February 2018 Revised: February 2019 (ver. 1.1) For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text.
    [Show full text]
  • Hurricane Flooding
    ATM 10 Severe and Unusual Weather Prof. Richard Grotjahn L 18/19 http://canvas.ucdavis.edu Lecture 18 topics: • Hurricanes – what is a hurricane – what conditions favor their formation? – what is the internal hurricane structure? – where do they occur? – why are they important? – when are those conditions met? – what are they called? – What are their life stages? – What does the ranking mean? – What causes the damage? Time lapse of the – (Reading) Some notorious storms 2005 Hurricane Season – How to stay safe? Note the water temperature • Video clips (colors) change behind hurricanes (black tracks) (Hurricane-2005_summer_clouds-SST.mpg) Reading: Notorious Storms • Atlantic hurricanes are referred to by name. – Why? • Notorious storms have their name ‘retired’ © AFP Notorious storms: progress and setbacks • August-September 1900 Galveston, Texas: 8,000 dead, the deadliest in U.S. history. • September 1906 Hong Kong: 10,000 dead. • September 1928 South Florida: 1,836 dead. • September 1959 Central Japan: 4,466 dead. • August 1969 Hurricane Camille, Southeast U.S.: 256 dead. • November 1970 Bangladesh: 300,000 dead. • April 1991 Bangladesh: 70,000 dead. • August 1992 Hurricane Andrew, Florida and Louisiana: 24 dead, $25 billion in damage. • October/November 1998 Hurricane Mitch, Honduras: ~20,000 dead. • August 2005 Hurricane Katrina, FL, AL, MS, LA: >1800 dead, >$133 billion in damage • May 2008 Tropical Cyclone Nargis, Burma (Myanmar): >146,000 dead. Some Notorious (Atlantic) Storms Tracks • Camille • Gilbert • Mitch • Andrew • Not shown: – 2004 season (Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne) – Katrina (Wilma & Rita) (2005) – Sandy (2012), Harvey (2017), Florence & Michael (2018) Hurricane Camille • 14-19 August 1969 • Category 5 at landfall – for 24 hours – peak winds 165 kts (190mph @ landfall) – winds >155kts for 18 hrs – min SLP 905 mb (26.73”) – 143 perished along gulf coast, – another 113 in Virginia Hurricane Andrew • 23-26 August 1992 • Category 5 at landfall • first Category 5 to hit US since Camille • affected S.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Plates
    DRAFT BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II SANTA CLARA EXTENSION PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL MEMORANDUM P REPARED FOR: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Federal Transit Administration P REPARED BY: Company Name: PARIKH Consultants, Inc. Address: 2630 Qume Drive, Suite A, San Jose, CA 95131 February 2014 PARIKH Consultants, Inc. 2014. BART Silicon Valley Phase II Santa Clara Extension Project Geotechnical Memorandum. Draft. February. San Jose, CA. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, San Jose, CA, and the Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C. This Geotechnical Memorandum was prepared in 2014 to identify mitigation strategies for the early alternatives and station plans being considered at that time. However, the mitigation measures identified in this memorandum are relevant to the current proposed project and have been incorporated into the SEIS/SEIR as appropriate. Contents Page Chapter 1 Project Description ..................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Alignment and Station Features by City ........................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 City of San Jose................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.2 City of Santa Clara ................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 VTA's Transit-Oriented Development (CEQA Only).............................................. 1-1 Chapter 2 Previous Studies Conducted ...................................................................................2-1
    [Show full text]
  • Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Five Year Update 2017–2022
    CITY OF SANTA CRUZ Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Five Year Update 2017–2022 Hazard Mitigation is any action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards. ~ Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (§206.401) Adopted by the City Council xxxx xx, 2017 Table of Contents APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................................... II MAPS AND FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................ II TABLES ................................................................................................................................................................ III HOW TO USE THIS PLAN ......................................................................................................................................... IV PART 1 — INTRODUCTION AND ADOPTION .................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 4 SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation
    Severe Weather in North America Peter Hoeppe, Head Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Centre, Munich Re ECSS 2013, Helsinki, June 3, 2013 US Insurance Survey April 2013 Participants: 81 CEOs of US Primary Insurers What are the 3 most critical issues facing the primary insurance industry today? Issue Rank Low interest rates and capital market returns 1st (64%) Natural catastrophes/weather events 2nd (51%) Price competition 3rd (43%) Multiple responses allowed. Does not add to 100%. MR NatCatSERVICE The world‘s largest database on natural catastrophes The Database Today . From 1980 until today all loss events; for USA and selected countries in Europe all loss events since 1970. Retrospectively, all great disasters since 1950. In addition, all major historical events starting from 79 AD – eruption of Mt. Vesuvius (3,000 historical data sets). Currently more than 32,000 data sets 3 NatCatSERVICE Weather catastrophes worldwide 1980 – 2012 Percentage distribution – ordered by continent 18,200 Loss events 1,405,000 Fatalities 4% <1% 1% 8% 25% 11% 30% 41% 6% 43% 9% 22% Overall losses* US$ 2,800bn Insured losses* US$ 855bn 3% 3% 9% 31% 46% 18% 1% 16% 70% 3% *in 2012 values *in 2012 values Africa Asia Australia/Oceania Europe North America, South America incl. Central America and Caribbean © 2013 Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft, Geo Risks Research, NatCatSERVICE – As at January 2013 Global Natural Catastrophe Update Natural catastrophes worldwide 2012 Insured losses US$ 65bn - Percentage distribution per continent 5% 91% <3% <1% <1% Continent
    [Show full text]
  • Constructing
    Constructing Mimi Hughes (NOAA), Tapash Das (SIO), Dale Cox (USGS) Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project • Fire / Debris Flow 2007 Post Fire Coordination • Earthquake / Tsunami Earthquake Scenario • Winter Storm Winter Storm Scenario • Information Interface Community Interface, Implementation, Tools and Training The Great Southern California ShakeOut • A week-long series of events to inspire southern Californians to improve their earthquake resiliency; >6 million participants • Based on a scenario of a major southern San Andreas earthquake designed by the USGS for California Office of Homeland Security’s Golden Guardian exercise, Nov 2008, Oct 2009, Oct 2010, … • December 24, 1861 through Jan 21, 1862: nearly unbroken rains • Central Valley flooding over about 300 mi long, 12 – 60 mi wide • Most of LA basin reported as “generally inundated” • San Gabriel & San Diego Rivers cut new paths to sea • 420% of normal-January precipitation in Sacramento in Jan 1862 • 300% of normal-January precipitation fell in K Street Sacramento, looking east San Diego in Jan 1862 • No way of knowing how intense the rains were, but they were exceptionally large in total and prolonged. • Implication: Prolonged storm episodes are a plausible mechanism for winter-storm disaster conditions in California • Implication: A combined NorCal+SoCal extreme event is plausible. 12 days separated the flood crest in Sacramento from the crest in Los Angeles in Jan 1862 Generating the scenario details Weather Research & Forecasting (WRF) model’s nested grids Mimi Hughes, NOAA/ESRL,V at the helm From James Done, NCAR ARkStorm Precipitation Totals Daily Precipitation at three locations 6” 20” 20” Percentage of ARkStorm period spent below freezing Ratio of VIC-simulated ARkStorm Runoff vs Historical Periods (1969, 1986) Runoff Maximum Daily Runoff Total Runoff Recurrence Intervals of Maximum 3-day Runoff (relative to WY1916-2003 Historical Simulation) Summary of ARkStorm Meteorological Events Percentage of ARkStorm period spent below freezing.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Cruz County San Mateo County
    Santa Cruz County San Mateo County COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN Prepared by: CALFIRE, San Mateo — Santa Cruz Unit The Resource Conservation District for San Mateo County and Santa Cruz County Funding provided by a National Fire Plan grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the California Fire Safe Council. M A Y - 2 0 1 0 Table of Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................1 Purpose.................................................................................................................................2 Background & Collaboration...............................................................................................3 The Landscape .....................................................................................................................6 The Wildfire Problem ..........................................................................................................8 Fire History Map................................................................................................................10 Prioritizing Projects Across the Landscape .......................................................................11 Reducing Structural Ignitability.........................................................................................12 x Construction Methods............................................................................................13 x Education ...............................................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Superposition in Fault Systems Bounding Santa Clara Valley, California
    A New Three-Dimensional Look at the Geology, Geophysics, and Hydrology of the Santa Clara (“Silicon”) Valley themed issue Structural superposition bounding Santa Clara Valley Structural superposition in fault systems bounding Santa Clara Valley, California R.W. Graymer, R.G. Stanley, D.A. Ponce, R.C. Jachens, R.W. Simpson, and C.M. Wentworth U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefi eld Road, MS 973, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA ABSTRACT We use the term “structural superposition” to and/or reverse-oblique faults, including the emphasize that younger structural features are Silver Creek Thrust1 (Fig. 3). The reverse and/or Santa Clara Valley is bounded on the on top of older structural features as a result of reverse-oblique faults are generated by a com- southwest and northeast by active strike-slip later tectonic deformation, such that they now bination of regional fault-normal compression and reverse-oblique faults of the San Andreas conceal or obscure the older features. We use the (Page, 1982; Page and Engebretson, 1984) fault system. On both sides of the valley, these term in contrast to structural reactivation, where combined with the restraining left-step transfer faults are superposed on older normal and/or pre existing structures accommodate additional of slip between the central Calaveras fault and right-lateral normal oblique faults. The older deformation, commonly in a different sense the southern Hayward fault (Aydin and Page, faults comprised early components of the San from the original deformation (e.g., a normal 1984; Andrews et al., 1993; Kelson et al., 1993). Andreas fault system as it formed in the wake fault reactivated as a reverse fault), and in con- Approximately two-thirds of present-day right- of the northward passage of the Mendocino trast to structural overprinting, where preexisting lateral slip on the southern part of the Calaveras Triple Junction.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Wildfire Protection Plan Prepared By
    Santa Cruz County San Mateo County COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN Prepared by: CALFIRE, San Mateo — Santa Cruz Unit The Resource Conservation District for San Mateo County and Santa Cruz County Funding provided by a National Fire Plan grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the California Fire Safe Council. APRIL - 2 0 1 8 Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 3 Background & Collaboration ............................................................................................... 4 The Landscape .................................................................................................................... 7 The Wildfire Problem ........................................................................................................10 Fire History Map ............................................................................................................... 13 Prioritizing Projects Across the Landscape .......................................................................14 Reducing Structural Ignitability .........................................................................................16 • Construction Methods ........................................................................................... 17 • Education .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf/13/2/269/1000918/269.Pdf 269 by Guest on 24 September 2021 Research Paper
    Research Paper THEMED ISSUE: A New Three-Dimensional Look at the Geology, Geophysics, and Hydrology of the Santa Clara (“Silicon”) Valley GEOSPHERE The Evergreen basin and the role of the Silver Creek fault in the San Andreas fault system, San Francisco Bay region, California GEOSPHERE; v. 13, no. 2 R.C. Jachens1, C.M. Wentworth1, R.W. Graymer1, R.A. Williams2, D.A. Ponce1, E.A. Mankinen1, W.J. Stephenson2, and V.E. Langenheim1 doi:10.1130/GES01385.1 1U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA 2U.S. Geological Survey, 1711 Illinois St., Golden, Colorado 80401, USA 9 figures CORRESPONDENCE: zulanger@ usgs .gov ABSTRACT Silver Creek fault has had minor ongoing slip over the past few hundred thou- sand years. Two earthquakes with ~M6 occurred in A.D. 1903 in the vicinity of CITATION: Jachens, R.C., Wentworth, C.M., Gray- The Evergreen basin is a 40-km-long, 8-km-wide Cenozoic sedimentary the Silver Creek fault, but the available information is not sufficient to reliably mer, R.W., Williams, R.A., Ponce, D.A., Mankinen, E.A., Stephenson, W.J., and Langenheim, V.E., 2017, basin that lies mostly concealed beneath the northeastern margin of the identify them as Silver Creek fault events. The Evergreen basin and the role of the Silver Creek Santa Clara Valley near the south end of San Francisco Bay (California, USA). fault in the San Andreas fault system, San Francisco The basin is bounded on the northeast by the strike-slip Hayward fault and Bay region, California: Geosphere, v.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkstorm Emergency Planning Exercise for the Santa Clara River Basin
    ArKStorm Emergency Planning Exercise for the Santa Clara River Basin What is ArKStorm What ArKStorm is Not ArKStorm is a planning exercise that tests ArKStorm is not the 1% annual chance the effectiveness of current emergency (100-year) storm. It does not model the response practices of the County, 100-year flow and does not simulate the participating cities, and local service 500-year flow. providers, during a significant storm event. ArKStorm is a training exercise for ArKStorm is not intended to be used by response personnel and teams to be better FEMA or the local communities to develop prepared in the event of a major flood. new floodplain mapping, new flood zones, or new base flood elevations. ArKStorm is a storm simulation created by ArKStorm is not intended to be used to USGS based on observed rainfall from the identify new properties that require flood January 1969 and February 1986 storms in insurance nor will it be used to set new California that when combined, result in flood insurance rates. what is being called the ArKStorm. ArKStorm assesses potential flood risk The anticipated flooding impacts from the within the Santa Clara River basin and ArKStorm will not be as devastating in presents that risk through a number of Ventura County as will be experienced event scenarios that are likely to occur elsewhere in California (Los Angeles and during a major storm. Orange counties, Central Valley). Ventura County is generally situated at the fringe of the storms. ArKStorm is a risk assessment tool that can be used to identify community infrastructure (examples: bridges, railroads, gas lines) and critical facilities (examples: sewage treatment plant, hospitals) that are likely to be affected by flood-related impacts and so that local emergency response providers have a better understanding of where to focus their attention and allocate resources prior to, during and after a major storm.
    [Show full text]